'Unintelligent Design'

Post by **Robert_Moriyama** » August 22, 2005, 09:22:59 AM

Excerpt from (humor) column in today's Toronto Star: What boneheaded design guides Dubya's moves? LINWOOD BARCLAY How does one explain all the misguided, unwise, sometimes outright boneheaded things the Bush administration has done since taking over nearly five years ago, and continues to do on a pretty much daily basis? How is it possible for a group of supposedly intelligent, experienced individuals to take this many wrong turns? Wouldn't you think that once in a while, even by accident, that George W. Bush and his advisers would make a decision that made sense? Can this much mismanagement happen totally at random? Would the occupants of the Bush White House have us believe that all these things, these missteps, these miscalculations, these attempts to deceive, that they all, you know, just kind of happened? I'm not so sure. And I'm not the only one starting to ask questions. More and more, it seems unlikely that mere human beings could make this many mistakes without some sort of misguiding force, a kind of supernatural entity that has trouble remembering where it put its car keys. That's where unintelligent design comes in... (for the full article, go to http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 9973472 )

Post by **Robert_Moriyama** » August 28, 2005, 09:43:07 PM

For a serious discussion of the ploys used by promoters of 'Creation Science', er, 'Intelligent Design', as a 'theory' worthy of inclusion in science curricula, see the article at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opini ... Robert M.

September 02, 2005, 09:56:51 AM

I sometimes war with myself about creationism vs evolution. I find it difficult to believe either. Could all that we see around us have come from nothing? Zip? Nada? A completely sterile world? A primordial soup could be a primordial cesspool also full of speculative offal.

I sometimes wonder if there isn't something somewhere in the middle that we're all missing...

Donald

The obvious compromise is to posit a 'Creator' who built the universe and all life within it USING THE MECHANISMS DESCRIBED BY CURRENT SCIENTIFIC THEORY. An immortal, timeless consciousness could take as bloody long as it liked to accomplish its goals, and could do so by setting up physical laws as we know them (or as we will eventually discover them to be), then tipping over the first domino (the Big Bang?), with everything else developing from that point with minimal intervention or none at all. It's only people who insist that "the Bible must be literally true" who must completely reject this as a possibility. Apparently the concept of metaphor and 'poetic license' is beyond their comprehension. How long is "a day" to an immortal? Particularly before there is a sun to provide light and a planet to rotate in the path of that light? That said, if there is a 'God', he/she/it is either perverse or capricious from the human viewpoint (viz. Louisiana and Mississip', Bandar Aceh and environs, the Bush dynasty ...) (The concept of 'original sin' is a brilliant one -- it sets up a situation where anything positive is attributed to 'God', while everything negative is not 'God''s fault. Kinda like (sorry, it's a reflex) Bush military, economic, and foreign policy.) Robert (politics and religion in one post!) M.

Jay_Raymer · Post by **Jay_Raymer** » September 28, 2005, 01:22:14 PM

As if it wasn't bad enough, I came across this today in my daily surfing. Jay http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

September 28, 2005, 03:27:53 PM

Tsk, tsk. Already noted this one in the thread 'From Creation Science to Resurrection Math'. And Rob Wynne pointed out that The Onion had stolen the joke from David Simpson. Um -- you do know that The Onion is a satirical site, right? The Onion is to nytimesonline as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is to Fox News -- er, CNN -- er -- anybody know a major TV news organization that hasn't either screwed up or developed an obvious editorial bias in one direction or the other? Robert (It must be true, I found it on the internet) M.

Jay_Raymer · Post by **Jay_Raymer** » September 29, 2005, 09:35:56 AM

Yes, I do know that the site is satirical, just thought it funny enough to mention. Hadn't realized that it had already been talked about. Jay (I need to learn to read all of the posts) Raymer P.S. Did you read the Onion's response about the timing of that story and David Simpson's cartoon? http://www.gelfmagazine.com/gelflog/arc ... llowing

September 29, 2005, 11:29:20 PM

World's greatest military power? I'm not too sure about that. I think that we're vastly overrated and that China is vastly underrated. IMO, the Chinese could eat the U.S. for breakfast.

You worry about the US coming under a Christian dictatorship. What's even scarier is that the whole of Europe might come under Islamic rule in the next twenty years.

Donald

Nah. Not with fascism rising in popularity in Germany and France (where it ain't easy being Muslim these days) and yer basic hooligan population ready to beat the crap out of anybody for no reason at all in England -- so given a pseudo-legitimate reason (say a widespread perception that the Muslim population should ALL be held responsible for terrorist acts), they'll really do a job on anyone who even looks Muslim (Brazilian will do -- and that's for the POLICE). I think Kristallnacht-type violence against Muslims is more probable than the rise of any Islamic regimes. And if the Saudis et al dare to try to interfere with the flow of oil -- well, bet on another 'Coalition of the Willing' to go teach them their proper place. Robert M.

September 30, 2005, 02:11:19 PM

Don't think I can buy that. I've been doing lots of googling on Islam lately, and it's real scary. Peers like the Islamic Jihad is rising a heckuva lot faster than Fascism in Europe. Trouble is, Europeans think much the same way that you do.

I think Europeans are going to scoff at Islam until they wake up one morning and hear the call to prayer.

Hooligans? Those guys are pikers. They will wind up losing their heads. Literally.

Donald "scared witless" S.

Donald (a) You could probably find stuff just as scary if you Google'd (say) 'Trilateral Commission', 'Illuminati', 'World Zionist Conspiracy', ... Or, for that matter, try Googling for stuff like 'Unabomber', 'Oklahoma city bombing', 'Waco', etc. 'White' 'Christian' folks don't need 'Arabs' to blow things up (literally or figuratively) -- they manage quite well on their own. The wonderful thing about the Internet is that there is so much information out there. The terrible thing about the Internet is that it likely exceeds the Sturgeon's Law expectation re: percentage that is crap. With blogging, the crap percentage probably exceeds 99% ... (b) If you're scared witless, your judgment may not be reliable. viz. 'Bowling for Columbine' and other Michael Moore work where he pontificates on the 'climate of fear' promoted by certain powerful groups. I mean, hey, how meaningful is a 'threat level' that is ALWAYS 'Elevated'? (c) 'Islam' is no more united than Christianity. viz. Iraq, where the Sunnis and Shiites are merrily blowing each other up (to the great relief of Israel, as it probably reduces the amount of ordnance available for Hamas et al.). Unless a single unified (and from our standpoint, extremist) voice emerges that ALL Muslim sects accept as the voice of a true prophet of Allah, the odds that Islamic factions will take over Europe seems small. (Of course, according to 'Resurrection Math', either such a Prophet will arise, or one won't, so it's 50 - 50 -- right?) Hell, even Heinlein hizself had a U.S. 'Christian' theocracy as a likely development in his future history timeline. Robert M. PS It occurs to me that if you replaced the terms 'terrorist' / 'Islamic' with 'Communist' in a lot of the stuff you may be reading, you'd get something very close to McCarthy-era propaganda ... Or plug in 'Jewish' and you might get early National Socialist tracts from 1930's Germany. Once you have created a boogeyman, you can use fear of that boogeyman to justify trampling on the very rights and freedoms you claim to be defending. Unfortunately, this is one of those aspects of history that people (aside from those who covet power) never seems to learn, 'cause the same trick keeps working over and over again. Thus endeth the rant.

September 30, 2005, 03:18:35 PM

What, and deprive you and Lyn of the opportunity to 'write cute'? I think the two of you should write a brief piece on the joys (and horrors) of moving in together. (I figure as long as the dog likes her, and she doesn't try to make you sell the Tri-Mag, she'll do fine; you will, however, have to get used to wearing more clothes.) Robert M.

October 03, 2005, 12:49:47 PM

... Muslims are not annoying people who knock on your door and try to convert you. You convert, my friend, or else!...

Donald

The Aztecs would probably nod and say, "That sure sounds familiar! Was that Cortez guy a Muslim?" More recently, we have the 'Christian' Nazis trying to exterminate the Jews, and kindly missionary types pretty much torturing the heathen into converting and abandoning their cultures (viz. the Australian film 'Rabbit Proof Fence', 'residential schools' for Native Canadians, etc., etc.). Muslims, of course, are still a little upset about that whole Crusades thing ... viz. the recent film 'Kingdom of Heaven' for an interesting view of what THAT was all about (wealth and power for the leadership ... which sounds a lot like Iraq). Consider how Dubya's Iraq policy looks to the Muslim world -- Dubya, having had his previous excuses evaporate, still claims that invading Iraq was worthwhile because it means that lives lost to terrorism are mainly being lost over there rather than on American soil. That American lives are being lost over there isn't terribly important to Dubya's crowd -- as Michael Moore points out, you ain't gonna find the children of any Congressman or Senator (Republican OR Democrat) Over There -- mostly you'll find kids to whom enlisting is a way up and out of grinding poverty. But that thousands of Muslim lives have been lost isn't important to Dubya AT ALL. It ain't like they're Christians, members of Skull and Bones, or anything important like that. "What would Christ do?" In this case, weep, and then ask Dad for the keys to the Apocalypse. Robert M.

Post by **doc** » October 05, 2005, 02:30:56 PM

BTW: Those methods used by the conquistadors on the Aztecs and other SA peoples worked pretty well, didn't they? Islam, though, is a bit more insidious in its methods.

In other words: "Hey, where'd all the Commies go? Dammit, what will people be afraid of now? This is a pickle. Um, hey, look! Muslims!!" Pathetic.

October 05, 2005, 11:55:17 PM

There's a wonderful bit in the movie 'Sneakers', where Robert Redford's character (a security consultant whose company specializes in testing (by trying to penetrate) the physical and electronic defenses of corporations confronts an old friend (played by Ben Kingsley) who has gone to work for the Mafia (or something like that). Redford learns that Kingsley's character got into trouble and was disgraced, preventing him from doing legitimate work that would make good use of his skills. But he still can't fathom how Kingsley's character could go to work for 'organized crime'. Kingsley laughs, shakes his head, and says "They're not that organized." Hitler managed to tap into the deeply-ingrained prejudices of the German people and their injured pride (still stinging from the defeat suffered in WWI) and got enough of them (not all, but enough) to transform themselves into a monstrous thing that could 'just follow orders' to slaughter men, women and children for the crime of following the wrong religion or being of the wrong race. Some Muslim regimes have prospered while treating their own people like dirt by blaming all their ills on The Great Satan, a.k.a. the good ol' U.S. of A. But their ain't no monolithic Muslim or 'pan-Islamic' juggernaut -- some of the bloodiest conflicts in the Middle East have been between Muslim nations whose ruling factions happen to follow different branches of Islam (viz. the Sunni vs. Shiite bloodbath taking place in Iraq). To think that any one faction could become so powerful as to dominate the barely-working-together nations of Europe is frankly ridiculous. It would be like the Protestant and Catholic factions of Northern Ireland joining forces with the Scottish Presbyterians to overrun England. And suppose one sect (say the Shiites, dominant in Iran and likely to become dominant in at least Southern Iraq) tries to foment an uprising of European Muslims. (a) Muslims of other sects are as likely to oppose them as they are to join the uprising, and (b) the secular governments of the West are capable of applying overwhelming military force. The only scenario in which Muslims of different sects WOULD band together is precisely one in which people TREAT THEM AS IF THEY ARE A SINGLE ENTITY. You know, that single-minded, insidious, fanatical Arab Peril -- All those Muslims are alike. You can't trust them. They're all terrorists who want to murder God-fearing Christians in their beds or force them at gunpoint to pray facing Mecca. My own family was the victim of that kind of thinking in WWII, when Japanese Canadians (including many born in Canada) were forcibly removed from British Columbia, their property seized and sold for pennies on the dollar, and those meager proceeds used to 'pay' for their internment in shanty-towns in the middle of nowhere. 'All Japanese are alike -- just waiting to spy on good God-fearing people of English ancestry, sabotage the defenses', ... or so the story went. Are there Muslims around the world who are willing to kill and destroy property (the latter, of course, is of greater importance to the current powers that be), even at the cost of their own lives? You betcha. Could they ever 'take over'? Not bloody likely. Robert M.

October 06, 2005, 09:40:35 AM

... You would think that Dubya would have brought the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis together in Iraq* (and admittedly, all three would like to see the U.S. and its 'Coalition' (which is what, 90% U.S. troops, 9% British, 1% all others) get the hell out). But instead, the Shiites, who were the oppressed majority under Saddam, are busy trying to become the oppressive majority, and the Sunnis and miscellaneous outsiders are busy trying to blow them up (occasionally killing some Yanks, Suth'ners, and Brits, too, but mainly killing Muslims of the 'wrong' persuasion). (*Are Kurds Muslims? If not, what is their primary religion? Jaimie?) So ... at this point, we appear to have at least two antagonistic Islamic factions. Then we have the Saudis, who seem to breed extremists, but whose government mainly seems to worship oil money, and who would likely oppose anything that might upset their cash flow. Donald, we are mainly expressing concern over your steadfast belief that The Other (followers of Islam) is out to get you, and trying to convince you that there IS no Other in the sense of a united group with a united purpose. Also viz. my story 'The Final Lesson', where the 'moral' of the story is that people are essentially the same -- some are kind, some are homicidal, most are somewhere in between -- regardless of race, creed, etc. Beware of any attempts to induce fear and hatred of outsiders -- it's usually motivated by a desire to distract you from what is being done to YOU by the fearmongers. Robert M.

October 06, 2005, 11:48:17 PM

Interesting opinion column in today's Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... Turkey talks expose European hypocrisy HAROON SIDDIQUI Vienna syndrome. That's what Bernard Lewis has said Muslims suffer from. The Princeton professor, once an admirer but now a scathing critic of Islam, attributes "Muslim rage" to an inferiority complex stemming from the Ottoman failure in the battle of Vienna in 1683. It turns out that Europeans have a Vienna syndrome of their own. It is acting up at the prospect of Turkey joining the European Union. Britain, holding the rotating presidency, barely salvaged the Turkish application Monday, with American arm-twisting in the background. While George W. Bush and Tony Blair bask in their deserved glory, the European attitude bears examination. After all, the Turkish entry is far from assured. The negotiations can be derailed any time during the next decade of negotiations, following which Turkey will need unanimous approval, including referendums in France and Austria. There are some perfectly understandable, even if not sound, reasons for opposing Turkey: its poverty (a per capita income lower than Europe's) and its huge and younger population (72 million, soon to overtake Germany's). That guarantees an influx into Europe of cheap labour and, ultimately, Muslim immigrants. The first arouses insecurity among workers, especially in the shrinking industrial sector. In fact, having more working age people would be an economic asset to Europe, given its aging demographics. But set that aside for now. The other prospect — a bigger Muslim presence in Europe — arouses fear, on two counts: terrorism and the ostensible incompatibility of Muslims with Europe, a feeling that has gained ground since last year's murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. By this logic, Britain would have spurned all Catholics when the IRA was active. But set that aside as well. Those who oppose Turkey because it is Muslim tend to also believe that Europe is Christian. Not just a majority Christian continent but Christian. Some say so openly, others euphemistically. Among them: the government of Austria (the land of Joerg Haider and Kurt Waldheim), German chancellor-presumptive Angela Merkel, Pope Benedict, former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing, French presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy, former EU commissioner Frits Bolkestein (who believes that if Turkey is let in, "the liberation of Vienna in 1683 would've been in vain"), and Manhattan-based Italian author Oriana Fallaci, whose anti-Muslim screeds are best-sellers. This is not a fringe sentiment. It runs in tandem with the belief that non-white Turks don't belong in white Europe. The Islamophobia and xenophobia combined are most pronounced in Austria, Germany and France. This leads to the argument that their governments are merely being democratic in reflecting their electorates. But what if the same electorates were anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic? Would their leaders be pandering to such prejudices? Also, how is their religion-based resistance to Turkey any different than that of hard-line Muslims who, too, think of Europe as Christian and do not want Turkey to join it precisely for that reason? So blinded are some Europeans on this issue that they don't seem to realize they are undermining their own liberal democracies. Two cardinal principles of a secular democracy are freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state. Both are violated when people confer a Christian status on their nation-states; judge the membership of the European Union on the basis of religion and question the right of Muslims to be Muslim in Europe. In doing the latter, they also weaken European demands that Turkey treat its Christian and Kurdish minorities better. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw got it right when he said that Turkey's ultimate entry into Europe "will bring a strong, secular state that happens to have a Muslim majority into the EU — proof that we can live, work and prosper together." He also did well to remind Europeans that they never cared about Turkey's religious affiliation during the Cold War when it acted as Europe's eastern anchor against the Soviet Union. Starting negotiations with Turkey to join the European Union may not be the "D-Day in the war against terrorism," as German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer once put it. But it does rob the racists, on both sides, of their need for a clash of civilizations. Mea culpa: In my Sunday column on nuclear proliferation, I said, wrongly, that Pakistan recently voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency. In fact, Pakistan was among the 12 states out of 35, which abstained. I apologize for my sloppiness. Haroon Siddiqui, the Star's editorial page editor emeritus, appears Thursday and Sunday. hsiddiq@thestar.ca.

Aphelion

'Unintelligent Design'

'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'

Re: 'Unintelligent Design'