The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer

[Paul Mackin]

On Sep 19, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Joel Katz wrote:

> ID is a pile of cigar aficionado/american heritage institute  
> thinktank bullshit.  it, and the whole cynical movement associated  
> with it, rests on the cowlike misunderstandiing of the concept  
> "theory" in our culture, and the window it opens for the  
> repudiation of science by people whose entire lives, down to the  
> most trifling emotional response, are completely equalized,  
> conditioned, and manipulated by science.

A scientific theory is one thing, religious belief is another, and  
never the twain shall meet,
is the way I see it.

Are you talking about something more subtle?


>
> so, aquinas can basically suck it.  why is he considered so cool,  
> anyway?

He never even gets mentioned by anyone but me.

I thought the reason I was bringing him up here would be obvious.
It's to help break up the end run intelligent design theorrists are
trying with the Constitution. Not that any help should really be
needed. Courts repeatedly have found that teaching creationism
  in public schools amounts to promoting a religious viewpoint, in
  violation of the Constitution. Now come intelligent-design advocates.
  Hoping to avoid church-state conflicts, they don't discuss the  
identity
  of the designer.

Well,  of course they don't really have to identify the designer.
  It's obvious who He is.

But it's nice to have confirmation from  a famous philosopher.
See his statement below.

TA's the original intelligent design theorist.

IMHO.

> if you take away the importance of god (who does not exist) from  
> his writing, he's basically a moron.

Not a moron, just of another time.

>
> the real issue in this phony evolution/ID imbroglio is the large  
> percentage of scientists who say they believe in god, and who  
> endorse a sort of division-of-labor credo between science and belief.

The issue is, should religion be taught in science class.

Everything else is a side issue and beyond doing anything about.

You can't require a loyalty oath for entry into the scientist union.   
Who ever
said people have to be consistent?




> that's the crux of the problem, if you ask me.  they allow this  
> other crap to thrive.  the greatest ethical catastrophe on this  
> planet right now is the belief in god by people who know better.

That's possible.

La, di, da . . . .

P.



>
>
>
>> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> Subject: Re: The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer
>> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:58:04 -0400
>>
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2005, at 10:25 AM, jporter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There's something almost "V. like" about this latest hybridization
>>> of technology and religion called "Intelligent Design."
>>>
>>>     http://www.discovery.org/
>>>
>>> I'm not at all sure that this attack on the theory of evolution  
>>> which
>>> seems to accept almost all of the scientific explanation of how
>>> the universe has evolved, excepting the transition from the  
>>> inanimate
>>> to the animate,
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this does seem to be the case, though isn't it rather odd to   
>> restrict "intelligent design" thusly.  The inanimate features of  
>> the  universe are as well-ordered and purposeful as the animate  
>> ones. I  think the distinction is in large part tactical.  The  
>> Evangelicals  feel it necessary to try to bring conservative  
>> Catholics over to  their side,  and there is no way Rome is ever  
>> again going to snooker  itself into a radical anti-science position.
>>
>> Aquinas didn't make any such distinction in his fifth proof (of  
>> five)  for the existence of God
>> (in which he sets in opposition the idea of things coming into   
>> existence fortuitously (or in modern terms by Evolution) or their   
>> coming into existence designedly):
>>
>> "The fifth way is taken from the governance of he world. We see  
>> that  things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for  
>> an end,  and this is evident from the acting always, or nearly  
>> always, in he  same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it  
>> is plain that  they achieve this end, not fortuitously, but  
>> designedly. Now whatever  lacks knowledge cannot move toward an  
>> end, unless it be directed by  some being endowed with knowledge  
>> and intelligence, as the arrow is  directed by the archer.  
>> Therefore some intelligent being exists by  whom all natural  
>> things are directed to their end: and this being we  call God. "
>>
>> Yes, the Evangelicals want to argue for the existence of God in   
>> science  class.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> doesn't signal a last desperate gasp by the belief
>>> community before the final plunge into Scurvhamism- seduced
>>> over one by one into worship of the clock-like perfection of the
>>> material world.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry to have interrupted you in mid-sentence but I got hung up on  
>> a  word. What is scurvhamism?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The question that looms for me is where do they draw the line
>>> between the designer and the designed? Stencil may have been
>>> able to avail himself of the third person, but he was only framing
>>> a part of the whole. It's more difficult to be objective when one is
>>> responsible for the whole shebang.
>>>
>>> jody
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -  
> it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/ 
> direct/01/
>
>