Certainly
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
And that's why ID isn't science. ID is simply criticism of evolution theory based on the hypothesis that complex things require a designer.
You have obviously bought the whole truckload of straw-men from the neo-Darwinian priesthood.
The question of what was the algorithm behind the emergence of life and its evolution is a perfectly valid scientific question. Was it a simple trial and error, as neo-Darwinian high priests claim to be the case (but won't say how do they know it or show any scientific proof), or was it something far more sophisticated that "runs" many orders of magnitude faster? After all, we know from computer science that 'trial and error' kind of search algorithms are the dumbest and the most wasteful way to go about it, short of deliberate wastefulness.
The examples of sophistication, cleverness and economy observed among the biochemical processes of life, virtually anywhere science has looked in sufficient detail, are used by ID proponents to illustrate the fundamental incongruity of the neo-Darwinian dogma that at the core of it all must be the dumbest and the most wasteful algorithm conceivable. Just because that's all the neo-Darwinian priesthood, still operating within the 19th century mechanistic model of the universe as a gigantic Newton-Maxwell clockwork, could think up so far, that must be all there is to it. Otherwise, they figure, if there is a tiniest crack in our public image of all-knowing wizards, the next thing these ID heretics will question will be our control of the research funding. Better nip that in the bud. Sue the greedy bastards.
The questions raised by ID are perfectly good, open scientific questions which the neo-Darwinian priesthood, in its desperate efforts to maintain illusion of its omniscience (and the research funds that go with such power) is trying to banish using courts and police.
please show the documentation of separation of church and state in the constitution.
You're right...it doesn't...and that's good science. The supernatural is inferred. Similar to ID. It utilizes inference.
Science doesn't have all the answers and many times it gets it wrong.
But scientists like Professor Dawkins seem to think Darwin proved that there was no need of an intelligent designer. Although he now thinks that yes...maybe there was a need...but they were aliens from outer space.
Then shall we teach the ideas of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science as 'just another view'? Stripper factories, beer volcanoes and all?
No.
You'll just have to read about it on your own.
Just like you can't really do justice to the neodarwinian position in a few sentences in a chat forum. You can't really appreciate let alone sum up the arguments of ID in a few sentences.
ID-101 at Amazon
Let them tell you themselves rather than hearing just the strawmen that pass for ID.
Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with the origin of life. It has to do with the evolution (change) of life that already exists.
The corruption comes from the scientific community itself. Evolution, Global Warming and other assorted promoters of "Junk Science".
Ok, might be fun.
Would you mind sharing with us who you envision as assuming the authority to peer reveiw scientific work for the correct theological references?
“The corruption comes from the scientific community itself. Evolution, Global Warming and other assorted promoters of “Junk Science”.”
Scientists become famous when they can show that a popular theory is wrong. Anyone who could show that the theory of evolution was wrong would be as famous as Einstein became by showing that Newton’s theory of gravitation was wrong.
It strikes me as a bit strange that you and others who criticize of the theory of evolution as a junk theory do not raise similar objections to the teaching of string theory in physics, or perhaps quantum mechanics, which even Einstein was unable to accept. It makes me suspicious that the reasons for your antipathy towards the theory of evolution has less to do with the evidence for the theory and rather more to do with the way it conflicts with what you want to believe.
That's the way it was under Newton and all the giants of science.
When atheist scientists like Dawkins started shooting off their mouths and implying that Darwin disproved God the creator, then they opened up a Pandora's box.
Into that box stepped ID.
Science should have stuck to its knitting (i.e. practical science). Instead it positioned itself as the ultimate source on what is and what isn't real.
You’re posting on a conservative forum, apparently agreeing with a liberal activist USSC that public schools should not be allowed to teach anything related to religion? Sounds like you’ve been brainwashed by the ACLU.
The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall not pass any law respecting religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In plain language, that means that if Congress were to pass a law that did either of those two things, that law would be null and void for its violation of the 1st Amendment.
Therefore, the laws the Congress really has passed that have been interpreted to restrict schools receiving federal money from teaching religion ought be be null and void.
Instead, liberal activist Courts have turned that Amendment on its ear, and caused it to say the exact opposite from what it actually says.
And you agree with that subversion of the United States Constitution. That makes you, and those who agree with you, an enemy of the Republic.
Scientists reject faith as a reliable method for establishing truth.
I'll as again, then. Who do you propose to assume the authority of reviewing scientific works for the corect theological references? In Newton's day, the Church enjoyed the political power to claim this authority. How do you intend to go about re-establishing that authority here and now?
No ID stepped in in 1987 as a way around a Supreme Cort ruling. Please review the original post.
Well, let's just assume God created everything the way it is today only 6,000 years ago, give or take a century.
Then He also created a heck of a lot of evidence for evolution at the same time, including fossil data of species that certainly look transitional, in layers of sedimenatary rock that seem to date millions of years earlier than that.
He did a great job of covering his tracks, and He's sure fooled the scientists.
This needs to be clearly stated repeatedly. Unfortunately it cannot for political and philosophical reasons.
It opens a pandora's box.
From an atheist's point of view...best not kick a sleeping dog.
Then we can only expect to see arguments that ToE is flawed because it doesn't address the origin of life from atheists?
Certainly
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.