Posted on 07/30/2006 12:56:40 PM PDT by infoguy
Under the corrupt cloak of a "book review," this Sunday's Los Angeles Times (July 30, 2006) continues its underhanded and one-sided assault on the theory of intelligent design (ID). "The language of life," by Robert Lee Hotz*, is a review of three new works that attack intelligent design. The review was promoted on the top of the front page of the "Sunday preview" edition under the heading, "Less than 'intelligent design': Darwin's believers debunk the theory." And rather than providing its readers an honest critique, the Times' "review" is nothing less than a full-on Darwin propaganda piece. Hotz begins his article as follows (emphasis/link mine),
In the border war between science and faith, the doctrine of "intelligent design" is a sly subterfuge - a marzipan confection of an idea presented in the shape of something more substantial.
As many now understand - and as a federal court ruled in December - intelligent design is the bait on the barbed hook of creationist belief ...
Objectivity? Forget it. You won't find it with Hotz. Hotz' hit piece on ID then continues by haphazardly labeling ID as a "ruse," a "ploy," a "disingenuous masquerade," and "dishonesty."
Hotz claims the works he's reviewing are written by "some of the nation's most distinguished thinkers." Well, one of the reviewed books is by well-known "skeptic" Michael Shermer, whose work has been cited numerous times for falsehoods and inaccuracy (for example, here, here, here, and here)). Shermer has also floundered considerably while defending Darwinism in public, as witnessed in a 2004 debate with Stephen Meyer on TV's Faith Under Fire (link with video). In 2005, Shermer struggled in a debate with William Dembski (link/audio). "Distinguished"? Sorry, Mr. Hotz.
As NewsBusters has already reported this year (link), the Los Angeles Times has never published a single article from a leading spokesperson of intelligent design theory.** (Leading spokespeople would include names such as Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards, and acclaimed writer Lee Strobel.) Yet the Times has now published its tenth piece in the last 14 months attacking ID! (I'm using this count).
Is there balance at the Los Angeles Times on this issue? Not even close, folks. The Times is unequivocally disserving its readers. How many Times readers are aware that one of the world's most renowned atheists, Antony Flew, has recently become open to God largely due to the persuasive science of intelligent design?
* Hotz "covers science, medicine, and technology" for the Times, yet Hotz has a B.A. in English and an M.A. in theater history. Am I the only one to think it odd that the Times would find him well qualified to write on science, medicine, and technology?
** Stephen Meyer did co-author a 1987 op-ed in the LA Times (almost 19 years ago) on the subject of human rights; but the article does not delve into the topic of intelligent design. In addition, there was a book review in the Times over 8 years ago (1998) by Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr. His review, about a book on the 1925 Scopes trial, included brief references to intelligent design science. However, Gaffney's name would not be included among well-known proponents of ID.
Please give a reference for the specific algorithm that defines and detects CSI. I'm interested in the way complexity is measured. A specific example, with numbers, would be cool.
First of all, I don't know how you reach the conclusion that "creationists" are simply better debaters. That's silly. Second, the proponents of ID are scientists. If you click on any of the names in the Newsbusters article (Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells etc. (not Lee Strobel; he's a writer)), you'll see that these are scientists forwarding the theory!
2. "I have yet to see any rebuttals to the transitionals I post or to the scientific definitions (above). I see denials, but no real rebuttals."
Then you better look here. Scroll down to "Response to Critics." This is only one example.
posted at 7:38:46 PM reply at 7:41:30 PM SHAME ON YOU...you didn't even read it or ck out the links...a closed person is a very unhealthy person.
Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents.
Wow, what a link!
You have to read all the way to the second sentence to find a lie.
Oh, well done.
Ahh, yes. Your response is a personal attack. Nice 'talking' with you, RFC_Gal.
Does it really? How? By adding a swami-mandated disclaimer to all science texts that says something like: "The foregoing, while quite persuasive, and verifiable by anyone who reviews the data and the methodology, may nevertheless be the result of a miracle." Yeah, big change. But maybe it would make you happy.
The recurrent laryngeal nerve falsifies the "intelligent" part. See Oolon Colluphid's Guide to Creation for more details.
Scanned it - have read it before. This "The conclusion is drawn that actual research indicates a young age to the Earth that contains such coalified materials" knocks it out of the realm of science fact and into the science humor category.
Ooops, post 107 was for as well.
Which part was the personal attack?
Ugh. I'm tired of posting the same links again, but here you go.
1. Is Intelligent Design Testable? by William Dembski
2. FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?
Please give a reference for the specific algorithm that defines and detects CSI. I'm interested in the way complexity is measured. A specific example, with numbers, would be cool.
You might help your case by pointing out what the so-called "lie" is and explaining why it is so.
In no particular programming language
If ShowName = CSI then set flag CSI_DETECTED
UNLESS Showname = CSI NY then set flag CRAP_DETECTED
Fool! It works like this:
1. Find something you don't understand.
2. Proclaim that it's the obvious result of ID.
3. Write a book about it.
4. Sell tapes on your website.
5. Go on the lecture circuit, focusing on trailer parks.
6. If someone explains what you found inexplicable, keep lecturing and selling books and tapes.
Wow, no wonder you don't understand any of this.
I think RFC_Gal was correct about your lack of education in the sciences.
Don't expect an answer to that in your lifetime. I've asked it repeatedly and always get ignored.
Asking you to explain something in your own words is a personal attack?
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.