The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer

Mon Sep 19 17:17:46 CDT 2005

"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.

well, the aquinas stuff is cute, and probably a big hit with your 
ladyfriends at the wine auction, but a little irrelevant since the second 
law of thermodynamics.  and you're out of your mind if you think ID types 
are off referencing aquinas, as opposed to say, james dobson.

my point remains.  the issue is not merely creationism in the schools --but 
YOUR, and exactly, YOUR type of indulgent coddling of religion in this 
society.  it reminds me of the way liberals praise their destructive, 
selfish children as "creative"--or again, a liberal's inchoate need to win 
the approval of people who hate them and always will, who giddily pray for 
the day when they can baste you in flame.  indeed, the tolerance for 
religion among enlightened, scientific rationalists (like you, pal, and like 
me) seems to have pathological overtones.  some kind of cultural noblesse 
oblige for the stupid and deceived.  which is all fine and dandy -- until 
they get real, totalitarian power over you.

clearly, there is design in being.  that's not the issue.  clearly, there is 
no humanoid god.  that is the issue.  human-scale cognition and human-scale 
ethics.  ridicule your friends, your neighbors, your wife.  let's get with 
it, people.

>From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
>To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer
>Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:11:54 -0400
>
>
>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/
>>
>>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963