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
It is because many of the earliest colonists were fleeing persecution from state religions. All religions have unscientif cosmologies. If you taught them all in school as sciemce, science would cease to exist
EvolutionISM is a religion, not evolution.
Some science / biology teachers attempt to teach evolution as if it were about "origins". Those science teachers who are engaged in that, are teaching the "religion" of Scientism, and should be barred from teaching science in tax-payer funded classrooms.
Perhaps they don’t have any evidence and are trying to change science to have their ideas let in. Of course their changes also allow in astrology but one can not make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
You must not have seen the movie yet. It builds its case by establishing credentials and then showing how the intolerant establishment science gestapo ruins their careers. This movie uses ID to expose this, especially telling is the last sequence with Dawkins. If a sequel is made, it can just as easily use global warming to show the same thing.
Are you arrogant enough to suggest that you've answered the singularity question?
Teachers are hired to teach the curriculum. Science classes are there to teach the generally accepted science based on currently available data, not any theory anyone decides to bring into the classroom.
This is, of course, a free country, and you're free to promote any theory you wish. You are not entitled to do so on the taxpayer's time and dime.
No one questions the scientific method. But they do question scientists who claim that a supernatural agent took no part in creation. Or that there is nothing outside the "natural".
I'll take Catholicism as an example. It is a revealed religion. It isn't made up by man. It is given to us by God who sent his son to save us from our sins. Funny isn't it the Catholic Church has no opposition to the explanation of evolution as a mechanism. The conflict doesn't come from the Church, only the religious priests of evolution.
The Catholic faith also has the principle of the value of the individual, not the “masses” That concept is purely atheistic, contemptuous, and the excuse used for the murder of millions.
Religions (real ones) aren't about making billions. They aren't about doing ID research. They are about saving the soul of each and every individual who is precious in the love of God.
How about science allowing research into whether the most complex biological information systems were possibly designed? How about allowing that?
Intellectual fascism is all I see from the priests of science on FR.
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. They then look for complex things and repeat the hypothesis. No evidence that supports the "complex things need a designer" is ever offered. The hypothesis just gets restated in different ways. If a real scientist were to suggest that a designer existed and that his existance explained the origin of life in the universe, then he would have to prove that a designer could exist and explain a mechanism for his coming into being and suggest an experiment to support his hypothesis. If found, he would have a theory.
You're making a fundamental error. There is a huge difference between "intelligent design" (small case), which points to God, and "The Intelligent Design Movement", which points in every possible direction, including aliens from outer space (which is why even some atheists are involved in that movement).
On a side note: The creation itself provides a "general" revelation to all rational people that there is a Creator (God) --- HOWEVER - the creation alone doesn't point to Christ, the Savior. That takes a "special" revelation not given to all. The Cross is foolishness to those whom God hasn't given to Christ. John 17:6
We have gotten to within less than a second of the Big Bang using accepted science. Science is based on the laws of physics. The laws of physics cease at the beginning of time, hence science stops then to. To state a cause prior to the beginning is religion and must be based on fait. Faith is good, but isn't science and can't be taught in public schools.
The "supernatural" do not follow the laws of physics by definition and therefore can not be a subject for scientific method. It is the realm of religion
In which case, labeling God as "supernatural" and then excluding "supernatural" from Science, undermines science in such a way as to make science forever suspect.
The irony is that Science defined the way Evo's desire it to be defined, looks at scientific observations and then is forced to ignore whole sets of observations if no nuturalistic explanation for them can be obtained.
It seems to me that good science in the very least would have to admit the existence of the observations and the fact that no satisfactory naturalistic explanation of them has been developed.
Very well stated! Truth however works. Scientific method has worked for us to understand an enormous amount of useful things for mankind most of which IDers accept and use. Supernatural beings exist on the fringe of our knowledge, like when old maps uased to put "they be monsters there" in uncharted territory; and they are constantly being pushed back by science with new discoveries. When the pope was shot, he went to the hospital and survive through the science of medicine. He is protected by bullet-proof glass designed by engineers. When put to the test, we all use science first because it works.
False premise. ID does not write off any hypotheses or require the cessation of any research. Most fields of science were founded by Christian scientists who beleived in Creation by God. Yet, they nevertheless, proceeded to try to understand how God did things.
On the otherhand, Evolution has slowed and temporarily damaged medical sciences by announcing that 169 human organs were vestigal and served no purpose. All have subsequently been shown to have function. Evolution taught that all non-protein coding DNA was junk DNA, an evolutionary holdover that served no purpose, but functionality is being discovered.
It is evolution that causes scientists to quit questioning, not ID.
Evolution is a theory that is the only acceptable “scientific” theory that is acceptable in accademia. This presents many problems.
1. What happened to “proving” a theory? Remeber a theory is a educated guess given observed phenomina. (unless the definition has been changed to protect the guilty.)
2. What happened to reasoned discourse with respect to offering alternatives in the discussion of a theory?
3. If you ask what the evolutionists say is the origin of life you run into their theories real achelies heel. Namely
life evolved from life that developed from a primordial soup of amino acids into single celular life.
Problem: this is “Spontanious Generation” a spurious Medieval, Greek, and even Egyptian origin of life theory.
So, evolutionists will not allow reasoned discourse, they also put fancy pants on “Spontaneous Generation” and expect to be considered serious science. Not in my life time; “Spontaneous Generation” is as valid a science as turning lead into gold.
It may as well be a gazillion years. Time doesn't exist before it. Even the greatest minds of the past and present can't say what the Singularity is. But, I'll go with your premise for less than a second and say...That less than a second could be the difference between God and Darwinism.
At the Singularity space and time cease to exist as we know them, yet you have the audacity to make this claim....
Big Bang theory does not suggest supernatural beings and is therefore not religion.
That is what ID teaches when it is taught as science.
Speaking as a retired weapons designer and a proponent of ID, I and others like me kept on designing those weapons regardless.
ID has no scientific value in determining the origins of life according to the first sentence. What value does evolution have in determining the origins of life and what are the mechanisms? This article has very little value without your answer to this question. If evolution does not determine origins, then what does?
My inference wasnt to specifically point out a designer, just that the idea that there is a design in nature is old. While there are many that use it to specify a deity, that is beyond my point. BTW alien creation IMO is a self defeating proposition.
It shouldn't be taught in high school biology, and generally isn't. Wit until the students get to astrophysics class.
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.