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 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 951-953 next last
To: Jorge
I never said all who repeat this accusation are "the Devil".

So maybe the Devil possessed WildTurkey for a bit?

751 posted on 08/19/2005 8:06:41 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
So maybe the Devil possessed WildTurkey for a bit?

That's not a very nice thing to say about WildTurkey.

752 posted on 08/19/2005 8:08:49 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Well, I have more noted that the marketing is based on the hope of a healthy life span rather than an extended one.

There comes a time when we die mostly because we just wear out if nothing intervenes to drag it out. I think the hope of stem cell research if for the diseases of age that ruin life rather than an extension of a normal life span. Altzheimers, Parkinsonism, kidney failure.

And is a natural life span interfered with by chronic debilitating diseases. I don't want to dodder on into my nineties. But I want my sixties, seventies and early 80's to be pain free and mobile. If my mind goes, that is okay.


753 posted on 08/19/2005 8:14:08 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: Torie

How does our doddering in our eighties interfere with our progeny's progeny? I mean, do they need our money for college or something?

As long as we can care for ourselves, there is enough space for all of us. And my grandchildren adore me. And I will give them my money so they won't be sitting around wishing me gone.


754 posted on 08/19/2005 8:16:47 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

A natural life span if everything works is about 100. Granted my great grandmother lived to be 101 (1845-1947), and decided to die, and did, on a dime, when her favorite eldest son died at 79, with her having no apparent health problems per se. She was sentient and ambulatory and active until her final exit. Or so my grandmother told me (grandmother was the youngest of the six who survived to adulthood).


755 posted on 08/19/2005 8:23:40 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I guess I buy into that. The combination of linguistics and genetics must be fascinating. Good luck with that.
756 posted on 08/19/2005 8:29:17 PM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: Torie

So if the natural life span is about 100, why not get there intact? Is it really extending the natural life span or achieving the natural life span in relatively good shape what is motivating the whole stem cell thing. I don't see it as selfish to want that and don't see wanting that as being harmful to our children et al. Unless of course they just want our money and want to have less payout of benefits to old people. And that is understandable but craven. I prefer my craveness to theirs any day.


757 posted on 08/19/2005 8:32:12 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
I guess I buy into that. The combination of linguistics and genetics must be fascinating. Good luck with that.

Some of my colleagues say "You can't dig up a language."

Wrong. There are correlations between linguistics and genetics in a number of places around the world. Look up the Bantu expansion, for example.

mtDNA is really helping out.

Hard Anthropology can be fun (especially if you're not afraid to get your hands dirty).

758 posted on 08/19/2005 8:35:19 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
It is the 150 or more natural life span which disturbs me. If that happens, we might go the way of the Spartans. We should NOT go there.
759 posted on 08/19/2005 8:36:29 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: Torie

I don't think we could if we wanted to. Really.


760 posted on 08/19/2005 8:38:25 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: Torie

I don't think we could if we wanted to. Really.


761 posted on 08/19/2005 8:38:25 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

"When you construct something with the knowledge that it will do evil, you are responsible. God created man knowing he would do evil; he is responsible."

So what did God do to you that you are holding him responsible for?


762 posted on 08/20/2005 2:04:37 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
The answer is obvious. If the father controlled the kids destiny by construction, the father is at fault. Next.

Yeay, pretty obvious, n'est-ce pas? But try arguing that with posters who just quote scripture back at you.
Postulating an omnimax creator god has certain ramification which don't vanish no matter how many Bible verses you trow at it.

Omniscience not only means that this god knows exactly what will happen at any point in time but also why, i.e. he knows exactly what chain of events led to your decision X instead of Y at time T.
Taken together with this god's omnipotence it's completely unimaginable how his creation can make decisions which he didn't intend.

Of course one could argue that this god is either not omniscient or not omnipotent (or even both) but I don't think most believers want to concede these points.

So IMHO this seems to be just an other case of wanting to eat your cake and have it too.

763 posted on 08/20/2005 4:01:09 AM PDT by BMCDA (Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. -- L. Wittgenstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Or, (oh, the horror), 100 Ted Kennedy's.

With fully pickled and preserved stem cells no less.

764 posted on 08/20/2005 4:05:22 AM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
"There is no debate. Its a fact. The terms are being taught now as I demonstrated. Pre-1980 is irrevelant.

Uh, the fact that you found ONE reference in ONE college textbook in no way proves that such is the overall mode of thought in biology. For all I know, that text is a product of the "Discovery Institute", or that the particular biology prof is a closet creationist and chose it specifically for that language. Your "proof" isn't one.

"And watch your language if you wish to post at this site."

Gee--I didn't know your name was also "Admin Moderator". Kiss off!!!

765 posted on 08/20/2005 5:26:04 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
No, what annoys me is that all your posts I've noticed are a variation on the same idiotic theme: "I don't have a dog in this fight, but while I'm waiting for the next rerun of Jackass to come on, why don't I grace y'all with my opinion anyhow? You guys don't really think anyone cares about your silly little debates, do ya? And, BTW, if you evos weren't so inflexible and overbearing you might actually get someone to give ya the time of day. Sure, maybe once in a while some long-suffering creationist breaks down and let's off a bit of steam, but no wonder as uptight and vicious as y'all evos are. I mean, check out how ever so fashionably droll I am by comparison!"

Well, what is someone supposed to say to that drivel? Sure, if I were talking to someone face to face who said that to me I know what I'd say. I'd start with: "Yeah, you 'freakin' dumb@$$, I didn't just stumble in here on the way to the Britney Spears thread. I do in fact think this topic is important." Then it'd be all downhill from there. So tell me, whatta ya want from 'us evos' to make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Will a lollipop do, or maybe a popsicle?

But of course I can't say that to you here on FR so I guess we've nothing to discuss. It's no big deal anyhow, since you can just very safely assume that some variation of the above would be my reply to you no matter what. Whether or not you've checked out my profile as I suggested, then you now know this is the last reply you'll ever get from me. Go jerk your own self off.

766 posted on 08/20/2005 5:26:49 AM PDT by AntiGuv ("Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
"So micro and macro evolution only appeared in text books, and scientific debate because us crackpots inserted the terms?"

Yup! "Memetics" is insidious. A small, noisy minority can sometimes cause a change in the terms used in a debate. There are a huge number of examples---as from "pro-abortion" to "pro-choice", from "terrorists" to "insurgents". It goes on all the time.

767 posted on 08/20/2005 5:28:31 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Whaaaat? BTK has a Free will.

No. God had programmed BTK's existence, just as he has programmed yours.

768 posted on 08/20/2005 8:17:53 AM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
So what did God do to you that you are holding him responsible for?

Hmmm. I am just engaging in honest philosophical conversation. You have a problem, I think.

769 posted on 08/20/2005 8:21:00 AM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA
Taken together with this god's omnipotence it's completely unimaginable how his creation can make decisions which he didn't intend.

Of course one could argue that this god is either not omniscient or not omnipotent (or even both) but I don't think most believers want to concede these points.

I was easier to handle when all one needed to say was "The Devil made me do it."

770 posted on 08/20/2005 8:26:54 AM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 763 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
AP is calling ID a "theory".
O'Reilly is promoting discussion of ID in the science class

We are doomed!

771 posted on 08/20/2005 8:28:26 AM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

To: Jorge; RightWingNilla
That's not a very nice thing to say about WildTurkey.

It's ok. I will ask God to forgive him.

772 posted on 08/20/2005 8:32:41 AM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
" No. God had programmed BTK's existence, just as he has programmed yours"

You been taking lessons from the Discovery institute?

773 posted on 08/20/2005 8:56:57 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey; Jorge
It's ok. I will ask God to forgive him.

Thanks. I may be possessed by the Devil too. What should I do about it?

774 posted on 08/20/2005 9:21:03 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla; WildTurkey
Jorge never said any said anyone was possessed by anything.
Yet now you and this turkey keep repeating that and pinging Jorge too.
For turkey this kind of crap is just engaging in honest philosophical conversation.
Why don't you knuckleheads and all your little buddies start up your own thread with this and see how far it goes.

BrainsofTurkey using the words honest, philosophical, conversation all in the same sentence...
HAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! LMAO!!! Ohhhhh you little knuckleheads Ohhh make it stop!! little brainofturkey!! LMOA!!! its hard to breathe turkey!!!!

Now little turkey..., I have no more time for you....
775 posted on 08/20/2005 10:18:25 AM PDT by mordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: mordo
HAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! LMAO!!! Ohhhhh you little knuckleheads Ohhh make it stop!! little brainofturkey!! LMOA!!! its hard to breathe turkey!!!!

Are you feeling OK mister?

776 posted on 08/20/2005 10:26:26 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: general_re; Torie
That point of view is virtually certain to be outvoted. The history of such things suggests very strongly that human nature is such that whenever a new technology comes along that offers the possibility of a better or more comfortable life, people will use it, and use it to the absolute fullest extent possible, consequences be damned. Then again, someone has to play the part of Cassandra - it never works, but someone's gotta do it ;)

The richest segment of our society is "old people" who have worked their entire lives and amassed personal assets. I agree that they will spend their money on anything that will alleviate their pain, improve their health, or give more time to indulge in the joys of their life (whatever they are). No law can prevent that, nor should it in a land that purports to guarantee us the "pursuit of happiness" and all that entails.

