Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,356 Year: 3,613/9,624 Month: 484/974 Week: 97/276 Day: 25/23 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design ⇒

Is ID a right wing conspiracy?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID a right wing conspiracy?
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4773 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 4 of 76 (228599)
08-01-2005 8:17 PM 		Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-01-2005 1:16 PM

mick writes:
​
Is ID a right wing conspiracy?
​
No. It's merely a concept that's about 0.1% more specific than: "Someone did some thing at some time."
​
Now, it appears that a certain subset of Christians is using ID to further their agenda, as they're not above 'lying for Jesus'. I do find it preferable to the historic method of furthering the Christian agenda: 'killing anyone who disagrees'.
​
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-01-2005 08:19 PM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-01-2005 1:16 PM mick has not replied
  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4773 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 12 of 76 (228972)
08-02-2005 8:04 PM 		Reply to: Message 6 by randman
08-02-2005 1:42 AM

Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
randman writes:
​
I keep hearing about how the Wedge document is evidence that IDers are political, but evolutionists fail to recognize that the Wedge document is simply responding to evolutionists and materialists existing social/political/quasi-religious status.
​
The insistence that we are purely material, and by material, I mean an outdated concept of "material", a Newtonian version already outdated by QM, is a fundamentally religious, social, and political claim of materialists, and the Wedge document is quite right to assert this is a false application of science.
​
Using Occam's Razor is not religious, social, or political.
For example, the 6 invisible pixies that are pushing on the front of my car, and the 6 invisible pixies that are pushing equally hard on the back of my car, get cut by the Razor. They're unneeded additional entities. I'm not saying that they're not there -- I'm simply saying that it doesn't matter. Their existence is irrelevant. That's not a religious, political, or social claim -- it's merely the truth.
If we find an area in which the invisible pixies actually affect something, their existence becomes relevant. Again, that would not be a religious, political, or social claim -- it'd merely be the truth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:42 AM randman has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by brainpan, posted 08-03-2005 12:15 AM DominionSeraph has replied
 Message 15 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 12:52 AM DominionSeraph has replied
  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4773 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 20 of 76 (229045)
08-03-2005 4:17 AM 		Reply to: Message 13 by brainpan
08-03-2005 12:15 AM

Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
brainpan writes:
​
ID is definitely a conspiracy.
​
ID isn't capable of performing the verb, "to conspire." Last time I checked, it's a concept -- not a person.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by brainpan, posted 08-03-2005 12:15 AM brainpan has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 08-03-2005 4:32 AM DominionSeraph has replied
 Message 31 by brainpan, posted 08-03-2005 2:04 PM DominionSeraph has not replied
  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4773 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 22 of 76 (229053)
08-03-2005 4:54 AM 		Reply to: Message 15 by randman
08-03-2005 12:52 AM

Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
randman writes:
​
The breakdown here is the assumption that physical existence, and design are functionally self-existent.
​
What a mess.
Anyway, if I'm interpreting that correctly, no such assumption is required. It's pretty simple: Until something else is needed, nothing else is needed.
​
randman writes:
​
Btw, just as an aside not germane to your point, the use of Occam's Razor in an argument is totally unimpressive.
​
So's 2+3=5, unless you're talking to a preschooler.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 12:52 AM randman has not replied
  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4773 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 23 of 76 (229054)
08-03-2005 4:56 AM 		Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
08-03-2005 4:32 AM

Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
Modulous writes:
​
Indeed, it is claimed to be a conspiracy, not a conspirator.
​
conspiracy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spr-s)
n. pl. conspiracies
​
2. A group of conspirators.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 08-03-2005 4:32 AM Modulous has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 08-03-2005 5:35 AM DominionSeraph has replied
  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4773 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 25 of 76 (229069)
08-03-2005 6:09 AM 		Reply to: Message 24 by Modulous
08-03-2005 5:35 AM

Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
Modulous writes:
​
Congratulations you have listed one definition of a conspiracy. Other definitions include:
An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act
​
The agreement would be for people to perform together to place ID in schools. It would not be an agreement for people to ID, as that's nonsensical.
​
Modulous writes:
​
A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design
​
ID can't act.
​
Perhaps I should put a stop to this nonsense, and simply correct the topic:
​
"Is there a right-wing conspiracy to put religion in public schools, with ID as their chosen vector?"
​
Yes.
​
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-03-2005 06:10 AM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 08-03-2005 5:35 AM Modulous has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 08-03-2005 6:22 AM DominionSeraph has not replied
  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4773 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 57 of 76 (230424)
08-06-2005 12:14 PM 		Reply to: Message 53 by sleikind
08-04-2005 7:10 PM

sleikind writes:
​
Many Science advocates fall into a trap when they respond that ID isn't Science (true), but the discussion ends up sounding like a debate in which God and Science are mutually exclusive.
That's because most people are referring to the Biblical god, God, when they say that science and God are mutually exclusive.
You can't have the existence of something that flooded the Earth when nothing flooded the Earth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by sleikind, posted 08-04-2005 7:10 PM sleikind has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024