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.

[whispering out loud]

I agree that is why there called theories, my point is that they should present both sides to a debate, if only one side is allowed to be presented, then it is not truly presented as a theory.

[Coyoteman]

if only one side is allowed to be presented, then it is not truly presented as a theory.

There are currently no competing theories for the theory of evolution. CS/ID are not theories, and are not science.

See the following definitions, which I have had to post man times (from a google search):

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"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I agree that is why there called theories, my point is that they should present both sides to a debate, if only one side is allowed to be presented, then it is not truly presented as a theory."

But there ISN'T two sides to the issue, scientifically speaking. ID is not science, and has no place in the classroom.

[whispering out loud]

Evolution may be a theory, and ID may not be, but evolution is not the only side of the coin. Since there is no proof to support evolution, then it is no more valid than ID, so both sides should be presented, let the student decide what to believe. Are you Darwinist so insecure in your theory, that you are afraid that if ID was presented people might use their free will and choose for themselves? I guess it's happening, that theory is Communist in nature, and the end thereof is destruction, and or a lack of independent thought.

[RunningWolf]

This linkage of evo to other 'scientific theories' is false of course.

Theory's attempt to explain or address phenomena in the physical world, say gravity for instance. Even then these theories are incomplete and incorrect to varying degrees, and only address the phenomena within a certain scope. This is why the theory fall apart at their ends, and must be replaced or tied together with yet more theory.

evo on the other hand is about life processes. And it in turn is based on many many many theories within each science, each of which has its own problems that are plain to see by all except those in the cult, I mean academia.

The theory of flight for instance was originally incorrect in that it gave to much weight to Bernoulli's principle, and yet somehow aircraft were designed and flown, although I suggest that these designs deviated from strict adherence to the flawed theory.

Advances can be made on flawed theories this is true. But contemporary scientists do not give their cause much credibility when they insist their theories carry the weight of fact.

Wolf

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Evolution may be a theory, and ID may not be, but evolution is not the only side of the coin."

Scientifically speaking it is.

"Since there is no proof to support evolution, then it is no more valid than ID, so both sides should be presented, let the student decide what to believe."

There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution. ID has ZERO. Not even close.

"I guess it's happening, that theory is Communist in nature, and the end thereof is destruction, and or a lack of independent thought."

Why didn't you just start out with the moronic communist remark so we could have ignored you from the beginning? :)

[Dimensio]

Don't talk of intelligence when you have still shown me none,

Bitter at having your logical fallacies, I see.

My point in all this debate, is that Darwin's theory is just that, a theory.

And that you think that this makes a sound argument against evolution you only demonstrate that you don't know the significance of "theory" in the context of science. Theories in science do not become anything more than "theory". "Theory" is the highest level that a scientific explanation can reach.

[whispering out loud]

they teach, Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Hindu, .... all these and more, under the guise of mythology. But please don't be fooled, these are all religions, and still practiced in the world today. Yet if something is mentioned in the Bible then it has been baned from our schools, this practice has lead over time to the decay of our schools, the more we pull Christianity out of schools, the further they fall into decay, now they have police patrolling the halls of almost every school in the nation, and metal detectors in about half of them. But by all means, please continue to pull God out of the schools. Oh, and please don't stop until it's not safe for my kids in the least. I appreciate your destructive attitude towards our country in general.

[Dimensio]

Now you're just being plain silly.

Why is that silly? I thought that "most open minded scientists consider everything." Were you lying when you made that statement?

[Coyoteman]

Evolution may be a theory, and ID may not be, but evolution is not the only side of the coin. Since there is no proof to support evolution, then it is no more valid than ID, so both sides should be presented, let the student decide what to believe. Are you Darwinist so insecure in your theory, that you are afraid that if ID was presented people might use their free will and choose for themselves? I guess it's happening, that theory is Communist in nature, and the end thereof is destruction, and or a lack of independent thought.

Please go back and read the definition of a theory in my earlier post. It will make a great deal of what goes on in science much clearer for you. Short version: theories are well-supported explanations, having withstood many tests, and they are never proved. There is no higher level in science than a good theory.

The fact that a theory cannot be proved (and the theory of evolution has not been proved) does not make it the equivalent of ID. ID has to go through the same process as any other idea, starting at the bottom and working its way up through scientific testing. If it can, it will be included automatically. If it cannot, and it has not to date, it does not qualify to be be included in science.

[Dimensio]

post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Do you have any arguments that aren't logical fallacies?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"they teach, Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Hindu, .... all these and more, under the guise of mythology. But please don't be fooled, these are all religions, and still practiced in the world today."

So? Do they teach them as scientific theories?

"But by all means, please continue to pull God out of the schools."

Evolution, like ALL scientific theories, has nothing to say pro or con about the existence of any deity. It's completely outside the province of science.

"I appreciate your destructive attitude towards our country in general."

I don't appreciate your hyperventilating and asinine comments. You need to stop projecting.

[PatrickHenry]

You're being trolled. If it's not a troll, then it's a candidate for a rubber room. Either way, a lost cause.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

He signed up on 11/22/05. I forget, when was Stinky Dog banned?

[RunningWolf]

You will never get anything but that you already have from that source, just a monotrone there.

The base case against the cult of cosmo-evo is to see the products of its ideology, a demented circular sort of thing that never really has any viable answers as you have experienced.

This is a good reason we need to get the judiciary back to a more strict construcionst place again. Because the judiciary where some of the greatest damage to our nation has happened in the last 30 years. Agree?

Wolf

[whispering out loud]

my question per your "well supported theory"

1. If evolution is real, would it not still be taking place, from start to finish.

2. If it is, then where is the half monkey half man, or the half fish, half beast, ... you get the point.

3. If not, then who made the decision when it would stop?

4. Where is the fossils, bones, skeletal proof, that there has been this half man, half beast?

I see no support in the theory, so by your very definition, Darwinism, is then no theory.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Let the troll be. He's beneath you.

[whispering out loud]

just for the record, "he's a troll" I am no troll, I am a conservative Christian the very foundation upon which this whole country was built, or have you forgotten?

Go back and read the constitution, see how many direct scripture references you can find, I lost count just over 300.
If you have a problem with conservative Christians, then you have a problem with the very foundation of our nation.

[PatrickHenry]

He signed up on 11/22/05. I forget, when was Stinky Dog banned?

I've lost track. Doesn't matter, really. They're all pretty much the same. Wildly anti-science and anti-rational, yet they won't get off the internet, toss out their computers, give up their cell phones, stop using their satellite dishes, turn off their electric lights, and swear off anti-biotics. Contradictory behavior? Toss in anti-logic too.

[PatrickHenry]

Go back and read the constitution, see how many direct scripture references you can find, I lost count just over 300.

What country's constitution? Not the US. The Framers of the US Constitution seemed to go out of their way to assure that we'd have a secular government:

Article I, Section. 3
Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.

Article II, Section. 1
Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The First Amendment is icing on the cake:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

For those who may not understand the expression "oath or affirmation" it's explained here: Affirmation (from Wikipedia):

In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath. The Constitution of the United States makes four references to an "oath or affirmation": In Article I, Senators must take a special oath or affirmation for the purpose of sitting as the tribunal for impeachment; in Article II, the president is required to take a specified oath or affirmation before entering office (see oath of office); in Article VI, all state and federal officials must take an oath or affirmation to support the U.S. Constitution; and in Amendment IV, all search warrants must be supported by evidence given under oath or affirmation.