Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Do I get any of this money you guys both just lost? Is that the way it works?

aidan wrote-



From "What price?" I assume I'm correct to insert the "not". If not, it's not clear what you mean.

I don't think anything. I observe and comment if what I observe engages my interest. It would be a tautology to say that in this case I am interested because my replying is already saying that.

From what I have observed, and I do not expect the immediate future to offer much in the way of evidence of "change", and that to which I was referring as a result of observations over many a long and weary walk through woe, is the general, all-round, almost comprehensive trials and tribulations to which men are put in order to obtain that which Darwin says, deconstructing him a bit, we were got here for. One of our primary drives no less, and, when we are done with the boring primary drives such as chomping through the nutrient bed and attendent necessities and running away from lions, an indignity visited upon many a high-born Roman, and have the thermostat correctly aligned with our comfort zone, it comes into prominence and rears itself up above its siblings by a good head and shoulders.

Now such a thing is a sitting duck and it is well known in evolution theory that sitting ducks get taken advantage of so what would be so surprising if there wasn't a mean, sneaky organism charging over the odds to pot it.

And particularly when the demand never slackens and it's easy to do. It certainly looks easy--"pray, my dear, quoth my mother, have you not forgot to wind up the clock?------Good G**! cried my father etc etc (see page one of Tristram Shandy where Sterne is describing Tristram's departure station. The POOF point.) It might be that Mr Jefferson's moral compass would never have pointed at Pro Choice with the President's signed name on it. It wouldn't make sense otherwise after his remark about Sterne.

And that's just the normal daily grind biological demand which is kept aflame by our media. I'm at the embers you have to blow hard on stage.

There's a social demand as well. Which applies to both sides. "My husband and I---" stuff.

The trials and tribulations I spoke of take many forms, some quite extreme, although in England we generally just keep our heads down. The best way to describe them would be anything W.C. Fields would have laughed at. Cooking say, or being seen out with a woman. Those sort of things can be habit forming and become to seem perfectly natural so it's best never to start on them. An elderly doctor I knew told me that when I was sniffing the air which goes to show how valuable it can be to go in pubs and to keep doing. And don't think for one moment that I have no experience of advantage being taken of my primary drives.

And of course we do get something out of it. Most of us are a bit shamefaced though concerning the matter and only the lowest, commonest types of men such as those I mix with are prepared to discuss it with honesty and detachment.

BTW- it is impossible for me to drive anybody away from anything. So you've lost your money. Send it to an orphanage.

They can take themselves off but I can't drive them away. I can say boo to a goose can't I?

I invited aidan back on here last week on a Trivia thread where she mentioned an experience in church. As I know how well she can write I was hoping she would tell us about it. She also mentioned that it is Setanta who has driven her away.

As an humble opinion, I doubt that the exacerbated crudity of Setanta's sentiments was the sole motivation of her leaving...

From where did I supposedly leave? I've never been a regular contributor to this thread-ever.

I don't have the science background to hold my own here- I just don't.
Science is my weakness - it was HARD for me in school. I focused my energies on other things.

And Setanta hasn't and can't drive me anywhere. I just CHOOSE not to be around people (especially adult men) who call people they don't even know names. It's a choice- MY choice.

Spendius - you haven't driven me anywhere either. I readily admit I like talking to you when you're available to talk (you say you blow hot and cold with Clary - you seem to blow hot and cold with me too). Maybe that's just a given of your particular personality. Who's to say- I certainly don't know you well enough to be able to with any hope of accuracy.

I understand and respect what you've written about morality and ethics. You and I seem to have a similar inner compass that guides us (maybe- I don't really know that either because my compass seems to be pretty constant- sometimes I wonder about yours). If you want to talk beliefs or spirituality I'll be happy to do that.

But I don't feel comfortable taking over what seems to be a well-loved thread by the more scientifically inclined among us. I've been scolded in the past for similar (inadvertent on my part) behavior. I really do believe in manners. I can't just ditch mine...I can't.

If the science aspect of this thread has run its course and people want to talk about church - so be it. But I need to know everyone is in agreement.

And honestly- I still don't feel comfortable exposing what is personal and valuable to me to scorn...which I know there is a lot of when it comes to me on this forum and to the subject of God or religion on this forum.
I have to decide if it's worth it to me. So, we'll see.

PS- Thanks for adding the 'not'. I did mean to say that. But after I read it, I realized that it was somewhat more honest without it. I do know what price you're referring to. I do think we could have some interesting conversations about that. I just don't know that this is the thread to have them on.

we're better off if aidan hangs 'round-- reasonable company with a sense of humor and an ability to speak her mind while actually staying on topic.



And that would seem to give Setanta a power the drive away that Spendius claims not to possess.

Joe(Now, the power to deflect until the boredom drives in like a nail through the cranium.... )Nation 1 post and counting.

It says that I have great skill at baiting out trolls while simultaneously characterizing Spendi's posting style.

Think before you ask next time.
K
O

aidan-

It is quite scientific to study the biological effects of spiritual states of being.

We can be led to a valuation of them and thus a decision as to their worth in economic terms, which includes any military or even sporting activity.

I think religious activity is a plus for society. For now I mean. And that it cannot be separated out from the rest of life least of all in classrooms, schools and neighbourhoods.

Anybody can say that this bunch of superstitious, petrified dimwits with their beliefs and practices is holding us back. It's just an assertion. Asked to provide some evidence for it they get going with the argumentum fistulatorium in which laying bets on things bets are not laid on is just the same as whistling Lillabullero.

You will have to be able to put up with your words being twisted out of shape.

oh well - that was a given (having my words twisted out of shape)

Okay - let's play spiritual intellectuals...sounds fun...but I gotta take my daughter down to Woodstock first - (she wants to pretend she's a hippy).

Spendius wrote:

You mean this week? Because for the past decade or so, and about two thousand years prior, religious activity has been the bane of human existence. Humans have been killing other humans over which imaginary friend has the right color bathrobe for generations. Is that just an assertion or haven't you cracked a history book for awhile? Western civilization lucked out in that someone quoted Jesus as saying we should render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's giving the West the chance to split political power away from the priests and bishops, but we should keep this discussion in the now, shouldn't we, because you say religious activity is a plus for society for now.

I bet the mullahs think so. I know the Afghans are grateful to have the Taliban nearby. And it's only taken the Irish in Belfast the last sixty years to come to some sort of agreement to stop shooting each other in the kneecaps or blowing up pubs on a daily basis. They've turned the bombing of buses over to a new crowd. You may have read about it in the papers. Religious activity indeed.

Meanwhile, in India, the Hindus are killing/being killed by the Muslims who are killing/being killed who are being attacked by the Christians. Shall we even mention Lebanon? no? And in America, preachers proclaim that gays cause hurricanes and the US government is the source of AIDS.

Some plus.

Religion is an iceberg, a bright shiny thing on top with a huge, darker presence floating below. All the good works done in the name of god, any god, you pick from the thousands lurking about, don't add up to a plus for humans now. How many Darfurians have been saved? (And THAT's a religious war too, by the way.)

Where we are now is on the verge, and it hasn't been Darwin who brought us here, it's the men holding up what they believe to be the words of something supernatural and they intend to get us to believe.....or eliminate us.

Joe(ah, the simple beliefs)Nation

Joe-

Why don't you go tweet on a fence-post out in the countryside where the pink May flowers bloom and toss their little heads about in the warm breeze. And take with you a music box that tinkles a pretty tune as a small figurine in a ballet skirt rotates slowly on a little pedestal when the lid is opened with its eyelashes fluttering ingenuously.

After all you are a member of a social group which consists of 5% of the population of the earth and enjoys the privilege of consuming 25% of the world's scarce resources. Roughly. Have taken the land you live on from the people and animals which had evolved to populate it by violence and cunning and have used two nuclear weapons on two cities and many another thing in order to access, maintain and expand that privilege.

And anyway- the argument you deploy is designed solely to appeal to the sentiments and prejudices of your audience and is not one held to by anybody who has read one history book of note and further to that it has been dealt with on here a long time ago and dismissed for the baby talk it is. It the toy soldier problem again.

Do you really believe that the history of human life would have been a path strewn with rose petals if only someone had come up with your original and earth-shaking insights?

You wouldn't be here if they had done. Nation means war. Evolution means war. Only the Christian dispensation has ever shown any signs of attempting to eradicate war. But it has to start with human nature as a given and you are pointing to difficulties inherent in human nature.

You yourself were fastening me down in a padded cell only yesterday at the behest of your dignity. No small thing I admit.

Isaac Newton's successor as Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, William Whiston, argued in his New Theory of the Earth that the Great Flood was caused by a comet striking the earth, presumably somewhere near Guam where the sea is almost 40,000 ft deep.

And such a thing could have been seen coming.

Spendi, you've been called out.

You said that people can't provide examples and that they could only make assertions. Joe provided a very good list. This is where you should shut up, however, it's obvious from your past, that you won't. Shame for us, shame for you.

T
K
Of course, your objective is not to contribute to this forum.

I thought quite enough.

Actually I think it says you are rude, intolerant and cursed with an inflated sense of self-importance.

Yes George. "Cursed" is the significant word.

Spendius wrote:


Yes, sitting ducks - irresistable, no?

You know this is one question I've always had. I remember asking a friend of mine who was using someone sexually - 'How can you do that?' and this person said, 'Well, if she's allowing herself to be used, what's wrong with me using her?' as if he had no responsibility for conscious decision making.

