Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendius wrote:

[to farmerman]You're just flinging **** because you feel you're losing the argument.

Bwahahaha, what argument? You can barely stay on a single topic for more than a couple posts. How about we go into the actual topic of this thread.

spendius wrote:

You are talking ancient Greek science with instruments invented by our Christian science.

LOL, spendi thinks he knows something about science.

You know, I'd give you less abuse if you acted half-decently.

0 Replies

You don't know what abuse is pal. Mugabe does abuse. Feel free to flail your tantrums all you wish. It makes no difference to me.

Full Metal Jacket was done by luvvie actors who probably use underarm deodorent and floral douches. I've had the real thing.

Why don't you do some science. I've not seen any yet.

You still haven't explained Dumbski's claims. All you've done is name drop. It looks like you don't know.

And the NF is a bit more than your explanation which is itself but simple common sense to an atheist. There's no such thing as good or bad to an atheist. There's only pleasure/unpleasure like animals go by.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

There's no such thing as good or bad to an atheist. There's only pleasure/unpleasure like animals go by.

What about agnostics, Spendi? Can they have several girlfriends?

0 Replies

Here is another opinion essay on the proposed legislation in Oklahoma:

Quote:

0 Replies

Oklahoma's HB2633 was received in the Governor's office on May 19, 2008. To date, the Governor has taken no action. The due date for his action is June 7, 2008 (tomorrow). The bill can be tracked on this link:

Oklahoma Governor Bill Tracking Web Page

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Here is another opinion essay on the proposed legislation in Oklahoma:

Quote:

(by P.Z. Myers, ScienceBlogs.com, May 13, 2008)

A controversial provision in House Bill 2633 states that "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."

There's a difference between expressing your beliefs, and demonstrating an understanding of the coursework.

I suspect they are already allowed to express their religious beliefs, but they are simply considered irrelevant to the coursework (unless it's a course in religion).

0 Replies

I presume everyone noticed that my 4.48 pm post could not have been a response to aidan's 4.47 pm. post.

0 Replies

Breaking News Direct From Oklahoma Governor's Website:

Quote:

This is to advise you that on this date, pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 11 and 12 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution to approve or object to legislation presented to me, I have VETOED House Bill 2633. Under current state and federal law, Oklahoma public school students are already allowed to express their faith through voluntary prayer and other activities. While well intended, this legislation is vaguely written and may trigger a number of unintended consequences that actually impede rather than enhance such expression. For example, under this legislation, schools could be forced to provide equal time to fringe organizations that masquerade as religions and advocate behaviors, such as drug use or hate speech, that are dangerous or offensive to students and the general public. Additionally, the bill would presumably require school officials to determine what constitutes legitimate religious expression, subjecting them to an explosion of costly and protracted litigation that would have to be defended at taxpayers? expense.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Breaking News Direct From Oklahoma Governor's Website:

Quote:
This is to advise you that on this date, pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 11 and 12 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution to approve or object to legislation presented to me, I have VETOED House Bill 2633. Under current state and federal law, Oklahoma public school students are already allowed to express their faith through voluntary prayer and other activities. While well intended, this legislation is vaguely written and may trigger a number of unintended consequences that actually impede rather than enhance such expression. For example, under this legislation, schools could be forced to provide equal time to fringe organizations that masquerade as religions and advocate behaviors, such as drug use or hate speech, that are dangerous or offensive to students and the general public. Additionally, the bill would presumably require school officials to determine what constitutes legitimate religious expression, subjecting them to an explosion of costly and protracted litigation that would have to be defended at taxpayers? expense.

Excellent find. Excellent reasoning IMO.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Thanks, TKO.

This is another example of proposed legislation that addresses a non-existent problem. I am happy that the governor was not fooled.

0 Replies

I'll get round to Francis's fascinating question when I get into the groove with this-

Mr S. wrote-

Quote:

Most classes don't seem to even teach evolution besides a very basic overview, likely extremely oversimplified.

I think we all know that. wande's quotes are sufficient to disabuse even the most devout pedagouge that it could be otherwise. The leading lights can hardly read and write.

Quote:

As for biological work, it depends on how inclusive we are getting. It isn't absolutely necessary for someting like biochemistry, but it tends to enrich it and help people understand relationships even on that level. For other parts of biology, it is the subject matter itself.

It is self evidently the subject matter for the other parts of biology where it is the subject matter.

Quote:

What is the 'it' which is proposed? Teaching evolution or something else?

The former. I thought it followed from the previous paragraph.

Quote:

And social activity in Montana? What are you referring to, exactly?

