Posted on 10/24/2005 5:27:52 PM PDT by gobucks
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.
"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.
Among the panelists was Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents many scholars who support intelligent design.
He said intelligent design was "based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics."
Many leading Czech thinkers, however, boycotted the conference, insisting the theory - which is being debated in the United States - is scientifically groundless.
Intelligent design holds that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying a higher power must have had a hand. Critics contend it is repackaged creationism and improper to include in modern scientific education.
Vaclav Paces, chairman of the Czech Academy of Sciences, called the conference "useless."
"The fact that we cannot yet explain the origin of life on Earth does not mean that there is (a) God who created it," Paces was quoted as telling the Czech news agency CTK.
The mousetrap man
Interview with Mike Behe, the mousetrap1 man
by Carl Wieland
Dr Michael Behe is associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, USA. His book Darwin’s Black Box has caused quite a stir among Darwinists for its profound attack on ‘blind watchmaker’ evolution. It highlights ‘intelligent design’ as an obvious, logical explanation for the intricacy of biochemical systems found in living things.
Although biblical creationists have been able to make good use of his powerful arguments, Dr Behe does not claim to be on our side. When I spoke to him briefly on the phone for this article, he confirmed that ‘if there was good evidence for it [life coming about through some sort of evolutionary process], I would just accept that.’ A Roman Catholic, he says he does not have ‘any theological difficulties’ with the idea that we came from fish via ape-like ancestors.
‘No … well, I think it should be decided on the evidence. The idea of common descent has support, and also some problems. Right now, I’m willing to accept it as a reasonable working hypothesis, but I could always change my mind.’
Was Adam or Eve the original carrier of syphilis?
"Dr Behe does not claim to be on our side."
And this is the guy the creo's are following? AIG looks absollutely stellar compared to the zealots here.
Apparently you don't know the difference between ID and Creationism. They are like two overlapping circles. There are some Creationists who abhor ID because it focuses on science and design and is agnostic about Christian theology. There are different flavors of Creationists as well. I have little use or patience with Young-earth Creationists for example.
I do. That is why I am so amazed at how creationists can support teaching children that God may be dead.
Those opposed to ID are reluctant to face the fact that they look at the world from a peculiar perspective that dates to Leipnitz or Hume. In other words, they don't even know the philosphical foundation of their science. At least they don't even bother to argue that all knowledge is empirical, as if that were self evident. But men like Einstein and Goedel disagreed with them on this point.
ID doesn't purport God is dead. ID is agnostic about who the designer is. Whether Behe personally accepts macro evolution is irrevelant. ID is not synonymous with macro evolution. ID focuses on patterns to show design. Your points make no sense. AMF
You've got that mixed up. Evolution/science is neutral on God, ID strives to teach children that God may be dead.
Then you can't support ID. In fact, isn't ID supporting a "false god"? hmmm.
Are you saying that what Behe says is irrelevant to ID? Time to come out of your hole.
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.
OP=original post. "At war attitude" from me? You don't think your OP to me was combative? If you know so little about the theory of evolution that you aren't aware of its numerous predictions, including the ones that I had already outlined when you asked me to cite some, then how do you feel competent to talk so disparagingly about it?
Whether Behe personally accepts macro evolution as a working hypothesis is irrevelant. And it was quite a lukewarm acceptance, wasn't it? :-) ID is independent of the means to carry out a design by a creator. Many Catholics can accept guided macro evolution. There are a number of permutations of all these theories.
That'll be "lukewarm" as in complete and explicit acceptance and agreement. Both Darwin's Black Box and Behe's sworn testimony confirms this.
"Just as a detective doesn't have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn't stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened and why."
Interesting analogy, and maybe useful for ID proponency without meaning to be. A forensic approach, rather than a classic scientific one, may be more appropriate for accepting or rejecting ID. What would a study of the "evidence" left produce to a jury? Would life as it is today, and in the fosil record, be seen as a totally chance occurrence (naturalistic evolution) or as a result of a deliberate act by some designer? Examine the total body of evidence from a "legal" point of view. Where would this lead?
ID says designer not creator. In fact, ID says the designer may be dead.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
That's all they could get for an international; conference on such an important issue? Just 700...a questionable number of questionable credentials, for a worldwide conference on such an important issue.
I could probably get 70 for a skins game in December in Illinois.
ID is focused on design and independent of the creator and designer. So theoretically the designer and creator could be dead as far as ID is concerned because it is agnostic about the nature of the designer. That does not mean that ID says that God is dead or that ID supports macro evolution. So the stupid little table that started this discussion is incorrect.
No. ID says that man has evolved WITHOUT the assistance of an ID and that we should teach the children that God may be dead.
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 |
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.