****Here’s what would impress me: these same scientists, who are both knowledgeable and doubtful of evolution, have done research and published scientific articles which express in scientific terms actual research results that could effect our understand of evolution (or not evolution).****
Have you heard the expression Catch 22?
We’ve trod this ground before.....they won’t publish any research done unless it meets with the evolutionary paradigm. I’m sure you know the case of Richard Von Sternberg and what happened to him.
He’s got 2 PhD’s - Biology (Molecular Evolution) and System Science (Theoretical Biology) - and has had 30 articles peer-reviewed and published. He is not an ID proponent. His mistake was peer reviewing an ID article and publishing it in “Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.”
The last I heard he was still looking for work.
Would you publish something if it cost you your cushy tenured job making 6 figures with no chance (other than moral terpitude) of ever getting fired?
A little off the point but is a big part of what we are discussing:
ID theory and Creation are two different things. ID doesn’t put forth that God did it....just that since biological systems appear to be designed (and just about every scientist will say that they do), it is a legitimate basis for inquiry. As far as ID is concerned it could be Aliens or Goober the Trained Creator Dog. They just want to investigate design.
Creationists, like myself, go further and get more specific.
The God of the Bible created all things just as He tells us He did in the Bible.
Here’s a Richard Dawkins quote from his book “The Blind Watchmaker”:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
Here’s one from Francis Crick’s book “One Mad Pursuit”:
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”
There’s only one reason you’d have to keep that in mind....because it looks designed.
Scientists are more than willing to say that it looks designed but in spite of this they won’t allow anyone to go down that path because at the end they might find God there.
“It looks like a steaming pile of dog relief but since I don’t want any dogs around here, I’ll just go ahead and step in it.”
In short....they ARE stepping in it..and the more science advances, the more they are going to figure that out.
"A little off the point but is a big part of what we are discussing:
"ID theory and Creation are two different things. ID doesn’t put forth that God did it....just that since biological systems appear to be designed (and just about every scientist will say that they do), it is a legitimate basis for inquiry. As far as ID is concerned it could be Aliens or Goober the Trained Creator Dog. They just want to investigate design.
"Creationists, like myself, go further and get more specific.
"The God of the Bible created all things just as He tells us He did in the Bible."
You make points here that I've already answered many times, but the answers don't seem to be sinking in, do they?
Do you not understand the difference between a personal opinion or religious faith (i.e., "I believe in God"), and a scientific finding (i.e., "the earth rotates in about 24 hours")? The latter involves physics the former metaphysics.
If someone's scientific research results somehow "proves" a tenet of "Intelligent Design," that's science -- but how could ANY such "proof" ever consist of more than the statement: "since I don't understand it, it must be Intelligent Design." Sorry, but I can't see any serious scientist accepting such arguments. Not without more concrete evidence.
As for your Richard von Sternberg:
"The issue of the Proceedings in which the Meyer article appears was to be Sternberg's last before stepping down, having resigned in October 2003.
"Sternberg's decision to publish Meyer's paper and the method by which it was done prompted widespread controversy, ultimately resulting in the journal's publisher deeming the paper inappropriate for publication on the grounds that its subject matter represented a significant departure from the journal's normal content and stating that it did not meet the scientific standards of the journal;
"Sternberg handled the review process entirely on his own, without the involvement of an associate editor, in contradiction of typical editorial practice.
"They stated that Sternberg went outside the usual review procedures to allow Meyer's article to be published,[11] and that the paper was published "without the prior knowledge of the council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or associate editors."
schaef:"As far as ID is concerned it could be Aliens or Goober the Trained Creator Dog. They just want to investigate design."
Do you want to explain just who, exactly, is preventing precisely whom from scientifically "investigating" the idea of Intelligent Design? Who is it that wants to do "research" that's prevented from, and how are they being prevented? Who exactly has some scientific results supporting "Intelligent Design" which cannot find the light of day?