Used Brains For Sale

Lifetime guarantee

Intelligent Design aka Christian Chauvinism

I have been seeing this poster around the campus lately: it is advertising this talk on “Intelligent Design”, or rather as it says, “Christian Perspective of Evolution”. It purports to explain away Evolution as a scientific theory, replacing it with the only thing that could possibly make sense… Intelligent Design.

It makes me really ashamed to have such an event on campus, really. Intelligent Design is not science. It is at the best, a pseudo-science. The only things backing up Intelligent Design are speculations, theological arguments and “Evolution doesn’t cut it” logic.

Intelligent Design is essentially Genesis repackaged – it is an extremely Christian ideology, and only Christians have been fighting to teach this theory to our kids. They still can’t seem to accept that we have descended from monkeys, it seems. I know there are Christian readers of this blog, and you probably do believe in Genesis – which is your choice. But why are your people trying to force this theology down the throats of everyone, even non-Christians? If you don’t believe in Evolution, then take it to the church. Let the priests talk all they want about how the Lord made the world in 6 days. Stop trying to masquerade it as a credible scientific theory.

What is ironic is that in the poster, the learned speaker is trying to convince us that Evolution is simply a scientific postulation, and does not have enough evidence to back it up. If that is the case, Intelligent Design has much less proof than Evolution. It may or may not be true – I personally believe in evolution, but I do acknowledge it is not completely scientifically proven. But it is the most credible, most well-researched one around. The fact that we can’t conclusively prove Evolution is an indicator of our own short lifespans, not the invalidity of the theory. We haven’t been here long enough, been researching this long enough to prove it either way – but it makes sense. The only reason people have been systematically opposing this has nothing to do with science – and has got everything to do with religion.

I am not going to bother systematically rebutting Intelligent Design as a theory, because that’s for more informed people to do. But I have this to say – if you insist that evolution and intelligent design be taught side by side, I insist that you teach every other genesis-like theory in the world as well, from every religion. I am not the only to come to this conclusion, as the satirical The Flying Spaghetti Monster was formulated on similar grounds.

I’ve really had enough of Christian chauvinism. For a change, do consider people from other faiths.

Advertisements

October 10, 2007 - Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , ,

15 Comments »

  1. […] wrote an interesting post today on Intelligent Design aka Christian ChauvinismHere’s a quick […]

    Pingback by Landdark.Com » Intelligent Design aka Christian Chauvinism | October 10, 2007 | Reply

  2. Hi pleinelune,

    I can appreciate your tedium over the religions zealots pushing ‘Intelligent Design’ as merely a window dressing for their theistic beliefs. Further, as a citizen concerned that science is being undermined by those actions, I can understand your angst. As we all know, the ‘old testament’ religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism et al) hold to the YEC (young earth) belief, and therefore oppose Darwinian Evolution, as it purports an old earth and biologic life via purely naturalistic causes. They feel that thy have no choice but to oppose science.

    But opposition to Darwinian thought is not just from religionists. Matter of fact, the current basic ID premise is in conflict with the YEC position, and according to most Biblical literalists, its basic precepts actually ‘demean’ God, by postulating a gradual design and creation over millions of years by genetic alterations, rather than an instantaneous creation by proclamation, “Let there be … “

    The emerging ID community is purely science based, and seeks empirical evidences of design, from the DNA/RNA code and intracellular mechanics, to complex morphological systems and organs, like the eye (not just mammalian, but virtually ‘all’ eyes). The hypothesis of ‘natural selection’ of ‘random mutations’ fails, as it has been shown to be merely an adaptive mechanism to improve survivability (or to give a ‘reproductive advantage’ to those who become “more fit’), and to produce diversity. To build a complex organ, or system of organs, would require thousands of minor alterations to arrive at a major innovative change. Each alteration would have to provide a slight reproductive advantage. For further analysis of that premise, read: http://tinyurl.com/3ddbst

    All of the philosophical arguments against ID are specious as well, such as “A benevolent God wouldn’t allow disease”, or “An omniscient God wouldn’t have designed the spine as poorly as He did”, or a god is too complex to exist, etc. The point of ID is that design is ‘evident’. By whom (one or many designers over eons) is irrelevant to the obvious conclusion that chance, and even adaptability to a changing environment is insufficient to produce the complexity, novelty and beauty that exists. Regarding evidence, irreducible complexity is a valid hypothesis, and I’m working on a thesis in that regard.

    Life is not Utopian, but who says that it need be? Challenges exist, and may well be intentioned. The spine and vertebrate eye are well designed, but not intended to be perfect, contra the critics’ weak criticisms. And yet, as an engineer, I see the eye (all of them) as being ‘way’ beyond what a human engineer (or Dawkins’ “Blind Watchmaker”) could ever come up with.

    I lost several hours sleep to send you this, but I feel that you’re worth it, kid! A bright young gal with a lot going for her, but one who sides with the prevailing though regarding origins. You don’t strike me as one to go along with the pack, just because their influence currently prevails. The older neoDarwinists, those in a position of authority, are wedded to the Darwinian base premise of NS of RM as the answer to everything. The younger scientists and other professionals, at least those willing to consider the evidence from a more logical perspective, will put down ND, except as a designed in mechanism to produce adaptability to a changing environment, and to create diversity. I feel that you fit that description.

    Back in ’05 you stated: “Brave, and a natural born leader. You’re willing to fight for what you believe in. And willing to make tough decisions. Don’t forget – the people around you have ideas too!”

    Best regards,
    Lee Bowman
    http://westlabmultimedia.com
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/about

    PS: I would have signed s377A were I a citizen of Singapore. OK lah

    Comment by Lee Bowman | October 10, 2007 | Reply

  3. Hello Lee Bowman… I appreciate you taking the time to type out such a long comment. [And I am surprised you have read my previous blog!]

    People can argue about ID and Evolution till the cows come home – definitive proof of either is beyond us at this point, unless someone undertakes a multi-generational study, and until someone proves God.

    Comment by pleinelune | October 10, 2007 | Reply

  4. It purports to explain away Evolution as a scientific theory….

    That’s incorrect, we know from experience that a series of evolutionary events can be packed together in a chain of cause and effect by intelligence. Given that we already know that events can be intelligently designed to unfold the notion of design is not contradicted by the notion of evolution.

    Intelligent Design is not science. […] The only things backing up Intelligent Design are speculations, theological arguments and “Evolution doesn’t cut it” logic.

    There is nothing wrong with arguing that evolution by “random” mutation as sifted by natural “selection” simply doesn’t cut it when it comes to the empirical facts. (Note the pollution of language, what is meant is natural sifting while what is being implied is an act of intelligent selection/choice and mutations really cannot be defined as random unless one breaks the idea of cause and effect to delve into metaphysics.)

    If people are not allowed to argue by some supposed rule that such processes do not “cut it,” then the illusion that they actually do will tend to continue in the minds of those who are never allowed to know any better by rule. At any rate, it is perfectly logical to argue that such processes don’t cut it based on the empirical evidence.

    It’s ironic that you go on to argue that the only things backing ID are speculations and theological arguments given the typical structure of Darwinian arguments. Speculation: “If someone could show me an organism about which I cannot imagine a sequence of events that seem natural to me, then my theory would absolutely break down! See how I can always imagine something about the past? As I imagine things my own imagination and speculations seem like empirical evidence.”

    Theology: “I don’t think that God would make the panda’s thumb like this, therefore natural selection must have. My theological arguments about what God would or wouldn’t do ought to be counted as more overwhelming empirical evidence as to what natural selection can do.”

    Given the extent to which the theologian Darwin made theological arguments and the extent to which such arguments continue to this day one might wonder if biologists/Darwinists are concerned with the empirical evidence at all:

    In constructing the arguments for his theory of evolution, Darwin repeatedly argued that God would never have created the world that the nineteenth-century naturalists were uncovering. Shortly after going pub lic with his theory, Darwin wrote to a friend: “There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the [wasp] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with mice.”
    […]
    Nature seemed to lack precision and economy in design and was often “inexplicable on the theory of creation.” In addition to this growing list of imperfections and mistakes, Darwin questioned the way the various species were designed. He observed, on the one hand, that different species use “an almost infinite diversity of means” for the same task and that this should not be the case if each species had been independently created by a single Creator. On the other hand, Darwin observed that different species use similar means for different tasks.” This too, he argued, does not fit with the theory of divine creation.
    What exactly did Darwin expect God’s creation to look like? We may never know….
    This view was not peculiar to Darwin. Philosophers and scientists had become quite confident in their knowledge of God. This attitude developed over many centuries, and by Darwin’s day it was internalized and needed no justification. Today this view continues to be evident in evolutionary literature, from popular presentations of the theory to college level textbooks.
    (Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil
    by Cornelius G. Hunter :12-13)

