Ted Hoffman
August 25, 2003, 03:54 AM
I read a very hilarious post by Dembski. I have to admit, I enjoy his writing. The guy is funny.
Sample this from Darwins Myth of Victory Past (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000815.html) :
Dembski writes:
A scene in the Marx Brothers movie Duck Soup illustrates this myth. Groucho Marx, president of Freedonia, presides over a meeting of the cabinet. The following exchange ensues between Groucho and one of Freedonia's ministers:
**Groucho: "And now, members of the Cabinet, we'll take up old business."
**Minister: "I wish to discuss the Tariff!"
**Groucho: "Sit down, that's new business! No old business? Very well -- then we'll take up new business"
**Minister: "Now about that Tariff..."
**Groucho: "Too late -- that's old business already!"
This exchange epitomizes Darwinism's handling of criticism. When a valid criticism of Darwinism is first proposed, it is dismissed without an adequate response, either on some technicality or with some irrelevancy or by simply being ignored.
I think its beautiful.
Then what do you guys think of Dawkins idea of calling ourselves (atheists) "Brights"? Like homosexuals call themselves "gays"?
Read the following excerpt:
Geisert and Futrell are very insistent that their word is a noun and must not be an adjective. "I am bright" sounds arrogant.
"I am a bright" sounds too unfamiliar to be arrogant: it is puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising. It invites the question, "What on earth is a bright?" And then you're away:
"A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."
"You mean a bright is an atheist?"
"Well, some brights are happy to call themselves atheists. Some brights call themselves agnostics. Some call themselves humanists, some free thinkers. But all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."
"Oh, I get it. It's a bit like 'gay'. So, what's the opposite of a bright?
What would you call a religious person?"
"What would you suggest?"
Of course, even though we brights will scrupulously insist that our word is a noun, if it catches on it is likely to follow gay and eventually re-emerge as a new adjective. And when that happens, who knows, we may finally get a bright president.
I laughed like hell.
The new Dumbskian fad is to use atheism synonymously with darwinism. And to equate what darwinians say with what Darwin said.
For more, check the link below.
Darwins Bright Idea (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000807.html) .
Sample this from Darwins Myth of Victory Past (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000815.html) :
Dembski writes:
A scene in the Marx Brothers movie Duck Soup illustrates this myth. Groucho Marx, president of Freedonia, presides over a meeting of the cabinet. The following exchange ensues between Groucho and one of Freedonia's ministers:
**Groucho: "And now, members of the Cabinet, we'll take up old business."
**Minister: "I wish to discuss the Tariff!"
**Groucho: "Sit down, that's new business! No old business? Very well -- then we'll take up new business"
**Minister: "Now about that Tariff..."
**Groucho: "Too late -- that's old business already!"
This exchange epitomizes Darwinism's handling of criticism. When a valid criticism of Darwinism is first proposed, it is dismissed without an adequate response, either on some technicality or with some irrelevancy or by simply being ignored.
I think its beautiful.
Then what do you guys think of Dawkins idea of calling ourselves (atheists) "Brights"? Like homosexuals call themselves "gays"?
Read the following excerpt:
Geisert and Futrell are very insistent that their word is a noun and must not be an adjective. "I am bright" sounds arrogant.
"I am a bright" sounds too unfamiliar to be arrogant: it is puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising. It invites the question, "What on earth is a bright?" And then you're away:
"A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."
"You mean a bright is an atheist?"
"Well, some brights are happy to call themselves atheists. Some brights call themselves agnostics. Some call themselves humanists, some free thinkers. But all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."
"Oh, I get it. It's a bit like 'gay'. So, what's the opposite of a bright?
What would you call a religious person?"
"What would you suggest?"
Of course, even though we brights will scrupulously insist that our word is a noun, if it catches on it is likely to follow gay and eventually re-emerge as a new adjective. And when that happens, who knows, we may finally get a bright president.
I laughed like hell.
The new Dumbskian fad is to use atheism synonymously with darwinism. And to equate what darwinians say with what Darwin said.
For more, check the link below.
Darwins Bright Idea (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000807.html) .