Replies

Thanks for the ping!

I agree with your frustration that the journalists are equating [political] conservatism with support for Intelligent Design. IMHO, it may well be part of the Democrats' ongoing campaign in the media. I say this because the word "conservatism" is being used more and more frequently and a staged event such as the above seems to float to the top of the news cycle.

IOW, the above forum was just as "staged" as the evolutionists fear the State Board's forum will be - but this one has the odor of being staged for the press rather than the press, in the course of normal reporting, covering a forum held for a productive other purpose.

In sum, this forum smacks of a "public relations" event and thus, you, PatrickHenry, have finally convinced me that the ID v evolution debate will become a political football. Not because it is political or should be, but because the Democrats are making it one.

If we are right about this turning political, the liberal candidates will themselves raise the issue in the next general election campaign for national office under the presumption that the intelligentsia will shame the religious into voting Democrat. On that point they may well again have misunderestimated the Christians like they did in letting homosexual rights onto the front burner. IOW, it just might backfire on them.

Also - as another indication of it turning political, the above journalist overstated the case on the evolution side when he said (emphasis mine):

Luckey was preaching to the choir during a five-hour forum that featured scientists, teachers and politicians who argued in favor of teaching students evolution because it is the foundation of science, knowledge of which will be needed to compete for jobs in the growing bioscience industry.

Evolution may well be considered a foundation to biological sciences but it could not hardly be a foundation for all the sciences.

But overstatements such as this are fairly common to political posturing with the press, e.g. the Democrats' overstating the "nuclear option" on shutting down filibusters on Judicial appointments as if it would apply to all of the Senate's business, frightening seniors into thinking the Republicans want to take their Social Security checks away, etc.

"In the evolutionary pattern of thought," said Julian Huxley on the occasion of the Darwin Centennial in 1959, "there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created. It evolved."

Quoth Julian Huxley. Note well the statement "the evolutionary pattern of thought." Hopefully, patterns of thought will have some connection to actual reality, or we humans are in big trouble. :^)

Also note this (tendentious) statement: "The earth was not created. It evolved." Which leads me to ask, insistently: Evolved from what? How can something evolve from nothing? Or was there a "something" from which it could evolve? If so, what is that?

To say that something evolves from matter according to natural laws, accounts neither for the origin of matter nor of the physical laws, let alone Life. Under these circumstances, how complete is the Darwinist explanation?

Personally, I believe in evolution -- of the "micro" type as it pertains to biological life, and of the Universe as a whole ("the evolution of a population of One"). I can't buy into macroevolution, however, because the theory "rests on thin air." And will ever rest on air, as long as the above questions are not answered. JMHO FWIW

From the standpoint of faith, I'd have to say that I do believe in a common ancestor however. To my mind, the common ancestor is: God. But God cannot be the subject of the natural sciences. Only His creation can be studied by means of the scientific method. What is not in space and time cannot be studied by science.

Thank you so much for your insightful discussion of the "politics" of contemporary science, Alamo-Girl! None of this should be political, IMHO. Worse, science should not involve itself in "religious disputation," as is clearly the case with the neo-Darwinist vs. Intelligent Design "camps."

BTW, I do not personally identify with either of these camps. I just say: Let science do its thing, let it follow all leads, let it not close its mind because it prefers a particular doctrine, or because a particular doctrine has elite support. FWIW

... you, PatrickHenry, have finally convinced me that the ID v evolution debate will become a political football. Not because it is political or should be, but because the Democrats are making it one.

Well, A-Girl, if I've convinced you, I've accomplished something of value. But I'm not sure what you're getting at here:

If this becomes a big issue in the next election cycle, I don't think anyone now committed to creationism/ID will be "shamed" into voting with the dems. And I doubt that will be the dems' goal. Rather, these elections are always fought over the undecided voters. The danger I see will become very real if the republicans are foolish enough to make support for creationism a party position. In that case, the dems will certainly try to showcase the conservatives as unscientific buffoons.