I’ll let the author speak for herself:
I can see how an ID course might worm its way into some backwater institution like Pigfucker U out in Yeehaw, Alberta… but U of T?!? What are they thinking?!
I’ll let the author speak for herself:
I can see how an ID course might worm its way into some backwater institution like Pigfucker U out in Yeehaw, Alberta… but U of T?!? What are they thinking?!
Interesting. She’s a Vancouverite sticking up for Toronto and dissing her neighbouring province. It takes all kinds.
It’s amazing how tolerant a liberal becomes of your opinion when they are shown how wrong they are.
I think we should have a special division in the Armed Forces for Spurned Liberals, just point them at the Taliban and say they to them they don’t agree with you – the Afgani legal system would be clogged with complaints.
Actually, one can reasonably argue that the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, is now academically superior to the University of Toronto. As Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said, “Experience has established that institutions, which at the outset were useful, often end by becoming intolerable abuses owing to the simple fact that everything around them has changed […] and they have not.”
We must be careful to allow only sanctioned thought to be promulgated at our universities, lest there be curiosity, reasoning, intellectual challenge, or (gasp) discovery.
I admire her virtuous tolerance.
I wonder if the author knows that the THEORY of evolution is called a THEORY for a reason. On the surface Darwinianism seems to offer a sound basis upon which we can build a stable society. Yet, rooted as it is in the modernist mindset of the nineteenth century, it has wrought great evil when used as an excuse for genocides and the practice of eugenics. Of course what the author also fails to realize is that the only thing that keeps her from accepting Creationism instead of Evolution is her own bigotry. Creation is just as valid an explanation for diversity and similarity of living beings as evolution. Since none of us were present at the moment of creation not one of us can definitively state that this or that is correct. Based on my experience and interaction with the Creator I say that creation makes more sense than evolution. Someone else who has never experienced the Creator would probably think that evolution makes more sense but that is where tolerant intelligent people can agree to disagree.
BTW Does the author know she is bigoted as shown when she slanders Albertans, rural people in general, and Christians?
Not that the author will know it or care but my bigotry tells me that if I wanted to give Canada and enema, Toronto is where I would insert the nozzle, and I’m sure that if I inserted the nozzle far enough I would hit U of T and buried deep within that fetid pile in a homogeneous state I would, if I cared to look, find the author.
Sorry for the ugly imagery but this kind of twaddle coming from some self proclaimed intellectual deserves as good as it gives.
Theology is a waste of intellectual effort anyhow, so I personally couldn’t give a rat’s ass what they teach in it.
As for the comment about U of A, I’m not sure exactly what is meant by ‘academically superior’. U of T outranks all the universities in Canada in research dollars and outweighs (by far) the output of U of A in that respect. U of A is admittedly a member of the group of thirteen, but it receives half the endowment (at least) and has half the endowment per student.
Joe:
I daresay you don’t have a clue about evolution. It does not pretend to be a theory upon which you build a ‘stable society’. Also, a theory is actually a more encompassing notion than a ‘fact’: a theory explains a large number of facts in a compact form.
If your only hope is to trot out the “it’s called a theory for a reason” line, then I’m here to tell you that it doesn’t hold water.
Check out Ken Miller’s lecture on YouTube. He was a witness at the Dover trial; he’s a Catholic and an evolutionary biologist. Watch the video and he’ll clear some of it up for you.
Anon, you’re an idiot.
Theology is no more a waste of intellectual effort as is psychology . . . and it has a much broader appeal and historical relevance.
Whether it has (or deserves) a commercial application is another argument. My particular view point is that if it isn’t hard science, it has no place in University . . . but then that’s just you and me.
Cheers,
lance
Yes, if we get any more LIEberal ‘tolerance’ it will be the death of us.
Universities are institutions for “FREE THOUGHT” and places of “INTELLECTUAL DISCOVERY”.
Thus a priori this wonderful individual dismisses outright a line of inquiry because it doesn’t fit their preconceived ontology.
In other words parrot the deconstructionist mantra because everything but the ‘unrepentant hippie view’ is false.
No hint of arrogance there.
And of course the usual Toronto is the center of the universe while Alberta is the stereotypical ‘redneck’ capital of the world.
Pretty inclusive mentality there, yesiree!
Shucks, lady, you be speakin badness ’bout my alma mater, PU. Me and baby Oinkz ’bout had enuff a yer rainpuddle pen-drippin. I’d tell yall to xpect a lettur from our aturney, soonaz he dun schoolin… but as one who puts much discernment into his wordcrafting, I hold that it would be more sensible to apply the ink to the drawing of a funny little mustache on your visage.
Teehee!
Anon:
I hope you don’t get too bent out of shape but evolution is still a theory not a proven fact. If you choose to read all the evidence from one perspective you can infer that evolution gives answers. But if you choose to give creationism an honest exploration you will find it answers far more and is more in accord with other scientific disciplines than is evolution.
The biggest problem people have with creationism is they summon the imagery of God the medieval Catholic Church perpetrated which presents God in the image of man. Please open your mind imagine God who names Himself I AM. This statement is the beginning of our understanding of Him. I AM whose very being is existence chose to share His existence. With whom shall He share? He begins by bringing into existence all that exists. Then He begins to bring order out of chaos, separating light from dark, wet from dry etc. Into this creation He begins to share another quality of Himself and that is life. From viruses to redwoods, from single celled animals to the blue whale he brought life to His creation. Finally He determined that He would make Man in His own image. The Bible in its opening chapters gives us an understanding of the Nature of God being comprised of three attributes. Yahweh (I AM) has three attributes He has Will, He has Reason, and He has Presence. From His Will sprang His Reason and in His Presence He made everything that exists. Nothing exists outside of Him and nothing exists apart from Him. The universe and everything in it is a physical manifestation of His Presence without containing or limiting His Presence to mere physicality. Gaia worshippers come close to the truth except their god is limited to the physical. Yahweh is beyond space and time as advanced mathematics shows. A theory in advanced mathematics indicates that at the moment of the big bang 7 dimensions disappeared. Yet Yahweh is ever present as indicated by advanced physics which has discovered that empty space is not empty but rather is full of energy that is energy bubbling into matter dissolving into energy instantaneously. Given the Will and the Reason that all pervasive energy becomes matter or else remains as energy. That matter may be in the form of a blazing sun, a planet, a moon. That matter may be infused with life. That life may be made in the image of Yahweh possessing will, reason and presence. Should that life possess these three that life can become eternal by ceding to the Will, Reason and Presence that created it in the first place.
Theology, creationist biology, advanced mathematics and advanced physics point in the same direction. Evolutionary biology points in another direction which shall you choose?
Or not.
The fact that this universe exhibits an astonishing degree of apparent design is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. It’s the implications of intelligent design that bother people. Many prefer to believe that life is unintended, undesigned, unplanned, and without ultimate purpose or meaning rather than run the risk of following the implications of design.
Of course, the downside of ridiculing intelligent design is that if there wasn’t any, the brains of ID deniers are undesigned; they are the results of mindless, undirected material processes and we should have no reason to trust anything that comes out of them.
Atheists like to have their cake and eat it too. They want to deny God’s existence so they can control their own lives, but they also want to believe that their lives have meaning and that they have value and worth as human beings beyond that of a slug, for example. They also uniformly believe in reason, logic, and rational thought — none of which make sense if the universe is purely materialistic and there is no design behind our brains.
Also, without God, there is no ultimate right or wrong, good or evil — there’s just molecules self-organizing and, sometimes, colliding with one another. In a purely material, unintended universe smashing a baby’s head is of no more consequence than smashing a rock — both are, ultimately, nothing more than assembled atoms. But something inside a human being greatly resists this idea, and if and when a psychopath comes along we generally view him or her as a defective human being. But, if we are undesigned, how can some of us be considered defective? One version is as good as another.
The idea that there is no ultimate good and evil is another concession that atheists are often unwilling to make, although some, pressed by the logic of their materialistic position, will posit that there is no such thing.
Belief in intelligent design is a credible intellectual position to hold; it is a credible answer to all the facts of life before us; it is atheism that is rife with inconsistencies and improbabilities.
That too.
All religion is like the institution in the Laurier quote given to us above by Vitruvius.
There should certainly be room for a course in Intelligent Design at the U of T. As there should for Ptolemaic astrophysics or Leschenko genetics or Marxist economics. There is a lot to be learned from failed ideas and the faith they inspire.
The point of universities is not to teach what is true but rather recognize that truth is provisional. A best estimate this week.
Our current global warming orthodoxy needs the steady application of skepticism and empiricism it gets at this site and many others. In twenty years I suspect it will have the same punctured status as ID/geocentrism/instant adaptation/class consciousness: a faith which failed.
But failed faiths are not uninteresting. Why were certain sects of Christians so desperate to disprove Darwin? Why were so many people so eager to sort their garbage and pray to St. Algore?
These are excellent questions for sociologists – hard scientists will get on with their work.
I rank ID right up there with global warming theory or the flat earth society. Science has proven through countless years of diligent research that life evolved on this planet to its present form. I am not anti-religion by any means, but to suggest otherwise is just beyond the pale. If you choose to believe that God exists, ok fine, that is your ‘personal’ belief and you are free to pursue that avenue of spirituality to its fullest and make of it what you will. But suggesting ID and science are even in the same ball park is just ludicrous or even worse delusional.
As for this princess, if she is an accurate representation of a U of T graduate, then they are a sad excuse for a university.
christian faith has given us the law and morals that we live with today. i don’t think there is much wrong with that. if anyone can prove how the universe came to be that would be nice.
As science is a search for understanding, its conclusions can only be tentative as it awaits new information. In science, a theory is as good as it gets.
This is unlike creationism/ID which assumes an answer without evidence and closes its mind to any new information. In creationism/ID, there is no thinking whatsoever.
OH for the day when christians become non christians,through a bit of research, and start thinking for themselves.I mean old timers moved ahead from Eatons catalog in the outhouse.
The self righeous angst of the “unrepentant old hippie” is just plain stupid.
ID is a croc. Duh. I no more believe in intelligent design than in Santa Claus or the Great Pumpkin.
But what’s wrong with a 6 evening lecture dog-and-pony show asking some some questions, and giving some pause for thought. I see this course as entertainment, not serious scientific thinking.
Just to be clear, Ron, I didn’t say that “religion is like the institution in the Laurier quote”. I said that the U of T may be pushing its luck in that regard.
Look, I think that science should be taught in science class, theology should be taught in theology class, music should be taught in music class, &c. At the end of the day, caveat emptor secus emptor culpa.
They are all part of the human learning experience. If you look closely, you will also note that they have different axiological value functions. I would no more have a student not study comparative religion than I would have them not study song.
Because, let’s face it, they’re all a part of the ultimate goal of humanity: engineering.
I don’t believe ID V Evolution is the point lance is trying to get across with his posting of the link to this “old hippie”
That fact of the matter remains, if you don’t agree with a leftist, you are the one who is intolerant, not they. You are probably some country bumpkin, religious nut who says praise Jesus at the end of every sentence.
Truthfully though, it is they who are a bunch of intolerant, foul mouthed bigots. Look deeply into their eyes and you will see spoiled children who have never grown up.
Pigfucker U, before I even read the article I immediatly thought of toronto, the name fit, Hog Town.
I’m sorry,
I can’t pig fuck her ewe,
I’m the wrong species on both counts.
And besides, I don’t even know her.
PFU from an Alberta backwater eh?
Kate this is less a tolerance issue as it is a Lib-left core personality disorder.
Statements like this betray the self centered elitism and inbred ignorance and genetic hubris of the dogmatic Liberal…it is just one genetic trait that has spawned this universal truism:
“Liberalism is a mental disorder”
I don’t see why any university at the public traugh is teaching any religon. That’s about the extent of my agreement with her.
Then as to be expected Joe weighs in from the other far side.
The statement by Old White Guy “christian faith has given us the law and morals that we live with today” is the kind of bunk that is driving people away from religon. In fact what the christion religon has done is borrow good ideas and then claim them as their very own.
Keep in mind Joe that the bible(s) old/new/rewriten/redesigned are basically poorly writen novels that have had an excelent sales job.
I’m a bit of an old fart so maybe I’m missing something in this little debate. I don’t know exactly what is proposed in ID beyond the basic English meaning of the two words, but it does seem to me that Darwinian evolutionary theory is a pretty good example of an “intellgent design”. Is there more? Cheers. Eric
@Jay, 3.36am “The point of universities is not to teach what is true but rather recognize that truth is provisional.”
I see kool-aid is replacing ale again…
The purpose of a university is (ideally) to teach its students how to think. This means that its faculty ought to practice what they preach.
BTW: “Unrepentant old Hippie” can snipe at Alberta culture from the cover of net anonymity and 800 miles of distance.
But it is nice to know that when in Alberta culture someone as ill-mannered, boorish and condescending as this 60s hag would probably have some speed bumps installed in its mouth, free of charge, by some self respecting Albertan with a esteem for polite society.
At least the “Alberta backwater” has a culture where vulgar obnoxious people and pathalogical arrogance are shunned…I see these two deep personality flaws are the basis for west coast pseudo-noetic cults.
If you find ID more objectionable than skank hippies with attitudes who vote to raise your taxes then you might be a closet Liberal sockpuppet.
For those unable to communicate with the less intelligent, please use the following template to fit right in:
“Anyone who (choose ‘believes’ or ‘doesn’t believe’…) in (…insert topic here…) is obviously deluded and mentally deficient. I mean, come on, get a clue. This is just the product of (…insert pet peeve here…) and (…insert boogeyman here…). Why, oh why, can’t the rest of the world be as intelligent and tolerant as I?”
There you go folks…now the intelligent folks can play this game, too.
By the way, I think that the above applies to the unrepentant hippie as well as several of the commenters on this thread. I welcome intelligent debate but detest name-calling and taunting…improve your debating skills, please.
Intelligent Design is looking at the pock marked surface of the moon and realizing that life on earth is simply a matter of the luck of the draw.
And sooner or later, the dice are going to roll against us.
Religion or no religion.
At the end of the Permian geological period 96% of all life on earth was wiped out, inclduing all mammels over 20 lbs.
So where do pigs come from?
Obviously, pigs come from pig fuckers.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
First off,
Are you all retarded? Somehow you’ve managed to assume that some hippie from Vancouver Island represents the view of the liberal-left. Typical attitude of a lefty you say, maybe your prejudice is typical practice for a righty.
Secondly,
Joe, please stop. For the love of the sweet holy zombie Jesus, please stop. “Evolution is just a theory, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution” is like saying “the ministry of truth speaks the truth” or “Da proof is da proof”. Evolution is not some hippie pseudoscience. It is a profound discovery about the nature of life on earth. By strictly adhering to the scientific method, scientists (of which I assume or pray that you are not) are able to judge their assumptions by observation of the world, and, unlike religion are able to reiterate as they close further on absolute irrefutable fact.
So,
That old hippie is obviously a left wing ideologue, she supports SOW and would probably march in a parade against eating food if GWBush said eating was good. Instead of critiquing her arguments, you’ve made her the spokeswoman of the Liberal/NDP alliance.
ID can be taught in schools, so can evolution. We need to teach our children the cognitive skills that are so lacking in our friends like Joe and this old hippie. It just happens that they lack these skills on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum.
Given that half of the commenters here agree with you, Jon, obviously they aren’t all retarded, else you are too.
Ha Ha! Someone said LIEberal!
Never stops being funny, no matter how many hundreds of times people use it!
Many SDA posters prove that humansd are not terribly far removed from the rest of the primate family.
Vit,
Sorry I deleted the first paragraph to my post and that was left over. I am retarded at proof reading, the same way that someone who actually believes ID is retarded at life.
No, Jon, they are not “retarded”,
independent of whether or not
I agree with them on this topic.
Beware hubris, my son.
“I am retarded at proof reading, the same way that someone who actually believes ID is retarded at life.”
And people say I act like a 12 year old.
Jon, Dalton McGuinty was just re-elected by people like you, people who think Jesus is a significantly bigger election issue than taxes in the year 2007. I could not possibly have less respect for you or your opinions and I think you should find another website to troll, one more appropriate for your age.
You have no respect for him, Andrew, and yet you’ve only heard one of his opinions. Sure, that one was at best dubiously expressed, still, seems rather narrow-minded to me.
Western Canadian at October 20, 2007 8:13 AM and Vitruvius at October 20, 2007 8:40 AM, thanks for a couple of great laughs!!
Have any of you noticed how the advocates of ID gleefully latch on to any new scientifically based correction or new perspective on the multifacited theory of evolution and promote it as proof that the theory is wrong, in other words accepting the fruits of the scientific method as valid. While at the same time, these same folks do not ever submit their own ideology to any critical method of scrutiny. Apparently, science can be used to “disprove” the other guys, but don’t you dare suggest that the postulations of ID or Creationism be subjected to the same rigors. I wonder if they’ve ever even noticed the hypocricy of that position.
Now, for my own take on the science versus religion thing. I don’t think they are incompatible at all. Most of the avowed atheists who declare there is no God, have based their conception of what “God” is on the Judeao-Christian version of it, allowing, as well for the same treatment and rejection of other gods created by humankind. The thing is, whether or not a creative being or force exists is not dependent on any feeble conception mere humans might have come up with. Just because they have understood the various human created mythological conceptions and under scientific scrutiny have found them lacking doesn’t mean they have proven that a god does not exist. Therefore to triumphantly declare the non-existance of such a force is a bit hypocritical. The arrogance that accompanies the triumphal stance is unbecoming of a scientist, who, by definition, should always be open minded and always maintaining a sliver of doubt.
