Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Occasionally a social issue becomes so ubiquitous that almost everyone wants to talk about it -- even well-meaning but uninformed pundits. For example, Charles Krauthammer preaches that religious conservatives should stop being so darn, well, religious, and should accept his whitewashed version of religion-friendly Darwinism.1 George Will prophesies that disagreements over Darwin could destroy the future of conservatism.2 Both agree that intelligent design is not science.
It is not evident that either of these critics has read much by the design theorists they rebuke. They appear to have gotten most of their information about intelligent design from other critics of the theory, scholars bent on not only distorting the main arguments of intelligent design but also sometimes seeking to deny the academic freedom of design theorists.
In 2001, Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez’s research on galactic habitable zones appeared on the cover of Scientific American. Dr. Gonzalez’s research demonstrates that our universe, galaxy, and solar system were intelligently designed for advanced life. Although Gonzalez does not teach intelligent design in his classes, he nevertheless believes that “[t]he methods [of intelligent design] are scientific, and they don't start with a religious assumption.” But a faculty adviser to the campus atheist club circulated a petition condemning Gonzalez’s scientific views as merely “religious faith.” Attacks such as these should be familiar to the conservative minorities on many university campuses; however, the response to intelligent design has shifted from mere private intolerance to public witch hunts. Gonzalez is up for tenure next year and clearly is being targeted because of his scientific views.
The University of Idaho, in Moscow, Idaho, is home to Scott Minnich, a soft-spoken microbiologist who runs a lab studying the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic rotary engine that he and other scientists believe was intelligently designed -- see "What Is Intelligent Design.") Earlier this year Dr. Minnich testified in favor of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial over the teaching of intelligent design. Apparently threatened by Dr. Minnich’s views, the university president, Tim White, issued an edict proclaiming that “teaching of views that differ from evolution ... is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula.” As Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf asked in an editorial, “Which Moscow is this?” It’s the Moscow where Minnich’s career advancement is in now jeopardized because of his scientific views.
Scientists like Gonzalez and Minnich deserve not only to be understood, but also their cause should be defended. Conservative champions of intellectual freedom should be horrified by the witch hunts of academics seeking to limit academic freedom to investigate or objectively teach intelligent design. Krauthammer’s and Will’s attacks only add fuel to the fire.
By calling evolution “brilliant,” “elegant,” and “divine,” Krauthammer’s defense of Darwin is grounded in emotional arguments and the mirage that a Neo-Darwinism that is thoroughly friendly towards Western theism. While there is no denying the possibility of belief in God and Darwinism, the descriptions of evolution offered by top Darwinists differ greatly from Krauthammer’s sanitized version. For example, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins explains that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” In addition, Krauthammer’s understanding is in direct opposition to the portrayal of evolution in biology textbooks. Says Douglas Futuyma in the textbook Evolutionary Biology:
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”3
“Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next. … However elevated in power over the rest of life, however exalted in self-image, we were descended from animals by the same blind force that created those animals. …”5
Mr. Luskin is an attorney and published scientist working with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash.
Poor analogy. Genomes don't look like they're in perfect numerical order. They have broken genes, bits of ancient retroviruses, and close, tree-like relationships with other organisms. Everything about them screams evolution; nothing looks designed, unless the designer was drunk or insane.
What I want to see is this deck of cards that, in order to be suitable (no pun intended) for this analogy, must be the result of self-replication that passes on heritable, imperfectly copied genetics.
"And you are a very poor debater. :)"
No, but you sure seem to be. :)
I would say that if design is such an obvious source of biological structures, then ID folks should be unraveling the principles of design as part of their research.
There are really two aspects they should be working on
The first is the design principles needed to make new creatures that are individually viable.
The second is it design principles needed to make sure new creatures will be competitive in the ever changing ecosystem.
I would be interested in the kind of theoretical work ID advocates have done to solve these problems.
God help us to regain a Free Republic..
Ah, and people are supposed to believe you about what "evolutionists" say and think merely because you happen to be one, are they?
Look, you're being told what it is you're supposed to say and believe, and it's tremendously inconsiderate of you to, you know, object, and then persist in having your own opinions. This discussion would go much more smoothly if your interlocutor were permitted to argue both sides, so just get with the program already...
"If I handed you a deck of cards in perfect numerical order, would you refuse to believe they were ordered by an intelligent being unless I showed you a video of someone doing so?"
Absolutely, since of course a deck of cards could just as easily have been perfectly ordered by the machine at the factory (is the machine intelligent?) or by a random shuffle.
Sure, the shuffle may not be a highly probable outcome...but hey, look around, does the universe look "highly probable" to you? lol!
Have you ever actually seen grass grow, or do you just take it as an unchallenged assumption? Do you have any actual proof that God doesn't come in and tug the grass up when you aren't looking? --or are you one of those sleepers that does not wish to awaken?
Theres a difference?
Not to people that desire to see religion in everything. Of course, a school of thought that allows everything to be described as a religion makes the word pretty much useless as a descriptor.
ID isn't a theory - it would have to be a thourough explaination of something to be a theory. It isn't - it's a set of criticisms of evolution. If support for evolution comes along then yes it could discredit some of those criticisms. But it wouldn't be falsifying a theory, because ID is no theory.
The ghost of an explaination ID has is so vague that it is debatable if it qualifies as an explaination at all: "some unknown intelligence created unknown biological systems at an unknown time in the past using unknown methods for an unknown purpose". I don't see how any observation, including the one you gave, could disprove something that vague.
I'm getting tired of the semantic quibbling and obfuscation too! So here's my prediction, which if proved false, would discredit a purely natural Darwinian theory: No scientist will ever decode the "junk" DNA in the human genome and find that it is a letter for letter transcription of the King James version of the Holy Bible.
Perhaps DX10 means things like LOL, bttt, ROFL, ping, and stuff like that. They can be confusing to newbies.
I am satisfied by the evidence available. If you are not, and require the impossible in order to be satisfied, so be it. I fail to see why it is incumbent upon me to provide it to you, however.
Friendly Fire Alert!
See post #97. That would surely throw a monkey wrench in the works of evolution. And do not go on about the discredited strata dataing refutation the creationists came up with (already easily explained as a thrust fault).
"Poor analogy. Genomes don't look like they're in perfect numerical order. They have broken genes, bits of ancient retroviruses, and close, tree-like relationships with other organisms. Everything about them screams evolution; nothing looks designed, unless the designer was drunk or insane."
I was not suggesting that an ordered deck of cards resembles a living organism. I was merely giving an example of a situation in which "intelligence" can be statistically inferred without actually showing how, when, or why the intelligence was introduced.
You evolutionists are true masters at aggressively missing the point. One the one hand, you make general philosophical assertions about ID theory ("isn't even a theory," "is unfalsifiable," etc.), then when you are challenged on your logical principles you revert to particular cases to obfuscate the underlying philosophical point.
A little friendly fire is occasionally good for tempering one's steel - it's all good :)
Well, interesting how conservatives who probably barf when liberals stretch the truth, downright lie , and then claim they have no agenda, now misrepresent I.D. All the critics misrepresent I.D. I guess they can't scientifically muster enough science to provide any intelligent debate so they continue stupidity assaults.
I think if you go to the source, Discoverys Institute web site, you will see a statement as to why they did not testify. Perhaps you should actually do some research before you regurgitate liberal tactics.
Works for me.
Ok. Works for me, too. Just one question. What is the benefit of survival?
I mean, really? We seek to survive because of natural selection and not because there is any inherent value in survival. You might say that survival is valuable to you and you might even come up with some reasons to justify your position but, in reality, it is just natural selection talking.
BTW, I actually disagree with your redefinition since you list experience and thought as distinct from evolution.
The statistical calculation is based on the chance of it occuring naturally. That's easy enough to do with toy examples like card ordering where there are no natural processes in operation. But when it comes to life there are abundant natural processes working which complicates statistical calculations to such a point that they cannot be applied accurately.
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.