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.
BTTT
What one does, however, with the paradigm is what determines whether a person practices "religion". It is entirely possible that a scientist can keep his pursuit of empirical knowledge totally separate from his religion, or lack of religion. It is also possible that he can exercise some of the less favorable traits of religion (which non-religious persons invariably use to attack religion) in pursuing his science. He can become dogmatic. He can argue from faith, unsupported by evidence. He can seek support among like-minded scientists when his position is challenged, instead of facing the challenge and defeating it with superior evidence and logic. It seems that among religious people and scientists, the first to resort to dogma appear to be the less well prepared to argue based on the merit of their ideas.
What is important to distinguish in calling evolutionism "religion" is how the belief set dictates behavior. Being an "intellectually fulfilled athiest" due to Darwin smacks of using the implications of science to inform meditations of the eternal, the first cause, etc. To the extent that evolutionists assert dogma and respond to queries with answers that sound like evolutionist versions of "Blasphemer!" they are religious. Period.
That said, I don't think the majority of scientists practice a religion called evolutionism. Most of the people who argue for evolution are very sharp, and have valid, well-reasoned ideas. But the periphery is made up of a lot of folks who argue for evolution because it is what they were taught in school. They went on to do other things in life, not science. But like Dawkins, evolution allowed them to be fulfilled. It contributed to their world view, and now, when that is challenged, they don't have the knowledge of science to fall back on and thus fall into the trap of practicing blind evolutionism. Just like religious fanatics who quote the bible to argue against evolution, these evolutionists have nothing to add to the argument.
I've now discussed evolution and ID with folks on both side of the spectrum. By far, the scientists have been far more polite and educated, and have offered the best retorts. I have learned a lot from them, and I am grateful for their measured responses. The others--well, the best they have to offer is the tried and true: "Blasphemer!" They may have reinforced their own world view, for the time being. But they haven't modified mine.
His belief in a Creator was a precondition to his physical theories.Physics was confined to the discernment of secondary causes No different from that of those today which think of evolution as the manner by which God does his work of Creation. . So far as I know, no one at the time ascribed the movment of physical objects to "supernatural" causes. If you are talking about miracles, that is something else entirely. Unlike Dawkins, for instance, Galileo did not rule out them out. If you are taking about spirits, the only example I can think of is the more or less poetic notion that the heavenly spheres were moved by angels.
No, no. I never hold grudges unless the grudgee gets personal with members of my family and you never do that. Knockdown, dragout, shake hands, good to go.
But just because something is being more intensely debated doesn't make it correct. For instance, Islam is being talked about all the time right now - and rightfully so. But that doesn't make Islam correct.
The public is not made up of ignoramuses. But the public can sometimes be easily misled. That is the case with ID.
Evolutionary biology is not going to disappear anytime soon. Neither is Christianity. But as more and more people learn about what evolutionary biology is, they will come to realize that it is not a threat to their belief in God.
The reason so many people are initially attracted to ID is because they do not approve of the way the left uses evolution as a means to diminish God, faith, and morality. But those are political problems, not scientific ones. Evolution, left to itself, is only a materialistic mechanism without any political undertones. Once people realize this, then the movement to make ID a scientific idea will fade away.
Right now people are sorting this all out and things will get emotional on both sides. But things will eventually settle down, with faith and science both strengthened.
" His belief in a Creator was a precondition to his physical theories."
No it wasn't, it was a coincidence. And now you are calling it *belief in a Creator* when before you said it was *Divine Revelation*. That is a very different thing. Name one part of Galileo's theories that relies on supernatural causes (which was the original point of contention). Name one part of Galileo's theories that relies on Divine Revelation.
Coincidence? No, these beliefs were essential to Galileo's thought. If you insist on characterizing God's actions as supernatural causes, then understand my point that Galileo took for granted that God was the FIRST Cause and that HE had provided Galileo with the sand box he was allowed to play in.
Strangely, my experience is the opposite. Despite the fact that I basically agree with the "scientists" I find that any attempt to treat ID or those who have ID views with respect result in ad-hominum attacks and insulting remarks. The "scientists" favorite responses are "liar" and "idiot" rather than "blasphemer".
A look back through this thread will, I think, show that those opposed to ID more frequently resort to name calling than those in favor.
Well stated, although I would add "without religious undertones" as well.
Right now people are sorting this all out and things will get emotional on both sides. But things will eventually settle down, with faith and science both strengthened.
I can only hope you are right.
you may be right that the idea of random mutation is a bias that is not supported by evidence, but i don't even understand what you mean by saying it doesn't work with statistical science, that it's not plausible, and that it's a dead end assumption.
"Blasphemer!" is not what they say, but their reason for saying it. Just as a close-minded religious person yells "Blasphemy!" when his faith is challenged, so do these uneducated evolutionists cry "liar!" or "stupid!" when the core of their faith is challenged. Other than that, we seem to agree.
If that's the best argument you have, you have lost it.
Only in a closed system. The universe may not be closed.
Also, entropy is in the eyes of the beholder, is it not?
radioactive decay. So you are saying nothing is acting on the atom from without or acting inside from within? I find that hard to believe. If an effect occurs without a cause, than that effect is self-existent. There is only one effect that I know of that is self-existent--I AM the Beginning and the End. But of course, we cannot have an eternal being that would mess up our temporal understanding. A God who delights in confounding man. A God who says all the nations of this world are vanity and He counts them less than vanity. A God who looks as flesh as grass or grasshoppers and earth is His footstool. Many people believed the sun revolved around the earth and later found out that the earth revolves around the sun. A lot of people still believes this universe revolves around the earth. Atheists believe in ultra-violet and infra-red light but to the naked eye it is invisible so it is with God.
Ok for all the hard core evolutionists why is so painful to have a being or beings directing the process. Maybe it is an exterrestial being. Most religions of the world believe the gods or a god made this world. So just because you don't want to give credit to the God of Bible doesn't mean you can't have some being doing it. You could go with Zeus.
In regards to cause and effect, you say something just occurs. A force just happens to exist in the universe and this non-intelligent force causes a big bang that makes the earth. Last I checked explosives, caused destruction making things burn up or go randomly in different directions
as well as having smaller pieces. Then we say that this cooled planet just happens to be just the right distance from the sun in just the right place in our galaxy. Wouldn't evolution work better if there was life that we could observe on all the other planets and moons in our solar system? Last I checked, I don't recall anyone finding any life on them.
And Arp has an entirely different theory! Based on his observations that cannot be explained by the BBT.
Be that as it may, the universe is not required to conform to that which we find easy to believe.
If an effect occurs without a cause, than that effect is self-existent.
Exactly.
There is only one effect that I know of that is self-existent--I AM the Beginning and the End.
Well, now you know two things like that. Perhaps we'll find more still ;)
Merely gilding the lily.
Statistical: We have all seen the math regarding the number of mutations necessary for a simple organism to occur by random selection. The numbers exceed the atoms in the universe.
Plausible: If a simple organism can not exist by random selection in the time frame of the known universe, that hypothesis is implausible.
Dead end assumption: This is the same argument used against ID. Random is a process that can not be tested. Only if the system is systemic can it be tested.
At its root, evolution is based on a closed set of ideas that can not be tested and proven. It is a religious belief, albeit nontheistic, not science.
There!
How's that for stirring the pot?
Two notes on the uncaused cause.
First,it has been a principle It has been an unassailable philosophical and logical position since the Greek philosophers that there can not be an uncaused cause. It was Occum who posed the notion that a thing stands alone, without precedents or antecedents. I do not remember that his position had much merit with the likes of Kant, Hegel, Locke and their ilk.
Second, I distinctly remember one of my theology profs insisting that there can be no uncaused cause in the universe. I guess I took that as an Aquinian proof of God.
Anyway, that is an idea that I have not seriously challenged for 40 years. Can you point me to some literature?
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.