Skip to comments.Charles Krauthammer's Ignorant Essay on Design
Posted on 11/22/2005 7:58:24 PM PST by truthfinder9
Charles Krauthammer's syndicated essay against intelligent design ran opposite mine in today's Seattle Times. The piece is full of problems, which Tom Gilson and Lawrence Seldon explore in loving detail here and here.
Now I would have framed a couple of points in their otherwise fine analysis a little differently. In one place, Gilson describes agnostic David Berlinski as an ID proponent. It would be more precise to call Berlinski a Darwin skeptic and friendly critic of design theory. Also, Seldon writes that Krauthammer "rants about Dover and Kansas ... writing out of ignorance and knocking down a straw man." To be generous, I would have said that Krauthammer "writes calmly and authoritatively out of ignorance, knocking down a straw man."
I'm rooting for Krauthammer to do his homework and, like British philosopher Antony Flew, change his mind.
19th Century authors favoured long titles with short words
Hence "On the Origin of Species" instead of "Speciation"
Correction: "Evolutionary change" is a redundancy.
Well, maybe filling in about 4.5 billion years of our history for a start.
[But the total publications from ID: ZERO]
Good Darwin Fundie Talking Point, but it's a lie. ID supporters have pusblished lists of their peer reviewed works. But you wouldn't know that, being a Darwin Fundamentalist.
Roughly the age of the Earth. Are you saying that evolution accounts for history even before the Earth was habitable?
I agree with you whole-heartedly.
We know that God is the Author and Creator of the Universe, but we really don't know technicaly how he did it. Did he simply say the magic words and poof, everything appeared? Even Genesis doesn't support that, it supports that God did different things on different days. Why would God need to do this? God doesn't measure time is days, He is not bound by time.
Days are a human concept and the creation story is written in terms that men (and women) can understand. I believe that the first observations of God occur in observing His creation. "The heavens declare the glory of God..." Science is not the antithesis of religion, it is its first cousin. Christians who seek to reject science for religious reasons are just as short-sighted as scientists who attempt to prove that life began without a creator.
The key is not the number of publications, but the number of citations
ID supporters can publish their works, peer review them to their hearts desire. But unless scientists think the content is useful enough to mention in their own papers, the IDeologues are just blowing smoke.
So, Krauthammer writes
on Intelligent Design . . .
I guess, Real Soon Now,
we'll have Ann Coulter
and Pat Buchanan weigh in.
Those will be good reads . . .
Sorry - I pulled a common ploy. When too lazy to look something up, state an outrageous claim to the contrary and let someone else have the fun of showing how wrong you were.
And I used another common rhetorical ploy. When you want to focus the readers attention on one of a couple of reasons they are wrong (the regressed magic, in this case) willingly grant without qualification the other points so as not to defocus the reader.
Correction: The Genesis day is 24 hours. I misspoke to have said Hebrew Calendar. Please forgive. The Bible IS the true word of God. I am human, therefore I err.
Ichneumon... Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
No matter how much of that evolutionary nonsense you throw at the wall, it still won't stick. You cannot ignore design. Look in the mirror, design is staring you in the face. Evolution does not work, no matter how many zero's you add to the age of the earth.
Further, we DO run amock. We ARE uncivilized. Why do you think we must have laws? The jungle order works because the jungle is full of animals. But, WE are human and without excuse.
No, sport, I would not know that because it is not on any of the standard publications databases. I do know where to find references in physics publications: the American Physical Society, I know where to find references on nuclear safeguards and NDA: the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, I know where to find references on nuclear fusion, at Nuclear Fusion, and I know where to find references in Medicine and Biology, it is the National Institutes of Health PubMed database. Pretty much everyone knows that.
The simple, unarguable fact is that ID is missing from that database. Look for yourself.
So, if the IDers have published in recognized, peer-reviewed journals, instead of calling people liars, prove it by providing a reference. Post a list of publications. Give me search criteria at PubMed that will provide a list. Post the link to the search criteria at PubMed.
Now, just in anticipation of the quality of ID research, let me make a couple of restrictions. A paper authored by a Discovery Institute "scientist", peer reviewed by other Discovery Institute "scientists", and published in a journal that is published by the Discovery Institute does not count. That is not peer review and it is not a scientific publication. Moreover, when listing credentials, I am not interested in "Ph.D's" who received their degree from a mail order house. I am not interested in Ph.D's who received their degree as an honorary degree from the Discovery Institute. Moreover, I am not interested in papers that the Discovery Institute claims "imply" intelligent design, as their web site argues. Finally, I am not interested in papers on entirely different subjects than ID, but were published by people who subscribe to ID. The original issue was peer reviewed, published papers that support the ID thesis.
So, if you are really telling the truth, provide a list or provide a link to a list of real, peer reviewed papers published in support of ID. Given the demonstrated integrity of the Discovery Institute members, and the quality of intellect demonstrated by the 4 "essays" in your post, I won't hold my breath. (But I will enjoy reminding you on every subsequent post of yours I find).
bookmark for later
Remind me never, ever, ever to get into an argument with you!!!!
Fantastic post, as always.
But the earth revolving around the sun is observable. And all evidence found in the earth points to special Creation (although I'm sure you disagree). :)
It is? When and how, exactly, did you directly observe it doing that?
And all evidence found in the earth points to special Creation
In what way? How, for example, does the pattern of endogenous retroviruses across the vertebrate lineages point to special Creation? And how does it *not* actually indicate evolutionary origins via common descent, as the overwhelming majority of biologists (including the Christian ones) have concluded? Where is their mistake concerning that evidence, exactly?
Repeat the same questions for the SINE and LINE and Alu-repeat evidences. Then apply those questions to the evidence from synonymous SNPs, and to the evidence from synonymous protein substituions?
I'll wait for your answers to those before I ask more.
(although I'm sure you disagree). :)
I'm always open to new evidence which can be validated/falsified by the testing of the predictions it makes. What have you got?
Having faced death more than most folks...here is my take....not a bad notion because you only have to do it once.......
Do you know where Ann stands on the debate? I've never heard her say.