Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@spendius,

I know I haven't been paying attention but I think this is the first thing you've said in a long time that's funny.

Quote:

What you do next is throw the idiot you trusted out and revise your opinion of his trustworthiness. And carry on with what you were doing after removing the sheet you had thrown over the lingeried lady to save her embarrassment when the plonker first interruped your favourite pastime.

Joe(There's hope)Nation

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Quote:

It is only slightly off topic. Evolutionary scientists are interested in useful explanations rather than philosophical truth. Still, I think Frank has established part of the main topic: intelligent design is religious.

But the lifeboat was intended to show that religious faith is scientific from an evolutionary point of view. It is useful.

The religious aspect derives from the pragmatic and is a technique. The ship of fools is a lifeboat.

Where science is discredited on here is that the bigotries resulting from endless self-serving repetitions of various easy and well-known mantras have created mind-sets not open to argument.

It's the old, old story. Shut off from anything that contradicts the fondly held opinions that sounds like it might be true. That suburbia consists of rows of breeding hutches for example.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

@spendius
I know I haven't been paying attention but I think this is the first thing you've said in a long time that's funny.

Quote:
What you do next is throw the idiot you trusted out and revise your opinion of his trustworthiness. And carry on with what you were doing after removing the sheet you had thrown over the lingeried lady to save her embarrassment when the plonker first interruped your favourite pastime.

Joe(There's hope)Nation

Everything spendius says is funny.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

..we seem to be going nowhere.

There you go. Exactly what I said in the lifeboat scene. Lack of faith = lack of stamina. Langorous arm waves desultorily in space in a gesture of resigned enervation.

Jack-in-a-boxes are not up for this debate.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Where science is discredited on here is that the bigotries resulting from endless self-serving repetitions of various easy and well-known mantras have created mind-sets not open to argument.

The above clearly shows your lack of understanding of Science. It is always open to argument. That's the point of Science, further investigation, deeper understanding, constant challenging of everything already known, including constants. (What's to say that Alpha was always the same value?)

You are looking at religion with it's "endless self-serving repetitions of various easy and well-known mantras" and, to be sure, mind-sets (it couldn't survive without them) and conflating it with something you don't have the desire to understand.

Joe(ahem, amen.)Nation

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

I know I haven't been paying attention but I think this is the first thing you've said in a long time that's funny.

That is probably caused Joe by you only getting the cruder of my jests.

Try reading Rider Haggard's Queen Sheba's Ring to see if you can refine your sense of humour and also, as a bonus, learn a little bit about the unscientific antics of humans.

Imagining that humans are scientific, or can be trained to be, is a fantasy only matched in its idiocy by its ludicrousness.

Employing such a fantasy in the service of justifying setting aside certain aspects of Christian sexual inhibition mechanisms, I use the word advisedly, which were only invented, and they were invented, because human nature is not scientific, is like bawling for your comforter to be dipped into the syrup again.

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe, my good fellow, you missed out "on here".

From there on the intent of your post is fucked. Before offering me elementary lessons about science you should look to your reading skills.

It has been a theme of mine since I picked up the thread that these anti-IDers on here discredit science by trying to associate their drivel with such an august and esteemed aggregate of habits of thought as Science is.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Try reading Rider Haggard's Queen Sheba's Ring

Spendi teaches Horse Floggery 101 at "Somerset on-the Pretty -Wad- University"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

If any one think these things incredible, let him keep his opinions to himself, and not contradict those who, by such events, are incited to the study of virtue.

Josephus.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

In his lecture on The Action of Natural Selection on Man, Mr. Alfred R. Wallace concludes his demonstrations as to the development of human races under that law of selection by saying that, if his conclusions are just, "it must inevitably follow that the higher — the more intellectual and moral — must displace the lower and more degraded races; and the power of 'natural selection,' still acting on his mental organization, must ever lead to the more perfect adaptation of man's higher faculties to the condition of surrounding nature, and to the exigencies of the social state.

Isis Unveiled.

In what way does materialism adapt to the exigencies of the social state? Which is the only serious point at issue in this debate. And is why it is the only point I have been addressing from the first.

The educational system is the area which engineers the social state.

0 Replies

@spendius,

"On here....."
You're right.

Joe(Still don't see it.)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Have you noticed that spendi makes claims about science, but has never once provided any example or proof.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

Still don't see it.

I mean that the scientific sensibility is a habit of thought. It is not necessarily signified by using scientific words. It's an attitude. Most people think it's a bad attitude if exposed to it even slightly.

In fact, Joe, the more brilliantine words used in a post the more I incline to think a scientific attitude is missing and what is on display is a pose.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I am an example and proof ci.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Therein lies the basic problem...

0 Replies

@spendius,

No wonder you are stuck in the year, I'm guessing, 1836.

Joe(but I'm sure you are happy.)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

A scientific sensibility is born in time Joe.

1 Reply

@spendius,

That's what Joe said; you're behind the times - like 1836.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

C.I. .... I picked that date out of thin air.

Joe(which is where Spendius gets his thoughts.)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

I know, but it looks pretty accurate to this observer. LOL Laughing

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know