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]

go back and reread the scriptures, If you trace the time lines, the world is only about 17000 years old, who cares about carbon dating? and where is the proof of evolution?, there is none, and carbon dating is flawed in its method. Anything that elevates the temperature of any substance creates carbon, therefore anything caught in a volcano, or fire, or anything else that generates a tremendous amount of heat would throw off carbon dating. Besides there is no constant that scientist can use, conclusively knowing that it's thousands of years old.

[whispering out loud]

I am not lying, show me evidence that is not flawed, there is none

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"o back and reread the scriptures, If you trace the time lines, the world is only about 17000 years old, who cares about carbon dating?"

I do. Radiometric dating is accurate to about 1%. You DO realize that no fossils are EVER dated with carbon dating, right?

Here, get educated: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

[whispering out loud]

and what was their constant when testing radiometric dating? Do you think they had something that they could prove was millions of years old? nah, I'm pretty sure that "radiometric dating" has only been proven accurate, for the oldest constant. and then how did they prove it's age?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

You obviously didn't read the link. You obviously have already made your mind up and don't want to learn anything new, so why even bother posting anymore? Go away.

[whispering out loud]

you never did answer the question
where is your proof of evolution?

1 If evolution is real, then what did man evolve from? and where is the "missing link" there is no creature linking man to ape.

2 Why aren't apes still evolving into men?

3 What did apes evolve from?

once again I'll state it there is no proof

[Heyworth]

It's proponents have shown that the same attacks on it (it's not really science because it's not falsifiable, it's a philosophy rather than science, etc.) also apply to evolution.

Okay, I'll bite. What hypothetical discovery would prove ID false?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

1) You have been told that NO theory in science is proved. There is only evidence to support them.

2) You don't want to learn anything new, which is why you never even read the link I provided you on radiometric dating (from a Christian perspective). You posted back to me 3 and a half minutes after I posted the link. You are not interested in a debate, you just want to score points and troll for a reaction. I'm not biting. Now, second request, GO AWAY.

That means don't post to me anymore.

[Timmy]

I don't claim, anywhere, that ID is falsifiable. Nor do I claim it is "science." In fact, I mentioned very early that I believe it has been used only to demonstrate that the current theories of evolution are no better.

[Coyoteman]

where is your proof of evolution?

1 If evolution is real, then what did man evolve from? and where is the "missing link" there is no creature linking man to ape.

2 Why aren't apes still evolving into men?

3 What did apes evolve from?

once again I'll state it there is no proof

These are some of most simplistic questions we see on these FR threads. They tell more about your understanding of the way science works than you can imagine.

The answers to these questions are clear to scientists, but for some reason cannot be fathomed by creationists. My guess is that you will not even think about going to the following links.

All of the answers to these questions are in PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.

[Sun]

I had an extremely tough day yesterday, and later I realized that I typed knit for nit. So I said to myself, I betcha one of the libs will mention that.

And golleeeeeee, I was right.

For future reference, even when I'm not tired, I occasionally type your for your're, even though I know the difference.

(Just so you don't have to waste your time with that one. lol)

[Sun]

POST 579: CG says: "The page you linked to is a great compendium of creationist misconceptions about what evolution is.

The specific example of vestigial is a great case in point. Vestigial does NOT meant that the organ/structure has no function now. It means that the organ/structure is doing something other than what it was originally designed for. This has been known since Darwin.

Just because you find a function for a structure (the appendix, for instance) does NOT meant the structure is not a vestige of an earlier structure that had a different function (in this case, the appendix was used to help digest cellulose in our ancestors.)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges"

I just copied and pasted your post, for your convenience.

THIS is my response:

Not all scientists have know this since Darwin, as shown in this snippet:

Junk DNA (again)
by Don Batten
When introns were discovered, some evolutionists suggested that these represented ‘junk’ DNA. Introns, as well as other sequences which did not code for protein, were considered to be left-overs of evolutionary ancestry — ‘vestigial’ DNA.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/junk.asp

Did you really think that all scientists agree all the time?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Vestigial does not mean non-functional. Ever since Darwin.

[Sun]

"thank you this is the very statement, I've been trying to make, "there is no real evidence of Darwinism".

And back by popular demand, ..(dimensio) you want to follow me to my mail box, fine then, I'm back. And once again I turn the burden of proof back to you, If you don't want creationism taught in schools, than by shear lack of proof, I think that they should exclude the Darwinian theory as well. I don't send my children to school to be taught contrary to their Christian faith. Once again I state, what are you afraid of, does the creationist theory hold such a threat to you that You can't even hold place for any competition to your proof lacking theory?

and by the way, (curiosity) If one is a Christian, then they should believe the word of God "and God created Adam from the dust of the earth'"

The evo people are so afraid of showing both sides that they don't even want this 4-paragrath statement read to students saying that there is another side:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/09/27/intelligent_design20050927

The evos have the evolution THEORY in their textbooks, but are afraid of a mere 4-paragraph statement being read to students.

Talk about running scared.

[Sun]

Here's another snippet that shows that the evo "scientists" just might be in it for the $$$$.

The purpose of the "Understanding Evolution" website is to instruct teachers in how they should teach evolution, and the federal government (through the National Science Foundation) came up with $450,000 for the project.

snippet from: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/west200404010900.asp

[Sun]

"Vestigial does not mean non-functional. Ever since Darwin."

Too bad not all scientists knew that, ever since Darwin.

But heck, sometimes scientists are WRONG.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Too bad not all scientists knew that, ever since Darwin.

But heck, sometimes scientists are WRONG."

Too bad for you only creationists think that vestigial means nonfunctional today.

[RunningWolf]

I have said earlier that some of it is about $$

Wolf

[Sun]

"Too bad for you only creationists think that vestigial means nonfunctional today."

NAME names.

[Sun]

"I have said earlier that some of it is about $$

Wolf"

Only those in denial would not admit that some of it is about the money.