Friday, August 05, 2005

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:

...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."

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...
Morality can exist without religion and history has painfully taught us that religion does not guarantee morality.

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?


Blogger NixGuy said...

Mmmmm. How would I go about proving or disproving the existence of an afterlife, scientifically?

Are you of the opinion that that which can not be measured does not exist?

August 5, 2005 at 9:48 PM  
Blogger kingskid said...

Obviously you've never heard Peggy Lee sing "Is That All There Is?"
The utter meaninglessness of life as the result of blind chance is disgusting to me. 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."

Oh yes, by the way, it's becoming more and more clear that Darwin was utterly and completely wrong in his understanding of the origins of the species. Read about it--there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, none, nada, zip, zero. Darwinian evolution, the philosophical basis of Nazism, Marxism and Leninism can NOT be proven to be true scientifically. And until it can be and is thus proven, it remains (gasp) an unproven theory. Your religious adherence to the Darwinian error takes one holy heckova lot more faith than my belief in the death, burial, resurrection and imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Did I tell you that you will be a believer some day?).


August 5, 2005 at 11:04 PM  
Anonymous Belteshazzar said...

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 ( 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.

August 6, 2005 at 3:45 AM  
Blogger kingskid said...

Yo, Belteshazzar,

You shoulda stayed in Babylon.

A simple statement of obvious truth is "hitting" people with my Bible? Your sensitivity is cute.

But what do you have to say about ID?


August 6, 2005 at 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


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?

August 6, 2005 at 11:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


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.

August 6, 2005 at 12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


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.

August 6, 2005 at 1:08 PM  
Blogger kingskid said...


"Warning" is not "shoving." Folks who spend their lives doing what they want and avoiding any accountability to the Creator almost always resort to confusion of the two terms, in addition to lumping ANY believers together with medieval inquisition and islamist jihadism. Your disdainful remarks put you on the same side of the fence with the pagan left when it comes to negative over-reaction to people of faith. I hope that's the only thing you have in common with Michael Moore.


August 6, 2005 at 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


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.

August 6, 2005 at 4:59 PM  
Blogger kingskid said...


You're doing the best you can. I also wish you blessings as you make your way thru this life.


August 6, 2005 at 10:37 PM  
Blogger Steven J. Kelso Sr. said...

I am still waiting for the missing link. Please place it in my hand. Send me a picture. Faith that it exists?

Please provide me a animal or plant that naturally "evolved." Since this evolution would occur a different rates, surely something "evolved" last week. Last month? Last year?

August 8, 2005 at 6:36 PM  
Blogger kingskid said...

Way to say, Steven! The fossil record is totally bereft of transitional forms. And the law of irreducible complexity absolutely mitigates against the "evolution" of an incredibly complex organ like the human eye. And the best mathematical estimates of the time span necessary to produce a single, simple amino acid thru natural processes controlled by pure chance is astronomically longer than the measured existence of the known universe.

As I've said before, the stubborn, frightened adherence to the Darwinian error by many in the "scientific" community exemplified in the dogmatic and persistent opposition to the teaching of criticisms of Darwinian evolutionary theory in our public schools is beginning to appear ludicrous. Since when does scientific inquiry turn its nose up at legitimate alternative explanations of the origins of life buttressed by undeniable factual evidence?

The left/liberal establishment in this nation, firmly ensconced in our educational systems from top to bottom, never let anything as irrelevant as a body of factual data interfere with their prejudices.


August 8, 2005 at 9:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

August 9, 2005 at 4:08 PM  
Blogger kingskid said...


It is essentially a waste of time arguing evolution vs intelligent design. Steven and I are not asking for proof. We're stating that over 100 years of scientific efforts to find the transitional fossil forms that could demonstrate 1)that life came spontaneously from non-life or 2) that one species evolved into another species have failed, period. Materialists, empiricists and similar folks steeped in naturalistic philosophy cling desperately to their faith in blind chance as their mother. It's interesting to me to watch very intelligent, highly educated and usually extremely sophisticated folks stare at the wonder of the laws of physics, the amazing rationality of the physical world, the mind-boggling intricacies of atomic and sub-atomic reality and the delicate antennae of a butterfly and proceed to ascribe these obviously designed systems and mechanisms
to...blind...chance. What faith!
What deeply felt religious convictions, minus God! Were they not so horribly and sadly wrong, I might even envy the strength of their convictions, especially considering the inability of science to prove the validity of any of the basic tenets they cling to so determinedly.

David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher of science at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, recently wrote, "Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe." I couldn't agree more.

And Porkopolis (I'm going to be gentle. You didn't seem to like it when I told you that the Bible calls unbelievers fools.), you don't seem to understand the argument regarding irreducible complexity. It's not merely a matter of something being complicated, and therefore it must have been designed. There are several systems in the human eye that are indispensible to the miracle of sight and that cannot exist, let alone function, apart from one another. So one could not develop on its own and then begin to function with the other which also developed on its own. They must exist simultaneously from their beginning in order to interact in bringing about sight. How can that happen apart from the intelligence of an outside designer
(I would say Creator)? Answer: it can't. I'm no biologist, and I may not be very adept at explaining these kinds of phenomena. But to argue, as you say evolutionary biologists do, that such a design exists without an intelligent designer is patently absurd.

Humanists take pride in their assertion that human beings are the highest form of life. Pride is, and has always been, a killer. It causes very few people, perhaps even you, too, to want to acknowledge even the possibility of the existence of a Creator to whom accountability is required. Intelligent design as a means of explaining the origin of species implies the existence of God, and that notion cannot be abided by the good humanists of the world, all other considerations notwithstanding.

But enough of this. It's useless.
I will never convince you, and no one will ever be able to convince me. The scientific criticisms of Darwin's view of the origin of species must be taught in our public schools. Call it "intelligent design" or "non-Darwinism" or whatever, it is anti-scientific to do otherwise.


August 16, 2005 at 10:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home