So how do you explain all the major scientific achievements coming in a world of religious fervour?
I still think there is a confusion between science and technology.How would you distinguish between the two terms.
ID is a fall-back answer for everything science has not yet provided. It may be that science will never answer the origin of this planet, but ID is strictly a religious idea - not sicence. With this planet being several billions of years old, and science and technology being contemporary principles, it's not surprising that the origins of this planet and the galaxies are unknown. ID is a cop-out response.
That is a cop out response too.
We know all that c.i.
Address the social functions argument.It is the only one of any significance and is what a court will adjudicate on.
A black and white argument can only result in a black or white verdict and that isn't going to happen.
You can't adjudicate religious belief.
Obviously.If you tried to do you would be admitting its possibilities.
It is not the beliefs.It is the social effects of them.
Even if the SD side won hands down you would need thought police to enforce the law.And half the libraries and film archives and much else would have to be cleared out.Children don't just learn in school.
The "is"/"no it isn't"shouting match is ridiculous.And that is being polite.
Your post doesn't provide anything significant, so why do you bother?
You're never "polite" in your attacks just because you dont understand them. You are a ridiculous individual that has nothing but acrimony against people you don't even know.
If you enjoy "fighting" on the net, go find somebody else. Your bully tactics will be ignored from today.
Spendius has made an important point about "social reality" even if his style tends to be overtly abrasive.
When rosborne redirects our attention to the question "science" OR "religion" a reasonable answer would be to evaluate both terms with respect to their "social functionality", but there is a reluctance to do this because of the perceived elevated positions or mystique ascribed to each. Most would like to believe that "scientific progress" transcends social relationships but the history of scientific funding tends to be closely linked to military and economic competition. Similarly an atheist take on "organized religion" would demote it to the level of psychological security of a "social self" or a rationale to justify our tendencies towards tribalism/nationalism.
As for attempts to desocialize the concepts of "design" and "intelligence" per se these appear to me to be at best anthropomorphic projections by homo sapiens onto his idiosphere (the mental world he constructs according to the limits of his species specific interactional dynamics with his environment) And to those who would argue for an "objective reality".... that we merely "study"....I challenge them to account for for the concept of "purpose" when "science" now sees "time" as a psychological construct. It is this point that causes me to shake my head in disbelief when I read of the so-called "ID debate" in the US !
Thanks fresco.I wouldn't be so unpopular if I could phrase it like that.
From today's newstatesman magazine
by Nick Wapshott
"Intelligent desing may no tseem persualsive or plausible but it is hugely popular among God Fearring Americans. According to Gallup nearly half of all Americans believe "God created man pretty much in his present form within the last 10,000 years"., while 38 % siad that though evolution played its part, God none the less took a hand in the process. Only 13% of Americans believe God had no part in the evolution or creation of humans.
There is no clearer evidence of the divide between Americans and Europeans than the difference in their attitudes towards science and religion. According to a Northwest University study, more than 60% of those livin in Austria Britain Germany Italy and the Netherlands and Spain and more than 75% in Denmark and France believe evolution is "definitely" or "probably" true.
....The Harrisburg verdicet will reverberate across the US givng a heads-up to the 28 states planning to introduce the teaching of rival theories to evolution. Parents in Sacramento , California will also take note. They are claiming in a US district court that they were denied their civil rights when their school district refused their request to teach an alternative to evolution. Until the Supreme Court eventually comes to decide the matter, the spirit of the irrational will continue to run riot in biology classes across America."
wande-
I have been on ydr.com and read the lot.It looks to me that it will go to the Supreme Court.
I have no view either way as I have made plain more than once.I think that the parents taking the action are basically troublemakers.They seem to want to run the school.I feel sorry for their children.
If I was working for them,which I could easily do,I would ask c.i. to keep quiet as I would see his contributions as discrediting the whole position.He takes advantage of immunity from cross examination and his most recent post is the authentic voice of the Commissar of What We Say Goes.Counsel for the school board would shred him if he were to take the stand.He seems to think that an argument that has been raging for hundreds of years and especially fiercly since Origin was published in 1859 can be sorted out on his keyboard with a little help from a red mist.
Prof O'Hear states in The Oxford Companion To Philosophy-"The absence of teleological explanation means that it (Darwinism) cannot be applied directly to developments in human society or culture."
And a school board is dealing with human society and culture.
A strict evolutionary view has no alternative but to leave victims of accidents and illnesses to their fate.
And science is strict.Once you cease to be strict you are in a compromise of a moral or political nature and your scientism goes out of the window.
Thus,a strict evolutionary scientist is calling into question democracy itself.He must be in favour of weeding out the unfit.He was symbolised by Dr Strangelove,Daleks,Spock et al.
No wonder fresco's head is shaking in disbelief.The big laugh is that evolutionary theory has no place for lawyers,the law or concerned Mums and Dads.It is red in tooth and claw.
Spendius,
I've no interest in reading "the case", but presumably it resembles the trial of Alice in Wonderland ! How any respectable academic could lower himself to take part in the proceedings beats me !
.....for some reason I'm reminded of the Judge's summing up in the Lady Chatterly trial..."Members of the jury, would you be happy if your wives or servants read this book".....which tells us more about the then state of social reality than the text under discussion .....and no doubt similar comments will be made when people look back at this current nonsense in a few years time (or perhaps that is too much to hope).
fresco-
I think it will still be in full swing in a few years time due to lawyers being addicted to a constant supply of fees coupled with a dramatic platform on which to make speeches and provide them with many opportunities to see their name in the press and appear on television.By then,of course,the children in the current case will be chasing each other through the bushes having got out from under this load of freeloaders.
Does "associate professor" mean "supply teacher"?
Have you read Veblen's The Higher Learning In America?
spendius wrote:I have no view either way as I have made plain more than once.I think that the parents taking the action are basically troublemakers.They seem to want to run the school.I feel sorry for their children.
In the United States, parents are encouraged to be involved in their children's education. Parents, not public schools, have the authority to decide where and how their children learn about religion. In the Dover case, it was the school board that usurped the rights of parents. The parents did the right thing.
wande-
You will have to explain that for me.
spendius,
I may have misunderstood you, but I felt you were saying it was wrong for the parents to interfere with the school board's decision.
wande-
first time I viewed post 1620502 there was only the quote.Now I see you have posted some stuff it's okay.
Have we a clear picture of what "parents" means.Is it all the parents or just those taking the board to task?It does make a difference.
spendius,
The Dover case is an isolated case. The Dover school board did something no other school board ever did. A group of concerned parents decided to challenge the Dover board in court. Those parents feel that their right to determine how and where their children learn about religion was usurped by the Dover school board.
wande-
Yes-I've managed to understand that already.How many children attend the school/s under the Dover board's authority and how many children are there involved in the action?
spendius,
I am not sure what you are asking. The parents who did decide to take action are protecting their rights.
