Gramsci wrote:So does life Mike, one day it has to end... Sorry about that.
That is liberal propaganda at its most sensational.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
111That is liberal propaganda at its most sensational.
That is liberal propaganda at its most sensational.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
112tipcat wrote:That would be a rather quick endeavor.
Quick, yes, but imagine the satisfaction at having finally found something.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
113I do not know why evolution and creationism, or theism in general, are seen to be so exclusive.
There is a branch of thought that has existed since the day of Aquinas, and is still out there with some theologists, that faith is utterly dependant on lack of proof - that is, the more the designs of God are hidden, the stronger there is an argument for God. If the existence of God was proveable, faith (vs reason) would be non-existent.
I'm apalled by people who poke through the Bible piece by piece, grabbing obscure bits for their own agenda but happily ignoring the blatent, obvious commands. Jesus said sell all your belongings, give the money away, and live like a pauper. He said it as blatently as anything is said in the Bible. Hey, Christians, I need some winter gloves! Your reward is in Heaven!
There is a branch of thought that has existed since the day of Aquinas, and is still out there with some theologists, that faith is utterly dependant on lack of proof - that is, the more the designs of God are hidden, the stronger there is an argument for God. If the existence of God was proveable, faith (vs reason) would be non-existent.
I'm apalled by people who poke through the Bible piece by piece, grabbing obscure bits for their own agenda but happily ignoring the blatent, obvious commands. Jesus said sell all your belongings, give the money away, and live like a pauper. He said it as blatently as anything is said in the Bible. Hey, Christians, I need some winter gloves! Your reward is in Heaven!
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
115M_a_x wrote:I do not know why evolution and creationism, or theism in general, are seen to be so exclusive.
If I might attempt an answer - I believe the argument is not that evolution and theism are mutually exclusive, rather, that intelligent design is an inappropriate subject for a science curriculum. That's my argument, at any rate.
Evolution isn't even a theory; it's property of biological existence. It is fact. One needs only to look around at the world to see a wealth of evidence.
The theoretical aspect of evolution is the Darwinian theory of natural selection, and that may freely be disagreed with, questioned, or rejected outright if one so chooses.
A rough analogy that I like is that of gravity. If one disagrees with the Newtonian, or Einsteinian, theories of gravity, does one necessarily disbelieve in gravity? It seems foolish to me to attack theories by ignoring the very real phenomena which they have been created to explain.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
116this is some stuff that i was thinking about while reading this discoking
but i am intoxicated and almost 8 hours beyond my optimum bed time
hope some if it makes sense:
being primitive or not is not part of the question is, as far as i'm concerned,
and what ever Thomas
seems to say to you is no reason for the ordering of space, time, economy,
culture, normality, and prescribing it as normal (which is not necessariliy to
say that is what Thomas Aquinas said or did).
thomas aquinas, what the fuck?
who cares?
ok, the catholic church has had many people over centuries who hold by the
prescribed systems of thought ( which could explain the problem of a lack of
advancement in western thought over several centuries (but then again, so
comfortable in it's valuation of everything)) and the catholic church has
an argument about evolution which amounts to, "our god is so great that god
would create something so great that it could change from when it was set in
motions."
but the arguement is not about catholicism so what the fuck with thomas
Science, philosophy and religion have to match. Then the humans will know more
than this confusion. surity is what we seek.
shit, i'm reading and writing as i go, but
"know today. The average Western 12 year old knows more about the physical
universe than Aquinas ever did." antonio
it's not just western kids, from the accounts i'm hearing, and the experience
i've had, the west is less educated than a lot of the rest of the world, and
not just in specifics (like western history and philosophy (which you must
admit has been retarded by several centuries of conservative, institutional,
christian domination), but generally (like maths and physics).
it doesn't matter what anyone thinks the universe is made up of, it won't be
what it is, and it will be resisting being what it is by thinking about it.
anything so broad as the universe cannot be thought of from without.
the enlightenment in some way highlights the ascendency of 'rationality'
in the western mind. this has not necessarily been good.... capitalism
"Neither of you have answered the question why Christianity should be
>> treated any differently than any other primitive belief system?
there is no reason..............
when you get in a class room that claims to be teaching science you would want the answers given to questions asked at least to stand up to the model that it is you are setting up as being science, any other
way, the thing you call science is something other than what the general
scientific community would consider science, in which case it is not part of
the question for a science class, maybe 'social education', did you guys have social studies at school? and then there is no real reason for your ideas to dominate, other than it is propaganda, socialisation, or some other form of normalisation.
"That kind of statement itself is outside the bounds of science."
that's because of your view of what science is. i am an atheist. i don't think
science has any questionable bounds, only questions which bound it, science,
apart from our mythical creations of it, is about understanding everything.
if it can't explain does not necessarilly mean it's object doesn't exist, but
if science, philosophy, 'religion', don't agree then we are still searching,
still unknowing.
"and the science folks would concede that *as scientists* they really can't
say anything at all about God."
scientist don't generally talk about god, and from my understanding, there
are many scientists who profess one or other theistic belief.
"...I challenge you to find a single proposition I've put forth that turns
out to be false if God doesn't exist. "
that's kind of the point, your arguments all come from a theistic perspective,
i'm looking for one in your writing that would suspend belief in any kind of
conscious, deliberate creator.
falsification
atheism until proved otherwise
no god
keep thought (religious and scientific) evolving until we know
"one should respect the complementary aspect of divine revelation and human reason"
that is crap, and a folding of hands on favour of suspension of belief -faith-
over falsification.
your god can't prove science wrong. in fact, i dear it to.
so i've just reread that and would say intelligent design is not science and shouldn't be taught as such, but if taught, social studies would be more appropriate, or science as a case study for an anthropology class.
blah blah blah
kill your idols
but i am intoxicated and almost 8 hours beyond my optimum bed time
hope some if it makes sense:
being primitive or not is not part of the question is, as far as i'm concerned,
and what ever Thomas
seems to say to you is no reason for the ordering of space, time, economy,
culture, normality, and prescribing it as normal (which is not necessariliy to
say that is what Thomas Aquinas said or did).
thomas aquinas, what the fuck?
who cares?
ok, the catholic church has had many people over centuries who hold by the
prescribed systems of thought ( which could explain the problem of a lack of
advancement in western thought over several centuries (but then again, so
comfortable in it's valuation of everything)) and the catholic church has
an argument about evolution which amounts to, "our god is so great that god
would create something so great that it could change from when it was set in
motions."
but the arguement is not about catholicism so what the fuck with thomas
Science, philosophy and religion have to match. Then the humans will know more
than this confusion. surity is what we seek.
shit, i'm reading and writing as i go, but
"know today. The average Western 12 year old knows more about the physical
universe than Aquinas ever did." antonio
it's not just western kids, from the accounts i'm hearing, and the experience
i've had, the west is less educated than a lot of the rest of the world, and
not just in specifics (like western history and philosophy (which you must
admit has been retarded by several centuries of conservative, institutional,
christian domination), but generally (like maths and physics).
it doesn't matter what anyone thinks the universe is made up of, it won't be
what it is, and it will be resisting being what it is by thinking about it.
anything so broad as the universe cannot be thought of from without.
the enlightenment in some way highlights the ascendency of 'rationality'
in the western mind. this has not necessarily been good.... capitalism
"Neither of you have answered the question why Christianity should be
>> treated any differently than any other primitive belief system?
there is no reason..............
when you get in a class room that claims to be teaching science you would want the answers given to questions asked at least to stand up to the model that it is you are setting up as being science, any other
way, the thing you call science is something other than what the general
scientific community would consider science, in which case it is not part of
the question for a science class, maybe 'social education', did you guys have social studies at school? and then there is no real reason for your ideas to dominate, other than it is propaganda, socialisation, or some other form of normalisation.
"That kind of statement itself is outside the bounds of science."
that's because of your view of what science is. i am an atheist. i don't think
science has any questionable bounds, only questions which bound it, science,
apart from our mythical creations of it, is about understanding everything.
if it can't explain does not necessarilly mean it's object doesn't exist, but
if science, philosophy, 'religion', don't agree then we are still searching,
still unknowing.
"and the science folks would concede that *as scientists* they really can't
say anything at all about God."
scientist don't generally talk about god, and from my understanding, there
are many scientists who profess one or other theistic belief.
"...I challenge you to find a single proposition I've put forth that turns
out to be false if God doesn't exist. "
that's kind of the point, your arguments all come from a theistic perspective,
i'm looking for one in your writing that would suspend belief in any kind of
conscious, deliberate creator.
falsification
atheism until proved otherwise
no god
keep thought (religious and scientific) evolving until we know
"one should respect the complementary aspect of divine revelation and human reason"
that is crap, and a folding of hands on favour of suspension of belief -faith-
over falsification.
your god can't prove science wrong. in fact, i dear it to.
so i've just reread that and would say intelligent design is not science and shouldn't be taught as such, but if taught, social studies would be more appropriate, or science as a case study for an anthropology class.
blah blah blah
kill your idols
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
117I do not know why my comments have seemed pro-ID to anyone here...I'm reading posts, finding people arguing with me, and then they attack the ID people in general!
I have a B of Sc. I abhor the idea of Intelligent Design taught in our schools. I think it's a huge step backwards. There are very few things which I value higher than the scientific method.
leftwing - perhaps I used 'evolution' the wrong way - I don't think so, as the I.D. stuff I've read specifically targets evolution. But if you wish change "evolution" to "any time religion is used in place of science" or some such.
user_name - my bringing up Aquinas was to point out that there are highly revered theologians who would find the whole debate silly, and even side with science.
I have a B of Sc. I abhor the idea of Intelligent Design taught in our schools. I think it's a huge step backwards. There are very few things which I value higher than the scientific method.
leftwing - perhaps I used 'evolution' the wrong way - I don't think so, as the I.D. stuff I've read specifically targets evolution. But if you wish change "evolution" to "any time religion is used in place of science" or some such.
user_name - my bringing up Aquinas was to point out that there are highly revered theologians who would find the whole debate silly, and even side with science.
Last edited by M_a_x_Archive on Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
118user_name wrote:Tomanyhelicopter length post
blah blah blah
kill your idols
Sweet jesus buddy, nice ramble, but try not to skin up and post...
[winky face]
Last edited by Gramsci_Archive on Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
119M_a_x wrote:I do not know my comments have seemed pro-ID to anyone here...I'm reading posts, finding people arguing with me, and then they attack the ID people in general!
[...]
leftwing - perhaps I used 'evolution' the wrong way - I don't think so, as the I.D. stuff I've read specifically targets evolution. But if you wish change "evolution" to "any time religion is used in place of science" or some such.
M_a_x: Sorry if you thought I was arguing with what you said. I just used what you said as a convenient launching point.
I think the ID stuff I've read also targets evolution, but many do not bother to differentiate evolution from natural selection, and I thought it bore getting made explicit. That's all.
DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
120leftwing wrote:I think the ID stuff I've read also targets evolution, but many do not bother to differentiate evolution from natural selection, and I thought it bore getting made explicit. That's all.
And you're right, it did. Especially because the I.D. people TARGET evolution by "poking holes" in natural selection, when the two are discrete concepts.