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.
. What I mean by anti-supernaturalism is partly the reaction to the gnosticism of many clerical scientists, the amateurs who dominated the profession before 1860. But it is also an anti-religious attitude which neither Galileo nor Newton subscribed to. Aristotle was as much a naturalist as Darwin. In fact his philosophy was greatly influenced by his biology knowledge and was, in many respects, as naturalistic as Darwin's or Dawkins," for that matter. But Christian theology managed to create a synthesis --an uneasy synthesis--with Aristotle's science and philosophy, which many 19th century scientists refused to attempt. Marx, Darwin and Freud were all personally hostile to religion, with Darwin more or less masking his because of the piety of his wife.
That is not to say science is a game--it is saying the rules of science aren't competent to describe everything, all the time, when science is limited naturalistic explanations. Unless I'm missing something really obvious, the only logical retort is to deny these phenomenon exist, or to admit science needs to grow to be able to address them.
There you go again....trying to redefine science. I think you'll need something better than ID to be successful in this.
1) Did you read Dembski's explanation that I linked to?
2) Do you have any logical responses other than the two I listed: 1) deny that phenomenon exist beyond the ability of science to explain, or 2) admit science needs to grow.
You have yet to offer a reason to support your view.
deny that phenomenon exist beyond the ability of science to explain,
Duh...there are always phenomenon currently beyond the ability of science to explain. That's what scientists do for a living. They try to find explanations.
admit science needs to grow.
Duh...science is always trying to expand scientific knowledge (=growing) by exploring the unknown and seeking explanations.
Also, I don't think game analogies are valid, I don't expect to convince you of my view (and all that implies), and I need sleep.
Exactly why the evos are so desperately fearful of ID.
The question is whether these phenomenon are beyond the current methods of science.
...science is always trying to expand scientific knowledge (=growing) by exploring the unknown and seeking explanations.
The growth I mentioned isn't the growth of knowledge, but of methodology.
Even though backed into a corner, you seem unwilling to to make the tiny conceptual leap that is right at the edge of your argument. We're no longer dealing with the analogy of the chess board, but the definitions of the terms we are using and their logical implications. There is nowhere left to turn but to admit that science must eventually change its methodology if it is ever to explain phenomenon it is currently, by definition, incapable of explaining.
Good night...
Your comment reveals one of many reasons that your side is losing the argument. The design folks keep on making their case, presenting evidence, continuing research. The Darwinians tend to rely almost exclusively on the ad hominem fallacy and never tap into that mythical mountain of evidence they often claim to have.
You'd think that so-called men of science would try and make a scientific case in support of evolution.
oh please
You confuse the attitude of Galileo and Newton toward religion with those of someone like Gould, who reduced religion to personal psychology while science deal with the "real world." Galileo's world view presupposed an orderly universe. just as did his Aristotelan opponents. God was the cause of this order --of the reality they found--and what they did was to express the existing patterns in nature in mathematical terms. Kurt Goedel was more of this mind than someone like Dawkins, whose world view is a product, directly or indirectly of German idealism.
Forget it - he can't see because he won't see. Why waste time with it?
No church/state issue there -- unless you're a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
It was just a placemarker
So was mine ;)
You made the assertion. Prove it.
The burden of proof may be on the new idea or it may be on the more elaborate explanation. Either way, evolution is the new idea and the more elaborate explanation. The burden of proof is not necessarily on the one making an assertion.
Since you were accusing others of being poor logicians, does that make you a hypocrite?
Dembski said this week in a radio interview that ID will never be silenced by the materialists because it is already causing vigorous debates in scientific circles. It seems that the more alert scientists see the handwriting on the wall. Those darwinists that close their eyes and plug their ears will willingly go the way of the alchemists.
> SCIENCE never gives up.
Sadly, neither does pseudoscience. Thus Creationism, like astrology, is probably immortal.
>> My low opinion of their knowledge of science, you bet.
> No, your low opinion of their ability to run their own local affairs.
So you'd be ok with a local school board that authorized Naked Play Time With Uncle Bob.
Chess pieces, like any other intelligently designed objects, don't mate and bear children on their own. Such advanced complexity only occurs through biological evolution.
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.