Oh---ya know-- rural goings on. I meant in the wide open spaces where the turd pipe from the upper fifty stories doesn't run just on the other side of the avant garde wallpaper on the the plaster board behind the bed-head and no spiced hot fat stench pervading every nook and cranny.

But I've only seen Montana in films.

Quote:

Montana has quite good education standards, actually, and is rather practically-minded (rather than "hick"-ish).

I'm sure it has and is. Most things these days are "quite good". Like most things also that are "quite good", it, Montana education if you've forgotten, has been intelligently designed. A race of men who arrange things to be "quite good" can be expected to think up an intelligent designer for a Creator unless they believe there's no creator. An act of faith. Put two in a room and you have a religion.

This race of men have in their hand, in the deck chair, at the village cricket match on a hot afternoon when the bees can be heard hovering around the honeysuckle, a very cold can of John Smith's Extra Smooth which a cream and peaches English Rose, one who knows on which side her bread is buttered, in a fresh, floral print frock with white buttons up the front, or of a light pastel shade, the top three having somehow come undone, has poutingly delivered personally (you can switch those three about as takes your fancy your worships) from the back seat bar in the Roller, with an easy to pull opener and a widget inside you can shake to keep it, the beer inside the can I mean, frothy, like it is in the pub all the way to the bottom.

How could a man in such a position think that happened randomly and had not been intelligently designed.

You do know don't you that Robert Mugabe is an atheist who thought it possible to dispense with bishops and stuff. Inflation at 2 million percent,which then makes necessary his policies. If creationists are causing US science to take a nose-dive one can as easily say that atheists cause 2 million % inflation. I'll take the nose-dive.

[/quote]It isn't as if the Biologic people have a monopoly on silliness. [/quote]

It certainly isn't. Not by a long chalk

Quote:

Of course you're probably trying to imply that more legitimate scientific work compares to writing a computer program to compare 2D projections of abstracted 3D molecules to various Chinese characters and imply design and "specification". LOL.

I would have a go at defending that proposition if the money was right. I'd need a research assistant of course. Francis might have one whose at a loose end.

Quote:

The NCSE takes a rather neutral approach to religion and tends to argue the science aspects. They are criticized for it by more 'militant' atheists . Your listing of the ACLU is just hilarious, though, as they often represent 'conservatives' and religious people, always concerning civil liberties.

I know who they represent.

Quote:

I think you have a funny idea about the prevalence of individuals involved in agriculture in the U.S. Even in the rural states agribusiness is the norm and much of the population is city/service-oriented. But hey, have fun with another one of your rationalizations that you treat as accurate .

That may be so but the real point is the drift of city values into the countryside mainly through national media outlets which are megalopolitan through and through even in nature programmes. A city person does things for a purpose and he is easily persuaded that a dung beetle pushing a ball of dried **** uphill has a purpose as well. Which it obviously hasn't.

Quote:

City people want it all to go their way and they are completely dependent on food none of which they produce themselves.

Yeah, those city-slickin' bastards! How dare they live in cities! Next thing you know they'll be providing the R&D, services, and economic strength which provides those "farmers" with a high quality of life.

I said nothing about mutual dependence. I was talking of pushing viewpoints from an environment where they are popular to a different environment where they are not.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

This is another example of proposed legislation that addresses a non-existent problem. I am happy that the governor was not fooled.

Can the Governor veto any bill passed in the house? I know the word "Governor" implies that but can he actually do that anytime?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

wande wrote-

Quote:
This is another example of proposed legislation that addresses a non-existent problem. I am happy that the governor was not fooled.

Can the Governor veto any bill passed in the house? I know the word "Governor" implies that but can he actually do that anytime?

I believe that in most states, governors have the right to veto any bill -- after the veto, the bill is returned to legislature -- but at that point, two-thirds of the legislators must approve "over-ride" of the governor's veto.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Thanks, TKO.

This is another example of proposed legislation that addresses a non-existent problem. I am happy that the governor was not fooled.

But it's unfortunate that the governor didn't simply cite support for the first amendment of the constitution in his reasoning.

Rather than simply observe that the legislation was an obvious attempt to push religion into public school he chose instead: "For example, under this legislation, schools could be forced to provide equal time to fringe organizations that masquerade as religions and advocate behaviors, such as drug use or hate speech, that are dangerous or offensive to students and the general public. Additionally, the bill would presumably require school officials to determine what constitutes legitimate religious expression, subjecting them to an explosion of costly and protracted litigation that would have to be defended at taxpayers expense."

We shouldn't need "other" excuses to defend the constitution. We should simply defend it directly. Sidestepping the core of these pieces of evangelical legislation simply invites future occurrences.

