Column in today’s NYTimes. Doesn’t get any better than that. 
Come on Ken, I don’t think there is a single fact in the entire editorial.
Do virtually all biologists think Darwin was right? Uh, for the most part, most biologists think Darwin was mostly wrong about most of what he proposed. His basic ideas have been refuted. Instead they have been heavily modified, and continue to be modified, though they served as an intellectual starting point.
For some reason, I don’t think this article was peer reviewed. It would never have gotten out the door had it been.
Come on Ken, I don’t think there is a single fact in the entire editorial.
Do virtually all biologists think Darwin was right? Uh, for the most part, most biologists think Darwin was mostly wrong about most of what he proposed. His basic ideas have been refuted. Instead they have been heavily modified, and continue to be modified, though they served as an intellectual starting point.
For some reason, I don’t think this article was peer reviewed. It would never have gotten out the door had it been.
Man, do you eat a toad first thing in the morning? I just thought it was great that one of this forum’s favorite liberal whipping boy on economics had a column bashing ID. Too bad he didn’t include abortion in there somewhere.
Am I particularly obtuse this morning? Did I miss your point entirely?
Am I particularly obtuse this morning? Did I miss your point entirely?
I’m commenting on the existence of the column and its author and subject, not on its content.
OK. Krugman often comments outside his areas of economic experise, and such columns are usually as well informed as this one. That is to say they are not informed at all.
So I guess the answer is yes, I am particularly obtuse this morning. I think I am still missing your point.
OK. Krugman often comments outside his areas of economic experise, and such columns are usually as well informed as this one. That is to say they are not informed at all.
So I guess the answer is yes, I am particularly obtuse this morning. I think I am still missing your point.
Last try: people on this forum bitch about Paul Krugman. People on this forum bitch about critics of Intelligent Design. Krugman writes a column about Intelligent Design. That should bring out a large bitch-fest. “Doesn’t get any better than that”.
OK, I think I have got it now. Sorry it took a while. Tough, tough morning.
People bitch about Krugman because in his area of expertise he is very bright, well informed, but basically dishonest and misleading. His stuff looks very plausible at first glance, but when you drill down you find his material is based upon selective and misleading “facts.” Bright, articulate and dishonest people can be very dangerous because they are seductive and potentially persuasive to the casual reader.
When Krugman writes outside his area of expertise, he is just another liberal oaf who can’t get out of his own way, persuades no one and is easily ignored. I ignored his editorial when I read it this morning, so I was surprised by your post.
You are in a shitty mood this morning.
The jist of the editorial was absolutely straight on: that the religious right, having gotten nowhere with their make-belive Creationist Science, have switched the focus to the made-up theory of ID, with the hope being that ID can be used to discredit evolution in the science classroom, leading to the introduction of religion into public schools.
Basically what we have been discussing here for the past few days.
Or are you obtuse enough this AM to not believe that your regligious right wants to break down that pesky separation of chruch & state?
I didn’t say it wasn’t a potentially intelligent subject. I said it wasn’t an intelligent editorial.
But yes, I am in a shitty mood. Life gets in the way some times. Maybe I should take the rest of the day off from posting. No need to spread it around.
Know what you mean as you’ve called me out several times for the same thing.
I’m beginning to wonder whether posting in LR is of any benefit (personally). It is mildly intellectually stimulating, but overall I think it to be a pretty big waste of time as all the discussions end the same way–exactly where they began.
Its like being in a stupid bar discussion without the benefits of alcohol.
For a guy with a PhD, Krugman’s remarkably stupid. Maybe he’s an idiot savant. You know, “knows how to count, using all his fingers and toes” and so forth.
If one has the eyes, and the wit, to look at the universe and the elegant way in which it operates, one can’t help but at least concede the possibility of some grand design at play.
T.
And wouldn’t evolution be a pretty excellent machine for accomplishing that design?
I don’t understand why there is such a problem with the notion of a creator AND evolution. They aren’t mutually exclusive, absent a literal interpretation of the bible.
Personally, I find the intelligent design argument a bit silly. It strikes me as the equivalent of Greek mythology–or any semi-religious explanation of natural phenomenon: We can’t explain that, there must be a God(s) that did it…
If one has the eyes, and the wit, to look at the universe and the elegant way in which it operates, one can’t help but at least concede the possibility of some grand design at play.
T.
On the contrary, I am continually amazed at how often and completely scientists demonstrate that the most complex and beautiful systems in nature arose from simpler processes. I have no reason to believe that such analysis is likely to end in the near future, at which point science will have thrown up its collective hands and conceded to an intelligent design.