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.
Accepted science--which "intelligent design" is not--no matter how much it cloaks itself with scientific language. Live with it.
Exactly! Both theories are based in science. Students have a right to learn both theories and decide for themselves.
I regret to inform you that there is actually no "theory of ID". So it might be a bit difficult to have students learn it.
People are overreacting to ID as if it is proposing a return to the belief the world is flat.
In the manner in which the ID movement is attempting to undermine actual scientific discoveries and methodology, it might as well be.
Hehehehehehe:) That was funny.
I personally believe that the storks were outsourced:).
one of y'all gave this to me... time to give it back:
I've been getting along in a calmer atmosphere just fine. For some reason, people want to argue with me when I don't want to.
...and much, much more.
However, the speculation and guesswork used in figuring out what went on eons ago should not be accepted as final proof, in my opinion.
There is no such thing as "proof" in the real world, so you're disingenuously trying to hold evolutionary biology to an impossible standard.
But you misrepresent the very solid and very massive foundation of evolutionary biology. To hand-wave it away as "speculation and guesswork" is extremely dishonest.
"Figuring out what happened eons ago" is on extremely strong footing, at least in regards to the big picture and many of its individual pieces, although of course there will always be some areas where the finer details are more murky. But don't try to pretend that the reconstruction of the history of life on Earth is somehow all nothing but conjecture.
The work of some paleontologists has holes you could drive a truck through.
...and you say that based on your deep knowledge and understanding of paleontology, right? Or might it instead be based on some creationist pamphlets you've read?
But just for fun, feel free to list a few of these "holes" for us, and make sure they're valid representative examples of the field on the whole, and not just rare isolated examples of an idiot somewhere, used dishonestly to try to impugn the quality of paleontology in general.
just a side note: it would be rather difficult to "return" to the belief that the Earth is flat, as that notion was developed in the 1800's IIRC by a Frenchman and Nathaniel Hawthorn as an Enlightenment slam against religious perversion/retardation of knowledge. No evidence exists that any educated person since (at least) the Classical Period believed the world was flat.
No evidence exists that any educated person since (at least) the Classical Period believed the world was flat.
You mean it's not????????????????????????? OH CRAP!!!!:).
You "forgot" to mention that a lot of those believe that God used evolution in order to do it.
I am wondering why evolution has not received more acceptance, since it has been taught in public schools for more than half a century.
Because creationists have lied about it so much that a) a lot of the public has fallen for the dishonest "disproofs" or "evidence against" evolution, b) the straw-man version of evolution presented by the creationists has been mistaken by many for the real thing (just read these threads for many examples) and thus this ridiculous cartoon-version of evolution has been rightly rejected as ridiculous, and c) creationists have been trying to drum up a false "scientific controversy" so much that a lot of the public believes that there must be one, so they're reserving judgment.
In short, it's because of the creationists' "Big Lie" campaign.
In countries where creationists have not embarked on such widespread propaganda campaigns, evolution has very widespread acceptance.
Also, contrary to your implication, evolution is really not taught all that often in American schools except as a passing mention, if at all. Most of the public really has no foundation for forming an informed opinion about evolution in the first place. Those that do ovewhelmingly accept the validity of evolution. A large majority of university students accept evolution, over 90% of scientists accept evolution, and over 99% of biologists accept evolution. The more people actually learn about evolution (and not the creationist straw-man version), the more they accept the truth of it.
And do you *really* want to try to imply that the popularity of an idea determines its truth? The majority of the world's population is *not* Christian, after all.
*grins*
actually, the acceptance of the "people used to believe the world was flat" myth is one of several I have long found puzzling. Another concerns the belief that in days of old people believed the moon actually changed its shape in its monthly cycle.
I have been able to find evidence countering the former myth (Roman imperial regalia and statuary, later European Regal regalia: cf "orbis terrarum") and was recently given the genesis of the myth itself by an Evo here.
I have so far not found evidence countering the latter, but STRONGLY suspect it exists.
Some women sure do. :)
I have always wondered if memebers of the Flat Earth society go on many cruises.
Stuttered a bit there.
Not wholeheartedly embracing evolutionary theories isn't the same thing as "rejecting science."
In order to reject evolutionary biology, most folks end up rejecting large portions of physics, geology, paleontology, biology, etc.
And in order to reject those, or other findings of science that they feel contradicts what they'd like to believe, they reject the validity of the scientific method and its results.
That's close enough to "rejecting science" to have earned the description.
Really????? I think people would be EASILY convinced. /sarcasm
You seemingly failed to get my point.
You mean, as described in this article?
Scientific creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal with error.
Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.
Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true; whatever damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up when possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders. In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate.
Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The "Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them. ...
And in order to reject those, or other findings of science that they feel contradicts what they'd like to believe, they reject the validity of the scientific method and its results. That's close enough to "rejecting science" to have earned the description.
Interesting points again. I had a wonderful geology teacher years ago. She sure had a passion for it and I really enjoyed the class--she got her students enthused about geology too. She was also a faithful Christian too.
The basis of calling ID a non-science is Popper and Kuhn.
Although, this is an acceptable and to some canonical answer, it is not the only definition of science.
Their thesis that science is only about those subjects which can be reliably defined in such a way as plausably falsfied or tested.
The failure in much of the ID debate is the supposition of this thesis, and the misunderstanding of what is knowable and the realm of what is intelligent.
Even if we were to make a way to formally state a concept and apply a measure as to how 'true' it is, this truth is but a function of other measures.
One of the measures is How Scientific it is.
In this branch, there are many other sub-measures, and one of these is the Kuhn falsifiable measure.
What the proponents of the Kuhn model fail to detail is that mathematics can answer only a very small domain, and beyond this, relies on the mechanics of human reasoning, which is not 'reasoning' in any dependable fashion.
My use of a hammer as a tool is only as long as it randomly isn't cabbage, or other thing unlike a hammer.
Specifically, the Darwin theory relies on a optimization subject often lumped together as pareto curve (or surface) minimization, and is often cited in the realm of game theory (see 'A Beautiful Mind').
Now, optimization is related to another way to measure intelligence, and that is compression.
This idea states that you can recognize a concept only if you can make a smaller statement that is more general. I can 'recognize' an apple despite its many forms and settings. The recognition of the apple is vastly smaller than the sum of all its differences and settings.
Hey don't insult watchmakers.:)
Okay, sorry if I wasn't clear. "ID" obviously has validity, in the most literal sense: "Intelligent design" (as for example by humans) obviously does work and can produce results, such as watches, cars, etc.
What I was talking about was not "ID" the process, but the "ID postulate" (or "the ID movement" if you prefer) which asserts that some Intelligence and/or Design was responsible for the formation of life on Earth. *That* postulate (it doesn't even rise to the level of "hypothesis", much less "theory") has been knocking around for several thousand years without visible results.
To me there is plenty of evidence, but most of that can't be "proven" in a scientific sense or in a way that would be received by the scientific community.
But therein lies the problem. And it's more profound than ID's supporters realize.
Some think that the "requirements of science" are some sort of "club" that erects artificial restrictions to keep out the "unwanted" viewpoints. But that's not the case.
Instead, the scientific method has been developed over the centuries to incorporate reliable methods of acquiring valid knowledge, and avoid unreliable methods.
And the reason that "testable" and "falsifiable" are such large parts of that method is because they get to the core essense of telling sense from nonsense. Or even more to the point, useful knowledge from useless notions.
And that's the crux of the issue. If an idea isn't "scientifically testable", it's because it has *no* real-world consequences. It doesn't affect reality, or if it does, it does so in no predictable or useful ways. It is, in every sense of the word, a useless idea. An idea which has no practical value, which makes no difference, which produces no results. In short, it's an idea that doesn't make any difference whether it's true or not.
Oh goody another ID / EVO thread, this time my money is on the ID ers winning this one but later in the afternoon the EVO's will win the next thread.
Even though I'm a big critic of the ID movement I am now leaning towards the ID argument. It has been decisively proven time and time in these threads that a believer in ID can never evolve into a supporter of Darwin.
Personally that settles it for me.
didn't miss your point, just made a side note
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.