Posted on 10/19/2005 5:10:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Is this what you're talking about?
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/hygiene.html
And I am sure you have examples of this occurring, right?
No. But you do seem to have an affinity for fringe pseudoscience.
I have these threads to back it up. I have been asking ID advocates on these threads for a couple of months to say what they would teach if they were in charge. None have responded. I don't know why, but I suspect they don't want to admit in front of their creationist buddies that ID accepts the fact of evolution as a given. That includes common descent and the 4.5 billion year age of the earth. that's what Behe is agreeing with under oath. He has said under oath now, that the "Pandas" book is factually wrong.
When you read through these threads and look at what people say when pinned down, they are denying the fundamental facts of the world that are accepted by mainstream science. they are willing to argue that the speed of light and the rate of radioactive decay change in ways necessary to make Genesis literally correct. There is no branch of science which will not eventually come under attack.
But more importantly it is the fundamental methods of science that are under attack. Behe has admitted this under oath. He is proud of it.
So you don't have anything to back up your statement.
I would agree with you in your post #270...parents do have to evaluate the schools where their children will go to school....we moved around a bit, because my husband was in the military..sometimes depending on where we lived, I had the boys in private school...at other times, they went to public school...
My younger boy finished up in public school...because it was, academically a very fine school...their physics dept and their computer studies were very highly ranked...and these were the two areas my son was most interested in...he also took all the AP courses, passed the tests, and was able to just about skip all the freshmen courses once in college, because of the AP courses in a public high school...this was great, considering that his major(physics applied engineering), was really a difficult major, and being able to get those freshmen courses out of the way, while still in high school, was a great advantage...
I would agree with your basic point, ,that one must be diligent, and evaluate each and every school before sending your child there...
Thanks for your reply...I think that the three most popular reasons that people homeschool, is school environment(as you say), academic studies, and religion...I am sure there are other reasons as well...I just think that homeschoolers have a myriad of reasons why they do homeschool...
You have a very nice-looking family!
Indeed. How many 'do overs' do chemists get, anyway?
Here is a different perspective on what happened yesterday.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=929&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more929
Backer of Theory Never Contradicted Self, Truth Shows
Writing about Michael Behe's cross-examination, the Philadelphia Inquirer has alleged that "Backer of theory contradicted self, lawyer suggests."
(Nevermind that the news media didn't write such headlines about Dr. Kenneth Miller when he testified on direct that his textbooks contained NO religious discussions [see Day 1 AM transcript, page 104], but then the next day admitted under cross-examination that some versions of his textbook had religious descriptions of evolution [see Day 2 AM transcript, page 4-5]).
The question remains, did Behe contradict himself on the stand while under intense cross examination? A factual examination reveals the answer is no! Let's dig in!
[More:]
Does the scientific theory of intelligent design identify the designer?
Firstly, the article claims that Behe contradicted his claim that ID theory cannot identify the designer. According to Worden, plaintiffs' counsel Mr. Eric Rothschild found that Behe had written "that intelligent design is 'much less plausible for those that deny God's existence.'"
Behe's statements were taken from an article he wrote in "Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution," a peer-reviewed article published in Biology and Philosophy (Vol 16 (5): 685-709, Nov. 2001). Let's read a more complete version of the text of what Behe wrote:
"As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument is less plausible to those for whom God’s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God’s existence. People I speak with who already believe in God generally agree with the idea of design in biology (although there are certainly exceptions), those who are in doubt are interested in the argument but often are skeptical, and as a rule those who actively deny God’s existence are either very skeptical or wholly disbelieving (Apparently, the idea of a natural intelligent designer of terrestrial life is not entertained by a large percentage of people)."
Michael J. Behe, "Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution," published in Biology and Philosophy (Vol 16 (5): 685-709, Nov. 2001)
As can be seen, Behe here was talking about the general psychology of how people deal with accepting intelligent design theory. This is appropriate for a philosophy journal, which looks at how people accept the philosophical implications of various scientific theories. All Behe is saying is that for those who already believe in God, it's often easier for them to accept intelligent design. And Behe qualifies his statements by noting that there are "exceptions" to his experience--showing that he's not talking about hard-and-fast conclusions from ID theory, but the general psychology and philosophical implications that people often find from it. This does not mean that the scientific theory of ID mandates that the designer is God.
If this is the best quote that can be dredged up to try to claim that Behe believes that ID theory identifies the designer, then the plaintiffs' case is indeed very weak.
To see just how weak the plaintiffs' case actually is, consider how Behe has repeatedly made it clear that the scientific theory of design does not tell you who the designer is:
"Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that."
(Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01).
"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer. We can determine that a system was designed by examining the system itself, and we can hodl the conviction of designer much more strongly than a conviction about the identity of the designer. In several of the examples above, the identity of the esigner is not obvisous. We have no idea who made the contraptionin the junkyard, or the vine trap, or why. Nonetheless, we know that all of these things were designed because of the ordering of independent components to achieve some end."
(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 196)
"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer."
(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197)
"The most important difference [between modern intelligent design theory and Paley's arguments] is that [intelligent design] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. This while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo."
(Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165, emphasis added.)
Clearly Behe has made it unequivocally obvious that as far as the scientific theory of ID goes, it cannot identify the designer. Behe might find that, based upon "his experience," philosophy or psychology might cause some people to be inclined towards believing the designer is God, but that doesn't mean that the scientific theory of ID tells you who the designer is.
Behe has been ultra-consistent between his testimony and his writings. There was no contradiction.
Did Behe claim support for everything in Pandas?
The second alleged contradiction was that Behe supposedly contradicted himself in that he claimed that he was a reviewer of Pandas but yet disagreed with a statement in Pandas which defined ID as the claim that "various forms of life began abruptly..." Here's what the article alleged:
Rothschild also showed a section of the intelligent design book Of Pandas and People, in which Behe contributed a chapter and was listed as a "critical reviewer," stating that intelligent design means life forms "began abruptly."
Behe said under questioning that he did not agree with that definition of intelligent design.
Behe, who defines intelligent design as "the purposeful arrangement of parts," defended the concept as a "well-substantiated theory" that seeks to explain gaps in Darwin's theory of evolution.
"The concern of intelligent design is to examine the empirical, physical and natural world," he said. "It is no more religious than the big bang theory [of the origin of the universe] is religious. Both rely on observed evidence."
The reporter here got confused. The definition of ID given by Pandas comes from Chapter 4, "The Fossil Record," where it states "intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly..." Though Behe was a contributor to Pandas, it was on the blood clotting cascade section (found in Chapter 6, "Biochemical Similarities")--not the fossil record section in which this notorious definition of ID as rejecting common ancestry dwells (pg. 99-100). Apparently this reporter wasn't listening when Behe testified as to his limited role in Pandas.
Behe is a biochemist, and thus it is not likely that the authors of Pandas sought Behe's input on sections dealing with paleontology. The fact that Behe was a "critical reviewer" of the book does not mean that he therefore endorsed everything in the book. Even if Behe did review the section on the fossil record, perhaps Behe even expressed disagreement with this definition of ID as "abrupt appearance" but then the actual authors of this section chose to ignore Behe's criticisms, since his primary input was solicited for biochemistry issues.
Behe has made it clear that he supports ID, but also believes that ID could be consistent with common descent:
"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book “Darwin's Black Box” (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent."
Michael J. Behe, Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism, Science, Published E-Letter Responses for Scott, 288 (5467):813-815 (July 30, 2000)
Showing that Pandas defines ID to include rejection of common ancestry in no way undermines Behe's statement that ID does not necessarily reject common ancestry--unless you take Pandas to be the definitive manefesto of design theory, which we all know is far from true (after all, the book doesn't even contain the phrase "irreducible complexity"). Thus Behe only expressed disagreement with Pandas.
Behe never claimed, nor implied, he endorsed 100% of everything in the textbook, and therefore he never contradicted himself when he acknowledged his long-standing position that he believes that ID does not require the rejection of common descent.
A sidenote on usage of "Abupt Apperance" language
I would also like to note that Pandas' usage of "abrupt appearance" terminology does not link it to creationist thought, as "abrupt appearance" terminology is not uncommon in the mainstream paleontological literature:
"Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group. Thus, it has seldom been possible to piece together ancestor-dependent sequences from the fossil record that show gradual, smooth transitions between species."
(Hickman, C.P., L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman. 1988. Integrated Principles of Zoology. Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, St. Louis, MO., pg. 866; emphasis added)
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."
(Mayr, E., 1991, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p. 138; emphasis added)
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
(Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24; emphasis added)
"The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."
(Wesson, R., 1991, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45; emphasis added)
"Phyla appear abruptly in the fossil record without intermediates to link them to their putative ancestors. This pattern presumably reflects derivation of most or all phyla from small, soft-bodied ancestors that had virtually no potential for fossilization. However, most classes and orders of durably skeletonized marine animals also appear abruptly, without obvious linkage to their durably skeletonized antecedents...."
(Erwin D.H., Valentine J.W. & Sepkoski J.J., "A Comparative Study of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic Versus the Mesozoic," Evolution, Vol. 41, No. 6, p1178; emphasis added)
"The Cambrian explosion is named for the geologically sudden appearance of numerous metazoan body plans (many of living phyla) between about 530 and 520 million years ago, only 1.7% of the duration of the fossil record of animals."
"It is this relatively abrupt appearance of living phyla that has been dubbed the ‘Cambrian explosion.’"
(Valentine, Jablonski, Erwin, Development 126:851-859 (1999); emphasis added)
Finishing on a High Note
Finally, I would like to note a fair and accurate article by Martha Raffaele which, according to reports we received, accurately portrays Rothschild's attempt to perform a "literature dump" upon the steadfast Michael Behe:
Eric Rothschild, a lawyer for eight families suing to have intelligent design removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum, presented Behe with a stack of more than a half-dozen books written about the evolution of the immune system.
"A lot of writing, huh?" Rothschild said.
But Behe was unmoved, noting that "evolution" has multiple meanings.
"I am quite skeptical that they present detailed, rigorous models of the evolution of the immune system through random mutation and natural selection," he said.
Do you think it is possible to infer a general purpose without knowing the specific intent? In the movie, Contact, a signal representing a long sequence of prime numbers is received. Do the characters in the movie know anything about the intelligence's purposes or motives for sending the prime numbers? Do they know anything about the technology employed or about the intelligence's physical makeup? No. Yet, the signals exhibit hallmarks of intelligence. How so, since the intelligence's intent is not known?
IDists claim we identify design by assuming that certain levels of complexity cannot occur naturally.
If by 'naturally' you mean by operation of 1) a law, or 2) chance, as opposed to 3) the action of intelligent agency, then yes, I agree. There are three possible causes for things: chance, law or design.
We assume complexity as an attribute of design because humans can and do create complex objects, however that complexity is not how we normally identify a designed object. When we examine an artifact we ask ourselves 'how does it resemble other objects we know are designed (by humans)', 'does it have any attributes that result from its manufacture method(tool marks)', 'what can it be used for, why was it made'. All questions we ask about the object centre around what we already know about human design, not about design that non-human intelligences could possibly make.
Why should one except in the first place this Humean inductive framework of all our knowledge of the world as an extrapolation from past experience, much less for how design is recognized in the first place? If we purport to attribute design on the basis of induction, we have already presupposed the ability to identify design independently of induction because as Hume says, unless you know it by experience, you know nothing of it. And if that were the case you could never know it at all.
We do not perceive intelligence directly, but by its signs. And though signs of intelligence can be learned and confirmed by experience, our ability to recognize them cannot originate in experience. The same goes for recognizing "intent".
ID, by its very nature, will produce false positives and false negatives as often as it will be correct.
If that proved to be true then the theory would turn out to be useless. I think the jury is still out on whether there is a reliable criterion for detecting (not eliminating) design. False negatives, though an inherent problem with eliminating intelligent causes (because of their innovatioan and unpredictabilty, etc) are not much of a problem for science in general right now, which doesn't presume anything as being designed anyway. If there is a rigourous mathematical method of applying the probability criterion to cases then false positives will be minimized. Either way, nothing in ID theory stops anyone from looking for causes of chance or necessity.
Cordially,
Hey - you're the one posting about Bible studies on a "teach ID in the classroom" thread, so my confusion regarding your intent is at least partially understandable, I hope.
I wasn't talking about Bible studies in science class but rest assured, the ACLU won't ever let the Bible back into schools.
I see you know how to avoid making reference to some very relevant sections of the testimony. Here is just a small portion that caused Forrest considerable problems:
Q. Okay. I know you're aware of Eugenia Scott.
A. I'm on her board of directors. I forgot to mention that organization, by the way. I'm on the board of directors for the National Center for Science Education.
Q. And Ms. Scott is noted as a notable scientist of the Manifesto 3, do you know that?
A. No. I didn't know that.
Q. The manifesto makes broad philosophical claims such as, humans are the result of unguided evolutionary change, and that humanists recognize nature as self-existing. Do you agree with those claims?
A. I do.
Q. Are they scientific claims?
A. No, that's a philosophical statement. It goes beyond what science can establish.
Q. Okay. And basically, she is in charge, head of the National Center for Science Education, is that correct?
A. She's the director.
Q. But she is making philosophical and, I believe, religious claims in the area of science, would you agree with that?
A. She signed that statement as a personal act on her part. That is not what she does as the director of the National Center for Science Education. She does not promote her personal preferences as head of that organization. She promotes the principles of good science education.
Q. But she is a very outspoken person with regard to teaching of Darwinism, is she not?
A. She's a very forceful defender of teaching science as it should be taught.
Q. And she does everything she can as the director to prevent intelligent design from being included in the science education?
A. She does.
Q. Based on the comments that Eugenia Scott has made and Dr. Wineberg, would you conclude that evolution is not a scientific theory?
A. Based on what specific comments, sir?
Q. The comments that I just read?
A. The comments that --
Q. By Steven Wineberg, the first comment I read?
A. Those are Steven Wineberg's comments not Eugenia Scott's.
Q. No, I said, and Eugenia Scott's comments. Do you believe that Darwinism should not be a part of the educational curriculum?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection. I'm not sure there are any Eugenia Scott comments that have been presented to the witness.
MR. THOMPSON: Quote, humans are the result of unguided evolutionary change and that, quote, humanists recognize nature as self-existing, end quote.
THE COURT: You withdraw the objection?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I don't think those are comments Eugenia Scott made.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, I just put quotes around the phrases.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm not sure that changes that they're not things -- she didn't make comments to that effect. I mean, I think the issue, just for clarity, is that those are words from, I think, the humans manifesto, which apparently she had signed onto. The witness doesn't even know that is so.
THE COURT: So you're saying they're mischaracterized as direct quotes?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: It's very unclear. I think the witness was confused about what comments are being referred to, and I'm not --
MR. THOMPSON: I understand. I think I understand.
THE COURT: Well, here's what I perceive, and that is that, the objection likely caused the question to be issued in two parts. So why don't you restate the question?
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That will be clear to the witness, I'm sure.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. I earlier read to you the comments by Nobel laureate Steven Wineberg. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Based on the comments that he made regarding the philosophical and quasi-religious, I guess, nature of evolution and modern science, do you believe that that would exclude Darwinism as a scientific theory?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm just going to object to the characterization, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Overruled. You can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: If I understand you correctly, you are linking the comments that he made with the status of Darwinism as an evolutionary theory.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Correct.
A. I don't think the comments that he made, his personal statements about science have that much to do with the status of evolutionary theory. And, I'm sorry, I don't see the connection that you're trying to make.
Q. Okay. I think you answered my question. And then regarding Eugenia Scott, you know she's the director of the National Center for Science Education, and she is a notable signer of the humanist Manifesto 3. To accurately characterize that, the humanist manifesto makes proceed philosophical statements such as, quote, Humans are the result of unguided evolutionary change. And then further again, the manifesto --
A. Um-hum.
Q. -- claims that humanists recognize nature as self-existing, end quote. Do you agree with the claims that the humanist manifesto makes?
A. I understand those claims, and I generally agree with them.
Q. Okay. And Eugenia Scott is an outspoken advocate of teaching Darwin's theory?
A. She is an outspoken advocate of teaching evolutionary theory in public science class, yes.
Q. Based upon the methodology you used in excluding statements -- excuse me. Withdraw that. Based upon the methodology you use to conclude that statements made by Dembski or Steven Myers or Jonathan Wells should exclude intelligent design from public education, why would that same methodology not be used to exclude Darwinism from public education?
A. If you will permit me, sir, let me please make a distinction in what I think these people are doing. And I don't think you're representing Eugenia Scott's position accurately. Eugenia Scott's signed the humanist manifesto as a personal act on her part. She is quite cognizant, and she has expressed this many times, of the difference between what she can assert as a scientist and what she can assert as a citizen with philosophical preferences.
She has many times expressed that distinction. She is quite aware of it. In fact, she does not use her position as director of the National Center for Science Education to promote her particular personal viewpoints. She is adamantly against doing that.
In fact, she was the most important person in persuading the National Association of Biology Teachers to take language of that sort out of their statement. She is quite aware that there are many personal viewpoints people can take, and she has stated many times that one must recognize a distinction between what one can say as a scientist and what one says as a private citizen expressing a philosophical preference.
She does not do the same thing that, I believe, Dr. Dembski and his intelligent design associates are doing.
Q. I guess then, what methodology do you use to exclude the same kind of consideration from Dr. Dembski and others that you used to exclude Eugenia Scott's philosophical and religious comments?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: No, I'll allow the question. The objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS: In Dr. Dembski's case, it is not a matter of his having a scientific viewpoint which can be defended and a philosophical viewpoint attached to that. His viewpoint regarding intelligent design is at its core, in its essence, a religious viewpoint, not a scientific one.
What I object to is his presenting that as a scientific theory that should be offered to students in a science class. I don't think there is any analogy at all between what he is doing and what Eugenia Scott does. And part of my job as a philosopher is to make those distinctionss clear.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Well, I think you've already indicated that you are not a scientist, correct?
A. I'm not a scientist, but I am an educated person who understands the way science works. That's not hard to understand.
Q. And you are not -- you are not an expert in science to the extent that you can evaluate Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, are you?
A. I have never claimed to be a scientific expert evaluating Dr. Behe's statements about irreducible complexity. That is not within my expertise.
Q. Okay. And so you continue to say that intelligent design is not science without you personally being able to evaluate the scientific claims of Dr. Michael Behe, is that correct?
A. My understanding of intelligent design as science is a position that I can defend without having to address the particular scientific claims. Those have been very well addressed by Professor Miller. What I know about intelligent design is that it is defined by its own leaders in religious terms. And any idea that is defined by its own leaders in religious terms as requiring a supernatural creator is not a scientific idea. That's simply basic elementary science.
Q. That's what I'm getting at. You excuse Eugenia Scott and Steve Wineberg when they talked about their scientific theories and religious and philosophical terms, but you will not give the same benefit to those in the intelligent design movement, is that true?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection. Mischaracterizes the statements that Mr. Thompson has just been quoting.
THE COURT: Well, he has her on cross. And I think it's a fair question on cross. I'll overrule the objection. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat it, please, the one that you just asked?
(Whereupon, the court reporter read back the question.)
THE WITNESS: They're not doing the same thing, sir. Eugenia Scott is not advocating that her personal philosophical preferences be taught to school children in a public school science class as science. She insists that the evolutionary biology that has withstood scientific testing now for 150 years be taught.
Dr. Dembski and his associates in the intelligent design movement are asking that their view, which is, at its essence, a religious view, be offered to children as science. So that is not what Eugenia Scott is doing.
BY MR. THOMPSON:
Q. Well, I don't want to keep on going around as to whether intelligent design is a religious view or a scientific theory. But you will agree, will you not, that any analysis must clearly make distinctions between religious motivations of the ID proponents and the religious implications of intelligent design theory?
A. What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own.
Q. Well, didn't the president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State also use the Logos theology by saying, God could have said, evolve?
A. You're talking about the director, Barry Lynn?
Q. Yes.
A. Barry Lynn said this in a jovial way. He was certainly -- he certainly recognizes the difference between science and religion. I know Barry. And he was making a jovial comment.
Q. Were you there when he made that statement?
A. I was -- I was not present when he made the statement.
Q. Do you agree with Dr. Ken Miller's testimony that not everything a scientist says is science?
A. Scientists say many, many things. They talk about lots of things in addition to science.
Q. And that could also be true of the intelligent design theorists, is that correct?
A. I would ask that you give me something specific to evaluate, but I'm sure they talk about lots of different things, too.
Q. They may talk about their personal religion, correct?
A. Yes, they do quite a bit.
Q. Their philosophy of life, correct?
A. Yes.
Thank you for posting that example of Forrest refusing to get caught in Thompson's lawyerly web of confusion. She clearly held her own and bested Thompson during the cross.
AUSTRALIA'S scientific community has fired its first broadside in a looming war over a controversial theory of evolution known as intelligent design....
In an open letter entitled Intelligent design is not science, the group calls on all schools not to teach the topic as science because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory.
"As Australian scientists and science educators, we are gravely concerned that so-called intelligent design might be taught in any school as a valid scientific alternative to evolution," the letter says.
"While science is a work in progress, a vast and growing body of factual knowledge supports the hypothesis that biological complexity is the result of natural processes of evolution."
The coalition of scientists rejects the assertion that some living structures are so complex that they are explicable only by the agency of a superior force.
They say intelligent design's central plank of a theological or philosophical notion of supernatural intervention is a belief which cannot be observed, tested, validated or falsified.
"They are free to believe and profess whatever they like," the letter says.
"But not being able to imagine or explain how something happened other than by making a leap of faith to supernatural intervention is no basis for any science: that is a theological or philosophical notion."
To allow the theory to be taught as science would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views such as astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions, the letter said.
Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson said in August he believed parents should have the choice whether they wanted the theory taught in schools, but not to the exclusion of the established theory of evolution.
He has since said the theory might be more at home in philosophy of science or religious classes - but not in the science classroom.
...
You need to learn how to read.
Hee hee.
What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own.
Once again, the issue isn't the motivation of the proponents. It's how the idea itself if described by its proponents. While Dawkins and Eugenia Scott and Steven Weinberg may be atheists, and they may consider evolution to be something that supports their atheist views, they do not define evolution as a theory of religion or lack thereof. In contrast, most IDers have, at one stage or other, said that ID is in fact a religious idea or a strategy to promote religion.
It really isn't a difficult point. Why are you having such trouble understanding it?
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.