Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LA Times Columnist Slams Intelligent Design as a "Ruse" and a "Ploy"
Newsbusters.org ^ | 30 July 2006 | Dave Pierre

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bias; ceybabycreationists; crevolist; crybabycreationists; darwin; enoughalready; evoboors; gettingold; id; idiocy; idjunkscience; intelligentdesign; lagt; losangelestimes; mediabias; patrickhenrygoesnuts; pavlovian; tenthousandthtime
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301-312 next last
To: This is a lame ID

Wow. Big words. Lotsa words. From both sides.

In the beginning God created the universe.

Everything from that moment on was evolution.

Made possible by God giving every living cell the will to live .

Some ocean creatures evolve from plant to animal(fish/snake) at will.

Some creatures have not changed , that we know of, for tens of millions of years.


61 posted on 07/30/2006 4:54:24 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Swami, swami, in your tree,
Tell me more about ID,
I know it's science, I know it's true,
'Cause I bought all those tapes from you,
But in these threads, as you can see,
The Darwinists are picking on me!
62 posted on 07/30/2006 4:54:31 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (The Enlightenment gave us individual rights, free enterprise, and the theory of evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #63 Removed by Moderator

To: This is a lame ID; Dimensio
Sure. it is the same hypothetical which would demonstrate that "science" should be done with naturalistic assumptions....... (foot tapping)

I'll ignore the fact that this makes absolutely no sense as a reply to the question you were actually addressing. Dimensio can take that up.

Instead I'll just take your statement by itself.

Obviously there's no single "observation" that "demonstrates" the validity of only employing naturalistic mechanisms in scientific investigation. Instead there are two primary reasons why this is considered part of the "nature of science".

  1. It works remarkably well. This principle has demonstrated that it is a very effective and fruitful constraint on organizing scientific thinking and application.

  2. It's difficult (for most impossible) to see how the contrary assumption would work. If you allow non-naturalistic mechanisms you're removing significant constraints on scientific reasoning. If you can always (potentially) insert the step, "then a miracle occurs," it would seem that every theory automatically becomes ad hoc.

However, if you don't find this reasoning convincing, that's fine. If you don't like the limiting of science to naturalistic mechanisms, then there's a solution.

No, the solution is NOT pissing and moaning, whining like a liberal about unfairness and dogma, on a internet forum. The solution -- the only solution -- is to actually DO some "non-naturalistic" science and show us how it works (and that it CAN work) successfully.

Scientists understanding of the "nature of science" will ALWAYS be modified to accommodate a genuinely successful scientific theory. History proves this.

For instance it used to be generally accepted as part of the nature of science that force could only be transmitted by "impact," that is by physical contact or connection between material objects. The idea of forces propagating through space was once considered "occult" and unscientific. But today, thanks to Newton and Maxwell and many others, science is full of "field theories" that address exactly such "occult" forces.

Why? BECAUSE THEY WORK.

The downside is that the ONLY way you can change basic assumptions, proven fruitful and universally accepted (at least in actual application), about how science works is by coming up with a THEORY THAT WORKS that requires these understandings be changed to accomodate the new approach.

If you'd prefer to continuing whining instead that won't help. Unless it just makes you feel better.

64 posted on 07/30/2006 5:00:36 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: Dimensio; infoguy
"Is there a hypothetical observation that would falsify ID?"

Are you kidding? It happens all the time. How do you think they get driver's licences?

66 posted on 07/30/2006 5:05:44 PM PDT by NicknamedBob (Mohammed was born in the wrong century. He would have made a Wonderful used-car salesman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
1. Your position that something can't be both popular and scientific is ridiculous. Why can't it be both?

BTW: This debate invited Darwinists to grill ID proponents on the science. The 5-6 Darwin defenders included Dr. Larry Herber, prof. of Geological Sciences at Cal Poly Pomona and Dr. Bruce Weber, Prof. of Chemistry at Cal State Fullerton. I was there. The Darwinists did not fare well at all.

2. The position that ID is "not science" reveals that you 'd be best to educate yourself on the issue. At post #37, I've posted a number of helpful links. If you want to be honest and informed on the issue, you may want to check those out.

67 posted on 07/30/2006 5:05:50 PM PDT by infoguy (www.frankenlies.com ... www.themediareport.com ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: This is a lame ID
However, the meta question here is WHY is that assumption itself valid.

It is impossible to test claims resting upon an assumption that the fundamental properties of the universe are subject to change without notice.

As to providing a list of who made what statements about naturalism vs. ID, I really don't have a horse to ride in that race, and will beg out of those challenges, if you don't mind.

So it is no concern to you if your statements have no relevance to reality?
68 posted on 07/30/2006 5:06:41 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: This is a lame ID
Naturalism and Scientific naturalism is the stuff of solid proveable dependable reliable "facts" and religion is the refuge for deluded pathetic souls without enough courage to face "reality" blah blah blah

It's true. Most antievolutionists clearly do accept (even if without full awareness) a presumption along this line. It's why they want to treat the Bible as a science text: To shore up it's perceived validity.

However the proevolution types here are entirely unanimous on the fact that scientific claims are NEVER "proveable". Furthermore most (not all, but a higher percentage than on the other side) hold that science and religion are NOT, and should not be correctly viewed as, directly competing approaches to understanding the world.

69 posted on 07/30/2006 5:06:58 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: This is a lame ID
Sure. it is the same hypothetical which would demonstrate that "science" should be done with naturalistic assumptions

Non-sequitur.
70 posted on 07/30/2006 5:08:09 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
The position that ID is "not science" reveals that you 'd be best to educate yourself on the issue. At post #37, I've posted a number of helpful links.

The "ID in a Nutshell" article amounts to question begging and an appeal to ignorance. That is a poor basis for a claim.
71 posted on 07/30/2006 5:09:33 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; This is a lame ID
It is impossible to test claims resting upon an assumption that the fundamental properties of the universe are subject to change without notice.

Ah. Dimensio put it much more clearly and succintly than I did, i.e. my point about non-naturalistic theories being automatically ad hoc.

72 posted on 07/30/2006 5:10:03 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

To: Coyoteman
"The debates and controversy are not between/among evolutionary scientists, but between religious believers and scientists ..."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. As I posted in another post, this debate invited Darwinists to grill ID proponents (most of whom were scientists) on the science of ID. The 5-6 Darwin defenders included Dr. Larry Herber, prof. of Geological Sciences at Cal Poly Pomona and Dr. Bruce Weber, Prof. of Chemistry at Cal State Fullerton (scientists). I was there. The Darwinists did not fare well at all.

75 posted on 07/30/2006 5:16:18 PM PDT by infoguy (www.frankenlies.com ... www.themediareport.com ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: This is a lame ID
evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

Many ID proponents are evolutionists. "Evolution" has such a broad meaning that it is really unfair to paint it in contrast to ID or CS (which truly are beliefs and not falsifiable theories). "Evolution" can mean such a broad spectrum of positions that I wish the howling over it would go away. Most religious people (with the exception of the hard core young earth types) do not object so much to "evolution" as the insistence that:

1) "Science" is to function with naturalistic assumptions

2) Empirically based beliefs have more "substance" than non empirically based beliefs and can be "proven" rather than simply "believed" (aka "hoped for")

qed: Naturalism and Scientific naturalism is the stuff of solid proveable dependable reliable "facts" and religion is the refuge for deluded pathetic souls without enough courage to face "reality" blah blah blah

It is impossible to simply cruise a thread on "evolution" or to read an article like the one in the Times or read responses to the recent Kansas debacle to see this kind of sneering from the naturalistic community.

The theory of evolution, as used by scientists, is not overly broad. It covers, as Darwin pointed out, the origin of species, that is, how species came to be through common descent.

I agree with you that ID and CS are beliefs and not falsifiable theories.

Science has to function within naturalistic assumptions; something that can't be observed in any way is pretty tough to deal with. Neutrinos were a tough case, but they finally caught some of the little wigglers. Measuring or catching spirits and deities has not yet been demonstrated.

Science, based on naturalism, is completely separate from religious belief. Scientists have no problem with that. Where a lot of us have problems is the distortion of science, both data and theory, in an attempt to make it fit religious belief. The global flood is an example. Geologists gave up on that in the early decades of the 19th century, well before Darwin wrote--and they were creationists. Creationist websites to this day still contain a great deal of distorted science in an effort to "prove" a global flood.

If there is "sneering" it is over the distortions of science. I personally avoid comments on people's beliefs, but when they make false or distorted claims about science, for example, that science proves that there was a global flood, I tend to respond with fact and well-reasoned theory (i.e., science). Maybe a little sarcasm too, on occasion.

76 posted on 07/30/2006 5:17:06 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Your post was a big waste of time by you. See post #37 and check out the links I've posted there. It sounds like you need to educate yourself on the real science of intelligent design.


77 posted on 07/30/2006 5:17:50 PM PDT by infoguy (www.frankenlies.com ... www.themediareport.com ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: infoguy

How does one falsify ID 'theory'?


78 posted on 07/30/2006 5:19:29 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (There is no tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
Wrong, wrong, wrong. As I posted in another post, this debate invited Darwinists to grill ID proponents (most of whom were scientists) on the science of ID. The 5-6 Darwin defenders included Dr. Larry Herber, prof. of Geological Sciences at Cal Poly Pomona and Dr. Bruce Weber, Prof. of Chemistry at Cal State Fullerton (scientists). I was there. The Darwinists did not fare well at all.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a shill you are, you silly little person!

Your link has no "debate", no "information", and is nothing more than an advertisement to sell tapes to the most foolish of believers.

79 posted on 07/30/2006 5:21:55 PM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: This is a lame ID
You just have blindly swallowed the NON SCIENTIFIC assumption that science should be done in an assumption of naturalism,

How else could science operate?
80 posted on 07/30/2006 5:24:15 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301-312 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson