[Christopher Lincoln]

Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

This is sheer fantasy.

Do you believe that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" – essentially the I.D. position.

Not at all. Omniscience is not a high degree of intelligence, but a different concept altogether. The essence of intelligence is drawing conclusions from necessarily incomplete information. This points up two fatal objections to I.D.. First, it demands that the designer perform feats vastly beyond the scope of any intelligence. Second, life cannot be the creation of intelligence because there had to be life before there could be intelligence.

[dread78645]

which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists."

Not quite what the survey found, but what's a little mis-speaking among friends ...

Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

-- Leading Scientists Still Reject God

Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

Or they can believe in a God -- and she let evolution run its course without continual tinkering with it.

[peyton randolph]

I'm a deist and believe in evolution too.

There is no conflict.

 

[muir_redwoods]

"Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp."

Totally unsupported assumption from the data cited.

[Hoodat]

The remaining one-third believe in God, too. They are simply angry at Him and deal with their anger by denying Him.

I have a friend who claims to be an atheist, but when I begin to lead him into a conversation about God, he quickly lets me know how much he hates God.

btw, even satan believes in God.

[ml1954]

Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

I thought ID was not about religion. And I haven't heard that the Discovery Institute has changed their position on this. So the author must be from a religion based ID group rather than a non-religious ID group. When will these IDers get their act together and come to some agreement on what ID is?

And while they're at it, they need to come up with some falsifiable tests and some predictions about future discoveries/phenomena, just like real scientific theories do...that is, if they want their theory to be taken seriously and want it to actually be useful for something other than philosophizing and IDer worship.

[ahayes]

Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

I could have gone further. A survey last year by Rice University, financed by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists believed in God. A poll published by Gallup in 1997 asked: Do you believe that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" – essentially the I.D. position. Just under 40 percent of scientists said yes.

This is really sloppy categorizing. It's important to differetiate between theistic evolution and ID. Theistic evolution says that God created the universe and all life through natural means. He is involved but acts in most cases along with natural laws. This is not a particularly bizarre idea since most Christians will say that God controls storms such as hurricanes without imagining that he does so via miracles. The ID position is different in saying that God made the universe by natural means, but the creation of the first organism was miraculous, and that at certain points in evolution God gives organisms miraculous kicks to provide them with new genes.

So the three nonatheist categories are creationism (miraculous intervention, no or limited evolution), ID (evolution through miraculous intervention), and theistic evolution (evolution without miraculous intervention).

[Dimensio]

Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

This is not an honest means by which to derive such a statistic. Not being an atheist does not imply believing in the non-scientific assertion called "Intelligent Design", which makes specific (and untestable) claims. Deriving such a statistic through very obviously specious means leads me to question the author's honesty and rationality.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Intelligent Design Links

The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth Out of Darwinists

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference

Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

Whether Intelligent Design is Science

Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington)

The Origin of Intelligent Design: A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design

The Problem With Darwinian Solutions

In Defense of Intelligent Design

Design Inference

Uncommon Descent (William Dembski’s blog)

”Intelligent Design: The Future” blog

”Evolution News & Views: News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution” blog

Recommended Reading

Uncommon Dissent. If you’ve never heard the term "post-Darwinian," welcome to the world of thinkers who reject evolutionary theory and its reliance on the notion of chance (i.e. "random mutation"). In this provocative volume, biologists, mathematicians and physicists as well as theologians and other intellectuals argue, as editor Dembski writes, that "the preponderance of evidence goes against Darwinism." The contributors invoke mathematics and statistics to support their theory that an "intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life." In other words, the degree of diversity and complexity in life forms implies the need for an intelligent designer. The nature and identity of this designer is not discussed by all the writers; others call this intelligence God. Supporters of intelligent design differentiate themselves from creationists, but they, too, argue that their theory should be taught in high school biology courses. Anyone interested in these debates and their implications for education will find this collection to be important reading.

Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Woodward's account shows that the problem with the template of "religion versus Darwin" is that it simply doesn't fit the ID movement, although many detractors try to insist otherwise. The founder of the movement, Phillip Johnson, was, until his recent retirement, a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. While on sabbatical in the late 1980s, he studied the scientific case for and against Darwinism and concluded that the empirical case for Darwinism was surprisingly weak. He then presented his findings at a symposium held through his law school and was further encouraged to pursue his criticism of Darwinism. As Woodward documents, the proponents of ID argue that Darwinism lacks crucial evidence, begs important questions, and often caricatures alternatives unfairly. They make their case against Darwinian evolution by pointing out flaws in the arguments and gaps in the evidence, not by citing religious texts.

There are a growing number of books defending and criticizing ID, but Woodward's book is unique in that it assesses the history of this movement of the past decade from the perspective of the classical discipline of rhetoric. Given the book's rhetorical angle, the reader is treated to both the straight arguments for and against Darwinism, as well as an inside look at the personalities and persuasive strategies used on both sides of the debate. (For example, when noted Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould first met Phillip Johnson, he dispensed with pleasantries and said, "You're a creationist and I've got to stop you.") In Woodward's account, Johnson emerges as the rhetorical mastermind of ID, who, though an outsider to the scientific guild, nevertheless mastered the scientific case against Darwinism and helped develop a consistent strategy for the ID movement. His simple charge is that Darwinism is driven more by a commitment to a materialistic worldview than by the actual evidence of biology. This book details the rise of the intellectual, scientific, and philosophical challenge to Darwinism.

Darwinian Fairytales. Philosopher David Stove concludes in his hilarious and razor-sharp inquiry that Darwin's theory of evolution is a ridiculous slander on human beings. But wait! Stove is no creationist nor a proponent of so-called intelligent design. He is a theological skeptic who admits Darwin's great genius and acknowledges that the theory of natural selection is the most successful biological theory in history. But Stove also thinks that it is also one of the most overblown theories of science and gives a penetrating inventory of what he regards as the unbelievable claims of Darwinism. Darwinian Fairytales is a must-read book for people who want to really understand the issues behind the most hotly debated scientific controversy of our time.

Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement. This book honors Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor whose 1991 publication Darwin on Trial and later books helped intelligent design emerge as a highly visible, and highly controversial, alternative to Darwinism. While it may be premature to hail Johnson as "Darwin's Nemesis," these essays reveal him as an influential strategist and mentor within the ID movement. Contributors to the 2004 symposium that spawned this collection include leading ID advocates Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells and Scott Minnich, as well as Darwin defender Michael Ruse, who has engaged Johnson in debate. Other contributors address cultural and political questions beyond evolution itself, such as Francis Beckwith's timely review of legal controversies over ID in the classroom, J. Budziszewski's discussion of naturalism and the Natural Law tradition and editor William Dembski's commentary on the professional—and often personal—"backlash" against ID advocates. Readers who are familiar with the basics of ID and curious about the movement's development and inner workings will find much of interest, although for an account of the most recent and current controversies over ID, they will need to consult other sources. Forward written by Sen. Rick Santorum.

Privileged Planet. Is Earth merely an insignificant speck in a vast and meaningless universe? On the contrary. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery shows that this cherished assumption of materialism is dead wrong. Earth is more significant than virtually anyone has realized. Contrary to the scientific orthodoxy, it is not an average planet around an ordinary star in an unremarkable part of the Milky Way.

In this original book, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards present an array of evidence that exposes the hollowness of this modern dogma. They demonstrate that our planet is exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also gives us the best view of the universe, as if Earth-and the universe itself-were designed both for life and for scientific discovery. Readers are taken on a scientific odyssey from a history of tectonic plates, the wonders of water, and solar eclipses, to our location in the Milky Way, the laws that govern the universe, and the beginning of cosmic time.

Review of The Privileged Planet (The Royal Astronomical Society)

What Darwin Didn’t Know. This book has to do with medical facts and how they conflict with the theory of evolution. Darwin may have made a sincere effort to explain the life around him in the nineteenth century, but he knew little, if anything, about the human cell, heredity (why a child resembles his parents), immunity, hormones, blood pressure and scores of feedback loops that tell the body when it's too hot or too cold, hungry or full, sick or well, and tired or refreshed. These examples and many more are discussed. They all speak clearly for Intelligent Design, a discussion that needs to re-enter mainstream American dialogue. "There is a tide of data mounting against the Darwinian concept that randomness can explain the wonder of life. In What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons converts the tide into a tidal wave of evidence." Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D.

[Deadshot Drifter]

Anyway, the I.D. movement doesn't want to suppress evolution. It merely wants it presented as a theory, alongside the I.D. theory.

This is the third or fourth article I've read in recent weeks where pro-Iders describe the push for ID as a movement.
That kind of language is associated with religion (or cults) and political ideology. We've all heard of the communism movement, conservative movement Vs. the "progressive" movement, the charismatic movement, the scientology movement sweeping Hollywood...

Interesting that IDers see themselves as part of a movement.In the back of their minds, even they realize that this ID crappola doesn't even begin to meet the criteria for being a theory.

[CowboyJay]

"God does not play dice with the Universe"

--A. Einstein

[Right Wing Professor]

I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

This could have been much briefer if he'd said "I am a bald faced liar and I made it up."

[MissAmericanPie]

Is it urban legend or did Darwin actually say that if no fossils were found to back up his theory that it should be scraped?

[Ken H]

Art Bell has married a 20-something woman from the Phillipines, and is going to live there.

[DoctorMichael]

[JCEccles]

ID and Evolution Theory Pop Quiz

(True or False)

1. Intelligent design is based on the creation account in the biblical book of Genesis.

2. Scientists have created new varieties or species of organisms in laboratory settings.

3. Scientists know factually and can demonstrate scientifically that all new species arise by natural selection.

4. All the fossil evidence of the evolution of homo sapiens can be fitted into a footlocker.

5. Some hominid fossils consist of a single tooth or other bone fragment that is used to describe the gross physical structure of an entire genus or species.

6. Scientists have proven that homo hibilis and homo erectus are ancestral or intermediate species in a lineage of primates leading directly to homo sapiens (that is, scientists can show that these are not separate and distinct species that died out without leaving descendents).

7. The theory that intelligence inheres in, or is an emergent property of, matter of sufficiently complex order or design is not a scientifically respectable theory.

8. Scientists have, through carefully designed and controlled laboratory experiments, shown that it is possible to create conditions under which simple amino acids (complex molecules associated with life) can form.

9. Scientists have shown that it is possible to generate meaningful prose from random letters by using carefully designed computer software that preserves only those letters in each iteration of the program cycle that satisfy predetermined criteria of syntax and sentence structure.

10. Evolution is a practical, well-grounded and factual theory whose proponents are very careful to keep from the errors of conjecture and speculation.

The answers to 1 through 9 are: False, True, False, True, True, False, False, True, True.

Careful readers will discern conclusions and insights that are much deeper and broader than the surface appearances.

The answer to question 10 I will leave open for debate.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

A survey last year by Rice University, financed by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists believed in God.

Not news.

In my opinion, it's closer to 90%.

[Old Professer]

We sleep with God on darkest night, to go with Satan at first light.

[Constantine XIII]

Just because a man is a Christian doesn't mean that he has to believe in what Dr. Behe preaches. :P

[Aquinasfan]

Thus when the dissident Galileo challenged the assumptions of the 17th century papacy, it shut him up.

The fact is that Galileo was received warmly in Rome. His work went on through several papacies without drawing comment from Rome. A cardinal and bishop were funding Copernicus' astronomical research, which included the idea of heliocentrism.

Galileo went too far when he demanded that the Church teach heliocentrism as dogmatic fact, when the contemporary science didn't support the theory. Moreover, Galileo demanded the Church teach that the Bible was wrong in passages stating that "the sun stood still."

Cardinal Bellarmine at the time stated that such passages would have to be seen as figurative, if astronomical studies proved heliocentrism to be true.

Like the "black legend" of the Inquisition, the black legend of Galileo has always been promoted by anti-Catholics.