How Intelligent Design Hurts Conservatives (By making us look like crackpots)

The New Republic ^ | 8/16/05 | Ross Douthat

[cajungirl]

I don't think we could if we wanted to. Really.

[Just mythoughts]

"When you construct something with the knowledge that it will do evil, you are responsible. God created man knowing he would do evil; he is responsible."

So what did God do to you that you are holding him responsible for?

[BMCDA]

The answer is obvious. If the father controlled the kids destiny by construction, the father is at fault. Next.

Yeay, pretty obvious, n'est-ce pas? But try arguing that with posters who just quote scripture back at you.
Postulating an omnimax creator god has certain ramification which don't vanish no matter how many Bible verses you trow at it.

Omniscience not only means that this god knows exactly what will happen at any point in time but also why, i.e. he knows exactly what chain of events led to your decision X instead of Y at time T.
Taken together with this god's omnipotence it's completely unimaginable how his creation can make decisions which he didn't intend.

Of course one could argue that this god is either not omniscient or not omnipotent (or even both) but I don't think most believers want to concede these points.

So IMHO this seems to be just an other case of wanting to eat your cake and have it too.

[muawiyah]

Or, (oh, the horror), 100 Ted Kennedy's.

With fully pickled and preserved stem cells no less.

[Wonder Warthog]

"There is no debate. Its a fact. The terms are being taught now as I demonstrated. Pre-1980 is irrevelant.

Uh, the fact that you found ONE reference in ONE college textbook in no way proves that such is the overall mode of thought in biology. For all I know, that text is a product of the "Discovery Institute", or that the particular biology prof is a closet creationist and chose it specifically for that language. Your "proof" isn't one.

"And watch your language if you wish to post at this site."

Gee--I didn't know your name was also "Admin Moderator". Kiss off!!!

[AntiGuv]

No, what annoys me is that all your posts I've noticed are a variation on the same idiotic theme: "I don't have a dog in this fight, but while I'm waiting for the next rerun of Jackass to come on, why don't I grace y'all with my opinion anyhow? You guys don't really think anyone cares about your silly little debates, do ya? And, BTW, if you evos weren't so inflexible and overbearing you might actually get someone to give ya the time of day. Sure, maybe once in a while some long-suffering creationist breaks down and let's off a bit of steam, but no wonder as uptight and vicious as y'all evos are. I mean, check out how ever so fashionably droll I am by comparison!"

Well, what is someone supposed to say to that drivel? Sure, if I were talking to someone face to face who said that to me I know what I'd say. I'd start with: "Yeah, you 'freakin' dumb@$$, I didn't just stumble in here on the way to the Britney Spears thread. I do in fact think this topic is important." Then it'd be all downhill from there. So tell me, whatta ya want from 'us evos' to make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Will a lollipop do, or maybe a popsicle?

But of course I can't say that to you here on FR so I guess we've nothing to discuss. It's no big deal anyhow, since you can just very safely assume that some variation of the above would be my reply to you no matter what. Whether or not you've checked out my profile as I suggested, then you now know this is the last reply you'll ever get from me. Go jerk your own self off.

[Wonder Warthog]

"So micro and macro evolution only appeared in text books, and scientific debate because us crackpots inserted the terms?"

Yup! "Memetics" is insidious. A small, noisy minority can sometimes cause a change in the terms used in a debate. There are a huge number of examples---as from "pro-abortion" to "pro-choice", from "terrorists" to "insurgents". It goes on all the time.

[WildTurkey]

Whaaaat? BTK has a Free will.

No. God had programmed BTK's existence, just as he has programmed yours.

[WildTurkey]

So what did God do to you that you are holding him responsible for?

Hmmm. I am just engaging in honest philosophical conversation. You have a problem, I think.

[WildTurkey]

Taken together with this god's omnipotence it's completely unimaginable how his creation can make decisions which he didn't intend.

Of course one could argue that this god is either not omniscient or not omnipotent (or even both) but I don't think most believers want to concede these points.

I was easier to handle when all one needed to say was "The Devil made me do it."

[WildTurkey]

AP is calling ID a "theory".
O'Reilly is promoting discussion of ID in the science class

We are doomed!

[WildTurkey]

That's not a very nice thing to say about WildTurkey.

It's ok. I will ask God to forgive him.

[spunkets]

" No. God had programmed BTK's existence, just as he has programmed yours"

You been taking lessons from the Discovery institute?

[RightWingNilla]

It's ok. I will ask God to forgive him.

Thanks. I may be possessed by the Devil too. What should I do about it?

[mordo]

Jorge never said any said anyone was possessed by anything.
Yet now you and this turkey keep repeating that and pinging Jorge too.
For turkey this kind of crap is just engaging in honest philosophical conversation.
Why don't you knuckleheads and all your little buddies start up your own thread with this and see how far it goes.

BrainsofTurkey using the words honest, philosophical, conversation all in the same sentence...
HAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! LMAO!!! Ohhhhh you little knuckleheads Ohhh make it stop!! little brainofturkey!! LMOA!!! its hard to breathe turkey!!!!

Now little turkey..., I have no more time for you....

[RightWingNilla]

HAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! LMAO!!! Ohhhhh you little knuckleheads Ohhh make it stop!! little brainofturkey!! LMOA!!! its hard to breathe turkey!!!!

Are you feeling OK mister?

[balrog666]

That point of view is virtually certain to be outvoted. The history of such things suggests very strongly that human nature is such that whenever a new technology comes along that offers the possibility of a better or more comfortable life, people will use it, and use it to the absolute fullest extent possible, consequences be damned. Then again, someone has to play the part of Cassandra - it never works, but someone's gotta do it ;)

The richest segment of our society is "old people" who have worked their entire lives and amassed personal assets. I agree that they will spend their money on anything that will alleviate their pain, improve their health, or give more time to indulge in the joys of their life (whatever they are). No law can prevent that, nor should it in a land that purports to guarantee us the "pursuit of happiness" and all that entails.

[Torie]

Well a law can prohibit funding to slow down the invention of the aging process interfering agents the rich geezers want to buy. A law can achieve that.

[balrog666]

Well a law can prohibit funding to slow down the invention of the aging process interfering agents the rich geezers want to buy. A law can achieve that.

Sheer baloney. Simple economics says you only displace the research into other hands or drive it underground. Which option do you prefer?

[Holden Magroin]

You need to wake up. The ones with the religious view are those who say that the universe was caused by a big bang. Letting science teachers teach this nonsense is leading society astray.