Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Posted on 10/19/2005 11:23:30 PM PDT by nickcarraway
No sooner had the Darwinists ended their 80th anniversary celebrations of the Scopes trial than they turned their attention to conducting censorship trials of their own. The ACLU has gone from defending teachers to prosecuting them. In a federal courtroom this week, the ACLU argued that science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania, are not free under the Constitution to question evolutionary theory. That the Dover school board has to defend the constitutionality of its science curriculum before a federal judge is one more illustration of the insane First Amendment jurisprudence of the last 50 years.
The elite, sensing a chance to score a victory against critics of Darwinism, are watching the trial breathlessly. Slate has assigned famed correspondent Hanna Rosin to cover the trial; the New York Times dispatched Laurie Goodstein -- note that she is a religion not science reporter for the paper -- to cover it. There is an all-hands-on-deck feel to the reporting, which has been made even more critical by the presence of the Dover school board's star witness, Lehigh university biochemist Michael Behe. A dreaded scientist who perversely refuses to accept the overwhelming and obvious "consensus" in favor of Darwinism.
While neither Rosin nor Goodstein are up to the task of explaining evolutionary theory convincingly, they do realize the sacred duty of stopping this scientist. He's wandered much too far on to the Darwinists' turf.
Garbling the elite's dogmatic schema, Goodstein, in the Wednesday edition of the Times, had Behe challenging the "Darwinian theory of random natural selection." Random natural selection? No, no, Ms. Goodstein, nature selects not randomly but necessarily, choosing random mutations that happen to prove useful, under Darwin's theory. What is nature? And how does it choose with such incredible precision and marvelous efficiency? Well, that's not important and certainly not within the province of science, even if Aristotle, who probably believed in Gods and went to temple, did consider these questions in The Physics and concluded that nature requires an intelligent cause.
Goodstein doesn't have the Darwinian terminology down, but she is keenly aware of the elite's favorite argument for evolutionary theory: the scientific establishment says it is so and no reasonable person would question these omniscient scientists. Here's how she presents that point: "Scientific critics of intelligent design -- and there are many -- have said for years that its proponents never propose any positive arguments or proofs of their theory, but rest entirely on finding flaws in evolution." What delightful casualness.
Never mind that through history scientists -- and there are many -- have considered it "science" to examine a theory and find it inadequate if it couldn't explain the facts they did know, such as that beings in nature contain awe-inspiring intricacy, beings they couldn't replicate with their own intelligence. But then what do they know next to the scientific experts at the ACLU?
Aristotle was one of those creationists in a cheap toga who concluded that the abundant design in nature points to an intelligent cause even if that cause isn't visible. "For teeth and all other natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of chance or spontaneity is this true," he wrote in The Physics, a book that the ACLU would argue violates the separation between church and state.
Though Darwinism resembles an astonishing fable of chance -- the Greek mythmaker Empedocles, not Darwin, deserves credit for launching the idea that nature is undesigned and the product of genetic happenstance -- Goodstein feels confident enough to lampoon Intelligent Design as no more scientific than "astrology." She provides no proof in her story, but leads with the claim that Behe "acknowledged that under his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly as intelligent design." Doesn't Goodstein know that astrology is one of her secularist audience's favorite hobbies?
The problem with Behe's testimony for Hanna Rosin was not too little scientific explanation but too much. She found it all very taxing.
"The courtroom, it turns out, is a poor place to conduct a science class. Behe runs through specific examples of 'irreducible complexity' -- his idea that certain biochemical structures are too complex to have evolved in parts: blood clotting cascades, the immune system, cells," she writes. "He claims his critics have misread crucial bits of data. To a nonscientist such as myself (and presumably the judge), this is like Chinese: I recognize the language, but I have no idea whether the speaker is faking it. I have no context, no deeper knowledge of the relevant literature. The reporter seated next to me has written only four lines of notes for three hours of testimony. The mere fact that the trial is being conducted in such highly technical language means, for the moment, ID is winning."
Nevertheless, she is sure Behe's wrong, and adduces herself as evidence that intelligent design is impossible, "I need look no further than myself for counter-evidence: weak ankles, diabetes, high probability of future death. If there is a designer, she doesn't seem so intelligent."
Scientists who stood alone used to inspire a little more deference in the left. But Michael Behe is one nonconformist they won't defend. The silencers of unpopular science once feared ACLU lawyers. Now they retain them.
George Neumayr is executive editor of The American Spectator.
exerpt from: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm
The development of potentiality to actuality is one of the most important aspects of Aristotle's philosophy. It was intended to solve the difficulties which earlier thinkers had raised with reference to the beginnings of existence and the relations of the one and many. The actual vs. potential state of things is explained in terms of the causes which act on things. There are four causes:
Material cause, or the elements out of which an object is created;
Efficient cause, or the means by which it is created;
Formal cause, or the expression of what it is;
Final cause, or the end for which it is.
Take, for example, a bronze statue. Its material cause is the bronze itself. Its efficient cause is the sculptor, insofar has he forces the bronze into shape. The formal cause is the idea of the completed statue. The final cause is the idea of the statue as it prompts the sculptor to act on the bronze. The final cause tends to be the same as the formal cause, and both of these can be subsumed by the efficient cause. Of the four, it is the formal and final which is the most important, and which most truly gives the explanation of an object. The final end (purpose, or teleology) of a thing is realized in the full perfection of the object itself, not in our conception of it. Final cause is thus internal to the nature of the object itself, and not something we subjectively impose on it.
