Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Now there's a witty reply from Mesquite. It's not often I get anything that needs thinking about on here. I'll put it to the committee in the pub.

The layee also needs to believe the layor has the power and I don't believe anybody has. Read the curse on Spinoza. And he laughed.

0 Replies

And if the layor is an AIDs-er he could only act laying the curse and I can read irony in people's eyes, expressions and gestures.

So even if I believed it was possible to do "action at a distance" with a curse, which I don't, I would know the AIDs-er layor was bereft of the power and thus ridiculous.

Same with charms.

Like physically repositioning lingerie by waving a sheaf of pound notes for example.

0 Replies

On March 28, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero dismissed the motion for summary judgment sought by Christian schools alleging religious discrimination by University of California admissions policy. The judge found that the university's rejection of certain courses was for reasonable academic concerns, not hostility to religion.

The admissions policy rejected biology courses that were based on two specific textbooks, "Biology: God's Living Creation" and "Biology for Christian Schools". The judge's opinion points out that these two textbooks have even been rejected by other Christian schools because of concerns about their academic merit.

A PDF copy of the opinion can be found at:
University of California Ruling

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Now there's a witty reply from Mesquite. It's not often I get anything that needs thinking about on here. I'll put it to the committee in the pub.

The layee also needs to believe the layor has the power and I don't believe anybody has. Read the curse on Spinoza. And he laughed.

Careful there spendi, or I will turn you into a Radical Vegetarian!

0 Replies

Is there any money in it?

I'm only interested in money.

I'm an Andy Warhol fan.

Did you not know that?

Have you not been reading the thread?

Sheesh!!

0 Replies

and on and on and on and on and on

0 Replies

That's evolution fm. It does exactly that. It has no alternative it seems.

I presume you are in favour.

Not that it matters either way seeing as you are just a way-station between the agricultural industry and the waste processing plants.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Is there any money in it?

You tell me.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/9049/spendilk3.jpg

0 Replies

As that is on the record now I feel I must declare that I am not a "radical" anything. I am mainly vegetarian because it is a healthier diet and I don't consider eating pleasures to be important. Simply re-fuelling.

And on the rare occasions I do eat meat I make sure it is not factory farmed.

I am convinced that a miserable animal will have components in its flesh reflecting that misery and I'm not risking eating such things. And I never eat out.

Food is a Wonder Medicine by Neal Barnard, MD is a book worth reading.

Somewhere in it there is mention of food industry pressure on diet education in schools which means diet is another of the "controversial issues" in biology lessons.

What is the Darwinian attitude to the "wealth gap"?

History is another subject where there might be some tampering with the facts.

Basically, it seems to me, "controversial issues" appear when individual evolution and group evolution clash. So politics and science are on a collison course. Pure science neutralises politics because there are no decisions to make in science. The facts determine everything assuming all of them are taken into account. That is why AIDs-ers can't deal with the psychosomatic problem.

0 Replies

So, from the granting of a partial summary judgement for the defendants (the University System), the issues of "viewpoint descrimination " in the sciences and history are now "mootified".
The IDers on this line have consistently tried to post the opinion that "ID cannot be taught". This summary judgement ruling does back that opinion but not for the reasons that foxy and spendi support.

The concept cannot be taught primarily for the reasons of "methodological Incompetence". WHen intro textbooks, seeking approval by a major University system, are introduced, they should , at least, give the appearance of dispassionate science..

A. For the biology department the results were pretty easily called.
The SUmmary Judgement decree contained examples of several foundational statements made in the two texts under scrutiny by the UC system.

"If (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, those conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts apper to back them..."

"Christians must disregard (hypotheses or theories) that which contradicts the Bible"...

"Whatever the Bible says is so, whatever man says , may, or may not be so...is the only position that a Christian can take"...

B. Similarly, with respect to the schools history programs the texts under scrutiny contained a baseline assumption that:

"(The Bible) is an unerring source for the analyses of historical events, (which are attributable to divine providence)"...

C. Even the ENglish Department wasnt spared because, the Christian texts were merely compilations and (Out of context) quotes and annotated excerpts of works of literature. The University, in an effort to promote critical thinking , requires (as do all U'S really) that students read full length works, not mere excerpts.

With the Lemon test applied (not even so liberally as in Dover), the results were kind of a slam dunk in the science and history departments.English Departments claims were less a Lemon Issue and more of a "conscious ommission" issue

It appears that Michael Behe had , once again, inadvertantly testified for the other side by answering that "restricted views" in science are inappropriate. OOPS. Maybe the Discovery Institute ought to provide Mikey with other career opportunities than as witness for the prosecution.

It appears, from my cursory read of the decision that, all that remains to be tried are the "reasonabalness" of the Universiries challenges to those courses sought in the school of religion.

I recall RL , or someone of his ilk , commenting about the need for "critical thinking" in a science program. As it could be seen from the very texts that were submitted for review, the issue of "critical thinking" were the least sought after dicipline the plaintiffs wished to pursue. I was quite familiar with the "Pandas and People" first edition draft redactions, and how much work it took to actually discover and cross reference the two versions. Here, the very textbooks under inspection, were almost a direct challenge to the establishment clause. HOW DUMB ARE THESE GUYS?-he asked

Im not so interested in the religion school portion of this case, and the only way the plaintiffs can resurrect thir cause is to travel to the SUpreme Court. I really dont think that this would stand up to a national review, even with the present makeup of the USSC.

So, spendi and foxy, its not a dictum that "ID cannot be taught", theyve been giving it their best shot to have it included within curricula. Its more a matter that' Despite themselves, they havent figured out how to include it's teaching as science".

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

So, spendi and foxy, its not a dictum that "ID cannot be taught", theyve been giving it their best shot to have it included within curricula. Its more a matter that' Despite themselves, they havent figured out how to include it's teaching as science".

Also, despite arguments to the contrary that ID is non-religious and merely an alternative scientific "unknown" (like aliens did it or something), all versions of ID which are relevant in public discourse, political action and educational relevance show clear signs of being founded on strictly religious motivations.

Arguing that ID has a "pure" form which is non-religious is like arguing that Warp Drive has nothing to do with Star Trek.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

So, from the granting of a partial summary judgement for the defendants (the University System), the issues of "viewpoint descrimination " in the sciences and history are now "mootified".
The IDers on this line have consistently tried to post the opinion that "ID cannot be taught". This summary judgement ruling does back that opinion but not for the reasons that foxy and spendi support.

The concept cannot be taught primarily for the reasons of "methodological Incompetence". WHen intro textbooks, seeking approval by a major University system, are introduced, they should , at least, give the appearance of dispassionate science..

A. For the biology department the results were pretty easily called.
The SUmmary Judgement decree contained examples of several foundational statements made in the two texts under scrutiny by the UC system.

"If (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, those conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts apper to back them..."

"Christians must disregard (hypotheses or theories) that which contradicts the Bible"...

"Whatever the Bible says is so, whatever man says , may, or may not be so...is the only position that a Christian can take"...

B. Similarly, with respect to the schools history programs the texts under scrutiny contained a baseline assumption that:

"(The Bible) is an unerring source for the analyses of historical events, (which are attributable to divine providence)"...

C. Even the ENglish Department wasnt spared because, the Christian texts were merely compilations and (Out of context) quotes and annotated excerpts of works of literature. The University, in an effort to promote critical thinking , requires (as do all U'S really) that students read full length works, not mere excerpts.

With the Lemon test applied (not even so liberally as in Dover), the results were kind of a slam dunk in the science and history departments.English Departments claims were less a Lemon Issue and more of a "conscious ommission" issue

It appears that Michael Behe had , once again, inadvertantly testified for the other side by answering that "restricted views" in science are inappropriate. OOPS. Maybe the Discovery Institute ought to provide Mikey with other career opportunities than as witness for the prosecution.

It appears, from my cursory read of the decision that, all that remains to be tried are the "reasonabalness" of the Universiries challenges to those courses sought in the school of religion.

I recall RL , or someone of his ilk , commenting about the need for "critical thinking" in a science program. As it could be seen from the very texts that were submitted for review, the issue of "critical thinking" were the least sought after dicipline the plaintiffs wished to pursue. I was quite familiar with the "Pandas and People" first edition draft redactions, and how much work it took to actually discover and cross reference the two versions. Here, the very textbooks under inspection, were almost a direct challenge to the establishment clause. HOW DUMB ARE THESE GUYS?-he asked

Im not so interested in the religion school portion of this case, and the only way the plaintiffs can resurrect thir cause is to travel to the SUpreme Court. I really dont think that this would stand up to a national review, even with the present makeup of the USSC.

So, spendi and foxy, its not a dictum that "ID cannot be taught", theyve been giving it their best shot to have it included within curricula. Its more a matter that' Despite themselves, they havent figured out how to include it's teaching as science".

Excellent summary of the opinion. Thanks, farmerman.

Here is the link again:
University of California Ruling

0 Replies

Away they go again.

No answers to any points raised on this thread. They just look outside the thread for something to repeat their mantras against.

They are even dragging in rl and Foxy and they seem to have deserted us. Even Star Trek is dragged up in one of the stupidest comparisons one could ever meet on a science thread.

I have little doubt that history lessons in secondary schools are in the service of patriotism and loyalty to the Republic which is as they ought to be.

The scientific credentials of AIDs-ers here are a mere affectation put on for the benefit of people who know nothing about the subject. A pose.

If the expression "ID/Creationists" continues to appear I will start using "AIDs-ers/ Communists/Pessimists".

TCR- you cannot exorcise any spirits of any sort. Marriage Guidance counselling might be a field where you could attempt it. It is really naff to keep declaring one's opponents in a debate to be mentally ill. Your quiver seems to hold little else.

I notice, and I presume our viewers also do, that you have skipped over my Spinoza post and my pessimism post. And you've dodged the "controversial issues" issue. All you seem to have is that I'm nuts. A very convenient delusion.

ros said (again)-

Quote:

(like aliens did it or something),

Who ever suggested such nonsense ros? Except you of course so you can build your ridiculous posts on it.

fm wrote-

Quote:

"Whatever the Bible says is so, whatever man says , may, or may not be so...is the only position that a Christian can take"...

That's rubbish too. I've never said any such thing. It's based on a superficial understanding of the Bible and of Christianity. A very superficial understanding.

This should be called the Strawman thread.

What a cute phrase is the "conscious ommission" issue. A wave of the hand and that's gone and it's only the bottom line.

Have you seen the City/Rural clash in Argentina?

Quote:

I really dont think that this would stand up to a national review, even with the present makeup of the USSC.

He really doesn't think eh? Pure vacuous drivel is all that can follow such a statement. But there is an admission there which admits the possibility of a political motive to USSC decisions in the science field.

How can that be fm? With no atheists standing for election and none foreseen it's unlikely the present makeup of the USSC is going to change.

Why is the AIDs-er's view not being offered to the public? If you lot are right an AIDs-er's candidate should sweep into the WH.

Don't bother not answering that. Save your efforts for answering your own questions. Doing anything else is much too radical an idea.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Its more a matter that' Despite themselves, they havent figured out how to include it's teaching as science".

Of course they haven't you silly moo. They daren't even think about such things. Domesticated husbands and wives can't go into theology. They think witches are old hags with pointy hats on who fly around the sky at night having "meetings" with Lucifer and jolly along at Halloween.

You have it all ass-backwards. It's not about shoving religion into schools. It's about shoving Darwin and atheists out. That's how the USSC will see it when things come to a head.

You will need to show the national benefits of Darwin and atheism in all the circumstances, not just in your room, to win the case. And you haven't a ghost of a chance.

0 Replies

Spendi wrote:

Quote:

I notice, and I presume our viewers also do,

Talk about delusional.

Lets do a little experiment. Would all of Spendi's "viewers" please sign into the thread so that we can get a good count of you. I'm assuming he is using the term to denote people who in a positive sense read his posts regularly like they would a favorite news columnist or editorial writer. But we will leave the term "viewer" to be as inclusive as any respondents want to make it.

Also note if you are one of Spendi "viewers" or one of Spendi's "young viewers". If you are a regular viewer who is a guest on the site please take a moment to register and get a login so you too can participate.

I hope the number of responses doesn't result in a "denial of service" error due to the overload. Laughing

0 Replies

A "viewer" is anyone who reads the thread. And they are unlikely to bother about you trying to boss them about.

You have another strawman.

0 Replies

Quote:

fm wrote-

Quote:
"Whatever the Bible says is so, whatever man says , may, or may not be so...is the only position that a Christian can take"...

That's rubbish too. I've never said any such thing. It's based on a superficial understanding of the Bible and of Christianity. A very superficial understanding

Why does shpendi think that hes the subject of this quote?. Its a quote from the very texts that were under review by the court and the quote was directly from the court decision spendi.(Might I say that, if you wish to appear ignorant, you do an excellent job) Please dont credit youself with anything approaching objective analysis. My comments were reserved in entirety for the opinion rendered by the 9th Fed District.

Perhaps spendi, you should be coaching the Idjits in their search for "an equable presentation of their scientific points of view". They seem to be running out of options so I suppose all thats left to them is to, like you, start calling all those who choose to disallow their teaxchings , communists and pessimists (whatever happened to your old standby Atheist?)

You may believe that youre smarter than the average trial lawyer but so far your side is taking it nicely on the chin. I wonder whats next from their bag of tricks?

0 Replies

Jesus told me.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am not sure whether ethical absolutes exist. But I am sure that we have to act as if they existed or civilisation perishes.

Arthur Koestler.

Quote:

Civilisation is a movement and not a condition, a voyage and not a harbour.

Arnold Toynbee

Quote:

All that is best in the civilisation of today is the fruit of Christ's appearence among men.

Daniel Webster

Quote:

Religion is the main determining element in the formation of a culture or civilisation.

Hilaire Belloc.

Quote:

Civilisation in the best sense merely means the full authority of the human spirit over all externals.

G.K. Chesterton.

Quote:

The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.

Edward Conklin.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know