ID Insanity

by Neil Rickert

There’s a truly amazing post over at Uncommon Descent, amazing for its level of insanity.  The post is by vjtorley.

Note to accommodationists.  What you are accommodating is a suicidal pact for the human race.

The post starts off by praising the Earth as a wonderful place.  I can’t argue with that, for it is the only place we have.  But then comes the madness:

Someone who believes (as many Intelligent Design proponents do) that the Author of Nature is a supremely good Personal Being will also believe that this Being intended humans to know and love their Maker.  In other words, Intelligent Design proponents would tend to expect that the world we live in is a well-designed, resilient planet, where we don’t need to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about environmental crises.

Apparently, we need not be concerned about our planet, because God made it resilient enough to handle our abuse.  And just in case you think you might have misunderstood:

A God who made the world in such a way that the only creatures who were capable of knowing Him didn’t even have time to think about Him because they were too busy making sure that their activities didn’t destroy His fragile world, would be a pretty inept God.

There vjtorley makes it doubly clear, in case you doubted what he said in that first quoted segment.

He does not like theistic scientists who argue that God would have designed a world where species evolved without divine intervention.  But he does believe that God would have designed with world to withstand the environmental damage that humans might cause:

As an aside, I find it very curious that when discussing the question of origins, opponents of Intelligent Design insist that the world, if it had a Designer, should have been designed so as to be capable of generating new life-forms, from microbe to man, without the need for continual intervention by God. Yet these same people also argue that the world is too fragile to withstand the impact of seven billion human beings enjoying an affluent lifestyle, all by itself! My intuitions are precisely the other way round: it seems obvious to me that designing a world that can withstand the impact of seven billion people raising the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from its “natural” level of 0.03% to a level of 0.08% by the year 2100 should be a far easier engineering task than designing a world which is capable of generating ten million species of living things, including Homo sapiens, all by itself, from nothing more than a bunch of simple organic chemicals!

So what does vjtorley think about the global warming issue:

If our government tells us that there is an urgent environmental crisis that we need to fight, which imperils the very future of humanity itself, and that it will require a great deal of time, money and effort to combat this crisis, our first reaction should be one of deep suspicionWe’re probably being conned. After all, we know beyond reasonable doubt that there is a God, and God wouldn’t make the world like that.

Please read the entire post.  There is far more madness than what I have quoted here.

2 Comments to “ID Insanity”

  1. On one level, it’s quite funny, and then you realize, it’s supposed to be serious. That’s what makes it so scary and necessary to fight.

    My favourite part:

    “Does that give us carte blanche to ride roughshod over frogs, as we criss-cross the land with highways? Certainly not. What it does mean is that any sane and sensible ethic should start out from a “People First” premise. Highways save lives, over the long run. To take just one instance: think of how many seriously ill people they enable to get to hospital more quickly.”


  2. Yes, I agree both with the “serious” and the “funny”.

    Unfortunately, this sort of attitude will probably prevent us from doing much about CO2 emissions, until it is very late.


%d bloggers like this: