Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

farmerman wrote:

Im sorry, I havent listened to spendi since the second Clinton administration. Many of us here just let him babble. Youve nailed the essence that is spendi however. In your short tenure youve discerned that he makes as much sense as jello with clam sauce. Many of us tried for a few MONTHS to have a discussion with him, only to discover that communication skills arent really high on his list of accomplishments

Hmm, that does seem to be the case :/. Vast arrogance, too. I hate to write people off, though ....

0 Replies

Whoops failed on one of the last spendius/me quotes. Hopefully people figure out that I got the name wrong, etc.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

*Farmerman - I completely disagree with your estimation of Spendius' communication skills (for what it's worth). And I miss his quirky little turns of phrase. I haven't guffawed once in the last three pages.

I still find this rather strange :/. You don't have a much better track record of figuring out what he's saying than we do! Very Happy

Perhaps you should try it in a debate format, you'll soo how well it works when you're trying to find a clear point to agree with or argue against!

0 Replies

Given that this thread is oodles of pages long, I suppose you've all covered the major ID bases? Did anyone provide any attempt at substantiating Dembki's claims? I think they're the most sophisticated of sophistry available in the ID movement, sophisticated enough that if someone cared enough, they could attempt to wage a jargoned-up debate against someone with an accurate understanding of the scientific method.

But I'm always disappointed when I enquire about their understanding. They always attempt a feable appeal to authority where only a handful of ID proponents count to the exclusion of the rest of the mathematical and scientific world.

0 Replies

Could you be more specific S? . I was early annoyed at his terms "specified complexity" , and "complex specified information" .
His circular reasoning may attract some converts but, when closely analyzed, the concepts are circular and without scientific meaning .

Consequently,I havent been keeping up with Billy's speeches and writings. HAs he come up with anything new? Ive been reading some of G.Sewells stuff, its more accessible and he tries to debate in a foksy style. Its not any more insightful, but its fun.

My big concern now is, I just wonder where the Intelligent Design movement is really going from here? They are now , sort of, at their saturation point and are seemingly behind the various state and local efforts to upend standard evolutionary thinking, while still making it appear that they are in general agreement with the tenets of standard science.

WIth Medveds ascension to the DI "senior scholar" position, Id believe that their arguments may take a focused attack to the jugular. However, I dont know.
Has Medved been busy yet?

0 Replies

The Intelligent Design websites have been, for the last 2 or so years, been promising lots of research results and new stuff to bolster their worldview. Im not aware of anything yet, Maybe Ive been too busy but Ive yet to see any of this "proof of design " work. Pwrhaps it was a bit too ambitious :wink:

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

My big concern now is, I just wonder where the Intelligent Design movement is really going from here?

"Academic Freedom" and "Fair and Balanced treatment" seems to be the new milk&honey to get the bitter poison-pill into the education system.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Im sorry, I havent listened to spendi since the second Clinton administration. Many of us here just let him babble. Youve nailed the essence that is spendi however. In your short tenure youve discerned that he makes as much sense as jello with clam sauce. Many of us tried for a few MONTHS to have a discussion with him, only to discover that communication skills arent really high on his list of accomplishments

Quote:

yeh but his last actual contribution <Lemme see here, Ive got it in my notes. YEH, It was March 11th, and that was only because MAthos, recently returned from a neat trip to the far east, had belled him nicely

Quote:

You are easily impressed. I am not.
Spendi has been "found out" in that his lengthy literary diversions are always off topic and hardly witty. Course, Ive been watching him for a bit longer than you so Ive seen all his phrases used Over and Over and Over and Over...

I don't see how any of those three contributions mean anything.

And, considering the first sentence, which is untrue as well, they are stupid.

He says I'm "always" off topic.

I wrote-

Quote:

I don't do ruin and not ruin as two black and whites. There are grades of ruin.

Now, c.i.'s remark about people having their lives ruined forever because of the disgraceful state of the American Catholic Church, which aidan concedes, needed to have something meaningful said about it on behalf of those who are in recovery from limbs being blown off in the service of the nation all of whom I feel quite sure would roll their eyes, or possibly spew up, if they saw it.

I think anybody who doesn't agree with that needs some education. And my remark provides it but I have to admit that if nothing is listened to since the "second Clinton administration" they are not going to benefit from it. Perhaps they don't want to benefit from it for personal reasons. They would rather base their ideas on people claiming their lives have been ruined in order to talk up the compensation and excuse their failures rather than on those who, as young men and women, have no legs, only one arm and are blind and are there in the wards ruined whereas the other notion of "ruin" has been merely asserted probably under the direction of a lawyer who is on a % and has two legs, two arms and can see.

Which seems a bit much to me as an excuse for going all puritanical and judgmental.

What word have you for those in the wards or in wheelchairs when you have used "ruin" up for people who could put their bad experiences behind them if they wished to and those in the wards and wheelchairs who can't.

I think fm is completely and utterly stupid and he has demonstrated that fact in those three quotes. He is not interested in debate. He is only interested in blowing his assertions out all of which are self-flattering.

And it wasn't pointed out that c.i. was off topic, because he's an AIDser, and my reply to c.i. is off topic as it has to be if I'm "always" off topic.

And why does he say "I'm sorry"?

And why does he say that he hasn't listened to me since Mr Clinton left office and then, in the same paragraph, claims-

Quote:

Many of us tried for a few MONTHS to have a discussion with him

?

And Mr Bush was into his second term when I joined A2K.

Same paragraph.

And fm's an educator. A professional one.

I think America has a serious problem with recruitment and training in more areas that the Catholic Church.

Mathos "belled" me did he? That's an attempt to get the serial asserter's wagons in a circle and that's all it is.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
My big concern now is, I just wonder where the Intelligent Design movement is really going from here?

"Academic Freedom" and "Fair and Balanced treatment" seems to be the new milk&honey to get the bitter poison-pill into the education system.

In fact, this is the tactic which is now being touted by the creationist bear-leaders. I believe that a nickel dropped for them somewhere after Dover, and they realized that they have more leverage creating little teapot tempests all over the place, because to fight it, individuals are going to have to sue boards of education, which is going to cost everybody a lot of money, while a body such as the ICR is not out any pocket money, except to the extent that they want to and think they can afford to act in amicus curiae in any given case. Their "pros from Dover" turned out not to be so "pro" in the Dover cause, so i think they'll keep a low profile and stir the turd as much as possible from the sidelines.

0 Replies

Mr S. wrote-

Quote:

I still find this rather strange :/. You don't have a much better track record of figuring out what he's saying than we do!

Perhaps you should try it in a debate format, you'll soo how well it works when you're trying to find a clear point to agree with or argue against!

Why "strange". Is anything you don't agree with or can't understand to be called " rather strange". An odd phrase. But it's a relief to remember that you only "still find" it so because, what with all these people in the world, what you "still find" to be "rather strange" is not worth a blow on a ragman's trumpet unless we assume that what you find rather strange is more important than what anybody else does.

And aidan is one of those people. And "rather strange" does connote with "bad" (NF is back and combined with ad hom.).

All she did was "completely disagree" (a strong phrase when you knock the cliche out of it and respect her integrity).

Why is that "rather strange"?

And how do you know that she doesn't have a much better track record of figuring out what I'm saying than you do? Are you reading her mind.

You might have said that she gives no indication of having a much better track record of figuring out what I'm saying than you do. But even that is an assertion based on your perception of her posts.

She gives more evidence of having an angle on what I'm saying than any of you do. But I can see that because I can read reasonably well.

So your first remark is insulting and arrogant, bullshit as well, and very badly written because it leaves you with the front of your trousers all darkened by a soggy patch about 3ft. from the floral patterned carpet.

I bet she understands that even if you don't.

On your other point you merely demonstrate that your knees are not yet brown from the glow of the A2K radiations. aidan and I have debated many things over the years. We spar. We have sparred and will, I hope, continue to do so. We are playmates on Trivia. I have others too. I'm a cyber Don Juan. A lady once shouted at me that I wouldn't be satisfied until I'd ****ed all the eligible women in the county and, I'm ashamed to say, with hindsight, a few ineligible ones as well: one of which she was.

And there was some truth in it at the time. But, sadly, those days have passed now as I imperceptible move into the golden sunset of my years.

I think we have a vague glimpse that we are examples of our respective gender's unmanageable aspects and that we are into a long range, intermittent head to head on the matter. A private conversation held in public and rendered private by its inscrutabity to others and having no clear point to agree with or argue against. She's pretty authentic.

It's what literature is about. Literature isn't about anything else. The American male has derived his sense of machismo from literature and its offshoots and that is what has given him the power to command and trample on the rights of women.

0 Replies

Mr S. wrote-

Quote:

Given that this thread is oodles of pages long, I suppose you've all covered the major ID bases? Did anyone provide any attempt at substantiating Dembki's claims? I think they're the most sophisticated of sophistry available in the ID movement, sophisticated enough that if someone cared enough, they could attempt to wage a jargoned-up debate against someone with an accurate understanding of the scientific method.

I didn't provide any attempt at substantiating Dembki's claims but don't let that stop you keep going on about him on the occasions you care enough to do so even though you have just explained that it's a waste of time. He is a name for you to get out to stand a rant up on its hindlegs upon. An easy to do one I mean. One that looks good to the casual reader but means sweet f.a. under scrutiny and the dinner-party jargon has been simplified.

Where's the soda syphon Alice?

0 Replies

What does Dembski claim anyway?

That must be on topic.

0 Replies

On reflection it struck me that there was a way of connecting up that fm hadn't listened to me since he got that ugly dog of his and then him saying, "Many of us tried for a few MONTHS to have a discussion with him."

It is that fm's definition of "discussion" doesn't include listening to what others are saying. It's self-explanatory.

It would be an indulgence on my part to think it is only me this applies to.

0 Replies

[/quote]

spendius wrote:

One might be "celibate" from jam roly-poly with creamy runny custard, Or pints of beer, Or fags. Or lying in bed until the sun passes its zenith.

Are you suggesting that they would lead to pathological mental states?

Yes! If those are the things you desire that give your life comfort and some sort of contextual relief from the stresses that are particular to your existence. You know - everyone has something or some things that they can't live without (aside from that which physically sustains them).

The things I quoted were items of sustenance and pleasure. They were examples of things physically sustaining. What have you in mind aside from such things to provide life with comfort and some sort of contextual relief which if gone "celibate" on would cause pathological problems?

Is that what "shopaholic" means?

Quote:

Quote:
I do see your point though. Bit subjective isn't it? It leaves us men at your disposal or having to accept that they are psychopaths doesn't it?

Works the same for women - buddy.

Yeah---I know. I wouldn't have it otherwise.

Quote:

Quote:
What's a psychopath?

What do YOU think a psychopath is?

I've no idea really. I know it's a label with a range of flavours.

0 Replies

OKLAHOMA UPDATE

Quote:

Bill would ultimately harm education
(By Dustin Hughes, Managing Editor, Sand Springs Leader, June 4, 2008)

Every once in a while, when you think something's about to die, it just pops right back up again. Bell bottoms, big giant sunglasses, reality shows, the New Kids on the Block. Things you think you're finished with, for the better, and *BAM* they smack you in the face.

State Rep. Sally Kern's bizarre right-wing agenda is another thing I thought was gone and done. Kern, you'll recall, was the "gays worse than terrorists" person who made national headlines. Anyway, she popped back up again last month.

Kern wrote some legislation for House Bill 2633, which would create the Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act. The bill passed the House in May, and is on Gov. Brad Henry's desk awaiting action.

One passage in the bill reads:

"Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district. Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work."

OK, it sounds harmless enough. We're all in favor of religious freedom, and I don't think that anyone should be discriminated against for their faith.

But there are consequences that could affect the quality of a child's education here, consequences Kern, no doubt, is fully aware of, and intended.

At the core, the bill is an attempt to introduce intelligent design theory into the classroom.

Intelligent design, or ID, is another of those things you keep expecting to die, but it never does. Trying to hide under something scientific-sounding, ID is the latest tactic hardcore creationists are using to bring religion into the classroom.

Periodically, the nation will see someone take umbrage at evolution, and do what they can to deny it.

Lately, comedian / commentator / the "Beuller, Beuller, Beuller" guy Ben Stein has made waves nationally with his film "Expelled."

According to the film's official web site (I haven't seen it -- actually I hadn't been in a movie theater since the last "Star Wars" flick), "Expelled" follows Stein on a quest, after "Ben realizes that he has been "Expelled," and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired - for the "crime" of merely believing that there might be evidence of "design" in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance."

There was a letter to the editor praising "Expelled." It drew several comments (interestingly, and for reasons I can't figure, all from out-of-state) criticizing the letter's author, and one praising the movie. Obviously, evolution in schools is a subject much on people's minds.

So what's this got to do with Kern's bill, and why is the bill harmful to education?

Well, imagine little Johnny's taking a test over one of any subject.

Geology question: "Explain what processes, taking millions of years, led to the formation of the Grand Canyon."

Answer: "It was made that way in one day. It only looks old."

Literature question: "What led to MacBeth's demise?"

Answer: "I didn't read it. The play has witches in it, and I don't believe in witchcraft."

Science question: "What forces caused the ostrich to evolve into its current, flightless form?"

Answer: "You cruising for a lawsuit there, teacher?"

All the answers would show a complete lack of comprehension of anything in the school curriculum. And, under Kern's bill, they all would be "correct," and there's no way a teacher could effectively correct their student.

And that's doing the student a great disservice. It's not discriminatory to students to expect them to grasp the core concepts of biology or geology. They can leave the spiritual stuff to home and church life. Getting the government involved, especially through the education system is just a bad idea.

The ID movement's backers seek to knock down evolution in the classroom just because they don't like what they think it implies. Unfortunately for them, the science on it is solid, no matter what spiritual or moral ramifications that gives someone.

Hey, I have serious moral issues with the nuclear bomb, but that doesn't mean the theory of atomic fusion is invalid.

Personally, I don't have any problem believing in a loving God, while at the same time accepting that the earth is billions of years old, and that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on our planet. There need not be a schism.

But that's just me: each student will be different, but they still need to be able to keep up with the rest of the nation, and the world, when it comes to academics.

Kern's bill would sweep the legs out from under the teachers who are trying to teach their students to succeed.

0 Replies

Quote:

"Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district. Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work."

Well, I think the author's take on what will happen in most classrooms is a little overwrought and simplistic.

If the test is on MacBeth and Johnny didn't read it - that would have had to have been decided upon (that he didn't have to read it because it interfered with his religious beliefs) long before any test was given.

And at the point that the test is handed out - the teacher should say (and put in writing to cover his/her ass) this is an objective test given to determine that you have read and understand the basic concepts and themes covered in MacBeth by William Shakespeare.

Or you could ask the student to compare and/or contrast their vision of Macbeth and his circumstances with whichever critique or literary synopsis was introduced in class- this would ascertain that the student had indeed read what was asked, had digested the material the teacher had given - and then was left room to insert his or her own thoughts.

Either of those methods don't really leave room for the student to disregard the role of the witch-sisters- it only leaves room for him to write his interpretation-if there's a subjective essay portion to the test- which may well include some religious references - I myself can think of several ways in which those characters could allude or relate to religious ideology. That's not preaching - that's just looking at the Bible as literature in much the same way Shakespeare is literature.
Everyone doesn't always see/read things the same. It's always much more interesting to me to read different viewpoints which come from different lives and experiences rather than read whatever I've said regurgitated to me on paper after paper after paper.
It just means they've thought about the question and applied it to their own lives - which is what we WANT them to do - right?

In terms of geology or other science based information - you just say - remark and report upon the information you were given in class. Whether you believe this information is true or false has no bearing on whether or not you have learned and retained the information that is the basis of this class. You will be graded accordingly.

Most highschool science teachers give objective tests.

If a kid or his or her parents has rejected the entire curriculum - there's a good chance that child is being educated somewhere else anyway.

Spendius - I got your reference (the wet spot on the pants).
But what I don't understand is what the big problem is. First I thought I heard - 'this thread is whatever it is'. But then I hear 'but we don't want you to talk about this or that...and not only that - but whatever you talk about - you should talk about it in the method we recognize (debate) which by the way I think I do...I just watched the Great Debators (with Denzel Washington) and those people didn't dissect everyone's statements line by line and tell why each sentence was wrong and what was wrong about it and comment on how it was stated with names for the fallacies and everything.
They just made their own statements and let them stand on their own merit.

0 Replies

Aidan,

I am curious whether you think the proposed legislation is actually needed. Do you think students are facing discrimination from their schools or teachers because of their religion?

(The author of the opinion essay seems to think there are hidden motives behind the proposed legislation. When proposed legislation addresses a problem that does not actually exist, some of us suspect a hidden motive such as introducing religious viewpoints into science class.)

0 Replies

In case anybody is wondering how to answer a question asking what forces caused the ostrich to evolve into its current, flightless form the correct answer is that nobody really knows for sure and that the scientific explanation is so complex, involving as it does a myriad of sexual selection procedures, geographical and possibly astrological happenings occuring over unimaginable periods of time, that not only is there no room on the exam paper to even provide an explanation of it but there is not enough time allowed to manage it and if there was the examiner is not qualified, nor would have the patience, to take a judgment on it besides which this school hasn't the teachers to provide such a glimpse over and above the absurd simplicities and teleologies which are all they know as they are only here for the money and the paltry social cachet and only a complete bloody idiot could possibly think otherwise.

If anybody gives you less than A+ for that you should call a lawyer because the answer clearly shows a budding man of science in his late adolescent manifestations.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Could you be more specific S? . I was early annoyed at his terms "specified complexity" , and "complex specified information" .

His circular reasoning may attract some converts but, when closely analyzed, the concepts are circular and without scientific meaning .

When closely analyzed, they turn out to be fluff and unsupported assertion Very Happy

. I suppose simply saying things to be so counts as a bit circular implicitly, but in my understanding specified complexity isn't necessarily circular. If we do actually attempt to figure out what the heck he's arguing and use explicit and quite common concepts of information, though, it turns out that "specificity" and "complexity" are mutually exclusive (check out Jeffrey Shallit or Mark Chu-Carrol's responses. They're decent writers).

I suppose I'm asking if anyone made an attempt beyond repeating a couple of Dembski's claims or appealing to his authority. Whenever I talk with ID types, they never seem to have attempted any research but instead glommed onto an idea they found appealing for various reasons, then started playing the rationalization game.

farmerman wrote:

Consequently,I havent been keeping up with Billy's speeches and writings. HAs he come up with anything new? Ive been reading some of G.Sewells stuff, its more accessible and he tries to debate in a foksy style. Its not any more insightful, but its fun.

Nah, he hasn't come up with anything, really. Mostly just making a fool out of himself in various venues, usually his blog.

farmerman wrote:

My big concern now is, I just wonder where the Intelligent Design movement is really going from here? They are now , sort of, at their saturation point and are seemingly behind the various state and local efforts to upend standard evolutionary thinking, while still making it appear that they are in general agreement with the tenets of standard science.

"Strengths and weaknesses". Right now they're just continuing what they've always done, which is advocate directly to legislatures and teachers. They've been concentrating on these less-open methods, likely because they have some nasty PR right now. They seem to be in a decline, although you can never underestimate the power of liars and ignorance :/.

farmerman wrote:

WIth Medveds ascension to the DI "senior scholar" position, Id believe that their arguments may take a focused attack to the jugular. However, I dont know.
Has Medved been busy yet?

He's been hilarious Very Happy

. Search for "medved" on Pharyngula. We can see how sloppy the DI is just by admitting him as a fellow - they're alternatingly sneaky and utterly incompetent. The former usually superficially (which tends to fool some social conservative legislators) and the latter most of the time.

The "Biologic Institute", which in my general area, released a short statement. I'm guessing they just want to increase buzz and create general ideas of them actually doing something - if you search for it on the Richard Dawkins forums I went through every paper they list as supporting ID. It's just as pitiful as the DI's list, which is predictable. There really haven't been any substantive developments.

0 Replies

Quote:

the teacher should say (and put in writing to cover his/her ass) this is an objective test given to determine that you have read and understand the basic concepts and themes covered in MacBeth by William Shakespeare.

Which, of course, is a joke. (And it is Macbeth here).

Quote:

MACBETH: How now, you secret, black, and midnight hags!
What i'st you do?
WITCHES: A deed without a name.

Quote:

The wierd sisters, hand in hand,
Posters of the sea and land,
Thus do go about, about.

Quote:

If you can look into the seeds of time,
And say which grain will grow and which will not,
Speak then to me, who neither beg nor fear
Your favours nor your hate.

Quote:

Or have we eaten on the insane root
Which takes the reason prisoner.

Quote:

What! can the devil speak true?

Quote:

We but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return,
To plague the inventor.

Quote:

I dare do all that may become a man;
Who dares do more is none.

Quote:

All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.

Quote:

The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon!
Where gott'st thou that goose look!

The basic concept was making the Globe pay.

The next one is making money out of talking about the concepts and themes from a certain point of view with only a very sketchy skim through the text and some ideas from some books which are themselves similar in intention. Which is not quite the same thing as teasing out the meanings themselves. That's just talking about doing.

Men are putty in the hands of women is I suppose one idea that might be pursued with possible advantage. The folly of ambition is another which might not go down to well with pushy parents.

Do you "Major" in English Literature if you provide answers the teacher approves of?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know