Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
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.
If you can observe it any which way then it is indeed science. We are talking about all nature here not humans.
One thing for sure, the real Patrick Henry chose death. If only we could count on those who take his guise to do likewise, the gene pool would be so much better off!
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
darwin was writing about biology, not about the existence of the universe.
flip a coin, you can get head or tails. that doesn't disprove that God exists, or that He has a plan, or that He created the universe and the orignial materials out of which the coin was made.
Calm down. You're getting lysdexic.
FMCDH(BITS)
Would you be okay with government money funding ID research?
>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.
God making heaven and earth in 7 days was foolishness to me also back when I was an atheist...no more.
>the reasoning of the Iowa State professors is, frankly,
>some of the weakest I’ve ever seen.
Convincing the world that my lie was truth was also a pursuit of mine back in the day.
Praise Christ!
And if it can't be repeated, how do you know it's true?
What form would that research take?
"What? Back up the turnip truck and explain that one. I missed something."
Please explain the nature of the "pocket" of reverse entropy that caused inanimate material to "randomly" organize in a complex fashion, thus leading to life.
The turnip truck reference is hilarious by the way! I feel like such a redneck. Good one! You so damn funny, I tell you what.
I don't care if they teach ID.
I want them to teach there are other theories other than Darwinian evolution.
I want them lit on fire so these kids go forward looking to see the TRUTH, whatever it is.
It's all agenda-driven speculation. I've got a bunch of PhD's & a scholarly journal who say it never happened. Teach Our Controversy!
(Hey, that kind of logic works for the Discovery Institute.)
It's been shown time and again that various vegetables come from the same source.
York Dispatch: Meetings Were Like Revivals
With this kind of testimony showing the pervasive prosyletising mindset of the Dover school board, there's no way they're going to win this.
Why does that matter?
Right Wing Professor: So there's no proof one exists, and in fact many of us believe it's impossible, but you want us to work on it anyway? I have no problem with anyone pursuing it, on their own time.
I think that's all that is needed: let others pursue it. You can sit back and say "unproven" and I will be right with you. But instead of beating on ID as unprovable and making personal attacks let the ID adherents try to make their case.
me: I believe that a true study of designed vs. undesigned objects would show that simplicity is an aspect of design and that unnecessary complexity is an aspect of evolved objects.
Right Wing Professor: Then I presume it's settled that we're the result of evolution, because the human genome has the biggest collection of garbage you've ever seen.
That's the point. Not settled. Still in doubt. Just because I or you or any number of scientists think it will not show what the ID adherents expect it to show is no reason to reject it.
My biggest disagreement with the anti-ID crowd is their refusal to believe the possibility of measuring the likelihood of something being designed. I strongly suspect that a measure similar to entropy can be used.
So you don't believe the holocaust happened? I'm sure it did. I've met people who were in the concentration camps. There is irrefutable proof. Not so with evolution.
Well, yes, but you see - they are still vegetables.
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.