I was reading a newsletter from the university that my daughter attends. The feature article was titled "Intelligent Design - To Teach or Not to Teach".

It presented the viewpoints of several faculty on the ID controversy and how to handle it at the university level (we happen to live less than 30 miles from Dover, Pa., USA if that means anything to you). It was stated outright at the beginning of the article that the university will not teach ID as science. This is a good thing. What I noticed most about the various faculty interviews was the way they tiptoed their way through the issues.

We all know, by definition, that ID is not science. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how science works knows this. Yet we still treat those who support it with kid gloves. I say, explain to them once what the difference is between science and mystical theology, then if they continue on about it, denounce them publicly as morons. The whole tone of the article was that of an adult coddling a child (the science community vs. local theologians).

Why do we do this? (I know, I know. It's a politically sensitive subject. Bullshit. It's just moronic.)

Specifically, does every viewpoint deserve respect? Does ID deserve statements like "It's a viewpoint a lot of people share and we should respect that"? I think that's crap to be blunt about it. I hate the entire ID agenda because it wraps mystical theology in a pseudoscientific package that can easily sway the majority of people who have no scientific understanding. Lying bastards.

My answer to the general question "does every viewpoint deserve respect" it yes, once. After examination if it is shown to be unsupported by any evidence, then it politely gets shelved. Those who then continue to support it or push it as fact get punched in the nose.

There. I feel much better. End of rant.

What do you expect from a country were 48% of the citizens think the Earth is 10,000 years old with man made of dust and clay?

I will not respect any agenda that represents the racist, war mongering, gun toting, gay hating fascist regime. ID is a part of that sick culture.

science gets my respect, and ID is misinformation about science to serve the agenda of an institution. it is anti science. people wonder why America is loosing its edge in science and never stop to think about how religion plays a roll.

Intelligent design deserves contempt, not respect.

i think people should be able to believe ID if they want to and it is their right to ignore science. that being said, keep it out of the public square. dont try to teach it as science because it isnt. you dont teach 18th century literature in science class, why would you teach ID there? its a belief that doesnt have much credibility, sort of like the view that the KKK has that blacks are an inferior race or that jews are bent on a conspiracy to take over the world. its sort of stupid and should be treated as such in the public policy realm. let the minority believe it if they want though.

It is pseudoscience and deserves to be treated and ridiculed as such.

Why are we so afraid, as a society, to label a thing like ID exactly what it is - idiotic? We all make mistakes. We all do dumb shit. But we (hopefully) learn. I've read some scientists who are quite open about the idiocy of ID as science. But the majority seem far too polite. PC infuriates me. I'll bet there are many (theist) donors to the university who would stop giving if the professors were honest about their view of ID.

What a world...

We are not all afraid, Check out Judge Jones.
Bush Appointee Rants Against Intelligent Design (http://christianexodus.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=490)

'Them conservatives got real pissed as the truth was told'

LOL :D

Godless

i say..why not?

postulating a creator for any particular process is not revolutionary. just logic and semantics. it is simple cause and effect. because of this, that. what is unusual is the attempt to exempt a creator from the chain of causality

postulating a creator for any particular process is not revolutionary. just logic and semantics.
Creationism and ID are not logic. It's crap. Crap rolled in crap smothered in crap surrounded by a crapfield armed with turbocrap-cannons that fire bullcrap at the speed of bullshit. :p

They mock Darwin.

i say..why not?

postulating a creator for any particular process is not revolutionary. just logicit certainly is'nt logic.and semantics.though I agree, that the use of words like god and intelligent design, are just words, why say them at all, it just makes the speaker/writer look foolish, considering that they advance the debate no further for being there, it is simple cause and effect. thats as maybe, but why put the words there if all they do is aggrevate the situation. because of this, that. what is unusual is the attempt to exempt a creator from the chain of causalitywhy, how so, when there is no evidence for a creator, just as I said above, it makes the speaker/writer look stupid, and aggravates the recipent, it is a complete waste of time to continue with this utter stupidness, but unfortunately, the religious will continue to do it.


http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/5100/churchsign2zm.jpg

One should respect another's right to their own religious views but one holding certain religious beliefs should respect that science is defined by scientific method whether or not the technology can explain everything. Scientific method does not absolutely exclude the possibility of ID but that does not imply that ID should be superimposed on the information that can be established by scientific methods. Anything is possible but only somethings are proven.

