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.
yes.
What, pray tell, is your level of education?
What level of education does one need to understand that the intelligent design hoax is a ruse and a ploy, pray tell?
An accident can be a mistake (but only if there was some person to make the mistake), or it can be an unexpected windfall (serendipity), or it can just...be.
So there's no reason to fret if ID is kooky.
You're so wrapped up in "science" that you're missing the truth. Without intelligence, everything is meaningless. Including all the words you're typing on your computer. Meaningless. s;l el jelkejrlk sl .s.;e..w ;alkje jwlle aje wiuep2 de;2 ll2 3u9f;lk a dlfk jdlw e;ls .d elrkjws slfkjd eeoiu23
But there is an intelligence in your example: Us! Similarly, when it comes to finding meaning in our lives, there's us. If we didn't have minds, then our lives would, indeed be meaningless. But here we are, thinking beings, finding meaning in darn near everything around us.
There's your meaning.
True - but they are not the same animal, right? And when you crossbreed, the crossbreed normally cannot reproduce. At least I know that to be true of a mule, for instance. Unless one chooses not to believe in the Creator - their right, of course - I see absolutely no reason why a God larger than ourselves and revealed in Jesus Christ could not have created the entire universe, including mankind and the entire animal kingdom.
Well, yes I am an IDer.
The theory of ID accepts macroevolution.
Not my "theory of ID."
Then your "theory" is not "Intelligent Design".
Then you agree with this story?
When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.
California Indian creation story
With all due respect, yes, it is.
There are a few similarities...
If you liked that story, how about this one?
In the beginning, Old Man Coyote stood alone with water surrounding him. Two ducks swam by, and Coyote asked if they had seen anyone else. The ducks said no but thought that something might exist under the water.Coyote asked if they would travel underwater for him and report on what they saw. The ducks did as they were asked, finding nothing. He asked again, and the ducks returned with a root. On the third try, they found mud and Coyote was happy. He told the ducks that they could build with it, and he began to shape and mold the mud into an island. He blew on it, and it expanded. He blew again, and it grew into the earth. The ducks said they did not like the earth's emptiness, so Coyote created grass and trees out of the roots that came from the water.
Coyote and the ducks loved the earth, but it was flat. They wanted rivers, valleys, mountains, and lakes. So it was done. Soon Coyote and the ducks made a perfect earth, but they grew lonely, with only the three of them to sit and enjoy the land. So Coyote molded dirt to form men and then more mud to create many types of male ducks. Soon, they realized that without women, the males could not have children. So with more dirt he made women and female ducks to populate the earth.
One day Old Man Coyote traveled upon the land and was surprised to find another Coyote. When asked where he came from, the younger brother, named Shirape, said he was unsure of his origin and only knew he existed. As the two traveled along, Shirape wanted Old Man Coyote to make other animals, for only ducks, humans, and the two Coyotes had been created. The elder Coyote agreed, and as he spoke the new animals' names, they were created. He said "Elk" and an elk appeared. He said "Bear" and a bear appeared. This is how it was until all animals were created.
Are you saying that there exist wildly differing variants of what is called "Intelligent Design"?
Sounds as far fetched as the Babylonian tales of creation. But intelligent design has only this in common with the tale in Genesis, which is that it does not posit that the world is a cosmic accident, that something like human intelligence is at work. Is either as bizarre as the
speculation about multiple universes or consecutive universes that fill the popular science magazines?
Theo: 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.
The recurrent laryngeal nerve disproves the "intelligence" of any hypothetical designer. The so-called "Fall" has no explanatory power here, as the same design is found in all mammals.
It does, of course, have a simple explanation in normal biology.
Yes, you are so much more intelligent than the Creator. You see through His foolish design.
So, your explanation of God's idiocy somehow supports your belief in evolution, but provides no support for the existence of an Intelligent Designer?
Why so bent on hating your Creator, my friend? You are right to fear Him. But He's also graciously provided an alternative to the wrath He has poised toward you.
How about if we limit ourselves to claiming we, backed by tens of thousands of working biologists (not to mention evolution critics like Behe and Denton), are more knowledgeable than you. If you want to push your interpretation of the Bible, take it to the religion threads.
Oh my. Perhaps a sticker for the sticker is in order?
Virginia-American ridiculed the Creator. I responded to his post.
FWIW, Scripture is clear. It doesn't take much "interpretation" to get from a phrase like "God created" to an interpretation that includes God creating us. It doesn't take much "interpretation" to go from Scripture's saying that God created different "kinds" of creatures on different days to an interpretation that God created different kinds of creatures on different days.
The evidence supports the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The evidence does not support the contention that "all this" is the product of chance. But you believe what you want to believe. Even if you prefer to put your trust in vapor.
It isn't science unless you posit some attributes for the Designer, such as means, motives, location, times, places. When and where did the Designer intervene in evolution? Why did the designer devote so much energy to producing the flagellum, a device having the primary purpose of killing infants and children?
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.