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

Skip to comments.

How Intelligent Design Hurts Conservatives (By making us look like crackpots)
The New Republic ^ | 8/16/05 | Ross Douthat

Posted on 08/18/2005 5:17:34 PM PDT by curiosity

The appeal of "intelligent design" to the American right is obvious. For religious conservatives, the theory promises to uncover God's fingerprints on the building blocks of life. For conservative intellectuals in general, it offers hope that Darwinism will yet join Marxism and Freudianism in the dustbin of pseudoscience. And for politicians like George W. Bush, there's little to be lost in expressing a skepticism about evolution that's shared by millions.

In the long run, though, intelligent design will probably prove a political boon to liberals, and a poisoned chalice for conservatives. Like the evolution wars in the early part of the last century, the design debate offers liberals the opportunity to portray every scientific battle--today, stem-cell research, "therapeutic" cloning, and end-of-life issues; tomorrow, perhaps, large-scale genetic engineering--as a face-off between scientific rigor and religious fundamentalism. There's already a public perception, nurtured by the media and by scientists themselves, that conservatives oppose the "scientific" position on most bioethical issues. Once intelligent design runs out of steam, leaving its conservative defenders marooned in a dinner-theater version of Inherit the Wind, this liberal advantage is likely to swell considerably.

And intelligent design will run out of steam--a victim of its own grand ambitions. What began as a critique of Darwinian theory, pointing out aspects of biological life that modification-through-natural-selection has difficulty explaining, is now foolishly proposed as an alternative to Darwinism. On this front, intelligent design fails conspicuously--as even defenders like Rick Santorum are beginning to realize--because it can't offer a consistent, coherent, and testable story of how life developed. The "design inference" is a philosophical point, not a scientific theory: Even if the existence of a designer is a reasonable inference to draw from the complexity of, say, a bacterial flagellum, one would still need to explain how the flagellum moved from design to actuality.

And unless George W. Bush imposes intelligent design on American schools by fiat and orders the scientific establishment to recant its support for Darwin, intelligent design will eventually collapse--like other assaults on evolution that failed to offer an alternative--under the weight of its own overreaching.

If liberals play their cards right, this collapse could provide them with a powerful rhetorical bludgeon. Take the stem-cell debate, where the great questions are moral, not scientific--whether embryonic human life should be created and destroyed to prolong adult human life. Liberals might win that argument on the merits, but it's by no means a sure thing. The conservative embrace of intelligent design, however, reshapes the ideological battlefield. It helps liberals cast the debate as an argument about science, rather than morality, and paint their enemies as a collection of book-burning, Galileo-silencing fanatics.

This would be the liberal line of argument anyway, even without the controversy surrounding intelligent design. "The president is trapped between religion and science over stem cells," declared a Newsweek cover story last year; "Religion shouldn't undercut new science," the San Francisco Chronicle insisted; "Leadership in 'therapeutic cloning' has shifted abroad," the New York Times warned, because American scientists have been "hamstrung" by "religious opposition"--and so on and so forth. But liberalism's science-versus-religion rhetoric is only likely to grow more effective if conservatives continue to play into the stereotype by lining up to take potshots at Darwin.

Already, savvy liberal pundits are linking bioethics to the intelligent design debate. "In a world where Koreans are cloning dogs," Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote last week, "can the U.S. afford--ethically or economically--to raise our children on fraudulent biology?" (Message: If you're for Darwin, you're automatically for unfettered cloning research.) Or again, this week's TNR makes the pretty-much-airtight "case against intelligent design"; last week, the magazine called opponents of embryo-destroying stem cell research "flat-earthers." The suggested parallel is obvious: "Science" is on the side of evolution and on the side of embryo-killing.

Maureen Dowd, in her inimitable way, summed up the liberal argument earlier this year:

Exploiting God for political ends has set off powerful, scary forces in America: a retreat on teaching evolution, most recently in Kansas; fights over sex education . . . a demonizing of gays; and a fear of stem cell research, which could lead to more of a "culture of life" than keeping one vegetative woman hooked up to a feeding tube.

Terri Schiavo, sex education, stem cell research--on any issue that remotely touches on science, a GOP that's obsessed with downing Darwin will be easily tagged as medieval, reactionary, theocratic. And this formula can be applied to every new bioethical dilemma that comes down the pike. Earlier this year, for instance, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued ethical guidelines for research cloning, which blessed the creation of human-animal "chimeras"--animals seeded with human cells. New York Times reporter Nicholas Wade, writing on the guidelines, declared that popular repugnance at the idea of such creatures is based on "the pre-Darwinian notion that species are fixed and penalties [for cross-breeding] are severe." In other words, if you're opposed to creating pig-men--carefully, of course, with safeguards in place (the NAS guidelines suggested that chimeric animals be forbidden from mating)--you're probably stuck back in the pre-Darwinian ooze with Bishop Wilberforce and William Jennings Bryan.

There's an odd reversal-of-roles at work here. In the past, it was often the right that tried to draw societal implications from Darwinism, and the left that stood against them. And for understandable reasons: When people draw political conclusions from Darwin's theory, they're nearly always inegalitarian conclusions. Hence social Darwinism, hence scientific racism, hence eugenics.

Which is why however useful intelligent design may be as a rhetorical ploy, liberals eager to claim the mantle of science in the bioethics battle should beware. The left often thinks of modern science as a child of liberalism, but if anything, the reverse is true. And what scientific thought helped to forge--the belief that all human beings are equal--scientific thought can undermine as well. Conservatives may be wrong about evolution, but they aren't necessarily wrong about the dangers of using Darwin, or the National Academy of Sciences, as a guide to political and moral order.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; education; evolution; hesaidcrackhehheh; immaturetitle; intelligentdesign; politics; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-953 next last
To: Just mythoughts
There isn't?

What about the section immediately following "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."? You know, that little piece that explains the how's and why's ~ to wit: "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."

Looks pretty much like a formless, void and dark "soup" of some kind ~ maybe even a "deep soup".

Could be all sorts of things come out of that ~ maybe the Universe itself.

101 posted on 08/18/2005 6:11:51 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Excellent point. ID isn't just bad theology, it's blasphemy.
102 posted on 08/18/2005 6:13:37 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
It seems to me that there is a fundemental question here that physicits need to address. Quantum Mechanics is founded on principles of PROBABILITY: (e.g. nuclear decay. One cannot predict when a particular atom will decay but half lives are easily calculable). Other theories can predict the distributions of say a roullet table without being able to determine the fate of a particular spin. With enough information and a different theory (Newtons Laws of Motion) we can determine the fate of a particular spin. Can we disprove with any certainty that sometime in the future new information and theories will surface that are able to predict the decay of a particular atom? Is it proven that decay can never, ever be predicted on a particular level or is it possible that yet to be discovered forces are at work.

at least the ID people are looking and asking the questions . . .

103 posted on 08/18/2005 6:13:44 PM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pcx99
What's funny is that some of the people who support intelligent design the most aren't ignorant bible thumping conservatives but pysisists and astronomers on the bleeding edge of science who must deal with the impossibility of all this being a random coincidence on a daily basis.

That's not true. You've been sold a bill of goods by people who collect millions of dollars from donors who are fervent believers in creationism and are willing to push their belief with their money.

Look up the "Discovery Institute". Their money comes from the moonies, and a large donor that thinks the US Constitution needs to be replaced by a Christian theocracy. No joke.

Anything can be sold with enough money. Even junk science.

104 posted on 08/18/2005 6:14:12 PM PDT by narby (There are Bloggers, and then there are Freepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
I would not call a fellow of the Claremont Institute my political enemy.
105 posted on 08/18/2005 6:14:25 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
The author of this piece is a fellow at the Claremont institute, hardly a leftist bastion.

Well I am not sure about that. In this passage he equates the right with Hitler:

In the past, it was often the right that tried to draw societal implications from Darwinism, and the left that stood against them. And for understandable reasons: When people draw political conclusions from Darwin's theory, they're nearly always inegalitarian conclusions. Hence social Darwinism, hence scientific racism, hence eugenics.
106 posted on 08/18/2005 6:15:06 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious

I agree. Intelligent Design may not be science (does anyone claim it IS science), but that doesn't make it wrong. There are many versions of intelligenct design, many of which are not inconsistent with evolutionary theories.

By the way, where are we in providing examples of inter-species evolution?


107 posted on 08/18/2005 6:15:09 PM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

"The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."


Dig deeper the verb "was" is not the correct verb, should be "became", was not created that way "formless and void".

Isaiah 45:18 is second witness for it not being created in vain.


108 posted on 08/18/2005 6:15:54 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I personally don't care if believing in the Lord my Savior makes me look silly to a bunch of heathen immoral liberals. They have their own afterlife to contend with, I have mine.


109 posted on 08/18/2005 6:16:55 PM PDT by fish hawk (I am only one, but I am not the only one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
Intelligent Design may not be science (does anyone claim it IS science

Yes, and that's preciesely the problem. If it was merely a philosophical outlook, then there would be nothing wrong with it.

110 posted on 08/18/2005 6:18:32 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

Random mutation, natural selection and heritability all require life as a prerequisite. Life itself could not have evolved through Darwinian processes.


111 posted on 08/18/2005 6:20:07 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
I personally don't care if believing in the Lord my Savior makes me look silly to a bunch of heathen immoral liberals.

Accepting Jesus as Lord has nothing to do with it. Rejecting the evidence He left us in His creation is what makes you a crackpot.

There is no conflict between Christianity and evolution.

112 posted on 08/18/2005 6:20:29 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
I read the Book and there is nothing in it about evolving from a formerly believed primordial cold, recently discovered hot soup.

I should hope not!

113 posted on 08/18/2005 6:21:16 PM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
This article overstates the case. Conservatives are mixed in their opinion about the intelligent design theory as proposed as a curriculum by the Kansas schools. There is no consensus. Bush offered nothing much more (as I remember, I might be wrong) than a nod that there should be a reasoned debate about the issue. There was no wholesale endorsement. I don't have a strong opinion about the theory as a curriculum.

Evolution itself suffers from the same mix. Most every scientist believes in evolution (slow change) and the process of natural selection within species. We see evidence of it within species all the time. However, the theory of evolution that living organisms and systems evolved from simplicity to complexity over millions/billions of years is not axiomatic. In fact, it is problematic. Again, serious scientists don't doubt the fact that evolution within species has and does occur. Many things about Darwin's original work and the work of scientists building and expanding upon his original theses has expanded our understanding of how things and systems work. However, there are reasonable, bright, sincere, brilliant, competent and serious scientists that question the idea that the theory of evolution explains the origin of species from a root specie or cell or whatever.

Of course, though, you have double the religious fervor of the most strident and dogmatic fundamentalist organization visited upon you if you should ever point this out to the cultic evolutionists. Their entire identity and paradigm of existence is threatened by reasoned questioning and debate regarding the fundamental problems the Darwin theory has had and that has been pointed out for at least the forty plus years of serious literature I have read.

A couple of almost throwaway lines Bush uttered has caused an earthquake. It smacks of a transparent insecurity inherent in people who have their faith in flawed scientific theory and flawed social theory.

To all the hullabaloo, I say "good". It's about time we start back up a debate about the origin of species. There may be flaws in the curriculum as being proposed in Kansas. I don't know, I haven't read it myself. However, I am willing to bet money it isn't nearly as flawed as the hogwash being proported by the cult who have their faith in the God of evolution.

114 posted on 08/18/2005 6:21:35 PM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, a pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
I personally don't care if believing in the Lord my Savior makes me look silly to a bunch of heathen immoral liberals. They have their own afterlife to contend with, I have mine.

It's not believing in the Lord that makes one look stupid, it's trashing science with fake posts in support of creationism/ID/YE.

115 posted on 08/18/2005 6:22:06 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
Also, I do not think "the public" really cares all that much about it.

You are right; however, only as long as it stays on the fringe and out of sight/out of mind, if it becomes a big issue we will be burned by it.

Look what happened in Kansas the 1st time they tried this §¶‡† back in 1999, the Democrats ran against the Republican school board members on a pro-evolution platform and won. It was only this year that the Republicans regained control and apparently they haven't learned.

So if this mythology posing as science doesn't fly in Kansas it's certainly not going fly in the rest of the country.

How many blue states do you think we will turn with this BS? You can most certainly forget about ever getting Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire or Wisconsin back to our side.

Meanwhile we will probably end up losing Colorado & Nevada and possibly Florida and Ohio.

116 posted on 08/18/2005 6:23:01 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
However, there are reasonable, bright, sincere, brilliant, competent and serious scientists that question the idea that the theory of evolution explains the origin of species from a root specie or cell or whatever.

Yes, and they make up something like 0.0001% of all scientists. Get real.

Someone showed that there are more biologists named "Steve" than there are scientists from all disciplines who question evolution.

117 posted on 08/18/2005 6:23:53 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
There are several competing general ideas out there that are described as being "Intelligent Design". There's also Panspermia ~ and it has two major forms ~ one of which says life is so ancient that it predates the Universe so we can't really know where it came from, or how, and another form which says life is actually a creation of this Universe and arises as a consequence of the interaction of fundamental laws government chemistry and physics.

In both cases Panspermia's advocates say there's simply not enough evidence to demonstrate that life could originate on Earth given that it is so small and inconsequential, or that the mutations necessary for evolution can occur in such a limited environment as is available on Earth.

There are, of course, variations on those points of view.

Panspermia happens to be consistent with the traditional view which has God bringing life to Earth from other sources. It is not, however, consistent with the geocentrism inherent in current evolutionary theories which require that everything take place on Earth. Further, it is not consistent with the traditionalist viewpoint that Earth was created only a few thousand years ago.

Presumably, someday, we'll understand enough about life to figure out how it works.

118 posted on 08/18/2005 6:23:57 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
(does anyone claim it IS science),

You must be new to these threads ...

119 posted on 08/18/2005 6:24:15 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
I personally don't care if believing in the Lord my Savior makes me look silly to a bunch of heathen immoral liberals.

St Augustine of Hippo could see the problem with it.

(Actually that's a problem with the CreatioID community - like their founder Ellen G White, they are revolutionary believers, not traditionalists)

120 posted on 08/18/2005 6:24:21 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Natural Selection is the Free Market : Intelligent Design is the Centrally Planned Economy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
I would not call a fellow of the Claremont Institute my political enemy.

I'd call anybody who thinks the state has the power to order the death of citizens who have committed no crime my political enemy. I'd call anybody who thinks the government has a "right" to take my money for the utilitarian purpose of creating human life to destroy it my political enemy. And I'd call anybody implying that President Bush might order ID be taught as a replacement fot the ToE a lunatic as well as my political enemy.

121 posted on 08/18/2005 6:25:29 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: qam1

Well said.


122 posted on 08/18/2005 6:26:21 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

It's going to be a little hard to persuade India, Japan, most of Europe, Israel etc to stop research and buy into this stuff.

Progress will happen, just not here.


123 posted on 08/18/2005 6:26:46 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: narby
You've been sold a bill of goods

Most of those guys actually paid for the "bill of goods". DVD's, tapes, books, ...

124 posted on 08/18/2005 6:26:47 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Your calling DNA a mish-mosh is premature at least. Not you nor anyone else knows enough of the whole interlinked network of chemistry and mechanics in the cell, of the cells in a organism, of the organism in a eco-system to objectively make such a statement.

No, I am saying my God can do a lot better than as design we are only one generation away from surpassing.

Read Derbyshire's Article

Money Quote, speaking of the God of Inteligent Design "Their God is a science-fiction God, a high-I.Q. space alien plodding along a decade or two ahead of our understanding. The God of Judaism and Christianity is infinitely vaster and stranger than that, and far above our poking, groping inquiries into the furniture of our rocky little daytime cosmos."

So9

125 posted on 08/18/2005 6:26:49 PM PDT by Servant of the 9 (Those Poor Poor Rubber Cows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

"Accepting Jesus as Lord has nothing to do with it. Rejecting the evidence He left us in His creation is what makes you a crackpot.

There is no conflict between Christianity and evolution."


????????? and I thought this was about ID hurting conservatives. What brand of Christianity do you hail from?


126 posted on 08/18/2005 6:26:56 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Most of the scientific community is actually moving toward intelligent design,

Do you think anyone here believes that lie?

127 posted on 08/18/2005 6:27:10 PM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Considering that I am one of those folks of the belief (informed by archaeology) that the "original" to the initial text found in Genesis was written in Sumerian, I'd suggest that translation criticisms based on our understanding of Hebrew may or may not be relevant.

It's always best to go to the Source on these things, and English, Greek, Latin and Hebrew are entirely too recent a creation to be used very well to evaluate Divine revelations.

128 posted on 08/18/2005 6:27:27 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Re:"The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."

" Dig deeper the verb "was" is not the correct verb, should be "became", was not created that way "formless and void"

Where?
The Earth became formless and void?
darkness became over the surface of the deep?
or, the Spirit of God became over the surface of the waters?

What are "the waters" do you know?

129 posted on 08/18/2005 6:27:49 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: soupcon

You said: The flaws of mankind are too obvious and too plentiful. These flaws alone should have squashed the ID theory.

Perhaps among the flaws of mankind is the inability to articulate the concept of ID. If the ID theory were that man created everything your statement would have more validity, IMO.

It seems to me that in every crevice of missing knowledge and understanding of science, there is room for a Creator. These crevices don't prove the existence of God, they only fail to exclude Him.

I don't even approach any expertise in science of any kind, but am I not correct that evolution deals with the development of life from one form into another, and not the origins of life itself? Has anyone created life out of nothing? Or even out of non-living matter? If not, I don't see how even scientists can exclude the possiblity that an unknown Being created life.


130 posted on 08/18/2005 6:28:24 PM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
is now foolishly proposed as an alternative to Darwinism

Statements that provide comic relief for the Lord

131 posted on 08/18/2005 6:29:39 PM PDT by apackof2 (In my simple way, I guess you could say I'm living in the BIG TIME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9

That Derbyshire article reminds me of articles I have read (in a historical context, years after the events) about how amazingly wonderful a stock buy General Atomics is! Mortgage the house and Buy It Now!


132 posted on 08/18/2005 6:30:21 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: tamalejoe
Calling people like Michael Denton and Michael Behe "crackpots"

What else could you call such crackpots?

133 posted on 08/18/2005 6:31:52 PM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
No issue makes us look like a bunch of uneducated moonbats

US?
You speak for YOURSELF

134 posted on 08/18/2005 6:32:52 PM PDT by apackof2 (In my simple way, I guess you could say I'm living in the BIG TIME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
This has been argued here many, many times before and the ID posters fully know that evolution does not address the creation of anything, whether it be life or the universe.

Yet, I feel sometimes compelled to do the impossible: educate ID'ers about science. The goal, months and years ago, was not to have conservatives tarred by their brush, lest the leftist MSM would use ID aginst conservatives.

But no! Thanks to those of my fellow conservatives who are also intellectually-limited religious zealots, The MSM is beginning to paint all conservatives as akin to the "American Taliban."

135 posted on 08/18/2005 6:33:11 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Where has Douthat advocated such things? Last time I checked, he was against embryonic stem cell research. He even uses the phrase, "embryo killing" in the article.
136 posted on 08/18/2005 6:33:13 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Most people think both ID and evolution should be taught and debated in school.

Is "most people" a mouse you keep in your poicket?

137 posted on 08/18/2005 6:33:28 PM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
If not, I don't see how even scientists can exclude the possiblity that an unknown Being created life.

Scientists don't exclude that possibility.

Compare it to the birth of a baby. Once, people just thought the stork brought them but now we know about insemination, cell division, genetics and a lot of other details. Much better to know the details rather than just say God did it. That is what the creos/ID'ers are pushing. Just stop the progress and say God did it. Stupid.

138 posted on 08/18/2005 6:33:28 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Yes, and they make up something like 0.0001% of all scientists. Get real. Someone showed that there are more biologists named "Steve" than there are scientists from all disciplines who question evolution.

I did not state that scientists question evolution. I stated precisely the opposite: that most every one, including myself, did not question the facts easily observed and reported on regarding evolution and natural selection within species. You must have skimmed my message or merely chose not to address the distinction.

So, you unwittingly proved my point: To the cult of evolution there is no equivocation, there is no room for grays, there is no room for doubt nor questioning nor debate around the issues. It is the religious cultic faith of evolution wholesale with all its garbage or it is nothing. Reread my original post. Stop passing judgement trying to dismiss thoughtful posts with quick one-liners to make yourself feel better about your superior wit and intellect.

139 posted on 08/18/2005 6:34:47 PM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, a pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster; tamalejoe
What else could you call such crackpots?

Rich; from all the DVD's they have sold.

140 posted on 08/18/2005 6:35:15 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
On this front, intelligent design fails conspicuously--as even defenders like Rick Santorum are beginning to realize--because it can't offer a consistent, coherent, and testable story of how life developed.

The bag is empty. ID has nothing to say. It's the only theory around which is about another theory being wrong.

There's only one thing keeping the left from killing us with this. The mainstream media doesn't know squat from science.

141 posted on 08/18/2005 6:35:17 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
And what kind of agenda are the evos pushing????

Science!

142 posted on 08/18/2005 6:35:19 PM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

The terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are pure inventions of the creationists. No such distinction exists in science. There is ONLY "evolution">>>

Bologney, I have had arguments with died in the wool pony tail wearing dirty frock and pocket protecting evcolutionist who speak of micro and macro evolution as evidence in evolution. Hell doing a google of micro evolution brings up 4.2 million hits, an awful lot for making things up.


143 posted on 08/18/2005 6:36:04 PM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany it now is: Question Everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
As an engineer and scientist I wish to introduce you to another uneducated colleague:

I want to know God's thoughts... the rest are details.
Albert Einstein

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.
Albert Einstein

God always takes the simplest way.
Albert Einstein

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
Albert Einstein

God does not play dice.
Albert Einstein

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
Albert Einstein

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
Albert Einstein

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
Albert Einstein

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
Albert Einstein

Why do you feel the need to be offensive?

Are you threatened buy our beliefs?
144 posted on 08/18/2005 6:36:06 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: shoedog
Actually more and more of the scientific community is moving to the intelligent design theroy!

More and more each year Behe, Dembski, and Wells are moving to ID!

145 posted on 08/18/2005 6:36:25 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
So, you unwittingly proved my point: To the cult of evolution there is no equivocation, there is no room for grays, there is no room for doubt nor questioning nor debate around the issues. It is the religious cultic faith of evolution wholesale with all its garbage or it is nothing.

Once again, bearing false witness. Shame, Shame on you.

146 posted on 08/18/2005 6:36:48 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Have one thing to add / question ...

The "Intelligent Design" definition is just what?...

Politically correct to replace the word GOD?...give me a damn break...this is going too far and as a God fearing engineer with an IQ far above average I can tell you from experience...I've designed a lot of amazing things using my intelligence...I can assure you I'm NOT God!...but that leads me to my next question for all of you that have all the answers ...where did the intelligence come from?
147 posted on 08/18/2005 6:38:24 PM PDT by Hotdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: qam1
How many blue states do you think we will turn with this BS? You can most certainly forget about ever getting Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire or Wisconsin back to our side.

Meanwhile we will probably end up losing Colorado & Nevada and possibly Florida and Ohio.

Really? What evidence do you have to support this assertion? Certainly not the exit polling from the last election where neither evolution nor intelligent design placed on issues concerning Americans. Of course, moral values did place, right at the top of the list. And lo and behold guess what happened? Yup, you got it, the Republicans extended their majorities all across the nation.

You guys remind of a stroy about a boy and a wolf.

148 posted on 08/18/2005 6:38:33 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I suggest you actually read about ID rather than putting words in there mouth, ID by its first proponents says it is meant to compliment and even explain processes that darwinism, neo darwinism anmd the like cannot explain. It is not meant to replace it, as evolution did to creationism, and you would assert.


149 posted on 08/18/2005 6:39:41 PM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany it now is: Question Everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
And what scientific thought helped to forge--the belief that all human beings are equal

The author seems to be referring to the Declaration of Independence "all men are CREATED equal" and "endowed by their CREATOR" with inalienable rights. He claims this concept was forged by science and ignores the Christian roots of the concept of equality.

Romans 10:12 - For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11 - Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

150 posted on 08/18/2005 6:39:50 PM PDT by GeorgiaYankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-953 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