Krauthammer Weighs In on ID

[BPSCG]

In thrall to the religious right, Charles Krauthammer observes:

Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?

Note how he puts the scare quotes around "theory." More economical than saying "so-called theory" over and over.

 

[Hutch]

Whoa, first Will, then Krauthammer slamming ID--and obliquely the religious conservative Republicans. Will have to go googlin' to see who, if any, 'Conservative' columnists are defending Kansas/ID.

Me agreeing with both Krauthammer and Will in the same week--somethin' just ain't right with the world..

 

[BPSCG]

Whoa, first Will, then Krauthammer slamming ID--and obliquely the religious conservative Republicans. Will have to go googlin' to see who, if any, 'Conservative' columnists are defending Kansas/ID.

Me agreeing with both Krauthammer and Will in the same week--somethin' just ain't right with the world..

Or maybe you'd been seeing Republicans tarred with the "religious right" brush for so long you'd actually come to believe it?

Maybe Republicans - like Democrats, like blacks and gays and servicemen and soccer moms and thirtysomethings - are not some monolithic force, marching in lockstep to the cadence of their drill sergeant?

Maybe (shudder) you really are a Republican?

What we were discussing in the George Will debate: the battle for ascendency in the Republican party.

Every party has these battles. The Dems' most dramatic one was in 1860, when they couldn't even agree at their convention on a nominee to run against Lincoln, the candidate of the upstart Republican party. They split three ways, with Stephen A. Douglas finally getting the actual nomination at a hastily-called special convention after the scheduled one broke up in disarray, but with John C. Brechenridge and John Bell breaking off to form their own parties. The Democratic vote thus splintered, Lincoln was easily elected, even though he didn't even appear on the ballot in most of the south (Hutch, this is for everyone else here - I know you know this stuff already...)

Then in 1948, the battle for the Democratic party was between Roosevelt's New Deal Dems and Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrats." Smart money would have predicted a Thomas E. Dewey election in 1948, with the Dems again divided, but Truman managed to win anyway.

So, do the the creationists splinter off from the Republicans to form their own political movement (the "Cre-Publicans")? Or do they decide that much as they dislike what the right's intellectual lights have to say, that breaking with them would put the Democrats in control again, a prospect even more odious to them than losing the "teach ID in the schools" debate?

 

[Ed]

Will's point about some of these things giving conservatives "chills" (or whatever word he used) might be underneath it.

For a long time, until that idiot GW actually, I considered myself a conservative. I believed in minimal government intervention into my life, small government, fiscal responsibility. Socially, I was liberal. There is no place for me in GW's way of thinking and I suspect that there are many others that have had it with the damn soul saving rhetoric. Maybe there is hope.

 

[Ed]

Or maybe you'd been seeing Republicans tarred with the "religious right" brush for so long you'd actually come to believe it?

I think that it is because the felliation administered by the republicans to the religious right matched that administered by the Dems to blacks, both of which make Monica look like an amature.

The christians are looking for payback now, just like some black dude wanting to live next to Ted Kennedy, and some in the party are saying "whoa, when we said we loved you we didn't mean move in".

Interesting times.

 

[headscratcher4]

I think it is a sign of the apocolypse.

Two conservative columnists -- both whom I loath -- have written intelligently about the fraud of ID. Wow. This is just like if some staunch, defense friendly moderate-conservative decorated war veteran Democratic Congressman who supported the war in Iraq (who has often been seen as "in the pocket" of the pentagon) were to come out and state that it is time to pull out. Oh, wait...

The apoloypse is upon us....

P.S. WHen I say I "loath" them, I mean they often get under my skin and make me mad...there is an arrogance about their writting and their attitude. Having said that, they are both good writers and excellent communicators who often make solid points even if I disagree with them...which, of course, makes me hate them even more.

 

[Ed]

So, do the the creationists splinter off from the Republicans to form their own political movement (the "Cre-Publicans")? Or do they decide that much as they dislike what the right's intellectual lights have to say, that breaking with them would put the Democrats in control again, a prospect even more odious to them than losing the "teach ID in the schools" debate?

This is religion. R v. Wade, ID and other issues define their religiosity. I think they would go down in flames before they would compromise. I hope so, at least.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

The more I think about these various epiphanies of the right-wing commentators the more I get this vision of rats abandonning a sinking ship ....

Charlie (stalwarty anti-GW) Monoxide

 

[Mark]

Or maybe you'd been seeing Republicans tarred with the "religious right" brush for so long you'd actually come to believe it?

I always love it when Republicans try to pretend the Religious Right are not part of the backbone of their party. It's like a cat trying to cover a mess on a tile floor.

 

[BPSCG]

P.S. WHen I say I "loath" them, I mean they often get under my skin and make me mad...

No, when you say you "loath" them, you mean to say you "loathe" them...

There. Got that nit picked off...

there is an arrogance about their writting and their attitude. Having said that, they are both good writers and excellent communicators who often make solid points even if I disagree with them...which, of course, makes me hate them even more.

Maybe you're just a Republican who's afraid to admit it? C'mon, headscratcher4, you can come out of the closet...

 

[headscratcher4]

Maybe you're just a Republican who's afraid to admit it? C'mon, headscratcher4, you can come out of the closet...

Not at all...the appeal of solid writing is always great. However, Krauthammer and Will, in particular have been loathesom in how they have pushed thier neo-con vision of the world and carried the drum for GW's drive to the war in Iraq. Pundits indeed.

No, I hope that I can hear truth from what ever direction it comes from, when its logic is inexcapable or well stated. Come on, you can admit that Moore makes you mad becasue in spite of his arrogance and hypocracy, you know that his points are not all wrong? .

P.S. as an example, I hear the truth in your spelling lesson. Merci (sorry, its french)

 

[BPSCG]

Or maybe you'd been seeing Republicans tarred with the "religious right" brush for so long you'd actually come to believe it?

I always love it when Republicans try to pretend the Religious Right are not part of the backbone of their party. It's like a cat trying to cover a mess on a tile floor.

QED. Thank you, Mark.

Yes, the religious right is part of the Republican party. So is the fiscal-conservative right, and the social-conservative-but-not-religious-right (probably a lot of the people right here on this board), the neo-con right who don't give a pinch of owl droppings about religion one way or the other, and so on.

Krauthammer, hardly a right-wing nutjob or a religious one, has issues with abortion, but acknowledges the vast majority of Americans support the right to it, to some degree and that that battle is over. He favors federal funding of stem-cell research - perhaps partly due to his own personal situation. Will marvelled publicly at the photos from Saturn we saw last year, and justified the expense and effort to get them because when we reach for the stars, we are ultimately searching for - ourselves. that last perhaps an unconscious echo of Carl Sagan's memorable quote from his last Cosmos episode, "These are some of the things hydrogen atoms do, given four billion years of cosmic evolution."

So, Mark, you may continue painting Republicans as a bunch of Bible-thumpers. The first step in losing a battle of any kind is to underestimate your opponent. If you don't believe me, ask Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, or John Kerry.

 

[RandFan]

Ahhh perception. Great thread. Great posts. I'm a huge Krauthammer fan and I like George Will also. Back to perception, it's funny how an issue can serve as a Rorschach test. Charlie sees a sinking ship and Mark sees a monolithic or near monolithic party. Well, people see what they want to see. Time will tell if either or both are right. I suspect that the Republican party will evolve over time to meet the changing perspectives and needs of its constituents. Just my opinion of course.

 

[headscratcher4]

I think that this will put all of the permutations of the republican party into perspective...

http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf



P.S.: "Krauthammer, hardly a right-wing nutjob ..." No, pretty much a right-wing nut job, just not a "crazy right-wing nutjob"

 

[BPSCG]

Come on, you can admit that Moore makes you mad becasue in spite of his arrogance and hypocracy, you know that his points are not all wrong? .

Good FSM, could you have picked a poorer example?

I loathe Michael Moore, and not just because he's arrogant and hypocritical, plus he's a fat tub of goo. And it's not just because his points are, indeed, all wrong. It's because he has a legendary ability to twist facts out of all recognition to create an alternate, false reality that suits his political ends, and is wildly successful at selling his twisted vision to the ignoranti.

You read Krauthammer and Will and are forced, at times, and grudgingly, to agree with them. I hear Moore and ask, "How on earth can people be buying this (Rule 8)?"

Better example might be Richard Cohen, who's a pretty loonie lefty, but who I occasionally - very occasionally - find myself grudgingly agreeing with. He had a column some years ago beating up on some Republican congressman or senator on some issue. He pointed out that there is one sure sign that someone has lost the intellectual argument: When he demands, "Think of the children", when the issue at hand has little or nothing to do with children.

Pissed me off. Because he was right.

Merci (sorry, its french)

Pas grand chose... (Trans: "No biggie...")

 

[headscratcher4]

Good FSM, could you have picked a poorer example?

I loathe Michael Moore, and not just because he's arrogant and hypocritical, plus he's a fat tub of goo. And it's not just because his points are, indeed, all wrong. It's because he has a legendary ability to twist facts out of all recognition to create an alternate, false reality that suits his political ends, and is wildly successful at selling his twisted vision to the ignoranti.

You read Krauthammer and Will and are forced, at times, and grudgingly, to agree with them. I hear Moore and ask, "How on earth can people be buying this (Rule 8)?"

Better example might be Richard Cohen, who's a pretty loonie lefty, but who I occasionally - very occasionally - find myself grudgingly agreeing with. He had a column some years ago beating up on some Republican congressman or senator on some issue. He pointed out that there is one sure sign that someone has lost the intellectual argument: When he demands, "Think of the children", when the issue at hand has little or nothing to do with children.

Pissed me off. Because he was right.
Pas grand chose... (Trans: "No biggie...")

I could havve used Hillary as an example, but I didn't want your brain to explode...I was only thinkiing of your welfare. I'm like that.

 

[RandFan]

Good FSM, could you have picked a poorer example?

I loathe Michael Moore, and not just because he's arrogant and hypocritical, plus he's a fat tub of goo. And it's not just because his points are, indeed, all wrong. It's because he has a legendary ability to twist facts out of all recognition to create an alternate, false reality that suits his political ends, and is wildly successful at selling his twisted vision to the ignoranti.

You read Krauthammer and Will and are forced, at times, and grudgingly, to agree with them. I hear Moore and ask, "How on earth can people be buying this (Rule 8)?"

Better example might be Richard Cohen, who's a pretty loonie lefty, but who I occasionally - very occasionally - find myself grudgingly agreeing with. He had a column some years ago beating up on some Republican congressman or senator on some issue. He pointed out that there is one sure sign that someone has lost the intellectual argument: When he demands, "Think of the children", when the issue at hand has little or nothing to do with children.

Pissed me off. Because he was right.
Pas grand chose... (Trans: "No biggie...")

I can't find anything that I disagree with except that I do like Moore. I find his movies entertaining. I've just learned to take him with a heaping spoonful of salt

 

[Mark]

QED. Thank you, Mark.


So, Mark, you may continue painting Republicans as a bunch of Bible-thumpers. The first step in losing a battle of any kind is to underestimate your opponent. If you don't believe me, ask Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, or John Kerry.

It's your Party platform, not mine.

Believe me, I do not underestimate the Republican ability to spread effective lies,fear, and hysteria to defeat their opponents. I mean, they do control all branches of government (and look what happened!).

And for the umpteenth time: I am not a Democrat, either.

 

[BPSCG]

Believe me, I do not underestimate the Republican ability to spread effective lies,fear, and hysteria to defeat their opponents.

And if you think that's all the appeal they have, then you do, indeed, underestimate them.

 

[Ryokan]

For a long time, until that idiot GW actually, I considered myself a conservative. I believed in minimal government intervention into my life, small government, fiscal responsibility.

Strange how that's actually the definition of liberalism, and still is in Europe.