Posted on 01/17/2008 7:42:51 AM PST by ZGuy
Its adherents are flattering themselves. AFAIK, ID has yet to generate a single falsifiable hypothesis, test it, publish the data, analyze and interpret them in usual scientific fashion. That, not some conspiracy or blind devotion to the status quo, is its real problem.
Really! What have they discovered????
If they have discovered evidence of an "Intelligent Designer", then they have direct scientific evidence of God. Wouldn't that be kind of "big news"?
It will be interesting to find out what the scientific evidence of God will tell us. Maybe His name is Allah? Maybe Zeus. What does He look like? Old man with a beard?
This hysteria about ID being a threat to science is belied by the fact that many scientists who hold to this unpopular theory are still able to do good science in other fields and even in biology.
That’s a distinction without a difference unless ID claims that no new species have evolved or been created since the universe was designed and created (just about as it is today).
Sorry, I probably shouldn't have started this today. I don't have time to finish it...
It’s not just a flute - it’s also baton. Consider this a hand off... RUN!
(I’m done today)
You nailed it.
Teach Creationism in Sunday School.
Teach Science in real school.
I guess Louis Pasteur (father of bacteriology and specifically a believer in Divine creation) and Jerome Lejeune (discoverer of the genetic cause of Down's Syndrome and devout Catholic) didn't get the memo. Anything that helps a scientist frame a falsifiable hypothesis—which is then tested for all to see—offers benefits to research of every kind. As you apply the scientific method to testing the hypothesis, the truth will come out. It doesn't matter where you got the hypothesis.
From the text above, it looks as if Stein is saying that coming from an ID point of view predicts that certain kinds of mechanisms will exist within the cell. Now, if experiment shows them to be present, you've learned something that may help you cure cancer, or whatever. Nothing requires you to share the framer of the hypothesis's belief in God in order to pursue the science. It is their failure to acknowledge this fact that reveals the Global Warming-zealots and the anti-ID academic police as cowards and poor scientists.
Ironically, the ID argument is very close to the neo-Darwinian argument. Both are opposed to the Marxist-science view that men and other life forms have no real nature, and that all life is infinitely malleable—and can be made to love the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to come with the proper training. Long ago, as a reporter for a science magazine, I knew a famous neo-Darwinian thinker and psychologist, an atheist who was Public Enemy Number One to the Marxists and liberals in his field. I asked him this question:
"What do you see when you look over the scope of life forms on earth, including man?"
His answer: "Evidence of design."
He assumed the design was created through natural selection over the generations, whereas the ID people say selection has been speeded up somehow, presumably by God. Both points of view will generate many similar, testable hypotheses. I say, let the assumptions be what they are, and let the best ideas win.
“Divine intervention offers zero potential benefits to scientific medical research”
Check out this little book (in it’s 7th printing):
“None of These Diseases” by S.I. McMillen M.D.
If in fact design was intelligent, knowing that will save a lot of time and effort in research, by not wasting time trying to shoehorn observations into an incorrect hypothesis that there must be some natural process that led to the design.
I’m interested in seeing if that support extends to the general election, or if it is just to get him the democratic nomination.
That "new perspective" was abandoned by science a couple of centuries ago as unproductive.
And there would be no squabble over the designer. The proponents of ID are nearly unanimous that the designer was the Christian god. They just can't admit it, as they have to pretend ID is science.
There, fixed that for ya.
I only committed to it making the promise, not actual delivery.
From what I've seen, they'll agree to that and then squabble over who is and isn't a "Christian".
You are right. The search for design and the presumption of purpose, however, is integral to any form of research including science.
“I always assumed scientists were free to ask any question, pursue any line of inquiry without fear or reprisal,” he says. “But recently, I’ve been alarmed to discover that this is not the case.”
Same issue with Global Warming, Climate Change, and the Greening of America. Ask questions and be accused of being an environmental heretic!
Or support science and face death threats and be called a child molestor.
Sounds like the results of lots of trial and error, or perhaps stupid design, but certainly not any form of intelligent design.
Thank you for posting the link! What a sad and shameful state for our country and culture. What is that they say, failing to learn the lessons of history means you are destined to repeat them. We have entered the age of a new type of inquisition.
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.