The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer

Mon Sep 19 19:08:13 CDT 2005

i think i've just been tweed to death.

second law of thermodynamics:  entropy.  the telos of the interaction of 
natural bodies.  strange you wouldn't know this, you being a level-8 pro 
p-lister and member of the sea org and all.

>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 19:54:07 -0400
>
>
>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
>>
>>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/