Post-modernist responses like that are best left for the pseudoscience sections, candy. You've demonstrated time and again you lack any qualification to formulate opinions about science.

"One should respect another's right to their own religious views..."

Should that include sewing shut vaginas and chopping off clitorises? Should we "respect" these views and practices? Should we also respect the views and practices that force adolescent girls to marry adult males and have sex with them?

Where is the line drawn on what religious bullshit is acceptable and what religious bullshit isn't?

'Intelligent design' is simply creationist mumbo-jumbo presented in a deceptive format. The "design" is the way it hopes to trick the under-educated into thinking that it is legitimate. It is pseudoscience -fake science.

Science is the only valid form of knowing our world. Supernatural mumbo-jumbo has no place in it.

Skinwalker,
I think that you constantly demonstrate your inablity to repect the right of other people to have an opinion that does not subjugate itself to your world view.
The question of where to draw the line is very complex. The best basis I can suggest is consent; to respect what someone has consented to be part of. I may find it to be a poor choice but I choose to respect their right to make that choice and if possible offer them an alternative that they are free to decline.
I do agree that ID is being used as a cover for Biblism but a lack of data does not preclude the possibility that the universe has a design. That ID does not belong in the science classroom does not absolutely mean that it is totally untrue; it is just not science.
"Our present lives are dominated by the Goddess Reason, who is our greatest and most tragic illusion." Jung

i say..why not?

postulating a creator for any particular process is not revolutionary. just logic and semantics. it is simple cause and effect. because of this, that. what is unusual is the attempt to exempt a creator from the chain of causality

what about that is scientific? its not logic to assume an unevidenced cause for something which has an unknown cause.

ID is not even pseudoscience, it should be studied as sociology. It's repackaged creationism, which itself began soon after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. It's the struggle of religion to maintain it's traditional assumptions in the face of evidence that discounts the traditional role of God. They have always been behind the times, but perhaps they will catch up eventually.

The question of where to draw the line is very complex. The best basis I can suggest is consent; to respect what someone has consented to be part of.

How does a baby girl give consent of anything? She's being mutilated by the concent of the parent? She has no choice in the matter. Were the line is drawn is not complicated at all. I'ts either amoral or morally justified. Mutilating kids is not moral is it? Neither should it be to subject them in matters they still don't understand. A child should be presented religious rhetoric when he/she's old enough to refuse such BS!. or embrace it. To teach it, indoctrimate as a child, is nothing more than mutilating the mind. :bugeye:

Godless

Skinwalker,
I think that you constantly demonstrate your inablity to repect the right of other people to have an opinion that does not subjugate itself to your world view.

I have no problem with others having opinions of their own. They have every right. Indeed, I'll defend their rights to their opinions as well as their rights to express those opinions via free speech to the end, including your own opinions.

But I'll reserve that same right to speak out in rebuttal and refutation to those opinions that are presented as claims when they are bullshit. Most of your opinions have fit that category to date. :cool:

Still, you have every right to them. Just don't be surprised when someone like myself refutes or even ridicules them. I'm just exercising my right to free speech.

The question of where to draw the line is very complex. The best basis I can suggest is consent; to respect what someone has consented to be part of. I may find it to be a poor choice but I choose to respect their right to make that choice and if possible offer them an alternative that they are free to decline.

I think that's a commonsense place to draw the line. I retract my earlier categorization of your opinions as "bullshit to date." See, I'm willing to revise my position when faced with evidence :cool: That's the true definition of open-minded, by the way.

I think, applying the consent rule, we can say that school children aren't consenting to indoctrination of the supernatural, and therefore only the verifiable and testable should be presented in school. Therefore, 'intelligent' design, which assumes the god-hypothesis, should be omitted from any educational curricula involving science.

If nothing else, because it excludes those students who are believers of religions that don't include the christian god: wiccans, Native Americans, etc., 'intelligent' design violates this consent rule. But, then, I would argue that indoctrinating a child into the dogma of a given religion violates consent as well and could be construed as child abuse.

"Our present lives are dominated by the Goddess Reason, who is our greatest and most tragic illusion." Jung

Don't know much about the guy. Sounds like a dickwad to me.

