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.
The problem arose with Thomas Huxley and other Darwinist propogandists, who insisted on a doctrinate anti-supernaturalism. They were far more interested in natural selection as a philosophical concept than as a scientific tool. Dawkins is still pushing this line. In their intolerance, they remind me of the Aristotelans who brought Galileo to his knees. His sin was that he challenged the scientific establishment of his time. The Church simply served as the tool of an older paradign being challenged by revolutionaries.
People have lost the distinction between primary and secondary causes. Cardinal Newman had no trouble with Darwin's theories since he conceded to science the field of secondary causes. But Huxley and others followed Kant and the German idealists in denying the knowability of primary causes. Dogmatically they insist that this is all we can know.
That's stupid. 'Evolutionism' lacks ritual, moral precepts, an organization...one might as well claim physics is a religion.
It is intelligence that is making such judgements. All our explanations come from minds. When we try to go the other way and go from things to minds, we have no explanations.
one might as well claim physics is a religion.
That's basically the goal. The strategy is to create a religious umbrella that covers all hard science. Evolution is the beachhead.
No, evolution has the burden of supporting its suppositions. ID doesn't have to prove anything. It can just ask the questions and point out the flaws. It's just a matter of time before this junk science called macro evolution will be removed completely from textbooks.
Absolutely.
I admire your honesty, but please turn yourself in.
Ritual: calling ID folks stupid. :)
Evolutionists have rituals. They go to conventions and deliver pious papers. They scoff at any challenge to evolution. They perform experiments according to a sacred format. They do so in utter faith that their theory is correct, even though it is, by definition, impossible to completely prove and by the rules of science, only valid as long as it best describes the evidence.
Evolutionists have moral precepts: Thou shalt not admit any science but evolution. Thou shalt not admit students into the field of biology who profess to hold non-evolutionary beliefs. Thou shalt define all of life in deterministic themes, and support them by finding "gay genes" and "fat genes." Thou shalt profess that evolution is capable of answering every question about the development of life in the natural universe. Though shalt not speak of the 'supernatural'--because evolution says so.
Evolutionist have organization. Just refer to the numerous letters signed by hundreds of evolutionists denouncing ID.
one might as well claim physics is a religion.
If physicists behaved the way evolutionists did, I would claim it was a religion. The difference is that many physicists have retained the humble nature of a true scientist who admits there are questions he may not have the theory or ability to answer. Evolutionists don't. It is by their faith that you will know them.
Have you seen Dembski's chessboard illustration before?
Science as it's currently practiced has done quite well over the last few centuries wouldn't you say? It would seem to me that scientists know what they're doing.
That's not ritual, that's observation.
They go to conventions and deliver pious papers. They scoff at any challenge to evolution. They perform experiments according to a sacred format. They do so in utter faith that their theory is correct, even though it is, by definition, impossible to completely prove and by the rules of science, only valid as long as it best describes the evidence.
They go to conferences, not conventions. Nobody performs experiments according to sacred formats; when I run an experiment, I'm usually making up protocols on the fly. And I have a great deal of confidence that most established science is correct, evolution just being one instance. If you want to see complete faith, ask a physical chemist about the second law.
Evolutionists have moral precepts: Thou shalt not admit any science but evolution. Thou shalt not admit students into the field of biology who profess to hold non-evolutionary beliefs. Thou shalt define all of life in deterministic themes, and support them by finding "gay genes" and "fat genes." Thou shalt profess that evolution is capable of answering every question about the development of life in the natural universe. Though shalt not speak of the 'supernatural'--because evolution says so.
The only people who talk about 'fat genes' are the popular press. You've evidently learned about science from the funny papers. Yet you seem to consider yourself an authority on it.
Evolutionist have organization. Just refer to the numerous letters signed by hundreds of evolutionists denouncing ID.
Oh, I see circulating an email makes an organization.
If physicists behaved the way evolutionists did, I would claim it was a religion. The difference is that many physicists have retained the humble nature of a true scientist who admits there are questions he may not have the theory or ability to answer. Evolutionists don't. It is by their faith that you will know them.
LOL! You should see the responses from physicists to Jay Richards' (co-author of the Privileged Planet) idiotic thoughts on Special Relativity. Physicists are a little quieter than biologists on ID only because they're less directly involved. But find some random physicist and run the idea of a 6000 year old universe by him. After he's stopped laughing, that is.
Science is not chess.
Your question has nothing to do with the "point" you were attempting to make, which is that teaching it in public schools is somehow a church/state violation. Any theory can be thought of by some people as supporting their religion. There are certainly plenty of atheists who see Darwinism that way.
It's not a scientific theory, it's a proseytizing mechanism for fundamentalist protestants. Dembski says so.
Liar. He did not say that it wasn't a scientific theory. That's why you guys are losing this public debate. You simply can not address the issue honestly.
You figured me out.
Actually, I'm not attached to the literal claim that evolutionism is a religion. I had a religion professor who argued aspects of football and baseball are religious. The point is not that evolution is a religion. Instead, it is that by applying principles of the study of religion to different things, one can come to a fuller understanding of them. There are aspects of evolutionists behavior that mimic the behavior of a zealot. I wouldn't push the argument much further unless we were drinking a beer.
That said, I concede the argument.
You do know that proponents of ID don't claim the universe or earth is 6,000 years old?
Also, you mentioned performing experiments. What is your field--what is your area of expertise?
How does Dembski's illustration not apply? Are you aware of a flaw with what he is saying, or is the obviousness of your post all you want to share?
How does Dembski's illustration not apply?
I'll stand on the obvious... Science is not chess. It is not a game. Showing something is not possible within the rules of a game doesn't prove or demonstrate anything. Or are we going to redefine 'game' now ;)
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.