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.
I'm getting pretty tired of dishonest creationists, sometimes it seems like that's the only kind there is.
Hey now.....I'm trying to be honest. Oh drat! I can't think of a one-liner. :)
Plenty of Freeper creationists have claimed in the past to have been "converted" from evolution to creationism. Funny thing is, to a man, they fail to be able to state the theory of evolution. They all proudly disavow cartoon versions of it.
A text can be outlined in a hierarchical manner. Ooh. Ahh...
Sorry, was I supposed to be impressed?
The ID as science people don't agree with you, but I'm still waiting for that test... ;)
I worked in a public library for a few years. We used to have this 4-year-old genius come in. The kid had developed his own theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs. I can't remember what it was (no it wasn't the proliferation of dirty diapers), but it was pretty impressive for a kid that age.
Heh -- okay, there's at least one exception. ;-)
Heck, I barely consider you a "creationist", at least not the strictest sense. In the more broad sense of the word, a lot of evolutionists are also creationists, so clearly there are many varieties under that one definitional umbrella, and you definitely seem in a different category than the ones I'm talking about (i.e. the kind who usually inhabit these threads).
Some of us may state that, but for a lot of us, the "test" is one of our faith in it, that being faith in a Supreme Being, being God. Thus, it is not one of science and can never be completely as such. I often say that the complexities of things in nature make me think that it was designed, but such is more of a declaration of faith than being based on tested scientific evidence.
I see that the IAPC (International Association of Pedantic Coxcombs) has revoked your certification. Did you get caught perpetuating an ambiguity? Thankfully I'm still a blackguard, and apparently I'm damned too, which always makes my day.
Hey, you're honest, that's no fun. How can I mock you and expose your pathetic falsehoods. [scuffs ground and kicks cat petulantly]
Any good scientific theory is subjectable to testing. Theories that cannot be tested are merely speculation or wishful thinking. In testing for design, three things must be established, contingency, complexity and specification. The flow chart below shows how the testing process works. It is called the explanatory filter8:
Heck, I barely consider you a "creationist", at least not the strictest sense. In the more broad sense of the word, a lot of evolutionists are also creationists, so clearly there are many varieties under that one definitional umbrella, and you definitely seem in a different category than the ones I'm talking about (i.e. the kind who usually inhabit these threads).
I am indeed a strict creationist, I just believe that there are indeed some truth to evolution (as proponents of ID actually are admitting too). My differences are ones of personality--I can insult and poke fun at myself, I don't take myself too seriously, I can respect different beliefs of others without getting into a hissyfit (at least on some issues:), I take an objective approach (or a dumb joke approach) rather than an absolutionist approach, and so on and so on. Learning some things about evolution strengthens my belief in creationism. That doesn't mean I am completely right or regard myself as such. I learn and I adapt at times. I'm not some "expert" nor am I deeply gifted with words. I usually have bigger and better things to worry about rather than how I began. Nonetheless, for some dumb reason, I can't keep off coming to an evolution thread every once in a while.
I don't let myself be mocked, though I think I traveled that fast one time in a jet. I mock myself enough already. I don't need any more help at it:).
e.g., Penrose Tiles can't.
My neighbors name is Penrose. Their flooring was manufactured.
I had a glance through that material and couldn't see anything that looked like an experiment that would have the potential to falsify ID. If ID is consistent with all possible observations then it is perfectly useless. Anyone else see it?
YEC SPOTREP
Here are some of the avenues of investigation that ID scientists want to follow:
1. transcendent creation event where all matter, energy, spacetime began (Big Bang)
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. fine-tuning of Earth's, the Solar System's and the Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
4. rapidity of life's origin
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
7. Cambrian explosion (sudden appearance of most species during same time period)
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
9. placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
10. fossil record reversal
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
12. rapid recovery from mass extinctions (mainly through appearance of new species)
13. duration of time windows for different species
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
16. speciation and extinction rates
17. recent origin of humanity (as opposed to common descent)
18. huge biodeposits (needed to sustain humanity)
19. molecular clock rates (which show humanity's recent origin)
I find it perfectly reasonable that they should be able to follow whatever lines of inquiry shows promise. Anybody disagree?
20. global flooding, 2304 BC (explain lack of evidence)
it is probably fair to call the common ancestors of both modern apes and modern humans "apes"
it is also probably fair to call modern humans "apes"
It's probably why so many of us go ape over so many things.
amny things make monkeys of men
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.