The Real Intelligent Design!
Posted on 07/30/2006 12:56:40 PM PDT by infoguy
Under the corrupt cloak of a "book review," this Sunday's Los Angeles Times (July 30, 2006) continues its underhanded and one-sided assault on the theory of intelligent design (ID). "The language of life," by Robert Lee Hotz*, is a review of three new works that attack intelligent design. The review was promoted on the top of the front page of the "Sunday preview" edition under the heading, "Less than 'intelligent design': Darwin's believers debunk the theory." And rather than providing its readers an honest critique, the Times' "review" is nothing less than a full-on Darwin propaganda piece. Hotz begins his article as follows (emphasis/link mine),
In the border war between science and faith, the doctrine of "intelligent design" is a sly subterfuge - a marzipan confection of an idea presented in the shape of something more substantial.
As many now understand - and as a federal court ruled in December - intelligent design is the bait on the barbed hook of creationist belief ...
Objectivity? Forget it. You won't find it with Hotz. Hotz' hit piece on ID then continues by haphazardly labeling ID as a "ruse," a "ploy," a "disingenuous masquerade," and "dishonesty."
Hotz claims the works he's reviewing are written by "some of the nation's most distinguished thinkers." Well, one of the reviewed books is by well-known "skeptic" Michael Shermer, whose work has been cited numerous times for falsehoods and inaccuracy (for example, here, here, here, and here)). Shermer has also floundered considerably while defending Darwinism in public, as witnessed in a 2004 debate with Stephen Meyer on TV's Faith Under Fire (link with video). In 2005, Shermer struggled in a debate with William Dembski (link/audio). "Distinguished"? Sorry, Mr. Hotz.
As NewsBusters has already reported this year (link), the Los Angeles Times has never published a single article from a leading spokesperson of intelligent design theory.** (Leading spokespeople would include names such as Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards, and acclaimed writer Lee Strobel.) Yet the Times has now published its tenth piece in the last 14 months attacking ID! (I'm using this count).
Is there balance at the Los Angeles Times on this issue? Not even close, folks. The Times is unequivocally disserving its readers. How many Times readers are aware that one of the world's most renowned atheists, Antony Flew, has recently become open to God largely due to the persuasive science of intelligent design?
* Hotz "covers science, medicine, and technology" for the Times, yet Hotz has a B.A. in English and an M.A. in theater history. Am I the only one to think it odd that the Times would find him well qualified to write on science, medicine, and technology?
** Stephen Meyer did co-author a 1987 op-ed in the LA Times (almost 19 years ago) on the subject of human rights; but the article does not delve into the topic of intelligent design. In addition, there was a book review in the Times over 8 years ago (1998) by Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr. His review, about a book on the 1925 Scopes trial, included brief references to intelligent design science. However, Gaffney's name would not be included among well-known proponents of ID.
Either ID is not "kooky" or you are an accident, a colossal mistake. You choose.
Why are these people so threatened by the idea of Intelligent Design? Aren't they even the slightest bit CURIOUS about it, or is it just too threatening to their worldview?
It pretends to be science when it is not. The modern ID movement was started after the Supreme Court tossed Creation "Science" from the schools.
ID was developed to try to wedge fundamental religious beliefs back into schools. See The Wedge Strategy for details.
How is this for a working definition
"Computer science, or computing science, is the study of the theoretical foundations of information and computation and their implementation and application in computer systems. Computer science has many sub-fields; some emphasize the computation of specific results (such as computer graphics), while others (such as computational complexity theory) relate to properties of computational problems. Still others focus on the challenges in implementing computations. For example, programming language theory studies approaches to describing computations, while computer programming applies specific programming languages to solve specific computational problems."
If it gets me a ride in a UFO I will support it.
UFO first - support second.
But of course ... it's only a theory.
It's not a false dichotomy. You either acknowledge the existence of intelligence, or you do not. I, for one, acknowledge the existence of intelligence, as well as the One Who created it.
If you deny the existence of intelligence, then "all this" is ultimately meaningless. And therefore a mere accident.
So, you believe in nothing but yourself? How do you even know you exist? And what is "love" anyway? Meaningless, right?
LOL!
What would be funny if it weren't so bloody sad is how all the IDers ignore poor sheild as if he doesn't exist.
There is a difference between acknowledging intelligence and believing that it can be tested.
I accept the former, not the latter.
Therefore, dimensio was correct; you were presenting a false dichotomy.
I find it fascinating. But I don't think it's science.
re: UFOs
"Extaordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- some magician
ID has been around unchanged for 200 years, contributing no research and no ideas for research.
Curiosity is tempered by impatience.
Just because it's not a part of science doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Or can you measure love scientifically?
It's the argument from results; from demonstrated merit. Usually it's congenitally appealing to conservatives, but your mileage may vary.
We are talking about the nature of reality
No. We weren't actually. We were talking about the nature of science.
But maybe you don't see the difference.
You see, this is exactly what I was talking about previously when I noted that -- however ironically -- it is sometimes the antievolution types who are more apt, in certain ways, to internalize the presumption of "scientism" (that science is omni-competent and omni-applicable in addressing reality) than are the proevolution types. Most of us in the latter camp understand and concede that science is a limited and constrained way of describing the world, and that it can readily coexist with other approaches, perspectives and emphases.
and I am saying "it is absurd to posit that "science needs it" as the REASON for the order and regularity of the universe
Operational naturalism isn't a "reason" for anything. It's a generalization from a recognition that the universe is ordered. And with respect to science it's a presupposition (not a reason or an argument) that is made for the limited purpose of doing science.
As I've said... Most of can't imagine how you would do science without this presupposition because, among other reasons, it seems to us that it would render any scientific theory employing "non-naturalistic" mechanisms impossible to refute and therefore impossible to test.
But if you, or others, think differently then, as I've also said, go ahead and do some non-naturalistic science. If you think it can work, and produce theories that working scientists will find genuinely useful, then go ahead and show us how. Nothing is stopping you from trying.
Look, when you get down to it, you have two (as I see it) choices: One is that "we don't know, but we are going to ASSUME that everthing is natural and that there is no supernatural and that we really don't have a reason other than utilitarianism." The other is that "There is no 'natural order' of things but rather the 'laws of science' are a reflection of the Creator's constant upholding of his creation." Neither of these are "science" but are "meta" questions on what philosophy is science itself based. To howl that one is "religious" while the other is "science" only shows that you really don't understand what is being discussed, or that you hate one of the positions so intensely that you insist irrationally and arbitrarily that all discussion on the subject be done within your sphere.
Hate it? No. In fact your second alternative (which I've underlined above), sometimes called "continuous creationism," is the one I find quite plausible. One problem here is that it's also -- potentially, and even presumptively if we assume the constancy of God and a seamless coherence in His interaction with the world -- ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with operational naturalism.
The thing is, even if there are some areas of overlapp, science, philsophy and theology really are different was of looking at reality. Trying to set them up in direct and equi-competent opposition one to another will invariably lead to naive analysis.
or that you hate one of the positions so intensely that you insist irrationally and arbitrarily that all discussion on the subject be done within your sphere. I find the latter position disgusting, whether by a religious fundamentalist or a naturalistic fundie.
So do I. But of course this is an argument for letting science proceed according to its methods and presuppostions, and religion likewise. So why are you trying so hard to oppose them?
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.