Posted on 11/13/2005 6:07:54 AM PST by NYer
CBN.com – SEATTLE, Washington - The Dover, Pennsylvania school board is on trial in the state capitol. Their crime? They wanted to tell high school students once a year that evolution is only a theory. They also wanted to mention an alternate theory: Intelligent Design, or ID.
That was too much for some parents. They sued, claiming ID is religious and therefore illegal in school. The judge will decide the case in the next few weeks.
So is ID really just religion in disguise? Do both biology and astronomy support ID? And who are these people promoting ID?
To answer those questions, we went to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the major proponents of ID.
Dr. Stephen Meyer is the head of Discovery's Center for Science and Culture. He says to ban design theory as mere religion is wrong.
"And in fact,” Meyer said, “it's a science-based argument that may have implications that are favorable to a theistic worldview, but the argument is based on scientific evidence."
But perhaps these ID experts are not really reputable?
Mayer stated, "These are people with serious academic training. They are Ph.D.s from very, not just reputable -- but elite -- institutions. And they are people doing research on the key pressure points in biology and physics, and so their arguments are based on cutting-edge knowledge of developments in science."
So what is the evidence from researchers like biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute?
He is an expert on a special kind of bacteria called flagella. Inside the bacteria are exquisitely engineered ‘inboard motors’ that spin at an amazing 100,000 revolutions per minute.
Darwin said that such complexity must have developed piece by piece. Behe said that is bunk. All the pieces must be in place at the same time or the motorized tails would never work.
Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that -- ID does.
Behe makes the case for ID in a video called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." The video’s narrator declares, “A thimbleful of liquid can contain four million single-celled bacteria, each packed with circuits, assembly instructions, and molecular machines..."
"There are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from one end of the cell to the other,” Behe explained. “There are machines that capture the energy from sunlight, and turn it into usable energy."
ID experts say the more you know about biology -- and some of the weird creatures like this island lizard -- the worse it gets for Darwinism.
Consider the workings of the genetic code. That code produces all kinds of molecular machines, plus all the other components of life. ID advocates say that to believe those components are just Darwinian accidents takes a blind faith in the creativity of dumb molecules.
So with growing evidence of ID, isn't Lehigh University proud of this cutting-edge scientist who teaches there—and wrote the 1996 bestseller "Darwin's Black Box?" Hardly.
In August, all the other (22) biology faculty members came out with a political statement on the department's Web site. They stated that "Intelligent design has no basis in science."
But they cited no evidence, and made no references to any scientific research.
Dr. John West, a political scientist at Seattle Pacific University, is senior fellow at Discovery Institute. He says these political responses to scientific issues are getting nasty.
West remarked that "hate speech, speech codes, outright persecution, and discrimination is taking place on our college campuses, in our school districts, against both students and teachers and faculty members."
In fact, universities are evolving into centers for censorship. Five years ago, Baylor University dismissed mathematician Dr. William Dembski from his position, primarily because he headed a center for ID there.
This September, the University of Idaho banned any dissent against evolution from science classes -- a slam on university biologist Dr. Scott Minnich, a noted supporter of ID.
"The school seems to be confusing where it's at,” West said. “Is it in Moscow, Idaho, or the old Moscow, Russia? ...in issuing this edict that…no view differing form evolution can be taught in any science class."
And at Iowa State University, more than 100 faculty members have signed a petition against ID -- an apparent political attempt to intimidate ISU astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez because he writes about ID.
Gonalez is, in fact, co-author with philosopher Dr. Jay Richards of "The Privileged Planet." Both scholars are also connected with the Discovery Institute.
The book and related video argue that astronomy also shows evidence of design. For instance, the earth has numerous aspects just right for our existence.
Gonzalez explained, "...We find that we need to be at the right location in the galaxy...that we're in the circumstellar habitable zone of our star (correct distance from the sun)...that we're in a planetary system with giant planets that can shield the inner planets from too many comet impacts...that we're orbiting the right kind of star -- it's not too cool and not too hot.”
These are just four of 20 some characteristics of earth that make our planet unique -- right for life, right for discovery by human science.
Richards said, "So you have life and the conditions for discovery happening at the same places. That, to us, suggests that there is something more than a cosmic lottery going on. That sounds like a conspiracy rather than a mere coincidence. So that to me is a tie-breaker in the question."
And there is more -- the finely-tuned underlying rules of the universe-- or physical constants. One of them is gravity. But what if gravity were not constant?
A film clip from Privileged Planet says: "Imagine a machine able to control the strength of each of the physical constants. If you changed even slightly from its current setting, the strength of any of these fundamental forces -- such as gravity -- the impact on life would be catastrophic."
In plain terms, a bit more gravity would mean any creature larger than the size of a pea would be crushed into nothing. And a little less gravity would mean that the Earth would come unglued and fly off into space.
But Darwinism has been maintaining that advanced life is easy to produce all over the universe.
"Almost everything we've learned in the area of astrobiology suggests that, 'Look, this is just not going to happen very often' -- now that might be sort of depressing for script writers for sci-fi movies, but that's where the evidence is taking us," Richards said.
Despite the attacks on ID, Meyer said the design interpretation of the evidence is exposing Darwinism as a theory in crisis:
"I think we're reaching the critical point where Darwinism is going be seen as simply inadequate,” Meyer asserted, “ -- and therefore the question of (intelligent) design is back on the table."
Just as this city of Seattle has all the earmarks of ID, so does nature, except that nature is infinitely more intricate.
This is true.
My mother went to Catholic schools from 1917 to 1931....
My father was orphaned at 3 years old and raised by Aunt's on his Catholic mothers side. When he left Indiana at 14 in the 1930's he also left religion. OTOH, he was the most moral man I ever knew. He died when I was 17. My mother, a Scottish Presbyterian was more sceptic than saint. I attended a Lutheran Church with my parents friends on occasion. I did and do, however, play the bagpipe and have been in many houses of worship and have heard many a sermon. I have played "Amazing Grace" more times than I have witnessed such behavior by believers. Grace and humility may be Christian ideals, but they are not Christian habits.
Atheists and believers are natural antagonists, as are evolution proponents and Biblical literalist.
I don't think that there are "atheists". Everyone believes in something that cannot be proven. The "Godless" communists believed in a religion that masqueraded as reasoned economics. It was nothing of the sort.. It was paganism with the state as its god.
However, it is not the case (as you seem to think) that all believers are natural antagonists of evolution proponents.
I agree. I know believers that consider evolution to be the present state of human biological knowledge and nothing more. I include myself in this group.
I do have a problem with teaching young people that the fossil record demonstrates that there is no God.
So do I. The existence of God, pro or con, is not the perview of an evolutionary biology class. The mention of "God", in the affirmative or negative, would be in the wrong venue. Any science teacher who would say; "This proves there is no God", to a class, has an agenda.
Since the odds of atheists refraining from communicating that to their students are, for all practical purposes, zero,..
Likewise for the Fundamentalists.
The only reason I can see for insisting on a hermetic seal on the classroom to prevent that from happening is that atheists want the opposition silenced.
No. You are more than free to teach Creationism/ID in your house of worship but not in the public school house. The latter is mandatory and there must be standards, the former is voluntary and free to teach that the Earth is flat.
You make my point for me. Why don't you have your statement read in English class? Or Social Studies? Hey, you can have it read in Gym class.
"You make my point for me. Why don't you have your statement read in English class? Or Social Studies? Hey, you can have it read in Gym class."
Both must be taught side by side, to allow the students to judge for themselves. Academic freedom.
What are the pro-evos afraid of?? They don't even want a 4 paragraph statement to be read once a year in Dover. The pro-evos are running scared. They are afraid students will use their own logic.
So I'm guessing we can now lay to rest any notion that ID has nothing to do with religion?
In the long run, the end of civilization. The planet can only sustain about 10,000,000 people without technology. Science is the basis for that technology.
In the short term, the survival of the US. Nearly 40% of our scientists and engineers are foreign born as it is. How high does this number have to go before we lose our military and technology advantage?
If this were an academic freedom issue, then you would also be proposing that students be made aware of the flaws in ID, and the devious and greedy nature of it's adherents. This could be followed by a discussion of the gaps and contradictions in the Bible including a discussion of why Jesus couldn't read Hebrew.
But this isn't really about academic freedom is it?
Hitting my head against the wall, because time is being wasted in schools teaching a theory, and pro-evos actually think that's OK. For the 100th time, I am NOT confused between a theory and a fact; I just think that IF one THEORY is taught, a competing theory should be taught.
theory = guesses
scientific theory = scientific guesses
If they must teach the evo THEORY, then they should also teach ID, so students can decide and think for themselves. But hey (I just had a brainstorm), maybe they don't WANT students to think for themselves.
DEVASTATING MATH PROBABILITIES
The possibilities of it occurring by chance are devastating.
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read:
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
--snip--
"There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store in the Encyclopedia Britannicas."—*R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 115-116.
--snip--
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/08dna04.htm
You said: "Evolution does not care where the first living cell originated."
Yeah, tell me about it. They don't care about any of it. They just want to "prove" a THEORY/guesses, any way, any how.
Show the "flaws" (both sides) for both; I don't care.
But let students THINK for themselves.
Academic freedom NOW!
Many parents (and students) do not want evolution taught.
Don't they count?
So you want to give students academic freedom by cutting out science class. I think the British have actually done that. I believe it's the birth of the Morlocks.
If someone is forced to send their kids to public school, science should be done in science class and religion in religion class. Trying to fuse these things with a bunch of ignorant teenagers isn't gong to educate anyone.
My preference is to homeschool. Then you can do whatever you want.
Abiogenesis is probably the only reason Darwin's theory became accepted in the first place. The notion was then built upon with a great deal of other "evidence." You know, like Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, the "Hopeful Monster" theory, recapitulationism, the delibrately doctored Lucy pelvis, the "Killer Ape" hypothesis of Prof. Dart., etc.
You are twisting my words. It that intentional??
I don't want to eliminate science; I want to eliminate junk science - or at least let students decide for themselves.
ID does explain much. It explains that spiders were designed to help control the insect population.
ID explains that the actions and interactions between species of life were all designed to keep a balance.
Does evolution address this question?
Don't tell me that all this balance was CHANCE!!
Fine! I really have no problem with that. If the parents sign a "No Evolution" document to the school district and the kids receive only plant and animal biology instruction, sans evolution, it's OK by me. As long as the parents and children understand that the school district cannot be held liable if these kids don't pass many of college entrance exams. The other students in the school would be taught current biology, including evolution, in other classrooms.
scientific theory = scientific guesses
If they must teach the evo THEORY, then they should also teach ID
Sigh. More definitions:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
You want to let kids who don't know anything, much less basic biology, decide what they should be taught about biology.
I thought I understood you perfectly.
I apologize if my comments offended you or anyone following this thread.
"In Aramaic. And Jesus probably spoke Greek and some Latin.
I apologize if my comments offended you or anyone following this thread."
---
None taken.
I believe that Hebrew was spoken at temple and Aramaic was the common street language. Like a Catholic priest saying mass in Latin.
"That's why the apocrypha were included in the Old Latin Bible even though the Jews had removed them from their Bible."
---
What language was the apocrypha originally written in?
I honestly don't know.
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.