From KansasCity.com: Intelligent design backers criticize KU course title
Months before a University of Kansas religion course is even taught, its title has riled some who say the school is acting the spoil sport in the evolution debate.
The course, “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies,” will be offered next semester. The goal, university officials say, is to open students up to the many cross-cultural stories of how the world was created.
Those in the intelligent design camp believe it is just KU’s way of degrading the concept…
“All of a sudden, just from the title, intelligent design is being put in there with mythology,” said Bruce Simat, an associate biology professor at Minnesota’s Northwestern College, who testified on behalf of intelligent design at Kansas hearings in May.
“I think it’s reactionary. I think it’s defensive. I think they are unwilling to study intelligent design head-on.”
EXT. THE HEAVENS - DAY (SIX)
[The Grand Old Designer (GOD) is tinkering with his latest creation. Enter the Angel STAN, a close friend.]
STAN: Hey, I got your message. Wassup?
GOD: Oh, hi, Stan. Just finishing a thing…
STAN: Wow, is that Earth down there? It looks great!
GOD: Thanks.
STAN: Beasts and fishes and everything. You’ve really put a lot of work into that. And it shows.
GOD: Aw, it’s just this thing I’ve been doing, you know.
STAN: Well, it’s top-notch. So, what’s the four one one?
GOD: Just the crowning acheivement. They think, they talk, they’re all that and a bag of chips… Stan, behold…. Man.
[With a flourish, GOD displays his Creation.]
STAN: Okayyyy….
GOD: Pretty great, huh?
STAN: Yeah, super. [pause.] But -
GOD: What?
STAN: Well, I don’t know. You’re the omnipotent one, but…
GOD: Come on, what’s on your mind?
STAN: Well, it sort of looks like you copied some of the skeletal stuff from those “monkeys” down there.
GOD: Hey, if it ain’t broke… What’s your point?
STAN: Well, you’ve got these new things standing upright, correct?
GOD: Yes…
STAN: So, from a design standpoint, isn’t that a little wonky? I mean look at the knees. A bipedal posture is going to wear those down painfully over time.
GOD: Sure, but -
STAN: And the spine. It’s just not set up to take the stress of that gait. A lot of these guys are going to have some pretty intense lower back pain.
GOD: Maybe, but -
STAN: And don’t even get me started on the females…
GOD: What’s wrong with Eve!?
STAN: Nothing, nothing - she’s a total cutie. But… look, you pretty much just inflated the monkey skull to twice its normal size, right?
GOD: Er, pretty much.
STAN: Well, look at that girl’s hips. And her… fiddly bits.
GOD: What about ‘em?
STAN: With that skull size and that birth canal, you’re letting her in for a world of pain. Thousands of ‘em are going to die trying to give birth.
GOD: But thousands more will live.
STAN: Sure.
[pause]
GOD: I’ll just tell ‘em that this is their burden. Cosmic justice and whatnot.
STAN: Why do that when you could just design them with a little more headroom down there? I mean, you do want to design this intelligently, right?
GOD: Naturally.
STAN: So, howsabout you throw in a little more padding on the knees, reinforce the lower spine, give the ladies a wider undercarriage and badaboom! I mean, that’d work better than just a hastily-modified monkey, right?
GOD: …
STAN: But hey, what do I know?
GOD: Is there anything else?
STAN: Wha-? No, I don’t think I should say -
GOD: No, come on! What’s on your mind?
STAN: You seem angry.
GOD: I’M NOT ANGRY!
STAN: You sound angry. Maybe I should go…
GOD: THOU SHALT TELL ME YOUR GRIPES!
[Thunderclap.]
STAN: Okay, okay. Uh…
GOD: Go on.
STAN: Okay. Putting the reproductive stuff so close to the waste systems is going to cause a lot of infections, see? And look at this thing, this “appendix’ - you just left that in there from your horses and whatnot and it’s not even going to do anything except occasionally explode and kill its owner, right? And I hate to harp on the upright thing, but couldn’t you have reimagined these “feet” to be a little more durable, or do you actually want their arches to collapse and the whole thing to hurt? And this whole genetic system opens the door for spontaneous and/or hereditary mutations that can cause devastating diseases and defects that can be passed down and physically or mentally cripple some of their offspring right outa the gate.
[Pause.]
STAN: I guess what I’m saying is that with you being all-powerful and all-knowing, why would you use 98% of your chimp design and cut corners on your most important creation?
GOD: Maybe… I just work in mysterious ways. Did you ever think of that, Mr. Smartypants?
STAN: Of course, of course. So… why not fix some of the obvious design flaws and leave out some of the vestigial junk from other creatures down there? It’s one thing to build in an expiration date, but with all your resources, some of this just seems a little bit lazy, don’t you think? Why the appendix? Why the monkey knees?
GOD: …
STAN: What?
GOD: … not telling.
STAN: Aw, come on.
GOD: No.
STAN: You don’t have a reason, do you?
GOD: I do too.
STAN: So why don’t you tell me?
GOD: It’s a secret.
STAN: Bull.
GOD: It’s true.
STAN: Whatever.
GOD: You’re anti-God, aren’t you?
STAN: What? No, I’m your friend.
GOD [pouty]: It sure doesn’t sound like it.
STAN: Well I am. Look, what do you say we go get a pizza, huh? Would that make you feel better?
GOD: …maybe.
STAN: Okay, come on.
[They begin to leave.]
GOD: I really worked hard on that.
STAN: I know. And you did a great job.
GOD: Damn straight I did.
STAN: I’m just a quibbler, I guess.
GOD: I’ll say.
[GOD grabs his fedora, turns out the light. We hear a celestial Chevy starting up, peeling out, and driving away.]
Fanny Roborat
112 comments
bramster
November 25, 2005 at 7:38 pm
1That is absolutely priceless!
Murray
November 25, 2005 at 8:54 pm
2Oh God, where do I start.
Bad design? Who would make a passage for food AND air in the same tube. Talk about a disaster waiting to happen. (Although it works pretty well in fish where it started). And who would make something as important as our necks, as fragile as out necks? And don’t get me started on the human eye, God designed macular degeneration into that one. At least he got it right with cephalopods where the blood vessels are behind the retina. And how come we don’t have a decent coat of fur to keep us warm, prevent sunburn, and be able to highlight to our heart’s content?
Hot Tub Tommy
November 25, 2005 at 9:08 pm
3Celestrial Lamborghini, I think, starting up, peeling out and driving away. Remember who were talking about here; only the best. Worried about a mechanic that can work on such a beast? No problem - You need a mechanic, You got lightning bolts, right?
Bob
November 25, 2005 at 9:24 pm
4As the old joke goes, God must have been a civil engineer, because only a civil engineer would run waste disposal pipes through a recreational area.
Tiffany
November 25, 2005 at 9:55 pm
5Beautiful, Adam. Thank you.
nigel
November 25, 2005 at 10:12 pm
6Oh, I don’t know. Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet. God belongs in that mix somewhere, so maybe GM is divinely inspired.
nigel
November 25, 2005 at 10:24 pm
7If that which we cannot fully explain must be the product of an intelligent designer.
AND
humans cannot fully explain God (see the Bible)
THEN
God must be the product of an intelligent designer.
THUS
There is more than one God/Intelligent Designer
AND THUS
The Bible is wrong.
I know that’s kind of a complicated train of thought, but if you can make any coherent sense out of the Bible, you should be able to follow it.
God, I love shooting fish in a barrel. It never gets old.
ginny
November 25, 2005 at 11:12 pm
8My God is not a jealous God, he is a pouty God who can be placated with pizza. The next time we don’t feel like cooking and order a pie for delivery, I’ll set a slice aside for Him.
Hold the anchovies, world without end. Amen.
historyenne
November 25, 2005 at 11:34 pm
9I saw an issue of Scientific American a year or so ago that had an artists’ rendering of what scientists figure humans should look like if we had been designed to live eighty plus years, walking upright all the while. It doesn’t bear a whole heck of a lot of resemblance to our actual physiognomy. Here’s a link to the article–you’ll have to pay to download the full text, but it’s worth it.
historyenne
November 25, 2005 at 11:38 pm
10I mean here’s the link. I wasn’t paying attention to my html tags.
SpottedDog
November 26, 2005 at 4:02 am
11I have nothing to add, but I can’t move on without acknowledging how great that is, right up there with the essay on gay marriage. When does the “Best of…” book come out?
hunnybun
November 26, 2005 at 7:41 am
12Apparently, the mythology-phobes in KS don’t realize it’s ALL mythology, after all. Check out some Joseph Campbell why dontcha’.
dee
November 26, 2005 at 9:54 am
13We need to get all those people a copy of Old Turtle. I highly recommend it as a holiday gift for any child. Or any adult, come to think of it.
Kristy
November 26, 2005 at 9:59 am
14Adam, as a Kansas resident who adores KU even more than usual right now–I love you. That was brilliant.
littlebit
November 26, 2005 at 11:11 am
15Logic — what a bear. In my 1990’s BYU logic class, the board was filled with mathematical equations, and math prerequisites had to be filled before entry into the class. Opinion, hope, and fear were not part of the course material. That is the stuff of mythology. Go KU.
Nigel, cool that ID theory disproves itself if it is based on the bible. If it’s not based on the bible, ID gets pretty close to string theory. Alternate universes, gods before god?
Still doesn’t explain the burp.
Doug
November 26, 2005 at 11:26 am
16Hey, YOU try designing higher primates with these claws… while molting, no less.
You’re just lucky I took the time to remove the tails and fix the sloping foreheads.
David
November 26, 2005 at 11:29 am
17Anybody else remember the Dewey Decimal System?
All books regarding religion were under Mythology.
A good friend observed a very long time ago (shortly after he graduated from the community college at which I taught and quite possibly while we were stalking deer - it was brutally cold that morning) that he thought life on earth was the science project of a junior high student in another dimension who wasn’t really doing all that well in school, with the globe as something of a grand petri dish into which had been introduced the super-pathogen mankind. Damned, he might be right after all.
Here’s hoping Lobster backflaps in: time for a little help from a friend. Lobsters do backflap, don’t they, since they’re really just mudbugs on steroids.
waterfowler
November 26, 2005 at 1:21 pm
18Merry Christmas all.
cooper
November 26, 2005 at 2:37 pm
19Kind words from waterfouler? Mmm… what’s he mean by that? OH YEAH? Well two can play at this game, Buster!
Merry Xmas to you, too; and may the claws be with you.
cooper
November 26, 2005 at 2:56 pm
20David, interesting theory. May I suggest that the junior high student became disillustioned with this project, shoved it out of sight into the back of his closet, and never thought of it again. And so we continue spinning out of control, making a huge mess on the floor of his closet, only to be found one day and to become the object of his disgust, anger and illogical teenage agnst. By the way, what were you two smoking that day; got any left?
candlemaker
November 26, 2005 at 3:04 pm
21Stan’s the man.
Debra
November 26, 2005 at 4:06 pm
22Brilliant! David, that was the excuse I gave my 7th grade biology teacher for not trapping butterflies and killing them for a project. Land of the Giants was running at the time and I postulated that we were all somebody else’s experiment and maybe it was about who wouldn’t follow the crowd and kill just because. He gave me an A- and told me to announce my CO status a little earlier.
craig
November 26, 2005 at 4:24 pm
23“God created Man in his own image. And Man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.”
My favorite line from “Inherit the Wind.”
David
November 26, 2005 at 10:14 pm
24Cooper,
Nothing, man… Believe it or not, neither said friend nor I were tokers, not that we were isolated from same. Just that neither one of us smoked anything. We did put away our share of Ben Franklin’s favorite beverage, however.
I like your addendum to my friend’s theory.
Debra,
Love it. I might well have done the same, even if I was at one time a deerhunter (spectacularly unsuccessful). I don’t kill anything I don’t have to anymore.
Waterfowler,
Back at ‘cha.
Florida 34 - Florida State 7 Thank you, King Mud Bug.
cooper
November 27, 2005 at 12:51 am
25David, Ben Franklin’s favorite beverage? Ben Franklin was a great American and I approve of his beverage and those who use it responsibly.
dee, I might have heard you today on WWDTM - were you the high pitched laugher or the contralto going “Woo; woo; woo”?
Cedric
November 27, 2005 at 2:13 am
26Very funny article. The ID people should be spanked and told to get a life. Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster at www.venganza.org
:)
David
November 27, 2005 at 2:43 am
27Cooper,
Other than double vision - no car keys, we were about as responsible with beer as Franklin was with sex (and possibly vice-versa).
Cedric,
Many thanks for the FSM link. I’d heard of the movement, but the site is new to me.
cooper
November 27, 2005 at 11:54 am
28Chapter 17
The gray rental car hurtled down the winding two-lane blacktop and entered a tunnel, whose sides, roof and now the road itself became a kaleidoscope of red, yellow and orange made iridescent by the autumnal setting sun. Behind were DC and the dangers and trials of an earlier life that now elbowed all other concerns out of the way and dominated the present. Ahead were four days of blessed relief and distraction as the family gathered for Thanksgiving in the backwater town of Cherry Grove Beach.
