Posted on 10/24/2005 5:27:52 PM PDT by gobucks
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.
"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.
Among the panelists was Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents many scholars who support intelligent design.
He said intelligent design was "based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics."
Many leading Czech thinkers, however, boycotted the conference, insisting the theory - which is being debated in the United States - is scientifically groundless.
Intelligent design holds that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying a higher power must have had a hand. Critics contend it is repackaged creationism and improper to include in modern scientific education.
Vaclav Paces, chairman of the Czech Academy of Sciences, called the conference "useless."
"The fact that we cannot yet explain the origin of life on Earth does not mean that there is (a) God who created it," Paces was quoted as telling the Czech news agency CTK.
Please can you post a link to the _positive_ evidence that we can see that points to a higher intelligence designing what we can see.
There is a lot of scholarship that isn't science. Sociologists and psychologists might find it interesting to attend and see what is going on.
The present bias toward self creation in the science community is unfounded arrogance. They ask of science questions that it is not capable of answering. Science cannot explain or answer any and all dimensions of a question.
The origin of life is a question that involves more than hard science to answer.
Using the phrase "theological pseudoscience" to demean those searching for answers to the shortcomings of Darwin's basic change over time ideas, is simply wrong.
ID attempts to involve as possible answers, aspects of mystery which posit that intelligence gives birth to intelligence.
Is that so odd?
Otherwise....you believe in spontaneous generation.
Show me one example of an intelligent being that isn't born from another intelligent being.
Right out of the gate this article seems to stumble over the truth. An internet search shows that Carole Thaxton is a developer of home school materials and is qualified as a high-school biology teacher. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe there is a difference between a high-school biology teacher and a biologist.
Her husband is a chemist and is associated with the Discovery Institute. It's looking more like this was a religious gathering of believers sponsored by the Discovery Institute rather than a conference of legitimate scientists exploring actual science.
Here's an interesting critique of Stephen C. Meyers (the head of the Discovery Institute) review article published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. I think the following paragraph nicely sums up the fallacies perpetrated by the ID crowd:
"Meyer's paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized "intelligent design" since its inception as a political movement: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life's history and diversity, then assert that an "intelligent designer" provides a better explanation.
Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of "intelligent design" presented in this paper, just as such an account has been absent from all previous work on "intelligent design". Just as a detective doesn't have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn't stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened and why. Only a reasonably detailed model provides empirical expectations that can be tested. ID did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" is not a model."
What do you call janitor at Darwin Central?
You trying to rain on their parade?
As strange as it may seem to you, there is a big difference between a biblical creationist and a scientist who understands Intelligent Design.
I am a scientist that understands Intelligent Design and there certainly is a big difference between me and a biblical creationist. But, what did you say the difference was?
Farmer in the Dale?
A scientist who understands intelligent design knows it's a charlatan pseudo science that dishonest biblical creationist use to try to sneak religion into schools.
Aw now, you stold his thunder.
The difference is the starting point.
The biblical creationist starts with the Genesis account.
The Intelligent Design scientist starts with an observation from nature.
Why not Jack and the Beanstalk?
What does an Intelligent Design scientist do with his observation?
Farmer in the Dale just seems to fit.
OK
B_SHARP, I guess you are now officially the Farmer in the Dale. Whether that's a promotion or not is up to you.
I try.
Since his observation is a conclusion, he uses it to prove his premise.
>Show me one example of an intelligent being that isn't born from another intelligent being.
Is that your answer to my request for you to post a link to the "evidence" you allude to below? Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed.
If you want an example of a being born from a being less intelligent than they are, it happens at least 1/2 the time on average, for some definition of "intelligent". Or is there actually some meaningful pont you are trying to make?
"What they say is the evidence points to a higher intelligence having designed what we see"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.