Neo-Creationists Upset by Michael Dowd but It Has Nothing to do with Religion
For all my points of disagreement with Michael Dowd's ideas, there's one thing I do particularly like about him. He's apparently driving the ID-Creationists into a fit. They're complaining that he's part of a "blitzkrieg" against them. Why, oh why, is everyone against the poor, oppressed loons?
Having heard Dowd last night and seeing his reaction to my critique of his presentation, I find it hard to believe that "blitzkrieg" is even part of the man's vocabulary, let alone something he'd engage in. But that hasn't stopped Uncommon Descent into Intellectual Paralysis author Salvador Cordova from whining about him doing it in an entry entitled, amusingly enough, Theistic Darwinists blitzkrieg the ID movement. A couple of the comments are quite precious:
That's gotta be the most inane drone promotional thing I've seen in years. Unbelievable!Ah, yes, the evolution of brain tumors. Ancestral to IDolators, as I recall.
How much lower can they go?
Reverend? Of what church?
My 1st guess is the FSM church for the brain-dead?
And look at these comments from amazon :
"The universe took 13.7 billion years to produce this amazing book. I heartily recommend it."
— John Mather, NASA Chief Scientist, 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics
Indeed! The universe produced this book - it evolved like a brain tumor...— Borne
...It is incongruous to affirm an Orthodox Christian theology while simultaneously affirming a completely unguided process of random mutation and natural selection. The two are mutually exclusive.All this concern over Orthodox Christianity... I'd almost think that Intelligent Design had a religious basis, but we all know that that can't possibly be true because they never actually say "Goddidit" while the cameras are rolling. Where this particular IDolator got the impression that Dowd counts himself an orthodox anything is beyond me. After hearing what he had to say, I doubt he'd consider himself orthodox in much of what he does, if anything. If I'm wrong about that, I'd be surprised.— toc
No one can serve two masters, because either he will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Darwin.Yes, there's nothing quite like "modifying" a Biblical passage to make it say whatever you want it to while simultaneously denying that the movement you consider yourself part of has nothing to do with religion. News for Farfleman; nobody serves Darwin. Darwin's a dead guy. Just like Jesus.
– Matthew 6:24, modified
I don't think it a stretch to see this as a sign of the times - namely a deluding influence - as Dowd says- forget guilt. We then would not need Jesus to take it away (ALL that Gospel/Bible stuff for no real reason), just realize our less enlightened past was the reason and pop - FREEDOM INDEED - step into our glorious future!. So - OK Mr. Dowd - have you now NO sin? I would quote some verses for you, but I am sure they would only be some of the ones not needed anymore. Sad indeed the anyone would have this level of not understanding and think themselves enlightened and lead other right into the pit with them. You think 5 Nobel prize winners can save you? Well, as you say - its your choice.Nope, no religion in that ID bunch at all. I'm sure that alan's comment was meant in the most secular sense possible.— alan
A lot of people have figured out that many atheists due to the "threat" of ID have fanatically embraced evolution in a religious fervor. Thus creating a large market for evolution porn where they can mentally wank to the idea that "theocracy" in the Trojan horse of ID is being soundly beaten into submission.Somehow, it makes sense that someone with such a comic view of reality would use the name of a cartoon character, but no matter. I predicted in my critique of Dowd's talk that infelxibly religious types would take his ideas as evidence that science seeks to replace religion, or to become a religion, and I barely had to look at all to find someone doing exactly that. The masturbatory images coming from the cartoon character in combination with religion probably tells us a little bit more about him than we really wanted to know. I've already critiqued Dowd, so I don't think I need to point out how silly the assertion is. I'd no more follow a religion based on evolutionary biology than I'd follow one based on flying monkeys, burning bushes, implements of torture or talking fish. We can see readily from whence the wanking cometh, can we not... eth?— mentok
Still, anything that upsets the Uncommon Decline crowd is OK by me. Whatever else I may say about such things, they have merit for that fact alone.
