Design

[Vonsalza]

So their claim was that ID is distinct from creationism?

In fairness, I would argue that it is distinct in that it’s a development; a refinement toward a particular interpretation of it. I suppose it’s the same in that your preferred brand of chocolate bar is distinct from the concept of chocolate bars in general.

As we’ve discussed earlier, I hold that all objects and systems are designed by God; the pile of leaves as well as the nest. But I do not hold to some notion like “the eye is irreducibly complex”. Thus I believe in a form of intelligent design, but not as taught by DI.

Only point there being that I would be cautious with conflations.

 

[tonyrey]

In fairness, I would argue that it is distinct in that it’s a development; a refinement toward a particular interpretation of it. I suppose it’s the same in that your preferred brand of chocolate bar is distinct from the concept of chocolate bars in general.

As we’ve discussed earlier, I hold that all objects and systems are designed by God; the pile of leaves as well as the nest. But I do not hold to some notion like “the eye is irreducibly complex”. Thus I believe in a form of intelligent design, but not as taught by DI.

Only point there being that I would be cautious with conflations.

Indeed. Plato, Aristotle and the vast majority of philosophers who believed in Design certainly weren’t Creationists - which is an overwhelmingly Protestant belief!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Irrefutable! There is no doubt evolution has occurred but to present it as a comprehensive explanation of reality is totally illogical and unjustified. We need to ask |“Can evolution explain evolution?” If not what is the ultimate explanation?

I would say things changed throughout the ages, but evolution did not occur. Nothing morphed into anything else. Things changed because things change. Things die out, and other things arise. However no species ever changed into another species. That is ONE BIG FAT LIE.

 

[Bradski]

Is it a crime to give children or anyone else an explanation that science cannot answer?

It’s unconscionable to give children a book, which, in your own words, cannot give a scientific answer to questions about biology, to use as a scientific text book. Which is exactly what the DI was trying to do. To introduce their book into the science curriculum.

Good to see that at last you actually understand what the argument was about in the first place.

 

[tonyrey]

I would say things changed throughout the ages, but evolution did not occur. Nothing morphed into anything else. Things changed because things change. Things die out, and other things arise. However no species ever changed into another species. That is ONE BIG FAT LIE.

That is indeed the stumbling block for NeoDarwinists which is summed up in the futility of attempting to derive a rational being from mindless particles. How unrealistic can they get in their desperate efforts to evade the existence of the Supreme Being? Of course they won’t even condescend to justify their dogmatic negativity which distorts life into a valueless, purposeless and meaningless accident in the darkness of eternity…

 

[tonyrey]

It’s unconscionable to give children a book, which, in your own words, cannot give a scientific answer to questions about biology, to use as a scientific text book. Which is exactly what the DI was trying to do. To introduce their book into the science curriculum.

Good to see that at last you actually understand what the argument was about in the first place.

It is certainly not only unconscionable but also evil to give children the impression that life is merely the product of random combinations of molecules and fortuitous genetic mutations without any value, purpose or significance as the result of the exclusion.of all non-scientific explanations of reality from the schools’ curriculum. No wonder that in our secular society there have been millions of abortions, unpublicised policies of euthanasia and an increase in depression and the number of suicides…

 

[Bradski]

It is certainly not only unconscionable but also evil to give children the impression that life is merely the product of random combinations of molecules and fortuitous genetic mutations without any value, purpose or significance as the result of the exclusion.of all non-scientific explanations of reality from the schools’ curriculum.

Hmm. Maybe you’re right. It does sound like we need some method of teaching children the non-scientific explanations for aspects of life that they can’t be taught in a science classroom.

I wonder what that could be? Any ideas, Tony?

 

[tonyrey]

Hmm. Maybe you’re right. It does sound like we need some method of teaching children the non-scientific explanations for aspects of life that they can’t be taught in a science classroom.

I wonder what that could be? Any ideas, Tony?

Plenty, Brad! On being appointed as head of a Liberal Studies department I used to give lectures on the philosophy of education and introduced a curriculum which consisted of tutorials, talks by visiting speakers and discussions of physical, moral, social, political, economic, aesthetic, spiritual and philosophical issues. It came to a tragic end when a brilliant politician was assassinated a month after he visited the college. The department was closed down because the government regarded it as subversive. I was transferred to the Education department where I discretely followed the same syllabus minus visiting speakers. Needless to say my contract was not renewed but I don’t regret the experience because the students really enjoyed and benefited from the course.

 

[Bradski]

Plenty, Brad! On being appointed as head of a Liberal Studies department I used to give lectures on the philosophy of education and introduced a curriculum which consisted of tutorials, talks by visiting speakers and discussions of physical, moral, social, political, economic, aesthetic, spiritual and philosophical issues. It came to a tragic end when a brilliant politician was assassinated a month after he visited the college. The department was closed down because the government regarded it as subversive. I was transferred to the Education department where I discretely followed the same syllabus minus visiting speakers. Needless to say my contract was not renewed but I don’t regret the experience because the students really enjoyed and benefited from the course.

I was looking for a one word answer, not a CV. Here’s a clue:

Place where people go to worship and learn about aspects of life that can’t be taught in a science class:

Ch*rch

Here’s another:

Place where subjects like biology are taught that reveal aspects of life that do have a scientific basis:

Sch*ol

And the name of an organisation that confuses the two:

Dsign Institte.

Let me know if you need any more clues.

 

[Aloysium]

The primary role of educational systems is socialization, to assist in the integration of the developing person into society with the expectation that they will contribute to its well-being through their achievements. We come to fit in, making use of what we have learned that includes the myths and stories of our culture, facts and details about the world, how things work - physically, psychologically, politically and economically.

In times of change especially, also generally by people who don’t wish to fit in, and typically thought about societies whose values are at odds with our own, the particular educational system is viewed more negatively as the creator of cogs to fit a ruinous machinery, be it consumerist, communist, Islamist, hunter-gatherer, nomadic, agricultural, or whatever.

While we tend to specialize during our course through that system into particular areas of study, we are always provided with the essentials that are meaningful to the culture. In general, we attempt to transmit our accumulated knowledge and wisdom only to the point where it does no conflict with the existing power structure. That there may be a great emphasis in some societies on the pursuit solely of scientific subjects betrays a value system that discourages free thought and promotes nonreflective conformity. Everything of this world is subject to power grounded in death, and schools will feed us any trash in order to maintain the social order.

I would imagine that’s what worries atheistic zealots, unaware that it has already happened and that they are victim. Fact is that restricting what should be taught in school to what Scientism believes to be science, would not merely stifle rational thought, but deprive us of the truth.

 

[tonyrey]

I was looking for a one word answer , not a CV.

One episode is hardly a CV nor is a one word answer an adequate response to the question about “teaching children the non-scientific explanations for aspects of life that they can’t be taught in a science classroom”.

Here’s a clue:

Place where people go to worship and learn about aspects of life that can’t be taught in a science class:

Ch*rch

Here’s another:

Place where subjects like biology are taught that reveal aspects of life that do have a scientific basis:

Sch*ol

And the name of an organisation that confuses the two:

Dsign Institte.

Let me know if you need any more clues.

You are using this forum as an excuse for criticising one particular interpretation of Design instead of responding to fundamental questions:

1. Why have there been millions of abortions, unpublicised policies of euthanasia and an increase in depression and the number of suicides in our secular society?
2. Precisely how did mindless particles produce rational beings with the power of insight and self-control?

3, Do you live as if life is purposeless and treat others as strange freaks of nature which exist by chance for no reason whatsoever?

 

[tonyrey]

The primary role of educational systems is socialization, to assist in the integration of the developing person into society with the expectation that they will contribute to its well-being through their achievements. We come to fit in, making use of what we have learned that includes the myths and stories of our culture, facts and details about the world, how things work - physically, psychologically, politically and economically.

In times of change especially, also generally by people who don’t wish to fit in, and typically thought about societies whose values are at odds with our own, the particular educational system is viewed more negatively as the creator of cogs to fit a ruinous machinery, be it consumerist, communist, Islamist, hunter-gatherer, nomadic, agricultural, or whatever.

While we tend to specialize during our course through that system into particular areas of study, we are always provided with the essentials that are meaningful to the culture. In general, we attempt to transmit our accumulated knowledge and wisdom only to the point where it does no conflict with the existing power structure. That there may be a great emphasis in some societies on the pursuit solely of scientific subjects betrays a value system that discourages free thought and promotes nonreflective conformity. Everything of this world is subject to power grounded in death, and schools will feed us any trash in order to maintain the social order.

I would imagine that’s what worries atheistic zealots, unaware that it has already happened and that they are victim. Fact is that restricting what should be taught in school to what Scientism believes to be science, would not merely stifle rational thought, but deprive us of the truth.

Irrefutable! That is an excellent example of an adequate response to the question of how children can be given non-scientific explanations for aspects of life that they can’t be taught in a science classroom. Anyone who regards science as the ultimate source of knowledge and wisdom has a seriously distorted view of reality akin to insanity which reduces persons to biological robots…

 

[Bradski]

…children can be given non-scientific explanations for aspects of life that they can’t be taught in a science classroom.

See, you do get it.

 

[tonyrey]

See, you do get it.

An unconvincing post which evades the fundamental issues:

1. Why have there been millions of abortions, unpublicised policies of euthanasia and an increase in depression and the number of suicides in our secular society?
2. Precisely how did mindless particles produce rational beings with the power of insight and self-control?

3, Do you live as if life is purposeless and treat others as strange freaks of nature which exist by chance for no reason whatsoever?

 

[tonyrey]

I was looking for a one word answer, not a CV. Here’s a clue:

Place where people go to worship and learn about aspects of life that can’t be taught in a science class:

Ch*rch

Here’s another:

Place where subjects like biology are taught that reveal aspects of life that do have a scientific basis:

Sch*ol

And the name of an organisation that confuses the two:

Dsign Institte.

Let me know if you need any more clues.

Your indifferent reply demonstrates that you’re not interested in the slightest in aspects of life that can’t be taught in a science class but solely intent on criticising an organisation which has often revealed the flaws in neoDarwinism. Attack isn’t the best form of defence when you have nothing to defend and cannot present an adequate explanation of the origin of life and its development from monocellular organisms to rational beings who have insight into the nature of the universe and the power to change themselves and the world in which they live - accomplishments you obviously take for granted without being able or willing to grasp their significance…

 

[tonyrey]

…children can be given non-scientific explanations for aspects of life that they can’t be taught in a science classroom.See, you do get it.

Any responsible science teacher points out to the pupils there are different interpretations of evolution. In good schools there are discussions in the classroom about the role and significance of biological evolution and whether NeoDarwinism is an adequate explanation of human beings. Only militant atheists distort the facts and give young children the impression that religion has been replaced by science. Richard Dawkins described religious education as “child abuse” but in reality it is quite the reverse. It is a heinous crime to destroy the faith of young boys and girls leaving them without any belief in God, moral values, life after death, the sanctity of marriage and spiritual values…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

One episode is hardly a CV nor is a one word answer an adequate response to the question about “teaching children the non-scientific explanations for aspects of life that they can’t be taught in a science classroom”.

You are using this forum as an excuse for criticising one particular interpretation of Design instead of responding to fundamental questions:

1. Why have there been millions of abortions, unpublicised policies of euthanasia and an increase in depression and the number of suicides in our secular society?
2. Precisely how did mindless particles produce rational beings with the power of insight and self-control?

3, Do you live as if life is purposeless and treat others as strange freaks of nature which exist by chance for no reason whatsoever?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Any responsible science teacher points out to the pupils there are different interpretations of evolution. In good schools there are discussions in the classroom about the role and significance of biological evolution and whether NeoDarwinism is an adequate explanation of human beings. Only militant atheists distort the facts and give young children the impression that religion has been replaced by science. Richard Dawkins described religious education as “child abuse” but in reality it is quite the reverse. It is a heinous crime to destroy the faith of young boys and girls leaving them without any belief in God, moral values, life after death, the sanctity of marriage and spiritual values…

Amen!

 

[tonyrey]

Amen!

Thanks, Christine. I feel very strongly about the way people are brainwashed by individuals like David Attenborough who use their TV programmes to promulgate atheism by dwelling on the harsher aspects of nature. Even on this thread his reference to worms burrowing into children’s eyes has been used as evidence against the existence of a loving God in stark contrast to the message of Jesus that Solomon in all his glory couldn’t rival the beauty of the lilies. Even educated individuals are taken in by facile arguments which overlook the immense complexity of the biosphere…

 

[tonyrey]

Reductio ad absurdum:

1. If nothing is designed everything is purposeless - including all our mental activity
2. If all our mental activity is purposeless the proposition that everything is purposeless is self-destructive