Excruciatingly Large Things

Daniel Rourke's new website is:

MachineMachine.net


Intelligent Design Roundup Friday

→ by Danieru
The debate on Intelligent Design vs Evolution has been flooding through the blogsphere like some cleverly conceived primeval super-goo this week. Screw what I have to say on the issue, what about the rest of the world?
UPDATE: The ever evolved Panda's Thumb website offered up The Intelligent Designer's Prayer, so we may all share in the joy of The Designer's rhetorical anonymity... Amen

...and just to be fair, here's a couple of links from ID advocates (may the Designer bless their tiny, chest-cavity-located, highly efficient blood pumps):
My past posts on the goopy mess that is ID are simply screaming to be read, check out the Category Tags below and the Recent Posts menu in the sidebar for more...


Categories: , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Blogger Danielle said...

Evolution IS intelligent design... DEE DEE DEE!!!

October 01, 2005 12:51 AM    

Blogger mynym said...

From your article:Pennock explained how the program worked, and that during the process as the code evolves, and at the end of the process, you can't really tell who or what created it because it essentially created itself.

Don't you find it the least bit odd to believe people who are willing to be ignorant and stupid enough to deny that they just created a program that evolves in an unfolding of events?

You can't really tell who or what created it, after he just got done writing the terms that the system will be guided to process? And he's supposed to be a philosopher of science?

It's laughable.

October 01, 2005 2:43 PM    

Blogger mynym said...

From the other article:Supernatural explanations are outside the scope of science; they are inherently religious. Government must stay out of religion so that each American's religious choices and commitments will be free. Science, and government, are confined to naturalistic explanations.

If that is true then the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are both "unconstitutional." That is, after all, the legal issue supposedly to be decided by the Judiciary. Yet when the Judiciary is saying that the very documents which define and ground the separation of powers to define its powers are "unconstitutional" then they have become little more than petty tyrants, dictating their own whims. They are textual degenerates, unwilling to be limited by text.

Will their copying errors and degeneracy will lead to a better and better fit? Actually, the Founders of America designed specific ways for the Constitution to evolve and unfold to fit into different circumstances in a guided way. It is designed to adapt. Yet apparently those who believe in Darwinism tend to avor a sort of viral textual degeneracy instead of the way things were designed to evolve.

I would like to now how you propose it is supportable to argue that the very documents that undergird American government are both "unconstitutional" for making reference to something more than Nature.

October 01, 2005 2:53 PM    

Anonymous Heathen Dan said...

"Don't you find it the least bit odd to believe people who are willing to be ignorant and stupid enough to deny that they just created a program that evolves in an unfolding of events?

You can't really tell who or what created it, after he just got done writing the terms that the system will be guided to process? And he's supposed to be a philosopher of science?

It's laughable."

What is laughable is your ignorance of science. Have you not heard of scientific modeling? I suggest you crack open an intro to science textbook lest you embarrass yourself any more.

October 02, 2005 1:36 AM    

Anonymous Heathen Dan said...

"If that is true then the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are both 'unconstitutional.'"

Yet what follows is a total nonsequitur and an appalling diatribe with no substance whatsoever. It seems your lack of knowledge extends beyond the realms of science.

October 02, 2005 1:39 AM    

Blogger Danieru said...

"From your article:" - sorry got to correct you here, the links in this post are to articles outside this weblog...

MYNYM, I found replying to your posts pretty difficult (cos they make very little sense to me), but here goes:

"Don't you find it the least bit odd to believe people who are willing to be ignorant and stupid enough to deny that they just created a program that evolves in an unfolding of events?"

Erm, everything is causal. If the people making this program were to deny that then mercy be on their materialistically defined souls! The program to which they speak has been given a very base degree of rules from which to operate. Such as those inherent in self-realising systems, such as bacterium or even lower down the scale, proteins. The universe is functional in this sense even if you take life out of the picture.

Rule 1: Energy and matter are interchangeable
Rule 2: Opposite energy states attract, same states repel
Rule 3: Time and motion are relative...

and so on. From very few rules an interacting system can evolve, just as this universe did. all these programmers are doing is creating their own min-universe and watching events in it unfold. Chaos becomes order over time and thus proves that insane complexity can come from a seemingly inherent disorder (in fact 'disorder' is just a human perspective)

"Science, and government, are confined to naturalistic explanations."

I would damn well hope so. When the President of the most powerful country in the world can justify his decisions with the phrase "Because I believe it is the work of God..." and get away with it this world will have taken a turn towards insanity too far.... Oh shit, I see what I've done their. We are living in an unconstitutional nightmare of a world driven by belief, unseen forces and deluded fools who believe everything they do has been ordained by an imaginary God. I weep (at you)...

October 03, 2005 5:46 AM    


Subscribe to Comments