The Intelligent Design Controversy Heats Up

This summer, the Intelligent Design movement achieved an important goal. For years, evolutionists have been saying that the theory couldn't be taken seriously, because no articles explicitly advocating it had been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Well, now one has been.

In August, Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture published an article in a peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article argued that materialistic theories of evolution can't account for the "origination of new biological forms" during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, and suggested intelligent design as an alternative.

This article had to go through the same peer-review process as any other scientific paper. But that wasn't enough for many Darwinists. Members of the Biological Society of Washington, as well as the National Center for Science Education, wrote to the journal protesting that the article was "substandard"—before they'd even read it. Even the Biological Society's governing council distanced themselves from the article, saying that had they known about it beforehand, they "would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings."

And it gets better. The statement went on to declare that "Intelligent Design … will not be addressed in future issues of the [journal]." The whole subject is just off-limits. As Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute says, "Instead of addressing the paper's arguments or inviting counterarguments or rebuttal, the society has resorted to affirming what amounts to a doctrinal statement in an effort to stifle scientific debate."

How can a respected scientific organization get away with that kind of censorship? Simple: by portraying the subject as non-scientific. Never mind that three scientists approved Meyer's article, as did the journal's editor, who is an evolutionary biologist.

You see, materialistic evolutionists can't afford to think that Intelligent Design could possibly explain life. They can't even acknowledge it, for fear it would turn their whole philosophy—yes, philosophy, not science—upside down. To believe in design means believing in a Designer, and that belief wouldn't fit at all with the closed universe that's essential to the naturalistic worldview.

So they take what they see as the only possible answer—cut off debate, forget about academic freedom. It's frightening to see scientists deliberately decide that a line of scientific inquiry doesn't deserve to be pursued because it doesn't fit their beliefs. Who is putting dogma before science here?

The scientists who complained about Meyer's article need to learn that you can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, maintain that a scientific movement must publish a peer-reviewed article in order to be considered legitimate, and then turn around and claim that it wasn't legitimate for a journal to publish any peer-reviewed article from that movement. If this is the kind of argument our Ph.D.s are coming up with, I think we'd better start requiring that all science majors take a few courses in logic.

Alacarte - The shroud is evidence of the ressurection? Good grief man! How exactly does some strange (to christians) old piece cloth provide evidence that a supernatural event occurred 2000 years ago?

JFK_Lib - Well, that is for forensic investigation to uncover. A good site for such information is: http://www.historicaljesusquest.com/

A quote from them:

"If the Shroud of Turin is fake, then many centuries ago someone forged these pictures of Jesus on the cloth. With forensic science, we should be able to figure out how it was done. If the Shroud is the real burial cloth of Jesus, as many believe it is, then with a bit of CSI-style thinking we should be able to figure out how the pictures of Jesus came to be on this cloth?

.....
Until recently the prima facie CSI-like case for forgery seemed strong. Now, for the first time, we have new forensic science data. Much of it didn't come to light until 2004. And because of this new information, the enigma of the pictures of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin becomes even more intriguing and perhaps more difficult to solve. The fan of CSI, the student of forensic science, and all of us should be challenged to try and figure out what is going on here.

Let's be clear. Let's be clear in forensic science and CSI terms. No one has figured out how these pictures came to be on the cloth; not if it was faked and not if it is real.

Let's also be clear in a forthright CSI way of thinking, the carbon 14 testing has been so challenged by modern forensic science (as recently reported by National Geographic News and PBS) that is fails the test of reasonable doubt. The honest CSI is left with no option but to admit that there is no evidence from forensic science that the cloth is medieval."

Apparently some investigators have had some theories of how the images could have naturally formed on the cloth, and this would be an example of scientifically established material evidence of something that may quite likely have been supranatural.

But a materialist could never accept such a hypothesis and thus enters the investigation with his mind already made up that the Shroud is a fake despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This same kind of prejudice is at work in dismissing ID as Creationism in sheeps clothing.

Alacarte - Wow. If your all powerful deity wanted us to know he existed, he would just do it. He wouldn't leave inane artifacts around for us to extrapolate from.

JFK_Lib - What arrogance to imagine that if the Creator of the universe is not behaving the way you think, in all your infinite wisdom no doubt, then He is not valid!

LOL! ! !

Alacarte - God spoke? The existence of the universe proves god, because god made the universe? In that case, I submit that I made the universe, so since the universe exists, I am the all powerful deity. Please send all your money to... Please tell me you understand why you get ridiculed by scientists?

JFK_Lib - Hohum, it is so sad to see ones opposite in a debate resort to mischaracterization and straw man arguements. That is not what I claimed, so why do you waste your time with such absurdity?

Alacarte - Your logic is really inconsistent. There was a time when people believed in witches and goblins. According to your logic then, since at one time they were commonly thought to exist, then they did exist. I presume then that they all died out from our non-belief?

JFK_Lib - Witches do in fact exist, their faith is called 'Wicca', and whether or not they can genuinely cast a spell ot not is what is debatable, not that they exist - that is a fact.

Alacarte - You are being terribly amusing now. So before the invention of christianity... let's choose greece. In ancient greece, everyone believed and feared the gods, does that mean that zeus and athena were real? But now they aren't? What of the other 6000 religions man has invented? Why is your god special?

JFK_Lib - The ancient 'gods' were demonic in nature, though their concept had been originally quite likely based on a universal God and then degenerated from there. Their gods were idols, and impotent. What makes my God real is that he is not some image but is universal and HE has promised results that I have seen in my life and this is a phenomenum that many others have seen also.

That is why the Abrahamic faiths have not remained restricted to merely tribal/ethnic limits but now have grown to cover all the Earth and now it is safe to say a majority of the worlds population believes in Abrahams God. One day it will be just about everyone.

Zeus never approached anything of this nature as he was far more symbol than substance and what there was of the latter was evil.

Alacarte - I'm not interested in debating theology with you.

JFK_Lib - Ah, so now it is not something to debate; I guess this only follows from the lack of thought given by you on the subject at any scale.

Alacarte - The christian religion has about a thousand different ways to get into heaven, depending on who you talk to. You'd think the almighty deity would have a better communications department.

JFK_Lib - God reaches out to us as we are; beings limited by our life experiences, language, intelligence, and will to seek Truth. Who are you to judge Him for His Mercy and Tolerance?

Alacarte - Since when is the ability to procreate a virtue? People in the third world spawn like rabbits, does that make them better than the west? Sheesh.

JFK_Lib - Well according to Darwin it does. They will survive us and prove our less fitness for continuing.

Alacarte - What do Castro, Stalin and Mao have to do with humanism? They were/are about as interested in humanistic values as the inquisition.

JFK_Lib - According to their own claims they were humanists, the only difference is that they were willing to break a few eggs. But they are materialistic atheists everyone and the proof of the badness of an amoral view of life and humanity, even supposedly humanistic views. Without God their is nothing good that can endure.

Alacarte - Atheism is not a religion, ....

JFK_Lib - Of course it is, just as the number '0' is still a number though void of quantity. Atheism makes religious assertions and is thereby a religious faith, and its lack of a formal organization is no more relevant than it is for Primitive Baptists.

Alacarte - This conversation has deteriorated into what any real conversation about religion eventually does, philosophy. Things like: "The universe exists, therefore my god did it. If you can't prove I'm wrong, then I must be right."

JFK_Lib - But philosophy is what the debate has ALWAYS been about, despite your refusal to engage in rational discussion on it. Science is built upon philosophical axioms, such as that the universe is governed in some since by forces that are capable of being modeled in the form of human concepts and expressed in human language.

That is a huge presumption, but was once based on the Christian faith that states the Universe reflects the orderly Mind of God. This is why Christianity alone accepted science at a populare level because it was accpted in principle by the general population.

By comparison the Greek Atomists were generally ignored in favor of the mystery religions and the ancient world saw no point to the Atomists speculations and if they gbecame inconvenient they were killed without a second thought.

Alacarte - As for science, religion needs to be kept where it belongs, in the realm of pointless philosophy. I was raised a christian and my parents are still christian. I know how powerful the brainwashing is, it took years to de-program myself.

JFK_Lib - No, scientists need to be reminded of the limits of science; it is not the sole source of knowledge and Truth but only one of many. And when materialists like you try to piggy-back your atheistic materialism on science you do it a disservice.

I am glad to know you have Christian parents, as this suggests that there maybe hope for you. But I doubt it as you are too proud to even try to comprehend what your opposites are verbally claiming, much less what the entire mysteries of a silent unviverse are about.

