Pope Benedict and (Un)Intelligent Design

(Un)Intelligent design has to be one of the daftest ideas to spring from the heads of the creationist lobby. Dafter, even than the silly creation myths invented by the ancient Hebrews in an attempt to explain the world about them. That supposedly intelligent people in the 21st Century still believe this hokum is, in itself, pretty amazing. If amazing is the right word here… :dry:

Still, the idea that there is some “intelligent” designer creating life as we know it as propounded by the preposterous and silly watch explanation persists. Yeah, I know, these people are comparing apples with oranges; a watch, designed and created by human hands cannot reproduce so, therefore, cannot evolve, but you have to accept that these people are attempting to pervert science to match their own crazy view of the world. The outcome is childishly stupid arguments so laughable that defeating them with logic is impossible because that would mean we have to let go of our aching ribs long enough to point out the glaring flaws and circular arguments.

Not to be out done, the Pope is planning to embrace this pile of debunked bollocks  pseudo science it seems:

There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of “intelligent design” taught in some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence.

I suppose that I shouldn’t be too surprised by this development. After all, this man believes that a man can die, stay dead for several days and come back to life again despite this being biologically impossible. Not to mention immaculate conception, manifestations of supernatural beings and talking bushes. Given his delusions, the idea of some supernatural designer isn’t much of a stretch. It does, however, make him appear to be even more of a crackpot than I first thought, though…:devil:

It will take time to convince other catholics, says Dominique Tassot:

A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week’s meeting was “to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if [the Pope] knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so.” In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin’s theories were “more than a hypothesis”.

Well, yes, that’s because the weight of evidence overwhelmingly supports it. We have seen it in action – how else did MRSA become immune to the effects of antibiotics? Living organisms respond to their environment or they die; it really is as simple as that. To deny the facts of evolution is to be wilfully ignorant. Ah, well, we will see if Pope Benedict can reverse science and reality by a century or two… Will he, I wonder, manage to convince the “most Catholic intellectuals” who, doubtless will be dismayed by his embracing this pile of horse shit in favour of science, that this is the way to go? You know, the good old days, otherwise known as the Dark Ages when what the Church said went and anyone who disagreed was a heretic? And we all know what happened to them, now, don’t we?

7 Comments

  1. I would expect nothing else from a man who, as a cardinal, had been head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the ‘Inquisition’.

  2. A thought just occurred to me, concerning linguistic pedantry. In this, I am minded of your lambasting of our very dear Perry concerning phobias.

    Before MRSA was immune (to Methicillin), it was not MRSA.

    Best regards

  3. Catholicism isn’t big on empirical evidence, it’s doctrine requiring that the faithful believe that the wine really does literally transform into blood and the host into flesh. Despite tasting rather strangely still like wine and wafer. A little odd, unless they also believe that Jesus could drink George Best under the table.

  4. I think you may have slightly missed the point about ID. As I understand it, it was created deliberately to dress up creationist ideas in pseudoscientific garb to get round the fact that the US church/state separation, which wouldn’t let them teach religious ideas in schools.

    By claiming that they have a scientific theory they’re trying to hoodwink people into believing that evolution is controversial and that the alternative theory should be given equal weight in classrooms.

    So yes, creationist ideas may be daft as you say and they’re easy to mock. But the reason they’ve been put into this form is quite devious and we shoudn’t assume the people who are putting them forward will just go away when ridiculed.

    Lots more info about this long-running battle here:

    http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

  5. Oh, I understand it alright. I was once unfortunate enough to be shown a book written by one of these loons – a pile of poo if ever there was. Nor do I expect them to go away anytime soon. In the meantime, I’ll mock their stupid ideas and circular arguments, exposing them for the tosh that they are. :devil:

    Useful link, by the way. Thanks.

Comments are closed.