I think that's what confuses people about those who say they are religious but then blindly adhere to a path that seems set before them by quoting Scripture that seems to maybe apply to what it is that they themselves WANT to do or believe.
But those who are on the fence, want to see 'Christianity' in action. They don't want to hear about it and then see exactly the opposite enacted based on popular opinion.
For instance, those who would oppose abortion, upholding the sancity of the fetus and 'life' in any form who would belittle and ignore the lives of those standing before them.
And I think that's the status quo.

I can't answer to anything Joe asked. Every single situation he raised has merit. I was going to ask, 'Why do Christians get held accountable for all the sins of the Christians who came before them- when present day whites in the US are no longer held accountable for slavery or Jim Crow.' But you know what - slavery has ended - and Christians just keep acting like assholes...no wonder no one takes them seriously.

And you want to then point at Americans Spendius and say -'Well how can you say anything about Christians when Americans are doing this or that?' In my mind - that's just making American Christians twice as guilty as non-religious Americans. Because they're not adhering to Christ's message- and they're over consuming and war mongering as Americans -so they're not only raping the world - they're hypocritically raping the world.

The only answer I have is that those who are doing what you describe Joe are not real Christians. Those who would harm and maim and hurt purposely for their own benefit are not doing what Christ taught.

Religion- as it is humanly enacted - sucks- most of the time.
On occasion it's a godsend.
But that's not often enough to make it uniformly beneficial to school children - no- I don't believe so.

And I also don't believe there are very many public school teachers I would trust to teach my children morals and ethics. I prefer to take care of that job for my own children, myself.
And as a teacher, I really don't even want to be responsible for teaching it to anyone else's child. I think it is an intensely personal issue.

Spendius wrote (in part):

Please expand on these assertions. Especially the one about the Christians being the only ones attempting to eradicate war. How myopic. Is that because it's in their nature and no one elses?

Nation means war.
Evolution means war.
Only if you haven't a clue what you are talking about and you don't, dear Spendius, all that reading and you haven't learned a single thing you hadn't been told long ago by your elementary school chums on the playground.

Joe(shhushtt now, lay your head down and rest)Nation

Joe,
We both know that Spendi likes startling turns of phrase and even enjoys tweaking us a bit.

Actually in this case he referred to "the Christian dispensation" as the only one that, "has ever shown any signs of attempting to eradicate war".

I'm not so sure about the only part, but the 'ever shown signs of attempting bit' is sufficiently qualified so as to skirt the many bloody realities of Christian history. It refers to a real component of the thing, and not to the whole reality as it has been manifested in history, - and to a real component, not the whole thing, in human nature as well.

aidan-

I'm inhibited from answering your post because if I say what I think about abortion Joe and Ed will claim I have driven you off the thread. And I have already said what I think about abortion.

It's one of the methods of traducing free speech. A bit like the head butt when the other isn't looking.

So you're now you're protected. You can stick up for anything you want and nobody can dispute with you because they also can be said to have driven you off the thread even if you simply get fed up of it or distracted from it by other pressing matters.

Thus you have no chance of ever being abled to know anything you don't already know. The floor is your's thanks to your protectors.

So take it away professor. Joe won't be able to tell you to "shhushtt now, lay your head down and rest" because he might drive you off the thread.

But the thread topic concerns intelligent design which is not fundamentalism.

BTW-- this is what aidan said on the Acronym game after I had invited her over here (the opposite of driving her away)--



I never said Setanta had driven aidan off anything. I said that she had said he had. He had driven her off some other thread seemingly and had scared her off coming on this one.

I think it bothers AIDsers that they have driven everyone off this thread except me. They seek opposition free debate so that they can suck off each other's sentimentalities, prejudices and self regard and by thus clearing the field they will be in position to shove their fatuous opinions (see Joe's last post) down the throats and up the backsides of America's schoolkids who they actually don't give two farooks about.

The only thing they are interested in is shouting everybody down with insults, innuendoes and sneaky tricks and it amazes me that religious America has been cowed by them. They are paper tigers.

And every so often, he actually gets the references correct.

Weve established that ID is definetely a religious experience and exists in the mental realms of a minority of " scientists".

Spendis inability to add anything substantive to this fact has him, like RL, frantically searching for substitutions where he can divert eyes from that simple fact. ANything else he asserts is just hokum.

His backass invocation of Godwins LAw is an example of how bankrupt he is.

farmerman,

We've discussed this before, but it is perhaps time for my annual suggestion that, while Biblical descriptions of the origin of both the cosmos and mankind are, at best, metaphorically true, (attempts to apply them literally fly in the face of both experience and the real knowledge we have accumulated through science), modern science remains unable to explain our origins, and there is every reason to believe that it will remain unable to do so.

Physics remains unable to explain our origins and our fate. The path from the singularity that started it all, to the cold, dark extinction that will end it (or the Big Crunch in an earlier interpretation) is remarkably well-described by science, and the remaining defects in that explanation are steadily being worked away. However, the end points are, in scientific terms, a void. They are likely to remain so.