Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The spaghetti monster has it all over all the gods, because nobody has to worry about praying to it.

You preoccupation with pasta deities is worrisome, ci.

Frank is stating that there's the possibility of God -- I say there's a possibility of Gods, including Egyptian, Roman or Hindu. This will not make it reveal itself -- Charlton Heston is dead so there's nobody to give a message to.

The point is being made that god and the sm are the same. Why is god any more viable?

Actually "gods" would make more sense. We could blame the "mistakes" on "too many cooks spoil the broth". And what broth wouldn't be better with a little pasta ?

Eddie Izzard on one God's problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEu0cJQYOIA

I posted this one before also but heres Ricky Gervais take on thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bk4_SRcwE

fresco--

You have not seen fit to respond to any of the following points I have made in the last few pages.

1/ That the education of kids is not on the anti-IDer's agenda despite it being the reason for this debate.

2/ That our perception of qualities in an object has nothing to do with the object.

3/ That Frank's argument is unassailable because it is circular as he has admitted.

4/ That recourse to the improvisations on a theme of "ignore" speaks of fear that a long held position in which emotional energy has been invested might be undermined.

5/ That David Hume undermined reason and showed it to be subjective and that reason could not be used to discuss faith because faith has nothing to do with reason and is, anyway, a species of faith.

6/ That in the absence of religion/suprstition social control of the masses can only be maintained by conditioning and regulation backed ultimately by terror. So that if you argue against religion/superstition you are arguing for conditioning and regulation backed by force. Assuming, of course, that social control of the masses is a necessary condition of civilisation.

7/ That there must be a valid intellectual reason why this debate has lasted so long. Since Plato some would say but certainly since the publication of Origins. That it is inexplicable if anti-IDer's are right.

8/ That monogamy, birth control, abortion, homosexuality and financial regulation, all opposed by ultra conservatives, are anti-evolution and thus that it is the anti-IDer's position which is anti-evolution. In fact all the law is anti-evolution because nobody would make laws about non-existent natural evolutionary urges and drives.

9/ That religion has practical uses which can be scientifically tailored by theologians to fit certain given circumstances and exigencies and gradually perfected.

10/ That astrology is a valid science when it is defined properly.

11/ That we know nothing about god/s nor ever will do and that the use of god/s in human affairs hinges exclusively on the practical benefits it/they can be turned to and that the Christian construction is heap big medicine which those who seek to destroy it need to find an alternative to.

12/ That it is a scientific fact that mankind does not live by reason alone. That reason, logic and rationality have no objective basis but only utility in the practice of life and that history shows that they take second place to religion/superstition.

13/ That members of the NCSE rushed down south to try to overturn elected people for "fun" and that their handouts to media were a mere smokescreen which anti-IDers swallowed hook, line and sinker for subjective motives.

14/ That you look ridiculous complaining about your points not being answered when you have ignored all those.

I can understand why the others have also failed to respond to any of these points and are therefore not in the debate and are using Darwin and science to claim status over the common herd and self-validation in relation to some activities, sexual probably, which our religion condemns. As Mandy Rice Davies famously said--"Well- he would wouldn't he?"

You cannot have come by your atheism by reason because, as Hume has showed, reason is a chimera. You can only have come by it through a perception distorted by selfishness and are flogging it to people who have not read Hume, and others. Intellectual bullying and sleight of tongue. And Christianity is a religion of sacrifice and denial of worldy temptations which is why The Cross is our symbol and why media is against it because it prospers feeding our basest instincts as can easily be seen in the adverts. And allowing untramelled expression of our basest instincts, Thatcherism red in tooth and claw, is the sure road to our decline and destruction.

As I understand it you are reasonably well educated, unlike those you are in bed with here, and you thus have a duty to yourself to answer these points. Otherwise the record will show that you have funked it and are not so well educated as you have previously thought which your attraction to Mr Izzard might suggest.

To quote LW, this IS about semantics but taken to a ridiculous level. (Most of us would say, sowhat? and then move on, but you seem to demand some kind of fealty to your positions as "deep" (
HOWEVER, taking on your poorly worded reponse to fresco you said

When I must assert that this stamenet of yours is just a pile of dung. You are wrong abut what has or hasnt been done. Evidence against design has been compiled in 2 manners

1 whenever any tenet of design is presented by ID "scientists" , counter evidence has been shown that debunks IDer evidence . (SO if the foundation of the CAthedral is shaky, the whole cathedral falls IMHO )

2 Design implies planning, NATURE only provides us with evience of RESPONSE. Evolution "Overproduces" forms that, because natural selections benefits are accrued to the individual, leaves us with an overabundant fossil record wherein over 99.99% of the "trial species" go extinct. Hardly planning, more like shotgunning

Evolution does NOT occur randomly (That is another reason that Im frustrated with your cocky assertions, you havent taken any time to understand the basic underpinning of the sciences youre trying to use in your "cobbled case"). Evolution has always been non random, opportunistic, culling,introducing new genomes by several methods that are built upon common ancestry. (ONce a gene line is established, the descendants are limited by response to the gene lines of the previous parents Thats why we dont have trilateral symmetry or why we only have a very few simple species with rotatory motion. This argues against design because the geologic record is one of discord and rapid adaptation in which, many times , most species go extinct at the event horizon

These and many other findings directly evidence their data AGAINST a concept of design. SO, WITH NO VALID COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF DESIGN , Then how a designer?
The ball has always been in your couirt and all you do is repeat your initial "If and Only If" assertion. Now that youve come forward and stated the next line of your mantra that science has evidenced ONLY for evolution and not against design, we can get to the point of dissassembling your overall specious argument.

Its best to keep a light finger and a loose grasp on all our pet "Theories" lest something come along to pounce on em and disassemble them.

For Example, lately, the discussions of epigenetic evolution rekindle the possibility of semi-"Lamarkianism" being a valid assumptive mechanism that at minimum could preserve some acquired traits that would last for maybe 3 generations while the genome has some time to code this response from epigenetics to the genome.Thats a complete world change for me, but Im trying to not dismiss it out of hand and learn how this mechanism may be actually in effect. (If so then Darwin has to share a spotlight and take a co-pilot position).

Im assuming that you are an intelligent prson Frank (although you are maintaining a classic Greaco/Roman machismo). Therefore you are just a bit stubborn to grasp the full meanings of your pronouncements. MAny of us dont buy em cause they are kind of naive when we consider the full basis of evidence.

You can continue calling me and others assholes but I think Id have to say, in a offering of "lets move on" that there are some readings that you should do and perhaps the full scope of how little the IDers have to offer and how much weve been able to shoot down their work, that the veracity of your "If and only If" statement is kinda bankrupt and left without any substance behind.

This site has deteriorated into a place where a dozen people argue amongst themselves endlessly…and witlessly.

We have in this thread a group unwilling to acknowledge the logical precision of “IF there is a GOD…there is the possibility of Intelligent Design”…even though I have regularly stipulated that the only Intelligent Design that seems possible is the one that actually has occurred on the planet…the one Darwin’s theory explains. And even though I have regularly stipulated that because of this…the truism really has no impact on the arguments of the anti-Iders. It is not important.

Yet you pathetic jerks cannot even acknowledge the logic and reason in that argument…and cannot acknowledge its veracity!!!

We have Farmerman claiming his garbled posts are superior in construction to mine.

We have Fresco asserting things that can only be guesses…and refusing to acknowledge that he does not KNOW the true nature of Reality. A guy insisting he KNOWS what the Reality of existence IS! And JLNobody insisting he is correct…apparently another person here who KNOWS what the Reality of existence IS!

We have people mocking agnosticism…and pretending that if one is an agnostic…one must be silent after acknowledging one’s agnosticism…or else be branded a closet theist.

Pathetic...all of it.

A2K was once a decent site...but has turned into a joke. Like I said…a dozen people arguing endlessly and quite vacuously among themselves.

I am sorry I ever came back…I am embarrassed to be a part of this.

I’m gone again and I will never ever so much as visit again.

Continue your circle jerk"enjoy your group masturbation.

You are pathetic advocates for your cause.

For this site to suggest it has “experts” to “answer your questions” is over-reaching on a galactic scale.

Mr Gervais has taken great pains to approve of wanking and the avoidance of females and to promote a brand of corrosive cynicism which only those who are corrosive cynics themselves could possibly approve of.

I will allow that he might be a fundamentalist Christian operating the irony of a Modest Proposal. But he has admitted to being an atheist on Desert Island Discs.

How he has worked out that there is no God is a mystery to me. He is living "over the brush", as we say in England, about those who wish to screw women without committing themselves to any permanence or responsibilities to them when they get older and into that state of middle-aged womanhood which so frightens weak-minded ****s.

Frank seems to have been composing his valedictory all night since it appears well crafted. Most always we respond in the heat of the moment and our word are imperfectly spelled and such.
Sorry to see you go, but you mmust understand that , just because e say something and (even believe it passionately) it aint necessarily so. You have to have the intellectual honesty to realize that when one of our (or your) arguments arent tied together with some thought, people will find the cracks and drive through.
Your argument here has been pretty lean in any detail, its been the constant repeat of a single phrase and, when asked for more detail, we get the same phrase only shouted at us along with epithets and needless threatening cursewords.

If you want respect-give it, who said that?

This isnt some macho based street brawl where your testosterone wins the day. You better be loaded with more than beebees.

Andwhile , Im sure you can find some other line to habituate and folks to impress by screaming at them like a mental case your only leaving here with me feeling that youre just an intellectual coward who likes only to bully instead of persuade.
Some of us dont take to bullying real well, and we can stand our own without resorting to street language (except of course where its convenient to use it as a "linguistic spice") . SO, do what you have to do. Im sure spendi will miss you. ANd if Im considered mean spirited, I only have to ask any objective reader to review back a few pages where youve single handedly taken several of us on and, rather than argue ferom a standpoint of honest discussion, youve turned this into a doneybrook with you the chief dirty fighter. Hardly a legacy , perhaps you oughta clean up the record rather than look like a boor

Your illation is not the one of a man who has thought the philosophy of life beyond epidermic reaction.
In addition letting other people "thoughts" govern your own conduct is not what I'd expect from you, Frank.
Just because of some non-agreement in subjective matters you deprive some of us of insightful inputs.

Come back here right now, and don't pout!!

FM,
Thanks for that clip. I find Gervais a bit slow compared to Izzard, but entertaining nevertheless.

Francis,
Frank has discovered blogging and "friends of bloggers". Thats where you will probably find him indulging in some therapeutic social stroking.

Fresco, I like that underplayed incredulous type of British himor where everyone is like the Black night who, upon losing all his limbs claims that its "only a flesh wound"

Blogging is something Ive found kind of masturbatory. Its a first draft world of un examined thought. I read some of the evolution blogs and, absent any give and take, they become self congratulatory and a bit shallow.
At least here were being poked and prodded and our opinions morph through time. I know mine sure have.

I saw the latest Eddie Izzard in drag on Comedy Channel or BBC -- the section on Noah's Ark is a riot. "God, I need a room in the arc for poo." God's voice is Eddie doing James Mason.

Noah's gathering up animals and begins to run into problems:
Two ducks, "But we don't want to go"
Noah, "There going to be this enormous flood."
Ducks, "So what."
Eddie, commenting as Eddie, "But God was suppose to destroy everything in the flood. Anyt animal that could float or fly got off good, without Noah's gigantic wooden taxi.

That's paraphrased from memory.

He's always making my rib cage sore after a half-an-hour laughing.

At any event, two Brontosaurus would have made the ship sharpely list and then sink.

One can understand Frank. Having to put up with rubbish like this-



over and over again when he has shown such statements to be sheer drivel and nothing to do with the point he made which is simplicity itself. And circular.

What the "ID 'scientists' effemm chooses to be citing have said has nothing to do with Frank's argument. And obviously so. Those chosen "ID 'scientists' have been carefully sat on the branch by effemm precisely because they are easy to debunk. As at Dover. They do not prove Frank's argument "shaky" and thus they do not prove that it falls. They only prove something, allowing that they do prove anything, about those "ID 'scientists' ".

And effemm conveniently asserts that the counter evidence has debunked his chosen sample without bothering to say how. His whole statement is an assertion and circular in the sense that his basic position leads logically to it. In one step.

A clever circularity usually employs a few steps and subtle shifts in meaning of the terms used which inattentive readers may not notice. He attempts this trick, and it is a trick, a slimey one, by equating ID "scientists with IDer evidence so that IDer evidence, such as I present, is lassooed into the whole which it isn't. By assuming nobody will notice this sleight of tongue, perhaps he hasn't noticed himself so carried away is he with self admiration, he is again guilty of underestimating his audience which is a position he can only have arrived at by overestimating himself.

Such is argument Ni 1. And it is not the way forward in education. Students exposed to such things can only end up being unable to communicate intelligently with others as has proved the case here. It is impossible to communicate with people who stoop to such base strategems and it is impossible for them to communicate with others just as it is impossible to communicate with a megaphone.

And argument No2--



is sheer anthrpomorphic dross. What evidence NATURE provides has nothing to do with whether a planned design is in operation. The only evidence NATURE provides is that we can respond to. effemm simply rules out that a planned design may well be a mystery to human faculties and he blithely assumes that anything he cannot understand could not have been a component of an intelligent designer's design. A sort of "if I can't see it God couldn't have done it" which is, again, a function of a vast arrogance and a cosmic pride of staggering dimensions.

He uses the word "overproduces" because he thinks there is overproduction as Darwin also thought. This is a value judgment and has not the slightest bearing on what a proposed intelligent designer might have had in the design. That is another point Frank continually made and his frustration and astonishment at it hitting a brick wall of incomprehension, despite its extreme simplicity, can only have lead him to think that effemm is as intelligent as brick wall.

Frank needed only to have read some of the thread to have discovered that brick wall intelligence is the ne plus ultra of anti-ID posters on it.

He also was trying too hard to prove himself right which seems to be a general characteristic of American men from across the spectrum of opinion in all fields of discussion. And of some American women. It may be that sites of this nature, as opposed, say, to ones called things like "Toecutter's Den" or "Mad Mammas" selectively attract the type and that they are not typical of Americans in general. One sincerely hopes so.

As my project has nothing to do with proving me right I never feel the need to boil over and flounce off in a fit of high dudgeon. And I consider being on Ignore a feather in my cap and the more brick wall intelligences that put me into that limbo the better I like it because it shows that I have done a lot more than just pull their chains and it highlights the gulf between my intelligence and their's which can't be wide enough for my liking.

And there is not an "overabundant" fossil record at all. There is a fossil record from certain periods and from certain places and there is a fake fossil record from certain periods and certain places. One imagines a few samples from the latter are exhibited to the public and fawned over in other places and times. Some made of plastic too.

Even so, it is a mighty cosmic pride which refers to a possible intelligent designer's plan as "shotgunning". He will be referring next , as a quite mad astrophysicist of my aqaintance once did, to the "left hand side of the universe" with a regal sweep of the arm. But we were emerging from the pub and so rather than question his remark I contented myself with tittering all the way to my residence. In fact recalling the incident now is giving me the titteringtons. I imagine effemm might have crouched down like a tail-gunner behind his puter-piece and gone "ratatattattattat" to himself, figuratively, as he typed that most revealing word.

I saw him live in Memphis in June. He did that routine. He's great.

T
K
O

I like that part where snakes are being punished by having to crawl on the ground. ROFL

Playing semantic chess rarely produces a winner. Frank is asserting there's been a check mate, but failed to explain the smoke and mirrors surrounding the board. If ID were by some remote chance the answer -- that an entity somewhere in space who was there when space was filled only with dark matter, had an R & D department where his assistants (angels) began assembling animals much like the movable clay figures in stop motion photography for animation films and who is now known as God comes into the department and begins accepting or rejecting results. If he likes one, he waves his magic wand to give it internal working organs. Obviously the angels (or elves) are using various types of skin, some hairy or furry, scaly or smooth and slick, feathered or flesh-colored in various shades. God loves the dark-skinned humans in his image so much that he decided to put them on one continent to be sold as slaves later on. He had already decided that slavery was okay. It's in the Old Testament.

Well, at any rate, in reverse if there is ID, anyone in a free country has the freedom to call who-done-it God. Where's CSI when you need them? They need to arrest him for creating Hitler.

The Discovery ID'ers are in a tizzy about offering enough scientific proof to fool a judge or legislature and governor to get it taught alongside evolution, and cosmology, and paleontology, and archeology, and biology, and now basically making themselves appear to be a religious cult, no different than Scientology or the Rosicrucian.

Are you habituated LW to addressing people as if they are kiddiwinks in the nursery?

The whole point of anti-ID is that ID is so easy to take the piss out of. Were it difficult most anti-IDers would be anti-something else. Halloween say or the ladies fashion and beauty products industries which specialise in making mutton look and taste like spring lamb.