Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

The New York Times ^ | December 4, 2005 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[Right Wing Professor]

TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.

...

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.

On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[Senator Bedfellow]

The beauty of Intelligent Suck is that we don't dictate who the agent(s) may be. You're free to follow your conscience - wink, wink. :)

[edsheppa]

Sure, we're at war with Christianity along with the folks at the Templeton Foundation (according to the article, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion) and Frank D. Macchia (according to the article, a professor of Christian theology at Vanguard University, which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God, the nation's largest Pentecostal denomination) and many other religious people who see no conflict whatsoever. Yep, Ken Miller (a devout Catholic) opposes ID because he's at war with Christianity.

[RunningWolf]

You are not debating this ignoramus but instead for all the lurkers.

Demented has nothing but his same thing, and now repeated perhaps a thousand times, an obsessive compulsive thing.

Notice.., he himself has nothing to say for the cult of Cosmo-evo evo-cosmo cult-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster of which demented himself is the chief prognosticator

Wolf

[Dimensio]

I didn’t say it was foolish.

Okay, point taken. Still, you said "God", which typically means a single, specific deity. Given that humans have worshipped literally thousands of deities that could rightly be called "gods", many of whom are referred to by name as "God", many of whom are quite clearly mutually exclusive, to which did you refer when making your statement and why?

[jess35]

Fine. They're not "science" as you guys define it

Precisely and that's why IDers need to get a grip. What's next? Are you going to redefine the field of mathematics to show how you can take a half a dozen loaves of bread and a couple of fishes and turn that into 5,000?

[jennyp]

There are several academics in my field (speech communication) who have been prominent supporters of ID, and they also happen to be left-wing, po-mo types who view science as it is currently practiced as also being an expression of Western imperialism and male domination, making natural allies of both the IDers and the "Science for the People" crowd.

Is that because Noam Chomsky's theories of language include the "sudden appearance" of major features?

[RunningWolf]

If Christians were still doing that in the name of Christianity, and other Christians were not comdemning them, then yes, it obviously would be an indictment of Christianity. Oh, by the way, you better believe that Leftists and communists are *still* using the theory of evolution for their purposes. It could be considered their main "intellectual" weapon. Just listen to how they riducule anyone who dissents. And many even on the Right are falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

Powerful point place maker RussP.

Wolf

[jess35]

as though the fact that Marx liked the theory of evolution somehow makes it less valid.

He was also a supporter of numerical calculations. I guess that means they're going to start demonizing arithmetic next. 2 + 2 just can't equal 4! Karl Marx believed that...it MUST be wrong!!

[reasonisfaith]

"Given that humans have worshipped literally thousands of deities that could rightly be called "gods", many of whom are referred to by name as "God", many of whom are quite clearly mutually exclusive, to which did you refer when making your statement and why?"

I am a Christian.

[RunningWolf]

No "God"does not mean a single, specific deity.

This is more of the demented Marxist Atheism Agenda

Wolf

[Deadshot Drifter]

I've yet to read the whole thread, but the sad thing is, I suspect a couple affirmitive action-for-ID types, will not read carefully and will seriously tout it as a good alternative to real textbooks "laced with Darwinism".

[jennyp]

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

While intelligent design has hit obstacles among scientists, it has also failed to find a warm embrace at many evangelical Christian colleges. Even at conservative schools, scholars and theologians who were initially excited about intelligent design say they have come to find its arguments unconvincing. They, too, have been greatly swayed by the scientists at their own institutions and elsewhere who have examined intelligent design and found it insufficiently substantiated in comparison to evolution.

"It can function as one of those ambiguous signs in the world that point to an intelligent creator and help support the faith of the faithful, but it just doesn't have the compelling or explanatory power to have much of an impact on the academy," said Frank D. Macchia, a professor of Christian theology at Vanguard University, in Costa Mesa, Calif., which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God, the nation's largest Pentecostal denomination.

What a devastating set of quotes! Reporters should ask the ID spokespeople about this at every opportunity. When foundations with lots of money to donate, who are on your side, can't even convince you to come up with actual research proposals for your "theory", why that is just pitiful.

Every now & then, Dembski, the folks at ARN, or other ID advocates hint about all these young ID researchers in academia who are just biding their time until they get tenure, and then they'll burst forth with earth-shaking academic studies either proving ID or using ID to produce real, productive insights into actual biological systems. So maybe the Templeton Foundation just needs to wait a couple years. Then, watch out! They'll be inundated with real research proposals. Just you wait! Any Day Now... Real Soon Now... Wait for it...

[RussP]

You're nothing but a fraud and a liar, like so many creationists.

And where did you get the idea that I am a "creationist"? You just assumed it, of course, because the distinction between creationism and ID is too subtle for you. Well, I am just giving you a taste of you own medicine. The distinction between evolutionist and useful-idiot commie is too subtle for me.

Whether or not a god was involved is irrelevant, because evolution is a field of science and as such cannot comment in any way about the existence or involvements of any deities.

Oh, so evolution says nothing in any way about "the existence or involvements" of any diety? It doesn't say that humans could have originated without a diety? If it says anything it says that -- and that is saying something extemely important about a diety, whether you are willing to admit it or not. In fact, that is precisely why Marx and Hitler latched on to it. But I can't believe that even you are stupid enough to not know that.

After all is said and done, the fact remains that the purely naturalist theory of evolution is the intellectual lynchpin of communism. It's dogmatic "science" may ultimately succeed in salvaging communism from the ash-heap of history -- and useful idiots like you will be largely to blame.

[RunningWolf]

His name is now Lenin

[RussP]

"He was also a supporter of numerical calculations. I guess that means they're going to start demonizing arithmetic next. 2 + 2 just can't equal 4! Karl Marx believed that...it MUST be wrong!!"

Marx never said that numerical calculations would be particularly useful for furthering the Marxist agenda now, did he. Duh!

[Dimensio]

You just assumed it, of course, because the distinction between creationism and ID is too subtle for you.

It's also apparently too subtle for people like Pat Robertson and a number of forum posters here on FR who liken any attack on ID as an attack on creationism.

I liken ID to creationism because the very founders of ID have likened it to creationism. Or are you unaware of the Wedge document?

Oh, so evolution says nothing in any way about "the existence or involvements" of any diety?

That's correct.

It doesn't say that humans could have originated without a diety?

The nature of deities and their actions with respect to anything within the universe is outside of the scope of science.

If it says anything it says that -- and that is saying something extemely important about a diety, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever with respect to deities. No theory in science can. Only the truly ignorant or dishonest try to use science to claim anything about gods.

In fact, that is precisely why Marx and Hitler latched on to it.

So you assert, but despite repeated requests you have utterly refused to link anything that the theory of evolution actually says to anything that Hitler or Marx advocated. Not surprising, since you're just lying about the alleged connection.

It's dogmatic "science" may ultimately succeed in salvaging communism from the ash-heap of history -- and useful idiots like you will be largely to blame.

Argument from the consequences. The alleged consequences of the validity of the theory of evolution have no bearing on its truth value. And you're lying about the consequences, also.

[Dimensio]

I am a Christian.

That doesn't really answer my question. You made a statement about atheists, not about Christians. You said "Atheists don’t believe in God because they think they can’t see God.". Which deity construct, out of the thousands out there, do Atheists think that they can't see?

[reasonisfaith]

Atheism apparently excludes any being higher than man.

[RunningWolf]

Demented,

What do you actually say about evo-cosmo, atheists, Christians?

You are harder to pin down than the proverbial reptile, and therein lies your domain.

Wolf

[reasonisfaith]

And surely you knew that.