Theistic evolution; as clear as mud

Charles Krauthammer goes on an anti-ID rant.

Quotes and comments;

1. “Let’s be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud.” He called it “ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God.”

- How can something be interesting as theology and fraudulent as science? That makes no sense to me. I can only assume K's view of theology is very, very low; i.e. pure fantasy. Only if you think theology has no relation to reality could this statement make any sense.

2. He finds it “more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine” to picture, in the beginning, “a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein” even if it also produced the Kansas State Board of Education, he ended with a smirk.

- let's see if I've got this story correct; in the beginning 'a single double-stranded molecule' apparently exploded and gave us the universe we know today. I wonder how K. knows this. (Double stranded you say! Almost sounds as if he were there doesn't it :=) Well; what he's done is make this molecule god. And let's be clear, there is no such molecule; never was and never will be. This is a joke. But if such molecule existed it would have to have in it; intelligence, foresight, personality, will, goals, ability to do math, etc. etc. Let's be clear, this is a complete fantasy. But even if such a thing existed K. has divinized matter.

- I wonder what would happen if we exploded a molecule today? would a universe spring into being? would annoying American columnists explode into existence? I have my doubts :=)

- I don't understand how people can imagine hydrogen gas has the ability to morph into Newton and Einstein. (Or even G. Bush for that matter.) How can they imagine intelligence comes from non-intelligence? (Well; only because they want to. These are people who want molecules for god; they want nothing to do with a real creator god. In the psalms david wonders where a man could flee from god; that no matter where man went god would be there. Apparently K. thinks he can flee into some kind of mythical molecule.

- the game that people like K. play is to use the word evolution in equivocal ways. In other words he pretends theistic evolution and Materialistic evolution are the same thing. This is intellectually dishonest. These are totally different things; and it's a sad commentary on K. that he plays this marked card. Evolution is an inherently materialistic theory; it has no god in it... and that's the whole point. (It incenses many e's to have the two origin theories confused in this way.) When K. says it's ridiculous to say E. is an enemy of god he's holding up a theistic evolution card. But E. isn't theistic, it's materialist.... and obviously Materialism Is an enemy of god. But K. isn't honest enough to say this.
His whole article is playing around with words; i.e. it depends on creating confusion based on using one word (E.) in two radically different ways. Let's be clear about one thing, E. was invented (as far as we know; or in the West) by the ancient greek materialist philosophers. People who like to call themselves christians but who loathe the orthodox biblical views on most things have created this hybrid called theistic evolution to escape from God. (You don't have to obey exploding molecules, or worship them, or be responsible to them.... in fact you can totally ignore them; after all, isn't man far greater than this molecule god?)

- what Pat Robertson had to say (the exploding mouth, he's sometimes called) has nothing to do with ID. What E's hate about ID is it's critique of evolution theory. To call it anti-science is very strange; since much of what scientists do is critique and test theories. Most people hold that to be a scientific theory the theory must be falsifiable. So how can you know this if you don't critique it? E's want darwinism to be beyond criticism; which itself is an anti-science view. They don't want students to see that the emperor has no clothes. (The emperor goes to the judge and says; 'make it illegal for anyone to say I don't have any clothes on.'') So let's be clear; there is nothing anti-science about holding E. theory up to criticism and testing. It's merely arbitrary to say one theory is beyond criticism. To make such a claim is to admit one is afraid the theory is bogus.

Notes;
1. I can't say I understand why K. is called a 'conservative' columnist. Is it because he never met a war he didn't like? Is it beicause he's a supporter of the american empire? Or is it because the word conservative has no more meaning in our day than the word evolution.
2. I find it comical that not only judges, clergy, movie directors, and newspaper columnists are all certain they know what science is and is not. (What is it that makes these people believe such an absolute definition exists?) If we had any sense of humor we'd all fall over laughing.
3. We might ask K. ''is there an absolute definition of art? of music? of an editorial? of justice? of fair taxation? of fair play? of democracy? of a just war?" Let's be clear; all this furor over what is science is power politics at its most odious. What's going on here is using language to marginalize one's world view opponents. This is the old Gamscian idea, used so widely by the communists, of using language as a weapon.