Posted on 09/30/2005 2:09:51 PM PDT by truthfinder9
It's amazing that these Darwinian Fundamentalists claim they're for science only to turn around and try to destroy any contrary theories or evidence. They're really getting desperate, the ID movement really has them rattled.
****
September 30, 2005
It’s happening again: another scientist, another academic institution, another attempt to stifle freedom of thought. The “Darwinist inquisition,” as a Discovery Institute press release calls it, is as predictable as it is relentless.
This time the setting is Iowa State University. One hundred twenty professors there have signed a statement denouncing the study of intelligent design and calling on all faculty members to reject it. The statement reads, in part, “We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor. . . . Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science.”
I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this thing is getting out of control. To begin with, the reasoning of the Iowa State professors is, frankly, some of the weakest I’ve ever seen. They give three reasons for rejecting intelligent design. The first is what they call “the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer”—which, even if that were true, would prove nothing. If certain features were chosen arbitrarily for study, how does that prove that no other features showed evidence of design? The number two reason given is “unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer.” That is a dubious claim; most serious intelligent design theorists have made very few conclusions about any such “wishes and desires.”
But the third reason is my favorite: They say it is “an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.” Now this gets to the heart of the matter. The statement goes so far as to claim, “Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the sciences.” I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe. I thought we were supposed to start without any foregone conclusions about the supernatural at all, that is, if we wanted to be truly scientific.
It seems to me that the intelligent design theorists aren’t the ones trying to inject religion and philosophy into the debate—the Darwinists are, starting out with predetermined conclusions.
But it gets even better than that. The Iowa State fracas started because one astronomy professor there, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, has attracted attention with a book on intelligent design. It’s a little odd to accuse Gonzalez of being unscientific; he’s a widely published scientist whose work has made the cover of Scientific American. But that’s exactly what’s happening. And here’s the kicker: Gonzalez barely mentions intelligent design in the classroom. He wants to wait until the theory has more solid support among scientists. All he’s doing is researching and writing about it.
Now the lesson here for all of us is very clear: Don’t be intimidated when confronting school boards or biology teachers about teaching intelligent design. All we are asking is that science pursue all the evidence. That’s fair enough. But that’s what drives them into a frenzy, as we see in Iowa.
Now there is a leap! You must be a Darwinian evolutionist. Able to leap tall cunundrums in a single bound.
The fact that you are willing to put your life in the hands of self-proclaimed experts does not make me an agrarian primitive.
I know experts. I have been an expert. Trust me. You don't want to swallow the experts whole.
So there's no proof one exists, and in fact many of us believe it's impossible, but you want us to work on it anyway?
I have no problem with anyone pursuing it, on their own time.
I believe that a true study of designed vs. undesigned objects would show that simplicity is an aspect of design and that unnecessary complexity is an aspect of evolved objects.
Then I presume it's settled that we're the result of evolution, because the human genome has the biggest collection of garbage you've ever seen.
Exactly in the same way that modern physics - by precluding the explanation that angels push the planets around - is an atheist doctrine.
I don't suppose you're aware that irreducible complexity is a concept agreed upon by Darwinists as well. They just have different views from ID'ers as to whether or not it could have come about through numerous, slight, successive, naturally-occurring alterations of a functional precursor.
you guys are making what philosophers call a "category mistake".
here is no contradictin between the existence of God and the rules of evolution.
evolutionary theory describes things in nature. God is above nature; he created nature. the relationship between God and the laws of evolution is analogous to that between an author and a book.
(i.e., evolution is the result of "really" intelligent design.)
You nailed it.
Do you believe the Big Bang is laughable as well. The whole universe created instaneuosly out of nothing? Sounds reasonable to me. Besides I am sure the scientific community has reams of data supporting the notion of a "natural" Big Bang process.
And you wonder why you evolutionists aren't taken seriously.
The condition of elitism you describe doesn't exist since no one is stopping anyone else from pursuing scientific enquiry and become said expert.
> Your low opinion of your fellow citizens is duly noted.
My low opinion of their knowledge of science, you bet. If you think the average American knows all that much about the physical workings of the universe, much less the principles that guide science, you're dreaming.
> you guys are bedwetting over the idea that creationists make conservatism look bad?
You damned betcha (although it's no more "bedwetting" than when we stood up to the Creationist Hitler and the Lysenkoist Stalin). Americans know little enough about science *now*. Makign superstition officially on par with sceicne woudl be a national *disaster.*
Here's the point. If God created the universe He obviously had a plan. When a Darwinist claims that the universe exists by random chance he is making a claim about the existence of God.
Early evening ping!
> I don't even know what Scientology is
There's a good sign. "I don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin', but I knows I hates it."
I thought we had proof of the holocaust.
Stop lying about what Darwinists claim.
You summed it up very well.
> "Science" ASKS questions ALWAYS and FOREVER. No "scientific" "FACT" is immune to change in accordance with new "SCIENCE".
Yup. And science asked questions, and knocked the legs out from under "Intelligent Design" a century and a half ago.
Give it up already.
Oh no, the sky is falling! How dare ANYONE question Darwin! Especially a trained biologist like myself! Oh dear! Why this is just terrible!
If you can't repeat the test, it's not science.
That's entirely possible. The funny thing (well, one of the many funny things) about ID is that it doesn't seem to have much respect for God^H^H^H "the creator". It assumes that he can't create a self-sustaining system, and instead has to constantly meddle with it to get the right results. Personally, I'd be much more impressed with a creator that tweaked the parameters of the Big Bang just right so that life would arise naturally billions of years later.
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.