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.

[RunningWolf]

the validity of the theory of evolution have no bearing on its truth value.

The theory of evolution is always theory therefore unreal, you will never nere change the factual truth of this reality.

Wolf

[dread78645]

No, were that true, it would falsify the Battle of Hastings.

Snort!

[RussP]

"The nature of deities and their actions with respect to anything within the universe is outside of the scope of science."

But the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution says that the human race *could have* originated by purely natural means with no intelligent being involved. That was a truly revolutionary concept when it was introduced -- and it is a profoundly significant claim that most certainly has *something* to do with the "existence of any dieties." The fact that people like you insist on denying that obvious fact is just part of your insidioius mendacity. The real question is whether you have fooled yourself or you are merely trying to fool others.

And the fact that creationists want to use ID for their purposes no more discredits ID than the fact that communists use evolution discredits evolution as a scientific theory. Note that I never claimed that communists using evolution discredits evolution as a theory, but evolutionists regularly claim that creationist's use of ID discredits ID. What I claimed was that evolution is simply wrong in its denial of ID, and communists have latched onto it for that very reason.

By the way, I believe in ID, and I am a Christian, but I do not consider myself a creationist. Why not? Because I believe that, although ID can be scientifically proven, I do not believe that science per se can identify the Designer. That's where religion comes into play. Note I am not saying that I believe that God created "through" Darwinian evolution.

[Deadshot Drifter]

"You Darwinists are irrelevant in your tangeants on deciding public education funding. Discuss your cult, but not the funding. Yet you keep discussing the funding which threatens your cult. Yet the funding for gay classes, fisting, harryPotter fantasy and Islmamofascism seem to be the REAL RELEVANT reason and conflict of interest you have with them, since you NEVER discuss their irrelevancy in public education. DARWINISTS ARE ENRAGED THAT THE RELIGIOUS APPLY DISCUSSION, THE SCIENCE OF SCIENCES, INCLUDING THAT OF DARWIN. Darwin is but one theory, and since they have to be submited to the science of sciences, and that Marxists are out, but the religious still there to moderate, they cannot stand it."

Sir, you have one of the most unique and readily recognizable, not to mention very entertaining, writing styles I have ever seen. Um, so are you saying that critical thinking, open discussion, is the science of sciences?

[Deadshot Drifter]

"Sorry, didn't want to disturb you. ;)"

lmao! Do you think Da Judge pulling our legs?

[Dimensio]

But the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution says that the human race *could have* originated by purely natural means with no intelligent being involved.

They also *could have* been the descendents of life forms planted by a divine agent. Both are outside of the scope of evolution.

You seem to think that it was impossible to be an atheist before the theory of evolution. If so, then you're wrong. Prior to the theory of evolution there was simply no scientific explanation for human origins. That doesn't mean that people still couldn't discount divine origins -- in fact, most people did discount most divine origin stories.

And the fact that creationists want to use ID for their purposes no more discredits ID than the fact that communists use evolution discredits evolution as a scientific theory.

Except that the founders of the ID movement are the ones doing it. They explicitly state that ID is a tool of creationism. Evolution was not created as a tool to advance communism.

Note that I never claimed that communists using evolution discredits evolution as a theory, but evolutionists regularly claim that creationist's use of ID discredits ID. What I claimed was that evolution is simply wrong in its denial of ID, and communists have latched onto it for that very reason.

Evolution does not "deny" ID. Science simply refuses to accept ID because ID is not science. ID may well be complete and total fact. The problem is not that ID is known to be false, the problem is that ID fails to meet the requirements for scientific consideration.

[Dimensio]

And surely you knew that.

Again, you are ignoring the focus of my argument. What God do atheists claim that they cannot see? Your own personal religious beliefs are irrelevant to that question, because unless you are an atheist then the God then your own personal standing on the matter is irrelevant.

[aculeus]

Sounds like you can stick a fork in ID, because it's done.

Good riddance!

IDiots, please take that lawyer-sleaze-bag Johnson with you.

These people are a disgrace to America and to conservatism.

[JudgemAll]

Um, so are you saying that critical thinking, open discussion, is the science of sciences?

---

Yes, but, incidentaly, as for my style, well, I can't help it.... but if it helps fuse by two personalities, then...he he he...it's all too funny.

[JudgemAll]

..or my two personalities, I meant...ahah, talk about funny....so be it.

[JudgemAll]

IDiots,

---

We're such idiots, indeed....ahahah! The truth be with us.

[JudgemAll]

....us with truth, maybe, right? Lol

[JudgemAll]

poor Jesus poor Jesus....mercy us...there's God indeed.

[Deadshot Drifter]

I thought ID was a competing theory with evolution. Yet, I see no scientific arguments on here for ID other than irreducible complexity.
Mostly I see criticisms of evolution: that it "promotes" materialism, moral relativity, robs people of a sense of civilized humanity about themselves & others (i.e.we're nothing but stinky old animals with base instincts)
and that Marx and Hitler, crazy dictators, admired it and pervertedly used it to justify genocide.
Kind of like how Puritans or Christians once used the bible and Christianity to justify drowning, stoning under massive rocks, and burning people alive they thought, THOUGHT were witches. Sometimes for no more reason than the "witch" had a large mole; mostly though, based on gossip and unprovable accusations.
So, I guess those puritans that murdered innocents are a good example of what bible believers today are like, right? Obviously I'm being sarcastic there.

And the argument on this thread by a proID poster that: they ought to teach ID because they already teach gay classes, fisting, and Harry Potter(?)....well hell, I can't argue with that.If those are the standards you all are holding ID to, I'd say it fits in just swell

[Deadshot Drifter]

well, thank you for answering, I was seriously trying to figure that line out. I got it right :)

[PatrickHenry]

What a devastating set of quotes!

Agreed. This is soon to find its way into The List-O-Links:

Does the John Templeton Foundation support intelligent design? From the foundation's own website. Excerpt:

The John Templeton Foundation does not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge. In addition, we do not support political agendas such as movements to determine (one way or the other) what qualified educators should or should not teach in public schools. ... [T]he Foundation does not support the movement known as Intelligent Design as such, as an intellectual position or as a movement.

[Agdistis]

Why would you assume I was implying he/she was a Hindu. The profile states he/she is an Atheist. Please to not try to make things up as you go along. Trust me, if I am going to accuse someone of something I will state it straight up. Since you did not seem to get the point of my statement, this is what it was pointing out. As a Christian, one of the beliefs is there is an eternity we will live in with G-d after this life if a person believes. In order to obtain this wonderful promise one has to be a believer in Christ Jesus and live a good, fruitful, as well as caring life here on earth. Most of all trust in the Grace of G-d because of what Jesus did for us on the cross.

Now if that isn't straight forward enough, then I can't help you any further. :)

[Agdistis]

Excellent Point ! Plus it seems everyone forgets Science is started with theories of men. These theories must be proved in order to get the answer man wishes to obtain. When did man become infallible? How dare people tell us Science is perfect when it is man who devised it and comes up with the ideas and all of these alleged discoveries.
Artifacts have been found for centuries on man but yet Darwin ends on an island and everything he says is factual? Then they want to whine about teaching Intelligent Design? An idea that this universe, this world, along with humans were designed by an Intelligent being? These g-d haters have become so entrenched in their need to not acknowledge they may be wrong, they try to stop others from making a fair and accurate comparison for others to make a choice. If evolution is so absolute then why fear comparing it with Intelligent Design?

[muir_redwoods]

"That claim is baloney. To illustrate that fact, I postulated the following hypothetical scenario. We're walking along the beach and we see the message, "E = MC^2" in large letters in the sand.

Now, suppose I said, "I'm pretty sure that message was put there by an intelligent being. I don't think it was the result of random winds or waters."

Okay, I'll tell you why your exampe is silly. If we saw the expression "E=MC^2" written on the sand we would recognize it as an expression written it the language common to about 50% of humanity and would know instantly that it was put there by an intelligent force. If, instead we saw the image of a line stretching into the distance resembling this pattern,~~~~~~~ on the sand you might think it was put there by an intelligent force and I might conclude it was simply the actions of waves. The proof burden would be higher for you than for me because your hypothesis is much more complex than mine. That bit of logic is known as Occum's Razor, the fairly well-know logic that suggests that if one hears hoofbeats, it is more likely to be horses than unicorns.

Really, when you break down ID you get a wish for something to be so and the wish, while it might be heartfelt, is not up to the task of proof.

[js1138]

Every now & then, Dembski, the folks at ARN, or other ID advocates hint about all these young ID researchers in academia who are just biding their time until they get tenure, and then they'll burst forth with earth-shaking academic studies either proving ID or using ID to produce real, productive insights into actual biological systems. So maybe the Templeton Foundation just needs to wait a couple years. Then, watch out! They'll be inundated with real research proposals. Just you wait! Any Day Now... Real Soon Now... Wait for it...

Waiting since 1802...

Of course one doesn't have to be doing research to promote soma earth shaking theory in order to support an earth shaking theory. Any research that produces unexpected results is big news in science. There's lots of room for unexpected results in genome research.