If precious little else, the Boss had certainly been right about establishing multiple identities, bolstered by credit card, driver’s license, passport, the appropriate disguise and piles of cash stuffed into the wall safe at home. These came in handy for the taxi-ride to the rental car agency and the entrance into the late morning traffic, all of which proved to be seamless, unremarkable and unnoticed. The boys at Langley would be proud. Now, as night and the destination approached, a choice would have to be made. The lawyer was screaming for the decision by Monday. This would not be an easy divorce after all these years of shared secrets and heartfelt revelations. My early dalliances with those boys in Iraq had been confessed early on and were bound to come up in the proceedings. The countless lies told to further the career and destroy enemies were duly noted and now locked away, to be brought out at the most damaging point in the trial. To shut-up, get steam-rolled and very likely do serious time; or spill my guts, tell the truth and put up the kind of fight, not even I know if I have in me, and then quietly disappear into the South American jungle to wait for the heart attack we all know is coming.
Before entering the compound, Scooter drove to the public beach access. The surprisingly warm breeze and intoxicating salty air cleared his head and a feeling of exhilaration washed over him. He kicked off his shoes, reveling in this simple freedom. He needed a cigarette and a long walk by the ocean. Out in the dunes, the sniper waited…
David
November 27, 2005 at 2:45 pm
29Wicked, Cooper, and harrowingly plausible.
David
November 27, 2005 at 5:24 pm
30Topic from a previous post: the al Jazeera/Bombs Away Bush scandal alleged in various articles. This is a link to an Observer/UK article (a Guardian newspaper, so it’s “left-leaning, whatever in hell that is supposed to mean - can I call America’s MSM right-listing?)
Here’s the link:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1127-01.htm
Murray
November 27, 2005 at 6:45 pm
31ID internal inconsistency or fatal flaw #2 (see Nigel #7).
Premise: The gaps in evolution are explained by an intelligent designer.
A: Who or what is this intelligent designer?
B: We can’t say, (snicker), it may or may not be God, some force, or something like that, (he, he).
A: OK, I will accept ID, if the intelligent designer is Nature as expressed in the theory of Natural Selection.
B: NO!
A: Why not?
B: Because that’s not the real intelligent designer.
A: Oh? Who is this designer?
B: Not going to tell you! But we know what it isn’t.
(Sure sounds like science to me)
Murray
November 27, 2005 at 6:46 pm
32Coop,
Keep it coming, cool as hell.
waterfowler
November 27, 2005 at 9:12 pm
33David,
perfect response.
Emmarie
November 27, 2005 at 10:18 pm
34[serious part] historyenne, we read that article at the beginning of the year in anatomy class. We noted that some suggested solutions didn’t make much sense (extended ribcage=really painful pregnancy, knee will probably grind no matter what, more fat=necessary new heart, etc.), but it was still worth reading and the problems were certainly valid. [end serious part]
I love the post.
Maybe the Intelligent Designer (I imagine this word wobbling slightly to preserve mysticalness) made us like monkeys so we wouldn’t get mad at blame him. It would be “well, this is a product of what we used to be” and not “you screwed up, ID. We deserve ice cream.”
Belated happy thanksgiving, all. Just got back in town tonight.
Nick Danger, Third Eye
November 27, 2005 at 11:47 pm
35ginny, no anchovies? You got the wrong man. I spell my name, Danger!
Zach
November 27, 2005 at 11:49 pm
36You know, the real irony is that the ID lunatics could have gotten farther with just a “Designer” theory rather than an “Intelligent Designer.” Because it would not invite intelligent critiques.
Think designer. Think your dad fooling around with things in the garage, trying to attach new gizmos to the car from the vacuum. That argument you can’t miss!
Because for every “well, what about the knees/scrotum/hernias” you can simply respond “hey, we’re lucky he remembered to attach the arms! I mean, did you see some of the earlier shit he tried out? Those poor apes with the swollen genitals. Whew, did we get off easy.”
The true designers are the hardworking men and women of America who dare to invent things in their garages–things that occasionally don’t work or work very poorly. They are truly made in his image.
Peter
November 28, 2005 at 10:01 am
37Really great stuff. I say you have another entry on myriad other evaluations by an advisory board of intelligent designers…like a panel of Japanese or German engineers. They could critique some other problems - laryngial nerves in giraffes or human retinas.
Glad to see that humor is never lost in our critiques of the moronic.
David Helms
November 28, 2005 at 10:21 am
38Uh, clearly you misspelled SaTAN’s name.
No biggy though, since everyone knows that that first a is silent.
I always thought SaTAN never got enough credit.
Scooby
November 28, 2005 at 10:23 am
39…and who can explain hiccups?
Mary
November 28, 2005 at 11:15 am
40Murray- you hit on one of my favorite ID flaws: the nature of Nature. Natural selection isn’t random- it is survival of the fittest. Sort of the ultimate pass/fail test. Yet, the IDers claim Nature is always random and doesn’t explain the gaps in Evolution Theory. Gaps do not a failed theory make. Do they deny the theory behind electricity? No! Despite the fact there are things that occur that one cannot explain. I don’t hear them pushing for ID in physics classes.
ID is and always will be nothing but a way to introduce (indoctrinate) religion into science- IMHO.
As a female, I agree with Adam on the pelvic problem. The intellegent thing would have been to give us a spandex pelvis. ;-D
David
November 28, 2005 at 2:53 pm
41Thinking back to a previous discussion of the MSM, I just came across a comment on TomPaine that I wish I’d said at the time on FA (hope Ronelle Delmont is ok with my quoting this comment on FA):
“Your article about Woodward couldn’t be more correct in describing the real underlying crisis in America today—self-serving celebrity journalists. I am repeatedly shocked, not only by the greedy looting and purposeful dismantling of our government by the Bush administration, but by the fact that it is being done in broad daylight with the mainstream media observing every move.
Journalists all over this country have remained silent and I’ve been asking anyone who’ll listen to me where the heck are all the Woodward and Bernstein wannabes?! But then, after reading Plan of Attack and The Secret Man, I realized that even Woodward and Bernstein aren’t around anymore either.
Our country is experiencing a mob takeover, a heist in broad daylight, with everything and anything that is worth stealing at risk, and no Woodwards or Bernsteins—not even the REAL ones!—to tell us about it. None to expose the crimes or to shame the perpetrators into resignation.
To me, the crimes of this administration are not as shocking as the silence of the press. Neocons have been saying for years that they will get rid of government if they have the power to do so, but what logical reasoning can we make for mainstream media reporters? I guess, when history finally hunts them all down, it will be the same as the Nuremberg “following orders” defense.”
Ronelle Delmont
Leslie
November 28, 2005 at 3:17 pm
42I was going to keep my big mouth shut, but everybody’s agreeing too much around here! Not that I’m going to disagree too much. I agree that Intelligent Design has absolutely no place in the classroom. I majored in science education many years ago and have finally decided to put the degree to work. I cringe every time I see an article in which someone is trying to force Intelligent Design through to be taught as a science theory. It isn’t science, and it isn’t theory. It has no place in public schools.
I assume most of the commenters here are agnostics or atheists, so I just thought I’d post from a Christian point of view. I believe in evolution, and I believe that humans got here by the will of God. As for the rest of it, I haven’t got the faintest idea. I fully intend to ask God when I get to heaven why he didn’t make better use of babies’ belly buttons and put an on/off switch - or better yet - a dimmer switch in there. But when I look at the Blue Ridge mountains in the autumn sunlight or when I see my children laughing or when I looked at my babies for the first time, I just knew there had to be a God.
ice weasel
November 28, 2005 at 4:47 pm
43Leslie, I can only speak for myself but I have no problem with your point of view even though it’s diametrically opposed to mine. As long as we can keep religion to religion classes and science to science, I think we stand a fair chance of raising another generation of Americans who aren’t, educationally speaking, too far out of step with their global peers.
After all, global competition is the only thing, right?
And by the way, nice one Adam.
Melina
November 28, 2005 at 5:34 pm
44hi adam-
you said “fiddly bits”!
hey, i tried to “give thanks” on your thanking thanksgiving post, but cannot access comments, so here i am several days late, but not a day less thankful for the (in)sanity you provide me and all of us here in FA Fantasyland.
all the best to you always. i do hope to catch you and your show when you’re in sunny san diego.
oh…you might like this little ditty regarding my governator via the starbucks gossip blog:
http://starbucksgossip.typepad.com/_/2005/11/schwarzenegger_.html
Murray
November 28, 2005 at 5:48 pm
45Leslie,
I appreciate your position.
I was raised Christian, I went to a Christian school, high school and Christian college. I mastered in Biology and never had a teacher or professor who didn’t believe in evolution. There was never a conflict. About 10 years ago, God no longer made sense to me, and I found natural selection (including religions) explained things so much better. The rest of my family (including children and grandchildren) is still very devout. I see their religion as being helpful to their lives and do nothing to discourage it. On the other hand I rile when folks demand that I surrender my beliefs and accept religion as science. ID is nothing more than “Jury nullification” applied to science.
Allison in Santa Cruz
November 28, 2005 at 6:05 pm
46Leslie — I am an evolutionary biologist, an Episcopalian, and a huge fan of Adam’s. I have never had problems distinguishing between religion and science, and firmly believe that never the twain should meet in the same classroom. I applaud KU’s decision to treat ID in the same vein as other creation mythology because that’s what it is. Talk about it all you want in a comparative religions class, but keep it the hell away from science.
Personally, I don’t “believe” in evolution any more than I “believe” in gravity. The very word smacks of religion to me, and is entirely different from the scientific measuring and testing of evolution.
But that’s just me.
waterfowler
November 28, 2005 at 6:51 pm
47Allison,
How does an Episcopalian believe in “creation mythology”?
Also, since you’re an evolutionary biologist, can you prove the missing link?…er…links?….er…chasms? in Darwin’s theory?
Please, East Tree Stump needs some education.
Leslie,
I might agree that evolution may have been God’s method of Creation, but todays evolutionists seek only to dismiss God, not prove evolution.
Mike Z
November 28, 2005 at 7:17 pm
48Leslie - As others have said, you make a very respectable point. My way of thinking of it is: If God is responsible for nature, then why is it so problematic for nature to produce life and, in particular, humans? The strong proponents of ID seem to think that God’s natural processes are just too lame to produce humans. I think he would be offended.
waterfowler - what missing links or chasms do you refer to?
Mark
November 28, 2005 at 7:22 pm
49Hi,
So, I’m getting in on this too late, too and now there are too many things to respond to…. but,
Leslie, when you said - “I fully intend to ask God when I get to heaven why he didn’t make better use…”
If there was some way that you could write that up and get it peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal - the ID guys would have it made!
Thanks, Adam - I needed a good laugh - one of your more brilliant things…
and finally, it reminded me of the Far Side cartoon entitled (something like) “God creates the Snake” and the bubble from God says “Heh - These things are a cinch!”
(paraphrased!)
Happy Holidays!
Mark
Allison in Santa Cruz
November 28, 2005 at 7:24 pm
50Waterfowler — I don’t believe in creation mythology. What I meant to say is that if intelligent design is to be taught in classrooms, it should be in the context of creation mythology. Not as a science, because it isn’t.
And no, I can’t provide what you’re looking for. Darwin’s theory is sound, and should properly be considered a law of nature rather than a theory the way most people think of theories. The gaps, chasms, and missing links to which you refer are gaps in our understanding of evolution, not in the process itself. There is a lot that we need to learn, which is why I find biology so intriguing. Evolution by natural selection is the most parsimonious and logical explanation for what we see in nature. Even though we don’t have a complete picture of how everything in evolution works, it’s the very fact that we may just find the piece of evidence that refutes the whole premise that makes evolution such a powerful law.
A scientific theory doesn’t survive merely because people can amass a huge pile of evidence in favor of it. It survives when it has withstand numerous attempts to refute it. If the intelligent design proponents want to talk about ID in biology classes, then they should submit ID to the same scrutiny as any other scientific “theory”. Do you have any suggestions as to how ID can be scientifically tested?
Mike Z
November 28, 2005 at 7:29 pm
51The other day I came into my house and I noticed that there was a rock on the floor of my living room surrounded by a bunch of broken glass. I also noticed that much of the glass in my window was missing.
I hypothesized that someone tossed that rock through my window, thereby breaking the glass.
To test this hypothesis I compared the glass shards on the floor to the glass left in the window. They seemed to be the exact same type of glass. Also, the rock had some fine bits of the same type of glass wedged in some of its crevices.
Then I gathered up a bunch of the glass shards and tried to fit them back into the empty area in my window pane. While most of them fit just right, it turned out that I had only gathered enough glass shards to fill 38% of the missing area.
So, it looks like my hypothesis has huge gaps and, therefore, is probably wrong.
waterfowler
November 28, 2005 at 8:15 pm
52Allison,
what is creation mythology? If you’re an Episcopalian, is creation a mythology?
Also, is it possible that your evolution theory and Creation are one in the same, because we don’t have the “understanding” of what God hath wrought?
Adam Felber
November 28, 2005 at 8:17 pm
53I might agree that evolution may have been God’s method of Creation, but todays evolutionists seek only to dismiss God, not prove evolution.
Waterfowler - I don’t think this is true, really. Though I can see where you might get that idea: Because of the Intelligent Design movement, the only time you see “evolutionists” quoted in the mainstream press is when they’re asked for an opinion about teaching creationism or ID in science class.
But evolutionary theory is steaming along as always, decoding DNA, finding connections, and etc. You might drop by pandasthumb.org to find info and links.
