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 previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-278 next last
To: orionblamblam
>> Did, or did not, the early Christian church start seekign out, oh, I dunno, Roman *Emperors? . . . > You dunno. The answer is no. . . Ah. So much for Emperor Constantine...

Here's a list of Roman emperors. Tiberus ruled at the time of the Crucifixion. Constantine did not arrive for another 300 years. Further his "conversion" was the result of a dream followed by a successful battle, not missionary activity. In no way did the early Christians seek out Roman emperors for conversion

> Have you ever read the Bible? . . . Yes. Relevance?

You don't seem to know the basics -- when it was written, the first converts etc.

>>Did the Christianization of Scandinavia go top-down or bottom up? >Bottom up. Nope, top down. King Olaf Tryggvasson slaughtered those who did not convert.

The Life of Anskar

And what Christianity ended

>>Did or did not the fall of the Icelandic Republic as a going concern happen after the place was Christianized and the churches started collecting all the wealth? . . . The answer you're looking for is "yes."

Read your link more closely. The catch is that the portion of tithe revenue allocated to maintaining church buildings went not to the official church hierarchy but to the wealthy private owners (usually chieftains) of stadhir, "churchsteads," i.e., plots of land on which churches had been built.

Anyway, as noted the Icelandic Republic was Christian for almost 80 percent of its history, so it's pretty silly to say that Christianity was the the reason for its fall.

> People were tricked because they love martyrs? Well, people joined up with the Heaven's Gaters and lopped their nuts off, so...

So with all the new martyrs, how is Heaven's Gate doing now?

201 posted on 11/21/2005 6:00:11 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

> Further his "conversion" was the result of a dream followed by a successful battle, not missionary activity.

Ah.... no. He knew of Christians, otherwise he woudl not ahve understood or have 3even *had* the dream he supposedly had.

> > Have you ever read the Bible? . . . Yes. Relevance?

> You don't seem to know the basics

Yes, I do. However, what the Bible says isn't actually relevant here. We're discussing history.

> The Life of Anskar

Interesting choice of links there to bolster your view that Christianity wasn't imposed, but chosen by the masses:

"The Emperor Charlemagne, who died on January 28, 84, had waged a series of seventeen campaigns extending over thirty-three years (772­805) against the Saxons, his avowed object being to compel them to accept the Christian faith."

More than a few historians are of the view that Charlemagne was responsible for the Viking Era... by stomping into lands where the Norse/Teutonic gods were worshipped and slaughtering the worshippers, he initiated a response. And if this view is true, the Viking raids on Christian monestaries, rather than being acts of barbarism, were retaliatory strikes against an aggressive alien religion.

> And what Christianity ended

Yes, Christinity wiped out the Vikings. Also wiped out the light of "pagan" Greek scientific learning from Europe for nearly a thousand years, only rediscovered from the *Arabs.*

> So with all the new martyrs, how is Heaven's Gate doing now?

Well, they reached their chosen end-point. So I guess they're doing ok.

Of course, Buddhist monks have a tendency to live lives of poverty and non-violence and being persecuted, and sometimes set themselve son fire in protest of this or that, and Buddhism seems to have been rolling along just fine for rather a long time. Hell, Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism seem to stress that "life sucks," so by your arguement, the "only explanation" for the success of those religions is that they must be true.


202 posted on 11/21/2005 7:42:18 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 201 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
> Further his "conversion" was the result of a dream followed by a successful battle, not missionary activity. . . .Ah.... no. He knew of Christians, otherwise he woudl not ahve understood or have 3even *had* the dream he supposedly had.

You are giving me a second-grade playground argument -- that "early" Christians targeted emperors, and that after 300 years and lots of persecution, they found one who would accept it on the eve of battle. Does that really make sense to you?

Interesting choice of links there to bolster your view that Christianity wasn't imposed, but chosen by the masses:

Why would a king choose Christianity for cynical reasons if there were no support for it among his subjects?

Also wiped out the light of "pagan" Greek scientific learning from Europe for nearly a thousand years, only rediscovered from the *Arabs.*

Were do you get these ideas from? A different article from LewRockwell.com

203 posted on 11/21/2005 7:47:31 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

> that "early" Christians targeted emperors, and that after 300 years and lots of persecution, they found one who would accept it on the eve of battle. Does that really make sense to you?

Far more so than weak arguements from incredulity regarding the "only explanation" for why Christianity was successful.

> Why would a king choose Christianity for cynical reasons if there were no support for it among his subjects?

Power. The existing religions did not provide much ability for kings to rule as the voice of the gods, except for the Roman god-emperors. But convert to a religion that has but one, all-powerful and really quite nasty god, you can scare the bejeebers out of people. Plus, if you see a growing power base for that religion surrounding you... well, hop on the bandwagon.

>>Also wiped out the light of "pagan" Greek scientific learning from Europe for nearly a thousand years, only rediscovered from the *Arabs.*

> Were do you get these ideas from? A different article from LewRockwell.com

This article neither supports your view nor counters mine. The scientific discoveries of the Greeks were largely lost in the west after Christianization, and had to be re-learned after readign Arabic translations of those works or re-doing the work in the Rennaissance, when the power of the church was beginnign to wane.


204 posted on 11/21/2005 8:17:52 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 203 | View Replies]

To: prophetic
It amazes me how people insist all the natural laws, and psychics came about by happenstance...lol.
205 posted on 11/21/2005 8:20:16 PM PST by JABBERBONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JABBERBONK

PHYSICS*


206 posted on 11/21/2005 8:22:18 PM PST by JABBERBONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Power. The existing religions did not provide much ability for kings to rule as the voice of the gods, except for the Roman god-emperors.

That's a pretty big exception you are trying to make. Anyway, Christianity does not provide any ability for kings to rule as "voice of the gods". Further, -- unlike shamanism -- it limits the ability of priests to intrepret the will of God due to a written code. Seeking signs is expressly forbidden.

Norse religion, OTOH, is and arbitrary and filled with superstition. Human sacrfice seems to have been common.

And, the Norse gods are pretty closely identified with totalitarianism.

Plus, if you see a growing power base for that religion surrounding you... well, hop on the bandwagon.

So, it was from the bottom up?

The scientific discoveries of the Greeks were largely lost in the west after Christianization,

They were lost after the fall of Rome, almost 500 years after the arrival of Christianity.

207 posted on 11/21/2005 9:32:56 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

> Christianity does not provide any ability for kings to rule as "voice of the gods".

"Divine right of kings."

Look it up.

> Norse religion, OTOH, is and arbitrary and filled with superstition. Human sacrfice seems to have been common.

Yes, as with many other religions, like Christianity. Before you go all ballistic, imagine how burning a witch looks to non-Christians. Looks a hell of a lot like a human sacrifice.

> So, it was from the bottom up?

By Charlemagnes time? Nope. Top-down, by the link *you* yourself provided. Were it bottom-up, he'd hardly have to fight wars of aggression to force his neighbors to convert. Christianity was the religion of the rulers by this point... the "Old Ways" survived for centuries more among the peasant classes.


208 posted on 11/21/2005 9:51:57 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 207 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Christianity does not provide any ability for kings to rule as "voice of the gods". . . "Divine right of kings."

The divine right of kings was a perversion of Christianity. And still kings did not rule as a "voice of the gods." Further, it was not until the early modern era (17th Century) that the notion became extensively used as a primarily political mechanism, i.e. for increasing the power of kings within centralized monarchies

Yes, as with many other religions, like Christianity. Before you go all ballistic, imagine how burning a witch looks to non-Christians. Looks a hell of a lot like a human sacrifice.

Or an execution. I can tell you why human sacrifice is wrong. Can you tell me why witch burning is wrong?

So, it was from the bottom up? . . . By Charlemagnes time?

So where did the power-base come from?

209 posted on 11/21/2005 10:23:39 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

> The divine right of kings was a perversion of Christianity.

That's nice. But it existed and was religiously accepted for a millenium and a half anyway.

> I can tell you why human sacrifice is wrong. Can you tell me why witch burning is wrong?

Because it's murder.

> So where did the power-base come from?

Same power base of any king.

I heartily recommend that you try to find a copy of "Christian History," Issue 63 (Vol. XVIII, No. 3) from 1999. The entire issue is devoted to "A Severe Salvation: How the Vikings took up the faith."

If you think the conversion of Scandinavia was a bottom-up phenomenon, you're in for a surprise. Much of the rest of Europe was the same... the king tells you what religion you are.


210 posted on 11/22/2005 5:46:04 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 209 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
I can tell you why human sacrifice is wrong. Can you tell me why witch burning is wrong? Because it's murder.

Actually, it's not according to the legal definition -- i.e. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought . . . and with no legal excuse or authority.

Now, one with Christian sensibilities will think it's wrong i.e. it's merciless; the old Norse legacy of trial by ordeal led to bearing false witness; it violated the Golden Rule; it was a judgemental, the casting of the first stone and unnecessary but those who don't believe in a divine good greater than the state can't call it murder.

I heartily recommend that you try to find a copy of "Christian History," Issue 63 (Vol. XVIII, No. 3) from 1999. The entire issue is devoted to "A Severe Salvation: How the Vikings took up the faith."

OK :-)

For two centuries a variety of forces had been at work to bring the Christian faith to Denmark, but none so important as the missionary presence.

If you think the conversion of Scandinavia was a bottom-up phenomenon, you're in for a surprise.

What I'm saying is that it was not all command of the king or conversion by sword. There was envy good examples of unsung individuals; distorted examples of not so good individuals; and the inherent disatisfaction of a false religion and a pointless life.

There were many Scandinavians who believed before the kings issued the decrees, and many who didn't afterwards.

Anyway, it the conversion was very good for Scandinavia and very good for the world.

Consider King Olaf Trygvesson:

With his fleet now fortified to 94 ships, he came back to England and joined forces with the Danish king Svein Forkbeard. Together they raided England, "burning villages, laying waste the lands, putting numbers of people to death by fire and sword, without regard to sex, and sweeping off an immense booty." Seizing horses, they rode wildly through many provinces and slaughtered the whole population with savage cruelty, "sparing neither the women nor children of tender age."

This was before he became a Christian. The idea that Christianity somehow encouraged any tendancy he had towards violence is not reasonable.

211 posted on 11/22/2005 9:13:51 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

> one with Christian sensibilities will think it's wrong ...

Too bad history does not bear that out.

> the conversion was very good for Scandinavia and very good for the world.

How so? As you point out, it provided no mitigating influence against murderers like the two Olafs.


212 posted on 11/22/2005 9:39:45 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 211 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

> the old Norse legacy of trial by ordeal led to bearing false witness...

And claiming that the Norse were unaware of the law and jury trials is also bearing false witness. Much of our current system of laws comes from the old Norse/Germans, with a direct link back to the pre-Christian Saxon common law.


>> If you think the conversion of Scandinavia was a bottom-up phenomenon, you're in for a surprise.

> What I'm saying is that it was not all command of the king or conversion by sword.

Nobody said it was "all" by the sword. The simple fact is that it's fairly easy to convert polytheists... if someone already believes in a dozen gods, adding one more to the pot ain't that hard. Then it's not that far a jump to take that one new god and make him the only god and the other gods into minor deities or even evil demons.... *especially* when the king tells you to do it.

Once again... not exactly miraculous. The real miracle is that the old religion has survived Christianity and has a number of earnest adherants... and has managed to become officially recognized in Iceland. In fact, the old beliefs never were quite wiped out in the Scandinavian lands; even among the Christians of Iceland, respect for the elves (*not* the Keebler/Santa's little helper type of elves) continues to this day. Misteltoe, the names of the days of the week, the Yule Log and the Christmas Tree continue to make the old ways noticable even today.


213 posted on 11/22/2005 9:56:29 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 211 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
As you point out, it provided no mitigating influence against murderers like the two Olafs.

After Christianity took hold, the raids stopped and the Age of the Vikings ended. And it probably did mitagate the Olafs. I'd be interested in the comparsion between the before and after death tolls.

And claiming that the Norse were unaware of the law and jury trials is also bearing false witness.

Nobody claimed that. You were referring to the persecution of women accused of witchcraft. Trial by Ordeal was how the determination was usually made.

Much of our current system of laws comes from the old Norse/Germans, with a direct link back to the pre-Christian Saxon common law.

There was much good in those laws, and much that wasn't.

Once again... not exactly miraculous.

Nobody's claiming it was in that regard. Conversion is a personal miracle, not a public one.

214 posted on 11/22/2005 10:15:24 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7
I challenge you to present a single instance of evolutionists attempting to censor "data." A single one.

Evolutionists may challenge ID theory as not being developed through the scientific method, but I don't think you can present a single, solitary example of them attempting to prevent 'data' from being taught in a science class.

215 posted on 11/22/2005 10:24:13 AM PST by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

> After Christianity took hold, the raids stopped and the Age of the Vikings ended.

A pity, 'tis true. The now-wussified Scandinavia will probably roll over for dhimmitude. Their Viking ancestors would not have put up with that.

But since the raids were driven by Christian aggression in the first place, once they'd been forced to convert, it only makes sense that the raids would have stopped. Though I suspect Christianity would have benefitted from more people raiding monasteries and churches... places which Really Don't Need Bling.

> I'd be interested in the comparsion between the before and after death tolls.

So would I. Not available. I will note, however, that Christendom did not become a relatively decent place to be until the Rennaissance, which was driven in no small part from an economic resurgence after the Black Death and a consequent loss of faith in the Church.

Much of the Christian world was a thoroughly nasty place until the 1700's at the earliest. Conversion to Christianity does not seem to have aided people much. Technological improvements, however, did.

> You were referring to the persecution of women accused of witchcraft. Trial by Ordeal was how the determination was usually made.

Not by the Norse. Hell, the Norse distrusted witches, but paid for their services anyway. Since their services included medicine, that was all for the best.

>> Once again... not exactly miraculous.

>Nobody's claiming it was in that regard.

This arguement has gone back and forth so much I've lost track. Was it you who claimed that the only explanation for the conversion of so many to Christianity and its subsequent succes was due to it being miraculous/correct?


216 posted on 11/22/2005 10:26:54 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 214 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
The now-wussified Scandinavia will probably roll over for dhimmitude.

You mean the now non-Christian Scandinavians will roll over for dhimmitude :-)

But since the raids were driven by Christian aggression in the first place,

Your saying the raids started because of Charlemange's aggression. I don't agree with that. Why would the first attack have been made in England? It is my understanding that the raids began because of new technology -- namely the longboat, and the realization that there were soft targets.

places which Really Don't Need Bling.

I'm inclined to agree with that.

I will note, however, that Christendom did not become a relatively decent place to be until the Rennaissance,

Actually, it became a fairly decent place right after the Age of the Vikings ended -- common culture, easy trade, growing wealth -- and remain such until the Mongol invasions were followed by the Little Ice Age, the Black Death, and the rise of the Turks.

Much of the Christian world was a thoroughly nasty place until the 1700's at the earliest.

Much of the world was a thoroughly nasty place in the 1700s. Much of it is a thoroughly nasty place now. We are lucky to live in America.

Was it you who claimed that the only explanation for the conversion of so many to Christianity and its subsequent succes was due to it being miraculous/correct?

Not exactly. I was referring to the early Christian church when it had no earthly power, and the powers that be were unremittingly hostile to it.

217 posted on 11/22/2005 10:53:06 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

> You mean the now non-Christian Scandinavians will roll over for dhimmitude :-)

No, the Scandinavian lands are still reasonably Christian, just sorta laid back about it. Pity their Viking blood was thinned by centuries with the White Christ...

> Your saying the raids started because of Charlemange's aggression.

Timing and choice of target seems to back that up.

> Why would the first attack have been made in England?

Because it was close. A better question: why were the first raids conducted against churches and monasteries, as opposed to other concentrations of wealth? Why the apparent anger at Christianity? As archaeology has shown, the Norse tolerated other religions with no difficulty whatsoever. This is not surprising for polytheists. You got your gods, I got mine, ain't no problem there. But when one particular religion begins to wipe out your people and your culture... you fight.

> It is my understanding that the raids began because of new technology -- namely the longboat...

The Scandinavians had had decent boat tech for quite a while, more than adequate for the job.

> Actually, it became a fairly decent place right after the Age of the Vikings ended -- common culture, easy trade, growing wealth

I disagree.

> Much of the world was a thoroughly nasty place in the 1700s. Much of it is a thoroughly nasty place now. We are lucky to live in America.

Yup. Three cheers for our pagan ancestors who gave us the rule of law and energetic capitalism! Huzzah!

> I was referring to the early Christian church when it had no earthly power, and the powers that be were unremittingly hostile to it.

Hardly. For a few decades, the Christians were largely ignored by the Roman empire as just another cult. Again, see to the Mormons and the Scientologists for examples of how much a religion can grow in just a few years. Plus, there was political genius in the basic idea of Christianity, whether it was true or not: people whose lives sucked, find out that a centuries old prophesy has come true, and it's just a matter of time until everythign will be just great. All ya gotta do is believe and wait a little bit... any day now... Again, as history has shown, such religious beliefs are remarkably successful at drawing adherants.


218 posted on 11/22/2005 11:36:28 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 217 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I challenge you to present a single instance of evolutionists attempting to censor "data." A single one. Evolutionists may challenge ID theory as not being developed through the scientific method, but I don't think you can present a single, solitary example of them attempting to prevent 'data' from being taught in a science class.

..... http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2005/10/academic-freedom-watch-heres-real-ugly.html .......
go to this blog for numerous samples of stifling of academic freedom -- I call this censorship. Who do you think prepares the teachers and who controls the text books k-12?
219 posted on 11/22/2005 2:41:48 PM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7

I don't see anything on there about the censorship of "data." Care to revise your comments? Or is there any support for them, at all?


220 posted on 11/22/2005 2:58:00 PM PST by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I don't see anything on there about the censorship of "data."

Is it your position that the intelligent design hypothesis has no scientific basis whatsoever?
221 posted on 11/22/2005 7:52:24 PM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Just when I thought Krauthammer was perfect. Dang. For the record - count me as one who acknowledges God created the earth and all on it.


222 posted on 11/22/2005 9:12:58 PM PST by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Denying God doesn't make Him go away. Go back and read your arguments. They aren't making sense.


223 posted on 11/23/2005 4:34:09 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7
Nice dodge.

I'll answer your question as soon as you answer mine, or retract your statement.

There is a big difference between restricting the theory that a teacher can use to explain data, on one hand, and burying the data itself, on the other.

When you come up with an example of the latter, which you charged, let me know.

224 posted on 11/23/2005 4:46:10 AM PST by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

> Denying God doesn't make Him go away.

Denying Odin doesn't make him go away, either.

>Go back and read your arguments. They aren't making sense.

Well, reason often does not make sense to unreasonable people.


225 posted on 11/23/2005 5:36:36 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 223 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I'll answer your question as soon as you answer mine, or retract your statement.

I have no intention of retracting my statement.

There is a big difference between restricting the theory that a teacher can use to explain data, on one hand, and burying the data itself, on the other.

I understand perfectly. However, to present a position contrary to Darwinian evolution would also mean presenting evidence (data) defending that view. We both know that's what the debate is all about. The reason you won't answer my question is that it would be an admission or a denial that such evidence exists. If the evidence exists, why isn't it being taught? On the other hand, to deny such evidence exists would be untenable. I suggest you re-read the comments and numerous citings on the site I posted.

When you come up with an example of the latter, which you charged, let me know.

I have no intention of searching for an example that would satisfy you. But let me invite any concerned parent to investigate their own system for themselves. This is not an argument about religion, it is an argument about academic freedom and intellectual honesty. If a debate exists within the scientific community, and we all know it does, why not let the kids in on the particulars?
226 posted on 11/23/2005 6:03:42 AM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7
So you have no intention of backing up your own charge? Nice.

However, to present a position contrary to Darwinian evolution would also mean presenting evidence (data) defending that view. We both know that's what the debate is all about. The reason you won't answer my question is that it would be an admission or a denial that such evidence exists. If the evidence exists, why isn't it being taught? On the other hand, to deny such evidence exists would be untenable. I suggest you re-read the comments and numerous citings on the site I posted.

What utter tripe. ID is not, in any way, about new or 'buried' data or evidence. It is about drawing a conclusion from data that is known and it not even slightly 'buried' or 'censored.'

Is there evidence from which one can draw the conclusion of an intelligent designer? Certainly. Is there evidence to which the scientific method can be applied to test that hypothesis? No. Could one look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion? Absolutely.

Bottom line, you charged that 'data' is being censored that would lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, and you continue to charge that, but you can't identify a single piece of data that is being censored.

227 posted on 11/23/2005 7:16:36 AM PST by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
Educate yourself, so that you will not be condemned to remain ignorant.
228 posted on 11/23/2005 7:19:03 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

"How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God."


229 posted on 11/23/2005 7:23:20 AM PST by higgmeister (In the shadow of the Big Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Bottom line, you charged that 'data' is being censored that would lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, and you continue to charge that, but you can't identify a single piece of data that is being censored.

I believe you are misquoting me. Searching previous posts, I cannot see where I ever claimed that any data would LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION of an intelligent designer. My position isn't about proven conclusions. You would admit that Darwinian evolution position certainly has flaws. Are these flaws made available for popular consumption? At the same time, there is evidence that supports the i.d. hypothesis, especially in the micro-science fields, and math (probability). Is this evidence fairly presented? It's never been my position to proove or disproove either theory. What I have asserted is that there is a debate going on in the upper echelons of the science community and BOTH cite evidence (data). Evidence supporting both sides should be presented. This brings us back to my question to you. Do you think there is any evidence which supports (not prooves) the i.d. position? If you say no, then we can stop this right now, because you're just uninformed.
230 posted on 11/23/2005 8:35:23 AM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7
If you didn't see my direct answer to that question, you either aren't trying to read what I've said or you are trying to avoid it.

Now, in answer to your other questions:

Are the flaws fairly presented? Yes. In every single biology class I've ever had, in public schools from elementary school through college.

Is the evidence that supports the ID hypothesis fairly presented? Well, that question is kind of hard to answer since you won't indentify what evidence you are referencing, or what you think isn't being fairly presented, but my answer based upon evidence that I could argue supports the hypothesis is an unequivocal yes - as well as evidence that undermines the hypothesis.

As far as the supposed debate you reference, you are pretty loose with your description - there is no one in the 'upper echelons' of the science community who does not believe in the theory of natural selection as presented by Darwin. No one.

231 posted on 11/23/2005 11:15:07 AM PST by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
If you didn't see my direct answer to that question, you either aren't trying to read what I've said or you are trying to avoid it.

You're right and I'm sorry. I overlooked your answer. I'm not trying to avoid anything.

Are the flaws fairly presented? Yes. In every single biology class I've ever had, in public schools from elementary school through college.

Happy to hear that.

Is the evidence that supports the ID hypothesis fairly presented? Well, that question is kind of hard to answer since you won't indentify what evidence you are referencing, or what you think isn't being fairly presented, but my answer based upon evidence that I could argue supports the hypothesis is an unequivocal yes - as well as evidence that undermines the hypothesis.

If that's the case, this needn't be an issue for the courts/school boards. You were fortunate if you had a fair presentation of both positions. Hopefully you're wise enough to see why I wouldn't get into an Darwinian vs. I.D. argument on particulars on this thread. Smarter minds than you and I will be arguing their positions long after we're gone.

As far as the supposed debate you reference, you are pretty loose with your description - there is no one in the 'upper echelons' of the science community who does not believe in the theory of natural selection as presented by Darwin. No one.

There are books and papers written to the contrary, some have even run the gauntlet and have appeared in scientific journals. You can go to many websites for more information, some w/o a religious bent. I would agree that those who hold the power are totally committed to naturalism which disallows what doesn't conform to their philosophy. I feel like I've made my case for better or for worse as best I can, so if you want to last word, go for it..... and Happy Thanksgiving!
232 posted on 11/23/2005 12:42:52 PM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Nanny7; lugsoul

Darwinists Impose Gag Rule on Science

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2194


233 posted on 11/23/2005 10:42:53 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Sun

good job, Sun. right on topic.


234 posted on 11/26/2005 6:45:13 AM PST by Nanny7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
235 posted on 02/15/2007 10:08:00 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Borges
"Nothing is preventing IDers from presenting their theories in Scientific journals and subject them to Peer Review."

Then you know knowing of the peer review process: Government Investigation of Retaliation Against Pro-ID Scientist

236 posted on 02/15/2007 10:11:30 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Yeah, about that paper:

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON


The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings...

http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html


237 posted on 02/15/2007 11:02:31 PM PST by voltaires_zit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Just showing off my tagline.
238 posted on 02/15/2007 11:41:50 PM PST by fish hawk (The religion of Darwinism = Monkey Intellect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
There's been quite the witchhunt against Sternberg for publishing Steyn's peer-reviewed paper: Government Investigation of Retaliation Against Pro-ID Scientist

Interestingly enough, the arguments, facts, and sources in Steyn's **paper** itself have survived all attacks intact. Sound.

Ergo the conclusion stands.

239 posted on 02/15/2007 11:52:54 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
"For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity."

They claim that they "will not," but the reality is that they "can not" scientifically rebut the paper.

240 posted on 02/15/2007 11:55:16 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Southack

> They claim that they "will not," but the reality is that
> they "can not" scientifically rebut the paper.

No, it's "will not", because it should never have been published there in the first place. Publishing it was analagous to publishing a paper on "UFOs and Alien Influences on the Construction of the Pyramids" in Biblical Archaeology Review.

Steyn's paper was worked over in a number of places, as was the previous paper from which he cribbed most of the material. For a pretty thorough critique of why, in addition to being inappropriate in the Society's journal, it was not terribly good science, read on:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html


241 posted on 02/16/2007 9:07:41 AM PST by voltaires_zit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

> Steyn's

Should be Meyer's.


242 posted on 02/16/2007 9:18:47 AM PST by voltaires_zit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
"No, it's "will not", because it should never have been published there in the first place. Publishing it was analagous to publishing a paper on "UFOs and Alien Influences on the Construction of the Pyramids" in Biblical Archaeology Review."

Incorrect. The paper was successfully peer-reviewed. Your argument is that it shouldn't have been published *after* a successful peer review.

In effect, what you are doing is attempting to rebut a peer-reviewed paper without sending your rebuttal through the peer-review process.

...And the reason that you are attempting to avoid peer review yourself is as I stated above, that you can not find scientific flaws with the paper itself.

243 posted on 02/16/2007 11:49:42 AM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
"Steyn's paper was worked over in a number of places, as was the previous paper from which he cribbed most of the material. For a pretty thorough critique of why, in addition to being inappropriate in the Society's journal, it was not terribly good science, read on:"

How can people "read on" if censors such as yourself are preventing competing peer-reviewed documents from being published?!

...and why, if the paper in question not such "good science," is a peer-reviewed rebuttal paper unavailable? It should have been easy (if your side was "right"). It wasn't.

You've got to jump through hoops, kid. You've got to **pretend** that the peer-review process failed, that the editorial review failed, and that it would be somehow inappropriate to even **discuss** the paper in question (in order to explain why no peer-reviewed rebuttal is on file).

Face it, your side has lost the entire Evolutionary argument, and you are reduced to using your positions of power to stifle publication and scientific debate.

You've become censors. You've become dogmatic. You've become unscientific. You've even resorted to becoming oppressive.

244 posted on 02/16/2007 11:56:22 AM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Who cares about Krauthammer...he looks like the one armed man from the fugitive.



245 posted on 02/16/2007 12:03:32 PM PST by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #246 Removed by Moderator

To: voltaires_zit
"The comparison to publishing a "UFOs and the Pyramids" paper in BAR was apt. The subject matter was entirely inappropriate for that journal, which is why your hero Sternberg short circuited normal procedures to publish it. At the end of the day, Meyer proposed NOTHING that constitutes science with his paper."

Nonsense. The peer-reviewed paper in question shows, exhaustively, that random mutation/selection is inferior to biased mutation/selection for explaining the Cambian Explosion of life.

247 posted on 02/16/2007 2:52:09 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
"The ID side **needs** to get this through its pointed little collective head: Until you get a testable, potentially falsifiable prediction out of your speculations, y'all might as well be drinking lemonade in the backyard. You're not doing science."

Incorrect. It's the censors...you, for instance...who aren't "doing science."

ID is testable, by the way. ID exists only where there is a bias. No bias, no ID. Bias is a prerequisite.

And every process can be tested for bias.

248 posted on 02/16/2007 2:54:32 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

Knock off the personal attacks. Thanks.


249 posted on 02/16/2007 3:00:28 PM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Southack

> Incorrect. It's the censors

No testable, potentially falsifiable hypothesis = Worse than "wrong" > USELESS.

> ID is testable, by the way.

Quickly, there's immense prize money to be gotten here!

> And every process can be tested for bias.

Presence of "bias" does not show intelligent design (dissipative structures, anyone?), so your "test" does not have the potential to falsify your "hypothesis". It is, therefore... drum roll please .... USELESS, like every other supposed "test" for "ID".



250 posted on 02/16/2007 3:27:23 PM PST by voltaires_zit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-278 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