Fine tuning Intelligent Design News

Intelligent design 2.0? Huh?

Spread the love

I’ve been on this beat a long time. Never heard the term “intelligent design 2.0″ from an ID theorist. That alone would make me suspicious.

If I never hear “correct” language from the natives, I wonder. So I did a lingo search.

Well, results. Cute version. The conservative version (if you need it).

So far as I can now see, the term arose during the media uproar around Eric Metaxas’ Christmas day article in the Wall Street Journal, which committed the one unforgivable sin:

He suggested that factual evidence might support theism – as opposed to hillbilly hollers for some deity somewhere in the back of beyond.

The typical religion prof can make an easy living dissing those hillbillies on behalf of the intercontinental elite.

A living he can’t make off the evidence (then he’d have to work, see?).

Evidence means getting serious. Hence the war on evidence for design. And why Metaxas is a big problem for those folks.

See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology). (What you are told is science sometimes is – but you pay for it anyway.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “Intelligent design 2.0? Huh?

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    So ID 2.0 would be ID + God the Designer?

    Whats’ the difference between that and ID 1.0?

  2. 2
    anthropic says:

    Mung 1

    If you don’t know the difference by now, you don’t want to.

  3. 3
    chris haynes says:

    I was delighted by Eric Metaxas’ remarks on Theology Profs.

    Take a look at the Theology Department in a Jesuit (or a mainstream Protestant) university. It is a wasteland of ignorance, laziness and anti-intellectualism.

    Courses galore on the Theology of Feminist Climate Science, or 9th Century Liturgical Minutia, but zilch offerings on a response to Scientism. Elitist Scientism is not just unchallenged, it’s endorsed, and its why most of the students don’t go to church.

    The reason why is even more bleak. The Profs aren’t Catholic except in name.

    Perhaps worse, they’re utterly ignorant of Science, and find that acceptable. Few could explain what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is about. They haven’t heard of Fine Tuning, except for a few who have bumped into something like Metaxas’ article. Having an understanding of Physics, not 1 in 100.

Leave a Reply