    Another layer of irony in all of this is that the organisms which Darwin cited for his theological arguments can be advanced as empirical evidence against the way he selected to focus on natural selection. For example:

    The work of Chrystal demonstrates that the larva of the wood wasp Sirex is also peculiarly accommodating towards its predator, the parasitic wasp Ibalia. Sirex bores a hole in the trunk of a conifer, in which it deposits its egg. The egg yields a grub which feeds on the wood. As the grub feeds on the wood it gradually bores a tunnel. After some years the grub turns into a pupa which finally yields the adult wasp, which, using its powerful jaws, bites its way out of the tree. The Ibalia using the hole bored by the Sirex lays its egg in the Sirex grub. The Ibalia grub gradually consumes the tissues of the Sirex grub but does not eat the vital organs until last, thus ensuring a fresh supply of meat until its development, which takes three years, is complete. The presence of the Ibalia changes the behaviour of the Sirex. Normally the Sirex larva bores deeply into the wood but when infected by the Ibalia it bores towards the surface. This is a vital behavioural change for Ibalia because it has comparatively weak jaws and would be unable to bore as far through the wood as Sirex to escape from the trunk. Yet another example of interspecific altruism? What conceivable value [for natural selection to operate on] can the Sirex grub gain by changing the direction of its boring? By what curious sequence of small evolutionary steps did the Ibalias’ predatory habit induce this vital behavioural change?
    (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
    By Michael Denton :223)

    Comment by mynym | October 12, 2007 | Reply

  5. The fact that we can’t conclusively prove Evolution is an indicator of our own short lifespans, not the invalidity of the theory.

    That’s incorrect. For example:

    Thanks to its enormous population size, rate of reproduction, and our knowledge of the genetics, the single best test case of Darwin’s theory is the history of malaria. Much of this book will center on this disease. Many parasitic diseases afflict humanity, but historically the greatest bane has been malaria, and it is among the most thoroughly studied. For ten thousand years the mosquito-borne parasite has wreaked illness and death over vast expanses of the globe. Until a century ago humanity was ignorant of the cause of malarial fever, so no conscious defense was possible. The only way to lessen the intense, unyielding selective pressure from the parasite was through the power of random mutation. Hundreds of different mutations that confer a measure of resistance to malaria cropped up in the human genome and spread through our population by natural selection. These mutations have been touted by Darwinists as among the best, clearest examples of the abilities of Darwinian evolution.
    And so they are, But, as we’ll see, now that the molecular changes underlying malaria resistance have been laid bare, they tell a much different tale than Darwinists expected—a tale that highlights the incoherent flailing involved in a blind search. Malaria offers some of the best examples of Darwinian evolution, but that evidence points both to what it can, and more important what it cannot, do. Similarly, changes in the human genome, in response to malaria, also point to the radical limits on the efficacy of random mutation.
    Because it has been studied so extensively, and because of the astronomical number of organisms involved, the evolutionary struggle between humans and our ancient nemesis malaria is the best, most reliable basis we have for forming judgments about the power of random mutation and natural selection. Few other sources of information even come close. And as we’ll see, the few that do tell similar tales. (The Edge of Evolution
    by Michael Behe :12-13)

    To test natural selection against the empirical evidence all one needs is millions of generations, not millions of years. Once all the puerile theological arguments are stripped away, the politics of a Darwinian creation myth of progression that just happens to suit progressives, etc.etc…and one turns to the empirical evidence Darwinism can be clearly falsified and verified. Given all its theological and political baggage some will apparently never admit that it has often been falsified but given how easy it is to falsify such people will have to invent more and more supposed “rules of knowledge/science” which just happen to fit everything they say, rely on more and more totalitarianism, more fear mongering and propaganda, etc.

    We haven’t been here long enough, been researching this long enough to prove it either way – but it makes sense.

    Actually Darwinism does not make sense, instead it is a system designed to dissolve the sense and sentience typical to higher life forms and organisms in a systematic way. Take yourself for instance, you may think that you are thinking and that the words that you write here are an artifact of your intelligence (inter- + legere to select!) but Darwinian reasoning tells us that natural selection guides every organism and intelligence is an illusion. Given Darwinism we cannot admit to your capacity for intelligent selection in the use of symbols and signs of your own design, instead, as a rule, we must shift to natural selection and so on. So given what really guides your biological brain events I’m writing to an illusion, a complex illusion that actually reduces in an unbroken chain of cause and effect to the mating habits of ancient worms. The words that you use to reason out the thoughts that you only think you are thinking given the illusion of sentience and sapience typical to Homo sapiens may as well be worms, which may as well be excrement.

    The only reason people have been systematically opposing this has nothing to do with science – and has got everything to do with religion.

    Then I suppose you won’t object when I note that the illusion of meaning to your sentence has more to do with ancient worms having sex than words selected by you as a sentient being.

    Comment by mynym | October 12, 2007 | Reply

  6. There is nothing wrong with arguing that evolution by “random” mutation as sifted by natural “selection” simply doesn’t cut it when it comes to the empirical facts.

    While you are perfectly at liberty to argue that Evolution may not make sense, that is an argument AGAINST Evolution, not FOR ID. You fail to recognise it is not a binary thing – it is not a choice between Evolution and ID, with one of them being the ultimate truth.

    And erm, for much of your posts, you really don’t make a lot of sense. Or make a point either, because it is a lot of rheotorics and waffle. You quote extensively from books that purport to defeat Evolution, but none of those quotes offer definitive proof – all I see are persuasive statements asserting the truth of their claim without actually showing me why.

    And I might serve to remind you that this post aims not to discuss the merits of either claim, but to protest the enforcement of Christian theology as credible science.

    Comment by pleinelune | October 12, 2007 | Reply

  7. While you are perfectly at liberty to argue that Evolution may not make sense, that is an argument AGAINST Evolution, not FOR ID.

    To argue against the Blind Watchmaker hypothesis will always be in some sense an argument favorable to sight and sense in a binary way, which makes sense if you think about it. If you can find or know of a third option then provide it. There isn’t really anything wrong with binary logic, it can be quite logical and useful as far as defining information.

    You quote extensively from books that purport to defeat Evolution, but none of those quotes offer definitive proof – all I see are persuasive statements asserting the truth of their claim without actually showing me why.

    How do you specify Evolution and what would be definitive proof against it? As far as Denton’s book, that’s only a small part of the empirical evidence from biology that he cites which falsifies Darwinian theory. Other biologists have compiled similar evidence with respect to numerous organisms. As for Behe’s book, he’s searching for ways to test Darwinian theory empirically. All Behe can really do is try to verify/falsify Darwinian theory to the extent that it has been specified and it certainly hasn’t been specified to the extent of say, Newtonian theory. However, to the extent that it has been specified he does a good job of both verifying and falsifying it empirically. As far as Hunter’s book, he’s citing plain historical facts with respect to theological arguments which can be verified in the writings and texts of Darwin and Darwinists.

    I’m not sure why you’ve framed all of the text above as if it is persuasive but unsubstantiated given that the majority of it is actually rooted in historical or empirical fact.

    In a sense, a persuasive argument that can never be given “substance” is the argument that the Blind Watchmaker hypothesis will never make any sense as long as it is rooted in blind processes producing and governing the brain events that define its illusion of being true. For it always seems to make sense to a metaphysical mind that sees by sight and insight that when it is reduced to blind physical processes then things ultimately just don’t make any sense. To avoid being nonsensical Darwinists usually try to select for things that make sense without admitting that selection cannot be divorced from intelligence. As a critic noted:

    Electrons and nucleons are not known to be sentient, while the higher animals are. If a rat laps up a solution of saccharine, the rational ex planation of this lies in the fact that the solution tastes sweet and that the rat likes that. The tasting and liking are facts that physics and chemistry as known today cannot explain.
    And this conclusion gives the whole show away. Because it acknowledges a conscious desire by an individual capable of such desire, it leads on further to the recognition of deliberate actions by in- dividuals and the possibilities of error on their part. Thus a whole series of conceptions emerges that are absent from physics and chemistry as known today. Indeed, nothing is relevant to biology, even at the lowest level of life, unless it bears on the achievements of living beings: achievements such as their perfection of form, their morphogenesis, or the proper functioning of their organs; and the very conception of such achievements implies a distinction between success or failure—a distinction unknown to physics and chemistry.
    [….]
    The achievements which form the subject matter of biology can be identified only by a kind of appraisal which requires a higher degree of participation by the observer in his subject matter than can be mediated by the tests of physics and chemistry. The current ideal of “scientificality” which would refuse such participation would indeed destroy biology but for the wise neglect of consistency on the part of its supporters. (Scientific Outlook: Its Sickness and Cure
    by Michael Polanyi
    Science New Series, Vol. 125,
    No. 3246 (Mar., 1957), pp. 482)

    The Darwinian mind typically rebels at the notion of being separated from Mother Nature, therefore it cannot change and will instead demand a more substantial substitute if its grip on what matters is challenged. For in some minds matter is all that can matter and what can mere words be to a mind of the synaptic gaps which refuses to think for itself? It seems that words or any symbols and signs of design will always seem insubstantial to such a mind because it feels that all is matter in motion. In all probability there is something the matter with trying to think that, for what can encode motion into matter? That is the crux of this whole matter. And for that matter it is probably the fact of the matter, as a matter of fact.

    At any rate, if you can specify what you believe Evolution to be and show what definitive proof you’d accept as its falsification that might be very interesting.

    Comment by mynym | October 12, 2007 | Reply

  8. And I might serve to remind you that this post aims not to discuss the merits of either claim, but to protest the enforcement of Christian theology as credible science.

    Yet you are actually supporting Darwinian theology as if it is credible science.

    Comment by mynym | October 12, 2007 | Reply

  9. Yet you are actually supporting Darwinian theology as if it is credible science.

    What has that got to do with anything? Yes, I do believe in Evolution, as it is a lot more credible than anything else mankind has come up with, so far. Because I am by nature a scientific person who does not place credence in woolly religious theories, and because there is overwhelming evidence that points to it. From fossils of dinosaurs to the mutations of the flu virus, there are many separate pieces of evidence that make up the puzzle. This belief of mine has nothing to do with the political issue that I brought up, of Christian Chauvinism, a point you continually refuse to address. You keep missing the entire point of this post.

    Not only that – mine is no blind belief, but well-reasoned and critical thought. I do acknowledge there are missing pieces, and there are things that don’t make sense, unlike supporters of ID who place their flag firmly on the ground and refuse to open their minds to the possibilities of flaw.

    Honestly – I don’t care. People are free to believe anything they want, even if it be that world was created by a mushroom God. But when try to shove those beliefs down the throat of others, then that is unacceptable.

    Comment by pleinelune | October 12, 2007 | Reply

  10. […] 12th, 2007 by pleinelune When I posted Intelligent Design aka Christian Chauvinism, I expected to be slammed by Christians, not pseudo-scientists [who quote from books, but […]

    Pingback by More politics than science « Used Brains For Sale | October 12, 2007 | Reply

  11. Hi again,

    No long rants, just a point that I feel is central to the Evo/ID issue.

    Yes, I do believe in Evolution, as it is a lot more credible than anything else mankind has come up with, so far.

    Granted, to the extent that it is one of the most researched fields of inquiry (neoDarwinism, that is, incl. cellular genetics), involving the most researchers, and over the most contiguous time period.

    But again, let’s briefly address one of the most troublesome snafus of the basic paradigm: RM/NS.

    Even Stephen Gould, the recently deceased researcher who postulated ‘punctuated equilibrium’ doubted that basic premise, causing a troubling stir within the ND community.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151

    As a paleontologist and biologist, his research and writings are eminent, much more than I can offer. Yet he an I agree on many (most) points. He was gravely concerned over the sudden emergence of species wit absolutely no evidence of gradualistic evo events. Remember, the selection of mutations that offer a reproductive advantage, theorized by Darwin, Wallace, and actually others before them, was a guess. Darwin predicted transitional fossils, of which none (out of millions of finds) have been found. [note: the few purported to be thus fall under ‘punctuated’ gradualism, and not due to a selected favorable mutation]

    To conclude, the fossile record is real. It shows descent, and yes, with modification. You’ll see the same thing in an auto junkyard, or a thrift shop (the parade of obsolete computers). It points more, however, to a process of intelligent involvement than accidental modifications. Evolution is real, but as an adaptive mechanism only. The observed mutational changes of bacteria are adaptivealterations, and in no way a change in species. Fruit flys are still fruit flies.

    So who’s the cosmic tinkerer? I feel there are many. My research points to us, as well, being related to those entities. But they stay hidden, and for good reason. We’re here as self-determinate, autonomous beings. We’re given free rein. Biologic forms are actually vehicles for existence on earth, but our real selves (and of course consciousness) is external to those vehicles. Why be earthbound then? Call it a ‘theme park’ vacation, and there are are probably many opportunities to partake.

    That fact is not revealed to us, since it would take away from the experience, and would cause many to act even more recklessly than do. The various religions point in that direction, but are full of misinformation and corruption, due to man’s egotistical involvement in them, and using religion as a club.

