The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer

Paul Mackin paul.mackin at verizon.net
Tue Sep 20 08:46:58 CDT 2005


On Sep 19, 2005, at 10:42 PM, Joel Katz wrote:

> 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.

Be sure and let the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) know about  
this. They can use it as a fall back position when Intelligent Design  
finally gives up the ghost.

The two theories are equally metaphysical and unscientific.




>
>
>
>
>
>> 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