Thought for the Day
| January 29, 2008 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
From Nietzsche’s The Gay Science:
Thus the question “Why science?” leads back to the moral problem: Why have morality at all when life, nature, and history are “not moral”? No doubt, those who are truthful in that audacious and ultimate sense that is presupposed by the faith in science thus affirm another world than the world of life, nature, and history; and insofar as they affirm this “other world”—look, must they not by that same token negate its counterpart, this world, our world?—But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine. (Nietzsche’s emphases)
Tip of the hat to Ed Oakes.
Then there is this from Oakes himself:
Such obtuseness is shared by most liberals today, who merrily fuse opposition to capital punishment, support for abortion and doctor-assisted suicide, condemnation of racism, and a vaguely appreciative acquaintance with evolutionary theory—without the least sense of the impossible dilemmas entailed in these contradictory positions.
94 Responses to Thought for the Day
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
—–larrymoranfan writes, “I think the response [from Q] was to this passage in the definition:
certain features of . . . living things are best explained by an intelligent cause
—–”It doesn’t say “certain features of some living things,” it says “living things,” i.e., life — presumably all life, including intelligent life. So if intelligence precedes “living things,” then intelligence precedes “intelligent living agency.” I can’t see how intelligence is not reuired for life or how this interpretation (while perhaps uestionable) reuires a banning.”
Oh, sure. That was only about the 100th time Q manipulated the language to put words in someone else’s mouth and then hold THEM accountable for HIS reformulation. I had some of my own arguments played back to me in almost totally unrecognizable form. It can’t be an accident when that happens time after time.
It’s the same game Judge Jones played at the Dover trial. Michael Behe points out that intelligent design is “consistent with” religious faith (obviously true). Judge Jones plays it back as intelligent design “depends on” religious faith (obviously false). Like Judge Jones, Q purposely misuses the language to discredit and misrepresent ID.
My experience has been that ID critics are given a lot of room to criticize on this blog. The only standard they are held to is that they must criticize ID for what is is, not for what it isn’t. Q refused to conform to that reasonable standard so he was rightly banned.
StephenB, thanks. That explains things pretty well. But you keep getting my name wrong. Not “larrymoral,” not “larrymoran,” but “larrynorman.” The original Jesus rocker.
larrynormanfan: Yes, I did keep getting your name wrong. I won’t happen again. Occassionally, Larry Moran, a militant Darwinist visits this blog. I was connecting dots that weren’t there.
Distance Education And Cultural Issues…
Love is an act of endless forgiveness, a tender look which becomes a habit. ~ Peter Ustinov…