|
I would not take this as an indication of where Human Events stands. They run several syndicated columnists.
If in order for a theory to be correct, its proponents must march in lockstep in their beliefs and interpretations, I would invite the ID proponents to remove the beam from their own eye.
Shrug. These differences of opinion are chickenfeed compared to the differing interpretations of quantum mechanics.
The Discovery Institute blew their chance to be a player by dropping out of the Dover trial. If you don't have an argument that can be presented under oath, you don't have an argument.
Put me down in the former monkey group.
There ought to be room for both points of view in a country that espouses religious freedom.
Wouldn't be surprising. I used to believe "evolution" to be a "scientific fact" until I looked into it myself.
Casey Luskin is DI's publicity flak. He's somewhat of a figure of fun over on Panda's Thumb.
American Spectator seems to be lining up on the ID side also. Conservatives in general can line up on either side of the issue, since they tend to be more open-minded, and ID is not part of the conservative orthodoxy. Liberals however must be evolutionists since it is part of their orthodoxy.
I don't see the scandal in having both groups pursue their theories. The same ignorance, that slaughtered any point of view rather than the earth is flat, is at work here with these embarassing witch hunts.
later read/maybe pingout.
No, he's not arguing that the Religiosity of the Conservative Movement should be dropped. He's argued that being taken in by the ID/Creationist whack-jobs will send the Conservative movement so far out into the 'Area-51/Build-a-Burger/Awaiting the Mothership/Scientology/Screwy Louie Nation of Islam' fringe that normal people will either leave or distance themselves from these psychotic Evil infiltrators, thus destroying the Conservative Movement.............Something I've been pounding the table about since I decided to take a stand against these drooling idjits.
As for myself, I'd prefer to stay and fight and NOT let these moronic/ignorant/clowns take over this valuable website.
BTW, remind me never to subscribe to HUMAN EVENTS for giving this clown any forum at all to spew his ignorance.
I've always appreciated Charles Krauthammer's brilliant commentary, but I agree with Human Events on this one.
The Darwinists tell us that Darwinism has "nothing to do" with religion. That is misleading. Darwinism basically says, "go ahead and believe in God if you wish, but he is absolutely and completely irrelevant to any scientific understanding of the origin of man." Sorry, but that is a very profound anti-religious position whether the evolutionists are willing to admit it publicly or not.
The evolutionists claim that any notion of ID is "unscientific" and "outside the domain of science," then later they claim that ID has been thoroughly refuted by science. That's like a trial in which the judge stipulates a position a priori and prohibits any challenge to it, then later claims that such position was in fact proven. When the premise and the conclusion are the same, what is the value of the conclusion?
The notion that ID is inherently "unscientific" is patent nonsense, and I am frankly amazed at how many evolutionists are confused enough to believe it.
I had two "Current Problems in Evolution" seminars in grad school some years ago. Didn't realize it was such a popular subject. Guess I should consider myself lucky I got registered with so many people interested in the subject.
The religious right was the religious left. Reagan brought the religious left to the right. I was a Conservative long before that and I will be a Conservative long after the religious jump back to the left.
.
Wow! This article should have come with a severe barf alert! I don't know much about the Human Events magazine but, if they're publishing garbage like this from the DI, I bet a closer look would expose a perverted hidden agenda that's not good for conservatives.
You seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject of the general theory of organic evolution (evolution). Perhaps you can help me with a project. Several years ago on the Johnny Carson show and in Time Magazine Dr. Carl Sagan stated unequivocally that evolution was no longer a theory, but a fact, and that he would be willing to debate anyone on the matter. Dr. Thomas Warren immediately accepted the challenge, whereupon Dr. Sagan conveniently hid under his desk. Both men are now deceased. Though not qualified myself to conduct such a debate, I have nonetheless challenged prominent evolutionists to meet on the polemic platform to defend their doctrine through the years. I regularly propose to provide a champion with a Ph.D. in microbiology to refute the theory. None have responded. I always make it clear that no reference to God, religion, or ID would be involved; only the merits of the theory pro and con. I am willing to bear some of the expense in the organization and conduct of the debate and the ensuing publication.
My position is that evolution is simply the religion of the secularist and is not science. I just think that the secularist can not tolerate the thought that there is a creator who is both superior and anterior to him.
The theory is not observable; it is not demonstrable in the laboratory; and it is not falsifiable. In the opinion of many it violates the second law of thermodynamics, the mathematical law of population statistics, and certainly the biological law of biogenesis. However, I would leave these and arguments concerning irreducible complexity etc. to the debate rather than this thread.
My goal is to simply expose the theory to some critical analysis with the hope that somehow the public schools will at least acquaint the students and teachers with it's weaknesses.
So, if you or a champion of your choosing would consider such a debate just let me know.
And, I am new, so flame away. And, if someone will let me know what all the abbreviations mean I would appreciate it.
If Marxism is not a religion then what is it?..
Intelligent Design must be WORSE than Marxism..
Anybody know of where, when, any proponent of Marxism had the slightest problem with "Evolution"?.. Marxism and Marxists are always EXTREMELY active in "adjusting" what is taught in schools.. never has any Marxist had a problem with Evolution..
Must be because Marxists are so science oriented, and want science to be pure..
Ya think?.. On the other hand the reverse could be true.
In addition, Krauthammer’s understanding is in direct opposition to the portrayal of evolution in biology textbooks. Says Douglas Futuyma in the textbook Evolutionary Biology:
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”3
Thus when Krauthammer thrashes the Kansas State Board of Education for calling Neo-Darwinian evolution “undirected,” it seems that it is Kansas -- not Krauthammer -- who has been reading the actual textbooks.
But here's what Krauthammer really said:
The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process" with no "discernible direction or goal." This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?
Krauthammer criticized the school board for indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process," Krauthammer didn't "thrash" the school board for "calling" evolution unguided--Luskin wants the rubes to think that Krauthammer doesn't understand that evolutionary variation is "unguided" but anybody who bothers to go back and read Krauthammer’s column would see that he does and is making the point that it is absurd to criticize evolutionary theory by calling it "unguided," because:
This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?
Luskin is counting on readers not bothering to go back and read Krauthammer's original column and discovering that Krauthammer is said exactly the opposite of what Luskin wants the reader to think Krauthhammer said. This is so dishonest that it is shameful that Human Events did not require Luskin to correct this before publication; or at least put in a footnote clarifying exactly what Krauthammer actually said.
P I N G!!!!!