Posted on 10/19/2005 5:10:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
"Isn't it just a little early in the day for paranoid complexes?"
It's never too early to be paranoid.
Morning paranoid fantasies should at least have the *appearance* of plausibility, though. Otherwise they're just goofy.
"Why is it premissible to publicly promote godlessness but not God? "
It's not permissable to do either. The Theory of Evolution is not an atheistic scientific theory. It simply does not address the origins of the first lifeforms. It further does not deal with the origins of the universe.
The fact that many, if not the majority, of biological scientists are Christian adds to the argument that Evolution is not anti-religious.
Indeed, the largest denomination of Christianity endorses the Theory of Evolution as a likely way that speciation occurred on this planet.
Religion is not the issue here, at least for science. Religion is only the issue for the anti-science folks, who are trying to wedge a Judeo-Christian-God-centered belief into science classes.
I obviously made it up. I think it's something like 99% of Americans believe we descended from apes.
But during cross examination Tuesday, when plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild asked Behe to identify those mechanisms, he couldn't.
When pressed, Behe said intelligent design does not propose a step-by-step mechanism, but one can still infer intelligent cause was involved by the "purposeful arrangement of parts."
Two comments:
First, how can one have a "mechanism-free" theory in science? One of the hallmarks of a scientific theory is it's broad explanatory power over a range of phenomona, but if one's theory lacks a "mechanism" how does it explain anything at all? "Shazam!" isn't an explanation, it's an EXCLAMATION.
Secondly, re: "purposeful arrangement of parts" -- it seems to me that ANYTHING that performs a "function" can be characterized thusly; it has the appearance of having it's parts arranged in a configuration that is suitable for the performance of the function of that thing. So what? Under this definition, virtually everything would have to be considered to be "designed." Hydrogen and oxygen "appear" to have a purposeful arrangement of their electron configurations to permit molecular water to form, Iron pyrite crystals appear to have a "purposeful arrangement of parts" so as to fool dumb prospectors into thinking they have discover gold, turds are tapered so your ass doesn't slam shut, and on it goes.
How on earth could such a loose definition of design be of any scientific value? Or perhaps it really isn't being promoted for it's scientific value after all..... as a theological device, it serves it purpose marvelously..... but wait; didn't Behe say ID has nothing to do with Creationism and religion? How odd....
That's not what Dembski said:
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," William Dembski, one of the movement's chief proponents, said in a 1999 interview in Touchstone, a Christian magazine that Forrest cited in her testimony.[emphasis added]
IDers; hoist on the petard of Dembski's own words....
Small difference. The big bang theory was a simple extrapolation of an observed, ongoing process. The equivalent of drawing a line through data points on a graph.
I know this is picking nits, but ID lacks any data points.
This isn't about what's good or bad. This is about what's Constitutionally permissible to teach to students. Evolution, being utterly neutral with respect to religion, is permissible according to the Constitution, while God-Centered Intelligent Design, however "good", is not.
Dr. Michael Behe, leading intellectual light of the intelligent design movement, faced a dilemma.In order to call intelligent design a "scientific theory," he had to change the definition of the term. It seemed the definition offered by the National Academy of Science, the largest and most prestigious organization of scientists in the Western world, was inadequate to contain the scope and splendor and just plain gee-willigerness of intelligent design.
So he devised his own definition of theory, expanding upon the definition of those stuck-in-the-21st-century scientists, those scientists who ridicule him and call his "theory" creationism in a cheap suit.
He'd show them. He'd come up with his own definition.
Eric Rothschild, attorney for the plaintiffs, asked Behe about whether astrology was science. And Behe, after hemming and hawing and launching into an abbreviated history of astrology and science, said, under his definition, it is. He said he wasn't a science historian, but the definition of astrology in the dictionary referred to its 15th-century roots, when it was equated with astronomy, which, according to the National Academy of Science, is a science.
So, taking a short logical leap, something Behe would certainly endorse since he does it a lot himself, you could say that intelligent design is on par with 15th-century science.
Sounds about right.
As the cross-examination continued, another pattern developed. Rothschild would show Behe, on a big screen in the courtroom, a quote from "Of Pandas and People" and ask him a simple question about it.
The quote said, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feather, beaks and wings, etc."
Rothschild asked him whether he believed that statement said intelligent design meant life began abruptly on this planet.
It apparently was a trick question because Behe had a hard time answering it.
"I disagree," the scientist said.
And then, he explained what he thought the quotation meant, which wasn't what it said.
This went on for a while. Every time Rothschild would ask Behe about a statement, some he wrote himself, he'd say he'd have to disagree that it said what it said.
Give him a pass on that one. It happens all the time in science. Darwin, for example was completely ignorant of genetics, and had no idea what the mechanism of inheritable variation might be.
"I obviously made it up. I think it's something like 99% of Americans believe we descended from apes."
Obviously, you're being facetious here. In reality, the "beliefs" of the population in the USA are pretty much equally split regarding evolution versus creation.
But, you see, science doesn't operate on the result of polls. If it did, it would not be science at all. A large majority of the population of the USA has no idea who the Attorney General of the US is. That does not mean that Alberto Gonzales is not the holder of that appointed office.
Half of the population of the United States of America is below average in intelligence, too. Figures like these are completely irrelevant to scientific research. Beliefs are completely irrelevant to scientific research.
If we reduce our educational system to one that operates on poll results, rather than information, we will become a third-rate country in terms of technology. Already, we graduate far too few engineers, scientists, and other specialists from our colleges. We are being overtaken in these areas by other nations. Even India is competing with the USA in technical fields.
Religion belongs in the churches and living rooms of the USA, not in the public classroom. Religion is in no danger of disappearing here. New churches are being built in every city. New denominations continue to form, as Christianity continues to fragment.
Non-Christian religions, too are growing in the USA. Islam, Buddhism, and others are gaining followers at a rapid pace.
Religion's in no danger here. Knowledge is in danger, particularly in scientific fields.
Remember: 50% of all Americans are below average in intelligence. Remember that every time you read poll results.
I've noticed a distinct trend on FR for ID advocates to deny God and quote Aristotle and Plato. If you combine this with the fact that Behe accepts common descent as a given, the 4.5 billion year old earth as a given, the fundamentalists will eventually get tired of sitting on the bushel.
Could someone help me out here? What experimental testing has proven evolution? I am aware of experiments with fruit flies, etc. but as I understand it this just yeilds the same old micro/macro debate (round and round we go... when we stop flaming nobody knows). Any additional info? Thanks
I think you know more about science than the Constitution. How is allowing mention of ID establishing a religion by Congress?
True enough, but Darwin nonetheless posited that such a mechansim had to exist, and would eventually be discovered. Behe doesn't seem to even be saying that about ID's mechanisms; it's as though they aren't really important to this "theory"..... it seems that all that matters to Behe is that he "knows design when he sees it." I don't see the explanatory power in that.
I take it then that you believe logic and truth to prevail over what one (or more) prefer to be true?
Perhaps the least we can hope for in this trial is to have Pandas tossed as a reference.
So which side of the 50 percentile do you fall in?
Explanatory power = 0. But the reporter can't be expected to know that after having successfully completed government schooling.
You must not know the history of education in this country. Public schools were started by religious groups as were most colleges. My parents' generation grew up learning the Bible in public schools. Atheists have changed that. The "people" haven't.
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.