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

Skip to comments.

Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]
Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry

Occasionally a social issue becomes so ubiquitous that almost everyone wants to talk about it -- even well-meaning but uninformed pundits. For example, Charles Krauthammer preaches that religious conservatives should stop being so darn, well, religious, and should accept his whitewashed version of religion-friendly Darwinism.1 George Will prophesies that disagreements over Darwin could destroy the future of conservatism.2 Both agree that intelligent design is not science.

It is not evident that either of these critics has read much by the design theorists they rebuke. They appear to have gotten most of their information about intelligent design from other critics of the theory, scholars bent on not only distorting the main arguments of intelligent design but also sometimes seeking to deny the academic freedom of design theorists.

In 2001, Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez’s research on galactic habitable zones appeared on the cover of Scientific American. Dr. Gonzalez’s research demonstrates that our universe, galaxy, and solar system were intelligently designed for advanced life. Although Gonzalez does not teach intelligent design in his classes, he nevertheless believes that “[t]he methods [of intelligent design] are scientific, and they don't start with a religious assumption.” But a faculty adviser to the campus atheist club circulated a petition condemning Gonzalez’s scientific views as merely “religious faith.” Attacks such as these should be familiar to the conservative minorities on many university campuses; however, the response to intelligent design has shifted from mere private intolerance to public witch hunts. Gonzalez is up for tenure next year and clearly is being targeted because of his scientific views.

The University of Idaho, in Moscow, Idaho, is home to Scott Minnich, a soft-spoken microbiologist who runs a lab studying the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic rotary engine that he and other scientists believe was intelligently designed -- see "What Is Intelligent Design.") Earlier this year Dr. Minnich testified in favor of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial over the teaching of intelligent design. Apparently threatened by Dr. Minnich’s views, the university president, Tim White, issued an edict proclaiming that “teaching of views that differ from evolution ... is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula.” As Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf asked in an editorial, “Which Moscow is this?” It’s the Moscow where Minnich’s career advancement is in now jeopardized because of his scientific views.

Scientists like Gonzalez and Minnich deserve not only to be understood, but also their cause should be defended. Conservative champions of intellectual freedom should be horrified by the witch hunts of academics seeking to limit academic freedom to investigate or objectively teach intelligent design. Krauthammer’s and Will’s attacks only add fuel to the fire.

By calling evolution “brilliant,” “elegant,” and “divine,” Krauthammer’s defense of Darwin is grounded in emotional arguments and the mirage that a Neo-Darwinism that is thoroughly friendly towards Western theism. While there is no denying the possibility of belief in God and Darwinism, the descriptions of evolution offered by top Darwinists differ greatly from Krauthammer’s sanitized version. For example, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins explains that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” In addition, Krauthammer’s understanding is in direct opposition to the portrayal of evolution in biology textbooks. Says Douglas Futuyma in the textbook Evolutionary Biology:

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”3

Thus when Krauthammer thrashes the Kansas State Board of Education for calling Neo-Darwinian evolution “undirected,” it seems that it is Kansas -- not Krauthammer -- who has been reading the actual textbooks.

Moreover, by preaching Darwinism, Krauthammer is courting the historical enemies of some of his own conservative causes. Krauthammer once argued that human beings should not be subjected to medical experimentation because of their inherent dignity: “Civilization hangs on the Kantian principle that human beings are to be treated as ends and not means.”4 About 10 years before Krauthammer penned those words, the American Eugenics Society changed its name to the euphemistic “Society for the Study of Social Biology.” This “new” field of sociobiology, has been heavily promoted by the prominent Harvard sociobiologist E.O. Wilson. In an article titled, “The consequences of Charles Darwin's ‘one long argument,’” Wilson writes in the latest issue of Harvard Magazine:

“Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next. … However elevated in power over the rest of life, however exalted in self-image, we were descended from animals by the same blind force that created those animals. …”5

This view of “scientific humanism” implies that our alleged undirected evolutionary origin makes us fundamentally undifferentiated from animals. Thus Wilson elsewhere explains that under Neo-Darwinism, “[m]orality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. … [E]thics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”6

There is no doubt that Darwinists can be extremely moral people. But E.O. Wilson’s brave new world seems very different from visions of religion and morality-friendly Darwinian sugerplums dancing about in Krauthammer’s head.

Incredibly, Krauthammer also suggests that teaching about intelligent design heaps “ridicule to religion.” It’s time for a reality check. Every major Western religion holds that life was designed by intelligence. The Dalai Lama recently affirmed that design is a philosophical truth in Buddhism. How could it possibly denigrate religion to suggest that design is scientifically correct?

At least George Will provides a more pragmatic critique. The largest float in Will’s parade of horribles is the fear that the debate over Darwin threatens to split a political coalition between social and fiscal conservatives. There is no need to accept Will’s false dichotomy. Fiscal conservatives need support from social conservatives at least as much as social conservatives need support from them. But in both cases, the focus should be human freedom, the common patrimony of Western civilization that is unintelligible under Wilson’s scientific humanism. If social conservatives were to have their way, support for Will’s fiscal causes would not suffer.

The debate over biological origins will only threaten conservative coalitions if critics like Will and Krauthammer force a split. But in doing so, they will weaken a coalition between conservatives and the public at large.

Poll data show that teaching the full range of scientific evidence, which both supports and challenges Neo-Darwinism, is an overwhelmingly popular political position. A 2001 Zogby poll found that more than 70% of American adults favor teaching the scientific controversy about Darwinism.7 This is consistent with other polls which show only about 10% of Americans believe that life is the result of purely “undirected” evolutionary processes.8 If George Will thinks that ultimate political ends should be used to force someone’s hand, then I call his bluff: design proponents are more than comfortable to lay our cards of scientific evidence (see "What Is Intelligent Design") and popular support out on the table.

But ultimately it’s not about the poll data, it’s about the scientific data. Regardless of whether critics like Krauthammer have informed themselves on this issue, and no matter how loudly critics like Will tout that “evolution is a fact,” there is still digital code in our cells and irreducibly complex rotary engines at the micromolecular level.

At the end of the day, the earth still turns, and the living cell shows evidence of design.





1 See Charles Krauthammer, “Phony Theory, False Conflict,” Washington Post, Friday, November 18, 2005, pg. A23.
2 See George Will, “Grand Old Spenders,” Washington Post, Thursday, November 17, 2005; Page A31.
3 Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (1998, 3rd Ed., Sinauer Associates), pg. 5.
4 Quoted in Pammela Winnick “A Jealous God,” pg. 74; Charles Krauthammer “The Using of Baby Fae,” Time, Dec 3, 1984.
5 Edward O. Wilson, "Intelligent Evolution: The consequences of Charles Darwin's ‘one long argument’" Harvard Magazine, Nov-December, 2005.
6 Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson "The Evolution of Ethics" in Religion and the Natural Sciences, the Range of Engagement, (Harcourt Brace, 1993).
7 See http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/ZogbyFinalReport.pdf
8 See Table 2.2 from Karl W. Giberson & Donald A Yerxa, Species of Origins America’s Search for a Creation Story (Rowman & Littlefield 2002) at page 54.

Mr. Luskin is an attorney and published scientist working with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; humanevents; moralabsolutes; mythology; pseudoscience
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,137 next last
Interesting how different Republican factions are lining up on this. Human Events on one side (the author of this article is with the Discovery Institute), and people like Charles Krauthammer and George Will on the other.
1 posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:45 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 320 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

2 posted on 12/12/2005 8:02:47 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I would not take this as an indication of where Human Events stands. They run several syndicated columnists.


3 posted on 12/12/2005 8:03:25 AM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: The Old Hoosier
I would not take this as an indication of where Human Events stands.

True. And the Discovery Institute likes to place ID-oriented columns and op ed pieces everywhere it can. I guess only a Human Events editorial will tell us where they stand. So my title for this thread is, perhaps, a bit misleading. Still, the article highlights the division within the Republican party. My hope is that the party doesn't take any official stand for ID (and against science).

5 posted on 12/12/2005 8:12:13 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
But E.O. Wilson’s brave new world seems very different from visions of religion and morality-friendly Darwinian sugerplums dancing about in Krauthammer’s head.

If in order for a theory to be correct, its proponents must march in lockstep in their beliefs and interpretations, I would invite the ID proponents to remove the beam from their own eye.

Shrug. These differences of opinion are chickenfeed compared to the differing interpretations of quantum mechanics.

6 posted on 12/12/2005 8:13:29 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Interesting how different Republican factions are lining up on this. Human Events on one side (the author of this article is with the Discovery Institute)...

The Discovery Institute blew their chance to be a player by dropping out of the Dover trial. If you don't have an argument that can be presented under oath, you don't have an argument.

7 posted on 12/12/2005 8:13:33 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Are we voting?

Put me down in the former monkey group.

8 posted on 12/12/2005 8:15:05 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

There ought to be room for both points of view in a country that espouses religious freedom.


9 posted on 12/12/2005 8:16:41 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
If in order for a theory to be correct, its proponents must march in lockstep in their beliefs and interpretations, I would invite the ID proponents to remove the beam from their own eye.Why do you choose religious terminology? That seems very hypcritical. Once again an evolutionist uses emotion and hypocrisy to make his point.
10 posted on 12/12/2005 8:18:07 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at His footstool; He is holy. Ps 99:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
They appear to have gotten most of their information about intelligent design from other critics of the theory, scholars bent on not only distorting the main arguments of intelligent design but also sometimes seeking to deny the academic freedom of design theorists.

Wouldn't be surprising. I used to believe "evolution" to be a "scientific fact" until I looked into it myself.

11 posted on 12/12/2005 8:21:30 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

ID has nothing to do with religion, unless you are willing to admit that a lot of people committed perjury at Dover.


12 posted on 12/12/2005 8:21:33 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Casey Luskin is DI's publicity flak. He's somewhat of a figure of fun over on Panda's Thumb.


13 posted on 12/12/2005 8:21:45 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

American Spectator seems to be lining up on the ID side also. Conservatives in general can line up on either side of the issue, since they tend to be more open-minded, and ID is not part of the conservative orthodoxy. Liberals however must be evolutionists since it is part of their orthodoxy.


14 posted on 12/12/2005 8:29:02 AM PST by rrr51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Creel
This isn't an important issue.

And "gay marriage" isn't an "important issue" either.

But the problem is that supporting gay marriage has cost the Dems severely. And if Republicans support ID, it will cost them too.

ID is a wedge issue, not in the way that the Discovery Institute intended (to wedge God into science classes, and from there into the rest of public schools). Instead it will become a political wedge, splitting up the Republican base. When schools do indeed "teach the controversy", ID has been documented to lose, thus there isn't even any gain for religious conservatives for the cost of spliting up the party.

A little experience around ID posts on FR should tell any Republican that this is not a good issue to bring up. There are more important things religious conservatives should concentrate on, such as the war against Christmas, and abortion. ID is a damaging distraction.

15 posted on 12/12/2005 8:30:07 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I don't see the scandal in having both groups pursue their theories. The same ignorance, that slaughtered any point of view rather than the earth is flat, is at work here with these embarassing witch hunts.


16 posted on 12/12/2005 8:31:33 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rrr51
ID is not part of the conservative orthodoxy

It will be, if articles like this continue. And I will leave the conservative base over it. I refuse to support scientific lies, and that's what ID is.

17 posted on 12/12/2005 8:31:39 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rrr51
ID is not part of the conservative orthodoxy

It will be, if articles like this continue. And I will leave the conservative base over it. I refuse to support scientific lies, and that's what ID is.

18 posted on 12/12/2005 8:31:43 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rrr51
Liberals however must be evolutionists since it is part of their orthodoxy.

Obama says Republicans practice "Social Darwinism".

19 posted on 12/12/2005 8:32:02 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Why do you choose religious terminology? That seems very hypcritical.

Ah, another mote. Why do creationists use science terminology? That seems decidedly sinful. Another beam.

20 posted on 12/12/2005 8:33:41 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
I used to believe "evolution" to be a "scientific fact" until I looked into it myself.

That's because you relied on a few religious sources rather than scientific sources. Religion and science are two entirely different ways of looking at the universe. The Catholic church understands that, and they have chosen not to confront science, after their disaster of Galileo. Todays' crop of IDers haven't yet discovered how badly they are shooting themselves in the foot over this. But they will.

21 posted on 12/12/2005 8:36:08 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
"I don't see the scandal in having both groups pursue their theories."

Nobody is stopping ID proponents from studying ID.

"The same ignorance, that slaughtered any point of view rather than the earth is flat, is at work here with these embarassing witch hunts."

The Earth has been known to be round since the time of the ancient Greeks. Educated people in Europe knew this from an early time. When did this *slaughtering of a point of view* happen in regard to the flatness of the Earth?
22 posted on 12/12/2005 8:37:06 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

later read/maybe pingout.


23 posted on 12/12/2005 8:37:27 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narby
That's because you relied on a few religious sources rather than scientific sources.

You shouldn't rely on mental telepathy for your information. It's not very reliable, or scientific.

24 posted on 12/12/2005 8:38:52 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
You shouldn't rely on mental telepathy for your information.

No clairvoyance required. I've seen your conclusion, so I know your sources.

25 posted on 12/12/2005 8:40:05 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: narby
This view of “scientific humanism” implies that our alleged undirected evolutionary origin makes us fundamentally undifferentiated from animals. Thus Wilson elsewhere explains that under Neo-Darwinism, “[m]orality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. … [E]thics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”6

Now that the cat is out of the bag on the illusion of morality and ethics, how do we avoid the inevitable nihilism described above? I don't see how. Any variation from it seems to reveal an inconsistency in position.

Given that, I will ask the question I asked a while ago. Why do the atheist/evos care what is taught? Or care about anything for that matter? In that world view, all is vanity and anything that seems to matter is nothing more than "an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate".

26 posted on 12/12/2005 8:42:03 AM PST by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pete
Why do the atheist/evos care what is taught?

Your first mistake is assuming that atheists and evolution proponents are one-and-the-same. Since you can't get that straight, I think it's a waste of time to comment on the rest.

27 posted on 12/12/2005 8:45:20 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: narby
And I will leave the conservative base over it. I refuse to support scientific lies, and that's what ID is.

My advice: Stay and fight for scientific truth. We need the help. Just hold your nose if you have to.

Publications and self-serving politicians have been pandering to the uneducated forever. ID is just the latest example.

28 posted on 12/12/2005 8:47:19 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"...........Charles Krauthammer preaches that religious conservatives should stop being so darn, well, religious, and should accept his whitewashed version of religion-friendly Darwinism.1 George Will prophesies that disagreements over Darwin could destroy the future of conservatism.2 Both agree that intelligent design is not science.........."

No, he's not arguing that the Religiosity of the Conservative Movement should be dropped. He's argued that being taken in by the ID/Creationist whack-jobs will send the Conservative movement so far out into the 'Area-51/Build-a-Burger/Awaiting the Mothership/Scientology/Screwy Louie Nation of Islam' fringe that normal people will either leave or distance themselves from these psychotic Evil infiltrators, thus destroying the Conservative Movement.............Something I've been pounding the table about since I decided to take a stand against these drooling idjits.

As for myself, I'd prefer to stay and fight and NOT let these moronic/ignorant/clowns take over this valuable website.

BTW, remind me never to subscribe to HUMAN EVENTS for giving this clown any forum at all to spew his ignorance.

29 posted on 12/12/2005 8:48:27 AM PST by DoctorMichael (The Fourth-Estate is a Fifth-Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pete
Why do the atheist/evos care what is taught? Or care about anything for that matter? In that world view, all is vanity and anything that seems to matter is nothing more than "an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate".

Because we live in this world and wish to be happy and effective and prosperous in it, and for this purpose, teaching scientific truth as best we understand it is MUCH better than teaching somebody's superstition.

30 posted on 12/12/2005 8:50:46 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
I used to believe "evolution" to be a "scientific fact" until I looked into it myself.

Missed that whole "Theory" part in "Theory of Evolution", eh?

31 posted on 12/12/2005 8:51:08 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Stay and fight for scientific truth.

The Republican agenda makers need to understand that when religion takes on science, religion always loses. Always has. Always will.

Karl Rove and his minions need to stay away from this subject like the plague. It is a waste of time, a waste of political capital, and will only empower the Democrats.

The Republicans have done many things right for the last 15 years. I stay with them because they have been right. If Republicans take up the ID fight, they will be wrong. It goes against my craw to support people when they're dead wrong.

32 posted on 12/12/2005 8:52:13 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
I used to believe "evolution" to be a "scientific fact" until I looked into it myself.

I used to believe that antievolutionists might be advancing some valid and valuable criticisms, until I took several antievolution tomes and spent several weeks in a good academic library chasing out the footnotes. (Francis Hitchings The Neck of the Giraffe, Duane Gish's Evolution? The Fossils Say No and Henry Morris' Scientific Creationism, as well as a number of other antievolution works caught up by incestuous footnoting.) The level of dishonesty, and the universal toleration of it within the antievolution movement, was, and remains, shocking.

33 posted on 12/12/2005 8:52:29 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: narby
If it wasn't for gay marriage (or anything regarding homosexuals), I imagine some people would have no purpose in life, nor any reason to get up in the morning. I'm talking about the people trying to make it into a right AND the people using it as a bludgeon against gays because they hate ("love") them so much.

The only gay thing that is important is lesbians (and only if both chicks are hawt). Tee-hee :)

34 posted on 12/12/2005 8:52:35 AM PST by M203M4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: narby
Your first mistake is assuming that atheists and evolution proponents are one-and-the-same. Since you can't get that straight, I think it's a waste of time to comment on the rest.

My post is directed primarily at those who are both atheist and hold to the theory of evolution. I am guessing that the atheist/creation intersection is rather small and can be ignored. That leaves the theist/evolution intersection.

Whether atheist/evo or theist/evo, my question still applies. The only difference between the two will be the manner of gymanastics performed to answer the question.

35 posted on 12/12/2005 8:54:01 AM PST by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
Missed that whole "Theory" part in "Theory of Evolution", eh?

And you missed the scientific definition of the word "theory".

Evolution is a fact, because it has been demonstrated in many many ways to have acually occured. But evolution is also a theory, in that it is a description of why species change over time.

Gravity is also a scientific "theory" too. And also a fact. My daughter took "Music theory" classes in college. You want to tell me that music is not a "fact"?

36 posted on 12/12/2005 8:55:31 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: js1138

ID is very much compatible with the views of those who espouse an almighty Creator. If it is merely a scientific squabble then it should be all the more simple to allow both points of view within a politically conservative tent.


37 posted on 12/12/2005 8:57:03 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
The level of dishonesty, and the universal toleration of it within the antievolution movement, was, and remains, shocking.

Intellectually (or perhaps psychologically) it's strikingly similar to the way the left clings to the dogma of socialism, long after the old leftist arguments have been refuted. It's the same kind of stubbornness -- "I've got my Truthtm and I'm sticking to it, so take your lousy data and you know where you can stick it."

38 posted on 12/12/2005 8:59:03 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rrr51
Liberals however must be evolutionists since it is part of their orthodoxy.

Just as a point of fact, all liberals are not automatically evolutionists. At least not according to a survey done by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life:

These differences of opinion carry over into politics as well (see detailed tables on pp. 22-23). Nearly six-in-ten conservative Republicans believe that living things have always existed in their present form, while just 11% say that evolution occurred through natural processes. Among liberal Democrats, by contrast, only 29% hold the creationist position, while a plurality (44%) accepts the natural selection theory of evolution. (emphasis mine)

39 posted on 12/12/2005 8:59:29 AM PST by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
ID is very much compatible with the views of those who espouse an almighty Creator.

Are these views compatible with your personal religion?

Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, has written a new book, "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design. In it he says this:

"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.

This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.

Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."

Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:

I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.

40 posted on 12/12/2005 9:01:41 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

"Screwy Louie Nation of Islam"

I just snorted coffee through my nose.


41 posted on 12/12/2005 9:02:47 AM PST by BeHoldAPaleHorse (MORE COWBELL! MORE COWBELL! (CLANK-CLANK-CLANK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I've always appreciated Charles Krauthammer's brilliant commentary, but I agree with Human Events on this one.

The Darwinists tell us that Darwinism has "nothing to do" with religion. That is misleading. Darwinism basically says, "go ahead and believe in God if you wish, but he is absolutely and completely irrelevant to any scientific understanding of the origin of man." Sorry, but that is a very profound anti-religious position whether the evolutionists are willing to admit it publicly or not.

The evolutionists claim that any notion of ID is "unscientific" and "outside the domain of science," then later they claim that ID has been thoroughly refuted by science. That's like a trial in which the judge stipulates a position a priori and prohibits any challenge to it, then later claims that such position was in fact proven. When the premise and the conclusion are the same, what is the value of the conclusion?

The notion that ID is inherently "unscientific" is patent nonsense, and I am frankly amazed at how many evolutionists are confused enough to believe it.


42 posted on 12/12/2005 9:03:05 AM PST by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A 2001 Zogby poll found that more than 70% of American adults favor teaching the scientific controversy about Darwinism.

I had two "Current Problems in Evolution" seminars in grad school some years ago. Didn't realize it was such a popular subject. Guess I should consider myself lucky I got registered with so many people interested in the subject.

43 posted on 12/12/2005 9:04:59 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pete
Why do the atheist/evos care what is taught? Or care about anything for that matter?

Since atheists, by definition, believe that mere humans wrote the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and any number of other religious books, the evidence is that humans have an innate affinity for moral behavior.

Basic morality, at least with regard to theft, assault, fraud , lies, etc. is common throughout human cultures, regardless of any particular faith. Any claims that morality descends solely from the Judeo/Christian God is laughable.

44 posted on 12/12/2005 9:05:19 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Because we live in this world and wish to be happy and effective and prosperous in it, and for this purpose, teaching scientific truth as best we understand it is MUCH better than teaching somebody's superstition.

A few of things:

First, happiness, effectiveness and prosperity only exist under the evolutionary illusion. They can be nothing more than natural selections. To assign meaning to them is erroneous.

Second, when you say MUCH better, what is the basis of that value judgement? Much better, how? Evolution is undirected - their is no ultimate goal or purpose. In fact, there is no such thing as "purpose". To suggest otherwise is to purposely forget what has been learned. We could teach students anything and, ultimately, it makes no difference.

If all humans died tomorrow, so what?

45 posted on 12/12/2005 9:05:23 AM PST by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: narby
I refuse to support scientific lies, and that's what ID is.

I'll go you one better - ID is nothing more than a right-leaning PC. Both seek to re-define words and lower standards to avoid offending a certain group, both involve ignoring facts that don't conform to political dogma.

This PC is just as silly, and just as dangerous, as the original.

46 posted on 12/12/2005 9:06:18 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RussP
The notion that ID is inherently "unscientific" is patent nonsense, and I am frankly amazed at how many evolutionists are confused enough to believe it.

A requirement of a scientific idea is that it makes predictions which, if false, will discredit the idea. What experiment, or observation, could disprove ID? If there are none (and none have yet been proposed by the ID advocates), then it's not science.

47 posted on 12/12/2005 9:06:50 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


48 posted on 12/12/2005 9:07:41 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

The religious right was the religious left. Reagan brought the religious left to the right. I was a Conservative long before that and I will be a Conservative long after the religious jump back to the left.
.


49 posted on 12/12/2005 9:11:12 AM PST by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
I don't see the scandal in having both groups pursue their theories.

That would be fine if both were scientific theories, not just theories in the vernacular, as ID is. ID needs to be pushed in the classroom as much as evolution needs to be preached in the Sunday sermon.

50 posted on 12/12/2005 9:12:01 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,137 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