We're not in Kansas anymore

Finally some common sense in this whole Science versus religion debate! :thumbsup:

WASHINGTON – Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous – that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.

townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2005/11/18/176015.html

Cool.

Not so cool. I wrote and sent this email to Charles Krauthammer:

Dear Mr. Krauthammer,

In your article you characterized intelligent design as:

“‘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 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.’”

That is not at all the true theory of Intelligent Design, and if the Kansas Board of Education is basing their decision to question Darwinian evolution in its curriculum on it, then they are as wrong about it as you are.

Intelligent Design is exactly what it says–it is the theory (and remember evolution too is just a theory) that God put into creation, into our very DNA, the coding for each species, so that as they interacted with their environment the various codes of their DNA went dormant or were activated. It has nothing whatsoever to do with God stepping into history to create by fiat lemurs, humans, rose bushes or anything else.

Please, if you are going to criticize a theory, at least criticize it for what it is, not for what it is popularly believed to be.

Sincerely


P. S. I refer you to this online article: William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information

Well, some of are still here. At least the Catholic schools don’t have to follow the definition of science promulgated by the public school board.

See the letter to the editor on this link titled Abrams Should Resign from BOE.

[quote=Della]Not so cool. I wrote and sent this email to Charles Krauthammer:

Dear Mr. Krauthammer,

In your article you characterized intelligent design as:

“‘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 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.’”

That is not at all the true theory of Intelligent Design, and if the Kansas Board of Education is basing their decision to question Darwinian evolution in its curriculum on it, then they are as wrong about it as you are.

Intelligent Design is exactly what it says–it is the theory (and remember evolution too is just a theory) that God put into creation, into our very DNA, the coding for each species, so that as they interacted with their environment the various codes of their DNA went dormant or were activated. It has nothing whatsoever to do with God stepping into history to create by fiat lemurs, humans, rose bushes or anything else.

Please, if you are going to criticize a theory, at least criticize it for what it is, not for what it is popularly believed to be.

Sincerely


P. S. I refer you to this online article: William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information
[/quote]

I’m sorry, but even this argument for ID says “we can’t understand it yet with science…so God did it.”

Calling ID a theory is fine…it just isn’t a SCIENTIFIC Theory. That is what the article is saying. By saying it is you have to change the definition of science, and thereby corrupt the whole idea that God created us with intelligence.

[quote=Della]Intelligent Design is exactly what it says–it is the theory (and remember evolution too is just a theory) that God put into creation, into our very DNA, the coding for each species, so that as they interacted with their environment the various codes of their DNA went dormant or were activated. It has nothing whatsoever to do with God stepping into history to create by fiat lemurs, humans, rose bushes or anything else.
[/quote]

To me, that still sounds very much like Aquinas’ argument from design; except that it carries the observations of design to the molecular and genetic level, which Aquinas could not do. Arguing from evidence of design to a Designer is good Thomistic philosophy, but not science.

[quote=Lady Cygnus]I’m sorry, but even this argument for ID says “we can’t understand it yet with science…so God did it.”
[/quote]

Not at all. It says that a Designer can be deduced from the facts, which has nothing to do with anyone’s religious beliefs.

Calling ID a theory is fine…it just isn’t a SCIENTIFIC Theory. That is what the article is saying. By saying it is you have to change the definition of science, and thereby corrupt the whole idea that God created us with intelligence.

I didn’t get that from Mr. Krauthammer’s article, if that is the one you are talking about. :slight_smile: I got that those who believe in ID are throw-backs who won’t accept Darwinian evolution as THE explanation for the changes in species. He mischaracterized the definition of ID, which is why I wrote him–to correct his mischaracterization.

[quote=JimG]To me, that still sounds very much like Aquinas’ argument from design; except that it carries the observations of design to the molecular and genetic level, which Aquinas could not do. Arguing from evidence of design to a Designer is good Thomistic philosophy, but not science.
[/quote]

You couldn’t have read William A. Dembski’s article and still say that. It goes deeper than that. Sounds like and are alike are not the same concepts, are they? :wink:

[quote=Della]Not at all. It says that a Designer can be deduced from the facts, which has nothing to do with anyone’s religious beliefs.
[/quote]

deducing a designer is philosophy…not science.

I didn’t get that from Mr. Krauthammer’s article, if that is the one you are talking about. :slight_smile: I got that those who believe in ID are throw-backs who won’t accept Darwinian evolution as THE explanation for the changes in species. He mischaracterized the definition of ID, which is why I wrote him–to correct his mischaracterization.

Odd…did you read the next paragraph?

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 to science.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.