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

Skip to comments.

LA Times Columnist Slams Intelligent Design as a "Ruse" and a "Ploy"
Newsbusters.org ^ | 30 July 2006 | Dave Pierre

Posted on 07/30/2006 12:56:40 PM PDT by infoguy

Under the corrupt cloak of a "book review," this Sunday's Los Angeles Times (July 30, 2006) continues its underhanded and one-sided assault on the theory of intelligent design (ID). "The language of life," by Robert Lee Hotz*, is a review of three new works that attack intelligent design. The review was promoted on the top of the front page of the "Sunday preview" edition under the heading, "Less than 'intelligent design': Darwin's believers debunk the theory." And rather than providing its readers an honest critique, the Times' "review" is nothing less than a full-on Darwin propaganda piece. Hotz begins his article as follows (emphasis/link mine),

In the border war between science and faith, the doctrine of "intelligent design" is a sly subterfuge - a marzipan confection of an idea presented in the shape of something more substantial.

As many now understand - and as a federal court ruled in December - intelligent design is the bait on the barbed hook of creationist belief ...

Objectivity? Forget it. You won't find it with Hotz. Hotz' hit piece on ID then continues by haphazardly labeling ID as a "ruse," a "ploy," a "disingenuous masquerade," and "dishonesty."

Hotz claims the works he's reviewing are written by "some of the nation's most distinguished thinkers." Well, one of the reviewed books is by well-known "skeptic" Michael Shermer, whose work has been cited numerous times for falsehoods and inaccuracy (for example, here, here, here, and here)). Shermer has also floundered considerably while defending Darwinism in public, as witnessed in a 2004 debate with Stephen Meyer on TV's Faith Under Fire (link with video). In 2005, Shermer struggled in a debate with William Dembski (link/audio). "Distinguished"? Sorry, Mr. Hotz.

As NewsBusters has already reported this year (link), the Los Angeles Times has never published a single article from a leading spokesperson of intelligent design theory.** (Leading spokespeople would include names such as Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards, and acclaimed writer Lee Strobel.) Yet the Times has now published its tenth piece in the last 14 months attacking ID! (I'm using this count).

Is there balance at the Los Angeles Times on this issue? Not even close, folks. The Times is unequivocally disserving its readers. How many Times readers are aware that one of the world's most renowned atheists, Antony Flew, has recently become open to God largely due to the persuasive science of intelligent design?

 

* Hotz "covers science, medicine, and technology" for the Times, yet Hotz has a B.A. in English and an M.A. in theater history. Am I the only one to think it odd that the Times would find him well qualified to write on science, medicine, and technology?

** Stephen Meyer did co-author a 1987 op-ed in the LA Times (almost 19 years ago) on the subject of human rights; but the article does not delve into the topic of intelligent design. In addition, there was a book review in the Times over 8 years ago (1998) by Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr. His review, about a book on the 1925 Scopes trial, included brief references to intelligent design science. However, Gaffney's name would not be included among well-known proponents of ID.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bias; ceybabycreationists; crevolist; crybabycreationists; darwin; enoughalready; evoboors; gettingold; id; idiocy; idjunkscience; intelligentdesign; lagt; losangelestimes; mediabias; patrickhenrygoesnuts; pavlovian; tenthousandthtime
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-312 next last

1 posted on 07/30/2006 12:56:42 PM PDT by infoguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: infoguy

ID is real. Its beings used as a rused to force science to stop using the scientific method in teaching.

Good things can be used for bad pruposes.


2 posted on 07/30/2006 12:58:53 PM PDT by gondramB (Named must your fear be before banish it you can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
This guy is one ignorant slob isn't he. Panspermia (particularly if it's a consequence of intelligent activity elsewhere in the cosmos) would be difficult to differentiate from "creation" if the only reference you had was Earth.

I'd suggest it's too early to abandon panspermia and fully embrace the "little Earth" hypothesis.

3 posted on 07/30/2006 1:01:53 PM PDT by muawiyah (-/sarcasm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
Am I the only one to think it odd that the Times would find him well qualified to write on science, medicine, and technology?

Coulter is a lawyer and writes on evolution ===> Placemarker <===

4 posted on 07/30/2006 1:07:13 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
The arrogance of these people is astounding. To think that it's not possible that an entity more intelligent and powerful than they, actually put humanity on this earth, shows what most of us already know. That they truly believe they are the most highly evolved beings in the universe. But that belief should really come as no surprise to anyone.
5 posted on 07/30/2006 1:09:19 PM PDT by TruthBeforeAll (Christ gave and died. Mohammed took and killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll
Do intelligent design people believe that cows could have evolved from buffalo? Or that Lions could have evolved from Tigers? Why can't evolutionists other than myself admit that Darwin was a Darwinist/Eugenicist?

"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species,
has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is
descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear
of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the
series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in
various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies-
between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and
in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna,
and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."


Darwin ch 6
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_06.html
6 posted on 07/30/2006 1:20:20 PM PDT by budlt2369 (I tried to warn them about Peter Singer, but they wouldn't listen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll

I'm not sure about the arrogance, but the axiomatic beliefs
some of the naturalists hold (I think goes under their own
radar)... might be considered here.
example:
1) the universe is ordered and is predictable
2) The human mind can understand "nature"
3) Human thought and rationalizaton is the final arbiter
of what "is"
4) Scientific method always brings out the truth.
5) Mathematics is a way of describing the universe, and is
always accurate
6) What experiments we have done accounts for all of
the natural order


Anyway, needless to say anyone who "believes" all the above
will certainly behave as if they have the corner on
knowledge. One thing is approximately true, that science
does many times correct itself, through the action of humans
bringing new repeatable information to light.


7 posted on 07/30/2006 1:24:59 PM PDT by Getready
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: infoguy

Hotz is right on the money. I see the ID kooks are out in full force today.


8 posted on 07/30/2006 1:26:20 PM PDT by youthgonewild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
If you want to post the LA Times try not to use it as a believable source.
9 posted on 07/30/2006 1:27:43 PM PDT by bmwcyle (Only stupid people would vote for McCain, Warner, Hagle, Snowe, Graham, or any RINO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll

Are you talking about those that support ID or those that support evolution?


10 posted on 07/30/2006 1:28:11 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (There is no tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: infoguy

When presented with a choice between ascribing events to conspiracy or stupidity, opt for stupidity. Conspiracies require brainpower.


11 posted on 07/30/2006 1:29:11 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infoguy

Mr. Hotz is, himself, prima facie evidence of unintelligent design...


12 posted on 07/30/2006 1:30:39 PM PDT by esopman (Blessings on Freepers Everywhere (and Their Most Intelligent Designer))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
It's a slow weekend, so ...

Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 380 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.

13 posted on 07/30/2006 1:39:01 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (The Enlightenment gave us individual rights, free enterprise, and the theory of evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"Coulter is a lawyer and writes on evolution."

Coulter hasn't been hired by anyone to write specifically on one topic. The point is that the Times had an opening for someone to write on specifically on science, medicine, and technology, and they chose a guy with a master's degree in theatre history. Why?

14 posted on 07/30/2006 1:48:55 PM PDT by infoguy (www.frankenlies.com ... www.themediareport.com ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: infoguy


"Coulter hasn't been hired by anyone to write specifically on one topic. The point is that the Times had an opening for someone to write on specifically on science, medicine, and technology, and they chose a guy with a master's degree in theatre history. Why?"

Because people why act like Darwin wasn't a Darwinist need lots of practice.


15 posted on 07/30/2006 1:53:27 PM PDT by budlt2369 (I tried to warn them about Peter Singer, but they wouldn't listen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: budlt2369

"Coulter hasn't been hired by anyone to write specifically on one topic. The point is that the Times had an opening for someone to write on specifically on science, medicine, and technology, and they chose a guy with a master's degree in theatre history. Why?"

Because people who act like Darwin wasn't a Darwinist need lots of practice.


16 posted on 07/30/2006 1:53:57 PM PDT by budlt2369 (I tried to warn them about Peter Singer, but they wouldn't listen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: youthgonewild
I like Divine Design, which doesn't have anything against quantum mechanics per say,
(except that it doesn't unify gravity. Damn!...) but am more careful concerning these developmental "gaps".

Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay W Richards, The Prvileged Planet

17 posted on 07/30/2006 1:59:37 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The author comes from a group that believes the anus is a sex organ!


18 posted on 07/30/2006 2:02:12 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: infoguy

LA Times must still believe the Hopeful Monster Theory.


19 posted on 07/30/2006 2:05:09 PM PDT by RoadTest (Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: in God is our trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll
To think that it's not possible that an entity more intelligent and powerful than they, actually put humanity on this earth, shows what most of us already know.

Who has stated that such a thing is not possible? Please provide specific quotations.
20 posted on 07/30/2006 2:13:46 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
The point is that the Times had an opening for someone to write on specifically on science, medicine, and technology, and they chose a guy with a master's degree in theatre history. Why?

To keep the image of the LA Turd alive.

21 posted on 07/30/2006 2:15:22 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: infoguy

bump


22 posted on 07/30/2006 2:17:16 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Getready
1) the universe is ordered and is predictable

Do you have evidence that this is not the case?

2) The human mind can understand "nature"

Do you have evidence that this is universally false?

3) Human thought and rationalizaton is the final arbiter of what "is"

Who has made such a statement? Please provide specific references.

4) Scientific method always brings out the truth.

Who has made such a statement? Please provide specific references.

5) Mathematics is a way of describing the universe, and is always accurate always accurate

This is false. Mathematics is a tool that can be used in modelling the universe. By definition it is correct when no errers are introduced, though this does not necessarily mean that a model of the universe based upon a mathematical formula is an accurate representation of reality and I know of no one who claims otherwise.

5) Mathematics is a way of describing the universe, and is always accurate

ho has made such a statement? Please provide specific references.

Anyway, needless to say anyone who "believes" all the above will certainly behave as if they have the corner on knowledge.

As I am aware of no one who believes all of the above, your statement seems to be of no consequence.
23 posted on 07/30/2006 2:20:28 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Its beings used as a rused to force science to stop using the scientific method in teaching
Good things can be used for bad pruposes.




What ?
24 posted on 07/30/2006 2:20:42 PM PDT by grjr21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
And rather than providing its readers an honest critique, the Times' "review" is nothing less than a full-on Darwin propaganda piece.

Why so angry? I thought the ID types wanted to "teach the controversy". (I guess only so long as no one "teaches" back!)

25 posted on 07/30/2006 2:36:58 PM PDT 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 1 | View Replies]

To: grjr21
"Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.



Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition [of science]. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions. "

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/2005/10/19/behe-astrology-and-id-are-both-science/
26 posted on 07/30/2006 2:37:41 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (There is no tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
... haphazardly labeling ID as a "ruse," a "ploy," a "disingenuous masquerade," and "dishonesty."

Seems rather generous.

27 posted on 07/30/2006 2:39:54 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
"Why so angry? I thought the ID types wanted to 'teach the controversy'." (I guess only so long as no one "teaches" back!)

You don't get it. Read the article. ID proponents do want both sides heard, but forums like the LA Times are only presenting one side of the issue!

28 posted on 07/30/2006 3:37:17 PM PDT by infoguy (www.frankenlies.com ... www.themediareport.com ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
Darwinism is a theory, ID is a theory, and astrology is a theory. So ... Where does that get you?

The issue is what theory is correctly based on fact and science: the way things actually are.

29 posted on 07/30/2006 3:40:38 PM PDT by infoguy (www.frankenlies.com ... www.themediareport.com ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
To think that it's not possible that an entity more intelligent and powerful than they, actually put humanity on this earth, shows what most of us already know.

Who has stated that such a thing is not possible? Please provide specific quotations.

Uh, Darwin, I believe.

30 posted on 07/30/2006 3:43:42 PM PDT by TruthBeforeAll (Christ gave and died. Mohammed took and killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
You don't get it. Read the article. ID proponents do want both sides heard, but forums like the LA Times are only presenting one side of the issue!

Uh, so? Assuming this is true (which I don't particulary question) The Discovery Institute itself is at least equally one-sided.

Do you expect something different than that the "controversy" will be engaged principally by controversialists?!? (Especially since it's NOT a genuine scientific controversy, but instead almost entirely a popular one.)

31 posted on 07/30/2006 3:46:09 PM PDT 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 28 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
As Project Steve indicates, over 700 scientists named Steve (or Stephanie, Esteban, or Stefano, etc.), about two-thirds of whom are biologists, have signed on to a statement that says:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
These Steves are only the tip of the scientific iceberg, because the name "Steve" is given to only about 1% of the population. Therefore, the 700 Steves probably represent about 70,000 scientists. See also Project Steve update.

The Steves alone are greater in number than all the scientists (of every name) who have signed statements questioning evolution, and most of the evolution skeptics aren't biologists. For example, the much-publicized list of 500 names (compared to 70,000) collected by the Discovery Institute includes only about 154 biologists, less than one-third of the total. Those 500 signed a rather ambiguous statement, which says:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

[Note what a hollow statement that is, compared to the statement signed by the Steves; and also note what the hollow statement doesn't say: It doesn't say that those who sign it are creationists or advocates of ID (although some probably are). It doesn't even say that they reject evolution (although some probably do). It merely says they're "skeptical," presumably a term chosen to permit as many as possible to sign.]

