PETZOLD BOOK BLOG

Charles Petzold on writing books, reading books, and exercising the internal UTM


Recent Entries
< PreviousBrowse the ArchivesNext >
Subscribe to the RSS Feed

Concepts of Intelligent Design Prior to the Scientific Revolution

November 21, 2008
Roscoe, N.Y.

"How could the sea-tides and the confined waters in the straits be affected by the rising and setting of the moon? Or the diverse course of the stars be maintained in the single rotation of the entire heavens? What is certain is that these processes could not take place through harmonious activity in all parts of the universe, unless they were each embraced by a single divine, all-pervading, spiritual force."

— Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, c. 44 BC (Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 54.

 

"I think it takes more faith to be like you, an atheist, than like me, a believer, and it’s because of nature, you know. I just don’t think we could have lucked out to have the tides come in, the tides go out, the Sun go up, the Sun go down. Don’t think it could have happened."

— Bill O'Reilly, interview with Richard Dawkins, The O'Reilly Factor, April 23, 2007.

 


Comments:

This is a version of the "Argument from Ignorance", and it's backwards. It makes the claim that the those things happen because we are here, not that were are here because those things happen.

— Delmania, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:25:47 -0500 (EST)

Charles, is your point that Bill O'Reilly's argument is over 2000 years old?

After reading both "The Culture Warrior" and "God Delusion", it's clear which one could have been written in 44BC.

Joe, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:04:14 -0500 (EST)

As FZ put it: dumb all over and a little ugly on the side :)

Horst, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:43:54 -0500 (EST)

Clearly the key difference between Cicero and O'Reilly is that it is highly unlikely anyone will be quoting O'Reilly some 2,000 years from now.

Tim Farley, Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:57:19 -0500 (EST)

I really wish that people would take the time to understand evolution, and also how given the large number of stars, and very likely the huge number of planets, that it would be very unlikely that there wouldn't be a planet in the correct position with regards to its star, to make it suitable for life (as we know it).

It's not lucky that there is a planet with the conditions for life. It would be lucky if there wasn't even one suitable planet, given the likely very large number of planets out there.

I would challenge anyone who agrees with the idea of intelligent design, or thinks evolution is a load of hokum to go and read some of the many sites where the arguments of intelligent design proponents and creationists are examined and the scientific answer to their arguements is put forward.

— Daemonax, Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:19:07 -0500 (EST)

> I would challenge anyone who agrees with the idea of
> intelligent design, or thinks evolution is a load of hokum

I don't think O'Reilly was arguing against evolution or for intelligent design, just in his belief that there is a creator. You could say that anyone who believes in a creator believes in intelligent design but I think you are referring to it in the context of the culture wars, creationism (ID) vs. evolution. It's not necessarily that black and white.

Did I just try to defend Bill O'Reilly ??

— Mike, Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:54:29 -0500 (EST)

Did no one notice Bill's phrases about the Sun going up and going down? That's the pov that would give earth (and by extension people on it) special importance.

Cicero and Bill O assume the earth the center of all matter. Bill ought to be more precise is his language, since i assume he believes in Copernicus.

We are specks of congealed matter. But that makes us no less wonderful.

— austin avrashow, Tue, 2 Dec 2008 01:32:20 -0500 (EST)

> Bill ought to be more precise is his language,
> since i assume he believes in Copernicus.

Normally I too would assume that Bill O'Reilly is well aware that the earth revolves around the sun, but how do you explain his mention of the tides? — Charles

Richard Dawkins is a great and intelligent man.

Bill O'Reilly is a fool by choice (and sizable contributions by the GOP).

Cicero was a man of intelligence, who is great despite his explanations of the universe.

— Toby, Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:07:43 -0500 (EST)


Recent Entries
< PreviousBrowse the ArchivesNext >
Subscribe to the RSS Feed

(c) Copyright Charles Petzold
www.charlespetzold.com