The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer
Joel Katz
mittelwerk at hotmail.com
Mon Sep 19 21:42:08 CDT 2005
our own universal laws indicate as much: something cannot originate from
nothing, energy can only be transformed. so there has to have been
something prior to our universe. our universe is also only one version of a
theoretically infinite type. so rationally i think one has to posit an
inconceivable force as the source of being.
and beyond that, any supposed relationship to that force, much less a name
for it, is obscene. the true starting point for human spirituality is human
inconsequence and human isolation.
>From: malignd at aol.com
>To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer
>Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:14:31 -0400
>
><<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
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list