Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendi, Let's face it; you have a comprehension problem in both reading and composition of ideas when you write. I've learned to take it with a grain of humor, and I do enjoy your contributions on these threads, but must warn you that too often your compositions do not make much sense.

0 Replies

I thought his (Spendius') ' wind weaver' phrase was lovely..beautifully written and expressed.

CI - I think Spendius just wants to talk about other things...I think....although he seems to be really intent right now on simply arguing about how he and Shira are simply arguing.

Shira - I was not indignant at the idea someone might tell me how to think about my child's life and when I might begin doing so with any conceptualization of it as a 'life'. I don't get indignant that other people have different ideas than I do. I fully expect that they will.

If you knew me you'd know that I'd deal with it in one of two ways. If I liked you and cared about your opinion, I might try to discuss it with you- but if I didn't know you and you didn't know me - I'd say something like, 'Interesting...thanks for commenting...' and that'd be about it. There wouldn't be any indignation at all.
I was just stating the fact that your generalized statement of how life should be viewed and by whom (seemed like you were saying everyone)
struck me as rather patronizing. But you can patronize me if you want - it doesn't really bother me.

0 Replies

The other thing I was wondering is why there is this intense focus on Spendius' drinking.
Unless he's driving - whose business is it but his?
That's the kind of thing that bugs me about living in the US - and speaks eloquently to the fact that contrary to Spendius' belief that things could change so that we could have meaningful exchange of opinion and ideas with freedom and equanimity in the public schools it will never happen.

Because even adults in America are incapable of allowing others their beliefs, opinions, and behaviors without feeling the need to measure, weigh, compare, contrast and finally pass judgment.

I would never advocate biblically based creationist teaching. But I do think it'd be interesting to have classes on comparative religion - just comparing the various historical and cultural perspectives - etc. But there is never simple reporting of anything not factually based here. It always comes with editorializing. And I think that's unfortunate, because it hinders and hampers debate and discussion.
We have to stick to a standardized curriculum because so few people are capable of creatively, yet objectively going outside of any prescribed boundaries.

0 Replies

Only spendi can provide the necessary information about his "daily trip to the pub." I'm not sure if our agreement about his (almost) daily routine of his visit to the pub is of any consequence, since he announces it regularly. It becomes common knowledge, and we only affirm it sometimes. I don't see any harm in that.

0 Replies

I don't see any harm in it either. But I think there's sort of a cultural divide in how people think about it.

I never really hung out at bars much while I lived in the US - really never - even in college - when I was in college the drinking age was 18 and there was a place to buy beer and drink on campus- fittingly enough it was called GLAD (short for gladfelter), so it wasn't until I was in graduate school I used to go to places to listen to music and drink.

But in England - the local pub is a fixture in the life of the village. You can go there to eat supper or get a Sunday roast and you can sit there for hours and talk and talk with the same people. There might be kids there- there are almost always dogs there- when I was there over Christmas I stayed in a room over the pub and was there for a week and I saw that every night - it was a gathering- some people didn't even drink. One guy came every single night sat in the same seat and never said a word to anyone - I played backgammon with people I'd never met before- on Sunday night after the big sunday afternoon roast crowd they called out for Indian or Chinese and had it delivered to the pub - you told the owner what you wanted and he placed this big order...you know it's a really wonderful social institution in the life of a village.
It supposedly 'closed' at eleven- but if you were a friend of the landlord - you'd sit there and talk til three or four in the morning.
When Spendius compared the pub on Thursday night to the pub you'd have on Friday night - he was talking about the type of crowd you'd get - not building an actual pub. That's what Shira is misunderstanding. And I think that this cultural divide is where a lot of the misunderstanding comes in.

I think Spendius wants to talk about the pub as a subtopic of evolution in maybe it's more social indicators and revealing truths as they are played out in the pub. I think he wants to talk about male/female interactions beyond those of fruit flies (are those sexless- do I remember THAT much at least from highschool biology)? Laughing

So what seem like sort of roundabout and out of nowhere non-sequiturs (and somewhat incomprehensible) might be his attempt at steering the conversation somewhere else.

