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

Townhall ^ | 11/18/2005 | Charles Krauthammer

[Sam Hill]

"You want to mix faith and science, which is the basic problem."

Tell that to Newton! LOL

[Borges]

Your assertion to let students in on the debate between the legitimate practitioners of a given field and others nesseciated a broadening of the scope to show what that could lead to. The IDers have said that their theories would necessitate a need for changing the definition of Science. That could lead to changing the definition of other fields as well.

[Theo]

Duplicate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1524317/posts

[Steve_Seattle]

"There's certainly none [intelligence] in your post..."

Before I shut up and defer to someone who is so obviously my intllectual superior, I'll make a couple of comments. The body of a mammal - or that of much simpler organisms - is more complex than a 747, yet evolutionary theory posits it as having developed by random processes apart from any guiding intelligence. Since no intelligence is needed to create the mammal, why do you need to posit "intelligence" to create a 747? Indeed, psychologists of the behaviorist school - taking their cue from evolutionary theory - have tried to describe human behavior apart from any recourse to notions of "mind," intelligence, creativity, etc, and merely in terms of reflexive, learned responses to physical stimuli.

So I am saying that the denial of "intelligent design" has implications for any notion whatsoever of the human mind as being a creative power in its own right, or of human "free will" having any reality other than as an illusion of the ego. If you are going to deny that there is any intelligence at work in the process of evolution, you are probably undermining the notion of intelligence altogether, not to mention free will. And when people deny free will, they are tempted to deny the importance of political freedom. That is why mechanistic evolutionism and naturalism have always been pillars of the mental universe of the far Left.

[Steve_Seattle]

Intelligent design is much harder to grasp than Darwinism, which any idiot can understand. To suggest that American science is being held back because society has been led astray by ID theory is ridiculous. Even in biology, the theory of evolution gets only passing mention; it has nothing to do with day to day science.

[Mulch]

Very good. Maybe you could have a talk with Mr. Krauthammer and set him straight.

[GSWarrior]

One might add that a good scientist is always on the lookout for data which disproves his theories.

[Nanny7]

The IDers have said that their theories would necessitate a need for changing the definition of Science. ..... What may have prompted that statement is that there's a difference between "science" and "science-as-a-dogma" which is what you support. This is a form of censorship. You review the scientific journals and decide what is proper for popular student consumption.

[edsheppa]

It just states that the laws of nature as we see them are not creative enough to form the complex life forms currently observed in the course of their actions. Therefore, some outside agency(or intelligence) was necessary.

Yes, you have adequately captured the argument, but don't you see that the conclusion doesn't follow from the hypothesis? Either the hypothesis must be strengthened beyond plausibility (i.e. no current or conceivable future natural is sufficient) or the conclusion must be weakened (i.e. an outside agency or unknown natural law).

In any case, the hypothesis is suspect. Current scientific theories keep surprising us with their consequences.

[delapaz]

To the contrary, I would prefer that faith and science not be mixed.

What I am saying to the pro-evo side is: go ahead and do science based on an assumption of naturalism. Just be honest about your assumptions.

When a scientist states that he knows for certain that the earth is x billions of years old or that common descent explains everything, he is already neck deep in philosophy and faith and probably doesn't even realize it.

[orionblamblam]

> Since no intelligence is needed to create the mammal, why do you need to posit "intelligence" to create a 747?

Do airplanes reproduce on their own? Do they mutate and have offspring that are slightly different? Does the complexity of a 747 vary based on the intrusion of a retrovirus at the right moment?

Sheesh.

[elbucko]

"and the fool said in his heart: There is no god"

Krauthammer's article says nothing of the sort. To the contrary;

"

[Steve_Seattle]

"Do airplanes reproduce on their own? Do they mutate and have offspring that are slightly different? Does the complexity of a 747 vary based on the intrusion of a retrovirus at the right moment?"

It sounds like you're making points in favor of my argument, not against it. Sheesh.

[elbucko]

I understand that to get back some semblance of power as a party, we had no choice but to bring the evangelicals onboard. But I'm not ready to hand the entire agenda over to them, the way the Dems have allowed the far left to take the wheel.

Amen Brother, Amen!

[elbucko]

Jews don't have any way to heaven

You ignorant friggin' moron.

[orionblamblam]

> It sounds like you're making points in favor of my argument

Wrong. The simplest life forms are self-replicating, as are even simpler organic chemicals. The most complex machine cannot do this. This is not because a simple protein or amino acid *wants* to reproduce; that's jsut what they do mechanically.

So, the progression from chemicals to you involves no inexplicable leaps in capability. The leap from an airplane being a manufactured item to being a self-replicating item *does.*

[Tribune7]

There is still a far higher level of evidence for God than for accident.

[Steve_Seattle]

To finish my point about interest in ID having nothing to do with the decline in science: I think the decline in science is because we are becoming lazy as a nation, and science is hard intellectual work with little glamour associated with it. (ID also involves hard intellectual work, as anyone knows who has ever read a serious book by someone like Behe or Dembski; ID books are not light reading.) But today we live in an entertainment society, and everyone is interested in getting into show biz or athletics or computers or law or making a fast buck in business. Intellectual pursuits like philosophy and science are in decline because they lack the glamour and money associated with these other fields.

[cynicom]

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

Newton and Einstein were indeed smart enough to hedge their bets, keep the line open to a Creator, JUST IN CASE.

[orionblamblam]

Yeah. That's why the bulk of the world doesn't believe in Your God, I guess...

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