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]

click here to read article


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

1 posted on 11/18/2005 7:58:34 AM PST by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Sore loser. But it really isn't his business because he doesn't live in Kansas.


2 posted on 11/18/2005 8:03:09 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past ("The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

And then some of us agree with him....


3 posted on 11/18/2005 8:05:46 AM PST by Paradox (Just because we are not perfect, does not mean we are not good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
"and the fool said in his heart: There is no god"
4 posted on 11/18/2005 8:12:40 AM PST by prophetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science..

Its been stated repeatedly but for some reason this guy and other evolutionists still want to misrepresent ID as Creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is Deism. Creationism involves a personal God. ID does not profess belief in a personal GOD. Actually the premise behind ID is hostile to Creationism.
5 posted on 11/18/2005 8:12:49 AM PST by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

I guess he has not read any books by William Dembski.


6 posted on 11/18/2005 8:12:55 AM PST by mjp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

The theory of evolution is basically a denial that there is ANY intelligence in the universe. It requires that a Boeing 747 be regarded as a product of blind chance. Why? Because if all of nature operates according to blind mechanism, natural selection, and inexplicable mutations, then there is no reason or guiding intelligence ANYWHERE in the process from the pre-biotic soup all the way to the 747.


7 posted on 11/18/2005 8:25:04 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

The third level of knowing God is finally understanding that you cannot possibly know God.


8 posted on 11/18/2005 8:26:47 AM PST by Bob Buchholz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulch; The Ghost of FReepers Past

You're both quibbling. ID seeks to establish an "ultimate cause" behind biological processes, something that is not provable and which evolution theory has never attempted to do. It's proponents are universally antievolutionists. If ID advocates were willing to acknowledge that the "designer" could very well have used evolution to bring about biological diversity, then they would be intellectually honest. But that is not the case. ID proponents are making an assault on evolution theory, pure and simple. So if not exactly "creationism", it is disguised assault on science by many who are creationists, and it is a nationwide assault. Kansas is just one battleground.


9 posted on 11/18/2005 8:26:53 AM PST by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

More than some. I would say most of us here agree with him.


10 posted on 11/18/2005 8:27:10 AM PST by sigSEGV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

ID in science classes is the logical and incorrect solution to the real problem, the teaching of history in science classes.

The science of mutations, and of selection of preferable over inferior structures, has been co-opted by those who disdain God as an alternative explanation of the history of the world.

So, far from "protecting" science from religion, in many cases science textbooks are full of "best-guess" historical speculation as to what happened before there were people to observe and record it.

And this is no more evident than each time a textbook has to be revised, NOT because a NEW THEORY better explains a previous theory based on scientific experimentation and discovery, but simply because someone digging a hole somewhere finds some new "fact" which unfortunately proves the existing speculation of history to be false.

In other words, our science classes have been taken over by those who dispise the notion of having to credit God with our existance. They have done so by pretending to be representing "science" when in fact they are merely revisionist historians, making up fanciful theories of our existance and pre-existance which, while "compatable" with known scientific theory, is not a necessary consequence of it.

In other words, the scientific notion of mutation, selection, and speciation is consistent with, but does not dictate, a particular historical myth.

If tomorrow we discovered that, in fact, God did create the world 8000 years ago, the theory of evolution would stand intact, a known fact based on years of careful scientific scrutiny.

But the historical fiction woven around the theory which is now taught as science in our science classrooms would, of course, be rendered moot. Just like so many "charts" of the history of man have been found to be false as we do more "historical" evaluation and find more forensic (not scientific) evidence.

But the scientific community fails to make this distinction, or meet the religious community halfway based on this truth, and instead insists on forcing a historical myth which opposes many people's religious beliefs down their throats as "proven scientific fact", when it is no such thing. And the religious people, content to allow science to have its theories, balks at having it's religions stolen or denigrated with speculation.

So it fights back with Intelligent Design, which is not only truly science (but is as scientific as those charts showing the piltdown man) but may not in fact correspond to the truth of our existance.

If God exists, and has the power and the inclination to interfere in the normal functioning of our planet, that presense would, by definition, be outside the realm of true scientific theory (since by its nature it presumes God making things happen that would NOT happen by the normal means that our science describes).

But, presuming the above, Science -- which could not show the interference -- would also not disprove it, or be able to correctly predict all future events, or correctly describe the past. Because Science could not predict or explain any interaction God may choose to carry out in the future, or show where such interaction happened in the past.

To boil it down to a cartoon version of the argument: If God decided to create the world 8000 years ago, but wanted to disguise his act so that people had to BELIEVE in him, rather than having his existance proven to them such that they had no choice, he could well have created the universe such that all observation would lead to what we see today.

A scientist would rightly point out that this is no scientific argument, because how can I scientifically argue for the deception of science. But, that scientist can also not, through science, disprove my theory. And since they can't, science should not preach as fact an alternative to my theory, and say that it is in fact the SCIENTIFICALLY correct story.

Being the cartoon-version, the last paragraph is easily parodied and belittled, but it is presented only to illuminate, not for its detractors to pretend as they often do that it is the sum total of the argument.


11 posted on 11/18/2005 8:28:47 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B.Bumbleberry

ID is not an assault on science. It is an attempt to expose the unexamined philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions (and pretensions) of science. It is more of an assault on the philosophy of materialistic naturalism, not science per se.


12 posted on 11/18/2005 8:30:24 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: prophetic

> "and the fool said in his heart: There is no god"

"and the fool said on Free Republic: There is no evolution."


13 posted on 11/18/2005 8:37:24 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 4 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Thank god that a writer I respect has finally stood up and actually come out in favor of science over magical thinking.
As a Christian, I believe every bit of the Bible. But I still don't want it taught as science. If an experiment could be designed that disproved the hand of a "designer" in the origin of life, does that mean all the ID people would stop believing God created Man? And if such an experiment cannot be designed, then ID is not in the realm of science.
I understand that to get back some semblance of power as a party, we had no choice but to bring the evangelicals onboard. But I'm not ready to hand the entire agenda over to them, the way the Dems have allowed the far left to take the wheel.
And "William Demski?" Please. He is to science what Barbara Streisand is to serious political journalism.


14 posted on 11/18/2005 8:38:53 AM PST by RightbrainBrother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Dover distinguished itself this Election Day by throwing out all eight members of its school board who tried to impose ``intelligent design'' -- today's tarted-up version of creationism -- on the biology curriculum. Pat Robertson then called down the wrath of God upon the good people of Dover for voting ``God out of your city.''

Pat Robertson, for one, does not pay the slightest attention when various ID promoters insist despite all evidence that it is a secular movement within science.

15 posted on 11/18/2005 8:38:59 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

Evolution theory is no such thing. It may be true that many evolutionists go all they way and assert that there is no God, but that is their religious belief, not science. Scientific evolutionary theory merely tries to establish the physical processes that have resulted in the bioligical diversity that we observe today. Even Darwin acknowledged that God might be behind it all, but that is the province of religion.

That is really the problem with ID advocates. ID seeks to establish that there is an ultimate cause, which is not a scientific proposition because it can't be proven or disproved. It is a religious proposition. It may very well be true, and you and I may think so, but let's keep it out of science. Let's be realistic. ID proponents are really antievolutionists. ID is an attack on science, period.


16 posted on 11/18/2005 8:40:44 AM PST by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

I.D. is a position, just as Darwinian evolution is a position. The Pa. issue is/was the exclusivity of evolutionism. In the Scopes trial, the issue was the exclusivity of creationism. To maintain modern elitist dogma, evolutionists want to censor (keep from students) data that may suggest the i.d. position so now the roles are reversed. Now who wants to deny science?


17 posted on 11/18/2005 8:44:02 AM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
It is an attempt to expose the unexamined philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions

Fine. Stick it in a philosophy or theology class where it belongs.

18 posted on 11/18/2005 8:44:55 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

I.D. is a position, just as Darwinian evolution is a position. The Pa. issue is/was the exclusivity of evolutionism. In the Scopes trial, the issue was the exclusivity of creationism. To maintain modern elitist dogma, evolutionists want to censor (keep from students) data that may suggest the i.d. position so now the roles are reversed. Now who wants to deny science?


19 posted on 11/18/2005 8:44:58 AM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
The theory of evolution is basically a denial that there is ANY intelligence in the universe.

There's certainly none in your post...

20 posted on 11/18/2005 8:45:57 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7

Nothing is preventing IDers from presenting their theories in Scientific journals and subject them to Peer Review. That's what it takes to be taken seriously in the world of Science...not pressuring local school boards.


21 posted on 11/18/2005 8:47:53 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
"and the fool said in his heart: There is no god"

"and the fool said on Free Republic: There is no evolution."

and the fool replied on Free Republic: "There is no proof of either, so to each his own faith, or not, and no man's faith or lack thereof is superior to another's."

22 posted on 11/18/2005 8:48:47 AM PST by rmgatto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

The point isn't whether it would be nice if God used evolution, of course He could have. But anything close to a literal reading of Genesis doesn't allow for it.


23 posted on 11/18/2005 8:49:03 AM PST by TeenagedConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Krauthammer can't help it.Sometimes his brain cells are just overwhelmed with memories of the indoctrination he was subjected to at Harvard.
24 posted on 11/18/2005 8:50:54 AM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7

Darwin's theory is subject to scientific examination and has been extensively, the ID position is not. That is the crucial distinction. And maybe you could share with us examples of how scientific "data" has been suppressed because they tend to prove ID.


25 posted on 11/18/2005 8:50:58 AM PST by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Or in Medical School.


26 posted on 11/18/2005 8:51:34 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7
To maintain modern elitist dogma, evolutionists want to censor (keep from students) data that may suggest the i.d. position so now the roles are reversed.

Have you looked at the 'textbook' the IDers recommended in Dover?Of Panda's and People'claimed, for example, that the skeleton of the Tasmanian Tiger was almost identical with that of the Gray Wolf, an idiotic contention that a child could rebut. Here's a review of the 'ID' text the Dover was promoting by Kevin Padian, an expert in palaeontology.

In a nutshell: the 'data' you speak of either don't exist or are fabricated.

27 posted on 11/18/2005 8:52:26 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Borges

You're right. Peer review is going on, but is this debate reaching the classrooms? ... i'll try not to double-click this time. ; )


28 posted on 11/18/2005 8:52:46 AM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Exactly.


29 posted on 11/18/2005 8:53:35 AM PST by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7

that's because ID theories don't hold up under any notion of Peer Review. They are untestable.


30 posted on 11/18/2005 8:53:45 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: B.Bumbleberry
Scientific evolutionary theory merely tries to establish the physical processes that have resulted in the bioligical diversity that we observe today.

What if a supernatural being suspended natural laws of the universe in order to accomplish this? Would this be detectable by science?

And if not, then the scientific, naturalistic, answer is going to be wrong and will never know that it is wrong.

It's certainly OK to assume there has been no supernatural intervention and proceed to do science from that starting point. But just don't pretend you've ruled out God. Because you haven't.

31 posted on 11/18/2005 8:54:18 AM PST by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

"The theory of evolution is basically a denial that there is ANY intelligence in the universe."

What is the definition of intelligence?


32 posted on 11/18/2005 8:54:38 AM PST by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

I don't think anyone would disagree that evolution doesn't occur, just whether it is an adequate explanation for how life originated on this plant.


33 posted on 11/18/2005 8:54:50 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Borges

ID is eminently testable. Produce an example of complex, specified information that arose by chance.

Just one example completely destroys ID.


34 posted on 11/18/2005 8:55:24 AM PST by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Or in Medical School.

Yup.I don't know where he got his undergraduate degree, but I know he went to Harvard Medical School because while he was there I was working at one of the Harvard teaching hospitals and often saw him in the corridors and often heard him paged over the loudspeaker system.

35 posted on 11/18/2005 8:55:31 AM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Are you saying that i.d. theories have not been addressed in peer review journal? Let the students in on the debate!


36 posted on 11/18/2005 8:56:17 AM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Lemme see if I understand Charles correctly here: He is saying it is not proper to fill evolutionary gaps with God because it is only proper to fill these "gaps" with scientific faith?

I suppose Charles also confuses adaption with evolution.


37 posted on 11/18/2005 8:57:15 AM PST by AZRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delapaz

actually substitue the word natural non-intelligent-directed causes for 'chance'


38 posted on 11/18/2005 8:57:43 AM PST by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7

High school students aren't part of the debate. We just teach them accepted science.


39 posted on 11/18/2005 8:57:44 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Math and Science are tools of the devil. The earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth. Dinosaurs never existed and the earth is around 6,000 years old. Kansas curriculum in a nutshell.
40 posted on 11/18/2005 8:59:26 AM PST by FFIGHTER (Character Matters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Jews don't have any way to heaven


41 posted on 11/18/2005 9:00:05 AM PST by STD (Delete)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STD
Jews don't have any way to heaven

Should this be taught in Science classes as well?
42 posted on 11/18/2005 9:02:19 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

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?


43 posted on 11/18/2005 9:02:22 AM PST by Blue Screen of Death (/i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges
High school students aren't part of the debate. We just teach them accepted science. .... you're just making my point.
44 posted on 11/18/2005 9:03:01 AM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

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.


45 posted on 11/18/2005 9:03:44 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sigSEGV

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.


46 posted on 11/18/2005 9:04:05 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7
And your point would be that we should teach kids every Creation theory that comes down the pike? Scientologist, Buddhist, Wiccan...they all think their ideas about the origins of life are true and 'scientific'...that would crowd out a lot of the real science.
47 posted on 11/18/2005 9:05:09 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

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).


48 posted on 11/18/2005 9:05:16 AM PST by Kokojmudd (Outsource the US Senate to Mexico!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave; Cacique
Krauthammer is fast becoming my favorite commentator. As a man of science, he knows that we should not dumb down our students with political/religious propaganda.

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:


49 posted on 11/18/2005 9:05:43 AM PST by Clemenza (Ticking Away the Moments that Make up the Dog Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmgatto

> 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.*


50 posted on 11/18/2005 9:07:54 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 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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