Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

creationism or ID is never going to make it through the courts as legal to teach in public schools.

. The trail of permeability is to define the ID case in terms of something that is as far from religion as possible. Once they can establish that baseline as a starting point, then all future cases will be based on the precedents established with a single win.
I dont think any of this is going away any time within our lifetimes. Through recent time, there has been a sinusoidal rise and fall of Conservative Christianity that preaches Biblical Literalism , and a slightly more intelligent, but more devious bunch who believe in ID.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman, I agree; the religous' nut cases will not let go of this issue until they die, and I'm now 73 years old. This battle is gonna continue for generations...

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I agree, ci. Good to "see" ya. Hope all is well old man. I turn 73 this year also.

1 Reply

LOUISIANA UPDATE

Quote:

BESE expected to take up controversial science instruction act today
(by Bill Barrow, The Times-Picayune, January 13, 2009)

Wrangling continues today at the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education over the rules and regulations that will govern how public schools implement a 2008 measure intended to allow teachers to use materials to supplement textbooks on subjects such as evolutionary biology.

Some of the original opponents of the Louisiana Science Education Act are reprising their arguments that the rules may fail to prevent science teachers from including the Judeo-Christian creation story or discussion of "intelligent design," the idea that life and other features of the universe are best explained as having an intelligent cause.

Supporters of the law are not happy either, saying that the latest draft rules gut the act and ignore the Legislature's intent. A leading policy fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle group that publishes educational materials and has advocated for the Louisiana law, called the proposed science instruction guidelines unconstitutional.

The two sides, which met last year in passionate legislative hearings, are expected to present their cases this morning at a meeting of BESE's Student/School Performance and Support Committee. That panel deferred action on the matter in December. Its agenda for today includes a revised draft. The end product could be forwarded to the full board for its consideration Thursday in Baton Rouge.

The law allows local school boards to approve supplemental materials -- without BESE's prior approval -- that foster "critical thinking" in the teaching of science. But the state board retains the power to ban specific materials, either by pre-emptive declaration or after a citizen challenges locally approved material. The law includes a clause stating that the intent is neither to promote nor discriminate against any religious doctrine.

The proposed BESE rules essentially repeat that language, including the statement that "materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science classes."

That goes further than the Legislature intended, according to John West of the Discovery Institute, which publishes materials that discuss "strengths and weaknesses" of Darwinian theory. "The bill was silent on intelligent design," West said.

West also disputes a passage in separate teaching guidelines that reads, in part: "Faith refers to the beliefs that are accepted without empirical evidence," whereas science challenges ideas in ways "quite different from most religious beliefs."

West, who repeated his 2008 statements that the law is not about injecting religion into public science curriculum, said the passage violates constitutional protections of religious freedom and expression.

Barbara Forrest of the Louisiana Science Coalition, meanwhile, is displeased that the latest draft does not include a line it featured in an earlier version: "Religious beliefs shall not be advanced under the guise of encouraging critical thinking."

That line is taken almost verbatim from an Aug. 27, 2008, memo from state Superintendent Paul Pastorek to local school boards and local system superintendents. The memo is Pastorek's most extensive public comment on the matter.

Forrest also argued that the board should not approve new additions that require BESE to conduct a public hearing for a local school board and "interested parties" to defend material that is challenged.

West, however, says such an addition would give local boards the chance to back up their decisions.

A Discovery Institute representative is trying to travel to Baton Rouge for today's hearing, West said. He also confirmed that his group has continued advising the Louisiana Family Forum on the law. The Baton Rouge-based organization often pushes for more religious expressions in the public sphere. The Forum's executive director, the Rev. Gene Mills, did not return a request for comment.

0 Replies

A few days ago I was trying to find the right words to tell this:

someone, somewhere wrote:

After two centuries, the time has come to sever the threads that bind us to this primitive and narrow view of evolution and to recognise that the process of selection is often far from natural.

3 Replies

@Francis,

sounds like it might be spendi"s narrow view. The theory isnt yet 150 years old and Darwin himself did a huge amount of research regarding both natural and artificial selection. The theory of natural selection is just that, Limited by its own definition. To expand it beyond its intended use is to criticize Beethoven's Ninth for not including additionally, an "Ode to Sorrows"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Spendi is becoming your obssession, Farmerman! Twisted Evil

1 Reply

@Francis,

The problem is that the word "natural" can easily be made to embrace any teleological speculation that is remotely plausible and thereby present it to an easily impressed audience as scientific fact.

And audiences are noted for being more readily susceptible when the rhetoric employed is made to contain words, often polysyllabic and esoteric, which it flatters them to think they understand and which they can use to impress others simply by inserting them into conversations and other forms of communication.

"Natural" is better defined, in my opinion, as anything that happens. In that usage the sentence Francis quotes has no meaning and proves nothing.

One might instead contemplate a juxtaposition of the Venus of Willendorf and Bernini's The Ecstasy of Saint Theresa as artistic expressions of the human mind. The one from a world fairly close to that of evolution and matriarchy and the other from the world of high Christian thought and patriarchy. The one an emblem of anti-ID and the other deriving directly from the concept of intelligent design and the use to which it can be put in directing human life away from animality which may very well turn out to be a fruitless endevour in the long term.

The process of selection is conditioned by cosmic events as well as events taking place in the earth's biosphere. When astrology is dismissed by mediocre minds as superstitious nonsense it is the astrology in the daily papers and such like which is being exploited in the service of allowing those mediocre minds to enjoy an invidious comparison with their fellow man.

That it might rebound on them to their discredit is not considered, as one might expect it not to be in the rush to bray insults over their surroundings.

Would you buy an educational system from mediocre minds?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

sounds like it might be spendi"s narrow view.

That effemm comes to this conclusion from either ignoring my posts or from reading them too casually is not something I am in the least concerned about.

As can be seen from my last post I take a fairly wide view of these matters and it is one that considers flippant remarks of that nature as clear signifiers of the sort of mind I referred to.

His other remarks are equally fatuous. The one concerning the age of the theory is not only pedantic but fails to take into account that Francis's quote doesn't mention Darwin or that evolutionary ideas were in the air in European thought before Darwin's time.

0 Replies

@Francis,

As far as the statement you quoted, who else would make a dumb pronouncement like that? I merely answered you in kind. Prove me wrong!.

Obsession, hardly, ( Mr S is more obsessed with stalking others , Id just as soon he took a header off his barstool )

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Well, after that post, I stand by my feeling.

Other people write stuff that I sometimes read:

The Lancet

From which the excerpt quoted is the last phrase.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I wasn't drunk. I have not been drunk for many years. I get bad headaches which are important communications from my biology.

Alright, then I apologize for alluding to your drunkenness. However, don't be surprised if I'm even more harsh, since apparently you're sober when flying into insulting rants.

spendius wrote:

Self definition drivel. If you don't know why ask somebody you see in the street.

Self-definition drivel? What, my claim that you said something stupid? No, sorry, you did say something very clearly stupid. You finally started giving a clear, specific position on evolution which was clear and specific enough to have few confusions over, and it was dumb. Notice that I didn't put a "seems" in there.

spendius wrote:

I never said D promoted eugenics. I never said eugenics follow from D's studies or from "modern" ET. I'm not sure of the difference between ET and MET. You can expect whatever you like and not accept rants (another self definition) at your pleasure. You couldn't berate a dishcloth.

I listed a number of things which aren't the case in order to explain the full extent of how wrong you are, that it has never been the case. You can't figure out the difference between evolutionary theory? One is 'modern'. You can't get the implication that one is more general? If you don't understand the scientific theories change over time, you lose all claims to understanding science.

If you deny saying that eugenics follows from evolutionary theory, then what the hell is this? More rambling? For once, I thought you had made a clear statement.

spendius wrote:

Francis wrote:
Should we envision then some kind of eugenics, in order to satisfy the evolution theory?

Of course we should. The scientific logic is inexorable. Why do you think I fight against it. There's nothing in Darwin to resist.

What's this "scientific logic" to "satisfy the evolution theory" by envisioning "some kind of eugenics" if it doesn't follow from evolutionary theory? What does, "There's nothing in Darwin to resist" mean, in this context?

spendius wrote:

You have an odd way with not giving a damn. But I will allow that you had no answer and said that pouting. It's a very common strategy.

I'm sure you experience it often, being largely incoherent. Of course you'd just use it to blame others, though, lol.

spendius wrote:

Why would women have babies if childbirth gave them "huge" problems. Especially intelligent ladies.

Biological imperative, social expectation, or simply deciding that they want children more than they fear the dangers of childbirth. These are things you can't come up with yourself? You don't need a deep medical or evolutionary knowledge to think of them.

spendius wrote:

I wasn't aware of that. What does "tend" mean.

It means tend.

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
If you disagree, it will further expose your ignorance...

I do disagree.

Hilarious.

spendius wrote:

I explained that. Telling women there are "huge problems with birth in general" will cause "huge problems with birth in general" because it is bound to increase nervousness and the obvious rigidity in the muclature. Didn't I mention stagefright. We are all grateful for your help in this matter. Try taking a piss into a bucket in front of the guests at a banquet. You might get the picture. But the medical professsion will be pleased with you for creating fear about a natural biological process.