God to Aristotle is the first of all substances, the necessary first source of movement who is himself unmoved. God is a being with everlasting life, and perfect blessedness, engaged in never-ending contemplation
Everything that I have read from Aristotle indicates that he believed in an Intelligent Designer, not random acts and mutations that evolution would indicate. The intelligent designer that he wrote about and believed in just happened to be God.
Have you noticed how creationist attitudes mirror the attitudes of communists? Both have an innate loathing of the "elite" and play on peoples' distrust of those smarter, more educated, or more successful to garner power.
He didn't say "left-wing liberal bias." He said "elite" -- as in somehow better than the average person. Only to creationists and communists is "elite" a perjorative.
Actually the plaintiffs are parents who are contesting the situation based on the 'establishment clause' of the Constitution...it has little to do with teaching one theory over another...the problem for the plaintiffs is that it suggests religion in the public place...
Additionally, your use of the term 'teach' is highly inaccurate in this case...ID is introduced by a single short paragraph indicating that some people believe in it as an explanation of species origination, and gives supporting material to be studied at some other time and place...no teacher is being forced to 'teach' ID in Dover.
AS usual, people need to get facts straight before opining...
The bottom line, to paraphrase what you said, is that natural selection does not allow for a guide to the system and yet (as an example) we see that animals choose their mates, an "intelligent cause" which evidently would contribute to variation, adaptation, etc.
> B/c its their court and they can do what they want to
No. If I'd asked if someone had the *right* to make a decision about something, that would be true. But I asked how it's possible to make a *sound* decision about a theory that doesn't exist yet. It'd be like asking Ebert and Roeper to give thumbs up or down to the third holographic feelaround movie to be released in 2347.
That's advice you should consider taking. Teachers in Dover are being forced to read a four paragraph anti-science statement and are even forced to recommend a charlatan book to the students who are taking the class expecting to learn science.
The dogmatic darwinists and athiests at FR are getting nervous.How do we know?
They`re getting more shrill and DU sounding everyday.
Mehhh,better that they`re purged and sent packing to DU-ish lands anyhow.
Didn't Aristotle also either argue, suggest or tacitly assume that the universe and it's order (including life) had existed eternally? If so not only was he not a "creationist" as the editorialist claims, but he wasn't an evolutionist either.
Exactly! Likewise, both have an agenda to dumb down our education system (even further).
Thanks. I was going to make a similar comment, but you said it quite well. My only quibble would have been to change "sneak religious supersitions into science class" to "allow religious dogma to masquerade as scientific knowledge in a science class".
In science, the only valid criticism of an existing theory is an alternate theory that explains all of the data as well as, or better, than the existing theory. Examination of areas where an existing theory requires refinement is part of the on-going process of science, something that scientists do every day. What they don't do is to introduce untestable hypotheses as valid alternatives to testable, theory-based, hypotheses.
I disagree.
There are numerous criticisms of weaknesses when they become apparent. One need not propose an alternate theory to recognize something wrong with a current one.
Thanks for the affirmation, AG.
I aver that it cannot be an alternative, since (a) it only refers to "certain features" not "all features" and, (b) it refers to both the universe and living things and, (c) it does not dispute that mutations and natural selection occur.
The intelligent design hypothesis states that "certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."
As a final point, the intelligent design hypothesis (except for the word 'best' which I also find problematic since it is comparative) is testable and is being tested albeit not under the label "intelligent design hypothesis".
Investigations into intelligence as an emergent property of self-organizating complexity, fractal intelligence in cells, information theory (successful communication) in molecular biology, autonomy in biological systems, biosphere or universe as an evolution of one (fecundity principle), semiosis and the ilk - all will effectively test the hypothesis that "intelligent cause" is the explanation for "certain features" of the universe or life.
Behe shines and the godless Darwinists want him censored.
Actually the censorship seems to be on the other side. Creationists want to censor an entire field of scientific study because their particular brand of divine revelation leads them to different answers.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
You're missing my point. Looking for, and finding, weaknesses in a given theory is part of the process of science. If one is sensitive to the semantics of words, "criticism" usually implies disparagement. Highlighting weaknesses in a theory as a form of criticism provides an appearance of undermining the structural robustness of a theoretical framework. This is misleading because investigating weaknesses in a theory is primarily a process of strengthening the theoretical framework.
If this process should result in a major discrepancy, (which can happen) then it may be valid to say that there is "something wrong" with the theory, and a major refinement or alternative theory is required.
You initially said:
ID "IS" a criticism of evolutionary theory and problems with it. It has not been presented as an alternative theory, but as a criticism.
That's not true. ID has been proposed as an alternative explanation for perceived weaknesses in evolutionary theory, though the offered explanation does not rise to the level of alternative theory, as you correctly state. If ID proponents were willing to work properly within science, their effort to investigate apparent weaknesses in evolutionary theory might meet with more acceptance. Highlighting weaknesses without having a viable alternative theory is analogous to heckling a sports team from the stands rather than actually playing the game on the field and by the rules. Just a sports team wouldn't allow a heckler to take the field and play, scientists shouldn't allow individuals or groups offering vacuous criticisms to influence the scientific process or the instruction of science in classrooms.
Otherwise science turns into Lysenkoism when it is not politically allowable to criticize a certain mindset. ALl our students are instructed to challenge the presuppositions and think for themselves -- except in this one area.
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.