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.
Actually, my temperament is pretty typical for scientists. Most of us take strong exception to deception.
Someone who is in possession of all the facts doesn't need to keep calling people liars.
Even when they are? Scientists believe in calling an X an X.
(Your reply) This is BS.
Sternberg lied, or McVay lied? They both lied?
that barb really puts a grin on my face :D
Do they repeatedly call people liars in print or on the internet?
I'd be grateful if you'd provide a link.
but that actually makes it better... the politesse, along with the alliteration
[Chorus:]
What, never?
No, never!
[Chorus:]
What, never?
Well... Hardly ever!
Wait a minute. "Prestigious science journals" publish only stuff they agree with?
"Twist and Shout" placemarker. Out for the night.
Science journals publishing only material that makes them comfortable would produce a closed circle of the faithful preaching to each other.
I am reminded of the way Reagan chose his White House staff. He could have appointed all of them from his conservative followers. However, he had a mixture of conservative, liberal and (ycchh) moderate advisors, because he felt the back-and-forth discussion contributed to the best decisions in the end.
I recommend one part Tamiflu to six parts spiced rum. Every 20 minutes.
;^)
"Wait a minute. "Prestigious science journals" publish only stuff they agree with?"
Your astute observation is very revealing. It explains a lot about the scientific establishment world.
Is this the way scientists talk?
It totally turns me off when someone talks or posts that way. I don't care how manly or womanly the poster is, but once they start throwing insults, they are off my radar. There's nothing more appealing than someone who can make an argument without insulting, name-calling, and mentioning the F word. I guess there's always a way to supplement a missing argument when the desire to win overrides the facts.
So the difference is between a little disagreement and a big disagreement, or what? I guess I don't understand how the editor or the peer reviewer could determine whether a piece of work was "fatally flawed" or a new concept.
You're d@mn right it is!
"I guess I don't understand how the editor or the peer reviewer could determine whether a piece of work was "fatally flawed" or a new concept."
I suppose that being the editor it is whatever he [I] thinks[/I] it is.
CS/ID has not demonstrated any real science yet. Most of the material I have seen is driven 1) by religious belief, and 2) an anti-evolution bias bordering on mania.
If it was a new concept it would have the potential to answer questions--and that is what it would be judged on. String theory is in this position now--it shows the potential to answer questions, and they are working on a new accelerator which may be able to test the theory. In the meantime, it is building up its case, which may eventually be supported (or not).
ID has not yet convinced scientists it is not driven by religious belief. When its proponents (in a moment of honesty) declare that the "unnamed designer" is actually the biblical god, it only reinforces the distrust of scientists. (See the transcripts of the Dover trial.)
When a particular field of study cannot come up with evidence which will stick in the scientific community, but instead turns to politicians and polls for support, scientists are even more distrustful. Science is simply not done by polls, and certainly not by polls of non-scientists or, shudder, politicians (they will go which ever way the wind blows).
So, scientists are not "picking on" IDers, they are treating them as they deserve. Put up or shut up--put up evidence and theory to support your claim, or go home and do some more homework until you can. Don't go whining to the politicians or voters that "science is not fair" (sniff).
The real problem is, all of the ID "science" we see ends up as "goddidit"--no evidence needed, no criticism needed, end of question, end of debate; we already know the answer so there is no need for additional research. (Ping me when the Discovery Institute actually makes a discovery.)
So, don't be surprised if scientists (and there are a few real ones on these threads) don't welcome ID with open arms.
How can you tell when an IDer is lying? His lips are moving.
I am lying when I go to sleep.
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.