And yes, the prejudice and bigotry of materialists keep Christians from moving openly among the ranks of scientists and are purged when discovered. ID will eventually get its day, but it may be only at the cost of existing scientific institutions becoming replaced.

Merry Christmas and take care.

"Alacarte - Atheism is not a religion, ....

JFK_Lib - Of course it is, just as the number '0' is still a number though void of quantity. Atheism makes religious assertions and is thereby a religious faith, and its lack of a formal organization is no more relevant than it is for Primitive Baptists."

Atheism makes no assertions at all. It is a lack of theism. A lack of something is not something in itself. Or can you explain to me what apathy asserts?

Here is a better analogy: The number zero is not a positive number.

"And yes, the prejudice and bigotry of materialists keep Christians from moving openly among the ranks of scientists and are purged when discovered."
I can see that anyone who bases science on untestable assumptions will be purged sure. A raelian scientist who bases a theory on the untestable assumption that aliens created humans will be "purged" too. People can have these beliefs but they can only be included in science if they can be tested. Abuse of the scientific method in science, not personal beliefs, leads to degraded reputation.

"ID will eventually get its day, but it may be only at the cost of existing scientific institutions becoming replaced."

ID has had over 100 years to "get its day". Modern ID arguments are essentially the same as creationist arguments 100 years ago. "It's really complicated! I don't see how it could happen!". This is a nice argument for personal disbelief in natural mechanisms - the same kind of argument cavemen probably used to explain lightning and rainbows as the product of magic.

ID is best supported when we know nothing about nature. That says it all. If scientists have a natural tendancy to support their own pre-conceptions then ID scientists would be by far the worst kind. Naturalistic scientists would at least be spurred to seek natural mechanisms. ID scientists have no drive to study anything, as any natural mechanisms found can only weaken ID.

Atheism makes no assertions at all. It is a lack of theism. A lack of something is not something in itself.

Atheism makes an assertion, oh yes it does. It is agnosticism that says there is no persuasive evidence and so no evaluation is made, and it is the 'negative' form of atheism that says 'there is insufficient evidence, therefore I disbelieve the claims for God.'

Just as there is a difference between 0 and NULL, there is a difference between agnosticism and negative atheism and that is that negative atheism has formed a judgement, a value that other judgements and values are based on, constituting a values system that is the negative of a theistic values system that we refer to as a 'religion'. Yes, atheism is a religion, it certainly is, much as the Democratic Party is to politics, according to Bob Wills, IIRC.

ID has had over 100 years to "get its day". Modern ID arguments are essentially the same as creationist arguments 100 years ago.

LOL! No, they obviously are not, but go ahead and keep telling yourself that. MEanwhile the ID proponents are going to continue to gain ground and theism will triumph. Even Antony Flew agrees now that the evidence is on the side of theism (not against scientific evolution, but for creationism in the philosophical sense).

As a theist it warms my heart to see materialistic atheists put their hands over their ears and close their eyes and tell the world that there is no evidence for philosophical creationism.

Keep up the good work, all you monkeys, heheh.

"Atheism makes an assertion, oh yes it does. It is agnosticism that says there is no persuasive evidence and so no evaluation is made, and it is the 'negative' form of atheism that says 'there is insufficient evidence, therefore I disbelieve the claims for God.'"

agnostics do not believe in God. Agnostics lack theistic belief and are therefore a-Theist. In my opinion most atheists are agnostics.

The remaining atheists make an assertion that they know there isn't a God. That is faith based atheism and those people are..ahem..irrational..often rebellious kids.

"MEanwhile the ID proponents are going to continue to gain ground and theism will triumph"

I often hear an argument from ID proponents that ID is fit for schools because it is not based on religious belief. We are told that ID doesn't mention who the Designer is, it could be aliens, God, anything apparently. But everyone knows that in reality the Intelligent Design movement is the old Creationist movement in disguise. So it is quite funny that you accidently (?) reveal this by saying "theism will triumph" in reference to ID.

"Even Antony Flew agrees now that the evidence is on the side of theism"
Who?

"As a theist it warms my heart to see materialistic atheists put their hands over their ears and close their eyes and tell the world that there is no evidence for philosophical creationism."
The only evidence for supernatural design has always been a lack of knowledge. Thousands of years ago we could easily have considered *everything* to be a product of the supernatural. If with limited knowledge of nature we cannot comprehend how something like a rainbow can form then that has always been treated by many people as evidence that its formation is not natural.

