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 ... 561-580581-600601-620621-622 next last
To: Stark_GOP
I don't see age restrictions with regards to the Bill of Rights, but I have not eliminated your comments from my mind.

Thank you for the considered and polite reply. I would like to Post Script the end of our discussion with the following for your consideration:

Article 1, Section 2, Para. 2 "No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years...

Article 1, Section 3, para 4,.."No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the age of thirty years.."

Article 2, Section 1, Para 6,...."neither shall any person be eligible to that office [President] who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years.."

The Founding Fathers were obviously aware of age and its effect upon judgement. With the Zeitgeist of "rights" so prevalent in American since the Sixties, and the Left's exploitation of youth and their immaturity, I find it a relief that the Constitution is on the side of "adulthood" in regards to the eligibility of persons regarding the official "public square" (the Clinton's, notwithstanding).

I think the age limits contained in the body of the Constitution to be a long over looked resource to furthering the conservative movement.

581 posted on 11/18/2005 1:14:09 PM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Okay, you're so wrapped up in "winning" now that you're not even keeping up with the discussion. At the bottom of my last note was a link to an example, but it looks like you didn't even read the note before starting to write.

Please explain how a court ruling stemming from a lawsuit filed by a Catholic and Mormon family stating that public school equipment may not be used for religious purposes reinforces your point.

None? Not one? That's not credible. You reject my "many if not most," but don't hesitate to assert an absolute of your own.

It's just as credible as yours in that it's purely anecdotal with no supporting evidence offered behind the claim at all.

More kindergarten theology.

What, recognizing that the God that you worship is not the only deity worshipped throughout humanity is "kindergarten theology"? Well, I'm sorry that your knowledge of theology isn't even that good.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Not just your God, but all possible deities. Trying to turn it into some kind of personal attack on your religion specifically indicates that you are paranoid, ignorant or both.

Secretly taping classroom activities and student counseling sessions.

So you've come up with the "perfect" argument. You declare any method that would potentially demonstrate the validity of your claims are illegal, immoral or both and then declare that your position shoudl be accepted as default because of that.

Possibly, but I don't take the easier path. I try to find the truth, even when it requires me to admit that I have been wrong. You should try it some time.

I do try it. When someone makes an unsubstantiated claim that sounds extremely dubious, I question them and ask them to support it. For example, if someone claimed that "many, if not most" atheists asserted that the theory of evolution somehow demonstrated the nonexistence of deities I would ask them to support the claim. And if they balked and said that I should do my own research to back up their claims without providing a single fact in support of their claim I would be highly suspicious.

You know, the practice of misrepresenting carefully considered and mature opinions as "starting biases" interferes with the seach for the truth.

Like I said, by starting with the assumption that atheism stems from evil.

Oh, and it is also indicative of the influence of evil.

Support this claim.

Or will you tell me to do your own research again?

You are in the position of a person sitting in a windowless room in midtown Manhattan on busy weekday, who, when told that if he goes out on the street he will see many people on the sidewalk, answers, "No, I'm not moving. You prove it to me."

False analogy. You haven't even offered a starting point by which I could investigate your claim. I can look at a sidewalk. You won't tell me where to find atheists who make the claim that evolution disproves deities, and I've certainly not heard that claim from any of the atheists that I've met.

Interesting. When you said your experience was different from mine, I accepted that at face value. I didn't call you a liar. You, on the other hand, discount mine.

I didn't offer my experience as an authoratitave representation of reality. You did.

That's pretty sad.

I'm sorry that it upsets you so much that science doesn't automatically assume that you are right and that you don't have to support your claims with actual evidence.
582 posted on 11/18/2005 2:21:49 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: Sun
You need to check out the link. It's silly for me to copy and paste for you.

I checked the link. The link regards the alleged "improbability" of DNA forming. Ignoring the demonstratable errors in the reasoning involved, it's irrelevant to the subject of evolution, which does not concern itself with how life ultimately came to exist. Moreover, you are completely ignoring the fact that you are wrong when you claim that "theory" is synonymous for "guess".
583 posted on 11/18/2005 2:24:25 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland; Dimensio

No matter how many scientists agree, or write papers, or WHATEVER, a theory is still just a theory. The evolution theory has not been proven.


584 posted on 11/18/2005 6:24:54 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: Sun
No matter how many scientists agree, or write papers, or WHATEVER, a theory is still just a theory. The evolution theory has not been proven.

Just like atomic theory has not been proven.
Just like gravitational (relativity) theory has not been proven.
Just like germ theory has not been proven.
Just like no theory ever has been proven.

Do you have a point, or are you singling out evolution as being unproven even though it's no different than any other scientific theory because you don't have an actual rational argument to offer? It's clear that you don't understand the significance of a "theory" in the context of science, and given the extensive explanation that you've been given I strongly suspect that it's because you just don't want to understand because you find it much easier to pretend that words mean something other than what they do, and demanding that everyone abide by your ignorant and incorrect definitions is the only way that you can "win" at this discussion.
585 posted on 11/18/2005 6:28:24 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: Sun
So there it is Sun, the demented one gives you the false linkage with these other phenomena of the physical world, one piece of the evo subterfuge gambit.

Takeout the word theory and you've got it that evolution is as strong as the force of gravity from these guys, not fact and not proven, but just as much a reality as gravity.

Only it is not.

It is not as important if one of these demented cultists of the cosmo-evo evo-cosmo flying spaghetti monster cult declare whether you have won or not. But more importantly is for everyone else to see the abuse of science that goes on in the name of evolution, and how far off the deep end they have went.

Wolf
586 posted on 11/18/2005 6:58:47 PM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

How about the ID theory. Has that been proven?

(I hope I haven't been too subtle for you to understand what I'm getting at.)


587 posted on 11/18/2005 7:54:29 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; Dimensio

Darwin seems more reasonable than the people who defend him:

Darwin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”


588 posted on 11/18/2005 7:55:33 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: Sun
Darwin seems more reasonable than the people who defend him

LOL!! The understatement of the year!!

There it is from Darwin himself. Why have we not seen this from the cultists? .. snicker.., snort.

Wolf
589 posted on 11/18/2005 8:08:42 PM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Where'd they all go? I guess they're hiding. :)


590 posted on 11/18/2005 8:43:22 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: Sun
By Darwin's own caveat his theory breaks down, except in the minds of the evo-cultists.

Wolf
591 posted on 11/18/2005 8:52:23 PM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Sun
How about the ID theory. Has that been proven?

ID isn't a theory. ID fails to meet the requirements to be labeled a theory. You have been told this before. Why do you keep ignoring this.

(I hope I haven't been too subtle for you to understand what I'm getting at.)

No, you have made it abundantly clear that you either do not understand or do not care about how science operates or about how certain scientists must be before they declare an explanation to be a "theory".
592 posted on 11/18/2005 10:49:15 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: Sun
Darwin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Yes, and thus far no such organ has been found to exist. Why do you think that you've proven anything here?
593 posted on 11/18/2005 10:50:06 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Why do you keep ignoring that a theory is a theory, and a fact is a fact?


594 posted on 11/19/2005 10:48:17 AM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

"Yes, and thus far no such organ has been found to exist. Why do you think that you've proven anything here?"


Here's your answer:

Intelligent Design position statement

The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity

Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

By Michael J. Behe Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown.

Scientists use the term "black box" for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level?

How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Irreducibly complex systems: systems that seem very difficult to form by successive modifications.
Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications -- I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working so irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.

Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell. Constant, regulated traffic flow in cells is an example of a complex, irreducible system.
Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot. Molecular machines are designed.

Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.
Advances in science provide new reasons for recognizing design.
I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.


http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html


595 posted on 11/19/2005 10:50:31 AM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: Sun
Why do you keep ignoring that a theory is a theory, and a fact is a fact?

I don't ignore it. You are lying when you say that I do ignore it. I simply clarify what is meant by "theory", and then you ignore what "theory" really means so that you can dishonestly misrepresent evolution.
596 posted on 11/19/2005 2:09:37 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

You try so hard to prove that a theory is a fact.


597 posted on 11/19/2005 3:25:15 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Sun
You try so hard to prove that a theory is a fact.

I have repeatedly told you that I understand that "theory" and "fact" are not synonyms, yet you continue to act as though I have asserted that they are one in the same. Why are you continually lying about my position? Do you really think that others here are so stupid as to not notice that I do not make the claims that you ascribe to me?
598 posted on 11/19/2005 3:47:10 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I'm glad that you finally came to your senses.


599 posted on 11/19/2005 6:50:28 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: Sun
I'm glad that you finally came to your senses.

I have never denied that theories and facts are the same.
600 posted on 11/19/2005 7:22:21 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620621-622 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