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

Skip to comments.

Medved on Intelligent Design: It's Not a Theory
Little Green Footballs ^ | August 10, 2008

Posted on 08/10/2008 3:50:04 PM PDT by EveningStar

Last November, radio host Michael Medved was made a Senior Fellow at the anti-evolution “think tank” known as the Discovery Institute, and he has some rather interesting things to say about “intelligent design:”

(Excerpt) Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevo; evolution; id; intelligentdesign; medved; michaelmedved
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-186 next last
I like Michael but he's out there on this topic.
1 posted on 08/10/2008 3:50:08 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Michael is right, because a theory would require some evidence.


2 posted on 08/10/2008 3:52:16 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

At least he does not shout at his listeners and call them names.. like that Weiner guy.


3 posted on 08/10/2008 3:52:18 PM PDT by humblegunner (I'm voting for McCain because he's white.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Savage is insane.

I met Micheal in person a few years back. Great guy! :)


4 posted on 08/10/2008 3:54:03 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

“It’s not a theory, it doesn’t explain anything, and it tells you things that are not true.”


5 posted on 08/10/2008 3:54:44 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

I know! LOL! :)


6 posted on 08/10/2008 3:58:54 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I like LGF, but they are completely clueless on ID.


7 posted on 08/10/2008 4:01:10 PM PDT by Tribune7 (How is inflicting pain and death on an innocent, helpless human being for profit, moral?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Wow, and they made him a senior fellow of the ID institute?
Amazing...
8 posted on 08/10/2008 4:06:08 PM PDT by Riodacat (Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

ping


9 posted on 08/10/2008 4:07:06 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Riodacat

I know. Quite an “honor.” Maybe next he’ll get named to the board of directors of the Creation Museum.


10 posted on 08/10/2008 4:10:03 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
At least he does not shout at his listeners and call them names.. like that Weiner guy.

... while his listener is intellectually pummelling him and he doesn't even notice it.

That's what astounds me about Weiner. He flouts these degrees and books when he one of the dumnest radio guys out there.

11 posted on 08/10/2008 4:21:20 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

He’s nuts. I’m amazed that he’s kept his gig.


12 posted on 08/10/2008 4:27:57 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Q: The question is not whether it replaces evolution, but whether it replaces God.

No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn’t tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.

In two short sentences, Medved nails the basic truth about Intelligent Design.

13 posted on 08/10/2008 4:28:09 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

I stopped listening to the Weiner guy when revealed himself to be a phony conservative by making a large contribution to Jerry “Governor Moonbeam” Brown’s 2006 campaign for Attorney General in California.


14 posted on 08/10/2008 4:31:29 PM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

The evolution folks never said the whole thing was random. Ever hear of natural selection?


15 posted on 08/10/2008 4:33:58 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

......It’s Not a Theory....

It’s pure fiction,based on hope


16 posted on 08/10/2008 4:38:36 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Conservation? Let the NE Yankees freeze.... in the dark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

He’s a believer in homeopathy. I think that says it all.


17 posted on 08/10/2008 4:38:43 PM PDT by elmer fudd (Fukoku kyohei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

When creationists trot out this “evolution is random” stuff, they’re being dishonest. If you’re going to disagree with someone, don’t misrepresent what they say. Ben Stein pulls that crap too.


18 posted on 08/10/2008 4:38:53 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

The question I’ve had for the intelligent design folks is this: Even if there is evidence of intellegent design, that is irrefutable, how does that help you choose which of the tens of thousands of religions to follow?


19 posted on 08/10/2008 4:43:28 PM PDT by hunter112 (The 'straight talk express' gets the straight finger express from me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

Good question. The question I ask is: Why couldn’t God have created evolution?


20 posted on 08/10/2008 4:48:57 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

It’s like my biology teacher used to say. Similarities between a Ford and a Chevy are not enough to start theorizing that one evolved from the other!


21 posted on 08/10/2008 4:50:18 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Are you ready to pray for Teddy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Was your biology teacher a critic of evolution?


22 posted on 08/10/2008 4:55:55 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Wagons? Internal combustion engine? Metalurgy?


23 posted on 08/10/2008 4:56:07 PM PDT by Jason Kauppinen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Michael is right, because a theory would require some evidence.

That's not the problem.

The reason ID is not a theory is that it doesn't offer an explanation for any phenomenon. It doesn't even say what phenomenon it is about.

24 posted on 08/10/2008 4:58:32 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

“The evolution folks never said the whole thing was random. Ever hear of natural selection?”

The ID people call natural selection “micro-evolution” which is completely compatible with ID. ID people have a big problem with “macro-evolution”. Proponents of “evolution” can’t explain “macro-evolution”. “Macro-evolution” is the idea that all life originated from non-life.


25 posted on 08/10/2008 5:03:00 PM PDT by bigcat32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bigcat32

Though they also tend to get reeeeal quiet about how the earths current biodiversity and distribution of species (i.e. lemurs in Australia) can be explained post-noah’s ark without recourse to super-evolution.


26 posted on 08/10/2008 5:06:15 PM PDT by Jason Kauppinen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Well, that’s a problem, too. ID can have multiple problems, not the least of which is that several million people have been duped into thinking it’s scientific proof of their religious belief.

ID can’t become a theory because it doesn’t have any facts to support it. It’s an argument against evolution, not using facts, but using beliefs. “That transitional fossil is a freak” is not a fact. You can’t use a philosophical argument against science and pretend it rises to a theory in the scientific sense.

You just can’t.


27 posted on 08/10/2008 5:10:50 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bigcat32
That is not the definition of macroevolution. Macroevolution, simply put, is evolution above the species level.

http://www.google.com/search?q=macroevolution

28 posted on 08/10/2008 5:11:14 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

ping later read


29 posted on 08/10/2008 5:13:19 PM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigcat32
“Macro-evolution” is the idea that all life originated from non-life.

Sorry, that's incorrect. Macro evolution refers to evolution that happens above the species level; genus and family level evolution.

Most ID supporters/creationists cannot accept the actual scientific definitions of evolution, micro or macro, because it destroys their efforts to assail strawmen.

30 posted on 08/10/2008 5:13:28 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jason Kauppinen

“Though they also tend to get reeeeal quiet about how the earths current biodiversity and distribution of species (i.e. lemurs in Australia) can be explained post-noah’s ark without recourse to super-evolution.”

That may be true but how many times in the Earth’s history have there been mass extinctions of life? IE: How many species were doomed along with the dinosauers and thatwas relatively recent. Life before man has been interrupted many times.


31 posted on 08/10/2008 5:14:23 PM PDT by bigcat32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
"..how does that help you choose which of the tens of thousands of religions to follow?"

There are only two choices (religions).

32 posted on 08/10/2008 5:17:43 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (Driving a Phase-2 Operation Chaos Hybrid that burns both gas AND rubber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

“Macroevolution, simply put, is evolution above the species level.”

I’d say that life from non-life is “above the species level”. I can’t argue with that definition.


33 posted on 08/10/2008 5:18:40 PM PDT by bigcat32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
The question I ask is: Why couldn’t God have created evolution?

An intelligent designer could have indeed set the forces of evolution in motion, just as all the natural laws of physics have been established. But even if that is true, how does it inform anyone as to which religion (with their own rules about what you can drink, what you can eat, etc.) to follow? How does it imply that such a creative force (which could well have been from a sophisticated, but not divine) is still operating in our observable universe, and really gives a hoot about what we think, do, or say?

34 posted on 08/10/2008 5:19:45 PM PDT by hunter112 (The 'straight talk express' gets the straight finger express from me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Yes, they do use straw man arguments. That’s a euphemism for saying that they misrepresent the other person’s point of view.


35 posted on 08/10/2008 5:21:31 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

“Why couldn’t God have created evolution?”

Why do you think that is a good question?


36 posted on 08/10/2008 5:22:20 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

True, a theory needs both an explanation and evidence, but ID could have a hypothesis without evidence. The problem is that ID doesn’t have a hypothesis, unless you count Behe’s assertion that it is statistically impossible for neutral mutations to accumulate to the point of enabling a dependent favorable mutation.

That one got shot down pretty badly by an actual experiment.


37 posted on 08/10/2008 5:26:34 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

I don’t know how good it is but when I ask it I get the craziest answers.


38 posted on 08/10/2008 5:28:09 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

The question I’ve had for the intelligent design folks is this: Even if there is evidence of intellegent design, that is irrefutable, how does that help you choose which of the tens of thousands of religions to follow?

There is irrefutable evidence of intelligent design all around us every day. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with helping one choose which religion to follow. Here are a few irrefutable examples of intelligently designed organisms:

1)Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn - Seed number 38D85 for example, which has multiple genetically engineered traits and features.

2)Transgenic mice from Charles River Laboratories.

3)Those dairy cows standing around munching on grass.

4)The beagle sleeping on the floor.

Of course the most interesting thing is that there is no a-priori test which lets you detect an intelligently designed organism. Without prior knowledge of the facts leading up to the creation of the organisms listed above how could you detect whether they were the product of intelligent design - and surely a transgenic mouse represents the result of intelligent design and creation - or evolved without the input of any external intelligent actor? I don't think you can.

39 posted on 08/10/2008 5:38:41 PM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
There are only two choices (religions).

Do I need to direct you to a website to show you that there are myriad religions invented by the mind of man? As an atheist, I think they all were. Nobody's been able to 1) prove intelligent design and 2) connect it to their sect in any convincing way.

40 posted on 08/10/2008 5:39:51 PM PDT by hunter112 (The 'straight talk express' gets the straight finger express from me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bigcat32

Do you understand what a family and genus classification are for biology? When you have evolution at that level - above species - then you have macro evolution.


41 posted on 08/10/2008 5:43:43 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

One of the oldest debating shenanigans in the book - when you can’t answer the question, make up another question and assail that.


42 posted on 08/10/2008 5:45:15 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
An intelligent designer could have indeed set the forces of evolution in motion, just as all the natural laws of physics have been established. But even if that is true, how does it inform anyone as to which religion (with their own rules about what you can drink, what you can eat, etc.) to follow?

Evolution illustrates this truth about the world God placed us in: adaptation leads to survival.

The last 4,000 years has shown us the power and success of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Its commands are like established laws of physics. To wit, if you think you can get from the third floor to the sidewalk by jumping, you can, but the law of gravity ensures you pay a penalty. To wit, if we think we can indulge in immoral sexual values we can, but we pay a penalty. If we think we can indulge in envy and lust and avariciousness we can, but our moral fabric pays an ugly penalty, just like the guy who jumps in water gets wet.

From it we've taken the combined respect and responsibility ethic that has enabled free enterprise and Western Civilization. Clearly when humans adapt their behavior to Judeo-Christian teachings, they thrive. When they don't, they flounder.

To me, evolution IS intelligent design, and the bible is our Divine guide to survival.

43 posted on 08/10/2008 6:06:44 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
So give me some facts to prove natural selection.
44 posted on 08/10/2008 6:17:19 PM PDT by gscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
"ID can’t become a theory because it doesn’t have any facts to support it."

The same can be said for evolutionists - no facts to support it.  It is not science - it is an argument against God.

 

45 posted on 08/10/2008 6:20:34 PM PDT by gscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
The evolution folks never said the whole thing was random. Ever hear of natural selection?

They most certainly do. Natural selection cannot account for the appearance of new species that did not previously exist. The argument is not about micro-evolution (natural selection within species), but transformations of species into new species that cannot breed with their ancestors (macro-evolution).

46 posted on 08/10/2008 6:30:31 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gscc

If you think there are no facts to support evolution you are so out of the argument that your opinion is less than worthless.

You can’t even refute an argument if you can’t acknowledge that there are facts in play.


47 posted on 08/10/2008 6:31:01 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: freeandfreezing
Of course the most interesting thing is that there is no a-priori test which lets you detect an intelligently designed organism.

Actually there is a powerful forensic tool. Organisms engineered by humans don't fit the nested hierarchy of common descent. This demonstrates that engneered things are likely to differ in a predictable way from evolved things.

48 posted on 08/10/2008 6:33:10 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
Most ID supporters/creationists cannot accept the actual scientific definitions of evolution, micro or macro, because it destroys their efforts to assail strawmen.

that's a lie. Every ID supporter/creationist I have heard or read readily agrees that micro-evolution is true. There is no argument there. Macro-evolution is a whole different story.

49 posted on 08/10/2008 6:33:44 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

BTW, Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source for the definition of anything.


50 posted on 08/10/2008 6:35:51 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-186 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