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.
He was reporting what was occurring at the time, not advocating anything.
The pages I checked had a lot of nonsense:
Example: Under FAQ we have "Q: Did God create the 'Races'?" The answer is a lot of Biblical quotations which boil down to it has not just a "post-Flood, but a post-Babel origin." That would be some 4,000 years or so.
There is no evidence that races of the kind we observe today could form in such a short time frame, nor is there any evidence of a young earth, as this implies, nor is there evidence of a global flood.
Example: Also under FAQ we have "Q. Was Lucy a Human?" In that section we see the flat out lie that the knee joint was found a mile away and over 200 feet deeper. Detailed rebuttal of this lie. We also see "Professional concensus as to "Lucy's" identity now favors that of arboreal ape, not an ape-to-man hominid intermediate." That also is false. Detailed rebuttal.
Your source is not doing too well. Might I suggest it is doing apologetics, not science?
Your invective adds zero to this thread, youth.
Do you have a point to make?
Okay, which one are you, Mr. Bookpimp? Gonzalez or Richards?
It is if you don't have any.
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.
I suspect google is experiencing a sudden surge of quote mining.
But ... were you there? Hah! Stumped you, didn't I? Yeah, that stumps all you Darwinists every time! Yeeee-hawwwwww!!
</creationism mode>
Okay, now I've got a joke for you. It's really funny! Ready? Get your own dirt! [Slapping knee, wildly guffawing] You Darwinists just crack me up!
</internet idiot mode>
She never asked me to explain anything in my own words. She asked a question, and I provided links with the answers. The links rebutted her, so she simply attacked me. I don't see anything wrong with posting links providing information from experts in their area. People do it all the time here.
Good night!
How did I attack you? 40% + of the post in question was quotes of your own words.
You appear to believe that it is OK for you to use such language but wrong for others to use the exact same language in questions to you.
It would be funny it it wasn't so bloody sad.
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.
Changing "may be the result of a miracle" to "is the result of a miracle" is certainly a big change. It literally results in the end of science. What's the point of that? Theology has a long history. It provides spiritual comfort, a basis for morality, and a social matrix for society. Very nice. No problem. But theology has been around since before Noah, and it hasn't accomplished anything of a scientific nature1. Theology is fine, for what it is. It's absurd to extend it into areas where it has no function.
Footnote 1: Yes, I know, some theologians have done scientific work; but when that happens, they're doing science, not theology.
Why some people insist that an idea or truth is not valid until it's measured scientifically I'll never know...
Sweet.
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.