Intelligent Design program on PBS

[_Some Schmo]

It never ceases to amaze and entertain me how stupid people sound when they start talking about the supernatural as though it's a reasonable explanation for anything. It's an embarrassment to the human race.

That may be, but it's also genetically hard-wired into us to be predisposed to such ideas. How ironic that irony itself is hard-wired into our genes, no?

I remember someone once saying that the human mind is such a complex computer, that you can ask it any question, and if it doesn't have an answer but is pressed for one, it will make something up that satisfies itself.

I think that, in a nutshell, explains our genetic predisposition to accepting the inane. That, and a huge dose of ignorance.

About irony... if irony is, in fact, hard-wired into our genes, then it would be ironic if it wasn't, but if it wasn't, then it would be ironic if it was... um... yeah.

Actually, that reminds me of a Q&A with Dawkins where he was asked if rational thought could be explained through evolution, and he said it could easily explained. He said what he thought was more difficult to explain was all the irrational thought around.

Cracked me up.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.

That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.

That is essentially his argument but it ain't compelling. When it comes to arguments for and against God, Richard Dawkins is unsophisticated.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Just finished watching the documentary online.

Assuming that proponents of evolution were misrepresenting statements, taking things out of context, and just generally being unscrupulously partisan, I was quite disappointed (but enlightened) to discover that, indeed, ID is merely a repackaging of creationism--if not by theorists like Behe, then certainly at the popular level. The case against the school board seems to be really quite damning.

There's got to be a typo in that first line.

Proponents of evolution were not misrepresenting...

or

Opponents of evolution were misrepresenting...

??

No, it's right. I went into the documentary assuming (purely on bias) "that proponents of evolution were misrepresenting statements, taking things out of context, and just generally being unscrupulously partisan" (with regard to the Dover case).

I found out that I was wrong.

CKS

The mendacity of the ID folk goes much deeper than this. Misrepresenting statements, taking things out of context, hiding history, and outright lying is standard practice. This has been part of the creationist modus operandi for decades. The folks at the DI do it all the time. On a near daily basis. Literally. They are an embarrassment to the Christian faith. The irony is people of their perspective often believe/argue that belief in evolutionary theory leads to immorality.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.

That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.

That is essentially his argument but it ain't compelling. When it comes to arguments for and against God, Richard Dawkins is unsophisticated.

If I was listing all time dumb atheist arguments, It'd be a hard case not to put that one around number 1. Dawkins needs to stop writing books and take a few philosophy courses at Oxford.

[_The Dude]

Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.

That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.

That is essentially his argument but it ain't compelling. When it comes to arguments for and against God, Richard Dawkins is unsophisticated.

If I was listing all time dumb atheist arguments, It'd be a hard case not to put that one around number 1. Dawkins needs to stop writing books and take a few philosophy courses at Oxford.

Daniel Dennett is a philosopher and as much of a Darwinist as Richard Dawkins. Have you read his book Darwins Dangerous Idea and are you familiar with his analogy of skyhooks and cranes? Basically, a process of natural selection explains for how complex things arise over time by building on top of each other -- bulding from the ground up as with a crane. "God" is a different proposal, a skyhook that reaches down from the clouds to lift things up. How did it get up there in the first place? Who knows? Who can know? "God" is a really childish explanation for complexity when compared to the very real crane of natural selection. I think even some theists can appreciate this.

The argument against God that most fits my way of seeing things is the celestial teapot. Who needs it? Why should we take it seriously? The burden is on theists, not on me. Oh, it makes you feel nice and special? Very well, enjoy your celestial tea.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.

That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.

That is essentially his argument but it ain't compelling. When it comes to arguments for and against God, Richard Dawkins is unsophisticated.

If I was listing all time dumb atheist arguments, It'd be a hard case not to put that one around number 1. Dawkins needs to stop writing books and take a few philosophy courses at Oxford.

Daniel Dennett is a philosopher and as much of a Darwinist as Richard Dawkins. Have you read his book Darwins Dangerous Idea and are you familiar with his analogy of skyhooks and cranes? Basically, a process of natural selection explains for how complex things arise over time by building on top of each other -- bulding from the ground up as with a crane. "God" is a different proposal, a skyhook that reaches down from the clouds to lift things up. How did it get up there in the first place? Who knows? Who can know? "God" is a really childish explanation for complexity when compared to the very real crane of natural selection. I think even some theists can appreciate this.

The argument against God that most fits my way of seeing things is the celestial teapot. Who needs it? Why should we take it seriously? The burden is on theists, not on me. Oh, it makes you feel nice and special? Very well, enjoy your celestial tea.

Even if the scenario you describe is accurate, God is not an "earth organism."

[_The Dude]

Even if the scenario you describe is accurate, God is not an "earth organism."

Yes, so I'm not joining others in saying evolution proves God is impossible. I'm just saying such a complex thing is highly, highly unlikely, and the more mystical and unbounded you insist it is, the more unlikely it becomes. The personal Judeo-Christian deity is so unlikely, in fact, that I don't think people should believe in it without some additional of evidence -- besides a bundle of Hebrew tribal legends and more transparent frauds. Certainly this thing does not merit the level of credence it recieves from your average church-going Christian, who cries "I know there is a God!"

[_Some Schmo]

Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.

That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.

That is essentially his argument but it ain't compelling. When it comes to arguments for and against God, Richard Dawkins is unsophisticated.

It's not compelling if you're a dumbass who believes in god and doesn't understand evolution, I imagine. What would be a compelling argument for said dumbass? If someone is willing to answer tough questions with "god did it" then they're willing to believe anything at the exclusion of sound reason. In fact, no reason is needed at all. I guess in this type of person's world, omnipotent beings just happen all by themselves automagically.

Brilliant!

[_Calculus Crusader]

Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.

That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.

That is essentially his argument but it ain't compelling. When it comes to arguments for and against God, Richard Dawkins is unsophisticated.

It's not compelling if you're a dumbass who believes in god and doesn't understand evolution, I imagine. What would be a compelling argument for said dumbass? If someone is willing to answer tough questions with "god did it" then they're willing to believe anything at the exclusion of sound reason. In fact, no reason is needed at all. I guess in this type of person's world, omnipotent beings just happen all by themselves automagically.

Brilliant!

No, it is not compelling, period, your brainrot notwithstanding.

[_Some Schmo]

No, it is not compelling, period, your brainrot notwithstanding.

So you're not convinced by logic and reason, I guess. Your fantasy is more precious than the truth? Sucks to be you.