We're not in Kansas anymore (Krauthammer slams Intelligent Design)

Townhall ^ | 11/18/2005 | Charles Krauthammer

[orionblamblam]

> When Charles decides how matter was "created" from nothing with no apparent energy used, we can talk.

And until that point, I guess you can't talk. Please turn in your speaking license at the door.

[balrog666]

[cynicom]

Went over your head??? sorry.

[orionblamblam]

> Went over your head???

Yes, actually. I'm afraid I missed the relevance of cosmogenesis to a discussion of evolution. Perhaps you can link it all together for us, by way of the Knights Templar, the Illuminatti and perhaps black helicopters?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

That seems a very inappropriate thing to say, but since you brought it up. There is one way to heaven, and it is open to Jew and Gentile alike. No one is good enough to work their way there.

[cynicom]

Okay I will put this as plain as it was put to me by a MIT professor.

Like you he was alluding to my ignorance.

He said what laymen should understand that science and religion have one common basic premise, namely, that matter was created from nothing with no apparent energy.

He allowed that the premise was the base for evolution, creationism or whatever one ponders.

[Tribune7]

What evidence can you produce that can *only* be explained by *your* god?

A person rose from the dead after predicting he would roughly 2000 years ago.

[BMCDA]

I don't think anyone would disagree that evolution doesn't occur, just whether it is an adequate explanation for how life originated on this plant.

OK, now what is wrong with this statement?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Good answer in post 87.

You know what I wonder about theistic evolutionists the most? How do they think God will form a new heaven and a new earth, as prophesied in Scripture. And how long do they think it will take Him this time.

[orionblamblam]

That's not evidence, that's hearsay.

[orionblamblam]

> He said what laymen should understand that science and religion have one common basic premise, namely, that matter was created from nothing with no apparent energy.


That is not the basic premise of science. I think you need to get your money back.

[oneofmany]

I really like Krauthammer and think he is right on 99% of the time. He's right here too, in my opinion. I believe in ID and evolution. They are compatible and complimentary to each other but should not be taught together. Scientific theory has its own methodology, criteria that must be met in order to be science. ID does not meet this.

Krauthammer does support Roe v Wade. Morality issues aside, his support of bad constitutional law makes him a little suspect.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

For the Jewish theistic evolutionists, I wonder how long they figure it took God to part the Red Sea.

[cynicom]

Uhhhhhhhhhh..If you reread, carefully, he spoke of basic premise, what preceded science, what preceded religion.

He was patient, my excuse was ignorance.

[Steve_Seattle]

I never claimed that an airplane is self-replicating; I said that a plane is less complex than a mammal. No one claims that an airplane could come about accidentally through natural processes, but the evolutionists claim that a mammal could do so. You speak of "mechanism" in nature; ID proponents speak of "intelligence" in nature. But "mechanism" is a word drawn from human activity; it is an "anthropomorphic" word, but slightly less obviously so than "intelligence." It seems that "mechanism" and "intelligence" are not necessarily entirely different; both imply ordered relationships, both imply structure; to a lesser extent, perhaps, both imply purpose, i.e., a mechanical process achieves a result.

Of course, the evolutionist claims that a "mechanism" is very different from a process guided by "intelligence." But is it really?

[GOPPachyderm]

Well, I think the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing is what has been referred to microevolution [modification within species] and macroevolution [the answer to how life originated on the planet].

[Tribune7]

Thanks

[Tribune7]

that's hearsay.

Nope

[BMCDA]

For the umpteenth time: the Theory of Evolution does not address the origins of life. That is the domain of abiogenesis.
Furthermore, evolution requires only the existence of imperfect self-replicators. How they arose doesn't affect the ToE in the least.

[rmgatto]

And the wise man on Free Republic pointed out to the fool that there is no proof of *anything* (outside of pure math), merely higher levels of *evidence.*

Sorry. Didn't realize I was replying to FR's only nihilist, notwithstanding your curious homage to pure math and classification of evidence into levels.