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

Skip to comments.

An idea that provoked, but didn't deliver [by Kenneth R. Miller]
Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 25 December 2005 | Kenneth R. Miller

Posted on 12/25/2005 11:16:00 AM PST by PatrickHenry

If there is such a thing as home-field advantage in a courtroom, intelligent design should have carried the day in the Dover evolution trial.

Advocates of ID had the support of the local school board, a case presented by experienced lawyers from the Thomas More Legal Foundation, expert witnesses with scientific credentials, and a conservative judge appointed by President George W. Bush. That judge gave them all the time they wanted to lay out the scientific case for ID. And lay it out they did.

But that was exactly the problem.

In the harsh light of the courtroom, ID shriveled and died. As Judge John E. Jones 3d noted in his opinion, he was forced to come to "the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." After six weeks of watching from the bench as ID's pseudoscientific arguments fell apart, as it advocates admitted they had no positive evidence for "design," and as school board members "testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath," it was clear that the judge had seen enough.

He slammed the Dover school board's "breathtaking inanity," and he enjoined the board from making ID a part of its curriculum at any time in the future. Jones' devastating opinion is written in clear and accessible language and should be required reading for every administrator, school board member, and science educator in the United States. [Here's the judge's opinion.]

So, exposed, discredited and defeated, ID is finished as an anti-evolution movement, right? I wouldn't count on it.

As the Dover trial showed, ID is nothing more than old-fashioned creationism, distinguished only by its advocates' willingness to be disingenuous about its origins, motivations and goals. But that does little to detract from its appeal. Advocates of ID, such as Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.), oppose evolution not because of its scientific flaws, but because they see it as a cultural and moral threat.

In an Aug. 4 interview on National Public Radio, Santorum stated that "if we are the result of chance, if we're simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, it doesn't put a moral demand on us - than if in fact we are a creation of a being that has moral demands." In other words, the problem with evolution, in his view, is that it invalidates morality because it does away with God.

Santorum, of course, has recently retracted his support of those involved in the Dover case. But his principled opposition to evolution remains.

That kind of visceral opposition isn't going to respond to scientific evidence, and it certainly isn't going to be affected by a judge's ruling - even from a judge whom the senator himself supported for the bench.

Nationwide, ID is on the march, and Dover notwithstanding, it's winning. The ID movement has rewritten science-education standards in Kansas, gained the support of legislators in more than a dozen states, and regularly pressures teachers, administrators and textbook publishers to weaken the coverage of evolution. Dover represents a substantial victory for science, but the greater war goes on. And, like many wars, this one results from a profound misunderstanding.

The great fiction that powers the ID movement is that evolution is inherently antireligious. By emphasizing the material nature of evolutionary science, ID advocates are convinced that they can force their antiscience ideas into the classroom in the name of balance and fairness. Once there, they are convinced, students in a society as religious as the United States will surely turn their backs on mainstream science, embracing ID and strengthening their faith in God. Any harm in that?

Why, none at all, if we are prepared to abdicate world leadership by raising a generation of young people so mistrustful of science that they turn their backs on the scientific community and abandon science as a way of knowing about the world and improving the human condition.

A deeper understanding of Western religion in general, and the Christian message in particular, would end this war and blunt the attempts of the anti-evolution movement to divide Americans along cultural lines. As conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote last month, "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?" What indeed? For just as Darwin said, there is "grandeur in this view of life," and a deeper understanding of the ways in which "endless forms most wonderful and most beautiful have been and are being evolved" can only deepen our faith and enhance our respect for the unity of scientific and spiritual knowledge.

On this Christmas season, I thank the Lord for the wonderful people of Dover who fought for this decision, and I hope the good news of its wisdom will spread throughout the land.


Kenneth R. Miller (Kenneth_Miller@ Brown.edu) is co-author with Joseph S. Levine of "Biology," the biology textbook now used in Dover High School. He has also written "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dover; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last
The author was one of the key witnesses in the Dover trial.

Bold, underlining, and link to the opinion added by me.

1 posted on 12/25/2005 11:16:01 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Christmas greetings from Darwin Central!

Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 330 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

2 posted on 12/25/2005 11:17:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Merry Christmas PatrickHenry. He's gotten you here and He will continue to do so.

FMCDH(BITS)

3 posted on 12/25/2005 11:25:41 AM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

... and sure this was the best Christmas gift.


4 posted on 12/25/2005 11:27:23 AM PST by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I'm surprised that some enterprising company, say Ford, hasn't adopted "Intelligent Design" in their advertising.


5 posted on 12/25/2005 11:32:38 AM PST by ArtyFO (I love to smoke cigars when I adjust artillery fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
In other words, the problem with evolution, in his (Santorum's) view, is that it invalidates morality because it does away with God.
That kind of visceral opposition isn't going to respond to scientific evidence, and it certainly isn't going to be affected by a judge's ruling - even from a judge whom the senator himself supported for the bench.

Yep, one down and many, many more battles to go.

6 posted on 12/25/2005 11:33:46 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Well I guess I just don't understand then...Miller and Krauthammer say that evolution can be blended easily with the concept of God...maybe, but not the Judeo Christian God, only a God who created nature and then set it on its way to no particulary end or direction except what may happen be chance.

Now, if Miller and Krauthammer say that God is directing evolution to a particular end...then we are back full circle to ID...

So, what is it boys...Judeo Christian God...or something else...or pantheism maybe...or what?

Miller mentions Christian message...Christianity is not a message...it is a statement of certain immutable facts about the univers and Man in particular...you can take it as fact and truth and be a Christian, or you can dilute it into Christianity and water which basically has Christ as a philospher and not God become Man....which is my hunch as to what Miller believes.





7 posted on 12/25/2005 11:34:51 AM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

YEC INTREP -


8 posted on 12/25/2005 11:35:58 AM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

It's a good thing they don't see gravity as a cultural and moral threat.


9 posted on 12/25/2005 11:37:44 AM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig

Since God is supposed to move in mysterious ways, the particular ends and directions might well be inscrutable, and thus beyond discussion in religious terms. Tertullian used to put it as "credo quia absurdum", right?


10 posted on 12/25/2005 11:46:48 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"After six weeks of watching from the bench as ID's pseudoscientific arguments fell apart, as it advocates admitted they had no positive evidence for 'design,' ..."

These guys are downright frightening. No "positive evidence for design"? Baloney. There's plenty of positive evidence for design. What these people mean when they say "no positive evidence" is "no absolute proof." Funny how they require absolute proof for design, but not for evolution. When it comes to evolution, superficial plausibility is enough for them.


11 posted on 12/25/2005 11:50:49 AM PST by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
All this Creationism foolishness would evaporate when men of the 21st Century remember that the Bible is NOT the word of God, but it is the stories of men who lived 25 centuries ago, stories passed down by word of mouth, with multiple added stories, interpretations and translations.

It is simply a written recitation of a 2500 year old children's game of "telephone."

The Creation was included in those stories because man needed a way to explain the start of the world and 2500 years ago, they didn't have the scientific skills to understand evolution.

Just as men has abandoned the flat-earth theory, the falsity that the Earth is the center of the universe, and the once universally accepted theory that little devils caused musket balls from smooth bore guns to veer off course, but rifling spun the balls and bullets, so the devils fell off, someday, we will understand that someday science will tell us exactly how the Earth, the solar system, and everything else was created... and we can all chose to believe that was, or was not, God who did it that way,
12 posted on 12/25/2005 11:51:10 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
That kind of visceral opposition isn't going to respond to scientific evidence, and it certainly isn't going to be affected by a judge's ruling - even from a judge whom the senator himself supported for the bench.

The initial response of ID-backers has been an ad hominem attack against Judge Jones. His being appointed by Bush appears to be especially grating.

I disagree with the statement that ID is winning. The Dover experience - 8 school board members defeated - should be a wake-up call for conservatives if they seek to make ID an election campaign issue.

13 posted on 12/25/2005 11:53:45 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin (If you are not disquieted by "One nation under God," try "One nation under Allah.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Now, if Miller and Krauthammer say that God is directing evolution to a particular end...then we are back full circle to ID...

Only if God is directing by interventionist means. Remember that ID only flags features which (allegedly) couldn't have been constructed by "natural" means. However most theists believe that God is fully immanent in the world -- that He is the God of ALL of nature, not just the little "designed" looking bits -- and that there is not a single "natural" process that is apart from His governance of nature.

On this view God is not limited to breaking the laws nature in order to govern it. He can direct nature without doing so. Indeed there may be, in the end, no proper distinction between "God's purposes" and the evolution of nature according to it's "natural" course.

In any case the circling back to ID is only implied, or at least only compelled, if you have an essentially "deistic" view of God: that when He doesn't "appear" to be present (is not blatantly intervening in nature) then He is actually absent. If you believe, OTOH, that God's mastery of nature extends to every photon that flys from the sun, or every leaf that separates from a branch, then -- although there might be other/addition reasons for it -- providential theism doesn't inherently require anything ID.

14 posted on 12/25/2005 12:03:50 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

"Since God is supposed to move in mysterious ways, the particular ends and directions might well be inscrutable"

The Judeo Christian God is the God that made man in his image. If this is true then it is incompatible with the creation of Man by chance a la Darwinism. It is compatible though with evolution directed by God...but that is ID...oh well....

Still, we have Pantheism, which is a nice cozy God that lets you do whatever you want because all is God...both good and evil. Its very popular among new agers and compatible fully with Darwinism.


15 posted on 12/25/2005 12:04:19 PM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
The great fiction that powers the ID movement is that evolution is inherently antireligious.

Does the shoe fit?

16 posted on 12/25/2005 12:07:11 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

"On this view God is not limited to breaking the laws nature in order to govern it. He can direct nature without doing so. Indeed there may be, in the end, no proper distinction between "God's purposes" and the evolution of nature according to it's "natural" course."

I am ok with that. Its still ID in my book...maybe not the ID promoted by ID'rs, but still ID.

Of course, in order for the miracles of Christianity to be true, God did have to intervene in a supernatural way at some point....fish don't multiply in a basket...a man cannot walk on water...etc.

And if one does not believe those miracles, then likely they don't believe that God became Man, and we are back to Christianity and water.


17 posted on 12/25/2005 12:12:05 PM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

""How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?""

I agree. It seems to be that the assumption of the creationists (aka IDers) is that God was smart enough to figure out a universe where the physical laws fit together to explain things, but not smart enough to make these same laws create the life forms he wanted.

So, after finishing the creation of the physical laws of the universe, he had to begin "fudging" things to create life and then to create the different forms of life.

I don't think so.


18 posted on 12/25/2005 12:13:00 PM PST by strategofr (Hillary appropriated over 1,000 secret FBI files on DC big wigs,Hillary's Secret War,Poe,p xiv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Remember that ID only flags features which (allegedly) couldn't have been constructed by "natural" means.

Sometimes. We see frequent statements that the observed regularity in nature is evidence (or even proof) of design. But we often see assertions that it's the observed irregularities (like alleged instances of irreducible complexity) that reveal the role of the designer. It's hard to test a doctrine like that.

19 posted on 12/25/2005 12:14:48 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig

The only way to believe it is, per Tertullian, because it is absurd. Intelligent design will be happening when the humans master not only reading the genomes, but understanding them and then writing them ourselves. If we write [and then implement] them intelligently, then it will be Intelligent Design. Probably something like year 2150, give or take.


20 posted on 12/25/2005 12:16:31 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

"Intelligent design will be happening when the humans master not only reading the genomes, but understanding them and then writing them ourselves. If we write [and then implement] them intelligently, then it will be Intelligent Design. Probably something like year 2150, give or take."

Adolph Hitler's dream....


21 posted on 12/25/2005 12:23:30 PM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
It is compatible though with evolution directed by God...but that is ID...

Actually, no, that's not ID. Remember ID bases it's "inference" of "intelligent design" on the presumption that certain features COULD NOT have evolved, even though many ID'ers believe many other things did evolve. ID may coexist with evolution as a kind of supplement: somethings evolved, others were "intelligently designed". And granted it's entirely mysterious what ID might be in terms of positive process, since IDers resolutely refuse to even speculate about how (or when, or where) instances of ID are actually instantiated.

But it's entirely clear what ID is NOT. If it's possible that something "evolved" then that is definitely not "ID".

Still, we have Pantheism, which is a nice cozy God that lets you do whatever you want because all is God...both good and evil. Its very popular among new agers and compatible fully with Darwinism.

