Skip to comments.
The Left’s Intelligent Design Problem by Max Borders
Tech Central Station ^
| 04 Jan 2006
| Max Borders
Posted on 01/04/2006 7:33:35 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-155 next last
Kaufmann referenced above is Stuart Kaufmann, author of At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity
To: Nicholas Conradin
A further, delicious irony in all of these quibbles about the relative merits of Intelligent Design comes in the fact that conservative proponents of ID may have borrowed their tactics directly from the left. The Discovery Institute, the promoter of ID, is no different than the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. It's a "non-profit", bringing in serious cash to push a specific agenda for true believers. None of them give a rat's behind about truth, because that wouldn't fit their agenda, or bring in money from the believers.
2
posted on
01/04/2006 7:47:51 AM PST
by
narby
(Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
To: PatrickHenry
3
posted on
01/04/2006 7:48:40 AM PST
by
narby
(Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
To: Nicholas Conradin
isn't this similar to dialectical materialism? It is a theory (adopted as the official philosophy of the Soviet communists) that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces and are interpretable as a series of contradictions and their solutions. The conflict is believed to be caused by material needs. Or that there are driving factors in the world which cause similar things to happen, and all that we have to do is to recognize and use those factors.
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
5
posted on
01/04/2006 7:52:44 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: All
From the article:
Indeed, if ever there were a view of economics that builds in the blind, purposeless processes of trial-and-error, specialization, and complexity (the hallmarks of the Darwinian algorithm) it is Smiths invisible-hand economics -- the Austrian variants of which are the most strikingly evolutionary in character.[snip]
A further, delicious irony in all of these quibbles about the relative merits of Intelligent Design comes in the fact that conservative proponents of ID may have borrowed their tactics directly from the left. According to philosopher Stanley Fish, writing in Harpers: [The teach the controversy battle cry] is an effective one, for it takes the focus away from the scientific credibility of Intelligent Design -- away from the question, Why should it be taught in a biology class? -- and puts it instead on the more abstract issues of freedom and open inquiry. Rather than saying were right, the other guys are wrong, and there are the scientific reasons why, Intelligent Design polemicists say that every idea should at least get a hearing; that unpopular or minority views should always be represented; that questions of right and wrong should be left open; that what currently counts as knowledge should always be suspect, because it will typically reflect the interests and preferences of those in power. These ideas have been appropriated wholesale from the rhetoric of multiculturalism --
This article is right on target.
6
posted on
01/04/2006 7:56:29 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: Nicholas Conradin
Indeed, if ever there were a view of economics that builds in the blind, purposeless processes of trial-and-error, specialization, and complexity (the hallmarks of the Darwinian algorithm) it is Smiths invisible-hand economics -- the Austrian variants of which are the most strikingly evolutionary in character. This is utterly incorrect. The free market operates "as if guided by an invisible hand" because buying and selling simply is the state of "economic nature," as designed by God and imprinted in human nature. Trade is as old as recorded history, as is the notion of private property, which is implied in the divine admonition against stealing.
Historically, other governmental systems imposed against this natural order either collapse or generally exist in a parasitical relationship with the market.
7
posted on
01/04/2006 8:06:51 AM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: PatrickHenry
8
posted on
01/04/2006 8:10:18 AM PST
by
stephenjohnbanker
(Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all our troops at home and abroad!!)
To: Aquinasfan
Good voice you are in this wilderness. The anti-ID crowd of Darwinistonianistas are persistent in the adherence to their faith... Are they oriental or occidental in world view?
9
posted on
01/04/2006 8:11:34 AM PST
by
Broker
(Science serves God)
To: Nicholas Conradin
"Smith vs. Darwin"? Ludicrous. The affinities between market capitalism and Darwinian evolution are trivially obvious and have long been appreciated.
To: PatrickHenry
A further, delicious irony in all of these quibbles about the relative merits of Intelligent Design comes in the fact that conservative proponents of ID may have borrowed their tactics directly from the left. I've been saying that for months - ID is little more than warmed over PC.
ID attempts to redefine words for political ends. ID requires science to conform to political dogma. ID wants to avoid anyone's delicate sensibilities from being hurt. ID elevates feelings to the level of facts.
This new PC is every bit as dangerous as the old one.
Shame on any "conservative" who eagerly embraces PC just because they think they can get a temporary political advantage out of it.
11
posted on
01/04/2006 8:21:06 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
===> Placemarker <===
12
posted on
01/04/2006 8:22:46 AM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Physicist
13
posted on
01/04/2006 8:23:22 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: Citizen Tom Paine
Good point. Marxism was (is) determinative. There were "forces" at work in history. And Adam Smith's "unseen hand" - what is that? By the way, I note that Stanley Fish is now identified as a "philosopher," a guy who has deconstructed (wrecked)English departments across the country.
To: PatrickHenry
15
posted on
01/04/2006 8:25:37 AM PST
by
Alamo-Girl
(Monthly is the best way to donate to Free Republic!)
To: Aquinasfan
The free market operates "as if guided by an invisible hand" because buying and selling simply is the state of "economic nature," as designed by God and imprinted in human nature.So was the trading of bananas for sex designed by God and imprinted in Bonobo Chimpanzee nature?
Weird guy, your god.
16
posted on
01/04/2006 8:25:40 AM PST
by
Right Wing Professor
(Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. Now it's our turn -- Tom Bethell)
To: highball
Shame on any "conservative" who eagerly embraces PC just because they think they can get a temporary political advantage out of it.
Shame on any "conservative" who eagerly embraces the ACLU just because they think they can get a temporary political advantage out of it.
To: Nicholas Conradin
Great article! The question that baffles me about the numerous creationist trolls who constantly infest this forum is that it's never really obvious whether they are part of a grand conspiracy to make conservatives appear ignorant or whether they simply are an ignorant wing of the conservative movement. Smith and Darwin truly were two of a kind using the same general logic to respectively define economics and biology. The same general logic that defines conservatism.
18
posted on
01/04/2006 8:30:41 AM PST
by
shuckmaster
(An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
To: Physicist
The affinities between market capitalism and Darwinian evolution are trivially obvious and have long been appreciated.I agree!!!
19
posted on
01/04/2006 8:33:46 AM PST
by
shuckmaster
(An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
To: microgood
"Shame on any "conservative" who eagerly embraces the ACLU just because they think they can get a temporary political advantage out of it."
Who has done this? Most of the posters I've seen are along the "broken clock" line.
Like Rush Limbaugh, who didn't turn them down when they offered help.
20
posted on
01/04/2006 8:41:36 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-155 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson