Posted on 08/18/2005 5:17:34 PM PDT by curiosity
The appeal of "intelligent design" to the American right is obvious. For religious conservatives, the theory promises to uncover God's fingerprints on the building blocks of life. For conservative intellectuals in general, it offers hope that Darwinism will yet join Marxism and Freudianism in the dustbin of pseudoscience. And for politicians like George W. Bush, there's little to be lost in expressing a skepticism about evolution that's shared by millions.
In the long run, though, intelligent design will probably prove a political boon to liberals, and a poisoned chalice for conservatives. Like the evolution wars in the early part of the last century, the design debate offers liberals the opportunity to portray every scientific battle--today, stem-cell research, "therapeutic" cloning, and end-of-life issues; tomorrow, perhaps, large-scale genetic engineering--as a face-off between scientific rigor and religious fundamentalism. There's already a public perception, nurtured by the media and by scientists themselves, that conservatives oppose the "scientific" position on most bioethical issues. Once intelligent design runs out of steam, leaving its conservative defenders marooned in a dinner-theater version of Inherit the Wind, this liberal advantage is likely to swell considerably.
And intelligent design will run out of steam--a victim of its own grand ambitions. What began as a critique of Darwinian theory, pointing out aspects of biological life that modification-through-natural-selection has difficulty explaining, is now foolishly proposed as an alternative to Darwinism. On this front, intelligent design fails conspicuously--as even defenders like Rick Santorum are beginning to realize--because it can't offer a consistent, coherent, and testable story of how life developed. The "design inference" is a philosophical point, not a scientific theory: Even if the existence of a designer is a reasonable inference to draw from the complexity of, say, a bacterial flagellum, one would still need to explain how the flagellum moved from design to actuality.
And unless George W. Bush imposes intelligent design on American schools by fiat and orders the scientific establishment to recant its support for Darwin, intelligent design will eventually collapse--like other assaults on evolution that failed to offer an alternative--under the weight of its own overreaching.
If liberals play their cards right, this collapse could provide them with a powerful rhetorical bludgeon. Take the stem-cell debate, where the great questions are moral, not scientific--whether embryonic human life should be created and destroyed to prolong adult human life. Liberals might win that argument on the merits, but it's by no means a sure thing. The conservative embrace of intelligent design, however, reshapes the ideological battlefield. It helps liberals cast the debate as an argument about science, rather than morality, and paint their enemies as a collection of book-burning, Galileo-silencing fanatics.
This would be the liberal line of argument anyway, even without the controversy surrounding intelligent design. "The president is trapped between religion and science over stem cells," declared a Newsweek cover story last year; "Religion shouldn't undercut new science," the San Francisco Chronicle insisted; "Leadership in 'therapeutic cloning' has shifted abroad," the New York Times warned, because American scientists have been "hamstrung" by "religious opposition"--and so on and so forth. But liberalism's science-versus-religion rhetoric is only likely to grow more effective if conservatives continue to play into the stereotype by lining up to take potshots at Darwin.
Already, savvy liberal pundits are linking bioethics to the intelligent design debate. "In a world where Koreans are cloning dogs," Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote last week, "can the U.S. afford--ethically or economically--to raise our children on fraudulent biology?" (Message: If you're for Darwin, you're automatically for unfettered cloning research.) Or again, this week's TNR makes the pretty-much-airtight "case against intelligent design"; last week, the magazine called opponents of embryo-destroying stem cell research "flat-earthers." The suggested parallel is obvious: "Science" is on the side of evolution and on the side of embryo-killing.
Maureen Dowd, in her inimitable way, summed up the liberal argument earlier this year:
Exploiting God for political ends has set off powerful, scary forces in America: a retreat on teaching evolution, most recently in Kansas; fights over sex education . . . a demonizing of gays; and a fear of stem cell research, which could lead to more of a "culture of life" than keeping one vegetative woman hooked up to a feeding tube.
Terri Schiavo, sex education, stem cell research--on any issue that remotely touches on science, a GOP that's obsessed with downing Darwin will be easily tagged as medieval, reactionary, theocratic. And this formula can be applied to every new bioethical dilemma that comes down the pike. Earlier this year, for instance, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued ethical guidelines for research cloning, which blessed the creation of human-animal "chimeras"--animals seeded with human cells. New York Times reporter Nicholas Wade, writing on the guidelines, declared that popular repugnance at the idea of such creatures is based on "the pre-Darwinian notion that species are fixed and penalties [for cross-breeding] are severe." In other words, if you're opposed to creating pig-men--carefully, of course, with safeguards in place (the NAS guidelines suggested that chimeric animals be forbidden from mating)--you're probably stuck back in the pre-Darwinian ooze with Bishop Wilberforce and William Jennings Bryan.
There's an odd reversal-of-roles at work here. In the past, it was often the right that tried to draw societal implications from Darwinism, and the left that stood against them. And for understandable reasons: When people draw political conclusions from Darwin's theory, they're nearly always inegalitarian conclusions. Hence social Darwinism, hence scientific racism, hence eugenics.
Which is why however useful intelligent design may be as a rhetorical ploy, liberals eager to claim the mantle of science in the bioethics battle should beware. The left often thinks of modern science as a child of liberalism, but if anything, the reverse is true. And what scientific thought helped to forge--the belief that all human beings are equal--scientific thought can undermine as well. Conservatives may be wrong about evolution, but they aren't necessarily wrong about the dangers of using Darwin, or the National Academy of Sciences, as a guide to political and moral order.
I see you neither know, or understand God, or Free will. He said that He made man in His image and likeness. That means we have the same capacities as God. Perhaps you've missed the fact that Jesus is God. Gen 1:26 says, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." It says Us. Jesus is that omnimax God you speak of. John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
"this "father" doesn't make his kid the old fashioned way (with the help of a woman) but he assembles him atom by atom, molecule by molecule because he's a man with extraordinary capabilities."
Perhaps you missed what God said, "John 5:27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man." Mary was His mother.
Jesus was not born with the knowledge, understanding and wisdom of the Father. He was taught and developed the same Spirit as the Father. That was of His own Free will. It is written that He was tempted, yet did not sin. In John 9 God makes it clear that other men did the same. Free will means just that, a man is Free to choose between good and evil and that choice is based on the man's own choices of reasoning.
That "Us" that was mentioned in Gen 1 is the Trinity. Just as God is a trinity, so is man. You have a body that functions as a machine that supports the sentient, rational features of your mind. It provides for thinking, emotions, memories, Free will, ect... All those things that machine supports, that are the essence of your living being is your spirit. The soul is the machine that supports your spirit for eternity.
"Now is the death of these people the father's fault (who could have made some more changes to his son's design) or is it the fault of the son?"
Pehaps you think there's something wrong with BTK's machinery, that he just wasn't loved enough, he was deprived, or some other rubbish. There are those that are deficient, but that doesn't apply here. Nor does it apply to such people as the 'toon and his wench. The fact is that he made his own choices and the prominent choice that sticks out is that he places no value on the life, or rights of others. That's not God's doing, his parents, or anyone elses. It's his own doing, because he made his value choices by his own free will.
Most parasites.
...By your interpretation of what might be found.
porkchops 4 mahound: No, like it or not, intelligent design is about the hand of GOD.
When you ID guys reach coherence, let us know which of these you intend to teach in biology class.
Yep and yep
Satisfied that you got an answer? Ok, lets move on then.
Did you note the word "usually"?
That sounds nice.
How do we deal with historical figures like Joan of Arc? Or Martin Luther? Or Henry VIII?
I think you know what I meant.
post Gen 1:11 in entirety: (and I even added verse 12)
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The earth did not create life it grew some grass.
What is it about verse 1 thats so tough?
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Different traits work to fill different niches. We're smarter than lions, but would you want to be dropped naked and unarmed on the savannah near a pack of these cats?
Other species have hit pretty much optimal designs for what they do. A shark is dumb as dirt, but it would be difficult to improve on the design. What environmental pressures would serve to make sharks evolve higher intelligence? Would being smarter really make a shark a better hunter? It might, but the tradeoff in energy required to feed its larger brain might be an evolutionary drawback.
Our ancestors developed intelligence because it was what they needed to survive. Before the increase in intelligence, hominid species' were not all that succesful and came close to extinction on several occasions.
Even if I am to accept your argument (which has obvious and numerous holes), I must contend that only ONE species has evolved to sentience.
The cheetah is the fastest land animal, of the thousands of species out there. The elephant is the largest land animal, of the thousands of species out there. Similarly, we are the smartest species in existence. However, that's just a matter of degree. Elephants, chimps, gorillas, whales and dolphins are also intelligent, just not as intelligent as humans.
Since a leopard is slower than a cheetah, is that an argument against evolution, in your opinion?
Survival. Is that not the basis for all Darwinistic evolution??? Man could exterminate every horse in the world and they would have no (or very little) power to refuse...
There is no master plan when it comes to survival. Species respond to external stimuli and evolve accordingly. Sometimes, those stimuli occur too rapidly for species to adapt, so they go extinct.
At this time, though, there is no environmental pressure for, say, hippos to evolve a higher degree of intelligence.
It's interesting that Douthat assumes all liberals are scientifically-savvy evolutionists. My experience with the vast majority of Democrats is that they are, for the most part, scientifically and mathematically illiterate and that they generally believe in creation. The professor/media folks are a different story.
The real solution to the evo/crevo/id debate would be to end the middle class welfare system aka "public education".
Evolution has nothing to do with godlessness.
According to evolutionists like Thomas Huxley it has everything to do with it.
That should be step one.
I did give the context. Matt 12:38 "Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.""
It is written. That means it's addressed to all. The demand applies to anyone making it, not just Pharisees, or teachers of the law. That's why God calls them an evil and adulterous generation. They are all members of an open set that is not defined by title of teacher, or Pharisee, but by evil of heart. The sign of the prophet Jonah is the Holy Spirit, the One who lives and answers those who take His advice, "seek and you shall find."
"To insinuate that the Lord Jesus Christ was saying anything at all supportive of the evolution argument is defamatory and scurrilous."
His words are quite clear about the matter. Any scientific evidence showing that God exists, other than knowing the Holy Spirit, is a miraculous sign. Science uncovers the truth, but not all. Some truths were hidden and are kept protected by "the cherubim with the flaming sword." That is the physics of this world.
"You must be utterly vile to make such a suggestion."
I'm only vile, because I don't believe what you say and instead have chosen to believe what God said.
There is no debate. Its a fact. The terms are being taught now as I demonstrated. Pre-1980 is irrevelant. And watch your language if you wish to post at this site.
Why would the alternative be more scientific than design?
The 'probability calculations' presented to discredit evolution are entirely and transparently specious.
In that case you can put ID in the class, state the reasons why the probability calculations are specious, the allow the proponents to counter and so on. The most reasonable view would win in open debate.
Moreover, according to the modern founders of the 'design' movement, ID is not as you say; ID is a pretext to get the Christian deity into academic discourse and into the classroom. Philip Johnson has explicitly said so.
No, it's been explicitly stated that it could apply to any designer. OTOH, science is a means of understanding reality. If God exists, shouldn't science reflect that?
Uh, how do you want to detect design if you don't even have a model of the designer?
We have a myriad examples of known design. If elements of nature resemble complex items of known design, why not assume design?
Please define "kind," and please cite for me a Bible verse that says one "kind" cannot evolve into another "kind." You have a Bible - look it up and read along . . . Genesis 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Let's try to dissect this:
1) God made the beasts . . . Notice it didn't say Gaia, martians, or soup of any color.
2) If I "bring forth" a cake from the oven, did the oven make the cake or did I? My logic says I did, your's I cannot speak for.
3) according to their kinds . . . according to its kind This didn't say according to its kind, with a bunch of other kinds, and various soup flavors. The word "their" is possesive. Genesis is differentiating between "kinds".
4) Taxonmomists have been trying to structure life into logical divisions for a long time. We do not have an exact definition of the Bible term "kind" but have probably come close with family (with genus and species). However, scientists are continually finding that some of their assumptions aren't quite accurate - including biological classifications and definitions. (read about wholphins)
Summary: God created the earth and everything in it and around it. If you want to believe He left the specifics of life forms up to a lightning bolt hitting a primordial soup with a splash of meteor dust and some Blue Bell ice cream . . . have at it.
Where's the mechanics-the how it was done? Hmmm? Is this science?
Yes.
I know that you said,
"The word "evolutionist" is usually used as an epithet implying an unreasonable belief in evolution."
And I was surprised to hear that the word "evolutionist" was ever used as an epithet, (Unless the person saying "evolutionist" spat out the word or did something equally offensive.)
Evolutionist seems like a fine word, to me. And it seems fine to the NIH.
Is there another short1 word that I should use?
1 I'm usually strapped for time.
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.