Posted on 04/20/2008 8:49:48 AM PDT by Soliton
“Intelligent Design” is of no scientific value in determining the origins of life in the universe. A designer would have to be supernatural (i.e. not subject to the laws of physics) or natural and subject to those laws. If the designer is natural in origin, then it would have to have been designed by another designer –again supernatural or natural. Ultimately come to an original designer that either evolved from a lower state of matter, or was created by a supernatural being. You will note that this is back to where we started. Science does not deal with supernatural phenomena by definition. Scientifically, the only answer is evolution. ID, however, is really about the cosmology of the Book of Genesis anyway, but if that is admitted, it can’t be taught in school. And there’s the rub.
The term “Intelligent Design” was adopted by the Discovery Institute, the originator of the ID movement, and a non-profit company that was incorporated specifically to get the story of Genesis taught in public schools (as specifically stated in the incorporation documents). To that end a Creationist textbook was published called Of Pandas and People.
In 1987, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state in Edwards vs. Aquilard.
In a similar later case, Kitzmiller vs. The Dover Area School District involving the school’s acquisition of Of Pandas and People, it was proven in court that the publishers and the people who financed the purchase lied in depositions when they stated that Intelligent Design wasn’t just another term for Creationism. They did this by showing that dozens of passages in the pre-1987 Edwards vs. Aquilard copies of the book used “Creation”, while later versions substituted “Intelligent Design” in its place.
The entire Intelligent Design movement is a dishonest, legalistic Trojan horse specifically intended to teach creationism in public school even though it is against the law.
Complete transcripts of Kitzmiller vs. Dover can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
Well, no it does not. But if you choose to believe that be my guest.
Please try to understand this. I have no problem with God. ID claims that it isn't about God anyway. If it is, it is religion and not science. If ID wants to be science, it has to play by the rules of science. Science works.
Hey, why not. Just another view.
Please point me to where it refutes the supernatural (for lack of a better word) 100%.
It can’t be supported when mere discussion of it gets you fired in the scientific circles. Evidence doesn’t matter, only faith in evolution matters in those circles.
Science can not prove something doesn’t exist. That is proof of a negative.
“The real question is, why dose ID scare you terribly?”
It really doesn’t scare me at all. It’s just another way of thinking about things that people don’t yet understand, but it’s not science. Science says we can figure things out without resort to a supernatural explanation. That is the essence of science. Sometimes things are very difficult to understand, and scientists struggle for decades, or centuries to come up with an explanation. That sort of thinking can be very valuable in understanding our world, and can lead to some very powerful concepts.
The fact that you are using an almost infinitely complex set of machines and electromagnetic signals to communicate virtually instantaneously worldwide with the people in this forum shows the value of the scientific method, even though very few of us can understand the science behind it. That’s why science is taught in science class, and religious studies such as intelligent design are studied elsewhere. It’s simply too important for our country to be on top of the world scientifically to corrupt scientific methodology to satisfy the desires of those who don’t want a possible contradition to their theory of creation.
Modern science has met its waterloo. It's now boxed in by its own definitions. i.e. nothing exists outside the natural.
At one time we had what was called "natural philosophy" which expained the God created natural order.
We will have to start teaching "natural science" from this or a similar perspective at universities and limit "science" to the natural/practical world where any questions of ultimate reality will be referred to the appropriate department.
So we’re not just talking about just bringing the idea of ID into the debate about evolution, but a basic restructring of all scientific disciplines around a premise of supernatural cause.
And there we have our conundrum.
Christians believe the New Testament is the word of God, but look at the Old Testament.
Plllllease.
Creation and the other stories are campfire tales passed down for thousands of generations of people, including Neanderthals, etc. who knew no science but had to explain one of Mans’ most intriguing questions; where did we come from?
These Old Testament stories were then interpreted by King James’ committee and a whole bunch of others, and we are to accept this as fact?
If Methuselah lived 969 years and was begetting children at 187, get some of whatever vitamins he was taking and we can make a fortune advertising them on Art Bell!
I can’t wait to see it!
Darwinian thought is very quaint.
; )
You are describing honest science. Sadly science has been high jacked by "charlatans". e.g. "Global Warming".
Do you believe that everything has cause and effect relationship?
Look at the reaction to “ID” even here in this discussion. If you mention “ID” you find life very difficult. Another show stopper is “Cold Fussion” or LENR. If you do not subscribe to the pathalogical “scientific” approved list of theories then you get no grants, no tenure, and no job. The point I take of the movie “Expelled” is simply that. Along about the mid 18TH century there seemed to appear this cult of personality within academia that became a huge roadblock to real advancement. You are right there is not one approved theory in science just a very few.
Facinating, if I am to accept this I must accept “lightning zapping a mud puddle” as the origin of life. Please answer the core problem; “Evolution is repackaged Spontaneous Generation”. We all know this was disproved a long time ago by science and scientific investigation not a “study”. I can study all the papers and come up with a conjecture but, I am asking for an answer to the core fallicy of evolution. Please note: I have not found evolution worthy of elevation to the level of real science because it requires too many leaps of faith without concrete evidence. I believe that that makes it a relegion by definition. In particular there is as yet no proof of the time frame often quoted.
“there is actually very little scientific fact out there.”
In fact I do understand that point. And that IS my point.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
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.