ARRRRRRR!!
Posted on 09/28/2005 8:56:34 AM PDT by Crackingham
Supporters of intelligent design argue the concept is not religious because the designer is never identified. But this morning, in the third day of testimony in a federal court case challenging the Dover school district’s inclusion of intelligent design in biology class, an expert for the plaintiffs pointed to examples where its supporters have identified the designer, and the designer is God.
Robert Pennock, a Michigan State University professor of the philosophy of science, pointed to a reproduction shown in court of writing by Phillip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley and author of books including “Darwin on Trial” and “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.”
Johnson, known as the father of the intelligent design movement, wrote of “theistic realism.”
“This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that this reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology,” the writing stated.
Pennock was being questioned by plaintiffs’ attorneys. He will be cross-examined after a morning break.
> What is there to discuss about atheism?
Not much, just that it's a lack of a particular belief. It's no more than discussing the lack of belief in the Easter Bunny or elves.
Such as?
that maybe the universe and all it encompasses was not just a chance, random happening.
Who says that it was? Not even atheists say that, and I'm no atheist by any stretch.
I have a question - Does anyone know when or why intellegent design became such a hot topic? I've generally avoided these threads, but the topic came up in conversation and I didn't know the answer.
Since intelligent design is a part of many religions, it doesn't make sense that only recently (past 5-7 years or so?) has it created such a stir. Does it have to do w/teaching it in schools? And if so, being that it is a part of many religions, why would this become an issue only now? Wouldn't we have had this discussion years ago?
Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
They're lawyers. Weaseling is accepted. Nay, expected.,
He's the guy how came up with the scam in the first place. So what he wrote is pretty darned significant.
That wouln't falsify ID, coz "The Designer" could still have done it.
To falsify ID, the ID advocates have to come up with the concept of a piece of evdence that MUST be observed for ID to have occurred, or something that cannot possibly exist if ID was responsible (and finding of which would thus falsify ID)
ARRRRRRR!!
And superbly nourished!
are those who have been graced His Noodly Appendage!
All of the world's religions are going to examine this guy and find him lacking?
Hardly. And irrelevant.
In general, any assertion made by the ID side can be falsified by showing a natural explanation. Such as for the Cambrian explosion, fine tuning of the universe, etc. All that we ask is that someone produce a step by step process that is merely possible. Your argument appears to be (if I read you correctly) that the ID side will ultimately just refer any criticism back to God did it. But the reality I see is that the evolutionists are more likely to do so. No matter what criticism is leveled against evolution, the response is always either to ridicule ID or to say some unknown evolutionary mechanism accomplished the improbable or impossible. Evolution has yet to produce transitionary fossils, and can only do so by ignoring the fact that almost all fossils show that species don't change. Instead, they pick and choose among the fossil evidence, looking for things that look the same. Whenever a fossil doesn't fit the evolutionary timeline, they claim an animal evolved twice. Evolution also has yet to demonstrate speciation. Evolution also has yet to overcome the astronomical improbability of life forming at all, let alone evolving from a single cell to human being. Finally, the more we learn about cells themselves, the more we see that they are themselves irreducibly complex. Even the lauded computer simulated evolution program from Caltech, which evolutionist use to say evolution is easy, shows the exact opposite--that it is impossible--given realistic assumptions.
Evolution is a mess, and the only way it remains popular is the blind faith of people who refuse to admit they were built with something in mind. If ID is wrong and evolution is right, why are evolutionists unwilling to tackle the tough arguments presented by ID? Why do they instead seek to trivialize their opponent? Wouldn't be better to just prove ID wrong? Is it at all telling that they haven't yet, and seek to obscure the debate by calling names?
In general, any assertion made by the ID side can be falsified by showing a natural explanation. Such as for the Cambrian explosion, fine tuning of the universe, etc. All that we ask is that someone produce a step by step process that is merely possible. Your argument appears to be (if I read you correctly) that the ID side will ultimately just refer any criticism back to God did it. But the reality I see is that the evolutionists are more likely to do so. No matter what criticism is leveled against evolution, the response is always either to ridicule ID or to say some unknown evolutionary mechanism accomplished the improbable or impossible. Evolution has yet to produce transitionary fossils, and can only do so by ignoring the fact that almost all fossils show that species don't change. Instead, they pick and choose among the fossil evidence, looking for things that look the same. Whenever a fossil doesn't fit the evolutionary timeline, they claim an animal evolved twice. Evolution also has yet to demonstrate speciation. Evolution also has yet to overcome the astronomical improbability of life forming at all, let alone evolving from a single cell to human being. Finally, the more we learn about cells themselves, the more we see that they are themselves irreducibly complex. Even the lauded computer simulated evolution program from Caltech, which evolutionist use to say evolution is easy, shows the exact opposite--that it is impossible--given realistic assumptions.
Evolution is a mess, and the only way it remains popular is the blind faith of people who refuse to admit they were built with something in mind. If ID is wrong and evolution is right, why are evolutionists unwilling to tackle the tough arguments presented by ID? Why do they instead seek to trivialize their opponent? Wouldn't be better to just prove ID wrong? Is it at all telling that they haven't yet, and seek to obscure the debate by calling names?
WOW! Perfect.
What's interesting is to step over to the religion forum and watch different denominations subject each other to the same treatement they give evolution. It's like the bad neighborhoods where the cops are afraid to go.
hmmm. Maybe we should start putting science in the religious classes ...
It doesn't wash. All the ID'rs have to say is "God did it".
It gets really interesting when the Protestants start calling the Catholics anti-Christian ...
That's been done for all of Behe's examples of irreducible complexity. It's a matter of time before it's done for biogenesis.
As for fine tuning, that's truely a religious belief. It has no impact on science at all.
It doesn't wash. All the ID'rs have to say is "God did it".
At that point Occam's Razor would be staring them in the face.
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.