0 Replies

Well, i suppose that Oklahoma, as is the case with most states, requires a two thirds vote for an over-ride of the veto (i'll go check here in a minute)--but the important part of the Governor's action was tha she made a public statement about why she did it, and the reasoning of her position was to appeal to the pragmatic sense of the citizens. Mr. and Mrs. Frontporch will more readily appreciate (are are likely to more readily agree with) an argument founded on the potential for costly litigation than an abstract argument about constitutional principles. Anyone attempting to organize and over-ride of this veto will have to answer this cogent objection, and will be denied the ease of countering an abstract argument about constitutional principles.

0 Replies

This is very interesting--in Oklahoma, it takes a two thirds vote of the membership of both houses to over-ride a veto, not a two thirds vote of a quorum. This isn't something they can accomplish by waiting for the weekend recess, and then hurrying through a vote when they've got a bare quorum.

The Governor has five days to sign a bill or veto it, at which point it is automatically law. As i said, they move things right along.

0 Replies

Francis wrote-

Quote:

What about agnostics, Spendi? Can they have several girlfriends?

First of all I can't see any point in being agnostic. Who, in his right mind, is not going to convert on his deathbed when it is a bet to nothing. Didn't Voltaire famously do it? Last rites and all that jazz. So an agnostic is a temporary atheist with a fall-back position in reserve. Hobson's choice.

And temporary atheists can therefore have as many girlfriends, either serially or in clumps and clusters, as they can impress sufficiently with their mating dance and courtship rituals.

It makes no difference if the acceptance by the female is biological, psychosomalogical--that's a mixture--or strictly business. By biological I mean when she grabs you in the solvent store and starts tearing at your clothes. Psychosomalogical is when there's some piss-balling about and everybody knows what strictly business means.

In fact, claiming girlfriends successfully is a sign of being an alpha male (see Norman Mailer) from an evolutionary point of view. fm will confirm that I think. Much of what is strictly business can be subsumed in the other categories with some fancy footwork.

Obviously these powerful and complex forces cannot be allowed to operate freely if a civilised society is to develop, be maintained and prosper and therefore distortions of them are necessary. Freud was well aware of that.

These distortions are clearly unscientific and thus scientific arguments to remove them are arguments for returning to the general promiscuity which must result from female approval being the decisive factor.

Divorce and adultery are obviously going to increase in a society drifting into a scientific consensus which, when fully realised, can only result in general chaos or the sort of situation Huxley tried to describe in Brave New World which one might say was male chauvinism in scientific terms and all distortions removed. The main ones anyway. Not the ones Huxley was carrying in his sub-conscious.

One day I suppose sombody will revise Darwin and place man into the scheme of things. Darwin's evident insistence on rigorously excluding man from his observations shows, I think, that he saw man as not an animal.

I am aware that some cynics claim, as they do with David Attenborough, that the subject actually is man all the way through and the other creatures are in the way of being cartoon characters. 5 years on the Beagle at that age, after a time at Oxford, with only an artist's drawings and the flora and fauna for inspiration is a sufficient explanation for the cynicism once you see Darwin, first and foremost, as a bloke much like oneself rather than as a name to drop in impolite company.

The Proctors at that time in Oxford had the power to actually imprison young ladies who came in from the countryside, to try their chances with the nation's brightest and best at such a vulnerable stage in their innocent lives, who overstepped the mark of the informally arranged gentlemen's agreements as to what was acceptable and what was not.

So you can have as many girl friends as you can persuade to let you get across them anyway you can that is not disallowed by the regulations.

I think that would be the agnostic position and I feel sure Harriet Martineau would not only agree with it but approve of it also.

0 Replies

See, guys, you cannot say Spendi doesn't make sense.. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Francis, Since you seem to understand spendi's last post, can you summarize it for us neophytes?

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

But it's unfortunate that the governor didn't simply cite support for the first amendment of the constitution in his reasoning.

I don't think "unfortunate" is appropriate here.

The spiel the G put out had obviously been written by bureaucrats. There is not the slightest chance that they "unfortunately" overlooked the faotC.

ros must think he was the only one who remembered the faotC which is quite normal for AIDsers. They think everbody else is stupid you see.

They had given it the go-by on account of it's loose wording and the possible legal challenges that could be mounted in its name.

But, and I rely on memory only, the Senate was 48--0 and the other House was seventy odd--twenty odd.

Can the G strike that down? With the stroke of a pen?

Blimey!! Isn't that a King?

Suppose the Senate voted 48--0 and the House voted 100-- 0 to shove Darwin into classrooms and a fundie G vetoed it.

You lot would be running around like a puppy with a splinter in its paw.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know