The ‘Darwinist Inquisition’ Starts Another Round

http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=169

[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.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

Darwinian evolution, the favored opiate of atheists.

[RightInEastLansing]

"One of the great myths of our time is the idea that undirected process could somehow be responsible for turning dead chemicals into all the complexity of living things. The current state of abiogenesis is summarized by Klause Dose:

More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

Until the Darwinian fundamentalists can demonstrate a "natural" way to significantly reverse entropy, they should bow to the statisticians.

I am not saying that a natural process won't eventually be discovered, but as of today the idea that life began through a random process is as ludicrous as an earth centered solar system.

And please spare me any reference to the Miller/Urey sham.
I am not a religious person, and don't want biblical creationism taught in school, but I do wish the scientific community would stop being so dogmatic in its support of Darwinian evolutionary science. Darwin did a splendid job of explaining some of the evolutionary process, but to extrapolate this theory to all aspects of this process is an exercise in blind faith.

[inquest]

Do you think school districts need to be told by courts not to teach holocaust revisionism, or do you trust them to make the right decision on their own?

(that's what the exchange that you were joining in on was about, btw)

[Borges]

Darwinian evolution, the favored opiate of atheists.

And the foundation of modern biology overwhelmingly supported by evidence.

[truthfinder9]

"If all theories deserve to be taught, then how about holocaust revisionism in history class?"

Now there's a classic anti-intellectual red herring statement. Schools should teach how stupid holocaust revisionism right along with how Darwinian Fundamentalists admit they can't figure out how life originated and how some of them defer to space aliens. Look it up, they're doing it!

[Louis Foxwell]

Scientists make no claim about God.

Not true. A theory that precludes the possibility of God is saying something very specific about God.

A theory of conscious creation is an alternative to a theory of nonconscious (random?) creation. From a purely scientific standpoint conscious/designed creation is more scientifically palatable. Can a computer exist without a creator?

Is it reasonable to conceive of DNA existing by pure chance? Surely there is some function in nature that increases complexity by design.

[ThinkDifferent]

The current state of abiogenesis is summarized by Klause Dose:

Which might be relevant if the theory of evolution made any claims about abiogenesis.

[Borges]

Once again, what is and is not valid scientific theory should be decided by scientists not the wannabe politicos on local school boards the ID groups who try to pressure them. If you notice ID groups don't work in labs with microscopes they focus their attention entirely on local school boards (who aren't scientists either).

[truthfinder9]

"And the foundation of modern biology overwhelmingly supported by evidence."

Isn't that Point 1 in the Darwinian Fundamentalist Talking Point Handbook? Give it up already.

[Borges]

Evolution doesn't preclude the idea of God. It makes conclusions about biological processes based on observable evidence.

[Borges]

It's fact.

[truthfinder9]

Did you see my post on how Darwinian Fundamentalists are lying about "there being no design scientists"? News Flash: Most design supporters are practicing scientists. Try some research, not talking points.

[ThinkDifferent]

A theory that precludes the possibility of God is saying something very specific about God.

The theory of evolution does not preclude the possibility of God. It may contradict specific religious beliefs, e.g. creation in 6 24-hour days, but it neither denies nor affirms the existence of a supernatural entity that created the universe and/or the first life forms on Earth.

[jennyp]

Do you think school districts need to be told by courts not to teach holocaust revisionism, or do you trust them to make the right decision on their own?

Well, as a rule, yes, they should have autonomy. But here we're talking about a government school's clear attempt to get students to believe that one or more gods living in some supernatural realm govern what happens to us in this world. It's a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

[Borges]

Lysenko was a scientist as well. If you can't test it, it's not science.

[Louis Foxwell]

Educators who are trained in a given field should decide what constitutes scholarship.

My, my. You certainly don't have a problem with authority. Have you met some of those educated specialists? 'Nuf said.

[trisham]

Maybe just a case of "science envy"?

************

Is that what ID/Creationism foes believe? I must say, I'm surprised. I am neither envious nor anti-science.

I guess it would be a minor miracle if we had a single thread that did not devolve into name-calling and the attribution of ulterior motives of one side to the other.

[RightInEastLansing]

"Which might be relevant if the theory of evolution made any claims about abiogenesis."

Great, so you are willing to concede abiogenesis to the ID crowd? Could you please inform the MSM of this concession?

[Borges]

The idea that there is no such thing as a specialist and anyone's ideas about a field are equal has a curiously Maoist fragrance. No thanks.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

when something has come about by blind luck.

Um if you read a little about evolution theary (not much just bare bones) you will see that evolution does not occur because of blind luck. Saying that ID'ers have no agenda/thoughts about The Designer is laughable. Flying Spaghetti Monster anyone?