Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@spendius,

Spendius wrote:

Quote:

That's too ambiguous to comment on Frank.
Is it an objection to my point or a validation of it?
How long a period is "some time". Colloquially the expression usually is taken to mean some considerable period of time and you have only returned here recently. But I accept it might mean just since then. 6 days ago. Hardly "some time".
Thanking me is either sarcastic or genuine depending on which interpretation I think to use.

That was an exceptionally poor response, Spendius. Not up to your usual level of evasiveness.

My point was: By saying (which you did) “Hence teaching it will invalidate social contracts. That's been my main point for four years. And you anti-IDers are not near ready for that and hence you are half-baked and intend cheating the kids in order to promote some interest of your own.”…

…you are acting in a way that the illustrates the reason the adage “The Pot calling the Kettle Black” was invented.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Well--I don't see what you mean.

How can a social contract sit next to evolution science when the latter has no social contract in its existence unless you want to discuss social evolution which none of the anti-IDers do.

Any social contract is contra evolution and is specifically designed to countermand evolution's exigencies. It would have no point otherwise.

I have not advocated teaching anything other than what the majority of parents want, what the elected and appointed school boards want and what the elected governments of states want. Whatever it is.

And I don't accept that I have been evasive or half-baked on the evidence of your assertions. Nor do I accept that I provided an "exceptionally poor response" on similar evidence.

I couldn't answer your post because it was ambiguous by which I mean it could be read in more than one way.

Sarcasm is always evasive if tone of voice or gesture are not there to witness.

It's a way of saying things both ways without those.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Regarding pregnancies: one of the first things that happen when women have the choice: I.e contraception becomes an option is the birth rate plummets.
Contraception as we know it was invented in revolutionary France around 1800. It is why condoms are called French letters. The birth rate halved in a decade.
Women given the choice do not do the push -----painful bit. They opt for Caesarians.

Americans do not understand that ID is stupid. In Europe it is ridiculed. Only in America (24th place) in world league table for teaching science is such balderdash even considered.
Only stupid people believe in ID, luckily there are loads of them in the US.
P.S. I bet the guy who described pregnancy as a "bit difficult" is single.

2 Replies

@Fountofwisdom,

With all due respect Fountie it might be better if you read the thread.

And you might consider also that your assertions are in the American style of debate which you have complained about so much.

Maybe Professor Greer's book Sex and Destiny will clarify any points on which you are a bit fuzzy.

Many things are ridiculed in Europe. Sex for example. Some very eminent writers have ridiculed sex.

0 Replies

In summation, creationism or ID is never going to make it through the courts as legal to teach in public schools. The legal history of creation science has been remarkably consistent. The creation/ID psuedo-scientists have lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with. In every instance where self-appointed creatio/ID scientist or intelligent design theorists have attempted to argue that their viewpoints are scientific and should be taught in schools, or that evolution is not science and should not be taught in schools, their claim has been rejected by the courts -- soundly, starkly, and unequivocably. It just not going to happen. The USSC is not going to take the case.

Anyone who doesn't realize that ID is dead-in-the-water is fooling themselves, just like they are fooling themselves about Creationism and ID.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Just when you think Spendi might be well read he comes up with this.

Quote:

Any social contract is contra evolution and is specifically designed to countermand evolution's exigencies. It would have no point otherwise.

Does a social contract create anything Spendi? What does it create?

2 Replies

@parados,

That sentence is from The Twilight Zone. When in doubt, don't as any questions of anyone who has the knowledge, nor use the internet to find a reasonably unbiased support to a entirely silly statement.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

In every instance where self-appointed creatio/ID scientist or intelligent design theorists have attempted to argue that their viewpoints are scientific and should be taught in schools, or that evolution is not science and should not be taught in schools, their claim has been rejected by the courts -- soundly, starkly, and unequivocably. It just not going to happen. The USSC is not going to take the case.

Yes--okay. We all know that. Did you not know we all know that. If you did know what are you typing it out for and if you didn't you must be a bit slow on the uptake. It's a self-indulgent luxury is being slow on the uptake because you can repeat yourself on an endless loop until you cark it without once learning anything new.

The problem with your little banal homily is the "self-appointed" bit. Has anybody attempted to argue that it is precisly because evolution IS science that it should not be taught in schools? That some self-appointed people have lost the cases they mounted only proves that some self-appointed people lost the cases. Nothing more. You have a non sequitur on your hands.

And you don't know their motives either. You only think you do. Possibly to have an easy duckshoot.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Does a social contract create anything Spendi? What does it create?

Of course it does. A way of living reasonably together avoiding promiscuous violence and sexual behaviour. They don't work perfectly because they are a bit more difficult to use than a tin opener.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

The problem with your little banal homily is the "self-appointed" bit. Has anybody attempted to argue that it is precisly because evolution IS science that it should not be taught in schools? That some self-appointed people have lost the cases they mounted only proves that some self-appointed people lost the cases. Nothing more. You have a non sequitur on your hands.

In jurisprudence, it's called stare decisis.

Why teach children science in schools? They should learn science in the pub like others. Nothing like a clear mind from a dark ale to help one understand.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You can't possibly mean that a social contract creates an environment to live in?

1 Reply

@parados,

He's spinning from his own mistaken beliefs and desires -- barely a trace of any kind of reason or logic. He's a subjectivist to a fault trying to pass himself off as an objectivist.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere " "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled."

The courts may take a different view as to "what is settled" from the traditions of the general polulation. How did divorce and homosexuality get legalised if that dictum is set in stone. There are loads of precedents for outlawing both in court history. You have a non sequitur as well.

Quote:

Why teach children science in schools?

For obvious reasons. But which science and how far into it. Evolution is a special case. Do they teach how to make portable explosives devices in schools? That's science as well. What about moonshine distillation? There's science in that.

If you don't think evolution is a special case then explain the length and ferocity of the disputes about it. It touches on, in a sensitive spot, our very selves and not on mute inorganic matter. Could you discuss history scientifically in your schools. Your Eng. Litt. is carefully selected.

Quote:

Nothing like a clear mind from a dark ale to help one understand.

Many, I daresay the vast majority, of the great artists would agree fully with that. The unbent mind is a very run of the mill thing. Some extremists think we would still be scrabbling in the muck without alcohol.

A book of verse, a flask of wine etc. Or the ambrosia of the Gods.

Joyce called his favourite tipple "White lightning." Try Finnegan to see what it looks like on paper. Did Mailer write anything significant sober? Or Henry Miller?

Save the Sunday school stuff for Sunday schools.

It's a Roundheads v Cavalier argument.

Call them idiots if you like. Doing so makes it easy for you.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

He's spinning from his own mistaken beliefs and desires -- barely a trace of any kind of reason or logic. He's a subjectivist to a fault trying to pass himself off as an objectivist.

What a powerful and unassailable intellectual argument that is. Even the corn would lie down faced with that sort of subjectivity. The Oracle has spoken.

I can hardly believe what I am reading coming from people who have been through a 15 year long expensive education. It's truly incredible. One can only guffaw. Tittering is too polite.

0 Replies

Parados wrote:

You can't possibly mean that a social contract creates an environment to live in?

I suspect that's exactly the case. Check out Melania Trump (or alikes).

0 Replies

A social contract doesn't create a place in which to live, it just (hopes to) makes it safe to live in it.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

The courts may take a different view as to "what is settled" from the traditions of the general polulation. How did divorce and homosexuality get legalised if that dictum is set in stone. There are loads of precedents for outlawing both in court history. You have a non sequitur as well.

The Dover case is US jurisprudence. US stare decisis.

Your introduction of divorce and homosexuality is the non sequitur.

Quote:

For obvious reasons. But which science and how far into it. Evolution is a special case. Do they teach how to make portable explosives devices in schools? That's science as well. What about moonshine distillation? There's science in that.

Physics and chemistry are taught in school. They don't teach how to turn a frog into a dog in biology class while talking about evolution. Talking about HOW things work isn't the same thing as a detailed road map on how to get there.

One can't discuss history without talking about humans just as one can't discuss biology without touching on evolution. Humans are the basis for keeping history just as evolution is the basis for biology. You can't teach either subject while avoiding it's basis.

I said nothing about alcohol and literature. I was talking about science.

Quote:

Nothing like a clear mind from a dark ale to help one understand.

Literature is often about the details that aren't real while science is about the details that are. We have had great literature from those that drank and those that didn't. Did you ever stop to wonder why there were no great scientists that drank constantly?

3 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Your introduction of divorce and homosexuality is the non sequitur.

Not at all unless you are the one deciding what stare decisis et quieta non movere applies to. And we can't have that. Precedent has been overturned many times. Probably thousands. I only used those as examples. Ethics committees grapple with these matters daily. All high-flyers.

What about Prop 8? Me go-me come back.

0 Replies

@parados,

Right I'm back. Talked to three sisters tonight in the pub about what music to play at their Dad's funeral, Thursday. It went on a lot-- you know --Spirit in the Sky--My Old Man's a Dustman, A Neil Diamond thing: Elton John wasn't mentioned, and after a bit I asked the quiet one what she thought. She said--" I'm not bothered--I'll be wanting to get back f'rt th'ot-pot." That how they talk. For those who need a translation she meant the grub at the piss-up. The hot-pot. It's an English dish. Somewhat Bowdlerised these days of course.

But what I went off to consider earlier was-

Quote:

Literature is often about the details that aren't real while science is about the details that are. We have had great literature from those that drank and those that didn't. Did you ever stop to wonder why there were no great scientists that drank constantly?

Ignoring the first sentence, which any Henry Fielding fan will tell you is a load of bollocks assuming that the "often" is meant to slip by without the reader noticing, I went off to consider the rest. I hadn't noticed before. But I couldn't think of a scientist who was on the piss.

An epiphany, as Joyce called these things. Thanks para. It isn't easy to notice what people don't do.

Bloody hell- anti-ID is a wedge for prohibition. I must have felt it in my bones. I can't even whet my whistle without it rendering my posts into drivel. On and on they rabbit about it. It's an obsession.

Like Dean Martin sort of said-- an anti-IDer feels as well as he's going to feel all day when he gets up and does his fifty press-ups.

Take sides folks. The po-faced Presbyterian pillocks versus the swashbuckling cavaliers. Do not be mesmerised by strange and mysterious polysyllabic words which you are not given an explanation of for the very good reason that those using them have no idea what they mean themselves.

Thanks again para. You have cleared the smoke away.

That's one assertion, ignoring the "constantly" of course, which renders it meaningless, that I am going to accept. It suits me down to the ground.

But had I ever stopped to wonder why there were no great scientists who drank constantly I would soon have realised that nobody could drink "constantly". That's as ridiculous as flying spaghetti monsters and purple leprechauns from Uranus inventing Soya sauce.

Even junior school biology teachers would verify that.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

One can't discuss history without talking about humans just as one can't discuss biology without touching on evolution. Humans are the basis for keeping history just as evolution is the basis for biology. You can't teach either subject while avoiding it's basis.

Which humans? When? Where? Doing what? I hope it's not just the Big Cheeses fighting.

And the basis for evolution, leaving out pollinators and splitters, is copulation, and the selection process, which is not as coy as it looks on the Attenborough shows.

Tell the lady teachers and members of the school boards that para. Let us beat about the bush no longer.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know