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

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: astronomy; athiestnutters; biology; buffoonery; cbn; clowntown; colormeconvinced; creationuts; crevolist; darwinism; discoveryinstitute; evilution; evolution; god; id; idiocy; ignoranceisstrength; monkeygod; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 621-622 next last
To: dsc

My point was that a NARROW looking at Scripture can produce absolutist statements.

When studying the whole book, however, we see that going outside the LETTER of the Law, to access the Spirit of it, is sometimes neccessary.

There are some really strong LETTER types on both sides of the aisle in these C vs E threads.


461 posted on 11/15/2005 9:15:38 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: Sun
For forty-five years, I believed that the sun was a giant ball of gas as I was taught in school.

Speaks for itself.....

462 posted on 11/15/2005 9:16:54 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
...another side that has logical fallacies rooted in mysticism.

Got a link to these documented cases?

463 posted on 11/15/2005 9:20:57 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
We need to keep track of the names of the creationists who are told the difference between "theory" and "law",

Likewise...


We need to keep track of the names of the Evolutionists who KNOW it's a "theory" and yet will NOT complain when one of their compatriots publish's that it is a 'fact' and should be taught as such.
464 posted on 11/15/2005 9:23:26 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Hasn't Stark_GOP been told this before? We need to keep track of the names of the creationists who are told the difference between "theory" and "law", especially those who use the term "Law of Gravity" and are corrected on the matter so we can find out who is genuinely ignorant and who is willfully ignorant."
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Newton's law of universal gravitation states the following:

Every object in the Universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers of mass for the two objects. This force is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the centers of mass of the two objects.
465 posted on 11/15/2005 9:53:58 AM PST by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
So why does that force exist? What causes it?

Newton's Law doesn't explain that. It simply provides a means for making statements about what force will result from two masses in any given observation. That's why it is not and has never been a theory.
466 posted on 11/15/2005 9:59:24 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Sun
I see you can't refute the logic in my post.

I couldn't find the logic in your post. I asked you to try again.

467 posted on 11/15/2005 10:10:45 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

So why does that force exist? What causes it?

Newton's Law doesn't explain that. It simply provides a means for making statements about what force will result from two masses in any given observation. That's why it is not and has never been a theory.
---
And it also doesn't explain why your posts make no sense.


468 posted on 11/15/2005 10:31:57 AM PST by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
And it also doesn't explain why your posts make no sense.

Perhaps you could tell me what about them you don't understand.
469 posted on 11/15/2005 10:37:08 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I simply posted Newton's law of universal gravitation and you had to argue about it.

Take it up with Sir Issac.


470 posted on 11/15/2005 10:47:23 AM PST by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
I simply posted Newton's law of universal gravitation and you had to argue about it.

The discussion of gravity began when someone mentioned that gravity is only a theory. You brought up the "law of gravity", and an explanation was given as to the difference between "theory" and "law" in science. I asked if you hadn't been given that clarification before (as I did recall you being one of the people who had received such an explanation in the past, but I admit to having a faulty memory and am still not certain). You then posted the text of the law of gravity and I, keeping with the previous discussion on the difference between "theory" and "law", explained how the "law" of gravity is not the same as a "theory" of gravity.
471 posted on 11/15/2005 10:57:28 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"You brought up the "law of gravity", and an explanation was given as to the difference between "theory" and "law" in science. I asked if you hadn't been given that clarification before (as I did recall you being one of the people who had received such an explanation in the past, but I admit to having a faulty memory and am still not certain)."
---
Thank you for your concern. No need to educate me on the definitions of 'theory' and 'law'. I have a perfectly adequate dictionary.
472 posted on 11/15/2005 11:14:59 AM PST by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
Thank you for your concern. No need to educate me on the definitions of 'theory' and 'law'. I have a perfectly adequate dictionary.

Then why your original comment regarding the "law of gravity"?
473 posted on 11/15/2005 11:18:37 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

In post 450 I wrote, "I thought it was the law of gravity."

In post 458 I made a JOKE.
"Poor Sir Issac. His laws have been reduced to a theory.
Next thing you know gravity will be just an unproven hypothesis causing us to be flung off the planet. ;)"

In post 465 I posted Newton's law of universal gravitation to provide further evidence to show that I knew gravity is not a theory.


474 posted on 11/15/2005 11:36:58 AM PST by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
I was referring to your post 450 wherein you stated "I thought it was the law of gravity." in response to someone pointing out that gravity is only theory. This suggest confusion, on your part, regarding the nature of gravity and scientific theories versues laws.

Technically speaking gravity itself is neither law or theory (just as evolution itself isn't theory; the explanation of common descent using evolution as a mechanism is the theory). Gravity is the resultant force between two masses relative to their mass and distance. The law of gravity is the equation that describes this force and can be used to predict the resulting force of two bodies in future events. The theory of gravity is an explanation for what causes that resulting force.
475 posted on 11/15/2005 11:47:59 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: TrailofTears
At least myself and the other creationists have the gonads to tell the rest of the world that what we believe is what we believe, not what is the fact.

Can I take that to mean that you and your kind, would be perfectly willing to behead me and my kind (if you could get away with it), in order to teach creationism as ID in US public schools? How very "C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n" of you! Praise be to you, Brother, and those like you who follow the Prince of Peace in His praise.

However, until you can become wise in the ways of the Almighty and His sciences, why don't you chosen people just move to the Middle East . I am sure you can find some other fanatics to share your vision(s).

476 posted on 11/15/2005 1:58:04 PM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
Can I take that to mean that you and your kind, would be perfectly willing to behead me and my kind (if you could get away with it), in order to teach creationism as ID in US public schools?

I didn't exactly infer that from TrailofTears's post.
477 posted on 11/15/2005 3:03:09 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: dsc

"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."

That is it in a nutshell. Excellent response.


478 posted on 11/15/2005 3:34:01 PM PST by dmanLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: dmanLA
That is it in a nutshell.

dsc failed to substantiate his assertion that "many if not most atheists hold up evolution as evidence or proof of the nonexistence of God". Do you have any means of substantiating that assertion?
479 posted on 11/15/2005 4:39:18 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; dmanLA; Stark_GOP; mlc9852; music_code; Sun; dsc
Well duh.., how about getting a response from one atheist at a time? Say here for a start? Or one could even deny atheist or atheisism.

Well what say you?

Wolf
480 posted on 11/15/2005 5:40:24 PM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 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