I would prefer a science that admits that the big bang theory, while it may be correct, cannot explain who or what caused the big bang and how such a staggeringly spectacular event could just happen without time and some physical manifestation preceeding it. Infinity has to extend both ways – into the past and into the future – and that is a concept that I suspect no human can get their head around. That is the mysterious realm where I think God is present. By comparison, the petty bickering and oneupsmanship of the creationism versus evolution debate is like a kindergarten brawl.
“You have no respect for him, Andrew, and yet you’ve only heard one of his opinions. ”
An outright fabrication, he’s commented here and elsewhere before and has a link to his site. He’s established a pattern as a Christian hater at several blog sites.
In the future I’d prefer you advocate cutting my taxes instead of backtalking me, a known fiscal conservative trying to make your country better.
Vit,
You alluded earlier to being an engineer. I was wondering (as a young engineer myself) how you correlate your belief with fact?
Can you with any confidence tell me that a soil is competent to build on without testing? Hopefully your answer is no. The reason why science is science and faith is faith is because in science, everyone is skeptical of everything, whereas in faith, one must not be skeptical, but just to believe.
When people post stuff saying that those who do not see the intelligent design are not opening their eyes, it makes me sad. The human brain, in all of its holy glory, has evolved because of the stresses and pressures that billions of years of history has put on its predecessors.
The only water, IMHO, that creationism (or ID by any other name) holds is based on a single question. How did inanimate objects become animate beings?
The fortunate criterion of the truth is that it works no matter who it inconveniences. Science does not exist to create a stable society, neither does freedom.
ID is the pseudoscientific face of belief, which is incongruent with science.
Andrew,
People like me sit on CPC boards of directors. People like me are making the electricity you use in your life. People like me will keep you from dying before you are 80.
You deserve to have more respect for people like me.
Sounds like a tad of inbreeding going on here !
Andrew,
A Christian hater? Maybe a Christian mocker, but only when your stupid ideas are worthy of mockery.
The theory of Intelligent Design logically necessarily includes the concept of an Intelligent Designer. (aka the Deity, aka God.)
Regarding that, here’s what George Gallup, mathematician and statistician founder of Gallup polling organization, had to say: “I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.” (from “The Reason Why” by RA Laidlaw.)
Perhaps Ms. Vancouver could ponder that quote and offer a logical counter…but I doubt it.
Oh, and I think religion is a perfectly fine and absolutely fascinating topic for teaching at universities. This is another problem I’ve noticed a lot of avowed atheists have. They seem to think that the teaching of religion has to mean ramming dogma down one’s throat. Well sorry, folks. The religious studies classes offered in most universities are no different than any social science or humanities discipline. They are a critical examination of the history of ideas and the marvelous variety and complexity of the creations of the human mind. Great stuff as far as I’m concerned.
As a bonus, you get to learn all kinds of deep and profound lessons about life from a whole variety of perspectives. Any religious studies department will offer courses on all of the world’s major belief systems. This Christianity-centric antagonism is just plain ignorant prejudice.
Who is this nasty, cussing ignoramus who is ranting about limiting freedom of expression in Canada?
You’d think unrepentant old [smelly] hippie would understand that because, in his own words, “the University of Toronto is the top, the most world-class, university in Canada, hands down,” they’d be defenders of an individual’s freedom to express their views.
Given that Intelligent Design is very much in the forefront of scientific debate these days, why wouldn’t a top-notch university engage an articulate advocate for this position? Denyse O’Leary is eminently capable of teaching the main components of this approach to biology because of her interest in, and writing on, ID over the years.
Contrary to smelly old unrepentant hippie’s intolerant views, Judeo-Christian viewpoints are relevant to this discussion and certainly should have a place in academe. I’d like to commend the University of Toronto for their intelligent, tolerant, and open attitude towards freedom of expression.
I’d also like to suggest to this smelly old hippie that he heigh himself off to a nunnery or a convent to become either acqainted or reacquainted with the Creator of Heaven and Earth or that he, poste-haste, go to confession in a Christian Church of his choice.
It would do him a lot of good, and might relieve us of his intolerant, ignorant, closed-minded, uninformed, and tiresome views.