Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

August 29, 2005

Commentaries

Ted Byfield
Blind science

[Intelligent Design] did not start with the "Religious Right." It seems to have started at UC Berkeley, where a law prof named Phillip E. Johnson was puzzled by the absence of any real evidence behind Darwin's 150-year-old theory of evolution.

Johnson does not question that the Earth is zillions of years old, and he does not regard the Book of Genesis as a scientific treatise. But neither could he believe that everything came about by sheer chance, as Darwin claimed. To Johnson, Dawinism seemed to require a leap of faith far more demanding than the alternative theory that there had to be some kind of Mind at work behind everything.

So he decided to put Darwin's theory on trial, as it were – to assemble all the evidence that the scientific community has gathered over 150 years to support the theory, and to see whether or not that evidence would convince a jury.

He discovered an astonishing array of fabrication and outright fraud – pictures depicting evolutionary development that have appeared for years in high school textbooks with no evidence behind them; renowned experiments with fish flies and moths that do not prove what they are supposed to prove; sudden appearances and enormous gaps in the fossil record that do not suggest gradual transition but rather instant change. From all this, he concluded that the Darwinian case is in no sense proven.

...a mathematician and philosopher at Baylor University named William A. Dembski, who did his post-doctoral work at MIT and Princeton, propounded what he called "intelligent design." Essentially, it challenges the philosophy called "scientism," which imposes the dogma that any scientific theory that relies on a factor beyond the natural cannot be regarded as scientific. This means, of course, that no matter how compelling the evidence, science can never discover God. If it did, it wouldn't be science.


Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D.
A tale of 4 ethics

...it may help anyone who dares form or voice an opinion on national and social issues to recognize the undercurrent of ethical philosophies guiding, if not driving, the nation....

First there is Relativism. That is an ethic that puts its finger to the wind as a test for what to do next. What is "right" would simply mean what was approved of by most of society....

Then there is Utilitarianism. This is an ethic in which the ends justify the means and the goal is ultimate happiness. In other words, this philosophy holds that actions are "right" in proportion to their ability to promote happiness....

Next, and in opposition to the somewhat crude tendency of utilitarian ethics to sacrifice individual rights for the greater good, there is the Kantian ethic. That is an ethic that actually upholds individual rights and duties. This ethical philosophy further requires that for an action to be "right" or moral it must spring from what is called "good will."

To successfully apply and live by this ethic inherently demands that a society treat everyone as moral equals – something the human population fails miserably to achieve....

Finally, there is Natural Law ethic, which is, by far, superior to the other ethical theories. This is the only objective, unchanging and time-tested ethical theory. It is a rules-based approach to life's problems. In this philosophy, rules guide action in an attempt to curb the inherent sinful tendencies of man. The laws or rules themselves are rooted in divine and natural law existing in and established by God.


Peter Bronson
I can't get past the media force field

Pat Robertson does not have a force field. He imploded like the Death Star in "Star Wars" for suggesting that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be assassinated. The shock waves from media missiles even caused collateral damage to all conservative Christians, especially President Bush - although Robertson is not even in the same galaxy.

But Chavez must have an invisible shield, because I saw nothing in the mainstream media about the way Chavez smothers dissent, worships his totalitarian mentor Fidel Castro and "celebrates, protects and does business with terrorists," according to the Weekly Standard....

Thousands of soldiers and their families do not have force fields. They are pounded relentlessly by media mortars targeted at the war in Iraq. Even during the week Iraq passed a constitution - moving from dictatorship to democracy faster than the American Revolution - good news was shut down like one of Scotty's busted warp drives.

But Cindy Sheehan has powerful shields that block negative publicity. The shrill voice of the anti-war left is back in Crawford, Texas, accusing Bush of "murdering" her son who died in Iraq on a volunteer rescue mission. She says Bush is a "terrorist" and, "This country is not worth dying for" - but criticism of her just bounces off like marshmallows hitting a brick wall.

Even a protest from her family was blocked by Sheehan's invulnerable media force-field....

Not even the Pentagon budget can buy a force field to protect President Bush from the press-corps lasers. But former President Clinton is still bulletproof.

Posted by Danny Carlton at August 29, 2005 09:19 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/1950

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.