Evolution vs. Intelligent Design : Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on theories of life.

How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through evolution, creationism or something in between?

It's a heavy topic that's generated debate for years. That discourse landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.

At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.

Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that theory in the school system's science curriculum so students can consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent design or creationism.

In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks, but issued a formal statement saying, "It is the School Board's belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics."

(To read the School Board's complete statement, visit www.chesterfieldobserver. com and click on the link for "special" in the menu on the left.)

Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must remain neutral on the topic.

But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything but neutral.

"Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated," said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."

Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.

"Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom," he said.

On a personal level, some School Board members appeared to agree that discussions on the beginning of life should encompass more theories than just evolution. Dale District representative David Wyman said limiting discussions to evolution is "counterscientific" and said religious topics are already frequently touched on in classrooms. He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.

School Board Chairman Tom Doland stressed that students are not discouraged from discussing alternatives to evolution or any religious topic. "They do not leave their First Amendment rights at the door," he said.

"As individuals, as parents, we have the right to instruct our children, and we should never turn that over to someone else," he added.

Clover Hill District representative Dianne Pettitt reminded everyone that "teachers are agents of the government…Students are free to initiate discussions…but we do have to stay within the limits of the law. We cannot just do what we personally want to do."

Midlothian District representative Jim Schroeder said he didn't want those who attended the meeting to "walk out of here thinking, 'There goes the public schools kicking God out of the schools again.'"

"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that," he added.

Bermuda District representative Marshall Trammell Jr. was more cautious, saying he was afraid to have teachers deal with such issues in the classroom because they might infringe on students' personal religious beliefs.

"I don't want that in a public school," he said. "That is a matter for church and home."

Your reasoning is similar to that of gender and ethnic studies professors.

A very nice assertion... now we shall see if the reality fits the hype...

Dr. Shelby Steele recounts how he was approached by a gender studies professor following one of his speeches. The professor asked him why he was not a supporter of gender studies. If I recall correctly, Steele asked if the professor was studying anything that cannot already be studied in existing departments. The professor responded that what she studied could very well be studied in other departments, but “institutional bias” made it oh-so-difficult.

There's only one problem with your illustration...Gender studies department are OFFICIALLY recognized in many of our university and their so-called professors are TENURED and are *NOT* being hounded out of their positions. When they publish outrageous articles, few are demanding their ouster and they are SECURE in their position.

This isn't the case with those who even show a smattering of sympathy for Intelligent Design, like Sternberg, who was hounded to death for allowing an ID-Sympathetic article to be published in the proceedings. That's just one example by the way. I can count several others.

So... on this count alone the analogy you give is not apt at all. I wonder how many more bogus analogies there will be....

Steele then asked why she didn’t choose to publish in an existing department just to fight the good fight. The professor scoffed and left.

And here we go to the CRUX of the matter that's DIFFERENT. ID proponents WANT to have their papers in an existing department to fight the good fight, it is the existing status quo that is so closed minded, they won't allow them to be published. And when some article gets published, you see howls of protests and THREATS from Darwinists. What's the fear ? If you have reason on your side, you should be able to come back with a refuting article.

Doesn’t that “institutional bias” the professor blamed mirror the “witch hunt” you speak of?

Absolutely not as the DIFFERENCES I cited show.

That’s the key.

NOPE. The key does not fit.

You think that science wrongly brands creationism as a false science, even though creationism, creation science, and intelligent design all invoke the supernatural to explain natural phenomena.

Again, I repeat --- you are confusing Creationism with the Intelligent Design Movement the two share some similarities but are different. As I said before -- study the ID movement and you will be better educated.

So, why not fight the good fight and show that current science is wrong in its judgment?

That's EXACTLY what ID proponents are doing if in case you aren't paying attention ---- Trying to get their papers in peer reviewed journals ( even if biased people are fighting it ), getting their papers reviewed by scientists who are open-minded and sympathetic to their ideas, writing books, writing articles, arguing, reasoning, publishing, going on interviews, creating alternative educational materials... convincing people one at a time and of course -- DOING MAINSTREAM RESEARCH. This is part of fighting the good fight. What do you think these efforts are ( see the article in this thread ) ? Chopped liver ?

Use the weapon of the status quo, peer-reviewed journals,

Yes, and when they get published ( see the experience of poor Dr. Sternberg ), what kind of reception do they get ? Do they get scientific arguments ? Or do they get practically censored ?

to create a new status quo, one that places creationism in its rightful place as a science.

The more you write things like these, the more you show your ignorance of the ID movement.

Unless, of course, you’re afraid of being ridiculed for attempting to revert science back to pre-Renaissance standards.

Look who is talking.... First, eliminate the censorship and eliminate the threats of losing your job, and then we'll talk but not until.

And BTW, inspite of the fact that Darwinists in high positions are threatening ID sympathetic Scientists like Guillermo Gonzalez with loss of tenure, what has the censorship effort accomplished thus far ?

RESULT : THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT DARWINIST EXPECT.

A recent survey ( see other threads and this poll by USA TODAY : )

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_n.htm

show that MORE PEOPLE THAN BEFORE ( close to 70%) think that the statement, “Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years” is definitely or probably true.

Makes me wonder how much public money Darwin lobbies in high science will screw out of US taxpayers in order to try to change their minds - with about as much success as they have had in the past - zilch.

I take it you mean the revisionist literature that seeks to distance ID from its father, Creation Science, and its grandfather, Creationism.

It is NOT revisionist. There are agnostics who doubt Darwinism and are sympathetic to Intelligent Design. You are confusing similarity with identity ( actually I don't think you are, you seem to be DELIBERATELY misrepresenting ).

Just as the literature tries to make it sound scientific and on the level, hoping people forget about the Wedge Document that showed the theological, and not scientific, basis of ID.

There you go -- should I call the statements made by anti-ID atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Hector Avalos THEOLOGICAL and NOT SCIENTIFIC ? After all, Dawkins is the ones who call people who teach their children to believe in God "child abusers".

So, on the one hand we have militant Darwinist whose mission it is to teach the world about the dangers of believing in God, but whose mission you conveniently ignore in order to attack a counter-idea called the Wedge...Why ?

If Darwinists can have their philosophy in life and their personal missions, why can't some ID proponents ?

And what does that have to do with the truth or falsity of their respective arguments ?

BTW, Actually, I kinda like the Wedge document. My favorite part is where it says that the goal is to bring together “leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.” I think desiring to look at how new developments raise doubt on the materialistic paradigm is a wonderful goal. Nowhere does this imply concocting developments or distorting them. What’s so wrong with this goal? Am I missing something?

If Militant Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris have the goal of disabusing the world of religion and convincing them that materialism is the only acceptable idea, I guess the Wedge strategy should be an acceptable alternative.

Just as the creation textbook Of Pandas and People (initial title: Creation Biology) was edited in the late 80s after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, replacing the word "Creation" with "Intelligent Design" and "Creator" with "Intelligent Designer."

Uh huh, And you conveniently ignore men like mathematician, David Berlinski ( an agnostic whose main goal in life is simply to have "a good time all the time" ) and New Zealand Biochemistry professor Michael Denton who OPENLY voice their doubts about Darwinism.

There are too many examples of blatant lies, perjury, conspiracy and deception in the ID movement to believe it

And there aren't many forgeries and lies from Ideological Darwinists who fake their discoveries of ancient ape men to fool people ?

See these examples for instance:

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

I'm sure there are charlatans on both sides of the fence but that does not impress me. What impresses me are the REASONS, the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for or against Darwinism ( and ID ). So, bringing these things up do nothing to the truth claim of ID ( or Darwinism for that matter ), just as a health teacher who teaches students the dangers of smoking who smokes in private does nothing to DENT what he teaches.

when they try to say they're being scientific or don't already have the Christian God in mind as the "Designer."

Really ? Have you read about the conversion of foremost atheistic Oxford professor Anthony Flew, who is still not a Christian but now at least believes in Intelligent Design because he carefully weighed the arguments for and against chance and design to come up with his conclusion ?

Many people have made up their minds not because they have a religious presupposition but because the EVIDENCE compels them to do so. Professor Flew is just one example.

It is NOT revisionist.

Just saying it is not does not refute the evidence I gave. The modern intelligent design movement was founded by creationists as a backdoor to teaching creation as science. Almost all modern publications on the subject are related to the Discovery Institute, which is not only complicit in, but an architect of, this devious scheme. The evidence is clear and incontrovertible.

You even linked to one of their publications in your first post on this thread. You even used their deceptive descriptions, "seeks to improve the teaching of Evolution by the Inquiry-based approach," when we know by their own statements that the goal is not to improve Evolution as a science, but to supplant it with theology.

Even in the end Darwin still thought there were "designed laws" behind everything. It's a step back from ID, saying that a powerful god could set up this universe so that it would have perfect conditions to produce life as we know it. An all-powerful, all-knowing god would also be able to create exactly what we have now just by planting the seed of physical laws at the Big Bang.

But that was just his personal belief. He didn't try to pass it off as science.

So, on the one hand we have militant Darwinist whose mission it is to teach the world about the dangers of believing in God, but whose mission you conveniently ignore in order to attack a counter-idea called the Wedge...Why ?

Dawkins is quite open about his agenda. The Discovery Institute tried to keep it hidden, using deception to pass theology off as science. And they're still doing it.

I think desiring to look at how new developments raise doubt on the materialistic paradigm is a wonderful goal.

Didn't read the rest of it, did you?

mathematician, David Berlinski ( an agnostic whose main goal in life is simply to have "a good time all the time" ) and New Zealand Biochemistry professor Michael Denton

Both members of the Discovery Institute.

And there aren't many forgeries and lies from Ideological Darwinists who fake their discoveries of ancient ape men to fool people ?

I've heard these brought up before, "See, there's fraud in evolution, too" the creationists, then creation scientists, then IDers say. I guess its some kind of victory to find a flaw or conspiracy to defraud in evolution. Yet they seem to always forget that the fraudulent claims always get disproved by the very evolutionists engaged in this supposed conspiracy, and not them. It's science working as it should. You might as well criticize the field of nuclear science because some frauds at Berkeley said they discovered element 116.

Nebraska Man was slapped down by other evolutionary scientists and pretty much forgotten, but I still hear talk from your side of the Paluxy man tracks and a supposed controversy over them long after they were shown to be a fraud.

Many people have made up their minds not because they have a religious presupposition but because the EVIDENCE compels them to do so.

Most people make up their minds because they want to believe God is important, and therefore they are important. You do have aberrations like the one you mentioned, just like evolution has aberrations like Dawkins who aren't interested in just science, but a cultural agenda like the IDers.

Just saying it is not does not refute the evidence I gave.

Which evidence ? all you've made are assertions that since it can happen, therefore it must happen. That's evidence ?

The modern intelligent design movement was founded by creationists as a backdoor to teaching creation as science.

ID as it is currently presented DOES NOT MENTION THE BIBLE and LEAVES THE AGE OF THE EARTH out of the discussion. That is a fact.

Almost all modern publications on the subject are related to the Discovery Institute, which is not only complicit in, but an architect of, this devious scheme. The evidence is clear and incontrovertible.

You mention the name Discovery Institute and fail to show how it officially sanctions Creationism. Every single article I've read from them today relating to science and technology never refers to the Bible, Koran as their authority for their arguments. If you have one from them I'd like to read it.

You even linked to one of their publications in your first post on this thread.

Uh huh, and does the publication claim the Bible as its source of authority ? Or does it encourage readers to explore the evidence for or against Evolution ? Show me where in the publication of the first post it refers to a 6 day creation or even mentions God or the Bible.... Come on, show me the page and paragraph....If you can't then you don't know what you're talking about.

