Krauthammer — The Senescent Years

_{William Dembski

November 18, 2005

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html

Comments

Neal, Neal, Neal. So typical, so presumptuous, so lazy. There is a huge amount of scientific arguments made by scientists within the ID camp from books, dissertations, articles, etc, which do exactly what you claim isn't being done. This other site of Dembski's alone contains enough reading to keep you busy for a very long time. http://www.designinference.com/mentok_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

The most obvious reason for the people who attack ID (not the funders of the attacks) is that they see ID as part of a Christian fundamentalist plot to theocratize America and the world under the fundamentalist dominionist ideology. That is most likely the motivation of most people who attack ID who utilize demagoguery and various straw man arguments and other logical fallacies.
MEMO TO ID PROPONENTS (from One Outside Your Camp): I'm sorry, but I see it exactly the other way around -- wondering how/why ID is so well-funded, seeing it as much more of an elaborate marketing strategy than intellectual movement. I openly admit that I believe ID is misled, or is at the very least putting conjecture and cant ahead of well-sustained arguments. These *should* do a number of things: First, make clear explanations of ID's relationship to evolution (are they diametrically opposed?, are they compatible? - the public clearly wonders, as I have been reading, if ID is a replacement of E, or if ID is Evolution++). Second, while continually ranting against the biases of mainstream science, academe, and the press (which are sometimes wellfounded but so often your OWN "straw men" to be knocked down), nothing can beat clear, refined, articulate argumentation along constructive lines. Your cause will be helped if it is seen as standing on its own two feet and not just a line of argument/critique. Thanks to punditry and our fascination with contrived and polarized debate, ID is seen only as a sparring partner -l you must try to step back from that form of engagement alone. Third, and finally, you MUST establish the points of continuity and discontinuity between ID and religion - or else you will forever risk being misunderstood (however you address those points). Does design demand a "designer," and if so how does contemporary ID differentiate itself from, say, Aristotle, or Aquinas? The cost-benefit of having Frist, Bush, et al, endorse ID has its limits (I'm not sure that "any press is good press"), as it has already tarred and stigmatized you as inherently religious, or bad science, or bad theology. This is only IN PART because of arguments/biases made against you, but, I believe, because the ID camp has never adequately addressed it or the above questions. Thanks for hearing me out.Neal_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

"He shows how at first there were just random atoms floating around space." Coyne needs to do a little bit more reading about the evolution of the universe. The universe was 300,000 years old before atoms were able to form. Molecules didn't form for a billion years until after the first generation of stars had formed and died. http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/universe.htmDaveScot_{November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

I like mentok's (comment 14). Why is there such a backlash against ID at this time? I think he is right, non-ID'ers are scared by something. I think what scares them is that ID seems to be associated with the surreal politics of the last few years. They see it somehow standing next to the intelligence that falsely gave evidence of WMDs and then, so predictably, got us into the war between factions in Iraq. They are now gun shy of anything that smacks of reasoning that the current administration believes in. Now that is not much of an argument against ID, but it is a motivator. Motivates me, anyway. I dont mind drifting a bit between belief and non-belief in a higher power, but for the first time I am starting to think that freethinkers are going to have to start dodging bullets between crusaders and jihadists while big brother gets to where we have to have our RFID scanned before being allowed to defecate. Off topic? Well I think it's legitimate to try to figure out if ID is somehow connected to the new insanity of our times. Anyway, so now I am interested.jesguessin_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

geoff you wrote: " If God exists people intuitively know they are in big trouble. People will go to incredible lengths to deny God exists are (or?) to make God a big grandfather in the sky." Why would people intuitively "know they are in big trouble" if God exists? And why would people go to the lengths you describe prompted by a subconsicous reason? You also wrote: " While ID does not try to identify the Designer, the implications of the theory are too much for them to bear. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why they skip the arguments and go directly to Ã¢â‚¬Å“this isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t science.Ã¢â‚¬Â You are right. Scientists who dogmatically preach evolution and denigrate ID are biased against ID because they don't believe in God. They view the lack of proof for evolution as being due to our own lack of finding it, not to there being no proof. Because they don't study the arguments made by the detractors of evolution they don't realize that there will never be any proof. Because they are biased against God they will not take the time to study all of the arguments against evolution. It's not because they "can't handle the truth", it's because they haven't actually seen the truth. They do not study the position of ID in depth before attacking it and claiming it to be pseudoscience. They are biased against the theological implications of ID therefore they a priori reject it and don't study it. Then of course they will lie and say they have studied it and found it to be pseudoscience. Then you wrote: "A lot of groups want to be taken seriously. Ã¢â‚¬Å“I can have faith and be a Darwinian.Ã¢â‚¬Â Bully for them. The question should be Ã¢â‚¬Å“is it trueÃ¢â‚¬Â. I could be content being a theist and a Darwinist. I believe in the sovreignity of God in all things. But I think the evidence is lacking." You're right. People accept evolution because they are brainwashed. There is no evidence for evolution and it's a really stupid theory on the face of it. So...brainwashed. Being a darwinian means being ignorant. If people believe in evolution it's only due to propaganda not education. Just like I was just watching a video of a class given by Coyne at a college about the "fertility of the universe". It was pure propaganda and brainwashing. The class was about how the universe evolved from nothing to the present day. He starts off with the universe after the Big Bang. He shows how at first there were just random atoms floating around space. Once the conditions became right the atoms started to bond to form molecules. He called this increasing complexity a natural part of the universe. He then went onto explain how from those molecules the universe continued to get more complex by natural processes. From molecules to stars to planets. All part of the natural order of increasing naturally occuring complexity. And then he said that since the universe was getting more and more complex he could find no reason to disbelieve that an amoeba could come into existence by that same continuing natural trend towards complexity. I awaited for an explanation as to why he should find no reason because I could think of a good many reasons. But he continued on with saying that after the amoeba came into existence the continuing natural complexity built into the universe continued on to create more complex forms of life ending up with humans as the highest manifestation of the trend in the universe towards complexity. And that was the sum and substance of an over hour long presentation. At the end he asked how does God fit into the picture? He said God doesn't. All that goes on in the universe occurs naturally through the inherent built in drive towards complexity. God is some unknowable loving thingamabob outside of all of this. What has happened in the natural world was meant to happen because the universe naturally drives itself in this direction through a natural sequence of events, one on top of the other. That is the level of discourse at a university on these topics. They simplify everything to the point of irrelevance. "Amoebas just came into existence because that is the way of the universe" It is meant as propaganda not as education. They have an agenda and it's not to educate people, it's to steer people into a specific belief sytem and away from others.mentok_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

"Paul Vitz on his essay about the psychology of atheism mentions that he became an atheist because he wanted to be taken seriously by his colleagues. I think that may go on with many people with the ID movement. At the very least, a theist should say 'hey, letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s look into this.'" Good point. I've long suspected peer pressure as an incentive for keeping scientists in the closet, myself. Davidcrandaddy_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

mentok, I think two things are going on, both on the subconscious level, at least for most people. 1) If God exists people intuitively know they are in big trouble. People will go to incredible lengths to deny God exists are to make God a big grandfather in the sky. While ID does not try to identify the Designer, the implications of the theory are too much for them to bear. That's why they skip the arguments and go directly to "this isn't science." 2) A lot of groups want to be taken seriously. "I can have faith and be a Darwinian." Bully for them. The question should be "is it true". I could be content being a theist and a Darwinist. I believe in the sovreignity of God in all things. But I think the evidence is lacking. Paul Vitz on his essay about the psychology of atheism mentions that he became an atheist because he wanted to be taken seriously by his colleagues. I think that may go on with many people with the ID movement. At the very least, a theist should say "hey, let's look into this."geoffrobinson_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

There is an organized well funded attack on ID going on at the present time. We know the Templeton Foundation is shelling out bucks for that purpose and there are numerous scientific bodies as well involved who are funded by who knows? Clearly there has to be a reason beyond the lame excuse of trying to keep scientific rationality and integrity held aloft for the attack to be taking place. Clearly some people fell threatened by ID and are willing to organize and fund all of these lame attacks. The people who are funding this attack clearly fear ID for some reason. What is that reason? The most obvious reason for the people who attack ID (not the funders of the attacks) is that they see ID as part of a Christian fundamentalist plot to theocratize America and the world under the fundamentalist dominionist ideology. That is most likely the motivation of most people who attack ID who utilize demagoguery and various straw man arguments and other logical fallacies. They can't attack ID in any other way because they either haven't studied it or if they have they can't really come up with a scientific reason to attack it. If ID was really what the propagandist demagogues say it is e.g "psuedo-science" then there wouldn't be such a passionate attack on it utlizing demagoguery, straw man arguments and logical fallacies. Religions have long claimed God as being the creator of all life. But what we are seeing right now is a frantic demagogic attempt to demonize ID as "psuedo science". Because these propagandists know that most people are intellectually lazy and accept scientists as some kind of priestly caste, they then fund these scientists and other writers and professional pundits to attack ID in the mass media knowing that most people will believe what they are told. The people who fund these attacks must fear ID but probably not because they see it as part of a fundamentalist plot to theocratize the world. They should know better. So they must fear ID for another reason. The only reason I could come up with is that ID is scary to them because it is so convincing and it directly opposes some kind of agenda which the funders are promoting. The only thing that ID opposes on a philosophical level is a universe without a God who is actively involved in the universe or at least on Earth. So the funders of the attacks on ID must oppose that ideology. They oppose the concept of promoting the scientific proof of a God who is actviely involved with our universe and on Earth. Why? They must have an agenda which promotes an ideology which is based on there being no God who is active on Earth. The Templeton Foundation is the perfect example. They have lots of money and are promoting the confluence of religion and science supposedly in some kind of rational openminded all embracing way. Yet they fund demagogic hack attacks on ID. They clearly have a specific ideology which they want to promote, otherwise if they were really about syncretism they would embrace ID due to it's scientific integrity and theistic connotations. Their so called syncretism is just a false front for an ulterior purpose. They have brothers in arms amongst members of religious organizations, people who control foundations which fund academia, and others with great wealth. These people form some kind of clique whose agenda is threatened by the scientific integrity of ID. If ID was as their mouthpieces claim it to be i.e biblical literalism, psuedo science, etc, then they wouldn't be so intent on demonizing it. They are afraid of ID because they know it's good science. This sounds conspiratorial, and it is. There is definetly a concerted effort to demonize ID and prevent people from taking the time to actually study it.mentok_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

The darwinites always wanna talk about God. I want 'em to answer the science.mmadigan_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

I offer this as a metaphor for the "intersection" of science and God--and, by extension, to ID as science versus ID as just pure, non-scientific religiosity. Jesus tells Peter: Go to the sea, cast a line into the sea. The first fish you catch, open its mouth. You'll find two gold coins. Pay the temple tax with it, one for you and one for me. Now, when Peter did that and found those coins, the question is: was that just luck?PaV_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Part of Krauthammer's error is that favorite fallacy of so many: "why couldn't God have . . .?" He suggests it would have been wonderful if God had created the world through evolutionary means. That is not the question. It would have been wonderful if God had created the world in one day instead of six or instead of 14 billion years (take your pick). It would have been wonderful if he had populated every planet in the solar system. It would have been wonderful if he had given us the ability to fly. We could play that game until Christmas. The question is not what might God have done if he wanted to, but what is the real natural history of the world? It's still a question of science, and ID has not taken it out of that realm.TomG_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Did really Pat Robertson do such a ridiculous thing?Daniel512_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Krauthammer and Will shortcut the research they should do by accepting the standard output( read propaganda) of the print media, spouting the lies of mainstream science. Davidturell_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Krauthammer's continued misperception of the real issue shows how this is a basic belief system rather than evidence based. George Will is another who wilfully resists the facts.mmadigan_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

No can do, Bombadill. Harrassing is the Darwinian game ;-)Mats_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

These people need to hear from us. They should not be able to produce this misinformation and not be called on it. I suggest everyone email him.Bombadill_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Krauthammer is such a girly man.DaveScot_{November 19, 2005
November
11
Nov
19
19
2005
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

and finally...
How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. 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, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too.
How is trillions of deaths in some sick twisted game of trial and error over billions of years elegant and brilliant and creative? I'm not sure who in their right mind thinks- 'hey, I'm an evolved monkey, that's so elegant and creative and beautiful!' All my emotions, dreams, goals, and pursuits in life are meaningless piles of garbage that are just add-ons to the main and nearly sole goal of reproducing as much as I can to make as many selfish DNA as I can! Wow, what beauty!' I'm still waiting for lab tests where scientists tweak the DNA of mice to turn them into anything but mice...same for fruit flies, e coli, and any other animal on earth. Forget this whole artificial selection idea- let's put the theory to the test, actually insert and remove parts of an animal's dna and try to create ANYTHING new. No one can do that and no one thinks we'll ever be able to do that...once they do accomplish this, I might give the theory of NS working on random pointless mutations a second thought.jboze3131_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

I'd also love to see how he thinks we could ever scientifically show intent:
The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process" with no "discernible direction or goal." This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?
jboze3131_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

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. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?
Krauthammer, whom I usually enjoy on Special Report on Fox News, is a hack when it comes to reporting on this issue. He's written about it before, and he refuses to get his facts straight. ID says no such thing as he described above. He has to know this, or he's pathetic at fact checking, which means all of his work becomes suspect. I also have to wonder how he thinks you could empirically disprove the notion of common descent? How can you possibly falsify events that supposedly took place over billions of years in very very slow and gradual steps (tho the fossil record shows that these steps weren't in any way gradual.) ??jboze3131_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Yet another ignorant (or dare I say insidious) anti-ID rant. My, how these get old |-O. As for good ol' Pat, I wish he'd get his facts straight before he starts preaching fire and brimstone. He sure has a way of getting his foot stuck in his mouth; I'm beginning to question his competence. Davidcrandaddy_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply