Home » Intelligent Design » ID vs. evolution debate enters beer market

ID vs. evolution debate enters beer market

Is this a kind of Darwinalia, or should I say, Darwin Ale Ia?

Evolution Amber Ale

(Hat Tip: David Coppedge, Creation Safaris)

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

4 Responses to ID vs. evolution debate enters beer market

  1. I named one of my homebrews “Irreducibly Complex Oatmeal Stout.” I can only say that I hope this trend continues.

  2. Maybe someone should ask Schirf if the ale was designed by an intelligence or did it evolve by leaving it in the vats for a few years. There is also an opportunity for a line extension, ID labeled beer. Then the public could take its pick.

  3. It occurred to me as I read the comments of the brewmaster, the comments about how concerned he was about the separation of church and state, that this attitude of apparently deep concern is either a totally false pretended position, or a reflection of how very distant we really are from the dangers of a theocracy. On the one hand, people like him may just use the “we cannot blur the line between church and state!” platitudes quite cynically, knowing how silly it is, but employing the language to sound deeply concerned and thoughtful. On the other hand, if it is a sincerely held fear, namely that the mention of the concept of ID in schools truly violates the establishment clause, then this is so ludicrous that it hardly bears responding to. I read an article in Slate magazine this morning, a dear Prudence letter, actually, in which the writer was complaining about how difficult it is to have to listen to her rich friends moan and whine about how burdened they are by such things as three-week Italian vacations (too boring). This reminds me, in an essential way, of how annoying it is to listen to people moan and whine about how frightening it is to contemplate the threat posed by ID to the separation of church and state. They are the same kind of whine, in a way. In both cases you have people so completely glutted by what they have (riches:religious freedom) that they have completely lost any sense of perspective about what a more reasonable definition of suffering is. Three weeks in Italy, and the mention of the notion that nature might give objective evidence of being designed can only seem like suffering/persecution to the most objectionably spoiled human beings in recorded history. Have they no shame? And this is of course completely independent of the fact that ID is not a religion and for objective reasons presents no threat to the establishment clause.

    I have actually had discussions with people who oppose ID for this same reason, and I have asked them to paint a picture of the slippery slope they envision. Never is there ever a single cogent picture emerging from these discussions of any kind of harm which could be seriously considered. It is truly bizarre. it must be a cynical argument.

Leave a Reply