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 Districts 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? Dovers 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 days sole witness.
Questioned by plaintiffs attorney Alfred Wilcox, he said intelligent designs 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 wouldnt function without all its parts working together. The persons 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 watchmakers 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, Haughts focused on why its 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 its 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 doesnt discount the other.
One doesnt bring the subject of desiring tea into the study of molecular movement.
Its also a mistake to say, Haught said, Its the molecular movement rather than I want tea.
I don't pretend to know God's motivations, but it's obvious to me that if we can take a six-year-old, who knows nothing, and in a mere ten years have him ready to do college-level work in physics, biology, etc., then surely God could have done at least that well with the simple folk who were inspired to write Genesis. But that's not what was done. That signals to me that Genesis was never intended to be science. We're capable of learning science on our own, and that's what we've done. Genesis, and the rest of scripture, must have a different function.
I've read post 111 but that does not insulate you against defending your metaphysical statement. You are defending materialism with metaphysics, which is self-refuting on its face. You have not explained what this mystical "higher-level structure" is - what is it? Is it material or non-material? If it is non-material, then materialism is false. Making an unsupported unscientific assertion doesn't cut it - especially from an evo.A rock falls from the top of a bookcase onto a table, breaking into 3 smaller rocks, which form a triangle. How many items are there? FOUR: Three rocks and one triangle. But where did that triangle "come from"? How much does it weigh? Is the triangle material? If not, then is it supernatural? If so, then is there some angel whose job it is to take a Triangle from the Big Pile O' Platonic Forms and attach it to the three rocks at the moment the bigger rock breaks apart?
How does it work from chemical processes? How does it produce personality? Where is the hard scientific data to support what you are saying?Those are fine questions, but they're not metaphysical questions. They're biological questions. You think it's metaphysically impossible, and I'm trying to make you understand why it's not metaphysically impossible. One step at a time. :-)
But, there is another problem with your statement. How do you know that your brain chemicals are perceiving true "objective reality?" You can't know. It is this precise dilemma that discredited the philosophy of logical positivism - it's a dead philosophy - haven't you heard? You cannot be sure you are perceiving correctly. The viewer is ALWAYS subjective to some degree. Gotcha.Within the artificial confines of a purely deductive syllogism, perhaps. But we live in the real world, which is perceived & understood via the senses and induction as well as by deduction. Man does not understand by deduction alone.
Those are some amazing atoms - they produce personality, indeed, a self-aware cognitive agent that tells your other mental atoms what to do! Wow!Hmmm, there it is again: A spirited defense of supernaturalism that's based on the fallacy of composition, and now "mental atoms". Exmarine, is that you?
100% huh? I've heard that before but I doubt it. I know a professor of biology at Texas St. Univ. in my church who is Christian and creationist. That's one example right off the bat. Nevertheless, the scientific community has bene wrong many times - phlogiston comes to mind.
Just because (almost) all of A believes in B, does not mean B implies a belief in A. Evolutionary theory is in no way dependent on secular humanism, and many religious people (including devout Christians) acknowledge that evolution is good science.
There is a definite correlation. I would bet that you may be lucky to find one single secular humanist who believes in creationism. I didn't say evolution it was dependent on humanism, but evolution is a wonderful and convenient refuge for all of those god-haters out there.
Evolutionary theory says none of these things. You are either drawing false connections or repeating a mantra that has been passed on to you.
Didn't say it did. But atheists do flock to it. Marx and Stalin sure loved the theory. It must be the law of unintended consequences, hmm?
Huh? Still playing with metaphysics I see. As an aside, I might ask: If you saw 10 rows of apples, each row with 15 apples neatly aligned, would you think they fell there by chance?
Those are fine questions, but they're not metaphysical questions. They're biological questions. You think it's metaphysically impossible, and I'm trying to make you understand why it's not metaphysically impossible. One step at a time. :-)
You are trying to dance and squirm around the fact that you havve described a metaphysical process of the brain. Sincce there is no empirical evidence to support what you say, it must be metaphysics. What else could it be?
Within the artificial confines of a purely deductive syllogism, perhaps. But we live in the real world, which is perceived & understood via the senses and induction as well as by deduction. Man does not understand by deduction alone.
Still dancing I see. Are you dancing as fast as you can yet? Whether you are using inductive or deductive reasoning, your view is still subjective and therefore unable to perceive true objective reality. It's logical positivism redux.
Hmmm, there it is again: A spirited defense of supernaturalism that's based on the fallacy of composition, and now "mental atoms". Exmarine, is that you?
Don't turn it around on me - you were the one using metaphysical processes in order to describe mental processes. I am just wondering where the science is to back it up. You use metaphysical explanations to defend materialisic processes - it's self-refuting.
I have news for you - a mindless random process like evolution does not impute any intrinsic value to human beings. Why do you think there is such a crisis in our youth today? I believe it is because there is a crisis of meaninglessness. Kids are taught that they evolved from chimps and that the cosmos is all there is or ever will be. No wonder they go bananas. No wonder the young mass murderers in our schools do not value life. They are taught that it's meaningless. If that is all there is, then rules are also meaningless and so is life in the final analysis. They get it.
That's funny. Kids in other parts of the world are doing fine and they could care less about Genesis.
Ok guys I'm just curious here...can anyone give me a example of how believing in the theory of evolution has resulted in any great inventions or cures? What are they?
Thanks all :)
That's funny. Kids in other parts of the world are doing fine and they could care less about Genesis.
But have they heard about SmartCitizens' X, Y, Z, and Q? .
Excellent post! I've never seen the case against extreme Biblical literalism put so well.
Look's as if they're deprived of that intellectual pleasure. Oh, well.
Endogenous retrovirus Placemark
That's because you don't want to know it. Look up Project Steve on the internet. I'll say it again: almost 100% of biologists acknowledge evolutionary theory.
know a professor of biology at Texas St. Univ. in my church who is Christian and creationist. That's one example right off the bat.
And what peer-reviewed journals are his articles on creation published in? They're not. I don't even know if what you say is true - if so, then I'm sure he's not considered reputable when it comes to biological origins.
I would bet that you may be lucky to find one single secular humanist who believes in creationism.
Plenty of secular humanists believe in UFO appearances and psyshic powers. These concepts are just as ridiculous as creationism and deserve about the same consideration. Crap science is crap science.
But atheists do flock to it. Marx and Stalin sure loved the theory. It must be the law of unintended consequences, hmm?
Wow, so you're saying knowledge can be abused, huh? Not a new revelation. All the more reason that evolution needs to be taught accurately in our schools. Plenty of tyrants have been creationists, too. Remember, it was creationists (and strict Biblical literalists) who executed Christ.
I have news for you - a mindless random process like evolution does not impute any intrinsic value to human beings.
I have news for you - it's the job of science to find facts, not to "impute intrinsic value to human beings". That's the concern of other arenas. Just because you can't impute intrinsic value to human life in light of biological facts doesn't mean other people can't.
Why do you think there is such a crisis in our youth today?
The moral crisis in today's youth is because of evolutionary biology? Wow, this is really good stuff.
No wonder the young mass murderers in our schools do not value life. They are taught that it's meaningless.
Just a quick question - if we blame evolutionary biology for school shootings, does that mean we should blame creationism for incidents of incest? After all, creationist theory says we're all here because Adam's son Shem had sex with his sister. That doesn't sound very moral to me.
I think this one's quickly headed for the bottom of the chart.
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.