Posted on 11/23/2004 12:45:29 PM PST by truthfinder9
BreakPoint with Charles Colson Commentary #041123 - 11/23/2004
You Can't Have It Both Ways The Intelligent Design Controversy Heats Up
This summer, the Intelligent Design movement achieved an important goal. For years, evolutionists have been saying that the theory couldn't be taken seriously, because no articles explicitly advocating it had been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Well, now one has been.
And evolutionists are still crying foul.
In August, Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture published an article in a peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article argued that materialistic theories of evolution can't account for the "origination of new biological forms" during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, and suggested intelligent design as an alternative.
This article had to go through the same peer-review process as any other scientific paper. But that wasn't enough for many Darwinists. Members of the Biological Society of Washington, as well as the National Center for Science Education, wrote to the journal protesting that the article was "substandard"—before they'd even read it. Even the Biological Society's governing council distanced themselves from the article, saying that had they known about it beforehand, they "would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings."
And it gets better. The statement went on to declare that "Intelligent Design … will not be addressed in future issues of the [journal]." The whole subject is just off-limits. As Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute says, "Instead of addressing the paper's arguments or inviting counterarguments or rebuttal, the society has resorted to affirming what amounts to a doctrinal statement in an effort to stifle scientific debate."
How can a respected scientific organization get away with that kind of censorship? Simple: by portraying the subject as non-scientific. Never mind that three scientists approved Meyer's article, as did the journal's editor, who is an evolutionary biologist.
You see, materialistic evolutionists can't afford to think that Intelligent Design could possibly explain life. They can't even acknowledge it, for fear it would turn their whole philosophy—yes, philosophy, not science—upside down. To believe in design means believing in a Designer, and that belief wouldn't fit at all with the closed universe that's essential to the naturalistic worldview.
So they take what they see as the only possible answer—cut off debate, forget about academic freedom. It's frightening to see scientists deliberately decide that a line of scientific inquiry doesn't deserve to be pursued because it doesn't fit their beliefs. Who is putting dogma before science here?
The scientists who complained about Meyer's article need to learn that you can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, maintain that a scientific movement must publish a peer-reviewed article in order to be considered legitimate, and then turn around and claim that it wasn't legitimate for a journal to publish any peer-reviewed article from that movement. If this is the kind of argument our Ph.D.s are coming up with, I think we'd better start requiring that all science majors take a few courses in logic.
It's Groundhog Day again!
Inteligent design is a challenge to the most basic assumptions of deterministic materialism.
They cannot defend or maintain their assumptions in the face of new evidence that the Universe is obviously designed, so, in a sort of reverse-Gallileo scenario, are resorting to simple dogma and ostracism to maintain the status quo.
They have become the New Inquisition trying to rein-in new scientific inquiry that does not share their paradigm lest it go where they wish it not to.
Compared to some of the stuff they teach that might be a good idea. At least it would "do no harm".
Moron.
That's a word.
Glad you dropped in for an intelligent discussion.
"In other news, the "Intelligent Design In Our Time" movement (IDIOT for short), demands medical schools teach mighty powerful exorcism for the curing of disease."
Heheh, is that a 'scientific response'?
Can you sense the shift in the public debate? People are not so easily buying the deterministic materialism that so many of you try to pass off as 'evolutionary science'.
I believe that biological evolution is how God brought about life and that this universe is hugely old, in the tens of billions of years old.
And I see nothing about ID that contradicts that belief at all on my part, because I believe that God used an evolutionary process and so I am not bothered to see plenty of elements of design therein.
But the materialists ahve been using bilogical evolution for decades now to brow-beat theists into regarding their observations of desing as so much coincidence.
Those days are ending now, and people like you who have a vested interest in a nihilistic universe are being plainly shown to be wrong.
But the debate is not between biological evolution vrs Creationism, it is between materialists trying to maintain a monopoly on the public forums and denying the right to b e heard to anyone who believes we are not here by some cosmological accident.
Step aside, and let science move on into the 21st century, why dont you?
LOL, she was just another drive-by-troll, apparently.
JFK_Lib(quoted) - "Can you sense the shift in the public debate?"
Alacarte - Over 40% of the 'public' in the US thinks the earth is 5000 years old, hardly a task to convince them of anything...
JFK_Lib - Ahhh, nothing like opening your argument by insulting the intelligence of nearly 150 million people - right out of the Shout-down Handbook.
You must be proud of having such fine analytical skill.
JFK_Lib(quoted) - "And I see nothing about ID..."
Alacarte - I agree with you here, I see nothing about ID either! In that I mean ID is not an alternative to evolution since ID /has/ no theory. Id is a collection of attacks against evolution, this in no way constitutes a scientific theory!
JFK_Lib - And then you procede to deliberately misquote me to set up a broad disavowal of there being any possible evidence behind ID. Juding from your ability to correctly understand your opponents claims and respond fairly and open mindedly, I am forced to suspect that your evaluation of ID is similarly incomplete, distorted and twisted to suit your predispoistions rather than oriented to exploring the facts for any Truth in the subject.
Surely the fact that some evolutionists find ID to be worthy of concideration must mean that they are similarly as gullible as those who think the Earth 5000 years old?
Oh, I guess they must be Christian fundamentalist evolutionists?
Alacarte - If god made all this, then why does ID not explain anything. How long ago did he make everything? How do you explain the fossil record? How old is man? Essentially, what is the ID answer for all the questions evolution answers? There are none! Why?
JFK_Lib - ID is a search for evidence of design. Why does it warrant dismissal simply because it doesn't answer the questions that you prefer it to? You might as well reject Quantum Mechanics because it doesnt explain the origin of gravity, LOL!
Again, there is no necesary conflict between ID and biological evolution as it addresses the question of design vrs nondesign, which is irrelevant to the question of whether we have had evolution or not.
Alacarte - Because providing data and doing actual science means creating hypotheses that are falsifiable and reproducible. This is something ID'ers cannot do. ID is not considered science by anyone who actually does real science.
JFK_Lib - Oh, bosh! Behe and others have made solid argumetns with evidence. Go read it if you want to know it; your claim is preposterous bombast.
Alacarte - ID is defined by it's opposition to evolution. Without evolution, ID has no scientific merit. Essentially distorting the work of legitimate scientists and using it against science. 'Magic' is not an acceptable alternative to the huge explanatory model of evolution. Cite a couple of hypotheses from the ID model of natural diversity for us? But do it independently of evolution. That means no mention of evolution. You cannot, because ID is not science!
JFK_Lib - You dont even understand ID. It is not opposed to evolution, but to Darwins notion that evolution is necesarily random and unguided. There is too much evidence for the evolution of species for any serious biologist to challenge it. FYI, Darwinism <> evolution.
Alacarte - Of course there are gaps in evolution. There are gaps in the theory of gravity too, I find it interesting that uneducated christians don't seem to have a problem with gravity... History has shown that gaps in theories get filled in with time (as is expected in science as research continues), so pointing at gaps in evolution and saying 'it must be magic!' is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
JFK_Lib - LOL, they are not making an argument based on gaps in knowlege but on the nature of design and how random mutation simply cannot account for an increase in the order, information and organization found in various biological systems. Read Behe.
Alacarte - Even this ridiculous article is a good example. This paper published, was it a paper on ID? NO! It was a paper attacking evolution!!! Do you see the difference? I realize that to people who have no idea how science works, this is easy to miss.
JFK_Lib - You must have read a different article. IT did explain ID and breifly mentions some of its stronger points. I cannot, nor can ID, account for your inability to read comprehensivley.
Alacarte - ID relies on the false premise that if evolution is proven wrong, then god musta gone dunnit. Well, sorry folks, even if tomorrow an archaeologist finds a cat skeleton beside a t-rex skeleton and evolution is falsified, that does not mean the answer is MAGIC!!!
JFK_Lib - ID does not at all address who/what gave nature its design as that is in other realms of knowlege, and not for scientific investigation. But your dismissive equation of God with mere magic is simply more evidence of your closed minded bigotry and irrationalism. You label something without addressing its claims and then dismiss your opposition because they are what you label them as. There is no finer example of hysterical closed mindedness even in the anals of the Inquisition, the Stalin Trials or the Cultural Revolution. You must be proud of that.
Alacarte - Time to change the lead plumbing.
JFK_Lib - Maybe you shouldnt have lead plumbing in your home at all?
No, but it still manages to include 'Intelligent' in its very title. Perhaps it's indicative of the intelligence of its proponents and their transparent assumptions.
But your dismissive equation of God with mere magic is simply more evidence of your closed minded bigotry and irrationalism.
As opposed to the self-delusion required to assume that Alacarte was commenting within your own paradigm that mandates god is the intelligence behind a design. The statement that you have mischaracterized assumes nothing that you have attributed to it.
A You label something without addressing its claims and then dismiss your opposition because they are what you label them as.
The very foundation of the ID 'theory' is unquantifiable and unverifiable, and hence outside the realm of evidence and science.
There is no finer example of hysterical closed mindedness even in the anals of the Inquisition, the Stalin Trials or the Cultural Revolution. You must be proud of that.
I'd recommend you actually understand history before commenting on it, and pick up a spelling primer on your way home tonight.
In other words, the ID proponents cheated. Is anyone surprised?
A fairly long demolition of the paper can be found here.
JFK_Lib(quoted) - ID does not at all address who/what gave nature its design as that is in other realms of knowlege, and not for scientific investigation.
Pahuanui - No, but it still manages to include 'Intelligent' in its very title. Perhaps it's indicative of the intelligence of its proponents and their transparent assumptions.
JFK_Lib - In sequential logic, one does not avoid apparent decisions merely because of difficult questions that may follow. If design is present in the structure of a cell, it is irrelevant what the origen of that design is in terms of any scientific inquiry. That opponents of ID obsess with the 'who' instead of the 'what' is a reflection on their preoccupation with consequences instead of the question at hand. And that ishardly proof of any inadequacy of ID, but only of the critics.
JFK_Lib(quoted) - But your dismissive equation of God with mere magic is simply more evidence of your closed minded bigotry and irrationalism.
Pahuanui - As opposed to the self-delusion required to assume that Alacarte was commenting within your own paradigm that mandates god is the intelligence behind a design. The statement that you have mischaracterized assumes nothing that you have attributed to it.
JFK_Lib - That Alacarte was obviously commenting on the concept of God in his overly broad and sweeping generalization regarding magic is apparent, and hardly an unusual tactic or slur for typical uber-secularists.
If I have mischaracterized Alacartes statement, then show me specifically how, and stop it with the labels, though they do seem to be the Darwinists forte these days.
JFK_Lib(quoted) - A You label something without addressing its claims and then dismiss your opposition because they are what you label them as.
Pahuanui - The very foundation of the ID 'theory' is unquantifiable and unverifiable, and hence outside the realm of evidence and science.
JFK_Lib - Why must the presence of 'design' be unverifiable? It is something that has been ill-defined until recently, but the ID proponents claim to have an objective method of determining what we all recognize instinctively. We all know that a poker dealer that deals himself seven hands of Royal Flushes in a row is 'designing' his deck, even without 'scientific' proof. Why cant science have caught up to common sense in this regard?
And what makes you an authority to pontificate on the subject anyway? If you cant explain it in laymans terms persuasively, then I doubt there is much substance in your assertions to begin with.
JFK_Lib(quoted) - There is no finer example of hysterical closed mindedness even in the anals of the Inquisition, the Stalin Trials or the Cultural Revolution. You must be proud of that.
Pahuanui - I'd recommend you actually understand history before commenting on it, and pick up a spelling primer on your way home tonight.
JFK_Lib - HAHAHAH, the classic concession in discussion on the internet; you have resorted to grammar and spelling critique as though it matters to the discussion.
Oh, obviously you simply *must* be right because of your superior brain and high-IQ, proven because you can spellcheck a text, LOL! </sarcasm>
Why dont you save your arrogant and condescending advice for someone who needs it?
I have forgotten more history than you will ever know, mugwump.
John Locke - The problem with the Meyer paper is that it was not peer reviewed in the manner established by the Biological Society of Washington (the governing body for the periodical). This is confirmed in a statement they issued on September 7 last.
JFK_Lib - YEs, the statement says in part:
BS Wash - We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all.
JFK_Lib - In other words, they refuse to discuss the merits of ID at all and rely on a dogmatic approach instead. Any future submissions we can only imagine will be dead on arrival if they deem it tainted by ID, and the author submitting it will be tried for heresy and burned at the stake.
John Locke - In other words, the ID proponents cheated. Is anyone surprised?
JFK_Lib - Ummm, the BS WAsh failed to spike an ID paper that went through the normal process, or the BS Wash failed to properly peer review an article submitted to their own publication, and yet all this proves that the ID proponents *cheated*? LOL! Talk about a predetermined judgement!
John Locke - A fairly long demolition of the paper can be found here.
JFK_Lib - Yes, all quite one-sided. Where is the ID response? None at all, which is hardly a *discussion* of anything, but merely Darwinists carrying on a monologue that they call 'debate'? YEah, and some of the fair and balanced remarks from the comments show the hysterical and shrill 'review' of Meyer:
"My favorite example which shows what a moron Mr. Meyer is can be found..."
Ah, yes, Meyer is obviously a moron. How positively scholarly.
"I wish people would spend as much effort trying to debunk my theory as they do with these obviously flawed inferiors."
Heh...
"I moved a bunch of comments not directly related to the content and criticism of Meyer 2004 to the “Bathroom Wall”."
Heheheheh.....well, he seems to have missed quite alot of it....
Ummm, that academia is rather monolithic in various ways at odds to the general wisdom is hardly news to anyone.
It is only in academia that Marxism still reigns in the humanities, and that Darwinism is unchallenged despite many advances. It is sort of like physicists had kept the Bohr atom and merely relegated QM to the margins if one cares to bother. Spontaneous Equilibrium, doesnt that contradict Darwinist gradualism? And what of catastrophism? Is that still heresy? Or other means of selection induced by changes in regard to the fitness of ones rivals and predators? Or simple dumb luck? Or deliberate handicapping behavior?
Bah, Darwin is now Moses, and Jesus and Marx all wrapped up into one and it is galling to consider how much science has been buried by Darwinists able to do so because his materialistic determinism gives so many an excuse for their ....well differences.
But this too will pass as the faith of Abraham conquors all the Earth.
Nice naturalist evangelist talking points, but that's all that they are. When you write things like "ID relies on the false premise that if evolution is proven wrong then god musta gone dunnit" it is obvious you haven't studied the subject. Of course you porbably have no porblems with naturlists who say "yeah, the fossil record is against us, but someday it will prove us right because we are right." Good luck with that.
I wrote: " ...in this case archaeologists"
That should be Paleontologists, oops.
ERROR: Out of coffee - shutting down
Alacarte - I do know nothing about the specifics, because there are no specifics. It makes no positive assertions, only eliminative assertions targetting gaps in evolution such as irreducible complexity.
JFK_Lib - Eliminative assertions are specifics. To assert that A cannot do B is assertive, good greif. You're just slinging the polemic around like rich fertilizer, no?
Alacarte - Oh please, ID is just creationism 2.0.
JFK_Lib - No, it is not or else evolutionists would not find it compatible. It is compatible with evolution, but not materialism as expressed in Darwinistic evolution. Again, Darwinism <> evolution.
Alacarte - What do you mean by 'mere magic?' If it wasn't magic, then there would be a natural explanation and ID could expound on how exactly it was done. Or is it the semantics you object to?
JFK_Lib - Not everything that goes beyond the natural is 'magic'. And you deliberately use a pejorative phrase in order to further muddy the subject and lower the level of calm consideration. It is this type of hyperbole that makes it plain that you really do suspect that you are in the wrong, or else you would not engage in such obstructive semantics.
Alacarte - ID makes no claims of its own! It has NO body of research, it makes NO predictions, and it is not falsifiable.
JFK_Lib - Hahahah, yeah, right. You admit that you have not read up on the issue, so why dont you either educate yourself on the issue or just shut up and get out of the way of progress?
Alacarte - You just said ID argues that evolution cannot explain blah blah.
JFK_Lib - *Random mutation* does not account for EVERYTHING. And that is not synonymous with asserting that evolution does not account for 'blah, blah.'
Alacarte - If ID actually had an hypothesis for how all this diversity, which wasn't 'magic,' then we could take it seriously. Until then there is nothing to test.
JFK_Lib - So you again imply that without a completely natural, materialistic explanation, there can be nothing 'taken seriously'. You admit to such bias and then try to pose as though you are open minded on the subject!
Your paradigm is coming to an end, and I look forward to it. The Twentieth century was dominated by deterministic, materialism and it nearly destroyed mankind. Thank God that point of view is being eclipsed by new scientific Truth.
Alacarte - The bottom line is that without evolution's science to attack, there is absolutely nothing scientific about ID.
JFK_Lib - The bottom line is that you still dont have a clue about what ID is about as you continue to confuse it with Creationism, which it isnt. Your view of 'science' is loaded, prejudicial, irrational with presumption, and obsolete.
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.