Why intelligent design proponents are wrong.

NY Daily News ^ | 11/18/05 | Charles Krauthammer

[StatenIsland]

Why intelligent design proponents are wrong.

Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous - that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious. Newton's religiosity was traditional. He was a staunch believer in Christianity and member of the Church of England. Einstein's was a more diffuse belief in a deity who set the rules for everything that occurs in the universe.

Neither saw science as an enemy of religion. On the contrary. "He believed he was doing God's work," wrote James Gleick in his recent biography of Newton. Einstein saw his entire vocation - understanding the workings of the universe - as an attempt to understand the mind of God.

Not a crude and willful God who pushes and pulls and does things according to whim. Newton was trying to supplant the view that first believed the sun's motion around the Earth was the work of Apollo and his chariot, and later believed it was a complicated system of cycles and epicycles, one tacked on upon the other every time some wobble in the orbit of a planet was found. Newton's God was not at all so crude. The laws of his universe were so simple, so elegant, so economical, and therefore so beautiful that they could only be divine.

Which brings us to Dover (Pa.), Pat Robertson, the Kansas State Board of Education and a fight over evolution that is so anachronistic and retrograde as to be a national embarrassment.

Dover distinguished itself this Election Day by throwing out all eight members of its school board who tried to impose "intelligent design" - today's tarted-up version of creationism - on the biology curriculum. Robertson then called down the wrath of God upon the good people of Dover for voting "God out of your city." Meanwhile in Kansas, the school board did a reverse Dover, mandating the teaching of skepticism about evolution and forcing intelligent design into the statewide biology curriculum.

Let's be clear. "Intelligent design" may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge - in this case, evolution - they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science - that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution - or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?

In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase "natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying - by fiat of definition, no less - that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and to science.

The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process" with no "discernable direction or goal." This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which the Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

He may be, of course. But that discussion is the province of religion, not science. The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions - arguably, the most important questions in life - that lie beyond the material.

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.

Originally published on November 18, 2005

[untrained skeptic]

Another idiot that equates ID with strict creationism, and then says it's wrong.

[muawiyah]

Sure they've evolved. You get back before 35,000 years ago and few people do any sort of art. Then, all at once it's "Paint the Cave".

Folks with the "art gene" running through their lines know all about it. Those who don't, can't imagine it's that simple.

[Just mythoughts]

Apparently NOT as the Heavenly Father, that Creator that endowed US with RIGHTS no man/government can take or give, is not the "god" this man is describing.

[mlc9852]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you think there are really "transitional" fossils that demonstrate humans evolved from something else?

[avital2]

i believe he says it is not science, but rather theology.

[mlc9852]

So apes started cave paintings? Cool!

[THEUPMAN]

Created, Evolved....let's not split hairs. If God created evolution, is it any less a miracle?


Evolution is a created cycle ... the real question is "origin" , how and where did it all start.

Before Adam sinned in the garden there was no death ... therefore no "selection".

There is no compromise , you must chose one or the other.
The Bible tells us one option , chose to believe that or chose to believe something else. I find it ridiculous to try and mush the faiths together.

[King of Florida]

THIS libertarian (small "l" please) is anything but Godless, and believes he should be able to exercise his freedom to believe in God the way he wants to believe in God -- not in the way some school board or other government entity tells him he should believe in God.

Next thing you know, a school board will be taken over in Jersey City by Hindus and you'll find cows an intergral part of the science curriculum. And perhaps somewhere, somehow, Druids (Reformed) are plotting to take over a school board and mandate repeated mention of trees.

[Laz711]

It is truly sad that defenders of both evolution and intelligent design don't really look at their topics objectivelly, they just defend either one as their "religion" yelling at each other and not listening to another point of view. The fact is, evolution is a theory, not a law, which means that it is (was) the best theory given the observed data, much like the Big Bang theory, which is being revised (some scientists think that the universe came from "sheets" instead of a singularity). ID, from what I understand, takes the THEORY of evolution and, in simple terms, states that we don't really know how it all started due to the mathmatical improbibility of it all. But I guess people don't want to look at it in that light, they just want to argue, which is their right, but it seems to be a moot point.
No matter what, we are here, there are mysteries of the Universe that we don't understand, from the fact that evolution of the first complex protiens should have taken (mathmatically) over 20 billion years to happen given all of the variables, to the fact that the Universe isn't crawling with intelligent life and we haven't detected it yet (read Carl Sagan for more insight on this), to the "missing link" in the past of the human race.
If you read most physicst, specifically the quantum fields and cosmology, they are constantly dumbfounded about the origin of anything in the Universe, and most of them do write a lot of it off to a higher being (God). Yelling at each other, trying to prove or dis-prove the existence of God due to observations (which can be flawed) in one or two specific fields of science is absurd. Most people hear the word "theory" and believe it to be a natrual law, but theories are imperfect and subject to change due to new observations. The final say on evolution, as well as the creation of the Universe, is still open for new theories, and most likely will be for the rest of history because of a lack of data (first hand) that proves conclusively the facts one way or another (unless human beings do evolve to something completely different before the end of history).
People who try to argue for science while disregarding the unknown are deluding themselves, because there will always be mysteries that human beings can't explain, no matter how much we learn about the universe around us.

[Noachian]

Why intelligent design proponents are wrong.

So,what?

Why does Krauthammer,and others, believe that it's their mission in life to parade the truth of scientific orthodoxy upon the school systems?

If intelligent design is false it will fall out of favor, and be discredited on the facts. The world will still spin, and birds will still fly.

The larger question is: Who decides what is taught in schools - liberal bureaucrats, the MSM, or parents?

We've already seen one judge rule that parents have no control over what is taught in schools. Whatever one thinks of the ID/Evolution controversy it should be remembered that parents are under fire to cede control of their children to liberal educators. That's more important than any theory, and Krauthammer should recognize that.

[Laz711]

Are you talking about Druish princesses?

[mlc9852]

Thank goodness we get to elect school board members so if the Hindus win, so be it.

[Just mythoughts]

Our nation was established with a "whole" package. The one thing that separates US from all other nations is that understanding that the CREATOR endowed US with unalienable RIGHTS.

Now any entity or man that establishes themselves as preeminent over that foundation makes US no different than any other nation on this planet.

The liberal ideology is premised upon the belief that the constitution is a living breathing document, evolving as they see fit.

Somehow 150 years of Darwinism gives stature over a incalculable span of time, all reduced down in simplest form that human beings are descent of one single cell morphing, mutating and evolving out from a "HOT" primordial bowl of soup.

[megatherium]

Concerning the book of Genesis: The creation story was not meant to be taken literally. It is extremely revealing to compare the Genesis creation story with its Babylonian antecedents. Many of the same elements are there, they're too similar to be the result of coincidence. But the writers of Genesis reworked the older creation stories to say something about God. Instead of stories involving petty, jealous all-too-human "gods", they put together a story that involved a Creator who created the cosmos and humankind because they were good, a Creator who expects justice from his creatures, humankind. Notice how Genesis refers to the sun and moon, not by their given names, but as the "greater light" and "lesser light" in the sky? This is to avoid using names which in the ambient cultures were names of a god and goddess. The message is very clear in Genesis: do not worship the creation, e.g., the sun or moon -- only worship the Creator.

In this sense, we can take Genesis as true: a poetic statement about the Creator and his relationship to the cosmos and humankind. But we cannot take it as literal scientific truth. The scientific evidence is absolutely overwhelming that life has developed from a simple common ancestor over thousands of millions of years. Most branches of Christianity have long since recognized this fact, and have reached the conclusion that evolution poses no more threat to Christian theology than the present problem of evil in the world. For example, Roman Catholics teach that God used evolution to creat us. Only in one portion of the Evangelical ("fundamentalist") movement is a literal reading of Genesis demanded of Christians. I believe that this is a huge barrier between educated people and Christianity -- an unnecessary barrier! As Jesus put it: "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)

[Just mythoughts]

Were Genesis what you claim it to be Christ Himself would have told us so. He did not, and He said I have foretold you alll things. Now Moses penned Genesis, have you read what Christ had to say about Moses???

[untrained skeptic]

Creationism is theology. ID is philosophy.

Whenever you get into things we don't understand you're always bordering between philosophy and "science".

As someone how they differentiate science from phiolosiphy, and you'll likely be able to give them several examples of things they consider science that don't fit the definition.

Then ask them how to explain the origin of the universe through science.

I'm not a fan of Robertson, and I do think that he is pushing for creationism to be taught in schools.

However calling ID "today's tarted-up version of creationism", is just as close minded as Robertson.

[Dave S]

Because the Bible says he created man and woman - not that they evolved.

And what did the Bible say he created them from? I remember in the case of woman it was from Adam's rib. Do you honestly find that easier to believe than evolutionary processes? I mean if God wanted to create woman He didnt need to mess around with Adam's rib. He could just speak her into existence like he did the rest of the Universe. So why if He could choose the Adam's rib approach with Eve, you wont allow God to use evolution as his means of creation. A baby is a person from conception on in that if it continues to grow, its not going to end up an aligator. Its human. So if you give God nine months to create a child today, why dont you allow God millenia to produce this complex creature Man. You do realize that God exists outside of time and our days are irrelevant to him?

[mlc9852]

If you don't take Genesis literally, then there is nothing else to say.

[Laz711]

That is pretty much my argument in way, way, way less words (I guess I should stop babbling sometimes). The fact that this is even an issue is that people don't stand back and look at the facts, they argue using their emotions. Do I believe that God created the universe (including us) and that he sent his Son to us for salvation? Yes I do. That is called faith, something that science cannot change, and most likely cannot prove or disprove due to our flawed nature (Man is not perfect). Do I believe that there are things that the Bible does not tell us? Yes. If the Bible told us everything, it would be HUGE. There probably wouldn't be enough MATTER in our solar system to write it all down on, and life really wouldn't be worth living if we knew it all. Like I said, many many cosmologists believe that God exists because there are some mysteries that they cannot explain, contradictions in nature (minute mind you, but still there) that aren't accounted by theory. One good example is the origin of the Universe. If the Universe started off by the Big Bang, then when all of that energy was turned into matter, then an equal portion of Anit-matter would have been created along with it, which means that the Universe would have been destroyed long ago at worst, or that we would observe matter/anti-matter reactions in the cosmos. The fact that neither is/has happened is one of the mysteries that no one can explain without either saying God did it, discounting it, or saying that some other factor is at work there (meaning they don't know and won't humble themselves to admit that God may actually exist).

Too many people won't admit their or our combined ignorance in many things, and that is what leads to many of these useless arguments. My belief......God created the Universe and us (how?? I don't have a clue), this nation was founded on a belief that God endowed us to live free, in his name, and that we are in the fight for that against a lot of people. But the fact that some people on our side, the religious side, argue with their emotions just as much (if not more) than the left wing seculars means that they will be ignored as kooks by anyone that isn't in their mindset or objective about their opinion. It just baffles me.

[mlc9852]

So no matter what, you aren't going to believe the Biblical account of creation and I won't believe we evolved from apes so I guess it's a draw.