Charles Krauthammer's Ignorant Essay on Design

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/krauthammers_id_strawman.html ^

[Tim Long]

How, for example, does the pattern of endogenous retroviruses across the vertebrate lineages point to special Creation?

[RunningWolf]

Several on these threads have come out and said that evolution is fact, but how it happened is all theory. Therefore all new evidence is still within the 'scientific realm' and somehow gives greater weight to 'the fact' of evolution.

And they don't understand why outsiders might see this as a circular cultish mentality. Is it relevant or give it greater weight whether it springs from scientists and academia?

Only because it impacts in the cultural judicial social arena's, otherwise the need to address this would carry the urgency that it does.

Wolf

[MHalblaub]

"Correction: The Genesis day is 24 hours. I misspoke to have said Hebrew Calendar. Please forgive. The Bible IS the true word of God. I am human, therefore I err."

I never read in the bible about a day is 24 hours.
It doesn't bother me how long god needed to finish his work.

"The hour was originally defined in ancient civilisations (including those of Egypt, Sumeria, India and China) as either one twelfth of the time between sunrise and sunset or one twenty-fourth of a full day." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour

[Just mythoughts]

A whole lot of "controlling" needed for something called evolution.

[syriacus]

I took a glance at the article you referenced.

Is Flew afraid to be labeled an agnostic?

Anyone can call himself an atheist, if he distorts the commonly accepted meaning of the word atheist

The article you linked to had links to more articles, one of which was, Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist!, by Antony Flew

Those rumours speak false. I remain still what I have been now for over fifty years, a negative atheist. By this I mean that I construe the initial letter in the word 'atheist' in the way in which everyone construes the same initial letter in such words as 'atypical' and 'amoral'. For I still believe that it is impossible either to verify or to falsify - to show to be false - what David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion happily described as "the religious hypothesis."

Maybe I'd spend time reading more of Flew's writings if he would at least be honest about his position. At first glance, Flew seems to like to distort things to fit his own little universe.

[Jo Nuvark]

[...Flew seems to like to distort things to fit his own little universe...]

THAT is a definition for the religion of evolution. I too read some of the referenced material and found more links or should I say more circular validation.

Theories are not sticking so they add another zero to the age of the earth and call it salationism, catastrophism, gradualism, punctuated equalibrium, big bang, etc.

The only peer that can prove these theories to be false is God Himself.

[syriacus]

circular validation

Good, pithy summary.

[theFIRMbss]

>we'll have Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan weigh in
>>Do you know where Ann stands on the debate? I've never heard her say

I haven't heard her
directly address it, but
she has written this:

"... The court let stand a lower court ruling that struck down a public school policy requiring that students studying the theory of evolution be encouraged to "exercise critical thinking and gather all information possible and closely examine each alternative toward forming an opinion." Do not engage in critical thinking when contemplating the theory of evolution! Do not consider alternatives! Do not view the theory of evolution as something about which you can form your own opinion!

"You must believe in the state's religion."

[The state's religion , July 18, 2000]

[Tim Long]

Oh, thanks. I'd like her to write what she actually believed. It's pretty obvious, though.

[metmom]

And the best they can do is say that the fossil record supports the ToE. This is a lie, and you *know* it's a lie -- you've been shown links to the vast amount of data from multiple independently cross-confirming other lines of evidence as well, such as the overwhelming molecular data (DNA and otherwise). The fossil record is just the *tip* of the huge iceberg of evidence for evolution. Please explain why you're purposely lying like that.

So the fossil record doesn't support evolution after all? Then what is meant by "evidence" for evolution? Isn't evidence used to support something?

[Ichneumon]

[metmom:] And the best they can do is say that the fossil record supports the ToE.

[Ichneumon:] This is a lie, and you *know* it's a lie -- you've been shown links to the vast amount of data from multiple independently cross-confirming other lines of evidence as well, such as the overwhelming molecular data (DNA and otherwise). The fossil record is just the *tip* of the huge iceberg of evidence for evolution. Please explain why you're purposely lying like that.

[metmom:] So the fossil record doesn't support evolution after all? Then what is meant by "evidence" for evolution? Isn't evidence used to support something?

Is your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you just being coy in order to annoy?

No, I didn't say that the fossil record *doesn't* support evolution -- it most certainly does.

What I objected to was the way that you said that pointing to the fossil record is "the best we can do", as if there's no other (or no better) evidence. The point of my reply is that contrary to your false implication, there's *vastly* more to the evidence for evolution than just the fossil record, and indeed the DNA evidence is even *more* overwhelming and compelling than even the very strong fossil evidence.

[RunningWolf]

MetMom,

I have went to the links also. And in both the fossils and the DNA, whether one sees evolution is in the interpretation. This is not meant as a diss to science.

Interpretation is not reality.

Remember, here is how it works. Evolution is already decided to be fact by the evos (even though to be pc they must call it a theory) but how it happened is all theory, or a conglomeration of contemporary fad theories. So evolution happened, but all theories are unproven, and the glacier of evidence in the theories makes evolution as much a fact as the theory of gravity.



This is a wonderfully elegant solution that always returns back an evolution answer

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Courtesy ping to 112

[Southack]

"Point B. ID proponents have published articles in peer reviewed science journals advocating their pro-design positions. Admittedly, these articles are rare. However, even if it does matter that intelligent design is scarcely found in mainstream peer reviewed journals, the counterpoint is that design is not excluded from the journals on the basis of its merits, but rather because of "new paradigm opposition."

Government Investigation of Retaliation Against pro-ID Scientist