Home » Intelligent Design » Hard left atheist/agnostic espousing ID

Hard left atheist/agnostic espousing ID

Although it may be morally offensive to consider that we may be some ET High School science project gone awry, it would explain a lot. . . . So count us among those who hold that the idea of “intelligent design” should be included in the scholastic curriculum — but without any prejudicial mention of who or what that intelligence might be. MORE

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

13 Responses to Hard left atheist/agnostic espousing ID

  1. This is a very enlightening read.
    It seems that the liberal pseudo intellectuals can grasp the idea afterall.

    “”"”It is not hard for us to imagine some far more ancient and advanced, but decidedly mortal, intelligent life in some other part of the universe seeded the galaxy with comets containing the basic building blocks of life, “”"”

    It’s good to see that the science is convincing people of the appearance of design.
    Funny how the “aliens created us” scenario is not hard to imagine as long as they are decidely mortal.
    But design is design, right?
    As long as its wrapped in ETs and sasquatches to make it palatable it just might be worth of mention as an alternative.

  2. “Why would a superior species even care about our benighted backwater of a planet? Maybe they were lonely, and seeded the stars so that they would have somebody to talk to in a few hundred million years.”

    This is nothing short of incoherence.

    And, far from ascribing a creative function to this alien species, the author merely asserts that ‘they’ seeded the galaxy. There is no supposition that they designed the seeds. Is this implicit? No more than a theory that we created the corn that we sow.

    Even aliens leave open the possibility, indeed the probability, of a first cause. There’s just no escaping it without sounding looney.

  3. Aliens 4: The Interplanetary Seed Theory

    Wouldn’t “Magic Space Seed” be a great name for a rock band?…

  4. “Why would a superior species even care about our benighted backwater of a planet? Maybe they were lonely, and seeded the stars so that they would have somebody to talk to in a few hundred million years.”

    I’ve recently come to the conclusion that those who espouse a materialist philosophy, which is usually atheistic/agnostic in nature, in their attempts to dethrone man from any archaic sense of “significance” end up making *him* the very center of reality itself.

    As outlined here:
    http://dualisticdissension.blo.....ndset.html

  5. Skeptical D:

    I wonder, too, by whose authority our planet is a backwater. The presumptive aliens? The superior seed senders? While ostensibly mortal, they apparently live for a few hundred million years.

    In loneliness.

    Hubris is the apt term.

    Enjoyed your link.

  6. I wonder, too, by whose authority our planet is a backwater. The presumptive aliens?

    Well, he’s assuming the existence of aliens who were advanced enough to be able to build and shoot off millions (billions? More?) comets into space. I’d say that’s pretty impressive stuff. :-)

    The superior seed senders? While ostensibly mortal, they apparently live for a few hundred million years.

    In loneliness.

    Hubris is the apt term.

    Ironically, God is said to have already lived for an infinite length of time in the past, and will continue on living for an infinite length of time in the future. Also in loneliness.

    This is why He wanted to create us – to have someone else around to worship Him. And He was so successful in creating us that Lucifer, one of his greatest angels, got jealous. Of us! Doesn’t that make you so proud? Heck, a well-known creationist scientist has even proclaimed that “new evidence has surfaced that restores man to a central place in God’s universe.”

    I’m sorry for bringing in a quote by a YEC to this venue. I’m just trying to show that anyone – on either side of the materialism vs. supernaturalism debate – can fall into the trap of hubris that you decry.

    Heck. Isn’t part of the motivation for all of us to understand “why we’re here” in the first place? Personally my sense that I have a purpose in life does not stand or fall on whether or not I think someone else created me expressly for that purpose. I’m here, life is a wonderful windfall, and over the years I’ve discovered things I want to accomplish in my life. As long as I pursue my goals in the context of honesty & non-initiation of force, I have nothing to apologize for. So any success I have had in pursuit of my personal life goals has brought me non-contradictory joy.

    To clarify a little: If it turned out that I owed my existence to a purposeful act of design by a Designer who did in fact have a purpose in mind for me, that would be good to know. But my belief that there is no evidence for such a Designer nor external purpose doesn’t bother me in the least. Why should it?

  7. It shouldn’t.
    Enjoy!

  8. Avenger:

    Let me see if I get the gist of your response. YEC’s are loonies, too. And you don’t care. And why should you.

    Thank you for that.

    YEC vs. a superior species of alien seed spreaders. Somehow, I’m compelled to take a middle ground.

    Though I remain amazed at how quickly people who comment here jump to conclusions about others.

  9. Hubris as a universal. Why didn’t I think of that?

  10. Though I remain amazed at how quickly people who comment here jump to conclusions about others.

    Nostrowski, what are you referring to here?

  11. EmmaPeel:

    1) What made you think I wasn’t aware of the general implausibility of YEC claims?

    2) Why are YEC claims germane to my comments to Skeptical Dualist?

    3) Can you answer either of the first two questions in a manner that would dissuade an objective observer that you weren’t jumping to conclusions about my worldview?

    If yes, I apologize. If no, then it seems obvious to me that you were presuming whatever was necessary of me for an opportunity to espouse your own (unsolicited) worldview.

    Finally, I don’t recall suggesting that no evidence for such a Designer nor external purpose SHOULD bother you, so I’m stuck as to why you would ask if it should. Or was I merely a vehicle to make this public pronouncement as well?

    Again, I humbly apologize if I’m wrong, but in light of the evidence, I do not think that I am.

  12. EmmaPeal:

    Please excuse my typos. Make that persuade

    Thanks.

  13. EmmaPeel writes:

    “As long as I pursue my goals in the context of honesty & non-initiation of force, I have nothing to apologize for.”

    Who would you apologize to and why would you need to apologize should you choose dishonesty and initiation of force within the confines of man-made laws?

Leave a Reply