Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Grounded in Science
CBN ^ | November 2005 | By Gailon Totheroh

Posted on 11/13/2005 6:07:54 AM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 621-622 next last
To: elbucko
"Then what are you going to permit to be taught in biology class, that the stork brings babies?"

Accepted science--which "intelligent design" is not--no matter how much it cloaks itself with scientific language. Live with it.

141 posted on 11/13/2005 9:58:28 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
["And in fact,” Meyer said, “it's a science-based argument that may have implications that are favorable to a theistic worldview, but the argument is based on scientific evidence."]

Exactly! Both theories are based in science. Students have a right to learn both theories and decide for themselves.

I regret to inform you that there is actually no "theory of ID". So it might be a bit difficult to have students learn it.

People are overreacting to ID as if it is proposing a return to the belief the world is flat.

In the manner in which the ID movement is attempting to undermine actual scientific discoveries and methodology, it might as well be.

142 posted on 11/13/2005 9:59:44 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Hehehehehehe:) That was funny.

I personally believe that the storks were outsourced:).


143 posted on 11/13/2005 9:59:51 AM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
*grins*

one of y'all gave this to me... time to give it back:

GRAVITY IS *JUST* A THEORY!

144 posted on 11/13/2005 10:01:49 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Wins
Please do not represent ID as being "faith-based," and we can all get along in a calmer atmosphere. Sorry, intelligent design is based on there being a "higher" power involved in the creation of things. I, like many creationists, understand that "higher power" to be God. The existence of God is not generally proven scientifically. It is a devotion based on faith. I base my belief in God in my faith in him (plus lots of other things I've seen happen which could never be proven scientifically). ID is indeed faith-based.

I've been getting along in a calmer atmosphere just fine. For some reason, people want to argue with me when I don't want to.

145 posted on 11/13/2005 10:05:39 AM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Wins
Evolution serves well as a temporary framework to categorize plants and animals in nature.

...and much, much more.

However, the speculation and guesswork used in figuring out what went on eons ago should not be accepted as final proof, in my opinion.

There is no such thing as "proof" in the real world, so you're disingenuously trying to hold evolutionary biology to an impossible standard.

But you misrepresent the very solid and very massive foundation of evolutionary biology. To hand-wave it away as "speculation and guesswork" is extremely dishonest.

"Figuring out what happened eons ago" is on extremely strong footing, at least in regards to the big picture and many of its individual pieces, although of course there will always be some areas where the finer details are more murky. But don't try to pretend that the reconstruction of the history of life on Earth is somehow all nothing but conjecture.

The work of some paleontologists has holes you could drive a truck through.

...and you say that based on your deep knowledge and understanding of paleontology, right? Or might it instead be based on some creationist pamphlets you've read?

But just for fun, feel free to list a few of these "holes" for us, and make sure they're valid representative examples of the field on the whole, and not just rare isolated examples of an idiot somewhere, used dishonestly to try to impugn the quality of paleontology in general.

146 posted on 11/13/2005 10:06:50 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; TAdams8591

just a side note: it would be rather difficult to "return" to the belief that the Earth is flat, as that notion was developed in the 1800's IIRC by a Frenchman and Nathaniel Hawthorn as an Enlightenment slam against religious perversion/retardation of knowledge. No evidence exists that any educated person since (at least) the Classical Period believed the world was flat.


147 posted on 11/13/2005 10:08:45 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

No evidence exists that any educated person since (at least) the Classical Period believed the world was flat.

You mean it's not????????????????????????? OH CRAP!!!!:).


148 posted on 11/13/2005 10:11:07 AM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Wins
A 2001 Gallup Poll showed that 82% of the public believed that life developed from God-directed causes.

You "forgot" to mention that a lot of those believe that God used evolution in order to do it.

I am wondering why evolution has not received more acceptance, since it has been taught in public schools for more than half a century.

Because creationists have lied about it so much that a) a lot of the public has fallen for the dishonest "disproofs" or "evidence against" evolution, b) the straw-man version of evolution presented by the creationists has been mistaken by many for the real thing (just read these threads for many examples) and thus this ridiculous cartoon-version of evolution has been rightly rejected as ridiculous, and c) creationists have been trying to drum up a false "scientific controversy" so much that a lot of the public believes that there must be one, so they're reserving judgment.

In short, it's because of the creationists' "Big Lie" campaign.

In countries where creationists have not embarked on such widespread propaganda campaigns, evolution has very widespread acceptance.

Also, contrary to your implication, evolution is really not taught all that often in American schools except as a passing mention, if at all. Most of the public really has no foundation for forming an informed opinion about evolution in the first place. Those that do ovewhelmingly accept the validity of evolution. A large majority of university students accept evolution, over 90% of scientists accept evolution, and over 99% of biologists accept evolution. The more people actually learn about evolution (and not the creationist straw-man version), the more they accept the truth of it.

And do you *really* want to try to imply that the popularity of an idea determines its truth? The majority of the world's population is *not* Christian, after all.

149 posted on 11/13/2005 10:16:09 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: moog

*grins*

actually, the acceptance of the "people used to believe the world was flat" myth is one of several I have long found puzzling. Another concerns the belief that in days of old people believed the moon actually changed its shape in its monthly cycle.

I have been able to find evidence countering the former myth (Roman imperial regalia and statuary, later European Regal regalia: cf "orbis terrarum") and was recently given the genesis of the myth itself by an Evo here.

I have so far not found evidence countering the latter, but STRONGLY suspect it exists.


150 posted on 11/13/2005 10:21:05 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Another concerns the belief that in days of old people believed the moon actually changed its shape in its monthly cycle.

Some women sure do. :)

I have always wondered if memebers of the Flat Earth society go on many cruises.

151 posted on 11/13/2005 10:23:18 AM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: moog

Stuttered a bit there.


152 posted on 11/13/2005 10:24:52 AM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Wins; moog
[" . . . a lot of people have completely rejected science"]

Not wholeheartedly embracing evolutionary theories isn't the same thing as "rejecting science."

In order to reject evolutionary biology, most folks end up rejecting large portions of physics, geology, paleontology, biology, etc.

And in order to reject those, or other findings of science that they feel contradicts what they'd like to believe, they reject the validity of the scientific method and its results.

That's close enough to "rejecting science" to have earned the description.

153 posted on 11/13/2005 10:28:15 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
"just a side note: it would be rather difficult to "return" to the belief that the Earth is flat, as"

Really????? I think people would be EASILY convinced. /sarcasm

You seemingly failed to get my point.

154 posted on 11/13/2005 10:28:30 AM PST by TAdams8591 (Students deserve a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
In short, it's because of the creationists' "Big Lie" campaign.

You mean, as described in this article?


Scientific Creationism and Error
by Robert Schadewald
(exerpt)

Scientific creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal with error.

Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.

Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true; whatever damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up when possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders. In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate.

Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The "Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them. ...

Creation/Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, Winter 1986.

155 posted on 11/13/2005 10:29:42 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
In order to reject evolutionary biology, most folks end up rejecting large portions of physics, geology, paleontology, biology, etc.

And in order to reject those, or other findings of science that they feel contradicts what they'd like to believe, they reject the validity of the scientific method and its results. That's close enough to "rejecting science" to have earned the description.

Interesting points again. I had a wonderful geology teacher years ago. She sure had a passion for it and I really enjoyed the class--she got her students enthused about geology too. She was also a faithful Christian too.

156 posted on 11/13/2005 10:31:05 AM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: moog
I'm probably overly cryptic.

The basis of calling ID a non-science is Popper and Kuhn.
Although, this is an acceptable and to some canonical answer, it is not the only definition of science.
Their thesis that science is only about those subjects which can be reliably defined in such a way as plausably falsfied or tested.

The failure in much of the ID debate is the supposition of this thesis, and the misunderstanding of what is knowable and the realm of what is intelligent.

Even if we were to make a way to formally state a concept and apply a measure as to how 'true' it is, this truth is but a function of other measures.
One of the measures is How Scientific it is.
In this branch, there are many other sub-measures, and one of these is the Kuhn falsifiable measure.

What the proponents of the Kuhn model fail to detail is that mathematics can answer only a very small domain, and beyond this, relies on the mechanics of human reasoning, which is not 'reasoning' in any dependable fashion.

My use of a hammer as a tool is only as long as it randomly isn't cabbage, or other thing unlike a hammer.

Specifically, the Darwin theory relies on a optimization subject often lumped together as pareto curve (or surface) minimization, and is often cited in the realm of game theory (see 'A Beautiful Mind').

Now, optimization is related to another way to measure intelligence, and that is compression.
This idea states that you can recognize a concept only if you can make a smaller statement that is more general. I can 'recognize' an apple despite its many forms and settings. The recognition of the apple is vastly smaller than the sum of all its differences and settings.

157 posted on 11/13/2005 10:44:40 AM PST by nanomid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: moog
"[ID is] at least 200 years old, and STILL lacking any positive evidence"

Hey don't insult watchmakers.:)

Okay, sorry if I wasn't clear. "ID" obviously has validity, in the most literal sense: "Intelligent design" (as for example by humans) obviously does work and can produce results, such as watches, cars, etc.

What I was talking about was not "ID" the process, but the "ID postulate" (or "the ID movement" if you prefer) which asserts that some Intelligence and/or Design was responsible for the formation of life on Earth. *That* postulate (it doesn't even rise to the level of "hypothesis", much less "theory") has been knocking around for several thousand years without visible results.

To me there is plenty of evidence, but most of that can't be "proven" in a scientific sense or in a way that would be received by the scientific community.

But therein lies the problem. And it's more profound than ID's supporters realize.

Some think that the "requirements of science" are some sort of "club" that erects artificial restrictions to keep out the "unwanted" viewpoints. But that's not the case.

Instead, the scientific method has been developed over the centuries to incorporate reliable methods of acquiring valid knowledge, and avoid unreliable methods.

And the reason that "testable" and "falsifiable" are such large parts of that method is because they get to the core essense of telling sense from nonsense. Or even more to the point, useful knowledge from useless notions.

And that's the crux of the issue. If an idea isn't "scientifically testable", it's because it has *no* real-world consequences. It doesn't affect reality, or if it does, it does so in no predictable or useful ways. It is, in every sense of the word, a useless idea. An idea which has no practical value, which makes no difference, which produces no results. In short, it's an idea that doesn't make any difference whether it's true or not.

158 posted on 11/13/2005 10:44:59 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Oh goody another ID / EVO thread, this time my money is on the ID ers winning this one but later in the afternoon the EVO's will win the next thread.

Even though I'm a big critic of the ID movement I am now leaning towards the ID argument. It has been decisively proven time and time in these threads that a believer in ID can never evolve into a supporter of Darwin.

Personally that settles it for me.


159 posted on 11/13/2005 10:45:15 AM PST by JNL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

didn't miss your point, just made a side note


160 posted on 11/13/2005 10:46:33 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 621-622 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson