Intelligent Design is not Science
This is where a fiscal conservative like Porkopolis and religous conservatives part company. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer caputures the essence of the argument for true conservatism:
Here's some food for thought for my fellow conservatives promoting Intelligent Design in public education: Would the life that we have be any less special without a deity? Would you not cherish every breath, every moment all the more if you had incontrovertible knowledge that this life is all you get; no after life?
...Have we learned nothing? In Kansas, conservative school-board members are attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution to make sure that creationism's modern stepchild, intelligent design, infiltrates the curriculum. Similar anti-Darwinian mandates are already in place in Ohio and are being fought over in 20 states. And then, as if to second the evangelical push for this tarted-up version of creationism, out of the blue appears a declaration from Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken. In fact, he says, the Roman Catholic Church rejects "neo-Darwinism" with the declaration that an "unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist."Morality can exist without religion and history has painfully taught us that religion does not guarantee morality.
Cannot? On what scientific evidence? Evolution is one of the most powerful and elegant theories in all of human science and the bedrock of all modern biology...
Here's some food for thought for my fellow conservatives promoting Intelligent Design in public education: Would the life that we have be any less special without a deity? Would you not cherish every breath, every moment all the more if you had incontrovertible knowledge that this life is all you get; no after life?
Posted by Porkopolis at 8/05/2005 06:31:00 PM
Permalink
6 Comments:
Porkopolis is not science.
I just got here, interested in the name (an old moniker for Cincinnati). Instead of a rant on pork-barrel spending, here's a format-rending rant on ID opening up a big enough can of worms to keep any number of blog viewers debating philosophy for weeks, instead of Congressional bacon.
That's curious about Krauthammer. Well, David Limbaugh seems to disagree (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20050805.shtml). That's OK; conservatives *do* disagree and need not apologize for it.
I can't blame kingskid for finding a meaningless view of life "disgusting"--but many no doubt will have a similar reaction to the kid's posting. Yo, kid! Bibles are not for hitting people with! You wanna be an evangelist? Go study evangelism; then you won't have to be "very sorry". The approach taken here is counterproductive--unless you're really an anti-Christian troll out to make more enemies for believers.
Nixguy:
In answer to your question,
"Are you of the opinion that that which can not be measured does not exist?"
My answer would be no. I'll offer two examples of things that can't be measured but are generally accepted as existing; fear and hope.
How does one measure the fear that terrorism will indiscriminately take the life of a loved one? How does one measure the hopes parents place in their children for the next generation?
kingskid:
Your "believe or else" message is what so many against the left rage against. Religion is not something you can shove down an unbeliever's throat.
Hopefully your sanctimony is limited to the 'after life' rather than this life. We have seen the lengths some extremists go to in this life against unbelievers.
Belteshazzar:
Thank you for visiting Porkopolis and I hope you find specifically what you're looking for.
Rants on pork barrel spending are a plenty; you're welcome to peruse the sidebar for specific series.
As for the content of this blog, I'll respectfully share that it's whatever I want to write about. Feel free to move on if you don't find it to your liking.
However, the President's (any many other fellow conservatives) 'crusade' to introduce Intelligent Design into public school curricula is an initative this libertarian does not support.
At a minimum, it has several economic consequences including the mis-allocation of resources (time and money; both of which are limited) in biology studies.
Therefore, I'm more than justified in commenting about it here.
I could go further and make the case that the mandating of Intelligent Design studies, specifically within science classes, in public schools would be wasteful government spending in and of itself; a major theme of this blog.
kingskid:
I can assure you that Michael Moore and I have little in common from a political point of view.
As to your, "warning", it strikes me as disingenuous. I'm certain average readers of your comments (see below) would interpret them as 'shoving religon down their throats':
I'm very sorry to say that one day, you will be a believer--in God, in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, in Heaven and in hell, all of the biblical things you scoff at now. But unless your belief begins BEFORE this life ends, you will never have an opportunity to repent and tell your Creator how sorry you are that you denied His existence and refused to reason from the creation to the Creator. It's no wonder The Word (that's the Bible to you) calls folks like you "fools."
Finally, I'm heartened (as I noted in my 'hopefully' remark on the extremists we find ourselves fighting today) that your zealousness (a zealousness that should be respected upto the point it starts infrining on unbelievers rights; the very premise of the blog post and for that matter, the First Amendment), is not to be associated with the 'truth-spreading' tactics of inquisitioners and jihadists.
The hope was expressed because the tone of your remarks ("It's no wonder The Word (that's the Bible to you) calls folks like you "fools." ") is quite intolerant of unbelievers.
Here's to wishing you well on your life journey.
Steven and kigskid:
It's extremely encouraging (an I mean that with 100% sincerity) that you are asking for proof.
That is one of the foundations of the scientific method. You have every right to have something explained ("missing link", "fossil record for transitional forms"). And the Theory of Evolution should stand up to the questions.
Evolutionary biologist have no argument with the 'Design' portion of Intelligent Design; just the 'Intelligent' portion. Just as you have allowed yourself to question the "missing link" and "fossil record for transitional forms" and asked for proof, you should allow for a similar challenge to the 'Intelligent' portion of Intelligent Design.
It's not sufficient to say, "This entity is complicated and only intelligence can create complicated entities" Snowflakes alone blow that right out of the water (pun intended).
You have to go the next step and give evidence/proof of the 'Intelligence' you claim. From my readings, the arguments for Intelligent Design start breaking down when its proponents start offering faith instead of proof when challenged.
With regard to 'Fossil Evidence of Transitoinal Forms', I did a quick Google search and found this excellent and very detailed write-up.
Here's a very plausible explanation to the evolution of the human eye.
You might be also be interested in Some Objections to Intelligent Design from a fellow Christian.
Post a Comment
<< Home