Google Fight!

| 48 Comments

Under the heading “Stupid Web Tricks” file the following:

Google fight between Evolution and Intelligent Design.

(No Darwin dolls were harmed in the making of this demonstration.)

Other results: “sincerity” beats “Dembski” by a 20-1 margin and “Berlinski” is ko’d by “informed criticism.”

Note to the overly sensitive: the contents of this post are not considered to be clever beyond measure. They’re just a momentary diversion.

48 Comments

That’s very misleading. If you go to google and enter “intelligent design” with the quotes, you only get 750,000 hits, vs. 19,600,000 without the quotes.

On the other hand googling for Darwinism yields only 598,000.

“Pee Wee Herman” beats “William Dembski” 199,000 to 37,200.

This seemed hopeful:

Love: 153,000,000 Hate: 29,400,000

Then I got:

War: 203,000,000 Peace: 83,700,000

So I guess we still have a long way to go.

Christian: 78,000,000 Atheist: 2,000,000

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 5, column 16, byte 372 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

DarwinFinch.

I posted only to this particular article because I found it humorous. Is it beyond your understanding of Christianity to think that we could have a sense of humor?

As to your questions for me, yes, I consider these questions on an almost daily basis. It troubles me greatly to know that the lower-case “c” church abuses my own faith, and how those abuses drive people away from a relationship with God that is the anchor of my being.

I would ask you to remember that the lower-case “c” church is a construct of man, and as such, is inherently flawed. But I’d ask that you not throw the baby out with the bath. Yes, there are flaws and abuses and even criminal behavior that exist in the church. The same could be said of corporations, of government, of the world of academia, or of any other institution of man. But because something is flawed doesn’t mean that its purpose isn’t noble, or even that it’s incorrect.

If you have allowed someone like me to “push you into the atheist camp”, then people like me are doing an exceptionally poor job of representing ourselves and our faith, and you have my most sincere apologies. My faith isn’t about other people, or their failings - it is about God, and His perfection.

My weaknesses and frailties and failures are too many to count. I’m a Christian not because I am superior. I am a Christian because I am a failure.

However, I would suggest to you that you know nothing of my faith. I’m not very smart - that’s obvious enough by my writings and by my own admission. I’m not charismatic enough nor knowledgeable enough to change the world. My morality is imperfect and suspect, and as you rightly point out, it is badly flawed.

But I keep working on myself, and with God’s grace, I hope to continue to improve who I am as a human, and to hopefully help others discover what I know of God.

Thank you for your comments, as they remind me of the work I have before me, and why that work matters.

I don’t know what you know, nor do I know how well you know it. I hope that whatever you know, you bring it to bear on humanity in a way that best satisfies your own convictions.

I fail to understand why you feel the need to degrade me, as you have done in your comments, but that’s not for me to understand - it’s only for me to learn from and take to heart as they apply to my life and my personal growth.

Thank you,

-david

One more thought on this, DarwinFinch, since you asked me some questions which I attempted to answer. I’m hopeful that perhaps you’ll be as candid in your answers as I attempted to be in mine.

You wrote:

“ …no God such as the one you present could possibly exist, except as a set of lies some group has agreed, for whatever reasons, upon. With many interesting exceptions, Chritianity at this time, at least, is a silly and twisted crock of nonsense.”

As you have questioned my sense of morality: Does it fit within your own morals to berate or disregard what others believe? Or are your stated opinions above the result of being treated similarly by people who claim to be acting in God’s name, and you are merely lashing out at me as a result of the poor behavior of others?

Do you regularly consider that there may be something wrong, even false, about your beliefs, and especially about how others professing similar beliefs abuse them? No? Have you ever really considered these questions?

Thank you again for your kind consideration. I’m here to learn, and have little to teach in return.

-david

Reed Cartwright found:

Evolution bests Creationism

Evolution: 39,300,000 Creationism: 700,000

But that’s not playing fair. You’re picking up references like

“The evolution of George Bush’s persona …”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselectio[…]5454,00.html

I don’t think you want to go there.

Unless, of course, you want to claim that Bush’s persona undergoes constant random mutations, and survives in a particular state based on the external environment of public opinion, only to evolve into a new form when the external environment changes (which, BTW was the point of the Guardian article).

Cute Blog Mr. Evans…

His arch-nemesis, at least in the blog sense, would be found at http://www.pandasthumb.org - a scientific blog that seems to feature an inordinant amount of “fundamentalist” or “evangelical” bashing. And aside from the proselytizing, could be a very interesting site as well.

I’ve met many, many preachers in my time. I’ve yet to meet the Christian preacher, regardless of denomination, who doesn’t profess Christianity to be the “right” way and everything else wrong and derrived of Satan. This is, of course, a “bash” on all other religions.

Withing Christianity, there is the same problem. The Fundies bash everyone not a fundy and frequently get into pissing contests of their own. Church of Christ says that if you’re not Church of Christ you don’t go to heaven. Period. Mormons are cult and relegate all non-Mormons to the lowest (third) circle of heaven and have the hubris to baptize the dead of other religions so they can ascend to the second circle of heaven. Most everyone bashes the Catholics who, in turn, pretty much, say that they’re #1 and you need to come back and toe the line.

But more on line with your point… Nobody here is bashing you for your religion, when you’re keeping it to yourself. When you’re not holding yourself up with smug superiority. When you’re not lying and making bullshit semantical arguments in order to push an intellectually bankrupt psuedo-scientific worldview on those who want nothing to do with it. When you’re not, as a group, trying to violate the Constitution of the United States by tearing down the Church/State seperation with bull-crap arguments.

We have a right to be free from YOUR religion and limited, superstitous, unenlightened world view. As much as you have a right to wallow in it…

And when those rights come into conflict, the Constitution rightfully says: “Mr. Evens, put a sock in it.…”

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 26, column 183, byte 3571 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

David, do you regularly consider that there may be something wrong, even false, about your beliefs, and especially about how others professing similar beliefs abuse them? No? Have you ever really considered these questions?

I point out in passing that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, who killed probably a billion people between them, were all professed atheists.

So if you want to start equating people’s beliefs with those who “professing similar beliefs abuse them”, you might want to look in a mirror once in a while . … .

No one has a monopoly on moral behavior. Or IM-moral.

It’s a part of what I believe that people should lift each other up, and support and nurture each other, and care for each other in the best ways that we can.

Indeed. That, I think, is the essence of any religion. And should be the essence of any NON-religion, too.

Everything else is just arguing over symbolism.

I fail to understand why you feel the need to degrade me, as you have done in your comments

Because, just like the fundies, he wants everyone to share HIS religious beliefs, and no others. (shrug)

I’ve yet to meet the Christian preacher, regardless of denomination, who doesn’t profess Christianity to be the “right” way and everything else wrong and derrived of Satan.

Then visit your local UCC.

There are extremists among those who would label themselves “Christians”, just as there are extremists who would label themselves “Agnostics”, “Secular Humanists”, and “Atheists”.

Can you give me an example of an extremist who describes himself as a Secular Humanist? I ask because, compared with christianity or revolutionary communism, Secular Humanism’s simple and benign principles are relatively hard to distort into a form suitable for extremism or terrorism.

What religion doesn’t believe it is right?

Buddhism, Taoism and Zen make no claims to be “right”. Indeed, all of them state explicitly that they don’t “teach” anything. Anything at all. They don’t have any doctrine to BE “right” or “wrong”.

David,

You make some telling points. Personal belief is just that; well, personal. When groups or individuals profess a belief and use it as a means to oppress or exploit others,(eg burning at the stake, now thankfully quite rare) that is obviously to be opposed and condemned.

But Science does not address belief, and I agree that some of the more rabid denunciations do the cause of Science a disservice.

When you’re not, as a group, trying to violate the Constitution of the United States by tearing down the Church/State seperation with bull-crap arguments.

Um, perhaps you are not aware that the founder and head of People for the American Way (a group which is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, “trying to violate the Constitution of the United States by tearing down the Church/State seperation with bull-crap arguments”), is the Rev Barry Lynn, an ordained minister.

Perhas you are also unaware that the list of plaintiffs in the Maclean v Arkansas case (whcih was filed to PROTECT the Constitution of the United States by PREVENTING the fundies from tearing down the Church/State separation with bull-crap arguments, includes:

The individual plaintiffs include the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, as well as several persons who sue as parents and next friends of minor children attending Arkansas public schools. One plaintiff is a high school biology teacher. All are also Arkansas taxpayers. Among the organizational plaintiffs are the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the American Jewish Committee, the Arkansas Education Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the national Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty, all of which sue on behalf of members living in Arkansas.

Is it your opinion, therefore, that we should not support People for the American Way because its founder and leader is a Christian? Is it your opinion that we should repudiate the Maclean decision because most of the people who filed it were Christians?

The vast majority of Christians, “as a group” SUPPORT the separation of church and state. As shown above, many of them are willing to organize and file lawsuits to PROTECT separation of church and state (something I am pretty sure that YOU have never done, by the way).

If you mean to say “fundamentalist Christians”, then SAY “fundamentalist Christians”. Lumping them together as “ALL Christians”, simply makes you look like a bigoted uneducated dolt.

But Science does not address belief, and I agree that some of the more rabid denunciations do the cause of Science a disservice.

And does the creationist/IDers a SERVICE. The core of their argument, and the primary source of their funding and recruits, is their silly notion that “science and religion are incompatible”. By playing along with this, the ideological atheists only help the fundies, and hurt the rest of us.

But then, like the fundies, all the ideological atheists care about is pushing their religious opinions onto others. And like the fundies, they don’t care who or what gets hurt in the process.

Despite all their loud yelling at each other, they are brothers under the skin. After all, war is most bitter when waged against those closest to us.

You make some telling points. Personal belief is just that; well, personal. When groups or individuals profess a belief and use it as a means to oppress or exploit others,(eg burning at the stake, now thankfully quite rare) that is obviously to be opposed and condemned.

Agreed. The use of any belief system (no matter how true, noble or benign the belief itself may be) to oppress or control or exploit other people is reprehensible. Sadly, humanity has a stellar history of using religion to do exactly these things. Historically, religion isn’t exclusively to blame for the abominable behavior of humans against humans, but it takes responsibility for its fair share.

But Science does not address belief…

Doesn’t it? Is not a well-formed theory a statement of belief in its most basic form?

…and I agree that some of the more rabid denunciations do the cause of Science a disservice.

I also agree with this, while in the same breath agree that the some of the more rabid denunciations of science do the cause of Christianity a grave disservice.

-david

David Evans Wrote:

Christian: 78,000,000 Atheist: 2,000,000

Back to the Googlefights!

Jehova 394000 Buddha 4320000

The Rev. Dr.:

Buddhism, Taoism and Zen make no claims to be “right”. Indeed, all of them state explicitly that they don’t “teach” anything. Anything at all. They don’t have any doctrine to BE “right” or “wrong”.

I’m not so sure. Isn’t an anti-doctrine a form of doctrine? To me, when taoism says “That which can be named, is not the Tao,” that’s the same as saying, “The way of ‘Jesus’(or Buddha, or Mohammed, etc.) cannot be the way,” perhaps by elimination and not positive statement, but the central tenet of the belief system would seem to imply that others are, at best, misleading, if not ‘wrong.’

More GoogleFighting

Integrity: 59,000,000 Honesty: 9,230,000 Scientist: 60,800,000

Behe: 160,000 Dembski: 117,000

C.J. O’Brien,

I know nothing of Taoism, but that statement alone merely indicates that it’s different than the ways of Jesus, et al. I don’t see an implication of superiority.

As used in “that which can be named is not the Tao”, “the Tao” refers to “the ground of being” or the fundamental underlying principle of the universe; “the way” is the way of the universe, which Taoists strive to act in accordance with; it says nothing about “the ways of Jesus” or anyone else. There are a couple of apparent problems, such as that, if it’s the way of the universe, it shouldn’t be possible to be out of accordance with it, and the statement appears to be self-contradictory, since that which cannot be named seems to be named “Tao”, but I’m sure that, like other dogmas, the Taoist dogma contains answers to such apparent inconsistencies.

I’m not so sure. Isn’t an anti-doctrine a form of doctrine? To me, when taoism says “That which can be named, is not the Tao,” that’s the same as saying, “The way of ‘Jesus’(or Buddha, or Mohammed, etc.) cannot be the way,” perhaps by elimination and not positive statement, but the central tenet of the belief system would seem to imply that others are, at best, misleading, if not ‘wrong.’

Depends–you can have an anti-doctrine which is pure reaction, in which case your observation that it is a form of doctrine would hold. Or you could just not play by the same “rules” as a doctrine, which is something different.

The translation of “Tao” as “way” is unfortunate, because it leads to the misunderstanding of the “way” of Jesus or Mohammed as not the true “way”. I am not criticizing you for misunderstanding; on the contrary, it is a quite reasonable assumption, given that “way” or “road” is one of the translations of the character “Tao”. But it is not the only translation–in other words, there is not a one-to-one and onto mapping between the set of meanings of “Tao” and the set of meanings of “way”–and in this case it happens to be one of the more misleading translations. It implies that “tao” is a reactionary anti-doctrine to Christianity or Islam, when the reality is that it isn’t playing the same game by the same rules as the monotheistic religions are.

If you think of “Tao” as “the universe” or “all things”, then you get closer to the sense in which “tao ke tao fei chang tao” (the “tao” that can be named is not the true Tao) is to be understood. Notice that the 1st and 3rd words are the same (you can’t always assume that in romanization, but here they are). So the same character “Tao” has two different meanings in the first three words, one which approaches “the universe”, and the second which approaches “put into thought or words”. It is a different way of thinking about the universe and about all things than the Christian and Moslem ways, and any comparison has to recognize the different rules and playing fields between them, if it is to be a fair comparison.

Now there is another way (heh! the “wu way”), in which Taoism would say that Christianity or Islam is wrong–but it is not in their ideas, but in their activism. “Wu wei”, or doing nothing, is the Taoist ideal, and the monotheistic religions’ emphasis on conversion and proselytization (and yes, I am skimming over the real difference between the other two and Judaism here, but Judaism does emphasize good works, which would fall under the same rubric) would strike a Taoist as exactly wrong, in a kind of “unintended consequences” way. But that is quietism, or anti-(any kind of)-activism; not anti-other-philosophies per se.

I’m not so sure. Isn’t an anti-doctrine a form of doctrine?

I dunno —- is abstinence a form of sex?

To me, when taoism says “That which can be named, is not the Tao,” that’s the same as saying, “The way of ‘Jesus’(or Buddha, or Mohammed, etc.) cannot be the way,” perhaps by elimination and not positive statement, but the central tenet of the belief system would seem to imply that others are, at best, misleading, if not ‘wrong.’

You are ALMOST right ——– it means that there is no way.

None.

Not even Tao.

As the Zen say, “Not this, not that, not anything.”

The “belief system” of Taoism is to have no belief system.

As used in “that which can be named is not the Tao”, “the Tao” refers to “the ground of being” or the fundamental underlying principle of the universe; “the way” is the way of the universe, which Taoists strive to act in accordance with; it says nothing about “the ways of Jesus” or anyone else. There are a couple of apparent problems, such as that, if it’s the way of the universe, it shouldn’t be possible to be out of accordance with it

And it’s not.

, and the statement appears to be self-contradictory, since that which cannot be named seems to be named “Tao”

Nope. It’s only a “makeshift name”.

, but I’m sure that, like other dogmas, the Taoist dogma contains answers to such apparent inconsistencies.

Taoist “dogma”?

That’s pretty funny.

As used in “that which can be named is not the Tao”, “the Tao” refers to “the ground of being” or the fundamental underlying principle of the universe; “the way” is the way of the universe

It refers to “the way things are”.

“Wu wei”, or doing nothing, is the Taoist ideal, and the monotheistic religions’ emphasis on conversion and proselytization (and yes, I am skimming over the real difference between the other two and Judaism here, but Judaism does emphasize good works, which would fall under the same rubric) would strike a Taoist as exactly wrong, in a kind of “unintended consequences” way. But that is quietism, or anti-(any kind of)-activism; not anti-other-philosophies per se.

You are partially right — ‘wu wei’ does indeed mean “no action”. But this does not refer to passive inactivity. It refers to “not acting in ways that are in opposition to Tao”. In other words, it means not wasting one’s effort in things that are futile or impossible.

The concept is closely related to that of p’u, or “a tree in the woods”, which refers to a thing in its natural state, where it exists as what it is best suited for. Wu wei refers to living in a state of p’u, where one’s actions flow naturally from oneself, and are not produced by ideals or efforts imposed from outside.

“Be yourself”, in other words.

You are partially right — ‘wu wei’ does indeed mean “no action”. But this does not refer to passive inactivity. It refers to “not acting in ways that are in opposition to Tao”. In other words, it means not wasting one’s effort in things that are futile or impossible.

I think we’re saying the same thing–“wu wei” means “no action”, and the interpretation I prefer (but it is only an interpretation) is “active inaction”. It sounds like what you mean in the discussion of p’u. I did not mean to imply that Taoist inaction is passive, but it is certainly not activist, either. The contrast between “wu wei” and the activism of other religions is what I was trying to emphasize.

Wu wei refers to living in a state of p’u, where one’s actions flow naturally from oneself, and are not produced by ideals or efforts imposed from outside.

Yes, that is what I was trying to get at. Other religions say to do good works for the sake of doing good works. By “wu wei”, Taoism would mean don’t consciously do good works just because they are good works. But wu wei does not mean that if you are a person who naturally does good works because that is what you do and it makes you happy, you should stop–in fact, you should keep right on going with it; as you said, “be yourself”. That is the distinction I meant to draw between quietism (not passivity) and activism.

I think we’re saying the same thing–“wu wei” means “no action”, and the interpretation I prefer (but it is only an interpretation) is “active inaction”. It sounds like what you mean in the discussion of p’u. I did not mean to imply that Taoist inaction is passive, but it is certainly not activist, either. The contrast between “wu wei” and the activism of other religions is what I was trying to emphasize.

Okey dokey.

That is the problem – words are all we have to communicate with, yet words cannot communicate direct experience. That’s why taoism cannot be taught; it can only be learned. And the words don’t matter diddley doo.

:)

which Taoists strive to act in accordance with;

Missed this one before; there is nothing that Taoists “strive to act in accordance with”. Indeed, that is the whole *point* of Taoism — there IS nothing to “strive to act in accordance with”. Be what you are. Don’t strive to be what you’re not.

“To have no thought and put forth no effort is the first step towards understanding the Tao. To go nowhere and do nothing is the first step toward finding peace in the Tao. To start from no point and follow no road is the first step towards reaching the Tao.”

-Chuang-tzu

Tao is nothing. Literally.

Taoism would mean don’t consciously do good works just because they are good works.

There’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” works. Nothing is inherently “good” or “bad”; it is only our thinking that makes it so. There is yin, there is yang. Both are parts of reality, and both depend on each other for their existence. It’s impossible to have one without the other. Can’t have “good” without “evil”. Both are equally necessary parts of reality.

56,700,000 for truth 3,310,000 for bullshit

Is this supposed to mean there is more truth on the web than bullshit?

I hope that’s not the case.

T. Russ

that which cannot be named seems to be named “Tao”

Nope, that which is called Tao, is not Tao. Tao cannot be talked about.

That is precisely why Taoism has no “divine writings” or “sacred scriptures” or “holy books”. Certainly lots has been written about Tao, but none of those writings can describe Tao.

Even the Tao te Ching (which most people mistakenly view as a “Taoist Bible”) says that it cannot talk about Tao or name it:

“There is a thing confusedly formed, Born before heaven and earth. Silent and void It stands alone and does not change, Goes round and does not weary. It is capable of being the mother of the world. I know not its name So I style it ‘the way’ (Tao). I give it the makeshift name of ‘the great’.”

So you are actually right —– whatever the Taoists talk about, is not Tao. And anyone who thinks he understands Tao and can describe it to you, doesn’t understand it. But since words are the only means anyone has to communicate with each other, words must be used anyway. The trick is to recognize that the words are just words, and that the understanding comes from the things that the words point to, not from the words themselves. As Chuang Tzu put it; “Fishing baskets are employed to catch fish; but when the fish are got, the men forget the baskets; snares are employed to catch hares, but when the hares are got, men forget the snares. Words are employed to convey ideas; but when the ideas are grasped, men forget the words.”

“If it could be talked about, everyone would already have told his brother.”

But then, **no one** can tell you how to be you, except you. (shrug)

Definitive proof that the number of hits on google has nothing to do with the accuracy or importance of a statement:

Web Tip: Try removing quotes from your search to get more results.

Your search - “bruce chapman is a damned liar” - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly. - Try different keywords. - Try more general keywords.

Well, when I Google for “William Dumbski”, nearly all of the 180 hits I get are from ID/creationist sites complaining that we big bad evilutionists call him “William Dumbski”.

But hey, Googling “Dembski Isaac Newton of Information Theory” gives 763 hits — more than “Dumbski” does. So cheer up, Bill.

Googling “Behe’s bullshit” gives 455 hits. So presumably more people think Behe is a bullshitter, than think Dembski is dumb. And apparently more people think Dembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory than think Behe is a bullshitter.

Unless, of course, they are all just making fun of someone who is enough of a pompous ass to consider himself the “Isaac Newton” of anything . …

Nope, that which is called Tao, is not Tao. Tao cannot be talked about.

And yet here you are, talking about it. But, like I said, the dogma always offers an explanation.

And yet here you are, talking about it.

No I’m not. I *can’t* talk about it. Nobody can talk about how to be you, but you. (shrug)

But, like I said, the dogma always offers an explanation.

Like I said, Taoist “dogma” is a pretty funny concept.

Nothing is more individualistic than Taoism. Taoism is all about being yourself, and “being yourself” is different for every single person. No one else can tell you how to be yourself. Only YOU can do that. There is, quite literally, NOTHING that you “must do” or “must think” or “must believe” or “must change”.

That is the very antithesis of “dogma”.

Is this supposed to mean there is more truth on the web than bullshit?

I’ve always wondered what percentage of the web consists solely of porn . …

Ironic, isn’t it . … one of the most powerful media ever invented for communicating information, and most of it is used solely to allow socially-inept people to get their rocks off.

There’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” works. Nothing is inherently “good” or “bad”; it is only our thinking that makes it so.

Again, words get in the way. What I was trying to express is something like this: if person A feeds the hungry because it is in the nature of person A to feed the hungry, and it makes her happy, while person B feeds the hungry because her religion tells her she has to do “good works” to be a good person, Taoism would say that person A is acting in harmony with the Tao, but person B isn’t–even though the act of feeding the hungry is the same act to our eyes.

But to paraphrase, talking about the Tao is like dancing about architecture…

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 7, column 2, byte 687 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

That “whooshing” sound you heard was the sound of my point going right over your head.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Brauer published on July 29, 2005 3:13 PM.

More on Gilder, and Kansas was the previous entry in this blog.

Massospondylus embryos is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter