Mr. Will with some ‘intelligently designed’ snark:
This summer’s movie stars are not the usual bipeds, but other animals — emperor penguins and grizzly bears. Their performances are pertinent to some ongoing arguments.
“March of the Penguins” raises this question: If an Intelligent Designer designed nature, why did it decide to make breeding so tedious for those penguins? The movie documents the 70-mile march of thousands of Antarctic penguins from the sea to an icy breeding place barren of nutrition. These perhaps intelligently but certainly oddly designed birds march because they cannot fly. They cannot even march well, being most at home in the sea…
The penguins’ hardiness is remarkable, as is the intricate choreography of the march, the breeding and the nurturing. But the movie, vigorously anthropomorphizing the birds, invites us to find all this inexplicably amazing, even heroic. But the penguins are made for that behavior in that place. What made them? Adaptive evolution. They have been “designed” for all that rigor — meaning they have been shaped by adapting to many millennia of nature’s harshness.
Read the whole thing. He is ‘ruthless’ to the idiot who was eaten by bears.
Not as ruthless as the bear, however …
Great column, ain’t it?
He’s preaching to the choir.
Evolution is Gods design. Darwin was mearly his mouth piece.
George Will and Werner Herzog (director of Grizzly Man) together at last. I never thought I’d see the day. Go see the movie though. It’s great. It’s a bit more than the “idiot gets eaten by bear” flick that George Will describes it as
George Will is a RINO and has been for a while.. He never liked this president, never liked the evangelical movement. He’s nothing more than an northeastern intellectual with a bowtie and one or two conservative beliefs.
Regarding the idiot who was eaten by the bear:
Darwin always wins! :-)
If only Darwin had been eaten by a bear.
Don’t know about his RINO status, but he’s been a whore and a shill and a water carrier for every manner of GOP and rightwing claptrap for many years. Is he disappointed at what it has brought him? Good. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving individual. He’s one of the engineers of the morph from traditional (Goldwater) conservatism to the social “values” conservatism that now grips the GOP. And he did it all with an arrogant, condescending and holier-than-thou tone that paved the way for the disgusting situation we find ourselves in now.
May he rot in hell and may large festering sores inflame his groin.
If only Darwin had been eaten by a bear.
The same can be said of the Baby Jesus
yet another jeff
Eaten by a bear, so Shakespearian….
DJ, I think that any true Republican SHOULD dislike this president and the evangelical movement.
That wouldn’t have helped. Some other leftie scientist would have concocted the crazy theory of evolution anyway.
DougJ, if you don’t like the scientific method, please refrain from using any of the goodies derived from it.
This includes any pharmaceuticals, electric lights…modern engineering…and oh, by the way, shut your computer off NOW.
Ah, mad scientist experiments on self, a classic, very Christ like.
The Lord works in mysterious ways. Ouch, exams make my head hurt.
DougJ..ever heard of Anaximander? Was he a lefty scientist?
When Will wants to be, he is good, really good. I wish he’d spend more time writing like.
Man, look what I started, I was just speculating. Why are you lefties so afraid of the conversation?
Actually Darwin just helped to prove what was someone elses idea. He then, IMO, went a step too far.
As to the baby Christ eaten by a Bear comment. Thats just wrong. After all a baby would only provide a snack to a full size grizzly, who would then have to seek out something more Darwin sized to fulfill his appetite.
Defense Guy, whose afraid of the conversation? What is the conversation anyway? Natural evoltution and adaption versus the invisible guy in the sky playing a cosmic version of Legos?
Honestly, I’m asking how Darwin went too far?
yet another jeff
Huh? Well…not afraid of conversation, just thought it was funny. I stand by my comment. So there…heh.
Why go a step to far when you can just go off the deep end let the waves do all the work. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ROFLMAO You’re learning, perhaps, evolving?
In no way do I wish to restart the whole G-d vs. Random Chance argument as the source of life on earth. My point, which I meant to make jokingly, was that natural selection and survival of the fittest are the theories that Darwins observations helped to prove. Great. Fantastic.
