Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
The New York Times ^ | December 4, 2005 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evochat; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 961-980981-1,0001,001-1,020 ... 1,041-1,060 next last
To: Coyoteman

Which one is the missing link?


981 posted on 12/07/2005 9:07:38 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 978 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

How can evo be a fact if it's never been proven?


982 posted on 12/07/2005 9:08:37 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 977 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

No you did not.

Getting testy, are you?


983 posted on 12/07/2005 9:09:36 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 974 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Yeah, yeah, all my links are distorting, but yours are not. (sarcasm) Same ole tune.

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

Please read the SIXTH word.


984 posted on 12/07/2005 9:11:53 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 970 | View Replies]

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

Sorry, that is absolutely incorrect. It might be so in the vernacular, or in creationist's wishful thinking, but it is not true in science. Please take a look at these definitions.

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.

On the other hand, from the current Dover trial:

319. Intelligent design does not qualify as science for a variety of reasons:

(a) It violates the ground rules of science, as they have been practiced for hundreds of years since the scientific revolution, because it i) posits a supernatural actor as an explanation for natural phenomena and ii) it cannot be tested.

(b) It has been universally rejected as science by the scientific community.

(c) It finds no support in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

(d) It is not the subject of scientific testing and research.

(e) It makes no predictions and offers no explanations other than “the intelligent designer did it.”

(f) It is primarily a negative argument against evolution.

(g) The arguments made against evolution distort and misrepresent the real state of scientific knowledge.

[Dover] Plaintiffs' Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pp. 140-141.
985 posted on 12/07/2005 9:13:27 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 980 | View Replies]

To: 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."

I hear you. I used to think that maybe God could have worked through evolution, but the more I read, the more I realized that evolution is BUNK.

The evo scientists keep trying to prove a theory, but they cannot.


986 posted on 12/07/2005 9:15:29 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 976 | View Replies]

To: Sun
Which one is the missing link?

My post of the fossil skulls was in response to the following comment:

And the sad thing is, the fossils they've found, all amount to people with disfigurements.

That comment was absolutely false.

As far as which one is the "missing link"???

Why, none, of course! They're all there!

987 posted on 12/07/2005 9:17:15 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 981 | View Replies]

To: whispering out loud
Do you know what a "theory" is in the context of science? If so, why are you dishonestly acting as though a "theory" is somehow a weak guess? If not, then why are you lying about reading any of the links?

in conclusion their "evidence" is just plain wrong.

And yet you don't bother to provide any explanation as to why. I suspect that you lied about reading any of the links in the first place. If the evidence provided were really so weak then it shouldn't be hard for you to actually explain problems with it. However, you're a liar and you can't bear to admit that you are mistaken, so you make up a lie about reading the statements, then make up another lie about finding it to be "weak" and run off like a coward.
988 posted on 12/07/2005 9:18:57 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 976 | View Replies]

To: Sun
The evo scientists keep trying to prove a theory, but they cannot.

No one is trying to "prove" a theory, because theories are never proven. Absolutely no scientific theory is ever proven. You have been told this before, so your claim is nothing but another of your shameless lies. Why are you lying so much? Do you really think that your lies strengthen your argument?
989 posted on 12/07/2005 9:19:56 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 986 | View Replies]

To: Sun
No you did not.

Yes, I did, you liar.
990 posted on 12/07/2005 9:20:47 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 983 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

One of the meanings of theory is guess, and in the case of evolution, it is both applicable and true.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not one to get hung up on semantics.

However, I do believe that students should be allowed to decide for themselves, and whether you call evo and ID science, or whatever, they need to be taught side by side to accomplish that (so students can compare).


991 posted on 12/07/2005 9:21:11 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 985 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

"As far as which one is the "missing link"???

Why, none, of course! They're all there!"

So were the evo scientists mistaken all this time?


992 posted on 12/07/2005 9:23:09 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 987 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

"Yes, I did, you liar."

I won't respond to any more of your posts until you apologize for your rudeness. And if you don't apologize, it is YOUR loss, not mine.


993 posted on 12/07/2005 9:24:52 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 990 | View Replies]

To: Sun; JeffAtlanta
Post #982: How can evo be a fact if it's never been proven?

Post #986: The evo scientists keep trying to prove a theory, but they cannot.

Your ignorance of the methods of science does not constitute an argument against it.

This has been pointed out to you many times, but you simply refuse to see it. I think you are blinded by your belief. (None is so blind... )

One more time: science cannot prove anything. It can, however, make a very convincing argument based on good evidence and testing. This is called a theory. It is considered wise, in some circles, never to bet the rent money against a well-supported scientific theory.

The "evolution" that involves change from one generation to the next (you might know this as microevolution) is a fact. There is nobody outside of a narrow creationist circle who will dispute this. Where do you think the bird flu that people are worried about comes from?

The "how" of evolution, that is, the explantion for all of it, is the "theory" part. This is separate from the "fact" part. So, evolution is both a fact and a theory, on two different levels. Your disbelief does not constitute any evidence in this field.

994 posted on 12/07/2005 9:32:22 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 986 | View Replies]

To: Sun
I won't respond to any more of your posts until you apologize for your rudeness.

Aww. Don't like it when your factual errors are made so blatantly obvious? I'm so sorry that you're a coward.
995 posted on 12/07/2005 9:32:46 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]

To: Sun
One of the meanings of theory is guess, and in the case of evolution, it is both applicable and true.

Not in science. Only in layman's usage and on the creation websites.

I know there is no convinving you, but really, in science it takes a lot of work to get a well-supported theory. It is not just a guess.

To me it appears you are out to destroy science, so you are making up your own definitions. This is not honest.

996 posted on 12/07/2005 9:37:54 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 991 | View Replies]

To: Sun
So were the evo scientists mistaken all this time?

No, scientists who study paleontology and evolution were "not mistaken all this time." There have been some mistakes, but they have been correct and science moves on. So? What advances has ID made?

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.


997 posted on 12/07/2005 9:41:19 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 992 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

We can keep going round and round, but at least the ID folks believe in academic freedom!

It's a bit of a stretch to say that science can't prove ANYTHING.

Evo scientists would agree with me, because they continuously try to prove a theory.


998 posted on 12/07/2005 9:41:26 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 994 | View Replies]

To: Sun
It's a bit of a stretch to say that science can't prove ANYTHING.

Evo scientists would agree with me, because they continuously try to prove a theory.

I am (or was) one of those evil evol scientists. We do not try to prove a theory. Only laymen and creationists make such a mistake. But its getting late and I haven't shaved.

999 posted on 12/07/2005 9:43:02 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 998 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
 
   1,000 ±   
 

1,000 posted on 12/07/2005 9:44:00 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 961-980981-1,0001,001-1,020 ... 1,041-1,060 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson