Posted on 11/17/2005 9:25:39 PM PST by raj bhatia
A brilliant piece by Krauthammer, as usual. The punch line: "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The only reason an evolutionist would be the enemy of intelligent design is because it flies in the face of what is normal scientific methods.
So are you saying that Einstein was not a scientist?
"So are you saying that Einstein was not a scientist?"
Where in the HECK did you get that out of???
Seriously?
How can you get me saying 'einstein was not a scientist' out of the sentence "The only reason an evolutionist would be the enemy of intelligent design is because it flies in the face of what is normal scientific methods."
I'd like to see the leaps of logic that went into that conclusion.
Well Einstein believed that the universe was intelligently designed. Einstein was therefore a believer in Intelligent Design.
You stated that intelligent design flies in the face of what is normal scientific methods. Therefore Einstein, who believed in intelligent design and insisted that science without religion is lame, must not have been a true scientist. He was just one of those unscientific intelligent design nutcakes.
Einstein was Jewish, not Christian. ....and Krauthammer acknowledged in the article that they both believed in God. Krauthammer's central points are that A) belief in God and acknowledging the scientific validity of natural selection are not incompatible, and B) belief in God and recognizing that "intelligent design" is junk science are not incompatible.
Is Krauthammer a scientist? Or a theologian? Or both?
From reading his columns over time I've gleaned that he's most likely a religious man (Jewish), although I'd hesitate to call him a "theologian."
The bird flu virus is not evolving.
It's mutating. It's a virus that has been around for a long time and is changing slightly.
There are plenty of examples of mutation in biology which ARE observable.
Evolution is a separate matter. It is a theory.
Despite Darwin's title "Origin of the Species", no new species has been shown to originate from another.
No way I can top this. Bravo!
Newton was a heretical Chrisitian. Einstein: not so much
Very few, possibly no evolutionists are devout Christians.
You misspoke
Perhaps Godless purposeless evolutionary philosophy is not incompatible with the God that he believes in, but he does not speak for all Christians or all Jews on the matter. It is not incompatible with his God, but it may be incompatible with someone else's.
"The bird flu virus is not evolving.
It's mutating. It's a virus that has been around for a long time and is changing slightly.
There are plenty of examples of mutation in biology which ARE observable.
Evolution is a separate matter. It is a theory."
I don't think you know the first thing about evolution. Evolution occurs through a series of mutations. If a mutation is beneficial to the survival of the species, it is more likely to be passed on and propagate.
And do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? A hypothesis is basically a guess that's waiting to be tested thoroughly. It becomes a theory when it's been tested numerous times and there's wide scientific acceptance of its validity. In this context, "It's just a theory" is layman's talk for "I have no idea what I'm talking about."
No, it says that God is a geometer. It is not a "god of the gaps" theory. Rather it says that the Darwinism mechanism does not properly represent the patterns we see. Certainly it is true if we restrict ourselves to what Darwin said. The neo-darwinists have spliced that into a broader theory.
Thank you so much for the ping and the great excerpt!
What is with this ridculous and indeed blasphemous idea that explaning something through natural phenomena is to preclude any involvement by God? This "God of the gaps" theory suggests that God has nothing to do with the natural functioning of things, only the unnatural functioning of things. I wonder how people who claim to be religious can put their faith in such a limited God.
" Well Einstein believed that the universe was intelligently designed. Einstein was therefore a believer in Intelligent Design."
Ugh.
Einstein believed the laws of the universe were intelligently designed.
If he saw what currently passed as the theory of "intelligent design", he would have either shook his head in digust or laughed at it. And in this case it refers to EVOLUTION, not the creation of the universe (see how this discussion started before you changed the subject to the universe). To repeat: the 'intelligent design' aspect relates to evolution, since it was a discussion about darwinism vs intelligent design. NOT the creation of the universe.
So try staying on subject, ok?
You know what else einstein said? It's one of my favorite quotes:
" If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."
Meaning he was able to do what he did because other people before him asked questions and did the work.
Now go back to the world before einstein - to the time of isaac newton. Imagine if he did basically what the intelligent design advocates wanted to do: explain the "gaps" by them being the hand of God, and not messing with any theories that might run contrary to the bible.
Why did the apple fall? Will of God.
Momentum? Angular Momentum? The light spectrum? All "wills of God", and therefore no reason to delve any further.
When we fail to ask question, we fail to take the opportunity to learn. That's why passing ID off as a scienctific theory is bad. Saying "Well, God did this", either when you can't explain something, or when you're afraid the other answer might conflict with your strict biblical view of the world, destroys great opportunities to ask questions and to learn.
Krauthammer said it: I.D. is nice for a theology class, but it doesn't belong in a science class.
"A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable."
Krauthammer conveniently uses the negative here. Science's role, traditionally, has been to prove an assumption. Through reproducable experiment or direct observation. You develop a "theory" then test it one way or another.
Darwinism has failed here. So now, according to Krauthammer, our role is to "disprove" something, be it Darwinism or ID.
Mutation - any change in the DNA of an organism...beneficial mutations may increase in the population due to natural selection...
Evolution - the gradual process of genetic change that occurs in populations of organisms...
excerpted from the "Dictionary of Modern Biology", 1997, ISBN 0-8120-9516-2
Natural Selection = Evolution
"I don't think you know the first thing about evolution. Evolution occurs through a series of mutations. If a mutation is beneficial to the survival of the species, it is more likely to be passed on and propagate."
Oh I know a little about evolution.
Mutations occur and can be observed. They happen on a cellular level all the time. The tumor in a cancer patient is still human tissue.
Evolution is the creation of new species. This has not been proven
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.