Where I think he went to far is in the assumption that this means that life DID start from nothing and evolve from there. It COULD have, but it does not mean it DID.
I will speak of this no further, heathans.
No, who is he? I guess I could look on google but I’d rather have you explain it to me.
Defense Guy, Darwin made these assumptions?
“In what manner the mental powers were first developed in the lowest organisms, is as hopeless as how life itself first originated. These are problems for the distant future, if they are ever to be solved by man.” From the “Descent of Man”.
DougJ..nope, you can enter the name on Google…it’s easy, you go to Google, enter the name and Bob’s you uncle. I know that’s a big thing, actually looking things up for yourself, but it’s really not that hard. :)
I don’t recall that Darwin had a lot to say on the subject of the origins of life on Earth.
Universal Common Descent, from Origins of Species as well as Descent of Man. If it is not meant to refute creation, then perhaps I am missing something. If so, please be so kind as to tell me what it is.
yet another jeff
That’s the whole problem…people mistakenly believing that Darwin or any evolution theory are actually refuting creation.
I’m not seeing any place that Defense Guy said anything wrong, I thought it was funny in a Douglas Adams “God disappears in a puff of logic” kind of way.
Creationism/ID is just another bait and switch, just like the Contract on America, “Elections” 2000/2004. These Creationists/IDers who criticise Evolution do so only to advance their own brand of non-sense.
Personally I like the Ben Franklin “the proof of G-d is in the beer” quote the best. Perhaps the rastifarians are on to something.
Defense Guy, Darwin wrote from (the famous voyage of the BEagle to the Galapogos and the finches, etc.) observation that species adapted, evoleved, etc. He did NOT posit the origin of life.
I think that is part of the problem. Many who so violently oppose Darwin have not read him (I’m not saying you haven’t). It was the “descended from monkeys” that got folks’ knickers in a twist from the start and they’ve been running scared ever since. I honestly believe that if Darwin had left out the idea of human beings descending from a common ancestor with the apes that his ideas would not have been met with such “outrage”. Darwin is just the bogeyman for the scientific theory.
The idea that human beings aren’t “special” is the core of the whole conflict.
Bait and switch is just on of their tactics. It is clear now that Bush’s huge push into federalizing education testing is just a vehicle to review state science curricula:
This whole “teach the controversy” is a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is no controversy in the scientific community about Darwin. So you manufacture a controversy which itself becomes controversial and there you go, a populist means of getting creationism back into science class.
yet another jeff
How would they test students in ID anyway? Would that be part of NCLB? Scantron tests of faith?
yet another jeff
For accuracy’s sake:
“Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
— Benjamin Franklin
Fair enough, it’s still a good quote.
As I said before, Darwin made some awesome observations, but just took it a step too far. Other than that, you can mark me down as a fan.
I try not to get sucked back into these conversations, but you pagans just won’t leave ia along. Banana eaters!
Anaximander was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher whose writings could be interpreted as a precursor to modern evolutionary theory.
Try not to confuse him with Anaxagorus. He just gets pissed off when you do that.
Well, there’s this:
Science isn’t about proving theories; that’s the realm of logic and mathematics. It’s about building explanations that best fit our observations. Theories are always contingent; it could happen (though with probability approaching zero) that an alternative to the standard theory of evolution will come along tomorrow and change everyone’s mind. This may not be especially interesting for scientific research in practice, but it’s important to avoid a mindset that holds theories to be true, rather than to be supported by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, as evolution is. I mean, historically speaking, the majority of past scientific theories have been shown to be literally false (Newton’s theory of gravitation being one of the most obvious examples.)
Which is a fantastic way to ensure proper use of terms, and is good for what exactly? After all we still launch spaceships into space assuming that the ‘theories’ will hold true one more time. So thanks for parsing so close, I will attempt to be exact in the future.
So someone, using the exact proper terminology please explain to me how Universal Common Descent is NOT a refutation of creation. Thanks.
Eaten by a bear, so Shakespearian
I would say that’s so Biblical.
As for if Darwin was eaten by a bear, maybe a monk would have taken up the slack?
This doesn’t look right in preview, but it looks right in Dean’s World’s preview so I’m hitting post. Wish me luck.
At the risk of sounding simplistic, ancient greek = gay = librul.
Defense Guy wrote,
I didn’t intend any personal or even intellectual attack, of course. What I was trying to get at was that I think creationists and IDers tend to look at science as saying, “Here’s what we know is true.” Not coincidentally, they look at religion in the same way. Then when someone reads in the newspaper, “Scientists discover X, disproving previous theory,” they think, “Yet again something scientists thought was true is wrong. And science is confusing in any case. I think I’ll stick with the eternal truths of my faith.” This view is bad news for politically charged scientific theories like evolution, because some people will inevitably contrast open scientific questions with the certain answers that their religion gives. Getting around this, I think, requires that people have a more nuanced view of what science is about.
Most of those that fear/reject science are Amish and since they don’t have computers with which to defend themselves, isn’t it really just cruel to point out that internet p0rn is really something worth checking out. Poor backward buggy riding bastards.
On the other hand, those hats they have are pretty fly.
Defense Guy, I doubt I can meet your request to your satisfaction, but here’s a thought or two. Science does not primarily concern itself with refuting superstition and mythology (hard science’s standard view of religion). Your question assumes a worldview that is not scientific in nature, and therefore cannot be answered as asked. If your primary assumption is that G-d created life, as outlined in Genesis, then likely you would see Common Descent and evolution as a challenge to that belief system. From a scientific viewpoint, Common Descent does not challenge or refute creationism anymore than it does the Tooth Fairy.
My question assumes nothing, it is a question. If you don’t know, just say so. Do not read anything into my words that is not there.
Goddamned holier-than-thou Amish. I bet a good punch in the nose would teach ’em a lesson.
So Democracy is gay and liberal, too?
Whit regard to Penguins, has anyone read Penguin Island by Anatole France. A priest get shipwrecked without his glasses and assumes Penguins are people. Quite good social satire about evolution and religion according to what he sees in penguins.
Here’s a quote from Penguin Island:
“What is the good, my dear sir, of giving yourself so much
trouble, and why compose a history when all you need do is to copy the
best-known ones in the usual way? If you have a fresh view or an
original idea, if you present men and things from an unexpected
point of view, you will surprise the reader. And the reader does not
like being surprised. He never looks in a history for anything but the
stupidities that he knows already. If you try to instruct him you only
humiliate him and make him angry. Do not try to enlighten him; he will
only cry out that you insult his beliefs.
“Historians copy from one another. Thus they spare themselves
trouble and avoid the appearance of presumption. Imitate them and do
not be original. An original historian is the object of distrust,
contempt, and loathing from everybody.
“Do you imagine, sir,” added he, “that I should be respected and
honoured as I am if I had put innovations into my historical works?
And what are innovations? They are impertinences.”
He rose. I thanked him for his kindness and reached the door. He
called me back.
“One word more. If you want your book to be well received, lose no
opportunity for exalting the virtues on which society is based-
attachment to wealth, pious sentiments, and especially resignation
on the part of the poor, which latter is the very foundation of order.
Proclaim, sir, that the origins of property- nobility and police-
are treated in your history with all the respect which these
institutions deserve. Make it known that you admit the supernatural
when it presents itself. On these conditions you will succeed in
Here goes. If by creationism, you mean the story in Genesis (or any other religious tradition), then yes, common descent directly refutes that. However, if you mean creationism in the more generic sense that an intelligent being created the first life on Earth, than no, the idea of common descent does not refute or support that. Common descent states that all life derived from a single organism–it holds no opinion on how that organism came to be.
DougJ=charaicature of evengelical right
“Teh gay is teh Devil! Fear teh gay! Stoopid libruls!”
According to the evolutionist wackos all birds including pengiuns came from reptiles they came from dinosours what a lot of poppycock i mean unlike other birds penguins cant fly and the evolutionists are like a SNICKERS bar full of nuts
Except for the ostrich. And the kiwi. And the emu. And the…oh hell, I give up.
goonie bird-“I don’t understand something, so it MUST be wrong! Stoopid quantum mechanics!”