Post by pim on Apr 3, 2013 10:03:54 GMT 10
So-called "intelligent design" is only an issue in certain quarters in the US. I spent a whole working life in the Australian education sector and I don't recall it ever being a curriculum issue within Australian schools.
Have you ever seen that Star Trek movie in which Capt Kirk is put on trial by the Klingons? The movie is (very loosely, may I add!) supposed to be some sort of metaphor for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Anyhow Kirk is sentenced to be worked to death in Klingon mining colonies and, as a prisoner serving his sentence, he finds himself picked on by the local prison bully and has to fight him/it. He's not doing very well and the bully - some non-human creature - is thrashing the shit out of him until Kirk, in desperation, kicks the creature in the knee whereupon the creature doubles up and emits a howl of agony. It seems that its genitals are located in its kneecap!
And why not! What is so "intelligent" about our genitalia being located between our legs? Why shouldn't our fingers double up as penises?
Isn't there a species of frog in Australia that gives birth by vomiting up its young? Why is that less or more "intelligent" than reptiles whose young are hatched within eggs that have been laid by the female? At least in that scenario you get reptilian species that take turns sitting on the eggs so it's a non-gender-specific sharing of child care which is oh-so-PC. But we're told by the Bible that human way of giving birth is as a punishment for being naughty and having an attitude in the Garden of Eden: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children". Not just humans but all mammals share this punishment although the Bible is silent on what pigs or horses or lemurs or sloths have done, as mammals, to share Eve's punishment that all human females have inherited.
It all comes back to the notion of a "creator God" which, faced with the overwhelming evidence of science, retreats to positions such as "God of the Gaps" - in other words "God" takes over where science leaves off. Problem with that is that the frontiers of scientific knowledge aren't fixed or static, as Earl Grey's OP demonstrates, so the "gaps" keep changing. The other fallback position is "God of the Starter Button", so presumably "God" lit the fuse that set off the Big Bang.
This is crap theology and I don't buy it. I listened to the exchanges in last Monday night's Q & A on ABC television. It was marginally interesting. I thought the Catholic bishop tried his valiant best but he was batting on a sticky wicket. I gloss over the child abuse stuff and focus on his "God of the Starter Button" stuff. Similarly with the Muslim. He was OK andI gloss over the "jihad" stuff and focus on his "creator God" stuff. According to this imam, the Koran is OK about evolutionary change within a species but rejects the notion that one species can evolve into another. He offered zero scientific evidence to support this contention. He just pointed to the Koran. The audience was, predictably, underwhelmed. I didn't like the token "atheist" and viewed him as a clown. The Buddhist chattered so fast I often couldn't make out what she was saying which is a shame because of all the cosmic outlooks I find the Buddhists have something worth listening to. There was also a token Jew who said that the Jewish faith describes God as "unknowable" and I agree with that. In fact I think it should be the starting point of any serious discussion about the "God" thing.
Have you ever seen that Star Trek movie in which Capt Kirk is put on trial by the Klingons? The movie is (very loosely, may I add!) supposed to be some sort of metaphor for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Anyhow Kirk is sentenced to be worked to death in Klingon mining colonies and, as a prisoner serving his sentence, he finds himself picked on by the local prison bully and has to fight him/it. He's not doing very well and the bully - some non-human creature - is thrashing the shit out of him until Kirk, in desperation, kicks the creature in the knee whereupon the creature doubles up and emits a howl of agony. It seems that its genitals are located in its kneecap!
And why not! What is so "intelligent" about our genitalia being located between our legs? Why shouldn't our fingers double up as penises?
Isn't there a species of frog in Australia that gives birth by vomiting up its young? Why is that less or more "intelligent" than reptiles whose young are hatched within eggs that have been laid by the female? At least in that scenario you get reptilian species that take turns sitting on the eggs so it's a non-gender-specific sharing of child care which is oh-so-PC. But we're told by the Bible that human way of giving birth is as a punishment for being naughty and having an attitude in the Garden of Eden: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children". Not just humans but all mammals share this punishment although the Bible is silent on what pigs or horses or lemurs or sloths have done, as mammals, to share Eve's punishment that all human females have inherited.
It all comes back to the notion of a "creator God" which, faced with the overwhelming evidence of science, retreats to positions such as "God of the Gaps" - in other words "God" takes over where science leaves off. Problem with that is that the frontiers of scientific knowledge aren't fixed or static, as Earl Grey's OP demonstrates, so the "gaps" keep changing. The other fallback position is "God of the Starter Button", so presumably "God" lit the fuse that set off the Big Bang.
This is crap theology and I don't buy it. I listened to the exchanges in last Monday night's Q & A on ABC television. It was marginally interesting. I thought the Catholic bishop tried his valiant best but he was batting on a sticky wicket. I gloss over the child abuse stuff and focus on his "God of the Starter Button" stuff. Similarly with the Muslim. He was OK andI gloss over the "jihad" stuff and focus on his "creator God" stuff. According to this imam, the Koran is OK about evolutionary change within a species but rejects the notion that one species can evolve into another. He offered zero scientific evidence to support this contention. He just pointed to the Koran. The audience was, predictably, underwhelmed. I didn't like the token "atheist" and viewed him as a clown. The Buddhist chattered so fast I often couldn't make out what she was saying which is a shame because of all the cosmic outlooks I find the Buddhists have something worth listening to. There was also a token Jew who said that the Jewish faith describes God as "unknowable" and I agree with that. In fact I think it should be the starting point of any serious discussion about the "God" thing.
