Skip to comments.Charles Krauthammer's Ignorant Essay on Design
Posted on 11/22/2005 7:58:24 PM PST by truthfinder9
click here to read article
It is a bit surprising, I agree. I wonder if Krauthammer confuses Intelligent Design theory with Creationism? He shows no signs of having actually read any of the major ID texts.
Also, he's wrong about Newton. Newton may have been a Christian, but as far as religion went he was also a spiritualist and something of a fruitcake. Which, I suppose, just goes to show that you actually can be a religious nut (from a traditional point of view) and a great scientist at the same time.
I am not terribly familiar with the theory of Intelligent Design , however, I do believe that it is possible that Evolution may well have been the process God used to create life on this planet. The Bible doesn't really say how, specifically, it happened. Regardless, knowing how it happened is not going to get me into Heaven. Knowing that He is life's author, will.
"writing out of ignorance and knocking down a straw man."
Ya know, I am really gettin sick of this straw man dude appearing everywhere to screw up logic, reason, and worthwhile debate....I hate the bastard...where's my lighter?
If he only had a brain...
I love Krauthammer. Only people who are so smart that they think they know how God created life have to tout this Intelligent Design stuff. the rest of concede that just maybe, evolution is one possible vehicle God used. Go ahead and flame me. My faith does not depend on someone's definition of how God created us. Evolution is just fine with me...and yes, I do appreciate the scientific theories that we call "medicine"...no need to throw that out too.
But it's ok for the Darwin Fundies to claim they know how God did it. Great double standard.
"I do believe that it is possible that Evolution may well have been the process God used to create life on this planet."
But not by chance natural selection. And even more importantly, the first living organisms would not have occurred by chance in this scenario. It would have to be an evolution guided by Intelligence in a particular direction i.e. to create Man.
P.S. Good essay. The immediately operative question in the school trial that has gotten the Darwinists so riled up is not whether ID should REPLACE Darwin in the schools, but whether science teachers will be allowed to mention that there's this book in the library that questions Darwin, if they have enough curiosity to consult it in their spare time.
The Darwinists won't even allow that to happen, without bringing the full majesty of the law to bear to shut all opposition up.
"Only people who are so smart that they think they know how God created life have to tout this Intelligent Design stuff"
Intelligent Design is proposed as a theory as is Darwinism. The ID theory is based on the same evidence as is available to all scientists, ID'rs just interpret it differently. They are not claiming to be any smarter than anyone, they are only proposing an alternate theory that they believe is justified by the evidence.
Does it really matter what Darwinists think? Like I posted earlier, while it would be interesting to know how the creation of the world happened, the important information here for believing Christians is that He did the creating. That Darwinists find this concept to be "unscientific" is their problem, not mine.
1) There's no such thing as a "Darwinist."
2) Evolution has nothing to do with either the creation of the world, or the creation of life.
I agree. Although I have been flamed for this, I don't really think that it matters how it happened because it doesn't affect my day to day living and my ability to use science as a tool to gain knowledge and make discoveries. (Although some seem to think that it does) Even if evolutionists could really "prove" (inasmuch as you can prove anything in science) evolution, then what? Their point is....?
You and me both.
Interesting thread. Thanks for providing all the links, too.
LOL. Well, I read all 4 essays, by Krauthammer, Gilson, Seldon, and Witt.
By far, Krauthammer's was the most intelligent and logical. However, that is my opinion, just as the converse might be yours. However, one passage from Gilson's essay is very significant:
ID is not about theology. It is a scientific proposition, whose proponents are putting it forth to be tested in the realm of science (see here under Origins). It is not fraudulent, because to be a fraud it would have to have a hidden agenda. In fact it is out there for anyone to see. Is it good science? Let time tell.
Just love it. Let time tell. OK, now I get a twofer, because I posted on this earlier.
ID has been around for 10 years now. In that time, how many scientific papers have been published on ID?? OK, Gilson, let time tell. 10 years, we should see something. How many references: ZERO.
Use Google to find Entrez PubMed, which will take you to a database of 15 million peer-reviewed publications in the primary scientific literature. The site, maintained by the National Library of Medicine, allows users to enter a search term and retrieve references to relevant publications.
For instance, enter natural selection in the search box and click go; about 14,000 references will be found. Mutation gets 40,000. Speciation gets 5,000. Human origins gets 22,000. Behe intelligent design gets zero.
Some of my favorites:
Horse feces: 929 citations.
VooDoo: 78 citations.
Diaper RAsh: 475 citations. I really bust a gut with that one... LOL.
And intelligent design: ZERO
My point to Gilson and his comic group of fakes, whose credentials are the Discovery Institute (snicker) is that time has already told, sport. Game over.
"But it's ok for the Darwin Fundies to claim they know how God did it. Great double standard."
Well, at least the "darwin fundies" tend to have science and data behind them.