Pull the other leg now:
Furthermore, after the testimony in the recent Dover trial (from both the prosecution *and* the defense), andyone who tries to claim that ID isn't just a trojan horse for creationism clearly hasn't been keeping track.
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.
They're not. They're often laughed at (for reasons which should be entirely clear by now), but they're not persecuted.
The actions taken against them by academics and the mainstream media do not look good to the public. It looks like totalitarian thought control.
...because that's the way the IDers keep trying to spin it in their dishonest propaganda.
If their research leads to nothing then evolution theory will have been strengthened.
Their continued failure has already strengthened evolutionary theory.
On the other hand, if they come up with some valid discoveries, we all benefit.
Indeed, which is why no one's stopping them on their wild goose chase.
In the spirit of free enterprise, may the best ideas prevail.
Indeed. But in the meantime, they do *not* have license to a) lie about science, b) pretend that their fumbing attempts actually *are* a science, or c) present it in schools as if they have already achieved what they have continually failed to do.
Once again, here's the short form: All we insist upon is that they stop lying. At the moment, "ID" is the Michael Moore wing of creationism.
[Thunderous applause!]
Hey, you left out ignorant.
Thanks. I've made a note. If enough new stuff accumulates, I'll add a row.
One instance of persecution of ID scientists:
Richard Sternberg, a staff scientist at the National Institutes of Health, was the editor of a scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, where he is also a research associate.
Last year, he published in the journal a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design, an idea which Sternberg himself believes is fatally flawed.
Sternberg decided to publish it to promote "reasoned discourse."
"That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong."
Sternberg says his colleagues and supervisors at the Smithsonian were furious. He says -- and an independent report backs him up -- that colleagues accused him of fraud, saying they did not believe the Meyer article was really peer reviewed. It was.
Eventually, Sternberg filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which protects federal employees from reprisals. The office launched an investigation.
But Sternberg says before closing the case, the special counsel, James McVay, called him with an update. "As he related to me, 'the Smithsonian Institution's reaction to your publishing the Meyer article was far worse than you imagined,'" Sternberg says.
In a letter to Sternberg, he wrote that officials at the Smithsonian worked with the National Center for Science Education -- a group that opposes intelligent design -- to create "a strategy to have you investigated and discredited."
Retaliation came in many forms, the letter said. They took away his master key and access to research materials. They spread rumors that Sternberg was not really a scientist. (He has two Ph.D.'s in biology) In short, McVay found a hostile work environment based on religious and political discrimination.
Apparently not to the IDers, who describe timespans of that magnitide as "an instant" -- thanks for confirming for us that they really don't care about any kind of accuracy whatsoever when they're spinning their false propaganda.
I think that what this argument is really about is adherents to mainstream science are upset with what they perceive as heretics making waves in established fields.
Horse manure. Mainstream science *loves* "heretics". They give them Nobel Prizes and other awards. Few things are as exciting to a scientist as a new, unexpected paradigm that opens up new avenues of discovery.
What science does *not* appreciate is liars. Scientists care very much about accuracy and honesty, because those are necessary ingredients of being able to obtain the most reliable results and information. Liars *really* tick off scientists for that reason.
And liars who pretend to have scientific backing for their lies p*** off scientists even more. You know how you get ticked off when some Michael Moore wannabee says, "science shows that..." in order to prop up their bogus crap? That ticks off scientists ten times as much -- because not only is someone lying about their garbage, but they're dishonestly piggybacking on science's good name to do so, *and* because such crap makes the public wonder if the *real* scientists are equally careless about the truth in service to some political agenda. That kind of stuff unfairly damages the reputation of all *real* science.
And *this* is why the ID folks get such a harsh reception. They're liars, pretending to have scientific backing for their religious beliefs, when they do not.
Mainstream media is being challenged,
By liars and propagandists.
Crickets expected to chirp forever placemarker.
(Your reply) By liars and propagandists.
Ichneumon, I think you didn't quite get my meaning here. The most obvious challenge to the MSM is the conservative media: talk radio and bloggers. In short, US.
When the shoe fits? You bet. You should see how harsh scientific peer review can get when someone isn't being forthright.
If you think any of those were actually used without some justification, feel free to take it up with the author. Speaking for myself, I'll be glad to retract any that weren't actually supportable, if you can show me why they weren't. Until then, however...
Is Australophithecus on the ancestral lineage between non-human apes and humans? Yes. Your question as written, however, is fundamentally flawed.
Pull the other leg now:
Furthermore, after the testimony in the recent Dover trial (from both the prosecution *and* the defense), andyone who tries to claim that ID isn't just a trojan horse for creationism clearly hasn't been keeping track.
yes and no: when fallaciously slamming evolutionary biology, IDiots like to tout physics as if every damned thing in it is utterly predictable. I like to smack them with the reality: much of physics (and chemistry, and general biology, and medicine, and *sigh* meteorology if you must) is predictable only on a statistical, probabilistic, non-specific basis.
wooo!
for old time's sake, you've got to throw in a line consisting of these classics:
"1 in 1720 chance....."
"wildly elliptical....."
"your slimes prove me right"
Ichneumon, you seem to be the reigning pooh-bah of evolution posters (I just took a look at your profile page). You have all this background in science but your temperament somehow doesn't match.
Someone who is in possession of all the facts doesn't need to keep calling people liars.
That alone shows that Sternberg deserved the heat he got. Giving the go-ahead to the publishing of material you believe to be "fatally flawed" is a serious professional lapse in the realm of prestigious science journals. Retaliation came in many forms, the letter said. They took away his master key and access to research materials.
This is BS.
They spread rumors that Sternberg was not really a scientist. (He has two Ph.D.'s in biology)
No, they spread correct allegations that Sternberg was not following proper scientific standards.
In short, McVay found a hostile work environment based on religious and political discrimination.
Poor baby -- he violated professional standards and his professional reputation suffered as a result.
Try screwing up at *your* place of work and then cry "persecution" when you find yourself in hot water, and see how far *that* gets you.
Only among "ID" is the consequences of a professional lapse mislabeled as "persecution".
when confronted with a false statement, why should one who knows better not correct that false statement?
when confronted by a repetition of that falsehood by one who has already been corrected at least once, why should one who knows better not identify the falsehood as a willful lie, and the issuer thereof a liar?
Okay, fair enough. You were talking about the scientific establishment, so when you switched gears I misread "mainstream media" as "mainstream science". Sorry about that.
Back in post 222 I was holding open the door for Liberty Wins to be that rare creationist who will call a spade a spade.
So we've established that you're the one with the hoax here. Now the only questions are what did you know, when did you know it, and will you acknowledge or do the usual creationist perfuming of the pasture pie?It's too late now to pass that test. The polls are closed and the results have been tabulated.
well... the same paradigm seems to hold true with the Professionally Aggrieved among the homosexual, female, and minority sub-populations.
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.