The Discovery Institute is Stupid

What’s new though right?

In this rendition of “please believe us” the claim is made that Thomas Jefferson states that ID is not based on religious principles.

The article drones on (felt like it anyway) about how Jefferson believed in ID and that he “insisted it was based on the plain evidence of nature, not religion.”

However I don’t find this to be any different than any other religious view of ID, they point at the heart, the eye, the brain and its complexities as though this were proof. I even read one article asking me to believe that the monarch butterfly’s life cycle was proof enough for ID.

The piece then quotes a letter from Jefferson to John Adams dated April 11, 1823 in which Jefferson wrote:

“I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.”

Jefferson did say that, but he was speaking in a religious context, not a natural one. (If you want to learn to quotemine kids check out the Discovery Institute, they're like quotemining ninjas) The whole letter was about god and who he believed in, and though he was saying that he saw design in nature he was always attributing it to god.

That is the real problem of ID, that to be a designer requires a godship, godship fosters religion, hence, (pay attention IDers) it can’t be taught in schools. There's still that whole pesky constitution thing in the way.

Further, Jefferson had not been exposed to the idea of evolution, Darwin had not published it yet, or even thought of it for that matter. Up to that time most of the earth’s inhabitants believed in ID simply because there was no other theory on the issue. To my knowledge the only other idea out there was simply that the earth had existed forever and would continue to exist forever.

A clear lack of scientific understanding is shown in Jefferson’s letter, not that he wasn’t intelligent, it’s just that no one knew yet at that point in time. Jefferson’s letter goes on to say:

“Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws”

the DI conveniently left that part out.

He was attributing even a star’s “disappearance” to a creator, because he simply didn’t know that stars, like most everything else, have a life span. And, much respect Tommy J, but comets are not on incalculable courses, they only seemed that way to you at the time.

They go on to quote a portion (that I will only post a part of due to length) as evidence of a creator:

“…it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things…”

One of the main points that the DI fails to notice is that Jefferson used the words “perceive” from the quote at the top and “believe” from the one just above, clearly from his own opinion “…I say...”. He was saying this as in 'it is impossible for a human mind not to perceive / believe in a creator based on the evidence at hand in my opinion.' He was a founding father, not god DI.

And I actually don’t disagree with Jefferson’s point from his standpoint. If there is no other scientific theory, and at the time the theories of the origins were all philosophical, then the most reasonable philosophical idea would be chosen by any of us. It was very hard not to think of life as created by a designer, it even followed a semblance of logic based on what was known in the day. Mankind created complex things, hence mankind must have been created.

This is just another illustration of religion sticking it’s head as far up history’s ass as possible and trying their damndest to make it look like truth.