Intelligent Design - the Creationists' Latest Wheeze

[jporter]

My father was an atheist. He died a year ago this Sunday. He
was laid up for about two months before he found peace. Most
of that time he was lucid. I spent as much time as I could at his
bedside, watching the news on tv and discussing the events of
the day, which he soon would be leaving behind- a final bequest.
  It was mostly about the war in Iraq and the horrendous lies and
misjudgments of the Bush administration.

But it was also about me and him and how I would face the over-
whelming BS without him and his kindred perspective. He sensed
my frustration and growing desperation, and need for some
signal that his impending death had not weakened our shared
habit of resistance to belief.

His prognosis was growing worse by the day, but he remained
as lucid as ever. On one occasion, late in the game, I expressed
incredulity over how it was our citizens could be so misled. What
was keeping otherwise reasonable people from being reasonable?

His hand fell on a newspaper spread across his knees. "God,"
he said.


On Sep 30, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Mike Weaver wrote:

> Come on then Jody - quit yer teasing and tell us what you see as the 
> most objective and likely form of evolution.  If you don't want to 
> commit yourself, how the theory of evolution stands today will do. 
> Give us something to chew on rather than trying to nudge someone else 
> into doing the work.
>
> Mike
>
>

This is not a scientific forum, Mike, although I do try to interject as 
much
discussion about science as I can, without it being too much. V., for
example, is all about evolution. The chapter, "V. in Love" is about
the degeneracy of the genetic code,  as much as it is about Freudian
fetishism. And Rooney's parody of the Ballad of Davey Crockett is
also a parody of "the central dogma" of Watson and Crick. But you
don't really want me to get all scientific and explanatory, do you?

Earlier, I pointed to the latest issue of the journal S.E.E.D., and an
article by Guenther Witzany:

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol5-1/Witzany.htm

It pretty much mirrors what I think to be the best form of evolutionary
theory, so far. Just read the abstract, you'll catch the drift. Don't 
mind the
broken English, it's truly an international journal. If anyone really 
wants
to get into the details of it here, or off-list, I'd be glad to, but 
not unless
I sense that's where folks really want to go. I suspect the 
pro-evolutionary
people here would find this article by Dawkins and Coyne, in the
Guardian, to be more representative of their views:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

Compare it with the S.E.E.D. article, above, to see how my views might
differ from theirs.

Thanks,

jody

And then there's that Michaelmas daisy in Jackie Gleason's lapel,
at "the game" in _Underworld_. Did I ever post my theory of how
Sinatra, Gleason  "toot's Shore and "Jedgar" Hoover, all sitting
there watching the Dodger's and Giants, represent Euler's famous
equation? Here's a hint- Jedgar is the negative one. And Delillo's
there to, even though as the author, he's trying to zero himself out.

Maybe it was to Andrew Dinn, off list.