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 district’s 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.
If that's the case, evolution will easily withstand this trivial challenge. If it is not, no matter how unlikely it seems to you, humanity will move one step closer to understanding. I just wonder why so many people who don't believe in God as a creative being react the way they do. It should be a whole lot easier to falsify ID than to falsify evolution.
The funny thing is that throughout human history, man has believed in a created world. Only recently has the movement away from creationism sought to explain life in purely naturalistic terms, without the influence of God. IF their theory is correct, they should be thankful to every challenge against it--as it will only make their argument stronger by defeating the challenge. The fact that folks like you respond with disdain to ID challenges shows, in my humble opinion, that you are more attached to the ramifications of evolution than you are to the science supporting it.
s much as I feel comfortable with religion in moderation in most all public aspects, gummint included, I don't with ID in school. It is about teaching God and the bible in a school classroom. It is! And that belongs in a church.
You obviously don't understand ID!
In short, yes I do. God is the proverbial "elephant in the room" when ID is discussed.
It is entirely fair to ask questions about the nature of the designer when the designs live and operate in the material world. Any discussion of ID without a discussion about the designer is incomplete, IMHO.
My church discusses all sorts of stuff - we have nothing to be afraid of.
If you saw a science text that listed scientific reasons the universe appears to be designed, without mention to God, would you oppose it? I ask because there are a lot of scientific reasons to support ID at least as a theory. None of these reasons resort to any religious text, or seek to support any religious view. Really, all ID is about is pointing out that scientific evidence coupled with human intellect can come to a rational understanding of the universe that includes a creator. Read "Mere Creation" and tell me ID is not about science.
It is entirely fair to ask questions about the nature of the designer when the designs live and operate in the material world. Any discussion of ID without a discussion about the designer is incomplete, IMHO.
No it is not. Its usefulness is simply to keep the dead horse present to keep beating on.
Science routinely accepts the certainty of uncertainty and is perfectly capable of working around it. As the classic example I remind you of Schroedinger's cat.
Insistence on identifying the creator is simply the need to have a straw man.
Atheism is the proverbial "elephant in the room" when evolution is discussed. Yet they manage to teach it without talking about atheism. ID is about science, just like evolution is about science. The theological ramifications are left for the individual to decide.
It should be, but that would require the ID proponents to actually develop a scientific theory with falsification criteria. The day that happens, entertainment in abundance will ensue.
If you saw a science text that listed scientific reasons the universe appears to be designed, without mention to God, would you oppose it? I ask because there are a lot of scientific reasons to support ID at least as a theory. None of these reasons resort to any religious text, or seek to support any religious view. Really, all ID is about is pointing out that scientific evidence coupled with human intellect can come to a rational understanding of the universe that includes a creator. Read "Mere Creation" and tell me ID is not about science.
_____________________________________________________________
If one wants to rationalize that this blue marble was created then I say why stop there? We might as well/better hypothisize/postulate that there was a creator of the one that created this marble. And then there is his creator too.
Whats the point or where is this leading? Who is the real God? I can't help but bring G into the discussion because the "I" in ID is referring to God.
If you want a philosophy or religion class, fine by me, although I think you won't like the results of public schools getting into the religion business. But in science class?
That's better.
To falsify ID, all an evolutionist has to do is show a realistic probability that the prebiotic soup could by chance form life. This hasn't happened yet. Or they could show that irreducible complexity can be reduced. They haven't. Or that the universe isn't fine tuned for life. They haven't--unless you believe in multiple universes. Oh, that's really verifiable. There are arguments against each of the points I raise, but until there is consensus, the debate needs to go on. If neither side can point to irrefutable evidence, then neither is more than a theory, and the only thing to do is consider the preponderance of the evidence, seek more evidence, and hone the argument. Unfortunately, opponents of ID most often would prefer name calling. If you have evidence to refer me to, I'd be happy to explore it. Until then, neither evolution or ID are above debate.
Then why do we accept "dark matter" as a matter of faith? Because it's required to make the equations work?
I had a psychology prof once who announced to the class that he'd examined all the world's religions and found them lacking. I told him, "Don't worry, the shoe will be on the other foot one day..."
Science can attack religion all day long, and religion isn't allowed to defend itself?
Uh,BTW, just what is "the problem with faith" ?
Intelligent people hate to be deceived, even if the deception is called 'intelligent' whatever.
Instead of being candid about their real motives, many of the ID proponents seemed to have fallen for cheap propaganda tricks.
I hope that's not the case, since I don't want all believers in creation to be painted with a broad brush.
If there is scientific evidence for it, then it is worthy of inquiry. But I think you are deliberately avoiding the "design" part of the theory because you have a problem with the "Intelligent" part. One way or another, there is a design to living beings. It was either intelligence or chance that produced it. When science points to one or the other, it is doing so as science. There is evidence for both, and neither side's evidence is going to go away until science deals with it.
When was the last time your pastor/minister/priest discussed the value of atheism? Or secular humanism? In a positive and affirming way?
I'm sure your church discusses many things, but some not in a positive way.
But you want folks devoted to science education to teach non-scientific alternatives in a positive and affirming way.
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.