Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design and the War with Iraq
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 7 (38152)
04-27-2003 12:50 PM


I find it somewhat curious that some of the biggest players in the US government foisting Intelligent Design on the nation's children... as a "new way of doing science"... are the same ones that sent us to war with Iraq over their weapons of mass destruction.
This could get very lengthy, so I am going to skip details right now. But think about this carefully.
A major part of the ID movement is to criticize materialist thinking as less than empirical, because evos accept gaps in the fossil record. Their entire claim is that nothing can be said about ANYTHING if there is no concrete physical proof that can be seen by all.
Yet where was the evidence for WMDs. Clearly there was none before the conflict, at least nothing close to the level of evidence suggesting continued parent-child relationships during fossil gaps.
And there is still no credible evidence forthcoming after the war. Bush has now suggested that it might be possible there will never be any WMDs found at all.
So the guy who helped advance "true empirical science" by forcing the tenets of ID theory on our children, now wants us to WHOLLY REJECT those very tenets and believe that gaps in a record DOES NOT mean a theory should be rejected.
I hope someone calls him on this double-game he is playing.
Someone let me know if I've missed how the "new empiricism" of Dembski and the ID movement, can now accept gaps in knowledge.
------------------
holmes

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-18-2003 6:01 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 7 by MrHambre, posted 08-19-2003 12:14 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Agent Uranium [GPC]
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 7 (50906)
08-18-2003 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
04-27-2003 12:50 PM


This greatly interested me! I had never thought of it in this way. Of course, I can't speak for those people, but I suspect it might come down to FEAR OF WMD.
With ID, Evolution, etc. no-one tends to die if one side makes a mistake. But here, people actually believed that The West might have suffered an attack from Saddam and so tried to pre-empt it and prevent any attack. Believing in principles when it comes to fossils doesn't compare because a lack of strong proof still might have resulted in people dying from WMD. Do you see?
------------------
quote:
All the boys think she's a spy
, 08-18-2003

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 04-27-2003 12:50 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2003 6:51 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 7 (50912)
08-18-2003 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Agent Uranium [GPC]
08-18-2003 6:01 PM


But here, people actually believed that The West might have suffered an attack from Saddam and so tried to pre-empt it and prevent any attack.
Since when is this a valid reason to go to war?
Can anyone think of a context (like, the playground) in which it's appropriate to use violence simply because you were afraid the other guy would use it first, but hadn't?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-18-2003 6:01 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 08-18-2003 7:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 7 (50924)
08-18-2003 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
08-18-2003 6:51 PM


Crash,
Not sure about the US, but in the UK you are allowed to take pre-emptive action against someone if you perceive yourself to be in immediate danger (I nearly said "clear & present").
For example, someone holds a knife in front of you, you smack them over the head with an iron bar. That's what happens when you threaten people with knives IMO.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2003 6:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2003 11:34 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 7 (50933)
08-18-2003 9:46 PM


Holmes, I think you're missing one of the cardinal rules of the Religious Right: "Do as I say, not as I do" Doublethink is no problem at all when you base so much on that principle.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 7 (50956)
08-18-2003 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
08-18-2003 7:50 PM


Not sure about the US, but in the UK you are allowed to take pre-emptive action against someone if you perceive yourself to be in immediate danger (I nearly said "clear & present").
For example, someone holds a knife in front of you, you smack them over the head with an iron bar. That's what happens when you threaten people with knives IMO.
Oh, I agree. But remember, we went to war because we couldn't see the WMD's. That be like if I hit you over the head with a bar because I thought you had a knife, but you wouldn't turn out your pockets to prove that you didn't have one. Now, sure, I saw you with a knife, once (sold it to you, in fact) but that was ten years ago...
And now what are we discovering? A distinct lack of a knife on your hypothetical person. Of course we have an excuse - "he ditched it while I was hitting him."
And the precise reason we went to war with Iraq (and not N. Korea) is because we weren't in immediate danger, but rather, we were in danger of being in immediate danger in the future. Like, you were about to threaten me with a knife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 08-18-2003 7:50 PM mark24 has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 7 of 7 (50961)
08-19-2003 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
04-27-2003 12:50 PM


quote:
Yet where was the evidence for WMDs. Clearly there was none before the conflict, at least nothing close to the level of evidence suggesting continued parent-child relationships during fossil gaps.
The same place the evidence of design is in the eyes of proponents of IDC: it was merely inferred. Behe had to do a lot of work to find biological structures whose origins have slight documentation so he can infer that the gap in question had to be filled by intelligence. Even good old Bill Hicks (RIP) knew America's first bout with Saddam was a set-up:
"We know he's got nukes."
"How do you know?"
"We got the receipts. As soon as those checks clear he's dead. What time does the bank open?"
"Nine."
"We attack at nine-thirty, then."
It didn't take sophisticated scientific equipment to see the administration's desperation for an oil-rich-land-grab. I'm sure they would have shown the 'intelligence' they claimed to have concerning the WMD's, or at least pointed the UN inspectors in the right direction.
Previous administrations had to goad the enemy into attacking first. Our overseas correspondents can be forgiven for not remembering the Fort Sumter incident, when Lincoln floated a hostile fleet into Charleston harbor to fortify a tiny Union outpost. The Confederates attacked and the Civil War began. Not a hundred years later, America annexed Hawaii and parked another hostile fleet there, daring the oil-starved Japanese to make a move. Pearl Harbor started the festivities that time.
Bush couldn't wait for Saddam to fire first, and was probably relieved that public opinion didn't seem to require such patience. In classic IDC style, war supporters said that evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD's would have been just as much reason to invade, since it would have made the prospect of conquest easier. When you've got your mind made up, what's the difference?
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 04-27-2003 12:50 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024