Monday, October 31, 2011

Introducing the Scientific Theory of Redemptive Suffering

 
Before introducing you to this new scientific theory we need to remind ourselves of the difference between intelligent design and creationism. This is from the Evolution News & Views website [Is intelligent design the same as creationism?]
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
John Blumenthal wrote a piece at Huffington Post where he tried to apply this approach [Intelligent Design? Not If You're Over 50]. He noted that, "If you're over 50 and your body is starting to fall apart, it's pretty obvious that the design is anything but intelligent." I'm told that Blumenthal used to be an editor at Playboy magazine.

An anonymous correspondent at the Discovery Institute's blog, Evolution News & Views, decided to set Blumenthal straight by giving us the scientific, non-creationist, intelligent design, explanation [My Back Hurts Therefore It Wasn't Designed].
For some reason, the former Playboy magazine editor has never heard of redemptive suffering and assumes that any Designer worth his salt would have created a universe where everyone has a rollicking orgy in his own Playboy Mansion until one day, he has a painless death. How cruel of the Designer not to have taken Hugh Hefner's plan for a fulfilling life as a model.
Redemptive Suffering? I try to keep up with the scientific literature but that's a new one on me. It can't have anything to do with trying to deduce the motives of the Christian God of the Bible, can it?


5 comments :

  1. For some reason, the former Playboy magazine editor has never heard of redemptive suffering and assumes that any Designer worth his salt would have created a universe where everyone has a rollicking orgy in his own Playboy Mansion until one day, he has a painless death.

    That's actually not a bad assumption to make about a designer worth his salt. Although I'd remove the death part. A designer worth his salt should make things that don't die, unless he wanted to be rid of them at some point, which is his prerogative as designer but isn't indicative of any everlasting love for his designs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As ever, waiting to hear how "redemptive suffering" works for those afflicted with this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It annoys me to no end when IDiots refer to evolution as 'unguided'. It's guided by survival and reproduction. I'm pretty sure that was covered in my 8th grade science class.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My dad had been a church-goer in the past, but in one of our few conversations on religion he told me that his 'anti-Damascus' moment had been working on a hospital ward with congenital syphilitics.

    "The sins of the fathers...?" was his summation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

    No it isn't. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to express creationism in a form sufficiently sciency sounding and lacking specific religious references to clear the legal hurdles required to be included in a science curriculum. It was born of the Edwards v. Aguilar decision, is described in the Wedge document, and has no support from any scientific discipline it purports to use. It is a political scam, no more, no less.

    ReplyDelete