Posted on 07/16/2009 10:35:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
IN THE battle over how to teach evolution in public schools, Thomas Jefferson’s demand for a “separation between church and state’’ has been cited countless times. Many argue that the controversial alternative to Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, is an exclusively religious idea and therefore cannot be discussed under the Constitution. By invoking Jefferson’s principle of separation, many critics of intelligent design assume that this visionary Founding Father would agree with them.
But would he? For too long, an aspect of Jefferson’s visionary thought has been ignored, hidden away as too uncomfortable for public discussion - his support for intelligent design.
In 1823, when materialist evolutionary ideas had long been circulating, Jefferson wrote to John Adams and insisted that the scientific evidence of design in nature was clear:...
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
At that point probably not much.
Examination of human behavior and the outcomes of that behavior over a long period of time. One might also look at the suitability of the design for the uses it is put to.
And then I would look for anything is human experience that provides an explanation that fits what I had observed.
If I look at a building I can ascertain certain things about the designer from what he has has designed unless he has gone to some length to hide himself.
I'd look for quality of workmanship, how the parts were integrated into the whole building, how well it it served it's designed purpose and so forth.
I could look at how safe the building is, how it performs under stress and deduce that the designer was a moral individual that was concerned about the users’ welfare.
The same principle would apply to the design of humans.
what about the bacteria flagella motor? What research would you perform on its design?
“Third, if “intelligent design” is about the search for a designer (and I think some ID advocates would disagree with you here), what scientific methods are used for studying the nature of this designer?”
That’s what I said I would do, the I.D. folk avoid looking for a designer and stop at the design part.
“Secondly, your example with the radio signals in Contacts says that there’s design found among a bunch of junk. What is the junk? What on our planet have intelligent design advocates found that does NOT show evidence of design?”
I think I said random not junk, the two not being the same. the random signals were...random signals.
As for what other people think or find about design you’ll have ask them, I only speak for myself.
As to why keep searching, that’s an odd question since curiosity is part of human nature.
Would someone else trying to figure out how it got sent interfere with you figuring out who sent it, and why?
“What does human behavior have to do with it? Intelligent design is more than human actions.”
Your question seems to imply human behavior and human design are unrelated, how that could be so i can't understand, but looking for purpose as evidenced
by design was what I commented on.
Why not get to your point instead of these rather broad questions? There is a point here, isn’t there?
He did no such thing. He edited the Bible. Obviously YOU have never seen a copy of it. Jefferson's Bible consists entirely of quotes by Christ himself. Including Matthew chapters 23 and 24. You'd do well to look those up.
How would that show an Intelligent Designer as opposed to natural selection?
Natural selection would explain the suitability of the design also; I am confused on how you could tell the difference?
How would the examination of human behavior and the outcomes of that behavior over a long period of time support the supposition of an intelligent designer, and how much time would be required?
What about evidence that pre-dates the human experience?
What test would you perform to support your observations?
Why do I care for my sick parents at the end of their life?
What existing trait would natural selection select and preserve to cause me to do so?
But if I am designed with the capability of feeling duty and compassion and love it makes quite good sense.
So I would ask what traits or series of traits would exist that natural selection could work upon to produce step by step, with each step being selected and preserved.
These steps would have to form a pathway to suitability I would think before favoring natural selection over design.
“What about evidence that pre-dates the human experience?”
You'll have to tell what evidence you have in mind. But as to tests? I don't what test I personally might perform
in differentiating natural selection and design.
I would say that perhaps history is in a sense a test.
But for behavior to mean anything a one time unique event won't do. History takes time, how much depends on what level of evidence the observer requires. When humans, social creatures by design or nature if you will, have organized themselves into societies they have followed a rather predictable pattern which points to a reaction to design. Whereas natural selection cannot produce rules of conduct, use of money, relationships between members of a society or a family. Design by an intelligent creator can because design can have purpose and direction, natural selection cannot.
But allow me a question of you: How would we know if a particular trait in humans was the result of natural selection and therefore beneficial?
No, I've not forgotten or ignored your question on genes but it will have to wait till the afternoon.
In one case, a line of inquiry about who did it an why would be pursued independent of, and without conflict with investigating how it was done. In the other, it's a point of intense conflict.
Teach ID all you want in public schools.....in a religious studies or philosophy class.
What?
Once you decided that message was a product of intelligent design, you'd want to start investigating who sent it and why, but don't seem particularly concerned with how. I doubt if it would bother you if some else was more interested in finding out how than in finding out who or why.
When it's a question of life instead of a message, investigating how suddenly becomes very controversial and divisive.
Bother me? What other's priorities are is their affair even if I thought them misplaced.
I don't think it's the investigating how that presents a problem but the conclusions drawn, the demand that those conclusions are the only ones possible that can be drawn.
“It's not scientific!” has become the new charge of blasphemy.
Plus the silly notion of NOMA, that the how of life is somehow in a closed off world apart from the who and why and ne’er the twain shall meet.
"Blasphemy" is a theological term, and one of your choosing.
What is it about the charge that something isn't "scientific" that you think is wrong, and exactly how would you suggest correcting it? What is it you want accepted as being "scientific", and what criteria do you think need to be applied to determine that it is?
It is. Evolutionism is a philosophical worldview that is used to interpret the world through a particular lens. It is completely inobvious when not approached self-referentially.
is that creationists constantly describe some cartoon version of evolution and then tell you that's what you believe.
Tell us, Sonny, what is your definition of evolution, then? I've seen about twenty differing ones in the literature, including some that are quoted by creationists and which you would probably consider "cartoonish."
It's design. By Someone eminently more capable than even our best cyberneticists.
First the charge is useless and Second it demonstrates a mind set that only what is officially approved is acceptable.
I don't know that there is an exact correction available.
People will say what they will.
As to acceptance and criteria, I don't think it's worth worrying about.
Perhaps you have some ideas about to how remove the politics and fraud from science today.
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.