'Intelligent design' supporters gather (700 Scientists agree ID is "step beyond Darwin")

Seattle PI ^ | 24 Oct 2005 | ONDREJ HEJMA (AP)

[gobucks]

"Vaclav Paces, chairman of the Czech Academy of Sciences, called the conference "useless."

Hey hey hey there Bub ... think about the impact to the local ecomony at the least. Remember, the Red Tanks used to be the ones holding a 'conference' in Czech - how 'useful' was that?

[gobucks]

This AP story was not fully extracted from the wires in Seattle. They missed this section which I found elsewhere:

Pavel Kabrt, a Czech who served on the committee that organized the event, said the capital of the ex-communist country _ now a highly secular republic _ was a fitting backdrop for the debate.

"Communism is gone, but its main pillar, Darwin's theory, is still here ... the evolution theory is taught as dogma here starting in nursery school," said Kabrt, an electrician who lectures on intelligent design at Czech high schools.

[Coyoteman]

Here we go again ===> Placemarker <===

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

There aren't 700 scientists anywhere in the world
who believe in ID. I know. I've read it on the Free
Republic. This is obviously made up out of whole
cloth.

[AFPhys]

With the way even the president of Cornell University has decided to get involved in this by making a major speech decrying it, I have to say that the way I'm seeing this now is fully explained by -

(Scientific Community):(ID) :: (Catholic Church):(Copernicus)

The scientific community really has to get down and dirty involved in this discussion, with facts and figures instead of obstruction and name calling, or their battle is lost.

[uncbob]

Unless the designer appears at the meeting how are they going to prove it

[gobucks]

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!


I keep reading the same thing, and gee, I just want to shake these hapless reporters and direct them here, the safe place for the evos!!

[gobucks]

"Unless the designer appears at the meeting how are they going to prove it"

Well, I suppose they are trying to figure out how to prove it as we speak. After all, ID is just theory for now ... not a fact.

[Hodar]

Some things are observable, and observation does not support the theory that everything degenerates into chaos.

Consider a cloud of Hydrogen; instead of homogeniously spreading throughout the galaxy, it forms a cloud. The colective gravity of this cloud attracts other Hydrogen atoms; eventually the gravity causes this could to condense into a STAR (dis-order into order). The Star burns with nuclear Fission, until the star consumes the fissionable material, then turns into a Neutron Star (more order), this star then explodes, spewing more sophisticated molecules (ie. atomic weight greater than Hydrogen), which then form planets (again more order).

Or, biologically speaking, Dinosaurs were primitive comared to early mammals. Early mammals became more sophisticated (compare primitive hearts found in reptiles to the hearts in mammals).

Simply stated, Intelligent Design is a quantifiable, verifiable, observable fact.

[paudio]

Among the panelists was Stephen C. Meyer, director of Cambridge University's Center for Science and Culture, who said intelligent design was "based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics."

How could he be appointed a professor in Cambridge? Interesting... some universities seem to have a little bit more open mind than others... Science is not dogma. If we don't allow a tiny possibility that what we believe may be wrong, it's not science. It's called faith.

[Wormwood]

How many are named Steve, I wonder.

[jonathanmo]

For the local perspective from the Prague Post...

Faith requires no rewriting of science

Postview

October 19, 2005
To Europeans, and to a predominantly agnostic nation like the Czech Republic, the American fascination with religious conservatism might seem a bit of a mystery — and the truth is, it's a bit of a mystery to many Americans as well. But what is generally not a mystery is the underlying difference between science and religion, between questions of fact and questions of faith.

But that distinction has grown alarmingly ambiguous to some, to the point that a few public school districts in the United States are already considering incorporating theological pseudoscience into their educational curricula.
The latest sheep's clothing for this movement has taken the name Intelligent Design, a phrase that would seem more comfortable on an Ikea catalog than a course catalog. In what appears to be an effort at a kinder, gentler counterpoint to the Scopes monkey trial, followers of this doctrine speculate that since Darwin's theory of natural selection lacks the ease of proof of, say, mathematics or basic chemistry, any other notion on evolution must be treated as equally legitimate science — such as the belief that the ascent of man has been traced through time by the finger of God.

Advocates of this belief have even sought to export it to Europe and elsewhere, and Intelligent Design acolytes will hold a conference here in Prague Oct. 22 to spread faith in their new word.
Many respected scientists have no quarrel with the notion that superior intelligence created the universe as a religious doctrine, nor can there be any objection to a conference that scrutinizes the merits of the concept as a science. After all, it's through open academic debate that bad ideas are dismantled and good ideas reinforced.

And, at the end of the day, most people have no serious expectation that Intelligent Design will seize the imagination of the scientific world and force Darwinism to share shoulder-space with it. More likely, in a few years, Intelligent Design will be little more than a curious historical detour on the road to knowledge, like a giant ball of twine on a long highway's roadside, interesting only for its oddity.

But it is surprising in this day and age that some religious theorists continue to feel compelled to impose theological concepts on the scientific world — a practice just as preposterous as if physics tried to explain the difference between good and evil or the meaning of life. And in a way, needing to cloak a religious doctrine with the veneer of science is almost an admission of its defect — true faith doesn't require scientific proof, since the definition of faith is to have belief in the absence of proof.

Ultimately, then, perhaps it's appropriate for the Intelligent Design conference to take place in Prague, the final resting place of astronomer Tycho Brahe, eternally ensconced in the Ty´n Church on Old Town Square. Brahe spent years trying to force a mathematical model of the universe into harmony with the theological teachings of the Catholic Church, to no avail. Galileo and Copernicus found their scientific discoveries equally at odds with religious teachings — which at times put them in peril. Perhaps, as Intelligent Design advocates visit Europe to spread their teachings, they can look to religion's own history and learn something as well.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

What do you call a janitor in a room full of creationists?

The smart one.

[ThirstyMan]

Unless the designer appears at the meeting how are they going to prove it

They can't "prove it" anymore than a Darwinist can prove his theory. What they say is the evidence points to a higher intelligence having designed what we see.

Now one can argue that it's not necessary, that spontaneous generation actually is real, but they can't prove that either.

[almcbean]

"Unless the designer appears at the meeting how are they going to prove it"

I suppose the "missing link" shows up at all the evolutionists' meetings.

[uncbob]

Neither side can PROVE ANYTHING at this point in time

[shuckmaster]

How many Intelligent designers can dance on the head of a Czechoslovakian pin ping

[shuckmaster]

LOL!!!

[shuckmaster]

How many Intelligent designers can dance on the head of a Czechoslovakian pin ping

[chrisg2001]

Stars don't use nuclear fission, they use fusion. Solar systems don't form in any way that resmbles your assertion about exploding neutron stars, so forgive me if I ignore whatever point you were trying to make in the first 2 paragraphs

In what way were dinosaurs more "primitive" than contemporaneous mammals? The only fossilized dinosaur heart known is four-chambered, as bird and mammal hearts are (you could find this in 2 seconds with google).

Please post the quantifiable (meaning measurement, math and numbers) facts of intelligent design as an explanation for biology, how they were verified, and how they were observed.
AFAIK NO elements of the intelligent design "theory" have ever been applied to any real biological system, observation, or measurement.

[chrisg2001]

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.

[RightWhale]

scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence

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.

[ThirstyMan]

...a few public school districts in the United States are already considering incorporating theological pseudoscience into their educational curricula.

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.

[ThirstyMan]

Show me one example of an intelligent being that isn't born from another intelligent being.

[Honcho Bongs]

""It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist ..."

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."

[furball4paws]

What do you call janitor at Darwin Central?

[furball4paws]

You trying to rain on their parade?

[ThirstyMan]

As strange as it may seem to you, there is a big difference between a biblical creationist and a scientist who understands Intelligent Design.

[furball4paws]

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?

[banalblues]

Farmer in the Dale?

[shuckmaster]

there is a big difference between a biblical creationist and a scientist who understands Intelligent Design.

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.

[furball4paws]

Aw now, you stold his thunder.

[ThirstyMan]

I didn't say.

The difference is the starting point.

The biblical creationist starts with the Genesis account.
The Intelligent Design scientist starts with an observation from nature.

[furball4paws]

Why not Jack and the Beanstalk?

[furball4paws]

What does an Intelligent Design scientist do with his observation?

[banalblues]

Farmer in the Dale just seems to fit.

[furball4paws]

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.

[shuckmaster]

Aw now, you stold his thunder.

I try.

[js1138]

What does an Intelligent Design scientist do with his observation?

Since his observation is a conclusion, he uses it to prove his premise.

[chrisg2001]

>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"

[Dimensio]

There aren't 700 scientists anywhere in the world who believe in ID. I know. I've read it on the Free Republic.

Do you hve a link to support this claim?

[shuckmaster]

The biblical creationist starts with the Genesis account.

Correct.

The Intelligent Design scientist starts with an observation from nature.

Wrong. There's no such thing as an intelligent design scientist. ID is a completely bogus pseudo science designed to sell books to dishonest radical fundamentalists who think they are sneaky enough to get superstition and myth taught in science class without real scientists ever noticing the difference.

[furball4paws]

I was kind of hoping to string this one along a little, but he seems to have caught on. Maybe I need subtlety lessons. Want to oblige?

I would have said "He says 'I don't understand - it cannot be explained - it must be intelligently designed - the designer is aliens or Grauch Marx or God (shhhhh) - packs up his science certificate from the diploma mill and goes to Wednesday evening prayer".

You have such a way with words!

[LiteKeeper]

You forgot the < / sarcasm > tag

[furball4paws]

Is that about the 700 scientists or the bit about FR.

[Dimensio]

The bit about FR.

[furball4paws]

Good luck getting an answer.

[boatbums]

Has it ever occurred to you that since NONE of us was present to observe when "it" all began, all we have is conjecture? We are all operating by faith in some way. You choose to believe there is no Creator, therefore no meaning for life, no "higher power" to answer to at the end of your life. That is why you fight so hard for what even the staunchest supporters can still only call a theory and not fact. There is still no observable occurrence of a transmutation on record, anywhere, anytime.

[b_sharp]

"Show me one example of an intelligent being that isn't born from another intelligent being.

That's an interesting question.

If I were a creationist I would say 'God' fits that bill.

Since I'm not a creationist, I would have to agree with you that God was created by man.

[chrisg2001]

>Has it ever occurred to you that since NONE of us was present to observe when "it" all began, all we have is conjecture? We are all operating by faith in some way. You choose to believe there is no Creator, therefore no meaning for life, no "higher power" to answer to at the end of your life.

Millions of people all around the world beleive in God, are religious, and have no trouble reconciling this faith with
the scientific theory of evolution and other scientific principles.

> That is why you fight so hard for what even the staunchest supporters can still only call a theory and not fact.

Playing word games with "theory" and "fact" just makes your point seem superficial and silly. A theory is not a _guess_. It's a model of the way things work that is borne out by evidence. Technology based on things that are "just theories" surrounds you.


>There is still no observable occurrence of a transmutation on record, anywhere, anytime.
I have no idea what this means.