In contrast, two-thirds of the 700 Steves are biologists, so the biologist-Steves are about 466 in number. Steves are 1% of the population, so they represent approximately 46,600 biologists. Compare that number to the 154 biologists' names collected by the Discovery Institute. Those 154 are the totality of biologists who are evolution skeptics. Did you get that? The comparison is 46,600 biologists who accept evoution to a mere 154 who are "skeptical."

These competing lists clearly tell us that evolution skeptics are a tiny fringe group -- about one-third of one percent of biologists. Therefore, notwithstanding the unending demands to "teach the controversy," there literally is no scientific controversy about the basic principles of evolution. Scientists, especially those in the biological fields, are all but unanimous in their acceptance of evolution.

32 posted on 07/30/2006 3:46:53 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (The Enlightenment gave us individual rights, free enterprise, and the theory of evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: infoguy

ID isn't a theory neither is astrology.

Theory - "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method)."


33 posted on 07/30/2006 3:47:14 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (There is no tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
Darwinism is a theory, ID is a theory, and astrology is a theory. So ... Where does that get you?

The issue is what theory is correctly based on fact and science: the way things actually are.

Of those three fields, only evolution is a theory as that term is used in science.

See the definitions below:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.


34 posted on 07/30/2006 4:01:15 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll
Uh, Darwin, I believe.

Please reference a quote from Darwin wherein he expresses such sentiment.
35 posted on 07/30/2006 4:01:51 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll; Dimensio
To think that it's not possible that an entity more intelligent and powerful than they, actually put humanity on this earth, shows what most of us already know.

Who has stated that such a thing is not possible? Please provide specific quotations.

Uh, Darwin, I believe.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong.

Final paragraph of the Origin of Species (6th and final edition):

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

And from Darwin's Autobiography, and very frank and reflective work originally written by Darwin purely for private consumption by his family:

Another source of conviction in the existance of God connected with the reason and not the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist.

This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt -- can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as the possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such a grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic

I've added all underlining and other emphasis to the quotes above.

So, yes, Darwin certainly did not believe that mankind was created directly. He was confident in his conclusions regarding man's animal ancestry. But he was agnostic about the ultimate role God might have played in such a process. He certainly does not hold that a role for God is "impossible". Instead he explicitly says that he finds the issue "insoluble".

36 posted on 07/30/2006 4:04:07 PM PDT 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 30 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
You sound like you know absolutely nothing about the science of intelligent design.

Try these:
Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell
The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory
DNA and Other Designs by Stephen Meyer

If you read these, you'll learn a lot. There's no "unsubstantiated guessing" or "hunches" in ID.

37 posted on 07/30/2006 4:05:39 PM PDT by infoguy (www.frankenlies.com ... www.themediareport.com ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: infoguy

Anything that depends on "God/Deity/Supernatural PB&J Sandwitch" as a root cause isn't science. And please don't tell me that ID isn't religious as I have had too may ID supports say that I am not Christian because I refuse to call ID Science.

It is kind of like all those 9/11 'government did it' proofs on the Internet - it doesn't stand up when examined closely by independent reviewers.


38 posted on 07/30/2006 4:13:14 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (There is no tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
Is there balance at the Los Angeles Times on this issue?
Doesn't seem like there is. More cogently, should there be? Considering the 'issue' is science, clearly no.
39 posted on 07/30/2006 4:16:51 PM PDT by planetesimal (All is flux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
1. "Uh, so? Assuming this is true (which I don't particulary question) The Discovery Institute itself is at least equally one-sided."

Of course the Discovery Institute is one-sided! They don't pretend not to be! On the other hand, the Los Angeles Times presents itself as an unbiased forum; yet on this issue they are totally one-sided. If I take your comment at face value, you are agreeing with the Newsbusters article that the Times is only presenting one side of the issue.

2. "it's NOT a genuine scientific controversy ..."

Well, I guess you aren't aware of the numerous public debates that have been taking place on the issue. A couple of examples are linked in the Newsbusters piece. You might want to check those out.

40 posted on 07/30/2006 4:17:00 PM PDT by infoguy (www.frankenlies.com ... www.themediareport.com ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: infoguy
There's no "unsubstantiated guessing" or "hunches" in ID.

It's not hard to avoid hypothesizing when your "theory" is almost entirely devoid of substantive content and empirical implications! I.e. when you pretend to have a "theory" about "intelligent design," but refuse to say a single thing, or even hazard a single speculation, about when, where, how or by whom (or what) instances of ID are actually instantiated. Or when you tout theoretical constructs like "specified complexity," but then refrain from risking their rigorous application to a single real world instance of anything.

IOW you, in effect, praise ID for it's vacuousness. But then that's about all you could do.

By contrast, actual scientific theories are SUPPOSED to lead to the generation of "hunches" (or rather testable implications, proposed problem solutions based on the theory, new approaches to the data, and etc).

41 posted on 07/30/2006 4:18:16 PM PDT 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 37 | View Replies]

To: planetesimal
"Is there balance at the Los Angeles Times on this issue? Doesn't seem like there is. More cogently, should there be? Considering the 'issue' is science, clearly no."

See post #37. You may want to educate yourself on the science of ID. I've posted some helpful links.

42 posted on 07/30/2006 4:19:07 PM PDT by infoguy (www.frankenlies.com ... www.themediareport.com ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
Anything that depends on "God/Deity/Supernatural PB&J Sandwitch" as a root cause isn't science.

Hey! ID theory says that an intelligent designer, at some undesignated time, for purposes unknown, intentionally did something. Exactly what he did is unknown, and how he did it is unknown. Nor is it known where he did this thing that he did, or how long it took him to do it. Whether he worked alone or in teams is unknown. Further, it is unknown if he only had to do this thing once, or if several subsequent interventions were required. The identity of the designer is unknown. His nature is unknown. His origin is unknown. His design methods are unknown. His present location is unknown. Whether the designer still exists is also unknown.

So how could ID not be science?

43 posted on 07/30/2006 4:23:43 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (The Enlightenment gave us individual rights, free enterprise, and the theory of evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
"Anything that depends on 'God/Deity/Supernatural PB&J Sandwitch' as a root cause isn't science."

Well, I'm sorry, but you just reveal an ignorance on the issue. If you don't want to educate yourself on the science behind ID (it doesn't "depend" on "God/Deity/Supernatural PB&J Sandwitch (sic)"), there's nothing else I can say. Good day. You don't know what you're talking about.

44 posted on 07/30/2006 4:26:07 PM PDT by infoguy (www.frankenlies.com ... www.themediareport.com ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: infoguy

Every notice how those that support the ToE take the time to explain to others about the theory while a significant portion of those that support ID just throw up a few links and insult others?

If I was a shrink I would say that the ID supports don't really know enough about their 'theory' to really support it so they then harass/insult the other side in a effort to silence them.

Not exactly the most adult of behaviors.


45 posted on 07/30/2006 4:30:35 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (There is no tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: infoguy

Is there a hypothetical observation that would falsify ID?


46 posted on 07/30/2006 4:30:43 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: infoguy
If I take your comment at face value, you are agreeing with the Newsbusters article that the Times is only presenting one side of the issue.

That's not, ipso facto, illegitimate. It's a matter of argument whether it's illegitimate. For instance if ID is not, in fact, a real scientific controversy, there's nothing the slightest bit illegitimate about consistently taking that point of view. For the same reason it's not illegitimate to consistently present only "one side" of Holocaust Revisionism.

You need to argue convincingly that ID really is a presumptively or potentially viable scientific theory, or at least the basis for some theory. To take the approach as presumptive that it's "only fair" to present "both sides" (independently and prior to the FACTS of the situation) is nothing more than wishy-washy relativism and intellectual affirmative action.

2. "it's NOT a genuine scientific controversy ..."

Well, I guess you aren't aware of the numerous public debates that have been taking place on the issue. A couple of examples are linked in the Newsbusters piece. You might want to check those out.

But this SUPPORTS exactly the point I was making! That the ID controversy is a POPULAR one, not a scientific one.

Scientists may engage in popular debates about, say, the implications of science for public policy issues, and other such matters. But they don't debate the substance of scientific theories themselves in such venues. Debate within science invariable occurs before COMPETENT audiences who can meaningfully challenge the claims that may be forwarded.

Of course interested members of the general public can attend such debates in most cases (maybe at the cost of a conference fee) but such debates are not held FOR the general public. If you're targeting your debating primarily, indeed almost exclusively, at the general public, then that's a pretty sure sign that, whatever you're doing, it isn't science.

48 posted on 07/30/2006 4:33:05 PM PDT 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 40 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

OK - you win ;)


49 posted on 07/30/2006 4:33:35 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (There is no tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: This is a lame ID
Your response to the question only shows that you don't really understand it. That principle cannot, by definition be relied on as a result of "evidence." It is an assumption about the nature of the universe, not of the "evidence" we have attained about it.

You are correct. That assumption is the core axiom of science, without which it would be impossible to make meaningful statements. A better phrasing would have been "Do you believe this to be an invalid position?"

I note that you ignored the rest of my questions. Why is this?
50 posted on 07/30/2006 4:35:19 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-312 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