My comments are below the dashed line.
Matteo
06/11/2011
9:48 pm
Myers: “Well, for one thing, they’re dishonest. They’re grossly dishonest about this stuff. That’s not really where they’re coming from. When they say this stuff, they say, “Oh, we’re taking an objective view. We’re taking a secular view of the universe in saying that there’s a designer behind it.” They’re misleading you. That’s not where they come from. Where they come from is typically a very religious background. What intelligent design is, is taking their religious beliefs, sanitizing them of any mention of God, and presenting them in this cleaned up format. The sole premise, the sole impetus for doing this stuff is their belief in God."
And it takes exactly one counterexample to disconfirm this quaint theory. My case will serve just fine. In 1996 I was a devout Catholic who took a Teilhardian view of Darwinian evolution as the true story of how we came to be (in particular as an example of the minimum possible grace acting in a completely fallen universe in order to still permit our existence). I was completely happy with this outlook until I started reading Behe, Johnson, and Denton, at which point for scientific, not religious reasons, I could only conclude that Darwinism was insanely, flagrantly incorrect.
So much, then, for Myers’ quaint theory.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So matteo, you believed "Darwinian evolution" was true because of your "Teilhardian view" of it, which has something to do with "grace acting in a completely fallen universe" according to you. And then you read some books by fanatically religious IDiots who believe in insanely flagrant (or flagrantly insane) fairy tales like you do, and you call your change of mind "scientific". Well, it's nice to know that you're so well versed in science and evolutionary theory and that you really looked at the evidence before immersing yourself even further into the bottomless pit of religious delusions.
The only thing you've disconfirmed is that you have a clue.
Matteo
06/11/2011
9:48 pm
Myers: “Well, for one thing, they’re dishonest. They’re grossly dishonest about this stuff. That’s not really where they’re coming from. When they say this stuff, they say, “Oh, we’re taking an objective view. We’re taking a secular view of the universe in saying that there’s a designer behind it.” They’re misleading you. That’s not where they come from. Where they come from is typically a very religious background. What intelligent design is, is taking their religious beliefs, sanitizing them of any mention of God, and presenting them in this cleaned up format. The sole premise, the sole impetus for doing this stuff is their belief in God."
And it takes exactly one counterexample to disconfirm this quaint theory. My case will serve just fine. In 1996 I was a devout Catholic who took a Teilhardian view of Darwinian evolution as the true story of how we came to be (in particular as an example of the minimum possible grace acting in a completely fallen universe in order to still permit our existence). I was completely happy with this outlook until I started reading Behe, Johnson, and Denton, at which point for scientific, not religious reasons, I could only conclude that Darwinism was insanely, flagrantly incorrect.
So much, then, for Myers’ quaint theory.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So matteo, you believed "Darwinian evolution" was true because of your "Teilhardian view" of it, which has something to do with "grace acting in a completely fallen universe" according to you. And then you read some books by fanatically religious IDiots who believe in insanely flagrant (or flagrantly insane) fairy tales like you do, and you call your change of mind "scientific". Well, it's nice to know that you're so well versed in science and evolutionary theory and that you really looked at the evidence before immersing yourself even further into the bottomless pit of religious delusions.
The only thing you've disconfirmed is that you have a clue.
