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.
Well said, and thank you, TheForceofOne! Especially your sentence, "This shouldn't be taught as a class of "what is", but taught as a class of "what if"." Sorry for the added punctuation....that's just ME. LOL The Liberal agenda is all about "what floats your boat". But they are sneaky that way. They ARE biased, and they do NOT believe in open discussion and open debate unless it serves their "cause". And to be blatantly honest, their "cause" is bad, very bad.....evil, bad.....'nuf said.
If you infer the origin of life from its appearence you would have to assume evolution abd natural selection. What psychopath would design leishmaniasis?
exclamation ??? That was supposed to be explanation.
Well, duh, if it wasn't a coincidence or grand accident then it must have been deliberately set in motion by a Higher Power, Supreme Being etc.
Can these people be that dumb?
Yet, you would think that to prove one system arose from nothing but random chemicals, then transformed itself to something else, one ought to have something a little better than the catch all, murky process, "why, it evolved!"
This is the central point the ID side keeps making--show us how it happened, or even could have happened! Don't just rely on this mysterious "it evolved." Don't just say that someday we'll know how it evolved. At some point, for skeptical people to believe the process of evolution happened in the past and accounts for all life forms ever on the planet, somebody, some time, is going to have to actually demonstrate it.
I disagree with your premise. ID doesn't say God did it. ID says, based on science and probabilities, that Intelligence is the best answer for a lot of questions. Thus, it is falsifiable. Just show where a naturalistic mechanism could produce the result that ID says is better explained by intelligent design.
I get the feeling that most of the people I'm responding to have only read their side's criticism of ID, and none of the ID arguments for themselves. This is apparent because the same false assumptions about ID keep coming up.
And that's why it is falsifiable--just show how nonintelligence did it, and ID is falsified.
Do you have an example of a natural phenomena that can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have been produced by.....nonintelligence (other than the OJ trial verdict)? If not, your argument is absurd.
ID doesn't say God did it.
Okay, just substitute 'Intelligent Designer' and you have...Since the 'assertion' made by the ID 'side' is that the 'Intelligent Designer did it', this is the 'and prove me wrong' part of the argument. And each natural mechanism/explanation response science makes results in the same counter assertion and argument, ad infinitum.
ID is falsfiable in a lot of ways.
I'm still waiting for .....What testable predictions does ID make that would make it false if the results are not as predicted? And please be concrete and specific.
You can accept God as the creator and still demand the students describe the physical processes. For example the water cycle or Photosynthesis.
This is great! we've got the evo gang spinning like headless chickens; they'll self distruct presently.
I'm taking these one by one and my wireless is slow tonight. Bear with me. The "nonintelligence" sentence refers to evolution, which posits blind chance is responsible for change, and natural selection for preserving it. That's nonintelligence--and you are correct, I cannot demonstrate anything evolved.
evolution, which posits blind chance is responsible for change,
Evolution doesn't posit this.
Thanks for the ping!
If you are aware of any "natural mechanism/explanation response" that this has happened with, I'd love a link. I haven't seen a refutation of any ID claims yet that rises to challenge just once, let alone again and again. But even if it did, eventually even the proponents of ID would recognize they were losing the argument and science would march on. I don't think its valid to claim "I'm not going to argue because the other side won't quit." It's up to both sides to deliver the knockout punch, and obviously that hasn't happened yet. But it is an interesting debate, and whichever side wins will be strengthened for it.
That's nonintelligence--and you are correct, I cannot demonstrate anything evolved.
You misunderstand. Unless a physical phenomena can be found that is clearly the product of nonintelligence, the implication is that all physical phenomena are the result of intelligence. This is a circular closed system of reasoning. And it is not scientific.
You are correct. What our places of higher learning are involved in is mass brainwashing. A student can literally fail if they do not conform. Diversity is a beautiful word to Liberals but only within their narrow confines of the definition. Thank you for those links. I will read and learn. :)
Ok, evolution posits that chance changes in DNA result in enough positive physiological changes, which are favored by natural selection, that life continually transforms into different and sometimes more complex beings. Close enough? If not, how would you state it?
If you are aware of any "natural mechanism/explanation response" that this has happened with, I'd love a link.
We really are not communicating here. All scientific theories explain a natural mechanism for observed physical phenomena.
And, sorry, but I'm now out for the night.
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.