Replies

Again, I refer you to the EXPLICIT statements from the Discovery Institute and the founders of the ID movement, that it is NOT about science but about GOD.

Sure you can refer them to me ... where are they in their OFFICIAL website ? If I can't find it, all I have is your word. Why should I trust you ?

What you read now is simply a whitewash attempt. All claims of "we don't know what the designer is, it could be anything" are absolute lies.

Uh huh, and because you said so, it must be so. So nice to know that I can depend on an assertion like this.

You must be missing the point on purpose. There is no explicit reference to Creation because those references have been replaced by the words "Intelligent Design" or variations thereof,

And intelligent design implies an AGENT... who is the agent ? We don't know and ID proponents do not claim that science claims to know. It could be God, it could be a telic principle, it could be aliens...ID is SILENT about it. They've repeatedly said that. Since that has been their argument, I have to take it at face value. Why should I put words in their mouths ?

but the rest of the text supporting Creation is substantially the same. In other words, Intelligent Design is equal to Creation, only an attempt at being more scientifically palatable.

Correction -- Intelligent Design COULD imply that the Judaeo/Christian God is the creator but IT NEED NOT BE.

And BTW, I don't see why the mere implication that someone ( be it God or someone else ) created something has to be scientifically unpalatable. Scientists CREATE things. We observe intelligent agents CREATE all the time. I don't see why this has to be scientifically unpalatable.

The earlier titles I just stated. The previous titles of "Of Pandas and People" were, in order, "Creation Biology" and "Biology and Creation" until the Aguillard decision (no creation in the science class), after which it was re-edited, replacing Creation with Intelligent Design. Then they tried the title "Biology and Origin" and eventually settled on "Of Pandas and People."

But here's my question ( which I asked before ) ---- LOOK AT THE CONTENTS OF "OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE", does it mention anything about God ? Or does it address scientific issues relating to Evolution ?

In fact, if you took the time to even scan the book, you will see that Pandas explicitly and repeatedly makes the claim that Intelligent causes may be either INSIDE or OUTSIDE of nature, and empirical evidence alone can't determine which option is correct. Pandas made this distinction even in its early drafts, one of which emphatically stated that "in science, the proper contrary to natural cause is not supernatural cause, but intelligent cause."

The Original Dover Board did not even mandate that the book be read. It simply added a statement saying that if a student wanted to do his own research, OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE is one book they might want to read.

What happened ? This simple recommendation became the basis for the lawsuit. Very open-minded and tolerant of the Darwinist and their defendants.... No wonder they're not getting anywhere with the public.... Heavy handed tactics might win court cases with sympathetic judges, but do nothing to convince Americans.

Before you start believing anything they say, please remember that that side of the issue in Dover flat-out perjured itself on the stand. They will say and do anything, including lying under oath to God, in order to further their agenda.

Sorry, no dice. I followed the Dover case and I have to say that Judge Jones can't point to even a single doctrine unique to Christian fundamentalism that is incorporated by ID. In fact, he effectively concedes that ID proponents distinguish their theory from fundamentalism by pointing out that it does NOT involve arguments based on "the Book of Genesis", "a young earth," or "a catastrophic Noaich flood." (p. 35) So where's the fundamentalism?

In wrongly trying to conflate ID with fundamentalism, Judge Jones simply ignored the testimony in his court of two of the most prominent ID scientists, biologists Michael Behe and Scott Minnich. Neither Minnich nor Behe were shown by the ACLU to be fundamentalists (they aren't), neither were shown to believe in a literal reading of Genesis (they don't), neither were shown to come to their beliefs in ID from fundamentalism (they didn't), and both reject neo-Darwinism on scientific grounds. Indeed, Behe has made clear that he had no problem with the modern theory of evolution until he discovered that what he was seeing in the lab did not fit with what he was being told in standard textbook accounts. Behe's skepticism of neo-Darwinism was not driven by a change in religion, but by scientific evidence. So again, where's the fundamentalism?

I cannot help but conclude that Judge Jones' repeated mistatements of fact and his one-sided recitation of the "evidence" reveal not only a judicial activist, but an incredibly sloppy judge who selects the facts to fit the result he wants.

The reminds me of Al Gore. The public listens to him talk about the environment, yet and accept the lame excuses he has for his own excesses. They want to believe, so any evidence to the contrary is dismissed, current lies are wholly trusted. They listen to Hillary too, ignoring her evil past because she says good things about herself today.

If you took the time to even scan the web pages of ID proponents, you will see that they are just as skeptical of Al Gore's presentation as anyone here in Free Republic. DISCOVERY INSTITUTE has published article after article refuting Al Gore and his cohorts and here you are equating the two ....

Just go to their website and google on their site -- Global Warming. I challenge you to find any article even supportive of Al Gore's thesis.

I can't help but conclude that what you are reading is simply a caricature of what you purport to know.

This is the big difference between us.

Tell me something that I don't already know.

You care that ID is true, because without it there is no need for God

Wrong, I don't care either way. But I'd like to follow the evidence and the evidence show me that they seem to have better arguments than the Darwinists. The fact that Darwinists are using heavy handed tactics like lawsuits and ( in the case of Hector Avalos ), militant protests to deny tenure to well-deserved faculty members simply because of their personal sympathy for the idea just tells me Darwinists are beginning to lose their grip.

I only care that the integrity of science is preserved.

Well, welcome to the club. I just hope you are not sympathetic of the heavy handed persecutors I see on the side of those who are sympathetic to Darwinists.

Show me a scientific theory that falsifies evolution and shows a better way.

We can start by discussing the book EXPLORING EVOLUTION if you wish.

I'll dump evolution in a heartbeat.

You don't have to, and I could care less if you didn't. But yes, let's argue the scientific evidence and let us not be sidestepped by such tangential issues as -- who has a cultural agenda ... that has nothing to do with the arguments presented ( but then, I already said that ).

And as I've said before, I'll gladly be the one to take credit for the discovery, as fame and fortune awaits the one who succeeds.

As for me, I don't care who takes the credit. I just want the truth to be explored. We can start by not suppressing discussions BY FORCE ( as in the lawsuit brought against Dover ).