The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer

[Paul Mackin]

On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:17 PM, Joel Katz wrote:

> "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,

If you're inclined that way.

> and probably a big hit with your ladyfriends at the wine auction,  
> but a little irrelevant since the second law of thermodynamics.

The WHATTTT?

>   and you're out of your mind if you think ID types are off  
> referencing aquinas, as opposed to say, james dobson.

Of course they're not but it will sink their toy ship.  If it wasn't   
already deep under water.


>
> my point remains.

Did I miss something?. You are a pointless wonder.


> the issue is not merely creationism in the schools --but YOUR, and  
> exactly, YOUR type of indulgent coddling of religion in this society.

You don't make sense.

>   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.

Free associating.
>
> clearly, there is design in being.

If you think that, you are hopelessly  confused.

> that's not the issue.

It's at least one of  the issues.


> 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.

Did I say there was.

You really need to get a friend or someone to calm you down.

The most serious problem is . . . who knows what !







>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> Subject: Re: The Wrath of the  is.
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>