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 I'm paying, I'd rather see a child get an education than send them to school and let them "decide" to waste time learning charlatan BS in class. The whole purpose of school is to teach. They can "decide" to reject science for superstition after they get their diploma.
Oh yeah, the Darwinist's most favored "accepted science" gambit.
Keep repeating, "accepted science", "accepted science", "accepted science".....
What frauds you all are.
"Science" ASKS questions ALWAYS and FOREVER. No "scientific" "FACT" is immune to change in accordance with new "SCIENCE".
Darwinian evolution is a religion as it is currently established and practiced.
I don't KNOW how this all came together, neither do you, NOBODY does.
"Accepted science" my royal Irish A$$
Come on. How much "pressure" are ID advocates able to put on school boards compared to very powerful groups like the ACLU? And what effect would introducing ID into the curriculum have except lead to a lot more debate and student interest in the controversy? To say that it would return us to some kind of scientific Dark Ages is just paranoid.
And it makes claims about those processes that preclude the possibility of a designer. Random selection is an atheist doctrine.
SCIENCE doesn't really challenge the existence of God, anymore than a book on the rules of chess challenges the existence of people.
for people who believe in God, the laws of evolution were determined by God.
if God decided to create the laws of evolution, why challenge Him on it?
Nice, fair, balanced article. Thanks for posting.
Which theory of evolution? Evolution as defing by what system of thought? Darwinism? Random selection?
Starting points and basic assumptions matter.
That's where he doesn't get it. The supernatural is always a possible explanation, but where we accept it as a possibility, we stifle the search for natural explanations.
Case in point; it used to be thought that human disease was a consequence of sin, and that therefore the only efficacious way of curing it was prayer. The Black Death is a testimony tot eh effectiveness of that approach. Starting in about the 18th century, we started to look for naturalistic causes for disease, and now we accept that disease has naturalistic and not supernatural causes. As a result we've been able to find cures for many diseases, where previously supernaturalists came up with no effective treatment at all.
That is why we adopt methodological naturalism. And, of course, so does Colson. When he gets sick, he goes to a doctor, not a preacher.
Borges: They are what they are based on what can be demonstrated by evidence.
Also absolutely correct.
Borges: ID is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested
Not true. The concept of ID is that there is a way to objectively measure and test for "design." If more scientists would spend time working this concept or at least allowing it to be pursued, the issue would be more properly resolved.
Borges: nor has it led to any other scientific discoveries.
Whether something has led to other discoveries is not of significance in whether it can be studied scientifically or not.
shuckmaster: designed things are built as simply and efficiently as possible to still be functional while there's no limits to the complications of evolutionary biology.
Almost certainly true. This is the proper way to attack ID as an explanation for biological evolution. 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.
shuckmaster: The charlatans who promote this ineducable complexity BS are selling books to the most ignorant anti-science sentiment of the uneducated masses.
This attitude only helps to promote ID by showing its adherents that they are not being listened to. Some acknowledgment of legitimacy for the investigation is necessary to make the point above. Science is not advanced by calling others fools and refusing to pay attention to possibilities.
When they actually start invoking the Book of Genesis to back up their theory, then you'd have at least the beginnings of a case to make. Until then, it's just theory that you disagree with. I think the people are capable of deciding that in their own school districts, and especially in a situation, there will be plenty of debate and plenty of opportunity to persuade the voters. That's how things are supposed to work in a free republic. It's sad that so many people around here don't get that.
It's no where close to as way out there as irreducible complexity is and there's no legitimate religious documents or verse teaching the charlatan BS of irreducible complexity but, heads up. There's people with a perverted agenda trying to slip it into your children's classroom by preying on the religious sentiment of school board members who don't have a background in biological science.
Thank you.
If so, since it exists only in your mind, you must be an atheist
Funny handle for an atheist, though.
only God could have created the rules/laws of evolution.
I was talking about having the people decide - the voters, that is. That includes you.
God is incapable of setting up initial conditions such that they evolve without further interference? Isn't He supposed to be omnipotent?
I didn't state that. I would think that a Christian would believe in Jesus and that Jesus was God's Son, and in believing that, the Bible is true....yes, it is written by men, but Darwin's evolution theory is written by a man also. Believe what you will...we all find Truth in the end.
FMCDH(BITS)
What? Back up the turnip truck and explain that one. I missed something.
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.