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.
Possibly. There are Christians who are serial killers. So you're OK with the statement 'Christians are serial killers'?
"So once again, what is the source of this external energy?"
Hint: big, yellow, bright, often seen in the sky
I am sitting in Windsor Ontario at a WIFI equipped bar, killing three hours before I have to pick my daughter up at the train station. This ID thread was just what the doctor ordered.
Thank you everybody!
Yes, I agree. Just the other day, the sun created a new Lexus for me. Thank you for finally solving the mystery!
That's interesting. There are many "design" supporters on this thread. Would all of those who are indeed "practicing scientists" please identify yourselves, and your relevant credentials and areas of research?
I'm sure what's confusing everyone is that neither "Darwinism" nor evolutionary theory say anything about the universe existing by random chance. When faced with such nonsense, it's natural to try and elicit the intended meaning.
No, your low opinion of their ability to run their own local affairs. You're not alone, it's a typical Democrat reaction.
the Creationist Hitler
Well, look who's playing the Nazi card. And very clumsily at that.
Long story short, I do not understand the clear meaning of his words. That's why I asked the question.
"I'm sure what's confusing everyone is that neither "Darwinism" nor evolutionary theory say anything about the universe existing by random chance. When faced with such nonsense, it's natural to try and elicit the intended meaning."
I guess you never met my seventh grade biology teacher.
that's like saying there are religious people who burn witches.
Can we please stop using the grating redundancy 'random chance'? :-)
His actual, published theory said that the first life was "breathed by the Creator." (Origin of Species, last page.) In one of his diaries (not intended to be published, and published only long after his death), he speculated that life may have begun in a puddle of chemicals on the early earth. But that was clearly speculation; he never published it because he had no evidence for it.
"I'm sure what's confusing everyone is that neither "Darwinism" nor evolutionary theory say anything about the universe existing by random chance. When faced with such nonsense, it's natural to try and elicit the intended meaning."
So you have no problem with public educators teaching our children that there is very little evidence supporting a random origin to life, while there is significant statistical evidence supporting the non-random origin of life?
thank you!
a "random origin of life" would seem to contradict basic scientific principles.
what public school teachers happen to teach is often far removed from scientific thinking.
You silly evolutionist kooks who believe you are descended from tadpoles and apes (hee, hee) are not worth arguing with as your prejudice and pride are excessive
This is a parody, right?
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.