Re:

Glenn -

The "poor me" rhetoric doesn't work very well for you, even when it's tongue in check, because we all know quite well that you're not the village idiot. It's your obvious intelligence and knowledge of a wide range of data in different fields that make it so surprising when you do come up with a really goofy claim and then defend it to the death.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: glennmorton@entouch.net
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 6:25 PM

  George wrote:
>>>>
  Glenn, you've fallen for the elementary ambiguity about the meaning of "intelligent design" that the IDers always like to exploit. Belief that God has "intelligently designed" the universe does NOT require a belief that "intelligent design" must be an explicit part of scientific theories. The very fact that they (when pushed) have to admit that there are "intelligently designed" systems that don't have the designers "fingerprints all over" demonstrates that sufficiently.

  It is embarassing that you can say sarcastically that Michael (& presumably other ASA members) believe that God "couldn't possibly have been involved in creation," as if rejection of ID in the 2d sense were a denial of belief in creation. I expect that kind of ignorance from Ms. O'Leary after reading her book but not from you. <<<<
  I had no more than hit send on a message to a friend telling him that on the ASA side, I am viewed as the village idiot when I saw your kind note. It kinda demonstrates my point.

  It also demonstrates that there is very little concern here for actually having design. Lots of 'we beleive in design' statements from everyone, but to use a Wittgensteinian approach, it is not much different than saying "I believe in aliens"

  Slobbering, and drooling, I must now limp back to my job as an envelope wetter--the only job the poor village idiot can hold down.
Received on Sun May 22 18:46:22 2005