Not that evolutionary science nowadays is out to “prove evolution.” It’s an accepted scientific theory, after all, and the current goal is to deepen and broaden our understanding of life and its diversity and origins. If a real scientific challenge arose, evolutionary theorists would have to confront it and perhaps alter their views.
But it’s important to remember (again and again and again) that a “scientific theory” is not some vague notion awaiting proof. “Theory” in the scientific sense should not be confused with the colloquial definition of the word. Scientific theory is, for all intents and purposes, accepted and proven fact.
The credulous and unanalytic talking heads on TV may be willing to let the Intelligent Design brigade get away with saying that evolution’s “only a theory,” but that does not make the statement any less preposterous…
And one more time: Evolutionary theory does not do away with the idea of God. It’s got nothing to say about God whatsoever.
But I do. And it’s this: He drives a Chevy.
Murray
November 28, 2005 at 8:26 pm
54IDers wouldn’t make very good crime scene investigators.
But at least they aren’t creationalists who believe that all of the evidence is false. Creationalists know that God created the earth to look 4.5 billion years old with layer upon layer of fossils of various ages pointing to a continuous chain of increasingly complex life, but he did it around 6006 years ago. Only they know the truth, God was trying to fool us.
I call this the Cosmic Joke Theory of Creation
Murray
November 28, 2005 at 8:56 pm
55WF
Creation mythology is by definition anything that is not scientific.
Lets get a few definitions going here.
Faith is what you believe in the ABSENCE of evidence. If you had proof it would not be faith.
Science is what you believe only THROUGH proof.
Science is not just another religion. No more than black and white are just two colors. White is all colors together and black is an absence of all colors. Sound and silence aren’t the same things either.
Faith and science are (or should) not be at odds but it is always the faith side that imposes its beliefs on science, which eventually it is forced to retract. The world is not flat, the planets and stars don’t revolve around the earth, the sun’s mass does bend light waves so relitivity works, etc.
ID works only because all they have to do is muddy the water. They don’t have to prove anything, just create doubt. They say that if our understanding isn’t complete then only God can fill in the gaps. (Each year he has fewer gaps to fill and eventually he will be relieved of having to be the divine caulk).
cooper
November 28, 2005 at 10:25 pm
56Here’s a thought. Maybe ID should be taught along side European History. Then the ID’ers would be able to explain to the common man the meaning of the Dark Ages (they should be particularly astute and erudite on this subject), the Crusades, Inquisitions and various other slaughters carried out in the name of the one most holy.
cooper
November 28, 2005 at 11:25 pm
57Chapter 18
Ice Pick
My world is black. For three and a half years I have lived in the dark – really - and I am bored and claustrophobic. When I first came to the joint, I was called “Coat hanger”. I performed my duty as expected and tried not to tangle with others. One day a new hand reached into the closet, threw the shirt onto the floor, bent and stuffed me into his pants, and went, unnoticed, back to the prison machine shop where he works 6 hours a day. Over the next 2 weeks he cut an 8-inch straight section from me and threw the rest away. He ground me to an amazingly sharp point on one end. I was heat-treated repeatedly in an oil bath. My Rockwell C Hardness is off the charts. I will not bend or break. A 4-inch dowel became my handle. I am now called “Ice Pick”. I was intelligently designed by a convicted rapist/drug dealer/gang-banging murderer. I can penetrate skin, connective tissue, blood vessels, bone (up to 1.4375”) and brain. He hid me inside the hollow leg of his prison bed. I have not been found by the guards yet, even after 27 random inspections of his cell. He has never used me. He hasn’t touched me since the day he finished me. He is waiting. He’s learned to be good at that. Rumor has it that the sniper was ratted out by a tourist and arrested before he could get off a shot. If Scooter is convicted, he will come to this prison. I will be used once in the shower, a quick stab from behind, through the spinal cord, brain stem and into the brain. My creator knows how to do this correctly. He will be rewarded with a transfer to a better Federal facility in Southern California. Not Club Fed, but close. I will be spirited back to the machine shop, cut and ground into untraceable scrap. He is waiting. He is good at that.
ginny
November 29, 2005 at 1:00 am
58Nick,
Seriously, have you ever tried to hold anchovies? They’re really icky.
Speaking of icky, Rocky Roccoco called. He said to tell you he’s at the usual place.
Dakota Bill
November 29, 2005 at 7:31 am
59Mr. Felber states:
“And one more time: Evolutionary theory does not do away with the idea of God. It’s got nothing to say about God whatsoever.
But I do. And it’s this: He drives a Chevy.”
Even in this there is a difference of opinion, as singer Marc Cohn clearly states that “if there’s a God up in heaven, he drives a silver Thunderbird.”
Enzo Ferrari
November 29, 2005 at 8:07 am
60No, no you’va got it alla wrong. It’s a red Testarossa. I’ma dead. I’ma up here. I knowa my cars. I see it every day. Stupida!
littlebit
November 29, 2005 at 9:12 am
61Thank you, cooper! The European History connection is much stronger than the evolution theory one.
Murray,
My sister the artist used to tease me because I liked white–she said it wasn’t a color at all. But both black and white are the presence of all color–black just doesn’t reflect any back. And I’m pretty ready to do without the divine caulk, too.
If you gotta drive, my adolescent cousin swore it was a 66 Mustang, but that was the 70s.
Murray
November 29, 2005 at 11:07 am
62I don’t know folks, all those cars that seem cool have terrible reliability issues. Sure they look great in your driveway but take them out on the road and how cool do you look hanging from a tow truck?
This is God we are talking about, he has been here from before time, (I’m not sure how that works), and he prides himself on being reliable.
No show, always go. Yes that’s the almighty in a Subaru. (A white Subaru).
Pete IVDL
November 29, 2005 at 12:13 pm
63Nice one, LobsterMaker!
Allison, I couldn’t have put it better if I tried. My beleiving in evolution/God/The Infinite Radiant Is is utterly irrelevant. It just IS. And my attempting to justify its appeal to me is just hubris of the Worst Kind.
I still think Douglas Adams had it right: the instant someone figures out why the universe is so bizarre and inexplicable, it will instantly be replaced by something even more bizarre and inaxplicable - and some say this has already happened!
Waterfowler, if evolution “has gaps”, it’s against common sense to “fill” the “gaps” with untestable speculations. ID is nothing more than small-minded people, unable or unwilling to understand or accept the gut-wrenching beauty and elegance of the universe and our actual place in it. Just because these benightedly unintelligent lifeforms can’t accept that we are all just infinitesimally small specks on an insignificant planet in the unfashionable end of the Western spiral arm of the Milky Way does NOT give them the right to deny the wonder of what we are, where we are, when we are.
Mathematics comes close to describing what these people like to call “god”, but just because I sure as shit don’t understand the math doesn’t mean that I’m gonna start hanging shit on it. I accept my place in the Scheme Of Things ™. Doesn’t mean I’m not happy with it, and it sure doesn’t mean I’m not going to try to really and honestly understand it better, just for the hell of it.
Yes, give ID proponents the ability to be heard. But treat them with the disdain and contempt they deserve from rational, learning, intelligent designees!
(With apologies to Douglas Adams for cheap paraphrasing)
Pete IVDL
November 29, 2005 at 12:15 pm
64Coop, you little bloody ripper! That’s your best yet. And there’s more to come. Right?
RevAnn
November 29, 2005 at 12:19 pm
65My sister-in-law sent this link to me. Your conversation is much more stimulating than that on desperatepreacher.com!! I’m a Presbyterian minister and have had my hope in humanity restored reading your challenges to each other and to every theory. So my question is, based on your conclusions of how life came to be, how does that affect how you live your life today? (if at all)
not that Pete
November 29, 2005 at 12:28 pm
66Murray,
When you’re an omnipotent and (more importantly) omnipresent God, I suspect that your wheels are pretty much for show. I hope it’s a convertable though — something to allow his antennae to stream jauntily in the breeze.
Mike Z
November 29, 2005 at 12:58 pm
67Actually, God’s preferred mode of transport is a mountain bike.
RevAnn - Intentionally or not, you brought up an interesting point when you wrote “conclusions on how life came to be.” It is important to distinguish darwinian evolution from the origin of life. Darwinian evolution only works on life after it has already gotten started. As for the orginin of life itself, the hypotheses on that are still largely speculative. (I seem to recall this issue being discussed at some length in the FA comments section a while back.)
Landis
November 29, 2005 at 2:24 pm
68RevAnn: Welcome!
Your question brings up something that has been bothering me for a while. There are many who argue how those who don’t believe in God (or gods, or the hereafter, etc) can’t possibly have any morals. We’re told that atheists have no reason to be good in life and they therefore won’t. After all, if there is no just reward for living ‘The Good Life’ then no one would. That’s just not so.
I’m not an atheist, but I certainly don’t obey laws and treat others with respect and as-I’d-like-to-be-treated because I know I’ll get a reward later. I don’t obey the law because I’m afraid of the legal ramifications (okay, maybe my head is on a swivel when I’m going 10 over the limit on the freeway). I do so because that is the Right thing to do. It’s not because of my belief in God or heaven.
I haven’t met a single atheist without any sense of morals or ethics - even if someone else’s sense isn’t the same as mine. I have, however, met religious fanatics who have lost site of “treating others as you would wish to be treated” and “removing the log from your own eye before the splinter from your brother’s”. Many seem to be more in favor of justifying their actions with their own religious interpretations.
I love God, it’s His fan club that scares the hell out of me.
Julie
November 29, 2005 at 3:04 pm
69These debates have been around for a long time. I was teaching Tennyson’s “In Memoriam” the other day and was struck by how contemporary the issues were. It was written over several decades in the first half of the 19th century. It is a record of the poet’s grief over the loss of his best friend, and his search for faith in a post-Darwin world. The speaker reaches his lowest point mulling over the indifferent cruelty of nature, “red in tooth and claw.” Finally, he finds faith, but not using the “logic” of intelligent design. Regarding God, Tennyson writes, “I found Him not in world or sun, Or eagle’s wing, or insect’s eye.” He doesn’t need to prove God’s existence by marvelling on the complexities of His creations using what he calls “freezing reason.” Instead, he comes to the point where he can say, “I have felt” God’s presence. That’s it. It’s called faith and it can’t be explained by science. The IDers just need to read a little more literature! Or maybe they’ve never felt that kind of faith.
Great discussion, by the way.
dee
November 29, 2005 at 3:40 pm
70RevAnn -
I like to think that if any side of this debate could come up with incontrivertible proof that their position was absolutely true, it wouldn’t change a thing about the way I live my life. I hope I’m living my life in a morally sound manner, not because there is a God, or heaven or hell, but because it just makes things more pleasant all around if one treats others as one would prefer to be treated.
I happen to believe that continuing process of evolution is a natural law. And while I am not a theist, I have many friends who express beliefs along the lines of Leslie’s, and I could accept a discussion of an Intelligent Designer if they just keep it out of the science classes.
And cooper — damn. Just…damn.
Mary
November 29, 2005 at 3:54 pm
71I have been pondering today the comment that those of us who do not accept ID in the science classroom must be atheists or agnostics. Why was that the assumption? For many of us, I suspect most, science and religion are not antithetical.
Belief in God does not mean acceptance/non-acceptance of ID as a scientific theory. Religion is a belief system. An explanation of the “unexplainable”, if you will. Religion explains our purpose on earth. Science explains our “physical” being – how the body works et al. Evolution only tells us how it is the life forms in existence today came to be here; not why or for what ultimate purpose they exist. That is for the philosophers and late night musings on “God, the Universe and Everything” ;-D
littlebit
November 29, 2005 at 5:06 pm
72Murray,
I was sure you would have put god on something with two wheels. I like the picture.
ice weasel
November 29, 2005 at 5:29 pm
73Oh cooper, you’re good. Really good.
DouglasG
November 29, 2005 at 5:31 pm
74First of all, who are you going to trust in a science debate … a scientist … or a person who knows nothing about science? For me, I’ll take a biologists word about evolution over any preacher or lawyer or “bio-chemist.” They walk the walk so they can talk the talk…
Secondly, why would god drive when he could fly? God tools around in an SR-71 baby! When you absolutely positively have to be there now! Nothing beats the black bird…
David
November 29, 2005 at 5:51 pm
75C’mon, Felbernauts,
What did Jack Benny drive? Was it not a Maxwell? My dad’s family’s first car was also a Maxwell. Would the Most Holy Mud Bug tool around in anything else? I rest my case. Sorry, Adam, and sorry, Marc Cohn. All the other entries are mere pretenders, except Murray’s, simply because I can’t resist the image of a Celestial Crustacean on Scientific American’s choice for the most efficient mode of transportation.
Selah
Ann
November 29, 2005 at 6:00 pm
76Just have to note that I am an atheist. And yes, for me, science and religion are indeed antithetical. I have absolutely no urge to explain the “unexplainable.” It’s like trying to guess what’s behind that locked door–I don’t know and I have no way of knowing, so I’m not going to concoct an elaborate belief system about it. The fact that an elaborate belief system makes you feel good doesn’t make it valid!
Leslie says “But when I look at the Blue Ridge mountains in the autumn sunlight or when I see my children laughing or when I looked at my babies for the first time, I just knew there had to be a God.” What she doesn’t say is “But when I look at the rotting corpses of half-eaten animals or when I see a child dying slowly and painfully from an incurable disease or when I see babies that are missing limbs or brains or complete faces, I also just know there has to be a God.”
People give God credit for all the good stuff, and when you mention the bad stuff, they mutter something about “mysterious ways” and “plans we can’t possibly understand.” There’s a huge leap from “intelligent designer” to “merciful and all-knowing creator.” Religious people ought to be denouncing ID as strongly as possible, because it allows the rest of us to call into question the competence of the designer.
RevAnn
November 29, 2005 at 6:19 pm
77Ann, You touch on the part of the argument that assumes God is omnipotent, omniscient and/or one who predestines the future. You’re right, if this is God, then it doesn’t make sense to attribute only the “good stuff” to the Deity. On the other hand, when one assumes that God is good and that humanity has free will, then the future is open to a combination of human and divine activity, with unpredictable (and sometimes destructive) results. God continues to provide the good, healing and peace-full options, but humanity still chooses. For me, Chaos Theory is a more accurate description of my theology than any doctrine.
As for God’s vehicle of choice… She walks.
Pete IVDL
November 29, 2005 at 7:24 pm
78RevAnn, if anything, it’s easier for me to understand and accept everyone I meet, everything I see, and everything I learn, if I don’t,/b> believe implicitly in a supernatural deity whose pronouncements and subsequent massive misinterpretations over thousands of years has resulted in a prejudicial and excluding belief system that appears to be accepted utterly without question by people, many of whom, based on their ethical and moral lifestyle and decisions, seem to be totally ill-equipped to make such decisions.
When I was younger and stupider, I believed that “organised religion” was nothing more than a crutch. I based that view on my own experience within a devout (and large) Catholic, Anglican, and Church of England community.
Now that I’m older and still stupid, I can see organised Religion as a tool (in the right hands), wielded by intelligent and compassionate people to better the lives of others. However, I still see organised Religion used by the overwhelmingly vast majority of believers all over the world as nothing more than a “sanctified weapon” used to exclude and eliminate different people, ideas, and principles, while excising any feelings of guilt the weapon holder may feel.
From what I’ve seen of people interacting everywhere, it just doesn’t matter a Lobster’s hindclaw what you believe. It only matters what you do.
Murray
November 29, 2005 at 7:32 pm
79Littlebit:
America’s God drives a Subaru. Or whatever.
The real God is far beyond that. As I’ve put on one of my t-shirts:
I didn’t find God while ON my bike,
I found God IS my bike.
RevAnn, interesting question.
We dealt with this at length in the Christian Philosophy courses I had in the Christian college I attended. If you can’t hang your morals on God than all you have is the relative morality of various cultures. So slavery is OK in ancient Rome, and genocide is encouraged in Nazi Germany, etc. It seemed pretty easy for me back then. The Bible had to be the only true source of morality.
I’ve been chewing on that for 35 years now.
But wait a minute; the Bible condones slavery and genocide. (Leviticus and God’s instruction to Saul to eliminate ALL of the Amalekites, men, women, children, and animals, (1 Samuel 15). Hmmm. Even the Nazis didn’t kill the Jew’s livestock.
So let’s call it a draw. Nazis and Pol Pot’s communists are no better or worse than what God commands of his people back then.
So let’s assume that the morality of Christians is sort of relative too. After all they are given a bunch of self contradictory instructions. “Judge not that ye be not judged”, “If your brother sins, go to him, so that he sins no more”, not a hair will fall from your head with out your fathers knowledge” (and consent) (predestination), it is up to you whether you believe in God or not, (free will). OK so now you have two relative moralities. But one claims the moral authority of the Almighty to prove how empty the other is.
Enter science.
Hypothesis:
Christians in an attempt to please God, and not just gain Heaven and avoid Hell, will be inclined to follow God’s directives as given by Jesus, not just what is beneficial to themselves.
Experiment:
If 1/3 of what Christ said in the Bible has to do with helping the poor, then the most fervent proponents of helping the poor would be the most vocal Christians.
Results:
While Christians are represented in helping the poor, Secular Humanists appear to be much more involved in the cause. The “Religious Right” appears to be much more interested in helping the wealthiest, and has little more than distain for “Welfare Queens”
Conclusion:
Secular Humanists make the best Christians.
RevAnn, I too know of more Christians who use their faith to justify their immorality, than Atheists who have no belief to do so with.
Crystal
November 29, 2005 at 8:33 pm
80Hi Adam,
That was one witty blog. Enjoyed it immensely.
Thanks for the laughs.
Jay
November 29, 2005 at 10:36 pm
81RevAnn,
I am a lapsed Episcopalian that has to agree with Landis. I have seen so much evil, large and small, done in the name of religion that I have to wonder if there truly is a benevolent God. One flavor of Methodists recently voted to approve the actions of one of their ministers who would not allow a gay man to join his congregation. What? Tell me where is the Christianity in that? How is that moral? How many of Enron’s employees called themselves Christians while manipulating power prices? I don’t think that religion has a monopoly on morality, and that a person can lead a good life without it. My greatest concern is how driven the religious right in the U.S. is to impose their morality on the rest of us.
Jay
Deno
November 29, 2005 at 11:53 pm
82It’s so boring, listening to incompetent morons who got their degrees from The Online Community College Of Dumbassia (printer not included, degree just 75 cents extra!) scream about how evolution is just a theory. Theories are not to be discarded lightly or slandered. The only result is to make you look like a fool. And, as Mr. T says, “I pity da foo’”
Don’t be a foo.
Leslie
November 29, 2005 at 11:54 pm
83Mary, I think you misunderstood my comment. I most definitely do NOT want ID taught in the classroom. I assume that many of the commenters here are agnostics/atheists because I have been reading the comments section for quite a while and many have either said they are or have made comments that make such an assumption reasonable.
Jay, I am an Episcopalian, and just because people often fail God, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. I don’t argue that great ills have been done in the name of God. Great good has been done, as well, but eventually it all comes down to “God and me”. Either you feel the presence of God and you choose to know that presence better, or you don’t.
lance
November 30, 2005 at 6:27 pm
84sure, these dialogues on ID might seem relevant and even essential, but they aren’t. What is? God does ride a mountain bike, and i have it on good authority that it’s a steel hardtail. steel is real. ask a scientist.
while i doubt that God “is” my bike as was suggested above, i have no doubt that God is in the singletrack.
Mike Z
November 30, 2005 at 6:33 pm
85a steel hardtail? God must have massive quads.
Jim
November 30, 2005 at 6:47 pm
86Let em’ teach ID in class, right next to evolution.
Maybe more exposure to this type of mythology will take the wind out of it’s sails.
Any time you try to hide something it just makes people more curious as to why. If I had kids I would want them exposed to as much as possible.
If they chose ID though I’d throw them out of the house and try to re-bread some smart ones.
Jim
November 30, 2005 at 6:48 pm
87Uh, that was supposed to be re-breed.
I must be hungry.
lance
November 30, 2005 at 8:03 pm
88the Almighty’s quads are just that. God also sports the slightly emaciated upper body of a biker. you’d think different though, huh?
9 out of 10 omnipotents agree, steel is real.
Harold
December 1, 2005 at 4:23 pm
89I dunno, you ever see that painting of Superhero Jesus at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception? He’s got enormous pecs, and he’s in a “Forces of Hell, bring it on!” pose.
http://www.nationalshrine.com/
Etienne
December 1, 2005 at 4:35 pm
90God drives a Chrysler.
Murray
December 1, 2005 at 8:28 pm
91Lance,
God’s older than I am and I’m too old for a hardtail. When you get older you NEED a good dualie, besides it sticks the rear wheel to the ground on descents instead of trying to buck you off. In addition, if you have all of the money of God you can afford a sweet machine. Cannondale’s Rush Team Replica with the carbon fiber Lefty Fork and Hollogram crank works for me.
I would be very disappointed in God if he were putzing around on an asswhacking steel (rusted where he sweats on it) hardtail.
Pete IVDL
December 2, 2005 at 6:46 pm
92Murray: item for class discussion: “Is God’s Sweat the same as Lobster’s Butter?”
I now have this image of God’s hairy buttcrack on a gel pushbike seat. And goodbye, white robe, hello Omnipotent Lycra. (Shudder). I prefer my deities fully covered so I can’t see the bulge of their dangly bits. Just my preference, of course.
Enzo Ferrari
December 3, 2005 at 9:42 am
93Pete, you whack! Sofia Loren is goddess! I prefer her witta no clothes! http://www.sophialoren.com/
Final word - God driva red Testarossa witta Pirelli tires. I just ported and cc’d the heads, she driva like scalded cheetah! She screama like a twenty year olda!
Ciao! Enzo
David
December 3, 2005 at 11:17 am
94Dream on, Enzo (and all you other misguided folk),
For kicks, His ride is a Vincent Black Lightning, 1953.
Human
December 4, 2005 at 1:38 am
95Most Christians like myself do not want creationism or Intelligent design taught in schools.
Also I think it odd that a person would devote so much time to a pretend conversation with God when one is an unbeliever.If one wants to debate the Bible why not try quoting specific passages instead of putting false words into the Lords mouth?
The rise of intolerance among so-called progressive liberal people is quite disturbing to me. A lot of the hard won Liberties have been won with the contributions of such people. Most people do believe in some higher power. The derogratory alienation of such people only serves those among us who do not want to see a more humane society.
Peace.
David
December 4, 2005 at 10:33 am
96Correction: Vincent Black Lightning, 1952 (the tale of James, Red Molly, and a very fast motorcycle).
Why a pretend conversation with the Big One? Why not?
Regarding arguing Biblical passages, a sense of the entirety of any sacred text or texts is more useful than a specific passage, if the goal is some sort of comprehensive understanding. The result of my own particular reading of the King James Bible in its entirety in 9th grade was quite a ride from the ridiculous to the sublime. The result of a survey course in the world’s religions as a sophomore in college was essentially the same: from the ridiculous of particular religions to the sublime of spiritual commonalities (I call them spiritual by convention, because I think they are all the product of human minds, which certainly wander from the ridiculous to the sublime). Thomas Jefferson’s take on the Christian Bible seems instructive to me.
While intolerance can be found across the political spectrum, oddly liberals take their biggest political beatings for being tolerant, because liberals are not “tough enough on (fill in the blank).”
This website seems to me to be a place where everyone is free to bring whatever they want to the table and let it rip. There is plenty of hostility toward ideas and actions that just don’t meet the basic test of human decency or honesty, which strikes my idealistic self as appropriate.
Adam does a good job of reminding Felbernauts to restrict the attacks to ideas, not the people trying to express their ideas. I happen to be of the mind that no idea is sacred, but some are far worthier than others, and among the worthiest are the first ten amendments to our Constitution. The greatest single “sacred” utterance is what is commonly referred to as the Golden Rule.
Murray
December 4, 2005 at 2:00 pm
97Human,
We see God in a different light.
You see God as the creator of all life and as your personal Savior in the form of Jesus Christ. You see him as revealed in the Bible.
Others, including myself, see God as a concept, or a metaphor for an over arching shortcut to explaining nature and the cosmos.
I can see that if you are literal about the bible you would be nervous about the 3rd commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for I will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” Wow that’s a heavy indictment.
Now a question? Does God have a sense of humor? Or were we created with something that God lacks? By the way if you were to believe in Creationalism you can only conclude that God is playing a joke on mankind with all of those ancient fossils. (Cosmic joke theory of Creation).
So can we play around with the idea of God?
Hell yea! Why not? And why shouldn’t you? You can if you have a cool God who likes a good laugh and enjoys a good mental image. (Or is your God one of those really mean, vindictive ones, who is looking to throw you into eternal damnation at any chance?)
David
December 4, 2005 at 4:02 pm
98From “The Ballad of the Goodly Fere,” by Ezra Pound:
They’ll no’ get him a’ in a book, I think,
Though they write it cunningly;
No mouse of the scrolls was the Goodly Fere
But aye loved the open sea.
If they think they ha’ snared our Goodly Fere
They are fools to the last degree.
“I’ll go to the feast,” quo’ our Goodly Fere,
“Though I go to the gallows tree.”
(Don’t know why the FA thingamabobbie separates the fourth line of each stanza.)
Three of my lit students who were Southern Baptists and had obviously missed out on that most precious of divine gifts, a sense of humor, went to my department chair and asked that I be dismissed from the faculty of my community college for assigning this poem (this was circa 1985). Lobster love her, she told them they were in a college literature class and that they needed to grow up, or something to that effect. There was some crap up with which she would not put, even though in general she was quite diplomatic and handled students in a firm but gracious manner.
She did not tell me about this incident until after the semester was over, just to make sure whatever grade they got was the grade they earned, which they would have gotten even if I’d known, but it did spare me looking at them in utter disbelief every time they walked into the classroom.
What amazes me is that what I thought was a relatively isolated intellectual disease is now a pandemic, having embedded itself even in the mind of the President of the United States, where it appears to be utterly resistant to any and all intellectual antibiotics.
Murray
December 5, 2005 at 7:12 pm
99Oh I just can’t resist this.
Murray
December 5, 2005 at 7:13 pm
100100!
David
December 5, 2005 at 9:05 pm
101Murray,
You be incorrigible - the century mark, and no notable comment?
What is the record for number of posts?