Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Occasionally a social issue becomes so ubiquitous that almost everyone wants to talk about it -- even well-meaning but uninformed pundits. For example, Charles Krauthammer preaches that religious conservatives should stop being so darn, well, religious, and should accept his whitewashed version of religion-friendly Darwinism.1 George Will prophesies that disagreements over Darwin could destroy the future of conservatism.2 Both agree that intelligent design is not science.
It is not evident that either of these critics has read much by the design theorists they rebuke. They appear to have gotten most of their information about intelligent design from other critics of the theory, scholars bent on not only distorting the main arguments of intelligent design but also sometimes seeking to deny the academic freedom of design theorists.
In 2001, Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez’s research on galactic habitable zones appeared on the cover of Scientific American. Dr. Gonzalez’s research demonstrates that our universe, galaxy, and solar system were intelligently designed for advanced life. Although Gonzalez does not teach intelligent design in his classes, he nevertheless believes that “[t]he methods [of intelligent design] are scientific, and they don't start with a religious assumption.” But a faculty adviser to the campus atheist club circulated a petition condemning Gonzalez’s scientific views as merely “religious faith.” Attacks such as these should be familiar to the conservative minorities on many university campuses; however, the response to intelligent design has shifted from mere private intolerance to public witch hunts. Gonzalez is up for tenure next year and clearly is being targeted because of his scientific views.
The University of Idaho, in Moscow, Idaho, is home to Scott Minnich, a soft-spoken microbiologist who runs a lab studying the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic rotary engine that he and other scientists believe was intelligently designed -- see "What Is Intelligent Design.") Earlier this year Dr. Minnich testified in favor of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial over the teaching of intelligent design. Apparently threatened by Dr. Minnich’s views, the university president, Tim White, issued an edict proclaiming that “teaching of views that differ from evolution ... is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula.” As Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf asked in an editorial, “Which Moscow is this?” It’s the Moscow where Minnich’s career advancement is in now jeopardized because of his scientific views.
Scientists like Gonzalez and Minnich deserve not only to be understood, but also their cause should be defended. Conservative champions of intellectual freedom should be horrified by the witch hunts of academics seeking to limit academic freedom to investigate or objectively teach intelligent design. Krauthammer’s and Will’s attacks only add fuel to the fire.
By calling evolution “brilliant,” “elegant,” and “divine,” Krauthammer’s defense of Darwin is grounded in emotional arguments and the mirage that a Neo-Darwinism that is thoroughly friendly towards Western theism. While there is no denying the possibility of belief in God and Darwinism, the descriptions of evolution offered by top Darwinists differ greatly from Krauthammer’s sanitized version. For example, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins explains that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” In addition, Krauthammer’s understanding is in direct opposition to the portrayal of evolution in biology textbooks. Says Douglas Futuyma in the textbook Evolutionary Biology:
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”3
“Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next. … However elevated in power over the rest of life, however exalted in self-image, we were descended from animals by the same blind force that created those animals. …”5
Mr. Luskin is an attorney and published scientist working with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash.
Anybody can learn to recite a dictionary definition of virtue. We have a lot of dictionary mongers online in this thread.
It strikes me that these folks are incapable of understanding the internalized desire to be a good person, to help one's children and, by extension, build a just society for one's descendants to live in.
I fully appreciate the difficulty of defining specifically what is to be done. That is what politics is about, deciding what needs to be done to improve the world.
I am curious, however, about people who aren't self-motivated to make things better.
All you've done is present a tautology. The words "is due to" does not define a cause. One could just as easily substitute the word "is."
The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is due to the ongoing activity of an almighty, omnipresent, intelligent agent as demonstrated by the ubiquitous presence of observable data communicated to intelligent agents outside of the same, without which the practice of science would be impossible.
The most convincing argument against this theory would be the absence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. Such evidence has been small in forthcoming, although black holes may be a sign that the absence of organized matter exists.
Stult: Your claim is manifestly false. (Having no more integrity than "Bush lied" and similar leftist mantras.) You have, and always have had, every theological shade among evolutionists. You have agressive atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) you have skeptical agnostics (e.g. Darwin himself) and YOU ALSO HAVE theists, often fairly pious ones (e.g. Asa Gray, Kenneth Miller, Francisco Ayala, Ronald Fisher, Simon Conway Morris, just to name a few that come to mind).
Don't forget that noted God-hater, Pope John-Paul II.
I thought you held to the theory of evolution.
I suspect this is related to the question of being born again, but you'd never guess it from the speechifying of the Elect.
Killer example.. just beautiful...
You can, by way of speaking. But the language is historically a posteriori to an experience that is not secular.
The whole structure of a secular virtue is actually no simpler than any other. Instead of a theodicy one must give a "physidicy." It must also answer the origin of virtue and why we would act against nature. Unless I am mistaken, this is only possible in some form of dualism. I don't think along these lines, and I suggest that if you do, give us what you think. I might be converted.
Nor does it mean that only the correct answer exists in mathematics. I understand your analogy is quite popular in modern classrooms. The idea that one could set a goal and a procedure for achieving it is so stifling.
Dualism remains possible until we can explain how a conscious volitional thought migrates down the nervous system and activates a muscle or gland. We might question consciousness, volition, or thought, or all three, but consciousness, especially self-consciousness seems a given.
I really don't find it very interesting to talk about virtue and morality with someone who considers it an inquisition to be asked why he seeks or does not seek virtue.
Less sarcastically, I will take the liberty of answering the question for him - I suspect that Corny is an inherently moral person, who is not simply one crisis of faith away from being a thief or pedophile or serial killer. He (she?) might find it shocking and dismaying if it were discovered that morality and virtue were concepts inherently created and defined by humans, rather than handed down by some otherworldly being, but I suspect he would recover from that relatively neatly and continue living according to these human concepts of morality and virtue. Naturally, I trust that cornelis will correct me if this is not the case, if I have somehow misjudged him ;)
I trust you would be courteous enough to accept that I too recognize people's desire to be good, to help one's chikldren, and buid a just society.
I will add also that the problem of evil is just as real.
Science is composed of scientists.. And some make Vestal Virgins out of them(scientists).. whom were in fact/became whores.. and thats no BS..
But I don't, js1138. Yet if I cannot ask you what virtue is makes we have something less than a dialogue.
Yes. There is incredibly so much evidence to support this that it is generally accepted as fact. As someone has mentioned, our entire classification system looks as it does because of this fact. The theory of evolution exists to explain this fact, just as the various theories of gravity exist to explain the fact of gravity. ID, if it could be formed into a scientific theory, would also exist to explain this fact.
Such is the assertion, anyway - this assertion is, needless to say, rather contentious and not universally accepted in any case.
In any case, it seems that unless I can explain why virtuousness or morality is better than the lack thereof, and additionally where such concepts as "virtue" come from, you may very well see no need to be virtuous or moral. To the first, I offer you the same deal you have now - be moral or suffer the consequences. To the second, the mere fact that it exists is enough to proceed - from whence it came is not critical to its continued use.
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.