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.
Your reaction reminds me of the old addage about throwing a rock into a pack and then the one that gets hit is the one that yelps. You drag out the idea that a theory is really a fact in disguise. Get a life bro. You theorize because you don't know the facts not the reverse. Somehow to you a theory is not a theory it is a fact, lol lol lol, the fool saith in his heart, "there is no God."
Your entire post seems to be aimed at putting ID on the level of a scientific theory, able to revise, or even replace, current scientific theories. In reality, ID is a religiously-motivated belief spun off from CS in the late 1980s following a US Supreme Court decision outlawing CS in schools.
So, ID is not something new -- it is a repackaged version of CS. It is religion in a Trojan horse, trying to assume the trappings of science to sneak in the back door.
(What's next, trying to convince us of a global flood about 2304 BC ± 11 years?)
I love your idea of "scientific theory" verses "religious propaganda." When you call theory fact or give it the same credibility as fact then anything goes. I could say im teaching religious theory not religious propaganda. I prefer to tell you and all the other morons who spout the party line on evolution that you cannot prove anything. YOu are a state monoply on an avenue of propaganda.
You are no different than the powerful catholic church was in the middle ages. Always wrong, but never able to admit it even when it flew in the face of the reality at hand. YOu make something so because you say it is so. At least myself and the other creationists have the gonads to tell the rest of the world that what we believe is what we believe, not what is the fact. You don't have the courage to admit that what you are doing is teaching theory as if it is concrete fact.
Too bad you squander your honesty away on useless and senseless arguments about how is doesn't mean is. YOu are a fraud and you know it. That is why you purjure the arguments that are opposite of what you come up with.
We don't need to add any fables to the things taught, you already have the government controlled religion and government controlled monopoly on beliefs. You are the ones bringing on the fables and the myths.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
So you keep mentioning theory there fella. YOu don't seem to mention that evolution is a fact? I guess it is because you don't observe it or see it confirmed repeatedly by independent and competent observers. I guess then evolution is still a supposition based upon something not able to be observed etc. I guess if that is not so then it is your personal level of competence that disables the theory of evolution from being a fact. It gets so so so confusing when you try to parse out words to hide the reality of you not being able to call evolution a fact.
So then what we have is both sides giving theories of origins. The state monopoly has the badge and the gun so they get to be the ones to make the decision. They are typical oppressors, silence the other side lest they be shown to be as stupid as they look. You resent other opinions being said alongside yours. That bothers you because it makes it clear that you are using a theory, not a fact. You can say a theory is not really a theory, but it is more, but you are just lying to yourself. You can call a cow a horse if you want to, but it is still a cow.
Bogus.
What I posted was a series of dictionary (google) definitions. I don't see where you can be so upset at those?!?
Take a deep breath, settle down, and try to come up with a logical response.
I see you can't refute the logic in my post.
And gravity is only a "theory" too.
---
I thought it was the law of gravity.
"it is a repackaged version of CS."
No, it is not.
"It is religion in a Trojan horse, trying to assume the trappings of science to sneak in the back door."
And why should religion have to sneak in the back door? That statement reveals the true agenda of those who falsely conflate ID with Biblical literalism.
Oddly enough, these something news are found by people who conduct research and who understand the existing science -- not by people who are incapable of properly stating existing theory, and who conduct no research.
Newtons Laws have been superseded by Einstein's theory.
Funny, I kinda' thought the term "Theory of Evolution" made that pretty clear in and of itself.
They are neither genuinely ignorant nor willfully ignorant they are only driven by intelligent design.
"Newtons Laws have been superseded by Einstein's theory."
---
Poor Sir Issac. His laws have been reduced to a theory.
Next thing you know gravity will be just an unproven hypothesis causing us to be flung off the planet. ;)
"No, his laws are laws. The theory attempts to explain why the law holds. Well, under certain conditions. Einstein discovered that Newton's laws weren't as universal as previously thought. They're still laws, though, because they're not explanatory.
Theories and laws are two different types of statements. Theories do not become laws and laws cannot be "downgraded" to theory. They are not heirarchical."
---
It was meant as a joke, oh ye of little humor.
Or did the part about being flung off the earth escape you while you were keeping your lists.
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.