How Intelligent Design Hurts Conservatives (By making us look like crackpots)

The New Republic ^ | 8/16/05 | Ross Douthat

[Oztrich Boy]

Do hardline evolution-backers accept Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" in economics?

Soitainly! It's just Natural Selection

[jwalsh07]

It has come to mean the assertion that life cannot have evolved in through Darwinian processes, and further, that this can be scientifically demonstrated.

Life definitely could not have evolved through Darwinian processes, that should be self evident. The diversity of life is another story.

[Coyoteman]

ID as it is typically presented has no religious overtones, though you'll usually find that those pushing it are trying to secretly push a religious agenda.

If ID has no religious overtones, they will find this creation story as good as any other. But, don't wait up for that to happen!

African Bushmen Creation Story

People did not always live on the surface of the earth. At one time people and animals lived underneath the earth with Kaang, the Great Master and Lord of All Life. In this place people and animals lived together peacefully. They understood each other. No one ever wanted for anything and it was always light even though there wasn't any sun. During this time of bliss Kaang began to plan the wonders he would put in the world above.

First Kaang created a wondrous tree, with branches stretching over the entire country. At the base of the tree he dug a hole that reached all the way down into the world where the people and animals lived. After he had finished furnishing the world as he pleased he led the first man up the hole. He sat down on the edge of the hole and soon the first woman came up out of it. Soon all the people were gathered at the foot of the tree, awed by the world they had just entered. Next, Kaang began helping the animals climb out of the hole. In their eagerness some of the animals found a way to climb up through the tree's roots and come out of the branches. They continued racing out of the world beneath until all of the animals were out.

Kaang gathered all the people and animals about him. He instructed them to live together peacefully. Then he turned to the men and women and warned them not to build any fires or a great evil would befall them. They gave their word and Kaang left to where he could watch his world secretly.

As evening approached the sun began to sink beneath the horizon. The people and animals stood watching this phenomenon, but when the sun disappeared fear entered the hearts of the people. They could no longer see each other as they lacked the eyes of the animals which were capable of seeing in the dark. They lacked the warm fur of the animals also and soon grew cold. In desperation one man suggested that they build a fire to keep warm. Forgetting Kaang's warning they disobeyed him. They soon grew warm and were once again able to see each other.

However the fire frightened the animals. They fled to the caves and mountains and ever since the people broke Kaang's command people have not been able to communicate with animals. Now fear has replaced the seat friendship once held between the two groups.

[Zechariah11]

How applicable the contempt of Christ towards such teachers.

Luke 17:2
It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

[Oztrich Boy]

What's funny is that some of the people who support intelligent design the most aren't ignorant bible thumping conservatives but pysisists and astronomers on the bleeding edge of science

The "bleeding edge of science" is more commonly known as "The Fringe" (UFOs, ESP, Crypto-zoology, Cold Fusion) - it finds acorns rarer than a blind pig

[curiosity]

Good catch.

[Just mythoughts]

Noah's ark did not require nuclear, it was directed by the Heavenly Hand.

Oh just for what it is worth I am not one of those who think this whole earth was flooded during Noah's flood, might have been but right now I rather doubt it.

The flooding of this earth happened before man was created in the flesh as told by Jeremiah, talking about the sottish children!

[bvw]

A person who owns a Ford calls a Chevy a mish-mosh. And vice-versa. Not that the design of life and the universe is a mish-mosh as you or my analogy taken too simply might suggest -- but that the viewpoint that a person takes is awfully subjective. Your calling DNA a mish-mosh is premature at least. Not you nor anyone else knows enough of the whole interlinked network of chemistry and mechanics in the cell, of the cells in a organism, of the organism in a eco-system to objectively make such a statement. Perhaps it is premature conclusion derived from subconscious prejudices you entertain. A blindspot in objectivity. You don't seem to want to be appreciating the full warp and weave of the fabric of life. Why not? Perhaps because you like the easier premature judgement. Who knows? You have your reasons -- to reach objectivity it might be helpful for you to know, for you to discover, for you to self-examine for what those factors within you and your own history are. But not necessary -- all that's necessary is that you abandon the premature bias. To be able to say you don't yet know-it-all.

