Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Shari wrote-

Quote:

OK. Let's go through this slowly. First, I said "our biology", which doesn't imply that I'm talking about the field of biology but about something from our actual physical selves (emergent property), our 'biology'.

When you've done patronising you might have time to realise that you are referring to psychosomatic phenomena. AIDsers (anti-IDers in case you haven't picked up on the shorthand) avoid that subject like as if it is a hornet's nest on an aggravatingly hot day for a pantsdowner.

A surgeon could operate equally efficiently on a cannibal with shrunken skulls hanging out side her tent in bunches and a sophisticated Manhattan socialite. I couldn't you see.

The surgeon does my biology and your's is carried out by all sorts of wierd and wonderful experts (maybe you are one such, or hope to be).

But if you fetch up in the psychomatic realm you have to face up to those strange effects, not mentioned in Origins although Darwin became fascinated later with monkeys smiling, which religious experiences cause, it is claimed, here too, and whether or not they are beneficial and whether to the individual or the society: society seen as a series of concentric circles with the individual at the centre.

And this is the age old problem. We try to solve it as best we can. Balancing the benefits and the losses to both all the time. It's moving. It's what all the argy-bargying is about. It really is quite complex. Looking at it is, as fm often says, like looking up your butt. We elect bastards to do it for us. What's the use of sending Ann of Green Gables to Washington to arrange the pork distribution. And we make 'em prove they are bastards by making 'em fight it out. Unto the uttermost shreds of their pride.

Yes--it is. Christianity's claims to be kinder to others is easily denigrated due to the actions of some who, under pressure of events, reverted to human nature for reasons sometimes of necessity as they saw it and sometimes for personal reasons.

But the general drift towards being kinder to others is apparent in Western society. Darwin, I feel confident of asserting, would have been aghast at paying the Income Tax at 95 pence in the pound to pay for the health and education of the workers.

It has been at that rate here fairly recently for people in his bracket. Even today's rate would have had him storming up and down the footpaths at Downe shouting and bawling and screaming like a stuck pig and lashing the vegetation with his stick. It may be an opinion but I think that the Christian message is the cause of that drift.

Emrbracing whatever leads to some conclusion. What do you think the exclusive embracing of science will lead to? And it has to be exclusive otherwise you concede your position.

And how do you proprose getting there assuming that my side steps aside and allows you to do whatever you think best.

It is only the unsupported nonsense of attributing a magical quality to that ball of cells that would seem to support your argument.

I wasn't aware of that "shorthand" at all, although it looks particularly mean-hearted and dishonest to me, as it associates those who can identify the utter nonsense of ID with AIDS. Think about it - where is that extra S coming from? The word you're looking for is "educated, rational human being".

It is that morality, ethics, empathy, etc, are all things which have innate centers. Now, that doesn't mean that everything we classify as 'moral' is built-in to everyone, but the framework for the more general ideas and concepts of fairness and social organization seem pretty strong. The primary point is that claiming that all of ethics flows from a religious base, as if removing the religion removes the ethics, is ridiculous and entirely unsupported. So far you haven't even attempted to support it and I've simply made a guess as to how you would and shown how it wouldn't be good enough.

It seems you just want to call scientists and doctors without Christ's influence witchdoctors.

Quote:

It is only the unsupported nonsense of attributing a magical quality to that ball of cells that would seem to support your argument.

That ball of cells, as you choose to call it, has a magical quality which surpasses the imagination of mankind. If you deny that then your argument is circular like mine.

But I would support my assertion by asking you to meditate on how it is done from the biological inputs the mother makes it out of.

Shira- sorry about my error with your name.

Quote:

I wasn't aware of that "shorthand" at all, although it looks particularly mean-hearted and dishonest to me, as it associates those who can identify the utter nonsense of ID with AIDS. Think about it - where is that extra S coming from? The word you're looking for is "educated, rational human being".

An ERHB you mean?

No- you are presuming. Artificial Insemination by Donor. Ejaculating Darwin into classrooms with craft.

Quote:

Quote:
It is that morality, ethics, empathy, etc, are all things which have innate centers. Now, that doesn't mean that everything we classify as 'moral' is built-in to everyone, but the framework for the more general ideas and concepts of fairness and social organization seem pretty strong. The primary point is that claiming that all of ethics flows from a religious base, as if removing the religion removes the ethics, is ridiculous and entirely unsupported. So far you haven't even attempted to support it and I've simply made a guess as to how you would and shown how it wouldn't be good enough.

The 1st sentence is an assertion.

I don't see where any morality could come from out side of a belief system.

But if we all believed that Science was the new God then the High Priests of Science could determine our behaviour by edict and call it morality. I don't know about their own though.

It seems you just want to call scientists and doctors without Christ's influence witchdoctors.

Not at all my dear. Quite the opposite actually. There is such a thing as "white witch-doctoring."

Shari-

I can't answer all your points. I just don't have the time.

You think morality is innate and I don't.

Ah, so you do think there's support. Of course, I don't understand what you're trying to say in the response. Are you talking about the effect of the environment (womb, etc) on development?

This is because you've likely defined it circularly and haven't delved deeply into it. All morality is based on human interactions. The appeals to creators, etc, are all just attempts at formality (and they fail). We can see this in the "morality" (or lack thereof) in the supposedly most pious of people or in the morality of nonbelievers who explicitly reject Christian nonsense. I know that you claim them for your side of 'the Christian message', but I'll remind you that you have an unsupported assertion there.

I think the foundations of morality are innate, which is an important difference

Oh Dog . . . he's feeding the troll . . .

I suppose my point would be that one should embrace the child, the infant, their sons/daughters/parents/friends, etc, but not the potentiality of a zygote or embryo.

Oh Dog . . . he's feeding the troll . . .

Well- the fish and chips and Coca-Cola and hamburgers etc is more what I had in mind. As a transformation miracle. A mystery.

I agree that at these levels all arguments are circular. But when one circular argument produces the fantastic success of Western Christianity that we see then I would say it is a superior circularity. And in Darwinian terms. If we are going to switch to another I would like to see some ideas on what we will get.

I can't see it. But even granting it you you still have to "distort" it to arrive at the vast range of differences we experience. So which "distortion" (circularity) do we choose. I don't see that we have any choice but to choose something.

My conservatism is based on staying with a winning one. And I think the world will embrace it eventually. Isn't democracy itself a step towards the meek inheriting the earth.

Darwin says the strong and just look at the wild life programmes. They still have to grow their own fur coats and eat their food uncooked.

Darwin published his great book under the 1832 Reform Act. He had a vote. And his class opposed even that Act. He never lived to see women getting the vote or 18 year olds. His book validated his class at its publication date. No more guilt. It was Nature.

Harriet Martineau might have been enthusiastic about it but I'd bet she was opposed to mill-girls and serving wenches getting the vote.

It was syrup on the comforter (dummies we call them) to the well-to do middle class industrial upthrusters and Darwin was in that party goodstyle.

what are your views on birth control though

Spendius - Morality can exist outside of Christianity. I'd be terrified to think it couldn't. Do you really believe it can't and doesn't?

Ah, so insanity. *reads it again*. Yup, insane.

I never said that mine was circular, you seem to have trouble with reading what I say vs. what you wish I had said.

Then I can only surmise that you've never been pregnant.

Or maybe I should say that if you have and you were able to disregard the potentiality of the life you carried within you - you were a different type of pregnant woman than I was (my son is my/a biological child- I carried him and gave birth to him). From the moment I knew I was pregnant - he was 'my baby' and I would have done anything to protect his life

But as I said, it's an intensely personal and private issue. I would never judge anyone who chose to have an abortion- simply because it's not my place to judge.

But I also would never accept anyone telling me how I should think about the life I carried within me and when I could start considering it a life and regarding it with hope and potential.

That seems rather patronizing.
My ego is not involved in deciding how I feel about abortion. It's not about thinking about my own children and thinking I would miss them if they weren't here. It never has been.

I think for me it has to do with responsibility. And at this point in time I don't see why it should be necessary at all- with free and subsidized depo shots available to anyone who would ask.

That doesn't mean I'm not pro-choice. I think in the end a woman does have to be responsible for her own body and her own choices in life.

But I do think this story sort of puts what Spendius said about what it says that it's state sanctioned into some perspective:

The other day Olivia and I were in Woodstock and she saw a bumper sticker that said, "Keep abortion legal." She said "Mom - do you think abortion should be legal?" Olivia's very charming and artistic but very spacey - honestly after I thought about it - I thought - we better go over some things again...I said, "Honey - it IS legal - it's been legal for thirty-five years."
She said, "Really? That's sad..."
Whether I think it's sad or not that it's legal - I do think it's sad that it's still necessary. And that people still rely on it instead of other means to prevent the need for it at all.

But I also think the way we fail to take care of the children who are already here is sad too - there are alot of things that are sad - I'm not sure that any one is worse than any other.

300 million amoral Americans going by the regulations provided by the scientific elite is not something I wish to contemplate at this time of day.

What do you want to argue the toss with such a person for then?

You are supposed to humour people you consider insane not argue with them. Did your Mom not teach you that?

Well--it seemed to me that if a basic morality was declared to be "innate" that it jolly well was innate and that was all there was to be said about the matter. If it's innate it's innate. End of story.

Setanta wrote:

Oh Dog . . . he's feeding the troll . . .

He hasn't recognized it for what it is yet.

But it doesn't matter, others are keeping this troll well fed, so it was going to continue to hang around to gorge itself anyway.

I personally fail to see what responsibility has to do with it concerning the early-term abortions I am concentrating on.

But I also would never accept anyone telling me how I should think about the life I carried within me and when I could start considering it a life and regarding it with hope and potential.