Posted on 01/14/2006 5:03:40 PM PST by PatrickHenry
The Discovery Institute, an organization which bills itself as “the leading organization supporting scientific research into intelligent design” is seeking to distance itself from creationists. Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute wrote a letter to John W. Wight, Superintendent of the El Tejon school district in California seeking to change the title or content of a class. The district is facing a lawsuit filed by parents over a course titled “Philosophy of Design” taught by Sharon Lemburg, the wife of a local minister.
According to Luskin’s letter “the course inaccurately mixes intelligent design with young earth creationism or Biblical creationism. Moreover, it appears that more than half of the course content deals with young earth creationist materials.” Luskin urged the school’s superintendent to “either reformulate the course by removing the young earth creationist materials or retitle the course as a course not focused on intelligent design.”
The concern of Luskin and his fellows at the Discovery Institute is that intelligent design will be equated with creationism. He tries to explain the difference to Mr. Wight this way; “Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine creator. Thus the U.S. Supreme Court found that creationism was religion in 1987 in the case Edwards v. Aguillard.” [opinion here.]
The reason the ID crowd wants to avoid this association is that teaching creationism is illegal as Luskin notes. After a scathing rebuke by Judge Jones in Dover last year [Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.] for trying to sneak intelligent design into science classes there, intelligent design advocates want to take every opportunity to paint their idea as science and not as creationism. But it should be noted that among the senior fellows and fellows for whom there are biographies on their site, they boast more theology degrees than chemistry, biophysics, molecular biology, biochemistry or physics. The only degree more widely represented than theology among them is philosophy. But they don’t want the courts to think they are advancing any religious ideas.
Of course, most observers make that connection anyway. When Pat Robertson told Dover residents not to call on God because they had voted God out of their town he was making a direct connection between intelligent design and creationism. When one of Dover’s school board members advocating intelligent design said “2000 years ago someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?” he was making a direct connection between intelligent design and creationism. Although the Discovery Institutes official line for intelligent design is “science can’t identify this intelligent designer” senior fellow Michael Behe admits he thinks it is God.
The fact is, intelligent design is a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize creationism and import it into public schools as science. What I find hilarious about the Discovery Institute’s letter to Mr. Wight is that Casey Luskin makes the assertion that “Under the current formulation, the course title “Philosophy of design” misrepresents intelligent design by promoting young earth creationism under the guise of intelligent design.” That is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Intelligent design proponents are trying to misrepresent science by promoting intelligent design under the guise of science.
Intelligent design is creationism. Refusing to name the creator doesn’t change that. It only demonstrates how disingenuous its advocates are.
I don't want to be the one to break the news to the gang at the "Discovery" Institute, but ... it's all over! The whole world can read Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. They gave it their best shot -- which was pathetic -- and it fizzled. Big time. It's a bit late in the day to tell that "philosophy" teacher in El Tejon -- the preacher's wife -- to tone it down.
They've gone over the cliff and they haven't figured it out yet.
Couldn't resist this one. LOL
Creation is the downloader, and ID is 'With Stupid'. You and I must do our best to avoid them.
I don't understand your comment.
Personally, I side with dry evolution - probably due to professional training more than any other reason.
The universe is a non-sequitur. Creationists not only deny this, but do little to describe how God came to be. Fine - God, then, is the non-sequitur. The very term implies "mysterious origin". However a non-sequitur does NOT mean "false". It exists truthfully - Platonically, in my opinion.
Mystery itself is the only hard fact. Some 11 dimensions are presently theorized, so that is ample uncertainty for crazy ideas to be correct, even Creation. Just imagine how much we are missing if, for example, we believed that a cylinder were really a circle (viewed from above) or a rectangle (viewed from its side) - all because you could only observe in 2-D, and never the three that we know...
Hope that helps! :-)
The version of ID being peddled in the US currently, I believe, is creation lite.
It is a result of the 1987 Supreme Court case which blew Creation "Science" out of the water, and which led to the invention of ID. It's all laid out in The Wedge Strategy. These folks slipped and let out their entire strategy; are we now to believe they are not following it? That they were just funnin' us?
Seems a bit like non-sequitur reasoning. Where'd you get the 11 dimensions?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/3012_elegant_00.html
But string theory, for all its elegance, comes with a price. For the theory to be consistent, the universe must have more than three spatial dimensions. In fact, string theory predicts a universe with nine spatial and one time dimension, for a total of 10 dimensions. (The most current version of string theory predicts 11 dimensions.) The nine spatial dimensions consist of the three extended dimensions that we experience in everyday life, plus six theorized tiny, curled-up dimensions that can't be seen with existing technologies. These extra six dimensions occur at every point in the familiar three-dimensional world. The existence of more than three spatial dimensions is such a difficult concept to grasp that even string theorists cannot visualize it. They often use analogies to help picture these abstractions.
Thanks for the ping!
Theoretical physics hottie LISA RANDALL is on C-SPAN2 NOW (replay) of an earlier lecture she gave on her book.
She's discussing extra dimensions and other things that will make you hot as you gaze upon her!
Thanks, bud!
Ah, she used our pre-arranged, secret signal. Soon, Lisa ...
Actually, nothing makes me hotter than Leda Cosmides discussing mate selection strategies :-P'''
Er, where the heck do you get this notion??? Just because one of the fellows at the DI is a Mooney?!
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.