The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer

Mon Sep 19 19:14:31 CDT 2005

<<clearly, there is design in being>>

You care to explain this?

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Katz <mittelwerk at hotmail.com>
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:17:46 -0400
Subject: Re: The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer

   "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 