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.
Gracias.
"Yes, I agree. Just the other day, the sun created a new Lexus for me. Thank you for finally solving the mystery!"
Yes, and the sun has created the fuel for you to run your Lexus and the energy to melt the ore for your Lexus and finally another sun bred the iron atoms for your Lexus.
The example of a block of ice bridging a ditch doesn't quite rise to an irreducibly complex machine. Unless you refer to the atoms in the ice, the block of ice has no components. It is not complex. The argument for IC is that multiple components of a complex machine can't be accounted for by sudden, direct evolutionary paths (evolutionists don't dispute this) and cannot be accounted for by small successive steps (evolutionists do dispute this.) The block of ice idea just isn't an adequate example of IC. Try to make your argument with flagellum.
You are so right! I've been trying to get hot girl-on-girl action into sex ed forever, but the reactionaries don't want kids taught different viewpoints! What a bunch of Luddites!
Is that what ID/Creationism foes believe? I must say, I'm surprised. I am neither envious nor anti-science.
You didn't address my reasoning at all.
Why are religious people attempting to put their particular creation story into science classrooms? They must desire the authority of science to be placed on ID.
At the same time, many creationists label evolution as a "religion". Why does this make evolution less valid in their eye? Do they think that religions are somehow inferior?
They must have a confidence problem in their faith to desire the blessings of science on it, and at the same time an inferiority complex about religion in general.
I really can't think of another reason they'd want ID in science class while continually labeling evolution a religion.
System with parts (A B C) is irreducibly complex
This means system (A B C) has function but any subset of parts does not have function. The argument is that A B C cannot be reached via single steps going through these functionless subsets. True, however:
step 1) D (functional)
step 2) D E (functional)
step 3) D E B (functional)
step 3) D E B C (functional)
step 4) D A B C (functional)
step 5) A B C (functional + IC)
An IC system is reached via gradual single steps where each step is functional.
The first two reasons are stupid and dismissed outright. The solution for the 3rd is for scientists to prove macro evolution with NO supernatural causes can explain all the points ID makes. ID is already a success in that regard in that Biology textbooks are on the defensive trying to explain (pathetic as it may be) how eyes evolved. Macro evolution has no science except that "given enough time stuff happens".
That's an interesting proposition--but doesn't it face the same probabilistic problems? While the pathway you show looks good, how is it different than just adding A, B, and C into an irreducibly complex system? (in terms of the chance of it happening) You still have to overcome the real meat of the IC argument dealing with the probability of each change.
Your construction answers the 'function' part of each step in the evolution of the system during the accumulation of D, and E, but when B appears, what is the natural selection reason why it is retained if it has no function? What advantage could it confer long enough to add a second change, C, that also offers no selective advantage?
I believe that everyone who believe in evolution excluding God is stupid. Why? because to believe that man can be intelligent without someone involved in the process is absurd! You either believe that man is intelligent coming from a being or man is stupid coming from nothing. How in the world can you a human be smart coming from impossible. Like comes from like.
I'm on your side, but Narby is going to eat you alive unless you've got something better up your sleeve.
Are all children the same or are some smarter than others?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492906/posts?page=169#169
Between function or aim is in this context no difference. So with a function a designer is introduced to IC or IC is impossible without a designer.
I disagree because the flagellum has a function whether it was designed or arose through evolution.
Because ID also could happen to non-IC systems but you won't be able to detect it there. So you need IC to detect ID. But IC needs some D. So you see the circle?
Not true. Design is detectable in a host of other examples besides IC. If you saw a chess board with all the pawns stacked on one side, one in front of the other, you would recognize that configuration was impossible given the laws of chess and the chance that the pawns could move in their given spaces. You would have to conclude something acting outside the laws of chess and chance contributed to the layout of the board. ID argues that examples like this are abundant, from the fine tuning of the universe to IC to abiogenesis and more. You are treating ID and IC as if they are two swirling arguments, each totally reliant on the assumptions of the other.
My ice block is a very simple IC machine. I think that atoms count as components as in the flagellum.
You can't possibly hope to compare the delicate, interwoven complexity of the finest machine in existence to a bunch of atoms lined up in a row because they are cold. It doesn't pass the smell test, but if you want, go to the following link for a complete argument. Go to page 18.
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf
Looking at your post, I can see that you know how to do italics in HTML. You do the same thing when you hyperlink, but instead of < i > and < /i >, you type < a href="http://www.whatever.com/" > to start the hyperlinked text, and you close it with < /a >. (just be sure to get rid of the spaces after each "<", and before each ">")
Do read William Dembski.
“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’m glad that the first thing he admits is he’s no scientist, since that is clear. He’s no logician either.
The “Supernatural” by definition is outside the study of “natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe.” Therefore it can never, by definition be something that can be studied by science. If it can be proven to be an area that is subject to the study of science, then the “natural phenomenon” will no longer be restricted to the “supernatural” realm and THEREFORE subject to scientific study.
This is all a matter of rational definition.
Now to move on to your critique:
The solution for the 3rd is for scientists to prove macro evolution with NO supernatural causes can explain all the points ID makes.
You are a lousy logician as well. One cannot Prove a Negative proposition, since if the proposition is wrong there can be NO evidence to support it. That is why in logic and in science the Burden of Proof is upon whoever is making the assertion. It isn’t possible to prove that there are NO supernatural causes because if that were true none would exist. One can't prove what doesn't exist.
However no evidence has been provided that the natural world CANNOT create irreducibly complex structures, which would also be Proving a Negative. The Assertion Without Proof that the ONLY alternative explanation is Design, would require an Infinite Knowledge of the Universe that would exclude all other possibilities.
Sorry, ID doesn't say that.
The Circular Argument is that since some rather sloppy and uncreative “scientists” cannot figure out how the natural world could come up with certain structures (a unfounded conclusion) then the only alternative explanation is an unfounded assertion.
Dat ain’t science.
They get it, they are all smart folks, they simply choose statism because it advances their cause. And at the same time whine about how folks who believe God created all, like me, are giving conservatism a bad name.
It's pathetic.
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.