Skip to comments.We're not in Kansas anymore (Krauthammer slams Intelligent Design)
Posted on 11/18/2005 7:58:33 AM PST by UncledaveEdited 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 ...
Jews don't have any way to heaven
Teach religion at home or in churches. Why would anyone want public school teachers, who have difficulty teaching math and language, teaching their children about religion?
I love Krauthammer like a god. But his understanding of Newton leaves much to be desired.
He was not religious in the tradition of the Church Of England. (He didn't even accept their view on the Trinity.) And he held quite odd views on other issues as well. (Such as the Bible's "code.")
Newton was also an alchemist and astrologer, who believed in the occult magic and wisdom of the ancients. All in all an odd choice to bring up when you are mocking Creationists.
Yes, but I'm concerned that the fight against the version of ID that is a thinly veiled excuse for teaching creationism, is blinding science to the very real possibility that some intelligent being(s) could have had a hand in the development of life on earth. Seeing as how current science, given $20-30 million dollars, could almost certainly engineer single celled organisms to survive and evolve in the Martian environment, it is entirely possibly that life on earth was seeded and perhaps even further guided by an outside intelligence. That doesn't answer the question of where that outside intelligence came from (perhaps billions and billions of years of evolution from the utterly inexplicable "Big Bang"), but is relevant to understanding both our own biological situation on earth, and our own potential for spreading life around our little corner of the universe -- both very appropriate topics for scientific education and research.
Most public schools can't even teach johnny to read. Since johnny can't read he won't be able understand darwinisms, IDisms or any isms....(especially not the socialism being shoved down his throat).
Keep theology out of science and science out of theology.
Remember that these kids don't have to put up with "Intelligent Design" and "Heather has Two Mommies." Its no wonder they are starting to dominate the Science departments at our finest universities:
> and the fool replied on Free Republic: "There is no proof of either..."
And the wise man on Free Republic pointed out to the fool that there is no proof of *anything* (outside of pure math), merely higher levels of *evidence.*
id ISN'T necessarily deism. It just states that the laws
of nature as we see them are not creative enough to form
the complex life forms currently observed in the course
of their actions. Therefore, some
outside agency(or intelligence) was necessary.
It can be empirically observed that mixing up a batch of
chemicals in a haphazard way doesn't create life as we
know it. It takes someone who knows how chemicals work, and
how physics works, to create a mix of chemicals that will
produce life(without ANY outside influence)But once one sets
up a system, the "natural, uninterference" concept is gone.
One can only set up a system that mimics what one believes
was the original conditions on earth (or another planet-oid,etc body in the universe) and see if that in any way
leads to life(using random,natural,non-interfered-with) processes. I believe Pasteur showed that life comes
from life in his early experiments. The common belief we see
nowadays that life comes from unlife has not been
proven empirically yet(at least without some outside
influence--which could mean a womb,egg,seed etc)
ID doesn't posit that a Superior Being or beings as taught in many religions is the CREATOR(i.e. Jehovah, Allah, etc.)
I guess ID would admit that if a man could create life,
he would be a "creator" of life. But their argument would be
the same, (i.e. it takes an intelligence to create life, and
that random physical processes don't)
Not true. The afterlife - in the Kingdom of God - is indeed part of Jewish biblical tradition. It's not as prominent in Jewish ritual or prayer, as I understand it to be in Christianity, but it's there!
There is a far higher level of evidence for God than for accident.
You are the perfect example of why we get nowhere with this debate. You want to mix faith and science, which is the basic problem. Science deals with what can be proven or disproven. It is modest in its aims, and it has proven to be enormously beneficial as a method for understanding the world around us. If faith is interjected, then science becomes entangled in religous opinion. That is precisely why ID proponents are lobbying school boards to get acceptance.