Skip to comments.Witness: intelligent design has identified God as designer
Posted on 09/28/2005 8:56:34 AM PDT by Crackingham
Supporters of intelligent design argue the concept is not religious because the designer is never identified. But this morning, in the third day of testimony in a federal court case challenging the Dover school districts inclusion of intelligent design in biology class, an expert for the plaintiffs pointed to examples where its supporters have identified the designer, and the designer is God.
Robert Pennock, a Michigan State University professor of the philosophy of science, pointed to a reproduction shown in court of writing by Phillip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley and author of books including Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.
Johnson, known as the father of the intelligent design movement, wrote of theistic realism.
This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that this reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology, the writing stated.
Pennock was being questioned by plaintiffs attorneys. He will be cross-examined after a morning break.
THE Rose, by any other name...
I thought it would be Karl Rove.
Oh, no! Surely he didn't say "God did it"! The death knell for ID! We can't have children hearing "God" in school!
This has been obvious from the beginning of the ID movement. It's nothing but a pathetic subterfuge to insert religion into science classes.
And it's working - thank God!
I like the cartoon (Gary Larson?) where two scientist are at a blackboard with a giant equation written on it explaining the creation; right in the middle of the equation is the comment: "and then something happens here" and then the equation goes on. I think it is the perfect example of scientist not accepting God but allowing for him in their studies.
Getting old - got any more recent pics?
It's really not unreasonable to look around the universe and say that it has a beauty and an order that argues intelligent design, and the that the most likely designer is God.
That last step is, perhaps, not scientific, any more than it is scientific to say that God does NOT exist and everything arose by chance. But it's a reasonable theory or hypothesis or conjecture from the evidence.
What intelligent design suggests is that the enormous and growing complexity that we find in nature cannot logically or statistically be accounted for by pure chance. The odds are astronomically against it. Who the designer(s) might be is another matter, but it must be said that God is a likelier explanation than Little Green Men. After all, where did the LGM come from?
do you really want your kids to hear "God did it" in science class?
I'm all for teaching ID, but put it where it belongs, in World Cultures, or whatever they're calling it these days.
Pathetic is the bleating of the "other" religionists, the evolutionists, whose dogma is being challenged.
The universe is very unclearly understood and may never be understood.
I can very comfortably accept the possibility of ID, no less so than macroevolution, without in any way feeling compelled to understand, never mind what is behind the "intelligence".
The religion of "evolution" is already firmly entrenched in our schools!
Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
I sure don't want them to hear "God didn't do it". But my children are out of school anyway. Even in biology class they were told evolution had problems and ID was mentioned, though it was a few years ago. And the students survived and most went on to college. Shocking, isn't it?
So in other words, he found an ID advocate who believes that the theory bolsters his belief in God. So does that mean if we can find a Darwinism advocate who believes that the theory of evolution bolsters his atheist worldview, we can claim Darwinism is a religion?
Do you really think it's impossible to discuss and analyze ID without introducing "God did it" into the picture?
Typically, references to supernatural forces are not the province of science class.
Just wondering, as you seem to be in favor of "teaching the controversy", do you also support disclaimers about religion being taught in Sunday School? I mean, what possible harm could it do to "mention" the problem with "faith" and discuss evolution and natural forces during those sessions?
I'm not interested in replies talking about government schools and the like, we are simply talking about what's good for the learner.
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.