Posted on 10/24/2005 1:46:30 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
ARTICLE: The Science Community's Myopia Over Intelligent Design by William Dembski
By attacking intelligent design theory, the scientific establishmentcontinues to insulate evolutionary biology from critique and discussion. The challenge of intelligent design for evolutionary biology is real. This is not like someone who claims that ancient technologies could not have built the pyramids, so goblins must have done it. We can show how, with the technological resources at hand, the ancient Egyptians could have produced the pyramids. By contrast, the material mechanisms known to date offer no such insight into biological complexity. Cell biologist Franklin Harold, in his most recent book, The Way of the Cell, remarks that in trying to account for biological complexity, biologists have thus far proposed merely "a variety of wishful speculations." If biologists really understood the emergence of biological complexity in material terms, intelligent design couldn't even get off the ground. The fact that they don't accounts for intelligent design's quick rise in public consciousness. Give us detailed, testable, mechanistic accounts for the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of ubiquitous biomacromolecules and assemblages like the ribosome, and the origin of molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum, and intelligent design will die a quick and painless death.
But that hasn't happened and shows no signs of happening. Nor has the "refutation" of intelligent design by scientists and scholars been nearly as successful as attacks--such as last year's "no intelligent design in schools" resolution by the American Association for the Advancement of Science--suggest.
The discussion is ongoing and vigorous. A design-theoretic research program is now taking shape. Moreover, the claim that no evidence supports intelligent design is false plenty of evidence supports it provided that evidence is not ruled inadmissible on a priori grounds (much as Kepler's elliptical orbits were ruled inadmissible because science "knew in advance" that the orbits had to be circular).
The worst fault of the AAAS resolution is its historical myopia and the ill-effects that portends for biology education. From the start, evolutionary biology has invoked intelligent design as a foil. We don't need to explain the structure of a random chunk of rock. We do need to explain the organized complexity of biological structures like the bacterial flagellum. Why? Because they bear the hallmarks of design. (Why else would cell biologists call them "molecular machines"?). Engineering terminology is not optional here. Evolutionary biology itself makes no sense except in light of intelligent design.
What's at issue is not whether evolution has occurred or the degree to which it has occurred but whether the role of intelligence in the evolutionary process is both indispensable and empirically detectable, thus bringing intelligent design squarely within the fold of science.
That WAS my point. That they can observe them. I thought it was a good thing!
He is the chief scientist and the chief witness for ID. What he says under oath will have the weight. If they teach ID they will have to say that God may be dead since there is no evidence for God's intervention in evolution of man from simple organisms.
Item |
Evolution |
ID |
Earth is billions of years old |
Yes |
Yes |
Man evolved from simple organisms |
Yes |
Yes |
God had no influence in evolution |
Unknown |
Yes |
Teach children God may be dead |
No |
Yes |
No one is going to say God is dead. You're just wishing, aren't you?
If you really think that ID and evolution differ only in whether or not God is dead, you're wrong. Do you really, really believe those who are trying to get ID into science class will stand by and let children be told God is dead? Come on.
I didn't say anyone was saying that. I said that ID says we should teach the children that God may be dead. Please don't bear false witness.
Here is what Behe said UNDER OATH!
-----------------------------------
Rothschild asked if it was true that the intelligent designer might not actually exist any longer.
Behe agreed that was true.
Rothschild paused.
"Is that what you want to teach school students, Mr. Behe?" he asked.
As part of a curriculum making students aware of intelligent design, Behe said, "Yes, I think that's a terrific thing to point out."
Do you always distort the subject or do you have problems with comprehension. I said that ID wants to teach children that God may be dead.
Do you really, really believe those who are trying to get ID into science class will stand by and let children be told God is dead? Come on.
Creationists put Mr. Behe on the stand to explain what should be taught to the children. I reckon so. The devil is in the details. Unfortunately for the creos.
No one is saying your boss is dead. You're just wishing aren't you?
I have a hard time understanding people who deny the existence of God but have no problem believing everything on this planet came from one "ancestor". I confess I just don't have that much faith.
That sounds like evolution more than ID.
Item |
Evolution |
ID |
Earth is billions of years old |
Yes |
Yes |
Man evolved from simple organisms |
Yes |
Yes |
God had no influence in evolution |
Unknown |
Yes |
Teach children God may be dead |
No |
Yes |
"what's the evolutionary explanation of homosexuality?"
An Italian study discovered the same genes responsible for homosexuality by men lead to a higher fertility rate by women.
Evolution scientists remind me of Ronnie Earle. Earle first invents a "crime" and then tries to back it up with "evidence."
Darwin has a crazy dream, and then he and other scientists try to back it up with "evidence."
Believing in evolution is not against my religion. God could have used evolution.
However, so far evolution is a silly theory that has not been proved.
The Evolution THEORY is only supported by more THEORIES.
Go figure.
In those days the cell was a black box, a mystery. But in the 20th century, scientists were able to open that black box and peek inside. There they found not a simple blob but a world of complex circuits, miniaturized motors, and digital code. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost unfathomably complex, containing at least 250 genes and their corresponding proteins.
Explains New Zealand geneticist Michael Denton, each cell is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms.
The odds of a primordial soup randomly burping up even one protein strand of moderate length are dramatically less than 1 chance in 10150.
Its hard to grasp how long these odds areone followed by 150 zeros. We know that a lot of strange things can happen in a place as big and old as our universe, but as mathematician and philosopher William Dembski explains in the Cambridge University Press book The Design Inference, the universe isnt remotely big enough, old enough, or fast enough to generate that much complexity.
Nor have attempts to explain this complexity as the natural outworking of the laws of nature proven successful. The best explanation? INTELLIGENT DESIGN. (emphasis mine)
excerpt from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...nd=view&id=2350
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.