    But even if you prefer to believe only in naturalism, and that consciousness is only brain activity, feel free. What I ask is that you don’t blindly buy the short sighted conclusions of all that valid research, based on an ‘a priori’ materialist mindset. In the cosmos, there is intelligence, a lot of it, and it ain’t just us!

    Check out one of my sites: http://westlabmultimedia.com

    Cheers,
    Lee

    Comment by Lee Bowman | October 13, 2007 | Reply

  12. What has that got to do with anything?

    It’s not clear how Darwinian theology can be included in science while Christian theology must be excluded.

    Because I am by nature a scientific person…and because there is overwhelming evidence that points to it.

    If you are by nature a scientific person then you should be willing to focus on the empirical evidence more and political arguments less. There is so little evidence for the expansive claims that the Darwinian creation myth is based on that a critic can justly say: “Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory—the concept of the continuity of nature. . . and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process—have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.” –Michael Denton

    This belief of mine has nothing to do with the political issue that I brought up, of Christian Chauvinism, a point you continually refuse to address. You keep missing the entire point of this post.

    I’ve begun to respond to it under your other posting. I didn’t miss it, I’m just not that interested in it. You have to make some very peculiar and ahistorical assumptions about the benefits of Nature based creation myths in order to argue that the Darwinian creation myth ought to be privileged above all others because it safeguards “secular values.”

    Not only that – mine is no blind belief, but well-reasoned and critical thought.

    I’d agree that your belief isn’t exactly blind faith. For instance, many people tend to have faith in scientific consensus because even if it’s not entirely correct scientists seem credible, they are seeking the truth and progress is inevitable. In fact, people sometimes seem to have so much faith in scientists that somewhere along the line they cross the line and it does get to be blind faith.

    I do acknowledge there are missing pieces, and there are things that don’t make sense, unlike supporters of ID who place their flag firmly on the ground and refuse to open their minds to the possibilities of flaw.

    What books have you read written by ID proponents that have not admitted the possibility of flaws?

    Honestly – I don’t care. People are free to believe anything they want, even if it be that world was created by a mushroom God. But when try to shove those beliefs down the throat of others, then that is unacceptable.

    Given that ID comports with the philosophy of all American Founders and they created a political system with as much Liberty as possible it seems to me that if shoving beliefs down the throats of others was really your concern then you’d support ID as a matter of political or social utility. The reason that the Founders created the political system that they did was that they adhered to the philosophy that they did, a philosophy in which people are left at liberty to make their own selections in so far as possible given that they are intelligent beings capable of selections that go against natural “selection” and the philosophy of naturalism behind the Darwinian creation myth.

    For example, Jefferson’s philosophy on origins:

    the Theist pointing `to the heavens above, and to the earth beneath, and to the waters under the earth,’asked if these did not proclaim a first cause, possessing intelligence and power; power in the production, and intelligence in the design and constant preservation of the system; urged the palpable existence of final causes, that the eye was made to see, and the ear to hear, and not that we see because we have eyes, and hear because we have ears; an answer obvious to the senses, as that of walking across the room was to the philosopher demonstrating the nonexistence of motion. –Thomas Jefferson

    (The Faiths of Our Fathers: What America’s
    Founders Really Believed
    By Alf J. Mapp :14) (Emphasis added)

    Comment by mynym | October 13, 2007 | Reply

  13. […] Intelligent Design aka Christian Chauvinism […]

    Pingback by intelligent design | November 30, 2007 | Reply

  14. “It points more, however, to a process of intelligent involvement than accidental modifications.”

    Don’t accept nonsense from Lee Bowman.

    “It’s not clear how Darwinian theology can be included in science while Christian theology must be excluded.”

    Don’t accept egregious nonsense from mynym either.

    Comment by onein6billion | December 16, 2008 | Reply

  15. Oh really this is just a load of specious rubbish from people trying to justify some pseudo scientific concept (ID) -because they know that eventually if the science becomes irrefutable the whole God thing falls apart. Its funny that all the ID debate surrounds biology because almost any people can half get their heads around natural selection – almost nothing of ID surrounds the very difficult and very mathematically concrete science of Physics. Biology is just a subset of Physics and eventually will be explained in that context. Then the true believers in God can be at peace that their value system is of a philosophical nature and of the mind. Personally a beliefe in God is fine for those who wish it – its the loss of tolerance of the unbelievers that some seem to develop that should be of concern.

    Comment by gnomestrath | January 18, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: