Dave Thomas posted Entry 1804 on December 21, 2005 04:10 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1799
This gem is too precious to be lost during the reaction to the Dover Decision.
Do you know how the Discovery Institute likes to say the Designer might not be God, but perhaps a Space Alien or Time Traveller?
Here’s a typical instance from
“It certainly could be God, a supernatural creature, but in principle it could be space aliens of high intelligence who did the designing,” he says.
Well, look out, Phil - here comes Discovery’s Jonathan Witt, with what can only be described as a Freudian Slip.
On Discovery’s “Evolution News & Views” Blog, Witt writes
The article [by ID critic Hector Avalos] then goes on to give the misdefinition of intelligent right out of the NCSE’s playbook (the National Center for Selling Evolution) The definition succinctly presents ID as an argument from incredulity that appeals to a supernatural agent when in fact ID appeals to positive evidence for design and merely detects design, leaving the question of the designer’s identity to religion.
Um, Jonathan, if the Designer really does turn out to be an Alien, why should the question of his identity be left to religion?
Oops, Discovery - it looks like your Agenda is showing!!
The image, btw, is from the cover of Michael A Lee’s book Wanted: One Freudian Slip.
Hat tip to Jack Krebs!
UPDATE Sharp reader PaulC has found yet another Freudian Slip, this one with TMLC lawyer Richard Thompson on the PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour for Dec. 20th, saying “creationism” when he clearly meant “intelligent design.” Kudos, PaulC!
Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.