Bush endorses teaching "intelligent design."

Originally posted by RandFan
I so hate being lied to.
Click to expand...

However, in fantasy land, where George Bush lives and talks to his god, one can for a time create one's own reality -- but eventually it all comes crashing down.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the show that Upchurch linked to. I think that person lied.

However, Bush is a politician who can count the numbers. If you will remember both John Kerry and John Edwards were against gay marriage. Why? They are politicians and they could count the numbers. I think it is cynical and sad and Bush is wrong.

Oh BTW, our discussion ended on this note.

Originally posted by corplinx
Perhaps norm could stop trying to derail the thread and rand could please stop feeding the troll......
Click to expand...
Is it your intention of derailing this thread also?
 
RandFan said:
Great program. Thank you. As a former ID proponent I must say that the message sounds slick and enticing but I have debated on both sides enough to know that it is a facade.
Click to expand...

Wow, RandFan, I didn't know that about you.

I find that fascinating. What was it that changed your understanding about this?

I grew up in a Republican, military contractor family where nevertheless science was looked upon far more favorably than christianity. Evolution was Truth in my upbringing, so I never changed my assesment.

What was it for you?
 
Silicon said:
Wow, RandFan, I didn't know that about you.

I find that fascinating. What was it that changed your understanding about this?
Click to expand...
Many factors. Honest and reasoned debate helped a lot. I found that my argument was simply an attempt to prove ID by demonstrating the impossibility of evolution. ID doesn't answer anything. It doesn't solve anything. It simply is an attempt to say that evolution has problems and it looks like biological systems are designed therefore goddidit. ID also requires a misstatement of evolution to focus on "chance" yet evolution doesn't claim that it was all due to chance. There is a mechanism that is well understood that encompasses genetics and natural selection. Further the more I learned about evolution the more I learned that there is a vast foundation of empirical knowledge about species, genetics, biology etc., etc. that supports evolution. It is not simply a guess as to the origins of life. It is not simply one way to look at things or one way to interpret the data. These statements are as misleading as to say that the moon is not made of green cheese is simply one way to view the data.

ETA: I have always embraced science and even evolution to a degree. I simply compartmentalized that which I chose to believe. I didn't allow myself to accept the truth regardless of what that truth might be if the truth was in conflict with my beliefs.
 
RandFan said:
Is it your intention of derailing this thread also?
Click to expand...

I think it's more relevant to this thread.

Bush said what he said either because he was "lying," trying to get support from a religious base he knows is ignorant, or because he is as I said, living in fantasy land, where he talks to his god and creates his own reality.

Is there another option?

As lies go, Paul Krugman has some ideas on the ID as a political strategy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html?

However, I think Bush is also a victim of confusion and delusion as well as an unwitting but willing tool.

People do lie about things they believe in.
 
normdoering said:
I think it's more relevant to this thread.

Bush said what he said either because he was "lying," trying to get support from a religious base he knows is ignorant, or because he is as I said, living in fantasy land, where he talks to his god and creates his own reality.

Is there another option?
Click to expand...
Sure,

1.) Manchurian Candidate. Bush was kidnapped by the Chinese, hypnotized and implanted with a plan to make it easier for the Chinese to buy our Automobile companies.

2.) Aliens, Bush is not really human. The original Bush was replaced by an Alien in an attempt to take over the world.

3.) Automaton. George Bush Sr. is impotent and had a robot manufactured to be his son. This android was capable of growing from a child to a man but could never quite master the English language.

I choose to think that like most politicians Bush is playing to his political base. Sure it is a mundane and prosaic answer but critical thinking requires us to chose the prosaic answer absent REAL evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence that there is an organic problem with George Bush or that he is truly incapable of separating reality and fantasy. You have only your speculation and left wing propaganda that Bush lives in some fantasy land but whatever. You don't appear to be one too interested in evidence and of course this won't stop you from playing the troll.

So again, a thread about Bush's endorsement of ID will become your "Bush lives in fantasy land thread". Never mind you beat the horse to death in the other thread. Go ahead beat away.

deadhorse.gif


For the record, we all get it. You don't like Bush. You think he lives in a fantasy land. You've made your point and there is nothing new here but why let that stop you?
 
normdoering said:
I think it's more relevant to this thread.

Bush said what he said either because he was "lying," trying to get support from a religious base he knows is ignorant, or because he is as I said, living in fantasy land, where he talks to his god and creates his own reality.
Click to expand...
I still don't see how it is even remotely relevent to the thead. How can Bush relating his opinion on a policy possibly be construed as lying? Unless you think he doesn't really want ID taught, which would be inconsistant with other things he has said concerning policy and faith?

I think you are really reaching to make this connection.
People do lie about things they believe in.
Click to expand...
Being demonstrably incorrect is not the same thing as lying. It doesn't alleviate accountability for being incorrect, but it doesn't make it lying.
 
Upchurch said:
How can Bush relating his opinion on a policy possibly be construed as lying?
Click to expand...

You're confused. RandFan says Bush is "lying," saying things just to get his base support locked in. I'm the one who is saying Bush himself is delusional.

Being demonstrably incorrect is not the same thing as lying. It doesn't alleviate accountability for being incorrect, but it doesn't make it lying.
Click to expand...

But being a hypocrit and knowing it is a way of lying. Bush says "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes" that is a lie because Bush doesn't believe people should be exposed to other ideas in school, like sex education involving condoms and birth control.

So, he's honest about believing in ID, but dishonest about wanting all ideas shared.
 
normdoering said:
You're confused. RandFan says Bush is "lying," saying things just to get his base support locked in. I'm the one who is saying Bush himself is delusional.
Click to expand...
No, I said no such thing. I said that the ID crap is Bush playing to his base which is yet one other option. I did note that politicians lie and Bush may very well be lying. However I made it very clear that when I said "I so hate being lied to." I was talking about the guy on the radio show that Upchurch linked to. Not that I don't put it past Bush to lie. I suspect he believes in ID. Who cares it doesn't belong in school.

ETA: Your bit about Bush lying comes before I said anything about anyone lying so that doesn't fly.
 
RandFan said:
ETA: Your bit about Bush lying comes before I said anything about anyone lying so that doesn't fly.
Click to expand...

This is what I wrote:
"Bush said what he said either because he was "lying," trying to get support from a religious base he knows is ignorant, or because he is as I said, living in fantasy land, where he talks to his god and creates his own reality."

Does your spin really fit in your own mind?

Perhaps you're delusional too.
 
normdoering said:
This is what I wrote:
"Bush said what he said either because he was "lying," trying to get support from a religious base he knows is ignorant, or because he is as I said, living in fantasy land, where he talks to his god and creates his own reality."

Does your spin really fit in your own mind?

Perhaps you're delusional too.
Click to expand...
What spin? Upchurch wanted to know what your point about Bush lying had to do with the thread?

You posted my quote:

RandFan
I hate being lied to
Click to expand...
This wasn't about Bush. It was in reference to the radio show Upchurch linked to. Why did you post this quote along with the one about Bush in fantasy land?
 
RandFan said:
This wasn't about Bush. It was in reference to the radio show Upchurch linked to. Why did you post this quote along with the one about Bush in fantasy land?
Click to expand...

My mistake. I did think you were thinking Bush might have lied too. But I guess it also makes a lot sense to read it as just a reference to the radio show.
 
normdoering said:
My mistake. I did think you were thinking Bush might have lied. But I guess it also makes a lot sense to read it as a reference to the radio show.
Click to expand...
Ok.
 
Upchurch said:
Technically, that may be true because of our discussion in R&P were you conceeded that you can't even know for sure that "I think" is true.
Click to expand...
Uppie, you are correct in the sense that unbeknownst to you, your comments made me re-examine the position *I* Think, and be forced to accept that Truth must hinge, rather, on Thought Exists.


As to the usual blather ongoing in this thread, I'm sure someone will tell us if David has taken Lewontin out of context ....

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20050805.shtml

Consider the words of Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard. "Our willingness," confessed Lewontin, "to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. … materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."
Click to expand...

And of course most here seem to have concluded interactive dualism of any sort is -- at best -- illogical.

TTFN.
 
hammegk said:
I'm sure someone will tell us if David has taken Lewontin out of context ....
Click to expand...

Yes. The words, I'm sure, are very much out of context.

Consider the words of Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard. "Our willingness," confessed Lewontin, "to accept scientific claims that are against common sense...
Click to expand...

Sometimes what goes against "common" sense is the "uncommon sense" of scientific reasoning.

Based on unmeasured human experience it's common sense to think the sun revolves around the Earth. It's common sense to think the Earth itself is flat if you live in the eras seriously BC.

It's the same common sense that tells you that something that appears designed is necessarily designed by a being with a mind like yours.

... is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,
Click to expand...

Think relativity and quantum mechanics too.

...in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. … materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."
Click to expand...

That's not the only thing that keeps evolution in the realm of science and ID out.

It's not merely a commitment to materialism for no reason. It's because only in terms of materialism do scientific explanations have meaning.

"God did it" has no scientific meaning.

"Intelligence did it" has no scientific meaning as an explanation for it explains nothing.

What is intelligence?
 
NOTE for people who are new enough not to have seen hammy's gibble before.

We have answered hammy's gibble again and again.

He is either so severely mentally retarded as to forget each time we patiently explain biology to him, or he is an obsessive halfwitted troll.

Or both.
 
normdoering said:
Yes. The words, I'm sure, are very much out of context.
Click to expand...
Nice Assertion. ;)


..... only in terms of materialism do scientific explanations have meaning.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, but I have no intention of debating that canard again with you, or anyone. Either you figure it out for yourself, or not.


What is intelligence?
Click to expand...
Actually, a good question. Damned if I know. Do you?

More interesting though, would you posit that Thought does not exist?
 
hammegk said:
Uppie, you are correct in the sense that unbeknownst to you, your comments made me re-examine the position *I* Think, and be forced to accept that Truth must hinge, rather, on Thought Exists.
Click to expand...
Unbeknownst to me? What else could I have possibly been referring to? :D

All that work to show you that no knowledge is 100% certain and you've re-written it in your own mind that my making you question what you thought you knew "for sure" was an unintended consequence. Such hubris. :rub:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom