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.
A lawyer opining in court on what constitutes a scientific theory may make a good sound byte, but it is not persuasive. Do you have any scientific evidence on how the word, "theory" is actually used in the scientific literature, as compared to Rothschild's reliance on NAS's relatively recently tailored PC definition? Did the NAS ever conduct such a scientific study before issuing one of their political manifestos?
Cordially,
Then what definition of theory should we use?
The evidence I posted shows that the alleged designer is not a good engineer.
Designers can be incompetent or malign.
I see you made the same tired cynical anti-God comment about flegella here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603790/posts
You use the term "purpose" in regards to the function of the flagellum. Were you intentionally implying that someone had a purpose in making "all this"?
Do you realize how embarrassingly insane that statement is? Step back and consider the complexity in this world, in a mere flagellum, in your thoughts, in human interaction, in photosynthesis, in the way a wound heals, and so on. And you are so bold to say that it's badly done?
Purpose is implied in the design inference. I find that theists are not shy about inferring purpose in bright and beautiful things.
Theo: Do you realize how embarrassingly insane that statement is? Step back and consider the complexity in this world, in a mere flagellum, in your thoughts, in human interaction, in photosynthesis, in the way a wound heals, and so on
I didn't say it's all badly done; I merely showed an example of poor engineering. Much of life is, obviously, very intricate and "ingenious". But not all, not by a long shot.
And I see nothing embarrassing or insane here. If we can detect "design", we can detect good and bad design.
An analogy to the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN): You're building a house. One electrician wants to run a wire directly from the pushbutton by the front door to the chimes. Another one wants the wire to go across the basement and loop around the furnace first. I don't know squat about architecture or electrical wiring, but I have enough common sense to not hire the second electrician.
The RLN is evidence for evolution, not purposeful, "intelligent" design.
So the Creator of "all this" flubbed. You've got more faith than me, my friend.
Perhaps He had a reason for doing what He did, and in this case we're just not savvy to what that reason is. Hopefully science will uncover a good explanation for the layout of the RLN. As for me, I'll trust that the Creator knew what He was doing. I have no reason to believe he made a mistake.
Fun thread, but not a productive use of my time.
It has. Evolution and recapitulation. Its layout in a fish or an (very young) embryonic person is fine. But the heart moves deeper into the chest, and the nerve has to follow the blood vessesls.
So what do you think of this guy Baugh granting a PHD to himself? Honestly.
ID is whatever you want it to be!
BTW, I have a new elixir that cures bad backs, the common cold, migraines, toe fungus, lyme disease, lupus, restless leg syndrome and the heartbreak of psoriasis!
Honestly...I haven't paid any attention whatsoever to what was posted. I plan to look into further later. I would like to have the info fresh in my mind when I go to Glen Rose to visit my sister...I plan to go see him and ask him to explain it.
You seem to accept science as it is that offers no explanations about even having a designer so why put a burden of proof on someone else that you don't even put on yourself? And besides, what does the means, motives, and etc have to do with science? Why is it considered necessary to answer those questions when science can't do it either?
Science does describe the design process in enormous detail, and the level of detail gets finer all the time. It's called variation and selection. It's been modeled in computer programs -- even the commercial programs that manage the electric power grid.
There is nothing random about evolution, except the source of variation (which has, by the way, been observed in great detail). Selection is the same process observed by adam Smith and codified by conservative economists. In economics it's called the invisible hand. In biology it's called natural selection.
Design has a designer. What's the source of the design? If it's not random then there's order to it. What's the source of the order?
Things have just turned for the worse, now, haven't they? Is this the story you believe?
Okay - just cut to the chase. Tell me what your idea of Intelligent Design is if you do not mind.
If there's design, there's a designer. Who's the designer?
In your own words: 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?
Then what you call science isn't really science unless you can tell us about the source of the designer.
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.