In Krauthammer's "Phony Theory, False Conflict" he writes:
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.As far as I have heard, Intelligent Design does two things: it points out flaws with Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and offers as an alternative to the ascientific concepts of abiogenesis and macroevolution the quite reasonable suggestion that the obvious purpose, design, and complexity of Life must be due to an Intellect.
Whatever definition of ID one uses, the real "phony theory" is Darwinism. Here's why:
Science is a way of knowing. It depends on strict adherence to certain principles for it to be useful at all. Real Science requires that a phenomenon be observable, measurable, testable, and that whatever truth claims one makes must be verified using repeated applications of the Scientific Method.
Unfortunately, Darwinists use the word "Science" to mean atheistic naturalism, and they use it to dismiss as "backwards", "medieval", or "superstitious" anyone who dares to criticize their philosophy.
A Designer greater than and outside Nature is beyond Man's ability to study in a laboratory, and since no human being was around to observe the Origins of the Species, both the idea of a hyper-intelligent Designer and Darwinism's abiogenesis/macroevolution are extra-scientific; they are beyond the bounds of what Science can know.
Since Science can tell us nothing of Beginnings, it is Darwinism that is intellectually dishonest. Is is the fraud. It claims to be Science when in fact it is not only without empirical support for anything beyond microevolution (such random, minor, genetic mutations usually devastate or kill an organism), much of what is scientifically-verifiable contradicts it.
So, a challenge for the Darwinists: Apart from the random, minor, genetic mutations that occur within an organism (which have never been observed to result in newer, more complex genetic program, stucture, or function) what is actually, scientifically, empirically true about Darwinism?
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 [emphasis mine] 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?Here Krauthammer gets one right. Genetic mutations can result (when the organism survives) in changes within species. It does not result in newer, more complex, different kinds of animals. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating the massive number of transitional forms even Darwin admitted necessary to substantiating his explanation for Origins.
Krauthammer also hints at the fatal flaw of Darwinism: its theory of Origins is not only without empirical evidence for gradual transitional forms, it is contradicted by a growing body of scientific knowledge and human experience.
In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase “ natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us,” thus unmistakably implying — by fiat of definition, no less — that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.For Science to actually be Science, it must deal with that which is observable, testable, and verifiable. Since it cannot observe, test, or verify anything with regard to what occurred in the ancient past, but only with regard to what is happening now, Darwinism's Origins cannot be Science.
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?How does Krauthammer know that there is nothing (or no One) sustaining all things in Nature? Is he omniscient? Of course not, for that would make him God, Whom he seems so determined to discredit.
He may be, of course. But that discussion is the province of religion, not science.That's better.
For the same reason the workings of God in Nature cannot belong to Science (no man can observe, test, and verify them), Darwin's explanations of the Origin(s) of Life and the Species must also be excluded from its realm.
The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions — arguably, the most important questions in life — that lie beyond the material.If the Creation account in Genesis is false, then the God Who claimed to speak and it was so is a liar. In that case, all His morality is a fiction and should be discarded. This is why those who believe in an omnipotent, benevolent Creator must oppose Darwinism's anti-scientific elements.
It also why Darwinists must do everything they can to sustain their false worldview.
-------------------------------------
Posted with Krauthammer's contemptous anti-Christian contrivance:
VATICAN CITY, Nov. 18, 2005 (The Canadian Press delivered by Newstex) — The Vatican’s chief astronomer said Friday that “intelligent design” isn’t science and doesn’t belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.That is fine. At least tell the truth about Darwinism's utter uselessness in accounting for the Origins of the Species.
Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples and oranges.If you try to separate religion and science, and science is defined in terms of what is rational, provable, and true, then what does that make religion? By conceding that false dichotomy, the battle is already lost.
-------------------------------------
Following are responses to some of the reader comments on the article.
#10 TMF 11/20/2005 08:28AM PST wrote:
Lets stop creating false dichotomys.This is not true. Darwin expected the fossil record to support his ideas, and he admitted that without numerous transitional forms his theory was dead. Unfortunately for him, he didn't anticipate the fanaticism of the atheistic naturalists and their willingness to fabricate and fictionalize.
Science is science. Evolution is science, despite the presence of well known gaps and flaws in the theory, it has largely been proven, with evidence in the fossil record.
That said, any self proclaimed secularist/materialist who believes that the march of consciousness from subatomic particles through amino acids through protozoa through plants and animals, all the way up to the miracles of human accomplishment was the mere result of logarithmic probabilities or whatever Daniel Dennett is claiming these days, certainly push the enevlope of credulity.Well said.
-------------------------------------
#11 FrogMarch 11/20/2005 08:28AM PST wrote:
The thing is - one can believe in GOD and evolution.Certain gods can be believed along with Darwinism, but not the God of Israel. He says He made everything perfect and it was very good. Christ referred to Genesis as literal.
Scientists do it all the time.
I agree with Krauthammer on this.
Evolutionists believe Life formed through a process of chance, bitter agony, and death.
There can be no compromise; the two ideas are completely irreconcilable.
-------------------------------------
#13 ibrodsky 11/20/2005 08:30AM PST wrote:
Krauthammer is wrong on this. Intelligent design does not equal creationism. There are a number of facts that don't seem to jive with evolution. For example, could an eye evolve? If so, from what? And why do even the simplest organisms have the same sophisticated genetic machinery that humans do?That's called Irreducible Complexity, and it is a powerful scientific (that means empirical, verifiable) argument disproving Darwinism's explanation for Origins.
Additionally, the design and complexity of a human cell argues powerfully against the Chance + Time + Matter + Energy formula of the Evolutionists and for the idea that Omniscience created Life.
A human cell is a Von Neumann-type metabolic machine. It monitors, repairs, and replicates itself according to its genetic program, a program so complex that (according to one Darwinist) its code if printed on paper would be enough to fill hundreds of volumes of 500-page books (small font, no pictures).
No rational human being (don't Darwinists consider themselves supremely rational, especially when compared to the hopelessly backwards religious-types?) would ever assert that the computer on which you are reading this post spontaneously arose due only to the random interactions of the matter of which it is composed, time, and energy. Yet that is what the Darwinists would coerce all others to accept regarding Life.
As someone who is largely sympathetic with evolution and a fan of Darwin, I must note that today many evolutionists have become the non-thinking ideologues they have long accused their critics of being. There are legitimate questions about whether design has played a role in the development of life. Evolutionists tend to dismiss these questions. But when dealing with something about which we have only the most primitive knowledge, it's unwise to rule out theories just because you don't like the political or religious implications.Which is the reason Darwinism is so staunchly defended by the true believers, and those who disagree are (usually) so vehemently attacked.
-------------------------------------
#15 mich-again 11/20/2005 08:30AM PST wrote:
I don't have the blind faith it takes to be atheist and go along with the absolutely crazy notion that DNA just appeared one day in the primordial soup. That notion is just as ridiculous as the story from Genesis of Noah gathering all the animal species on Earth to save them from the great flood on his ark.When, in the history of Man, has anyone observed a program arising apart from a Programmer (or one of His programs)? Never. All scientific evidence, all human experience, shows that Life only arises from Life and Life's programs.
(By the way, the Noah account does not say "species"; that is a scientific term not-yet-coined at the time the events it describes took place.)
-------------------------------------
#16 Killgore Trout 11/20/2005 08:30AM PST wrote:
I find it embarrassing that creationism is making a comeback in this country. It does not bode well for our future to create a generation of scientifically illiterate children. You can belive in creationism if you want to, just keep it out of science classes.I would prefer real Science be taught, which would mean real Critical Thinking and analysis, not Darwinism.
