Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Wolf, That's easier said than done; the biggest problem is that the schools provide the textbooks that will include non-scientific information that students will not know how to challenge.

fm wrote-



You must be kidding fm. Are you really that naive?

Mr ODonnell wrote-



I will agree with that. The amount of time bit I mean.

I presume that "properly trained" means trained in a manner Mr ODonnell approves of.

Pretty much says it all.

Their minds can not be changed, they are solidified.

ros wrote-



I knew you couldn't read properly ros. It says nothing of significance for this debate never mind saying it all. Nothing. Zero. Sweet FA.

It "could" give intelligent design advocates a sinking feeling. It could generate a fee. Probably did.



Explain that for us ros. I think you're taking somebody's word. That's faith.

A flounder is a sole I think and the ones I've seen have an eye on either side. I think they were modern.



That's baby talk for a science thread.



It looks like you still don't know that such expressions are meaningless.



For viewers under 10 that means he had an all expenses trip around the fleshspots of Europe on behalf of the taxpayer.

"Underwhelming" is pretty accurate.

Actually, we call that "calcified."

Or fossilized.

That's very scientific I must say c.i.

You could pull your tongue out at the ones you meet.

I would choose "ossified" ros and ci.

Wagner thought that.

edit

When Pythagoras discovered that the pitch of a note was a function of the length of the string producing it and that the intervals in the scale fit simple numerical ratios it was epoch-making. Science began there.

It was the first known reduction of quality to quantity and the mathematical expression of human feeling.

But the modern mind has justified misgivings regarding the reduction of the world, emotions and experiences into abstract formulae lacking warmth, colour, meaning and value.

The Pythagoreans were persecuted for their beliefs concerning such a sanctity as they found in numbers, (see Spengler), which they thought provided a mutual enrichment between both number and music.

That number is eternal in a entropic universe. And that the religious contemplation of number is the most effective means of purging carnal animality and leads to a link between man and the divine and to modern science.

This sets up the tension between "all is body", the only tenable anti-ID position, backsliders notwithstanding, and "all is mind" which is the mystic position. And also the tension between "substance" and "form", "structure" and "function", "atoms" and "patterns" and "corpuscles" and "waves".

We apply the words "tone" and "tonic" to both music and medicine.

It is thus easy to understand why anti-IDers refuse to discuss social consequences. Their interest is exclusively focussed on substance, structure, atoms and corpuscles and the social organisation is derived from form, function, patterns and waves.

The anti-ID school will only have science lessons. To admit others is a compromise which admits the presence of something else besides science. And once that is admitted the argument is conceded.

What social consequences? The last time I rebutted your statement regarding the social consequences of teaching Evolution in a science class, you stated that the social consequence I was talking about wasn't the one you thought was going to happen.

So tell me, what is the social consequences of teaching science in a science class? What is the social consequence of keeping Intelligent design, a lie that does not concern itself with ethics, a piece of religious propaganda disguised as science, out of a science class?



The anti-ID school will be just like any other school, except it won't have ID in science classes because ID isn't science! It's not even bioethics.

That, IMHAHO, is bullshit after a laxative administration.

I do not claim that it is bullshit after a laxative administation to ensure it doesn't **** right in front of the judges. Only that it is in my opinion.

Others may think what they wish. It's a free country. Opinions abound.

I'll explain why I think that the metaphor of the bullshit caused by the laxative given the bull in its box to purge it so it didn't embarrass the lady judges in the parade ring, or, indeed, any spectators, is a reasonable one when applied to Mr ODonnell's post.

There's a cliche in cricket that when a wicket falls often another one quickly follows it. This is pure semantics because the first wicket has to fall for the second one to be able to fall quickly after it. It's the same with buses coming in twos after a long wait.

You might be thinking all this is pointless, as it may well be, but the origin of life and the origin of science are like the two wickets and the two buses.

Anti-IDers are having a slide down the kiddiwinks slide concentrating on the former and ignoring the latter. This enables them to speculate to their heart's content and, when they get technical, with run on technicalities and jargon thrown in, to pose as responsible and wise citizens and to even come to believe, themselves, that they actually are responsible and wise citizens and fully justified in categorising those who say, "hang on a jiff--won't they purloin all the money?" as dipshits, idiots and superstitious ding-bats.

There's a famous incident here where a local authority had spent so much money on road gritting equipment, offices and staff benefits that they had none left over to purchase any saltsand for gritting the roads with. The citizens ended up having their taxes raised and skidding around their roads on the morning of the first frost of winter. A salutary lesson eh? But the local authority allowed it had a red face. It didn't try to brazen its way out of it as I suspect anti-IDers would if a similar thing happened on a grand scale.

We all know that a monkey can use a stick to get bananas within reach but when they have eaten half a dozen using this clever trick they don't meditate upon what they have done and create the modern science of dynamic force extended infinitely and infinitessimally. They may well learn to do the trick more quickly as they practice but once their belly is full that's it.

It might be that monkeys don't have their heads up their arses as anyone can see from watching them. There were plenty of people in the sixth century before the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said that Pythagoras had his head uo his arse. The anti-IDers of that time mostly.

What about the origin of Western science? Some people see it as the creation of a completely new species.

And if it took an intelligent designer to do that then the earlier stuff is easily explained.

Anti-IDers need to show that this mutation occurred naturally and not from divine inspiration because if they can't their explanations about life's origins and evolution are shot down in flames.

your sources of these idiotic parallels between your world and what you call anti-iders are what spendi? I dont blame the beer cause its late afternoon for you and youre not hammered this early, or are you?.

I was thinking in terms of billions of dollar's worth of medical technology and research facilities and the juice turned off.

It would all be junk wouldn't it? Some of it dangerous junk.

I didn't think there would be a need to explain such a simple and crude analogy. No wonder you don't see through my more subtle ones.

spendi, I think that you are laboring under the misapprehension that you are a "gifted writer". Id like to offer a counter proposal from three or so years of reading your stuff. Its horrible and about as clever as dogshit. You should learn precision and conciseness and eschew all run on sentences and paragraphs because theyre horrible as written. You read like you merely penned your thoughts in one frenzied connected line. You should stop and take a breath, read what youve just written, crash it, then start over and try to keep focused. Too many poor metaphors spoil any pretense of communication. But thats only me, perhaps others get way more out of your contributions than I.

Don't bet on it.