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.
Relatively speaking this may be be true. Until we identify the center of the universe we had best reserve jdgment on the matter.
Pigs On The Wing Alert!
Pink Floyd.
Wave upon wave of relentless avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity and into the dream.
Luther 1483 - 1546
Calvin 1509 - 1564
Melanchthon 1497 - 1560
Galileo 1564 - 1642
Not that I have a problem with your major point, but you want to watch the anachronism.
It doesn't explain the specific patterns we see around us because it is compatible with *any* pattern. We could have modern horses in the cambrian and ID would be compatible with it. Mix the fossil record up in any way you want and ID would still be just as compatible.
So clearly the actual pattern of the fossil record does not test ID at all. ID is guaranteed to be compatible no matter how it is arranged. Therefore ID does not explain the specific pattern we do see.
There you go again, adding to a definition. Look at the definition of "theory" again and see of the words "well-tested" are in there.
I don't have to look up definitions. I know what a scientific theory is and I can put it into my own words. A n explaination such as "Earthquakes happen because of hurricanes" is a testable explaination, but until it is well tested it remains a hypothesis.
If you want to use another explanation for the presence of organized matter and the laws that govern it, have at it, but please understand your assumptions, like those of ID, will be treated as speculative.
Sure because it is philosophy.
Seat Belt extender needed for 4D! And make sure 4E is empty!
Teddy looks like a single-malt kind of guy...
Well, the anti-intellectuals always claim that intellegent .NE. competent. An intelligent designer may be an incompentent builder.
That raises an interesting point - we never hear about an Intelligent Contractor - who actually built these things?
It was probably outsourced.
BS! Social "conservatives" deserted our President -- if not outright backstabbed him -- on the Social Security reform issue.
How are we more than the sum of the parts? What was added and when? That is my question. You admit that the [material] universe has no values, claim we are solely a product of the [material] universe and then state you have values that are real and meaningful. But you can't get blood from a stone. Even emergent properties don't add something that wasn't there before.
Indeed. To draw on obvious parallel, compare how the mainstream left treats Farenheit 9/11 and how the mainstream right treats The Clinton Chronicles.
Oh, puh-leeze. The formation of oil deposits (whether it happened according to orthodox theory, Thomas Gold's deep-hydrocarbon theory, or some other mechanism) occurs over a similarly long time scale, but it would be preposterous to assert that understanding it has little to do with day-to-day human experience (at least, if you live in a society that runs on oil and therefore needs people who can figure out where it is likely to be found).
You owe me a new monitor.
Same goes for the theory of evolution. There is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained by "natural" causes.
If one takes creationist "it's only a theory" arguments seriously, one might as well try Douglas Adams' method of flight -- throw yourself at the ground and miss. Heck, it might work....
Actually, that makes it the best theory then, because it best fits most of the evidence. You apparently believe some other force is responsible for the presence of organized matter and predicatable laws that govern it. What scientific cause do you propose other than an almighty, intelligent agent?
A scientific understanding of anything is necessarily based on testable predictions in the material world. This does not in any way exclude the religious underpinnings behind questions of ultimate issues beyond the scope of science (e.g. Why are the laws of physics the way they are, rather than otherwise?).
The notion that ID is inherently "unscientific" is patent nonsense
What testable predictions does ID make?
Nice try. We're on to that one (the definitions of "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are gerrymandered based on what can be nailed down beyond plausible denial. As I've noted before, there is a striking parallel to the defintions of "a serious accusation if true" and "not rising to the level of impeachment", as those terms were used by Clinton's defenders.)
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.