Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Settin' Aah-aah wrote-

Quote:

It sounds like a standard poofist tactic--attempting to discredit science, or to show that the ramifications of scientific theory are impossible, rather than actually offering any testable proof for their own theory.

I think there is a palpable queasiness around that Science is destroying Nature. Whether it is "testable" I'm not sure.

There are the little brown eyes of endangered species appealing to our better natures bringing lumps to our throats everytime we watch the telly.

And science does nothing about the bacteria which is breeding faster than monkeys can right behind your fridge and under the beds in the hospitals. They seem to be toning themselves up on your pills.

It might just be a feeling in the bones and thus not something AIDs-ers recognise on account of it not being commensurable in columns of numbers and, as such, outside of their IQ range.

Despite that, it, this feeling in the bones I mean, is jumping out all over the place and bothering all sorts of people.

Can you offer some comfort to those who feel it Settin'? Like we will all be Hunky-Dory ignoring it and following you down the road you seek to lead us all.

It must be really comforting to you to think we are all poofists. I'll bet it allows you to smirk to yourself with smug satisfaction.

Were you top of the D stream in your prime?

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

I recall from biochem work that it was damn near impossible to predict the crystallization patterns of proteins. Therefore their evolutionary significance had always been a given in my mind.

Pure bullshit.

0 Replies

Did someone explain it to you?

du bist ein proster chamoole

0 Replies

Somebody must have fm. But I can't remember who it was who taught me what "always" meant.

0 Replies

It turns out that Darwin's son Major Leonard Darwin, who no doubt owed his rank to the influence of privilege rather than struggle, was President of the Eugenics Society from 1911 to 1929. He initiated the campaign for the Eugenic Sterilisation Bill.

Professor Julian Huxley, another favoured son, and a committee member, wrote-

Quote:

The principle of supplementing the segregation of defectives by sterilisation in certain cases, is to my mind very important, and indeed essential, if we are to prevent the gradual deterioration of our racial stock. By making sterilisation voluntary in all cases, the Bill prevents any high handed abuse of power by local or other authorities, and the rights of individuals and their relatives appear to be abundantly safeguarded.

What utter tosh.

Dr F. Douglas Turner wrote-

Quote:

I venture to say I would not be fitted to hold my present position of medical superintendent of an institution for the care of mental defectives if I could not induce every one of my patients to be operated on or to refuse an operation just as I myself might wish.

So much for the "voluntary" sophistry.

And further--by the eugenicist's own arguments the relatives would themselves be mentally defective too.

And it goes without saying that Major Leonard would owe his superior understanding of things to his hereditary advantages.

These are the sort of people who are trying to force Darwinism into the classrooms on the spurious notion that an education in biology for the masses, not the specialists, is essential for an understanding of its elementary aspects and who are equally determined to eradicate the notions of faith, hope and charity, all three virtues being contrary to evolutionary principles, and the source book of Western literature.

How many occupational positions in the US economy are affected by knowing the age of the earth? Believing it to be "young" might even make ordinary folks a lot happier than them contemplating billions of pointless years of it.

AIDs-ers are wedging for personal reasons.

Is this not sufficient for kids-

Cells, digestion, diet, sanitation, plants, animals, micro-organisms, fungi, viruses, respiration, ecology, muscles, bones, reproduction, germination, skin, DNA?

How does Darwinism produce better citizens in the ordinary case? Why can't it wait for those few showing an aptitude for such things? After all. it's simple enough to grasp in five minutes.

0 Replies

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Our position: It would be ludicrous for Legislature to undercut evolution decision
(Orlando Sentinel EDITORIAL, April 11, 2008)

Lawmakers are determined to embarrass Florida by injecting themselves into an already settled debate over teaching evolution in public schools.

An "academic freedom" bill, that really is just an effort to slip religious doctrine into science classes, is headed for a floor debate in the Senate. It was just about two months ago that the state Board of Education decided to bring Florida's science standards into the 21st century by requiring the teaching of evolution as the foundation of biology studies.

Be prepared to wince at the level of "debate" when these politicians begin to square off over the widely misunderstood "scientific theory." A theory in science isn't a guess; it is a tested and proven concept that is considered fact. And, though you likely won't hear it from this bill's backers, evolution is as much about the formation of the solar system as it is man's shared ancestry with apes.

Where's Clarence Darrow when you need him?

This bill and a similar House proposal are aimed at getting around the curriculum approved by the state Board of Education in February by allowing teachers to cast doubt on scientific facts.

It's as ludicrous as allowing teachers to suggest alternative theories for the multiplication table.

Florida's schoolchildren have lagged behind in science for years and now their curriculum is finally on equal footing with other states.

It's not too late for lawmakers to come to their senses. They should vote this down and defend the state's sound science standards.

0 Replies

I suppose that the use of humor will be the main weapon against the senators who still live in the distant past.
I hope that the "debate" is well reported. I feel that, if it werent for editorial humor, too many "thumpers" would take this as a serious approach to meaningful legislation.

0 Replies

I see you're still jumping all over the media tweeters fm like a kid on a Bouncy Castle.

No wonder you ally yourself with babytalk such as this-

Quote:

It's as ludicrous as allowing teachers to suggest alternative theories for the multiplication table.

Or lies more like aimed at the dumb.

Not daring to contemplate the "controversial issues" point which deals with such nonsense I don't suppose your critical thinking faculties have evolved very far. There is nothing to cause embarrassment to respectable lady teachers and school board members in the multiplication tables. They are the same as algebra and geometry etc in that regard.

Of course it is the Sentinel's position. That's all been explained to you as well. The position, crudely put, is "we want more money and an easier life." What else? That's the Sentinel's position on every issue known to man and without exception. They have instructions from the Tribune Company which also owns the Chicago Tribune and that will have the identical same position. It wouldn't surprise me to find that the words you read in the Sentinel are drafted in Chicago which is where I think wande is.

Scientist puts faith in newspaper. Ye Gods. You couldn't make it up. A newspaper and a magazine are scientific processes to add value to wood pulp by inserting ink marks onto the surface of rolled out sections of it. If you use patterns instead you get wallpaper and toilet rolls. What the inserts or patterns consist of can be decided in Timbukto and transmitted by satellite link to anywhere with the right facilities.

And there are alternative theories for the multiplication tables as well. A2K depends on one such. 10 times 101 for example = 1010.

wande has brought our thread into the presence of real plonkers.

Still- as usual, it avoids you facing up to my previous post, I suppose, so the quote has its uses eh? Wouldn't want to be getting on any snagged hooks from any source.

0 Replies

I chose that example because I thought 11 times 11 = 1001 might confuse you.

0 Replies

As you AIDs-ers swear on the decision in the sleepy little backwater of Dover I was wondering what your view is on the 1926 USSC decision of Mr Justice Holmes, in the Buckvs Bell case on compulsory sterilisation and the cutting of the Fallopian tubes. Ignoring the dissenting opinion of Mr Justice Whitehead.

Has it been overturned yet?

And could you offer any explanations of why,in 1960, The American Eugenics Quarterly changed its name to Social Biology?

And why, in the face of collapsing membership in the late '50s, did the secretary of the British Eugenics Society announce-

Quote:

That the Society should pursue eugenic ends by less obvious means, that is by a policy of crypto-eugenics, which was apparently proving successful in the US Eugenics Society.

Could the injection of Darwinism into classrooms be one such crypto-eugenic tactic when it is remembered that Darwin started the process going in the first place and his son was a prominent and distinguished eugenicist having been peer-reviewed all round the country-house dinner party circuit and the Hunt Balls.

Ms Greer states, and she's a distinguished professor too who came to England with no connections-

Quote:

The Society gave up all idea of spreading the gospel and began to work in secret using "its influence at the centre by close liason with cognate organisations".

Cognate Organisations would hardly consist of Pie Makers and Bottlewashing Societies now would they? Media conglomerates are a much more likely possibility.

0 Replies

spendi, "WHitehead was the attorney for the appellant, not aUSSC justice. Your gonna have to read the entire sites you visit for your brainfarts.

However, youve done a favor by exposing our legal system (as dumass as it may be) and how laws can and are changed with the times. Youve learned something new today spendi, go forth and do something good with it besides spouting it as barroom trivia.

As an added thought, wasnt Francis Galton related to Darwin?

0 Replies

It's funny you should say that fm.

I noticed early in my A2k career that these threads were very similar to a pub from a social dynamics point of view.

A selection of people connected by a particular habit interacting. Forming cliques. Falling out. Only the beer is missing. And the view. (Thankfully)

My source, published by Secker and Warburg, says-

Quote:

In fact, Holmes's opinion in Buck vs Bell is still the prevailing view in American law, Mr Justice Whitehead's dissenting opinion notwithstanding.

1984 was the time of publication. Is it still now? But I will bow to your more local knowledge. Not that it mattered of course. The proposed dissenting opinion was of no consequence to the post but you aways jump the red herring trick when you're stumped. I actually suggested ignoring it if you go back and check.

So once again a quick avoidance act accompanied by mandatory insults in the usual highly original style.

I came across this from 1926. The case was some village in Ohio vs Ambler Realty Co.

Quote:

Since the industrial development of a great city will go on, the effect of this attempted action necessarily is to divert industry to other less suited sites, with a consequent rise in value thereof; so that the loss sustained by the proprietors of land who cannot so use their land is gained by proprietors of land elsewhere. In other words, the property, or value, which is taken away from one set of people, is, by this law, bestowed upon another set of people, imposing an uncompensated loss on the one hand and a gain which is arbitrary and unnatural on the other hand, since it results, not from the operation of economic laws, but from arbitrary considerations of taste enacted into hard and fast legislation. Such legislation also tends to monopolize business and factory

How does that square with evolution thory? Won't the kids get confused by them being animals in biology class when it's convenient for your refined and much praised capacity to think critically thinks that they are and being human when it comes "unnatural" operations of "taste" in eloqution, deportment and etiquette classes. Taste, enacted into hard and fast legislation, is contra evolution by design. Animals have no conception of taste. You only need observe that ugly dog of your's to see that or a tribe of monkeys in a clearing.

I think you should go the whole hog with evolution theory and knock off this bourgeois twittering schizoid infantile attention seeking prattle which is nothing but a noise really. A mating call if it makes a bigger pile of bananas than any body else has, one might say.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It turns out that Darwin's son Major Leonard Darwin, who no doubt owed his rank to the influence of privilege rather than struggle, was President of the Eugenics Society from 1911 to 1929. He initiated the campaign for the Eugenic Sterilisation Bill.

Professor Julian Huxley, another favoured son, and a committee member, wrote-

Quote:
The principle of supplementing the segregation of defectives by sterilisation in certain cases, is to my mind very important, and indeed essential, if we are to prevent the gradual deterioration of our racial stock. By making sterilisation voluntary in all cases, the Bill prevents any high handed abuse of power by local or other authorities, and the rights of individuals and their relatives appear to be abundantly safeguarded.

What utter tosh.

Dr F. Douglas Turner wrote-

Quote:
I venture to say I would not be fitted to hold my present position of medical superintendent of an institution for the care of mental defectives if I could not induce every one of my patients to be operated on or to refuse an operation just as I myself might wish.

So much for the "voluntary" sophistry.

And further--by the eugenicist's own arguments the relatives would themselves be mentally defective too.

And it goes without saying that Major Leonard would owe his superior understanding of things to his hereditary advantages.

These are the sort of people who are trying to force Darwinism into the classrooms on the spurious notion that an education in biology for the masses, not the specialists, is essential for an understanding of its elementary aspects and who are equally determined to eradicate the notions of faith, hope and charity, all three virtues being contrary to evolutionary principles, and the source book of Western literature.

Good grief spendi. Mankind had been dabbling in eugenics through selective breeding of domesticated animals and also I might add, royal bloodlines, long before Darwin wrote his book.

It is just as likely that negative attitudes toward "defectives" are nourished by knowledge of the Christian God's own distaste for said defectives.

in Leviticus 21 Moses wrote:

16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

Talk about the pollution of children's minds...

0 Replies

Spendi posts:

Quote:

So once again a quick avoidance act accompanied by mandatory insults in the usual highly original style.

And finishes with:

Quote:

I think you should go the whole hog with evolution theory and knock off this bourgeois twittering schizoid infantile attention seeking prattle which is nothing but a noise really. A mating call if it makes a bigger pile of bananas than any body else has, one might say.

As usual, the pot calling the kettle black. Laughing

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Francis Galton related to Darwin?

I think there's a vg chance in view of all the endogamic shagging that lot practiced.

But on checking they were cousins.

Galton didn't chicken it though. He was for selecting lads and lasses and for giving them a £5,000 grant to get stuck in. Hitler just ordered them.

Galton went about the streets putting a prick in a piece of paper with a pin every time he saw a pretty girl. He was made keen on statistical surveys.

* Do I lose the argument because I mentioned Hitler. It struck me that all you had to do under the exigencies of Godwin's Law was never mention Hitler and hey-presto you win every argument. The more adherents to Godwin's Law there are the less Hitler gets mentioned and in time the shithouse is airbrushed out of consciousnes. Brushed under the carpet. And as the effect is usually determined by the cause Godwin's Law operates to remove the warnings of inchoate Hitlerian tendencies so that they have a greater chance of prospering again.

Promising to get rid of cancellations and late departures at airports, a fine mess I gather, would be very popular if the downside had been lost to view.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote-

Quote:

Good grief spendi. Mankind had been dabbling in eugenics through selective breeding of domesticated animals and also I might add, royal bloodlines, long before Darwin wrote his book.

Good grief mesquite. There's not a racehorse running that could go 500 yards under the natural conditions horses evolved under. We breed domesticated animals and plants for our uses not their's. It's a process that contradicts evolution. And royal bloodlines were arranged for political reasons nothing to do with biology.

Neither are eugenics. Eugenics are about purifying the master race and about as un-American as it is possible to get in a melting pot.

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

My source, published by Secker and Warburg, says-

Quote:
In fact, Holmes's opinion in Buck vs Bell is still the prevailing view in American law, Mr Justice Whitehead's dissenting opinion notwithstanding.

1984 was the time of publication. Is it still now? But I will bow to your more local knowledge. Not that it mattered of course. The proposed dissenting opinion was of no consequence to the post but you aways jump the red herring trick when you're stumped. I actually suggested ignoring it if you go back and check.

I dont have to go bak and check, search Russell for legal decisions on USSC. It allows you to understand how the web of decisions have been modified, affirmed, or reversed through time. (To me , thats the important lesson, same as evolution).

You seem to handle knowledge as a trivia game. I guess thats ok if all youre trying to do is impress us . Id let law up to other of our members who are actually employed in that field.

I love it , when youre wrong, you try to turn it around that, because someone calls your attention to it, you dismiss accuracy as "A red herring".

Well, I like how your fantasy world allows you to be king. Mine only pays for performance.

PS, the dissenting justice was a guy named Pierce Butler who didnt even write a minority opinion.

0 Replies

I'm still saying fm that my error was of no consequence. What's in a name? If there's no dissenting voice it still doesn't matter.

Someone here the other day was excercising her arms. I said you should have a bag of sugar in each hand and the she replied " there's only one bag of sugar in the pantry". Your trick was similar to that.

I was simply linking your hero with not only anti-evolutionary nepotism but with eugenics, the USSC and compulsory sterilisation and then showing how discredited it all became when toff amateurs were replaced by proper professionals.

Handling knowledge as a trivia game is one way of doing it. It can produce results sometimes which your way doesn't just like your way can produce results mine doesn't. There may well be, philosophically, no such thing as trivia. This lot really is irreducibly complex. There is a cheese and chalk difference between complex and complicated. The famous watch on the beach is complicated. How it got there is complex just like how these articles wande quotes are.

My performances have already been paid for.

mesquite-

You don't understand the Leviticus quote. Polygamy was practiced then.

Think that out. "Go in under the vail (sic)" should help you decode it.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

mesquite-

You don't understand the Leviticus quote. Polygamy was practiced then.

Think that out. "Go in under the vail (sic)" should help you decode it.

The quote is quite clear. The Christian God did not like defects. Fancy dance steps will not alter that.

New Living Translation.

Quote:

Lev 21:23 Yet because of his physical defect, he must never go behind the inner curtain or come near the altar, for this would desecrate my holy places. I am the Lord who makes them holy."

New International version

Quote:

Lev 21:23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.

0 Replies

I did say "think that out".

I meant it.

Fancy dance steps are not what Mr Mailer had in mind when he wrote Tough Guys Don't Dance.

No Sir!

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know