Posted on 10/01/2005 5:09:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Professor focused on intelligent design as theology, not science, at Dover trial Friday.
HARRISBURG — If there is a God, then he could have made the monkey and the human with similar genetic material.
In the fifth day of Dover Area School District’s trial over intelligent design, John Haught, a Georgetown University theology professor, agreed that was true.
So, the idea that “we came from some monkey or ape is conjecture at this point?” Dover’s lead attorney Richard Thompson asked Haught under cross-examination.
Haught disagreed.
In a First Amendment battle in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg, the Dover district is defending its decision last year to include intelligent design in its biology curriculum. Eleven parents filed suit against the district arguing the concept is a veiled attempt to force religion into science class.
On Friday, Thompson, in trying to cast doubt over the theory of evolution — referred to as the unifying concept of modern biology — raised the issue of common descent.
But Haught said that in the world of science, there is little debate that humans share a common ancestor.
The professor, who spoke deliberately and extensively on the philosophical differences between religion and science, was the day’s sole witness.
Questioned by plaintiffs’ attorney Alfred Wilcox, he said intelligent design’s basic premise — that the complexity of life defies all explanation but the existence of a designer — is essentially an old religious argument based on the 13th-century writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the “watchmaker” analogy put forth in 1802 by British philosopher William Paley.
A person walking through a field stumbles upon a watch. It is carefully assembled and wouldn’t function without all its parts working together. The person’s inevitable conclusion? The watch must have a maker.
Under cross-examination, Thompson asked if there was a controversy in the scientific community over the idea of irreducible complexity — essentially, the watchmaker’s observation that if a single working part of an organism were to be removed, the entire system would cease to function.
Haught told him that there exists a controversy between Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, who coined the term, and most of the scientific community.
“So, you agree there is a controversy?” Thompson asked.
While most of plaintiffs’ expert testimony this week focused on establishing that intelligent design is not science, Haught’s focused on why it’s theology.
Science asks, “How?” he said. Religion asks, “Why?”
As an example, Haught compared the differences to water boiling on the stove.
What causes it to boil?
Well, one could answer it’s because of rapidly vibrating water molecules.
Another answer could be because “I want a cup of tea,” Haught suggested.
Both are correct answers, but one doesn’t discount the other.
One doesn’t bring the subject of desiring tea into the study of molecular movement.
It’s also a mistake to say, Haught said, “It’s the molecular movement rather than I want tea.”
The best apparent explanation for the fact that X and Y share common properties A, B, C, D .... n is that X and Y descended from Q.
Are you into econometrics? (aside)
You know, I think it's kinda interesting that we have this gang of evo cranks who seem to exist on FR only to post evo threads--if you look at their histories, they don't have much to say about war, taxes, elections--they just come here to grind their evo-ax .
I guess FR contains a reliable pool of the Great Unwashed, where the ersatz "scientists" can come display their intellectual plumage, stroke their feathers, and leave.
It's getting to be kind of a bore.
You are babbling now. You already responded to my refutation. It is not your incoherence that was the basis of the refutation, but rather your false analogy. You did learn about that in Speech 101 did you not? Your initial premise is a false analogy, I need not bother with the rest.
Scientists don't base common ancestory of humans and monkeys on their DNA being similar.
It's not a jury trial, so it's all up to the judge -- a republican appointed by Bush the younger. We were discussing the judge in an earlier thread, and the possibility of his being a party hack who will, perhaps, do the popular thing. No way to know.
On the merits, the plaintiffs seem to be winning. Here is something on the possible outcome that I said in that earlier thread: post 159.
Yet another ignorant claim that probabilities of unknown processes can be calculated. You guys need some new material.
You have evidence of 16-atom oxygen chains, I assume?
Please explain how pure naturalism(as opposed to some theistic alternative) can explain the development of both human reason and human consciousness.
If, as naturalism claims, the reasoning of the human mind is merely the product of the movement of atoms and electrons, then we have no reason to believe any of our reasoning is true. Moreover, what mechanism would cause this naturalistic phenomenon to realize it even exists?
Moreover, what naturalistic process would allow a person to, by mere will, manipulate this electronic/material process of thought, to direct where his mind goes? One can argue that this ability is an illusion, but if it is an illusion, then we have no reason to believe in any of our ideas or scientific observations, naturalistic or theistic.
This is akin to the reproductive process of a virus. What we know about biology tells us that viral infections tend to be detrimental to the host, not advantageous.
This is one of many phenomena that is not yet fully understood -- which does not mean that it is inexplicable, only that we don't yet know. The best thinking about this, to my knowledge, is that it's the result of something called Emergence.
If, as naturalism claims, the reasoning of the human mind is merely the product of the movement of atoms and electrons, then we have no reason to believe any of our reasoning is true.
Nor would we have any reason to be confident if a supernatural agency were responsible. The only reason for confidence in our ability to reason is its demonstrated effectiveness in the natural world. That's what science is all about.
Sounds like the standard creationist handbook. Make a "science-like" statement, get called on it, change the subject.
To address your statements. Is "will" a scientific concept? Do animals display this property of "will"? If they do, do they have souls? If animals have souls, are we wrong to treat them any differently than ourselves?
Actually biologists don't this at all. What's known is that viruses can be responsible for diseases, but they can also insert genes into host cells' DNA creating new abilities. The healthcare industry has been exploiting this property of viruses for decades.
Merely the movement of atoms and electrons? As opposed to what? Ectoplasm in motion?
We are patterns in motion whether these patterns are instantiated in some supernatural stuff or mere matter. Thus I don't see why the one should be more reliable than the other.
That's-what-science-is-all-about placemarker.
Nice debate. But all you have to do is look at some bones and the DNA. It becomes clear pretty quick.
Ever sit in a roomfull of bones and arrange things so that they look right to you then compare your results with what others get? Great fun!
how "CAN" the ToE explain the rise of sexual reproduction and eventual sexual dimorphism?
easily enough. but I suspect you will dismiss any such explanation without consideration, so I won't bother taking a layman's stab at it.
Haha. That hardly presents a more logical solution. It essentially states the same thing I did. The problem remains: The conclusion has nothing to do with the premise.
I am sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. I gave no analogy. I simply stated the logical fomula for chimp DNA hypothesis. You stated essentially the sAME formula! I think we are done since you are unable to coherently respond to the problem.
A hypothesis has to be logical to be valid, and the chimp DNA hypothesis is illogical. It violates the laws of logic as I pointed out and no one has yet adequately answered the problem. Conclusion doesn't follow premise; law of the excluded middle applies; similar does not equate to identical (fallacy of equivocation). This is not science. That's 3 strikes and yerrrr out!
A hypothesis has to be logical to be valid, and the chimp DNA hypothesis is illogical. It violates the laws of logic as I pointed out and no one has yet adequately answered the problem. Conclusion doesn't follow premise; law of the excluded middle applies; similar does not equate to identical (fallacy of equivocation). This is not science. That's 3 strikes and yerrrr out!
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I saw the X, Y, Q etc. example above, but have no idea of its applicability to what we are talking about. I'll let others deal with that.
I do know a bit about bones and have handled casts of many of the important fossils. These are a significant part of the data underlying the theory of evolution. What is your opinion on those?
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.