It might have been understandable if her name was Norma Jean.

So who designed the designer?

Did domestic animals evolve? Or was it intelligent design?

Just askin'^^

Since I don't have time for another long debate with you, Bill, I won't ask the question: "With what absolute basis do you say that 'Murder is wrong'? How can you say murder is wrong unless there is a Being great than us that said so? If there isn't, you saying murder is wrong is little more than your opinion. When I murder you* for being a RINO, there will have been no moral impetus for me not to do so because in my opinion** murder isn't wrong."

*As you said, joking, of course.

** Very hypothetical and the opposite of the truth for me, but for many of your neighbors that live INDC, this isn't a bit hypothetical.

*** Of course, I rather did ask it at this point whether I have the time to argue or not. -sigh-

**** Isn't it retarded when people use "****" that aren't referenced in the body and really should be a P.S.?

Since I don't have time for another long debate with you, Bill, I won't ask the question: "With what absolute basis do you say that 'Murder is wrong'?

Interesting question, but I didn't write the post.

As for the answers you seek ...

How can you say murder is wrong unless there is a Being great than us that said so? If there isn't, you saying murder is wrong is little more than your opinion.

... see "humanism, secular." Also, "existentialism."

Funny, I'd say murder is wrong because we as a society have gotten together and said murder is wrong. And we do that out of simple self-preservation, I don't want to be randomly killed, so I give up the "right" to go around and randomly kill others.

*We kid around here a lot, but seriously, kids: Murder is wrong.

Oh, great, now you tell me...

How can you say murder is wrong unless there is a Being great than us that said so?

So if this Being suddenly says murder is ok, it's ok? From reading the Bible, the Being there didn't have much problem with wanton slaughter, killing newborns, and the taking of virgins as the spoils of war. Do you believe these are ok?

If not, why not? If you follow a different Being, which one is it? How do you know this being hasn't just implanted so-called "morals" in you to see if you'll against them, and reward you for doing so?

Is this Being held to behaving in ways that are, to our observation, moral? If so, doesn't that imply that morality is "greater" than said Being? And if said Being makes acts "good" solely by decree, doesn't that essentially make morality arbitrary?

Ah, fun!

Sorry, I didn't think "Murder is wrong" would be that controversial. Of course now that you bring up the subject of murdering Bill, hmmm... maybe it isn't so absolute.

What exactly is the Floating Spaghetti Monster's position on murder?

It is merely the opinion of the higher being that murder is wrong.

Another thing about the Thomas More Law Center, from recent NYT article:

"Richard Thompson, the former prosecutor who is president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Center, says its role is to use the courts "to change the culture" - and it well could depending on the outcome of the test case it finally found."

Changing culture, by using the courts: it hardly seems appropriate.

Just so we're clear, I'm no ID water carrier, but seriously, more logic and less silly snark would serve you guys better.

1) Religous people advancing ID doesn't make the theory itself religious. It serves their interests as a critique of the flaws in Darwinism. That doesn't mean it's a relgious theory. Geez.

2) B Moe,

Domesticated animals represent change within a species (Darwinism still has yet to show any substantial evidence of speciation). And the mechanism there is quite obvious: intelligent action by Man. Not saying any of that proves ID, but it isn't exactly an argument against it, either.

3) Andy,

First of all, I'm no Biblical scholar, but I know enough to know that your shallow sampling of it is severely flawed. Read some of the rabbinical interpretations sometime. Dennis Prager, for instance (not a rabbi, but a teacher of the Torah), has a series of pieces explaining the first 5 books of the Old Testament. It's not what you think.

As for the other questions, those questions deny the basic assumptions of all Judeo-Christian (indeed, ANY ethical monotheistic faith) philosophy. Namely, that God is 1) omnipotent and 2) good. These are, of course, based on non-empirical belief. If you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge those axioms, of course the theology will fall apart, and further discussion is pointless. But any intellectually honest dialogue will start from assuming those 2 beliefs to be true. Otherwise, you're just engaging in self-important sophistry.

Religious people advancing ID doesn't necessarily make the theory itself religious. Certainly adherents to a religious theory would nearly entirely be of that religion, which, coincidentally, is the case for nearly every ID'er. But, from a very strict logical standpoint, you're right. You cannot say that just because the adherents of a theory happen to be nearly invariably of a certain religious viewpoint that the theory itself is religious. But I think we can look at what is probable or not, at least from a "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck" perspective.

That's not to say that I think ID is a religious theory solely because its supporters are religious.

Religous people advancing ID doesn't make the theory itself religious. It serves their interests as a critique of the flaws in Darwinism. That doesn't mean it's a relgious theory. Geez.

And more logic and less snark would serve you better as well, Russell. If a controversial scientific theory ostensibly has no premise in religion, and the public advocacy of said theory has largely expanded to a political and legal matter that's contingent upon having no theological derivation, then it is a fairly bad move to have said advocacy handled by "the sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square." See that? "Religious beliefs?"

Most simpletons can recognize that such a political association undermines what has now expanded from ID's scientific merits (which are questionable) and into the realm of public perception and the law. ID itself starts backwards from a central premise, and that premise is "God," or something essentially indistinguishable from God, in human understanding and potence. It is not merely in the interest of the Thomas Moore center to advocate something that pokes holes in evolution - conveniently, ID also buttresses their faith, a portion of the dual motivation that you conveniently exclude from your comment.

As an example - if a group of scientists wanted to specifically offer the alternate theory (following all of the scientific protocols that ID'ers have followed) that thetans were responsible for the creation of the human race, would the Thomas More Center get involved? No? Why not? It's poking holes in evolution, isn't it?

Is it perhaps because in addition to such a theory poking holes in evolution, such a thetan theory fails to buttress - and in fact contradicts - their Christian faith specifically? Of course. In addition to not contradicting Christianity, ID goes farther than you seem to acknowledge in advocating it, whereas evolution is neutral on the general matter of faith.

Most of ID's advocates, including the legal representation in the Dover trial, are narrowly interested in buttressing their faith, and it's highly arguable that the diminshment of evolution, though necessarily part of the equation, is less of a primary motivation for such religious organizations to get involved. And from a Constitutional standpoint, religious advocacy is a conflict with the "scientific theory" being taught in a public school. Thus, the association is both problematic for and telling about ID in at least a couple of ways.

"Geez," indeed. Your argument is disingenuously selective and ignores the role of perception in a politically charged issue, Russell. It's also situationally ironic, given that you start with a lecture on snark, and then deliver a payload of your own.

"Darwinism still has yet to show any substantial evidence of speciation."

I love the wording: "Darwinism has yet to show ..."

Aside from the abundant record of speciation and transitions in the fossil record (each one was separately created I suppose) in recent times, speciations have been noted with:
1) the Underground mosquito
2) the Primrose, Primula kewensis
3) the HeLa cell culture (kinda creepy, but it IS a new species. "It's alive.")
4) the Faroe Islands house mouse
5) various species of Drosophilia (but whenever one mentions Drosophilia species to a Creationist, the goal posts shift, "I didnt mean a new species; I meant a new genus, or a new "kind.")

Sorry, lotsa speciation going on, in the fossil record and presently.

You want links?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

And these links are really just summaries and links other sources of that information.

That's one of the problems with the "no new species" claim. There's SO MUCH data contradicting that claim that it's almost difficult to summarize it all. I've only scratched the surface.

Bill,

Sorry, no sale. First of all, yors and dorkafork's beginning premises are wrong. Religious people are not the sole proponents of ID, they're merely the (unsurprisingly) loudest and the most active proponents.

One of the problems here is that the words "intelligent design" refer to a very large mass of differing viewpoints that are in agreement over only the single point of "sheer randomness cannot logically explain the current state of life."

You guys treat it as a single, unified political lobby group, so of course you point to activists like the Thomas More center to cast aspersions on the entire notion. Gerald Schroeder, for instance, is a religious jew, and he writes books like "The Hidden Face of God," but the arguments he makes within those books are not religious (that is, the evidence isn't - only the end conclusion is), such as the complexity of molecular biology on its most fundamental levels is irreducible.

So you're wrong, Bill. ID DOES NOT start backward from the premise of God. Some religious proponents no doubt find it emotionally palatable because of its conclusions, but that has nothing to do with how the scientific proponents arrived at their conclusion.

Now, how about a counter-hypothetical. Atheists offer tons of public support to Darwinism and natural selection. They work to entwine Darwinism with their own theories of atheism. "Darwinism, therefore atheism."

Of course, this isn't a hypothetical. It's simply a statement of history about what atheists have done for the last hundred years. Does it make any sense whatsoever? No. It's a complete nonsequitur. Should we cast aspersions on Darwinism because of its most vocal and agistated proponents have been atheists who are interested in it mostly because it satisfies their own non-scientific philosophy of the world?

Again, I'm not doing this to try to convince people of ID. I wouldn't count myself as an ID proponent, frankly. I just think, as an intellectual matter, it doesn't get a fair shake.

And another thing, Bill:

I wasn't being snarky, and I resent your accusation that I was.

One final thought: I don't see how your comment about "political perception" has any relevance at all to the intellectual question of whether ID is strictly religious or not. It seems to me the objective and mature observer interested in truth would simply ignore the political implications ("How will this play?") and focus on the actual case itself.

But then, maybe I'm not "most simpletons."

First of all, yors and dorkafork's beginning premises are wrong. Religious people are not the sole proponents of ID, they're merely the (unsurprisingly) loudest and the most active proponents.

Where have I established that beginning premise, anywhere?

Now you're just making shit up.

You guys treat it as a single, unified political lobby group, so of course you point to activists like the Thomas More center to cast aspersions on the entire notion.

Again, making shit up. Pointing out examples of how ID is backed by religious figures to buttress the notion that it is tied to religion does not equal "treat it as a single, unified political lobby group." I specifically qualify "Most of ID's advocates" in my comment. I understand that ID can, in theory, have nothing specifically to do with religious belief. That being said, I challenge you to find me an atheistic ID proponent organization (beyond Dean, who has a vested interest in challenging scientific orthodoxy).

So you're wrong, Bill. ID DOES NOT start backward from the premise of God.

Again, your failure to understand distinction does you a disservice. My exact words were "ID itself starts backwards from a central premise, and that premise is "God," or something essentially indistinguishable from God, in human understanding and potence." Since irreducible complexity requires a sentient designer, and any such designer would have the capability to craft beings (and worlds), they would have "Godlike" abilities from the perspective of "human understanding and potence."

I'd imagine that reading text closely to determine specific meaning will assist you in a law career.

but that has nothing to do with how the scientific proponents arrived at their conclusion.

That's hasty, disingenuous or naive. Many individuals (scientists, evolutionists, etc) start backwards from a "gut" premise when they craft ostensibly scientific or logical theories, or more accurately, hyptheses. Your unequivocal declaration that ID scientists do not do this ( especially in the face of mounds of evolutionary evidence ("has nothing to do with")) is:

1. An impractical judgment
2. Unqualified overstatement

Now, how about a counter-hypothetical. Atheists offer tons of public support to Darwinism and natural selection. They work to entwine Darwinism with their own theories of atheism. "Darwinism, therefore atheism."

Atheists have aligned themselves with evolution because parts of the theory of evolution have disproven literal interpretations of religious texts. That being said, "atheists" and "atheist legal organizations" are hardly the main or even notable representatives for the defense of evolution; the vast majority of scientists and scientific professional organizations are. And the vast majority of these scientists believe in God. Thus, it's not a direct opposing analogy.

Again, I'm not doing this to try to convince people of ID. I wouldn't count myself as an ID proponent, frankly. I just think, as an intellectual matter, it doesn't get a fair shake.

Frankly, I think that there is a very good argument to make about ID not getting a fair shake in many quarters. The problem is, you aren't making it.

And it's a different argument than whether ID has the merit to be taught in a public school.

And another thing, Bill:

I wasn't being snarky, and I resent your accusation that I was.

Oh. Let's check:

more logic and less silly snark would serve you guys better.

You're right. Not snark. We'll reclassify that as "condescension." Especially because we happen to like silly snark in these parts, especially in little condensed "quick links" posts.

That doesn't mean it's a relgious theory. Geez.

Again, reclassified as "officious posturing," especially seeing as your castigation revolves around extrapolating dorkafork's initial post (not to mention my subsequent comments) to represent a more sweeping argument than directly implied.

My bad. Now when you get a chance, try and answer the Commissar's refutation of your assertions about speciation.

One final thought: I don't see how your comment about "political perception" has any relevance at all to the intellectual question of whether ID is strictly religious or not

because there are two (or more) issues here:

1. The dry intellectual merits of ID as a scientific theory

2. And whether it has the aforementioned legitimacy and separation from religion necessary to be taught in public school science classes.

Both issues are part of the public debate, and the second one has many facets in the political and legal, and not just "vacuum-dwelling intellectual," arenas.

Thus, most simpletons get that a movement trying to necessarily distance itself from theology in order to obtain status (and Constitutional legality) as a competing theory that can be taught in public schools undermines itself by associating very closely with an organization that overtly declares its intent to defend religious principles and schools of thought in public life.

Bill,

You're obviously too interested in being a jerk to have a discussion about this without throwing around insults every sentence and a half. I'm willing to come back to it when you grow up.

As I've pointed out, you set and certainly assisted in the maintenance of the tone of this discussion, specifically with your initial condescension and subsequent broad projections of arguments that we're supposed to have made (but didn't).

You've also failed to answer the Commissar.

Take responsibility. You've been schooled.

I'll answer The Commissar: I am an avid literal 6-day Creationist and a firm believer in speciation. I believe rapid speciation occurred right after the flood.

And it doesn't bother you that mountains of historical and scientific evidence contradict the literal narrative in the Bible? Are you not aware of it?

Two things (and this coming from a religious type guy): of course ID has to have a religious component. It is an attempt to prove that the universe was designed by an outside agency (by necessity, any agency that could design our universe is far beyond our own mental and physical powers). There is, therefor, a necessity for God for the ID believers.

Not necessarily the God that I have been taught to believe in, but some God capable of the otherworldly feat of directing the development of the universe.

This is why I don't think that ID is fit to be taught in a science class: science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. In fact, I'm not close to convinced that ID can even make the case for the necessity of a designer--it just makes a case for the inherent unlikeliness of our universe, our world, and ourselves. Unlikely, sure, but then here we are...

But, really, aside from that, how the hell did my buddy Dorkafork end up posting here? And can you make him post more often? I love that guy.

Damn I am pissed, I was trying to be a silly snark and got almost totally ignored.

What I want to know is why does the Designer have to be an outside agency? I work on a buddies race car, and the way you develop a car is to set down with a blank slate and draw up a plan. Then you take it to the track and see which of you ideas worked, which didn't, and what broke. You keep what worked, try something different on what didn't, modify what broke and repeat. In other words, it evolves in concert with intelligent design. To me you could even call evolution a system of intelligent design. Could the universe itself not be intelligent?

Anybody want a hit off this bong? I think it is about to go out.

Russell -

Namely, that God is 1) omnipotent and 2) good.

Yes, but what is "good?"

Is it what God says it is? Then anything has the potential to be good on God's whim.

Is it a standard that exists outside of God and which he is incapable of violating? Then so much for omnipotence.

Look, it's not my fault that the Judeo-Christian god is internally inconsistent. I didn't make him up (and, if I had, he'd wear a clown suit and be called Binky).

First of all, I'm no Biblical scholar, but I know enough to know that your shallow sampling of it is severely flawed.

Sorry, but if, for example, we accept the Flood story as true (and I don't - I think it's ridiculous nonsense, but it's not my holy book nor my problem), then God went about drowning wee little babies only capable of eating, pooping, and crying.

If we accept the Bible, then we accept that Elisha had God send bears to maul children for mocking him. Something about "let the punishment fit the crime" seems appropriate here.

If we accept the Bible, then God created a situation in which his own creation was screwed from the get-go... to wit, if before the Fall, Adam and Eve lacked the knowledge of good and evil, it makes no sense to say that they could know it was wrong to disobey God.

So, when they did disobey and ate from the tree and were punished, it was much like executing a retarded person in Texas - they didn't know any better. Can you feel the love tonight?

Hey, again, no longer my holy book, not my issue - I just find it amusing. One might think that if God wanted to communicate to his people, he might draft a book that doesn't require significant and repeated rabbinical interpretations for it to make sense (or maybe most humans are better writers than God).

"Don't you know there ain't no devil, it's just god when he's drunk"- Tom Waits

That is the only explanation I have for it. I mean I don't see why god ain't allowed to be a prick sometimes, too.

I mean I don't see why god ain't allowed to be a prick sometimes, too.

Hey, I find the idea of a god that fucks up now and again to be considerably more realistic than the internally inconsistent boondoggle that most religious people worship. :)

awxwlfudbc

vrqixco

xvnatfle

juvhkz

juvhkz

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...

William Styron, whose Holocaust novel Sophie's Choice became a film and an opera, has died, aged 81...

William Styron, whose Holocaust novel Sophie's Choice became a film and an opera, has died, aged 81...

William Styron, whose Holocaust novel Sophie's Choice became a film and an opera, has died, aged 81...

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US...

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US...

Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields...

Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields...

hardcore indian indian wives TV host Oprah Winfrey gives audience members $1,000 (£526) each to donate to a charitable cause...

hardcore indian indian wives TV host Oprah Winfrey gives audience members $1,000 (£526) each to donate to a charitable cause...