BELIEF  
Campus Progress / By Matt Zeitlin
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 292

Intelligent Design's Latest Sneaky Assault on Science

One of the architects behind the unscientific intelligent design movement is finding success in referencing its greatest enemy: Charles Darwin.
July 22, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Belief headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

Last month, while speaking at McLean Bible Church, a megachurch in McLean, Virginia, intelligent design superstar Dr. Stephen Meyer rolled out a magnetic white board adorned with block letters spelling out “DC ROCKS.” John Donahue, the head of McLean’s apologetics ministry and a domineering man whose closely trimmed beard makes him look more like Chuck Norris than Jeremiah, introduced Meyer. A self-described “celebrity-geek,” Donahue first warning the attendees that “our faith has come under attack” and that “no doctrine or ideology has had a more negative effect that the ‘so-called’ theory of evolution.” Evolution, Donahue continued with the passion of a true believer, was supported by “fraudulent research, cherry-picked data, fabricated drawings, and scientific fraud.” Meyer, Donahue insisted, was “one of the finest scientific authors of our time,” and was there to show how the “scientists” got it all wrong.

Meyer’s “DC ROCKS” demonstration served to show what all those evolutionary scientists were missing. The fact that the letters stuck down the board was the result of the laws of magnetism, Meyer said, but the letters arrangement, in a way that bore meaningful information, was the product of intelligence.

This is the core argument that Meyer makes in his new book about an old debate. The book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, is perhaps the longest, most detailed, and most “scientific” of any works produced by the Intelligent Design movement. And it’s not surprising that Meyer is the author of this doorstop work. He co-founded the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) at the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank that has been at the center of the ID debate for more than a decade. Despite Meyer’s self-presentation as someone who derives his belief in an intelligent designer purely from observable scientific evidence, Meyer’s connections to the religious community show he can’t abide the theory of evolution because of its purported ideological consequences.

If there were ever anyone that could put a respectable face on the Intelligent Design movement, it’s Meyer. He began his scientific carrer as a geophysicist, and he went on to Cambridge where he received a doctorate in the History and Philosophy of Science in 1991. Meyer wrote his dissertation on the different explanations of the origin of life. And while his background in the methodology and history of biology gives a certain heft to his arguments, it’s also important to note that he isn’t a biologist. His defense of intelligent design and his attack on Darwinian evolution is not entirely scientific, no matter what Meyer might purport.

The origins of the ID movement can be found in the so-called Wedge Document, a founding manifesto and fundraising document for the CSC, which lays out a broadly ideological agenda. It sets out a multi-decade plan for “the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies” and for the acceptance of “the proposition that human beings are created in the image of God.” Although the Wedge Document inveighs against secularism and materialism, Meyer still presents himself as a scientist who is just following the evidence.

Since Kitzmiller v. Dover, the 2005 court case in which Judge John Jones ruled that the city of Dover, Pennsylvania could not teach intelligent design in their classrooms because “the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult, or child,” the question seemed to be put to rest. But Meyer -- despite authoring a “Note to Teachers” in the discredited textbook -- has kept on promoting the theory that evolution and natural selection are not sufficient explanations for the appearance of life on earth and, moreover, insisting that his work is purely scientific.

Meyer’s presentations come equipped with props for his demonstrations: a set of large plastic blocks, made “for students ages 2-4" that snap together to represent chains of amino acids that form proteins in DNA. Meyer exhaustively calculates how the 20 amino acids that form proteins and ten sites where the proteins can be linked combine into 10 trillion possible combinations. He confidently concludes that “no scientist believes blind chance can do this.”


View as a single page
 
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Belief headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: science, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, darwin, stephen meyer

comments COMMENTS ( 292 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

Intelligent but not necessarily intelligent
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cplot on Jul 22, 2009 1:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just want to make sure everyone understand that when some speak of intelligent design they mean intelligent in the weaker sense of the term. There is an intelligence behind the design. It doesn't mean the design doesn't suck. For example, there is an intelligence behind the design of the Ford Pinto. However, that doesn't make it an intelligent design. Too much of the debate gets tripped up on that. :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Intelligence has a meaning Posted by: VeroniqueD
» Please excuse the typos... Posted by: bornxeyed
» i chuckled, but then Posted by: aislinnluv

Comments are closed-

Time to Cut the Bullsh*t
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ender on Jul 22, 2009 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time to stop being polite to creationists. As soon as they start to speak, just reprimand them as you would an insolent child with a firm,

"No. There is no debate in biology regarding evolution. Our entire understanding of biology is based on Darwin's ideas. Everything discovered is consistent with evolution and no evidence to the contrary has been found."

"No. There is no debate about God. Science has absolutely nothing to say about God since a negative cannot be proved."

"No. There is no debate in geology or physics regarding the age of the planet Earth. It is well over four billion years old and the notion that our planet is 6,000 years old is as laughable as the moon being made out of cheese."

"Do not confuse the word 'theory' as defined by a scientist with the word 'theory' as defined in casual conversation, in the same way that you would not confuse the word 'heart' as defined by a cardiologist with the word 'heart' as defined by a cartoon on a Valentine's Day card."

We liberals try to respect the opinions of others, and this is honorable, but there's a point where it gets ridiculous. If someone believes the world is flat or that the sun goes around the Earth, call them on it. Don't fucking apologize. Get rude if you have to. Talk over them. Call them stupid. Get angry. Put them on the defensive and let them explain their idiot theories out loud for your derision and hammer away. Remember: you've got reality on your side.

It's time to stop being polite to these idiots.

(This goes for global warming and universal health care too.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time to Cut the Bullsh*t Posted by: Handyman
» Third world Christians Posted by: ender
» RE: Third world Christians Posted by: leerhok
» Perfectly put! Posted by: frantic1971
» RE: Perfectly put! Posted by: ender
» RE: Time to Cut the Bullsh*t Posted by: leafsong1

Comments are closed-

Surely he is joking
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zola77 on Jul 22, 2009 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He thinks the ID'er was either;

a) aliens, or
b) God
??????????????????????

Can you imagine a science class where the teacher has to say that the creation of the world is due to one of those?

Could this be a sly manoevure by the jesus-bots to get the ufo-bots on board with their anti-evolution protests?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Surely he is joking Posted by: cplot
» Here you go again Posted by: VeroniqueD
» RE: Surely he is joking Posted by: khaleesi
» RE: Surely he is joking Posted by: JAND
» There is no shame Posted by: kimberlydeann
» RE: There is no shame Posted by: JAND
» RE: Surely he is joking Posted by: shanaza

Comments are closed-

Backward Looking Christianity Preferred
[Report this comment]
Posted by: billslm on Jul 22, 2009 2:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I could scarcely despise Christianity and its' legions of pseudo-Christians more than I already do, I also recognize that a totally secular society is not a valuable direction to move in. The same people who do end-runs around conventional orthodox Christianity for the sake of their personal agendas, people, who, for example, like to quote the line "...an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth..." as a way of justifying their personal vendettas, either unaware or ignoring the fact that Christ updated that vicious little principle, lifted as it was by the Jews straight from the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon, and which remain the most primitive set of laws we have, and which even the lawmaking Romans had little regard for; these end-runners, would be just as hypocritical and probably even more so, if they did not have the sanctity of Christianity to wrap themselves in. As mind-crushingly backward as these faux-religionist scoundrels are, without, at the very least, the precepts of Christ and the Bible to dilute the primitive tribalistic idolatry (lately replete with the distinct fascistic overtones of suprematist jailbirds) and which has somehow evolved in America out of this same orthodoxy, nevertheless, allowing them to exist and flourish would be better than a culture devoted entirely to the secular vision. Such a culture, as far as I can tell, would be without a soul. And despite my agnostic ways I do posit an immortal soul. And that is due to my own experience rather than some watered- down and rigid dogma.

This position of mine has brought me into conflict with my Buddhist friends, who maintain total atheism except for a relativistic pantheon of deities which they refer to, for the purposes of tantric meditation.

All of this is to say, that, although I do not respect American so-called Christianity, I recognize its' necessity. That being said, I regard the Doctrine of Intelligent Design as totally bogus. To teach it to children as if it were fact, is unthinkable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are no atheist cplot Posted by: VeroniqueD
» RE: Getting the dogma out of science Posted by: weaverofcloth
» RE: Getting the dogma out of science Posted by: weaverofcloth
» What's my "position"? Posted by: pauldd
» RE: What's my "position"? Posted by: cplot
» No, you revealed yourself. Posted by: UnEasyOne
» you are a pure dogmatist Posted by: cplot

Comments are closed-

I agree
[Report this comment]
Posted by: khaleesi on Jul 22, 2009 3:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is funny how creationists refer to humans as a product of 'intelligent' design. It is so self centered. They fail to see that human bodies are far from perfect, our energy metabolism is proof to this. Most importantly, though, they fail to see that they are limited to just five senses that control all that they believe. We may think that we are 'intelligently superior' to all other life forms, but that is because we see the world through our eyes. We really do not know what reality is in its essence. It is blind and delusional to assume that we are the 'best'. We may be, and we very well may not be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» bravo Posted by: xmvince

Comments are closed-

Gullible fundamentalists used for political purposes
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 22, 2009 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The conservative Christian movement has turned into a broad experiment in political manipulation. The intelligent design issue is just one of many, and the manipulators don't really care about the details of the arguments. They are interested in molding large numbers of people into a political force to do their bidding, and they have succeeded remarkably well.

It's no coincidence that the C Street studs and other Republican operatives show up at these mass rallies vowing to ensure that U.S. foreign policy is guided by "Judeo-Christian principles." That's one of the main goals of the fundie manipulation movement -- to shape U.S. policies in ways that benefit certain powerful interests in Washington and around the world. Their reasoning is that if this process requires convincing Joe and Jane Six-Pack that Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs, so be it.

Unfortunately, our government grants incredible benefits to religion -- including large tax subsidies -- that make all this possible. That needs to end before the American government is hijacked entirely by these cynical manipulators.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Art of Critical Thinking ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dave1616 on Jul 22, 2009 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please see , www.discussrace.com

Discussion Forum
Featured Books and Articles

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

How to easily identify a moron
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reval on Jul 22, 2009 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world is "fine tuned?" These words, used by anyone in describing anything about the cosmos, immediately self-identifies as a nincompoop, worthy of nothing but derision and scorn.

