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.
Well, what kind of other research does the government fund? Are you opposed to any of it?
I am trying to wrap my brain around your double negative. In any case, God is by nature coherent. It is also clear to me that God is actively involved in His creation.Omnipotent, yes. A watch maker, no.
Why do you think all life forms are transitional? And "because they are" is not an acceptable answer.
Gotcha!
Why do you think they're not?
jennyp (in response to Amos...) Exactly in the same way that modern physics - by precluding the explanation that angels push the planets around - is an atheist doctrine.
Modern physics makes no such claim. It may indeed be true that angels push the planets around. Science can only describe the rules they follow as they push the planets around.
Amos, "Random selection" is not strictly an atheistic doctrine. The atheistic doctrine is to interpret "random" as meaning that God is not involved. In fact, the scientific meaning of "random" is that it is beyond the ability to measure or predict. The word random could be changed to "chosen by God" with no change to the scientific meaning as long as you keep in mind that the science itself says nothing about God.
I don't know what his problem is. He got tenure at ISU; he's released a movie and book on cosmology with a co-author who has made an idiot of himself publicly with his complete misunderstanding of the Special Theory of Relativity; and having injected himself into the public realm, he's now objecting there are people who have strong opinions contrary to his and are expressing them openly, just as he does. Has he been shouted down, or suppressed, told not to publish? Nope. In fact, Sigma Xi at Northern Iowa just invited him up last week to present his views. Granted, there were hordes of evolutionists there ready to ask him questions (several of which he flubbed), but what does he want? Unquestioning acceptance?
As someone who's been politically and outspokenly active in an unpopular area on campus for 20 years, I have advice for Gonzalez: stop whining.
By Gosh, I think he's got it!
But is it God's evolution or Chaos's?
True! LOL!
(2) 'Random selection' appears to be a creation of yours. It has nothing to do with evolution. If it is an atheist doctrine, and it's your doctrine, then presumably you are an atheist?
====
What? Back up the turnip truck and explain that one. I missed something.
====
Gotcha!
====
What are you talking about?
Is this a real question?
Except that the book has not been finished. God is still writing it.
The notion that God can not be considered in scientific circles because he started all this and left town is not what any Theist would agree to.
The universe is not a watch, wound up and running down. There is a profound and continuing creativity going on that can not be reduced to either pure chance or pure mechanics.
Y'know, when we say they're trying to send science back to the Dark Ages, they accuse us of exaggerating.
I nominate the post I'm replying to for 'This is your Brain on Creationism'.
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.