Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Greased Poll
.
The Undiscovery Institute is kvetching about a poll reported in the Toronto Sun that supposedly showed that 58% of Canadians believe in evolution. Specifically, the DI's Gofer General, Casey Luskin, cries foul because the only options given were whether humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years or whether God created people in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
The Undiscovery Institute is kvetching about a poll reported in the Toronto Sun that supposedly showed that 58% of Canadians believe in evolution. Specifically, the DI's Gofer General, Casey Luskin, cries foul because the only options given were whether humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years or whether God created people in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Luskin, for once actually has a point separate and apart from the top of his head, as far as that goes. The restricted options do render the poll's results of limited interest. What's interesting is what Luskin delivers himself of next:
[W]hat about those Canadians who believe in some form of God-guided evolution, where God's guidance doesn't just mimic natural processes but involves tangible action in the real world (i.e. God didn't use purely neo-Darwinian material processes to create life)? Again, those folks, whose views, under a scientific translation, would be quite compatible with intelligent design, are given no place in the poll.
Say what? Intelligent design is a "translation" of belief in God's tangible action in the real world into "science"? But wouldn't that really make ID a sciencyesqueish theology?
Who'd have thought it?
.
Who'd have thought it?
.
Comments:
<< Home
AS the Rev. Dr. Lenny Flank used to say (and still does, for all I know), all ya gotta do is let 'em talk. :)
Isn't the past particple of "think", in you last sentence, "thunk"?
(As in "Whoda thunk it?") ;-)
(As in "Whoda thunk it?") ;-)
# posted by 
: 9:03 AM
: 9:03 AM
Isn't the past particple of "think", in you last sentence, "thunk"?
I started to say that but couldn't decide what the proper form of "Whoduv'" ... "Whodda" ... Whooda" ... was. Not to mention that I don't remember what a past participle is anymore anywhoo.
I started to say that but couldn't decide what the proper form of "Whoduv'" ... "Whodda" ... Whooda" ... was. Not to mention that I don't remember what a past participle is anymore anywhoo.
I love "sciencyesqueish"!
It's much better than the academic-sounding "parascientific" which I like to use under similar conditions.
It's much better than the academic-sounding "parascientific" which I like to use under similar conditions.
Long ago, I had a friend who fulfilled a lifelong interest by going to work for an antique books store. Years after, we met up and I asked what was the most important thing he'd learned, expecting to hear some arcane insight into the world of first editions and ancient manuscripts. His answer: "How to bullshit!"
For some reason, every time I read the latest outpouring of Luskorrhea I'm reminded of that.
For some reason, every time I read the latest outpouring of Luskorrhea I'm reminded of that.
# posted by : 7:41 PM
: 7:41 PM
...where God's guidance doesn't just mimic natural processes but involves tangible action in the real world (i.e. God didn't use purely neo-Darwinian material processes to create life)?
Did Luskin go on to say just what processes God did use? Did he just quote Behe ("Poof.")?
Did Luskin go on to say just what processes God did use? Did he just quote Behe ("Poof.")?
Did Luskin go on to say just what processes God did use?
I think he something like "I am not programmed to respond in that area."
Post a Comment
I think he something like "I am not programmed to respond in that area."
<< Home
