Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Misunderstood by accident on purpose. Even Alice in Wonderland knew, or, at least, Lewis Carroll. Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe but in a science class, you're suppose to learn about science, not some quasi-science religious viewpoint.

We could also be Martians! There's all sorts of wonderful scientific miracles which are more inspirational than any Gothic cathedral -- one of the human marvels the Catholics gave us. Of course, there was even graft amongst the bishops back then when they syphoned off cash that was suppose to go for construction.

Yeah, colon cancer is nasty stuff but Crick gave a lot to the world before his passing. I'm happy to have been to one of his lectures and had him sign my book! You'll never see it on E Bay unless my heirs don't understand what he wrote.

One could make some form of dualism out of anything. If you read more of Crick, he was an agnostic but admitted the needle was wavering more towards atheism the more he discovered in his research. His atoms, his molecules, they're back in the Universe but they no longer can think.

Medical science is now finding out people can be cured of many diseases some day by DNA -- like their own stem cells stored from birth.

Psychological and philosophical duality has more credence than theological duality. You know duality could also mean a split-personality.

Yeah--but can you rule out the possibilty that scientific research might show that quasi-science religious viewpoints create pherenome syrup running down your chin and synapse energies which jump for joy and that the strict severities of pure science leave you stupified in catatonic confusion and your nerves all jangling only to be relieved by a righteous sense of being flat on your back for sound rationalistic reasons which nobody can get past no matter how much they laugh and needing to drink deep of the products of the pharmaceutical industry and to face appointments with chaps in white coats who talk a language of incoherent long words over serious spectacles whilst performing walletectomies.

Science to be taught in a science class. Theology to be taught in a theology course.

Simple. Honest.

Your run-on rants are irrelevant and provide nothing. It's simple, but you'd like to make it hard.

T
K
O

I don't understand how cells go haywire in the evolutionary world.

Is it because everything get eaten before their cells have a chance to go haywire?

I'm arguing from a position where "multiple selves" is the norm for all of us. All such selves have a dualistic modus vivendi with "the world". The non-dualistic position is where "selves" and "the world" are conceived as one entity.

This is nothing to do with Cartesian dualism or its resolution by reduction of consciousness to brain chemistry which some have mentioned here. For me all we have is concepts, not "things". Thus "brain" is a concept, "self" is a concept ,and concepts co-define themselves in terms of relationships between them. ("physicality" is one such relational concept). It is a position which recognizes the paramount significance of shifting epistemological paradigms and the semantic fields which ensue. The dualistic illusion is that "snapshots of this" constitute "reality" whereas the essence of reality lies in the continuous movie of the interplay of concepts.

How relevant is that to the debate?

But which self is the "me" a representative of?

It seems to me that it is impossible to debate with multiple selves because any one of them can be adopted at any time and confound a response made to any other one.

I think if you stood for election fresco you would lose your deposit. Suppose one of your selves was enthusiastic about the bailouts of banks and another self was enthusiastic about rounding the bankers up and marching them off to a retraining camp to grow turnips and another self liked nothing better that blowing a few spliffs and watching Dancing on Ice nihilistically.

How would you know what to do assuming you have another self which is keen to do something and which you can activate at any time convenient to your real self which I assume is determined by a democratic vote of all your selves sitting in committee.

Do your friends and relations need to verify which self you have brought to any social occasion at which they come into contact with you?

If you notice, this had ceased being a debate about 2 years ago.

That's what anybody is likely to say who has had his chips pissed on goodstyle.

Intelligent design is science from the point of view of those sciences which are concerned with general happiness and the emotional and physical health of the population.

By putting on Ignore the psychosomatic realm in human life and the relationship between emotions and physical states of the body it is easy to assert that intelligent design is not scientific and thus pave the way for a purely materialistic realization of the self which even the Pagan philosophers rejected.

Obviously Media will be in favour of the exclusive realization of the self because its income is derived from advertising products geared to pandering to self indulgence and self glorification. Similarly the legal profession will also be in favour of excluding realizations in God because self centred humans with only self indulgence and self glorification to work with will constantly be in aggressive animosity with each other and millions of disputes will arise which can only be "settled" in their court-rooms and consultation chambers. The medical profession has also a vested interest in matters relating to emotional and physical well being and in prescribing palliatives produced by pharmaceutical industries to which they are connected in both formal and informal networks. The scientific profession has self-evidently an interest in taking over the schools as do those political ideologies which base themselves on materialist considerations such as Marxism and its many offshoots.

The self centred individual will naturally seek justification in the propaganda which these various bodies pour forth in language only they understand, assuming that they do understand it and it is not just parroted, in order to satisfy and rationalise their vegetative appetites and impulses, which Aristotle called the "irrational" part of us and which is one of Plato's "twin steeds", and which religion is designed to control and manage. Such individuals often cite this controlling function of religion as their principle argument against it without bothering to think about the outcome if there is no control (anarchy) or regulated control by an elite (fascism or communism) enforced, ultimately, with repression and terror organised by people who are themselves subject to the selfsame vegetative appetites and impulses which, with unfettered power, will assuredly run riot within their walled off and secure enclaves and corrupt the whole body politic.

Hence a powerful coalition exists which asserts whatever it wants and feeds back and forth off itself, as we have seen, and finally, when utterly defeated, resorts to the assertion that "debate has ceased" as a cover-up, and it is very fond of cover-ups, in the forlorn hope that the audience is stupid enough, its permanent assumption (see Cretinists and IDjits ad nauseam), to swallow such a banality despite the thousands of articles its own side has been putting out and is still putting out and despite close run votes on the issue in many states. And in the face of inaugural oaths on The Bible and religious services both before and after the ceremony.

Such an assertion that the "debate has ceased" is an admission of defeat and a cheapskate attempt to put opposition to the coalition on Ignore and thus allow it to put its own view over in the absence of counterveiling viewpoints.

Whatever the percentage of the electorate which objects to the pure scientific materialistic viewpoint is in opinion polls it would increase dramatically if the position of that viewpoint was to be thoroughly explained and its logical consequences exposed to scrutiny. Saying that the "debate has ceased" is a mere infantile attempt to avoid that. It is a short step from asserting that "debate has ceased" to saying that "debate ought to cease" and then to that "debate will cease by order".

We have a paradox. Reason may enjoin us to be virtuous but it is also natural for us to be irrational in the Aristotlian sense because we have a biologically determined bias towards inferior sensual gratification which, without religion and following the dictates of evolution theory, would run amok and society off a cliff.

Debate ceased long ago in effemm's addled conk. He doesn't do debate. He does holding forth from the rostrum with a cowed audience of worshippers at the shrine of his big fat ego and, once he leaves his geological specialism, which may well be quite inexpert if we knew how to assess it, he has nothing but ignorant and stupid blurts with which to regale us and which anybody can see are not even remotely close to being true.

Stole the words from my mouth FM.

Francis - I asked Spendi a direct question with two possible answers. His choice of response was to give a run on rant which in no way answered my question. I could say nothing, but that wouldn't advance the debate either would it? I do not think that there is anything wrong with pointing out that Spendi failed to meet my request. In that a debate is the exchange of ideas and the sport of challenging those ideas.

The ball was in bounds.
K
O

It became indeed an exercise of stubborness and name calling...

But it's funny to read as a demonstration that people acquire their positions about notions at an early age, and they don't change whatever arguments have soundly been opposed to them.

That's why I don't try...

Sorry, I would never have accepted to answer a question with two possible outcomes, dictated by the questioner.

The world is not such a manichean notion..

That's a meaningless principle.

