Posted on 09/30/2005 2:09:51 PM PDT by truthfinder9
It's amazing that these Darwinian Fundamentalists claim they're for science only to turn around and try to destroy any contrary theories or evidence. They're really getting desperate, the ID movement really has them rattled.
****
September 30, 2005
It’s happening again: another scientist, another academic institution, another attempt to stifle freedom of thought. The “Darwinist inquisition,” as a Discovery Institute press release calls it, is as predictable as it is relentless.
This time the setting is Iowa State University. One hundred twenty professors there have signed a statement denouncing the study of intelligent design and calling on all faculty members to reject it. The statement reads, in part, “We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor. . . . Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science.”
I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this thing is getting out of control. To begin with, the reasoning of the Iowa State professors is, frankly, some of the weakest I’ve ever seen. They give three reasons for rejecting intelligent design. The first is what they call “the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer”—which, even if that were true, would prove nothing. If certain features were chosen arbitrarily for study, how does that prove that no other features showed evidence of design? The number two reason given is “unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer.” That is a dubious claim; most serious intelligent design theorists have made very few conclusions about any such “wishes and desires.”
But the third reason is my favorite: They say it is “an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.” Now this gets to the heart of the matter. The statement goes so far as to claim, “Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the sciences.” I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe. I thought we were supposed to start without any foregone conclusions about the supernatural at all, that is, if we wanted to be truly scientific.
It seems to me that the intelligent design theorists aren’t the ones trying to inject religion and philosophy into the debate—the Darwinists are, starting out with predetermined conclusions.
But it gets even better than that. The Iowa State fracas started because one astronomy professor there, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, has attracted attention with a book on intelligent design. It’s a little odd to accuse Gonzalez of being unscientific; he’s a widely published scientist whose work has made the cover of Scientific American. But that’s exactly what’s happening. And here’s the kicker: Gonzalez barely mentions intelligent design in the classroom. He wants to wait until the theory has more solid support among scientists. All he’s doing is researching and writing about it.
Now the lesson here for all of us is very clear: Don’t be intimidated when confronting school boards or biology teachers about teaching intelligent design. All we are asking is that science pursue all the evidence. That’s fair enough. But that’s what drives them into a frenzy, as we see in Iowa.
"You know the second law applies to a closed system with no input of energy from the outside."
Thank you for making my point. Here is a clue. What is the source of the outside energy that violently reversed entropy to a degree never witnessed in our present day world?
I certainly don't pretend to know the identity of this source, but apparently you do, and you also know that it is a "natural" source.
Please enlighten me.
Hello Doctor.
I do not think of creation as supernatural. I do think of it as reflecting certain principles and processes ordained by a super natural deity. It is those principles and processes that are the proper province of science.
When science dismisses the possibility that nature contains procedural references (principles and processes) it is denying the reality that I find most reasonable.
Random selection is not a scientifically defensible principle. Atheists who insist that evolution is random are doing theological dogmatics. I do not have a problem with their doing this if they are honest about their starting points.
The critical issue in this debate is that nature either does or does not reflect its uncaused cause. The Big Bang either contains the seeds of everything that has followed or everything that has followed exists by pure happenstance. That is the nature of the intellectual struggle we are engaged in.
Either there is purpose or everything is meaningless. Which universe do you choose to live in?
In point of fact, which universe is it possible to do science in? Only if reality exists by virtue of orderly structure is science possible.
Do you believe that the Hawaiian Islands formed due to volcanic eruption? I'm sure it did, though no human was around to see it. Why? Because the preponderance of scientific evidence makes volcanic eruptions the most likely cause. So it is with the ToE.
'Random selection', whatever it is, has nothing to do with evolution, in which the selection is anything but random.
The turnip truck reference is hilarious by the way! I feel like such a redneck. Good one! You so damn funny, I tell you what.
In relation to the second law of thermodynamics, might it be about the same as the buildup of complex elements during the lifecycle of stars? Lots of things get organized in a complex fashion. Certainly this does not violate the second law.
Isn't "entropy" kind of an overall average, with lots of local differences, such as you and me? Haven't studied that part of science in a while so if someone else wants to jump in please do so.
I think there was another post on this asking about the first and third laws?
As far as the turnip truck quip, glad you liked it. I prefer to deal with these subjects with some humor if possible. Better than name calling.
There are still many volcanoes which can be studied and are studied. Not so with transitional life forms.
It's kinda weird that no matter how you approach the question of human/life origins it comes down to FAITH.
Darwinian fundamentalist,
Or Spooky snake handling religious whacko,
Or some silver spoon fed, penny loafer wearing, ivy-league wall street young turk,
Or a gun racked pick-em-up driving hard working calloused handed hard playing brother from another mother.
We all end up answering that question with FAITH.
Yes, but in another generation it'll all be hearsay, and holocaust deniers will be exactly on the same page as the Discovery Institute: No-one who's around today was there when it happened. So it's all hearsay & agenda-driven speculation. We've got PhD's who've written books that gin up a controversy over the Holocaust. So what if everyone else says we use dishonest arguments? Teach Our Controversy!
Another Superman, able to leap to conclusions that have no bearing on anything. Then again, perhaps you have lept to nothing. Perhaps this is only a non sequitor. If it existed only in my mind I would be a solypsist. Is that your current doctrine?
WHAT!!! Are you afraid of? Someone may come to believe, and then lead a productive life? Not to say you don't, but you are seriously grasping at straws.
What is your best anti-irreducible complexity argument?
There is proof of the holocaust so it's really a silly argument but if it's the best you have, I guess you'll have to stick with it.
I'll leave "giving up" to you.
SCIENCE never gives up.
Nor does FREEDOM.
Get used to it.
Because if goverment is funding research it's important to know isn't it?
All life forms are transitional.
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.