Scientific support for 'intelligent design' disputed (MSM Gay Agenda alert)

"People in heterosexual society may not be aware that they ever met a gay or lesbian."

I'm fairly certain that that guy that tried to grope me in the rest stop was gay. I do know he does not know how to block a right jab.

Sorry about my typos tonight. I'm distracted watching coverage of the FEMA hearings on cable news!

It seems to me that evolution is a very strong argument against normality of homosexuality. Biologically speaking, it is clearly not normal.

BTW, those are crappy rebuttals.

Nevertheless, polls repeatedly have found that a majority of Americans accept the concept of intelligent design and want it to be taught in schools along with evolution.

Nevertheless a handful of elites in black robes will overturn the will of the people to decide what they want taught in their public schools. And the left will rejoice as evidence that democracy works.

You know, the way Darwinists react to a competing theory is kind of like the way Democrats react to George Bush. Its all hate and slander. You would think that a true scientist would be eager to take on any argument against his chosen theory, if only to prove it wrong. These guys, though, resort to silly retorts like you just described, and more often, flat-out refusal to admit they are being challenged at all. Then they start name calling. Just look over some of the threads on this forum...

What is funny is that there are a lot of positive arguments for ID, but the folks on the other side always respond with some trite bs about "giving up" and resorting to explaining things by God. The normal response of the Darwinist leads me to believe they have made it more personal than the ID folks have. They have reasons beyond scientific inquiry for their faith in Darwin. I'm like the previous poster who said something along the lines of "conduct and experiment and shut up about the rest."

[I actually trust high school and college students to do the reading and come to conclusions on what does and does not represent "errors in logic". You seem to have already determined that for them.]

Formal logic and related scientific methodology are not something that students can just pick up on their own, they require literally years of instruction to master.

In a way, this is similar to the amount of time and devotion that is required to master Christian philosophy. You wouldn't expect someone who had no religious background to just pick up the Bible and begin reading and within a few weeks come to the correct conclusions about what does and does not represent Christian thought. Think about all the instruction that's needed for a student to understand the nuances of each of the Ten Commandments, for example, or what lessons are to be learned from the two persons executed alongside Jesus, or the significance of Thomas the apostle's failure to believe that Jesus had returned.

[...how much reading have you personally done regarding theory?]

Three years of university level physics and engineering courses (which includes scientific methodology) and I've continued to read large amounts of material related to or based upon scientific methodology for the last 20+ years.

Interesting thought about how Darwinists react to challenges to the theory.

I had a similar thought this week. I was listening to Rush playing an interview of Dan Rather by Marvin Kalb. It was two old school guys talking to each other about the new media. It was clear they were clueless about blogging, new media, and even Free Republic - which they mention.

I was thinking that there's a parallel between the slow and clueless response of the MSM to new media and how Darwinists are responding to ID. Just a thought.

Hi Spinestein. Two thoughts.

To your point about how long it takes to master something: mastery is one thing. Basic understanding at a high school or even college level is another. I agree that you can spend years delving into the complexities of Christianity. On the other hand, the essentials of the faith are fairly easy to explain and can and have been grasped by people quite quickly on a common sense intuitive level. Same thing for the origins of life. I believe that most people have an intuitive understanding that one realistic possibility is that organic life is complex and was created by an intelligent agent with a purpose. The essentials of both sides could be grasped and argued in an entry level survey course. Interested parties could then go into it deeper.

Sorry about the typo on my question about how much study you've done. We have roughly similar backgrounds, and I respect your study.

The question I intended to ask was: how much of ID theory have you read about from the proponents of ID? I ask, because as I watch these thread arguments it doesn't seem to me that the ID opponents have read source material on the topic. One of the excellent essays that I read recently on the topic was William Dembski's essay on "What ID isn't". I'd recommend it as starting point reading on actual ID theory.

No, the addition of a "gay agenda" is not in the article merely an additon by the poster.

N J, Thanks for your thoughtful response.

It's true that many, perhaps most, of the anti ID folks simply lump ID in with creationism and that is unfortunate for the purposes of honest debate. However, I have a good understanding of the distinction between the two and have read a great deal about ID from the perspective of it's proponents. If I didn't, I wouldn't feel right commenting here about it. I've also had a pretty thorough Christian education and maintain a respect for the honest faith of it's adherents.

The fact is, I don't disagree with the basic assumptions of ID as a matter of Faith. It's just that ID is simply not a scientific theory, according to the basic definition of a theory as described by science. As such it has no place being taught in a science class as a scientifically valid alternative to accepted genuine scientific theories such as evolution.

I know that there is a disbelief among the anti evolutionists that evolution is a valid scientific theory. That also, is unfortunate. Many, or most, believe that it is simply a bias towards secularism that lures otherwise intelligent scientists to toss away objectivity, and blindly accept evolution for philosophical reasons rather than for scientific ones, but that just isn't the case. Evolutionary theory is as valid as gravitational theory, and I know a lot about both.

I agree with you that learning about either religious faith or the complexity of life can be done at a basic level first to give a primary understanding, and then added to in order to increase one's knowledge. But I contend that this strategy does not apply to the scientific method itself to the extent that it's used to understand and evaluate evolution. It's not intuitive, and the complexities are enough that even many scientists within the field often misunderstand and misuse the scientific methodology as it applies to evolution. But this is often the case with any area of science and only serves to illustrate the inherent difficulty of typically human thinking trying to adapt to the intensely disciplined constraints of scientific methodology.

Consider that whenever (on these crevo threads) someone asks for evidence that evolution happens, or evidence that evolution is even a scientific theory, the requester is told to link to one or more of the voluminous piles of articles or sources, such as from FReeper "Patrick Henry", which will provide that information. Reading all that information is just barely enough to scratch the surface, but is more than most casual inquisitors can handle and they simply refuse to believe it without gaining an understanding of the what's being presented. But unfortunately, there is no substitute for the huge amounts of time and effort required, which I went through both in high school and college, and even more so, on my own in the time since.

Some may say that this attitude is arrogant and elitist, sort of like "You don't understand this and I do, because I'm smarter than you." The answer to this criticism which I've found out for myself is; if any person is truly motivated to find out whether evolution is valid or not (and anyone can), they must first pay their dues.

I would say the same thing to anyone wanting to find out whether religious faith is valid or simply a superstition or a dangerous diversion from reality, they also must first pay their dues.

spinestein,

You're welcome. I'm enjoying the conversation, as opposed to an argument.

Interesting thought on "paying your dues". I guess my question would be at what point on the road of paying your dues do you get introduced to challenges to Darwinism. Reasonable challenges to theories are, to me, in the scope of scientific learning and investigation. Is that what "falsifiable" hinges on? Challenges. Granted, I think most Darwinists believe they have successfully ruled ID out as a failed challenge. I think not. I think as it develops and gets more robust it will be a serious challenge.

I'm interested in your allowance the evolution is "not intuitive". There could be a whole discussion there.

As I've said, I re-immersing myself in the debate and doing a lot of reading on my own time as well. I'll be working out my thoughts on my blog, mixed in with my posts on my political thoughts and ramblings. Here's a link to a sample post. You have to geek-slog your way through it:

http://partisannewsjunkie.blogspot.com/2005/09/evolution-vs-intelligent-design-false.html