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]

LOL - I'm willing to bet that you haven't read a single thing she's ever written, so since I have, I think I'll trust my own somewhat more informed judgement.

[reasonisfaith]

How would you rate the level of sophistication inspired by this debate on this post? It’s quite high isn’t it.

Are you aware of the content of a significant part of public school curriculum these days? To introduce ID would elevate the quality of education.

[Dimensio]

Are you aware of the content of a significant part of public school curriculum these days? To introduce ID would elevate the quality of education.

How would dishonestly teaching non-science as if it were science "elevate the quality of education"? How do we enhance student learning by lying to them?

[RussP]

You really ought know the context of a quote before you reply. You'll be less likely to make a fool of yourself.

[Liberty Wins]

"you tell such brazen lies"

You're late, Dimensio. This discussion was just limping along without your scalding wit.

Scroll backwards to find list of insults to me from previous FR article. Feel free to copy if your sarcasm fails you.

[Louis Foxwell]

So your point is that we can't be rational unless we assume, without evidence, that there is a source of rationality in the universe. I don't quite see the logic that goes behind it.

You have not stated tyhe case precisely. We can not be rational unless the universe is rational. The specious notion that human reason can escape the laws of the universe is the particular conceit of those who can not accept a rational universe.

[Dimensio]

You really ought know the context of a quote before you reply.

I did check the context. I looked at the chain of replies that led to your statement that evolution is a "wish" that God does not exist. There was nothing that anyone said that would give an intellectually honest person that impression. No one was trying to suggest that God does not exist.

[muir_redwoods]

You're making my point for me. The example cited isn't an experiment, it's an observation wherein you already know the answer.

That can't be the best you can do, it's embarrassingly silly.

[JudgemAll]

You guys are disgusting ... not so much degrading others like Timmy, but wallowing in your own selfdegradation, blind to your own risks. At least his kids' reproductive system will not be getting public education's STD social diseases like yours.

This thread is not about Darwin or ID, it's a dialectic materialist provocation for the destruction of any sense of authority, God being a metaphore.

[Dimensio]

This thread is not about Darwin or ID, it's a dialectic materialist provocation for the destruction of any sense of authority, God being a metaphore.

If it is such, it is only that way because you've dishonestly hijacked it.

[Louis Foxwell]

LOL - I'm willing to bet that you haven't read a single thing she's ever written, so since I have, I think I'll trust my own somewhat more informed judgement.

That is a strike. You missed the ball completely. Yoy have, once again, used sneering contempt in place of reason. Such is the fallacy of pseudo scientists.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I figured as much - you haven't read her stuff. Sorry, kid - come back when you have something to contribute on the subject.

[RussP]

"Evolution doesn't argue that god didn't do it. It limits itself to the observable facts. If ID did the same, there would be no ID."

Sir, many evolutionists *do* argue that "God didn't do it." You cannot deny that -- unless you are disingenous or live in a cave. Ever read Dawkins -- the guy evolutionists routinely gush over?

The second point is that many ID advocates do *not* argue explicitly that "God did it." More precisely, my position is that *science* shouldn't put the name "God" on Intelligent Design. That's just not the role of science. But it *is* the role of science to *recognize* intelligent design, because it is inherent to the natural world.

[RunningWolf]

Well here is a concept for you boys,, how about asking Timmy?

Since character nor integrity is apparent here, Wolf will do it for you.

Wolf

[RussP]

Checkmate.

[Louis Foxwell]

This thread is not about Darwin or ID, it's a dialectic materialist provocation for the destruction of any sense of authority, God being a metaphore.

And again, AMEN

[Oztrich Boy]

Darwin converted few scientists of his generation

Well there were few scientists of his generation, but most of them accepted the idea of Natural Selection

[muir_redwoods]

"Describe for me, with clinical precision, an experiment in evolution. Describe an experiment wherein the outcome of "G-d didn't do it" is not known before the results are in." "ID isn't science, it is a wish." (in this case, that God *doesn't* exist)"

No. The statement can't be turned around and retain it's validity because to do so would be to assert a null hypothesis and no scientisrt would do so. Further, there are hundreds if not thousands of clinical experiments in evolutionary biology where the outcome was not known before the experiment and the findings were based upon empirical evidence deduced from the experiment.

This is basic, biology 101. Do your own research.

[JudgemAll]

unless there is some ultimate source of rationality in the universe, which Christians refer to as the Logos (John 1:1).

---

The Word, logos, before materials, indeed. Marxists seem to have used Darwin to construct the cryptoMarxist cult of Darwinism, as in matter precedes thought or the Word.

By the way, logos means also leg, and to collect using one's legs, collecting words amongst other things, discussing, that is.

Marxists are fundamentaly contradicting the Bible and look no further beyond assertions and stiffling discussion for their biggoted end.

[muir_redwoods]

"Any mathematical formula is an experiment in ID."

A formula is not an experiment, it's an expression. Unless the great minds at the Discovery Institute keep running 2+2=4 to see if it ever equals 5, your example doesn't answer my challenge.

Don't feel bad, ID Cannot answer my challenge.