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.
What predictions has it made about fossil finds or genetic research?
What sort of observations would show it to be wrong?
These are basic things any scientific theory must deal with.
Biologists disagree with you. Reciprocal altruism is key to the survival of a social animal. And a moral sense is essential to reciprocal altruism.
The idea that might makes right is reprehensible unless it is coupled with the concept of the good.
The idea that might makes right is reprehensible, period.
I am puzzled why I have been chosen as the recipient of your pearls of wisdom, however.
Stalin.
His problem wasn't with evolution per se, just with Darwin's theory.
He sent Soviet biologists to the Gulag unless they subscribed to the Lysenko version of Lamarckism. AFAIK, Russian biology hasn't recovered yet.
Carl Sagan's comments on Johnny Carson and Time Magazine where he referred to Evolution as fact was a long time ago. I will try to find the references. Following is a recent article googled that confirms his position though. See paragraph 8.
Carl Sagan’s ‘Cosmos’ Returns to Television
By Tariq Malik
Staff Writer
posted: 27 September 2005
12:01 am ET
The noted late astronomer Carl Sagan once said that we are, all of us, made of star-stuff.
But instead of just telling us that our atoms in our bodies were created in the furnace of long-dead stars, Sagan worked to show us – in simple terms – using what is likely one of the most easily accessible mediums of all time, television.
In the 13-part series Cosmos that first aired on the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) in 1980, Sagan dutifully explained the history of our planet, the origin of life, the life cycle of stars and a host of other topics that cemented his name in the scientific lexicon.
Sagan himself died in 1996, but Cosmos survived and now – 25 years later – returns to television care of The Science Channel and Cosmos Studios. Digitally remastered and enhanced with fresh computer graphics unheard of at the time of its recording, Cosmos premieres once more tonight at 9 p.m. EDT (check local listings).
“I really think it’s a tribute to Carl,” said Ann Druyan, Cosmos Studios CEO and Sagan’s widow, who co-wrote the science series. “To me, it’s a kind of instant scientific literacy.”
Much has changed since Cosmos first aired that threatens to cast the series into irrelevance. The Hubble Space Telescope launched into orbit and opened up the distant corners of the universe for observation. Robot missions flew to Mars – two still crawl across its surface and another orbiter is on the way – Saturn, Jupiter and their moons, not to mention comets and asteroids. Imagery from those missions pepper Cosmos’ new incarnation.
“I love this chance to cut away from Carl and really show the most visually dazzling concepts,” Druyan said, adding that at the time of its original recording, budgeting restriction forced Cosmos to rely heavily on Sagan’s in-person narration. “The Hubble didn’t even exist then, and we’ve leaned heavily on Hubble images here.”
Despite its age, Cosmos seems to remain eerily poignant, especially in the second hour when Sagan states firmly that “evolution is fact, not a theory.”
The simple pronouncement, aired in 1980, hits home a quarter century later when the concept of evolution is again under debate from supporters of intelligent design in U.S. courtrooms and schools.
“It’s amazing how much Cosmos speaks to us today,” Druyan says.
Cosmos’ return to television also brought a new requirement for the show, commercial breaks, which were absent when it first aired on public television but acceptable price for admission to the Cosmos.
Parts 1 and 2 of Cosmos premieres tonight on The Science Channel at 9 p.m. EDT (Check local listings).
Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, "De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium", was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the "mathematicians" (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side, although Luther and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridicule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, clerical and lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, he exhibited the sunspots and other objects to an admiring throng...In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the pope introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. Galileo and Foscarini rightly urged that the Bible is intended to teach men to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, "which appears to contradict Scripture". It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena -- an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes -- but should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:
I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.
This does seem to be all that the evolution camp has left; they all hate the very idea of God with equal intensity, and have agreed to stiffle their differences in the name of preserving evolution's lifeless corpse.
At this point in time, Bishop Sagan is becoming familiar with non-star stuff: Brimstone
:-} I imagine some sociobiologists disagree with me. I sincerely doubt that all biologists disagree with me.
Reciprocal altruism is key to the survival of a social animal.
Reciprocal altuism is just another way of saying that morality is an allusion. What mechanism directs the individual to rationalize an altruistic act by saying to himslef. Ah, this is beneficial to the species so I will lay down my life for my fellow soldier?
And a moral sense is essential to reciprocal altruism.
Hardly, in fact they are mutually exclusive in some sense. That sense being that there is nothing inherently moral in an altrusistic act if one expects reciprocity.
Just my observation, but leftists generally have a problem with natural selection, while conservatives often have a problem with evolution. The two are not the same, though some people in these debates try to confuse this issue.
Conservatives who question evolution generally don't think there is sufficient evidence to declare that we are descended from one celled organisms through accumulated mutations. Natural selection isn't that big of a deal to most conservatives. I doubt evolution but I fully accept natural selection, for example.
Leftists like the idea that we emerged from the primordial slime and got to where we are through mutations which God had nothing to do with. Their problem is with natural selection, at least as it applies to humans. They may accept that natural selection occurs in all other forms of life, but they want humans to be exempted from it. They want us all to be equal, for the genders to be equal and interchangable, for all groups to be equal, etc.
Replace a with i in allusion. Thanks.
Evolution is indeed a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory. I'll hold off any further comment about what Carl Sagan said until I see if this is what he was stating or if he actually said the ToE was no longer a theory but a fact, as you claim he did.
As do I, but it is a pure bi+ch finding a fundamentalist Sumerian congregation nowdays.
Probably, but Dawkins is not Sagan.
Just pointing out that DX10 lied misspoke.
Not a "big deal" for creationists, apparently.
I'm sorry to jump in, but I couldn't help but notice a slight error in this paragraph. Specifically:
...If you have a theory that pigs fly, then your theory would obviously be falsified if you ever see a pig fly....
Wouldn't that be:
'If you have a theory that pigs fly, then your theory would obviously be falsified if you ever see a pig not fly.'
Of course, since the theory isn't that all pigs fly all the time, not even that falsifies the theory.
Nothing says that.
The individual says 'I trusted that individual, and he cheated me; I won't trust him next time'. Or 'I trusted that individual once, and he cheated me, but he has by paying a penalty for doing so, attempted to make it up to me; maybe it is worth while trusting him again'.
That sense being that there is nothing inherently moral in an altrusistic act if one expects reciprocity.
Unless the reward comes in the afterlife, eh?
You're assuming what drives us to be moral is a conscious thought process. But why should it be? Isn't it more likely to be an innate sense of 'justice' or 'forgiveness' or 'generosity' or 'loyalty'. After all; you don't have conscious control of your heart rate; why would you need conscious control of your innate moral sense?
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.