Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes

[ScourgeO'God]

Suck on this, creationists.  

It's not the best-written thing, but this person really did their homework.

[SteveS]

Thanks for posting this Scourge, I enjoyed it.  There's an entertaining humor to some of the examples, like:

The ability of some people to wiggle their ears is, sadly, one of God's lesser-appreciated gifts to us.

This evolution debate is a big gripe of mine.  I'm a "live and let live" type - if people feel that their religious beliefs help them lead happy lives, well, that's fine with me as long as they keep the faith to themselves (don't try to convert me, my kids, our schools, our government, etc).  And, please, please, please don't try to tell me evolution is "scientific religion" or any such crap.  The evidence in favor is so very strong.

Unlike evolution which is a scientific quest for knowledge, Intelligent Design is really just a legal quest to put religion in science classes.  It's just the latest move in a legal chess battle that started back with the "Scopes Monkey Trial".

[Tom62]

I loved the spilling of seed on the ground paragraph

Hundreds of millions of tons of pollen are cast into the air every year, with only the tiniest of fractions reaching its desired destination. (Mind you, compare Genesis 38:9-10: wasting one's gametes was a serious enough sin for Onan to be killed in punishment. Yet the Good Lord is supposed to have created things which by their very nature spill so much seed on the ground?).

[Scrybe]

Intelligent Design is really just a legal quest to put religion in science classes.  It's just the latest move in a legal chess battle that started back with the "Scopes Monkey Trial".

I don't think this is true at all.  It's convenient for your side to lump literal 6-day creationists in with I.D. but they are not the same at all.  I.D. simply approaches the problem of how we got here with a different ontological philosophy that allows for more options than what science currently allows.  There may be all sorts of loonies attempting to hitch their carts to it, but don't let that turn the whole idea into a strawman for you.

[SteveS]

It's convenient for your side to lump literal 6-day creationists in with I.D.

I am not lumping 6-day biblical literalists in with I.D.  In fact, this very fact is why I made this statement.  The 6-day literalists who have been fighting evolution in science classrooms have done so because the science conflicts with what they take as truths from their religious scripture.  They said as much, which sank their cause.  The I.D. people are very careful to remove any references to God or scripture from their theory (the designer is officially unknown, never mind all the theists that support the idea).  This allows them to argue that the theory is purely scientific, setting the stage for a push to put the theory into the classroom (since previous objections to science classes teaching evolution were overturned on church/state separation grounds, and on the fact that creationism is not science, which sank the scriptural arguments).

A legal quest.  Not a scientific one, because the "theory" of I.D. is not really a scientific theory at all.  More like a hypothesis.  Also, some of the popular proponents are disturbingly biased and their motivations appear highly questionable.

[Scrybe]

...  meh... Alright.

[Zud12]

Not bad, not bad at all

However, the author forgot one: FRANCE  

[Will]

Intelligent Design is really just a legal quest to put religion in science classes.  It's just the latest move in a legal chess battle that started back with the "Scopes Monkey Trial".

I don't think this is true at all.  It's convenient for your side to lump literal 6-day creationists in with I.D. but they are not the same at all.  I.D. simply approaches the problem of how we got here with a different ontological philosophy that allows for more options than what science currently allows.  There may be all sorts of loonies attempting to hitch their carts to it, but don't let that turn the whole idea into a strawman for you.

I'm afraid you've confused your side with the unfortunate middle ground of ID. You, I'm guessing, are a follower of God (I capitalize that out of respect to you). That would suggest a belief in the book of Genesis. That would make you one of a few categories: biblical evolutionist, who believe that evolution is explained in broad strokes in Genesis and that God is responsible for evolution; non 7 day creationist, who believes in the literal words of Genesis, except for the span of time described as "days"; or a literalist creationist, who believes that the world was created in 1 week. ID, is something less precise entirely. The theory, using the term VERY generously, of ID puts fourth is that something or someone created the universe. A biblical evolutionist could not be included in ID, and both the non7 day and literal creationist are a type of ID theory, but not necessarily. Where as the creationist gathers proof from their faith in the Bible, the ID scientist gathers evidence from around them, trying to qualify the Bible with a tool never intended to qualify biblical faith.

