Behold the God Detector!
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.
You are aware that science is not normally done in that manner, and the most scientists are probably lousy debaters, while most of the creationists who would be in such a debate are rather good debaters?
Try a written format and see what you get. Something like, say, FR.
Results are a little different. I have yet to see any rebuttals to the transitionals I post or to the scientific definitions (above). I see denials, but no real rebuttals.
Can you suggest any way that a scientist can observe, measure, test, or even detect the existence of something that is supernatural? If so -- perhaps you have an angel detector in your pocket? -- then you have a point. If not, then you should understand why science sticks to the natural world. It's all that science can do. The supernatural -- of necessity -- is left to theologians.
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
An analogue would be getting GOP congresscritters to sign a statement that said "It's one of Congress' duties to make sure that the President doesn't abuse his power" and try to turn it into "We support impeachnig Pres. Bush."
Yep. Hot air and BS.
ID has been around , unchanged, since 1802. Where is the science? where are the proposals to do science? If there are such proposals, why does the Discovery Institute continue to say they really need to get started on the real science?
I am aware that people claiming to be part of the ID movement do actual research and get it published in real science journals. However, this research is invariably mainstream in scope and results.
What specific hypothesis has ID put forward that distinguishes itself from mainstream biology? what would ID expect to find in the fossil record that is different from what mainstream biology expects to find?
ow about DNA. What would an ID researcher expect to find that is different from what a mainstream researcher would expect to find?
That's not what the theory of ID says. Read this.
2. "If the intelligent designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?"
Answer: Irreducible complexity.
3. "4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify ID?"
Here's a couple clues:
Is Intelligent Design Testable? by William Dembski
FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?
4. "If an intelligent designer is responsible for the variety of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct? (And no, the Fall doesn't explain it, because ID is supposed to be science, not theology.)"
ID does not seek to answer that question. (Same with question 6.)
5. "The rapidly-growing biotech industry, which is profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, employs thousands of scientists. Why don't they employ "creation scientists" or ID theorists to exploit their unique insights? If they did, the creationist websites would surely mention it. (Note: We are asking for scientific work that specifically employs the doctrines of creationism or ID.)
There are scientists who believe in ID in all sciences. See: Dissent From Darwin “Goes Global” as Over 600 Scientists From Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory.
Coal: Evidence for a Young Earth"
Abstract:
Evolutionary theory requires millions of years in the formation of coal in order to afford time for the development of living organisms whose fossils are found in coal deposits. However, laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. These vast coal deposits are unsullied by other material. The conclusion is drawn that actual research indicates a young age to the Earth that contains such coalified materials.
Introduction
"If coal takes millions and millions of years of heat and pressure to form, how is it possible that creationists are teaching that the earth is only a few thousand years old?" This is a commonly asked question among individuals seeking answers about the age of the earth and the universe. Research has been done by several creation organizations, as well as independent scientists, in order to answer such questions. The evidence actually shows that coal does not take millions of years to form, as is commonly asserted. In fact, the formation of coal has been proven to be a rapid process that can be duplicated in modern laboratories in a matter of days - or even hours.
I. Rapid Formation
In order for coal to be formed, several factors must be present. Pressure, temperature, water, time, and some sort of vegetation are the key elements for the formation of coal. According to evolutionary theory, the slow accumulation and decomposition of vegetation living in past ages accounts for the coal seams. However, this theory can not answer why such large amounts of original vegetation without soil can be found in the areas that are now coal seams, or how these coal seams became so thick - some being over two hundred feet in depth.
Scientist Robert Gentry analyzed coalified wood found on the Colorado Plateau in order to determine how long it took for coal to form.1 By treating coal with epoxy and slicing it into thin sheets, Dr. Gentry was able to examine tiny, compressed radiohalos found in the coal. Radiohalos are discolorations in the coal, ejected by radioactive elements in the centers (such as uranium).
According to evolutionary theory, in order for these halos to form, several processes must have occurred. First, water-saturated logs must have been laid down in several different geologic formations, including the Triassic, Jurassic and Eocene layers. Later, uranium solutions infiltrated the water-saturated logs, and uranium decay products were collected at tiny sites within the logs. The radioactive decay from the tiny particles ejected spherical radiation damage regions around those sites, thus producing halos. Finally, a pressure event on the site of the formations compressed the logs as well as the radioactive halos within them. However, because coal is not a malleable substance, scientists know that these logs had not turned to coal at the time the compression event occurred. This points to a quick burial and coalification of the logs – rather than a long time period.2
II. Decay Ratios
When the ratio of uranium decay to its decay product (lead) is analyzed, the conclusion is drawn that all the logs within the various geologic formations were buried at the same time. The high lead-to-uranium ratios admit the possibility that both the initial uranium infiltration and the coalification could possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years.3
III. Polystrate Fossils
The presence of "polystrate" trees (trees petrified or coalified in an upright position) point to a rapid coalification process. One of the most commonly known polystrate trees is found at Katherine Hill Bay, Australia. This fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. According to evolutionary theory the different sedimentary layers took hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate. However, we know this is impossible since the tree would have decomposed long before the sediments would have had time to accumulate. Rather, this tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.
IV. Unsullied Deposits
Finally, coal seams such as those found in the Powder River Basin of Gillette, Wyoming, ranging from 150 to 200 feet in depth, point to a rapid coalification process. "These coal seams run remarkably thick and unsullied by other material. Usually, unwanted sediments, such as clay, washes over a deposit before coal seams can get very thick. This leaves scientists with the baffling question of how the seams get so massive and still remain undiluted by influxes of clay and other impurities before they thicken."4
Conclusion
The answer can be found in the Biblical account of Noah's Flood. The Biblical description of the fountains of the great deep breaking up gives strong reference to volcanic activity in the pre-Flood basins.5 This would have provided several of the key factors need for the production of coal, along with an explanation of how the process could have occurred at such a rapid pace.
Although the coalification process has been used in the past to support theories of an aged universe, research done by leading creation scientists reveals that this process actually supports creation teachings of a young Earth. Physical evidence demonstrates that the coalification process must have occurred rapidly, rather than over vast time periods.
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/coal/se_coal.html
Scientific Evidence of Creation
A Moment in History...
That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton’s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.
Newton’s atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is!’ he exclaimed. ‘Who made it?’ Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, ‘Nobody.’
Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. ‘Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has.’ ‘You must think I am a fool!’ the visitor retorted heatedly, ‘Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is.’
Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?’
Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book: ‘The Truth: God or evolution?’ by Marshall and Sandra Hall, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)
Wrong! They also search out -- and find! -- the dumbest school boards in the nation, like those in Dover, Pa., and Kansas. They locate these scientifically illiterate worthies, who are mostly used-car salesmen, undertakers, retired social studies teachers, dentists' wives, and similar material, then they pump them full of ID propaganda and set them loose to teach the controversy. The result, so far, is not very promising. See Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.
I love science humor!
Got any more?
There's no way to test it either. Any result *could* be the hypothetical designer's will. A biologist can reason from the artiodactyl phylogenetic tree that if a genetic marker is found in both pigs and cows it will also be found in deer, giraffes, hippos, and whales. If they aren't there, there is something wrong with the tree or with the underlying theory.
An ID-ist, on the other hand, can only shrug and say "well, maybe the designer put them there, and maybe he didn't". If they're found, it neither confirms or refutes ID; if they're not found, it neither confirms nor refutes ID. What possible use is a "theory" like that?
Don't forget the Cobb County (Georgia) school board.
Good grief. You didn't go to #37 and read the links, did you? Here. Let me make this easy on you.
1. Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell
2. The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory
Educate yourself a bit on this, please.
Uh okay, so why are we having this debate then? BTW: Did I mention "God" in any of my posts? If so would you please show me the exact quote? I simply refernced a higher being putting us on this planet. How much of a higher being that is none of us know.
Yeah, the sticker gang. How could I leave them out?
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.