Posted on 10/17/2005 5:36:09 PM PDT by gobucks
An international group of scientists have filed a "friend of the court" brief with federal Judge John E. Jones III advising him that "the identification of intelligent causes is a well-established scientific practice" and asking him to allow "the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead."
Jones is presiding over the Dover intelligent design trial.
The 24-page brief — carrying the names of 85 scientists in fields including chemistry, molecular biology, mathematics, neurological surgery and environmental science — states "the definition of science and the boundaries of science should be left to scientists to debate."
"Any (court) ruling that depends upon an outdated or inaccurate definition of science or which attempts to define the boundaries of science could hinder scientific progress," the brief states in asking Jones to find in favor of the Dover Area School Board.
I disagree. The social sciences and humanities and whatnot have always been on the left, at least as far as I remember -- the conservative art historian or sociologist is almost by definition an odd exception. But chemists aren't radicals, and never have been. I'm not sure chemists have changed.
Well you can't play it both ways. The whole point of the Amicus brief is to wow the court by showing them that you have 85 Great Men on your side -- it is, by its very nature, an appeal to their authority. The problem is that their authority isn't very convincing, at least not on its face. I agree that many smart people don't teach at top institutions -- but you're not going to be effective at showing support from authorities (assuming that's what you want) if you can't get people from top institutions to endorse you.
I don't believe that's the case, lots of scientists believe life came about by natural means. I don't, however I speak only for myself.
That being the case, the origin of various life forms has to be the based on intelligent design.
This is where we part ways. The evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution.
If a 'designer' can create one form of life, that designer could just as easily design and create a multitude of life forms.
True, but that doesn't mean He did. Moreover, the evidence points overwhelmingly to Common Descent.
My sincere thanks for linking to this...
About 8,000 years old.
"but you're not going to be effective at showing support from authorities (assuming that's what you want) if you can't get people from top institutions to endorse you."
maybe. but maybe the people at the top reflect a certain kind of cultural sifter at work ... and that given they actually GOT to the top, they dare not mess with them who done brung them to the dance.
Credentialing institutions are a funny place, and the credentialists are a high and mighty bunch. And for the most part, Darwinian thinking suits them well. For a Credentialist, esp one whose signature would appear on diplomas, a great career risk is taken by not following orthodox rationalist dogma (given the 'thought' should dare cross their minds) ... but you probably don't agree.
It's not that the ToE says that life cannot come from non-life. It's that evolution requires a "before" organism and an "after" organism. If there's no self-replicating entity to start with, then the process of evolution can't occur. So the first self-replicating organism must have come about through some means other than replication with mutations.
That's hardly the same as "realizing life cannot come from non-life".
"One reason is that science is not static especially in the area in question involving evolution and cosmology..."
Translation: we need to keep changing the definition of science to make sure evolution still meets the definition (and those wacko IDers don't.)
Science is not static, but the definition is.
About 8,000 years old.
Is that all? I've been in dirt that's lots older than that!
If you don't believe in credentials, then don't have 85 scientists sign a letter listing their credentials.
It is impossible to have an intellectual debate with a creationist.
And with creationists, it is a mob bias mentality that rules their every thought.
LOL -experts are like hired guns -whatever the unsettled issue, one can always find experts on both sides to "expertly" confirm the issue unsettled...
If most of the US population is Christian, why do most people think "wierd" if they see someone reading a bible on their work break?
There is no need for a creator now, whether evolution is true or not.
OTOH, it is the CREOS that are put into doubt since so many creos have invested their livelyhood into preaching a strict interpretation of the Bible and that foundation will come crumbling down. Sort of like when the Church hung its had on a geocentric universe. Already, the Church is moving toward evolution but a radical sect is still pushing ignorant dogma. It will be them that fall, not the belief in a creator.
Geez, this ID stuff gets beyond bizarre.
"Sir Henry Wotton used to say that critics are like brushers of noblemen’s clothes."
The creos are the brushers of the scientists?
From Bacon's biography:
"Bacon held some controversial views on religion, which he judged to be unimportant in comparison with science"
The fallacy of the Infinite Monkey Theorem, which states that given an infinite amount of time the probability that a group of monkeys will type out a work of literature is 1. This theorem overlooks the fact that nature's typewriter -- chemistry -- causes the font to dissolve off the page as soon as the hammer begins to retract. Therefore the probability of life being created by random events is absurd.
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.