Pharyngula

Very nice video. And I now know the origin of "cdesign pronponentist." Hilarious IDiotic incompetence!

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 20, 2008 8:14 PM

Intelligent Design = Creationism = A Political Strategy

Posted by: C Barr | May 20, 2008 8:26 PM

Chris: just click on the video (outside of the play button in the centre) to go to YouTube.

Posted by: Patrick Conley | May 20, 2008 8:32 PM

The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. - St. Paul

Posted by: intelligently designed | May 20, 2008 8:44 PM

Dear ID,
Well thank goodness to St Pauli for the insight. Certainly nice to be blinded to the delusion. Saves on the lithium.

Posted by: Mikkle | May 20, 2008 8:51 PM

A yawl. The misenboom. Right.

Posted by: hambone | May 20, 2008 9:19 PM

If you watched the PBS special called "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" or something like that, you would've seen the history of the book Crpandas and Peopleists. Go watch it anyway.

Posted by: brian | May 20, 2008 9:40 PM

I second Brian's (#14)recommendation about the PBS special and you can get a great T-Shirt here: http://www.cafepress.com/buy/cdesign+proponentsists/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_23611213/opt_/fpt_fXcq__DB__aCXDa_qz0X_VOD_eah__lS____o3/c_10651/

Posted by: foxfire | May 20, 2008 10:01 PM

I think Dr. Anne Holden is one heckuva natural selection. Her biological acumen is such that she already has me thinking about horizontal gene transfer.

And yes, I did just write that for the sake of making a dirty joke with scientific nomenclature. I wish I knew more about evolution so I could write a better one.

Posted by: Nasikabatrachus | May 20, 2008 10:42 PM

cdesign proponentsists. hehe! i love that.

so what's happening with the two lawsuits about "expelled?" (Yoko one and the harvard animation) I haven't heard anything new yet.

Posted by: rayn | May 20, 2008 11:15 PM

Again at number eight, intelligently designed, who said, "The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. - St. Paul."

When I close my eyes to your fairy tales (which were at one time gospel to me) why do you think that my eyes are closed to all things? Why do you assume that my lack of respect for Invisible Supernatural Spooks represents the overthrowing of all things nice?

I could answer this question for myself but I'd much rather hear your own defense of your position.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 20, 2008 11:27 PM

I just realized I am trying to find intelligence in that post where none exists due to an anthropomorphic world view. Sound familiar. Wow, I must be an IDiot.

Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 11:51 PM

The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. - St. Paul

As far as I can tell this means if you don't already believe in god he will prevent you from believing - and that makes very little sense to me even when compared to some of the other gems the bible has provided us. Can someone more versed in anti-woo than I explain that this invalidates the free will argument?

Sounds like the sort of rubbish Ray Comfort spouts - you can't really understand the bible unless you already believe in it. Atheists are 'missing the point'.

As for fighting with the creationists about ID? I have to fall back on the old line that you can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into.

Posted by: Wowbagger | May 21, 2008 12:03 AM

@#8
I have a standard reply for you wingnuts... now in handy (and topical!) T-Shirt form!

My heart's on my sleeves and my mind's on my chest.

(disclaimer - I'm no affiliate of Goats or Cafe Press etc etc, just love their work!)

Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | May 21, 2008 12:25 AM

The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them....in bed.

Posted by: Dr Benway | May 21, 2008 12:38 AM

@#26 Wowbagger --

The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. - St. Paul

As far as I can tell this means if you don't already believe in god he will prevent you from believing - and that makes very little sense to me even when compared to some of the other gems the bible has provided us. Can someone more versed in anti-woo than I explain that this invalidates the free will argument?

This passage is taken from 2nd Corinthians 4.4. I've generally heard "the god of this age" (alternately translated "the god of this world") interpreted as referring to Satan, sometimes referencing the passage in Luke 4 where the devil (whose identity they extend to be the same as Satan) offers Jesus all the kingdoms of this world, thus implying that he has dominion over them.

This still seems pretty screwy WRT the free will issue (it maybe allows some free will to choose between Satan and Jesus, but that seems to be about all it offers), but there you have it. There's a typically garbled interpretation of this chapter here. It has the following gem:

Who do not believe: Satan can only blind those who do not believe. If you are tired of having your mind blinded by the god of this age, then put your trust on who Jesus is and what He has done for you! Then Satan can't blind you anymore!

Stop letting Satan keep you from believing...and to do this, you need to start believing...very confusing.

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 21, 2008 1:05 AM

Why can't someone believe in intelligent design and evolution at the same time? I am not saying that I do, but I have met many liberal Christians that do. Besides, I am a software developer so intelligent design and evolution of software are both part of my day to day activity so I don't see any real conflict.

Dr. Holden somewhat reminds me of some of the fundamentalists Christians I used to hang with who looked for Satanic lyrics by playing music backwards.

Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | May 21, 2008 1:20 AM

That PBS documentary is really good, I thought ID was pretty harmless until I saw it, that may or may not have something to do with the way canadians interpret and portray ID (I've heard it mentioned once on CBC as sort of a christian compromise on evolution. stupid, but harmless).
That documentary definately caused me to plunge deep into the atheistic culture of creationist bashing which now consumes much of my internet time.

Posted by: nanoAl | May 21, 2008 1:32 AM

Thanks, Etha.

The free will thing is one of my biggest issues with religion - I just saw that as another example of where the bible contradicts the party line and leapt on it without stopping to think it through.

#34

It's possible to believe in both (obviously there are people who do) - but my question is why? If I had a magic wand with which to create the universe i wouldn't bother with the limitations of evolution. And why would a god (presumably omni-max) not know exactly what he/she/it wanted from the start and just make that? Part of my satisfaction with evolution (without any ID) is that there are stunningly complex processes in place that wouldn't be necessary if an infinite being was involved. I suspect most (if not all) engineers will tell you that the best designs are the simplest ones.

There is, of course, the option of the imperfect, non-omnimax creator - which would be the only one that would make sense to me considering how often he gets all nasty about things he technically should have known were going to happen. But I don't know if anyone in the ID crowd is supporting anything like that. From what I can tell it's all very standard Abrahamic in some form or another.

Posted by: Wowbagger | May 21, 2008 1:47 AM

Why can't someone believe in intelligent design and evolution at the same time? I am not saying that I do, but I have met many liberal Christians that do.

Randy (aka IDer), referring back to the video PZ embedded in this post, note the definition of ID in "Pandas and People" (see here):

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)

Now, please explain how to avoid the unpleasantness of cognitive dissonance by believing "in intelligent design and evolution at the same time".

This little exercise should clarify the "why can't".

Posted by: foxfire | May 21, 2008 2:14 AM

#40:

Now, please explain how to avoid the unpleasantness of cognitive dissonance by believing "in intelligent design and evolution at the same time".

You're forgetting the all-important 11th commandment - Thou shalt believe in me, no matter how much the batshit loonery of doing so makes your head hurt when you think about it.

I've said before that cognitive dissonance is an essential skill to possess if you're religious and in any way thoughtful about it. While I know some Xians who haven't a clue what they're claiming to believe in (I had to explain to one what a Protestant was; she also claimed the Xianity and Buddhism were 'pretty much the same thing') there are others who try.

Then there's the guy who's Greek Orthodox Xian, but believes that the Greek pantheon of gods (Zeus and pals) existed as well. I can't even begin to understand how he makes that work.

Posted by: Wowbagger | May 21, 2008 2:40 AM

Oops, I forgot to add: and they haven't done anything to show the design stage, the creation stage nor even that the creator(s) were the same people as the designer(s), rather than the products of the design team being contracted out to sets of builders or "rude mechanicals".

Posted by: SEF | May 21, 2008 2:50 AM

Dr. Holden somewhat reminds me of some of the fundamentalists Christians I used to hang with who looked for Satanic lyrics by playing music backwards.

Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer

There are many differences between Dr. Holden and those fundies but I will stick with these. Dr. Holden was not shot in the dark when investigating the background of those creationists books. Also, she can prove the linkage between creationism and intelligent design. The fundies had no real reason to search for backwards masking in rock music and could never find any, except for those artists who made a joke of backwards masking.

Oh wait, I suppose you think it takes just as much faith the believe in evolution as it does to believe in god.

Posted by: Janine ID | May 21, 2008 3:19 AM

Peter Mc, did you do that on purpose? Not that it matters, I find it funny.

Posted by: Janine ID | May 21, 2008 3:45 AM

At the risk of sounding a little too much like the 'framers' I think that its a mistake to make a claim that Intelligent Design is 'religious'.
To the US public the term 'religious' basically means 'good' or 'moral' or carries some other positive association.
ID is religious ?
Well?
So what.
What's the harm in that.
The whole question of 'fair-play', present in peoples minds when they hear the question phrased like that is unlikely to make the fact that ID is 'religious' to be a logical reason to prevent it being taught in schools.
What you need to do is to split the religious camp.
ID is not 'religious'.
ID is the teachings of ONE specific religion - Fundamentalistic Protestantism - a minority of the US population.
Phrase it like this:
Is it fair that the protestant fundamentalistic 20% of the US population get to dictate what the other 80% learn in school?
I suspect that even the fundies (well some of them!) might see that that doesn't quite sound 'fair'.
Unlike the framers I don't advocate getting the Catholics or Episcopalians 'on our side'.
What I DO advocate is that we get the Catholics and Episcopalians on the opposite side to the Fundamentalistic Protestants. Get them at each others throats in what is really a religion versus religion clash, rather than a religion versus Science - and then let the public know that Science is always the best way to solve problems regarding the physical world and that is fair to everyone because it is based on EVIDENCE - something that anyone of any religion is free to provide (whether they do or do not provide it is their problem).
Try looking outside your own borders and ask why US style creationism is not popular in other western countries.
Apart from fundamentalistic segments of Northern Ireland there is probably not a single region in all of Western Europe where protestant creationism has a hold and even there it is kept in check, not by science alone, but through it being clearly viewed as a SECTARIAN rather than purely religious point.

Posted by: Sigmund | May 21, 2008 3:59 AM

You're forgetting the all-important 11th commandment - Thou shalt believe in me, no matter how much the batshit loonery of doing so makes your head hurt when you think about it.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | May 21, 2008 4:39 AM

It would've been nice if we could have made it more than two hours without comments on Dr Holden's appearance.

Posted by: MartinM | May 21, 2008 6:41 AM

Dr. Holden somewhat reminds me of some of the fundamentalists Christians I used to hang with who looked for Satanic lyrics by playing music backwards.

Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer

You honestly think "cdesign proponentsists" and all the other substitutions were just a coincidence?

Posted by: Citizen Z | May 21, 2008 8:11 AM

I'm a little creeped out by all the people commenting on the narrator's appearance and sex

I grant that boys-will-be-boys to some extent, but it's a theme. Is it really still so astonishing that intelligent, science-educated women can be attractive?

(On the other hand, the good looks of guys like Mooney and Nisbet have been mentioned once or twice, too... though these mentions are clearly in the minority.)

There's something in our culture that promotes this. Hillary Clinton received far more criticism about her look, her wardrobe, and her sense of style than any ten male candidates combined - criticism that frequently was offered up by female commentators. Sigh.

It must be genetic. O_o

And why would a god (presumably omni-max) not know exactly what he/she/it wanted from the start and just make that?

Maybe because writing an algorithm that incorporates a random element, firing it up, watching it go, and waiting to see what weird creations it coughs up is more fun than pouring plaster into molds? :-)

Posted by: Kseniya | May 21, 2008 8:58 AM

Well, I guess that is how you get to join the NCSE. If you are cute and you like science then you are welcome to join. All very scientific. Posted by: Kenny

Is that the best you can do, you gabbling limpet? Imply that she's not qualified to speak by virtue of her intelligence and education?

That's rich, coming from an ignorant rockhead like you. Your dishonesty shines brighter with each passing day, Kennyboy.

Speaking of dishonesty and cowardice: Kenny, does the ACLU only defend atheists and liberals, as you claimed?

Posted by: Kseniya | May 21, 2008 9:08 AM

Sigmund says:
"let's call it a sectarian war and let the religious minded duke it out"

It is not religion v religion.

It is evangelical religion v an entire culture.

Absolute cultural hegemony is the principal goal of the American Protestant fundamentalism movement (they admit as much in their Wedge Document).

THEY'VE chosen publicly funded secondary schools as a key battle ground. THEY'VE decided to try and try and try to impose fundamentalist christian doctrine into science curriculum throughout the country.

As for getting the catholics involved, I'd point out that THEY'VE got a hell of a lot more respect for the US Constitution (even though that is very little respect in absolute terms) than they have for the Pope and what he represents.

If THEY had decided instead to play by the rules and wage their campaign screaming from the tops of boxes at busy city street corners, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Posted by: me | May 21, 2008 9:19 AM

The reason I'm curious is because from a Christian perspective, you can never be "un-born."

From a very narrow perspective perhaps. In the vast and varied plethora of Christian dogmas, I've not come across many that endorse a free will, decision based and irreversible "salvation". Generally much mumbo jumbo is required to keep in Gods good graces. In catholicism for example, little more than bad luck or poor timing can result in eternal damnation or at least a lengthy delay in limbo (I'll grant you this is somewhat dated dogma).

