Religions > Atheism > In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support Intelligent Design Theory?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
22 Sep 2005 12:49:00 AM |
| Object: |
In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support Intelligent Design Theory? |
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian conservatives have claimed that March of the Penguins, the
documentary of emperor penguins by Luc Jacquet, is a film that support
Intelligent Design.. . .
... . .The film takes viewers on a breathtaking and entertaining
educational experience. "The complexity of the penguins' lifestyle
testifies to a Divine Creator," said one commentator on Christian
Answers.
"To think that natural selection or even the penguins themselves could
come up with the idea to migrate miles and miles multiple times each
year without their partner or their offspring is a bit insulting to my
intellect. How great is our God!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.christiantoday.com/news/culture/march.of.the.penguins.supporting.intelligent.design.theory/126.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/bjnlc
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support Intelligent Design Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 01:25:36 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:3ah4j15o9k1fha9q8l0d5p3qqbpockdekn@4ax.com...
From the article:
"To think that natural selection or even the penguins themselves could
come up with the idea to migrate miles and miles multiple times each
year without their partner or their offspring is a bit insulting to my
intellect.
And now, to present the award for Most Ironic Performance In A Supporting
Role...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support Intelligent Design Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 10:15:09 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:3ah4j15o9k1fha9q8l0d5p3qqbpockdekn@4ax.com...
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
SNIP
"To think that natural selection or even the penguins themselves could
come up with the idea to migrate miles and miles multiple times each
year without their partner or their offspring is a bit insulting to my
intellect. How great is our God!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Some Intellects are beyond insulting.
Ian
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Heath" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support Intelligent Design Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 03:35:23 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:3ah4j15o9k1fha9q8l0d5p3qqbpockdekn@4ax.com...
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian conservatives have claimed that March of the Penguins, the
documentary of emperor penguins by Luc Jacquet, is a film that support
Intelligent Design.. . .
.. . .The film takes viewers on a breathtaking and entertaining
educational experience. "The complexity of the penguins' lifestyle
testifies to a Divine Creator," said one commentator on Christian
Answers.
"To think that natural selection or even the penguins themselves could
come up with the idea to migrate miles and miles multiple times each
year without their partner or their offspring is a bit insulting to my
intellect. How great is our God!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.christiantoday.com/news/culture/march.of.the.penguins.supporting.intelligent.design.theory/126.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/bjnlc
J. Spaceman
Oh come on Jason, every time somebody farts, some fool Christian thinks it's
a sign from God! We have got fools praying to water stains under bridges,
we have fools praying to water stains on windows, we've got fools willing to
pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for what appears to be a picture of
the supposed Christ on a frigging in moldy toasted cheese sandwich, of
course, no one in the world has the slightest idea of what this Jesus
character might and I say might have looked like!
What a load, what a major load!
Later, Larry.
aa # 2216
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support Intelligent Design Theory? |
27 Sep 2005 07:36:52 AM |
|
|
I just saw the film (March of the Penguins) myself, this weekend.
There is nothing in the naration of the film itself which supports, or
even implies creationism and intelligent design.
I think the creationists who watch this are inclined to think that any
marvel of nature is evidence of special creation. That's all the
evidence they need to accept something they already believe
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support Intelligent Design Theory? |
27 Sep 2005 01:24:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I just saw the film (March of the Penguins) myself, this
weekend. There is nothing in the naration of the film itself
which supports, or even implies creationism and intelligent
design.
I think the creationists who watch this are inclined to think
that any
marvel of nature is evidence of special creation. That's all
the evidence they need to accept something they already believe
Dave
If the film was about elephant seals and a dominant male
with a harem bettlig other males, would they take
that to mean we should all have many wives and battle
other men who try to seduce one's wives?
These ... people ..., they must have marshmallows
for brains.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support Intelligent Design Theory? |
27 Sep 2005 01:59:09 PM |
|
|
In article <11jj2l0n05ff842@corp.supernews.com> wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> writes:
dgenglish@hotmail.com wrote:
I just saw the film (March of the Penguins) myself, this
weekend. There is nothing in the naration of the film itself
which supports, or even implies creationism and intelligent
design.
I think the creationists who watch this are inclined to think
that any
marvel of nature is evidence of special creation. That's all
the evidence they need to accept something they already believe
Dave
If the film was about elephant seals and a dominant male
with a harem bettlig other males, would they take
that to mean we should all have many wives and battle
other men who try to seduce one's wives?
These ... people ..., they must have marshmallows
for brains.
Even closer: Emperor Penguins generally select a new mate
each breeding season...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support Intelligent Design Theory? |
25 Sep 2005 08:37:55 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian conservatives have claimed that March of the Penguins, the
documentary of emperor penguins by Luc Jacquet, is a film that support
Intelligent Design.. . .
.. . .The film takes viewers on a breathtaking and entertaining
educational experience. "The complexity of the penguins' lifestyle
testifies to a Divine Creator," said one commentator on Christian
Answers.
"To think that natural selection or even the penguins themselves could
come up with the idea to migrate miles and miles multiple times each
year without their partner or their offspring is a bit insulting to my
intellect. How great is our God!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.christiantoday.com/news/culture/march.of.the.penguins.supporting.intelligent.design.theory/126.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/bjnlc
J. Spaceman
So what is the designer explanation for penquins?
Not only that, but how many penquin species were on the Ark? How did
they survive for a year on the Ark without over heating? If only the
warm water penquins survived on the Ark, how did they evolve the
adaptations to the cold? Why is penquin biogeography what it is today?
Why aren't there any penquins in Alaska? Why do we have evidence that
penquins evolved in the Southern Hemisphere?
There has to be more to intelligent design than it looks designed,
right?
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Merrill" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 03:48:57 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian conservatives have claimed that March of the Penguins, the
documentary of emperor penguins by Luc Jacquet, is a film that support
Intelligent Design.. . .
.. . .The film takes viewers on a breathtaking and entertaining
educational experience. "The complexity of the penguins' lifestyle
testifies to a Divine Creator," said one commentator on Christian
Answers.
"To think that natural selection or even the penguins themselves could
come up with the idea to migrate miles and miles multiple times each
year without their partner or their offspring is a bit insulting to my
intellect. How great is our God!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grandson, watching the "March of the Penguins" whispers, "when do the
penguins talk?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 09:26:10 PM |
|
|
Rick Merrill wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian conservatives have claimed that March of the Penguins, the
documentary of emperor penguins by Luc Jacquet, is a film that support
Intelligent Design.. . .
.. . .The film takes viewers on a breathtaking and entertaining
educational experience. "The complexity of the penguins' lifestyle
testifies to a Divine Creator," said one commentator on Christian
Answers.
"To think that natural selection or even the penguins themselves could
come up with the idea to migrate miles and miles multiple times each
year without their partner or their offspring is a bit insulting to my
intellect. How great is our God!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grandson, watching the "March of the Penguins" whispers, "when do the
penguins talk?"
Cute, but has he got over it?
Best not get him that Pingu DVD after all...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 04:29:44 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian conservatives have claimed that March of the Penguins, the
documentary of emperor penguins by Luc Jacquet, is a film that support
Intelligent Design.. . .
... . .The film takes viewers on a breathtaking and entertaining
educational experience. "The complexity of the penguins' lifestyle
testifies to a Divine Creator," said one commentator on Christian
Answers.
"To think that natural selection or even the penguins themselves could
come up with the idea to migrate miles and miles multiple times each
year without their partner or their offspring is a bit insulting to my
intellect. How great is our God!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.christiantoday.com/news/culture/march.of.the.penguins.supporting.intelligent.design.theory/126.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/bjnlc
And this is the species that will watch a plane flying over until they fall on their backs en masse.
I cannot believe this is purely by chance. Only a god could have invented slapstick comedy.
--
10 August 2005: US death rate in Iraq is 4.4 per day.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3499
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesignTheory? |
22 Sep 2005 10:43:40 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian conservatives have claimed that March of the Penguins, the
documentary of emperor penguins by Luc Jacquet, is a film that support
Intelligent Design.. . .
... . .The film takes viewers on a breathtaking and entertaining
educational experience. "The complexity of the penguins' lifestyle
testifies to a Divine Creator," said one commentator on Christian
Answers.
"To think that natural selection or even the penguins themselves could
come up with the idea to migrate miles and miles multiple times each
year without their partner or their offspring is a bit insulting to my
intellect. How great is our God!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.christiantoday.com/news/culture/march.of.the.penguins.supporting.intelligent.design.theory/126.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/bjnlc
And this is the species that will watch a plane flying over until they fall on their backs en masse.
I'm unsure as to whether you are joking here or not, but this is an
urban legend. I know Snopes is not a science site, but here is the link
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/penguin.htm
Now do you wish to continue our discussion on belief without evidence? :)
I cannot believe this is purely by chance. Only a god could have invented slapstick comedy.
--
shane
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support Intelligent Design Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 03:05:39 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:49:00 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian conservatives have claimed that March of the Penguins, the
documentary of emperor penguins by Luc Jacquet, is a film that support
Intelligent Design.. . .
.. . .The film takes viewers on a breathtaking and entertaining
educational experience. "The complexity of the penguins' lifestyle
testifies to a Divine Creator," said one commentator on Christian
Answers.
"To think that natural selection or even the penguins themselves could
come up with the idea to migrate miles and miles multiple times each
year without their partner or their offspring is a bit insulting to my
intellect. How great is our God!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.christiantoday.com/news/culture/march.of.the.penguins.supporting.intelligent.design.theory/126.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/bjnlc
For a more balanced article see:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1572642,00.html
From the article:
Leipzig pointed out that this species of penguin, the emperor, is usually
monogamous for a year, but not for life: the following year, it takes a
different partner. He added: 'People read it into what they want. There are
universal truths about parenting and bonding with offspring, but it's not a film
with a political and social agenda. When we put the English-language version
together, we never once had a discussion about social, religious or cultural
points of view. We wanted to get the audience involved to follow the penguins'
lives.'
The film's director, Luc Jaquet, a French biologist who shot 140 hours of
footage on land and 30 hours underwater, added: 'It's obvious that global
warming has an impact on the reproduction of the penguins. But much of public
opinion appears insensitive to the dangers of global warming. We have to find
other ways to communicate to people about it.'
Scientists in Britain, where the film will premiere at next month's London Film
Festival, with general release in December, dismissed the intelligent design
lobby's expropriation of the film. Steve Jones, professor of genetics at
University College London and an atheist, said: 'I find it sad that people with
intrinsically foolish viewpoints don't recognise this as a naturally beautiful
film, but have to attach their absurd social agendas to it.
'The problem with intelligent design is that there is no conceivable observation
in nature that can disprove the idea. It's not part of science, which is why
scientists are not interested in it. A group of penguins standing upright looks
like co-operation, but in fact the ones on the outside are struggling to get in
and those on the inside are trying to stand their ground: it's a classic
Darwinian struggle. The idea that the life of a penguin is any more beautiful
than that of a malaria virus is absurd.
'Supporters of intelligent design think that if they see something they don't
understand, it must be God; they fail to recognise that they themselves are part
of evolution. It appeals to ignorance, which is why there is a lot of it in
American politics at the moment.'
Penguins: the facts (and a joke)
There are 17 penguin species, of which the emperor is largest. Penguins have
adapted to more habitats than any other animal, including the frozen wastes of
Antarctica and the sandy beaches of Africa.
Penguins cannot fly but, shaped like a torpedo, they can swim about 15 miles per
hour. They spend as much as 75 per cent of their time underwater, searching for
food.
Navy pilots in the Falklands conflict reported that penguins craned their necks
so far back to watch passing aircraft that they toppled over. The claim was
later disproved by scientists.
Children's love of penguins owes much to the antics of the TV character Pingu.
There are several websites devoted to penguin jokes. Among them is
http://monyscurry.tripod.com/pengfun.htm which provides the following:
A man driving a van spots a crashed truck, with penguins hopping on it, looking
lost. He takes pity and loads them into his van.
The police see the van and pull it over. 'What's with the penguins?'
The man replies: 'I saw them on the road and I picked them up.' The policeman
said: 'Take them to the zoo.' Later the policeman sees him driving past again
with all the penguins in bathing suits.
'I thought I told you to take them to the zoo,' he says.
'I did,' said the driver. 'We had so much fun, that I'm taking them to the
beach.'
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 04:51:38 AM |
|
|
JPG wrote:
'The problem with intelligent design is that there is no conceivable observation
in nature that can disprove the idea. It's not part of science, which is why
scientists are not interested in it. A group of penguins standing upright looks
like co-operation, but in fact the ones on the outside are struggling to get in
and those on the inside are trying to stand their ground: it's a classic
Darwinian struggle. The idea that the life of a penguin is any more beautiful
than that of a malaria virus is absurd.
*****!
It is a 12th century idea that the church discarded.
I suggest the cause for rejection was the first time it was presented to a nearsighted Pope with a
bad back. And the Pope inquired, "Were my eyes and back intelligently designed?" And the answer was
yes. "Then how to you explain my eyes and back?" And the answer was "Sin, your Eminance." At which
point the advocate for intelligent design was burned at the stake.
It is not a matter of disproof, they have the burden of evidence. Their first claim is complexity
but they never define complexity. Hold their feet to the fire and demand a definition of complexity.
Clearly all they have is what is not (yet) understood. It is the god of the gaps all over again.
Irreducibly is another buzz word. Define it. Quantum mechanics cannot be reduced to deterministic
rules and it is therefore irreducably complex.
In the rush to ignore the creationists there is no effort to present the simplest of ideas such as
"What idiot designed your eyes?" for those who wear glasses to address the intelligent part.
Ask any intelligent design advocate what idiot invented his ailments and do not take a glib answer.
The old sin causes ailments does not hold water these days so they have no answer.
They may have thought about this as I heard one advocate say only "some" things were intelligently
designed. That is weasel wording best handled by standard rhetoric.
--
Ritalin, a drug that cannot cure because the disease does not exist.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3489
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11
.
|
|
|
| User: "CathParks" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 05:28:09 AM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.
Ask any intelligent design advocate what idiot invented his ailments and
do not
take a glib answer.
Seems to me that instead of 'Intelligent Design' they should be talking
about a combination of:
i) 'Inept Design';
ii) 'Sadistic Design',
and
iii) 'Pointless-Duplication-of-Effort Design'.
In fact, the combination of:
*Features that are shoddily produced;
*Features that guarantee a world filled with pain and suffering,
and
*Features that betray senseless and wasteful inefficiency in their design
and production,
suggests to me that we ought simply to refer to it all as...
....*Soviet Design*...!
C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 08:19:10 AM |
|
|
Aren't some Emperor penguins observed indulging in a little homosexual
hanky-panky? Looks like God enjoys a little sweaty man-on-man *****-sex.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Standeven" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
24 Sep 2005 11:35:14 PM |
|
|
Sasha wrote:
Aren't some Emperor penguins observed indulging in a little homosexual
hanky-panky? Looks like God enjoys a little sweaty man-on-man *****-sex.
I suppose I should explain/correct my other post. Penguins do of course
have a cloacal opening for eliminating wastes; we may as well call this
an "*****". Moreover, this organ is also used to emit sperm, which can
then be absorbed by the corresponding organ on the female penguin. So
of course when two male penguins have sex, they need only do the same
thing they would if they were having sex with female penguins.
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
24 Nov 2005 12:42:50 AM |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2005 22:01:00 -0800, "Ben Standeven"
<berry@pop.networkusa.net> wrote:
Sasha wrote:
Aren't some Emperor penguins observed indulging in a little homosexual
hanky-panky? Looks like God enjoys a little sweaty man-on-man *****-sex.
I suppose I should explain/correct my other post. Penguins do of course
have a cloacal opening for eliminating wastes; we may as well call this
an "*****". Moreover, this organ is also used to emit sperm, which can
then be absorbed by the corresponding organ on the female penguin. So
of course when two male penguins have sex, they need only do the same
thing they would if they were having sex with female penguins.
You mean they have to buy them dinner and get them drunk?
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Standeven" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
24 Sep 2005 11:23:38 PM |
|
|
Sasha wrote:
Aren't some Emperor penguins observed indulging in a little homosexual
hanky-panky? Looks like God enjoys a little sweaty man-on-man *****-sex.
Nah; penguins don't have asses.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jcon" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 02:37:32 PM |
|
|
Sasha wrote:
Aren't some Emperor penguins observed indulging in a little homosexual
hanky-panky? Looks like God enjoys a little sweaty man-on-man *****-sex.
This is being followed in another thread. Basically, the penguins
in MOTP bond for one season and then move on, which some Christian
conservatives see as a strong divine endorsement of lifetime,
monogamous,
heterosexual, marriage.
Silo and Roy, the celebrated "gay" penguins at the central park zoo
recently broke up after *six years* and raising a child together.
Strangely,
these *same* conservatives see that as proof that homosexuality is
wrong.
Hey, I don't write this stuff.
-jc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 04:39:39 PM |
|
|
On 22 Sep 2005 12:37:32 -0700, "jcon" <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sasha wrote:
Aren't some Emperor penguins observed indulging in a little homosexual
hanky-panky? Looks like God enjoys a little sweaty man-on-man *****-sex.
This is being followed in another thread. Basically, the penguins
in MOTP bond for one season and then move on, which some Christian
conservatives see as a strong divine endorsement of lifetime,
monogamous,
heterosexual, marriage.
A heterosexual marriage which apparently need only last until
yuo've satisfied your biological urges and had a kid, at which
point the marriage breaks up and the kid is abandoned.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesignTheory? |
24 Sep 2005 01:20:37 AM |
|
|
jcon wrote:
Sasha wrote:
Aren't some Emperor penguins observed indulging in a little homosexual
hanky-panky? Looks like God enjoys a little sweaty man-on-man *****-sex.
This is being followed in another thread. Basically, the penguins
in MOTP bond for one season and then move on, which some Christian
conservatives see as a strong divine endorsement of lifetime,
monogamous,
heterosexual, marriage.
And humans do appear to bond for 4 years about the time from conception to the end of breast
feeding. So they are a good model.
--
Who is having more problems with their recrutiting quotas?
The US Army or suicide bombers.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3511
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Satterwhite" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 12:55:59 PM |
|
|
CathParks wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.
Ask any intelligent design advocate what idiot invented his ailments and
do not
take a glib answer.
Seems to me that instead of 'Intelligent Design' they should be talking
about a combination of:
i) 'Inept Design';
ii) 'Sadistic Design',
and
iii) 'Pointless-Duplication-of-Effort Design'.
In fact, the combination of:
*Features that are shoddily produced;
*Features that guarantee a world filled with pain and suffering,
and
*Features that betray senseless and wasteful inefficiency in their design
and production,
suggests to me that we ought simply to refer to it all as...
...*Soviet Design*...!
C.
See http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/index.htm
for a different take on it, called "Irreducible Grotesqueness."
From the site:
The Argument from Irreducible Grotesqueness
"By irreducibly grotesque [IG] I mean a single slaughter-related system
composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the
basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system
to effectively cease functioning."
- Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University Professor of Biochemistry
In his 1996 best-seller God's S&M Chest, Dr. Behe describes, in meticulous
detail, more than a dozen irreducibly grotesque organisms and their
elaborately designed subsystems. He convincingly argues that multi-component
maiming systems cannot evolve: Since evolution supposedly operates via
incremental changes, the likelihood of spontaneously creating an IG system
out of thin air, in one generation, drops exponentially as the number of
required parts goes up. Since no other process, now known or hereafter
discovered, can (even in principle) account for IG systems, intelligent
design is verified by process of elimination.
[end quote] And, yes it is satire, although when I posted it before
there were those thought it was an actual creationist site and wrote
impassioned rebuttals.
Best, Marc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesignTheory? |
24 Sep 2005 01:18:21 AM |
|
|
CathParks wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.
Ask any intelligent design advocate what idiot invented his ailments and
do not
take a glib answer.
Seems to me that instead of 'Intelligent Design' they should be talking
about a combination of:
i) 'Inept Design';
ii) 'Sadistic Design',
and
iii) 'Pointless-Duplication-of-Effort Design'.
In fact, the combination of:
*Features that are shoddily produced;
*Features that guarantee a world filled with pain and suffering,
and
*Features that betray senseless and wasteful inefficiency in their design
and production,
suggests to me that we ought simply to refer to it all as...
....*Soviet Design*...!
Stupid design!
Malevolent design of all the afflictions and infirmities.
Too many designers spoiling the soup.
Where do they get away with just one designer?
Think a team of apprentice designers and their normal mistakes in learning the craft.
Soviet it good, designing towards a dialectic agenda instead of getting the job done. See the last
season of Babylon 5 for details.
--
10 August 2005: US death rate in Iraq is 4.4 per day.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3499
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesign Theory? |
22 Sep 2005 05:21:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:51:38 GMT, Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com>
wrote:
JPG wrote:
'The problem with intelligent design is that there is no conceivable observation
in nature that can disprove the idea. It's not part of science, which is why
scientists are not interested in it. A group of penguins standing upright looks
like co-operation, but in fact the ones on the outside are struggling to get in
and those on the inside are trying to stand their ground: it's a classic
Darwinian struggle. The idea that the life of a penguin is any more beautiful
than that of a malaria virus is absurd.
*****!
Excuse me, please explain to me how the above is *****.
JPG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesignTheory? |
24 Sep 2005 01:12:54 AM |
|
|
JPG wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:51:38 GMT, Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com>
wrote:
JPG wrote:
'The problem with intelligent design is that there is no conceivable observation
in nature that can disprove the idea. It's not part of science, which is why
scientists are not interested in it. A group of penguins standing upright looks
like co-operation, but in fact the ones on the outside are struggling to get in
and those on the inside are trying to stand their ground: it's a classic
Darwinian struggle. The idea that the life of a penguin is any more beautiful
than that of a malaria virus is absurd.
*****!
Excuse me, please explain to me how the above is *****.
Perhaps I should have been more specific. This is the *****.
'The problem with intelligent design is that there is no conceivable observation
in nature that can disprove the idea.
It can be and very easily.
And if what I suggested is not enough demand an answer to why they insist upon designer instead of
designerS. All their implicite assumptions are the good christian one and only god. It does not
differ from demons designing all the ailments in an otherwise perfect world.
--
When reading that a scholar said something or holds an
opinion keep the word scholar in perspective. Think
National Merit Scholar.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3491
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kleuskes & Moos" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesignTheory? |
24 Sep 2005 07:29:19 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer schreef:
<snip>
Perhaps I should have been more specific. This is the *****.
'The problem with intelligent design is that there is no conceivable observation
in nature that can disprove the idea.
It can be and very easily.
Ok.... How?
--
http://www.nizkor.org. Them being hated by the likes of Matt Giwer is
the best form of advertising.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesignTheory? |
24 Sep 2005 08:28:49 PM |
|
|
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
Matt Giwer schreef:
<snip>
Perhaps I should have been more specific. This is the *****.
'The problem with intelligent design is that there is no conceivable observation
in nature that can disprove the idea.
It can be and very easily.
Ok.... How?
The usual ones, junk DNA, teats on a boar, vestigal appendix, humans not REdesidned internally for
two legs. One cannot "see" design and write off things to mysterious design features. We know what
design is and it is every feature having a purpose with the few "purposeless" features being
aesthetic. If it is not intelligent design then there needs be a name change. If it is not design
"as we know it" then the argument for design goes away.
And that before we go to the quality of the design leading to a market in eyeglasses, bad backs,
vulnerable to disease, cancer and such from which we are forced to conclude incompetent or stupid
design. The designer designs in mysterious ways doesn't answer the mail.
http://www.nizkor.org. Them being hated by the likes of Matt Giwer is
the best form of advertising.
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
--
Ritalin, a drug that cannot cure because the disease does not exist.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3489
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesignTheory? |
24 Sep 2005 10:11:59 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
Matt Giwer schreef:
<snip>
Perhaps I should have been more specific. This is the *****.
'The problem with intelligent design is that there is no conceivable observation
in nature that can disprove the idea.
It can be and very easily.
Ok.... How?
The usual ones, junk DNA, teats on a boar, vestigal appendix, humans not REdesidned internally for
two legs. One cannot "see" design and write off things to mysterious design features. We know what
design is and it is every feature having a purpose with the few "purposeless" features being
aesthetic. If it is not intelligent design then there needs be a name change. If it is not design
"as we know it" then the argument for design goes away.
No, you're assuming that "intelligent design" is about intelligent
design. It isn't. /Instances/ of "intelligent design" often take the
form of pointing at features of organisms and saying "Look at this,
it's irreducibly complex, it must have been designed", but strictly
"intelligent design" only says that life on earth isn't the result of
undirected neo-Darwinism, some intelligent agent made interventions to
achieve particular desired effects. It is an act of "intelligent
design" if Satan gave us an appendix we didn't have before.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesignTheory? |
25 Sep 2005 10:23:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
Matt Giwer schreef:
<snip>
Perhaps I should have been more specific. This is the *****.
'The problem with intelligent design is that there is no conceivable observation
in nature that can disprove the idea.
It can be and very easily.
Ok.... How?
The usual ones, junk DNA, teats on a boar, vestigal appendix, humans not REdesidned internally for
two legs. One cannot "see" design and write off things to mysterious design features. We know what
design is and it is every feature having a purpose with the few "purposeless" features being
aesthetic. If it is not intelligent design then there needs be a name change. If it is not design
"as we know it" then the argument for design goes away.
No, you're assuming that "intelligent design" is about intelligent
design.
Then as I said it needs a name change. So we can start with defining the kind of design they are
talking about.
It isn't. /Instances/ of "intelligent design" often take the
form of pointing at features of organisms and saying "Look at this,
it's irreducibly complex, it must have been designed",
When I get to hear some ID fruitcake make that claim I will insist upon a definition of complexity
and irreducible before we go any further. They will fail in the attempt. Without those definitions
he is not saying anything.
but strictly
"intelligent design" only says that life on earth isn't the result of
undirected neo-Darwinism, some intelligent agent made interventions to
achieve particular desired effects.
And then a question as to whose desire and no going further with identifying the person.
It is an act of "intelligent
design" if Satan gave us an appendix we didn't have before.
No religion permitted so that is not an acceptable answer.
--
Being drunk for decades causes no longterm harm.
Look at Dubya Bush and see for yourself.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3504
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Does March of the Penguins Support IntelligentDesignTheory? |
26 Sep 2005 05:58:17 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
rja.carnegie@excite.com wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
No, you're assuming that "intelligent design" is about intelligent
design.
Then as I said it needs a name change. So we can start with defining the kind of design they are
talking about.
It doesn't need a name change, it needs burying in quicklime.
There are a lot of questionable ideas that have names like "Sounds
Pretty Good", like "Swift Boats For Truth". Swift is good. Truth is
good. Discovery is good. Intelligence is good. And so forth. The
idea is that if you criticise them then you sound like you are
criticising the good thing whose name they stole, such as Motherhood or
the U.S. Army.
It isn't. /Instances/ of "intelligent design" often take the
form of pointing at features of organisms and saying "Look at this,
it's irreducibly complex, it must have been designed",
When I get to hear some ID fruitcake make that claim I will insist upon a definition of complexity
and irreducible before we go any further. They will fail in the attempt. Without those definitions
he is not saying anything.
I think it's oversimplifying the perceived fault in the argument to
claim that the terms are not meaningfully defined. The usual fault is
a false dichotomy between either the genes for a complicated structure
spontaneously springing into existence all at once, implausibly, or the
genes being designed by an intelligent designer to produce the effect.
It is a false dichotomy when other possibilities are unreasonably
excluded, such as the structure arising piece by piece by several less
implausible mutational steps to produce the effect, or the structure's
genes arising in that way to produce a /different/ effect, and then
mutating more straightforwardly into genes for the structure that we
see, that fortuitously produces a useful effect, or when any other case
is unreasonably excluded.
but strictly
"intelligent design" only says that life on earth isn't the result of
undirected neo-Darwinism, some intelligent agent made interventions to
achieve particular desired effects.
And then a question as to whose desire and no going further with identifying the person.
It is an act of "intelligent
design" if Satan gave us an appendix we didn't have before.
No religion permitted so that is not an acceptable answer.
Okay then, it was a Democrat. Their current constitutional function is
opposition, right? This is an act of opposition. I thought it was
described in Lewis Carroll's _Sylvie and Bruno_ or _Sylvie and Bruno
Concluded_, but I haven't found it.
Are schools allowed to claim that Satan /didn't/ futz with the human
appendix?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
