Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

CBN ^ | November 2005 | By Gailon Totheroh

[Elsie]

Are you trying to emulate Coyoteman and his creation stories?

[Elsie]

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

How is this UNLIKE the tweaking of the ToE when new data surfaces?

[Elsie]

Be prepared!

;^)

[DoctorMichael]

Kudos to you!.........For your immeasureable patience in dealing with these falsehoods, canards, lies, untruths, fabrications, distortions, prevarications, evasions, and down-right deceptions that are part-and-parcel of the whack-job ID/Creationist line.

[PatrickHenry]

Only among "ID" is [sic] the consequences of a professional lapse mislabeled as "persecution".

But for a minor grammar glitch resulting from hasty posting, your remark is most excellent.

[VadeRetro]

So you're really not that cool with people having enquiring minds unless they're questioning evolution.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

*snicker*

[PMCarey]

String theory is in this position now--it shows the potential to answer questions, and they are working on a new accelerator which may be able to test the theory. In the meantime, it is building up its case, which may eventually be supported (or not).

The comparison with String theory is a good one because for several years String theory had not advanced to the point where it could make verifable predictions. One of the arguments at that time for String theory was the theory's beauty and simplicity. Beauty and simplicity are very nice things to have in a theory, but they do not, by themselves, constitute proof.

ID is not scientific because it cannot be tested or falsified. Nor can it said to be a new theory. It's as old as mankind, dating back to the first human who, upon encountering a phenomenom that he or she could not explain, said that "God did it".

[RogueIsland]

I find it perfectly reasonable that they should be able to follow whatever lines of inquiry shows promise.

Fine with me. I wish they'd just get on with it instead of whining about how badly they've been mistreated by those mean ol' scientists and about how, no, they've not personally done any experiments related to ID due to their pressing book tour and speaking schedules, but somebody who has the time probably should look into the possiblility of maybe considering coming up with some sort of experiment.

[Dimensio]

Thanks for remininding me that I forgot to link to solid evidence of your past dishonesty wherein you 1) lied about Antony Flew in claiming that he rejected evolution and then 2) lied about mentioning Antony Flew in the first place.

Any FR creationists want to come in and try to explain why nmh wasn't lying in my above example? Or condemn him for it? Or are all of you FR creationists just going to jump in and cheerlead for a well-established liar because you don't dare admit that any creationist ever makes a mistake?

[Just mythoughts]

You still have your RIGHTS endowed by the CREATOR that no TOE/scientists can take!!!!

[dsc]

"whack-job ID/Creationist line."

Well, there it is in a nutshell.

I've been watching these threads for quite some time now, but I'm not going to any more.

Underneath all the sturm und drang, the froth and rogue waves, the high-flown rhetoric, accusations and counter-charges, insults and ripostes, it comes down to one thing.

Some people want it to be okay to tell schoolchildren, "Belief in God is a valid viewpoint. Many intelligent, educated, reasonable people believe in God. Others, of course, do not, but belief in God does not brand one as a whacko, or indicate a lack of intelligence or education."

Other people, seemingly, would kill their grandmothers to keep that from happening.

Simple as that.

[Dimensio]

Over time such HYPOTHESES and THEORIES can be shown to be so universally operative, so durable in their application, that their explanatory value has the influence of a LAW (like the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc.).

You've got it wrong here. Theories do not become laws. Theories and laws are two different kinds of explanations in science. Theories are general explanations of the cause of observed phenomenon, while laws simply describe observed patterns of phenomenon that are useful for predicting events in the future. For example, the "Law" of gravity is simply a mathematical formula for calculating the resulting force of gravitational attraction between two objects. It's useful for predicting certain orbits, though it should be noted that Newton's Universal Law of Gravity is actually falsified and fails to work on certain scales. The theory of gravity, also known as general relativity theory, is an attempt to explain exactly why two objects produce a resultant gravitational force -- or rather why gravitational force exists in the first place. Theories never become laws, because they don't make the same kinds of statements as laws.

Now, if you have any positive evidence for Intelligent Design it can be evaluated, but thus far the only thing I've ever seen is argument from incredulity, often based upon faulty claims of "irreducable complexity" that have already been debunked.

[Dimensio]

Some people want it to be okay to tell schoolchildren, "Belief in God is a valid viewpoint. Many intelligent, educated, reasonable people believe in God. Others, of course, do not, but belief in God does not brand one as a whacko, or indicate a lack of intelligence or education."

To which "God", out of the thousands worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history do you refer and why. Also, why do you think that this statement has any relevance in a science classroom?

[King Prout]

just so long as you don't start into "I am the very model of a modern major general"

I'd have to burn you at the stake for that

[DoctorMichael]

......there it is in a nutshell......

Thanks! I've always believed in succinctness.

[dsc]

"To which "God", out of the thousands worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history do you refer and why."

I shouldn't. I really shouldn't. But I really want to, so I will.

Suppose you were teaching a class of retarded second graders, and one said, "If it's really gravity that makes things fall, how come a feather falls slower than a bowling ball? A-hyuk, A-hyuk, boy, I got him now."

Well, I reacted to your question just about the same way most curmudgeons would react in the circumstance above. Your question would have to be significantly better just to rise to the level of "wrong."

It's as misguided as assuming, because a mountain looks different in various weather conditions and from different angles and distances, that one must be looking at many different mountains.

It shows that you know and understand even less about that subject than your despised "crevos" know about science.

"Also, why do you think that this statement has any relevance in a science classroom?"

Equal time. No, not even equal time; just a moment in a year.

[VadeRetro]

Fine. I'll mull over "If someday it may happen that a victim must be found" (Mikado) or maybe "When I was a lad" (Pinafore) for my next onslaught.

[Dimensio]

Suppose you were teaching a class of retarded second graders, and one said, "If it's really gravity that makes things fall, how come a feather falls slower than a bowling ball? A-hyuk, A-hyuk, boy, I got him now."

I don't quite see how this is even remotely analagous. There are multiple variants of what "God" is, and there are a number of religions that don't refer to their deity as "God" or have multiple deities or none at all.

Equal time. No, not even equal time; just a moment in a year.

Equal time for what? Why does non-science deserve equal time in a science classroom? Does non-math deserve equal time in a math classroom? Should we give a mention of French, Spanish and every other foreign language in an English class? Why not save those subjects for an appropriate classroom?

Moreover, you're misrepresenting the objection. No one has proposed simply mentioning that there are people who believe in a "God" and that such people are sane. There's no reason for that: no one is currently teaching in schools that God-belief is somehow irrational. In fact, there's no point because the majority of the US population -- and this would proportionally include schoolchildren -- are already theists. People are proposing mentioning that there are those who don't believe that evolution is valid science, and unless you believe that accepting evolution is synonymous with atheism (and I've made it clear exactly what I think of people who make that false equivocation) those are two different statements. Do we take time out for every scientific theory to make note of the fact that there are cranks with their own "alternative" explanation that doesn't rise to the level of science? And why did you bring God into it when God was never the subject of the objection?

[dsc]

"I don't quite see how this is even remotely analagous."

I know, and that's sad, but the fact is that it's very closely analogous.

"Moreover, you're misrepresenting the objection."

No, I just cut to the heart of it.

"no one is currently teaching in schools that God-belief is somehow irrational."

If I were gullible enough to believe that, I'd probably be a liberal.

"People are proposing mentioning that there are those who don't believe that evolution is valid science"

However, ID proponents are not among them. The way ID proponents are demonized on these threads is by declaring them nothing more than crevos in disguise.

"and unless you believe that accepting evolution is synonymous with atheism (and I've made it clear exactly what I think of people who make that false equivocation) those are two different statements."

No, that's not right either. I don't reject the fossil record, while I do believe in God. It's entirely plausible to me that He might have used evolution to get where He was going.

The crux of the matter is that many if not most atheists hold up evolution as evidence or proof of the nonexistence of God, and they don't want any interference.

"Do we take time out for every scientific theory to make note of the fact that there are cranks with their own "alternative" explanation that doesn't rise to the level of science?"

So, people who believe in God are cranks, are we? That attitude is exactly the reason that time is needed to advocate the contrary position.

"And why did you bring God into it when God was never the subject of the objection?"

Sure He is. You can throw up all the smokescreens you want, but the fact is that many "scientists" are driven to paroxyms of hysteria by the thought that someone might just poke his head into a classroom and say, "And we think God was behind it all."