Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection

To Seattle area residents the struggle over how evolution is taught in public high schools may seem a topic from the distant past or a distant place.

Don't bet on it. One nearby episode in the controversy has ended, but a far-reaching, Seattle-based agenda to overthrow Darwin is gaining momentum.

Roger DeHart, a high-school science teacher who was the center of an intense curriculum dispute a few years ago in Skagit County, is leaving the state. He plans to teach next year in a private Christian school in California.

The fuss over DeHart's use of "intelligent design" theory in his classes at Burlington-Edison High School was merely a tiny blip in a grand scheme by promoters of the theory.

The theory is essentially this: Life is so complex that it can only be the result of design by an intelligent being.

As unlikely as it may seem, Seattle is ground zero for the intelligent-design agenda, thanks to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and its Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC).

Headed by one-time Seattle City councilman and former Reagan administration official Bruce Chapman, the Discovery Institute is best known locally for its savvy insights on topics ranging from regionalism, transportation, defense policy and the economy.

In the late '90s, the institute jumped into the nation's culture wars with the CRSC. It may be little known to local folks, but it has caught the attention of conservative religious organizations around the country.

It's bound to get more attention in the future. Just last month, a documentary, Icons of Evolution, premiered at Seattle Pacific University. The video is based on a book of the same name by CRSC fellow Jonathan Wells. It tells the story of DeHart, along with the standard critique of Darwinian evolution that fuels the argument for intelligent design.

The video is part of the anti-Darwin agenda. Cruise the Internet on this topic and you'll find something called the Wedge Strategy, which credits the CRSC with a five-year plan for methodically promoting intelligent design and a 20-year goal of seeing "design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."

Last week, Chapman tried to put a little distance between his institute and the "wedge" document. He said it was a fund-raising tool used four years ago. "I don't disagree with it," he told me, "but it's not our program." (I'll let the folks who gave money based on the proposed strategy ponder what that means.)

Program or not, it is clear that the CRSC is intent on bringing down what one Center fellow calls "scientific imperialism." Surely Stephen Jay Gould already is spinning in his grave. Gould, one of America's most widely respected scientists and a prolific essayist, died just two weeks ago. Among his many fine books is one I kept by my bedside for many weeks after it was published in 1999, "Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life."

In "Rock of Ages," Gould presents an elegant case for the necessary co-existence of science and religion. Rather than conflicting, as secular humanists insist, or blending, as intelligent-design proponents would have it, science and religion exist in distinct domains, what Gould called magisteria (domains of teaching authority).

The domain of science is the empirical universe; the domain of religion is the moral, ethical and spiritual meaning of life.

Gould was called America's most prominent evolutionist, yet he too, was a critic of Darwin's theory, and the object of some controversy within the scientific community. There's a lesson in that: In the domain of science there is plenty of room for disagreement and alternative theories without bringing God into the debate.

I have no quarrel with those who believe in intelligent design. It has appeal as a way to grasp the unknowable why of our existence. But it is only a belief. When advocates push intelligent design as a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations of evolution, it is time to push back.

That's what they continue to do in Skagit County. Last week, the Burlington-Edison School Board rejected on a 4-1 vote a proposal to "encourage" the teaching of intelligent design. Bravo.

Despite proponents' claims of scientific validity, intelligent design is little more than religion-based creationism wrapped in critiques of Darwin and all dressed up in politically correct language. All for the ultimate goal — placing a Christian God in science classrooms of America's public high schools.

Others appreciate the opportunity to see the two items which JennyP is doing the crybaby act over. There is a constant flow of people looking at these evolution threads for the first time, and what JennyP is demanding is that these newcomers not be allowed to view the major arguments against her pet ideological doctrine. She is demanding selective censorship of ideas. Other than that, every definition of "spam" I've ever seen involves a profit motive, and I've yet to make the first penny from posting arguments against evolutionism.

Hey, if reposting 3 & 3 1/2 page essays every week - and in Medved's case, sometimes TWO DAYS IN A ROW - is acceptable here, then fine. I have several long essays I'm particularly proud of, and I'm sure many other posters here have an essay or two they're particularly proud of, and a part of me would like nothing more than to post & re-post the same essays every day. (NOTE: JUST KIDDING!)

Junior, OTOH, did the responsible thing: He put his Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource on a separate website, and merely links to it when necessary. Offsite links: What a concept!

In fact, as I've said before, Medved should post his big list-o-links, his "God hates IDIOTS, too!", and for good measure his "Rufus & the Watermelon Truck" or whatever he calls it, as new articles, so they'll all be in one place in the FR archives, and be done with it. I have no problem with him posting his wiggy theories here. But I just gotta believe that SPAMming them all over the place every week violates this Posting Guideline:

Don't spam - Post your message once. If you are not sure if it has posted, check the latest posts page.

JimRob - if you think Medved's posts don't rise to the level of violating the guidelines, then I'll shut up. But please give us some guidance here.

The stated assumptions are that all people are equal with respect to morals; that morals apply equally to all persons; that individuals are sovereign.

We originally got onto this by way of your post to me at #197, wherein you attempted to counter my comment from #67, "One can't derive morality or theology from science, as science is necessarily agnostic," with some commentary from Plato. I'll return to Plato in a moment, let's look at the attempt you cite of a deduced morality, the libertarian principle.
I suggested to lexcorp, at #191, that if one attempted to do so, they would "soon be making arbitrary and unscientific pronouncements."
When, in your libertarian principle, you cite "stated assumptions," you've done exactly that. Why are those assumptions, "that all people are equal with respect to morals; that morals apply equally to all persons; that individuals are sovereign," more valid than say, survival of the fittest?
Let me suggest that they are arbitrary, or else they wouldn't have needed to be assumed, you'd have deduced them.

Now, as for Plato...
The link you provided suggests the following dilemma...
Why is the Euthyphro dilemma important for philosophy of religion? Although many believers consider God to be the ground of morality, what exactly does this mean in practice? Is it that God is the ground of morality in that what God wills is good and trustworthy? If so, then God's commands are arbitrary and it is perfectly reasonable to argue that one day God might decree that committing adultery is a good thing to do. Or is it? If one questions the viability of this possibility is it because of an innate sense that committing adultery is wrong? If so, God's commands are not arbitrary but are formed on the basis of what is good. But this implies that there is a moral standard greater than God to which God's decrees must conform. In other words, if God cannot decree adultery to be good it is because the notion that adultery is wrong exists outside the Divine realm. But if this is so then who, or what, has instigated this supramoral realm? Here the problem is clearly exposed. Is an act morally good because God wills it or is it good because God agrees that it is good? We place an enormous amount of trust in the character of God if the former is true (E.g. we assume God is all-good but we cannot know for sure), whilst we are led to question the status of God in the presence of the latter (E.g. God's Omnipotence).

Let's break it down...
"Although many believers consider God to be the ground of morality, what exactly does this mean in practice? Is it that God is the ground of morality in that what God wills is good and trustworthy? If so, then God's commands are arbitrary and it is perfectly reasonable to argue that one day God might decree that committing adultery is a good thing to do."

It is an error to suggest that God's commands are arbitrary. The appropriate adjective is "sovereign." Whatever our inability to understand the basis of His commands, they are no more arbitrary than our command to a dog to stay off the sofa, though our reasons are well beyond canine understanding (we just don't want their hair on the furniture).
Therefore it is an error to suggest that "it is perfectly reasonable to argue that one day God might decree that committing adultery is a good thing to do," since it hinged on a belief that His will was arbitrary.
More...
"If one questions the viability of this possibility is it because of an innate sense that committing adultery is wrong? If so, God's commands are not arbitrary but are formed on the basis of what is good. But this implies that there is a moral standard greater than God to which God's decrees must conform. In other words, if God cannot decree adultery to be good it is because the notion that adultery is wrong exists outside the Divine realm."

Here is the key to misunderstanding... "But this implies that there is a moral standard greater than God to which God's decrees must conform."
God doesn't require an external, supramoral standard by wich He must conform. God is eternal, irreducible Virtue. Morality is intrinsice to His nature. God is good, and good is God.
Isn't that a tautology? Sure, because that's the type of explanation we finite beings of four-dimensional space-time are going to get when trying to perceive the Eternal the Omnipotent, and the Omniscient. That's not due to God's limitations, but to ours.
For example, in the Bible, God said to Moses, "I am, that I am." (Exocus 3:14)
Yet He also said to Job from the whirlwind (Chapter 38)...

2 "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Further (Ch. 40)...

1 And the LORD said to Job: 2 "Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it."

Most attempts to put God into a box, including Plato's Euthyphro dilemma, revolve around attempts to undermine God's nature... "Can God make a mountain bigger than He can lift? If no, He's not omnipotent, if yes, He's not Omnipotent."
This reduces to, "Can God make Himself not Omnipotent? If no, He's not Omnipotent, if yes, He's not Omnipotent." And...
"If Omnipotent, then not Omnipotent," and...
"If omnipotent, then not God."
And the paradoxes just keep coming, getting sillier and sillier. As with the earlier tautology, our inability to fully grasp Omniscience and Omnipotence is exactly that: our inability.
Not God's.

It's amazing how some people pick and choose what they accept as "truth" among that which originates from the university campus. Yet we (conservatives) know that these people who write and have written the "science" on "evolution" would never have been hired had they not passed the test of being socialist/communist. Get real.

Example: we (conservatives) have ideological disagreement with the output of the economics departments of these major universities (where, for example, people receive undergrad degrees in economics and have never HEARD of Von Hayek and only vaguely of Friedman, believing only that economics rests on the shoulders of Keynes and Galbreath.) Now, apply this over to the biology department and you will see why EVOLUTION is singly, solely propagandized and you now have otherwise bright people brainwashed as you see here on FR because they were never exposed to anything else----much as people hear Limbaugh for the first time and realize they were never exposed to the conservative thoughts of, say, William F. Buckley, Jr., or Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan, because in school and in media this was BANNED just as anything OTHER than "evolution" is verboten when it comes to origin theory in education and media.

Here's a small, typical glimpse behind the ivory tower. Gawd, does anyone really have to shine a light back into that roaches' den for CONSERVATIVE's to see it for what it is? The Intellectual Terror in Our Universities

My gosh----I believe there are very few (at least I hope) on FR who don't see through this Global Warming sham. We conservatives see it for what it is. Global Warming was created on campuses by the same people who bring us evolution. So how is it that some people will believe, will swallow----hook, line, and sinker----evolution, yet reject global warming, when global warming is being presented as absolute truth, just like evolution.

We---the unwashed masses in flyover country---need the intellectual elite to figure this stuff out for us. If someone is a CONSERVATIVE, that automatically disqualifies them from having an opinion worth consideration. HENCE, we have evolution---read: 19th century junk science---taught at fact. Next: global warming---20th century junk science taught as fact.

Oh, I forgot...here's another good one from academia: Diversity!---or, The People Who Brought You Global Warming And Evolution Say "Diversity---Our Strength, Our Salvation"---When In TRUTH, a TRUE Academic Study REVEALS the OPPOSITE!!! But, of course, the left at universities---when it comes to diversity, or to evolution, or to global warming, or to who started WWII---wouldn't want TRUTH to get in the way!!

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.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!