Posted on 10/01/2005 5:09:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Professor focused on intelligent design as theology, not science, at Dover trial Friday.
HARRISBURG — If there is a God, then he could have made the monkey and the human with similar genetic material.
In the fifth day of Dover Area School District’s trial over intelligent design, John Haught, a Georgetown University theology professor, agreed that was true.
So, the idea that “we came from some monkey or ape is conjecture at this point?” Dover’s lead attorney Richard Thompson asked Haught under cross-examination.
Haught disagreed.
In a First Amendment battle in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg, the Dover district is defending its decision last year to include intelligent design in its biology curriculum. Eleven parents filed suit against the district arguing the concept is a veiled attempt to force religion into science class.
On Friday, Thompson, in trying to cast doubt over the theory of evolution — referred to as the unifying concept of modern biology — raised the issue of common descent.
But Haught said that in the world of science, there is little debate that humans share a common ancestor.
The professor, who spoke deliberately and extensively on the philosophical differences between religion and science, was the day’s sole witness.
Questioned by plaintiffs’ attorney Alfred Wilcox, he said intelligent design’s basic premise — that the complexity of life defies all explanation but the existence of a designer — is essentially an old religious argument based on the 13th-century writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the “watchmaker” analogy put forth in 1802 by British philosopher William Paley.
A person walking through a field stumbles upon a watch. It is carefully assembled and wouldn’t function without all its parts working together. The person’s inevitable conclusion? The watch must have a maker.
Under cross-examination, Thompson asked if there was a controversy in the scientific community over the idea of irreducible complexity — essentially, the watchmaker’s observation that if a single working part of an organism were to be removed, the entire system would cease to function.
Haught told him that there exists a controversy between Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, who coined the term, and most of the scientific community.
“So, you agree there is a controversy?” Thompson asked.
While most of plaintiffs’ expert testimony this week focused on establishing that intelligent design is not science, Haught’s focused on why it’s theology.
Science asks, “How?” he said. Religion asks, “Why?”
As an example, Haught compared the differences to water boiling on the stove.
What causes it to boil?
Well, one could answer it’s because of rapidly vibrating water molecules.
Another answer could be because “I want a cup of tea,” Haught suggested.
Both are correct answers, but one doesn’t discount the other.
One doesn’t bring the subject of desiring tea into the study of molecular movement.
It’s also a mistake to say, Haught said, “It’s the molecular movement rather than I want tea.”
What makes you believe that?
There have always been scientists that REJECT darwinism from its beginning. There is hardly a scientific consensus. The reason darwinism holds so much power is because the power of the U.S. government (as well as intimidation in the scientific community) is wielded to enforce it. Lord Kelvin and Louis Pasteur are two shining examples. In 1864, 717 scientists, including 86 members of the Royal Society signed a manifesto entitled, "the Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences." The manifesto affirmed the Bible's scientific integrity.
Look at my post #42. Explain to me how the series of coin flips I got, which was statistically improbable, retroactively didn't happen even though it did.
I demonstrated the relationship through corollary. Do you dispute the logic that says if two species have are related through common descent, then it follows that they have a common ancestor?
I remember now. It was over 600, not 1,000. Give me caffeine or give me sleep!
Nothing per se. However, coupled with survival, the implication is that your reasoning abilities help you to survive. (As an individual, of course. Groups may survive qua groups even though individuals are not themselves optimal.)
I admire your ability to note that while a desk is clearly made by an intelligent designer, something much more complex, like a tree, or even an amoeba, developed independent of any outside intelligence, regardless of the means that intelligence may have used (be it theistic evolution or special creation or something else).
I myself find it difficult to hold both opinions simultaneously because I don't believe that I know enough about the universe to make two such seemingly incompatible statements with any certainty as to their mutual validity. I am not here arguing evolution versus creation, but naturalism versus theism. A supernatural power could have used a guided evolutionary process to create, or it could have "spoken" life into existence.
I am saying that I too hold the belief that my desk was created by an intelligent designer. I find it difficult to reconcile this belief about my desk with the idea that something more complex, like a tree or the human brain, developed independently of any intelligence. So I must simply disagree with you and leave it at that.
"easy to see" "obviously"
So they are saying I'm 'supposed' to believe this.
"more than 200 genes in common with bacteria"
So? Humans and bacteria sharing a common ancestor is only one possible explanation for this, and the idea that ALL live on earth descended from a SINGLE common ancestor is quite a leap. Again, this idea comes from the view, the assumption, that life must have formed 'by chance' (since, according to them, there was no ID involved), and therefore it would be too improbable for life to have formed 'by chance' in more than one place in a similar manner.
I don't rule out a single common ancestor, but it has not been shown to be true.
SmartCitizen asked:
Oooh, now there's some solid science! Not! The "nested heirarchy of life"? Tell me: Precisely how is information is added to the genome in the natural selection/mutation process that would allow for new body parts, new phyla, etc.? Where does the information come from?"
An educated citizen (me) answers:
Insertions, duplications, polyploidy, inversions etc.
Believe them or don't. Or better yet, pursue it further independently. Learn why biologists think it is a compelling piece of evidence. Become learned in genetics yourself and pursue a career that explores genetic relationships and search for the elusive organism that shares no genetic history with any other organism on Earth. You'd be famous.
You may complain all you want that this or that feature of biology is not logical.
It doesn't have to be. It only has to be reasonable. What is the logic behind a bluejay being blue?
"...Monarch butterflies know to migrate - is that abstract thought in their little insect brains?..."
Wrong. Monarch butterflies do not "know to migrate".
The concept is really not that hard to grasp. Intelligently designed items are generally constructed as simply and efficiently as possible to still be fully functional. Only biological evolution explains very complex life forms such as trees and human brains.
...the fact remains that in the chimp DNA hypothesis, the conclusion has no relationship to the premise. Period. You can't wish illogic to be illogical. Something has to be added to the equation or the fallacy remains. Q comes out of nowhere in the conclusion - it IS NOT LOGICAL.I haven't been able to completely follow your notation system, but it sure seems like you could use the same kind of logic to argue that paternity tests are illogical.
Being able to think up pure abstractions is a difference in degree of sophistication from "rock dropped on toe is bad", not a difference in kind. A four-year old learns about rocks & toes, and slowly but surely their brain develops to the point where their mind is able to wonder about emergent properties, to what extent they make the supernatural superfluous, etc.There is no evidence that individual monarch butterflies make any kind of complex, forward-thinking judgement call for whether they should migrate or not.There is no scientific reason to believe that. Monarch butterflies know to migrate - is that abstract thought in their little insect brains?
But more to the point, you're the one who's making the positive claim that there must be something extra at work here in order to get from simple & concrete to complex & abstract thoughts. Yet we all go thru that mental growth as we age (i.e. from 4 to 12). So, is there some kind of supernatural intervention that occurs at some point in everyone's childhood? If so, then how do you explain severely retarded people, who never reach the capacity to think abstract thoughts? Did the angel in charge of imparting abstract thoughts pass them by?
I deny Q ever existed. There is no evidence. Sometimes empiricism just isn't convenient is it?
Q doesn't exist in the premise and magically appearrs out of nowhere in the conclusion. If that is not an example of the conclusion having no relation to the premise, then one doesn't exist.
I find it difficult to reconcile this belief about my desk with the idea that something more complex, like a tree or the human brain, developed independently of any intelligence.You know, when I design a piece of software, much of my design process is taken up in making things simple enough that I can keep track of the program as it develops. The initial design process uses a lot of inspired ideas which come up almost randomly in my mind, coupled with some editing out of the truly batty ones. The overall design can be truly inspired & elegant & unusual, and sometimes rather complex when necessary. But the later stages of design involve a lot of simplifying via code re-use, modularity, & structured programming.The concept is really not that hard to grasp. Intelligently designed items are generally constructed as simply and efficiently as possible to still be fully functional. Only biological evolution explains very complex life forms such as trees and human brains.
We mere humans can't handle the kind of staggeringly messy complexity that evolution can. Evolution tries out just about everything - and the vast majority of "prototypes" fail in the process. But when I'm designing something, I can only build & test one prototype at a time. I don't have enough time to pursue all the alternate designs that evolution is able to try out simultaneously.
It's kinda similar to how science progresses: Scientists conduct experiments, which consist of finding ways to limit some of the complexity of the phenomenon being examined. Yet in doing so, we're able, slowly but surely, to build our understanding of the world to amazing heights.
Oops, my last post was to you too.
Nice assertion - are you a mathematician, or are you engaging in wishful thinking? A protein is so staggering ly complex that what you say is impossible. It takes tremendous FAITH to believe what you believe with absolutely zero scientific evidence. It seems empirical evidence is only applied by darwinists when it is convenient.
You can't get life from non-life - and you can't get personality from non-personality.
The theory of evolution is accepted by biologists all over the world, not just in the US. The theory of evolution holds so much weight because it is accepted by the vast majority of biologists. This came to be because the theory has so much predictive and explainatory power that it became the prefered model for explaining the diversity of life on earth.
So, the biologists who agree are the ones who are right and the ones who don't agree are the ones who are wrong? That's a good method - it's called BIAS. You mean it leaves so much room for the imagination ... evolution cannot explain the beginning of life - natural selection/mutation can only act on life that already exists. You are stepping outside the bounds of evolutionary theory.
It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
Yes, we all know it has the power of the US Govt behind it! Yes, we all know that atheism is the de facto state religion of the United States ( a violation of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution). We all know that the high priests of your religion will not allow any OPEN DISCUSSION. Any theory that does not allow itself to be tested and retested and questioned is not science - it's a religion! - and you have the best of both worlds since your religion is FORCED upon everyone who attends a public school.
A coin flip is not analogous to abiogenesis since the probability of abiogenesis is exponentially more remote than a coin flip. A protein molecule is the single most complex molecule in the universe. They do not self-assemble. Even man acting as creator has not been able to get all of the elements to self-assemble when placing them all in the same soup! One guy was able to produce a tarry amino acid - and now evolutionists lie and say that life was created in a labotory. Don't you people ever get tired of lying? The Haekl photos and peppered moths are still in school text books - the ICONS of evolution haven't changed in decades. When are you guys going to find new ones? You desperately need new ones.
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.