Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
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"Any (court) ruling that depends upon an outdated or inaccurate definition of science or which attempts to define the boundaries of science could hinder scientific progress," the brief states in asking Jones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.
"Not scientists, then."
Two on one line ... pretty good don't you think?!!
How many of these 85 are on record as asserting that the earth is significantly less than 4.5 billion years old, or that common descent is not a fact?
"How many of these 85 are on record as asserting that the earth is significantly less than 4.5 billion years old, or that common descent is not a fact?"
This nonresponse I would characterize as 3 on one line. I reeling them in tonight folks!!
Hmmm. Js, the issue is not I.D. to these 85 folks. The issue is lawyers and judges getting to decide what 'science' is, not the scientists themselves. They don't like it - you know, cross pollution or something like that is in play....
But, I guess you trust Judges and Lawyers to decide what science is for you. In Christian circles that is known as 'faith in legalism'. Even scientist types are tempted by this it seems....
BTW, why do you believe in ID?
How many of these 85 are on record as asserting that the earth is significantly less than 4.5 billion years old, or that common descent is not a fact?
"Don't follow your comment."
None of the 85 signatories to the document work at D.I. They are at mainstream universities... but I suppose since they signed this particular document, that tarnishes them w/ the label of 'nonscientist' even still?
Why do I believe in I.D.?
I wouldn't ask the question that way. I'd ask, why do I find I.D. compatible w/ my beliefs? And the answer is simple: I.D. doesn't start the process of figuring out what we are seeing by immediately eliminating up front a 'designer'.
Darwinism deliberately looks at life, and up front rejects anything other than chance.
ID presumes only one outcome of inquiry.
As long as they want a definition that won't hold up in court, that's fine.
They are wrong. The question what science is belongs to the realm of philosophy. Scientists are competent in their proper fields, chemists know chemical substances, geologists know the rocks etc ... If they go beyond that, they go beyond science.
That is why science was created by the philosophers (inspired by the theology) and practiced by the scientists.
<< 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." >>
I am getting together a group of scientists named Steve that will dwarf this group!
M
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Thanks for your post. I guess gobucks is going to ignore your factual post. Probably caused him/her a pang of pain.
That statement right there (especially the boundaries of science) is just one reason this needs to be in court.
Wolf
Lysenko would no doubt be very happy with this statement.
Coyote
Then you would be in favor of atheists coming into the religion classes and presenting their side?
1. The historical truth of the Bible, donfirmed by both church and secular historians, and backed up by thousands of historical sites discovered/uncovered by archaeologists.
2. The historical truth of the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ as foretold in the Bible; which lends tremendous credibility to the rest of the Bible.
3. Darwinian evolution simply cannot offer a sufficient explanation for life as it exists. This includes the origination of life itself; even in the simplest forms. evolutionists now apparently do not even attempt to argue that life can come from non-life. Evolutionists now claim that evolution never addresses the origin of life, but only how it has evolved. This is a major adjustment in their 'theory'. If they cannot explain how life originated in the first place, they pretty much concede the real possibility of an intelligent designer. Some will even go so far as to admit the possibility of a designer who 'originated/created' life.
4. Given that evolution has so many holes, gaps, and other failures in evidence; ID is the only other viable explanation, unless you can think of a third.
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.