Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wande quoted-

Quote:

The evolution debate in Florida grows tiresome, and not only because Ben Stein - he of unfailing monotone-is now involved, but because it keeps rehashing the same, tired points albeit in different ways.

Oh good--something interesting at last is on the way.

But when we arrive at "trotted", which is a slight if unoriginal version of "slunk" we need read no further.

We already know what these newspapers are after. Sensational stories is what. Written by police departments. Sells papers and saves thinking and facilitates any old niece or nephew being on the payroll.

What a scientific mind would consider requires some thinking about, not to say a little backbone, is the idea that the minor officials and spokespersons, of either side, have discovered wonderful opportunities provided by this dispute for magnifying themselves in the eyes of the world and are not likely to allow it to run into the sands because the absurd simplicities involved are much easier to manage than winning a gold medal, in anything.

That is a psychosomatic manifestation. They are addicted.

Think of how thrilling it must have been for Donna to see herself quoted in a newspaper as saying that she, a member of the state Board of Education, voted against the new standards, telling a Baptist newspaper that evolution "should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories."

It sounds so wise and responsible. I bet she read the sentence over and over and looked for others where her name is up in lights.

And I daresay Diane was fair thrumming with self importance as she read and re-read herself saying-- "But why stop with Darwin? How about including theories of gravity other than Newton's? Should decent, God-fearing people allow their children to be exposed to algebra (that's an Arabic word, by the way) without presenting other points of view? How about pitting Copernicus' heliocentric model against Ptolemy's version of the universe, the one where Earth's in the center?"

One hopes no-one tells her what a bloody silly statement it actually is because gravity, algebra, an Arabic word by the way, (Gee!), and astronomical observations are not intimately connected with what Stendhal called "her machine" which is located approximately halfway between her knees and her belly-button and always well hidden from view. One presumes so anyway but one never knows.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Obviously you dont take your own advice spndi, since the statement about "building GCS while the trains were still running" was a statement by SJ Gould re: natural selection.

Obviously, that sort of remark is the natural outcome of thinking ID is what you think it is for reasons we have already gone through.

It's called unconscious circular thinking.

0 Replies

Ive oft remarked that about you.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

fm wrote-

Quote:
Obviously you dont take your own advice spndi, since the statement about "building GCS while the trains were still running" was a statement by SJ Gould re: natural selection.

Obviously, that sort of remark is the natural outcome of thinking ID is what you think it is for reasons we have already gone through.

It's called unconscious circular thinking.

spendi, I agree with farmerman; what's the following explanation and/or evidence after one claims there is some Intelligent Designer? Poofism goes nowhere; it's one puff after the first puff.

0 Replies

Read the thread c.i.

I never said there was an intelligent designer although I know how simple and easy it makes it for you to stay in this debate, for which you are singularly unqualified, to assert that I did.

If you got it into your head that I lived in New Zealand and I told you that I didn't six months ago why, if you read the thread, would you continue as if I live in New Zealand.

How the hell would I know if there's an intelligent designer. If you want to argue with people who think there is why don't you go to threads where people who think there is an intelligent designer congregate.

fm wrote-

Quote:

Obviously you dont take your own advice spndi, since the statement about "building GCS while the trains were still running" was a statement by SJ Gould re: natural selection.

What sort of evidence is that? What SJ Gould said is no concern of mine. Is he the oracle of wisdom or something?

The idea that building GCS has anything to do with NS is laughable. If fm wishes to proceed on the basis of what SJ Gould said what about what else he's said.

You're thrashing about. What argument did fm offer.

All I said was-

Quote:

A nice though trivial metaphor for ID was the construction of Grand Central Station whilst the trains were running.

Why has fm jumped on that with something about what SJ Gould said, or has been quoted as saying, when it was only an aside.

Was he seeking to avoid dealing with-

Quote:

One hopes no-one tells her what a bloody silly statement it actually is because gravity, algebra, an Arabic word by the way, (Gee!), and astronomical observations are not intimately connected with what Stendhal called "her machine" which is located approximately halfway between her knees and her belly-button and always well hidden from view. One presumes so anyway but one never knows.

which isn't a trivial aside. So added to circular thinking there is hiding the head in the sand thinking as well. And the same with you.

If you agree with fm, as you say, are you taking his word on SJ Gould's remark, or did you know already that SJ Gould had said that. Assuming he did. If you are taking his word then obviously you will agree with him so we can add tautology as well.

This does not auger well for the kids who are going to be " educated" on AIDs-er's lines. Particularly when they refuse to answer questions as well.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I never said there was an intelligent designer

That is a rather interesting thing for you to say spendi.

So we are to assume you are suggesting that it be taught just on the off chance it might some day be true even though you don't think it is. Does that mean we should teach your ramblings in literature class on the off chance that you might someday write something of merit?

0 Replies

I asked TCR why he didn't attack the school board system rather than continually bleat about the results of it and suggested that he didn't attack the SB system because it continually provided him with something to bleat sarcastically about.

Here's his response-

Quote:

Perhaps Spendi and Foxy can file "Friend of the Court" Briefs. (Being neutral experts.)

Although this will be one of those rare instances where trail lawyers will be seen as 'Messengers of God' by the right-wing instead of the usual 'Devil-spawned Ghouls'.

How to debate American style. No answers. Just wait a while in the bushes and bark at the next convenient passer by.

Do you not accept that there's a difference between teaching about gravity and algebra and such like and teaching evolution because the latter involves rumpy-pumpy and the former doesn't and thus evolution teaching opens up a can of worms which teachers are unable to deal with unless you pretend evolution has nothing to do with rumpy-pumpy in which case you've lost the whole basis of the theory and are fannying around like a bunch of neurotic bluestockings.

0 Replies

parados wrote-

Quote:

So we are to assume you are suggesting that it be taught just on the off chance it might some day be true even though you don't think it is. Does that mean we should teach your ramblings in literature class on the off chance that you might someday write something of merit?

Do you not read the thread either. I must have said dozens of times that ID is not a subject and cannot be taught.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of my "ramblings" I think you might do very well to alter radically your literature teaching if this thread is anything to go by.

And I never said there wasn't an intelligent designer either.

0 Replies

fm quotes me sarcastically (I presume) saying-

Quote:

Plato was completely nuts. So was the Buddha.---Spendius,

Well Plato said, in relation to leadership that the ideal candidate is the reluctant one.

Judging from your election process if Plato was not nuts then you Americans are. The candidates can easily be compared to a hungry puppy begging a biscuit off a teasing little girl with it's tail a wag, its ears cocked and a forlorn, imploring, pleading cast of eye with some extras thrown in which puppies can't manage.

fm's sarcasm is based on the name-drop technique and not on having studied Plato.

And if the Buddha was sane the whole US system is well round the bend.

0 Replies

On Plato's idea you are thus going to get the least ideal candidate sworn in next January and that after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to choose him or her.

0 Replies

He was nuts goodstyle. And the Buddha.

0 Replies

CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS - UC LAWSUIT UPDATE

Quote:

Judge limits case against UC
(By RANI GUPTA, North County Times, March 30, 2008)

A federal judge Friday threw out some claims of a Christian school in Murrieta that sued the University of California system, saying university officials discriminated against religious schools by refusing to grant college credit for some of their courses.

Calvary Chapel Christian School and some of its students sued the UC system in 2005. The suit claimed UC officials trampled the First Amendment rights of Christian students by refusing to grant credit for classes taken at the school.

The suit argued both that the university's policies were unconstitutional on their face and that UC officials acted in a way that violated students' rights to free speech and freedom of religion by rejecting specific courses in biology, history, government, English and religion.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge James Otero in Los Angeles threw out Calvary Chapel's broader claim that the university's policies toward approving classes were plainly unconstitutional.

The Christian school had argued the university had a policy of rejecting courses solely because they had a religious viewpoint, according to the judge's order. Calvary Chapel argued, for example, that the university rejected biology courses that discuss intelligent design or creationism alongside evolution. But Otero said the school did not show that the university had an established practice of rejecting such courses.

Calvary Chapel had petitioned the judge to rule that the university had violated its students' constitutional rights by rejecting the specific courses. However, Otero refused to do so, which means those issues will now be decided at trial.

For instance, Calvary Christian challenged the university's decision to reject science courses that used two Christian biology textbooks. But Otero said the university officials had provided enough evidence that they had sound reason to reject the textbooks ---- namely, that the books encouraged students to reject scientific evidence ---- that he could not rule in Calvary Chapel's favor before trial.

Robert Tyler, an attorney with Advocates for Faith and Freedom who represents Calvary Chapel, said the judge's ruling was disappointing but not surprising.

Tyler said the claims that the policies were unconstitutional as written are difficult to prove. He added that because Calvary Chapel sought the order, the judge is required to weigh the evidence in the university's favor, making it tough to prove at this stage.

"Although we would have been happy for the court to give us summary judgment on the entire case," Tyler said, "due to the procedural and evidentiary rules that apply, it is not surprising that the court is going to require that we go to trial."

A spokeswoman for the UC system said she could not speak about the judge's order because she did not have a chance to review it late Friday.

(emphasis added)

0 Replies

HAHA.I certainly did not see that coming. I was convinced that the viewpoint discrimination issue would have immediate legs. SO the court actually did a scientific analysis purely on the basis that the issues of ID/Creationism proscribed evidence. Laughing

(I wonder if itll be appealed , since the 9th district is always the "ugly contrary child" of the Fed judiciary system )

It appears that, in this one respect, spendi is correct. "They cant teach ID" (mostly because theyre too stupid to vett their own literature resources.)First, IN Dover, they left a discoverable trail of Creation "redactions " from an earlier text version (they didnt even bother to rewrite the text), and here they leave in language that can easily be inferred to be preaching against the scientific method duhhh.

It appears that all These guys are their own worst enemies . Perhaps we should send them spendi so he can teach them doublespeak so that noone can figure out what the hell they even stand for Very Happy

0 Replies

It is very well known that life consists, in all cultures, in dealing psychologically with the pessimism that the scientific appraisal by self-conscious beings of its characteristics inevitably imposes. Only the gallows humour specialists may be said to be immune. Some famous names from the roll-of-honour of that band of degenerates have appeared along this thread thanks to my dedication to their cause.

"To be or not to be" being probably the most famous artistic manifestation of the notion.

It is also well known that the pessimism is directly proportional to intelligence and education. The gumpy country bumpkin is almost immune although I have heard many a one, in his cups, say "what's it all about" as he beats his forehead on the bar. To which I always reply "about 70 or 80 years mate."

"Bread and circuses" is another well known saying in this regard. Or Panem et circenses. Juvenal, Satire 10.77-81, a must read for happy clappers everywhere.

In general, the more escapism mechanisms a society consumes the deeper must be the underlying collective pessimism in the face of the stark and unavoidable facts of life.

It is also well known that the deterministic philosophies of Darwinism and Marxism, and atheism in general, create pessimistic mental states and exaggerate the milder forms of them, and that religious ceremonials and beliefs are a relatively non-polluting palliative for such despairing and discouraging despondency, which is why they are to be found in every known culture.

The pharmaceutical industry is a measure of the inability of the provision of escapism opportunities to keep pace with the pessimism being generated by an increasing knowledge of life's tragedy.

So it is no surprise that a senior member of the legal profession, who cannot avoid embracing the darkest regions of pessimism by the nature of his education and experience, should seek to get everybody down into the hole he is in and deny them solace outside those activities on which the Dow-Jones index is based.

As pessimism is a known cause of crime and other social problems it is also no surprise that media in its constant search for sensation and cheap an easy stories to position on the reverse side of adverts, or between them in the case of TV, for materialism's only known escape products, should support such an approach as Judge Otero takes.

The principle beneficiaries of the reduction of religious belief to a laughing stock, itself a very easy thing to manage, are the legal profession, media, the social services, the pharmaceutical industry, industry in general and other providers of escapism methods and men who are sick of virtuous ladies (excluding their own daughters and wives etc of course).

It thus comes as no surprise, in view of this powerful coalition of vested interests, to find Judge Otero deciding as he has. In fact it is so unsurprising that reports of it are no different from reports that the sky is up or that the fox has killed the chickens.

Unfortunately, the individual members of this coalition, a vast number of course, are subjected to the exact same tendency to pessimism as everybody else and quite possibly to a greater extent as "brain" work is known to attenuate self-consciousness to a fine point.

They may even be said to be not so much in favour of changing the present arrangements, and denying ordinary working people their only hope and solace, as using it as a fantasy to escape still further from their own demons than their other methods allow once they have paled by habituation. In fact this debate may be kept on the boil for that very reason.

What a pleasant way to end a day of cleaning seafood out of the bowthrusters, or reading of the ridiculous methods Mathos goes to to quell thoughts of doom, than to let fly a stream of insults and invective against the fond beliefs of the innocents, who are harmless in every respect, and lie thrumming with indignation and self-righteousness through half the night.

Drooling over this decision being a case in point in spite of it being at a second, or third or even fourth remove from their own sordid and pointless existences. A material world is quite meaningless as Shakespeare well knew.

A truly religious person doesn't give a shite. His escape mechanism consists in theological disputations over bottles of alcoholic beverages concerning the efficient management of a population barely risen from the swamp where Mr Darwin took his readings.

One swallow does not make a summer but no scientist could rule out that it might make a virgin birth.

0 Replies

see?. ERic Satie could not have droned on better.

0 Replies

They use his Gymnopedie No.1 for the Cadbury's Bourneville Selection advert on TV.

So I take that as a compliment. And a very fine one I must say.

0 Replies

Webpage Title

0 Replies

The perfect venue for the Gymnopidie is , of course, an elevator full of sweatiy Frenchmen

0 Replies

As long as it doesn't stop at the penthouse suite.

0 Replies

It is difficult to come down from the joys of the Brit in the Orient thread to these serious issues we are debating. But I will try.

Baruch Spinoza wrote-

Quote:

The love of God is man's highest happiness and blessedness, and the final end and aim of all human actions;......The supreme reward for keeping God's Word is that Word itself---namely to know him and with free will and pure and constant heart love him.

and Matthew Arnold wrote-

Quote:

By the love of God he does not mean the same thing which the Hebrew and Christian religions mean by the love of God. He makes the love of God to consist in the knowledge of God; and, as we know God only through his manifestation of himself in the laws of all nature, it is by knowing these laws that we love God, and the more we know them the more we love him. This may be true, but this is not what the Christian means by the love of God. Spinoza's ideal is the intellectual life; the Christian's ideal is the religious life. Between the two conditions there is all the difference which there is between the being in love, and the following, with delighted comprehension, a reasoning of Plato.

Spinoza's excommunication and the severity of the anathama pronounced against him were automatic after that.

But science proceeds by heresy. And what more could scientists ever wish for than a religion of that sort.

The Bible contains the "breaking news" of its time. Isn't it an insult to humanity to belittle the best efforts of a bygone epoch. They hadn't a lot to go on. Today's scientists might be laughed at in 2000 years.

What a phrase "with delighted comprehension" is to conjure with.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know