Home » Intelligent Design » O’Leary responds to a friend’s note re Larry Moran’s “flunk all ID-friendly students” proposal

O’Leary responds to a friend’s note re Larry Moran’s “flunk all ID-friendly students” proposal

You wrote:

“‘flunk all the IDiots and make room for smart students’ … is clear-cut viewpoint discrimination.”

It’s more than that. The Darwinists know as well as anyone else how little good evidence exists for their current position* – which is much more far-reaching than Darwin’s original position, as their current position posits that the mind, the will, the cosmos, origin of life, you name it, is supposedly governed by Darwinian mechanisms.

They are way overstretched, and my gut tells me that they do not expect to be rescued any time soon.

How to make students swallow it all without protest? The simplest and surest way is to get rid of those who are not going to swallow it. It is from those students that most future ID researchers will be drawn.

By the way, you ID guys’ chief opposition is NOT the high materialist cult. It is the pop cult of the shopping mall.

(BTW, the mall is about consumerism, NOT capitalism; the disbursement of capital, not its accumulation and use.)

I cannot stress properly how important a foe I think the pop cult is. The university is funded by tax money. It couldn’t promote high materialism effectively, unhindered, EXCEPT insofar as pop materialism is the ruling culture.

Almost the only people you can depend on to back you in a pinch are the homeschooler types, NOT because they are fundamentalists but because they have made a big anti-materialist commitment already.**

Oh yeah, and a handful of teachers, truckers, and journalists whose careers have been wrecked because they wouldn’t shut up, maybe – plus a few artists and philosophers and others who think that life is more than pampering the body.

One quick story to explain my case – and then I must run (I do not make a living following the ID controversy): In 1988, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down all laws against abortion, at any age of the baby. Brian Stiller (Mr. Evangelical Canada) organized an emergency speaking tour of evangelical churches – and it was a bust. Assemblies were poorly attended because people were shopping or watching hockey.

The pastors just shrugged. What can you do? People make choices. They are busy. Gay marriage came, and the few who protested were isolated indeed.

One journalist I know was reduced from dozens of papers running his political column to only two who still dared. But through it all, the people who claimed to oppose abortion and gay marriage were at the mall or watching TV.

If you asked their opinion, they would say they were “opposed” but their life patterns, giving patterns, and voting patterns would not support that.

Are Canadians unusually cowardly? Possibly, but based on events in Europe, I think it more likely that we are merely a decade ahead of the US on this curve.

So I agree with you. The uglies who bossed other students around on the campuses of the Sixties are indeed in power now, and age has not mellowed or sweetened them. But that isn’t the problem. The problem is that there is no rising revolution against them, only isolated protest. So Larry Moran could well begin to carry out his threat – and what would be the response? A column by Mike Adams? By Charles Colson? By Jim Dobson?

Bunny, it will take far, far more than that before Moran’s type knows that he is not above the law, justice, or reason.

cheers, Denyse
(*Please, don’t write to tell me that speciation takes a long time. I am sure that is true, … but so? The fact that evidence is difficult to come by is a legitimate excuse, but it is not evidence, and we must ask how long we can reasonably be expected to wait, given that there are alternatives.
**I know a lesbian author/journalist who adopted an abandoned child who backs YOU ID guys, not the Darwinoids. Are you surprised? Remember, it’s not the fundamentalism***, it’s the anti-materialism that is the key. That will be very important to keep in mind as you increasingly move into international waters. – d.)

[P.S.: I did not put what follows in my letter to my friend because I just thought of it now: *** I bet that somewhere in the United States there is a fundamentalist shopping mall, where you can suffocate in Jesus kitsch. In my view, the fundamentalist would be safer and better off at home, reading library books on political theory and philosophy of government. - d. ]

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

22 Responses to O’Leary responds to a friend’s note re Larry Moran’s “flunk all ID-friendly students” proposal

  1. Denyse,

    No doubt there are all sorts of socio-political causes for this situation that can be discussed till the cows come home. But I think you hit it on the head — those who might oppose “evil” in their midst are distracted with everyday concerns of increasing their paycheck, that, once increased, must be spent post haste.

    Yes, but why?? You know that ole’ regression of causes in the physical world, well it applies here as well. Why the materialism?

    Perhaps it is because Christianity has been turned into “make a quick decision for Christ in 4th grade church camp, and then live any way you feel like it, ’cause you have assurance!”. My friend who is learning Hebrew, etc talks about the path of righteousness. Most of us don’t even know such a path exists.

    To illustrate the point, my regular checkout lady at the grocery store was raised a Buddhist in Malaysia(?), and married and converted to Islam. We have fascinating discussions. So, on Halloween morning I am checking out, with lots of candy, and she asks whether we do the Halloween thing. I say yes, and she explains that in Islam that is dealing with evil spirits, and therefore they have nothing to do with it. Now, the rambling point I am trying to make is not whether Halloween is a wonderful holiday, but it made me think — other religions and belief systems, believe it or not, actually take their beliefs seriously!! Not so for most Christians. They really do believe in tolerance and diversity, and treat their professed standards and principles as a joke, sort of a nice-to-have set of ideals to pay lip service to and feel warm and fuzzy.

    In the meantime, the peddlers of tolerance and diversity are having the last laugh, as they practice extreme intolerance and lack of diversity toward other belief systems, e.g., ID, and hardly anyone notices!!

  2. I am not a Christian, but most of my friends are. I couldn’t agree more with this post. Most of my friends love God and they also love things. There is a deep and abiding pursuit and love of God in them. There is also a deep and abiding pursuit of the things of the good life. They love money and the things that it will buy. It is a deadly passion. They live in two worlds. God’s on Sunday. The god of consumerism the rest of the week and perhaps Sunday afternnoon. I am not their judge, but I can observe.

    Christian theology is clear. Access to the victorious power is God is available to those who are totally dedicated to His puposes ,which are spiritual not material. Adding in the love of things will blunt and render ineffective the work of the Christian soldier. You can’t have it both ways. That is why I know that the present interest in the culture wars in the Christian community will fail. The church is just not fielding enough true warriors. It’s a shame.

  3. A person named Oleg Tschernyshyov has permitted me to post this comment that was sent to me privately, re speciation. Perhaps some may care to comment further. – Denyse.
    P.S.: Speciation events have been observed, sure, but so have two-headed babies. The occasional observation of a speciation event does not, in my view, nearly support the weight of Darwin’s theory as it is used today. – d.

    Denyse,

    You should lay off the speciation rant. Speciation events have been observed and described in the literature, both in plants and animals.

    Lists with cited literature: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....ation.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

    A new species of mosquitoes in London’s underground. Here is the original article via PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en.....t=Abstract

  4. P.S.: Speciation events have been observed, sure, but so have two-headed babies. The occasional observation of a speciation event does not, in my view, nearly support the weight of Darwin’s theory as it is used today. – d.

    You are absolutely correct, the observation of a few speciation events does not support the weight of Darwin’s theory. It merely refutes the claim that no speciation events have been observed, just like the observation of a two-headed baby refutes the statement that there are no two-headed babies.

  5. Here is my response to Larry’s proposal:

    Do NOT blame students for the utter failure of evolutionitwits to substantiate their grand claims.

  6. Speciation, even with its ambiguity, isn’t being debated. Even YECs accept speciation events. I don’t even know if we could count the number of such events since the time of The Flood (in the YEC scenario).

    Heck according to the commonly accepted definition of macroevolution YECs don’t even debate that- which is one reason why that definition is totally useless and needs to be revised.

    However speciation events do NOT explain the origin of the original parent population(s).

  7. Ekstasis, you wrote:

    “Perhaps it is because Christianity has been turned into “make a quick decision for Christ in 4th grade church camp, and then live any way you feel like it, ’cause you have assurance!”. My friend who is learning Hebrew, etc talks about the path of righteousness. Most of us don’t even know such a path exists. ”

    This is a true observation. When the essence of a religion becomes forgiveness which can’t be lost (once saved, always saved), there is little impetus toward growth in righteousness. This is evangelical Christianity. The true faith of Jesus demands uncompromising pursuit of righteousness in the power of God. It’s personal growth in goodness of the most radical kind. And his adherents are going to be judged on that basis. Did you take the call to righteousness seriously and did your life demonstrate it? As to American Christianity’s brand of easy going, mediocre pursuit of goodness, all I can say is, good luck!!

  8. “I bet that somewhere in the United States there is a fundamentalist shopping mall, where you can suffocate in Jesus kitsch”

    It’s called Mardel. They have decent, useful stuff, too, but I am always amazed at the crap that is for sale. Makes me shudder.

  9. bj,

    Thanks. Come to think of it, one of the best way to prove Darwinian evolution is not true is to violate its tenets in a big way over an extended time period, and then laugh that anyone could have ever believed it anyway. How do we do this? Live the radical anti-materialist, denial of self, spiritual life.

    Oh yes, we all know the contrived evolutionary psychology explanations for things such as altruism. Wonderfully creative hypotheses, they are, how the selfish gene was overcome in order that the tribe might survive, and that millions of people spend entire nights in prayer as a result of some natural adaptation to enhance allegiance to the tribe, etc. And no doubt there are some who convince themselves of such things. But deep down inside, I suspect, we all know better.

  10. Ekstasis,

    Again, what you write is so true. The key word in your comments is “radical.” I respect the Christian faith for all it accomplishes in people’s lives, but like Ghandi I am still waiting to see the fulfillment of it’s promise in the radical way you suggest. What people don’t seem to realize is that this need to see such radical transformation is a proof of it’s truthfulness. Moreover, it’s not good enough to see such transformation in a few individuals who become special saints historically. The promise is for whole communities to experience and model this kind of transformation.

  11. Ekstasis: “In the meantime, the peddlers of tolerance and diversity are having the last laugh, as they practice extreme intolerance and lack of diversity toward other belief systems, e.g., ID, and hardly anyone notices!!”

    Astute observation. Cuts right to the heart of the well-practiced sophistry and slick deception the high priests of diversity have been using for decades, and with great success, on a slumbering public. Your comment brings to mind the following (paraphrased) statement by one culture warrior whose name unfortunately escapes me right now:

    “Isn’t it curious that those who claim to celebrate and champion diversity are trying to destroy diversity where it is most obvious – in the male/female gender identity?”

    As for American Christianity’s “brand of easy going, mediocre pursuit of goodness,” blame Bible illiteracy. Only a relatively small minority of those who claim to be Christian actually read and study the Bible, and make it the guiding authority of their personal life.

  12. [You should lay off the speciation rant. Speciation events have been observed and described in the literature, both in plants and animals. - Oleg]

    Is it really speciation when two creatures can be fertile, but do not choose to mate?

    Is polyploidy really what Darwinists have in mind as the mechanism for speciation?

    What is the real Darwinian speciation event that everyone is citing?

  13. I’m having a bit of a problem with this. Why were the examples chosen abortion & gay marriage? Why the later sneering at “peddlers of tolerance and diversity”? For us Europeans these issues don’t come as a “cultural” package – I for example am gay, my flatmate has had an abortion. I would be disgusted to feel part of any movement that held exteme political views on these subjects. What has any of that got to do with theory-evaluation regarding Biology? I get the feeling we are “not welcome” in ID circles – is this wrong? Would it not be preferable to stick to scientific evidence, rather than suddenly make reference to “faith-based” positions like anti-homosexuality/abortion?

  14. re Speciation

    Emergence of reproductive incompatibility happens and has arguably been directly observed.

    Emergence of architectural novelty in cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans has not been directly observed in historical times and not even indirectly observed in the more recent fossil record.

  15. littlejon, as an ID advocate, I’d welcome you. People are people and sometimes infuse their views on one subject withe their views on another. Everyone does it, so sometimes you’ll notice political (conservative) rants on here, cultural rants, and even religious rants. I chalk it up to human nature and try to ignore it.

    In the past I have also tried to remind people (ID advocates on here) to confuse ID with a right-wing Christian world view. To do such a thing combines politics and religion with science; I’d rather keep ID strictly about the science.

  16. to NOT confuse*

  17. LittleJon,

    This is just my PoV as to why I am against homosexuality:

    Many people that I know who are “gay” are very beautiful and intelligent people. It disturbs me that they will not reproduce and pass on those traits all the time some very sick (evil) people are passing on their traits.

    As for abortion I think people should choose BEFORE having sex. Once conception is realized I am of the crowd that says a child it is and abortion is then, well never-mind. But I would NOT reject anyone who has had one…

  18. Read more carefully, some of you!

    The question is not whether YOU think abortion or gay marriage are a problem. Canadians who did think them a problem did nothing concrete because they were too busy with the materialist consumer lifestyle.

    The same sort of people will kvetch mightily if their children are unfairly denied higher education but do NOTHING concrete or systematic about it – for the same reason. Their sort of materialism is far more widespread in North America than is the academic kind.

    For the record, I am prolife and anti gay marriage, but do not see either question as directly relevant to the ID controversy. I am here concerned with the question of whether people who say they believe something will do anything about it.

  19. Denise,

    Fortunately I do not share that “problem”. And I “pity the fool” that even tries to mess with my family’s attempt at higher education or anything that is within our rights. But I think I was born for confrontation. That is most likely why I volunteered to go to places like Iraq and Colombia…

  20. I am a homeschooling mother of 4 who has read this blog daily for over a year now. Great post, Denyse. We are teaching our children to think for themselves, and as a former rebel myself, to always question authority. Given the birthrate amongst us “breeders” perhaps the answer is in the next generation.

  21. Oops, my apologies Denyse…

  22. littlejon,

    I promise you I was not sneering when referring to the “peddlers of tolerance and diversity”. I was trying to make a point regarding the modus operandi of many of those who oppose ID.

    When it comes to the ID / Darwinian evolution conflict, culture, politics, and religion play unavoidably crucial roles in the sense that the beliefs of the public are driven by these factors. Why? Because practically no one out there on the streets can tell you what speciation is, or the other thousands of scientific concepts and bits of empirical data we are all passionately fighting about. Nope, not even over a pint do they concern themselves with the scientific realities.

    Having said that, I like what Atom said: “Everyone does it, so sometimes you’ll notice political (conservative) rants on here, cultural rants, and even religious rants. I chalk it up to human nature and try to ignore it.”

    Yep, that old human nature is to blame. I am sure that Darwinian evolution has a perfectly reasonable explanation. Hmmm. Like, we rant because we attract fellow ranters of the opposite, or same, sex. Or, we out-rant our competitors to the point where they leave the field, and we remain triumphant and in control of some sort of harem, sort of like the male bull seals on the polar ice cap. Or, ranting makes us feel better about ourselves, giving us the extra zing to propel our genes to the next generation. Or, ranting builds up the gusto level we need for the hunt or battle with the neighboring tribe.

    It is all so very plausible, don’t you thing?

Leave a Reply