Comments on: Two Quotes http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/05/two-quotes/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Colin Danby http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/05/two-quotes/comment-page-1/#comment-142899 Colin Danby Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:48:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4281#comment-142899 Thanks for the second link. Father Coyne is especially clever to approach the issue via the stellar origins of the matter we see around us, which has to be one of the most elegant and powerful of all scientific insights. Once you see that it's hard not to think in terms of long periods of time, and to understand how certain kinds of complexity arise. Thanks for the second link. Father Coyne is especially clever to approach the issue via the stellar origins of the matter we see around us, which has to be one of the most elegant and powerful of all scientific insights. Once you see that it’s hard not to think in terms of long periods of time, and to understand how certain kinds of complexity arise.

]]> By: Tad Brennan http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/05/two-quotes/comment-page-1/#comment-142894 Tad Brennan Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:15:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4281#comment-142894 Bloke's name is George V. Coyne, not Gregory. Bloke’s name is George V. Coyne, not Gregory.

]]> By: Martin James http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/05/two-quotes/comment-page-1/#comment-142893 Martin James Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:04:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=4281#comment-142893 How odd it is that even among critics of intelligent design, we still have so many believers in "uncaused beliefs". What is a theistic implication that Coyne can know that science is neutral regarding it? Why does this Intelligent Design ghostbuster still believe in ghosts? What is intelligent design other than a result of the operation of the universe? Why do people who profess to understand evolution think that evolution does not explain the exact mix that exists of believers in intelligent design and unbelievers in intelligent design. Why do they believe, like Gregory Coyne, that "what is" is neutral with respect to what "ought to be"? Obviously, because that is how they have evolved. How odd it is that even among critics of intelligent design, we still have so many believers in “uncaused beliefs”.

What is a theistic implication that Coyne can know that science is neutral regarding it?

Why does this Intelligent Design ghostbuster still believe in ghosts?

What is intelligent design other than a result of the operation of the universe?

Why do people who profess to understand evolution think that evolution does not explain the exact mix that exists of believers in intelligent design and unbelievers in intelligent design.

Why do they believe, like Gregory Coyne, that “what is” is neutral with respect to what “ought to be”?

Obviously, because that is how they have evolved.

]]>