Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Good post on Voltaire; thanks.

Perhaps I did rather overstate the case. I was referring to his oft quoted remark on his deathbed that there was "no sense in making any unnecessary enemies at this point" when he was offered the last rites. They were then administered. It is well known that older people often find their way to belief as the dark clouds of doom gather about them. There's two in the pub.

If that doesn't satisfy you then I bow to your superior erudition.

The point about Pascal's Wager seems to me to be that yes it is cynical but having taken the bet to believe a person will then immerse him or herself in the rituals and ceremonials of Christianity and thus come to believe. From what little I know of Sartre he tried it but it wouldn't work. Nothing could overcome his scepticism. I doubt there is any intention to fool the Deity. It is more likely to be an attempt to align oneself with certain things one admires. To psyche oneself if you prefer.

Many a flighty young lady has, for want of a better job, gone into nursing and after a few years has become a dedicated angel of mercy.

I think that when you are "not in the least interested" in something it is better to pass it by without comment.

Professor Mavrodes of Michigan University suggests that agnosticism is either the confession "I have no firm belief about God" or that "no one ought to have a postive belief for or against such a belief in God." He says that the former does not invite any argument just as "I believe in God" also doesn't. It is only the "ought" where argument arises because then social consequences in a political sense are in the frame. It seems to me that the agnostic of that sort needs to show a benefit to society of that stance over any benefits arising from atheism or from belief in God.

You might have noticed that anti-IDers are constantly raising the spectre of American science being inhibited by belief systems and taking that as evidence that America will be damaged. Obviously I don't accept that. Quite the opposite. As the agnostic has no position he cannot prevent the triumph of atheism and he is therefore on the other side to me and my ilk.

I have been concerned exclusively with the consequences of these opposed positions from the beginning and not at all with the beliefs in isolation. And here we are, rich and powerful, after centuries of Christian belief and unbelief has never been tested. Anti-IDers refuse to test it. They simply assert.

But Voltaire had no inkling of the technological society in the hands of power and money hungry atheists.

spendi, Why do you insist on posting crap? Can you name any "atheists" who have power and are money hungry?

For someone who seems to as well read, you sure are ignorant!

Spendius, I thank you for the acknowledgement that you had overstated the case.

With regard to the “god” question, my personal agnosticism takes the form of: I do not know if a god exists"nor do I know that no gods exist...and the evidence available to me is so ambiguous, I cannot use it to make a meaningful guess in either direction.

I see absolutely nothing in the evidence that leads me to conclude that a GOD is necessary to explain anything...nor do I see anything in the evidence that leads me to conclude that the existence of a GOD is impossible.


As for the atheists...well, I do my very best in debate with them, Spendius, but I often find them even more rigid in their beliefs than theists; more unyielding in their rationalizations than theists; and more contemptuous of opposition than theists. I've been banned from three atheist forums on the Internet"supposedly because of rudeness, but I suspect it is because they find theists easier prey than agnostics.

Which is the precise reason they continually try to link intelligent design to young earth creationism. Their machines tell them in print outs that YEC is an "easy prey" and by linking it to ID they convince themselves that that is also easy prey.

They have not one scientific bone in their bodies as you have evidently discovered for yourself.

This from a guy who can't even describe his own form of "ID."

Who can?

I have a sculptor of a naked lady looking pensive in my garden and I dance around it when the moon is full wearing a gorilla skin and cloth cap muttering incantations about fiduciary instability.

How's that. It's not as daft as that Burning Man thing thousands of well-heeled Yanks do out in the dust storms of Nevada. Freaky man! Is it an orgiastic festival?

You're rhetorical spinning is typical of IDers who are trying to pass the concept off as science and I know you will either read this article or dismiss it because of a denial and an ignorance of science. Perhaps you should move to Kansas. ID is still mutilated quasi-science and point by point has little difference with Creationism.

ARE THERE ANY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND CREATIONISM?

By Jason Rosenhouse

The Court’s decision in the recently completed trial Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board contains the following revealing passage:

A “hypothetical reasonable observer,” adult or child, who is “aware of the history and context of the community and forum” is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

With these two, blunt sentences, the Court managed to pierce an illusion crafted by the leading proponents of Intelligent Design (ID).

The illusion was that ID and creationism were fundamentally different things. Scientific creationism (SC), they claim, is inextricably linked to the creation story in Genesis. ID, by contrast, is a solid scientific theory resting upon a firm foundation of biological fact. And while theological inferences could certainly be drawn from it, such inferences are unrelated to the theory itself.

ID’s finest minds presented this argument to the Court, and the Court, confronted with unambiguous evidence to the contrary, laughed in their faces. There has been no end to the teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing in the ID community ever since. In light of this, let us determine once and for all whether it is the Court, or the ID proponents, who have it right.

Link to rest of article:

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/differences.html

There's no point in reading further after that mush LW. I've never tried to pass ID off as science. And I have dealt with Dover at great length. Mr Rosenhouse is much too fond of assertions for me to bother with any articles he has based his ideas upon.

All Dover proved was that fleecing taxpayers was a piece of cake. No arguments of any substance were raised and I know why.

The only way you can divorce ID from Creationism is to claim it has any scientific fact to back it up. Otherwise, it's creationism in only slightly different cloth.

How would you know Mr. Rosenhouse is much to fond of assertions if you didn't read the article? You don't make any assertions. Right.

The taxpayers were duped by a bunch of IDiots trying to prove that it's a science and should be taught alongside evolution which is a science. That cannot stand and is worth ten-thousands times more than any taxpayer money spent on an insolvent bank.

You have not been able in your wordy rambling what your concept of ID actually is. At any rate, so far it doesn't match up with what the mostly American silliness think ID means and why it's any different than Creationism. Go back to the pub, have a bowl of that mush if they serve it and mentally masterbate with your buddies over a frosty.

You are not lining me up with "ID's finest minds". Go argue with them. It is a mental masturbation fantasy of your's. Masturbation is dependent upon fantasy.

We have to do something. What are you proposing and what will be the logical consequences.

Do you accept the legitimacy of a president who swore an oath on the Bible and appealed for God's help and asked him to bless you all and America?

Tell me what you want. You can't want nothing. Negativety won't pull you through. You have the floor. Take it away LW.

The only one doing the masterbation is you, spendi. You throw out ridiculous claims that you can't support. How often do you climax?

You can't want nothing? You do live in Kansas.

There are no "finest minds" in the ID cockeyed world.

That's from your post LW.

Are you not up for saying what you want?

I want locally elected people to decide what their kids are taught. Not Media, not judges, not self appointed councils calling themselves scientific names from far away big city places. And not you lot.

What do you want LW?

And do we really want people who posit their argument on an assertion that others are "cockeyed" and can't use a word like "finest" correctly and who denies what his own post said within an hour?

Have you read what an ex-senior Naval officer has said about you on the Brit thread and what Mr Apisa has written?

Mr. Rosenhouse used that terminology as sarcasm, not me, to make his point about the so-called "ID scientists" and also clerics being laughed at in court. I don't care if you don't identify with any of them, but it makes no sense that you don't identify with at least one of the clerics. Those elected officials who started the nonsense and tried to sneak the ID Bible "Panda" textbook travesty into classrooms were voted out of office by the people in Dover.

I could care less what some ex-senior Naval officer (is he an example of the oxymoron Naval Intelligence?) says about me and Mr. Apisa and I have had differences which I have addressed in the past as to whether or not I am an agnostic. I think we straightened that out, but, for the umpteenth time, I have stated that I can agree with Aristotle's idea of a higher power as The Great Mover, not the entity that the Catholic Christians devised in preparation for The Dark Ages. The Great Mover is nature and if it has a plan, the common man isn't intelligent enough yet to figure it all out. Scientists like Einstein and Carl Sagan have certainly brought us closer. Science is continually bringing us closer but I doubt that mankind will find "the God particle" in our lifetime. They are ardently trying with Europe's gigantic atom smasher:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text

I truly believe scientists will one day identify the basis of life.

The Catholic Church now believes that science is correct in evolution and the time frame, but that nature could not have created the soul. The soul has been an entirely abstract concept to begin with. Sir Francis Crick, and I've posted this before, took the soul into the world of scientific analysis in "Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul"

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v46/ai_15544276

There's now a second volume.

A link to an interview:

http://www.intuition.org/txt/crick2.htm

I would like to know LW how you propose to proceed with education policy in respect of the matters at hand. There are 50 million kids waiting for your guidance and when they have settled into the workplace Mr Obama is working night and day to arrange for them there's another 50 million following on behind.

Are you in favour of retaining the crosses in the military cemetries? That's a simple enough question.