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

Skip to comments.

We're not in Kansas anymore (Krauthammer slams Intelligent Design)
Townhall ^ | 11/18/2005 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 11/18/2005 7:58:33 AM PST by Uncledave

Edited on 11/18/2005 6:57:43 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

WASHINGTON -- Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous -- that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.


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


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: intelligentdesign; krauthammer; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 next last
To: rmgatto

He meant that Science doesn't work on proofs it works on evidence. Proofs only exist in Math and Whiskey.


101 posted on 11/18/2005 11:28:12 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA

I believe most people, perhaps erroneously according to your post, interpret evolution as the explanation of how life arose on this planet. You know, from the primordial ooze to me and you.



102 posted on 11/18/2005 12:27:32 PM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA

I think what is confusing me here is Darwin's reference to Origins of Life. I understand that he is looked at as the father of the theory (though others had proposed it previously).


103 posted on 11/18/2005 1:27:44 PM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm
I think what is confusing me here is Darwin's reference to Origins of Life.

Well, you have to keep in mind that Darwin isn't the Theory of Evolution just as Einstein isn't the Theory of Relativity. And just like Einstein speculated about other things not necessarily related to his main work, so could Darwin speculate about issues which are not covered by the ToE.

The Theory of Evolution is by it's very nature a theory that covers the dynamics of a system (i.e. imperfect self-replicators) and not it's initial conditions (i.e. how those replicators arose). It seems that this is the point that so many creationists seem not to understand.

I understand that he is looked at as the father of the theory (though others had proposed it previously).

No, not quite. There have been other theories of evolution like that of Lamark but Darwin was the first to propose the one that is accepted today because it is supported by several independent lines of evidence.
However, he wasn't the only one who came up with this theory. Alfred Russel Wallace was a contemporary who had basically the same idea, although not as developed as Darwin's. An exchange with Wallace prompted Darwin to publish his theory sooner than he had intended.

104 posted on 11/18/2005 2:18:32 PM PST by BMCDA (cdesign proponentsists - the missing link)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

> I never claimed that an airplane is self-replicating

As well you shoudl not have. Because *that* is the difference between an airplane and an ameba. Life replicates, and in the process often gets more complex through *entirely* material processes.

> the evolutionist claims that a "mechanism" is very different from a process guided by "intelligence." But is it really?

Often, yes. The "mechanism" through which water flows uphill is sunlight evaporating lake and ocean water, the water vapor being lower density than air, floating up, gathering in clouds and raining back down. Here is a mechanism through which energy is added to a system and work is done and complexity and information are made, but not the slightest shred of intelligence anywhere in the process.


105 posted on 11/18/2005 2:20:42 PM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

Comment #106 Removed by Moderator

To: Tribune7

Non sequitur. Unless you're claiming that "The Iliad" is authentic history and thus evidence that the Olympian gods were real critters.


107 posted on 11/18/2005 2:21:58 PM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

Comment #108 Removed by Moderator

Comment #109 Removed by Moderator

To: orionblamblam
Unless you're claiming that "The Iliad" is authentic history and thus evidence that the Olympian gods were real critters.

Would you claim Caesar's Commentaries as authentic history? What is more reliable the Gospels or Caesar?

110 posted on 11/18/2005 2:55:45 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7
evolutionists want to censor (keep from students) data that may suggest the i.d. position keep quackery out of the classroom.

There. Fixed it.

111 posted on 11/18/2005 3:57:32 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
What is more reliable the Gospels or Caesar?

Ceasar?

112 posted on 11/18/2005 3:58:34 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Why would you think that?


113 posted on 11/18/2005 4:10:57 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Why would you think that?

Why not? At least we know he lived. We don't know if there is a God.

114 posted on 11/18/2005 4:13:32 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Why not? At least we know he lived. We don't know if there is a God.

Weren't you claiming to be a Christian or am I confusing you with someone else?

115 posted on 11/18/2005 4:14:32 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Weren't you claiming to be a Christian or am I confusing you with someone else?

When I was baptized I was told I was saved for life. So I guess I have that base covered, for whatever it is worth.

116 posted on 11/18/2005 4:17:01 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
There. Fixed it. ..... just like elitists have been "fixing it" for the past 40 years. you guys just keep making my point. keep it up.
117 posted on 11/18/2005 4:53:39 PM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7

Someone has to keep the kooks off the kool-aid.


118 posted on 11/18/2005 5:09:50 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Someone has to keep the kooks off the kool-aid. ..... and you define what's koolaid, hmmmm? All I'm arguing for is academic freedom. No, more than that -- honesty! there is a debate going on among legitimate scientists, and you can't hide that anymore. So who's the koolaid kooks?
119 posted on 11/18/2005 5:29:24 PM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7
there is a debate going on among legitimate scientists,

Name ONE that says that evolution of man did not occur.

120 posted on 11/18/2005 5:45:13 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Name ONE that says that evolution of man did not occur. ....... My claim was that there was a debate among scientists over i.d. You know this is so. Some believe that "natural selection and mutation cannot account for the origin and diversity of all living things." So says Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, prof. of chemistry, U.GA, author of over 750 scientific publications, director of over fifty successful doctoral students, and five-time Nobel nominee, in his foreword to the 1998 book, Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design. Let the students in on the debate. I don't have to support or deny either side.
121 posted on 11/18/2005 6:01:49 PM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7
Name ONE that says that evolution of man did not occur. .......

My claim was that there was a debate among scientists over i.d.

Name ONE SCIENTIST that says that evolution of man did not occur ...

122 posted on 11/18/2005 6:34:06 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Name ONE SCIENTIST that says that evolution of man did not occur ... .... you cannot pull me into an open-ended debate. my position is DON'T CENSOR THE INFORMATION THAT'S OUT THERE.
123 posted on 11/18/2005 6:56:11 PM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7
Name ONE SCIENTIST that says that evolution of man did not occur ... ....

you cannot pull me into an open-ended debate. my position is DON'T CENSOR THE INFORMATION THAT'S OUT THERE.

Name ONE SCIENTIST that says that evolution of man did not occur ...

124 posted on 11/18/2005 6:59:37 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
"We don't know if there is a God."

Speak for yourself, bourbonbreath.

125 posted on 11/18/2005 7:05:23 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
"We don't know if there is a God."

Speak for yourself, bourbonbreath.

How do you know there is a God?

126 posted on 11/18/2005 7:12:40 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
We don't know if there is a God." Speak for yourself, bourbonbreath. How do you know there is a God?

Because I am

127 posted on 11/18/2005 7:15:42 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
Because I am

Blaspheme. The ONLY unforgivable sin ...

128 posted on 11/18/2005 7:18:42 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
you missed the reference; Exodus.

One shouldn't lecture folks on subjects they're completely ignorant of.

129 posted on 11/18/2005 7:25:46 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
you missed the reference; Exodus. One shouldn't lecture folks on subjects they're completely ignorant of.

If we can't lecture the ignorant, who should we lecture?

130 posted on 11/18/2005 7:26:48 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

You're not fit to lecture anyone on anything. If you don't know that there is a God, well then that's a personal problem, but you most certainly do not speak for me.


131 posted on 11/18/2005 7:34:51 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
If you don't know that there is a God, well then that's a personal problem, but you most certainly do not speak for me.

I forgot. Are you the one that couldn't say how he knew there was a God?

132 posted on 11/18/2005 7:53:38 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

I'm a waitin'............


133 posted on 11/18/2005 7:56:35 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
I forgot. Are you the one that couldn't say how he knew there was a God?

I'm a waitin'............

For a sign from God?

134 posted on 11/18/2005 7:57:49 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

No that wasn't me.


135 posted on 11/18/2005 7:58:02 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
I think we're surffering from mistimed posts. To clarify:

I know God exists because of scriptures. One of which I quoted, so to speak, earlier. I also know God exists because I have a soul. I further know that Gos exists because I have eyes.

If you are unawaree of God, I'm sorry for you. My true hope is that you will find him.

A sincere hope.

136 posted on 11/18/2005 8:11:40 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

> What is more reliable the Gospels or Caesar?

Which has more contemporary backup in the form of testimonies from numerous others? Caesar. Which had statues made from life? Caesar. Which was written at the time, not decades later? Caesar. Which did not claim miracles, but merely mundane events? Caesar.


137 posted on 11/18/2005 8:11:47 PM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Which is more politcal? Ceasar.

What do we know of politics

Barbra Steisand

138 posted on 11/18/2005 8:19:01 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

> Which is more politcal? Ceasar.

> What do we know of politics

We know that it exists.


139 posted on 11/18/2005 8:41:42 PM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
and we know that it is barbra striesand (sp?)

BTW; we know Christ exists.

140 posted on 11/18/2005 8:45:51 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Pietro
Well, I guess younz went to sleep.

Tis a pity,

141 posted on 11/18/2005 9:03:02 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Which has more contemporary backup in the form of testimonies from numerous others?

No, it's the Gospels. The primary source for the Gallic Wars is Caesar himself. The Gospels have several sources who clearly did not collaborate or agree on everything.

Which had statues made from life? Caesar.

How about shrouds :-) And why would a statue of Caesar make authenticate his writing?

Which was written at the time, not decades later? Caesar.

The first books of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses to the events possibly less that two decades after the crucifixion.

Which did not claim miracles, but merely mundane events? Caesar.

Caesar was writing about mundane events, not miracles. Why discount miracles?

142 posted on 11/18/2005 9:25:34 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

>> Which has more contemporary backup in the form of testimonies from numerous others?

> No, it's the Gospels.

Sorry, wrong. Quite a few other individuals wrote of Julius Caesar.

>> Which had statues made from life? Caesar.

> How about shrouds :-)

In that case, none.

> The first books of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses to the events possibly less that two decades after the crucifixion.

Maybe.

> Why discount miracles?

Consider:
1) "I drove to work today."
2) "I teleported to work today."

Both could be wrong. One could easily be right. Why assume equal validity?

You want me to believe miracles, you're going to have to do better than hearsay and decades-old memories of cult leaders.


143 posted on 11/18/2005 10:20:43 PM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

> we know Christ exists.

People keep saying that. But then, people keep saying that Allah and Xenu exist, too. Maybe they're right?


144 posted on 11/18/2005 10:21:59 PM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
re: Allah and Xenu: Most serious historians that have researched the subject beleive that Christ was a real man that lived where Christian history said he did. And those few that dispute his existence can only do so based upon the most tenuous of arguments.

There is a significant difference then between Allah and Christ.

145 posted on 11/19/2005 4:53:34 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Sorry, wrong. Quite a few other individuals wrote of Julius Caesar.

But when writing of Caesar's feats in Gaul, they based it on what Caesar claimed.

Further, while nobody argues the existance of Caesar or claims that Commentaries is not valuable history, the Bible is far, far more authenticated. We have thousands of fragments from New Testament dating to early 2nd Century, 50 years after it was written. The oldest copy of Commentaries comes from 900 AD, a thousand years after it was written.

1) "I drove to work today."
2) "I teleported to work today."
Both could be wrong. One could easily be right. Why assume equal validity?

That's the point, you don't. You assume he drove, until you have dozens of witnesses come forth to say he said he was going to teleport to work today, and we were watching him eat his breakfast at 8:59 and then bing, he was gone and his car's still in the driveway. Then dozens of other witnesses come forth and say we were wondering why he hadn't checked in then bing we saw him at his desk at 9 a.m.

It should make you go hmmmm.

146 posted on 11/19/2005 5:02:58 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Name ONE SCIENTIST that says that evolution of man did not occur ............. your repeated challenge is really very silly. This is an on-going debate. Widely-recognized scientists especially in the "micro" fields (not all theists btw) question the paradigm that natural selection and mutation can account for the origin and diversity of all living things. It is criminal for students to be deprived of such information in the name of preserving a naturalistic philosophy. This will be my last post. Either you know what I'm talking about or you don't. If not, then you're one of the deprived. You could start with The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, Cambridge University Press. You can follow the references and make your own discoveries, if you so choose.
147 posted on 11/19/2005 6:50:33 AM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

> The oldest copy of Commentaries comes from 900 AD, a thousand years after it was written.

I suspect that few people ever thought of the Commentaries as a Holy Relic/Text. Thus, if a copy got too ratty, preserving it would nto be a sacred duty. As well, there was little prosylotizing for J. Caesar, so fewer copies to begin with. Further, his culture/religion *lost.*

On the other hand, statues and coins bearing Caesars image made in life survive in considerable abundance.


>> 1) "I drove to work today."
>> 2) "I teleported to work today."
>> Both could be wrong. One could easily be right. Why assume equal validity?

> That's the point, you don't. You assume he drove, until you have dozens of witnesses come forth to say he said he was going to teleport to work today, and we were watching him eat his breakfast at 8:59 and then bing, he was gone and his car's still in the driveway. Then dozens of other witnesses come forth and say we were wondering why he hadn't checked in then bing we saw him at his desk at 9 a.m.


Exactly so. And since there are no "dozens" of witnesses, certainly no reliable ones to *any* reported miracles, then reports of miracles can be safely and reasonably set aside until such point as those claiming miracles can prove them. There are, after all, contemporary accounts of Muhammad pulling off mircales (splitting the moon in two, frex), and I think most hereabouts would discount such reports... and they'd be right to do so.


148 posted on 11/19/2005 7:08:10 AM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

> Most serious historians that have researched the subject beleive that Christ was a real man that lived where Christian history said he did.

Yes... but *no* serious historian doubts that Muhammad or Elron Hubbard lived when they were supposed to. Heck, we even have photos, recordings and film of the latter.

> There is a significant difference then between Allah and Christ.

Yes, but is there a significat difference between Allah, Xenu and *Jehovah?* (Apart from the decribed characteristics, of course) I suspect the big difference is you believe in one but not the others.


149 posted on 11/19/2005 7:11:23 AM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
I suspect that few people ever thought of the Commentaries as a Holy Relic/Text.

Maybe. But whatever the reason, the Bible is better authenticated.

And since there are no "dozens" of witnesses,

Sure there are according to the Gospels. And again, unlike Commentaries, the New Testament is compiled from a variety of sources.

certainly no reliable ones to *any* reported miracles, then reports of miracles can be safely and reasonably set aside until such point as those claiming miracles can prove them.

How would you prove a miracle? We have a group of quasi-literate, working class types revolutionizing the world despite active opposition by every earthly power in the world, and without scintilla of expectation of earthly gain, in fact with the expectation of torment and persecution. And most amazingly they were successful. Would you call that a miracle? No.

How about in 1917, 75,000 people gathered to witness a miracle. They witnessed a miracle. Here's the newspaper report Still, people can and do reason it away.

There are, after all, contemporary accounts of Muhammad pulling off mircales

Again a claim of a miracle does not mean a miracle. Muhammad was never the subject of skeptical inquiry. Those who did were killed. Christianity was the subject of skepticism from the get-go. Mocking Christ on the road to Golgatha, putting guards on the tomb etc.

150 posted on 11/19/2005 8:46:21 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 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