One can respect a creationist as they clearly understand and have chosen their source of information and can stick to it. One can respect a Darwinist as they clearly understand and have chosen their source of information and can stick to it. When one falls into the middle ground, trying to quantify religion with science (and ID is a very clumsy way of doing so), they have made a simple, yet profound mistake.

I can respect a Darwinist. I can respect a creationist. I cannot respect someone who puts fourth the theory of ID. ID is a melancholy mess, a jumble of inequitable numbers that can only lead to further confusion. ID is an awkward doppleganger of it's parts and cannot make a whole, and in that it loses all value.

[Scrybe]

I suppose I'll have to find a way to live without your respect.  I don't agree with your categories here.  I think we are all choosing our sources of authority.  

-For Bible-based researchers they place a faith in the accuracy of "the" bible above physical evidence.  They choose an ancient manuscript as their primary authority.  

-For the I.D. researcher they place their faith in their ability to interpret physical evidence.  Their conclusions lead them to believe that a design was necessary.  

-For the naturalist researcher they place their faith in their ability to interpret physical evidence.  Their conclusions lead them to believe that a design was not necessary.

I love your prolix-riddled caricature of I.D. and would enjoy more whimsical descriptions from you.  But I think you misapplied your skill on this subject.  

Oh and to be clear, I am a believer in God.  Though I'm hopelessly heterodox.  I think the book of Genesis is a collection of myths that the Jewish people had passed down from time immemorial.  And you don't need to capitalize God to avoid offending me.  Science has proven that I'm 99.98% impervious to offence.  Thanks for the thought though!

[pjkeeley]

I thought the reason we capitalise "God" is because it's a proper noun? If we were talking about a god or gods as concepts then we should refer to them in the lowercase. Eg. "The Greek gods" or "the god of Abraham". But if we talk about there being a character whose name is God, we need to capitalise, because it's a name. Eg. "I pray to God", "God loves you", etc.

Not sure if this is correct. In any case I downright refuse to capitalise "he" or "him" or "his" when referring to a deity, that part makes no sense!

[joeactor]

It is my firm belief that the entirety of creation is destroyed and created anew every 27 seconds.  God creates the world, each and every time, with a history already in place, and each of us with all of our memories up to this point.

Since none of this relies on anything that is remotely testable, I cannot be proven wrong.

So.  There.

Seriously Yours,
JoeActor

[McQ]

It is my firm belief that the entirety of creation is destroyed and created anew every 27 seconds.  God creates the world, each and every time, with a history already in place, and each of us with all of our memories up to this point.

Since none of this relies on anything that is remotely testable, I cannot be proven wrong.

So.  There.

Seriously Yours,
JoeActor

Yeah, but.......


Shit, I thought I had you cornered for a second. Damn your logic!

 

[tacoma_kyle]

Not sure if this is correct. In any case I downright refuse to capitalise "he" or "him" or "his" when referring to a deity, that part makes no sense!

Word .

Yeah I never got that either and never have capitolized it. I had a philosophy essay I was parenoid about capitolization of god because I might get docked for 'grammer' or some shit. I need to fine that... Couldnt find it. I was fretting with myself about it I remember that haha.

[Naked4Jesus]

Suck on this, creationists.  

It's not the best-written thing, but this person really did their homework.

Very interesting read.   I've got to tell you brother I figured you were going to post an article on Rosie O' Donell.  I had my popcorn popped and ready.  It's cool though since it was an interesting read.  God bless you. Oh and by the way did you hear this one before?

A woman was at the beach with her children when her four-year-old son ran up to her, grabbed her hand, and led her to the shore, where a sea gull lay dead in the sand.

"Mommy, what happened to him?" the son asked.
"He died and went to heaven," the mother replied.
Her son thought a moment and then said, "And God threw him back down?"