Reply With Quote
And you base this on WHAT factual knowledge? hmmm?
Design theory doesn't stand up to the scientific method and deep down you know it, whether you admit it in public or not.
Ummmm scott are all rectangles squares...??? how about are all squares rectangles????
I believe you jumped into this argument at a point where you completely ignored the point I was trying to make.... wouldn't hurt if you went back and read the other pages to this thread...
Anyways... I'm not suggesting that all evolutionary proponents are atheist... I'm trying to point out the fact that some of the more important proponents are.... but anyways... you felt inclined to suggest I was making blanket statements.
And you base this on WHAT factual knowledge? hmmm?
Design theory doesn't stand up to the scientific method and deep down you know it, whether you admit it in public or not.
To answer your first question:
No.
For your second point:
We're getting there. Having the capability to do such doesn't quite make us on par with God. Not exactly sure what your point is though.
Of course they have an agenda in "resisting" the ID movement.
It is called good science. Not quite a sinister motivation is it?
Also, you are painting with too broad a brush.
All people who think ID isn't science aren't "out to get" Christianity as a whole.
Evolution and the Bible aren't mutually exclusive, and that is something that NO scientist who does believe in ID will admit.
Exactly.
I think I have a little more science on my side to be able to say so.And you saying it isn't scientific settles the debate, thanks.
I have read some ID stuff and can say it sounds more like pseudo-science than it does real science.
They use a lot of scientific sounding language, and try to mimic the procedures of real science, but when it comes right down to it, it boils down to "it has to be this way because my interpretation of the bible says it is". Whether you have the intellectual honesty to admit that is another thing.
Since you were kind enough to give me a quote, perhaps you explain how the author reaches the following two conclusions:
That sounds like a blanket dismissal and a closed mind if I ever heard it, but perhaps you could enlighten me as to what factual basis he has for saying it.1) But the great shortfall of evolutionary theory is that there is NO data (that's right, absolutely NONE) demonstrating an instance where natural selection or mutation result in new speciation.
2) ID theory has empirical evidence to support it. The theory of evolution does not.
I agree. (shrugs) It is the nature of any ideologue to do so.
Shrugs (sigh) good example ^^ of why we tend to believe this way.... of people in the other camp.
You really can't have it both ways.... I want someone to tell me when 'science' recreated millions of years in a laboratory experiment to support 'evolutionary' principles following the 'sacred' scientific method... if they can run such experiments without recurring to inferences or logical deductions then come back to me... claiming that ID thinking is erroneous pseudo-science is a scheme long used to suppress any validity to what ID is trying to answer...
The article above actually explains the two conflicting parameters that don't coincide with any evolutionary mechanism... super-uber-complexity and mathematical improbability....
Last edited by hegamboa; 12-25-2005 at 12:14 AM.
I call bull on that statement. Blaming atheism/agnosticism/anti-Christians/etc. is a nice saftey blanket to hide behind, but it doesn't hold up except in a congregation in IDers. To date, ID has been rejected in scientific communities not because "important evolutionary proponents" are atheist... its because ID's "science" isn't science.
If dragging up quotes from people who are atheist and reject ID is supposed to prove your point (and they have been deemed the "important evolutionary proponents" because... ?), then job well done - you win the prize for top cliche message board debate skills.
Even if these "important evolutionary proponents" who are atheists do exist, and they are indeed out to derail the ID movement... who cares? Do all pursuits of knowledge cease to exist because Richard Dawkins (who is considered "the leading figure on the Darwin side" because... Yonivore said so? And what is the "Darwin side"? As I've pointed out... Darwinism is not a prevailing scientific theory - evolution is) or some UT professor says "God is dead"? If there is anything to be found, those with the drive and desire will find it. As of now, however, there has been no ID scientific revalation - certainly not one that would allow ID to be considered science.
It isn't the atheists keeping ID out of the science club... its the science part - any thought to the contrary deserves about as much attention as any "the NBA hates the Spurs and that is why we lost" theories.
Neither of those things are in conflict with evolution either. Given the immense size of the universe (assuming that there isn't some other theory of the size of our universe that is also in some debate I don't know about), even the most improbable of odds are really not that improbable. Even within our own galaxy it is estimated that there are anywhere from 1 to 30 billion stars with planets (a range of 1 to 30% of the estimated number of stars in our galaxy). Even if there is only 1 "inhabitable" planet for every third star in the galaxy, you may be talking about having to get to 1 in 10 billion odds before you are talking about anything remotely "improbable" (and even 1 in 10 billion isn't improbable... thats an even money bet). Now consider the millions/billions/kazillions of galaxies in our universe... "mathematical improbability" itself is what becomes mathematically improbable.
The article you referenced doesn't explain anything to support ID or debunk evolution... it's just a rehash of the arguement as old as humanity itself... "we are unable of fathoming something, so there must be some greater intelligence behind it."
o scott.
I'm quite sure he didn't just pull this opinion out of his hat, he's quite credentialed and his opinions, even if not agreed with, should certainly provoke more than being cavalierly dismissed as "rubbish".
I thought it was a nice outtake that he derived from his studies and it was posted to possibly provoke substantive arguement (it's worthy of debate) not disdainful potshots.
Being "fringe" is relative to where you stand on the issue.
<Happy Holidays to ya>
This reply from the Center for Science and Culture (CSC).Originally posted by RandomGuy: Christian Science Monitor
Tuesday, 12/20/05
WASHINGTON AND BOSTON "Intelligent design" is just another name for creationism - and therefore teaching it in public schools violates the cons utional principle of church-state separation.
Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Does Discovery Ins ute favor including the Bible or creationism in science classes or textbooks?
No. Discovery Ins ute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQues...elligentDesign
What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists (for RG) to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.
Intelligent edit <design> does attempt to "imbue the tenets of Christianity into our children" or is it even remotely close to being "entirely rooted in religion" as FWD suggests.
It isn't "teaching children about God and Religion" or a "matter of religious faith" as Oh Gee suggests.
It isn't a "flanking manuever by fundamentalists" or "wanting your children to be devout Christians" as RandomGuy suggests.
It's not "teaching or learning about Christianity" as Medvedenko suggests.
For those that are honestly interested in learning more about what ID is there is solid information in the link provided.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQues...elligentDesign
Last edited by jochhejaam; 12-27-2005 at 08:15 AM.
aren't "string theory" and "super-symmetry theory" just theories...yet, you don't hear any opposition to those being discussed in school.
Because thats science. There is a scientific method you know... that this BS "theory" doesnt respect, you know?
And that no member of the science community has ever seen any paper submitted to discussion as normal procedures in science suggest. (Reference: wikipedia)
"God did it" Random Guy, provide proof of them "always" shrugging things off that don't fit into their theories in that manner.
<hint, you won't be able to provide it from the links I provided>
Wilkipedia is far from anything more than a general reference and it's methods and criteria for submitting and publishing information has recently fallen under public scrutiny and been rebuked for submitting as fact information that the submitter meant as a hoax.
Intelligent design is subject to and has passed peer review.
Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs?
Yes. Although open hostility from those who hold to neo-Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas, research and articles supporting intelligent design are being published in peer-reviewed publications. Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe. Additional peer-reviewed books about design theory are scheduled to be published in 2003 and 2004 by Michigan State University Press and Cambridge University Press. In the area of journals, Michael Behe has defended his concept of "irreducible complexity" in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophy of Science published by the University of Chicago. There is also now a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations. Finally, the works of design theorists are starting to be cited by other scholars in peer-reviewed journals such as the Annual Review of Genetics.
So many misconceptions and I'm assuming it's based in part in the incorrect belief that it's a thinly veiled version of Creationism and partly because of not being thoroughly educated in the theory of Intelligent Design.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 12-26-2005 at 05:32 PM.
An article from 11/30/05 published in USA Today
'Intelligent design': What do scientists fear?
Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckelis a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.
The issue: Should public schools teach "intelligent design," the theory that the universe and its life forms are so complex that a higher cause must have been involved in making them?
Bob: Cal, I'm going to stray from the consensus liberal line on the issue of intelligent design. The Dover, Pa., school board had a good reason to allow the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific alternative to Darwinism in the school system's science classes. Despite the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that evolution is the sole explanation for all living things, these scientists have yet to prove the theory conclusively. Not only are there still gaping holes in the evolutionary chain from single cells to man, the science crowd hasn't come close to explaining why only man among all living things has a conscience, a moral framework and a free will.
Cal: What I find curious about this debate, not only in Pennsylvania, but in Kansas and throughout the country, is that so many scientists and educators are behaving like fundamentalist secularists. Only they will define science. They alone will decide which scientific theories and information will be taught to students. That sounds like mind control to me, Bob. If their science is so strong on the issue of origins, why not let the arguments supporting intelligent design into the classroom where it can be debunked if it can't be defended? You liberals are always accusing us conservatives of censorship. It sounds like your side has picked up the disease on this one.
Bob: One reason is that your side insists on making this debate about religion. I believe there is a good science debate here. Many people believe that the Christian community is using intelligent design as a backdoor for teaching creationism. If not, this issue would not be in the federal courts in a cons utional argument over separation of church and state. But there are a number of serious scientists who believe in intelligent design as a theory of evolution based on scientific argument.
Cal: Exactly right, Bob. And many of them have advanced degrees from the same universities from which the evolutionary scientists have graduated. And what about some of the greatest names in science men like Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler and Galileo? Charles Darwin was a devout Christian as a young man, but his religious views like his scientific ones "evolved" as he got older. By the time he wrote The Origin of Species, he was as good a practical secularist as any non-believer. Was the later Darwin smarter than the combined wisdom of those scientists who believed the universe did not come into existence by chance but had a creator behind it? Readers can Google "scientists and intelligent design" for the names of many more scientists who believed someone was behind what we see in the sky with our eyes and beyond through a telescopic eye.
Bob: Good, now you're talking science, not theology.
Cal: But I doubt the secular fundamentalists and their judicial friends will ever allow this debate to occur. That's why I support, for this reason and many others, pulling conservative and Christian kids out of public schools and placing them in private or home-school environments where they can get a real and truthful education.
Bob: Cal, if you encourage Christian believers to take their kids out of public schools, then it's likely intelligent design will never get a fair hearing and forever be seen as Biblical creation only. That's not fair to those who want competing theories to Darwin introduced as a scientific debate, not a theological food fight.
Cal: Fair point, Bob, but the primary responsibility of parents is to their children. If they are teaching them one thing at home and in their place of worship, and they are subsidizing with their taxes the teaching of conflicting views which are taught as truth in the government schools they are undermining the very things in which they believe. School choice would settle a lot of this, but those politically beholden to the National Education Association aren't about to allow parents the freedom to choose where to educate their kids.
Bob: Some public school systems may well be hostile to Christian dogma, but most are looking at intelligent design as a church-state issue, and until told otherwise by the federal courts will continue to keep the debate out of science classes. You can't blame them. Nearly the entire school board in Dover was defeated over this very issue in the last election. Pulling Christian kids from public schools only helps the "Darwin only" science crowd.
Cal: Scientists have accepted theories in the past that proved to be wrong. Science is supposed to be about openness to competing ideas. But the very people who want to impose evolution as the only scientific explanation for life on the planet violate this basic tenet of science when it comes to intelligent design.
Bob: True, but these scientists will say the overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution, and no other theory comes close. Well, of course it doesn't because no other theory has been studied seriously. This crowd has a vested interest in proving Darwin correct, and anything else is dismissed out of hand. This from the same scientific community that for years believed the universe was shrinking. They have since discovered the Big Bang and now believe the universe is expanding.
Cal: You're making my point, Bob. Science advances by considering all theories and evidence, not by conspiring to teach only one to the exclusion of others. This is Flat Earth Society thinking.
Bob: But if this debate continues to be viewed as an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to get their beliefs into the public schools, then intelligent design will never get a fair hearing, and it deserves one. The scientists who view intelligent design as a science, not a dogma, believe that the smallest building blocks of life are so complex that they couldn't simply evolve from amoebas. That's about as far as I can go in my understanding of all this.
Cal: What has been set up is a false premise: that the Bible and science are in conflict and that nothing in Scripture can be tested scientifically. That is just not true. But when God asks Job "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" the question should make scientists humble about their certainties concerning the origins of the earth and of human life.
Bob: There you go again mixing science with the Bible. We both want to see intelligent design introduced into the scientific debate. Can't we leave the Bible out of this while we're trying to convince the public that this is a debate about science? It's a means-ends issue, Cal.
Cal: Some Christians are trying to water down what they really believe for the wrong reasons. It would be better for them to exit the government schools so they can teach their beliefs without compromise. For those who remain like you and want intelligent design taught alongside evolution, why not have a series of televised debates so the public could make up its own mind?
Bob: That's a start. The scientific community has gone out of its way to depict intelligent design as a religious view. Most people have no idea that serious scientists believe there is a strong case for intelligent design. These scientists have been denied a forum, and a series of public debates would be educational and give the intelligent design researchers a chance to tell their side.
Cal: Surely C-SPAN would carry the debate if the scientists were prominent enough. Anyone opposing the debate would be rightly labeled a censor and anti-academic freedom. That should make the liberals choke. Sound like a good idea to you, Bob (except the part about choking liberals)?
Bob: I'm all for it. I just wonder if the Darwinists will show up.
Cal: Maybe we can offer them some bananas as an incentive. As they eat them, they can contemplate their heritage.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...n-ground_x.htm
Good dialogue between Bob and Cal....
A debate is certainly what is needed....
As great as those odds seem..... I'm talking about even greater odds... numbers we seldom ever fathom...
An excerpt from "The Collapse of Evolution" written by Scott M. Huse...
A repudiation of the ACLU's position on ID. Many agnostic scientists support ID
Anti-ID stance is good old intolerance again
By: David K. DeWolf and Randall Wegner
Philadelphia Inquirer
October 18, 2005
In the thinly disguised play based on the Scopes trial, Inherit the Wind, the Clarence Darrow character (Drummond) cross-examines the William Jennings Bryan character (Brady). To prove how intolerant Brady is in defending the law that forbade the teaching of evolution, Drummond asks Brady to suppose that Mr. Cates, the Scopes character, "had enough influence and lung power to railroad through the state legislature a law that only Darwin should be taught in the schools!" Brady responds by saying, "Ridiculous, ridiculous!"
Though fictional, Inherit the Wind is the lens through which much of the modern debate about evolution is seen. And though the ACLU lost the Scopes case, it won the culture war, and today it is seeking to achieve what was thought ridiculous 80 years ago. It seeks in the courts what Tennessee passed in the legislature: the exclusion of a competing theory.
The ACLU has a variety of clever arguments as to why it is a "civil liberty" to exclude any competing theory. It claims that anything other than Darwinism is not science and that the only alternative to Darwin's theory is a "supernatural creator" who can't be investigated scientifically. This is plainly false. The scientists who have questioned Darwinian evolutionary theory point to scientific evidence (the fossil record, the digital information content in DNA, the engineering structure in cells) and use scientific reasoning to explain that design is the most likely cause.
Even when it is pointed out that peer-reviewed scientific articles have presented the case for intelligent design, the ACLU retreats to the position that it is only a "minority" view, and that "mainstream scientific organizations" disagree. This, from the group that supposedly defends minority views.
The ACLU claims that intelligent design is inherently religious. Certainly some who have advocated intelligent design are religious. Others decidedly are not. Many agnostic scientists support intelligent design. The theory is driven by the science, not by a religious dogma, and the theory stops where the science stops. It doesn't purport to suggest what the intelligent cause was. Should anyone be afraid of the implications of science, even if one of the implications may be to consider that we did not evolve from lower life forms?
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a more inclusive view about teaching alternatives. In 1987, the court struck down a Louisiana statute that prohibited teaching evolution unless biblical creation was taught. In doing so, the court affirmed the cons utionality of teaching "a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind."
It is because the law is so clear on this point that the ACLU has desperately fought to control the definition of "science" to exclude design. In doing so, it imperils not just the science curriculum in Dover, but also scientific thought in general. When the Nobel Prize in medicine was recently awarded to the scientists who proved that ulcers were caused by bacteria, it was duly noted that they faced enormous opposition from the scientific and medical establishment, which was convinced otherwise. Today, a number of scientific groups have enshrined neo-Darwinism as a "proven" theory, but it would be a sad day (and, again, tragic irony) if the ACLU succeeds in getting a court to rule that anything other than the current orthodoxy doesn't qualify as science.
More than 400 scientists have signed a statement declaring that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," and that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The ACLU thinks that telling high school students that they should critically examine the theory of evolution should be illegal because it "disparages" the theory.
Questions exist as to why the Dover school board adopted its policy and whether it adopted the best policy it could have. We all suffer if the ACLU succeeds, however, in creating a scientific monopoly by labeling a scientific theory that explains our origins as mere religion because the theory explains various scientific facts in terms of design. When you step back and look at what the ACLU is actually asking for, you have to have the same reaction as the fictional character in Inherit the Wind: "Ridiculous!"
David K. DeWolf ([email protected]) is professor of law at Gonzaga Law School. Randall Wegner ([email protected]) is cons utional attorney with Clymer & Musser P.C. of Lancaster.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...=discoMainPage
"the exclusion of a competing theory."
You rabble are so easy to rouse, your knees so easy to jerk, your emotional agendas are transparent, and clouding what little brains you have.
Every damn theory that comes along isn't suitable for teaching in schools.
So what do you teach? You select the theories that have withstood the test of time, have tons of supporting evidence, from the entire world's scientific community, preferably overwhelming evidence, that have explanatory and predictive power.
Does that mean such taught theories are perfect, that they are unassailable, will not be overturned? no, it just means that these are the best theories we have selected to pass on in secular, public education.
ID has NONE of those characteristics, and has as much scientific "support" as Scientology. Why not teach Scientology as science in schools?
What's totally bogus and insincere and profoundly dishonest about ID is that while ID has not won its merits and credibility outisde of the classroom between scientists, the IDers think their little religiously-tainted theory is the equal of all of science and there should be taught in schools.
Last edited by boutons_; 12-27-2005 at 02:19 PM.
My god some you people are ing stupid.
Improbability does not equal impossibility so using that as an argument to refute evolution is a cliche argument used by people who don't understand jack about the evolution other than what they hear on tv.
ID doesn't belong in science class.
They don't show "conflicting" theories of any theory that aren't widely accepted. Hence the term "accepted theory". If another theory of life had some substantial support, you better bet that it would be in science books along with evolution.
How many experiments published have been in support of Intelligent Design again?
(btw, whoever assumed all proponents of evolution are athiest is a ing re , not one professor i have talked to is athiest)
I guess that those who push for the ID in the classrooms, are also all for teaching historical materialism in Economics, since it's not a proven theory supported by the majority of the scientific community, right?
If they teach Intelligent Design, should others religious theories as Confucianism, Buddhism, Islam, Scientology, etc., be allowed in the classrooms?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
