…and this is a 
Baylor rededicates itself to bible college status
Category: Academics • Creationism
Posted on: July 25, 2008 10:23 AM, by PZ Myers
The president of Baylor, John M. Lilley, was fired abruptly yesterday. He demonstrated insufficient dedication to their "faith mission", so of course he had to go. I'm sure the ID crowd will be pleased — by encouraging a stronger "Christian vision", the next president of the university will probably encourage more Intelligent Design nonsense…which, of course, is an entirely secular concept that is not reliant on faith or Christian visions. Right.
I also have to say that this diagram accompanying the commentary is spot on.
Comments
Woah... that diagram is pretty damn good.
Shame about the guy mind you. We're coming down in new dark ages.
Posted by: Michelle | July 25, 2008 10:27 AM
It's really a pity they are part of the Big 12. I'd prefer Arkansas. Let the Baptists join w/ the other non-secular Universities.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 25, 2008 10:28 AM
Good graphic. I still want a Venn-diagram feature for the comments.
Posted by: SC | July 25, 2008 10:29 AM
Where's the circle in the diagram for LYING or DISHONEST? I believe you can be ID without BS.
Posted by: Kryth | July 25, 2008 10:33 AM
Intelligent design can't be the intersection of a trinity. I always thought it's 'first cause' was simply stupidity. Religion and politics being character traits of IDiots.
Posted by: mothra | July 25, 2008 10:36 AM
I thought I heard a faint flushing sound from Waco last night. Things are bleak here in Texas.
Posted by: Geolub | July 25, 2008 10:43 AM
This is OT, but I can't resist.
The closing of the "Great Desecration" thread was perfect.
The post #2353 shows that poster Chris Bell is Jesus Christ. He was the First, and the Last. The Alpha and the Omega, and all that jazz.
As our winner*, Chris will receive an eternal lifetime supply of ChristOCrackers
.
ChristOCrackers Now fortified with irony
...
..
.
*Contest void where prohibited by Biblical Law
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 25, 2008 10:47 AM
I imagine all the Baylor biology profs are dusting off their CVs and making sure they're current.
A pity. I grew up in Texas, and while Baylor always had a certain rep for its religiosity and conservatism, it was still well respected for academic excellence. A Baylor degree actually meant something.
Posted by: MS | July 25, 2008 10:50 AM
Why do the Dark Ages lie outside of stupidity?
Posted by: Chris Granade | July 25, 2008 10:51 AM
Class Venn diagram, takes me back to 70s I can tell you. Instead of ID can we have Hard Vacuum?
Posted by: Dancaban | July 25, 2008 10:57 AM
Here's some Intelligent Design for you P.Z. and it is not reliant on Christian visions or indeed faith.
http://media.skyandtelescope.com/images/Totality_Carlos_Kern_01_l.jpg
There is a fair bit of evidence for Intelligent Design for those who have eyes to see. . .
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 10:57 AM
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 25, 2008 10:57 AM
Surely the religion bubble should be entirely inside the stupidity one?
Posted by: Skeptico | July 25, 2008 10:58 AM
The people who caused the dark ages understood politics very well, and used religion to crush free thought and knowledge, thus causing stupidity, but weren't themselves stupid.
Anyone who reads any serious theology quickly finds out that when a quick and clever mind is released from the constraints of falsifiability and hypothesis checking, that mind can do rhetorical loop the loops to support the most evil abominations in the name of good.
Posted by: Akheloios | July 25, 2008 11:03 AM
To be fair to Baylor and the biology faculty, they've already dealt with a pro-ID president once and came out victorious; I'm sure they can do it again.
Posted by: Cody | July 25, 2008 11:04 AM
was he fired, or was he EXPELLED?
Posted by: alex | July 25, 2008 11:04 AM
@Robin Edgar #11
Holy crap there's a giant dragon eating the sun!
You're right, that's some good evidence for ID right there!
Posted by: unicow | July 25, 2008 11:08 AM
Oh gee. Are they going to have a witch hunt at Baylor now?
Probably, we're talking Texas after all. There goes the entire biology department. FWIW, they do teach evolution at Baylor, like they do at any good biology department.
That tap tap tap sound you hear in the background is the biology faculty updating their CV's.
Posted by: raven | July 25, 2008 11:10 AM
Where?
Posted by: dinkum | July 25, 2008 11:12 AM
there may have been the issue of "faith mission" but what sinks a president is to have the the faculty turn against him. How do you get a faculty to turn against you? Overrule a faculty committee. In particular overall the faculty committee in charge or recommending tenure:
Posted by: Randy | July 25, 2008 11:12 AM
"The people who caused the dark ages understood politics very well, and used religion to crush free thought and knowledge, thus causing stupidity, but weren't themselves stupid."
Were these by any chance the same people who carefully preserved and hand-copied the works of Plato and Aristotle, among others, to the truly incalculable benefit of us all?
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 25, 2008 11:13 AM
@Robin Edgar: ...Cuz the moon happens to be the same apparent size as the sun? I agree! No way it can be you know... CHANCE.
Obviously God wanted to trick us into studying the Sun's corona! That sneaky bastard, I thought he hated science!
Posted by: Michelle | July 25, 2008 11:14 AM
Robin Edgar,
The fact that the sun and the moon have the same apparent size (even if they actually don't really) is proof of ID? How come?
And even then, ever heard the word "coincidence"?
Posted by: Arnaud | July 25, 2008 11:14 AM
Robin (#11), please read some books on orbital mechanics and lunar theory before posting such an idiotic statement. It really makes you appear rather stupid.
'kay?
p.s. the distance between the earth and the moon is NOT a fixed, unchanging, quantity. As your homework assignment, see if you can figure out what the implications of that are.
Posted by: Larry | July 25, 2008 11:18 AM
Were these by any chance the same people who carefully preserved and hand-copied the works of Plato and Aristotle, among others, to the truly incalculable benefit of us all?
Um, no, they're the people who caused the Dark Ages, yadda yadda. Different bunch altogether. Do pay attention.
Posted by: speedwell | July 25, 2008 11:19 AM
Well, the term "Dark Ages" is somewhat misunderstood - these days it simply refers to the lack of historical documentation for the period in question. The people in the "Dark Ages" were no more (and no less) stupid that people before or since. It is also something of an error to place them at the intersection of faith and politics - the Middle Ages would be far more appropriate, as that period is far more typified by a unification of religion and politics. Indeed, for much of the "Dark Ages" most of Europe was not under control of the church (which is precisely why there is so little historical documentation) and had little in the way of formal politics as we would now recognise it. It's the period between the end of Roman rule and the formation of relatively stable (proto-)nation states in the latter part of the first millennium.
However, historical quibbling aside, I still want that diagram on a T-shirt.
Utter, unmitigated, ahistorical bollocks. I don't know what the hell you're talking about, but it's certainly not the "dark ages". The idea that the "dark ages" were a period of deprivation and ignorance was almost entirely a product of church propaganda - as was the term "dark ages" itself, originally.
Posted by: Dunc | July 25, 2008 11:24 AM
#11
Wait, what?
Posted by: James F | July 25, 2008 11:25 AM
@11: If you have to have "special eyes" to see the evidence, then it isn't science.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | July 25, 2008 11:25 AM
If you think that the eclipse of the sun is proof of Intelligent Design, can we consider that fact that there are more annular eclipses than total eclipses to be disproof of Intelligent Design? Furthermore, as the moon recedes, we'll get fewer and fewer total eclipses. Is this proof that God is receding from humanity?
Posted by: aiabx | July 25, 2008 11:26 AM
When the Bushistas are out of office and the oversight begins, the accredation process may be more than 'you KKKristian'. Faith-based may end up being known as pre-prison.
The only selling point for the higher education business of religio-crazy skools is to niche market to ignorant and racist parents. This is easier with a president that 'shares values'. Let those science-based fools go to Ivy League or Land-Grant colleges. We have the truth here at PatU and StripKlub/LibertylessU/BobJones U and Lube. Four years and $40,000 later, the kids can work in Pat's under-the-table strip club, Pennsacola KKKristian's Abekah homeskooling business (real cheap since the degree is worth less than OJT at a fast food joint), or become a lay preacher with a small, and intensely related, congregation.
The whole Bushista hiring was affirmative action for faith-based knuckle-heads. Soon that will end, along with WingnutWelfare. Obama may purge the civil service rolls of unqualified/political appointee Bushists. That's a lot of stoopids looking for work at the same time.
Posted by: Mold | July 25, 2008 11:27 AM
Oh and Robin?
http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/c0/AnnularEclipse.JPG
There is a fair bit of evidence for Chance for those who have eyes to see. . .
Posted by: Michelle | July 25, 2008 11:28 AM
I want that diagram on a t-shirt! :)
Posted by: Jon D | July 25, 2008 11:29 AM
John Lilley was a class mate of mine. I remember him as a good and reasonable man. I was pleased to hear he became president of Baylor. It gave me hope he would bring it out of the dark ages, but I'm afraid the spirit of W.A. Criswell is too strong and very much alive. I'm ashamed to tell anyone I graduated from Baylor.
Posted by: Waddie | July 25, 2008 11:29 AM
I actually had had some respect for Baylor. The Baylor religious study which came out a few years back was actually remarkably good and is still the only place to go for some bits of data here and there. Although, two things did stand out about it.
1) It was funded by Templeton.
2) The take-away bit of information (by the media) was that 95% of people believed in God because according to the study itself 5% of people were atheists by being "absolutely certain that there is no God" (everybody else was a theist (95%). The study was well enough to give the question sheet they used and it had only one that asked anything of the kind:
26. In your opinion, does each of the following exist?
God -------------- Absolutely, Probably, Probably Not, Absolutely Not.
By that criteria Dawkins is a theist believing in a "distant God". 95% my ass. You still hear the number tossed around and it is, frankly, a really bad number.
Other than that, they seem remarkably reasonable on most of the grounds.
Posted by: Tatarize | July 25, 2008 11:29 AM
How sad. Baylor used to be a good place to go.
Posted by: Rayven Alandria | July 25, 2008 11:32 AM
Sounds like Dembski may have a reason to go back.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | July 25, 2008 11:32 AM
Apparently Larry, Arnaud and Dinkum don't have eyes to see. . .
Have another look at the Wendy Carlos photo of the 2001 total solar eclipse and maybe you will see what noted American astronomer Jack Zirker perceived in 1980 and what ancient civilizations perceived millennia ago.
:The fact that the sun and the moon have the same apparent size (even if they actually don't really) is proof of ID?
Not proof, just circumstantial evidence, but there is more evidence of ID in the total solar eclipse than the fact that the sun and the moon do have virtually identical apparent sizes when seen from the surface of our planet. Take a proverbial closer look. Or perhaps take a look from several feet back from your monitor screen. . .
:And even then, ever heard the word "coincidence"?
I sure have heard of "coincidence" Arnaud. Have you ever heard of synchronicity? Do you know what Carl Jung said about "coincidences"?
:Robin (#11), please read some books on orbital mechanics and lunar theory before posting such an idiotic statement. It really makes you appear rather stupid.
Actually your statement above makes you look rather ignorant if not a tad stupid Larry. I am quite aware of the orbital mechanics that cause our sun and moon to have virtually identical apparent sizes when viewed from the surface of the Earth. I am perfectly aware that
p.s. I am perfectly aware that the distance between the earth and the moon is NOT a fixed, unchanging, quantity. As *your* homework assignment, see if you can figure out what the theological and Intelligent Design implications of the total solar eclipse distinctly resembling the pupil and iris of an eye are Larry. . .
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 11:34 AM
Is this proof that God is receding from humanity?
As fast as my gums and hairline, if you read the Old Testament. As I remember, by the time we were sitting, kvetching by the waters of Babylon, He had pretty much washed his hands of us. I asked my wife (she's got the Scripture Knowledge in the family) why, and she said "Adultery and whoring after false gods". And has that changed, really?
We're on our own, folks. Now, Jesus claims he knows a way to get in touch with Him. All I can say is: you pays your money and takes your choice.
Posted by: Mooser, Bummertown | July 25, 2008 11:35 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | July 25, 2008 11:36 AM
Hey Jon D @ #32,
I don't know if you're aware, but you can get that diagram on a t-shirt here:
http://www.cafepress.com/saintgasoline
Posted by: Josh G | July 25, 2008 11:38 AM
Iason Ouabache said, "If you have to have "special eyes" to see the evidence, then it isn't science."
You don't need "special eyes" to see the evidence for Intelligent Design that is manifested during total solar eclipses. You just need a pair of eyes that function reasonably well (in fact you can probably get away with just one properly functioning eye) and a brain that can process the "sign language" that is displayed during most if not all total solar eclipses.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 11:43 AM
"Furthermore, as the moon recedes, we'll get fewer and fewer total eclipses. Is this proof that God is receding from humanity?"
The moon receding is a test of our faith. Although our eyes may perceive more annular eclipses, we must have faith that they are total eclipses. Hint: it's easier if you close your eyes.
Posted by: Matthew | July 25, 2008 11:43 AM
Wow, oh, wow, we do have a live one here!
[backs away slowly]
Posted by: Larry | July 25, 2008 11:43 AM
Are we sure that he was fired due to his stance on ID? If so, I think this is a major setback for academia. I don't understand how such schools can call themselves a facility of higher education when they are actually just reteaching Medieval superstition and myth as something to base your BA on.
Posted by: Miss Infidel | July 25, 2008 11:44 AM
As usual. . . the fundamentalist atheists aka Atheist Supremacists resort to mockery and ridicule when confronted by something that they cannot easily refute through reasoned and rational debate.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 11:46 AM
Here Robin, since Google isn't your friend, we'll spell it out for you:
1. Tidal friction is causing the Earth's rotational speed to slow (Ever wonder why we have those pesky leap seconds added every few years? The dino's had a 23 hour day . . .)
2. Enter the "Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum": with these two bodies interacting, Earth's loss of momentum is being transferred to the Moon, and it's orbital speed is increasing and, therefore, the Moon is moving farther away.
3. In ~2 billion years it'll be in geosynchronous orbit. In far less time than that we'll no longer have total eclipses of the Sun.
Let me guess - your "Intelligent Designer" planned all this just for you, eh?
Posted by: NatVision | July 25, 2008 11:46 AM
(+)
Posted by: wookerist | July 25, 2008 11:46 AM
Robin Edgar:
Please register for a critical thinking class at your local university. Stat. You desperately need help.
Repeating "Coincidence therefore God. Coincidence therefore God. Coincidence therefore God..." ad nauseum (a) will not make it true that coincidences are evidence of intelligent design or an intelligent designer and (b) will not convince anyone but the terminally stupid of the truth of intelligent design.
Posted by: KM | July 25, 2008 11:47 AM
That's nothing compared to the butterfly alphabet!
Posted by: James F | July 25, 2008 11:48 AM
Yes you do have a live one Larry. . .
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 11:49 AM
The IDiot said:
Well, actually making shit up has been good enough up until now for the IDiots so why replace a 'winning' formula. Oh wait...
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 25, 2008 11:50 AM
Clearly the solar eclipse is specifically designed to resemble a sliced carrot.
Posted by: craig | July 25, 2008 11:50 AM
Robin Edgar,
If that annular eclipse is God's eye, then he is frickin stoned. Nice dilated pupils pothead.
Posted by: Schmeer | July 25, 2008 11:50 AM
"p.s. I am perfectly aware that the distance between the earth and the moon is NOT a fixed, unchanging, quantity. As *your* homework assignment, see if you can figure out what the theological and Intelligent Design implications of the total solar eclipse distinctly resembling the pupil and iris of an eye are Larry. . ."
I once saw a carrot that looked like the baby Jesus.
Intelligent design? I suppose it *must* have been.
Posted by: Matthew | July 25, 2008 11:51 AM
Robin Edgar,
You haven't yet put forward anything that could be reasonably and rationally debated. Suppose a total eclipse does resemble the pupil and iris of an eye, what are you asserting follows? There is nothing there to argue with.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 25, 2008 11:51 AM
I think you need the critical thinking class KM because you are either grossly misinterpreting, or deliberately misrepresenting, what I am saying here.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 11:51 AM
I have to admit, I'm a little let down that 'Religion' and 'Stupidity' don't overlap just a little more in the diagram.
Posted by: Parker | July 25, 2008 11:52 AM
Let me take care of that assignment for ya...
None and None.
Posted by: Ollie | July 25, 2008 11:52 AM
Randy at #20 has an interesting point.
Usually when someone at the top of an organization has to/chooses to overule many recomendations from his/her subordinates, someone starts asking why'd you need to do that? Either you are out of touch with what needs to happen, or the people underneath you were badly supervised.
I did notice that his stats come from Christianity Today, which raises some concerns, but it does not mean that they were wrong.
Anyone got a more detailed run down on who was dennied tenure and what their actual qualifications were or were not?
The payback theory could hold, but I think we need more information on this point.
Posted by: Brian | July 25, 2008 11:52 AM
I read the articles a bit more thoroughly since my first quick post. Although I am sure that the ID issue was a real, if unspoken, one, in fairness there was apparently a lot of unhappiness among the faculty about his tenure decisions. He initially turned down 12 out of 30 that came to him with favorable recommendations. Depending on the exact structure at Baylor that means they survived anywhere from 3-6 (or even more) committees and individuals, all giving favorable recommendations, before they came to the president's desk.
For those unfamiliar with the tenure process, at a typical university, the tenure application goes through some or all of the following steps: peer committee from the applicant's department, department chair, college or division committee and dean, all-university committee, and provost before it ever makes it to the president. The exact structure is different at every college, and some have even more layers. To override all those favorable recommendations is a big step, and to overturn 12 out of 30 is huge.
It may be he was trying to up standards, especially regarding research. While I'm not sure that EVERY college or university really needs to focus on research that heavily, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it's a worthy goal. Nonetheless, there is still an issue of fairness. Some years ago my university hired a new provost, who was, in fact, given the task of upping our research profile. She gave unfavorable recommendations to a number of applications that had gotten through all the various layers with positive reviews. The problem is that those coming up for tenure had been hired with a certain set of expectations, both explicit (i.e. in their contracts) and implicit, and had lived up to those expectations. All of sudden the goalposts were changed. There was a great deal of protest at all levels of the faculty, and she reversed her position on most of them. New faculty, however, were hired with very different expectations. This was fine with everybody, as long as it was clearly understood by the entering faculty what they would have to do to get tenure.
Seemingly there was a lot of unhappiness among the Baylor faculty about this. Maybe this was a genuine concern for the trustees, or maybe they used it as a pretext, but it probably shouldn't be just ignored.
Posted by: MS | July 25, 2008 11:52 AM
#11: Yup, you make a good point. Perhaps ID really belongs mostly in stupid.
Posted by: dahduh | July 25, 2008 11:54 AM
Snark? Surely Robin Edgar is snarking. The delusion level if this is not snark is stupefying.
Posted by: ChemBob | July 25, 2008 11:55 AM
Robin Edgar:
It is not the so-called "fundamentalist atheists" (you realize that doesn't actually make sense, right?) that are lacking in the reason department. Folks above have attempted to engage you in rational discussion -- e.g., by giving you alternate explanations of the phenomena you've identified as evidence for intelligent design -- and you dismiss them out of hand, without evidence or good reason, simply because they don't blindly accept your claims of "coincidence therefore God". Part of rationality is being open to good evidence and good reasons -- emphasis on *good* -- even if these things challenge your beliefs.
Posted by: KM | July 25, 2008 11:56 AM
Further proof for ID is that my legs are just long enough to reach the ground! Coincidence? I don't think so!
Posted by: Eddie Janssen | July 25, 2008 11:56 AM
Diagram originally from saintgasoline.com.
Posted by: wjv | July 25, 2008 11:56 AM
"If that annular eclipse is God's eye, then he is frickin stoned. Nice dilated pupils pothead."
ID stoner: Have you ever looked at a solar eclipse, man? I mean, REALLY looked at it? Ahhhhh, I can't see!
Posted by: t_p_hamilton | July 25, 2008 11:58 AM
Well Robin, we don't know what you are saying exactly. So, what are the
And what are the theological implications of this
Posted by: Arnaud | July 25, 2008 11:59 AM
#11
Wow! Random coincidence proves ID?
Well, if thats true, then I guess there is a lot of proof. Or, you're just not that smart.
One of the two.
Regards,
David
Posted by: David Wiener | July 25, 2008 12:00 PM
I thought the entire diagram was close to perfect. ... I only have one argument with the intersection of Politics and Stupidity. ... It seems to me that that intersection should be called "Fanatics" ... Since there are fanatics in all parties. ...
Posted by: Jack Foster Mancilla | July 25, 2008 12:01 PM
Posted by: alex | July 25, 2008 12:01 PM
"and a brain that can process the "sign language" that is displayed during most if not all total solar eclipses."
Wow. I thought your original post was a joke. So what, the fact that a solar eclipse vaguely resembles an eye means... what exactly? Your god is watching you in "sign language"? So volcanoes and thunder are him getting angry in "sign language" too? Where to clouds that look like phalluses fit into all of this?
Truthfully now, how many virgins have you sacrificed to the volcano to appease him. Be honest.
It's this kind of stone age thinking that makes me a pessimist about the future of the human race.
Posted by: OneNationUnderThor | July 25, 2008 12:02 PM
Robin Edgar:
No, I'm pretty sure I haven't misrepresented you. You're invoking the supernatural (i.e., intelligent design(er)) to explain coincidental phenomena (i.e., the apparent identical sizes of the sun and the moon).
However, I'll be open to the possibility that I have misunderstood your arguments. Please clearly explain how the apparent identical sizes of the sun and the moon (from Earth) constitute evidence, even circumstantial, for intelligent design.
Posted by: KM | July 25, 2008 12:05 PM
Holy Barshit Robin. Bang, Pow, Doh!
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 25, 2008 12:05 PM
"...Atheist Supremacists resort to mockery and ridicule when confronted by something that they cannot easily refute through reasoned and rational debate."
No, we only resort to mockery and ridicule when someone has proven themselves immune to reasoned and rational debate, Mr. Poopy-Pants.
Posted by: OneNationUnderThor | July 25, 2008 12:07 PM
Two circles are congruent...almost.
Therefore, Intelligent Design.
Um...
Two concentric circles sort of look like an eye.
Therefore, Intelligent Design.
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, over?
Posted by: dinkum | July 25, 2008 12:08 PM
That should say Batshit. Takes the initial meaning away to screw up an insult.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 25, 2008 12:08 PM
And if the Moon didn't nearly cover the Sun at eclipse, the droolers would be saying,"See, the gods are real. They don't want to frighten us by making the Sun seem to go away." A small moon would have interesting ramifications on history and literature, not to mention the tides and whatever that has meant for evolution.
Posted by: dkew | July 25, 2008 12:11 PM
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 11:34 AM
Where it is proven that you cannot argue with crazy.
Posted by: Sean D. | July 25, 2008 12:13 PM
I wonder if the Baylor College of Medicine will end up changing its name so people don't think they're teaching ID there.
Posted by: freelunch | July 25, 2008 12:14 PM
I don't know when he first made an appearance here, but I find Robin Edgar's classic old-school kook a refreshing change from some of the Catholoons (but then I still love the Juice soundtrack). Jung on, RE. Word.
Posted by: SC | July 25, 2008 12:15 PM
"The concern, he said, is not that Lilley has taken Baylor in a more secular direction, but that the school needs an even "bolder" Christian vision."
Nothing makes my day faster than a nice helping of double-speak.
Posted by: bonefish | July 25, 2008 12:16 PM
"see if you can figure out what the theological and Intelligent Design implications of the total solar eclipse distinctly resembling the pupil and iris of an eye are"
So pareidolia is evidence for ID? Wouldn't it have been easier just to find a picture of that grilled cheese sandwich with Mary on it? Then you wouldn't have to deal with all the inconvenient stuff about the moon moving and stuff. Can't you figure out what the theological and ID implications of grilled cheese resembling Mary are?
Posted by: Brian W. | July 25, 2008 12:18 PM
These were the same people that burnt libraries. These were the people who allowed nearly all of the works of Sophocles, Aristophanes and Aeschylus to be lost. These are the people who burnt people to death at the stake, or flayed the flesh from their bones, for disagreeing with them. These are the people that saved, out of a science and literature that was the equal to everything and anything up to the 16th century, the few books that supported THEIR case.
Out of huge libraries of hundreds of authors and millions of books, we have Aristotle and Plato.
Yes, I'd say that those indeed were the people I was talking about.
Posted by: Akheloios | July 25, 2008 12:19 PM
To Robin Edgar,
Let's take it as agreed that the moon is a similar apparent size to the sun, and that during total eclipse they look vaguely like an eye.
Can you proceed from there to explaining why this is any sort of evidence for ID?
In particular, is the fact that Jupiter and the moon have very different apparent sizes evidence against ID? Is the fact that during eclipse they look nothing like ears, lungs or legs also evidence against ID?
Also, I presume you're aware that total eclipses are so rare, from any particular location on the Earth, that the vast majority of humans will never see one. Given that, please explain why total eclipses -- and their odd coincidence that most humans will never even notice -- have any sort of theological significance.
Lastly, you are aware that sensible people grew out of regarding the moon, sun and planets as "gods" (and "all-seeing eyes") several thousand years ago, are you? Just wondering . . .
Posted by: Coel | July 25, 2008 12:19 PM
"You haven't yet put forward anything that could be reasonably and rationally debated. Suppose a total eclipse does resemble the pupil and iris of an eye, what are you asserting follows? There is nothing there to argue with."
Wrong. There is plenty there to argue with and even agree with. . . First of all it is not simply a supposition that the totally eclipsed sun distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of an eye during most total solar eclipses. The distinct similarity of the total solar eclipse to a gigantic eye staring down from the sky has been duly noted by modern astronomers such as Jack Zirker, who was moved to call at least metaphorically call it "the Eye of God" in 1980, and diverse ancient civilizations. Total solar eclipses only occur because very precise celestial mechanics cause the sun and moon to have virtually identical apparent sizes when viewed from the surface of the Earth.
Astronomers like to refer to this reciprocal relationship between the actual sizes of the sun and moon and there respective distances from the Earth as a "coincidence" which implies mere chance but one can just as reasonably, if not more reasonably. . . consider this precise mathematical relationship to be part and parcel of the Intelligent Design of our solar system. When the odds against a "coincidence" occurring by pure random chance are very high it becomes quite reasonable to consider that the alleged "coincidence" is not really a coincidence at all. As Carl Jung said regarding the phenomenon of synchronicity -
What I found were 'coincidences' which were connected so meaningfully that their 'chance' concurrence would represent a degree of improbability that would have to be expressed by an astronomical figure.
Carl Jung, Collected Works vol. 8
It is a readily observable fact that the totally eclipsed sun distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of a gigantic eye staring down from the sky. The degree of improbability that our number one source of light which allows our eyes to see should so distinctly resemble our organ of sight, when it is totally eclipsed by our moon, would have to be expressed by an astronomical figure. The odds against this unusual visual phenomenon occurring by pure random chance are extremely high. It is thus perfectly reasonable and rational for intelligent human beings to consider that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is the product of Intelligent Design rather than the result of pure random chance.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 25, 2008 12:22 PM
Yes, Robin. And this past weekend Rev. Sun Myung Moon's helicopter crashed into a mountain shaped just the same as a mountain. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 25, 2008 12:23 PM
Still Batshit Crazy Robin!
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 25, 2008 12:27 PM
Robin, you talk a great deal about probability. How about showing your work?
Posted by: MartinM | July 25, 2008 12:27 PM
Be on your best behavior, Canada, Greenland, Russia, Mongolia, and China. On August 1, god will be watching...
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEmono/TSE2008/TSE2008.html
Props to Robin for letting us know!
Posted by: Larry | July 25, 2008 12:28 PM
At first I thought Robin Edgar was indulging in satire.
However I have revised that first impression and now think he is just Dagenham.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 25, 2008 12:29 PM
Of course, when dealing with astronomy, one rather expects to find astronomical figures, what?
Posted by: Wooster | July 25, 2008 12:30 PM
Robin Edgar (#85) suggested,
Those are the only options? One can't rationally disagree?
Talk about myopic phenomena.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | July 25, 2008 12:30 PM
You could as well say that it looks like a giant arsehole. What would that prove about the nature of god?
But hey! Who am I to argue against an eclipsologist and a syncretistic urban shaman?
(By the way, Robin, you haven't explain away my piece of meat yet and why that is a coincidence while your eclipse isn't...)
Posted by: Arnaud |