The Lesson of Super Bowl XLII

_{William Dembski

February 4, 2008

Just For Fun}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The lesson is this: The myth of invincibility is just that — a myth. Also bear in mind that Darwinism’s record isn’t nearly as good as the New England Patriots’ going into Super Bowl XLII.

Comments

I had the Giants picked to win. The Patriots and Giants played each other in week 17- the last game of the regular season and the Patriots won by only 3 or 4 points- so I knew that the teams matched up well against one another- The Patriots were playing to keep their perfect season alive and the Giants were playing to prove themselves. Both teams were letting it all ahng out. The reason why I decided the Giants would win is because sense I thought the teams were almost evenly matched I gave the edge to the team with the most momentum- which I saw in the Giants. I dont however thinkthat the lesson of invincibility is a good abstraction of this game for several reasons. One, both teams were pretty much evenly matched and also the fact that there were sevral games that the undefeated Patriots played during the regular season that they almost lost- The Giants won but only by 3 points and it required a Joe Montana like drive in the last seconds of the game. The real lesson here is this- DONT LISTN TO THE MEDIA AND THE KNOW IT ALLS- The have an agenda which is to create a dialogue that is not necessarily reflective of the reality of the situation. If people used their heards instead of listining to a bunch of people trying to build ratings they would have seen that this was probably going to be a close game.Frost122585_{February 5, 2008
February
02
Feb
5
05
2008
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

I too like the reference to SB as in sign that what is commonly thought to be an underdog can finally win. However the ID vs NDE match is likely to be only a period of the infinite telelology vs non-teleology match (as it had been for 2000 years). In this match the two sides had been, year after year and century after century, fought to gain "ground" (i.e. the percentage of suporters). What's really interesting in this long game is that ID came to play in a moment in which the teleology side had been lost almost all its ground and seemed to be almost defeated. I like the following comparison. In 1950 N. Koreans had occupied almost all S. Korea but Pusan, and seemed to be the winners of the war. But after ...kairos_{February 5, 2008
February
02
Feb
5
05
2008
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

The myth of invincibility? The way it works is honest science stomps Darwinism on the field but a propaganda machine masquerading as the press reports the score as a big victory for the Chuckles, and that's what becomes the perception amongst the non-thinking side of the public.tribune7_{February 4, 2008
February
02
Feb
4
04
2008
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Does anyone believe that if Wes Welker was playing for the Giants and not New England, that the score might have been 31 to 7 and not 17 to 14. What ID needs is a couple high profile ex Darwinists to come out on their side and not have any extensive religious associations. Do they exist? I hope so because without a few more paleontologists and micro biologists that subscribe to the possibility of ID, it will be hard to make real progress.jerry_{February 4, 2008
February
02
Feb
4
04
2008
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Tom Brady getting out of the pocket and throwing the long pass was exciting.
Oops, I am pretty sure I meant Eli Manning. Sorry. (This was the second game we watched all year).William Wallace_{February 4, 2008
February
02
Feb
4
04
2008
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

I watched the game with my young son...good thing I have a digital video recorder to get over some of those provocative commercials. Tom Brady getting out of the pocket and throwing the long pass was exciting.
Is there an element of rooting for the David of ID against the arrogant giant of Darwinism? Probably.
This was a motivating force in my studies. When I first noted the unfair tactics employed by evolutionists, it pushed me to more carefully consider young and old earth creationism as well as intelligent design. The nephilim are winning battles, at least for now. See Uncommon dissent @ Coincidence Theories (forgive my plug) for example. Feedback welcome as I am new to this blogging thing.William Wallace_{February 4, 2008
February
02
Feb
4
04
2008
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

The lesson is important because the price for not learning it is much higher than most people believe. In fact, most of us love goals and challenges if and only if they are reasonable. I once read that humans are at their motivational peak (as a group) when they believe they have about a 50% probability of succeeding. If the perceived probability of reaching the goal rises far above even odds, the goal begins to seem like a forgone conclusin and loses some of its power to excite. If the perceived probability falls far below even odds, it can appear that the effort will be wasted and that the exertion is not worth the risk. Most of us that are enthusiastic about ID believe that we have a reasonably good chance at winning and I think that the motivations that follows from that calculation animate us. On the subject of the Super Bowl and the New England Patriots, you must understand that I am not particularly objective or even rational. I live in Indianapolis, so I receive almost as much consolation when the Patriots lose as when the Colts win. My idea of bliss is watching Tom Brady get knocked on his .........StephenB_{February 4, 2008
February
02
Feb
4
04
2008
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Another lesson learned is that (great) defense wins championships. And the only defense of the modern theory of evolution is an a priori rejection of any and all alternatives.Joseph_{February 4, 2008
February
02
Feb
4
04
2008
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

I grew up in North Texas, so it should be no surprise that I've been a Cowboys fan as long as I can remember. Nevertheless, I rooted for the Giants even though they whipped my beloved Cowboys. Why? A good question to which I gave considerable thought. I think it is because I could not stand the arrogance of the Patriots, and -- like most Americans -- I tend to take the side of the underdog. I guess I love Davids -- even when the David is a Giant. ;-) This set me to thinking about why I support ID. Is it because I find its arguments persuasive? Yes, but I wonder if it is ONLY because I find its arguments persuasive. Is there an element of rooting for the David of ID against the arrogant giant of Darwinism? Probably.BarryA_{February 4, 2008
February
02
Feb
4
04
2008
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

"Invincibility has to be earned." The Pats, coulda, shoulda but didn't, and the theory of evolution hasn't, can't and never will.Joseph_{February 4, 2008
February
02
Feb
4
04
2008
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply