Posted on 05/09/2005 12:52:08 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
|
How refreshing to read such a fair, balanced article. This guy is definitely Pulitzer material.
A detailed rebuttal would be wasted on a pinhead like Miller. But to make one point, his description of this controversy as a reversal of Christians being fed to lions is simply idiotic. No one is being killed or even threatened with violence; to the extent that there are real-world consequences such as loss of job or repution, it is almost always the creationist side that is victimized.
I'd say they opened themselves up to it when they invited a Turkish creationist who advocates violence upon those who would teach evolution in schools.
| If they had as strong a case as their liberal whining complainers claim, they'd be there to blow the creationists out of the water. But they can't so they take their ball and go home. |
An intellectual refutation of ID you won't see, not here, not in Kansas. You will see mud slinging, whining, name calling, logical fallacies galore, and a little chest thumping, but no more intellectual material from the pouting evos than you'd find at spring break in Daytona.
An interesting example of a specifically scientic, rather than philosophical, rejoinder to orthodox Darwinism has been provided by Rupert Sheldrake's theory of "morphogenetic fields," which reintroduces a neo-Aristotelian notion of "form" into scientific theory. I firmly believe that the day will come when today's Darwinism will be laughed at by the scientific community. As Schopehhauer said, "Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed; in the second, it is opposed; in the third, it is regarded as self-evident." Or, in the words of Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."
Since the IDers didn't offer anything to refute (and instead embarrassed themselves), it's hard to refute nothing. The IDers had the chance to impress the world with their impressive resume. They failed. Just wait until they get deposed in the Dover case. That will be the death knell of the Wedge, right there. The fact that they are creationists in disguise began to be exposed in Kansas, but in Dover, that's where they will have to show their true colors. Don't think that Philip Johnson doesn't know it, he's already been on record as expressing disappointment at the timing of the Dover case.
For example, here are some examples in the article where conservative is associated directly with the anti-science position:
Following that revelation, conservative Christian board member Kathy Martin acknowledged that she had not read the recommendations in their entirety either.
The state school board, comprised of ten members, is dominated by six conservative Christian members.
This is a political issue for the ultra conservative faction on the state board who currently hold 6/4 majority.
Howard Ahmanson, an ultra-conservative California savings and loan heir, has provided Discovery with millions of dollars in funding.
And the entire last paragraph:
Take a long, hard look at "Scopes II." Kansas may be a stronghold for the Religious Right, but it is not an aberration to be dismissed lightly. Dominionism, the act of Christians rising to fulfill their God-appointed places of rulers of the Earth (see Genesis 1:26), is the ultimate goal of this movement, and the Religious Right is increasing its political power across the country with each passing day. “Scopes II” is merely the first of many circus-like spectacles, not unlike those held in the Colosseum of ancient Rome. However, this time around the “true Christians” of the Religious Right intend to make lion fodder of their opposition.
On the other hand, two "moderates" are interviewed for quotes, but no reference is made to their political affiliation, if any.
What do the moderate school board members think?
At least two of the more moderate members of the board have refused to participate in the process.
Carol Rupe, another moderate board member, expressed her views...
Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to Republican or conservative support for science or the theory of evolution. Equally absent is any mention that many people working in the sciences have faith or go to religious services. This article is nothing but a blatant attempt to paint Republicans as being anti-science religious extremists. Articles like these only serve to reinforce the stereotype that conservatives are all religious extremists on a crusade to turn the nation into a theocracy.
Despite the portrayal in the article, most conservatives and Republicans I know are supporters of the sciences, and do not feel there is a conflict between science and religion, or faith and evolution. Unfortunately, the creationist movement is unwittingly playing into the hands of the Democrats.
I see nothing sinister in what the Discovery Institute is trying to do. They are just trying to promote thier ideas. To say they oppose "reason" or "science" is hyperbole.
Hmmmmm Was it this week or last that I read that scientists just made human eggs?
Those who are arguing for Intelligent Design should have brought the scientists who created the human eggs into court to prove to the Darwinists just how easy it was for God to create Adam and then Eve.
Then ask the Darwinists to show us their prof :)
Agreed. That's what I've been saying around here for a few years. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.
I don't see how anyone can read the books by Behe and Dembski and say they are stupid, ignorant, or antiscientific, much less "fundamentalist" or "dangerous." Defenders of Darwinism rarely admit that what they are ultimately defending is a philosophical point of view - naturalism - rather than merely an empirical body of knowledge.
If the history of science or intellectual history teaches you one thing, it is that the certitudes of one age are inevitably refined - and in some cases completely overthrown - by subsequent advances in science and philosophy. What annoys me about the anti-creationists is their smugness and their apparent belief that our present state of knowledge represents the final word on the great issues of science and philosophy. They see themselves as the great defenders of "science" and "reason", yet their mocking hostility to new ideas is the very thing that has always stood in the way of intellectual progress.
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.