[aculeus]

In the long run, though, intelligent design will probably prove a political boon to liberals, and a poisoned chalice for conservatives.

Exactamundo!

[Coyoteman]

So many from so many different walks of life, the majority of which are NOT Christians, have said the same thing based on the scientific evidence.

So maybe your version is wrong and theirs is correct?

[DesertSapper]

My book of Genesis doesn't agree with macro-evolution. Not sure what Bible you are reading.

GOD created life in the form of complex biological organisms - animals of all sorts and humans - not some soup for us to "evolve" from. Read Genesis again.

That said, the process of "natural selection" obviously works within the "kind" (see Genesis again). Darwin took a valid, provable scientific theory and intentionally and deceitfully applied it in much too broad a scenario. What a crock of crap macro-evolution is!

[spunkets]

" It is actually the assertion that man's orgin required SUPERNATURAL intervention, and further, that this can be scientifically demonstrated.
It is, of course, pure garbage.

That's right. Their claim is that the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world. They ignore what God said about the matter:
Matt 12:38-39
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

[Rudder]

"Life definitely could not have evolved through Darwinian processes, that should be self evident."

?

[bvw]

He was a preacher. By the "Invisible Hand", as I understand, he meant that G-d acts for the good of the whole through the actions and motives of free individuals. The designs of Providence are enacted by the selfish actions of men with souls, those souls are a major connection point to G-d, to the spiritual world. That Providence is the Prime Mover, tthe Director of the Whole, is hidden behind the obvious individual motives and actions of men in the world.

[curiosity]

GOD created life in the form of complex biological organisms - animals of all sorts and humans - not some soup for us to "evolve" from. Read Genesis again.

Funny, I read the Bible as saying the Earth "brought forth" life (Gen 1:11). Sounds just like life emerging from soup.

That said, the process of "natural selection" obviously works within the "kind" (see Genesis again).

Please define "kind," and please cite for me a Bible verse that says one "kind" cannot evolve into another "kind."

[Dimensio]

Darwin took a valid, provable scientific theory

No theory in science is ever proven. Claiming that a scientific theory is "provable" only demonstrates that you are ignorant of the fundamentals of science. If you are ignorant of the fundamentals of science, then you have no credibility on speaking on the theory of evolution.

[curiosity]

He means Darwinian processes cannot account for the beginning of life, since natural selection presupposes life. Otherwise, there's nothing to select. He's right, of course.

[Oztrich Boy]

The only difference is that the ID'ers are getting more press since they have organized and started making noises like scientists (despite the absolute non-scientific nature of ID).

It's amazing what a little seed money from The Reverend Moon has accomplished (George Soros should take lessons)

[plain talk]

The terms are applicable to the real debate which is over macro evolution. The terms are being taught in College Biology textbooks.

The following is from my son's College Biology Textbook, Biology, Sixth Edition, Campbell & Reece, 2002, page 476:

"Speciation is at the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is a change over the genetics in a population's allele frequencies, mainly by genetic drift and natural selection. ...Yet the cumulative change during millions of speciation episodes over vast tracts of time must account for macroevolution, the level of change that is evident over the time scale of the fossil record."

Note that the use of the term "must account" sounds like they are not quite sure yet. :-)

[GoLightly]

Douthat eloquently expresses the fears that many of us here on FR have also held about what ID will do to conservatism.

When you fear your opponent's hyperbole, you've lost before you entered into battle. Hint, most of us on the ID side are not "anti-science".

Most of those who are ignorant about science somehow managed to arrive there having gone through the standard fare of science instruction, ToE included, anything & everything resembling ID excluded. How or why do you think that has happened?