Myer and the rest of the bozos who peddle this rubbish are obviously ignorant of the name, "Victor Stenger."

As a poster stated early on here, these jaskasses deserve nothing but our laughter and ridicule. They're all idiots wrapped in the very thinest veneer of respectability.
~Rev. El Mundo
Pastor, WVCSR

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Ford Pinto
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kib on Jul 22, 2009 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Ford Pinto was ID, but the Fiesta is much much better. NO PINTO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

connect the dots
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Drclaw on Jul 22, 2009 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...climate change deniers, intelligent designers, suppression of scientific evidence by our government, the frequently extreme debate about autism and vaccination, the often scientifically unsound alternative medicine movement

does anyone else think these denote an increasingly dysfunctional culture? I know there has always been suppression and distrust between science and other parts of society, but when 46% of the US don't accept a basic tenant of established scientific theory, we seem to be in trouble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: connect the dots Posted by: reval
» thanks for the laugh Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: thanks for the laugh Posted by: reval

Comments are closed-

The existence of Stephen Meyer proves the correctness of Darwin
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JeffLass on Jul 22, 2009 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mere existence of Stephen Meyer proves the correctness of Darwin, and at the same time, that there is no god. If there really were an all-powerful, omniscient god, then it would surely not allow the existence of imperfect, corrupt, fraudulent, and idiotic airheads like Stephen Meyer to exist and persist. Since such a flawed individual can exist and persist, that proves that there is no god, and that he's merely a small part of the typical common evolutionary reality. Unfortunately also for the annoyance of many, Stephen Meyer exists because evolution of the human species allows for him to be part of the human genome tree and participate in the relaying of the DNA of his ancestral branch. It would be so interesting to see who his ancestors were and which were the fittest to survive and lead to his existence. It is sobering to realize that because of that evolutionary tree we all have a common ancestor with him. Gaagh! Since his brain is probably normally formed it would also be very interesting to find out what dasdardly cultural influences shaped his flawed reasoning abilities: an abusive father, mother, uncle or aunt? My suspicion is that he is now merely trying to call attention to himself (by acting stupidly) because he has absolutely nothing else to offer to humanity ... and that annoys him to the point of distraction. This is probably true of all of the creationists; "birds of a feather", etc. ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» self centered view Posted by: james108
» RE: self god centered view Posted by: greenPuker

Comments are closed-

Welcome
[Report this comment]
Posted by: madmac10 on Jul 22, 2009 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome to all the advocates of Intelligent Design. Thank you for joining the conversation. Science is big enough and strong enough to to weather your opposition, and more importantly, is flexible enough to include your hypotheses if and when they are conclusive. Personally, I hope that one day rigorous scientific enquiry will glean a little enlightenment into the evolution of intelligence and self-consciousness. I hope that your assistance in the struggle toward that end will prove fruitful for all of humanity.

For my more secular friends: does Intelligent Design trouble you? Why? I suspect that your faith in in science might be crumbling. Historically, science has prevailed in much darker times than these. And I fear that many so-called scientists today are girding their shoulders with the mantle of religion, and they are just as dangerous as anti-evolution obstructionists.

Since when did science shirk from struggle and conflict? Since Gallileo anyway, science has not--until these post-modern times when well-meaning liberal sociologists and so-called Philosophers of Science have attempted to "democratize" science--in fact, we should be welcoming any and all attempts to test the rigors of our inquiries. We can only benefit from it.

For an excellent overview of how the "religionification" of science has played right into fascist hands, please examine Prophets Facing Backward by Meera Nanda. I say unto you, my friends, that the creationists have seized on this moment of decadence in scientific progress to attack. But take heart! I promise that the resolution will only benefit us. Please disregard an earlier poster's advice to hold the line in this debate. You discredit science by doing so; you petrify your own mind--and believe me, there are far more malignant entities out there who would prefer you dull your skeptical capacity.

However... by no means do I advocate abdicating the fight against bringing the silliness of Creationism back into our schools. That is a whole different story. Just please remember that science is not determined in the courtroom: laws are. And while Dr. Meyer is shuffling the monte cards on the table, there are others who have palmed the King. Beware of them! The struggle there is much more dire, but in the end, it really has nothing to do with science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Welcome?? Posted by: greenPuker

Comments are closed-

Why so stalwart anti-purpose?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: james108 on Jul 22, 2009 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's OK if you don't want to feel you have a purpose. No responsibilities, I get it.

Why try to make Darwin something he's not though? He himself admitted his theories were incomplete and knew they didn't account for certain complex structures like an eye.

It's not anti-science, it's just science, really. The theory of evolution part that people focus on is the Russian Roulette, where you have random mutations and the good ones survive, and they stack on top of each other. Random mutations only go so far in explaining things, unless you want to be ant-science, I guess, and stretch the time lines to mathematical infinity.

It's like getting into an argument about the brain, but denying the basic will that runs it doesn't exist. You have no scientific basis that volition magically appears from the chemicals at the same time someone thinks they were going to do something, and it seemed like their decision??? You can emulate it by stroking a few neurons externally, sure, but what triggered them to fire internally when the person DECIDED to move it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Still doesn't cover it. Posted by: james108
» RE: Still doesn't cover it. Posted by: EncinoM
» Krishnamurti said it best... Posted by: dbarber
» convenient cop-out Posted by: james108
» RE: convenient cop-out Posted by: EncinoM
» Still choices then Posted by: james108
» glossing Posted by: james108
» RE: glossing Posted by: mjglow
» So much anger Posted by: james108
» Define "spiritual" Posted by: leafsong1
» back to basics Posted by: james108
» Rubbish Posted by: leafsong1
» course not to you Posted by: james108
» RE: back to basics Posted by: mjglow
» Random mutation not so much. Posted by: stormchilde1975
» still glossing Posted by: james108
» too many big words... Posted by: james108
» RE: too many big words... Posted by: Drclaw
» do you not get it? Posted by: james108
» Nice preaching Posted by: james108
» RE: Nice preaching Posted by: Drclaw
» you're silly Posted by: james108
» My understanding Posted by: james108
» RE: Darwin and The Eye? Posted by: greenPuker
» quite so Posted by: Drclaw
» Of course Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Belief in God and science are not incompatible
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bookworm857158367 on Jul 22, 2009 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe in intelligent design, in that I believe the deity created the universe. I also believe in science -- evolution, which is at the moment the accepted theory of how life on earth came to look the way it does at present; that the earth is billions of years old and so on. Science explains how things came to be. it doesn't explain WHY. Religion does that. The people in this article are fundamentalist Christians; I am Catholic. Catholics have no problem with Darwin and evolution and nothing to fear from science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wrong, they are incompatible. Posted by: moyshekapoyre
» You miss the point. Posted by: mjglow
» WHAAA??? GAAAA!!!! Posted by: bbq
» RE: WHAAA??? GAAAA!!!! Posted by: leerhok
» RE: Absolutely incredibly WRONG! Posted by: greenPuker

Comments are closed-

Intelligenct design is not what you think it is
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 22, 2009 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read this article for a more clear understanding:

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v3i1darre.htm

At least nonconformists can have some breathing room for a change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Go fuck yourself loser ! Posted by: maxpayne
» Now Max.... Posted by: leafmen
» RE: Now Max.... Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Now Max.... Posted by: xmvince

Comments are closed-

What is the REAL motive behind the ID movement?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: frantic1971 on Jul 22, 2009 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am curious as to what is the real motivation behind the anti-evolution movement, and would like to ask other Alternet readers opinion.

My personal opinion that Darwinian evolution and the science behind it completly blows-away the "Santa Claus in the Sky" belief that holds these people together.

But even more then that, I think it's a matter of controlling people. For if you you accept evolution then you accept the scientific method that led to its discovery and development. So why then do you need religion or preachers or any authority figure telling you to reject the obvious because of "belief"?

There is something more sinister behind these ID people and well-financed organizations like the Discovery Institute, then merely trying to disprove a scientific consensus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One in three scientists believe in God Posted by: bookworm857158367
» You only understand half of it Posted by: leafsong1
» movie recomendations Posted by: Drclaw

Comments are closed-

ProfBob
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ProfBob on Jul 22, 2009 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All moral thinking starts with unprovable basic assumptions--that a god exists, that a certain type of society is best, or that I exist and am important. (If 'I think therefore I am' is a true statement then perhaps the self is not a basic assumption--and we are not all merely ideas in the mind of God as Berkeley suggested. But beyond these non-provable assumptions lies the evidence we use.
Evolutionary theory uses empirical science as its evidence. Creation uses historical evidence. There are many historical, possibly mythological treatises, like: the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the folklore and stories from every culture as to how the world was created.
For the believer in the Judeo-Christian history we have to question the oral tradition from Abraham (circa 1800 BCE), the writings of Moses recounting it all (about 1200 BCE), the writings, probably in hieroglyphics or Phoenician (since he was educated in Egypt and Hebrew writing was not yet perfected) then the oral tradition was written--with our only knowledge so far from the Dead Sea Scrolls. (circa 200 BCE) This makes the historical evidence much more questionable than the empirical evidence for evolution. For more I suggest you read Book 4 of the free ebook series at http://andgulliverreturns.info

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ProfBob...heavy on the Bobb! Posted by: greenPuker

Comments are closed-

TENETS!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jul 22, 2009 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please get it right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Shut your trap fuckhead ! Posted by: maxpayne

Comments are closed-

Can we choose the particular Intelligent Design to teach??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bob Doublin on Jul 22, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(snark alert)
I think the Vaishnavite Hindu myth where the god Vishnu, after sleeping for a kalpa under the cosmic ocean upon the back of the multi-headed serpent Shesha (also called Ananta-both mean Infinite) stirs to awake and the world forms upon a lotus flower blooming from the God's beautiful Navel. That's so much more beautiful than the Genesis story.

Or how about where Shiva Nataraja DANCES the universe into being with his mighty and awe-inspiring Tandava dance. And keeps it going as long as he dances this dance. (I so want to visit Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu, India one of these days)
If I were a teacher I'd much rather use these myths.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good idea actually Posted by: james108
» RE: Good idea actually Posted by: greenPuker

Comments are closed-

Third world Christians
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ender on Jul 22, 2009 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are Christians in the third world who are more scientifically and religiously sophisticated than the some of the Christians here in the US, in that they see no intellectual or spiritual contradiction with their belief in Darwinian principles and their belief in God. In fact, I know of no other religious group in the world that has such vehement discord as some Christians here in the US.

I think this is due in large part because we as a people began to coddle idiocy (everybody child is a special snowflake, everybody is a winner, everybody gets a trophy, competition is "unfair"); for us on the left it's about respecting alternative viewpoints, having an open mind, and/or free speech issues, while the right has encouraged these people only so as to use them as a political wedge against the "East coast liberal intellectual elites" who oppose their evil agendas in other areas.

In fact, how we on the left treat creationists has been a gift - a kind of silver bullet - for the right, and it's time to call the politicians on their bullshit as well. Consider:

"Senator R-Texas, you are promoting teaching 'intelligent design' in public schools because as an elected representative it is your duty to promote the viewpoints of the people who voted you in office.

"That's laudable. However in your state, only 5% of the voters support teaching this in the schools, while 65% of those polled in your state support universal health care [free college education, legalization of marijuana, environmental issues, et al] which you have repeatedly opposed.

"With 13 times the number of people supporting universal health care than ID, how do you justify the contradiction of your voting record?"

They'll give some BS answer, but don't let up:

"Senator, 35% of your voters polled believe in extra terrestrials [ghosts, Santa Claus, the sun goes around the Earth et al] and 15% are atheist or agnostic..."

It's high time to stop these fuckers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Lunacy!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chirho33 on Jul 22, 2009 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When, oh when, will America ever be free of this fundamentalist filth? They never seem to understand that science and research do not attempt to deny the existence of any "god" or "Creator". What they do is simply present HOW it all happened. Of course, Meyer and his ilk in the end simply want to impose their demented "biblical" worldview on the rest of us. I don't want my kids learning any of this evangelical poison. Judeo-christianity is a corrupting presence in our society. It is destructive and seditious and runs counter to the ideals of free thought and free people. I agree with the poster who says that "it is time to stop being nice to Creationists". I think it's time to stand up and shout louder than they do. Truth and Fact are on our side. All they have is fear and ignorance. May they all fall off the edge of the precipice of their ignorance and disappear from this earth forever. I am sick and tired of these insufferable "creationists" and their attempts to force their sick, decadent, destructive religion on the rest of us!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Peddling the ID like a $2 Whore
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Matamillion on Jul 22, 2009 9:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone have any idea how much money Meyer is making on this bunkum?

Bottom line is that ID is a revenue stream from books, speaking engagements and grants for this knee biter and little else.

You think he really believes he's doing the work of god, when he can as plainly see with his razor sharp intellect, that he's full of crap?

What is he telling himself to make it right?

NOTHING!
The money is doing that! The endless lines at the Museum of ID Crap & Bible Land & whatever else they can dream up to fleece ignorant seekers is doing that.

If you think this junk science... No I take that back. Sorry junk science!

If you think this Funda-Mental Circle Jerk is going away any time soon, you're pissing up a rope. Especially in this economy!

There's only 1 thing for it and it runs against the very core of fundamentalism.
EDUCATE, EDUCATE, EDUCATE! And keep doing it until they have to go underground.

ID is regressive twaddle and Meyer needs a swift one in the keister, in public, repeatedly, with a steel toed textbook.

Hopefully the education stimulus money will help put a few more nails in the coffin of ID, but the War On Stupid must continue!

god is an artifact...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Evolution is intelligent design
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jul 22, 2009 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Life, like the humnan brain, is a series of chemical reactions. Life designs life forms pretty much the same way humans design machines. Life doesn't design them for the same purpose, or with the same tools, and consequently the resemblance is slight, but the process is the same. Life is God, and God has made us in her own image: chemical minds that echo the great chemical mind that invented them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here's how I see it: Posted by: leafsong1
» And a double poopy-head on you! Posted by: leafsong1
» And you see very well indeed Posted by: johnwinthrop
» Thank you Posted by: leafsong1

Comments are closed-

Big Bang Theory also smacks of religion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 22, 2009 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's no coincidence that one of the main proponents of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest who also was a physicist. The Big Bang Theory was first proposed early in the last century just as telescopes were reaching deep into the universe for the first time. Clearly, the notion of a God up there among all those stars was in severe danger, and the Big Bang theory was needed badly. What's more, that giant initial explosion was exactly as envisioned in the book of Genesis!

To cook up this new scenario the BB enthusiasts used the red shift/blue shift phenomenon in distance measurement, and took it to its illogical conclusion: That the universe "popped into existence" some 13 billion years ago. I'm not a scientist, but that sounds pretty unlikely.

In any case, modern scientific measurements are casting a lot of doubts on the BB Theory, and it's about time (get it?). The sooner we scrap that neoreligious explanation of the universe, the better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it has nothing to do with "god" Posted by: raginghormones

Comments are closed-

Biological Darwinism Bad---Economic Darwinism OK
[Report this comment]
Posted by: raginghormones on Jul 22, 2009 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the things I have noticed about the ID and anti-evolution people is: that while they piss in their pants about biological evolution, they fully embrace Darwin's "survival of the fittest" when it comes to ECONOMIC and SOCIAL issues. The ones who largely fund this phony "science" (such as the Discovery Institute) are funded by wealthy capitalists. And of course the Heritage Foundation certainly believes in "survival of the fittest" when it comes to their positions on social and economic issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» They're ignorant Posted by: stormchilde1975
» ahh..respectfully..no... Posted by: Drclaw
» Okay... Posted by: stormchilde1975

Comments are closed-

cockroaches
[Report this comment]
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Jul 22, 2009 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
created the universe. they would explain why and where they originally came from, but we are too stupid to understand. BTW, This happened seven days ago. Anything earlier is just a bad dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why would you get a degree in science only to denounce its study?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: neko_sake on Jul 22, 2009 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean thats basically what they're doing, right? Because there is no science behind Intelligent Design. Lets just call it what it is. Creationism. If they were so confident that Creationism is the obvious answer, then why disguise it to try to trick people? And to say that all of the true research is scientific fraud? I see no evidence to support that claim. You can't just throw random statements around with no evidence. That is what science is meant to solve. You know the average high school and college biology teacher does not know the definition of evolution. But then again, Meyer isn't even a biologist. That explains a lot of his ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sadly..its not uncommon Posted by: Drclaw

Comments are closed-

Hey...Dippies. Let's not forget what the Supreme Court Said!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: greenPuker on Jul 22, 2009 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 2004
"In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class,, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state. "

Why posit any "intelligent design" here. Dump this subject hard!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why an Either Or Choice?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ralphzilla on Jul 22, 2009 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The obvious fallacy of Religious Creationism does not mean that Darwinism is thus correct.

I would argue that both are wrong.

One is wrong because they are trying to find facts to fit a previously decided outcome- God did it, just as the Bible told me so.

Darwinism is wrong for almost the same reason. Trying to omit facts from a theory that has never been proven correct. There are no records of transitional species (certainly not in any significant way).

So Evolution is probably correct, but not in the purely physical, species-by-species sense of Darwinism.

Much like our dawning realization that the Earth is a living entity, global consciousness plays a part in evolution. And the Earth is influenced by the Sun and other planets, and the solar system is influenced by other galaxies, and on and on forever.

The real battle is to take back the concept of God from the fundamentalist- who have a really stupid and limited view- and put it back where it belongs. Ever-present, but beyond comprehension.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why an Either Or Choice? Posted by: keyboardtek
» RE: Why an Either Or Choice? Posted by: ralphzilla
» No, that's not what the article said Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: Why an Either Or Choice? Posted by: ralphzilla
» RE: Why an Either Or Choice? Posted by: shanaza
» RE: Why an Either Or Choice? Posted by: ralphzilla
» Look up Archeopteryx Posted by: bbq

Comments are closed-

What contradiction?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ender on Jul 22, 2009 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think that there is any contraction between a belief in God and evolution.

Take as a given that the bible is not literally true in certain instances, such as the universe being created in exactly six days. [The worldview of anyone that believes that all of the bible is literally, absolutely true is beyond my comprehension, and if you feel that way, then there's no reason to read any further.]

God breathed life into dirt/clay to create man.

I ask: does God love us any less because He created us out of dirt/clay instead of gold or diamonds? Is our ability to contemplate His Majesty - is our existence any less profound - because He chose to create us out of dirt/clay instead of gold?

Of course not.

Since He made everything to begin with, what He created us out of is not important. The next question is how.

If He didn't literally breathe life into us, would it matter if we were created instead by His own hands in some other way? If He snapped His fingers or if He simply willed us into existence with His thoughts, does it matter since He is still the one creating us?

Again, the answer is no.

Since the material with which God created us with is irrelevant (since He created all matter to begin with) and the methodology He chose to employ is likewise irrelevant (the important part being that He in fact did create us), I ask: what if He chose to use evolution as the method to create us instead of 'breathing life' or snapping His fingers or using a magic wand? In what way does that diminish His Glory, or that of the Holy Spirit or of the sacrifice of His only begotten son, Jesus?

Evolution uses the materials He created and obeys the physical laws of nature that He also created: does this in any way, shape or form makes life any less miraculous or profound or diminish anyone's beliefs in any way?

There's really no contradiction at all, and therefore no reason to argue and no reason to build a ridiculous (sorry, but true) museum in Tennessee.

I submit that it is *arrogant* for some believers to take offense at the chosen methodology employed by the Creator of all things. If God decided to create me out of cow shit (and the jury is still out on that one, ha ha), I would still feel myself blessed and lucky to be alive and to be able to sing His praises.

Some of the first astronomers on Earth were funded by the church in order to understand and celebrate His Glory. I wonder why the church has not chosen to embrace biology today for those same reasons.

There are some very disturbing biological technologies that are coming down the pipe in the near future for which man does not have the wisdom to fully comprehend. If American Christians want to maintain any relevance at all - and provide some kind of moral leadership that is desperately needed in the area of DNA manipulation - they'd better leave this "the-Earth-is-6,000-years-old" nonsense behind and get with the program.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

ID vs Darwinism: both flunk the theory test
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nemonemini on Jul 22, 2009 5:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is easy to criticize ID, but unless it is realized that Darwinism is no better the criticism is baseless and won't stop creationists/ID-ists.

