More Intelligent Design prattle...

Now I'm usually extremely tolerant of any belief system, religious or other and a great believer in freedom of religion. But this particular piece of piss really went down the wrong hole with me. In a typical "Christian plotter's" way, David Carlisle sets about singing the praises of another blogpost
by Joe Carter (who?) on the merits of ID and the alleged birth of a new religion, "neism". Another blogger referred to "neism" jokingly as "the Teachings of the Knights of Neh", the funny shrubbery-seekers in Monty Python's The Holy Grail, but neism isn't about that (unfortunately).

No, instead, neism, is supposed to be a new religion based on Darwinism (these religious types have "isms" oozing out from all pores). In Carter's own words:

...evolutionary biology has even birthed a new religion, a blend of naturalism and deism that I refer to as "neism.” In May 2004, I claimed that the problem with neism was that it was a “theology without a theologian” but that the time was ripe for ripe for a brilliant expositor who possesses the courage to reinterpret every religious impulse through a neistic framework...

Yeah, that's really going to go down well in the scientific community, even a nitwit like Carlisle sees no great danger to Christianity:

But, his [Carter's] concern about the rise of naturalistic deism is somewhat puzzling to me.

These people would do anything to avoid debate (I'm still waiting for a response to my comment on Carlisle's blog) but when they do, you can bet it's about as interesting as a discussion on the gender of the angels.

Also, these fun-loving Christians are so tolerant, aren't they? No, they aren't. A few quotes from the despicable article:

It would require a complex belief system to spontaneously generate from the disorder and chaos that exists in the discipline of scientific philosophy and thereby demonstrate that this evolutionary poppycock has indeed grown legs.

Evolutionary poppycock...

Most scientists are linked by a two common threads. First, they seldom agree on anything. They can’t even agree on what science is. A debate is raging within the scientific community over the fundamental issue of what is meant by the notion of a scientific method and what qualifies as scientific evidence. It has been raging for decades and doesn’t show any signs of cooling in the near future.

Scientists engage in meaningful debate, that's part of science. Christians burn non-believers at the stake and will simply kill others that don't believe in the ancient mutterings of a few long-gone fools or don't want to live under the yoke of a theocracy. See also suicide bombers...

In addition there is such a strong anti-religion undercurrent in scientific thought that anything resembling a religious movement within science is unlikely. I fail to see what would entice the average scientist to embrace Carter’s neism.

Let me see, I wonder where the undercurrent comes from (it's by no means widespread, let me assure you of that)? Religious persecution of sceptics and scientists alike perhaps?

So when the scientific evidence is questionable, evolutionists have the luxury of changing the definition of scientific evidence they use to support their assertions based on the philosophy that best fits their needs.

Evolutionists aren’t foolish, and if neism is as organized as Carter claims it is they are not likely to make any hasty moves that would jeopardize their hold on public opinion.

"Evolutionists", "Communists", "Sodomists", "Atheists": bad, bad people... Let's... burn'em!

Historical crimes against humanity committed by various Christian denominations are about as bad as, say the Nazi Holocaust and Nazi War crimes in WWII. Let's not forget that world domination was once a goal they successfully achieved. These people are outright dangerous. Evil, one might say, and I don't use that word often.

Thankfully, the navel-staring kind that Carlisle and Carter are, aren't likely to make up a great danger to our way of life and put ID in any positive spotlight. Keep praying, lads...

Keywords: Richard Dawkins, Intelligent Design, evolution, religion