It would be this.
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.
You can say you don't know or are not sure.
my understanding was that darwin was interested in the origin of species, not the origin of life.
does anyone on this thread know if darwin ever claimed that life originated from non-living matter?
I thought science wanted to answer all questions.
Why not just ask if "random selection" is supposed to be "natural selection"?
Questions of the physical world not philosphical questions. You were misinformed.
i agree with you. they seem to believe in God "the tinkerer" rather than an omnipotent God who could create something as sophisticated as evolution.
in the end, it doesn't so much matter what we believe about evolution--if God wanted evolution, he has/had the power to create it.
Foolish boy. There is one God.
A winner for sure! I'll be adding it.
But God created the physical world - so research to find how.
I'm sure
There you go again. Stop calling me a liar.
There are Darwinists who claim that the universe exists by random chance.
Show me!
Do you mean natural selection--mutations occur by chance and are selected based on advantage in the natural environment?
"Entropy can be reversed in systems with external energy input. Why would you believe otherwise?"
Of course I don't believe otherwise. You apparently don't realize that you are supporting my position. So once again, what is the source of this external energy? Understand that this source must be incredible in strength to reverse the amount of entropy required for the formation of life.
Waiting patiently for my enlightenment.
i don't think darwin ever talked about "random selection". i think he talked about random mutations. selection, in darwinian theory, was far from random.
any biologists out there who could clarify this?
"Do you mean natural selection--mutations occur by chance and are selected based on advantage in the natural environment?"
His statement is very clear. "There are Darwinists who claim that the universe exists by random chance."
Do you not understand the clear meaning of his words? Do you refute this claim?
are you talking about a plan/purpose or about strict determinism?
these are not the same things.
Yes. Thank you.
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.