The question I STILL have is - does anyone else want to see the conversation go in another direction? I think most of you guys still seem into the science and physics of the whole thing.
No harm in that either- just wondering- still...

CI- I'm glad you asked Ros to explain the element of life in the sun issue- it reminded me of the IMAX movie I saw at the Museum of Natural History. It was pretty spectacular and really put the whole evolutionary timeline in concrete perspective (I'm a very visual learner). I think that'd be a wonderful class trip for school children. They should take that on the road somehow so all US kids would get a chance to see it.

0 Replies

Mr Shirakawasuna wrote-

Quote:

Yup. It's a bit hilarious, as they're very good at superficially fooling people and then fail utterly when it comes to substance. The trial in Pennsylvania illustrates that nicely, but then again the entire ID movement as a whole does as well. A lot of talk at first, a lot of nonsense about irreducible complexity and specified, complex information, and absolutely nothing of substance to support or defend it

The trial in Pa illustrates the trial in Pa.

Obviously there will be nothing of substance when AIDsers refuse to discuss the functions of religion and stick their heads in a bag and pretend that religion has no functions. Once they do that all their arguments are valid which is what they are desperate to make them. It's circular though.

And in some aspects the functions of religion can be looked at scientifically. The psychosomatic realm in particular. And there is a psychosomatic realm relating to attacking the beliefs of a large majority of Americans as well. AIDsers get something psychological out of it.

And Mr Dembski is just one person. His views have no more weight than any other person.

0 Replies

aidan. Spendis been fairly rude and obscure in his posts from the start. Most people start by asking him for clarifications, to which spendi usually retreats into a wagon circling exercise of condemning the questioner. Then spendi will rail on in fine Bulwar Lytton style and get deeper into obscurity. This makes further discussion with the guy, almost impossible.

Then, ever so often , hed make a good contribution, on topic, free of his usual narcissism. Somsomeone, dontremember who, made a comment that "they didnt know spendi drank until they read one of his posts writ sober" I thought that pretty good and have searched for his infrequent sober contributions. They havent popped up for maybe 2 months now.
Ive taken to pretty much talk around him because, even though Im not talking to him, its difficult to ign ore the fact that hes a huge looming megafauna who often follows his own posts with three or even four others , equally inane.

This thread has, prety much, been a discussion of the "merits or shortcomings " of ID (as defined by the very folks who proposed it in its modern context).
Weve discussed the topic, both in a science context , and a broader
legal/sociological/ethical context. Its been a nice thread for the most part , and wandel's been posting updates on where the ID front is going (mostly in the many states of US). Spendi has continually tried to sidetrack that discussion and , after a few responses and respectful requests, most of the board quit being respectful. I, mostly ignore spendi but will take the opportunity to explain my own position when someone like yourself posts a question.

Spendi needs constant preening otherwise he goes toxic. I just dont really have the interest in brushing him , And I think there are a few others who feel even less charitable in their positions.

Howvere, this thread is what it is and I just go with the tide, unless theres something that I strongly agree or disagree with. In the grand scheme of our communications, spendi provides us mostly with irrelevant epigrams.

0 Replies

okay - thanks for the clarification Farmerman.

I think as a function of my role as a mother and a teacher, I'm always trying to 'see everyone's side' and make sure that everyone is 'understood' by everyone else.

hope it wasn't too annoying.

0 Replies

Quote:

rosborne979 is clearly talking about the chemical elements, spendius. You know, the atomic particles we order by atomic number (protons).

spendius wrote:
Hence it is the remark of a Pagan. Or so it seems to me.

No, it's the remark of someone educated about basic scientific theories. Not all religious people are as ignorant about this stuff as you :/ .

spendius wrote:
It seems to say that these "necessary elements" POOFED life into existence from the energy/inorganic whatnot.

At least two things wrong here. First, it has nothing to do with them "poofing" into existence. rosborne cited nucleosynthesis just after the section of his post that you quoted. Second, you seem to think that organic matter has some kind of special property about it that makes it very different from inorganic matter. This is known as Vitalism and I recommend that you look it up - it was another one of those ideas that worked well for theistic positions but was thoroughly destroyed by science. We can now see that organic matter is made up from those elements listed before by rosborne and not anything fundamentally different: biochemistry is still chemistry.

spendius wrote:
Just like that, as Tommy Cooper R.I.P. used to say. And with the capacity to construct a decent English pub on a Friday Night (Thursday is Grab a Granny Nite) with its myriad of brilliantly lit manifestations such as the couple who are trying to prove they are more in love with each other than others around them are.

Here's another one of those examples, only this one is a little more coherent. I take it you think the origin of life [and perhaps its evolutionary paths] are comparable to building a pub on Friday night, as in is too much to happen that quickly? I'll have to ask on what grounds you make this claim: how long do you think it would take? Clearly building a pub is not impossible, so you can't use that excuse .

spendius wrote:
A bunch of hydrogen thingies with no light. It's hard to buy into that when Judy gets a glass off the bottom shelf.

This one isn't quite as good as the other, as it satisfies the random references that have no apparent connection I was talking about earlier. So I have no idea where you're going with this other than apparently you don't think hydrogen reactions can produce light. Or something.

spendius wrote:
Where does light come from? Was it all pitch black once and you couldn't see your hand in front of your face. It's a bit much to ask.

Light? Well, you can pop some electromagnetic radiation off of some molecules when some of the electrons drop to a lower energy level. I'm not sure if you're actually interested in this stuff, though.

As far as I'm concerned ros can hardly read and write. The idea that he is educated about basic scientific theories, judging by his posts, is laughable and constitutes huddling together by AIDsers for comfort using mutual stroking.

Saying that not all religious people are as ignorant as me is a meaningless sentence.

If the "energy/inorganic whatnot" didn't POOF life into existence how did life get started? Don't the planetary probes search for signs of "organics"? I only used "POOF" because AIDsers use it. Is it their personal preserve? Nucleosynthesis is just another word. If it's one that gives the girls on the front row an attack of the wide-eyed wonderment at the speaker's command of language it okay by me.

There would be real excitement if they found any sign of organic life anywhere off the earth I think.

Perhaps fm will explain the difference between inorganic chemistry and organic chemistry for you. Nuclear power is the first tapping of the former by humans but it could not be done without the organics. If it could we have a perpetual motion machine.

When I mentioned the pub it was just one example out of millions of one of the developments which it would be difficult to imagine inorganic materials ever coming up with or even any other religion apart from the Christian one. Yes-I see these things as results of Christian culture. And am grateful for them. Sport is a much better example but I was being a bit playful. Your writing is characterised by an absence of that style.

It's to do with the pleasure/pain principle don't you know? Will it be all work and no play when you silly phuckers take over. Just look at fm's avvie. It's enough to get the lions to run off with their tails between their legs and yelping pitifully. Take a good look. Physiognomically I mean. Uniforms. Authority. Knees Up Mother Brown I don't think.

I thought we all knew how long it had taken life to create my pub. And that couldn't be created efficiently without the economics of scale from having 70,000 pubs and I don't know how many clubs. It was a long time anyway. And it was very (power of N) slow at doing it. It was only when Christians got to work that things got moving and we have hardly got started. My pub is a fantastic object. And I've been in better ones. Seeing it as a wonder of the world is a microcosmic way of seeing the wonder of Western Christianity. And the rest of the world is aching for it.

There's nothing stupider to me than a Muslim who has managed to get here staying a Muslim and what's even stupider is making a big deal out of it.

I have no idea whether "hydrogen reactions can produce light". Or the other way round. I asked you where light came from. Have you forgotten already? I think saying it was POOFED is as good an explanation as any I've seen so far.

When the electron pops off it is popping off some stored energy. It isn't the ultimate source of it.

And to say that you're "not sure" whether I'm interested in this stuff is not only a bit wishy-washy, non-committal I mean, pointless drivel in two words, but also very silly. I know you're not interested in this stuff. I know what you are interested in.

0 Replies

Spendius are you still talking to Mr. Shirakawasuko? If you know what he's interested in - I wish you'd tell me. It seems he's only interested in arguing.

And not all 'girls in the front row' are impressed by vocabulary you know...I think you're as full of assumptions and assertions as anyone else on this thread.

*That thing about farmerman's avatar was funny by the way.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

spendi, Let's face it; you have a comprehension problem in both reading and composition of ideas when you write. I've learned to take it with a grain of humor, and I do enjoy your contributions on these threads, but must warn you that too often your compositions do not make much sense.

Which, as I have explained, is not my problem.

I have read loads of stuff which I didn't comprehend at first glance. Or second and third. Proust is a case in point. Tried it many times. I felt bad at seeing the praises sung of it by critics whose views I respected and me not seeing it. Then a fresh try worked. I had been too impatient before. I had been trying to read it for the wrong reasons. It then became of a sudden miles too short and a whole hot summer went by as if a dream and not as incomprehensible as I had thought. I decided to show them what incomprehensibility looked like in the hands of one of Proust's students. Go one better so to speak. Faustian ambition with all sail crowded on. Just to pass the time I mean. It saves me a lot of money and trouble. It must be very expensive not to say harrowing doing what you do to pass the time.

It is impossible to read that sort of thing fast and but once. The cadences and rhythms only get energised when it flows through the reader's head as it flowed through the writer's. It has to stand in for the absence of gesture in the written word. Conveying an ironic dismissal in words, for example, when a weary wave of the back of the hand flapping loosely on a wrist suffices face to face. Not unfriendly.

The general idea is to bury the sense in such a way that only those who love the play of language ever get to glimpse it. I'm not bothered about the rest. Except when they fly over making all that racket and spewing out shite on their way to whooing and aahing at some ruin somewhere or some sunset worthy of a 12 hour flight and leaving us at the mercy of suicide bombers. For official business I'll allow. Which is all there would be if push comes to shove.

There is not the slightest sign in any of wande's quotes of a practitioner of language play. And barely any in AIDser's posts. Which is revealing.

Science is really the manifestation of the playful curiosity without any aim. A HOBBY-HORSE as Sterne calls it. A scientist doesn't give a damn what the kids are taught. That's career stuff. And by giving that your attention the real scientists you have, and you'll have your share, are discouraged and you end up with committees and meetings and the handful who do the big things are lost to you. Or most of them. Science is being institutionalised and that's a conservative action even if carried out by people who assert they are liberals.

But I do understand c.i.

You have to find my post about the "safest place" incomprehensible. It may not be as necessary to others as to you to do so.

It would mean that a pro-abortionist could not take an evolution class in biology in case some little lad, who watched telly a lot, asked her what was the safest place evolution had provided for a growing embryo to be in, which is a question that might spring into any young lad's mind in this day and age, and any young girl's.

0 Replies

In fact there's a story that a Roman general, marching on Rome with a large army, intending deposing the imposter and setting himself up in his place, started having second thoughts as they came near to the objective. In the tent the night before the last big push he was all a dither as well he might be as he ran through his mind, as one would, all the possible fates that might shortly befall him if the mission failed as they had often been known to do before.

His Mother, who was driving him onwards for obvious reasons to do with settling some old scores and replacing them with others, remarked, out of all patience with him I suppose,---"Do you want to get back in?" and providing an easy route for him to try with a whole body lewd gesture in front of all his senior officers.

That's in the history books. Could an AIDser with a keen interest in history have told the tale as efficiently and stylishly as that and fastened it in the memory so that it is never eradicated. It all ended up as rubble didn't it so the other details are of no importance. The main thing lived on.

Could an AIDser think up the joke in the first sentence?

0 Replies

I got it - ROMAN general- marching on ROME... Laughing

oh never mind - the rest of the sentence makes that not work...hmmm
I'll keep thinking -

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

I got it - ROMAN general- marching on ROME...
oh never mind - the rest of the sentence makes that not work...hmmm
I'll keep thinking -

LOL, me too! Maybe, in the middle of the night, something of value will be revealed from spendi's meanderings.

0 Replies

aidan wrote-

Quote:

The other thing I was wondering is why there is this intense focus on Spendius' drinking.

The idea aidan is to convey that my posts are the incoherent mutterings of a drunken sot and thus unworthy of consideration.

I also suspect a reformed alcoholic or two fighting off temptations.

All I ever get these days is a bit squiffy. Drunk is no good.

Quote:

I think Spendius wants to talk about the pub as a subtopic of evolution in maybe it's more social indicators and revealing truths as they are played out in the pub. I think he wants to talk about male/female interactions beyond those of fruit flies (are those sexless- do I remember THAT much at least from highschool biology)?

If I worked in a mixed office that would come in too. The pub is the only place where I see much of male/female interaction in its rawish state. You couldn't make a situation comedy out of what I do. A documentary is out of the question.

But the idea that I think that male/female interaction is highly relevant to this dispute will have been quite obvious from the very beginning to anyone who has read my posts with attention.

And it is an aspect of this matter that AIDsers go to great lengths to avoid. They even declare that my posts are incomprehensible when they read perfectly clearly to me. It ought to have been obvious when I did the Footballer's Wives posts.

And it's the same with money and the actions it energises.

I cannot imagine discussing social issues without sex and money being on the agenda. Some scientific discussion that is.

So--as I see it, I'm trying to steer the conversation onto the topic and the wheel is being pulled this way and that in directions where the yanker feels he can give himself a subtle makeover sufficient to impress the broad masses very few of whom ever come near a science forum let alone this one.

What sort of music did they play on the IMAX movie?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I have read loads of stuff which I didn't comprehend at first glance. Or second and third. Proust is a case in point. Tried it many times. I felt bad at seeing the praises sung of it by critics whose views I respected and me not seeing it. Then a fresh try worked. I had been too impatient before. I had been trying to read it for the wrong reasons. It then became of a sudden miles too short and a whole hot summer went by as if a dream and not as incomprehensible as I had thought.

At least, this talks to me. It has been part of my experience for a long time now.

I clearly see people struggling in such circumstances..

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

This thread has, prety much, been a discussion of the "merits or shortcomings " of ID (as defined by the very folks who proposed it in its modern context).

It has not.

And that is not the topic either. wande never said anything about definitions by the very folks who proposed it in its modern context. Didn't they say that irreducible complexity was proof of an intelligent designer.

But that doesn't mean anything. Or-- it might mean something you don't expect.

Religion is a social phenomena. Without social phenomena there is no language to make the statement with. The Human Being is the subject in the frame.

ID is composed of religion and science. Anti-ID is composed of just science. I do not see how it would not be totalitarian. And thousands of responses by AIDsers have inchoate totalitarianism character lacking only power to be the Big Fist.

The rest of your post fm is also jibber-jabber.

0 Replies

What kind of music on the IMAX movie - hmmm...you're asking me to remember back like nine or ten months now - we went last August. It was something appropriately magnificent and celestial - maybe the opening them from 2001: A Space Odyssey- but I'm admitting that's just a guess.

The exhibit they had outside the theatre was amazing though. And I think it's permanent- because if I remember correctly- the dates and eras and historical milestones are set into the actual tile of the floor. So you could walk around this circular staircase and read which form of life appeared when...and the thing that really struck me was the fact that man's existence on the earth has been such a minute fraction of the earth's history...and time passes so quickly and our lives are so fleeting...that's why all this argument seems sort of a bit waste of time-

unless of course you were doing it in a pub and getting a little squiffy and making jokes about the various mating rituals going on around you.
That'd be my chosen way to approach the subject.

0 Replies

spendi, I'm sure most of us have come across reading material that was easy to comprehend and others that were difficult. In college, we were required to reread material until we had some semblance of understanding of the material assigned to us by the professor; it was a matter of survival in college. However, in this environment, we are not required to read and reread posts that are difficult to comprehend; it's a waste of time for most of us.

Some of your posts come under the heading of "incomprehensible." I dare say that most of us will not expend much effort in trying to understand what you post, because it's just a waste of our time in cyberworld.

On the lighter side, I enjoy reading what you write that is easy to understand and straigtforward in its message.

You do have a unique writing style which adds to the entertainment value of your posts, and that's most of the time.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I have no huge issues at all. Abortion is absurd. Full stop. The fact that you think that it is sometimes permissable and sometimes not is a literary conceit I cannot find it in me to indulge.

AKA you don't like abortion any time. I've known this for a while and this isn't a new point.

spendius wrote:

And evolutionists, like me, know why it is absurd. Evolutionists like you don't. For subjective reasons which is to say circular.

The fact that you use the word "evolutionist" shows that you're either very naïve or don't actually follow/understand evolutionary theory and are just saying that you do. "Evolutionist" is a buzzword used primarily by creationists to make it seem like listening to and understanding scientific research is faith-based and just another "side" of the issue.

spendius wrote:

Science is not your strong point Mr Shirakawasuna. You only think it is. I would go and argue with people who don't know any better if I was you.

Hahahahaha. Did I hurt your feelings about your writing? I'm only being honest.

spendius wrote:

A naturalistic fallacy seems somewhat illogical to me.

That's why it's a fallacy.

spendius wrote:

Which other fallacies are you claiming I have innacurately implied you subscribe to? I don't remember any.

I left a "would" out of there, I can't remember any other fallacies you've implied that I agree with.

spendius wrote:

I explained earlier that I thought the incomprehsion you have of what I wrote is much more a matter for you than for me.

Uh, no. Ask around. According to ci and the general gist I get from others, they have serious trouble understanding you as well (among other thiings).

spendius wrote:

Otherwise you would be ruling the world surely? If nobody can say anything you don't understand is incomprehensible you have us by the short hairs.

No, you really just don't write well. I'm sorry if you feel the need to get defensive about that, but if I were you I'd start with clipping the run-on sentences until you learn how to properly use commas and clauses.

spendius wrote:

That is unless general incomprehensibiility is advantageous from an evolutionary point of view. To get random mixes I mean.

Refer to what I said earlier about "evolutionist", I think it applies to this as well (in terms of understanding). Evolution isn't entirely random by a long shot.

spendius wrote:

That must be why you are not ruling the world I suppose.

LOL

spendius wrote:

Yeah. I know a bit about them. How did they set this lot going? That's what we want to know. I've seen some of them in tubes and retorts and bottles and jars.

Uh-huh. I offered the correction because you had clearly misinterpreted him, but if you'd like to just ignore that and move on to abiogenesis you go right ahead.

spendius wrote:

I am quite content to allow the viewers of this thread to make their own minds up about ros's education in basic scientific theories.

OK then, let me rephrase: rather than the remark of a Pagan, it's the remark of someone who clearly knows a lot more about science than you do. Happy now?

spendius wrote:

I do think there is a difference between inorganic and organic matter--yes I do--you have me there old chap. I'm not much bothered what such a view is known as and I'm aware that the Materialist Theory of Mind rejects my point of view but I do think there's a difference and not one of degree. Otherwise your posts are congeries of particles and energy transmissions made manifest in marks upon a whitish screen which is easy on the eye.

Welcome to "Vitalism", I recommend you go look it up. I'm not interested in showing you precisely how you're wrong right now and frankly I suspect you simply wouldn't believe me even if I explained it. Find a college chemistry, then organic chemistry, and then biochemistry books.

spendius wrote:

I would feel a bit silly shagging one of them.

How often do you shag your computer screen?

spendius wrote:

I hadn't noticed that you had. But that's my comprehension problem.

Obviously

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know