Replies

The evidence you gave is fleeting, poor and unconvincing

The founders of the modern ID movement's stated goal of advancing the word of God is not convincing? There is probably no point in debating someone with such blinders on.

Yes I see the similarity.

Similarity? It is flat-out a Creation book edited to be the primary Intelligent Design book for the classroom. What gave me that hint? Maybe it was earlier titles like Biology and Creation and Creation Biology.

Where did you get THAT definition of Intelligent Design ?

The book Of Pandas and People. It was a central factor in ID losing the Dover court case. It is published by the Christian group, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, an associate organization of the Discovery Institute.

As I said, when you postulate INTELLIGENCE, there IS BOUND to be similarities with what Creationists see as God

Maybe you're a new convert to the religion, but similarity is simply not the case. There is a definite history from Creation, to Creation Science to Intelligent Design. Meyer himself started on the ID road after listening to creationists.

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.

How do I know it's creationist? Because it currently doesn't say anything about creation? Did you actually read the before and after text? It is a creation book, with "ID" as a synonym for "Creation."

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 ).

How does the saying go, "I can't hear what you're saying because your actions are too loud." No, the DI didn't consult with a schoolboard before they tried to introduce a creationist/ID book in the curriculum.

The fact that they are presenting a theory that has better explanatory power

This is one of their goals, to change the definition of science so that anything can be considered a theory. Thus, established theories that have undergone decades of rigorous scientific scrutiny are suddenly brought down to a level where a tribal creation myth can be called a theory. As soon as you let "God did it" be evidence, it's just turtles, all the way down.

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.

Maybe we should just listen to the father of the Intelligent Design movement, Phillip E. Johnson:

* "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."
"So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'

Do you still deny the origins and motives of the modern Intelligent Design movement? When you read the DI site, know that they are deceiving. Their past words and current actions prove it. Their target audience is religious dissenters (sure, they caught a few others on the way, but that's not the goal). Now, how should we trust any paper that is put out under them? Johnson, above, has been cited for countless instances of intellectual dishonesty in his "research."

In a nutshell: ID is not about better science, but about Christian evangelism. The evidence absolutely proves it.

You are so lost, I’m not sure where to begin.

First of all, Phillip Johnson and other at the Discovery Institute really believe that ID is a reality. They are not making it up to “further their agenda.” If they were trying to “sell” ID without really believing it themselves, then they would be dishonest, but they are not.

Secondly, many great scientists also believed in ID — even before science had a clue about the amazing complexity of the “simplest” living cell. Louis Pasteur, the father of modern biology wrote, “The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the work of the Creator.” Now, call me naive, but if Pasteur did not believe in ID, would he find “the work of the Creator” by studying nature?

Thirdly, the “agenda” of the Discovery Institute is completely independent of the reality of the existence or non-existence of ID. You don’t seem to understand that point, because you keep going back to their “agenda” instead of addressing ID itself. And when you do address ID, you simply make assertions and invoke arrogant appeals to authority.

A few posts back I quoted from astronomer Fred Hoyle, who according to Wikipedia was an atheist, explaining why ID is undeniable. Let me give a fuller version of this quote from a lecture he gave in 1982:

“So 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 in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true. ... 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.”

—Sir Fred Hoyle, British astonomer, 1982

The difference between you and Hoyle is that Hoyle has thought about the problem, whereas you apparently have not. As a result, your posts constitute “nonsense of a high order.”

The founders of the modern ID movement's stated goal of advancing the word of God is not convincing? There is probably no point in debating someone with such blinders on.

Again, I refer you to this EXPLICIT statement from the Discovery Institute:

-----------------------------------------------

Q: Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.

Similarity? It is flat-out a Creation book edited to be the primary Intelligent Design book for the classroom.

Which leads back to the original question --- if it is a creationist book, where again is the reference to Genesis, the Bible, the Flood and God ? You can repeat this all you want, absent an answer, I guess it is just smoke and mirrors on your part...

What gave me that hint? Maybe it was earlier titles like Biology and Creation and Creation Biology.

Which earlier titles and how do they relate to this book ?

The book Of Pandas and People. It was a central factor in ID losing the Dover court case. It is published by the Christian group, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, an associate organization of the Discovery Institute.

Another Inaccuracy again.

This is what Casey Luskin explains about the book of PANDAS AND PEOPLE :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there more to the story? When certain pre-publication drafts of Pandas used terms such as "creation" and "creationist," they used them in a way that rejected "creationism" as defined by the courts and popular culture. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared creationism to be a religious viewpoint because it required a "supernatural creator":

The legislative history therefore reveals that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind. (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 591-592, emphasis added)

Thus, what the Supreme Court found was religion and therefore unconstitutional was not the word “creationism,” but the teaching that a “supernatural creator” was responsible for life. “Creation science” was how the Louisiana Legislature had used to describe that religious concept.

Yet pre-publication drafts of Pandas juxtaposed the word "creation" with statements to the exact opposite effect, noting that science cannot scientifically detect a supernatural creator. Consider these important excerpts from pre-publication drafts of Pandas, showing that from the beginning, their project did not do what made traditional "creationism" unconstitutional: it did not delve into supernatural explanations:

"In each of these excerpts from pre-Edwards v. Aguillard drafts of Pandas, it is clear that the idea of "creation" discussed in pre-publication drafts of Pandas was specifically NOT trying to postulate a supernatural creator! The concepts advanced by even pre-publication, pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas were sharply different from what the courts have defined as "creationism." These early drafts were not trying to study the supernatural.

To solidify this point, consider the deposition testimony of Charles Thaxton as to why he started to use the term intelligent design in the Pandas book:

I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there.

(Deposition of Charles Thaxton 52-53, Kitzmiller, No. 4:04-CV-2688 (M.D. Pa., July 19, 2005))

Similarly, a 1990 post-publication rebuttal to a critic, written by the Pandas publisher explains:

As a consequence, yes, we are careful not to identify the intelligent cause behind the biological phenomena presented, but not for purposes of stealth, but rather precisely because we think that this is a religious conclusion.

Thus, the limits of what intelligent design can tell us stem not from legal strategies but from an honest effort to limit statements to scientific claims that can be made based upon the empirical data. ID is about respecting the limits of the scientific data--not hiding religion for legal purposes. In other words, even in its pre-publication form Pandas offered a theory that was conceptually distinct from what the courts have defined as "creationism."

-----------------------------------------------

So it is WRONG to say that ID "mutated" to avoid a court decision. ID was formulated in its present form--an empirically based argument that would not stray into the supernatural-- BEFORE the Edwards case was decided. Thus, even before Edwards v. Aguillard, ID lacked the very quality that caused creationism to be declared unconstitutional: it did not postulate a "supernatural creator."

Maybe you're a new convert to the religion, but similarity is simply not the case.

I prefer to think for myself rather than consider myself as a convert to anything. If reason is on the side of idea X, and I believe it is, yes you can call me a convert to idea X.

There is a definite history from Creation, to Creation Science to Intelligent Design.

I am not interested in history, I am interested in what EXISTS NOW. And what I see on the Discovery Website contradicts what you're saying.

Meyer himself started on the ID road after listening to creationists.

THerefore what follows ( assuming this factoid was true).... how does that disprove ID ?

How does the saying go, "I can't hear what you're saying because your actions are too loud."

Uh huh, and their actions show that they are not Biblical Creationists, that's what speaking loud.

No, the DI didn't consult with a schoolboard before they tried to introduce a creationist/ID book in the curriculum.

But where is the creationist book ? I don't see it. I don't read any mention of the Bible or God in any of these books.

This is one of their goals, to change the definition of science so that anything can be considered a theory.

Who defined science ? Did believers in ID like Newton and Galileo define Science when they say they believe in a God who created and (in Newton's case ), GUIDES the universe ?

How about Johannes Kepler ? Kepler sought simplicity and order that he assumed by faith would be there, and said that he was merely "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

These people did not know what science is ?

If by practicing good science, you mean methodological naturalism, then I and many others respectfully disagree with your definition.

Thus, established theories that have undergone decades of rigorous scientific scrutiny are suddenly brought down to a level where a tribal creation myth can be called a theory.

That is of course a caricature. If an Evolution were as established as you say it is,how come a lot of its predictions ( important ones for that matter ) upon closer scrutiny, do not bear out ?

Caricatures aren't arguments, BTW. They are just that --- ill-advised attempts at ridicule.

As soon as you let "God did it" be evidence, it's just turtles, all the way down. Replace the word "God did it" with "random mutation" did it. Does that make a difference ? Maybe we should just listen to the father of the Intelligent Design movement, Phillip E. Johnson:

* "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."

And listen to the leading proponent of Evolution, Richard Dawkins who said :

"...although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6

This is the same guy who is affiliated with Council for Secular Humanism, an organization with an atheist agenda.

Oh, while we're at it, let's talk about Sam Harris, who is completing a doctorate in neuroscience and whose works Dawkins endorses. Harris spends a lot of his time trying to convince America that Christian belief is not only wrong, but EVIL. ( latest book : Letter to a Christian Nation ).

Of course, WIRED magazine profiles them here :

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

". . . The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there’s no excuse for shirking.

Three writers have sounded this call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett."

Do I even have to mention militant atheist, Darwinist and Iowa State University professor -- Hector Avalos and his campaign to make sure that students who pass through the university become atheist ?

So, if your argument is that some IDers have as their motive, to bring America back to belief in God, then the next obvious question is this --- WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THEIR ARGUMENTS, given that there are some Darwinists who motives are to disabuse America of any religious belief ? But I am simply repeating this. I said this before.

People with agendas on both sides of the aisle exist. How does that address the contents of the book -- Exploring Evolution ?

In a nutshell: ID is not about better science, but about Christian evangelism.

In a nutshell, all you've shown is that there are so called "evangelists" on both sides of the fence. That's all. If you cared about better science, you could have dealt with what the book presented and critiqued it.

The evidence absolutely proves it.

What evidence ?