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.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But...but the dictionary says so!"

I guess if the dictionary says so, it must be so boss!

[Dimensio]

And I've seen evos try to say that a theory is a fact.

How many of them tried to dishonestly swap out dictionary definitions to do so?

I've seen creationists play the dishonest dictionary game to "prove" that a theory is just a random guess based upon no evidence.

[RunningWolf]

Nah,

Sun you only got a toe in the water and to them its a tidal wave.

And Sun, notice when the cultist must directly defend evo, then it becomes an attack on 'creationists'. A rather demented evasion and somewhat transparent. Its a two note broken banjo sort of thing.

It makes nothing for the cause of evo in the name of science.

Wolf

[Sun]

"Vestigial does NOT mean nonfunctional."


So why do the evos think it does?

[Sun]

Evos getting more and more desperate, but it is entertaining.

[Sun]

Evos still ignoring:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_03June2002.asp#vestigial

"Sun," the poster walking away whistling.

[RunningWolf]

So why do the evos think it does?

DOH!!

LOL!!

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Sleeping Wolf

[CarolinaGuitarman]

""Vestigial does NOT mean nonfunctional."


So why do the evos think it does?"

They don't.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Your link is distorting what Scadding was saying. It was also misrepresenting the importance of his paper. Not surprising with a website as dishonest as AIG. Here is the real story:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/scadding.html

[PatrickHenry]

It's hopeless around here, kinda like trying to toilet-train a bunch of quadriplegics. I hereby abandon thread!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"ALL HANDS, ABANDON THREAD!!!! ABANDON THREAD!!!!" Placemarker

[Coyoteman]

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.

I had both a tough and a rewarding day yesterday; the tough part was reading posts like yours (a sample quoted below):

Anybody ever stop to think that evo scientists are in it for the money? Shhhhhhhhhh

Coyne and his fellow Darwinists love to chant that the evidence for Darwinism is "overwhelming" -- and so it is, if we have to shovel it. How could it be otherwise? For decades, Darwinism has enjoyed a taxpayer-supported monopoly in the biological sciences. Scores of journals dedicated to advancing it have churned out literally tons of articles. Anyone who actually reads the literature of evolutionary biology with an open mind, however, soon realizes that almost all of it simply assumes that the theory is true. What is "overwhelming" is not the evidence, but the faith it takes to call Darwinian evolution a fact even after 150 years of failing to find much of any evidence for its core tenets.

This is why Darwinists cannot allow biology students to think critically about evolution, much less to hear about alternative theories such as intelligent design.

It was overly opinionated, derisive, and displayed gross ignorance.

You continued in your inimitable style with the "libs" comment. BONG. Wrong again. Demonizing one's opponent is not a rational argument for one's side, especially when it is wrong!

You still have not learned what a theory is--typical creationist failing--because if you learn the scientific, rather than the layman's definition of "theory" you will have to admit that ID does not qualify.

So here are the definitions again. Please study this time. There will be a test.

Definitions(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

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

[Dimensio]

Evos still ignoring:

I responded directly to that, you shameless liar.

[JudgemAll]

Smearing any personal testimony in personal attacks as you all have done all along is hardly scientific, it's political. So, go on, hide behind those "democratic" skirts like little puppets of a crowd, incapable of standing by your own selves. Pathetic.

Theory is inferior to empiric studies. In fact theories are shaped by the empirical methods Darwin used or posited to come up with adaptation, natural selection, evolution. But that is not enough. What makes a person choose a lead without being sure of the results? Living by a conviction, that is, and this is faith.

And now the accademic science leeches of the world want to make the theory of Darwin, and not the empirical methods or descriptions, the method. They want free money for themselves so that they do not have to take the risks of standing for their own theories by themselves.

The social scientists thus, while trying to put the world inside a Darwinist lab (thinking they will not be affected by their errors separated by a safe lab trial set up), find to their dismay that they're part of this world which they experiment on.

So while they stay with Darwin, others move on.

It would not be so bad if Darwinists did not push others ahead of them into their theory, or any theory. This is the mark of the social scientist and terrorist: push women and children ahead through public education funding.

[whispering out loud]

you know it's funny I've spent all night researching the supposed "evidence" of evolution via the links they've provided, and all I've found is theories, built upon theories, built upon theories about fossils they've found. And the sad thing is, the fossils they've found, all amount to people with disfigurements. Children with similar deformities are born in todays society, but we don't attribute it to evo, instead we call it tragedy. The only other source I can see is the concept of micro evo, which is a valid thought, but, ... in order for the world to evolve from ape to man, using micro evo, I kinda did the math charting population growth charts, and man hasn't existed long enough by far, we missed the boat by eons built upon eons. in conclusion their "evidence" is just plain wrong. Using their own sources they themselves have even more strengthened my belief in "Creation by God" Thank you and good night.

[JeffAtlanta]

And I've seen evos try to say that a theory is a fact.

No, you've seen people post that evolution is both a fact and a theory. The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms and processes of the fact of biological evolution. Biological evolution (biological changes over time) is a fact.

[Coyoteman]

the fossils they've found, all amount to people with disfigurements.

Please support this ridiculous statement in light of the following. Please indicate which are people and which are apes, and what disfigurement is present.

I think you're blowing smoke, myself.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[Coyoteman]

 

   Hey, this thread could reach 1,000!   
If it weren't moribund!

 

[Sun]

"I had both a tough and a rewarding day yesterday; the tough part was reading posts like yours (a sample quoted below):......"

It's only a posting board. You are taking having a difference of opinion waaaaay to seriously. Maybe you need a bit of a break.

More on scientists and $$ in case you missed it:

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


A theory is based on guesses, but ID is based on logic. I am a logical person.

Why did the ACLU sue?

Even though the school, like all schools, has textbooks teaching the Evolution THEORY, the ACLU sued for a mere 4-paragraph statement to be read at the beginning of the school year to students.

What are they afraid of? Are they perhaps afraid of even a HINT of God?

Here is the 4 paragraph statement again:


"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/nati...design20050927