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
“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
Mr. Luskin is an attorney and published scientist working with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash.
Why? We are still social animals, which is the reason it was selected for in the first place. Take a look at kin selection.
"But it wasn't. And now morality directs change in ways that natural selection never would. Intelligently, I might add.
You'll have to expand on this, I don't follow.
"Bit of a conundrum there sharp.
Not if you consider the reason morals were selected for in the first place.
Sometimes I get the impression that you're frustrated by your inability to gain traction with your weak arguments, so you lash out with childish insults.
Don't insult *us* for your own poor performance.
Maybe that's the big "Discovery" at DI ... how to make a Gore3000 screed intelligible. It would be the 1720th time ...
Again, people should note that evolution is about species or groups, not about individuals.
Well, a theory is "cognitive content (perception) held as true," so it, too, qualifies as a "belief."
This is just goofy, son. The *majority* of Americans who are "in the evolution camp" are *Christians*, who are quite unlikely to fulfill your paranoid fantasy of people who "hate the very idea of God".
If you're dead-set on spewing lies, you might want to try to pick some more believeable ones.
Bully for you. I say if there is anything science can do to detect a supernatural entity, than that part or effect of the entity science can deal with is, de facto, a natural, not a supernatural, phenomenon. The ether was a big part of science for a long, time, but then the ether went away. So, one could argue that the ether is a supernatural phenomenon--there is no scientific validity to its existence because science can't detect it. Does that mean science has proved there is no ether?
Similarly, will the discovery of an obvious natural explanation for abiogensis disprove the existence of God the Prime Mover of life? Scientific theories are provision in nature: they are just convenient approximate maps of reality--they are not real things in a tangible sense. We tend to accept them because they are useful, not because they are in some sense absolutely true or transcendent--or even trying to approach such pinnacles. Just because Einstein's theory is useful, doesn't mean Newton's theory is useless; just because there is an abiogenic explanation for the existence of life, doesn't mean there isn't also a Prime Mover God.
How would this statement qualify under the above definition: "In order for science to be science, it cannot, and must not, entertain any notions about the supernatural, or God."
Festival of the Tractionless Trolls placemarker
Do you include C.S. Lewis in this? He has written that the Genesis stories are copied from older mythologies.
Maybe some day you will actually accept the notion that science gets to establish its own methods, one part of which is its definitions.
You can't get anywhere in a rational discussion when words are used as rubber bands and twisted all out of shape at a whim, or in order to fudge a point.
The establishment of definitions is not the sole property of science. I assume definitions to be the property of general human convention unless otherwise specified. The definitions you've posted several times are reasonable. While you're listing them, why not include the standard definitions for "intelligence" and "design"? Or are those not germane to the subject at hand?
I'd like to see "standard" definitions for intelligence or design.
LOL
You seem to believe that once a definition makes the dictionary it limits what people can say or do. Science doesn't work this way.
Science is governed and policed by results, not by definitions or committees. there are frequent squabbles over turf, but in the end, only results matter.
No it doesn't. You destroy the meaning of the word by omitting the word selfless which is well, Orwellian.
Reciprocal altruism is merely an unavowed contract.
The very word altruism denies any contract at all which is why the sociobiological term "reciprocal altruism" is so farcical. There is nor reciprocity in a selfless act. The act is born of a morality learned, not acquired else there would be no heroes.
Everyone makes them, every day. Why you're dragging Orwell into this is beyond me.
I drag Orwell in because he would very much appreciate the term "reciprocal altruism" I think.
Neither of us will be around to care.
On this mortal plane at least.
And, as an ex-Catholic, I seem to recall something called the sin of presumption.
Do tell, who has presumed what?
Oh, you can train yourself to exert a little control over your heart rate, no doubt.
Yes, you can. It really isn't very hard at all.
Quite a few people used this to get out of the draft.
No doubt but I admit to not having it under control when I enlisted.
It doesn't bear on my main point.
Sure it does. One can consciously control his heart rate and the same one makes moral decisions consciously both of which are contrary to your assertions.
..."I will leave the conservative base over it...."
IOW, you will accept Socialism, the loss of American Soveriegnty and a UN tyranny over an argument that has no affect on your or your family's well being.
Absolutely brilliant.
Some people feel the same about morality that is nothing more than fear of punishment by a supernatural being.
Here are all the listings for a google search for "define:intelligence" but I don't see anything supporting your side of the argument. I will leave "design" as an exercise for the student.
Intelligence:
the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experiencethe operation of gathering information about an enemy
secret information about an enemy (or potential enemy); "we sent out planes to gather intelligence on their radar coverage"
news: new information about specific and timely events; "they awaited news of the outcome"
Intelligence is a general mental capability that involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn. In psychology, the study of intelligence is related to the study of personality but is not the same as creativity, personality, character, or wisdom.
An intelligence agency is a governmental organization devoted to gathering of information by means of espionage (spying), communication interception, cryptoanalysis, cooperation with other institutions, and evaluation of public sources.
Intelligence is a scientific journal dealing with intelligence and psychometrics.
Intelligence is the process and the result of gathering and analysing difficult to obtain or altogether secret information. See espionage, intelligence agencies.
The product resulting from the collection, processing, integration, analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of available information concerning foreign countries or areas. Information and knowledge about an adversary obtained through observation, investigation, analysis, or understanding.
Intelligence is the system's level of performance in reaching its objectives.
many competing definitions exist for one of the most controversial concepts in psychology. The most influential in the assessment of intelligence in workplace settings is ‘the innate ability to perceive relationships and identify co-relationships’. The assumption is that much of the variation in intelligence can be explained by one general ability factor (G).
Intelligence is a generic term for various cognitive abilities. It is classified into different components, depending on the intelligence theory (eg in his work "The Berlin Model of Intelligence", AO Jäger lists: cognitive speed, memory, creativity, and reasoning to process verbal, numerical and figural material). ...
Physical bits and pieces gathered in a sceptical way, evidence. Ability to follow a program and carry out a routine in an expedient and effective manner. Compare Knowledge.
is effectively perceiving, interpreting and responding to the environment. It is also taken to mean the ability of an organization to survive and meet desired goals and objectives.
The ability of an individual to understand and cope with the environment; generally assessed with intelligence or "10" tests that are measures of aptitude.
The capacity to create constructively for the purpose of evolutionary gain. The ability to recognize that which is useful and that which is not, in the creation of internal and external change. Degree of sophistication in the manipulation of fact and materials on a progressive basis.
Intelligence concerning foreign developments in basic and applied scientific and technical research and development including engineering and production techniques, new technology, and weapon systems and their capabilities and characteristics; it also includes intelligence that requires scientific or technical expertise on the part of the analyst in areas such as medicine, physical, health studies, and behavioral analyses.
It used to be thought that the sauropods (like Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus) and Stegosaurus had a second brain. Paleontologists now think that what they thought was a second brain was just an enlargement in the spinal cord in the hip area. This enlargement was larger than the animal's tiny brain.
Work of Intelligence personnel of a military organization in gathering, evaluating, and disseminating Information of Military Value, also division or section of a military unit handling Intelligence matters . Abbreviation int
The part of the computer that carries out the calculations -- ie, the logic and arithmetic functions.
As ability: The ability to be able to correctly see similarities and differences and recognize things that are identical. Also the ability to figure out the correct relative importance of something. Government: Operation that finds out what the enemy is doing; spying.
Does the horse seem in control, aware of its surroundings, alert?
under the authority or control of a superior; subservient; dependent.
LOLOL!!! So of course, the answers will be "naturalistic" answers! Duh!!!
But the metaphysical naturalists take the problem one step further into absurdity: For they claim that the "natural" is ultimately completely reduceable to the material.
Jeepers. Talk about "stacking the deck!" And then having the temerity to call it a "method!"
Need I point out that every single "metaphysical naturalist" alive is a "closeted philosopher?" Who simultaneously claims for himself the "objectivity" of a scientist?
Who do these guys think they're trying to kid, to fool, with such a "method?"
Thanks for patiently bearing with my rant, dear Alamo-Girl. And thank you so much for your excellent essay/post.
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.