Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is an intriguing guy...[he] asks great questions and answers others with style, flair, reason and wit. On the blogroll he goes. Make him a part of your regular blogospheric reading. I certainly will.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Common Sense Junction: Misha @ Anti-Idiotarian never ceases to amaze me. He keeps finding other good blogs. I went over to A.I. this morning for my daily Misha fix and he had found this guy named Morgan Freeberg in Fair Oaks, California, that has a blog, House of Eratosthenes. Freeberg says its "The Blog That Nobody Reads" but it may now become the blog that everybody reads.
Jaded Haven: Good God, Morgan, you cover a topic from front to back with a screwy thoroughness I find mind boggling. I'm in awe of your thought proccesses, my friend, you're an exceptional talent. You start by throwing in the kitchen sink, tie in someone's syphilitic uncle, bend around a rip tide of brilliance and bring it all home in a neat, diamond dripping package of an exceptionally readable moment of damn fine wordsmithing. I love reading you.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
Philmon: When Morgan meanders, stick with him - he's got a point and it'll be worth it in the end. He's not a hit-and-run snarky quip kind of guy. The pieces all fall into place like tumblers in a lock and bang! He's opened a cognative door for you.
Rightlinx: Morgan at House of Eratosthenes is one of the best writers out there. I read him nearly every day because he manages to provide an interesting perspective, even though I don't always agree.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Little Engine That Could
I’ve commented on Intelligent Design (ID) exactly to the extent that my expertise in the matter merits, which is admittedly not much. A great hue & cry among the evolutionist community explosively insists I’ve commented well beyond that expertise, although I think all I’ve done is raise some questions and make some observations about my failures to get answers to them. I’m taking it as a simple article of faith that I do have the learned background to do that much. I’m not inclined to go much further, but the controversy about ID refuses to go away.
Quite to the contrary, it’s getting louder and louder. Having failed thus far to instigate formal impeachment hearings on President Bush, the media and The Left have decided to hold informal hearings. The Articles are twofold: He has told lies to start an illegal and unjust war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings, and he wants to allow ID to be taught in our public schools. That’s kind of funny isn’t it? It’s like saying “he has lined up a hundred and fifty Girl Scouts and sexually molested them one by one, after which he gutted them, made them watch as their own entrails were boiled in a huge kettle, ate the entrails, burned the bodies…and then he returned a couple books to the library a whole week late.” If you take Article I as a serious indictment, worthy of even casual deliberation for a possible conviction, how in the world could Article II be relevant by comparison?
Yet both Articles are being debated loudly, and everywhere. I’ll leave this whole thing about illegal and unjust wars for elsewhere. But to rehash ID some more:
Dan Peterson, writing in the June edition of the American Spectator, offers a thirty-thousand-foot look at the arguments for and against ID in “The Little Engine That Could…Undo Darwinism.” He makes a persuasive case, undisputed as far as I know, that the marginalization of ID is based not so much on the scientific process of forming theories based on verifiable facts, but rather something quite opposite. The facts are being excluded in order to preserve established theories.
Severe difficulties with the Darwinian theory were becoming increasingly obvious by the 1980s, and some scientists began to state openly that design should be considered as an alternative theory. Then in 1991 Phillip Johnson…published a powerful critique of Darwinism entitled Darwin on Trial. In that volume Johnson marshaled the extensive scientific evidence against Darwinism. More importantly, he showed that Darwinism has essentially become a faith in naturalism that is immune to refutation by any set of facts. Arguments or conclusions that are not Darwinian are automatically ruled out of bounds by the scientific establishment. Within the Darwinian fold, wild conjectures, surmises unsupported by facts, and arguments lacking in explanatory power are accepted as legitimate, so long as they permit a “naturalistic” explanation.
I really don’t care that much whether or not Bush gets his way on the ID issue, but I’m terribly concerned about how the nature of “science” is changing so that our academics can gather munitions to resist him. Like I said before: Because science is not in the opinion business, a “theory” exists as a tool internal to science, not as a product in & of itself. It appears that our scientists have manifestly failed us here. They’ve squandered their resources toward coming up with explanations to uphold Darwinism, as each piece of evidence has trickled in over time to eather inflict assault on Darwinism, or simply pose a challenge to it. Would Darwinism still survive today if it were treated like any other theory, rather than being enshrined as a sacred cow? That is something I don’t know.
All I do know, is the things I had asked about a week ago remain unanswered as far as I’m concerned. And I’m also concerned about something else: In response to my queries, several scholars have suggested to me, with varying degrees of politeness, that I need to get an education on the impressive, awe-inspiring mountain of evidence supporting a different theory referred to as macro-evolution.
In other words, given a debate on how seriously the ID theory should be taken, there is a scattering of non-collaborating pundits who prefer to shift the debate to the soundness of macro-evolution. Maybe I do need to get that education — I don’t understand the connection. I don’t understand the mutual-exclusivity. I don’t think anybody does.
To debate whether design is involved in the origin of what we call “life,” and shift the argument to how the various species are interrelated, is like debating whether a pizza was home-baked or delivered and shifting the argument to whether that topping is properly called “ham” or “Canadian Bacon.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.