Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@jespah,

Ill see if I can raise him,

@farmerman,

Ok Im up.

Spendius,

For your info, here, my opening statement on social reality from 2002. You really need to go through the thread to work out why I try to avoid questions involving the word "belief".

Quote:

The contents of "thought" are mediated by "language" - a socially transmitted set of categories. These categories are reified by social consensus. As far as "science" is concerned the categories remain relatively stable and uncontroversial within particular historical paradigms. Scientific usage of a culture free metalanguage (mathematics) reinforces the concept of "external reality" but this ignores the social origins of directive hypotheses. All non-scientific realms are more obviously reflections of our evolutionary dispositions to interact in certain ways and to form social hierarchies or pecking orders.

The implications of this thesis seem to be that much "debate" is about pseudo questions like "Does God exist". What is happening in such debate is that we ignore that "God" and "Exist" have meaning only in as much as that they impinge on social relationships. No more and no less ! the "debate" itself is an attempt to change aspects of the pecking order, i.e. to change the consensus.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Here spendi, we'll all get together and throw in ingredients into the soup. You throw a stone in and I'd love to see you tell the others how you earned your meal.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Don't let any Brits eat that soup! If a Brit bites down on that stone and breaks a tooth, he'll have to buy a plane ticket to get to a dentist.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ok Im up.

I assume that's another evasion.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

For your info, here, my opening statement on social reality from 2002. You really need to go through the thread to work out why I try to avoid questions involving the word "belief".

I assume that's another evasion.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Here spendi, we'll all get together and throw in ingredients into the soup. You throw a stone in and I'd love to see you tell the others how you earned your meal.

I assume that's another evasion.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

Don't let any Brits eat that soup! If a Brit bites down on that stone and breaks a tooth, he'll have to buy a plane ticket to get to a dentist.

I assume that's another evasion.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Evasion of what -- the ridiculous Discovery Institute and their ridiculous spin of "Irreducible Complexity" involving the Flagellum?

The Flagellum Unspun
The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

Kenneth R. Miller
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912 USA

This is a pre-publication copy of an article that will appear in volume entitled "Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA," edited by Michael Ruse and William Dembski, which will be published by Cambridge University Press volume in 2004. I will provide exact citation information for the article when the volume is published.

Almost from the moment The Origin of Species was published in 1859, the opponents of evolution have fought a long, losing battle against their Darwinian foes. Today, like a prizefighter in the late rounds losing badly on points, they've placed their hopes in one big punch " a single claim that might smash through the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence to bring Darwin to the canvas once and for all. Their name for this virtual roundhouse right is "intelligent design."

In the last several years, the intelligent design movement has attempted to move against science education standards in several American states, most famously in Kansas and Ohio (Holden 1999; Gura 2002). The principal claim made by adherents of this view is that they can detect the presence of "intelligent design" in complex biological systems. As evidence, they cite a number of specific examples, including the vertebrate blood clotting cascade, the eukaryotic cilium, and most notably, the eubacterial flagellum (Behe 1996a, Behe 2002).

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/fig-1.jpg

Of all these examples, the flagellum has been presented so often as a counter-example to evolution that it might well be considered the "poster child" of the modern anti-evolution movement. Variations of its image (Figure 1) now appear on web pages of anti-evolution groups like the Discovery Institute, and on the covers of "intelligent design" books such as William Dembski's No Free Lunch (Dembski 2002a). To anti-evolutionists, the high status of the flagellum reflects the supposed fact that it could not possibly have been produced by an evolutionary pathway.

Figure 1: The eubacterial flagellum. The flagellum is an ion-powered rotary motor, anchored in the membranes surrounding the bacterial cell. This schematic diagram highlights the assembly process of the bacterial flagellar filament and the cap-filament complex. OM, outer membrane; PG, peptidoglycan layer; IM, cytoplasmic membrane (From Yonekura et al 2000).

Article continues:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Perhaps if you could locate one, instead of a stone you'd like a flagellum in your soup?

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Here spendi, we'll all get together and throw in ingredients into the soup. You throw a stone in and I'd love to see you tell the others how you earned your meal.

I assume that's another evasion.

As evident from your conclusions Spendi, assuming too much is one of your greatest faults. What do I need to evade? Your post prior contributed nothing.

Are you saying that the soup wouldn't taste the same without the stone?

Please save us all your pretend sophistication and incoherent rants. Give me a yes or no.

T
K
Otherwise, I accept your concession.

1 Reply

All the evidence is overwhelming for evolution; there is not one area of evolutionary study that can be challenged by creationism. But they keep trying, because their lives depends on a simple belief that god exists. This is their last hurrah, and they know it. They rationalize away all the evidence to the contrary, and keep hoping something will stick. They prefer to ruin the study of science with creationism to further mislead our children that god is still alive and well.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The Discovery "scientists" minced up to the stand at the Dover trial and then proceeded to rattle on, finally bringing up the eubacterial flagellum and irreducible complexity. The judge, again, tried to keep a straight face after listening and asking questions. It was a pathetic performance by the defense and better than most sit-coms.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Well- here it is-

Quote:

Remember the old children's story? A cook and a child are going to prepare what the chef says is a special "stone soup." It starts with a pot of boiling water and a clean ordinary stone. One by one, the chef convinces to the child that they should add more ingredients to the soup, but always implies that the stone is the source of the soups final flavor. Eventually, the soup is complete, and the child eats it fully convinced that the stone (and not the other ingredients: carrots, celery, etc) is the source of the good flavor.

How old is this child? 3 months. At 3 years it would laugh in the cook's face. At 5, which is school age, it would turn away in disgust that the cook thought it so stupid. And at 15, the age of kids we are talking about in reference to this subject, it would whip out its mobile phone and call the men in white coats telling them to bring a tranquillising gun with them.

Viewed pedantically it's a rubbish story.

But it works as a metaphor for God and the kid's future life. That it will have a well flavoured life no matter what the material ingredients are thrown at it if it believes God is the source of its flavour. Which is something I agree with having known a lot of atheists and a lot of devout Christians. No wonder you don't understand the world's most famous book although I don't suppose for one minute you have ever took it on as a duty before making wild statements about it.

And what's an "ordinary" stone.

I make no concession. You are too clever for your own good. Too eager to justify your sinning and general all round characteristics of the evolutionary type which, adopted by everyone, would lead us into the trough of despond and in short order. And it is irresponsible to preach anything unless you allow for everyone adopting it. If you don't you are relying on being a preacher who few take any notice of.

You're an embarrassment to your own side.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

The Discovery "scientists" minced up to the stand at the Dover trial and then proceeded to rattle on, finally bringing up the eubacterial flagellum and irreducible complexity. The judge, again, tried to keep a straight face after listening and asking questions. It was a pathetic performance by the defense and better than most sit-coms.

So what? Who are you trying to convince with that childish and repetitive nonsense. Nobody has been more critical of the defense at Dover that I have. They were fall guys in it for the fees. End of story.

Had I conducted the defense the judge would have been stone-faced and would have had to eventually retire in confusion. And all the reporters. And the prosecution as well. The flagellation would have come into matters and not some useless bacteria. Something they would understand I mean.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Why did the gents from the DI "mince" up to the stand and nobody else did. Do some scientists mince to your orders. Were you there? Did you see them mince and the others not mince. Are they not scientists? I assume your US university system has designated them as scientists. Why the " " ?

You have got yourself defining mincing and scientist to flatter your own self esteem. Is that the sort of thing you want to teach the kids to flavour their lives with.

Answer these two questions-

Did they mince and the others didn't?Name them and declare them mincers, a homophobic expression I believe, in print and in public.

Are they scientists or are they not. Name them and declare them not scientists in print in public.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendius,

Your evasion needle got stuck.

If you can't be bothered to read the thread as suggested thats fine. I would simply point out that at this level of discourse words like "belief" and "God" are open to deconstruction. Once deconstruction has commenced you can't expect the demolition team to reverse its operation. Frank didn't understand this, but I'm assuming you have more to you.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Mince: to walk with short steps in a prim affected manner.

Not necessarily attributed to only homosexuals so your bringing that up makes you homophobic. Not all homosexuals mince and they may merely be whisking up a frattata that requires minced shallots.

Okay, that sounds gay, too.

Only two "scientists" testified -- Behe who was more a witness for the plaintiff as he disqualified his own testimony. He is a professor of biology with limited experience in any research. That's why scientist appears as "scientist." The other non-scientist was Dr. Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology. If they were paid anything, the defense should as for their money back.

My self-esteem is quite fine and I am assuming you never saw the documentary of the trial. They did walk in a prim and affected manner, but I would attribute it to be a psychological mindset that they were going to testify with BS that no sane person has ever listened to and taken it seriously.

As the lead self-flatterer on A2K, I would not throw stones. They belong in the soup.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

I sat in on a few days of the trail when my organization was called . I wouldnt call the walks mincing, more lightly stepping as there were cables all over the ground. There ws a court reporter who tripped over some cables.

SPENDI SEZ:

Quote:

Are they not scientists? I assume your US university system has designated them as scientists. Why the " " ?

Academic credentials and post graduate departures have nothing in common. Wasnt Egas Moniz a trained neurophysiologist? He won a Nobel Prize for a Barbaric surgical procedure and he was as (its been said) deranged as any IDjit. Howbout Josef Mengele? or Dr Demento?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I'm not ignoring you ci. but I really cannot go on and on forever responding to the repetitive drivel you keep posting. Does it not weary you to be saying the same thing over and over.

Why has this debate lasted since Aristotle if it is a clean cut as you say. Surely 2,500 years of philosophical argumentation by the elite of humanity on this matter is not going to be set aside by someone who gives daily proof of having only the most elementary educational capacities?

Will you answer that question?

Quote:

Even the heathens--Plato, Mercurius Trismegistus---have defined the aim of man to be participation in the divine life through the pursuit of knowledge and virtue.

Now what distinguishes the human soul from the instinctive urges of nature is its capacity for 'reaching higher than unto sensible things" .

Prof. Basil Willey.

Without reaching higher than unto sensible (evidence to the senses) things there is no science. There is just the unmeaning fight of all against all for survival.

You reject all that makes man what man is and it is about time you began promoting the instinctive urges of nature and get on with labelling us all as grubs in the tree of life based on the mouth/stomach/anus/breathing/copulating system. You need to put something in place of what you demolish. You are simply irresponsible if you don't. Or stupid more like. And there's the education of 50 million kids to think about not just your whims.

We don't have a choice. There is no third option.

It is not "because their lives depends on a simple belief that god exists". That's just a banal conceit of your's. It is because they have looked at the alternative and turned away from it.

Your sister is right.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know