Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Misunderstanding intelligent design
Decatur Daily Democrat ^ | Aug 11 2005 | John West

Posted on 08/12/2005 4:56:11 PM PDT by gobucks

As intelligent design has become a household word, a few well-meaning but misguided public officials have conflated the theory of design with creationism or tried to impose it by legislation.

In Utah, a state senator recently advocated the adoption of what he calls "divine design." In Pennsylvania, the state legislature held hearings on a bill that would allow school districts to mandate the teaching of design.

These conflicting voices in the public arena claiming to speak for intelligent design have promoted serious misunderstandings about what the theory actually proposes and what its supporters really want.

The first misunderstanding is that intelligent design is based on religion rather than science. Design theory is a scientific inference based on empirical evidence, not religious texts. The theory proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause as opposed to an undirected process such as natural selection. Although controversial, design theory is supported by a growing number of scientists in scientific journals, conference proceedings, and books. While intelligent design may have religious implications (just like Darwin's theory), it does not start from religious premises.

A second misunderstanding is that proponents of intelligent design theory are crusading to have it required in public schools. In fact, they are doing the opposite. Discovery Institute, the main research organization supporting ID scholars, opposes efforts to mandate intelligent design. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community.

A third misunderstanding is that there are widespread efforts to mandate the teaching of design. In reality, what most states are considering is not teaching design but teaching the weaknesses as well as the strengths of modern Darwinian theory. This is the approach adopted in the science standards of Ohio, Minnesota, and New Mexico. It's also the approach currently under consideration by the Kansas State Board of Education, which earlier this year heard testimony critical of Darwin's theory from professors of biology, genetics, and biochemistry.

While scholars supporting ID are not seeking to impose their views, opponents of ID have tried to silence critics of Darwin's theory using coercion and intimidation.

At George Mason University, a biology professor was banned recently from teaching about intelligent design in her classes. At the Smithsonian Institution, the editor of a biology journal says he faced discrimination and retaliation after accepting for publication a pro-ID article.

Supporters of intelligent design are willing to disavow misguided efforts to impose it by government fiat. Defenders of Darwinism likewise need to reject efforts to enforce their views by trampling on academic freedom.

The validity of intelligent design should be decided through fair and open debate, not through legislation enacted by its friends or witch hunts conducted by its foes.

John G. West is Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute and an Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; crevolist; darwin; enoughalready; evolution; id; intelligentdesign; junkscience; morons; willthiseverend
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-292 next last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: Fester Chugabrew
ID is the axiom under which science has taken place for all but the past 150 years.

Prove it. Name some, or even one, scientific inference from design in some common theory of that time. And I do mean an inference - it must be an argument in which design is an assumption and some testable, at least in principle, deduction is made. And of course the design assumption must be required in the proof.

22 posted on 08/12/2005 5:26:05 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
My question demonstrates that and so is hardly irrelevant.

Then how can evolutionary theory ignore how life got started?
23 posted on 08/12/2005 5:29:21 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e

"...germ theory, for example. Or, for balance, lets give "evil spirits make you sick theory" equal time."

Germ theory?

The "plan" of evil spirits is to make you hate yourself and those around you so you either kill the ones you hate or you commit suicide. Bad scenario either way.


24 posted on 08/12/2005 5:31:53 PM PDT by Fruit of the Spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Prove it.

An axiom is a "given." It is self-evident. It is the starting point. It is above and beyond proof unless one wishes to indulge philosophy. For whatever reason, the proponents of the philosophy of evolution have not even begun to recognize or divulge the axiom(s) under which they operate. They just plod along making inferences from physical evidence and pronouncements based on their interpretations, all the while expecting the rest of the world to bow in deference as if they were the only ones capable of doing science.

If it is not self-evident to you that the universe is intelligently designed, then what is? Furthermore, how should we expect the evidence to contradict whatever other axiom you might propose (if you would be so bold as to say what typical evolutionists refuse to recognize or acknowledge).

25 posted on 08/12/2005 5:35:22 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
the "theory" of ID simply escalates the question without answering anything unless it is simply veiled creationism, which I believe it is.

