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.
Then join the ranks of the liberals. Oh wait, you already have!
I can believe that the world is a LOT younger than 100's of millions or billions of years.
I can't currently believe that the world is only 6,000 years old.
There are old Chinese characters written more than 7,000 years ago.
And, I suspect that the world has been recycled by God as a boot camp probably countless times. But that's idle, useless speculation.
What do you feel that ToE doesn't adequately explain?
So, according to your world view, those who do not believe in ID/Creationism are liberals?
You wrote, "If an 'Intelligent Designer' did design us, why do we have so many design defects?" You are either dismissing this "Designer" or criticizing this Designer.
You tell me -- are you saying there is no Designer or are you ridiculing Him? In either case, you are showing your bias, and your ultimate reason for being anti-ID -- the conseqences of "all this" being designed are catastrophic to your world view.
To answer your other rhetorical questions, Scripture is very clear that The Fall ocurred, and the promised consequences have been terrible: death.
But there is a Savior....
How do you know about your "Creator"? Through Scripture? Or through what atheists tell you?
As for me, I will rely on Scripture for my understanding of the Creator.
No, but those who make stupid comments like: "creationists seriously make conservatives look like idiots and I'm sick of it" ARE liberals.
ID isn't religious - Try again.
It also doesn't explain how to solve the general n-body problem where n >= 3.
Of course, it doesn't try to explain either the n-body problem or the origin of life.
Try again.
Then what do you call those who say that those who support the ToE are going to hell?
You seem to have overlooked my main point. Almost from the beginning, the Darwinists have been more concern about explaining man than, say, the fossil record. There is no logical connection between Darwin's Origin of Spedcies and his book on human beings. In the former, he is trying to formulate a theory based on real field work. In the latter, he is simply spouting about things he knows little about.
Since you are playing "Make up things about what the ToE says" I thought I would play a game too.
Now may I present a song sung by Sponge Bob Square Pants!
* The Krusty Krab Pizza; Part One
The Krusty Krab Pizza,
Is the Pizza,
For you and me.
The Krusty Krab Pizza,
Is the Pizza,
And my feet are killing me.
(later)
The Krusty Krab Pizza,
Is the Pizza,
For you and me.
The Krusty Krab Pizza,
Is the Pizza,
Free Delivery,
The Krusty Krab Pizza,
Is the Pizza,
Very tasty. (Whoo!)
* The Krusty Krab Pizza; Part Two
The Krusty Krab Pizza,
Is the Pizza,
Ab-su-la-tiv-a-ly.
P-P-Pizza
Goo-Goo-Gee-Gee-Key-Pizza
G-G-Ga-ba-da-Do-do-doga-do-Pizza
Diggitty-do-ly
Krusty-Kra-yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah Pizza
Is the Pizza yeah for you and Me-yee-ee-ee-ee-ee-ee.
* The Krusty Krab Pizza; Part Three
Krab... Pizza... For... You... Krusty...
100% sober as I post this.
ID does nothing except to attack "evolutionists". ID is nothing but a PR campaign, because ID has never done any scientific research. ID offers no laboratory experiments, no measurements or numerical data, and has never discovered a single new fact in any scientific field.
Evolution, by contrast, has several thousand fossils found by hard field research, several thousand published papers describing fossils and comparative anatomies with measurements and data, several thousand interlocking pieces of evidence from genetics, biochemistry, physics, geology, and other fields. Evolution holds together as a unifying concept.
ID has no such data or evidence. ID discounts physics and genetics and geology. ID offers only negatives and attacks, not a single positive argument--merely hand-waving in support of supernatural interventions and miracles.
ID has never answered the criticisms of the Theory of Gravity at www.re-discovery.org. ID has never answered why the Pixie Theory of Aerodynamics is not equal in "teach the controversy".
ID has never answered anything.
Through personal revelation.
Through Scripture?
No, that's other guys' personal revelations, or not.
Or through what atheists tell you?
What kind of question is that? Yeah, suuure, the atheists tell me about God. Where is the logic in that?
As for me, I will rely on Scripture for my understanding of the Creator.
Your choice. I don't do "faith."
Well, then you are not an IDer.
Why don't you read what Darwin actually wrote? He said all he had to say that was worth saying in "Origin of Species."
Ah, the ultimate refuge--a "scripture" from a believer tradition. Which 'scripture' did you have in mind?
Everything written 2000 years ago failed to account for atoms and molecules, failed for X-rays and modern medicine, failed to understand sex and reproduction.
The neat thing about science is that it works even when you don't believe it. The planets keep orbiting, thermodynamics keeps on, biochemical processes keep us alive--all whether you believe it or not.
Going to heaven or hell is quite different. There is zero evidence either scientifically or historically, and if you lead your life full of a "terrible fear", the outcome is the same. If a "savior" comforts you, go for it.
You still haven't told me what you want on your Krusty Krab Pizza!
Psst - you might want to know that Darwin's theory has been updated just a little, for definitions of 'a little' that mean 'a whole bunch'
Hell exists. I have been there, it is a small town in the NE portion of Oklahoma the name of which I will not mention.
;)
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.