You even used their deceptive descriptions, "seeks to improve the teaching of Evolution by the Inquiry-based approach,"

How is this deceptive ? You ought to use the inquiry based approach to ANY endeavor that attempts at finding the truth or falsity of a claim ( even ID and creationism ). You seem to imply that we shouldn't use that approach for teaching evolution. Why ?

when we know by their own statements that the goal is not to improve Evolution as a science, but to supplant it with theology.

You know ? How do you know that ? YOU SAID YOU KNOW but you don't really know. You simply imply it without showing any evidence. In fact, if you read the Discovery Institute, they do not even recommend teaching ID in the classroom ( that's right I said it and it isn't a typo ). Did you even bother to read what they write in their website ? I guess not.

Even in the end Darwin still thought there were "designed laws" behind everything.

If he said that, then I and all IDers agree with him. But please show me the reference, I'd like to know where he said it.

It's a step back from ID, saying that a powerful god could set up this universe

But ID as a scientific endeavor is SILENT about God or gods. It is only interested in DESIGN INFERENCE as the best possible explanation of the complexity of life. It does not bother to go further than that.

so that it would have perfect conditions to produce life as we know it. An all-powerful, all-knowing god would also be able to create exactly what we have now just by planting the seed of physical laws at the Big Bang.

And possibly DIRECTING IT. Yes, ID is OPEN to this possibility but this postulate will require further research.

But that was just his personal belief. He didn't try to pass it off as science.

1) If this was Darwin's belief, then you are saying he believes in panspermia.... interesting, I never knew that. Could you show me where Darwin said it ?

2) But even then, gradualism based on random mutation still shows very little ( very poor ) evidence that without intelligent guidance, life as we know it can arise.

Dawkins is quite open about his agenda. The Discovery Institute tried to keep it hidden, using deception to pass theology off as science. And they're still doing it.

HUH ? Where are they using it ? If they are trying to hide anything, I find it strange that they would OPENLY PUBLISH what they believe on their website for all to see.

Didn't read the rest of it, did you?

I think this is a question for you not me.

Both members of the Discovery Institute.

UH HUH, and they are PUBLISHED MATHEMATICIANS who teach and have published books and peer reviewed papers in journals. Simply because you throw in the name Discovery Institute shows us what ? That they are Bible believers ? Ask them if they are .... I'm sure you'll get a NO for an answer ( and you'll go back to calling them liars once again simply because you want to believe what you want to believe).

I've heard these brought up before, "See, there's fraud in evolution, too" the creationists, then creation scientists, then IDers say. I guess its some kind of victory to find a flaw or conspiracy to defraud in evolution.

Nope, you're getting the wrong lesson here. THE LESSON IS THIS --- FRAUDS EXIST. That does not mean that because there are frauds on both sides, their arguments and evidence cannot be analyzed ON THEIR OWN MERIT.

If a health teacher is a fraud who smokes while telling you that smoking is bad for your health, that does not necessarily mean that his hypocrisy invalidates what he teaches. I brought up the evolutionist fraud as a foil for your bringing up creationist deceit. Which is to show that this argument FAILS to go to the truth or falsity of each side's claims.

Yet they seem to always forget that the fraudulent claims always get disproved by the very evolutionists engaged in this supposed conspiracy, and not them.

And you can replace evolutionists with IDers in the above sentence too. Evolutionists aren't the only monopolists of truth seeking.

It's science working as it should. You might as well criticize the field of nuclear science because some frauds at Berkeley said they discovered element.

PRECISELY. So what's your point ? Frauds are perpetrated by people ... and frauds can be corrected and excavated by people whatever their personal beliefs are... SO ??

Most people make up their minds because they want to believe God is important,

And many ( like Anthony Flew ) make up ( and CHANGE ) their minds because of the evidence.

You do have aberrations like the one you mentioned,

Correction to make it less LOADED. You do have INTELLIGENT ONES who look at the evidence and decide accordingly as I mentioned.

just like evolution has aberrations like Dawkins who aren't interested in just science, but a cultural agenda like the IDers

Since we have cultural agendas by evolutionist and cultural agendas by IDers, I submit that the cultural agenda is a secondary issue compared to the scientific evidence presented. THAT is exactly what the book -- EXPLORING EVOLUTION is presenting ( regardless of the author's cultural agenda ). Let's argue that book for its own merits.