For myself, I was a born again, tounges talking, talk walking, Jesus serving missionary. Six years of Bush claiming to be a Christian made me examine the whole thing more closely than I ever had before, Thomas Paine and the "God Delusion" brought the whole edifice crashing down. Took about 5 years from "hang on a second ... " to "this is utter unabridged poppycock, I've been had!", but I got there.

The key ingredient is no holds barred reflection and questioning. So very hard to get that cycle going, since roughly 90% of religious dogma is geared to short circuit that process, the spurious and absurd concept of "faith" being exhibit A.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | May 21, 2008 9:24 AM

Every time I hear that "cdesign proponentsist" anecdote, I lol. It's just too good to be true.

Posted by: Santiago | May 21, 2008 9:31 AM

Well, I guess that is how you get to join the NCSE. If you are cute and you like science then you are welcome to join. All very scientific. Posted by: Kenny

Actually, you can join the NCSE by going to their website and sending them money, IIRC it is $30/year. In other words, kenny could join in 5 minutes. After all, on the internet, no one knows if you are a dog.

Posted by: raven | May 21, 2008 9:51 AM

Kenny:

Well, I guess that is how you get to join the NCSE. If you are cute and you like science then you are welcome to join.

Kenny boy, this is the same NCSE that handed the creos their lumpy, misshapen asses in Dover. The same NCSE that (among others) had the Discovery Institute so spooked that it asked its parrots fellows not to testify at the Dover trial. The NCSE that provided the definitive proof that exposed the fact that the creos were lying about their agenda, and about whether ID was in fact just re-branded creationism.

The fact that some of the major minds at NCSE are female is an added bonus--not because of some infantile obsession with Dr. Holden's appearance, but because it strikes a blow against another conservative article of faith--that women are equipped only to be domestic workers and baby factories.

So that video is really a two-for-one win for our side. Deal with it.

Posted by: Epikt | May 21, 2008 10:09 AM

curious (#61)

I came to understand Christianity to be false about a year ago. There were plenty of things leading up to the final break, mostly having to do with the treatment I received at the hands of other Christians who refused to accept my faith so long as I accepted science as accurate. Stuff like being ostracized by my classmates in the seventh grade for daring to think a fossil could be millions of years old, complete strangers telling me that the time spent getting my anthro degree were wasted since I could just have read Genesis, and generally being told that I couldn't be part of the club unless I turned my brain off.

The final straw was when I was fired from a Lutheran school for teaching evolution; the fact that the administrators and faculty were so blind to reality and so determined to lie to the students still makes me sick. Seeing them cripple some of the most curious and capable minds I'd ever encountered in middle schoolers, accusing me of blasphemy for suggesting that Genesis might not be 100% literal, and asking me to remain silent while they forced their lies on those kids got me to see just how little value they placed on the truth and made me more receptive to seeing the glaring problems with Christianity I'd been able to overlook before. As I thought about it more, and as I studied both the Bible and the works of skeptics, the more I came to realize that for a god to exist, it had to be a complete idiot, a sadistic bastard, or both. Neither of those sounded much like a being I felt any desire to associate myself with (although the latter describes the biblical god pretty well), so I made the break.

You say that my "spirit is still joined to the Holy Spirit," well, thanks but no thanks. If you think it's reasonable that your imaginary friend bind me to a belief I took on as a brainwashed twelve year old after I've renounced it with my eyes wide open, fuck you and fuck him. I have no desire to remain attached to a monster like the one the Bible describes. Besides, I've never seen your god, never heard or felt him, never seen anything that would support the idea that he exists. He could convince me with what would be a simple act for a supposedly almighty being, he could turn on the burned-out light in my ceiling fan, strike me dead where I sit, cause my roommate's cat to jump onto my couch from her current nap spot, or summon Angelina Jolie to my bedroom. - Five minutes after typing that, the light's still off, I'm still breathing, the cat's still on the floor, and I've still got all my clothes on. - My faith came to an end when I realized that no evidence was going to turn up, that I believed what I did because of peer pressure and an accident of geography, and that it could only be maintained by ignoring the massive problems with the claims of Christianity.

Posted by: Traffic Demon | May 21, 2008 10:25 AM

Hmmm. Strange. Maybe it was an editing error. Such things have been known to happen.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 21, 2008 10:33 AM

And their spell checker thinks cdesign in a word?

Posted by: Dennis N | May 21, 2008 10:50 AM

the point is to listen to what she is saying, and not get hung up on the fact that someone with breasts is talking about evolution.

I have to admit, though, it is very titillating.

Posted by: me | May 21, 2008 11:01 AM