Academia's Assault on Intelligent Design

Townhall ^ | May 27,2007 | Ken Connor

[LiteKeeper]

It is his position as a senior fellow in a group that works against science education.

Not true! Absolutely not true!

[Don Corleone]

You do know the difference, in science, between a hunch, a guess, a hypothesis and a theory, don't you?

Global Warming?????

[gondramB]

What’s not true?

[LiteKeeper]

His group does not work against science education!

[lexington minuteman 1775]

i predict his detractors will end up in a large black hole that is very hot!

[gondramB]

>>His group does not work against science education!<<

I’ve read a great deal about the discovery Institute. They advocate teaching things in science class not based on science. That meets my definition of working against science education.

[keats5]

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry

Before you scoff at the author and setting, please explain why this is "not scientific." I admit this was offered in a religious forum, but the talk was limited to scientific arguments. Besides, most academic settings would censor the speaker.

[Radix]

"Believers in ID are the worshipers trying to insert religion into science."

Says you.

The new First Law of the Scientific Method seems to be "acceptance of authority."

You can submit unto your own counsel if you like.

I prefer to keep doing my homework before I'll consider taking the word of folks who seem to have at the top of their agenda, the undermining of alternative thinking, and the proselytizing of our youth.

[mjolnir]

There isn’t ANY scientific evidence for design?

So Richard Dawkins is incorrect when he says nature gives the appearance of design?

The vast majority of cosmologists, whether working astronomy or other fields, are wrong when they study the anthropic coincidences— those coincidences are just in their head?

Remember, what you’re saying is that there is NO scientific evidence for design in nature. That’s the sort of needlessly strong statement that bespeaks of a level of certainty that is rather unscientific itself, unless one is talking only about mathematics.

The fact is, there are very few hypotheses as venerable as that of design in nature that have NO evidence for them. I realize hyperbole is inevitable in a forum devoted mostly to political issues, but such sweeping statements are generally out of place when talking about science-— see “the Black Swan” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

[Rudder]

You aren't making sense, which surprises me after reading may of your previous posts.

Scientists just don't put forth theories that have not been well-researched and documented and that have not withstood the test of time and replication. if you had used the words, "hunch" or "guess," your statement could be accurate.

I thought you understood the scientific method, but now you have violated it.

[LiteKeeper]

First, The Discovery Institute does not advocate teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. Mainly because they are aware that it would not be taught in a fair and balanced way. This whole idea of augmenting classroom instruction is a myth perpetrated by Evolutionists, opponents of ID...not by members of the ID Movement.

Second, and you won't like this, a fair reading of ID literature will reveal there is a lot of science in the movement. It is the bias and presuppositions of naturalism that have poisoned the well when considering the assertions of intelligent design advocates.

[Rudder]

If there’s evidence derived via the scientific method, it hasn’t been published.

[Rudder]

Sorry, but Behe’s ideas on ID have been shot down (Recall the court decision and his embarrassing testimony in the Pennsylvania school board case.) Besides, although he’s a biochemist, his notion of ID is not based upon empirical, objective, scientifically-derived data.

[gcruse]

“Digital design of DNA:” Talk about begging the question...

I’m impressed, Rudder. I think that’s the first correct usage of the phrase ‘begging the question’ I have ever seen on FR.

[metmom]

What about the digital design of DNA? What about ORDER in general?

But, don't you know that order and complexity are NOT indications of intelligence or design? *roll eyes*

[Rudder]

Data generated via the scientific method supporting ID do not exist.

[metmom]

IIRC, Newton believed that the universe was evidence of God’s hand. Better axe him, too. Along with Einstein.

[LukeSW]

What about it? Even random events have statistical probabilities and their frequency distributions generate a standard normal curve--if that ain't order, I don't know what is.

"Digital design of DNA:" Talk about begging the question...

Not sure you understand statistics.

A frequency distribution of a variable is not the same thing as properly or intelligently ordering discrete events or DNA elements. You can certainly take a statistical frequency distribution of a monkey hitting a typwriter keyboard, but I defy you to produce a monkey that can type something intelligent, like for example, a novel, a short story, a computer program or even the alphabet in proper order.

[Rudder]

A frequency distribution of a variable is not the same thing as properly or intelligently ordering discrete events or DNA elements.

Now who do you suppose "properly or intelligently" orders discrete events or DNA sequences?

My statement was that even random events have predictable distributions, and that is a form of order, and also the topic to which I was responding.

[mjolnir]

Then you’re using the words “evidence” and “support” to mean something far different from, say Stephen Hawking, who will readily admit that the anthropic coincidences present evidence of fine-tuning-— it’s been his project to show that evidence is not strong enough to support the fine tuning hypothesis, but he would never say it isn’t there. Similarly, Lawrence Krauss thinks the evidence for fine tuning is also evidence for there being many universes, and he wants to show that the latter proposition is correct— but he would never dream of saying that evidence doesn’t exist.