Posted on 01/22/2006 10:08:10 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
People who celebrated Judge John Jones's recent ruling that Intelligent Design is a "religious view" and "not science," so that it is "unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution," are satisfied because religion and science have been kept strictly apart, which suits their worldview. It amounts, though, to begging the question that is at stake, and "winning" the argument by sheer force.
Before explaining why, it's worth noting that science is being defined flexibly. If someone says -- "The fossil record does not actually indicate that species evolved into other species, and evidence of the necessary transitional species has not been found, but we assume that those species did exist because our theory requires it" -- this, of course, is science. And if someone says -- "We have no idea how the single bacterium from which all other species allegedly evolved could have emerged from inanimate matter, but we assume that it must have" -- this too is science, to be taught to children as established fact. It is, after all, a "naturalistic" explanation, hence true, hence science.
Most people who believe in God, however, believe that God created nature. If that were so, then it should be at least theoretically possible that scientists, who investigate nature, could come upon evidence of God while doing so. When you delve deeply into something, the goal is usually to discover its source. Einstein, like many titans of science before him, acknowledged this in a general way in many statements, such as: "everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man," or his reference to "rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
Such statements, though, while interesting and important, are admittedly not science. ID scientists make a different claim -- that their rigorous investigation of natural phenomena like organisms and parts of organisms, or their rigorous application of mathematical laws of randomness and probability to the complexity of such organisms, yields specific evidence that they were designed, and that evolution does not adequately explain their existence.
ID scientists have presented their evidence in peer-reviewed books published by major, prestigious publishers and in peer-reviewed articles published by major, prestigious journals. A statement circulated by the Discovery Institute -- "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged" -- has already been signed by over four hundred scientists. They come from fields like biochemistry, bacteriology, astrophysics, mathematics, and computer science and from institutions like Princeton, Cornell, Cambridge, Columbia, and MIT.
Twenty years ago, you didn't hear about this sort of thing. Now you do -- because, as often happens, a scientific theory, in this case evolution, is coming under challenge, and a different paradigm, in this case ID, is arising in its place. Of course, not all the scientists who doubt evolution accept ID. But many of them do, and they do so on the basis of scientific research.
Why, then, the claim that ID is "not science"? Part of the reason, to repeat, is sheer prejudice. People who espouse a naturalistic, materialist view of reality, which Darwinism supposedly corroborated and did much to promote, realize that the posited designer of nature is a deity. A deity, as they see it, belongs to "religion" -- at best soft, sentimental stuff that may have a place in the church or synagogue but not in a serious domain like science.
The other claim against ID is that it is "not falsifiable." First of all, the term is, once more, flexible. The statement that "Even if we don't currently understand how evolution via random mutation and natural selection could have produced the species existing in the world, we will eventually" -- is also not falsifiable but, rather, an expression of faith. Second, two Discovery Institute fellows, while acknowledging "that there's no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists," demonstrate here that "the specific design arguments currently in play are empirically testable, even falsifiable, and involve testable predictions."
And as for that "bare assertion," if it were true that nature had been designed, and if science has now grown sophisticated enough to detect evidence of the designer, then it could, logically and conceivably, also be the case that the assertion is not falsifiable because it is not false.
Interesting questions, calling for further research and open minds. So interesting we might even let children know about them.
When you can teach HOW things works, I will listen.
Like all Satanic lies, just enough truth is mixed in with the error to snare the ignorant and the faithless.
sorry for the double post in # 17
That would be C1.
When you can explain HOW it works, then we will both know who was using distortions and lies.
So far....
That would be B4.
Exactly! This is why Karl Marx enthusiastically embraced Darwin's error, it helped further his cause against religion.
Blech..I cringe at the thought of a nude beach full of nude, atheist, scientists...
Why is that such a difficult question to ask?
That would be C5, C9, C10, and C13.
HOW did God do it?
So far...."
To finish your sentence, if I may:
"So far...Darwinism has been totally unable to prove its contentions, so it has had to revert to hoaxes like "Piltdown Man", and bungling 'evidence' such as the "Galapigos finch" dud.
"Evolution" isn't a science, it's a political, anti-religion movement that carries on in the atheist, Bible bashing traditions of its greatest contributor, Charles Darwin, and his accomplice, Huxley.
How did NOTHING do it?
I am not arguing whether Evolution is correct or not. I am stating how it has been used to spawn a world view that effects many aspects of some peoples thinking. This is not nothing unknown. It is readilly admitted by many. Science is neutral. It can be used for good or evil. The scientists have allowed it to be used for things they should not. Read Citizenship and Democratic Doubt by Bob Pepperman Tayor an environmentalist. Read some of Wilson's political writings as a Professor before becoming President. Read some Dewey.
I've seen many of the pro-Evolution posts that describe those who don't agree with them as stupid, ignorant, etc. I call that bile, and the evidence can be found on just about every Evolution vs. ID thread I've ever read.
If you are an exact copy of your Mother and Father, then please raise your hand. You will be the first biological organism in history to do so.
Anyone that dares to state that life forms on Earth have not changed over time, is using deception and lies for their own personal goals.
You and others have offered an alternative theory of how biological changes in life occur on Earth. I and others would like to know HOW this alternative theory of yours works.
Your first detected lie, was the statement that biological life on Earth does not change over time. How do you explain this deception?
I agree. I expressed this sentiment in the article to which you are replying.
Darwinism, the flimsiest of all modern 'sciences', is nothing other than a subversive cult engaged in the fine art of destroying the Christian faith.
This is not true. "I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over," as HAL said.
People are finally beginning to realize this, and Charles Darwin's 'evolution' will soon be rotting in the grave along with its Christian-bashing, Bible-hating founder.
"Eppur si muove."
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.