If someone asked you a yes or no question, you don't think they deserve a yes or no answer? I'm sure you ask questions that yield a this-or-that for an answer all the time. There is nothing unreasonable about it. If you'd like ot critisize the options I gave him to answer with, that's fair, but tell me what's wrong with my question--specifically. Don't object for the sake of objecting to a confrontational question out of some mistaken notion of principle.

I asked Spendi a yes or no question. Yes or No: Would the soup taste the same without the stone?

He wants the answer to be "no" but knows that the truth is "yes." Simply avoiding that problem is not good enough.

I'm not at fault for asking the questions he can't/won't answer. I'm asking him to cut the BS and level with me on what he believes.

I'm not talking about the world. I'm asking a single question. My question has two answers: yes or no. If Spendi want's to explain either answer, that's totally fair game, but only after he answers yes or no.

If you asked me who I thought would win the superbowl, and I launched into a rant about what I find most important in a good football team, I've failed to answer your question. Me talking about the merits of a good team are only relevant to your question if I answer first your question.

T
K
Otherwise, they are just irrelevant run-on rants like Spendi's.

There is no "real self" and the committee is not democratic. There may be a temporary chairman from time to time. Have a look the next time you have an internal debate.



Friends and relatives tend to trigger convergent "self states" between parties to the meeting. (except of course when they remark "you don't seem yourself today". )

Multiple selves is a well known paradgm of G.I, Gurdjieff.

This was the question-



It isn't answerable in any simple way. It has been discussed by me on many occasions all along the thread. Questions of that nature cannot be reduced to soundbites.

I'm sorry but I have to reiterate what I said already.

Your question is not a single question, it's a simplistic question.

You intend to tell us it has only two possible answers.

If you had some experience of flavors and tastes you would know that there's multiple solutions to your question.

First, when the soup is made, its taste will depend on parameters you have no idea:

Temperature - everybody knows that fruits and vegetables taste better in warmer climates. Thus, eating the soup at an appropriate temperature, will improve the taste.

Chemicals - the nature of the water and its composition matters a lot. Especially if it interferes with the chemical composition of the stone. (Just ask Farmerman).

Skills of the cook - many people make a silly soup. But if you are gifted and know how to roll the pan with the stone inside, you'll probably make a better soup.

Mood - if you are prepared to enjoy your soup, it will taste infinitely better.

Beliefs - If you believe the soup will be delicious, it will, stone or not.

And it goes endlessly..

Now, if you want a simplistic answer, why not, but don't count on me..

A question about which team will win the Superbowl is not a question either. And it is of a different order to questions about teaching science or theology. Any answer to the Superbowl question is irrelevant to the outcome of the game.

The science taught in grade classrooms has to be acceptable to the society in which those classrooms are a part. The teachers go through a recruitment process which has also to fulfill that criteria.

Your original question has no yes or no answer. Maybe if you said in a mathematics or physics classroom I would have offered a "yes". But biology, which is the main subject here, you must be joking.

What is a soup with no stone in it. What is a stone. That one you imagine. And then there's the delicacy of palate to consider. There are people who can tell you which vineyard a wine came from and whether the grapes were crushed by a machine or the feet of peasant women with their skirts pulled up. It's a silly question as I've already explained and dependent on your own definitions. From a scientific point of view it is a ridiculous question because the stone you have in mind will affect the taste.

You mean I suppose when I am choosing between having an extra pint and not having a hangover. I see your point but it is a bit trivial.

I can, and do, choose between throwing myself into the fray of a good knees-up or standing off it for a bit of people watching (scientific research). I'm not in committee appraising the social consequences of non-dualism if it was generally accepted. Somebody said- I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim (motive or guiding principle) should become a universal law.. Seneca maybe. I think it would be a disaster.

I don't think anti-IDers would be happy if they persuaded everybody to anti-ID.

I have a Gurdjieff book somewhere. I've read it too but I can't remember anything about it except I gained the impression he thought himself a mystic or the answer to a maiden's prayer.

Prof Willey wrote-