Posted on 05/28/2005 4:50:19 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Fossils at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History have been used to prove the theory of evolution. Next month the museum will play host to a film intended to undercut evolution.
The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, "intelligent design," is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the museum "are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception" on June 23 for the movie, "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe."
The film is a documentary based on a 2004 book by Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay W. Richards, a vice president of the Discovery Institute ....
[Massive snip, required.]
The museum, he said, offers its Baird Auditorium to many organizations and corporations in return for contributions - in the case of the Discovery Institute, $16,000.
[Massive snip, required.]
Evolution has become a major battleground in the culture wars, with bitter debates in legislatures and school boards, national parks and museums. Although Charles Darwin's theory is widely viewed as having been proved by fossil records and modern biological phenomena, it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught.
When asked whether the announcement on the Discovery Institute's Web site meant to imply that the museum supports the film and the event, Mr. Chapman replied:
"We are not implying in any sense that they endorsed the content, but they are co-sponsoring it, and we are delighted. We're not claiming anything more than that. They certainly didn't say, 'We're really warming up to intelligent design, and therefore we're going to sponsor this.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"No matter which side of the fence you lie on, stating that you know what most people believe in is a bold claim."
That's my impression of what I've read. What do you think?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=percent+of+people+who+believe+in+evolution
"The former is pretty much settled for most. :-)"
"Sounds cultish to me."
Look up the descriptions of what a cult and cult figure are. Jesus and his followers fit many of the attributes.
(And no, I"m not saying followers are cultist.)
Considering that both sides are vigorously represented here on FR, the bastion of the "Right," that statement is misleading.
BTW, how close are we to getting a final decision on this?
A decision on evolution? It's been accepted by the vast majority of scientists -- and by an even greater percentage of biologists -- for most of the last century. But just as we will always have astrologers, and flat-earth advocates, and moon-landing deniers, we will always have creationists. In the world of real scientists, there's no issue.
Letter from Bruce Alberts on March 4, 2005. President of the National Academy of Sciences.
Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution. Excellent statement.
Project Steve. Nat'l Center for Science Education: the overwhelming number of genuine scientists supporting evolution.
The National Association of Biology Teachers' Statement on Teaching Evolution. Over 9,000 members.
ID proponents do not see intelligent design and evolution as mutually exclusive. Also a fact. Is ID a well developed theory? No.
Is ID a danger to this nation? Also, no.
I was just kind of being tongue in cheek, since, with all the discussion in the CREVO threads, I'm not too sure that either side is being convinced by the other. I don't think. Maybe one or 2 individuals could be?
I personally, as a non scientist, am more or less of a believer in evolution, if only for the reason that the theory makes perfect sense to me personally. FWIW, the arguments for evolution parallel the arguments in favor of individual freedom and against rationalism (over reliance on reason), the (French) root of socialism. Ironically, one often sees the same folk who oppose the theory of evolution using that same argument against it, that it is only a figment of man's attempt at reason. When in fact evolution is a perfect example of randomness, the opposite of reason.
I mean, of course, unless God reaoned it out, assuming that his thoughts, if they can be described as thoughts, can be described as reason :-)
This to me does not discount some sort of Creator or some sort of panspermia, and I gather that there are those on both sides of the argument here who even agree with that.
I drove through Lynchburg, VA, very near the homeplace of Patrick Henry, Red Hill, a couple weeks ago, on the way to my daughter's graduation from college.
It's not really random. Natural selection isn't quite the same as getting bonked by a falling hailstone or something. Anyway, the process of natural selection -- culling out the less fit as the more fit go on to create the next generation -- has been likened to the process of a free-enterprise economy. Unplanned, made up of zillions of individual actions, yet the result looks as it it had been designed. Invisible hand and all that. Whereas the concept of a Designer is analogous to a planned economy.
This to me does not discount some sort of Creator or some sort of panspermia, and I gather that there are those on both sides of the argument here who even agree with that.
The origin of life on earth isn't known. Lots of ideas, but nothing really solid. Organic molecules seem to form in nature, under various conditions. It's an open question. Evolution kicks in after life starts and reproduces.
Well, in my mind, while the culling is not random, the happenstance of the birth of those mutationss which are more fit surely is random. It's their survival which isn't.
"has been likened to the process of a free-enterprise economy. Unplanned, made up of zillions of individual actions, yet the result looks as it it had been designed. Invisible hand and all that. Whereas the concept of a Designer is analogous to a planned economy."
Yes, that is what I was trying to say, thanks.
"The origin of life on earth isn't known."
Nor do we know even what life really is. It follows that we can't define its origin, except by faith.
What % of the 9,000 agree with the position paper? How many of them do not voice their views because of the harassment and professional discrimination that results?
It appears to be. But it is the result of physics and chemistry, so in principle it's probably determined. The variables are so complicated, however, that there's no way to predict it. Thus the appearance of randomness. As a practical matter, it's fine to regard mutations as random. Then, natural selection sculpts the results to fit the environment.
Nor do we know even what life really is. It follows that we can't define its origin, except by faith.
So far. But it's not unimaginable that some lab, somewhere, will take raw materials and generate something that's alive and reproduces. It could happen.
I think so too. But we still won't know what life truly is, even though we saw its birth.
My use of the word faith was meant to imply that some things are likely to remain outside of the bounds of human reason.
The headline is a bit misleading. The event is privately funded -- i.e., somebody rented the museum for the evening, just as is done for charity balls, weddings, proms, etc. The Smithsonian isn't "screening" the film, they're renting space to someone who is. And I'm sure that they have to allow equal access to anyone who can put up the rental fee, being a public institution. This doesn't mean the Smithsonian has any doubts about Natural Selection.
And if I were them, I'd inventory the exhibits afterwards and check for vandalism.
From what I've read, the problem is with teachers complaining that they're intimidated by parents who oppose the teaching of evolution. But I don't have anything authoritative on this.
Intelligent design as humans practice it yes. This does not imply anything more about the tenets of ID. You and I can walk around and recognize human 'made' artifacts because of our store of experiential knowledge and our ability to perceive patterns. We (Humans) leave markers on our artifacts, whether they are signatures, tool marks, trade marks or similarities to other marked artifacts. The genome has no such markers yet ID claims to be able to attribute it to nonhuman but human-like design.
"ID proponents do not see intelligent design and evolution as mutually exclusive. Also a fact. Is ID a well developed theory? No.
It may be that some proponents of ID do not equate ID with religion but if one digs into the motives of those pushing for inclusion of an incomplete hypothesis the religious basis becomes very clear.
QUOTE:
Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh university in Bethlehem and the author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, is an intelligent-design proponent and is scheduled to be one of the expert witnesses for the Dover school board when the case goes to trial in the fall.
He says religion is "clearly why [intelligent design] evokes such emotion... . People think it will support their religious views. It's not just another issue of science. If it were, no one would care."
END QUOTE:
"Is ID a danger to this nation? Also, no.
If there were a method of differentiating between the designed and the non-designed where it became unquestionable which was which, ID could be considered a science. As it stands now, where the identification of design is based on some intuitive knowledge we are all supposed to have, it can not be considered a science and will, if included in science class, be a precedent to allowing other non-science beliefs into science class. At this point, ID is not so much a science on its own but an anti-science determined to get rid of a concept many religious find upsetting.
Good post. Thanks.
Depends on who is doing the inferring. If humans, a babe in the universe can do it, it would seem to open up the possibilty that others can or have.
You and I can walk around and recognize human 'made' artifacts because of our store of experiential knowledge and our ability to perceive patterns. We (Humans) leave markers on our artifacts, whether they are signatures, tool marks, trade marks or similarities to other marked artifacts. The genome has no such markers yet ID claims to be able to attribute it to nonhuman but human-like design.
Assume anothe major extinction on Earth. How would future scientists distinguish between Monsantos designed wheat and undirected wheat? How would they know that Monsantos markers are markers?
It may be that some proponents of ID do not equate ID with religion but if one digs into the motives of those pushing for inclusion of an incomplete hypothesis the religious basis becomes very clear.
I never mentioned religion. But yes, many religionists embrace ID.
If there were a method of differentiating between the designed and the non-designed where it became unquestionable which was which, ID could be considered a science.
I agree that is a sticky wicket.
As it stands now, where the identification of design is based on some intuitive knowledge we are all supposed to have, it can not be considered a science and will, if included in science class, be a precedent to allowing other non-science beliefs into science class. At this point, ID is not so much a science on its own but an anti-science determined to get rid of a concept many religious find upsetting.
I'm not a scientist. My instincts are for a full and public debate on all issues. I understand how a scientist can get his dander up over this but my blue collar is dander free. We see different dangers coming from different directions. Such is life in America.
Have a good Memorial Day.
Depends on who is doing the inferring. If humans, a babe in the universe can do it, it would seem to open up the possibilty that others can or have.
I will agree with that.
You and I can walk around and recognize human 'made' artifacts because of our store of experiential knowledge and our ability to perceive patterns. We (Humans) leave markers on our artifacts, whether they are signatures, tool marks, trade marks or similarities to other marked artifacts. The genome has no such markers yet ID claims to be able to attribute it to nonhuman but human-like design.
Assume anothe major extinction on Earth. How would future scientists distinguish between Monsantos designed wheat and undirected wheat? How would they know that Monsantos markers are markers?
Good question, but it really depends on what those markers are. If they are significantly more consistent than the surrounding base pairs and placed in a section where they would be obviously out of place it should be easy to notice. Giving them a specific significance would be nigh on impossible though. These hypothetical future scientists may have a difficult time seeing them as designed, but if they had the same methods as current IDers do they would find it impossible to separate the markers from all the other 'designs' in the genome. To an IDer, the entire genome is design. I've even seen claims that the non-conserved so called 'junk' is designed.
It may be that some proponents of ID do not equate ID with religion but if one digs into the motives of those pushing for inclusion of an incomplete hypothesis the religious basis becomes very clear.
I never mentioned religion. But yes, many religionists embrace ID.
Right now it seems impossible to separate ID from religion because of its (ID)initial purpose and the main thrust of its most visible proponents. (Phillip Johnson et al.)
If there were a method of differentiating between the designed and the non-designed where it became unquestionable which was which, ID could be considered a science.
I agree that is a sticky wicket.
You finally agree with me. (At least on one point.)
As it stands now, where the identification of design is based on some intuitive knowledge we are all supposed to have, it can not be considered a science and will, if included in science class, be a precedent to allowing other non-science beliefs into science class. At this point, ID is not so much a science on its own but an anti-science determined to get rid of a concept many religious find upsetting.
I'm not a scientist. My instincts are for a full and public debate on all issues. I understand how a scientist can get his dander up over this but my blue collar is dander free. We see different dangers coming from different directions. Such is life in America.
Debate is good, just make sure the subjects have equal standing and authority. ID has a way to go yet. Get rid of the religious ties, develop a working theory able to make predictions, come up with a falsification for it and attitudes will change.
Have a good Memorial Day.
Thanks. Same to you. (I'm a Canuck so don't get the holiday you do. I'm just working from home today.)
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.