Intelligent Design on Larry King
I see there was a panel discussion on the Larry King show last night with the usual suspects. One fundamentalist pastor in the person of John MacArthur author of "The Battle for the Beginning: Creation, Evolution and the Bible." One rabid evolution supporter in the person of Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. , professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and author of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design." One liberal religious philosopher in the person of Deepak Chopra, author of "How to Know God."One conservative Republican Senator in the person of Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas. One moderate Republican Congressman in the person of Chris Shays of Connecticut and Jay Richards, vice president of the Discovery Institute.
It really scares me that the pastor was willing to make the following statement on national television.
KING: John MacArthur, do you believe that the world is only 5,000 years old?
MACARTHUR: No, I wouldn't say necessarily 5,000, but I would say I doubt that it's more than 10,000 years old.
In terms of Intelligent Design and Evolution much of the same old ground was covered, BUT I give two points to Dr. Forrest for the following observation.
RICHARDS: You know, we're having a sort of deep theological and philosophical dispute, and I certainly don't think that that kind of dispute is appropriate for public school science classrooms...Certainly, the leading idea right now in biology is Darwin's theory of evolution. So teach it fairly, honestly and openly, and then let teachers be free, if they want, to talk about intelligent design responsibly, to do so, but you can do that without getting into these sort of rarefied theological disputes.
FORREST: Actually, you can't. Intelligent design is a religious idea. You inevitably wind up talking about religion. As we are now.
Atta girl Barbara baby! Even the Pastor figured this one out!
MACARTHUR: You're inevitably talking about -- wind up talking about who is the intelligence, and obviously, you're going to get there...
And I give two points to Congressman Shays for this exchange.
MACARTHUR: I want to know why he's a congressman if he isn't in there trying to help -- reduce the effects of what happened in [Genesis] Chapter Three, which is the story of the fall?
SHAYS: No, but see, this is, Larry, this is the key point. I believe in God deeply, and already now I'm being questioned, and that's the danger, because the gentleman who just spoke has his religious view and questions mine. You are going to raise such a huge challenge if we start getting into this debate, because it's intolerant, and I think that's what this discussion is leading to.
And I give two points to Chopra.
MACARTHUR: I accept the Bible as the source, the authoritative source that tells me it was God, and something or someone has to be eternal, and the Bible says it is God who is the eternal one.
CHOPRA: See, when he says that, he's denying all of biology, all of anthropology, all of geology, all of astronomy, all of cosmology, all of evolution, all of physics, all of chemistry, and everything that we know, that we have learned.
And last, but certainly not least, two more points for Dr. Forrest.
CHOPRA: Yes, I think that we should leave terms like "God" out of it. I think where I disagree with one of our panelists, Barbara, is that you know, consciousness is a very legitimate pursuit in science, and it should be. After all, who is this person? You know, science is only focused on the observed, never on the observer. And I think it's time that science begins to address this question, is consciousness an epiphenomenon or is it the ground (ph) of being that creates the universe? And that's very legitimate as a scientific perception.
FORREST: But that is not appropriate in a high school science class.
CHOPRA: Yeah, maybe so. Maybe so.
That, in the final analysis, is the key point. Certainly there are questions out there to be investigated and maybe Intelligent Design can help in answering some of those questions, but the place to pursue these questions and investigate these possible answers is not in a high school science class. Are we expecting teenagers to form the peer review panel? The places for these discussions are peer review scientific journals, symposiums and the post graduate thesis level.
If the ID proponents have valid scientific evidence to present about either the validity of ID or the failures of evolution, let them present that evidence to educated adults and not adolescent students.
It really scares me that the pastor was willing to make the following statement on national television.
KING: John MacArthur, do you believe that the world is only 5,000 years old?
MACARTHUR: No, I wouldn't say necessarily 5,000, but I would say I doubt that it's more than 10,000 years old.
In terms of Intelligent Design and Evolution much of the same old ground was covered, BUT I give two points to Dr. Forrest for the following observation.
RICHARDS: You know, we're having a sort of deep theological and philosophical dispute, and I certainly don't think that that kind of dispute is appropriate for public school science classrooms...Certainly, the leading idea right now in biology is Darwin's theory of evolution. So teach it fairly, honestly and openly, and then let teachers be free, if they want, to talk about intelligent design responsibly, to do so, but you can do that without getting into these sort of rarefied theological disputes.
FORREST: Actually, you can't. Intelligent design is a religious idea. You inevitably wind up talking about religion. As we are now.
Atta girl Barbara baby! Even the Pastor figured this one out!
MACARTHUR: You're inevitably talking about -- wind up talking about who is the intelligence, and obviously, you're going to get there...
And I give two points to Congressman Shays for this exchange.
MACARTHUR: I want to know why he's a congressman if he isn't in there trying to help -- reduce the effects of what happened in [Genesis] Chapter Three, which is the story of the fall?
SHAYS: No, but see, this is, Larry, this is the key point. I believe in God deeply, and already now I'm being questioned, and that's the danger, because the gentleman who just spoke has his religious view and questions mine. You are going to raise such a huge challenge if we start getting into this debate, because it's intolerant, and I think that's what this discussion is leading to.
And I give two points to Chopra.
MACARTHUR: I accept the Bible as the source, the authoritative source that tells me it was God, and something or someone has to be eternal, and the Bible says it is God who is the eternal one.
CHOPRA: See, when he says that, he's denying all of biology, all of anthropology, all of geology, all of astronomy, all of cosmology, all of evolution, all of physics, all of chemistry, and everything that we know, that we have learned.
And last, but certainly not least, two more points for Dr. Forrest.
CHOPRA: Yes, I think that we should leave terms like "God" out of it. I think where I disagree with one of our panelists, Barbara, is that you know, consciousness is a very legitimate pursuit in science, and it should be. After all, who is this person? You know, science is only focused on the observed, never on the observer. And I think it's time that science begins to address this question, is consciousness an epiphenomenon or is it the ground (ph) of being that creates the universe? And that's very legitimate as a scientific perception.
FORREST: But that is not appropriate in a high school science class.
CHOPRA: Yeah, maybe so. Maybe so.
That, in the final analysis, is the key point. Certainly there are questions out there to be investigated and maybe Intelligent Design can help in answering some of those questions, but the place to pursue these questions and investigate these possible answers is not in a high school science class. Are we expecting teenagers to form the peer review panel? The places for these discussions are peer review scientific journals, symposiums and the post graduate thesis level.
If the ID proponents have valid scientific evidence to present about either the validity of ID or the failures of evolution, let them present that evidence to educated adults and not adolescent students.
posted by Alencon at 10:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home