The only difference between intelligent design and evolution is that the operating mechanism is presumed to be different. It is studying how life works from two different perspectives, one driven by mutation and natural selection, the other driven by the concept that the human life was designed. In the latter case, you may look for intent, information, a software program like chemical process.

You can study a Russian microprocessor without knowing who created it.
26 posted on 08/12/2005 5:36:56 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

For evolutionists, where did the first atom come from. Don't say big bang because where did it come from?


27 posted on 08/12/2005 5:37:30 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Good one. Love it.


28 posted on 08/12/2005 5:38:13 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
I don't find it irrelevant if the question demonstrates the invalidity of the concept of intelligent design, which I believe it does.

Your error is to assume that a theory must answer all questions. Pre-quantum chemistry had no explanation for the qualities of the chemical elements but it was a useful scientific theory nonetheless. Similarly the theory of evolution need not have an explanation for the origin of life and ID need have no explanation for the designer.

That said, ID as it is today is not a scientific theory.

29 posted on 08/12/2005 5:39:02 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
As usual, there is no mention of any hard evidence that supports ID theory.

Darwinian evolution has thousands and thousands of fossil records to support its claims, plus the everyday phenomena of adaptation. ID has absolutely nothing to offer as evidence.

Thus all the ID'ers can do is nitpick Darwin in a kind of pitiful rearguard action.

30 posted on 08/12/2005 5:40:52 PM PDT by oldfarmer (Mark 16:17-18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

I will enter my sixth day of asking ID advocates for a positive statement of what they are about. Some have defined ID as saying natural selection is not sufficient to account for evolution.

But what would ID advocates teach if they had control? It takes about ten seconds to say that mainstream science has not answered every possible question. What do you do with the rest of the year?

I have yet to hear from any ID advocate about what parts of mainstream science they accept.


31 posted on 08/12/2005 5:40:59 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
You are the one who has made a claim and I have challeneged it. I will repeat my challenge. Show even one scientific inference from an assumption of design in the sciences of 150 years ago. This really ought to be easy for you as you have said not just that ID is an axiom, but rather it is the axiom of science up until that time.
32 posted on 08/12/2005 5:45:36 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jerry K.

"The fact that evolution occurs does not mean that it is just a happenstance."

Evolution is NOT a fact! It would require numerous mutations and mutations are generally bad news.

Besides, the Bible says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; ALL THINGS WERE MADE THROUGH HIM, AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE."

Even Sir Isaac Newton believed in Creationism.


33 posted on 08/12/2005 5:45:49 PM PDT by Fruit of the Spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
intelligent design by aliens will be given equal weight with intelligent design by a god or gods

Why would it you? You would be back to how the aliens came in to being...The question just keep going back to how did every thing(not just life but the universe) start...or more precisely what is the underlying eternal (i.e. not created but always existing) physical law/truth/logic that started everything else......

34 posted on 08/12/2005 5:46:56 PM PDT by tophat9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fruit of the Spirit

Right on!!!!!


35 posted on 08/12/2005 5:47:11 PM PDT by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

That says it all.


36 posted on 08/12/2005 5:48:33 PM PDT by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Show even one scientific inference from an assumption of design in the sciences of 150 years ago.

I can name one, but it goes back more than 150 years. It was proven by design inference that the orbits of planets must be circular and not elliptical.

37 posted on 08/12/2005 5:48:46 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I don't think he asked you to prove the axiom.

He asked for one scientific advance that rested in a meaningfull way on the axiom you stated was the basis for all science prior to 150 years ago. Should be simple enough.

38 posted on 08/12/2005 5:50:37 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

But it is flying in a lot of areas now.


39 posted on 08/12/2005 5:51:12 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
. . . you have said not just that ID is an axiom, but rather it is the axiom of science up until that time.

It remains the axiom of science to this day. Without intelligent design the first hypothesis could not even be formed in the human mind. But you did not answer my question. If it is not axiomatic that the universe is the product of intelligent design, then what other axiom might you propose to explain its existence and functions?

40 posted on 08/12/2005 5:51:22 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-292 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson