Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | January 29, 2005

[odoso]

A genius among fools!

[Question_Assumptions]

US Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 3 includes:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[Texas_Jarhead]

Nothing like ivory tower authoritarian lefties persecuting others for their religious beliefs or perceived political leanings to really tick you off. But hey, that is nothing new. The language of the left may change but its MO never does.

[patriot_wes]

"According to Sternberg's complaint, which is being investigated, one museum specialist chided him by saying: "I think you are a religiously motivated person and you have dragged down the Proceedings because of your religiously motivated agenda."

...and obviousely we can't have anyone working here who has an agenda!

[mc6809e]

Given all our vulnerabilities to disease and malfunction, I'd say the creator was a poor engineer. The evidence therefore points to

SD or Stupid Design

[GreenFreeper]

evo-ping

[patriot_wes]

You think there's no intelligent design???

http://www.wordworx.co.nz/panin.html

[skr]

Real scientists don't confuse theory with fact. It's too bad there are so many scientists who no longer keep an open mind.

[maestro]

bttt

[GreenFreeper]

Any editor that publishes unscientific grey literature ought to be criticized and questioned. Since It incorporates NO testable hypothesis, ID will remain philosophical in nature and should not be published in scientific journals.

[Blessed]

The origional design may not have been vunerable to disease and malfuntion.Those came from environmental effects.(after the fall of man)

[NVD]

Those that truly believe in naturalism do not have a scientific leg to stand on. In fact, historically, the scientific community has has changed their position on the beginning (up to and during the 19th century scientists believed that the earth didn't have a beginning--they called themselves materialists. When the study of the atom began, they found that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics indicated a beginning-thus to keep away from a transcendent god, they created "the Big Bang Theory" and other evolutionist theories). My only point is that Christianity has not changed for centuries while naturalists continue to change their beliefs when science points against their theories. We now know that the earth had a definite beginning. Ask yourself, does it take more faith to believe in a god that created all of this for a purpose, or is all of this random. My contention is that our earth (the perfect distance from the sun--any closer and we would burn, any farther away and we would freeze) and our system is anything but random.
Charles Colson uses the analogy of Mt. Rushmore. Do we believe that the contours of the faces made in the rock were made randomly from erosion, or was there an intelligent design.

[Rudder]

The theory holds that the complex features of living organisms, such as an eye, are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by random mutation and natural selection.

Explanation: the eye was created---end of inquiry. In fact, ID would have us abandon all scientific inquiry.

If ignorance isn't bliss, then I don't know what is.

[RicocheT]

"Since It incorporates NO testable hypothesis..."

If that's the test of scientific publishing, the global warming crowd won't have another word of theirs in print.

[Rudder]

...and obviousely we can't have anyone working here who has an agenda!

If it has an agenda, it's not science.

What part of science don't you understand?

[throwthebumsout]

Since It incorporates NO testable hypothesis..."

Michael Behe writes "intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable." This is a disputable point, but it is a valid scientific claim. Behe claims that design is observable. If design is not observed then the proposition is refuted. Unfortunately, observing design is not like observing a rhinoceros or an elephant. You can't just point at something and say "there! that's design." Design must be measured in a subtle way. For any given biological system you must determine if completely random events could have brought it about. If you can show that no number or combination of random events could produce that system, then you can infer that the system was designed. The problem is that the potential combination of random events approaches infinity, so the design inference only approaches certainty but never attains it. Fortunately for those who support the intelligent design hypothesis, no scientific claim can be proved beyond all doubt. The nature of a scientific hypothesis is that it attains a high degree of probability for being true, but never certainty.

[GreenFreeper]

If that's the test of scientific publishing, the global warming crowd won't have another word of theirs in print.

Well the global warming alarmists do have somewhat testable hypotheses, they just are not conclusively tested. Just because research follows the scientific method does not make it true.

[laredo44]

the theory of intelligent design

ID is a theory?

[Rudder]

For any given biological system you must determine if completely random events could have brought it about...

Is this a straw man? "Completely random events"--where does this come from?---not evolution.