Posted on 11/13/2005 6:07:54 AM PST by NYer
CBN.com – SEATTLE, Washington - The Dover, Pennsylvania school board is on trial in the state capitol. Their crime? They wanted to tell high school students once a year that evolution is only a theory. They also wanted to mention an alternate theory: Intelligent Design, or ID.
That was too much for some parents. They sued, claiming ID is religious and therefore illegal in school. The judge will decide the case in the next few weeks.
So is ID really just religion in disguise? Do both biology and astronomy support ID? And who are these people promoting ID?
To answer those questions, we went to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the major proponents of ID.
Dr. Stephen Meyer is the head of Discovery's Center for Science and Culture. He says to ban design theory as mere religion is wrong.
"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."
But perhaps these ID experts are not really reputable?
Mayer stated, "These are people with serious academic training. They are Ph.D.s from very, not just reputable -- but elite -- institutions. And they are people doing research on the key pressure points in biology and physics, and so their arguments are based on cutting-edge knowledge of developments in science."
So what is the evidence from researchers like biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute?
He is an expert on a special kind of bacteria called flagella. Inside the bacteria are exquisitely engineered ‘inboard motors’ that spin at an amazing 100,000 revolutions per minute.
Darwin said that such complexity must have developed piece by piece. Behe said that is bunk. All the pieces must be in place at the same time or the motorized tails would never work.
Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that -- ID does.
Behe makes the case for ID in a video called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." The video’s narrator declares, “A thimbleful of liquid can contain four million single-celled bacteria, each packed with circuits, assembly instructions, and molecular machines..."
"There are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from one end of the cell to the other,” Behe explained. “There are machines that capture the energy from sunlight, and turn it into usable energy."
ID experts say the more you know about biology -- and some of the weird creatures like this island lizard -- the worse it gets for Darwinism.
Consider the workings of the genetic code. That code produces all kinds of molecular machines, plus all the other components of life. ID advocates say that to believe those components are just Darwinian accidents takes a blind faith in the creativity of dumb molecules.
So with growing evidence of ID, isn't Lehigh University proud of this cutting-edge scientist who teaches there—and wrote the 1996 bestseller "Darwin's Black Box?" Hardly.
In August, all the other (22) biology faculty members came out with a political statement on the department's Web site. They stated that "Intelligent design has no basis in science."
But they cited no evidence, and made no references to any scientific research.
Dr. John West, a political scientist at Seattle Pacific University, is senior fellow at Discovery Institute. He says these political responses to scientific issues are getting nasty.
West remarked that "hate speech, speech codes, outright persecution, and discrimination is taking place on our college campuses, in our school districts, against both students and teachers and faculty members."
In fact, universities are evolving into centers for censorship. Five years ago, Baylor University dismissed mathematician Dr. William Dembski from his position, primarily because he headed a center for ID there.
This September, the University of Idaho banned any dissent against evolution from science classes -- a slam on university biologist Dr. Scott Minnich, a noted supporter of ID.
"The school seems to be confusing where it's at,” West said. “Is it in Moscow, Idaho, or the old Moscow, Russia? ...in issuing this edict that…no view differing form evolution can be taught in any science class."
And at Iowa State University, more than 100 faculty members have signed a petition against ID -- an apparent political attempt to intimidate ISU astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez because he writes about ID.
Gonalez is, in fact, co-author with philosopher Dr. Jay Richards of "The Privileged Planet." Both scholars are also connected with the Discovery Institute.
The book and related video argue that astronomy also shows evidence of design. For instance, the earth has numerous aspects just right for our existence.
Gonzalez explained, "...We find that we need to be at the right location in the galaxy...that we're in the circumstellar habitable zone of our star (correct distance from the sun)...that we're in a planetary system with giant planets that can shield the inner planets from too many comet impacts...that we're orbiting the right kind of star -- it's not too cool and not too hot.”
These are just four of 20 some characteristics of earth that make our planet unique -- right for life, right for discovery by human science.
Richards said, "So you have life and the conditions for discovery happening at the same places. That, to us, suggests that there is something more than a cosmic lottery going on. That sounds like a conspiracy rather than a mere coincidence. So that to me is a tie-breaker in the question."
And there is more -- the finely-tuned underlying rules of the universe-- or physical constants. One of them is gravity. But what if gravity were not constant?
A film clip from Privileged Planet says: "Imagine a machine able to control the strength of each of the physical constants. If you changed even slightly from its current setting, the strength of any of these fundamental forces -- such as gravity -- the impact on life would be catastrophic."
In plain terms, a bit more gravity would mean any creature larger than the size of a pea would be crushed into nothing. And a little less gravity would mean that the Earth would come unglued and fly off into space.
But Darwinism has been maintaining that advanced life is easy to produce all over the universe.
"Almost everything we've learned in the area of astrobiology suggests that, 'Look, this is just not going to happen very often' -- now that might be sort of depressing for script writers for sci-fi movies, but that's where the evidence is taking us," Richards said.
Despite the attacks on ID, Meyer said the design interpretation of the evidence is exposing Darwinism as a theory in crisis:
"I think we're reaching the critical point where Darwinism is going be seen as simply inadequate,” Meyer asserted, “ -- and therefore the question of (intelligent) design is back on the table."
Just as this city of Seattle has all the earmarks of ID, so does nature, except that nature is infinitely more intricate.
"three little maids from school are we" is a useful implement of torment
"So pointing out that "God belief" is not a short and concise summary of all religions in the world is analagous to being ignorant of air resistance?"
You're getting colder.
"Citations to the contrary?"
They're all over the place. Could you really have missed them all?
"a number of them have admitted to being crevos in disguise."
Haven't seen that, myself. Dishonesty being contrary to the principles of Christianity, it's rather difficult to credit.
"Why did Pat Robertson claim that the citizens of Dover should not call upon God in the face of a disaster?"
I don't recall PR ever claiming to be anything but a Biblical literalist.
"Why did members of the Kansas Board of Education state outright that their objections to evolution were religious in nature?"
Since ID proponents don't object to evolution, I fail to see how that bears on the subject.
"And you won't find anyone on the evolution side who will take issue with this statement."
Au contraire, mon frere. I have found scads who fly into screaming conniptions at the mere suggestion.
"Some will correctly tell you that this position is not scientific, but that's not the same as the position being false."
That's very rational.
Look, I agree that science classes shouldn't be converted into theology classes. But where is the pressing need for an absolute embargo on any mention, however brief, of a credible position taken by many intelligent people?
I could see scientists getting upset if there were a requirement to teach a great deal of theology, or to spend even five minutes per class on it, but whence this demand for a hermetic seal?
"Please. I've met very few atheists who actually make such a claim."
You must have walked through a door into an alternate reality of greater rationality. It sure is a lot different from this universe.
"The majority of people opposing ID in schools are theists, not atheists. Your claim doesn't stand up to cursory scrutiny."
Again, that's your perception.
"Why did you quote me out of context like that?"
It wasn't clear to me. That's the way I read it. Now that you have corrected me as to your intent, I apologize for any offense my incorrect reading caused.
That said, I must ask again: Whence this desperate need for a hermetic seal? What harm is done by taking a minute or so during a semester to mention that some people think that God is behind it all?
"That would be because "God was behind it all", while possibly a true statement, is not a scientific statement and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as such."
I don't recall presenting it as a scientific statement.
A semester is roughly nine weeks. A typical class might have three hours a week of lectures. That's 1,620 minutes. Is the scientific community so bereft of consideration for the feelings of its fellow citizens that they man the barricades and fight to the last man rather than offer a single one of those minutes for the expression of a statement that, while not scientific, has huge implications for the decision a scientist must make in the course of his work?
That's a fact that will never change.
As time goes on ... I see the delusion picking up ... and those opposed to God, less tolerant and shriller than ever. Of course many of those will claim to believe in Him but only selectively. Believing Christ died and rose from the dead is fine ... but the very idea that He created all we see and don't see, just as He also stated in the Bible, is not possible.
Never mind that the Hebrew checks out - 6, 24 hour days and on the seventh He rested - nope, can't believe Him when He states THAT. Never mind that the evidence ALL points to Him and because they can't support their position with legitimate science they are reduced to name calling.
The "gnashing of teeth" won't be out of regret but anger at being so wrong.
I'm a creationist, and I have made a mistake or two.
That's just some words on paper that some men have thought up: kinda like the bible.
Often?
What about the OTHER times??
Is this somehow different from:
"Evolution is behind all modern day creatures", while possibly a true statement, is not a scientific statement and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as such.
Exodus 20: 16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
Deuteronomy 5:20 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
I know that Dawkins dislikes religion, and that he thinks that evolution makes religion unnecessary, but that is a long way from Dawkins asserting that evolution proves religion to be false. I am not aware that he has ever said that amongst his numerous anti-religion statements.
It is true that Dawkins talks out of his ass about politics however.
"Now.... what was your point again??"
If you're going to operate on the intellectual level of a six-year-old, there's no point in even trying to have a discussion.
When people were hiding Jews from the Nazis during WWII, and they lied to the Nazis to keep them safe, do you suppose that made them dishonest?
There is a difference between pushing a little old lady into the path of a speeding bus and pushing a little old lady out of the path of a speeding bus.
I'll let you have the last word since I know it is VERY IMPORTANT to YOU. BTW, I didn't bother to read your reply. If you must, carry on a conversation with yourself.
I don't know why the anti-ID folks are so afraid of something new. Science is always learning something new.
The Surface Of The Sun, The Photosphere And Solar Flares
--snip--
For forty-five years, I believed that the sun was a giant ball of gas as I was taught in school. Like everyone else, I was introduced to Galileo's observations of moving sunspots which laid the foundation of the gas model theory of the sun that NASA still promotes to this day. That model of the sun that I was taught in school was the framework I had always tried to work with. During all that time I simply could not fully explain the cause of the tumultuous eruptions from the photosphere that I was seeing as I studied these satellite images. The reason for that confusion turns out to be very simple. The sun is NOT simply a giant ball of gas. It has a solid surface beneath the visible photosphere.
--snip--
The reason for that confusion turns out to be very simple. The sun is NOT simply a giant ball of gas. It has a solid surface beneath the visible photosphere.
--snip--
Recent findings from the field of heliosiesmology demonstrate the existence of a double sided stratified layer, that is located just under the photosphere.
--snip--
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
If you wish to attempt to lecture me on epistemics, you need to show your properly cited work.
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.