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.”
" You can't get life from non-life - and you can't get personality from non-personality."
<< biting tongue.
How do you know? Besides birds do migrate - is that abstract thought in a tiny little bird brain?
Thanks, I feel flattered ;-)
It's quite interesting how you speak of evolution as if it has some kind of intelligence or is some sort of creative force (a common phenomena amongst your brethren). You can build and test prototypes - evolution can do nothing of the sort.
Your assumption is that purely naturalistic evolution is true, and then you use it to differentiate intelligently designed items from biological items. I am saying that I cannot accept purely naturalistic evolution as an explanation of human biology because my perception of most things outside the realm of biology is that the more complex they are, the more intelligence was required for their design. It is difficult for me, absent overwhelming evidence, to accept an idea that runs counter to this trend.
Retarded people are still people.
You can build and test prototypes - evolution can do nothing of the sort.Species reproduce (building). If the new-born organism is suited to the environment it can survive to pass its genes to another generation (testing).
My previous post made no mention of anything except the retroactive application of statistics. If you cannot answer this directly that's fine, just admit that and we can move on. If you don't understand what I am saying then ask for clarification and I will try to better explain my point. But instead you are pretending that I have said more with respect to statistics here than I have in order to hide your lack of a rebuttal.
Any evidence to back this wild conspiracy theory?
If we teach creationism in school, should your conspiracy theory be given "equal time" with creation?
There is hardly a scientific consensus.
A 1996 Gallup Poll held that among scientists (across all fields) that the percentage of scientists who acknowledge evolution is in the high 90-percentage range. In the biological and earth sciences, this number is almost 100%. Looks like a pretty good consensus to me.
You argue that the case for common descent is hastily drawn from DNA evidence. I might give you that this is a hasty conclusion if this was the only evidence supporting the theory. When data from the fields of paleontology, biogeography, zoological morphology and genetics all lend credence to the same conclusion, though, as they do, your perspective seems to have want for explanation.
Many birds migrate, earthworms migrate, snakes migrate, monarchs migrate (as od other butterflies), many dragonflies migrate, zooplankton migrate etc.
"Know" to migrate is another matter.
Every reproductive act results in a prototype. Some do better than others.
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?But they still can't handle abstractions. Somehow that ability, which every other person develops, escaped them. A naturalistic explanation is that there's something wrong with the wiring of their brains which prevented the emergent property of "abstraction" to emerge. The supernaturalistic explanation is - what? That the supernatural person in charge of injecting the supernatural substance called "abstraction" into our natural brains passed them by?Retarded people are still people.
"You can build and test prototypes - evolution can do nothing of the sort."I cannot believe such a smart person would make such an obviously false assertion.That is the defining characteristic of evolution. It vigorously tests the viability of any new arrangement of genes or any new allele (mutation). Those that pass, get to reproduce. Those that don't, don't pass on their genes.
Prove it!
You guys all take care now. Buh-bye.
Every hear of the 1987 ruling by the US Supreme Court - Edwards vs. Aguillard? I suggest you review it. It struck down a Louisiana law that required teaching of both evolution and creationist viewpoint side by side in public schools (sounds fair to me - let the kids decide). The court held that it failed the "Lemon test" which requires that a public religious activity is constitional only if (1)it has a predominately secular purpose (secular humanism is certainly secular but it promotes atheism!), (2)it neither inhibits nor advances religion, and (3) it creates no excessive entanglement between govt. and religion. Only problem is that the Lemon test has nothing to do with the Constitution - it is pure arbitrary law created by judges (who are not consitutionally allowed to make law). Once again, judges decide for the people regardless of what the people want. Judges make law - oligarchs in black robes.
Also, I am watching the cases in Kansas and PA - the evolutionists are apoloplectic that the boards in some communities are starting to question evolution. They also have the mainstream media on their side. Even stating that evolution is just a theory and not fact cannot be allowed! The sacred theory must be protected and enforced at all costs - and we see the atheists circling the wagons in these communities. However, the PEOPLE will ultimately decide what is taught in their schools (not a federal judge), that is, if there is anything remaining of this dying republic.
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.