Posted on 11/13/2005 6:07:54 AM PST by NYer
CBN.com – SEATTLE, Washington - The Dover, Pennsylvania school board is on trial in the state capitol. Their crime? They wanted to tell high school students once a year that evolution is only a theory. They also wanted to mention an alternate theory: Intelligent Design, or ID.
That was too much for some parents. They sued, claiming ID is religious and therefore illegal in school. The judge will decide the case in the next few weeks.
So is ID really just religion in disguise? Do both biology and astronomy support ID? And who are these people promoting ID?
To answer those questions, we went to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the major proponents of ID.
Dr. Stephen Meyer is the head of Discovery's Center for Science and Culture. He says to ban design theory as mere religion is wrong.
"And in fact,” Meyer said, “it's a science-based argument that may have implications that are favorable to a theistic worldview, but the argument is based on scientific evidence."
But perhaps these ID experts are not really reputable?
Mayer stated, "These are people with serious academic training. They are Ph.D.s from very, not just reputable -- but elite -- institutions. And they are people doing research on the key pressure points in biology and physics, and so their arguments are based on cutting-edge knowledge of developments in science."
So what is the evidence from researchers like biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute?
He is an expert on a special kind of bacteria called flagella. Inside the bacteria are exquisitely engineered ‘inboard motors’ that spin at an amazing 100,000 revolutions per minute.
Darwin said that such complexity must have developed piece by piece. Behe said that is bunk. All the pieces must be in place at the same time or the motorized tails would never work.
Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that -- ID does.
Behe makes the case for ID in a video called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." The video’s narrator declares, “A thimbleful of liquid can contain four million single-celled bacteria, each packed with circuits, assembly instructions, and molecular machines..."
"There are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from one end of the cell to the other,” Behe explained. “There are machines that capture the energy from sunlight, and turn it into usable energy."
ID experts say the more you know about biology -- and some of the weird creatures like this island lizard -- the worse it gets for Darwinism.
Consider the workings of the genetic code. That code produces all kinds of molecular machines, plus all the other components of life. ID advocates say that to believe those components are just Darwinian accidents takes a blind faith in the creativity of dumb molecules.
So with growing evidence of ID, isn't Lehigh University proud of this cutting-edge scientist who teaches there—and wrote the 1996 bestseller "Darwin's Black Box?" Hardly.
In August, all the other (22) biology faculty members came out with a political statement on the department's Web site. They stated that "Intelligent design has no basis in science."
But they cited no evidence, and made no references to any scientific research.
Dr. John West, a political scientist at Seattle Pacific University, is senior fellow at Discovery Institute. He says these political responses to scientific issues are getting nasty.
West remarked that "hate speech, speech codes, outright persecution, and discrimination is taking place on our college campuses, in our school districts, against both students and teachers and faculty members."
In fact, universities are evolving into centers for censorship. Five years ago, Baylor University dismissed mathematician Dr. William Dembski from his position, primarily because he headed a center for ID there.
This September, the University of Idaho banned any dissent against evolution from science classes -- a slam on university biologist Dr. Scott Minnich, a noted supporter of ID.
"The school seems to be confusing where it's at,” West said. “Is it in Moscow, Idaho, or the old Moscow, Russia? ...in issuing this edict that…no view differing form evolution can be taught in any science class."
And at Iowa State University, more than 100 faculty members have signed a petition against ID -- an apparent political attempt to intimidate ISU astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez because he writes about ID.
Gonalez is, in fact, co-author with philosopher Dr. Jay Richards of "The Privileged Planet." Both scholars are also connected with the Discovery Institute.
The book and related video argue that astronomy also shows evidence of design. For instance, the earth has numerous aspects just right for our existence.
Gonzalez explained, "...We find that we need to be at the right location in the galaxy...that we're in the circumstellar habitable zone of our star (correct distance from the sun)...that we're in a planetary system with giant planets that can shield the inner planets from too many comet impacts...that we're orbiting the right kind of star -- it's not too cool and not too hot.”
These are just four of 20 some characteristics of earth that make our planet unique -- right for life, right for discovery by human science.
Richards said, "So you have life and the conditions for discovery happening at the same places. That, to us, suggests that there is something more than a cosmic lottery going on. That sounds like a conspiracy rather than a mere coincidence. So that to me is a tie-breaker in the question."
And there is more -- the finely-tuned underlying rules of the universe-- or physical constants. One of them is gravity. But what if gravity were not constant?
A film clip from Privileged Planet says: "Imagine a machine able to control the strength of each of the physical constants. If you changed even slightly from its current setting, the strength of any of these fundamental forces -- such as gravity -- the impact on life would be catastrophic."
In plain terms, a bit more gravity would mean any creature larger than the size of a pea would be crushed into nothing. And a little less gravity would mean that the Earth would come unglued and fly off into space.
But Darwinism has been maintaining that advanced life is easy to produce all over the universe.
"Almost everything we've learned in the area of astrobiology suggests that, 'Look, this is just not going to happen very often' -- now that might be sort of depressing for script writers for sci-fi movies, but that's where the evidence is taking us," Richards said.
Despite the attacks on ID, Meyer said the design interpretation of the evidence is exposing Darwinism as a theory in crisis:
"I think we're reaching the critical point where Darwinism is going be seen as simply inadequate,” Meyer asserted, “ -- and therefore the question of (intelligent) design is back on the table."
Just as this city of Seattle has all the earmarks of ID, so does nature, except that nature is infinitely more intricate.
unless there is a competitive SCIENTIFIC theory out there, such a "single sentence" would be a lie.
ID is neither competitive nor scientific.
there is nothing "new" about ID: it is a recapitulation of the old watchmaker argument - at least 200 years old, and STILL lacking any positive evidence, definition of mechanism, predictive value, or falsification criteria after all that time.
I am an IDer too, but I have liked seeing your comments and appreciate them. Thank you. Though I am an IDer, I really don't like one of the guys promoting it in my state. He literally puts his foot in his mouth every time he speaks (e.g.--with a dog and a cat....there's no such thing as a dat....). He's using the issue to get his name in the papers and to push his personal political agendas (something he does every year--just a different thing each year). He denounces all oppose him and promises to "deal with them." Not to mention that this is just part of his attacks against education.
Careful on the big words...they hurt my eyes:). I'm not affected at all because like you, it doesn't affect my Christian faith. You're right, something will come along again to replace other things. The things about dinosaurs that I learned as a kid have completely changed, that's for sure.
you call yourself an IDer.
very well.
what brand of IDer are you? and do you consider your brand of ID to be science?
There is plenty of evidence for evolution too. It's why I believe that at least some of it applies in formulating my beliefs about the creation.
Ilya prigogine provided some Hints that lay a foundation the could be used to develop an ID theory.What Prigogine really did was demolish creationist "Second Law of Thermodynamics" arguments. I'm always stunned to see someone from the creation/ID side trying to spin him as good news for them.Fine, get back to us when he has more than "hints".
Then I'm sure you won't mind more than just Christian "ID/creationism". Maybe Coyteman's got some more creation myths for us today that should also receive honorable mention in science class. To be fair, once we open up science class to what anyone might believe, then we'll be awfully busy just mentioning all those ideas. It might be pretty hard to get real science presented.
Even though I'm strongly in the creationist camp, I can respect and learn from the opinions of evolutionists.
The real failure of some Christian denominations here is they've convinced themselves that it must be either ID/creationism or evolution, but not both. Many Christians believe that evolution was one of Gods most elegant creations.
Just think of it. Evolution operates a system that is self-correcting, self-improving even. It acquires it's own energy for operation from its surroundings. And it's operated non-stop for 3 billion years or so, with the potential to operate for eternity (provided someone can carry life out of the solar system before the sun explodes).
Evolution is an impressive creation. Too bad you can't appreciate it's glory.
Actually it says quite a bit more, common descent and natural selection for example.
what POSITIVE evidence can you cite?
The author of the "theory in crisis" book, Michael Denton, now says that abiogenesis and evolution are inevitable.
Trolls always have a good time, and their posts always get responses. Other trolls will praise your posts. As a troll, you can ruin any thread just by showing up and trolling. Oh, the fun!
Trolling is easy. It's simple. You don't have to know anything! Here's a complete catalog of an evolution troll's intellectual inventory. Just print out this toolkit, and use one or two items at random every time you post. They'll go crazy! Guaranteed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | no evidence | Stalin | materialist | I never said that! |
| 2 | Hillary | homosexual | Piltdown Man | you're no Christian! |
| 3 | liberal | God-hater | government grants | what are you afraid of? |
| 4 | Hitler | no proof | communist | 2nd Law of Thermodynamics |
| 5 | atheist | nazi | Pol Pot | gaps in fossil record |
| 6 | origin of life | Christian-bashing | Darwin worship | I'm not [.....], you are! |
| 7 | arrogant jerk | take your meds | [any scripture passage] | you're foaming at the mouth |
| 8 | only a theory! | were you there? | Noah's Ark | macro-evolution is impossible |
ID canNOT be said to be strict science since it is faith-based and relies on something that can't be scientifically proven--that being the existence of God.
While it may be "science" so to speak to me, I can't go out thee and "prove" it nor do I insist that I know everything. I DON'T. I have no problem learning from the ideas and thoughts of others like yourself. I actually respect posters like Incheumon immensely because he does make many good arguments.
I guess you could say that I'm an ID'er who loves and appreciates science. I don't reject all of it just because I may not agree completely with things in evolution. That's dumb, to put it in a little kid sense. As a kid, I loved dinosaurs and fossils as did my mom before that and my Grandpa before that. We had no problem with their existence nor did it conflict with our Christian beliefs.
Behe is also now accepting common descent. I read somewhere that a couple of scientists accepted money from a creationist source in the 50's to try and prove a young earth. They failed, and eventually accepted and old earth and pressed on with their careers.
So how many scientists have briefly been in the limelight selling religious creationism, only to eventually accept that they were wrong? There might be quite a few. It might make a good list somewhere.
Well, laptop battery is 15% and dropping fast. I'm outa here.
The problem with evolution critics is that they don't understand what they are rejecting. The actual population of biologists is full of infighting, full of self-criticism. This is different from rejecting evolution from a position of ignorance.
But I'm not here to get into some big scientific debate or argument. I'm not a scientist and won't claim to be as such. I'm here to learn and do respect the beliefs and points that others make.
I hate to inform you like this, but the Easter Bunny is dead. Yes, dead! It was beheaded by a group of Christian Fundamentalists who accused the rabbit as being a form of idolatry and paganism. The video of the tortuous decapitation of the Easter Bunny was shown on the 700 Club.
A 2001 Gallup Poll showed that 82% of the public believed that life developed from God-directed causes.
I am wondering why evolution has not received more acceptance, since it has been taught in public schools for more than half a century.
Strictly speaking, he showed incompleteness or inconsistency for any theory that includes arithmetic and that only when you are limited to certain methods of proof. IIRC arithmetic was later proven correct using transfinite induction.
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.