November 18, 2005

WHEN ZEUS-WORSHIPPERS ATTACK (via Brett Wallach):

Phony Theory, False Conflict: 'Intelligent Design' Foolishly Pits Evolution Against Faith (Charles Krauthammer, November 18, 2005, Washington Post)

Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God.

Mr. Krauthammer is, of course, correct that I.D. fails for precisely the same reason as Darwinism, both are mere tautologies and faith-based attempts to replace God with a cheap approximation of science. But that's an argument for banning Darwinism from the classroom, not giving it a monopoly. He does though clear up any lingering doubt anyone may have had about why he opposed Harriet Miers--it was just her religious faith.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 18, 2005 9:56 PM
Comments

How does ID replace God?

Posted by: Pepys at November 18, 2005 11:50 PM

Krauthammer is a joke when he speaks on this issue. He says:

"Dover distinguished itself this Election Day by throwing out all eight members of its school board who tried to impose "intelligent design" -- today's tarted-up version of creationism -- on the biology curriculum"

They're trying to "impose intelligent design"? Come on! A statement that said there's a book in the library...and a lawsuit that came from the ACLU and a group of childish parents who demanded no criticisms of NDE be spoken of? It's Darwinism that has been imposed as history has shown! And to call ID creationism is absurd to the point where I have little faith in any of Krauthammer's "reporting"- ID infers design, and it doesn't speak of the designer...it doesn't say anything of the age of the earth (nor does NDE except to say that it has to be billions of years old to do the miraculous things it supposedly has done)...ID proponents such as Behe have no problem with common descent, so how can Charles claim such an idea is creationism? Creation- as in, CREATE, all the kinds out of nothing, with no descent...Behe doesn't believe that's how things went down (he's actually said that to him, ID is sort of a form of theistic evolution.)

Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at November 19, 2005 12:10 AM

krauthammer is one of those pundits who all the other pundits praise, but who never seems to say anything particularly insightful or interesting. just another MSM fixture, waiting to be put out to pasture.

Posted by: noam chomsky at November 19, 2005 12:43 AM

I think Krauthammer is brilliant. I also think that if The Wife knew about OJ's Harriet Souter thing, she would make him sleep in the doghouse.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 19, 2005 2:13 AM

What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice

Well, Genecis for starters. Then the Greek pantheon. I once listened to an aboriginal elder explain how the Great Raven created the world. It was all that Krauthammer said it should be.

I don't know exactly what class ID should be taught it, but Krauthammer makes a pretty good case that darwinism belongs in art class.

Posted by: Peter B at November 19, 2005 4:53 AM

"Mr. Krauthammer is, of course, correct that I.D. fails for precisely the same reason as Darwinism, both are mere tautologies and faith-based attempts to replace God with a cheap approximation of science."

1. The theory of evolution is not a tautology.

2. Your link for 'tautologies' has nothing to do with tautologies.

3. The theory of evolution does not attempt to replace God; it simply does not require God, but is in no way incompatible with God's existence, even if it is incompatible with a strictly literal reading of the Bible.

Posted by: creeper at November 19, 2005 4:59 AM

Robert:

The Wife's whole family is MA Jews--no one knows better their hatred of W is just because he's Evangelical.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 8:09 AM

creeper:

Actually, Gould acknowledges that it's a tautology, just one he believes in, as you do (everyone has to have a faith). All theories of evolution are tautologies, it kjust happens that the Darwinists can't admit it or they lose their science claim and their monopoly in school. Given that so few Americans support the monoly already that would be devastating.

If you think Darwinism can be reconciled with God you don't understand Darwinism, but that's obvious...

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 8:15 AM

Pepys:

By pretending it can't say who the I is.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 8:18 AM

"Actually, Gould acknowledges that it's a tautology, just one he believes in, as you do (everyone has to have a faith)."

Gould acknowledges that Bethell thinks it's a tautology. Gould himself says otherwise.

All theories of evolution are tautologies, it just happens that the Darwinists can't admit it or they lose their science claim and their monopoly in school.

"Given that so few Americans support the monoly already that would be devastating."

The majority (close to 70%) want creationism taught as science in classrooms. :

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

"If you think Darwinism can be reconciled with God you don't understand Darwinism, but that's obvious..."

In what way is God being responsible for creating man in a way incompatible with the theory of evolution a prerequisite for God's existence?

Posted by: creeper at November 19, 2005 8:59 AM

creeper:

Exactly.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 9:06 AM
« SAVING SCOOTER: | Main | ONLY DEMOCRATS WOULD CUT AND RUN FROM A VICTORY: »