Posted on 09/30/2005 2:09:51 PM PDT by truthfinder9
It's amazing that these Darwinian Fundamentalists claim they're for science only to turn around and try to destroy any contrary theories or evidence. They're really getting desperate, the ID movement really has them rattled.
****
September 30, 2005
It’s happening again: another scientist, another academic institution, another attempt to stifle freedom of thought. The “Darwinist inquisition,” as a Discovery Institute press release calls it, is as predictable as it is relentless.
This time the setting is Iowa State University. One hundred twenty professors there have signed a statement denouncing the study of intelligent design and calling on all faculty members to reject it. The statement reads, in part, “We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor. . . . Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science.”
I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this thing is getting out of control. To begin with, the reasoning of the Iowa State professors is, frankly, some of the weakest I’ve ever seen. They give three reasons for rejecting intelligent design. The first is what they call “the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer”—which, even if that were true, would prove nothing. If certain features were chosen arbitrarily for study, how does that prove that no other features showed evidence of design? The number two reason given is “unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer.” That is a dubious claim; most serious intelligent design theorists have made very few conclusions about any such “wishes and desires.”
But the third reason is my favorite: They say it is “an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.” Now this gets to the heart of the matter. The statement goes so far as to claim, “Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the sciences.” I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe. I thought we were supposed to start without any foregone conclusions about the supernatural at all, that is, if we wanted to be truly scientific.
It seems to me that the intelligent design theorists aren’t the ones trying to inject religion and philosophy into the debate—the Darwinists are, starting out with predetermined conclusions.
But it gets even better than that. The Iowa State fracas started because one astronomy professor there, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, has attracted attention with a book on intelligent design. It’s a little odd to accuse Gonzalez of being unscientific; he’s a widely published scientist whose work has made the cover of Scientific American. But that’s exactly what’s happening. And here’s the kicker: Gonzalez barely mentions intelligent design in the classroom. He wants to wait until the theory has more solid support among scientists. All he’s doing is researching and writing about it.
Now the lesson here for all of us is very clear: Don’t be intimidated when confronting school boards or biology teachers about teaching intelligent design. All we are asking is that science pursue all the evidence. That’s fair enough. But that’s what drives them into a frenzy, as we see in Iowa.
What's amazing is that religious fundamentalists seek to elevate themselves by promoting the "science" of ID, while they denigrate science by calling it "religious".
Maybe just a case of "science envy"?
Here we go again.
If they could burn the ID heretics at the stake, they would.
Ok, I'll bite. How does one incorporate a reference to the supernatural in a scientific inquiry? Just stick a little parenthetical in saying "here a miracle occurs" and hope no one notices?
Too bad. IDers have made the fatal mistake of trying to graft a non-scientific idea onto science. Then they complain when scientists oppose their nonsense. ID is going down. It's only a matter of time.
So you want this taught? I have a few others I could post if you are truly interest in "all the evidence." Let me know.
The Ancient One, known as Unkulunkulu, is the Zulu creator. He came from the reeds (uthlanga, means source) and from them he brought forth the people and the cattle. He created everything that is: mountains, streams, snakes, etc. He taught the Zulu how to hunt, how to make fire, and how to grow food. He is considered to be the First Man and is in everything that he created.
We? This one ain't for the ping list.
The sad thing is that Christianity, which I think is a great philosophy on how to live life, will be damaged because a few of them are pushing this idiotic ID junk.
They're shooting themselves in the foot, and they don't know it.
"What we can't say we can't say, and we can't whistle it either." - Frank Ramsey
Darwinist Kenneth Miller Concedes Dr. Behe's brand of design is NOT young-earthism as Darwinist fundamentalists always try to paint design as. Also, he conceded that the error in the design book Of Pandas and People that he pointed out yesterday was corrected in later editions. He also tried to paint design as disguised creationism, which it is not. And so on...
Here you go.
Their franchise is threatened. Their Grants. Their status.
How does one incorporate a reference to the supernatural in a scientific inquiry?
That is NOT what intelligent design theory is all about. We are NOT talking about a SUPERNATURAL designer. But a designer. Once one goes beyond nature into supernature you are beyond the realm of science. But ID scientists DO NOT make any assumptions about the nature of the designer but make the assumption that molecular machines appear to be designed - hence there is most likely a designer of some intelligence behind these machines. The designer may be dead - some being or beings who has died or the designer could be supernatural - a deity. But the nature of the designer is NOT what is at issue - it is whether molecular machines, DNA and its program are designed or not designed based on information theory and other scientific assumptions about when something is designed verses when something has come about by blind luck.
150 years? Yer stupid and stuck. Can't wait to hear your deathbed pleas to Him. (or maybe you think that when you die, that's it?)
Have fun in this world. It's all you'll ever know.
FMCDH(BITS)
You ever watch Jay Leno's Jaywalking interviews?
Think "the people [should] decide" what is taught?
LOL.
What's next?
"It's not gravity, it's 'Intelligent Falling'. "
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.