Here's a response to my post on the evangelical outpost...funny
BCB,
1) why does the design seem so unintelligent? Please design life forms and show how your designs are better. Also, see The Gods Must Be Tidy.2) I have read Russell. He's clueless.3) Hate to burst your bubble, but if you can't rationalize your beliefs then they aren't rational.4) You might be interested in Intelligent Design Quotes. Then again, you might not. But this is what some well-known scientists are saying.
And here's my response:
wrf3 says:
1) why does the design seem so unintelligent? Please design life forms and show how your designs are better. Also, see The Gods Must Be Tidy.
First, I think I did that already with the whole birth defects and natural disasters point. I guess I could make it clearer, so here goes:
It seems to me that the world would be better if it were free of all of the bad stuff, like earthquakes and deformaties and all that. So, if I were going to design the world, I just think it would be a good idea to exclude all that stuff. So, at best it's just carelessness, and this doesn't seem consistent with the whole notion of an intelligent designer. I mean he takes all this care into developing all of these super-complicated organisms but overlooks the big stuff that will result in the death and suffering of scores of people. I thought God was omniscient. Guess not, or else he would have known better. On the other hand, maybe he's just a sick jerk that gets a kick out of watching folks suffer. I'm not sure I can make my position any clearer than that without resorting to sock puppets or something. Second, as far as your whole designing better life forms position is concerned, this is really non-responsive. Of course, I would leave out all the bad stuff as mentioned above. But more importantly, at the point that you challenge me to describe how I would create a life form, you are of course insinuating that I couldn't do it because it's too hard. Therefore, it must be God. This begs the question. What I would say is that organisms and the like are created through an unguided process governed by nothing more than the blind workings of science. What's more, my world view accounts for both the complexity in the natural world and all of the screw ups. That is, because the process is unguided, it's no surprise that things go wrong sometimes. Uh-oh...my world view has greater explainitory power than yours.
Then he says this:
2) I have read Russell. He's clueless.
A brilliant and devestating rebuttal. Why, seeing as how he's been absolutely proven to be clueless, I'm just going to throw all of his books into the fire. Good Show! (I'm not taking that out of context either. That was seriously the extent of his response)
Then this:
3) Hate to burst your bubble, but if you can't rationalize your beliefs then they aren't rational.
Huh? Yeah, and if you teach a child to read, they'll pass a literacy test. Mr. President...is that you? I agree, I think.
1) why does the design seem so unintelligent? Please design life forms and show how your designs are better. Also, see The Gods Must Be Tidy.2) I have read Russell. He's clueless.3) Hate to burst your bubble, but if you can't rationalize your beliefs then they aren't rational.4) You might be interested in Intelligent Design Quotes. Then again, you might not. But this is what some well-known scientists are saying.
And here's my response:
wrf3 says:
1) why does the design seem so unintelligent? Please design life forms and show how your designs are better. Also, see The Gods Must Be Tidy.
First, I think I did that already with the whole birth defects and natural disasters point. I guess I could make it clearer, so here goes:
It seems to me that the world would be better if it were free of all of the bad stuff, like earthquakes and deformaties and all that. So, if I were going to design the world, I just think it would be a good idea to exclude all that stuff. So, at best it's just carelessness, and this doesn't seem consistent with the whole notion of an intelligent designer. I mean he takes all this care into developing all of these super-complicated organisms but overlooks the big stuff that will result in the death and suffering of scores of people. I thought God was omniscient. Guess not, or else he would have known better. On the other hand, maybe he's just a sick jerk that gets a kick out of watching folks suffer. I'm not sure I can make my position any clearer than that without resorting to sock puppets or something. Second, as far as your whole designing better life forms position is concerned, this is really non-responsive. Of course, I would leave out all the bad stuff as mentioned above. But more importantly, at the point that you challenge me to describe how I would create a life form, you are of course insinuating that I couldn't do it because it's too hard. Therefore, it must be God. This begs the question. What I would say is that organisms and the like are created through an unguided process governed by nothing more than the blind workings of science. What's more, my world view accounts for both the complexity in the natural world and all of the screw ups. That is, because the process is unguided, it's no surprise that things go wrong sometimes. Uh-oh...my world view has greater explainitory power than yours.
Then he says this:
2) I have read Russell. He's clueless.
A brilliant and devestating rebuttal. Why, seeing as how he's been absolutely proven to be clueless, I'm just going to throw all of his books into the fire. Good Show! (I'm not taking that out of context either. That was seriously the extent of his response)
Then this:
3) Hate to burst your bubble, but if you can't rationalize your beliefs then they aren't rational.
Huh? Yeah, and if you teach a child to read, they'll pass a literacy test. Mr. President...is that you? I agree, I think.
posted by Barwise at 5:07 PM
<< Home