The following 12 steps have worked for those of us who were previously suffering from the bondage of evolutionary theory. If you happen to be suffering as we once were, we suggest that you give them a try.
1. We admitted we were powerless over Evolutionary Theory and that our research in the various fields of science had become horrendously unfruitful as a result.
2. Came to the valid inference that an Intelligent Cause much greater than time, chance, and natural processes was responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe and complexity in biology. And we understood that such a postulate could restore us to scientific integrity.
3. Made a decision to turn our efforts and research over to the duty of detecting specified complexity in nature as it was placed by an Intelligent Cause and committed ourselves to leaving specific questions about said Cause open for later philosophical discussion.
4. Made a searching and fearless inventory of our scientific methods and our previous dogmatic, antisupernatural biases.
5. Admitted to an unspecified designer, to ourselves, and to another scientist the exact nature of our errors.
6. Were entirely ready commit to a robust ID research program in an effort to make amends for years of methodological naturalism. 7. Humbly asked the unspecified designer to remove our naturalistic presuppositions.
8. Made a list of all ID theorists we had publically slandered, and became willing to make amends to them all. 9. Made public amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would jeopardize their tenure, research grants, or hopes for a fair dissertation examination.
10. Continued to take inventory of our scientific methodology and when we were wrong promptly admitted it. 11. Sought through hypotheses, testing, and experimentation to improve our ability to detect design in nature, hoping only for a better understanding of irreducibly complex biological systems and for research grants to further such investigation. 12. Having been set free from dogmatic methodological naturalism as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other suffering evolutionists whenever possible, and to practice these basic ID postulates in all of our scientific affairs to the best of our ability.
Although these previous 12 steps are only a suggestion, they have been incredibly successful in helping many a confused, depressed, and hopeless scientist break free from the bondage of macro-evolution and subsequently live a life of complete scientific satisfaction and integrity . . . one day at a time.
posted by: preceptlady (reply)
post date: 09.30.05 (7:57 am)
the intellectual truth that it is more important to have the right intellectual adversaries than to have the right friends is certainly proven here! lol!
isn't it interesting how the enemies of reason, such as mr. kramer and yourself, get so self-congratulatory when they make ridiculously flawed intellectual arguments?
rather than go down the list of the easily debununked 12 steps, i'll just offer a single question:
why would any christian who believes in a specific and exclusive theology about creation want anything to do with the deist concept of "intelligent design"? (You and mr. kramer actually do NOT have any spiritual alignement, by the way. mr. kramer, if i recall correctly, is a devout conservative catholic who submits to papal supremecy. you are an evangelical fundamentalist who rejects papal supremecy as heresy at best and as the anti-christ at worst. likewise, mr. kramer's theology sends you straight to hell in a handbasket without the sacraments of the true and only church of jesus christ, the holy catholic church.)
intelligent design is the most anti-christian new age-ish philosophy possible. there is no bridge between intelligent design and genesis, from a literalist perspective. absolutely none! the fact that people like you and mr. kramer are so ready to embrace intelligent design theory shows both your intellectual inconsistency and your spiritual hypocrisy.
intelligent design is not only psuedo science, it is psuedo religion. seeing two intellectually incompatible religionists embrace the same silly philosophy because of political expediency would be funny if it weren't so sad!
kurt misses the whole point of the article. Actually he has it backwards. I like Kurt in a lot of ways, but he has come down a long ways during the time that I have been reading his essays. I recall that at one time he wanted to start his own, Oh I don't know, lets call it a 'feel good church of whats happening now, baby!'.
