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.
Since DX has already posted an article with that quote in it, evidently you're the one doing the misspeaking. What kind of reciprocal altruism is that from a bigot?
LOL. I'm wondering, is that a metaphysical question of being? We post, therefore we are? OK, that's a bit corny. I posted the article for your consideration.
I also concur with Adler that there are kinds of arguments and that some of these are rhetorical. I think rhetorical arguments are fine, whenever they lead to a new consideration of things whenever other means have reached their limit.
It just may be that arguments have their limitations. Both sides are quite superstitious concerning the universalizability of their favorite conceptions.
I also think he raises the level of conversation, adds insights that are usually not presented here, and in general is much more rewarding to read than the quick-type dismissives of the unthinking.
Take care here. Freedom is a political virtue. I smell the ghost of . . .
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...Leftists['] ... 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.
I read an article somewhere recently that put it this way: Creationists accept microevolution but not macroevolution, while leftists accept macroevolution but not microevolution.
Yes, but in creationist/ID circles, there's nothing wrong with that.
Nobody has a monopoly on virtue, PH.
Actually, I do. But for you, it's 10% off if you purchase within the next twenty minutes.
Virtue requires sacrifice, like a blood donation. It saps the somatic self and then gives life wherever infused.
Hate? Maybe. But why?
We all wish to be our own god. We hate competition.
What was that about morality again? ;)
And it is forgiving. After you abuse it and sold it away like a cheap slave, it will still be pleased to come back for you.
Yes, they do preach that idea, but in practice, they need an underclass to exist for their politics to succeed. That is why they become rabbid when a conservative minority is appointed to high office; it destroys the stereo-types upon which their power is based.
Leftovers from the past.
An announcement that they're going to rebroadcast "Cosmos" ???
... Okey-Doke.
Where's the part about the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson or the debate with Dr. Warren, or Dr. Sagan crawling under the desk?
While I don't recall the quote in the series, it was in the book that I'd purchased. If the quote was "evolution is fact, not a theory", then Sagan was incorrect. Gould's statement is the better characterization.
What does "virtue" mean if the only thing keeping one toeing the line is fear of consequences?
Yeah, I know.
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'.
Altruism has always been defined as selflessness which is why the term "reciprocal altruism" makes me laugh. It's an illusion in search of reality. But Orwell would love it.
Unless the reward comes in the afterlife, eh?
After life there is judgement. I believe it, you don't. One of us will be severely disappointed. :-}
You're assuming what drives us to be moral is a conscious thought process.
I'm not assuming it, I know it. I have lived what might be called a relatively long and somewhat interesting life. I've made moral choices and I've made immoral ones that I regret. But each was a conscious act, even those made in the heat of the moment. Did I think about the consequences of diving into a hole in the ice to pull out a young girl? Yes, instantaneously. Any reciprocity involved? Nope. My genes to preserve? Nope.
But why should it be? Isn't it more likely to be an innate sense of 'justice' or 'forgiveness' or 'generosity' or 'loyalty'.
Not in my case. I was taught by my creationist parents that there were moral absolutes. The older I get the more I know they were right.
After all; you don't have conscious control of your heart rate; why would you need conscious control of your innate moral sense?
Here's a true story Prof. Ten years ago, I almost met my maker. Ran too hard, split off a plaque, closed down the circumflex nice and tight. After intervention I was in the CCU where I knew the nurses. To tweak them I would make my heartrate go below the lower limit threshold on the heart monitor. At will. I have witnesses. LOL
Ah, thank goodness, I build up virtue on a regualr basis and after a misspent youth I'm afraid I'll need all I can get when the time comes. :-}
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.