Posted on 02/22/2005 7:34:15 AM PST by PatrickHenry
When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.
Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topi."
[PH here:]
I'm not sure the whole article can be copied here, so please go to the link to read it all:
Chris Mooney, "Intelligent Denials", The American Prospect Online, Feb 22, 2005.
(Excerpt) Read more at prospect.org ...
irreducible placemarker
The analogy also fails in that it implies that life formed via processes that were random and that these random events had to occur simultaneously. For a better analogy, imagine all the parts of a 747 in a junkyard. A windstorm comes through and blows all these parts around and two parts come together in a way needed for a 747. Then another storm comes and joins a third part to the first two, etc., etc...
Come to thnk of it, if we ever do design and build something that can make copies if itself with variations, it will evolve.
Selection works even on designed things.
What difference would it make what the difference is? Do you believe gravity is self-evident?
Which is why I have always maintained that evolution doesn't preclude design. It doesn't imply design either, of course. Questions about design must be addressed by looking at evidence, not by arguing against evolution.
Would there be anything I could say to change your opinion about evolution? I wouldn't think so. Conversely, there is nothing you can say about ID or God that would change my mind. I guess it's a stalemate.
No, gravity is not self-evident. If gravity were self-evident, why did it require several thousand years of human history to figure it out? I was just wondering if you knew the difference between a law and a theory, that's all. (HINT: theories never become laws, no matter how much "proof" there is for the theory.)
Scientific inquiry follows from hypothesis, to theory, to law. To say a theory never becomes law is ludicrous.
Evolution doesn't preclude the anthropic principle. It doesn't preclude first life being created. It doesn't preclude miracles.
Science does not preclude the miraculous instantaneous creation of a tree, but science can look at the tree rings and say this tree has the appearance of being 100 years old.
I have no problem if someone wants to say all things were created. I have a problem when they misrepresent evidence.
That's what I thought. I don't blame you though for your ignorance. Science education in this country is abysmal. Here's a question for you. Einstein's THEORY of general relativity showed that Newton's LAW of gravity was incorrect in certain circumstances. If a law is more certain than a theory, how could the theory of relativity possibly replace an established law like Newton's law of gravity?
Agreed. A major setback for the flat Earth society.
Exactly. Given actual evidence that life was designed, I would have no problem with ID as science. To do so, however, I see no way around the need for a definitive test that will determine whether an item is designed, relying solely on observed characteristics of that item. I mean a positive test, not something like irreducible complexity which claims design only because it claims to eliminate any other possibility.
Do you ever have any independent thoughts? Do you equate gravity with evolution - same scientific footing? Science is only as good as the scientists telling us how good it is.
Gee, I'm shocked!!!! When it comes to science AIG got something wrong!!! I don't believe that Newton ever actually figured out a theory of gravity. All he came up with was a law.
I have Avida installed on my home machine. Cool stuff.
I don't equate gravity with evolution, and didn't claim to. I'm posting a quote from creationist "scientists" explaining what a theory is. They say themselves a theory is not just a fact with less evidence. A theory is a framework in which to understand facts, which are usually called observations. Every scientist knows this, even creationist scientists. Theories do not become facts, no matter how many observations they explain. Never. Never, Never, Never.
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.