Sure, pantheism's compatible too. And most "new ager" types are probably evolutionists of some description (although certainly not all -- as witness our own Alamo-Girl and betty boop, Christian new agers who take the creationism side in these debates). But it should be noted that new agers have often been hostile to Darwinism -- that is to specifically darwinian versions of evolution -- and sometimes champion creationism, or at least creationism's antievolution arguments.

Just a few example of works by new agers in my antievolution library that come to mind: Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (repeats many typical creation science arguments); William Fix, The Bone Peddlers (ditto); Maharahji PradaYadaWhatchmacallhim Life Comes from Life (Hare Krishna -- evolution contradicts reincarnation which holds that souls evolve but species remain fixed); and several others (e.g. anything related to Theosophy, which has it's own evolutionary scheme including "root races" and "vibrational levels" that is utter incompatible on multiple grounds with any scientific account).

22 posted on 12/25/2005 12:37:24 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Merry Christmas to you and all!
23 posted on 12/25/2005 12:42:57 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

NOG ... HAZE ... THICKENING ...


24 posted on 12/25/2005 12:51:41 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Its still ID in my book...maybe not the ID promoted by ID'rs, but still ID.

Even so, it isn't science (because it falls back on a supernatural cause, which is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry) and shouldn't be presented as such.
25 posted on 12/25/2005 12:53:26 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RussP
These guys are downright frightening. No "positive evidence for design"? Baloney. There's plenty of positive evidence for design.

References?
26 posted on 12/25/2005 12:53:57 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Darwin never asserted his theory sought to explain ultimate origins. It only sought to explain the empirically risible processes behind the variety and extent of adaptation of living things to their environment on earth. It leaves open the question of whether all things came into being through an Ultimate Cause. You can deny that one exists like a number of scientists do. Then again you'd be as dogmatic and dishonest as the creationists are. There's plenty of room for ground where both science and religion can meet in harmony.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

27 posted on 12/25/2005 1:00:13 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Got too hazy last night. Don't feel like it now. Hair of the dog was always hard to contemplate.
28 posted on 12/25/2005 1:04:08 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
We see frequent statements that the observed regularity in nature is evidence (or even proof) of design. But we often see assertions that it's the observed irregularities (like alleged instances of irreducible complexity) that reveal the role of the designer. It's hard to test a doctrine like that.

Aquinas already did so, at least from the epistemological standpoint. The sum total correlations of things are different from the individual correlations as they are known to us. In other words, the dichotomy regular and irregular are not equally observer contingent.

Secondly, just as the presence of regularity does not make irregularity disappear, the causality of intelligence does not make random events disappear.

Hegel did something similar when he raised non-being (a logical concept) to an existential reality. Can't do that.

29 posted on 12/25/2005 1:05:04 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Merry Christmas to you and all!

And to you.

Those who missed the annual Christmas party at Darwin Central's headquarters missed out on seeing the Grand Master in his Santa outfit. Quite a sight!

30 posted on 12/25/2005 1:08:10 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
No one believes life came into being by pure blind chance. That's a 19th Century materialist oversimplification of Darwinian evolution. If you believe there's nothing special about life itself and there's no unseen reality that guides it along, then life came into being by mere chance. If on the other hand, you believe life is the result of the purposeful interaction of a variety of complicated factors, then evolution is indeed purposeful. There are a number of different interpretations of evolution and a strictly materialist one is not the only one compatible with science. Its only where you deny the existence of natural laws that evolution ends and creationism and its intellectual progeny enters. The world allows for miracles but God chose not to interfere in order to preserve human free will and see to it Nature remained a world apart from that of Man. Nature and living things do not recognize any Higher Law or Truth and Beauty. Only human beings are capable of that and science has only added to our appreciation of the grandeur and complexity of the world we all inhabit.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

31 posted on 12/25/2005 1:10:40 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig

He also believed in multiplication table, if you didn't notice. Ad hominem arguments are fellatious.


32 posted on 12/25/2005 1:12:39 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

"No one believes life came into being by pure blind chance"

You cannot be serious? Millions do. Richard Dawkins, king of blind chance and Darwinism, does. I read his book...The Blind Watchmaker...its very good. I don't believe it but he is an intelligent man and persuavsive debater.

Cmon, lets not make such overtly ridiculous statements.


33 posted on 12/25/2005 1:29:14 PM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

"He also believed in multiplication table, if you didn't notice. Ad hominem arguments are fellatious."

I have no idea what you are referring to.

I agree though, fellatious arguments such as ad hominem arguments really suck.



34 posted on 12/25/2005 1:30:39 PM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

"There's plenty of room for ground where both science and religion can meet in harmony."

I agree, but evolution by chance is completely incompatible with the Judeo Christian concept of God, and certainly incompatible with the Christian concept of the fall of man and redemption through Christ.

But we have been down that road...you don't believe there are any true athiests out there (i.e. blind chancers) but I cannot fathom how you can come to that conclusion.


35 posted on 12/25/2005 1:34:51 PM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig

What I am referring to is that even Hitler believed in and dreamed about many of the same things you or me are believing in or dreaming about. Thus ad hominem references to his dreams are not arguments in the least - and therefore by their proper antillectual quality are to be designated as fellatious.


36 posted on 12/25/2005 1:43:12 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Then what's you and me - a lucky roll of the dice? Using that analogy, its difficult to see why we should be here at all. If you believe there's no great value to life, its hard to see why any one, least of all Richard Dawkins, would make an argument for blind chance. Even a roll of a dice in a casino has only 50 50 odds of landing the right way. So, why are human beings sentient and animals aren't? There's nothing in an evolution driven by blind chance that favors the rise of a sentient species like ourselves. It could just as happily manage without one around.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

37 posted on 12/25/2005 1:46:17 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Now, if Miller and Krauthammer say that God is directing evolution to a particular end...then we are back full circle to ID...

A less than omnipotent and not quite comniscient God would have to resort to the ID tinkering

38 posted on 12/25/2005 3:34:23 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about - J S Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Among the many implications of this trial here in Pennsylvania is that the outcome is but one more nail in the coffin of Rick Santorum.


39 posted on 12/25/2005 3:42:47 PM PST by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
What I am referring to is that even Hitler believed in and dreamed about many of the same things you or me are believing in or dreaming about. Thus ad hominem references to his dreams are not arguments in the least - and therefore by their proper antillectual quality are to be designated as fellatious.

Fellatious isn't really a word, but if you are to attempt to derive it from a real word, the best guess would be the verb "to fellate". I think that you meant "fallacious". I hope you meant that, anyways.

In any case, you are quite amusing...

40 posted on 12/25/2005 4:06:13 PM PST by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

"What I am referring to is that even Hitler believed in and dreamed about many of the same things you or me are believing in or dreaming about"

Examples please.


41 posted on 12/25/2005 4:08:35 PM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

"A less than omnipotent and not quite comniscient God would have to resort to the ID tinkering"

I don't follow this. Either the Judeo Christian God exists, and created Man in his image...meaning a directed creation towards that goal...or the Judeo Christian God does not exist and some other type of God created the universe without any intention or goal but just for the Hell of it...so to speak.....or no God exists, as according to Dawkins, and this entire discussion is just a big waste of time.


42 posted on 12/25/2005 4:14:27 PM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: strategofr

Well said.

I am so tired of the not-Scottish-enough-for-me creationist.


43 posted on 12/25/2005 5:02:08 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
.... missed out on seeing the Grand Master in his Santa outfit.

The one with the orange codpiece, or the Lime green one?

44 posted on 12/25/2005 5:17:26 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

"Well said."

Thanks. We may be a bit outnumbered here on this one.


45 posted on 12/25/2005 5:32:45 PM PST by strategofr (Hillary appropriated over 1,000 secret FBI files on DC big wigs,Hillary's Secret War,Poe,p xiv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
The one with the orange codpiece, or the Lime green one?

The Grand Master is not that kind of man.

46 posted on 12/25/2005 5:49:55 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"The Grand Master is not that kind of man.

Hah!

47 posted on 12/25/2005 6:48:04 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

Another six months in the janitorial pool.


48 posted on 12/25/2005 6:49:22 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Of course.

Where are those photos....


49 posted on 12/25/2005 6:51:11 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ArtyFO
I'm surprised that some enterprising company, say Ford, hasn't adopted "Intelligent Design" in their advertising.


50 posted on 12/25/2005 7:13:07 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 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