We're not in Kansas anymore (Krauthammer slams Intelligent Design)

Townhall ^ | 11/18/2005 | Charles Krauthammer

[Uncledave]

WASHINGTON -- Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous -- that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.

[Nanny7]

I don't see anything on there about the censorship of "data."

Is it your position that the intelligent design hypothesis has no scientific basis whatsoever?

[tioga]

Just when I thought Krauthammer was perfect. Dang. For the record - count me as one who acknowledges God created the earth and all on it.

[Tribune7]

Denying God doesn't make Him go away. Go back and read your arguments. They aren't making sense.

[lugsoul]

Nice dodge.

I'll answer your question as soon as you answer mine, or retract your statement.

There is a big difference between restricting the theory that a teacher can use to explain data, on one hand, and burying the data itself, on the other.

When you come up with an example of the latter, which you charged, let me know.

[orionblamblam]

> Denying God doesn't make Him go away.

Denying Odin doesn't make him go away, either.

>Go back and read your arguments. They aren't making sense.

Well, reason often does not make sense to unreasonable people.

[Nanny7]

I'll answer your question as soon as you answer mine, or retract your statement.

I have no intention of retracting my statement.

There is a big difference between restricting the theory that a teacher can use to explain data, on one hand, and burying the data itself, on the other.

I understand perfectly. However, to present a position contrary to Darwinian evolution would also mean presenting evidence (data) defending that view. We both know that's what the debate is all about. The reason you won't answer my question is that it would be an admission or a denial that such evidence exists. If the evidence exists, why isn't it being taught? On the other hand, to deny such evidence exists would be untenable. I suggest you re-read the comments and numerous citings on the site I posted.

When you come up with an example of the latter, which you charged, let me know.

I have no intention of searching for an example that would satisfy you. But let me invite any concerned parent to investigate their own system for themselves. This is not an argument about religion, it is an argument about academic freedom and intellectual honesty. If a debate exists within the scientific community, and we all know it does, why not let the kids in on the particulars?

[lugsoul]

So you have no intention of backing up your own charge? Nice.

However, to present a position contrary to Darwinian evolution would also mean presenting evidence (data) defending that view. We both know that's what the debate is all about. The reason you won't answer my question is that it would be an admission or a denial that such evidence exists. If the evidence exists, why isn't it being taught? On the other hand, to deny such evidence exists would be untenable. I suggest you re-read the comments and numerous citings on the site I posted.

What utter tripe. ID is not, in any way, about new or 'buried' data or evidence. It is about drawing a conclusion from data that is known and it not even slightly 'buried' or 'censored.'

Is there evidence from which one can draw the conclusion of an intelligent designer? Certainly. Is there evidence to which the scientific method can be applied to test that hypothesis? No. Could one look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion? Absolutely.

Bottom line, you charged that 'data' is being censored that would lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, and you continue to charge that, but you can't identify a single piece of data that is being censored.

[steve-b]

Educate yourself, so that you will not be condemned to remain ignorant.

[higgmeister]

"How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God."

[Nanny7]

Bottom line, you charged that 'data' is being censored that would lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, and you continue to charge that, but you can't identify a single piece of data that is being censored.

I believe you are misquoting me. Searching previous posts, I cannot see where I ever claimed that any data would LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION of an intelligent designer. My position isn't about proven conclusions. You would admit that Darwinian evolution position certainly has flaws. Are these flaws made available for popular consumption? At the same time, there is evidence that supports the i.d. hypothesis, especially in the micro-science fields, and math (probability). Is this evidence fairly presented? It's never been my position to proove or disproove either theory. What I have asserted is that there is a debate going on in the upper echelons of the science community and BOTH cite evidence (data). Evidence supporting both sides should be presented. This brings us back to my question to you. Do you think there is any evidence which supports (not prooves) the i.d. position? If you say no, then we can stop this right now, because you're just uninformed.

[lugsoul]

If you didn't see my direct answer to that question, you either aren't trying to read what I've said or you are trying to avoid it.

Now, in answer to your other questions:

Are the flaws fairly presented? Yes. In every single biology class I've ever had, in public schools from elementary school through college.

Is the evidence that supports the ID hypothesis fairly presented? Well, that question is kind of hard to answer since you won't indentify what evidence you are referencing, or what you think isn't being fairly presented, but my answer based upon evidence that I could argue supports the hypothesis is an unequivocal yes - as well as evidence that undermines the hypothesis.

As far as the supposed debate you reference, you are pretty loose with your description - there is no one in the 'upper echelons' of the science community who does not believe in the theory of natural selection as presented by Darwin. No one.

[Nanny7]

If you didn't see my direct answer to that question, you either aren't trying to read what I've said or you are trying to avoid it.

You're right and I'm sorry. I overlooked your answer. I'm not trying to avoid anything.

Are the flaws fairly presented? Yes. In every single biology class I've ever had, in public schools from elementary school through college.

Happy to hear that.

Is the evidence that supports the ID hypothesis fairly presented? Well, that question is kind of hard to answer since you won't indentify what evidence you are referencing, or what you think isn't being fairly presented, but my answer based upon evidence that I could argue supports the hypothesis is an unequivocal yes - as well as evidence that undermines the hypothesis.

If that's the case, this needn't be an issue for the courts/school boards. You were fortunate if you had a fair presentation of both positions. Hopefully you're wise enough to see why I wouldn't get into an Darwinian vs. I.D. argument on particulars on this thread. Smarter minds than you and I will be arguing their positions long after we're gone.

As far as the supposed debate you reference, you are pretty loose with your description - there is no one in the 'upper echelons' of the science community who does not believe in the theory of natural selection as presented by Darwin. No one.

There are books and papers written to the contrary, some have even run the gauntlet and have appeared in scientific journals. You can go to many websites for more information, some w/o a religious bent. I would agree that those who hold the power are totally committed to naturalism which disallows what doesn't conform to their philosophy. I feel like I've made my case for better or for worse as best I can, so if you want to last word, go for it..... and Happy Thanksgiving!

[Sun]

Darwinists Impose Gag Rule on Science

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2194

[Nanny7]

good job, Sun. right on topic.

[Southack]

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

[Southack]

"Nothing is preventing IDers from presenting their theories in Scientific journals and subject them to Peer Review."

Then you know knowing of the peer review process: Government Investigation of Retaliation Against Pro-ID Scientist

[voltaires_zit]

Yeah, about that paper:

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON


The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings...

http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html

[fish hawk]

Just showing off my tagline.

[Southack]

There's been quite the witchhunt against Sternberg for publishing Steyn's peer-reviewed paper: Government Investigation of Retaliation Against Pro-ID Scientist

Interestingly enough, the arguments, facts, and sources in Steyn's **paper** itself have survived all attacks intact. Sound.

Ergo the conclusion stands.

[Southack]

"For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity."

They claim that they "will not," but the reality is that they "can not" scientifically rebut the paper.