Comments on: NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial

By: piratelink

piratelink — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:59:16 +0000

www.freewebs.com/fsmpirate/

By: More DI dishonesty

More DI dishonesty — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:52:54 +0000

Discovery Institute Motto: Lying and stealing is alright if it’s done in the promotion of creationism.

Following on from the editing abuse of Attenborough’s programs in the Netherlands, now the DI steals and edits an animation from Harvard.

.
DI Fellows– EXPELLED for plagiarism

“Maybe they think it is ‘okay’ to use it anyway, because they stripped off Harvard/XVIVOs copyright and credits.
.
Maybe they think it is ‘okay’ because they gave the animation a new title (’Inner life of a cell’ became ‘The cell as an automated city’) and an extraordinarily unprofessional new narration (alternate alternate title– ‘ Big Gay Al takes a tour of a cell!’). Harvard/XVIVOs narration, all of the science, is whisked away and replaced with a ’surrealistic lilliputian realm’– ‘robots’, ‘manufacturing’, ‘circuitry’, ‘nano moters’, ‘UPS labels’. Maybe they think it is ‘okay’ because they turned all of Harvards science into ‘MAGIC!’
..”
.
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/11/di-fellows-expelled-for-plagiarism.html

By: El Peatieablo

El Peatieablo — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:00:51 +0000

I’m a fan of this program. NOVA seriously rocks.
@Peter Popoff
Is it just me or have you been a bit fond of Jack Handey Quotes recently?

By: Peter Popoff

Peter Popoff — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:42:34 +0000

I won’t be surprised if someday soon ID scientists find a big shark and cut it open, and there inside is a whole person. Then they cut the person open, and in him is a little baby shark. And in the baby shark there isn’t a person, because it would be too small.
But there’s a little doll or something,
like a Johnny Combat little toy guy… something like that, soon.

By: neal

neal — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:28:01 +0000

I live in Nashville and I remember a few years back, the owners of a local coffeehouse cooked a bun and its topography bore an uncanny resemblance to either Mother Teresa or the Blessed Mother and Child (I forget which). They put it on exhibit in their pastry case and did land office business.

Anyway one night the owner’s dog broke into the case and scarfed thre thing down. Naturally, they induced vomiting in the mutt, but somehow their sacred pastry was never the same.

By: Truth Fairy

Truth Fairy — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:40:47 +0000

*Passes some pasta and a tankard of rum to Fun Doh Mentalist*
RAmen

By: Truth Fairy

Truth Fairy — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:38:01 +0000

From the Panda’s Thumb
“sex, lies and a math mistake”
.
“First, the sex. I’ll admit right up front that this post has nothing to do with sex, except for the general nature of what the ID movement is trying to do to public science education in this country.
Before moving on to lies, let’s take care of the math mistake first.
Last week, in response to the splendid PBS/NOVA production on the Dover trial (Judgment Day: ID on Trial”), the Discovery Institute hacked out a booklet for teachers, called “The Theory of Intelligent Design: A briefing packet for educators, to help teachers understand the debate between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design…..”.”
.
pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/sex-lies-and-a.html
.
(add http://)

By: Fun Doh Mentalist

Fun Doh Mentalist — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:48:44 +0000

O.K….O.K… Great new religion! How do I become a minister?
How much? Are there matchbook applications available? How soon
can I make the big bucks converting, getting followers? Are multiple
wives allowed? O.K. O.K. how about dewy-eyed followers? Not too old;
not too smart. Has anyone claimed the Hamptons? How do I get in touch with Paris, Brit, and Lindsey?

Pass the pasta…I’m on board! Just need the book
and the the emblem for the car.

By: Old Grouch

Old Grouch — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:48:30 +0000

Passing note: This machine of mine does not produce hyperlinks; and the last time I put up information about the website and email, it had to be broken into separate words to get through. I’ve used quotes here, since I don’t know what the website provider might do with the material otherwise.

By: Old Grouch

Old Grouch — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:43:58 +0000

@Captain Capelli d’angelo - I used to post on our local Rocky Munchkin News “Reader Response to Letters to the Editor” pages - before they went over to requiring a password, which they assign, after one “subscribes” to their new website - and I am not without a fairly wide streak of crankiness that comes out at times; especially in response to today’s “conservative” political issues. I began by using my own name - and I’ll spare you the results of that, except to say, that personal harassment got way out of hand.
.
When I went back, my friend suggested that, given my age, and my not always sweet, gentle, and mellow disposition, I might well use a “pen name” more descriptive of how I am seen to be. So, I do; and I’ve stuck to it, out of force of habit, I guess, even when matters are religious in content. (Helps me to remember that I had better not begin to confuse myself as “messenger” with what I hope is a good message, too.)
.
Anyone who wants to read some of the less pleasant of my productions is welcome to go to “http://www.reflectionsinajaundicedeye.info”; and correspondence with “dickenslaw@myway.com” will get reply - though not always promptly, since I am not on the computer regularly. (I’m not all that much “sweetness and light” when it comes to some areas of religion, either. But . . . ! I also don’t claim “perfection”.)
.
If you go to the website, please drop a note on the Guest Book. It’s too expensive for me to offer a blog as such; but your comments will be appreciated, though not open to additional postings in reply.

By: PacificPam (ñaca ñaca)

PacificPam (ñaca ñaca) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:20:44 +0000

Yay…I just read the first line…It was enough and satisfying…=)

By: Old Grouch

Old Grouch — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:02:28 +0000

@ Pacific Pam - So far, from what I have read, and from the questions and replies that have been exchanged, I think you are, for the most part, very likeable people.
.
Since Orthodoxy stresses that the finite cannot, and does not, affect the Infinite, there is a great deal more opportunity to recognize that both satire and parody are a very refreshing way in which to keep HUMAN egos from over-inflation, as well as being, very possibly, an example of the fact that God’s own sense of humor is much greater than organized religions and their leaders are willing - much less able - to admit.
.
Perhaps the idea of a humorless God is at the root of that kind of response which would condemn others. There is something rather ridiculous in the approach, every time a funnymentalcase announces his, or her, interpretation of “obedience to the law/book in literal form”. The inflation of the “Pastoral” position/ego to a status of divine afflatus that confounds the messenger with the message seems to be almost universal in Western Christianity. And this more or less boils down to a kind of, “To insult/disagree with ME is to insult/disagree with God” - vide, an “Infallible Pope”, for instance, and a whole (un)-Holy Office of the Inquisition.
.
Carried over into Protestantism, I believe it was Milton who wrote: “New Presbyter is but old Priest, writ large.” (Sorry. I do get long-winded, and carried away at times.) Anyway, I do like you.
.
@Peter Popoff - My own background includes a Jesuit education, with double majors - philosophy being the subject area in which I wrote my Baccalaurate Thesis. On the way through, I encountered St. Photios of Constantinople, when doing a paper on the Schism of the early 800s, over the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Symbolion. I always get a little kick out of telling my good Roman friends that it was the Jesuits who made an Orthodox Christian out of me - unintentionally of course.
.
If you will forgive a quotation: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Altogether too often, Western versions of Christianity seem to teach that EVERYTHING has been, already, not only “seen” but completely explained, verified, proved, and cast in concrete: Just read the Book - or “follow the leader”, who knows it all already. Orthodoxy still stresses the word, “Mysterion” (Mystery) throughout. Which serves to remind us of the difference between finite/created and Infinite/Creator. And, although he was not himself Orthodox, Alexander Pope said it rather well: “Presume not God to scan./ The proper study of mankind is man.”
.
Just a personal note, here. Maybe, rather than asking, “Why does God let . . . ?”, we should ask, “What can we do to change, or eliminate, that which we now see as troubling, and has us baffled?” I like to think God gave his human creation a brain, and sentience, in order for humanity to USE THEM, rather than merely to regard them as some kind of “decorative” appendages.

By: Captain Capelli d'angelo

Captain Capelli d'angelo — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:35:07 +0000

@ old grouch

Sorry I tried to put you in the “box” with others. I remain an atheist, but nonetheless find your approach to faith refreshing vs. so many others I have met. You also managed to stay positive and explanatory when more that a couple of us were being confrontational. With your level demeanor I wonder why you tagged yourself “old grouch”.

By: PacificPam (ñaca ñaca)

PacificPam (ñaca ñaca) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 04:16:04 +0000

So, does Old Grouch likes us?

By: Peter Popoff

Peter Popoff — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 04:00:00 +0000

Old Grouch,
Thanks for the read.
I think I do have a better understanding of Orthodoxy.
It was nice to hear a Christian admit they follow “Blind Faith”.
Most Internet xtians get lost at that point, and get mad and stomp off.
Silly human pride or something.
For what it’s worth, I’m glad you have that faith.
.
I grew up Roman Catholic, and I know many people that follow God,
Much like you do
(they accept that some things shouldn’t questioned, and farther that there are no answers).

I respect that position, as long as my position (that I need solid answers
to questions before I’ll accept them) is respected.
.
Thanks for the reply,
Peter Popoff

By: PacificPam (ñaca ñaca)

PacificPam (ñaca ñaca) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:49:36 +0000

I did! hahahaaha

By: Masey

Masey — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:40:56 +0000

I don’t think there’s any obligation. Just use your scroll wheel.

By: PacificPam (ñaca ñaca)

PacificPam (ñaca ñaca) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:27:36 +0000

Man…I don’t even want to read this

By: Old Grouch

Old Grouch — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:36:44 +0000

@ Peter Popoff - The whole matter of, “Why God lets . . . whatever . . . “, is one that presumes that human-kind itself KNOWS HOW “God should act”. This mind-set is based on the premise that the finite/created somehow exceeds - or “controls”, or affects - the Infinite/Uncreated. And this approach is at the root of the anthropomorphization of God that gives us the mythological pantheons, where the “deities” simply mirror human behavior on a grandiose scale. From this anthropomorphic conception of “deity”, philosophy builds a whole structure of what humans “know” - or are supposed to be able to “know - ABOUT - God”, including such esoteric concepts as just exactly how each Person of the Holy Trinity inter-connects, and inter-acts, from inception. (And, if you don’t think that one is a real mind-bender, you haven’t had a Jesuit philosophy major.)
.
Orthodoxy simply refuses the whole idea of an anthropomorphic approach. As Orthodox, we know nothing ABOUT God; we know God. And this is a PERSONAL knowledge, by way of Revelation, brought to fruition with the Incarnation, and available to each of us through our Incorporation into the Living Body of Christ on Earth, by Baptism/Chrismation. Indeed, Orthodoxy goes on to teach: “Everything we say about Him, He is not.” Which serves to remind us that we are dealing with an Absolute Transcendence, beyond all human comprehension; Who has become an Incarnate Imanence for the purpose of restoring His whole creation to that which it was when He looked upon it, and “saw that it was good”.
.
We are allowed to use human language to teach, discuss, etc., etc., since language is the basic form of human communication. But, that which we teach, discuss, etc., etc., remains always “other than” the limits of language, which “otherness” is at root of the whole Mystery of Faith. Or, to try to put into some more or less modern terms, philosophy teaches “how to build a box, and know all about everything in that box”. While Orthodoxy begins by insisting that we “think outside ANY box”; or, perhaps to say it a bit better, since there is NO BOX, of any kind, that can begin to “hold” God, we really aren’t supposed to “think ABOUT” - i.e., label, pigeon-hole, categorize, set limits and boundaries, etc., etc., - God, or the “specifics” of the Mysteriae (Sacraments) to begin with, even though we live them as part of our own Theosis.
.
Councils strictly condemned the Augustinian formulae that began with his idea of the “stragis”, or “indellible mark”, as the sign of “Priesthood”; but Rome adopted the Augustinian “boxes”, and developed its entire pseudo-Theology on the premises that these were “necessary to salvation”; and that any “thinking outside the box” was heretical, which led to the excesses of the un-Holy Inquisition, where even the slightest degree of thought ventured against a “definition” could get one burned at the stake. Having now created “God” in man’s own image and likeness, by way of philosophy, Western Romanism could answer any and all questions of what “God ought to . . . .”. And, answers are found in the massive volumes of Thomism, etc., etc., to almost every HUMAN question - economic, social, cultural, political, etc. etc. - that Romanism developed over the Centuries.
.
We are all human. And most of us are familiar with the Western ethos, and Western philosophical approach. So, we too ask, “How/why God lets . . . ?” For Orthodoxy, strictly speaking, that is not really an “allowable” question. When Adam turned away from God, creation and human-kind were opened to suffering and death. And, as hard as it is sometimes to abstain from anthropomorphizing God, and seeking a particular answer as to “Why God lets . . . ?”, nevertheless that question remains one that has no really satisfactory human answer. Except insofar as the answer be one in which we acknowledge that we, as humans, do not fully know all ABOUT God, nor all that much ABOUT His overall - as well as often particular - plan and purpose.
.
We can only surrender the question; act with our fullest compassion; and, in Faith, leave it to God.
.
Which is not to say that it is not terribly frustrating to experience someone actually asking the question in a specific case. But, Orthodoxy doesn’t claim to have “all the answers”, as other forms of religion do sometimes claim.

By: Peter Popoff

Peter Popoff — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:22:13 +0000

Hello Old Grouch,

You are one of the best read Christians I’ve seen on this site
in the year that I’ve been coming here.
While I’ve established a trademark of being concise on this forum.
I’ll stick to that trait and ask you why God lets children be born ill,
And-or with terminal illness?
I trust you won’t give me a Bible quote (I know them all anyway).
But I will admit I’m lacking in the way of the Orthodox belief system.
Could you shed light on my question (from the Orthodox point of belief)?
.
Thank you,
Peter Popoff