777 posted on 08/20/2005 10:56:58 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Well a law can prohibit funding to slow down the invention of the aging process interfering agents the rich geezers want to buy. A law can achieve that.


778 posted on 08/20/2005 11:00:05 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Well a law can prohibit funding to slow down the invention of the aging process interfering agents the rich geezers want to buy. A law can achieve that.

Sheer baloney. Simple economics says you only displace the research into other hands or drive it underground. Which option do you prefer?

779 posted on 08/20/2005 11:04:45 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

You need to wake up. The ones with the religious view are those who say that the universe was caused by a big bang. Letting science teachers teach this nonsense is leading society astray.


780 posted on 08/20/2005 11:10:43 AM PDT by Holden Magroin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

I don't see what the problem is with taxpayers deciding how the government spends their money. Do you? Sure others will do the research, but presumably with less money, without Uncle Sam writing checks. The underground comment is silly. Even assuming the issue were one of funding rather than prohibition, the idea the research would be done illegally in some basement is ludicrous. It would just be done in countries where it is legal.


781 posted on 08/20/2005 11:11:53 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Erratum: Even assuming the issue were one of funding prohibition rather than prohibition funding ...
782 posted on 08/20/2005 11:16:22 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
I may be possessed by the Devil too. What should I do about it?

Garlic enemas, every two hours. For forty days and forty nights. Always works.

783 posted on 08/20/2005 11:16:57 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I think I may have found a new tagline.


784 posted on 08/20/2005 11:21:01 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Aren't words fun?

Rhetorical exercises are what most Darwinians excel at.

They are the true inheritors of the folks who could count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

"Religion" is HATED by such folks. They play with the "all religions are equivalent!, so NONE are valid!" , or "no one can prove GOD, so no religion is valid",...ad nasum.

These po' scared folks will do or say anything to deny GOD, because in their fevered little brain pans they consider such a concept as mere superstitious nonsense.

But the real reason they fear and hate GOD is because they really hate themselves. They hate that there is a spiritual hole deep inside their human souls that refuses to be filled with the words, and excuses, and distractions, they try to fill it with.

Because when they are out under an infinite shining night sky, ablaze with tribes and nations stars, or when they stand on the edge of some dark storm churned sea, that feeling of smallness we all get, is their enemy.

Because in the end we are all mere finite specks called humanity.

These folks say they face the abyss alone with "rational" "scientific" thought. These self declared "superior" folks say they have no need for ancient superstitions like GOD.

But their rage and anger are fed by what they really feel when they are alone in the dark. Of course they would never admit this.

Aren't words fun?
785 posted on 08/20/2005 11:34:10 AM PDT by porkchops 4 mahound ("Evolution, opiate of the Atheists")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I don't see what the problem is with taxpayers deciding how the government spends their money. Do you?

Let's just survey the trailer park to see what they want our research money spent on, shall we?

Sure others will do the research, but presumably with less money, without Uncle Sam writing checks. The underground comment is silly.

Not at all. Do you really think the 50 billion spent on AIDS research in the last 20 years was really spent on studying one little retrovirus?

Even assuming the issue were one of funding rather than prohibition, the idea the research would be done illegally in some basement is ludicrous.

The issue is only funding. If you outlaw something specific, all you do is change the title on the research grants.

It would just be done in countries where it is legal.

It's already being done there as fast as possible and they are hoping we keep shooting ourselves in the foot instead of competing.

786 posted on 08/20/2005 11:37:05 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Well now you are disparaging the right of citizens to have a say via the public square as to how their money is spent, with a condescending remark that folks with views different than yours have a trailor trash mentality, posit fraud that cannot be checked so let's just make it all nice and legal, and suggest that the US needs to do it just to compete, or somebody else will get the brass ring (no doubt we should fund cloning, and a host of other things to facilitate and expedite unbottling assorted and sundry genies for the same reason, in a race to the lowest common denominator).

In short, your post is quite a mouthful in my view.

787 posted on 08/20/2005 11:43:16 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Facts are stubborn things.


788 posted on 08/20/2005 11:47:25 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]

To: porkchops 4 mahound

The Creator, were He to meet the creation half-way, what might He do? Is it unreasonable to assume He might make use of human language? Is it outside the realm of reason that He might have a set pattern of words not subject to addition of correction? Would He leave it at a bunch of words, or might He also jump into the fray and do something?

The biblical texts indicate that in all situations where the Creator has had, shall we say "direct," dealings with humans, He could not reveal Himself in all His glory. That would require such a suspension of the physical laws of the universe that no human flesh would survive. Thus, it is for scientific, physical reasons, that we are not permitted a "face to face" with the Creator this very moment.

But, when the time was right He entered into biological structure, blood, DNA, and the like. "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." And, as needed from time to time (as it has always been) the laws of "nature" were momentarily suspended, as if it were not a miracle to begin with that the earth and heavens exist and continue as they do.

Drives the Darwinists and materialists nuts, as if science cannot function in an environment where the laws of physics just might demonstrate some downright unreasonable behavior on occasion. At the same time they will be the first to tell you "direct observation" can be deceiving. "We don't have to see a history of amoeba-to-man to know it is true and scientific."

What a hoot. Thanks for your post.


789 posted on 08/20/2005 11:52:43 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Well now you are disparaging the right of citizens to have a say via the public square as to how their money is spent, with a condescending remark that folks with views different than yours have a trailor trash mentality,

No insult intended. But if you ask for mob rule, you get mob rule. Would you prohibit illiterates from voting on basic research grants? Mental patients? Sciencephobes? Kerry supporters? Where do you draw the line?

posit fraud that cannot be checked so let's just make it all nice and legal,

Not necessarily fraud at all. The same basic research (especially biological research) can fit into a wide variety of research grant categories. And if the research has already been started, few scientists are stupid enough to flush it down the drain for purely political reasons.

and suggest that the US needs to do it just to compete, or somebody else will get the brass ring (no doubt we should fund cloning, and a host of other things to facilitate and expedite unbottling assorted and sundry genies for the same reason, in a race to the lowest common denominator).

If you prohibit basic research, you fall behind in more ways than just the research itself.

790 posted on 08/20/2005 12:07:41 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
If you prohibit basic research, you fall behind in more ways than just the research itself.

Don't need no stinkin' research!


791 posted on 08/20/2005 12:34:09 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: mordo
Now little turkey..., I have no more time for you....

Bye.

792 posted on 08/20/2005 4:49:55 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: porkchops 4 mahound

You surely seem to think you are a know-it-all. Too bad you no nothing.


793 posted on 08/20/2005 4:53:08 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: mordo
Yet now you and this turkey keep repeating that and pinging Jorge too.

I ignored both of jorge's posts.

794 posted on 08/20/2005 4:55:43 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: mordo
BrainsofTurkey using the words honest, philosophical, conversation all in the same sentence... HAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! LMAO!!! Ohhhhh you little knuckleheads Ohhh make it stop!! little brainofturkey!! LMOA!!! its hard to breathe turkey!!!!

hmmm. I think you have a problem ...

795 posted on 08/20/2005 5:04:30 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Drives the Darwinists and materialists nuts, as if science cannot function in an environment where the laws of physics just might demonstrate some downright unreasonable behavior on occasion.

What's it gonna be? Bleeding statues, Images in church windows? On cheese sandwiches?

Feater, Fester, Fester. Science can only examing phenomena that follow regal patterns. When science examines a spoon bender or a bleeding statue, or claims of global flood evidence, you accuse science of being anti-God.

Of course science will investigate these things, but the only thing science is opposed to, in the long run, is ignorance.

796 posted on 08/20/2005 5:19:57 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 789 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
I ignored both of jorge's posts.

Amazing how you can respond to and ignore posts at the same time.
You are too funny.

797 posted on 08/20/2005 5:23:58 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Bleeding statues, Images in church windows? On cheese sandwiches?

Neither of the above. Neither are mentioned in the biblical texts. I have no problem with science investigating the physical universe as it exists. It should be aware, however, that ocasions will come along when it cannot explain diversions from the norm. To the extent it is unwilling to shuck its presuppositions it is bound to reject certain aspects of reality. Meanwhile it's got enough to do without indulging creationism and evolutionism.

798 posted on 08/20/2005 5:30:11 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Science can't explain everything, just as the majority of crimes are never solved. But the police believe, based on their stubborn naturalistic bias, that the unsolved crimes are committed by human beings using ordinary means.

You should not be surprised that science, having examined countless cases of fraud, lunacy and errors of memory and judgement, is not terribly inclined to attribute unsolved mysteries to miracles.


799 posted on 08/20/2005 5:39:25 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
I can't see into the future to tell what stimuli, if any, will make certain animals more intelligent in the future.

Look into the past then, and tell me of an actual set of events that drove change.

800 posted on 08/20/2005 5:39:57 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 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