Alternet on Meyer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Think outside the box Posted by: james108
» blah blah blah Posted by: james108
» RE: blah blah blah Posted by: Blix
» I'm trying to be nice Posted by: james108
» No... you're not Posted by: Blix
» he doesn't know Posted by: Drclaw
» I'm lumping too... Posted by: james108
» I wish... Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Who designed God?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jul 22, 2009 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The universe, our planet and humans could not be anything like as complicated as the being who was mentally powerfully enough to create em all with a few words in a mere six days. Therefore God must be the most complicated thing in the universe. Imagine! In order to design it all, he would have to be able to visualize it as he designed it. Now that's complexity!

If incredible complexity proves intelligent design, therefore God must have his own Designer.

If God needed no Designer, then complexity proves nothing. The most complex entity in the universe always existed with no design whatever.

Therefore complexity can be no barrier to the natural processes that happened "spontaneously" (over eons of time) by the mechanism postulated by Darwin and for which fresh evidence is found every day.

I.D. = B.S. IOW.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So close Posted by: james108
» For goodness sake Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Lets be Realistic
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Iron Helmet on Jul 22, 2009 7:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reality is, Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed, though the concept is sound. Mutations do NOT result in beneficial changes in a vast majority of cases. HOWEVER, evolution is REAL, and is much more complex than Darwin ever envisioned. Theories are being propogated currently that are claiming DNA is malliable from generation to generation based on behavior and environment, and are not random at all. For example, you treat your body in a way that results in a lower threshold for cancer, this threshold can be passed via DNA.
At the end of the day, the puzzle is far from complete, and to dismiss the idea that there is some "other" force at work, is in fact, flying in the face of what is science. We need to be open to the discovery of ideas that may turn current thinking on its head. To act otherwise, is foolish and naive. Judge an idea on its merits, and not based on the category it happens to fall under (ID). In 25 years, our current beliefs will be arcane, and you are the fool that continues to treat them as gospel (no pun intended).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lets be Realistic Posted by: Ahimsa
» thanks Posted by: james108
» actually Posted by: stormchilde1975

Comments are closed-

Not Intelligent Design "or" Evolution . . . Intelligent Design "for" Evolution
[Report this comment]
Posted by: clresu on Jul 22, 2009 8:15 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ervin Laszlo makes a good argument for the above; read his "Science and the Akashic Field." He attempts to prove this thing that would seem on its surface unprovable by showing that the random chances of life occurring should put life happening in about 127 billion years (I believe other scientists concur on the randomness numbers). Yet, the universe is only 12-15 billion years old and we've evolved to this very, very high degree.

After I read some Laszlo and Bruce Lipton, I thought there might've been more to Intelligent Design than I'd realized, so I checked out a book and did some reading and realized that it just wasn't so. Ervin Laszlo and Bruce Lipton are in a different category altogether, which is to say that it's still science, though it's certainly speculative in the case of Laszlo . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Who cares? Most students couldn't get through science.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lex Thomas on Jul 22, 2009 8:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Might as well put them to something too simple and fixed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Just for a moment
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ahimsa on Jul 22, 2009 9:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And so what if there REALLY ISN'T a God?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well then... Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Welcome to the Idiocracy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: je5752 on Jul 22, 2009 9:50 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where yesterday's beach bum is today's towering genius. You too can take comfort in the fact that knowing how to lace your tennis shoes and turn on a computer puts you in the 99th percentile of intelligence.

When will all of this nonsense end? When people become so stupid that they can't get out of bed without killing themselves. That's my only consolation: whoever survives this century - if anyone does - will be rational, logical, and a hell of a lot smarter than the "average American." You can fill in the blank about what's going to happen in the mean time to all of those average Americans. Suffice to say it won't be pretty when the time comes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Intelligent Design "for" Evolution 2
[Report this comment]
Posted by: clresu on Jul 22, 2009 11:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I'm highly sympathetic to criticisms of the scientific status quo, the Intelligent Designers are clearly completely off base and lack any real form of an argument. It's true that, on some level that they wouldn't really jive with, I do agree with them: there is such a thing as irreducible complexity, in that we can't expect science to reduce life as such and consciousness as such down to a two-dimensional theory. This is absurd, to me, but so is IDs argument that various things - flagellum - are irreducibly complex and could not possibly have evolved.

Taking into account Kuhn's "structure of a scientific revolution," and David Bohm's argument that science would be better seen as an art, I do think that the sciences today are having to try to crunch a lot of anomalies into their paradigm that simply don't work . . . the current paradigm being by and large a strict reliance on philosophical materialism, which is an assumption and only an assumption. There are numerous other problems with the current paradigm, as well.

Darwin's theory of evolution has always struck me as strange, in that science 'claims it.' I mean, any artist or human being that's growing in any sort of way is able to see an evolution at work within their own lives and is then able to envision it happening in the macro sense. The problem that science leaves us with concerning evolution and everything else is the question: why? Why is there evolution and why are we evolving towards higher and higher states of consciousness? Despite the many world crises at the time, I still hold this to be the case, that we're moving upwards. Also, what the F is consciousness? Why do we have it? Science may in time come up with a plausible theory on why the first cell came into existence, though they have absolutely nothing at present, but it'll still leave the question: why the F@#! is this happening? Why is there life to begin with?

If looked at through a Platonic lens, being the opposite of the current lens, we might think that there is an intelligence of sorts that's behind it all . . . not like a daddy, or Judeo/Christian God, but rather a holographic imprint in everything everywhere.

Another interesting take that I've recently read comes from Bruce Lipton who points out that there's an almost infinite harmony taking place in nature: look at the cells in a tree all working in cooperation, the cells in the body, nature (minus the human for the moment) as a whole. There's a delicate balance that's beyond logical/rational comprehension. He seems to say that this can drive evolution. While I'm aware that Darwin did have different things in mind concerning evolution and not just this crude "the strongest survive," I still think that Lipton's observation deserves some consideration. He says that the first single celled organisms would group together during times of no food, then separate again. Eventually, they ended up sticking together and differentiating so that specialization was born . . . (leading to things like organs in the modern day body.) For one, this shows an evolutionary move that's based on harmony, cooperation. (I realize that some would say this isn't in opposition to Darwin's theory, but it still seems to seldom get pointed out, and the implications extend further than I think most people realize . . . it implies that as a whole we are evolving . . . key word being, "whole.") But aside from the harmony/conflict thing, when we consider the "intelligence" of cells to perform this seemingly impossible task of coming together, separating, later staying together permanently thing, it's not that difficult to imagine an intelligence at work. Once again, "Intelligent Design for Evolution."

The only problem with proving such a thing is that the intelligence only leaves this beautiful shell behind - life in all its myriad forms - and no trace of itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: clearly misunderstood 1 Posted by: clresu
» RE: clearly misunderstood 2 Posted by: clresu
» RE: clearly misunderstood 2 Posted by: inverse_agonist
» RE: inverse: response Posted by: clresu
» RE: inverse: response dos Posted by: clresu
» RE: clearly misunderstood 1 Posted by: inverse_agonist
» cells in cooperation? Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: cells in cooperation? Posted by: Smartcookie

Comments are closed-

Basta
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Jul 23, 2009 1:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The existence of Stephen Meyer is prima facie evidence that there is no intelligent design.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» false silliness Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Survival of the fittest
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leerhok on Jul 23, 2009 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
has made the mammal Large Brained Primate the dominant predator on earth. This species does not like other predators kill a (small) number of prey to eat. It wipes out entire species by overhunting/overfishing and above all by destroying habitats.

It is pretty close to making itself and all higher forms of life on earth extinct simply by making its own habitat unsustainable. This end result is no good PR for the intelligence level of the assumed creator. Hence goodbye ID!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not into Id Posted by: james108
» i finally get it Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

The divine can't be expressed with words
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xmvince on Jul 23, 2009 2:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go try some LSD, mushrooms, or peyote and you will see.

I don't believe in the Christian God, but I believe there is a power out there that governs all - although the debate really starts with whether this power has a consciousness or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hallucinogens Posted by: clresu

Comments are closed-

ID, Religion, Logic; Ambrose Bierce and the Design of the Ostrich.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Jul 23, 2009 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"LOGIC, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion—thus:
Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds; therefore—
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a post-hole in one second.
This may be called the syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed."
Ambrose Bierce.

The logic of ID is thus:
Major premise: Life is complex.
Minor premise: Complex systems cannot randomly arise.
Conclusion: There exists a life-designing entity (Designer).

Note that the Conclusion requires we accept that the Designer's origin and nature are unknown, whereabouts can not be determined, motives are inscrutable, and of which no trace can be found other than in literature and lore.

If we accept an intelligent Designer, as opposed to one who is merely stupid or whimsical, his or her designs should therefore make (some) sense.

"OSTRICH, n. A large bird to which (for its sins, doubtless) nature has denied that hinder toe in which so many pious naturalists have seen a conspicuous evidence of design. The absence of a good working pair of wings is no defect, for, as has been ingeniously pointed out, the ostrich does not fly."
Ambrose Bierce

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Making up things Posted by: james108
» Before you make a religion.,, Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

A couple things creationists often overlook...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: doctorsquared on Jul 23, 2009 9:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, let's say, for the sake of argument, that some new evidence appeared that actually supported the design hypothesis. It does not follow that the designer is the christian god, or any supernatural being for that matter; this is something which would have to be established by independent evidence. (To his credit, Meyer allows for the possibility of aliens being the designers in such a case).

Second, suppose also for the sake of argument that the creationists' oft-stated contention that the fossil record is the result of the biblical Flood, and not a well-established, radioactively dated record that shows that life is billions of years old. Why, then, would god arrange the distribution of isotopes in the geologic strata to make the earth appear 4.5 billion years old? And why would god arrange the light currently reaching the earth to appear to have originated millions to billions of light years away (and the cosmic background radiation to appear to have originated 13 billion years ago).

It is not only evolution that these folks challenge, but implicitly they challenge well-established theories of astronomy, geology, nuclear physics, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» True Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Darwin on Creation side
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aberdeen on Jul 23, 2009 9:30 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is what is in a revised edition of Origin of Species, published in 1876 about 5 years before Darwin died, thus this is represents a lifetime conclusion: "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one".

It would seem it is atheists, rather than those who believe in God, who have a problem with Charles Darwin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not really... Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Pinto?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aberdeen on Jul 23, 2009 10:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, so you're so much better than God, let's see you create a better human vision or hearing system or better yet, why don't you create your own parallel universe and go live there so you don't corrupt the minds of our children with your narrow-minded hypocrisy.

Who Would Jesus Bomb?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pinto? Posted by: cplot

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.

Comments are closed-

The evidence is literally everywhere.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Jul 25, 2009 7:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Especially since the '60's it seems Emerson and Walt Whitman et al returned, and with a vengeance. Transcendentalism is everywhere anyone cares to look. Physicists, chemists, anthropologists, geologists, psychologists, biologists caught "the bug" -- they are going beyond: into the objects of investigation are being inserted all kinds of ghosts, leprechauns, angels and demons,large and teeny little and large living forces with a will of their own, guiding and determining gravity, chemical and biological processes, everything. A panoply worthy of the imagination of an Aeschylus or a Plato. By god, we are "discovering" god and gods, devils and demons in science itself -- proof incontrovertible that it was god that willed and predetermined everything -- including "real" science.

The assault of un-reason is relentless. Subjectivism has gone pathological.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Intelligent but not necessarily intelligent
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cplot on Jul 22, 2009 1:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just want to make sure everyone understand that when some speak of intelligent design they mean intelligent in the weaker sense of the term. There is an intelligence behind the design. It doesn't mean the design doesn't suck. For example, there is an intelligence behind the design of the Ford Pinto. However, that doesn't make it an intelligent design. Too much of the debate gets tripped up on that. :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Intelligence has a meaning Posted by: VeroniqueD
» Please excuse the typos... Posted by: bornxeyed
» i chuckled, but then Posted by: aislinnluv

Comments are closed-

Time to Cut the Bullsh*t
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ender on Jul 22, 2009 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time to stop being polite to creationists. As soon as they start to speak, just reprimand them as you would an insolent child with a firm,

"No. There is no debate in biology regarding evolution. Our entire understanding of biology is based on Darwin's ideas. Everything discovered is consistent with evolution and no evidence to the contrary has been found."

"No. There is no debate about God. Science has absolutely nothing to say about God since a negative cannot be proved."

"No. There is no debate in geology or physics regarding the age of the planet Earth. It is well over four billion years old and the notion that our planet is 6,000 years old is as laughable as the moon being made out of cheese."

"Do not confuse the word 'theory' as defined by a scientist with the word 'theory' as defined in casual conversation, in the same way that you would not confuse the word 'heart' as defined by a cardiologist with the word 'heart' as defined by a cartoon on a Valentine's Day card."

We liberals try to respect the opinions of others, and this is honorable, but there's a point where it gets ridiculous. If someone believes the world is flat or that the sun goes around the Earth, call them on it. Don't fucking apologize. Get rude if you have to. Talk over them. Call them stupid. Get angry. Put them on the defensive and let them explain their idiot theories out loud for your derision and hammer away. Remember: you've got reality on your side.

It's time to stop being polite to these idiots.

(This goes for global warming and universal health care too.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time to Cut the Bullsh*t Posted by: Handyman
» Third world Christians Posted by: ender
» RE: Third world Christians Posted by: leerhok
» Perfectly put! Posted by: frantic1971
» RE: Perfectly put! Posted by: ender
» RE: Time to Cut the Bullsh*t Posted by: leafsong1

Comments are closed-

Surely he is joking
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zola77 on Jul 22, 2009 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He thinks the ID'er was either;

a) aliens, or
b) God
??????????????????????

Can you imagine a science class where the teacher has to say that the creation of the world is due to one of those?

Could this be a sly manoevure by the jesus-bots to get the ufo-bots on board with their anti-evolution protests?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Surely he is joking Posted by: cplot
» Here you go again Posted by: VeroniqueD
» RE: Surely he is joking Posted by: khaleesi
» RE: Surely he is joking Posted by: JAND
» There is no shame Posted by: kimberlydeann
» RE: There is no shame Posted by: JAND
» RE: Surely he is joking Posted by: shanaza

Comments are closed-

Backward Looking Christianity Preferred
[Report this comment]
Posted by: billslm on Jul 22, 2009 2:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I could scarcely despise Christianity and its' legions of pseudo-Christians more than I already do, I also recognize that a totally secular society is not a valuable direction to move in. The same people who do end-runs around conventional orthodox Christianity for the sake of their personal agendas, people, who, for example, like to quote the line "...an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth..." as a way of justifying their personal vendettas, either unaware or ignoring the fact that Christ updated that vicious little principle, lifted as it was by the Jews straight from the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon, and which remain the most primitive set of laws we have, and which even the lawmaking Romans had little regard for; these end-runners, would be just as hypocritical and probably even more so, if they did not have the sanctity of Christianity to wrap themselves in. As mind-crushingly backward as these faux-religionist scoundrels are, without, at the very least, the precepts of Christ and the Bible to dilute the primitive tribalistic idolatry (lately replete with the distinct fascistic overtones of suprematist jailbirds) and which has somehow evolved in America out of this same orthodoxy, nevertheless, allowing them to exist and flourish would be better than a culture devoted entirely to the secular vision. Such a culture, as far as I can tell, would be without a soul. And despite my agnostic ways I do posit an immortal soul. And that is due to my own experience rather than some watered- down and rigid dogma.

This position of mine has brought me into conflict with my Buddhist friends, who maintain total atheism except for a relativistic pantheon of deities which they refer to, for the purposes of tantric meditation.

All of this is to say, that, although I do not respect American so-called Christianity, I recognize its' necessity. That being said, I regard the Doctrine of Intelligent Design as totally bogus. To teach it to children as if it were fact, is unthinkable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are no atheist cplot Posted by: VeroniqueD
» RE: Getting the dogma out of science Posted by: weaverofcloth
» RE: Getting the dogma out of science Posted by: weaverofcloth
» What's my "position"? Posted by: pauldd
» RE: What's my "position"? Posted by: cplot
» No, you revealed yourself. Posted by: UnEasyOne
» you are a pure dogmatist Posted by: cplot

Comments are closed-

I agree
[Report this comment]
Posted by: khaleesi on Jul 22, 2009 3:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is funny how creationists refer to humans as a product of 'intelligent' design. It is so self centered. They fail to see that human bodies are far from perfect, our energy metabolism is proof to this. Most importantly, though, they fail to see that they are limited to just five senses that control all that they believe. We may think that we are 'intelligently superior' to all other life forms, but that is because we see the world through our eyes. We really do not know what reality is in its essence. It is blind and delusional to assume that we are the 'best'. We may be, and we very well may not be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» bravo Posted by: xmvince

Comments are closed-

Gullible fundamentalists used for political purposes
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 22, 2009 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The conservative Christian movement has turned into a broad experiment in political manipulation. The intelligent design issue is just one of many, and the manipulators don't really care about the details of the arguments. They are interested in molding large numbers of people into a political force to do their bidding, and they have succeeded remarkably well.

It's no coincidence that the C Street studs and other Republican operatives show up at these mass rallies vowing to ensure that U.S. foreign policy is guided by "Judeo-Christian principles." That's one of the main goals of the fundie manipulation movement -- to shape U.S. policies in ways that benefit certain powerful interests in Washington and around the world. Their reasoning is that if this process requires convincing Joe and Jane Six-Pack that Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs, so be it.

Unfortunately, our government grants incredible benefits to religion -- including large tax subsidies -- that make all this possible. That needs to end before the American government is hijacked entirely by these cynical manipulators.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Art of Critical Thinking ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dave1616 on Jul 22, 2009 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please see , www.discussrace.com

Discussion Forum
Featured Books and Articles

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

How to easily identify a moron
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reval on Jul 22, 2009 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world is "fine tuned?" These words, used by anyone in describing anything about the cosmos, immediately self-identifies as a nincompoop, worthy of nothing but derision and scorn.

Myer and the rest of the bozos who peddle this rubbish are obviously ignorant of the name, "Victor Stenger."

As a poster stated early on here, these jaskasses deserve nothing but our laughter and ridicule. They're all idiots wrapped in the very thinest veneer of respectability.
~Rev. El Mundo
Pastor, WVCSR

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Ford Pinto
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kib on Jul 22, 2009 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Ford Pinto was ID, but the Fiesta is much much better. NO PINTO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

connect the dots
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Drclaw on Jul 22, 2009 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...climate change deniers, intelligent designers, suppression of scientific evidence by our government, the frequently extreme debate about autism and vaccination, the often scientifically unsound alternative medicine movement

does anyone else think these denote an increasingly dysfunctional culture? I know there has always been suppression and distrust between science and other parts of society, but when 46% of the US don't accept a basic tenant of established scientific theory, we seem to be in trouble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: connect the dots Posted by: reval
» thanks for the laugh Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: thanks for the laugh Posted by: reval

Comments are closed-

The existence of Stephen Meyer proves the correctness of Darwin
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JeffLass on Jul 22, 2009 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mere existence of Stephen Meyer proves the correctness of Darwin, and at the same time, that there is no god. If there really were an all-powerful, omniscient god, then it would surely not allow the existence of imperfect, corrupt, fraudulent, and idiotic airheads like Stephen Meyer to exist and persist. Since such a flawed individual can exist and persist, that proves that there is no god, and that he's merely a small part of the typical common evolutionary reality. Unfortunately also for the annoyance of many, Stephen Meyer exists because evolution of the human species allows for him to be part of the human genome tree and participate in the relaying of the DNA of his ancestral branch. It would be so interesting to see who his ancestors were and which were the fittest to survive and lead to his existence. It is sobering to realize that because of that evolutionary tree we all have a common ancestor with him. Gaagh! Since his brain is probably normally formed it would also be very interesting to find out what dasdardly cultural influences shaped his flawed reasoning abilities: an abusive father, mother, uncle or aunt? My suspicion is that he is now merely trying to call attention to himself (by acting stupidly) because he has absolutely nothing else to offer to humanity ... and that annoys him to the point of distraction. This is probably true of all of the creationists; "birds of a feather", etc. ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» self centered view Posted by: james108
» RE: self god centered view Posted by: greenPuker

Comments are closed-

Welcome
[Report this comment]
Posted by: madmac10 on Jul 22, 2009 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome to all the advocates of Intelligent Design. Thank you for joining the conversation. Science is big enough and strong enough to to weather your opposition, and more importantly, is flexible enough to include your hypotheses if and when they are conclusive. Personally, I hope that one day rigorous scientific enquiry will glean a little enlightenment into the evolution of intelligence and self-consciousness. I hope that your assistance in the struggle toward that end will prove fruitful for all of humanity.

For my more secular friends: does Intelligent Design trouble you? Why? I suspect that your faith in in science might be crumbling. Historically, science has prevailed in much darker times than these. And I fear that many so-called scientists today are girding their shoulders with the mantle of religion, and they are just as dangerous as anti-evolution obstructionists.

Since when did science shirk from struggle and conflict? Since Gallileo anyway, science has not--until these post-modern times when well-meaning liberal sociologists and so-called Philosophers of Science have attempted to "democratize" science--in fact, we should be welcoming any and all attempts to test the rigors of our inquiries. We can only benefit from it.

For an excellent overview of how the "religionification" of science has played right into fascist hands, please examine Prophets Facing Backward by Meera Nanda. I say unto you, my friends, that the creationists have seized on this moment of decadence in scientific progress to attack. But take heart! I promise that the resolution will only benefit us. Please disregard an earlier poster's advice to hold the line in this debate. You discredit science by doing so; you petrify your own mind--and believe me, there are far more malignant entities out there who would prefer you dull your skeptical capacity.

However... by no means do I advocate abdicating the fight against bringing the silliness of Creationism back into our schools. That is a whole different story. Just please remember that science is not determined in the courtroom: laws are. And while Dr. Meyer is shuffling the monte cards on the table, there are others who have palmed the King. Beware of them! The struggle there is much more dire, but in the end, it really has nothing to do with science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Welcome?? Posted by: greenPuker

Comments are closed-

Why so stalwart anti-purpose?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: james108 on Jul 22, 2009 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's OK if you don't want to feel you have a purpose. No responsibilities, I get it.

Why try to make Darwin something he's not though? He himself admitted his theories were incomplete and knew they didn't account for certain complex structures like an eye.

It's not anti-science, it's just science, really. The theory of evolution part that people focus on is the Russian Roulette, where you have random mutations and the good ones survive, and they stack on top of each other. Random mutations only go so far in explaining things, unless you want to be ant-science, I guess, and stretch the time lines to mathematical infinity.

It's like getting into an argument about the brain, but denying the basic will that runs it doesn't exist. You have no scientific basis that volition magically appears from the chemicals at the same time someone thinks they were going to do something, and it seemed like their decision??? You can emulate it by stroking a few neurons externally, sure, but what triggered them to fire internally when the person DECIDED to move it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Still doesn't cover it. Posted by: james108
» RE: Still doesn't cover it. Posted by: EncinoM
» Krishnamurti said it best... Posted by: dbarber
» convenient cop-out Posted by: james108
» RE: convenient cop-out Posted by: EncinoM
» Still choices then Posted by: james108
» glossing Posted by: james108
» RE: glossing Posted by: mjglow
» So much anger Posted by: james108
» Define "spiritual" Posted by: leafsong1
» back to basics Posted by: james108
» Rubbish Posted by: leafsong1
» course not to you Posted by: james108
» RE: back to basics Posted by: mjglow
» Random mutation not so much. Posted by: stormchilde1975
» still glossing Posted by: james108
» too many big words... Posted by: james108
» RE: too many big words... Posted by: Drclaw
» do you not get it? Posted by: james108
» Nice preaching Posted by: james108
» RE: Nice preaching Posted by: Drclaw
» you're silly Posted by: james108
» My understanding Posted by: james108
» RE: Darwin and The Eye? Posted by: greenPuker
» quite so Posted by: Drclaw
» Of course Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Belief in God and science are not incompatible
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bookworm857158367 on Jul 22, 2009 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe in intelligent design, in that I believe the deity created the universe. I also believe in science -- evolution, which is at the moment the accepted theory of how life on earth came to look the way it does at present; that the earth is billions of years old and so on. Science explains how things came to be. it doesn't explain WHY. Religion does that. The people in this article are fundamentalist Christians; I am Catholic. Catholics have no problem with Darwin and evolution and nothing to fear from science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wrong, they are incompatible. Posted by: moyshekapoyre
» You miss the point. Posted by: mjglow
» WHAAA??? GAAAA!!!! Posted by: bbq
» RE: WHAAA??? GAAAA!!!! Posted by: leerhok
» RE: Absolutely incredibly WRONG! Posted by: greenPuker

Comments are closed-

Intelligenct design is not what you think it is
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 22, 2009 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read this article for a more clear understanding:

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v3i1darre.htm

At least nonconformists can have some breathing room for a change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Go fuck yourself loser ! Posted by: maxpayne
» Now Max.... Posted by: leafmen
» RE: Now Max.... Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Now Max.... Posted by: xmvince

Comments are closed-

What is the REAL motive behind the ID movement?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: frantic1971 on Jul 22, 2009 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am curious as to what is the real motivation behind the anti-evolution movement, and would like to ask other Alternet readers opinion.

My personal opinion that Darwinian evolution and the science behind it completly blows-away the "Santa Claus in the Sky" belief that holds these people together.

But even more then that, I think it's a matter of controlling people. For if you you accept evolution then you accept the scientific method that led to its discovery and development. So why then do you need religion or preachers or any authority figure telling you to reject the obvious because of "belief"?

There is something more sinister behind these ID people and well-financed organizations like the Discovery Institute, then merely trying to disprove a scientific consensus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One in three scientists believe in God Posted by: bookworm857158367
» You only understand half of it Posted by: leafsong1
» movie recomendations Posted by: Drclaw

Comments are closed-

ProfBob
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ProfBob on Jul 22, 2009 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All moral thinking starts with unprovable basic assumptions--that a god exists, that a certain type of society is best, or that I exist and am important. (If 'I think therefore I am' is a true statement then perhaps the self is not a basic assumption--and we are not all merely ideas in the mind of God as Berkeley suggested. But beyond these non-provable assumptions lies the evidence we use.
Evolutionary theory uses empirical science as its evidence. Creation uses historical evidence. There are many historical, possibly mythological treatises, like: the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the folklore and stories from every culture as to how the world was created.
For the believer in the Judeo-Christian history we have to question the oral tradition from Abraham (circa 1800 BCE), the writings of Moses recounting it all (about 1200 BCE), the writings, probably in hieroglyphics or Phoenician (since he was educated in Egypt and Hebrew writing was not yet perfected) then the oral tradition was written--with our only knowledge so far from the Dead Sea Scrolls. (circa 200 BCE) This makes the historical evidence much more questionable than the empirical evidence for evolution. For more I suggest you read Book 4 of the free ebook series at http://andgulliverreturns.info

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ProfBob...heavy on the Bobb! Posted by: greenPuker

Comments are closed-

TENETS!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jul 22, 2009 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please get it right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Shut your trap fuckhead ! Posted by: maxpayne

Comments are closed-

Can we choose the particular Intelligent Design to teach??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bob Doublin on Jul 22, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(snark alert)
I think the Vaishnavite Hindu myth where the god Vishnu, after sleeping for a kalpa under the cosmic ocean upon the back of the multi-headed serpent Shesha (also called Ananta-both mean Infinite) stirs to awake and the world forms upon a lotus flower blooming from the God's beautiful Navel. That's so much more beautiful than the Genesis story.

Or how about where Shiva Nataraja DANCES the universe into being with his mighty and awe-inspiring Tandava dance. And keeps it going as long as he dances this dance. (I so want to visit Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu, India one of these days)
If I were a teacher I'd much rather use these myths.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good idea actually Posted by: james108
» RE: Good idea actually Posted by: greenPuker

Comments are closed-

Third world Christians
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ender on Jul 22, 2009 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are Christians in the third world who are more scientifically and religiously sophisticated than the some of the Christians here in the US, in that they see no intellectual or spiritual contradiction with their belief in Darwinian principles and their belief in God. In fact, I know of no other religious group in the world that has such vehement discord as some Christians here in the US.

I think this is due in large part because we as a people began to coddle idiocy (everybody child is a special snowflake, everybody is a winner, everybody gets a trophy, competition is "unfair"); for us on the left it's about respecting alternative viewpoints, having an open mind, and/or free speech issues, while the right has encouraged these people only so as to use them as a political wedge against the "East coast liberal intellectual elites" who oppose their evil agendas in other areas.

In fact, how we on the left treat creationists has been a gift - a kind of silver bullet - for the right, and it's time to call the politicians on their bullshit as well. Consider:

"Senator R-Texas, you are promoting teaching 'intelligent design' in public schools because as an elected representative it is your duty to promote the viewpoints of the people who voted you in office.

"That's laudable. However in your state, only 5% of the voters support teaching this in the schools, while 65% of those polled in your state support universal health care [free college education, legalization of marijuana, environmental issues, et al] which you have repeatedly opposed.

"With 13 times the number of people supporting universal health care than ID, how do you justify the contradiction of your voting record?"

They'll give some BS answer, but don't let up:

"Senator, 35% of your voters polled believe in extra terrestrials [ghosts, Santa Claus, the sun goes around the Earth et al] and 15% are atheist or agnostic..."

It's high time to stop these fuckers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Lunacy!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chirho33 on Jul 22, 2009 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When, oh when, will America ever be free of this fundamentalist filth? They never seem to understand that science and research do not attempt to deny the existence of any "god" or "Creator". What they do is simply present HOW it all happened. Of course, Meyer and his ilk in the end simply want to impose their demented "biblical" worldview on the rest of us. I don't want my kids learning any of this evangelical poison. Judeo-christianity is a corrupting presence in our society. It is destructive and seditious and runs counter to the ideals of free thought and free people. I agree with the poster who says that "it is time to stop being nice to Creationists". I think it's time to stand up and shout louder than they do. Truth and Fact are on our side. All they have is fear and ignorance. May they all fall off the edge of the precipice of their ignorance and disappear from this earth forever. I am sick and tired of these insufferable "creationists" and their attempts to force their sick, decadent, destructive religion on the rest of us!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Peddling the ID like a $2 Whore
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Matamillion on Jul 22, 2009 9:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone have any idea how much money Meyer is making on this bunkum?

Bottom line is that ID is a revenue stream from books, speaking engagements and grants for this knee biter and little else.

You think he really believes he's doing the work of god, when he can as plainly see with his razor sharp intellect, that he's full of crap?

What is he telling himself to make it right?

NOTHING!
The money is doing that! The endless lines at the Museum of ID Crap & Bible Land & whatever else they can dream up to fleece ignorant seekers is doing that.

If you think this junk science... No I take that back. Sorry junk science!

If you think this Funda-Mental Circle Jerk is going away any time soon, you're pissing up a rope. Especially in this economy!

There's only 1 thing for it and it runs against the very core of fundamentalism.
EDUCATE, EDUCATE, EDUCATE! And keep doing it until they have to go underground.

ID is regressive twaddle and Meyer needs a swift one in the keister, in public, repeatedly, with a steel toed textbook.

Hopefully the education stimulus money will help put a few more nails in the coffin of ID, but the War On Stupid must continue!

god is an artifact...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Evolution is intelligent design
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jul 22, 2009 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Life, like the humnan brain, is a series of chemical reactions. Life designs life forms pretty much the same way humans design machines. Life doesn't design them for the same purpose, or with the same tools, and consequently the resemblance is slight, but the process is the same. Life is God, and God has made us in her own image: chemical minds that echo the great chemical mind that invented them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here's how I see it: Posted by: leafsong1
» And a double poopy-head on you! Posted by: leafsong1
» And you see very well indeed Posted by: johnwinthrop
» Thank you Posted by: leafsong1

Comments are closed-

Big Bang Theory also smacks of religion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 22, 2009 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's no coincidence that one of the main proponents of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest who also was a physicist. The Big Bang Theory was first proposed early in the last century just as telescopes were reaching deep into the universe for the first time. Clearly, the notion of a God up there among all those stars was in severe danger, and the Big Bang theory was needed badly. What's more, that giant initial explosion was exactly as envisioned in the book of Genesis!

To cook up this new scenario the BB enthusiasts used the red shift/blue shift phenomenon in distance measurement, and took it to its illogical conclusion: That the universe "popped into existence" some 13 billion years ago. I'm not a scientist, but that sounds pretty unlikely.

In any case, modern scientific measurements are casting a lot of doubts on the BB Theory, and it's about time (get it?). The sooner we scrap that neoreligious explanation of the universe, the better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it has nothing to do with "god" Posted by: raginghormones

Comments are closed-

Biological Darwinism Bad---Economic Darwinism OK
[Report this comment]
Posted by: raginghormones on Jul 22, 2009 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the things I have noticed about the ID and anti-evolution people is: that while they piss in their pants about biological evolution, they fully embrace Darwin's "survival of the fittest" when it comes to ECONOMIC and SOCIAL issues. The ones who largely fund this phony "science" (such as the Discovery Institute) are funded by wealthy capitalists. And of course the Heritage Foundation certainly believes in "survival of the fittest" when it comes to their positions on social and economic issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» They're ignorant Posted by: stormchilde1975
» ahh..respectfully..no... Posted by: Drclaw
» Okay... Posted by: stormchilde1975

Comments are closed-

cockroaches
[Report this comment]
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Jul 22, 2009 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
created the universe. they would explain why and where they originally came from, but we are too stupid to understand. BTW, This happened seven days ago. Anything earlier is just a bad dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why would you get a degree in science only to denounce its study?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: neko_sake on Jul 22, 2009 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean thats basically what they're doing, right? Because there is no science behind Intelligent Design. Lets just call it what it is. Creationism. If they were so confident that Creationism is the obvious answer, then why disguise it to try to trick people? And to say that all of the true research is scientific fraud? I see no evidence to support that claim. You can't just throw random statements around with no evidence. That is what science is meant to solve. You know the average high school and college biology teacher does not know the definition of evolution. But then again, Meyer isn't even a biologist. That explains a lot of his ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sadly..its not uncommon Posted by: Drclaw

Comments are closed-

Hey...Dippies. Let's not forget what the Supreme Court Said!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: greenPuker on Jul 22, 2009 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 2004
"In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class,, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state. "

Why posit any "intelligent design" here. Dump this subject hard!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why an Either Or Choice?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ralphzilla on Jul 22, 2009 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The obvious fallacy of Religious Creationism does not mean that Darwinism is thus correct.

I would argue that both are wrong.

One is wrong because they are trying to find facts to fit a previously decided outcome- God did it, just as the Bible told me so.

Darwinism is wrong for almost the same reason. Trying to omit facts from a theory that has never been proven correct. There are no records of transitional species (certainly not in any significant way).

So Evolution is probably correct, but not in the purely physical, species-by-species sense of Darwinism.

Much like our dawning realization that the Earth is a living entity, global consciousness plays a part in evolution. And the Earth is influenced by the Sun and other planets, and the solar system is influenced by other galaxies, and on and on forever.

The real battle is to take back the concept of God from the fundamentalist- who have a really stupid and limited view- and put it back where it belongs. Ever-present, but beyond comprehension.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why an Either Or Choice? Posted by: keyboardtek
» RE: Why an Either Or Choice? Posted by: ralphzilla
» No, that's not what the article said Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: Why an Either Or Choice? Posted by: ralphzilla
» RE: Why an Either Or Choice? Posted by: shanaza
» RE: Why an Either Or Choice? Posted by: ralphzilla
» Look up Archeopteryx Posted by: bbq

Comments are closed-

What contradiction?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ender on Jul 22, 2009 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think that there is any contraction between a belief in God and evolution.

Take as a given that the bible is not literally true in certain instances, such as the universe being created in exactly six days. [The worldview of anyone that believes that all of the bible is literally, absolutely true is beyond my comprehension, and if you feel that way, then there's no reason to read any further.]

God breathed life into dirt/clay to create man.

I ask: does God love us any less because He created us out of dirt/clay instead of gold or diamonds? Is our ability to contemplate His Majesty - is our existence any less profound - because He chose to create us out of dirt/clay instead of gold?

Of course not.

Since He made everything to begin with, what He created us out of is not important. The next question is how.

If He didn't literally breathe life into us, would it matter if we were created instead by His own hands in some other way? If He snapped His fingers or if He simply willed us into existence with His thoughts, does it matter since He is still the one creating us?

Again, the answer is no.

Since the material with which God created us with is irrelevant (since He created all matter to begin with) and the methodology He chose to employ is likewise irrelevant (the important part being that He in fact did create us), I ask: what if He chose to use evolution as the method to create us instead of 'breathing life' or snapping His fingers or using a magic wand? In what way does that diminish His Glory, or that of the Holy Spirit or of the sacrifice of His only begotten son, Jesus?

Evolution uses the materials He created and obeys the physical laws of nature that He also created: does this in any way, shape or form makes life any less miraculous or profound or diminish anyone's beliefs in any way?

There's really no contradiction at all, and therefore no reason to argue and no reason to build a ridiculous (sorry, but true) museum in Tennessee.

I submit that it is *arrogant* for some believers to take offense at the chosen methodology employed by the Creator of all things. If God decided to create me out of cow shit (and the jury is still out on that one, ha ha), I would still feel myself blessed and lucky to be alive and to be able to sing His praises.

Some of the first astronomers on Earth were funded by the church in order to understand and celebrate His Glory. I wonder why the church has not chosen to embrace biology today for those same reasons.

There are some very disturbing biological technologies that are coming down the pipe in the near future for which man does not have the wisdom to fully comprehend. If American Christians want to maintain any relevance at all - and provide some kind of moral leadership that is desperately needed in the area of DNA manipulation - they'd better leave this "the-Earth-is-6,000-years-old" nonsense behind and get with the program.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

ID vs Darwinism: both flunk the theory test
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nemonemini on Jul 22, 2009 5:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is easy to criticize ID, but unless it is realized that Darwinism is no better the criticism is baseless and won't stop creationists/ID-ists.

Alternet on Meyer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Think outside the box Posted by: james108
» blah blah blah Posted by: james108
» RE: blah blah blah Posted by: Blix
» I'm trying to be nice Posted by: james108
» No... you're not Posted by: Blix
» he doesn't know Posted by: Drclaw
» I'm lumping too... Posted by: james108
» I wish... Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Who designed God?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jul 22, 2009 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The universe, our planet and humans could not be anything like as complicated as the being who was mentally powerfully enough to create em all with a few words in a mere six days. Therefore God must be the most complicated thing in the universe. Imagine! In order to design it all, he would have to be able to visualize it as he designed it. Now that's complexity!

If incredible complexity proves intelligent design, therefore God must have his own Designer.

If God needed no Designer, then complexity proves nothing. The most complex entity in the universe always existed with no design whatever.

Therefore complexity can be no barrier to the natural processes that happened "spontaneously" (over eons of time) by the mechanism postulated by Darwin and for which fresh evidence is found every day.

I.D. = B.S. IOW.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So close Posted by: james108
» For goodness sake Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Lets be Realistic
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Iron Helmet on Jul 22, 2009 7:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reality is, Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed, though the concept is sound. Mutations do NOT result in beneficial changes in a vast majority of cases. HOWEVER, evolution is REAL, and is much more complex than Darwin ever envisioned. Theories are being propogated currently that are claiming DNA is malliable from generation to generation based on behavior and environment, and are not random at all. For example, you treat your body in a way that results in a lower threshold for cancer, this threshold can be passed via DNA.
At the end of the day, the puzzle is far from complete, and to dismiss the idea that there is some "other" force at work, is in fact, flying in the face of what is science. We need to be open to the discovery of ideas that may turn current thinking on its head. To act otherwise, is foolish and naive. Judge an idea on its merits, and not based on the category it happens to fall under (ID). In 25 years, our current beliefs will be arcane, and you are the fool that continues to treat them as gospel (no pun intended).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lets be Realistic Posted by: Ahimsa
» thanks Posted by: james108
» actually Posted by: stormchilde1975

Comments are closed-

Not Intelligent Design "or" Evolution . . . Intelligent Design "for" Evolution
[Report this comment]
Posted by: clresu on Jul 22, 2009 8:15 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ervin Laszlo makes a good argument for the above; read his "Science and the Akashic Field." He attempts to prove this thing that would seem on its surface unprovable by showing that the random chances of life occurring should put life happening in about 127 billion years (I believe other scientists concur on the randomness numbers). Yet, the universe is only 12-15 billion years old and we've evolved to this very, very high degree.

After I read some Laszlo and Bruce Lipton, I thought there might've been more to Intelligent Design than I'd realized, so I checked out a book and did some reading and realized that it just wasn't so. Ervin Laszlo and Bruce Lipton are in a different category altogether, which is to say that it's still science, though it's certainly speculative in the case of Laszlo . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Who cares? Most students couldn't get through science.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lex Thomas on Jul 22, 2009 8:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Might as well put them to something too simple and fixed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Just for a moment
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ahimsa on Jul 22, 2009 9:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And so what if there REALLY ISN'T a God?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well then... Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Welcome to the Idiocracy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: je5752 on Jul 22, 2009 9:50 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where yesterday's beach bum is today's towering genius. You too can take comfort in the fact that knowing how to lace your tennis shoes and turn on a computer puts you in the 99th percentile of intelligence.

When will all of this nonsense end? When people become so stupid that they can't get out of bed without killing themselves. That's my only consolation: whoever survives this century - if anyone does - will be rational, logical, and a hell of a lot smarter than the "average American." You can fill in the blank about what's going to happen in the mean time to all of those average Americans. Suffice to say it won't be pretty when the time comes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Intelligent Design "for" Evolution 2
[Report this comment]
Posted by: clresu on Jul 22, 2009 11:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I'm highly sympathetic to criticisms of the scientific status quo, the Intelligent Designers are clearly completely off base and lack any real form of an argument. It's true that, on some level that they wouldn't really jive with, I do agree with them: there is such a thing as irreducible complexity, in that we can't expect science to reduce life as such and consciousness as such down to a two-dimensional theory. This is absurd, to me, but so is IDs argument that various things - flagellum - are irreducibly complex and could not possibly have evolved.

Taking into account Kuhn's "structure of a scientific revolution," and David Bohm's argument that science would be better seen as an art, I do think that the sciences today are having to try to crunch a lot of anomalies into their paradigm that simply don't work . . . the current paradigm being by and large a strict reliance on philosophical materialism, which is an assumption and only an assumption. There are numerous other problems with the current paradigm, as well.

Darwin's theory of evolution has always struck me as strange, in that science 'claims it.' I mean, any artist or human being that's growing in any sort of way is able to see an evolution at work within their own lives and is then able to envision it happening in the macro sense. The problem that science leaves us with concerning evolution and everything else is the question: why? Why is there evolution and why are we evolving towards higher and higher states of consciousness? Despite the many world crises at the time, I still hold this to be the case, that we're moving upwards. Also, what the F is consciousness? Why do we have it? Science may in time come up with a plausible theory on why the first cell came into existence, though they have absolutely nothing at present, but it'll still leave the question: why the F@#! is this happening? Why is there life to begin with?

If looked at through a Platonic lens, being the opposite of the current lens, we might think that there is an intelligence of sorts that's behind it all . . . not like a daddy, or Judeo/Christian God, but rather a holographic imprint in everything everywhere.

Another interesting take that I've recently read comes from Bruce Lipton who points out that there's an almost infinite harmony taking place in nature: look at the cells in a tree all working in cooperation, the cells in the body, nature (minus the human for the moment) as a whole. There's a delicate balance that's beyond logical/rational comprehension. He seems to say that this can drive evolution. While I'm aware that Darwin did have different things in mind concerning evolution and not just this crude "the strongest survive," I still think that Lipton's observation deserves some consideration. He says that the first single celled organisms would group together during times of no food, then separate again. Eventually, they ended up sticking together and differentiating so that specialization was born . . . (leading to things like organs in the modern day body.) For one, this shows an evolutionary move that's based on harmony, cooperation. (I realize that some would say this isn't in opposition to Darwin's theory, but it still seems to seldom get pointed out, and the implications extend further than I think most people realize . . . it implies that as a whole we are evolving . . . key word being, "whole.") But aside from the harmony/conflict thing, when we consider the "intelligence" of cells to perform this seemingly impossible task of coming together, separating, later staying together permanently thing, it's not that difficult to imagine an intelligence at work. Once again, "Intelligent Design for Evolution."

The only problem with proving such a thing is that the intelligence only leaves this beautiful shell behind - life in all its myriad forms - and no trace of itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: clearly misunderstood 1 Posted by: clresu
» RE: clearly misunderstood 2 Posted by: clresu
» RE: clearly misunderstood 2 Posted by: inverse_agonist
» RE: inverse: response Posted by: clresu
» RE: inverse: response dos Posted by: clresu
» RE: clearly misunderstood 1 Posted by: inverse_agonist
» cells in cooperation? Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: cells in cooperation? Posted by: Smartcookie

Comments are closed-

Basta
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Jul 23, 2009 1:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The existence of Stephen Meyer is prima facie evidence that there is no intelligent design.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» false silliness Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Survival of the fittest
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leerhok on Jul 23, 2009 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
has made the mammal Large Brained Primate the dominant predator on earth. This species does not like other predators kill a (small) number of prey to eat. It wipes out entire species by overhunting/overfishing and above all by destroying habitats.

It is pretty close to making itself and all higher forms of life on earth extinct simply by making its own habitat unsustainable. This end result is no good PR for the intelligence level of the assumed creator. Hence goodbye ID!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not into Id Posted by: james108
» i finally get it Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

The divine can't be expressed with words
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xmvince on Jul 23, 2009 2:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go try some LSD, mushrooms, or peyote and you will see.

I don't believe in the Christian God, but I believe there is a power out there that governs all - although the debate really starts with whether this power has a consciousness or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hallucinogens Posted by: clresu

Comments are closed-

ID, Religion, Logic; Ambrose Bierce and the Design of the Ostrich.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Jul 23, 2009 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"LOGIC, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion—thus:
Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds; therefore—
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a post-hole in one second.
This may be called the syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed."
Ambrose Bierce.

The logic of ID is thus:
Major premise: Life is complex.
Minor premise: Complex systems cannot randomly arise.
Conclusion: There exists a life-designing entity (Designer).

Note that the Conclusion requires we accept that the Designer's origin and nature are unknown, whereabouts can not be determined, motives are inscrutable, and of which no trace can be found other than in literature and lore.

If we accept an intelligent Designer, as opposed to one who is merely stupid or whimsical, his or her designs should therefore make (some) sense.

"OSTRICH, n. A large bird to which (for its sins, doubtless) nature has denied that hinder toe in which so many pious naturalists have seen a conspicuous evidence of design. The absence of a good working pair of wings is no defect, for, as has been ingeniously pointed out, the ostrich does not fly."
Ambrose Bierce

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Making up things Posted by: james108
» Before you make a religion.,, Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

A couple things creationists often overlook...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: doctorsquared on Jul 23, 2009 9:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, let's say, for the sake of argument, that some new evidence appeared that actually supported the design hypothesis. It does not follow that the designer is the christian god, or any supernatural being for that matter; this is something which would have to be established by independent evidence. (To his credit, Meyer allows for the possibility of aliens being the designers in such a case).

Second, suppose also for the sake of argument that the creationists' oft-stated contention that the fossil record is the result of the biblical Flood, and not a well-established, radioactively dated record that shows that life is billions of years old. Why, then, would god arrange the distribution of isotopes in the geologic strata to make the earth appear 4.5 billion years old? And why would god arrange the light currently reaching the earth to appear to have originated millions to billions of light years away (and the cosmic background radiation to appear to have originated 13 billion years ago).

It is not only evolution that these folks challenge, but implicitly they challenge well-established theories of astronomy, geology, nuclear physics, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» True Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Darwin on Creation side
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aberdeen on Jul 23, 2009 9:30 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is what is in a revised edition of Origin of Species, published in 1876 about 5 years before Darwin died, thus this is represents a lifetime conclusion: "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one".

It would seem it is atheists, rather than those who believe in God, who have a problem with Charles Darwin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not really... Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Pinto?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aberdeen on Jul 23, 2009 10:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, so you're so much better than God, let's see you create a better human vision or hearing system or better yet, why don't you create your own parallel universe and go live there so you don't corrupt the minds of our children with your narrow-minded hypocrisy.

Who Would Jesus Bomb?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pinto? Posted by: cplot

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.

Comments are closed-

The evidence is literally everywhere.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Jul 25, 2009 7:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Especially since the '60's it seems Emerson and Walt Whitman et al returned, and with a vengeance. Transcendentalism is everywhere anyone cares to look. Physicists, chemists, anthropologists, geologists, psychologists, biologists caught "the bug" -- they are going beyond: into the objects of investigation are being inserted all kinds of ghosts, leprechauns, angels and demons,large and teeny little and large living forces with a will of their own, guiding and determining gravity, chemical and biological processes, everything. A panoply worthy of the imagination of an Aeschylus or a Plato. By god, we are "discovering" god and gods, devils and demons in science itself -- proof incontrovertible that it was god that willed and predetermined everything -- including "real" science.

The assault of un-reason is relentless. Subjectivism has gone pathological.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
Clownish Far-Right Lawmaker Calls for Another Administration Official to Resign
 
How Fair Are the Criticisms of Rahm Emanuel?
 
The Hollywood Double Standard: Tiger gets cooked, Charlie Sheen gets another free pass
 
Is Greece the New AIG?
 
Confused About Nutrition? Eat Food!
 
Insurer Denies Life-Prolonging Treatment To Five-Year-Old Boy With Cancer
 
Budget Paranoia
 
Why Does the U.S. Assassinate Americans?
 
Jon Stewart: Why Does Sarah Palin Need a Cheat Sheet?
 
We Must Lift the Veil on US Troops in Pakistan
 
MORE 
ALL BLOGS 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
  1. Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Are Upending Our Democracy
  2. New Poll Results Are Proof That Republicans Don't Think
  3. White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well
  4. Why I Had to Stop Making Hardcore Porn
  5. Sarah Palin Aims to Bust Up the Republican Party -- And the Tea Party Movement
  6. One Company Thinks They've Created Fast Food With a Conscience -- Are They Right?
  7. The Newest Diet Trend: What Would Jesus Eat?
  8. Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
  9. Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
  10. Top 10 Problems with America Killing Its Own Citizens