Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Witness: intelligent design has identified God as designer
York Daily Record ^ | 9/28/05

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; beatingadeadhorse; cnim; crevorepublic; enoughalready
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-212 next last
To: WildTurkey

The fire is directed the other way tonight.


61 posted on 09/28/2005 7:15:54 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"hillip Johnson, a law professor who was a clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren, is the author of Darwin on Trial and is one of the founders of the "Intelligent Design" movement."

<sarcasm>

Egad! Another left-wing evolutionist! </sarcasm>

62 posted on 09/28/2005 7:18:21 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: inquest
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.

And then the ID'rs would have to face reality.

63 posted on 09/28/2005 7:21:03 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Until science can explain the impossibility of creating something from nothing without any outside interference in order to even have a Big Bang theory, then the possibility of a high being or unknown entity has to be acceptable. People put faith in God just as people put faith in science and both should be accepted in theory.


64 posted on 09/28/2005 7:21:16 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (It was a village of idiots that raised Hillary to Senator status.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
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.

So nice they can't actually burn "witches" anymore.

65 posted on 09/28/2005 7:21:29 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DC Bound
I haven't found an evolutionist argument yet that does this.

The Flagellum Unspun.

66 posted on 09/28/2005 7:24:13 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

It would be ok if they started with the real enemy, The People's Liberation Front of Judea.


67 posted on 09/28/2005 7:24:57 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne
Until science can explain the impossibility of creating something from nothing without any outside interference in order to even have a Big Bang theory, then the possibility of a high being or unknown entity has to be acceptable.

How does that help? If it's a problem where the universe came from, why isn't it a problem where this God entity came from?

68 posted on 09/28/2005 7:25:56 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The only one in the world who never saw that movie, I had to Google the term. Must make a note to address the holes in my education. Seen all the other MPs, anyway!
69 posted on 09/28/2005 7:29:52 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DC Bound

ID is falsfiable in a lot of ways.

What testable predictions does ID make that would make it false if the results are not as predicted?

70 posted on 09/28/2005 7:32:30 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

I have two copies, the cheap one and the Criterion. the Criterion version is worth the bucks. Worth any three other movies.


71 posted on 09/28/2005 7:33:07 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I'll check it out. I was ready for a "new" movie anyway.

Out for the night.

72 posted on 09/28/2005 7:35:16 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: js1138

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.

Thanks for the idea. I'm thinking of the entertainment value.

73 posted on 09/28/2005 7:39:34 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DC Bound
I'll bite.

To falsify ID, all an evolutionist has to do is show a realistic probability that the prebiotic soup could by chance form life.

Strawman. Organic chemistry isn't random. There are no long chain oxygen molecules.

Or they could show that irreducible complexity can be reduced.

No one has yet calculated the "irreducible complexity" of anything. At this point there is still no such thing as "irreducible complexity". How is something that doesn't exist, reduced?

Or that the universe isn't fine tuned for life.

Strawman. Earth is the only place life has been found so far. It's obvious that life is a rare and precious thing and doesn't appear everywhere in the universe.

There are arguments against each of the points I raise, but until there is consensus, the debate needs to go on.

There has never been consensus on anything in the human experience. This is a ridiculous requirement for any kind of knwledge, much less science.

Until then, neither evolution or ID are above debate.

Still waiting for ID to explain anything. It has yet to explain the designer, the fossil record, or calcualte irreducible complexity for anything.

While evolutionary biologists continue to produce fascinating new information, ID is still looking for an idea. There's nothing to debate.

74 posted on 09/28/2005 7:50:38 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Neither are a problem, both must be explored and accepted as a reasonable explanation for life.


75 posted on 09/28/2005 7:54:36 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (It was a village of idiots that raised Hillary to Senator status.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

If the purpose of education is to "educate", then it would be remiss to not include I.D. I'm not saying they should "Bible thump", but to leave out the other side of the "equation" would be a disservice to all students. One has to ask oneself, what are "they" afraid of? Are they afraid that someone might believe in I.D.? Why in the world would a liberal thinker, or anyone for that matter, wish to ban, or censor, ANY information that is a historical part of our country, and the world.


76 posted on 09/28/2005 8:06:05 PM PDT by Chena (I'm not young enough to know everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne

How's this for an oddity that evolutionists (AFAIK) prefer to keep swept under the rug:

"Francis Crick has made a further proposal. In his book "Life Itself" he, too, suggests an extraterrestrial oigin for life but believes that it is unlikely that organic molecules of any complexity could survive drifting in interstellar space. He suggests instead that life in microscopic form may have been sent to other planets by alien beings in suitable protective vessels; that life is liek a message in a bottle."
(Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton)

So Francis Crick, the icon of scientists everywhere, has his own theory of how life evolved. Can this be taught in schools? After all, he's a scientist, and he doesn't believe in God, so he must be all right.


77 posted on 09/28/2005 8:07:18 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

But they don't just say "God did it." They seek examples of situations in the real world than cannot be explained by natural laws or chance or a combination of them. If you saw a chess board that had all the pawns occupying the left field of the board, one in front of the other, you would conclude that neither the laws of chess nor chance could have put them there. ID seeks the same examples in the real world--situations like the fine tuning of the universe--which is so improbable as to be impossible given the rules of chance and physics. They never resort to "God did it." They seek to prove intelligence did it. And that's why it is falsifiable--just show how nonintelligence did it, and ID is falsified.


78 posted on 09/28/2005 8:08:37 PM PDT by DC Bound (American greatness is the result of great individuals seeking to be anything but equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Chena

Exactly, it isn't one or the other, its lets look at all possibilities. This doesn't exclude either or give preference to either while allowing everyone to make their own conclusions. This shouldn't be taught as a class of what is but taught as a class of what if.

Students would be required to access what they have be theorized and give written conclusions. Students would still be required to understand the known universe such as planets, comets, exploration, etc.


79 posted on 09/28/2005 8:12:57 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (It was a village of idiots that raised Hillary to Senator status.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: DC Bound

In general, any assertion made by the ID side can be falsified by showing a natural explanation.

Since the 'assertion' made by the ID 'side' is that 'God (or the Intelligent Designer) did it', this is the 'and prove me wrong' part of the argument. And each natural mechanism/exclamation response science makes results in the same counter assertion and argument, ad infinitum.

So there you have it...the 'science' of ID 'theory'.

80 posted on 09/28/2005 8:14:58 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-212 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson