Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The two are not necessarily mutually excluding.Have you never read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist?Or studied Eric Gill?

There was a funny scene tonight on the BBC.They had a film of two very elderly ladies with grey hair sat in a posh room drinking port out of large glasses discussing Eric's penchant for incest and bestiality with dogs.

0 Replies

Talk about "cool".

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

rosborne,

I knew you would be the first person to react to Pennock's chilling testimony!

I do tend to harp on naturalism. Too many people are simply not aware that there is a philosophical foundation to science which is not only present, but necessary.

People who are insecure about their theological beliefs distrust science because they confuse the *assumption* of naturalism with the *conclusion* of naturalism.

Science must proceed from an assumption of naturalism. However, that doesn't mean that science can conclude (or prove) that reality is naturalistic.

Many people will say that science threatens religion, when that isn't even remotely true. Science doesn't even attempt to address religion, it simply ignores it (but maybe that's the biggest insult of all).

0 Replies

People that believe in the bible god fear science, because it continues to challenge the bible. Six thousand year old earth/creation and the world flood never happened according to scientific findings. It slowly destroys the bible, their word of god. That's a frightening prospect for those folks that the bible might be just another work of fiction, and science continues to chip away at the claims made.

In their desparation, they are now trying to equate Intelligent Design into science courses.

I wonder what their next step will be to reverse science in school into a philosophy course. Many christians still claim evolution is only a theory that has not been proven.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
rosborne,

I knew you would be the first person to react to Pennock's chilling testimony!

I do tend to harp on naturalism. Too many people are simply not aware that there is a philosophical foundation to science which is not only present, but necessary.

People who are insecure about their theological beliefs distrust science because they confuse the *assumption* of naturalism with the *conclusion* of naturalism.

Science must proceed from an assumption of naturalism. However, that doesn't mean that science can conclude (or prove) that reality is naturalistic.

Many people will say that science threatens religion, when that isn't even remotely true. Science doesn't even attempt to address religion, it simply ignores it (but maybe that's the biggest insult of all).

Yeah. Score one for the anti-religious. Woo-hoo! Pathetic.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

fm-

I'd rather be having aphasia,whatever that is,than thinking that "across the etcetc" constituted academic standards.I wouldn't allow my underpants to be washed with soap like that.

This is merely the sort of prideful or self-congratulatory speech common to folks working in education up at the curricula-writing and policy-establishment levels (that interface between elected officials, educational theorists in local academia, school-board groups, and educator groups). You likely would not be able to find any Canadian province or American state whose educational departments do NOT make frequent claims of the sort you allude to. It isn't just blowhard stuff, necessarily. A lot of these folks try very hard to establish topnotch curricula and teaching methodologies and adventurous pilot projects. In many cases, pride can be justified. And there is a pep-talk aspect here too...trying to move something so large and unwieldy as a province's educational machine and trying to gain some accurate notion of whether your attempts are bearing fruit is inevitably frustrating.

On the other hand, I have a couple of brothers involved and after fifteen minutes of this sort of talk and you want to beat them senseless with a big brass recess bell.

0 Replies

Gee Bernie,you must be a very patient and understanding cove and no mistake.15 seconds is way too much for me.

The touching justification you offer has the fatal,and usual,flaw of confusing education with business practices and to a Veblen fanatic such confusion is considered irredeemably naff.

Twas a tasty post though.

0 Replies

BBB
I was in a class last week. During the lunch break, we were discussing several issues including frustration with Albuquerque's schools. I innocently mentioned that they should be glad they don't live in near by Rio Rancho where their school board recently approved teaching intelligent design.

A man asked me why I didn't want to know if there was intelligent design and stressed it's important? Then he added that he was a member of the Board that approved the change in education to add intelligent design as well as evolution in the science classes.

Well, with that, I said I completely disagreed with him. He responded that he didn't believe he evolved from a monkey. I just laughed and said if he wants intelligent design taught in churches or religious schools, that their business. But it should not be taught in public schools. He replied asking why public school students should be deprived of the facts.

At that point, a co-worker of this man grabbed his arm and took him outside. It lucky he left because he was about to find out what a pack of monkeys can do to such an idiot.

BBB

0 Replies

BBB, What I don't understand is why so many in our country are not demanding the separation of ID and science. I can come to my own conclusions about such matters, but I'd like to hear from more people why there is silence on this very important issue.

0 Replies

BBB wrote-

Quote:

It lucky he left because he was about to find out what a pack of monkeys can do to such an idiot.

And blatham wrote-

Quote:

On the other hand, I have a couple of brothers involved and after fifteen minutes of this sort of talk and you want to beat them senseless with a big brass recess bell.

These liberals eh-If ever they get power it won't take them long to get their own Lubyanka going.

One can't help wondering why there is no ID/SD fight going on in England.The same arguments apply on both sides of the pond.

Could it be that Americans are always spoiling for a spot of bother and the ID/SD business is simply a convenient arena to get polarised on with some encouragement from lawyers and media centres.

Maybe we have more confidence in our kids to make their own mind up when they are old enough and don't much care what they are taught so long as they are out of sight behind the bars of the school railings for long periods.Methinks there are too many parents trying to re-live their life vicariously through their kids.

Not one point I have made of any significance in the interest of toleration has been even addressed let alone answered.The SDers seem to me to be chanting mantras.And if their simple argument,and its simplicity might be its main magnetic force,is followed to an outer ring of its logical conclusion they would mess their britches.

Not me though.I would quite fancy Huxley's Brave New World and I have a suspicion Aldous did as well.And that vision was only an outer ring of an SD logical order.1984 gets to a landing.

Kids are a lot smarter than you seem to give them credit for.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Not one point I have made of any significance

Thank you for your honesty, spendius!

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

BBB, What I don't understand is why so many in our country are not demanding the separation of ID and science. I can come to my own conclusions about such matters, but I'd like to hear from more people why there is silence on this very important issue.

It can only be that those "so many",whatever that means,are stupid,moronic IDers and the others are highly intelligent,articulate SDers like c.i.

One is entitled to presume that the "so many" are an electoral majority.You needn't worry about what the SD position is on democracy because it is well known.They just HAVE to be in favour of an educational qualification to vote and they would mark all the exam papers.How could a scientific elite allow themselves to be held in check by a bunch of uneducated morons who believe in superstitous mumbo-jumbo.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
rosborne,

I knew you would be the first person to react to Pennock's chilling testimony!

I do tend to harp on naturalism. Too many people are simply not aware that there is a philosophical foundation to science which is not only present, but necessary.

People who are insecure about their theological beliefs distrust science because they confuse the *assumption* of naturalism with the *conclusion* of naturalism.

Science must proceed from an assumption of naturalism. However, that doesn't mean that science can conclude (or prove) that reality is naturalistic.

Many people will say that science threatens religion, when that isn't even remotely true. Science doesn't even attempt to address religion, it simply ignores it (but maybe that's the biggest insult of all).

Yeah. Score one for the anti-religious. Woo-hoo! Pathetic.

Just stating the way things are Snood. I wasn't even trying to score anything.

So does your little snip indicate that you *do* feel insulted because science ignores religion? Because to be honest with you, *that* seems rather pathetic to me.

0 Replies

This is the full sentence I wrote-

Quote:

Not one point I have made of any significance in the interest of toleration has been even addressed let alone answered.

This is what wande did to it-

Quote:

spendius wrote:
Not one point I have made of any significance

He then thanked me for my honesty.

And there is a demo of how SDers mark exam papers.

Is wande an IDer pretending he's an SDer in order to heap odium on the SD side.

0 Replies

Actually wande,I understood that what you did to be the No 1 ++ most henious thread crime.

I will refrain from asking for adjudication because I'm not a grass and I can take care of myself.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

c.i. wrote-

Quote:
BBB, What I don't understand is why so many in our country are not demanding the separation of ID and science. I can come to my own conclusions about such matters, but I'd like to hear from more people why there is silence on this very important issue.

It can only be that those "so many",whatever that means,are stupid,moronic IDers and the others are highly intelligent,articulate SDers like c.i.

Putting aside the emotionalism of why ID'ers or 'so many' others do what they do, one thing we can say is that on these discussion threads alone we have seen no indication that any ID supporters really understand the theory of evolution. And if they can't demonstrate an understanding of the theory, how can we take any of them seriously when they object to it.

The same applies to the general public. The person BBB ran into started off by saying he didn't evolve from a monkey. It's pretty clear from the first words spoken that this individual is simply interested in not being related to a "lowly animal". His motivation has nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with fear; not a good way to run your life, or a valuable thing to teach your kids.

0 Replies

(spendius, i apologize for amusing myself at your expense.)

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I was in a class last week. During the lunch break, we were discussing several issues including frustration with Albuquerque's schools.

What class were you in?

0 Replies

wande-

I don't mind you amusing yourself at my expense.In fact I enjoy it.

But that way is not on.I could murder anybody's posts with that method.

I accept your apology though.No sweat.

0 Replies

ros-

I can't see what the problem is if I did evolve from a monkey.I don't mind.I like monkeys.They're cute.Even if I didn't evolve from a monkey,notwithstanding my parents,I still can't see what difference it makes.Is the guy worried he might start behaving differently if we did evolve from monkeys.

Now if the pub has run out of beer when I get there I'll damn well have something to say about that.That would be a matter of deep concern.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know