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 have changed my approach. I do like to learn about the perspectives of others on this issue. Such help me to further formulate my own.
However, as I've said before, I'm much more concerned with where I'm going than where I've been.
Has he something other than his opinion to support this claim?
Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that -- ID does.
And that explanation is what?
(Following quote from the article that started this thread:)
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."
while I agree that the theory of speciation through mutation and selection does indeed unify biology, I believe it is a bit of an overtatement to say that "nothing in biology makes sense without it"
In order for this to be science, Behe needs to PROVE all the pieces need to be in place first. Maybe he can find something similiar and apply that knowledge to flagellum.
How about an elephant?
When the Intelligent Designer decided to shake things up a little he said, "Hmmmm I think the world is ready for a huge animal with a big long tube nose thing sticking off it's face.
Of course ID requires this to happen in one generation because if the grand designer made this change. It could not be made over time. That would be evolution. Or under Behe's thoughts did the whole trunk grow off the elephant's face slowly with no function and magically animate itself one day? "All the pieces need to be there before it can function, Behe."
I can only imagine the lament of Elephant mothers everywhere saying, "Put that thing down. It's only for show." Or the whining of elephant older brothers, "Mom, Bobby can move that big long thing on his face, but I can't".
BTW: There is very good documentation about the evolution of elephants along with how long their trunks were at what time in the geological past. It's curious how it's trunk gets longer with time and seems to be used for first pushing food towards it's mouth until it gets so long it can grab food and pull it into it's mouth.
"Bud, you've confused organs and organisms."
Wonder how well he can play an organism--ewww that came out wrong:).
I'm used to hearing one side of the issues presented, being a teacher in all--but that's off the subject.
No doubt the UofI would ban astrology from science class as well. Is this a problem for you?
these IDiots and their flagellation fetish really ought to look at simplified parasites and symbiotes before squawking that evolution cannot explain an "irreducibly complex(sic: simplified)" system or organism.
"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."
Decent points, but then again many fellow ID'ers would have no problem banning evolution either. I think there's room for both and that we don't need to go into a poltical tizzy about it.
Well, not quite. If they wanna talk about "intelligent design" in a class on "comparative philsophy" or "comparative religion" in public schools, I've got no problem with that being done---but NOT in biology class.
The basis of falsifiable according to the human (and how the human can externalize such mechanisms) is not necessarily the only method to discover the rules of the Universe, although a very good method.
There are many metrics, and pareto simplification is but a special case of the 'compression as intelligence' metric.
You're losing us stupid people:).
Well, not quite. If they wanna talk about "intelligent design" in a class on "comparative philsophy" or "comparative religion" in public schools, I've got no problem with that being done---but NOT in biology class.
Both of you made good points. My parents and church were all I needed to teach me about ID--a religious-based issue. If one has to depend upon teachers, then I don't think that's good. However, I've got no problem with learning it as you describe or even discussing it briefly. One thing that people forget is that many people have many different versions of creation, even from the same religion. Among the 10 people in my Sunday school class, there were 10 different versions of how the earth was created. We all agreed in principle that God was the facilitator, but how the process happened is not very well defined. One guy thought that things had been placed here from another planet. Which version do we teach? I do think we need to be careful, but I don't mind having ID mentioned as long as it doesn't become some political fiasco.
Would the lawsuit in Dover qualify as a "political tizzy?"
What nonsense.
Like all creationist garbage, this argument is sheer assertion and no facts. So let me state a few facts, since I am one of the evolutionists and you are attributing opinions to me.
We don't mind people expressing their ideas about ID. What we do mind is when they want to teach it in schools and teach it as science. It is not science and it should not be in schools, or at least not in the science curriculum.
By contrast, if you want to add superstition to your curriculum, you could teach ID in the superstition class. ID belongs with Scientology, Palmistry, the occult, Wiccan, Astrology, and the rest of the superstition. So the fact is we don't "insist that the other side not be heard." We just want it characterized properly.
these IDiots and their flagellation fetish really
That sounds likd putting a "foot" in the mouth.
Not just both. If we've got to open up science class to things that scientists disagree with, then perhaps the old Stalinist Michurianism as promoted by Lysenko should be taught.
Most conservatives are not seen as "open minded", yet you seem to insist that science be open minded about a faith based idea. Why is that?
I was thinking maybe Abnormal Psychology.
The statement is polemic, no doubt. It is possible to be a first rate lab technician without considering the theoretical underpinnings of science. In fact, one of the legitimate scientists often listed as an ID advocate runs a cancer screening lab.
What the author of that quote means is that it is impossible to contribute new ideas to the science of biology without understanding evolution.
The Discovery Institute as much as admitted this when they backed out of the Dover trial. They said ID was not ready because it had no research and no research program.
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.