-------------------------------------
#19 MJ 11/20/2005 08:32AM PST wrote:
You're kidding, right? By that logic, a predominately Muslim school board can "have their first amendment right include" a course called "Jihad has a moral obligation" in their curricula "if they want to". Sorry, but Majorities do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on minorities in this country.But real scientific truth should be taught, not someone's unsubstantiated atheistic fantasy.
-------------------------------------
#23 Spiny Norman 11/20/2005 08:35AM PST wrote:
No, they don't. They merely point out the obvious, that religion is by definition unscientific. They do not say believers are stupid.By definition, religion is not science. That does not mean it is void of scientific truth or contrary to Science. I would argue that when Science does its job and refrains from venturing into the realm of that which it is unable to examine, there is great harmony between Genesis and Science.
(Darwinists do often say religious people are stupid, either explicitly or by the implication of accepting what naturalists define as "unscientific", as this author just did).
-------------------------------------
#27 BPP 11/20/2005 08:38AM PST wrote:
No one ever said that believing in evolution (which is NOT, by the way, "a series of happy accidents") is easier than believing in ID. On the contrary, believing in the supernatural is always easier, as it does not require the rigor that science requires to be believable. That is why ID or creationism has been what most people believe for most of human history.What is unbelievable is that anyone would try to equate rigor with Darwinism and exclude from it religion (at least Christianity).
It does not take "rigor" to make up stories originally without any real scientific foundation, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century, and then to--in spite of the accumulating scientific evidence against it--adhere to the bankrupt ideology at all costs.
"Obtuseness" perhaps, but I wouldn't call it "rigor."
(And this author's chrono-centrism is pretty outlandish also. A people's living in an earlier time doesn't mean their reason or intellect are inferior to more recent people, just their technology).
And this is the point. If we teach ID as part of the science curriculum and in so doing, water down the definition of science, then what we are really doing is destroying the ability of children to think like scientists.To believe Darwinism in light of what is known to be true, one must water down the definition of Science. Believing what is contrary to reason unavoidably destroys the ability of children to think as a scientist should.
And thinking like a scientist is hard. Scientists formulate theories based on evidence and then test those theories with experiments that yield more evidence. A theory must be supported by evidence to remain viable and must be rejected if such evidence does not exist. It is that evidence-based thought process, more than anything else, that is responsible for the progress and wealth that we in the West enjoy. To destroy that thought process, or to belittle it, is to jeopardize the very foundation of the glory of our civilization.And tragically, all of these truths are violated for an atheistic, naturalistic philosophy.
-------------------------------------
#40 Condor 11/20/2005 08:48AM PST observed:
New ideas that challenge the existing concepts never have an easy road.And some false theories die hard.
The germ theory was ridiculed when first proposed; everyone in medical science knew that disease was caused by an imbalance in the humors; and that bleeding was the best treatment around. Pasteur was ridiculed for teaching about "little beasties" that inhabited our bodies.
Bleeding had been around as a treatment since Hippocrates, and who was Pasteur to think he was right, when all science was opposed to him?
New ideas are always ridiculed at first; then vehemently opposed; but afterwards, they are always regarded as obvious.
Darwinism is the last century's Phlogiston.
-------------------------------------
#45 Mentat 11/20/2005 08:51AM PST posted:
Here's the deal. There is no conflict between science and religion as long as the god you believe in doesn't do anything.Which is why there can be no compromise between the God of the Bible and Darwinism's abiogenesis/macroevolution. The former says He did it, the latter says He did not.
...And for those who don't immediately "get" the above quotation, let me spell it out for you - if your god actually intervenes in the workings of the world - i.e. changes the laws of physics, creates earthquakes, starts volcanoes or hurricanes, etc. - then science and religion are definitely in conflict as your god is constantly in there changing the workings of the universe. However, if your god doesn't do anything like the above, science and religion cannot possibly be in conflict.
Evolutionists wish their story to be true so that there is no God Who watches Man and cares about what we do.
Additionally, Science is not atheistic naturalism; it is a process by which human beings discover and come to understand that which can be observed. It is a discovering of what is, not what might have been.
-------------------------------------
#46 ibrodsky 11/20/2005 08:51AM PST correctly observed:
After more than 100 years of investigation and experimentation, no one has ever shown how one species can evolve into another. Doesn't that make some of you at least admit that evolution is seriously incomplete? Given that, is it wise to rule out alternative theories?And the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of new forms, not a multitude of numerous transitional forms, as Darwin rightly acknowledged his theory needed.
Our understanding of genetics shows that two simple cells can combine and build a complex organism. Clearly, these simple cells contain a blueprint (design). Why is it considered unscientific to at least wonder if the genetic machinery itself came from a blueprint?Because to have the fantasy proven false would destroy their worldview. It would be to show the man behind the curtain is only a man.
-------------------------------------
#50 Havoc 11/20/2005 08:54AM PST wrote:
This is terribly amusing.
Why is EVERYONE so threatened by a basic fact?
Complex systems, i.e. it takes five separate systems, each complex in itself, --- operating in Co-ordination for Vision to occur.
No one system has any usefullness in itself, alone, -- cannot be explained has having evolved out of nothing for a separate purpose, then to get Five Separate Systems to evolve together ?
Neither has there ever been a "Mechanism", discovered that change one structure into another.
The finch beaks, false, variation in color a minor camo change in months and birds, the "Artists rendition" of embryo "evolution" proven False, Java Man, a hoax, all proven false, where you ask -- UC Berkeley Dept. Micro Biology.
Even the Guru of unifying theory of Biochem doesn't believe in evolution any longer.
Where's the Science, Where's the provable evolutionary mechanism.
From the goo to the zoo to you ... sounds like blind faith to me....
a religion no less....gasp !
If genetic mutation is such a great thing -- bring on the Nukes.
-------------------------------------
#55 blutonazi98 11/20/2005 08:57AM PST commented:
I believe in ID (in micro and macro level) that being said it should not be taught as science. Anything that has the conclusion already drawn before any scientific testing begins does not follow the scientific method. Therefore it should not be taught as science. Just like evolution at some levels should not be taught as fact when its assumptions are wrong or not testableAnd that's the trouble with Darwinism: it takes one minor empirical bit of evidence (that minor, random genetic mutations occur within an organism over time) and from that extrapolates an entire atheistic, naturalistic worldview.
It creates a fiction about extant matter (without explaining how it came to exist), time, energy, and randomness (the antithesis of design) interacting to form the most complex machines known to Man--himself.
No rational, clear-thinking person would claim that a supercomputer naturally and spontaneously arose from only its constituent matter apart from an intellect, yet that is what Darwinists want humanity to believe.
Not only is this nonsense, it is more than counterintuitive--it contradicts all the relevant evidence. Without the ability to observe, test, and repeat such observations and testing, there is no Science. In the case of Darwinian abiogenesis/macroevolution, you've got not Science, but science fiction.
-------------------------------------
#60 Gambisin 11/20/2005 09:01AM PST
The longer I spent as a scientist, the more deeply I found myself believing in God, the more glorious He seemed.So far, so good. Science cannot address that which is beyond its sphere of observation.
Science is about NOTHING more than empirical fact, about avoiding anything based on faith.
Science is SUPPOSED to be limited to ONLY what we mere mortals can prove. Science is the mechanics of experimentation. God is far bigger than that and belongs in the places where math and test tubes aren't needed.
I agree with Krauthammer and the Vatican.Oh well.
Public schools are for learning the empirical. Faith and THE Designer, were things I always wanted my children to learn from me and the Church.The problem is that abiogenesis and macroevolution--the elements of Darwinism that contradict the God of the Bible--are not empirical. They are suppositions uncritically accepted by Darwinists in face of contradictory evidence.
God belongs in religion and philosophy class, not science.
And God is a God of history, not philosophy.