I think that was a google quote of the day on Friday.

Are we going to apply this no mutilation rule to male babies as well?
Or will we assume that circumcision is too much of a Western mainstream idea to be questioned?
In an ideal world children would be protected and allowed to form their own conclusions about religion; we do not live in an ideal world so we just have to do the best we can.
If you are unfamilar with the work of Carl G. Jung try google. Recommended for the beginner "Man and His Symbols" Jung et al

Ok. I just read a nice 3 or 4 page description of Jung himself and his theories. I would easily class Jung among the woo-woos of the world.

Are we going to apply this no mutilation rule to male babies as well?

Yes, we should. Circumcision is barbaric.

"Our present lives are dominated by the Goddess Reason, who is our greatest and most tragic illusion." Jung

of course, this, from a psychologist/psychoanalyst. horseshit. not only was this not true when it was said, but it isnt even true now. reason, logic, fact, they arent beliefs, you cannot make gods or goddesses of them, they are a crucial part of how our minds function. to deny their relevance or eschew them in favor of other irrational alternatives is to obliterate your own humanity.

The man, Antony Flew, who was for decades considered "The most influential atheist philosopher in the world" thinks ID should be respected...perhaps you might to well to get a better understanding of ID theories.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm

Perhaps you might "to" well to share with us the specific "theories" of 'intelligent' design that are relevant. Or are you in the habit of just quoting shit from people you think are smart without reading it?

do you make a habit of pointing out typos as an indication of stupidity? calm down.

I read it, it's relavent to the post, I'm asking you atheists to read it. You CAN learn from other people, you know.

The man, Antony Flew, who was for decades considered "The most influential atheist philosopher in the world" thinks ID should be respected...perhaps you might to well to get a better understanding of ID theories.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm

From the interviwe:

FLEW: That’s correct. It seems to me that for a strong moral argument, you’ve got to have God as the justification of morality. To do this makes doing the morally good a purely prudential matter rather than, as the moral philosophers of my youth used to call it, a good in itself. (Compare the classic discussion in Plato’s Euthyphro.)

Nope. He's just plain wrong.

HABERMAS: In your view, then, God hasn’t done anything about evil.

FLEW: No, not at all, other than producing a lot of it.

And this is supposed to be supportive? I love it!

FLEW: The Bible is a work which someone who had not the slightest concern about the question of the truth or falsity of the Christian religion could read as people read the novels of the best novelists. It is an eminently readable book.

What!?!?

He's a THEIST, NOT religious.

how is he "just plain wrong?"

he's saying that for a strong moral argument in support of christianity, God needs to be the justifying cause for morality, which he doesn't agree with

Human morals are best understood in terms of evolutionary group selection, not some god hypothesis which has no explanatory or predictive value whatsoever.

and he's not agreeing that god is a good explanation for morality

Ok. I reread the passage and I accept your statement.

do you make a habit of pointing out typos as an indication of stupidity? calm down.I'm calm, but do you feel stupid?

I read it, it's relevant to the post, I'm asking you atheists to read it. You CAN learn from other people, you know. I don't believe you actually read it. And, if you did, I don't believe you understood it well enough to present the specific points you found relevant. I'd like to learn from you, but you don't seem capable of teaching. Moreover, the use of the word "theory" doesn't apply to 'intelligent' design since this fallacy of thought has yet to produce any testable or verifiable hypotheses. "Intelligent" design is neither intelligent nor well designed as an argument against science.

He's a THEIST, NOT religiousIs there a difference?

[QUOTE=SkinWalker]I'm calm, but do you feel stupid?

Nah. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that typos are a common occurance in my life =)


I don't believe you actually read it.
I'm telling you I did, you have no reason not to believe me.

And, if you did, I don't believe you understood it well enough to present the specific points you found relevant.
why? because I simply haven't attempted to yet?

I'd like to learn from you, but you don't seem capable of teaching.
I'm not talking about learning from me, but from a man whom was once your counterpart-a prominant one at that- and is no longer. He has reasons for changing his views that you might consider delving into; if for nothing else, just to know of them. If you don't want to, I don't care, I'm just putting it out there.

Moreover, the use of the word "theory" doesn't apply to 'intelligent' design since this fallacy of thought has yet to produce any testable or verifiable hypotheses. "Intelligent" design is neither intelligent nor well designed as an argument against science.

semantics. God isn't testable. But I believe that evidence can lead to -not prove, but point to- God as the ultimate conclusion. I'm still looking at all of the evidence, for every side - I'm on my journey for truth, we'll see where it takes me.

Is there a difference?

One believes in a God, one believes in God with religion. Big diff.

Religion is the practice of accepting the supernatural as valid. This is what theists do. No difference.

Religion is the practice of accepting the supernatural as valid. This is what theists do. No difference.
I would say it more like this:
religion is the practice of accepting the supernatural as valid, for the purpose of unburdening one's mind of the question of truth.

as I have heard it stated, religion is a cover crop that makes people feel better until the truth is known. people once believed that the sun was a god, until science showed otherwise.

as Carl Sagan might say, science is a candle in the dark.

p.s. my offer of sending that book (demon haunted world by Carl Sagan) to any theist, provided they pay shipping, still stands.

The man, Antony Flew, who was for decades considered "The most influential atheist philosopher in the world" thinks ID should be respected...perhaps you might to well to get a better understanding of ID theories.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm
do you mean the Flew who said this "Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist! (2001)"

The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book
but he does seem to have a mild belief in a prime mover an impersonal first clause, It might not even be conscious, but a mere force.

well so did einstein.

the stand Flew is taking, actually has nothing in common with the world's religions. but the meaning for all intents and purposes, is the same as the meaning of atheism.
no atheist in is right mind could say with utter certainty they no god exists, that would be infantile in the extreme, this is weak atheism.
however I believe Flew may of become a deist.

a deist is one thousand percent more rational then a theist, but less than a atheist, just because of one little flaw, in there thinking.
if Flew has changed lanes he will lose all credibility, so bringing him into the debate, has'nt gained you any ground at all, as it.

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?ac...iewAsset&id=369

[QUOTE=geeser]do you mean the Flew who said this "Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist! (2001)"

Well, if you had read the forward, he changed his views in 2004, so whatever he said in 2001 is now obviously out of date.



"In January 2003 they again dialogued on the resurrection at California Polytechnic State University–San Luis Obispo. (6)

During a couple telephone discussions shortly after their last dialogue, Flew explained to Habermas that he was considering becoming a theist. While Flew did not change his position at that time, he concluded that certain philosophical and scientific considerations were causing him to do some serious rethinking. He characterized his position as that of atheism standing in tension with several huge question marks.

Then, a year later, in January 2004, Flew informed Habermas that he had indeed become a theist. While still rejecting the concept of special revelation, whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, nonetheless he had concluded that theism was true. In Flew’s words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.”"

Religion is the practice of accepting the supernatural as valid. This is what theists do. No difference.

cept one believes that God has made communication, and has set rules and such down for everyone to follow. you don't think that's a big difference?

(he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book
but he does seem to have a mild belief in a prime mover an impersonal first clause, It might not even be conscious, but a mere force.



H: and Spinoza’s God. Are you implying, with some interpreters of Spinoza, that God is pantheistic?

FLEW: I’m noting there that <b>God and Philosophy has become out of date and should now be seen as an historical document rather than as a direct contribution to current discussions. </b>

cept one believes that God has made communication, and has set rules and such down for everyone to follow. you don't think that's a big difference?

There are many definitions for "religion," depending upon if you are defining it from a sociological, anthropological, theological, psychological, etc. perspective.

Nearly all hold that it centers around belief in the supernatural as an explanation for the universe. This is also the same definition for "theism." Therefore, a theist is religious. QED.

Nearly all hold that it centers around belief in the supernatural as an explanation for the universe. This is also the same definition for "theism." Therefore, a theist is religious. QED.
Maybe this is just playing with words, but if there is a God and this God created the Universe, then surely that would be quite natural, if not Natural.
Is it not more appropriate to reserve the term supernatural for events within the created Universe that temporarily infringe the laws of the Universe? In other words, the creator sets up the rules for how this Universe functions - the act of creation - and thereafter everything that follows those laws is natural. Only events that breach those laws are supernatural.

On the original topic question, I would say that you need to define just what you mean by Intelligent Design.

It is true that Creationists have re-packaged their silly nonsense, I mean non-science from "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design" to try to do an end-run around the Court System, which has already found against them. (Proving that there can be sanity in Law, sometimes.)

If you are referring to the much older belief: that Ultimately it's All God's Fault that We Are Here Regardless Of God's Methods (caps intentional), then there may be a bit of a stronger case.

This older philosophy/belief really is only interested in looking at the bits of the Universe that Science can not or does not choose to explain. I.e. the metaphysical. Adherients to this form of Intelligent Design include some pretty savy people, and it is a pretty widespread belief, too.

And, as such, for some, it may have merit.

Of course, it is most definitely not a science, but a philosophy or religion. It should therefore, not be taught in a science class, but could find mention in any of the social sciences [History, Sociology, Politics, etc]: since all of Human Activity (including Belief in a Flat Earth :p ) could be considered subject material.

IN THE EMPIRICAL CHURCH..... these problems... dont exist.


ID... can be considered.. if we dont take the bible literally.. and instead.. see it as simili and metaphor. in which case... it makes perfect sense.
and can actually fit with empirical science... and theory... some anyway.
-MT

What concerns me is that it is the people who hold beliefs that are contrary to "good sense" who are personally denigrated, (called retard, moron, etc). In any debate, the better argument is generally held by those who do not descend to a) dishonesty and b) abuse and ad hominem attacks. Creationists and other religious authoritarian believers tend to exhibit the former attribute, but if those arguing against that and in favour of scientific truth nontheless use the latter attribute, how is any impartial viewer supposed to decide?

The man, Antony Flew, who was for decades considered "The most influential atheist philosopher in the world" thinks ID should be respected...perhaps you might to well to get a better understanding of ID theories.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm There seems to be an invalid link between someone who used to be an atheist (whether he was "the most influential atheist philosopher in the world" is rather a matter for debate) and we atheists taking his theory seriously.

As time goes on I find myself more and more amazed, as an ordinary, middle aged computer bod, at my ability to find the fallacious arguments and logic of people professing to be professional philosophers, whether theist or atheist. Flew says, "Well, I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to
that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before." It's astonishing to me that any learned and intelligent person could derive "increased evidence for God" from anything that has formed part of human progress over the past two hundred years or so.

FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design. And there you have it. He has translated a complete misunderstanding of Evolutionary theory, attributed it to Dawkins (of all people) and then drawn the erroneous conclusion. If he'd actually read Dawkins, perhaps he would not be making these erroneous arguments. Dawkins, first of all, is more aware than most people of the doubts in Evolutionary theory expressed by Darwin himself - doubts that were subsequently removed (not necessarily for Darwin, who was dead by that time) by further research. The discovery of DNA itself - 52 years ago, Professor Flew! - is the "prototype organism" he believes that we have "overlooked", but so far from overlooking it, it is certainly the subject of the greatest study. Maybe we will never know the exact explanation for the existence of the first replicating DNA molecule, but just because we won't know it, doesn't make God's having created it any more likely.

Flew's "evidence" consists of inserting God into the interstices of human ignorance. The fallacy is plain - there are always an infinitude of things we don't know, but every time we learn something new, the fingerprints of God simply fade and disappear. There is no reason to suppose that will ever be other than the case. Consequently, it is folly and wilful blindness to attribute to the increase of our knowledge of the natural world , and consequently the reduction of the need for God, some putative and fallacious "increase" in the evidence for God. He actually has it all precisely reversed.

Are we going to apply this no mutilation rule to male babies as well?
Or will we assume that circumcision is too much of a Western mainstream idea to be questioned?
In an ideal world children would be protected and allowed to form their own conclusions about religion; we do not live in an ideal world so we just have to do the best we can.
If you are unfamilar with the work of Carl G. Jung try google. Recommended for the beginner "Man and His Symbols" Jung et al

Please, this is a misnomer: Western civilization is not the source for promoting circumcision. This is a old Judaic custom; numerous Catholics and Protestants today are not circumcised. Notably, it's also a strongly prevalent islamic custom - a strictly mandated one, if memory serves, to say nothing of the practice of female circumcision.

There seems to be a mindless undercurrent of blaming "the West" for everything. I assure you that while the West has problems, it isn't the source of all evil that some believe it is.

Geoff

How does a baby girl give consent of anything? She's being mutilated by the concent of the parent? She has no choice in the matter.

Exactly.

Geoff