Home » Intelligent Design » Recent columns addressing the intelligent design controversy

Recent columns addressing the intelligent design controversy

Here are the recent additions to this file of columnists’ views on the intelligent design controversy, a useful compendium if you are looking for a range of opinion:

Adams, Mike S. suspects (June 4, 2007) that popular Darwinism is supported mainly as a way of avoiding responsibility for sexual choices. Can this be true? Oh, surely not! <grin>:

My understanding of (and disrespect for) the underpinnings of modern feminism was actually fostered by a biologist who once made a very candid remark about the foundation of his support of Darwinism. When asked about the lack of evidence supporting Darwinism – the fossil record, etc. – he confessed there was a very human reason for his faith in evolutionary theory despite the lack of scientific evidence. He confessed that if Darwinism were not true, he wouldn’t be able to sleep around.

At the heart of his support for Darwinism was a desire to get God out of the picture by any means whatsoever. And his desire to get God out of the picture was in turn motivated by his desire to copulate with as many people as possible without feeling guilty. I wonder whether some untenured psychologist would dare to publish a paper called “A Cognitive Dissonance Theory of Human Devolution.” I think we all know the answer to that question. (June 4, 2007)

A tricky case to argue nowadays, when so many people think that they are beyond virtue rather than beneath it, but Adams argues it fearlessly.

Krauthammer, Charles offers a cute play on words, riffing evolution off intelligent design, to talk about endless campaigning in electoral politics. This column offers an interesting study on word use in the controversy (June 8, 2007):

WASHINGTON — In Britain, Canada and other civilized places, national elections are often called, run and concluded within six weeks. In America, election campaigns go on forever. It used to be one year, now it’s two. No one planned this, but like other evolutionary artifacts (the Founders applied intelligent design to the general makeup of the U.S. government but never foresaw formal political parties, let alone the endless campaign), this crazy improvisation embodies a certain wisdom.

Limbaugh, David identifies consensus science as the way scientists deal with contrary data that they do not want to acknowledge (May 4, 2007). The consensus is that there is no such data (which spares everyone a lot of hasssle, right):

Tom Bethell, in his “Politically Incorrect Guide to Science,” quotes author Michael Crichton as saying that consensus science “is an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

We are witnessing a similar phenomenon on the subject of evolution versus intelligent design. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins, explains Bethel, believes that evolution is not a debatable topic. “I’m concerned about implying that there is some sort of scientific argument going on,” said Dawkins. “There’s not.” Meanwhile the Intelligent Design movement is gathering courageous and impressive adherents who would debate the notion that no debate is going on

O’Reilly, Bill dismisses the current pop chart atheists:

the atheists will never get it. The universe and the earth is so complex, so incredibly detailed, that to believe an accidental evolutionary occurrence could have exclusively led to the nature/mankind situation we have now, is some stretch of the imagination. I mean, call me crazy, but the sun always comes up, while man oversleeps all the time.
So bless you, Richard Dawkins, and all the other non-believers. As long as they don’t attack people of faith, I have no problem with them. As my eighth-grade teacher Sister Martin once said: “Faith is a gift.”

But not everybody gets to open the box.

In point of fact, the current crop of atheists has not come up with anything that was not known in the eighteenth century, and Darwinism is not helping them any either.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

9 Responses to Recent columns addressing the intelligent design controversy

  1. 1

    Desire for sex is linked with belief in Darwinism?! Brilliant! I don’t know why I didn’t come up with that one a long time ago.

  2. Possibly you are not as over the top as Mike Adams … ? – d.

  3. See this article?

    Craig Venter, an American who cracked the human genome in 2000, has applied for a patent at more than 100 national offices to make a bacterium from laboratory-made DNA.

    It is part of an effort to create designer bugs to manufacture hydrogen and biofuels, as well as absorb carbon dioxide and other harmful greenhouse gases.

    – Well, I’ll just sell the same thing. If he tries to sue me in court for breach of his patent, I’ll just tell him I found this microbe growing in my back yard, the product of natural evolution.
    He would then have to prove in court how my microbe was the product of design. But I’ll just bring Dawkins, Eugenia, and Judge Jones to court as my witnesses. I’ll be rich!

  4. The whole sexual thing is often the true ultimate motive of heart for atheists/Darwinists.

    In my experience with Darwinist friends, this very thing has come out as an admission over and over again. Usually when the said Darwinist is feeling rather candid and self-assured.

    Same thing applies to so many atheists I know generally the same bunch. Remove all references to the possibility of a personal God and your sexual appetites may be allowed to rule your life.

    Confessions like I’ve heard are not rare. Unfortunately, they are rarely ever admitted in public.

    Of course this isn’t the case with all Darwinists. Some are just living under the deceptions of the current legacy media propagandists and can’t reason things through for themselves.

    They really do believe the Darwinian fairy tales – on a billionth of a billionth of a chance chemicals become life then on to multicellular organisms to fish to reptiles to dinosaurs to birds to mammals to frogs to princes… And if the current state of the world is any indicator, back to wild beasts.

  5. Didn’t Huxley admit the same rationale years ago?

  6. At least according to this site it’s a myth that keeps getting repeated:

    http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/.....y_lie.html

  7. Here is a quote from Aldous Huxley,

    I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves…For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political. Ends and Means p. 270

  8. Jehu…might want to read that link I posted.

  9. Off this topic but I don’t want to start a new thread without the full article. Does anyone have an online subscription to Nature?
    There is an article just out on dating discrepancies between fossils and DNA.
    I don’t have access to the full article, if someone does it looks like it would be interesting to post and discuss here.
    The reference is:

    John Whitfield, “Fossils challenge DNA in the dating game” 10.1038/447894a, p 894-895 v 447, Nature, 21 Jun 2007.

Leave a Reply