Intelligent design stirrings

Washington Times ^

[Kokojmudd]

By David Limbaugh Our secular popular culture is throwing a fit over President Bush's endorsement of teaching in public schools the controversies surrounding Darwinian theory. Note that the president did not recommend that the teaching of Darwinism be banned in public schools, merely that the theory of intelligent design (ID) ought to be taught as well. Mr. Bush said, "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." The main players in the ID movement are not even insisting on that much. Discovery Institute, for example, opposes the mandatory teaching of ID in public schools but favors requiring students to be exposed to criticisms of Darwin's theory. But whether you believe ID theory ought to get equal billing with Darwinian theory, some lesser treatment, or that students should at least be apprised of alleged chinks in the Darwinian armor, what's all the fuss about? Don't academics purport to champion free and open inquiry? What, then, are they so afraid of regarding the innocuous introduction into the classroom of legitimate questions concerning Darwinism? Their defensiveness toward challenges to their dogma is inexplicable unless you understand their attitude as springing from a worldview steeped in strong, secular predispositions that must be guarded with a blind religious fervor. Indeed, it appears many Darwinists are guilty of precisely that of which they accuse ID proponents: having a set of preconceived assumptions that taint their scientific objectivity. Don't take my word for it. Consider the words of Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard..........

[Spacewolfomega]

I've never understood the harm in teaching Intelligent Design and Unintelligent Design side-by-side.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

RD: The moon looks so far away. It makes me feel like a speck of dust.


Hanks: [Lowers his voice.] Isn’t that what we are? [Laughs]


RD: When you look at the galaxies, what do you feel?

Hanks: It makes me think that we are the most unique individuals in the cosmos because, first, we’re the only ones that we know of, okay? This is the only place we know where you can make a pair of glasses or a pot for a plant. And the sense of wonder is magnified by the amount of space. I once had dinner with [astronaut] Gene Cernan. He said, “Tom, during the Apollo 17 mission I was standing right in the middle of the time and space continuum. I could look at Earth and see it was getting to be nighttime in London while it was lunchtime in Texas. Then I could look over there and realize I was looking straight through the velvet blackness of infinity.” He also could look at his watch and realize: “Oh, I got to keep moving here ‘cause I only got another half-hour to do what I want to do.”


RD: When you contemplate space, does the complexity, the magnificence, make you think there’s some divine hand in this, or that it’s all random?


Hanks: Either one is tremendous leap of faith, and it could very well be that this is beyond our consciousness. How can you look at it and say this was plotted out on a graph? I think that would cheapen it somehow. At the same time, to say it just happened and is completely random would cheapen it as well. I’m thoroughly delighted by the mystery of it all.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1459721/posts

[cryptical]

A short column is not the place to debate the merits of ID versus Darwinism, but it is an appropriate venue to offer the humble suggestion that the very essence of science -- the search for causes -- militates in favor of exposing students to modern criticisms of Darwinism. Introducing kids to scientific challenges to Darwinism and to the alternative ID theory would vindicate the scientific method and science itself. Opponents should lighten up, and the public should insist on a fair fight.

ID isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. Merely grunting "Life is complex, there must be some outside force at work" then starting up the "Darwin bad" chant isn't a replacement for the scientific process.

Do the work, and you can get a place in the curriculum.

[macamadamia]

"the innocuous introduction into the classroom of legitimate questions concerning Darwinism?"


Given most high schools today, I doubt ANYTHING is innocuous anymore. Questions concerning TOE are only going to be legitimate if the theory itself is taught clearly and comprehensively. Otherwise its just a strawman target practice. The same goes for ID. Will there be an "innocuous" debate about ID's classification as science rather than philosophy? And will there be "innocuous" questions about the validity of creationism, evidence or lack of evidence? I can't imagine ANY high school tackling all of this; can they even handle debates about how to classify all of this, let alone scrutinize them?

[js1138]

ID isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis.

If it were a hypothesis it would be OK to teach in science class. The problem is that ID is not a scientific statement that can be tested. It is an assertion that the things science cannot currently explain will never be explained. ID is opposed to looking for explanations.

Read the threads dealing with this debate. The anti-science crowd is opposed to the fundamental assumptions of science, namely that naturalistic explanations can be found for any physical phenomenon. There is, of course, no proof that this assumption is true, and there never will be proof, but it is the central pillar of science. Science will always search for explanations, and anti-science will always say that science is going too far.

[rob777]

ID isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis.






That is true, but so is the notion of random selection. (That is what is being debated, not that life developed over a long period of time.) This is a very old debate that goes back to the ancient Greeks when Aristotle debated an earlier version of the random selection notion with an argument from design. Both sides are pretty much in agreement on the observable facts, but disagree on how to account for them. One sides explains these facts with random selection as a hypothesis, while the other considers the notion of intelligent design to be a more logical answer.

[narby]

I found an interesting new link. Here's an excerpt:

The creationist movement also does not like to talk about the scientists who leave after being given the opportunity to do real field research. In 1957, the Geoscience Research Institute was formed in order to search for evidence of Noah's Flood in the geological record. The project fell apart when both of the creationists involved with the project, P. Edgar Hare and Richard Ritland, completed their field research with the conclusion that fossils were much older than allowed under the creationist assertions, and that no geological or paleontological evidence of any sort could be found to indicate the occurrence of a world-wide flood. (Numbers, 1992, pp 291-293) Hare concluded, "We have been taught for years that almost everything in the geological record is the result of the Flood. I've seen enough in the field to realize that quite substantial portions of the geologic record are not the direct result of the Flood. We have also been led to believe . . . that the evidence for the extreme age of the earth is extremely tenuous and really not worthy of any credence at all. I have tried to make a rather careful study of this evidence over the past several years, and I feel that the evidence is not ambiguous but that it is just as clear as the evidence that the earth is round." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland, for his part, pointed out that Morris's book The Genesis Flood contained "flagrant errors which the uninitiated person is scarcely able to detect". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland concluded that further attempts to justify Flood geology would "only bring embarrassment and discredit to the cause of God". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 293)

A few years later, creationist biologists Carl Krekeler and William Bloom, who taught creationist biology at the Lutheran Church's Valparaiso University in Indiana, left after concluding that a literal interpretation of Genesis was not supported by any of the available scientific evidence. Krekeler concluded, "The documentation, not only of changes within a lineage such as horses, but of transitions between the classes of vertebrates-- particularly the details of the transition between reptiles and mammals--forced me to abandon thinking of evolution as occurring only within 'kinds'. " (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 302) Krekeler also criticized the creationist movement for the "dozens of places where half-truths are spoken, where quotations supporting the authors' views are taken from the context of books representing contrary views, and where there is misrepresentation." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 303) The two became theistic evolutionists, and later wrote a biology textbook which accepted evolutionary theory.

Perhaps as a result of these defections, the creationist movement no longer finances or carries out any field research of any sort. Its sole method of "scientific research" consists of combing through the published works of evolutionary mechanism theorists to look for quotations which can be pulled out of context and used to bolster creationist beliefs.

============

It's been obvious that the IDers and creationists can't do *real* science. Here's evidence that at one time they tried ... and failed.

[Doc Savage]

Not exactly. A hypothesis is a supposition made for the purpose of investigation. A theory is a supposition explaining something, based on general principles independent of the things to be explained.

Could be a fuzzy difference depending upon the side you're on. But who really cares? A theory is just a theory, a supposition is just a supposition.

Regardless of which position you support (and I am sure there will be new theories-suppositions-hypotheses in the future long after we are dead and gone) it always come down to the basic questions of life.

Who are we? Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? How were we created? Who or what created us. And who created the creator?

[NJ_gent]

"I've never understood the harm in teaching Intelligent Design and Unintelligent Design side-by-side."

The harm is that one is a widely accepted scientific theory, and the other is based on a system of beliefs without even the possibility of evidence to back it up. If we wanted to create a 'beliefs' class, then ID could be taught there. ID has no more place in a science class than does Scientology (which, incidentally, is a major proponent of ID). The harm is that you've taken the time to pound the Scientific Method into the heads of the little ones, and then are telling them to throw all that out the window in order to consider ID. There can be no evidence or proof of design (how do you prove something is designed?), unless the designer(s) come out of hiding and announce (and prove) what they did.

Unless you're ready to invite Rael to come speak at public schools, that isn't going to happen.

[Matchett-PI]

August 04, 2005

The Intelligent Design Bogeyman
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2005/08/new_column_the_5.html#more

"....Don't take my word for it. Consider the words of Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard.

"Our willingness," confessed Lewontin, "to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. --- materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

So is God the real bogeyman for some Darwinists? Is that why they fight to suppress any theory, like ID, they fear might allow God's "foot in the door"?

And, if their science were unassailable, would they so vigorously resist its subjection to academic scrutiny by scientists no longer drinking the Darwin Kool-Aid? It's no secret that scientists who have broken from Darwinian orthodoxy have been ridiculed, suppressed and ostracized by much of the Orwellian scientific establishment.

Many of ID's cynical detractors patronizingly frame this entire debate in terms of a struggle between faith and science. Intelligent Design, they say, is but a thinly disguised argument for Biblical creationism and its proponents threaten to obliterate the "wall of separation" between church and state by cleverly sneaking creationism back into the schools inside the Trojan horse of ID.

But that is simply false. ID is fundamentally science-based. The fact that scientific inquiry leads certain scientists toward a conclusion compatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview -- that intelligent causes were behind the creation of the universe and life -- does not disqualify them as scientists any more than the militant secularism of many Darwinists disqualifies them.

Nor does ID's compatibility with the Judeo-Christian worldview require that it be classified as religious rather than scientific. If ID's theories were faith-based rather than science-based, the secular scientific community would have a stronger case in demanding they not be introduced into science classes.

But no amount of protest and name-calling from the scientific community will change the fact that ID proponents are not pseudo-scientists. You might be surprised to learn that over 400 scientists from all disciplines have signed onto a list of those expressing skepticism "of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." And that list is growing, despite the persecution of some signers since they signed it.

This is most interesting, in light of statements made in PBS's "Evolution" series that no scientists disagreed with Darwinian evolution. I ask you: Which side is playing fast and loose with the facts?

As one recent signatory, the prestigious Russian biologist Vladimir L. Voeikov said, "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism, which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology, seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field's real problems."

A short column is not the place to debate the merits of ID versus Darwinism, but it is an appropriate venue to offer the humble suggestion that the very essence of science -- the search for causes -- militates in favor of exposing students to modern criticisms of Darwinism. Introducing kids to scientific challenges to Darwinism and to the alternative ID theory would vindicate the scientific method and science itself. Opponents should lighten up, and the public should insist on a fair fight.

Posted by David Limbaugh at August 4, 2005 08:32 PM

[rob777]

Regardless of which position you support (and I am sure there will be new theories-suppositions-hypotheses in the future long after we are dead and gone) it always come down to the basic questions of life.

Who are we? Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? How were we created? Who or what created us. And who created the creator?







I hope that there will be new theories, etc., though I am concerned by attempts to limit the debate. I tend to support the Intelligent Design side for the same reason Aristotle did, it seems more reasonable. The problem is that, when one side tries to stifle the debate by insisting on an exclusive hearing for their theory, honest debate is short changed and the pursuit of knowledge suffers. I do not care if it is Creationists silencing Evolutionists, or Evolutionists, silencing Intelligent Design theorists, it harms the disinterested pursuit of knowledge.

[etlib]

1. "unintelligent design" is no more provable than "intelligent design" and is NOT the scientific position.
   
   
2. "random" in science terms says nothing about cause.  It is a term that indicates the limit of measurement, knowledge or theory.  For example, the randomness of a throw of a pair of dice is due to inability to know all the pertinent initial conditions.  Similarly the randomness in evolutionary theory is due to a complete inability to know or take account of all the conditions which cause a species to become extinct or which cause a mutation.
   
   
3. There are ways to determine whether something is "designed."  The hypothesis says that  there are mathematic ways to measure complexity (similar to the measurement of entropy) and that this measure indicates a deviation from"randomness."   The tests need to be involve observable phenomena which are known to be "designed" or "not designed."  Once the mathematics is verified then it could be legitimately applied to natural observation.
   
   

Science can only describe "how" things work, it can never describe "why."  The basis of science is not, "that naturalistic explanations can be found for any physical phenomenon,"  as was stated in another posting to this thread.  The basis is that  that which occurred  under a given set of initial conditions will occur again.  The limitation of science is that it restricts itself (rightly) to phenomena which can be observed and measured. It is a mistake to believe that this represents the entirety of truth.

[RedBeaconNY]

Ahem... THEY ARE THEORIES, NOT FACTS. To exclude intelligent design in the teaching of Creation theories is the epitomy of ignorance and hubris. To say that Darwin's theory is the only possibility- even though it is only a theory- is absolute ludicrous. Quite frankly, I feel that Darwin's theory has only a marginal amount of credibility. I don't believe that life originated from hot gas billions of years ago, sorry. I'm not the only one who feels that way.There is ABSOLUTELY NO HARM DONE by teaching conflicting theories side-by-side... except that the liberal enlightened atheists who are too good for God, yes God, are scared of it. Which in my book, makes it all the more worth while.

/rant

[js1138]

It is always reasonable to challenge accepted theories, but that is not what ID is doing.

ID is challenging the premise that science can search for natural causes. It is basically saying that something has the appearance of design it cannot possibly have arisen from natural processes.

It is not simply about who is right and who is wrong. It is about procedure. How do we investigate things that are currently unexplained.

The procedures of scientific research assume that natural causes can be found. I don't know what procedures ID suggests because the leaders of the movement have admitted having no research program. I suspect they can never have a research program, because once you assume a supernatural cause, you have ended curiosity.

[Paleo Conservative]

[rob777]

Many of ID's cynical detractors patronizingly frame this entire debate in terms of a struggle between faith and science. Intelligent Design, they say, is but a thinly disguised argument for Biblical creationism and its proponents threaten to obliterate the "wall of separation" between church and state by cleverly sneaking creationism back into the schools inside the Trojan horse of ID.




This dishonesty is what really frosts me. The argument against "random" evolution(Not all evolutionists believe that evolution is random, it depends on one's definition of "evolution"), in favor of intelligent design goes back to Aristotle and his argument against certain Pre-Socratics. (Empedocles, in particular) Einstein himself suggested that science was a better path to the knowledge of God than religion. It is only recently in the history of science that non materialistic hypothesis and theories were deemed to fall outside the bounds of "acceptable" scientific pursuit.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks, but I'll pass. It's just an opinion piece -- and not a very informed one -- and we've got a few other active threads going right now. I don't want to over-ping the list.

[Doctor Stochastic]

RD: When you look at the galaxies, what do you feel?

Cold. I then wonder who stole my tent.

[Junior_G]

I've never understood the harm in teaching Intelligent Design and Unintelligent Design side-by-side.

Evolution is science, Intelligent Design is religion/philosophy. Mixing religion with science will leave the religion intact, but will bastardize and make useless the science that is being taught. This recent movement to teach creationism in science classes is about as refreshing and wonderful as the movement for slave reparations.