The theory of evolution is currently strongest at the large scale level of fossils, species and populations and the general mechanisms for how they can evolve. This is essentially the kind of stuff Darwin produced. It is what convinces me.

How evolution occurs is smaller level stuff like genetics and molecular evolution. Despite over half a century of work these areas are still no way near fully understood yet, I don't believe it is evidence for evolution. ID locks onto this lack of knowledge to claim it is evidence of intelligent design. But the lack of natural explaination is possibly due to the lack of understanding of the ties between genetics and embyronic development. People ask what are the genetic stages of say eye evolution, but noone is in a position to answer that yet. A lack of an answer now doesn't mean a lack of an answer ever. If noone can explain how unchanged DNA works to develop an eye in a fetus then how can they be expected to know how slight changes to that DNA will affect eye development?
I expect that when scientists can actually simulate every step of expression of a DNA strand into an organism and can easily modify DNA to see the developmental effects it has, figuring whether structures can evolve or cannot evolve can actually be done.
Although I would find it bizarre if it turned out they cannot evolve as so much at the large scale convinces me that it has.

agnostics do not believe in God. Agnostics lack theistic belief and are therefore a-Theist. In my opinion most atheists are agnostics.

That sounds like a semantic argument that I dont care to waste our time with. The definitions I use I think are more accurate, for what that is worth, but I think they have more 'symetry' if you will.

To me the first questionis whether one 'believes there is a God; Theists say 'yes', Atheists say 'No' and Agnostics say 'maybe, maybe not'.

The Fideist says 'yes' to God no matter what possible evidence one provides (evidence is by its nature insufficient to address the question of God existing), while the Apologist says he believes in God for reason of evidence (evidence relevant). The Theistic Existentialist claims no evidence, but chooses to believe in God because it suits him to (evidence irrelevant).

The Negative Atheist says that he disbelieves in God because of a lack of evidence (evidence relevant and wanting), while the Positive evidence asserts knowledge that God does not exist (evidence relevant and affirms a negative). MEanwhile the Agnostic says there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a decision in either direction. I think the Negative Atheist and Agnostic often seem squishily similar, but are different in the conclusions drawn from the void of evidence they claim is there.

The remaining atheists make an assertion that they know there isn't a God. That is faith based atheism and those people are..ahem..irrational..often rebellious kids

I suspect you are right in most cases, and I think there is a similar immaturity or insecurity on the part of many strident Theists.

I often hear an argument from ID proponents that ID is fit for schools because it is not based on religious belief. We are told that ID doesn't mention who the Designer is, it could be aliens, God, anything apparently. But everyone knows that in reality the Intelligent Design movement is the old Creationist movement in disguise. So it is quite funny that you accidently (?) reveal this by saying "theism will triumph" in reference to ID.

Maybe I misunderstand ID, but I thought it was more than the old argument from ignorance. My concept of their claim is that design is testable and that there are cases where it is necesary and not simply the best WAG for what happened. For instance, Irreducable Complexity is more than an argument based on ignorance, it is asserting that there are cases where complexity CANNOT be reduced, which is qualitatively different from asserting that there is 'no known method' to accomplish complexity.

I know that I am not sufficiently trained to thoroughly evaluate this claim, but I see that more people are coming to accept it as time goes on, and so I am wanting to see more debate on the issue and not see it stifled by some ideological process based on philosophical presumptions science cannot appropriately address.

The theory of evolution is currently strongest at the large scale level of fossils, species and populations and the general mechanisms for how they can evolve. This is essentially the kind of stuff Darwin produced. It is what convinces me.

Agreed, though I think as time goes on, Darwins original idea will be qualified and further defined much as Newtons physics were.

For example, I think Punctuated Equilibrium is a better model than a theory of uniform development, etc.

ID locks onto this lack of knowledge to claim it is evidence of intelligent design. But the lack of natural explaination is possibly due to the lack of understanding of the ties between genetics and embyronic development. People ask what are the genetic stages of say eye evolution, but noone is in a position to answer that yet. A lack of an answer now doesn't mean a lack of an answer ever.

Agreed, but this is not the case with ID *if* they are asserting a provable inability to randomly acheive a type of complex order that they have found in nature that is a small fraction of the cases known.

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.