Comments on: Intelligent design – a pig that doesn’t fly

By: Baylor's Beckwith returns to the Catholic Church « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub

Mon, 07 May 2007 09:08:57 +0000

[...] Educators and scientists, including especially those of faith traditions, may wish he had left the c…. Perhaps he has, or will, if the attacks from fundamentalists keep up — similar to the way such attacks on Charles Darwin encouraged him to distance himself from the church. [...]

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:25:24 +0000

Pornography: “Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.”

Is this the case with the Sistine Chapel ceiling? No.

Does pornography, according to that definition, have socially redeeming value? Well, I suppose it may have some use in medical procedures, but that’s about it.

“ID a universe where all nudity is bad”? Where on earth did you get that from? ID isn’t a universe anyway! And who is telling you that nudity is bad? Why do you think it might be?

By: edarrell

edarrell — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:18:57 +0000

And, Paul: Notice that it was Beckwith who introduced the pornography argument. This was right after he said he is offering no legal advice to teachers, while two years earlier he had assured the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in official testimony that it was legal to teach ID. I suppose one could say that the TEA is not really teachers, but instead the advisors and regulators of teachers. In any case, if the TEA had purchased Beckwith’s arguments, teachers would have been teaching ID and a court suit would have cost Texas education several millions of dollars to lose like the Dover, Pennsylvania board lost.

ID is a unique universe, where all nudity is bad, pornography is only a valid argument when used incorrectly as an argument to shore up the idea that the First Amendment should protect ID as it does pornography, and where forcing teachers to teach ID is not offering them “legal advice” to do so. In that universe, nonsense and non-science is science, too.

Is there any argument from ID we should take seriously?

By: edarrell

edarrell — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:12:34 +0000

Ah, well, you’re from overseas. You may miss the American definitions — the Sistine Chapel ceiling is most definitely pornography, being a picture of a nude. It is not obscene pornography, however. Many right wingers and reactionaries in this nation have a difficult time distinguishing between obscenity and pornography, and therefore seek to pursue a ban on all forms of nudity in art with a vengeance, while allowing all nature of obscenities to be displayed and broadcast.

But then, I don’t expect you to take seriously any argument I make on ID, either. As I noted in that humorous reference, pornography actually exists, whereas ID as science does not exist. I find it difficult to take seriously the arguments of people who start by calling crackpottery “science” instead, and then insist that we use it.

Do you seriously think the Sistine Chapel has no redeeming social value? Under U.S. law, then, in your community, you could ban it. Some communities here have. But why? That’s easily as silly as advocating ID.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:42:07 +0000

“The difference between pornography and intelligent design being only that pornography really does exist, and can be found easily, and in some cases may be argued to have socially redeeming value (see, c.f., the Sistine Chapel).”

Sorry, Ed, I find it difficult to take seriously somebody’s arguments who seems to be implying that the Sistine Chapel is pornography – or who is so shaky on what pornography is that he thinks that it might have socially redeeming value.

By: Cutting to the bottom line: Carnival of the Liberals #24 « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:48:57 +0000

[...] Though you might think liberals would take anyone who applies, the Carnival of the Liberals #24 was limited to ten posts. One of the posts from this blog made the cut, the one on intelligent design and pigs that don’t fly. [...]

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:55:46 +0000

Intelligent Design is nothing short of a bad joke. It certainly isn’t science, nor is it based in logic or rational reasoning of any kind.

By: Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Restating ID

Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Restating ID — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:44:17 +0000

[...] So, to those like Mr Darrel and Mr Anderson, who read this site and are certainly not sympathetic to ID, I’d ask why this “bet” is considered not just throwing money away, but worthy of their scorn. [...]