Being Stalked by Intelligent Design

American Scientist ^ | Nov-Dec Issue 2005 | Pat Shipman

[Rudder]

I ignored the threat for a long time. I groaned at the letters to the editor in our local paper that dismissed evolution as "just a theory" and proclaimed the superiority of "Intelligent Design" (ID) to explain the world around us. When a particular emeritus professor pestered me with e-mails asking how I explained this or that aspect of the fossil record (How could a flying bird evolve from a non-flying species? Did I think feathered dinosaurs were real?), I answered him time and again—until I realized that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I suggested. When this same man stood up, yet again, after a lecture to read a "question" that was actually a prepared statement about ID, I rolled my eyes.

[staytrue]

An open exchange of ideas may be let into our government schools!!

Not every thought needs to be dicusssed in schools. No need to discuss if Lincoln was gay. No need to discuss Sally Hemmings children. No need to discuss alternative sexual lifestyles. AND No need to discuss Intelligent design in science class.

[Rudder]

And who ameliorates the bias of the "unbiased"?

Not, who, but what. The answer is experimental design, blind studies, randomization of subjects, analysis of variance, counter-balanced assignment of experimental conditions, etc., etc., peer review and demonstration of repeated replicability of results...not to mention empricial observation.

Neither ID nor creationism even attempt such effort to remove bias.

[shuckmaster]

Deliberate ignorance about science is not a conservative trait. Beware of the trolls who would have you believe it so.

[shuckmaster]

Everyone has an agenda....

What's yours?

[staytrue]

Name one scientifc theory that has been proven.

The theory of special relativity has been proven to be true on all conditions existing on earth today. e=mc2 and the atomic bomb are consequences of special relativity and the fact that the a bomb works is pretty good evidence.

special relativity has not been proven to be true everywhere in the universe and scientists are always on the look out for a case where it does not work. besides it would mean a nobel prize if someone found it.

special relativity may not be true tommorrow. We have every reason to think it will be true tommorrow, but we can't prove it until tommorrow becomes today, but then it would not be tommorrow anymore.

[Rudder]

((((ping)))

[newgeezer]

Anyone who studies nature and is not overwhelmed with the sense that there is a designer behind it all is tragically and perhaps terminally blind.

So right!

Romans 1:18-23 (New American Standard Bible)

Unbelief and Its Consequences

   ¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
   ¹⁹because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
   ²⁰For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
   ²¹For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
   ²²Professing to be wise, they became fools,
   ²³and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

(The next part ticks off the PC crowd even more as it addresses that "terminal blindness" you mentioned.)

[willyd]

That is exactly my point. One out of a million...it would take time for one mutation to be propogated into an entire species, so it would seem that in one layer of rock you would see only a few examples of a fossil with the new mutation and gradually, the numbers would increase as the mutation was procreated. That doesn't seem to be the case. instead, fossil records show up suddenly and in large numbers. The other thing that is weird is that when they look at the earliest fossil records (almost 4 billion years old) the life on this planet was not that diverse, yet only a short time later, there are thousands of different species on record each in significant numbers with no clear examples of in between species. The differences between even the most simple life forms are still so significant that it is hard to imagine that you could go from one to the other without a step in between. So the question remains: where are all the missing links?

[Rudder]

Then why does research still continue of this theory since we know all the answers?

Are you aware of the concept of the Null Hypothesis?

[sagar]

"Darwin himself acknowledged the many flaws in his own theory."

That was because he wasn't a dogmatist. He believed in science and knew science meant improvements based on subsequent discoveries. No such discovery will ever show intelligent design is true, because it involves in the supernatural.

Darwin just presented a more rational model, which disputed the argument of that time("argument by design" theories). Of course, many anti-evolutionists call evolution -- "darwinism" because Darwin was the first to put forth the idea. It is like calling the field of genetics "mandelism", because the monk Gregor Mendel from 17th century discovered genetics.

[staytrue]

finding a contradiction to a commonly held theory is the best discovery a scientist can have on his resume.

There are many scientists looking to discredit every theory around including evolution and even special relativity.

[willyd]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1268 by Henry Schaefer Source: Discovery Institute

This article explains it a lot better than I can. I thought it was interesting though.

[staytrue]

You do not need missing links. You can have quantum leaps which are large discontinuous change.

Quantum leaps are unlikely, but can happen.

[TChad]

I think the theory that the earth revolves around the sun has been proved, also....

Nope.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

[freebilly]

As a non "scientist" I'm not sure of the theory's name. But he destroyed the Aristolean theory that the acceleration of falling objects was dependent on mass. I don't know if Galileo's "empirical observations" prove a theory of gravity, but they prove the basis for all sorts of useful things in the fields like aeronautics.

Unlike those involved in fields like electronics and microbiology, those involved in the field of evolution can point to what achievements? Let's face it, the theories of evolution that have been advanced are interesting, but because they may be slightly more plausible than Creationism why do I have to believe that Evolution is any more or less BS than God creating the Heavens and Earth in 7 days?

Just because Creationism or ID may be crocks of s***, why do I have to believe a bunch of ethno-anthro-botanists when they tell me I'm descended from a 3 foot tall australopithecus based on an examination of a jaw fragment and 1/2 a molar...?

[freebilly]

I knew I'd hear from the lunatic fringe ;^)

[raynearhood]

Sorry, but macro-evolution is not a logical extension of micro evolution. There is nothing...nothing...in the fossil record to back it up. There is nothing in observable tests to back it up. Macro evolution is bad science.

Scientist spend so much time learning "science" that they forget what science is " knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method."(websters-merridian)

Scientific methods principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.(websters-merridian)

SEE THAT??!! the collection of data through OBSERVATION. Tell me one time in recorded history that MACRO-EVOLUTION was observed.

This is simply bad science.extrapolation beyond wha facts are in front of you.Thee a re many other problems withthe theory of evolutu\ion, but I need sleep.

[freebilly]

Read my post 23 then you tell me what my agenda is....

[Rudder]

....finding a contradiction to a commonly held theory is the best discovery a scientist can have on his resume.
There are many scientists looking to discredit every theory around including evolution and even special relativity.

When I first entered graduate school, the professor who later became my dissertation advisor told me, "You may want to strive fo the Nobel Prize, but if you discover just one fact, you'll be heralded for the rest of time. Facts, my boy, are hard to come by."

[GregoTX]

Huh??? What does President Lincon being gay or sexual lifestyles have to do with science classes? you are not making sense. There are allot of scientists, that say that their are problems with evolutionary theory. And you with your commrades in the ACLU want to make sure they are not even mentioned in class. What does that have to do with Sally Hemmings children?