Stagefright? No, social awkwardness is not the fear of death or injury. Again, I find it amusing, given your literary pretensions, that you are unaware of the realities of childbirth, often mentioned in older texts, men taking second waves (ever wonder what happened to the first one?).

spendius wrote:

One "not give a damn" could be an emotional accident but two looks like a well thought out intellectual position.

No, it's just that I don't give a damn about your imagination or ramblings. That is, I don't give them any respect, I will essentially ignore them. They are, in effect, a failure in reasoning and coherency and I'm tired of deciphering them. No, you're not too smart for us, just too ignorant and pretentious.

spendius wrote:

Oh-**** it. This is a waste of time. Your dignity has distorted your conk.

No clue what a "conk" is, but "**** it" is precisely what most people with a basic understanding of science have done concerning you. Congratulations on coming full circle.

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
My foot is independent from Keynesian economics.

Every position your feet have ever been in are a consequence of Keynesian economics.

You'll just reach for anything, won't you, in order to avoid being wrong? The *concept* of Keynesian economics is independent from my feet. The concept has no bearing on my feet. My feet does not directly follow from Keynesian economics. If it does, I expect direct proof.

But you're not a complete idiot, you can come up with other independent things and play the same game. Sushi and Plato's historical existence. My cat's morning routine and the DOW average.

Look at your quote again:

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Evolution is independent of "social " contracts IMHO.
]

Hence teaching it will invalidate social contracts.

Think about that. You're claiming that if something is independent from something else, teaching it will invalidate that something else. Either you have an idiotic idea of what it means to be independent, which is becoming clear, although it may be ad-hoc rationalization to avoid being wrong, or your failures in reasoning go deeper than I thought.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

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.

Because schoolchildren can understand the difference between a general descriptive idea and one of ethical advocacy. This is apparently a difference between you and schoolchildren. Look up the is-ought fallacy if you'd like, but hell, the fact that evolutionary principles apply even if our education system struggled valiantly against them should give you an indication as to why you're wrong.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

A few days ago I was trying to find the right words to tell this:

someone, somewhere wrote:
After two centuries, the time has come to sever the threads that bind us to this primitive and narrow view of evolution and to recognise that the process of selection is often far from natural.

What did this person mean by that? Was he talking about dog breeding or crop selection or was it something more general than that?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Follow the link I posted above, Ros, I think it's a good reading...

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Well--effemm did write this-

Quote:

sounds like it might be spendi"s narrow view.

Which appeared whilst I was writing a post which said that the quote Francis gave meant nothing and proved nothing. And I gave my reasons which is not something effemm bothered to do.

But the "sounds like" gets him off the hook of course. He actually meant nothing and proved nothing when he deployed that well known slieght of hand and I hope no A2Kers were misled by his slippery language, which experience has taught me is second nature to him, and were thus suckered up the garden path.

Would you buy an educational system off this man?

0 Replies

@Fountofwisdom,

Foundofwisdom wrote:

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.

There are loads of them everywhere. The U.S. is spectacular in its ignorance, given the sheer wealth we have, but there are some significant differences that lead to some of the nonsense you see with ID. While some states are stupid enough to let antiscience bigots oversee education standards, most of the issues with ID come from local school board decisions. It's my understanding that in Europe, especially Western Europe, curricula are determined on more of a 'state' level or even national level, certainly in terms of the population which is affected (and thus contributes). In the U.S., the school board could be elected by hundreds or tens of people, with very little knowledge of what the individuals' ideas are, and affect a single school.

My basic point in all this is that there are some fairly stupid Europeans, too (not as many as Americans, I'd say...), but they have fewer chances to have an impact.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Follow the link I posted above, Ros, I think it's a good reading...

You mean the Lancet Link? Ok, I'll have to check it out later.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Obsession, hardly,

I agree. But the reason effemm might give some people that impression is that it is of no small importance to him that the position he has so long maintained and on which his reputation on here, and maybe elsewhere, although not when interacting with the Amish, is based, has only ever been challenged by those who are dependent on proving that the readings on the instruments used to justify that position are not scientifically valid. Which they cannot, of course, manage.

He has, with me, come up against another sort of challenge which he has obviously never met before and which perplexes him. This is why he never answers any of the questions I ask. It is also why he hides his head when social consequences are raised. It is the same with the existence or otherwise of the psychosomatic realm and the possible effect of emotions on cell function. He refuses to even attempt to describe an atheistic society although that is what he is working for and he even refused a request to write the "rough draft" of the rules in a state's educational policy for himself if he disagreed with how those in the state had written it and to suggest how it would be applied.

His last post is the floundering of a defeated anti-IDer. Tat meant nothing as well as it rests on his assertion of "dumb". He claims to have answered Francis and he didn't and follows that up with that very silly--"prove me wrong".

And accuses me of being a "stalker" when I am the only voice defending the Christianity of 85% of Americans including past, present and future leaders.

And he is on the record by his own hand for attending a meeting of law abiding Americans going about their worship for the sole purpose of haranguing the congregation and its ministers. He was of corse summarily ejected. Hopefully nose first into the fountain.

Now that is stalking. As is the easy riders rushing down to Louisiana to see what they can milk which he boasted of but yesterday.

And all I do is come on this little thread in an almost unknown corner of the world and give my views and which are the views of any sensible person who takes the time to study the whole field of this subject rather than just peering down a narrow tube.

Obviously he would just as soon I took a header off a barstool. Then he could get back to the simple stuff which he revels in.

He hasn't explained yet why he thinks this debate has raged for 150 long and woe-filled years and cost the money it has. His basic thesis is that all that was a waste of time and all we ever needed to do was consult him.

Would you buy an educational system off this man?

I never sit on a barstool. We stand at the bar occasionally leaning upon it. Even over it when a barmaid reaches for something off the bottom shelves. Which they do a lot the brazen little hussies.

0 Replies

@Shirakawasuna,

Quote:

If you deny saying that eugenics follows from evolutionary theory, then what the hell is this? More rambling? For once, I thought you had made a clear statement.

spendius wrote:
Francis wrote:
Should we envision then some kind of eugenics, in order to satisfy the evolution theory?

Of course we should. The scientific logic is inexorable. Why do you think I fight against it. There's nothing in Darwin to resist.

The scientific logic is inexorable. There is nothing in Darwin to resist if you forget what a silly old buffoon he was all things considered.

It doesn't automatically follow that such logic will prevail.

The satisfying of evolution theory in this case is not happening in the wild. It is subject to human actions.

Quote:

Biological imperative, social expectation, or simply deciding that they want children more than they fear the dangers of childbirth. These are things you can't come up with yourself? You don't need a deep medical or evolutionary knowledge to think of them.

You what!!? They are the first things that would come to anybody's mind. It's hard to know what else could be in the frame unless it is the angel which picked out our blessed humble Mary.

Biological imperitive is constantly reacting with social expectation with a moving frontier. That's what arranges family size at 2.1 or 3.4 or something else. Would you arrange it, it does need to be arranged, by regulation passed in Congress. As in China. There's an atheist leadership there although lately they are having a slight wobbler on it. And Mr Putin was in church last week. And Mr Obama said-"God bless you" and "God bless America."

Would you like to define these two terms you are using. Are you talking females on heat or cash deals? Let's see what you can come up with.

Quote:

You'll just reach for anything, won't you, in order to avoid being wrong? The *concept* of Keynesian economics is independent from my feet. The concept has no bearing on my feet. My feet does not directly follow from Keynesian economics. If it does, I expect direct proof.

Your feet, where they are right now as you read this, would not be where they are without Keynesian economics. You probably, very long odds on, wouldn't even exist. Is that proof? The chances of your feet being where they are now without Keynesian economics are greater than that of a monkey composing, say, Tom Jones. That's proof enough for me. Mine wouldn't. I'm sure of that.

Quote:

But you're not a complete idiot, you can come up with other independent things and play the same game. Sushi and Plato's historical existence. My cat's morning routine and the DOW average.

Oh Shira. I almost swooned with joy at that. I'm not a complete idiot after all. I hope that assertion is worth more than all your others. I keep my eye on the DOW. It was tanking at 1400 hrs GMT.

A social contract is not only un-necessary in evolution but it cannot even exist. Unless might is right is considered a social contract. A school exists primarily to inculcate a social contract. The passage of information is secondary to that. Even an adult night class will have some elements of a social contract built into its system. Having separate toilets for example.

A social contract contradicts evolution systems in every respect. It is what it is for. It has no other reason for existing. The "missionary's position" is known by that name because the natives had never seen it before. Why would a special name like that be created if they had and were familiar with it.

Evolution teaching undermines the social contract. Actually, for those with the nerve, it liquidates it. I am aware that some professions will benefit from the consequences of that, indeed are doing and have done, but that's a partial interest and if it belongs on a science thread it should be under Economics or Psychology.

And I said that evolution was independent of social contracts. Not the teaching of it. That's when half-baked comes in. Evolution theory in frilly petticoats.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know