Posted on 08/16/2003 12:12:19 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Move over, Darwin. Intelligent Design has arrived, and it's time to welcome the new kid to town.
"In the future, everyone will be entitled to 15 minutes of fame." artist Andy Warhol.
Darwinism - the notion that all species of plants and animals evolved from earlier forms, and that a blind process, natural selection, determines which forms survive - has had a grip on intellectual culture for 150 years.
Now advocates of a relatively new way of thinking about the origins of life say it's long past the time for the dead Charles Darwin (and adherents of his dying theory) to realize their 15 minutes are up and welcome a new kid to town. It's called Intelligent Design (ID) - the idea that the intricacies of life are too complex to have merely happened randomly. To coin a bromide - "ID is a theory whose time has finally come."
Indeed, you can tell ID has "arrived" because, in the last couple of years, the theory has made a major splash as state and local school boards have debated whether to allow students to learn about ID and other alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution.
You can also tell because some top academics are publishing articles in top scientific journals about it.
But perhaps the best sign that ID has "made the big time" - pro-ID videos are being shown on television. Even public television.
Since May, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" has aired on more than a dozen major PBS affiliates. Publicly funded TV stations in Miami, Baltimore, Cleveland, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, have shown thousands of viewers the Focus on the Family/Illustra Media video, which makes a positive case for Intelligent Design theory.
It's a milestone, according to Dr. Mark Hartwig, worldview analyst at Focus on the Family. It's almost a miracle that the film, which explores the discovery of some of the amazingly intricate complexities that are present in the cell, even made it to public TV.
"Evolution has basically been the official religion of PBS," Hartwig said. "To see them allowing 'heretics' in the 'pulpit' is a remarkable thing."
For Dr. Stephen Meyer, director and senior fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's Discovery Institute, the TV airings are signs of a larger trend - the growing acceptance of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory at the same time serious cracks in the edifice of Darwinism are beginning to show up.
"We've been really delighted by this development, because PBS reflects the consensus in the scientific world," Meyer said. "For many, many years, it has aired mainly programs that promote a Darwinian evolutionary point of view."
Added Hartwig: "What I'm hoping is that this is a sign that the people are beginning to take what I call a 'truly liberal attitude' towards ID, and that is: 'If there's a substantive case to be made here (against evolutionism), let's air it.' " Blowing Darwin 'Out of the Water'
The case against Darwinism - and for ID - is substantive and substantial. Hartwig and Meyer say academic philosophers and scientists are beginning to publish books with major academic publishers and articles in major scientific journals questioning some of the presuppositions of Darwinism.
"The debate about Darwinism - and the debate about Intelligent Design - is being validated at a very high level of academic discourse, and it's getting very difficult to ignore," Meyer said. "Most biologists have defended Darwinism as a 'well-supported theory,' and many of the scientists who are a part of the Intelligent Design movement are challenging that idea, and in fact many who aren't a part of the movement are critiquing various elements of Darwinian theory."
Hartwig and Meyer are reluctant to publicize the names of pro-ID scientists and the academic journals publishing their research, for fear that Darwinists may exert pressure to try to squelch the studies.
There is absolutely no doubt, however, that ID is making inroads in local and state school districts where, Hartwig maintains, it is blowing Darwinism "out of the water."
Credit belongs not only to the openness of school board members, but to the compelling messages contained in "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," and a companion video called "Icons of Evolution."
Jim Fitzgerald, president of Coldwater Media, which produced "Icons" in association with Focus on the Family, said thanks to the passage of the No Child Left Behind education reform law, every state will have an opportunity to reevaluate its science standards over the next four or five years.
"These battles are going to be ongoing for a number of years," Fitzgerald said.
Already, ID is gaining hold.
• In Ohio, a decision was made last December by a nearly unanimous vote of the Ohio Board of Education to require students to critically analyze key aspects of criticism of Darwinian theory.
"Additionally, though the state board did not mandate the teaching of Intelligent Design, many of the board members made it clear they understood that there was a local option for individual teachers to discuss with their students alternative theories to Darwinism," Meyer said.
• In the Cobb County (Ga.) school district, which encompasses greater Atlanta, the school board passed a "Teach the Controversy" proposal recognizing that there are scientists on both sides of the evolution issue, and students need to know the arguments from both the perspective that favors Darwinism and the critique of it, as well.
"Icons of Evolution," by the way, was broadcast on local commercial TV stations in Ohio before the state school board voted.
"We have also had a number of people approach their local cable companies asking them to show the video," Fitzgerald said. "One (unidentified) gentleman in Georgia got the video into 350,000 homes. And he bought radio advertising time to let people know when it was going to be shown." The Real ID
What's the science behind ID's momentum? According to Meyer, "New discoveries in fields like palentology and molecular and cell biology are putting Darwinism under such intense pressure, it will not survive."
"In fact, we've learned a lot about biology since the Civil War - that's really how long it's been since the theory came into being," Meyer said. "I don't think much of biology fits with Darwinian theory. We're learning that life is much more complex than people imagined when Darwinian theory was first being formulated. That has created challenges to the Darwinian explanation of where we came from."
Perhaps the best way to understand the complexity argument is to consider DNA, the building block of human life, which ID adherents say could not have simply "developed" randomly.
"Bill Gates, the computer guru behind Microsoft, has compared DNA to a computer program," Meyer said, "only much more complex than anything we've ever created. We ask people to reflect about that. Bill Gates hires computer programmers to design his software. If there is, effectively, software in the cell, that is powerfully suggestive evidence that there must have been a 'programmer' - an intelligent designer of life itself."
In the end, the job is simply to boldly go where no non-Darwinist theory has ever gone before. The idea that their case is finding listeners and people willing to consider the truth about origins - whether from television, academic discussions or in public school classrooms - simply delights ID adherents.
"Darwinism still has sway in some quarters, but that won't always be the case," Hartwig said, "It's basically a new day. It may still be morning, but it's definitely a new day."
FOR MORE INFORMATION
1. The two videos "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" and "Icons of Evolution" are available from Focus on the Family as part of a video set, "The Evolution Set."
2. For information on Intelligent Design, please see the Discovery Institute Web site.
3. The video "Icons of Evolution" is available for placement on local cable TV systems, or local broadcast stations," free of charges - if you meet certain modest restrictions. Jim Fitzgerald, president of Coldwater Media, producer of "Icons of Evolution," said he anyone interested only needs to call (719) 488-8670 to obtain advance permission and let him know of their plans.
You seem to be under the impression that passing an experimental test--or any number of experimental tests--constitutes "proof". It doesn't. A logician would tell you that it is philosophically impossible to prove a theory experimentally, and that theories can only be disproven.
Your statement that a theory can be disproven and still be a theory is incorrect as well.
I've already given you the example of Newton's theory of gravitation. If it isn't a theory, what do you call it? Likewise, the theory of quantum electrodynamics (quantitatively the most accurate theory ever devised) fails at a high enough energy, the atomic theory of matter fails several key tests, and the phlogiston theory of heat fails just about every test that's been devised for it. Still, people continue to call all of them theories, and with good reason: they are conceptual models.
My original assertation that ID is merely a hypothesis still stands.
I never stated otherwise. It isn't testable, it doesn't make predictions, and it doesn't synthesize disparate phenomena (except in the most trivial sense).
One would never guess...
I'm not sure, but I think that new CREVO Posting Codicil forbids severe agreement with another FReeper.....
Ooops! I forgot (bland is the correct type of post). ROFL!
I still have a way to go before I get my terminology straight. I had been assuming that "hypothesis" was sort of a preliminary theory, one which hadn't yet survived a test or two. And I assumed that an untestable statement was ... I donno, something not quite scientific. I shall make the adjustment.
But in this context, why is Mach's Principle called a "principle"?
There was an agreement. Failing that there is the Grandy Principle.
So it seems. At the most it does nothing for science or inside science. Science has no use for such an idea, our efforts to master nature will continue with or without.
It needs to be pointed out that the public schools do not actually teach evolution. They teach Flintstone-ism which is not the same thing. Everything is dumbed down, including the theory of evolution.
I am a "product" (nasty word that, I am not a "product", I am a free man) of the public schools. But looking back on it, I am a de-facto homeschooler. That was the early 1960s era of "new math". My mother, a schoolteacher herself, made sure I memorized the multiplication table, though my schoolteachers did not.
My grounding in the theory of evolution came from my father, not public school.
In second grade I went from a non-reader to a sixth-grade reading level. It wasn't my teacher's doing.
Public school was moronic back then, it's worse now.
Separate issue from evolution.
? ? ? ? ?
I assume the science agreement is applicable. The Grandy Principle is AKA the principle of humanity. When interpreting another [poster] we must assume not only that he is intelligent, but that his beliefs and desires are connected to each other and to reality in such a way as makes him as similar to ourselves as possible. A corollary of the principle of charity.
Excerpts: We initiated this study to address two questions: First, can the holobaramin be approximated as the family for nonvertebrates? Second, have C3, C4, and C3-C4 plant species descended from a common ancestor, thus implying the post-Creation emergence of biological complexity? From our present analysis, we were unable to answer the first question definitively. We could not define any clear apobaraminic unit to which Flaveriinae belongs, allowing for the possibility that the entire family Asteraceae is a holobaramin. One observation in favor of this interpretation is the fossil record of the family Asteraceae. The family does not appear in the fossil record until the Oligocene and diversifies substantially by the Miocene (Bremer 1994, DeVore 2000). This Cenozoic appearance and diversification is similar to other post-Flood vertebrate baramins (Wise 1994, Wise 1995, Garner 1998, Wise 1999). The second question regarding the origin of C4 photosynthesis has been answered quite clearly. All of our evidence supports the view that all species of the Flaveria genus are members of a single monobaramin and therefore share a common ancestor. Since C3 photosynthesis is the predominant type of photosynthesis for species of Flaveriinae and Flaveriinae sensu lato (Lundberg 1996), the most parsimonious interpretation is that the C4 species have developed from C3 ancestors. Based on this conclusion, the C4 photosynthetic pathway is a biochemical pathway that has emerged in Flaveria after Creation and quite possibly post-Flood (considering the fossil record of the Asteraceae mentioned above).
LOL! So their research led them to believe that there IS A common ancestor and they admit that the C4 species came after the flood! LOL! Did it EVOLVE?...see below.
Next Excerpt:
Regardless of mechanistic explanations, the presence of two very different kinds of photosynthesis in the same holobaramin highlights the elegant design that is so prevalent in the living world. Not only did God create organisms with what they needed at that time; He also provided an abundance of characteristics, which may or may not be immediately apparent, that would be necessary for survival in a world damaged by sin and ravaged by a worldwide Flood. From our narrow, utilitarian viewpoint, we may label a structure 'vestigial' or a strand of DNA 'junk,' but given the proper circumstances, these useless features may prove their value after all. The notion of AGE-activated latent genetic material could become a powerful explanation of apparently useless features of living organisms as simply the unexpressed abundance of a benevolent Creator.
LOL! So I guess this anamoly can be explained away with junk DNA? Even though they had no specific evidence, they make up this conclusion. This paper is a joke and you should be embarrassed for even trying to post this on FR.
1 down...418 to go.
419 Web-Based Articles-some of the best material supportive of the biblical creationary model, carefully selected and compiled by Ashby Camp.
Your response lacks relavance to my post. I was looking for a scientific hypothesis for Intelligent design. Your links say nothing about intelligent design. They are merely previously discredited links on biblical creationism. Please try again.
Lest you think I dismiss your links out of hand, I'd like to point something out that is listed in this article that really is quite funny. There is a table in the article that lists the so-called double standard between evolution and creation. At the bottom of the table, under the headings for Creation and Evolution and "Primary means of listing counterpart system", it is listed that evolution 'A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences', and that creation uses 'Citation of empirical data'.
I don't believe that this table is very valid. especially in this entry. I believe the entries should be reverse. Here's why. The Institute of Creation Research, considered by creationists to be one of the premier creationist research organizations, lists the following sentence as one of their main tenets of research: "A clear distinction is drawn between scientific creationism and Biblical creationism but it is the position of the Institute that the two are compatible and that all genuine facts of science support the Bible." All genuine facts of science support the Bible, huh? So they are unwilling to teach or suppport science that doesn't support the bible? Seems to me that they are the ones who: ''A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences', not the other side.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Einstein made any conotribution whatsoever to biology.
Don't confuse the biological ID hypothesis with the hypothesis that there is some sort of 'intelligence' behind the creation or structure of the entire universe. Big difference.
Just how is "Evolution" rational? I mean just what inanimate obects, materials, or substances have you seen suddenly obtain all the qualities we see in life. Well other than Sea Monkeys and Pinochio?
Regards,
Boiler Plate
Good point, but further: What ultimately successful scientific movement ever even attempted such a strategy?
I continue to suspect that, even if at some psychological level I couldn't begin to characterize, creationists and ID'ers don't really "believe" in their own ideas, or at the very least don't believe their claims about their present, or even ultimate, viability. I know that's counterintuitive, and even a bit far-fetched, but I can't see any other explanation for their behavior.
No scientific movement that genuinely had its "eyes on the prize," and thought there was any real hope of attaining it, would ever behave as creationist and ID'ers have. Human beings can be pretty stupid, but not that stupid. Every scientists will realize that ginning up, or even acquiesing in, a mass movement of public controversialism prior to professional acceptance will never overcome, or even reduce, whatever professional prejudice might exist against their ideas. Quite to the contrary. Such behavior can only increase or create prejudice, and properly so. If you're saying, with your behavior, "I don't really believe what I'm advocating, and don't expect you to accept it on merit," then intellectual predjudice towards your claim is perfectly rational.
1) You'er talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.
2) Suddenly obtain all characteristics of life? No scientist is making such a claim. Where did you get such an idea?
Regards, Boiler Plate"
Thank you for providing an example of the generally declining intelligence of the public.
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.