Replies

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 ?

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

Again, I refer you to the EXPLICIT statements from the Discovery Institute and the founders of the ID movement, that it is NOT about science but about GOD. What you read now is simply a whitewash attempt. All claims of "we don't know what the designer is, it could be anything" are absolute lies.

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 must be missing the point on purpose. There is no explicit reference to Creation because those references have been replaced by the words "Intelligent Design" or variations thereof, but the rest of the text supporting Creation is substantially the same. In other words, Intelligent Design is equal to Creation, only an attempt at being more scientifically palatable.

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

The earlier titles I just stated. The previous titles of "Of Pandas and People" were, in order, "Creation Biology" and "Biology and Creation" until the Aguillard decision (no creation in the science class), after which it was re-edited, replacing Creation with Intelligent Design. Then they tried the title "Biology and Origin" and eventually settled on "Of Pandas and People."

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:

Before you start believing anything they say, please remember that that side of the issue in Dover flat-out perjured itself on the stand. They will say and do anything, including lying under oath to God, in order to further their agenda.

Interesting that the text change came just after that court case. Too much of a coincidence? Definitely.

This is just getting too ridiculous. It's like you're holding your hands over your ears and going "nananananana." Thinking like yours is dangerous. You only see what proponents currently say about themselves and completely disregard all of their actions and statements that show the current statements to be a whitewash.

The reminds me of Al Gore. The public listens to him talk about the environment, yet and accept the lame excuses he has for his own excesses. They want to believe, so any evidence to the contrary is dismissed, current lies are wholly trusted. They listen to Hillary too, ignoring her evil past because she says good things about herself today.

This is the big difference between us. You care that ID is true, because without it there is no need for God (such statements have been made by the DI). I don't care if evolution is true. I don't care if Intelligent Design is true. I only care that the integrity of science is preserved.

Show me a scientific theory that falsifies evolution and shows a better way. I'll dump evolution in a heartbeat. And as I've said before, I'll gladly be the one to take credit for the discovery, as fame and fortune awaits the one who succeeds.