Charles Krauthammer can be a thoughtful and well-reasoned writer. However, quite often, in my opinion, he misses the mark. His column addressing science and religion is a glaring example of his ability to get things wrong. Attacking intelligent design has become so popular among the secular elites in this country that, apparently, Krauthammer just couldn’t resist jumping on the bandwagon. Krauthammer wrote this column even though he lacked a decent argument to back up his point.
Krauthammer’s biggest mistake was using Newton and Einstein as examples of how religious scientists could use naturalism to explain the world in which we live. Newton and Einstein were mathematicians first and foremost who used mathematical models to explain the universe, models that were then tested and confirmed by empirical observations.
Newton and Einstein, motivated by their religious belief in an ordered and planned creation, looked for and found a universe of mathematical precision. Conversely, Darwinism relies on natural selection acting on random mutations, not mathematical models, to explain the appearance of increasingly complex organisms. And Darwinists are the first to cry foul whenever mathematicians attempt to test evolutionary theories with mathematical models.
Today, in the evolution-creation debate the mathematicians like William Dembsky and David Berlinsky primarily are lined up in opposition to Darwinism because it defies mathematical models. By its very nature Darwinism is a subjective rather than empirical discipline.
It seems that Krauthammer may have overreached by calling intelligent design a fraud. The real fraud is that Darwinists were capable of duping an otherwise intelligent person like Charles Krauthammer.
Michael Klein
Stanwood
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
