Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

CBN ^ | November 2005 | By Gailon Totheroh

[moog]

You make another good point. ID is hardly new because it is "newer" form of creationism revised so to speak. While some may not like to admit it, it also supposes that at least part of evolution is true--alleging that God (the "higher power") was behind the process. I have never had any problem learning evolution. In fact it strengthens my faith that God created things. BUT I'm not going to argue my position back and forth. Such is pointless to me and I am not a scientist. I can't "prove" my faith in God. But it is as "real" for me as any physical evidence is for a scientist.

I have changed my approach. I do like to learn about the perspectives of others on this issue. Such help me to further formulate my own.

However, as I've said before, I'm much more concerned with where I'm going than where I've been.

[Non-Sequitur]

All the pieces must be in place at the same time or the motorized tails would never work.

Has he something other than his opinion to support this claim?

Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that -- ID does.

And that explanation is what?

[js1138]

It takes an above average IQ to make so many mistakes in a published article.

Of course there's the Mary Mapes comeback. We are just a drunken mob of hateful bloggers, and ID is the truth even if its arguments make no sense.

[Liberty Wins]

"Nothing's being censored. Get a grip."

(Following quote from the article that started this thread:)

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."

[King Prout]

while I agree that the theory of speciation through mutation and selection does indeed unify biology, I believe it is a bit of an overtatement to say that "nothing in biology makes sense without it"

[GreenOgre]

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.

In order for this to be science, Behe needs to PROVE all the pieces need to be in place first. Maybe he can find something similiar and apply that knowledge to flagellum.

How about an elephant?

When the Intelligent Designer decided to shake things up a little he said, "Hmmmm I think the world is ready for a huge animal with a big long tube nose thing sticking off it's face.

Of course ID requires this to happen in one generation because if the grand designer made this change. It could not be made over time. That would be evolution. Or under Behe's thoughts did the whole trunk grow off the elephant's face slowly with no function and magically animate itself one day? "All the pieces need to be there before it can function, Behe."

I can only imagine the lament of Elephant mothers everywhere saying, "Put that thing down. It's only for show." Or the whining of elephant older brothers, "Mom, Bobby can move that big long thing on his face, but I can't".

BTW: There is very good documentation about the evolution of elephants along with how long their trunks were at what time in the geological past. It's curious how it's trunk gets longer with time and seems to be used for first pushing food towards it's mouth until it gets so long it can grab food and pull it into it's mouth.

[moog]

"Bud, you've confused organs and organisms."

Wonder how well he can play an organism--ewww that came out wrong:).

I'm used to hearing one side of the issues presented, being a teacher in all--but that's off the subject.

[narby]

No doubt the UofI would ban astrology from science class as well. Is this a problem for you?

[nanomid]

The basis of falsifiable according to the human (and how the human can externalize such mechanisms) is not necessarily the only method to discover the rules of the Universe, although a very good method.
There are many metrics, and pareto simplification is but a special case of the 'compression as intelligence' metric.
One mechanism on defining intelligence

[King Prout]

these IDiots and their flagellation fetish really ought to look at simplified parasites and symbiotes before squawking that evolution cannot explain an "irreducibly complex(sic: simplified)" system or organism.

[moog]

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."

Decent points, but then again many fellow ID'ers would have no problem banning evolution either. I think there's room for both and that we don't need to go into a poltical tizzy about it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"A private church is the proper place for teaching ID, not a public school. A public school is the proper place for teaching scientific theory, not religious propaganda."

Well, not quite. If they wanna talk about "intelligent design" in a class on "comparative philsophy" or "comparative religion" in public schools, I've got no problem with that being done---but NOT in biology class.

[moog]

The basis of falsifiable according to the human (and how the human can externalize such mechanisms) is not necessarily the only method to discover the rules of the Universe, although a very good method.
There are many metrics, and pareto simplification is but a special case of the 'compression as intelligence' metric.

You're losing us stupid people:).

[moog]

Well, not quite. If they wanna talk about "intelligent design" in a class on "comparative philsophy" or "comparative religion" in public schools, I've got no problem with that being done---but NOT in biology class.

Both of you made good points. My parents and church were all I needed to teach me about ID--a religious-based issue. If one has to depend upon teachers, then I don't think that's good. However, I've got no problem with learning it as you describe or even discussing it briefly. One thing that people forget is that many people have many different versions of creation, even from the same religion. Among the 10 people in my Sunday school class, there were 10 different versions of how the earth was created. We all agreed in principle that God was the facilitator, but how the process happened is not very well defined. One guy thought that things had been placed here from another planet. Which version do we teach? I do think we need to be careful, but I don't mind having ID mentioned as long as it doesn't become some political fiasco.

[Liberty Wins]

"I think there's room for both (theories) and that we don't need to go into a political tizzy about it."

Would the lawsuit in Dover qualify as a "political tizzy?"

[2ndreconmarine]

It is funny how they are so insistent that the other side not be heard. They...

What nonsense.

Like all creationist garbage, this argument is sheer assertion and no facts. So let me state a few facts, since I am one of the evolutionists and you are attributing opinions to me.

We don't mind people expressing their ideas about ID. What we do mind is when they want to teach it in schools and teach it as science. It is not science and it should not be in schools, or at least not in the science curriculum.

By contrast, if you want to add superstition to your curriculum, you could teach ID in the superstition class. ID belongs with Scientology, Palmistry, the occult, Wiccan, Astrology, and the rest of the superstition. So the fact is we don't "insist that the other side not be heard." We just want it characterized properly.

[moog]

these IDiots and their flagellation fetish really

That sounds likd putting a "foot" in the mouth.

[narby]

I think there's room for both and that we don't need to go into a poltical tizzy about it.

Not just both. If we've got to open up science class to things that scientists disagree with, then perhaps the old Stalinist Michurianism as promoted by Lysenko should be taught.

Most conservatives are not seen as "open minded", yet you seem to insist that science be open minded about a faith based idea. Why is that?

[VadeRetro]

By contrast, if you want to add superstition to your curriculum, you could teach ID in the superstition class.

I was thinking maybe Abnormal Psychology.

[js1138]

I believe it is a bit of an overstatement to say that "nothing in biology makes sense without it"

The statement is polemic, no doubt. It is possible to be a first rate lab technician without considering the theoretical underpinnings of science. In fact, one of the legitimate scientists often listed as an ID advocate runs a cancer screening lab.

What the author of that quote means is that it is impossible to contribute new ideas to the science of biology without understanding evolution.

The Discovery Institute as much as admitted this when they backed out of the Dover trial. They said ID was not ready because it had no research and no research program.