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
Its 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 dont think Im 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 Ive 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 designerwhich, 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. Ill be the first to admit Im 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 arent the ones trying to inject religion and philosophy into the debatethe 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. Its a little odd to accuse Gonzalez of being unscientific; hes a widely published scientist whose work has made the cover of Scientific American. But thats exactly whats happening. And heres the kicker: Gonzalez barely mentions intelligent design in the classroom. He wants to wait until the theory has more solid support among scientists. All hes doing is researching and writing about it.
Now the lesson here for all of us is very clear: Dont be intimidated when confronting school boards or biology teachers about teaching intelligent design. All we are asking is that science pursue all the evidence. Thats fair enough. But thats what drives them into a frenzy, as we see in Iowa.
> You are apparently incapable of open minded logical thought.
This means nothing coming from you.
> Is there something in it worth reading?
Nothing beyond ignorance of just what exactly a "theory" entails. Given that "theory" has been explained innumerable times on these threads, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that "porkchops 4 mahound" is intentionally trying to sound rather uneducated for some reason.
I sometimes wonder if you are just a bot like Eliza, programmed to take statements and turn them around.
To have a theory or hypothesis, you have to predict something that is different or unexpected by the prevailing theories.
This is apparentyly why the bacterial flagellum was chosen as the poster child for irreducible complexity. Unfortunately it isn't irreducible.
Is there anything at all that would make or break the ID hypothesis?
ID does claim to do so (whether or not it actually does, I don't know). It says that there are features of living organisms that can not be accounted for by naturalistic processes. Either they can or they can't.
As always... incorrect.
Then you're contradicting yourself. At #537, you were asked by another poster why you thought he was advocating ID, and you replied, "You've come out against evolution. There are few other options." You then confirmed at #540 that Darwinism and ID are the only two options that can even remotely be worth contemplating at all.
So for all intents and purposes, you've defined Darwin's theory as the proposition that ID is false. In other words, what I said that you quoted above, is indeed correct, according to the logic you've laid down.
Could you elaborate on that?
(joke, kidding...)
To have a theory or hypothesis, you have to predict something that is different or unexpected by the prevailing theories.
How about just plain unaccountable for by prevailing theories? There's a difference there, because any proponent of a theory looking at a result can always say, "Oh yeah, my theory predicts that." The question is whether that claim is actually true. ID proponents claim that there are features of living organisms that can't be accounted for by Darwinism. I'm not here to defend that claim, but merely to establish that it's a scientifically resolvable question.
OUT OF THE PARK!!
They are defending their supernatural theory (metaphysical theory) with the vigor of all of the religious zealots who ever lived. Hahahaha
bttt
> Then you're contradicting yourself.
Nope. The claim was made that all Darwinism was was the a priori assumption of no superanturalism. Darwinism is far mroe than that. That initial assumption is one of the first steps, but it's hardly the sum total as you seem to be suggesting.
> you've defined Darwin's theory as the proposition that ID is false.
Incorrect, as usual. ID is bad/nonexistent science, but Darwinism is far more than that. ID, on the other hand, is very little more than "I don't like Darwinism."
For an engineer, you don't seem to have too good a grasp on basic mathematical axioms. If A is defined as "not B", then B has to equal "not A".
> If A is defined as "not B", then B has to equal "not A".
Which, of course, is irrelevant.
Sorry, too busy dealing with reality to deal with your dreams of uncausality.
Look: it's clear to me that you are uninterested in a rational debate, since all you've done with this one is twist things out of all reckognition. So, here's your chance for a final word. Knock yourself out.
High praise indeed coming from a "SCIENTIFIC" poser such a yourself.
Your "debating skills" remain less than optimum.
You're obviously a victim of the public education system.
"How does Intelligent Design explain how bacteria develop antibiotic resistance?"
Both design and evolution agree its microevolution. It's in the genetic code for such changes to occur, but no code to turn into a compleltely new organism. Oh yeah, design tells us the common sense that the information in DNA is designed.
" How does it explain the existence of the vermiform appendix?"
HAven't you heard? Science found uses for the appendix years ago.
"And if science courses should give "equal time" to a religious theory,"
Well, its not a religious theory any more than evolution is. Scientific theories always have religious implications. Get over it.
Devolution makes more sense of the data we have than evolution - evolution assumes greater complexity comes by so called natural selection - but the evidence in creation shows a lessening of the diversity of creatures not an increase in that diversity - we see millions of extinct creatures but not millions of evolved creatures from these so a coming away from original types of creatures rather than a diveresity - or if one wants to assume the diversity we see was in the dna of the original creatures and did not require mutations one can do that but one thing we have NEVER observed under the microscope is a mutated gene bringing about a good thing for a creature.
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.