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.
Sure I can. It's the presence of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws, which presence is ubiquitous throughout the known universe. To falsify this rational observation all one need do is provide examples of disorganized matter that does not behave accordiong to predictable laws. What is intelligent design but taking matter, organizing it, and establishing rules by which it operates? It is hardly unreasonable to extrapolate the greater intelligence from examples of lesser intelligence, just as it is not unreasonable to infer, or extrapolate biological history from amoeba to man based on a brief glimpse at biological history.
Haven't you guys learned anything yet?
So it was badly wrong, but it's way too esoteric for me to understand anyway. LOL! Sorry, but if you intended this to be a demonstration of prephesy, it was underwhelming.
But still, it's a relief to see you admit that some fields do require the acquisition of some prior understanding.
To me, ID is a group of people just pulling one out.
Gravity operates consistently because it too, is intelligently designed.
Gravity operates because of the Intelligent Puller. You see things drop; therefore there must be an Intelligent Puller to make them do so.
You can't recognize your own circular logic?
You assign a name to the intelligent designer and specify its activity in jest. As such you really do not contribute to the discussion, much as those who posit the spaghetti monter theory as some kind of serious refutation of, or analogical equivalence to, the theory of intelligent design.
Some people say objects respond to the force of gravity because angels are pushing on them. I say this is bunk. My theory is that angels warp the curvature of spacetime around massive objects, causing them to move in non-euclidian paths. I'm also working on a theory of quantisation of angelic energy into discrete packets. Wanna subscribe?
That monkey progeny is a shrewd bunch. We need more of them in congress, laboratories, and universities. They clearly represent the best hope for science and humanity.
Hehe. That is because you, like your cheerleaders, do not have one.
I have cheerleaders? Maybe I should chat up the redhead with the nice pom-poms. But I digress. Your mind reading abilities are right up there with your grasp of basic scientific concepts.
You cannot give one single example of how science can take place without intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.
No, Fester, the problem with your ridiculous pseudo-point has been pointed out dozens of times. Your argument is nothing more than "If any design exists anywhere under any circumstances, then everything, everywhere must have been designed regardless of the circumstances." Grade school children can spot the problem with this sort of proposition, but you can't.
Your inability to grasp the concept is entirely your own failing.
In the Andromeda galaxy, there's s small disc of stars closely orbiting a supermassive black hole. All of our predictable laws state that cluster should be torn apart by the black hole's gravitational force, but there they are, just orbiting. It doesn't make sense. It's impossible.
Personally, I think the Intelligent Puller just decided to give that star cluster a break.
OTOH, from this observation scientists figure they've finally settled the issue that black holes exist, that they aren't explained by other hypotheses. Yes, the existence of black holes, something you thought was a given, was debated among scientists until recently. There were other ideas as to what could be causing the phenomena we saw. Science requires a lot more direct and specific evidence than ID is capable of providing (not just "It looks like it so it must be").
Astrology has engaged in more direct observation and recording of events than Charles Darwin and all of his followers combined, and they still don't get it right. It is not wise to use the word "never" in this case. And what makes you think astrology has ever been interested in predicting the price of beef?
This started out as a good thread, but it's degenerated into the world's dumbest dialog. I'm out.
Such things are designed to trigger a realization in the extremely dense of exactly how absurd their ID arguments are by showing them exactly ID, but with a different supernatural entity attached. It also serves to expose those who say ID isn't about religion, but about the concept of design. You know they're just creationists in scientist clothing if they reject Flying Spaghetti Monsterism but accept ID.
If such grade-school level, in-your-face examples don't work on the extremely dense, then there is simply no hope of their comprehension.
Hehe. Once science explains it, the laws will suddenly be "predictable," and what was once "supernatural" will become "natural." Why would science would so doggedly entertain arbitrary semantic distinctions unless it was intent on fabricating a dogma of its own?
Well stated.
You know how people go to the park to relax and feed the pigeons? Same thing.
I heartily concur as to the "grade school level" of the argument. It in no way addresses the fundamental fact that intelligent design involves the organization of matter, which in turn is set loose to act according to the rules the designer intends.
Much of the history of science is finding natural explanations for what had been assumed until then to be supernatural. Eventually, maybe even your designer will become science, once it is understood under scientific principles. But I don't know any religious people who want that, as to go with Douglas Adams, proof denies faith.
Yes, we will likely find the reason for the orbit of those stars. Science is not afraid to say "We don't know, but we're working on it." IDers and other creationists are afraid to say that. They need their answers now, even if they are shallow and overly simplistic.
Is that the requirement for directly observing them and recording their motions? I am arguing that astrology has an ample supply of direct observation of the heavenly bodies, as well as an ample supply of direct observation of human behavior. Whether they are accurate in making predictions (which on occasion they have been, if only due to dumb luck) or correlations between the two I do not know. My point is that they probably have more direct observation under their belts than all of Charlie's friends combined.
The scientific nature of astrology is a matter of ongoing debate. My assessment is that it contains a significant amount of raw knowledge, but is not to be trusted for any predictive capacity other than the motions of heavenly bodies which astronomy also confirms. Even astronomy lacks predictive powers.
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.