Along with Laura Dern, for your consideration. What a hoot ...! 'Next, another nightmare, my blood-gorged love-stick ...'

http://outchurched.com/2006/11/12/a-banana-the-athiests-nightmare.html

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

I guess that's the intelligent design argument on a micro-scale...

To those of us who believe in ID, we look at the whole world the same way - it was clearly designed for us.  If any number of factors were tweaked just slightly, then we wouldn't exist.  Turn the temp up or down 10degrees, move the sun a little further away, a little more or less gravity, a slightly different cocktail of air to breath...relatively minor changes in conditions, and we cease to exist.

Yet this doesn't fit with the evolution theory, so is summarily dismissed without intelligent or even critical consideration...

A laugh is a laugh, cybacaT ol'son.

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

Further South, Downunder in fact, we have a saying: 'av-a-go-yer-mug (usually yelled at a sportsman who you think isn't trying hard enough). Fair crack of the whip you bloody Galah! You must have a head like a sucked mango. Perhaps you're a basket case. Or there's a few Kangaroos loose in the top paddock? You're a snag short of a barbie, a beer short of six pack? Too slow to keep worms in a tin, if you know what I mean.

Best thing for it is to crack a tinnie and stop being a wowser.

Anyway, I'm off to the bog to leave an offering. May your chooks turn into emus and kick your dunny door down.

As we say in the antipodes, you ain't really met a Mexican till you've met a true blue one.

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

And atheists are accused of being illogically self centered for not believing in a higher power.

The environment must support the organisms within it, or the organisms won't survive. Ecosystems are full of mutualistc relationships. Detractors from intelligent design believe this, too.  It seems amazing because it is- that's how adaptation works.
 

I know Erwin , it's by Dawkins with a section on Einstein I can read without buying it at the bookstore.

Well, Nietzche was a good source I think--Camu and Sartre not so easy or concrete- can be hard to make sense of those guys. 

Look figure it as a death bed comfort pillow. An insurance policy?

 You've got it Bud. Will do.

Ah, to be preordered on Pagan Winter Solstice day !!!

Hmmm, I'll make sure the door is closed and the shades are down. Later guys, have a good one.

Yeah, Richard Pryor -RIP

There are 10 billion galaxies in the observable universe alone. Each of these has about 10 billion stars. If each of these stars has an average of just 1 planet, that makes 10 to the 20 planets, each with a slightly different temperature and atmospheric composition. Most of these planets are not suitable for life. We just happen to be living on one of the very few planets that is suitable for life.

In fact, the Gaia hypothesis states that the composition of the Earth's atmosphere is actually altered by the living organisms on the earth, to make the conditions more suitable for them.

All of the things you mention are dealt with by various branches of cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, etc, etc. A huge amount of scientific knowledge has been built up over the past 400 years, but the only thing that the "creationists" / "intelligent design" people ever seem to mention is Darwinian evolution. Why don't they question other branches of science or scientific ideas? Do they agree wth them? I have never heard anyone question general relativity and say we should reject it all go back to believing what's in the Bible.
 

Fred, can I be your bestest friend ever? :D

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

Fred

I think you start with the mistaken assumption that science and ID are polar opposites.  Rather, I believe science and ID are highly compatible.

Who doesn't believe in survival of the fittest and natural selection?  Seems like common sense to me...

I'm looking at a generation whose had it rammed into their heads over and over that tadpoles became ferrets, ferrets became monkeys, monkeys became men...etc.  As they say - a lie repeated often enough can become the truth.  The explanatory theory they're given for how and why this place is all put together as it is, is forumlated through an ever-changing and slowly developing understanding through science.

However when science stops, faith needs to step in.  Some reason that to generate the wide variety of species we have, that some magical morphing process must have occured over time to allow monkeys to become men for example.  It's a cute theory, and I guess if you have nothing better to go on, then you'll cling to it.

I prefer to embrace what Basil Fawlty would describe as "the bleedin' obvious".  Once you spend some time and reflection looking at the world and considering it with an open mind, I believe most rational people reach the conclusion that there is clearly Intelligent Design at play in our little spinning creation.

freshly squeezed

Yeah I know - it was just there for a laugh...sorry for "evolving" it into a more serious topic!!    ;-)

Dear Cybacat,

I am not sure what you are saying exactly. First you say that natural selection and survival of the fittest sound obvious. Then you say that evolution from "tadpole to rodent to monkey to human" is a lie. You say evolution is a "magical morphing process" implying that happens spontaneously and without reason or explanation. (This is not true. Evolution happens by a well-understood process of mutation, crossover and selection.)

Do you agree with evolution or not? Do you agree with natural selection or not?

Personally, I agree with both, because there are vast amounts of scientific, empirical evidence to support them. Look at the geological record of fossils, for example. There is a book called "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner, which explains exactly what the evidence is.

Fred

Of course I agree with natural selection - it appears abundantly obvious, without the need for intense scientific studies to prove the point.

It seems like natural selection is the bait used to get most people on the evolution hook - and seems to be an effective bait at that.  It's like those dodgy salesmen who impress you with some obvious truth, but then slide in their questionable product while you're still nodding in agreement.

Sure!...people say.  I believe in evolution - and then set about describing natural selection.

Uhuh...but they miss the part where the theory explains speciation through mutation.  The idea that a dog species could in theory become a cat species given enough time.  That's a fantasy story that's infinitely harder to believe.

So I'll agree that the taller trees get more sunlight and then are more likely to survive...and in turn the giraffes with longer necks get better access to the taller trees, and their genes are more likely to survive.  It's when someone tries to tell me that given enough time that giraffe species could turn into an elephant...that they've just stepped off a credibility cliff.