Posted on 04/30/2005 10:08:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
When Bill Harris examines a bacterium's whip-like tail, he sees a food-finding, poison-avoiding machine the likes of which man can't build. That and other observations lead him to question evolution.
"It's got function; it's got purpose," said Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. "In science, you follow where the evidence goes."
Harris is at the center of a contentious debate over science testing standards for Kansas schools. He and other advocates of intelligent design want to expose Kansas students to more criticism of evolution, particularly conclusions that change over time in a species can lead to a new one and that man, apes and other animals had common ancestors. Many scientists view intelligent design - which says some features of the natural world, because of their well-ordered complexity, are best explained by an intelligent cause - as creationism.
"They're trying to prove God, scientifically," said Denis Lamoureux, an assistant professor of science and religion at the University of Alberta in Canada, who also describes himself as a born-again Christian.
In June, the State Board of Education expects to consider changes to science standards, which currently describe evolution as a key concept for students to learn.
A three-member board subcommittee plans hearings May 5-7 and 12-14, and intelligent design, or "ID," advocates expect nearly two dozen witnesses to critique evolution. National and state science groups are boycotting, viewing the hearings as rigged against evolution.
Intelligent design advocates haven't proposed citing ID in the standards or including it in lessons. Yet ID is under scrutiny because scientists fear there will be an attempt to sneak it - or even creationism - into the classroom. Critics contend intelligent design is a response to court rulings against teaching creationism in public schools.
Backers of intelligent design said opponents are trying unfairly to identify ID advocates with Christians who take literally the Bible's account of a divine, six-day creation. Advocates stress that ID doesn't identify the intelligent cause of creation - or claim that science can.
"You cannot, by seeing something that's designed, know anything about the designer," Harris said. "The data doesn't take you to the God of the Bible, the Koran, or some little green man on Mars. We're not being coy."
Critics of intelligent design scoff at such arguments.
"We're not talking about little green aliens," said Jack Krebs, an Oskaloosa math teacher and former science curriculum designer affiliated with Kansas Citizens for Science. "What kind of designer has been around 4 billion years and has the power to do - literally - God knows what?"
John West, senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports [but doesn't really do] intelligent design research, said ID advocates aren't challenging explanations for changes within species over time. Instead, he said, the controversy is about how new species arise and whether there's a common ancestor for all life.
"From goo to you, via the zoo," Harris said. "That's the big Darwinian picture."
West pointed to the Cambrian Explosion - a sudden appearance of diverse, multicelled life during the Cambrian Period, some 500 million years ago. Where fossils for ancestors of Cambrian life should exist, he said, they are lacking.
"This is turning Darwin's theory on its head," he said.
Richard Schrock, an Emporia State University biology teacher, said the record is spotty possibly because Precambrian seas were more acidic, destroying potential fossils. With advances in genetic research, he said, "It's not causing a problem."
"They're fighting a losing battle," he said of intelligent design advocates. "The universities here, we're not going to be presenting intelligent design in our curriculums, because it has no scientific credence."
Among the 23 witnesses expected to question evolution during the hearings in May are teachers, chemists and biology, religion and philosophy professors.
Lamoureux said while such a lineup can look impressive, most intelligent design advocates aren't well-trained or work day-to-day in historical sciences such as paleontology or evolutionary biology.
"Are they bright guys? No question. Do they have good Ph.D.s from great institutions? No doubt about it," said Lamaoureux, who once planned to participate in the hearings but pulled out. "But if you're a dentist, you can't deliver babies."
West said ID critics "sling mud" instead of defending Charles Darwin's theory and their conclusions about evolution.
Schrock said scientists are frustrated because while ID advocates did not gain credibility among scientists, they were still able to create a political and social debate. He said that's because, "The level of scientific stupidity in America is terrifically high."
Lamoureux said intelligent design taps into the wonder the natural world can inspire - and into people's religious experiences.
"Rhetorically, it's unbelievably powerful," he said. "It's something most people can wrap their brains around."
I did not intend to say it was bad but perhaps I did not communicate well. There is a principle of Neurolinguistic Programming that says, "What you heard is what I said, no matter what I thought I said." I guess that was in play here.
The other option would be to choose an arbitrary point of knowledge and say "WHOOPS, guess that is all there is to know". What if that arbitrary point was made before the discovery that infection was caused by a living organism? Well, no point creating antibiotics since the cause of infection is "unknowable".
To me this argument seems specious, but what do I know?
Let us hit the wall when we hit it, do not try to shut down discovery because each answer leads to more questions.
I agree and I never intended to suggest differently and I don't think I did. But again, what do I know?
"Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any]."
I tell my wife that all the time. Unfortunately she's not buying it. Maybe a little fire and brimestone is called for?
Proof positive that anti-evolutionists do not understand the concept of a Google search. Five minutes on line can reveal lots of pre-Cambrian multicellular fossils with relationships to later organisms.
To many, evolution is "claptrap" but to not consider its possible applicability would be foolish.
Maybe, but a couple years ago I was reading an article by a scientist who claimed that the honey bees cannot communicate through their "dance" because that could be explained by evolution because of it's complexity. Of course this contradicts the observations of many other scientists. In this case a scientists insistence on making the observed behavior fit evolution caused her to discard it.
The CS and ID folks are the ones with closed minds. Their belief system, e.g., belief in the bible as literal truth, makes it impossible to entertain other ideas.
As one of our departed philosophers noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning."
Science as a whole, on the other hand, has no such belief system. Rather, scientists have a time-tested method, really just a series of tools, which allows them to propose and test explanations for observable phenomena. Note that this is a self-correcting mechanism. What one scientist offers up, many others will test.
As an example, look at the cold fusion claims a few years back from those two scientists in Utah. The first thing that happened is a dozen other labs tried to duplicate the findings.
Compare with CS and ID. There is no way to test these claims, as it in reality they stem directly from the bible (check their websites and you will see example after example of this). A two minute search found this:
Our VisionTo build a Biblical Framework for all of education based on God's word and God's relationship with man -- not man's relationship to man (Biblically based, not secular knowledge with scripture added).
This is clearly not science, no matter how cleverly it is disguised.
An explanation for the development of the multilayered systems that far surpass mankind's capacities has never been addressed. It leads to an answer like: "Again, your argument from incredulity is faulty logic." I am glad you find maintaining intellectual honesty is critical. I aspire to the same standard in all areas of my life, including faith.
I did not intend to suggest, as one poster seemed to think, that we should ever stop inquiring, researching, or posing hypotheses. After all, much of our discovery has been from proposing the ridiculous and then trying to prove it. The earth is round? Voices and pictures traveling through space? Time is a variable relationship? Curved space? Worm holes? String theory? All at one time were foolishness but we keeping pushing beyond the limits of present day available knowledge. We always should..
Let those with "open minds" open them to the purpose behind the ID movement:
One Nation, Under the Designer. The true goals of the ID movement.
Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project". Replacing science with theism.
The Wedge at Work. The Discovery Institute's war against reason.
The "Wedge Document": "So What?" The Discovery Instutute defends the Wedge document.
You see, evolution is based on literally thousands of threads of evidence that just so happen to converge to support the theory. This is something the anti-Es can never quite seem to grasp.
As does our present day global warming flap. Much of today's disagreement is political bias rather than objective observation. However, scientists are human and it is often difficult to discard ingrained opinions.
[Darwin said it. I believe it. That settles it. You just have to love the open minds of you "scientists" and objective thinkers...../sarcasm]
The BIBLE says it. I believe it. That settles it. You just have to love the open minds of you "intelligent designers" and faith based thinkers...../sarcasm
Your reality is very limited. Do your friends have to have a blood work up before you can trust them? Our education system has really succeeded at convincing people they need an expert opinion before thinking.
P.S. O.J. was guilty, despite the expert opinions.
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.