Which evidence ? all you've made are assertions

The evidence I gave firmly establishing the Discovery Institute and the modern ID movement as directly descended from (or rather just a new name for) the Creation and Creation Science movements. They have made a valiant effort to distance themselves in the public (and especially court) view from their Christian theological base, but many of us still remember.

ID as it is currently presented DOES NOT MENTION THE BIBLE and LEAVES THE AGE OF THE EARTH out of the discussion. That is a fact.

Part of the distancing tactic as described above. The cleansed-for-public-release version only exists to try to backdoor theology into the public schools as science in an evangelical effort. Here are two excerpts from the preeminent textbook on Intelligent Design, one is the original, and the other is from after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which said you couldn't teach Creation in public schools as science:

Original: Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.
Post Aguillard: Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.

Do you see the similarity? The whole book is like that. It is a shining example of how ID is just Creation with a transparent veneer of science on top.

Every single article I've read from them today relating to science and technology never refers to the Bible, Koran as their authority for their arguments.

Their PR job is working, at least on you. The CSC, which is the ID arm of the Discovery Institute (the two can be used interchangeably on the subject), was founded on the concept that "nature and human beings are created by God."

Uh huh, and does the publication claim the Bible as its source of authority ?

Again, the PR job at work. Knowing their history, they believe in the Christian God in all things.

How is this deceptive ? You ought to use the inquiry based approach to ANY endeavor that attempts at finding the truth or falsity of a claim ( even ID and creationism ).

Because they don't want to improve the teaching of it. They don't want to show errors and fix them scientifically so that it can be improved (as most scientists do). They want to kill it and replace it with something entirely different and theologically based.

Basically, it comes off as a guide for it, when it is nothing of the sort.

You know ? How do you know that ? YOU SAID YOU KNOW but you don't really know.

Yes, I know, specifically from their own statements in the Wedge Document. Meyer admits the document is authentic.

In fact, if you read the Discovery Institute, they do not even recommend teaching ID in the classroom ( that's right I said it and it isn't a typo ).

Deceptive PR again, inconsistent with their stated mission, their "Teach the Controversy" program and history. The board in the Dover case did not move forward until they received help and advice from the Discovery Institute, which had arranged a legal defense (by a Christian legal organization) for when their inclusion of ID led to a lawsuit.

1) If this was Darwin's belief, then you are saying he believes in panspermia.... interesting, I never knew that. Could you show me where Darwin said it ?

It's in his autobiography. He talks about the "First Cause" (which of course to him is the Christian God) being necessary to produce something so wonderful and immense.

Simply because you throw in the name Discovery Institute shows us what ?

That they are committed to the concept of God Did It at any cost.

Since we have cultural agendas by evolutionist and cultural agendas by IDers

No, we have an agenda by a couple of evolutionists, and an agenda by the founder of, and most members of, the modern Intelligent Design movement. I don't trust anything with an agenda, be it the DI, Dawkins or the Global Warming movement (sorry, "Climate Change," they've been doing the same PR coverup as the DI).

On the other hand, evolution through natural selection came about through a genuine desire to advance science. Even Darwin, as a religious man, feared a backlash for his heretical ideas. Luckily times had changed and he didn't suffer the same fate as other correct scientists such as Galileo (the Church didn't think he had "proof" either) and Bruno.

1. Can an atheist believe in intelligent design?

I don’t know if a hard-core athiest can believe in ID, but many non-Christians certainly do. You might want to check into the writings of Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer who wrote books on intelligent design in the universe. I read one of his books many years ago, so my recollection is vague, but I don’t think he ever publicly announced that he was a Christian.

He is the one who said that the probability of the first cell forming without ID is comparable to a 747 jet being formed by a “tornado in a junkyard.” I believe his views could be classified as “pantheism,” the belief that the universe itself is intelligent (as opposed to having intelligence designed into it by a transcendent Deity).

You might also be interested in the work of British physicist Paul Davies, who wrote a book called God and the New Physics. He also cites strong evidence of design in the universe. He uses the word “God,” but I don’t think he is referring to the classical Judeo-Christian personal God.

2. If so, is the intelligent designer he believes in the same as a Christian’s?

If it was, he would not be an athiest, so the answer must be no.

I think it is possible for a Christian to believe that ID can be discovered by scientific methods, yet at the same time to agree that science cannot prove that the “designer” is God. That is basically where I stand. I believe that God designed the universe and life, and I am convinced that the intelligence of the design can be observed scientifically and proved mathematically. At the same time, however, I do not believe that *science* can identify the Designer as the God of Christianity or of any other religion for that matter. That’s a matter of faith, and that’s why we have religion as well as science. Recall what Einstein said:
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

Where some of the more vociferious opponents of ID go wrong, in my view, is that they reject ID a priori because they do not like the potential religious implications. In science, ideas should not be rejected simply because some people don’t like the possible implications.

3. Is God supernatural?

Yes.

4. By extension, is an intelligent designer supernatural?

Maybe. Maybe not. I think Hoyle believed that intelligence is somehow inherent in nature.

5. Is it possible for a human to be the intelligent designer responsible for the intricate complexities of life?

Huh? Is this a trick question?

6. In other words, and this relates to the first question, is it possible that the Christian God is not the intelligent designer?

Yes, that is possible, or at least conceivable.

quote:

As a follow up to question six, if (keyword) it were shown that the intelligent designer is an entity separate from the Christian God, would that disprove Christian creationism and hurt Christianity?

my reply:

I suppose it might, but as you point out, that’s a very big “if.” I think it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for science to ever show *who* the intelligent designer is.

By the way, I just googled Fred Hoyle, and wikipedia says he was an atheist. If he was an athiest during his entire professional career, that’s a bit of a surprise to me. In any case, I also found the following with regard to his views on chemical evolution. Assuming he *was* an athiest, this answer your question about whether an athiest can believe in ID.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

“... if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...”

Here is a larger excerpt:

Rejection of chemical evolution

In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution to explain the naturalistic origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. In 1982, Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution’s Omni Lecture. After considering the very remote probability of evolution he concluded: if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...[5] Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10^40,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10^80), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance. He claimed:

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously. [1]

The evidence I gave firmly establishing the Discovery Institute and the modern ID movement as directly descended from (or rather just a new name for) the Creation and Creation Science movements.

The evidence you gave is fleeting, poor and unconvincing ( just like the just so stories darwinists are feeding the public ). The Creation Science Movement assumes the Bible as truth and then interpretes the evidence seen in the world and harmonizes it with scripture. The ID movement does no such thing. It does not mention the Bible, does not talk about it, much less is interested in presenting it in class.

They have made a valiant effort to distance themselves in the public (and especially court) view from their Christian theological base, but many of us still remember.

There ya go with the fallacy again -- SIMILARITY IS IDENTITY -- what BALONEY.

Part of the distancing tactic as described above

Nope, again as I said, there are agnostics and non-Bible believers who are part of the ID movement. The desire is to present BETTER EXPLANATION OF THE EVIDENCE, not belief in the Bible. ID is silent about God or the Designer

The cleansed-for-public-release version only exists to try to backdoor theology into the public schools as science in an evangelical effort.

Correction. It is the "as-is-public-release" version to try to present better explanation of the evidence to the public schools in an effort to present better science. The book Exploring Evolution MENTIONS NOTHING OF ANY God, much less the Bible.

Here are two excerpts from the preeminent textbook on Intelligent Design, one is the original, and the other is from after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which said you couldn't teach Creation in public schools as science: Original: Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands. Post Aguillard: Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera. Do you see the similarity?

Yes I see the similarity. But I have some questions which bring your presentation to doubt :

Where did you get THAT definition of Intelligent Design ? Did you get it from an official ID supporting website like Discovery Institute ? Or did you get it somewhere else ? Or did you make it up, or did somebody hostile to ID or who does not take time to understand it simply redefine it based on his/her warped understanding of ID ?

Here is what I read from Discovery's website :

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NOTE : There is no mention of the word ---- ABRUPTLY as you use it.

ID is not even hostile to the idea of Evolution RIGHTLY DEFINED AND UNDERSTOOD IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT.

Here is what I got from Discovery's website :

Q: Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.

As I said, when you postulate INTELLIGENCE, there IS BOUND to be similarities with what Creationists see as God, but that does not mean there is no difference, and also THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE POSTULATE IS FALSE.

BTW, Suppose someone at some school board meeting declared that Darwin’s theory of evolution was in accord with their religion. Does that then mean that person’s connection of evolution and religion renders evolution a subject that violates the establishment clause? I think it’s safe to say that’s a resounding no unless one can establish that what’s actually taught in the classroom corresponds to religion.

This is pretty simple stuff to explain away

So explain away... I've got time... But please be convincing...

The whole book is like that. It is a shining example of how ID is just Creation with a transparent veneer of science on top.

Really ? You've read it huh ? OK, tell me where the book mentioned the days of creation, The God of the Bible, The Flood, etc. and then maybe you're right to use the term CREATIONIST but not until.

Their PR job is working, at least on you.

It is working precisely BECAUSE people use their HEADS to think. They know that just because there are similarities, there are also DIFFERENCES. It isn't working on you because you refuse to acknoledge the DIFFERENCES.

The CSC, which is the ID arm of the Discovery Institute (the two can be used interchangeably on the subject), was founded on the concept that "nature and human beings are created by God."

Yeah and I should believe you over their statement. READ IT AGAIN HERE :

Founded in 1990, the Institute is a national, non-profit, non-partisan policy and research organization, headquartered in Seattle, WA. It has programs on a variety of issues, including regional transportation development, economics and technology policy, legal reform, and bioethics. The Institute's founder and president is Bruce Chapman, who has a long history in public policy at both the national and regional levels. Mr. Chapman is a former director of the United States Census Bureau, and a past American ambassador to the United Nations Organizations in Vienna, Austria. Mr. Chapman has also served as a member of the Seattle City Council and as Washington State's Secretary of State.

2. What is the Center for Science and Culture?

The Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design. Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities. The Center's Director is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University.

3. Is Discovery Institute a religious organization?

Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

Again, the PR job at work.

Call it PR if you want, it is the ARGUMENTS they present that is more important. Does it BETTER EXPLAIN what we observe or not. PR is SECONDARY and as far as I'm concerned, immaterial to the ARGUMENT.

Knowing their history, they believe in the Christian God in all things.

SO WHAT ? I could also say knowing the history of atheistic supporters of Darwinism they DON'T believe in the Christian God in all things. In fact they believe Random Mutation + Natural Selection can create everything. What does that leave us with ?

Because they don't want to improve the teaching of it. They don't want to show errors and fix them scientifically so that it can be improved (as most scientists do).

The fact that they are presenting a theory that has better explanatory power MEANS they want to improve the teaching of it. Also, ID CAN BE IMPROVED UPON if that means critiquing some explanations based on the ID framework does not comport to evidence.

They want to kill it and replace it with something entirely different and theologically based.

When a theory has BETTER EXPLANATORY POWER, why not present it as a competing explanation ? And if it NOT better, let the arguments be open UNTIL the better theory wins. SUPPRESSION gets you nowhere. Filing Lawsuits are even worse.

Yes, I know, specifically from their own statements in the Wedge Document. Meyer admits the document is authentic.

Oh no you don't. Read this from the Dsicovery Institute :

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#generalQuestions

Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?

No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.

As I said before, if you read the Discovery Institute, they do not even recommend teaching ID in the classroom ( that's right I said it and it isn't a typo ).

Deceptive PR again, inconsistent with their stated mission, their "Teach the Controversy" program and history.

Entirely CONSISTENT. THERE IS A CONTROVERSY and QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ASKED REGARDING DIFFICULTIES WITH THE THEORY ITSELF THAT WANTS TO MONOPOLIZE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

The board in the Dover case did not move forward until they received help and advice from the Discovery Institute, which had arranged a legal defense (by a Christian legal organization) for when their inclusion of ID led to a lawsuit.

The Dover case came as a result of a LAWSUIT filed by people who did not want ID presented in school. BTW, Discovery's s science education policy has been consistent and clear. They DO NOT RECOMMEND teaching ID in school, but believe that that teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible ( I do too by the way ). Here is their own statement :

We strongly believe that teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible, but we think mandatory inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula is ill-advised. Instead, we recommend that schools require only that the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinism be taught, while not infringing on the academic freedom of teachers to present appropriate information about intelligent design if they choose. Although we believe teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible, we think mandating intelligent design politicizes what should be a scientific debate and harms the efforts of scientists who support design to gain a fair hearing in the scientific community. Our science education policy is a matter of public record. We have explained it repeatedly to reporters and to school board members, and it is clearly stated on our website.

It's in his autobiography. He talks about the "First Cause" (which of course to him is the Christian God) being necessary to produce something so wonderful and immense.

If this is true, then I have no arguments with Darwin here. Which leads me to the next question --- if the Christian God bothered to create, why can't he DIRECT and GUIDE ? There isn't any good reason why He can't given that He is supposed to be INCARNATE ( you can't be a Christian God and not be Jesus Christ ).

That they are committed to the concept of God Did It at any cost.

Wrong. Here is what they say in their website ( you can call it PR all you want. It has been consistent since day 1 ) :

Intelligent design theory does NOT claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause. Nor does it claim that the intelligent cause must be a “divine being” or a “higher power” or an “all-powerful force.” All it proposes is that science can identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence.

No, we have an agenda by a couple of evolutionists, and an agenda by the founder of, and most members of, the modern Intelligent Design movement.

Sorry, no dice. I've met and spoken and argued with too many evolutionists to believe this. The agenda is TOTAL SECULARISM by LOTS of Darwinists.

I don't trust anything with an agenda , be it the DI, Dawkins or the Global Warming movement (sorry, "Climate Change," they've been doing the same PR cover-up as the DI).

The you shouldn't trust a lot of Darwinists as well since their PR is to claim that they are not Anti-religion when a lot of them truly are. At least guys like Dawkins come out openly.

But that for me as I said is SECONDARY.

You have an agenda for society as well I. My agenda for instance is to see America become Less liberal and more conservative. But that has LITTLE TO DO with the truth or falsity of Darwinism or Intelligent Design.

On the other hand, evolution through natural selection came about through a genuine desire to advance science.

Maybe by Darwin himself, but unfortunately, there are too many Darwinists today who have ( as you call it ) personal agendas. So, personal agenda is BESIDE THE POINT when we argue about theories. The more relevant issue is this --- WHICH ONE IS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ?

As I said before, long before Darwin was born, there have been Iders like Newton and Copernicus whose genuine desire were to advance science. I doubt that those religious Iders would not want to Advance science. That would be counter to honoring God with your mind ( The first and greatest commandment as presented by Jesus ( assuming as you said, Iders are Christian ). There is no dichotomy between being religious and being genuinely desirous of advancing science. I daresay that it does the God one worships no honor if one wants to pervert His truth. If nature is God's creation, why would a genuinely religious IDer dishonor Him by attributing things to Him which He did not do ? ( unless to you of course, all IDers are hypocrites ).

Even Darwin, as a religious man, feared a backlash for his heretical ideas.

Uh huh, and I guess people who are sympathetic to men like Guillermo Gonzalez should also fear backlash for ideas considered heretical today.

Luckily times had changed

In many cases, they haven’t really.

and he didn't suffer the same fate as other correct scientists such as Galileo (the Church didn't think he had "proof" either) and Bruno.

The ones who persecuted Galileo were also ESTABLISHED SCIENTIST in case you were not paying attention. Read all about it here ( not the one the secular media wants you to believe ) :

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/000755.html

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.