Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Charles Krauthammer's Ignorant Essay on Design
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/krauthammers_id_strawman.html ^

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bibleidolatrycult; creation; crevolist; design; dover; education; evolution; intelligentdesign; junkscience; kansas; krauthammer; moonysinmortarboards; science; scienceeducation; snakehandlersindrag
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last
To: tophat9000
However that is what many are taught...In fact I do believe the book is called "Origin of Species" not Differencing of Species...

19th Century authors favoured long titles with short words

Hence "On the Origin of Species" instead of "Speciation"

81 posted on 11/23/2005 6:40:05 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Evolutionary change is a reality.

Correction: "Evolutionary change" is a redundancy.

82 posted on 11/23/2005 6:52:06 AM PST by BlueYonder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Even if evolutionists could really "prove" (inasmuch as you can prove anything in science) evolution, then what? Their point is....?

Well, maybe filling in about 4.5 billion years of our history for a start.

83 posted on 11/23/2005 7:01:09 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine

[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.


84 posted on 11/23/2005 7:05:54 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
filling in about 4.5 billion years of our history

Roughly the age of the Earth. Are you saying that evolution accounts for history even before the Earth was habitable?

85 posted on 11/23/2005 7:09:16 AM PST by BlueYonder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

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.


86 posted on 11/23/2005 7:18:17 AM PST by ShandaLear (Announcing you plans is a good way to hear God laugh. Al Swearengen, 1877óDeadwood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9; 2ndreconmarine
[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

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.

87 posted on 11/23/2005 7:39:47 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
>Charles Krauthammer's Ignorant Essay on Design

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 . . .

88 posted on 11/23/2005 7:46:06 AM PST by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Thanks for the references. They don't surprise me at all. Pretty obviously, when I wrote "we don't ..." I meant by we myself and the creationists to whom I was responding, not necessarily all humans. And obviously I had not looked for the science on this myself.

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.

89 posted on 11/23/2005 7:53:53 AM PST by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

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.


90 posted on 11/23/2005 7:59:18 AM PST by Jo Nuvark (The Koolaid can easily be avoided. It is RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

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.


91 posted on 11/23/2005 8:11:30 AM PST by Jo Nuvark (Having to explain God is like having to point out the sun. (Ray Comfort))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9; longshadow; Ichneumon
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.

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.

Produce something.

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).

92 posted on 11/23/2005 8:52:54 AM PST by 2ndreconmarine (Horse feces (929 citations) vs ID (0 citations) and horse feces wins!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

bookmark for later


93 posted on 11/23/2005 8:54:15 AM PST by Aloysius88 (tagline to be determined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; PatrickHenry; Junior
Sure we do -- have you bothered to actually *look* at the science journals before saying something like this?

Remind me never, ever, ever to get into an argument with you!!!!

LOL.

Fantastic post, as always.

94 posted on 11/23/2005 8:55:26 AM PST by 2ndreconmarine (Horse feces (929 citations) vs ID (0 citations) and horse feces wins!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Placemarker and plug for The List-O-Links.
95 posted on 11/23/2005 1:51:20 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, dotard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

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). :)


96 posted on 11/23/2005 3:46:39 PM PST by Tim Long (I spit in the face of people who don't want to be cool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
But the earth revolving around the sun is observable.

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?

97 posted on 11/23/2005 4:47:55 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Having faced death more than most folks...here is my take....not a bad notion because you only have to do it once.......


98 posted on 11/23/2005 4:53:58 PM PST by RVN Airplane Driver (Freedom isn't Free....never has been...never will be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
we'll have Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan weigh in.

Do you know where Ann stands on the debate? I've never heard her say.

99 posted on 11/23/2005 5:02:00 PM PST by Tim Long (I spit in the face of people who don't want to be cool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

100


100 posted on 11/23/2005 5:29:10 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, dotard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson