Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo

Physics Today ^ | July 1, 2002 | Adrian L. Melott

[TightSqueeze]

Are you suggesting that science and religion are at odds?

What I am saying is… History has shown, a scientist’s success at adding knowledge to his particular field of endeavor, is inversely proportional to his religious fanaticism. Got that.

[aculeus]

Q. I'm no scientist so I'd be curious to know - what are the practical applications of evolution?

A. http://www.darwinianmedicine.o rg/

[TightSqueeze]

Right you are.

[enotheisen]

One only has to ask the question how did the simple cell acquire the millions of instructions associated with its DNA. Intellegent Design recognizes that anyone interested can see the difference between the natural Mount Evans or Longs Peak and the designed Mount Rushmore. In biology you see the same thing. Evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the several human biological subsystems could not evolve because they are irreducably complex. To reject design because it would impact your world view is intellectual dishonesty and not worthy of one who would like to call him or herself as scientist.

[That Subliminal Kid]

These debates are so predictable. Why do you even bother? You'll all scream and shout at each other, your side screaming "Creationist" and the other side screaming "Evolutionist" and in the end you will be right where you started, if a little more diametrically opposed to one another's views. What I find most amusing, and perhaps most telling, is how angry and hostile some people are to the Intelligent Design concept. Do you really feel threatened? I mean, let's be honest. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions tell me that "Intelligent Design" poses a serious threat to the monopoly that natural Evolution has in the public sphere. Furthermore, you lack confidence in your natural Evolution, you lack confidence in your own science, and fear that an open debate in a public forum would not win your side any points. That's why you wish to stifle the debate, and shut the opposition out. You fear them. Oh, sure. You'll deny it, no doubt. But your actions, and I mean all people who behave as you do regarding this subject, expose your own motives.

[CyberSpartacus]

ID was originally developed to find evidence of intellegent life on other planets. It has found patterns that indicate that life on this planet has a design behind it. This does not challenge evolution in any way. It merely suggests that god has used evolution to create life. Atheists simply fear that the evidence is going against them.

[jlogajan]

The study of science in all of its aspects was started by Christians

"Cyril's army of monks murdered the prefect and were cannonized by him for this deed; marauding through the city they came across Hypatia, daughter of the Museum's last great mathematician Theon. She was a Neoplatonist philosopher and astronomer whose teachings are partially recorded by one of her admirers and pupils, the Christian Synesius, and she was also supposedly an advisor to Orestes and one of the last members of the Museum. Driving home from her own lectures without attendant, this independent woman and scholar epitomized the suspect nature of Paganism and its heretical scientific teachings. She was dragged from her chariot by the mob, stripped, flayed, and finally burned alive in the library of the Caesareum as a witch. Cyril was made a saint. After her death Alexandria became steadily less stable, overrun by the monks who evolved into the Copts, who incorporated the old Alexandrian prejudices towards foreigners with the new prejudice towards any scientific or classical knowledge."

[Bryan24]

Evolution is Atheism in it's birthday suit.

[gwynapnudd]

Genetic Engineering works and it worked 7000 years ago too.

Now go mine gold like you were programmed to do.

[That Subliminal Kid]

I'm still waiting for the science that demonstrates that non-living matter can self-assemble, simultaneously acquire the ability to convert raw energy into a usable form, and subsequently increase in informational complexity to the point that it becomes self aware. In the absence of such science, you sir, have faith. Just like everyone. It's so funny to see you put on heirs, puffing out your free-thinking, rationalist chest and pounding it a while, declaring your side to be the correct and scientifically justified side. I find it most bizzare how you try and use science as a tool with which to beat your arch-enemy over the head with. It makes those of us who are actually thinking things through laugh quietly.

[jlogajan]

It makes those of us who are actually thinking things through laugh quietly.

Well, you'll have to express yourself as you can, since your ID'ers don't seem to be able to get published in peer reviewed scientific journals -- oh, I forgot, you are all the victims of the vast atheist conspiracy. I suggest tinfoil.

[Quix]

Some postulate some sort of--what's it called--pans spermia?

a la ET.

That is, that ET seeded creation to get it going good. Of course, that doesn't answer where ET came from.

But atheists don't have a good answer for where the original atoms came from either. . . . and though she might have thought otherwise, it wasn't from M. M. O'Hair's farts either.

[That Subliminal Kid]

I think they ought to publish in peer reviewed journals. Dembski has offered explainations as to why he doesn't. Maybe he will someday. Why are they "my Id'ers"? I'm playing devils advocate like I always do. It's fun to sit in the middle and watch extremists like yourself get your panties in a bunch. I don't think there is an atheist conspiracy either. I think it's extremely hard to get something that is almost totally math-based to be accepted as empirical science. Then again, no peer reviewed papers have been published explaining how non-living matter self assembles and simultaneously acquires energy conversion capabilities. I expect you'll start screaming "Creationist" soon, so just get on with it and I'll resign myself to laughing. Unless you think you can carry on a discussion without resorting to sarcasm and insults.

[TightSqueeze]

I mean, let's be honest. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions tell me that "Intelligent Design" poses a serious threat to the monopoly that natural Evolution has in the public sphere. Furthermore, you lack confidence in your natural Evolution, you lack confidence in your own science, and fear that an open debate in a public forum would not win your side any points.

Such BS, scientific theory is not a destination it is a journey, the question is never really answered, discoveries and advancements simply spur better questions. ID is an attempt to hijack this process and interject god into all the current unknowns, thus effectively shutting down all future research. The real fear is that America would loose its technological edge and its ability to remain on the cutting edge. I mean really lets be honest.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Can you explain specifically how ID attempts to "inject God" into "science"? I expect you to make specific references to Dembski's work, quotes of his statements, etc. in order to make your case. I'll look forward to reading an explaination for this oft made remark.

[jlogajan]

atheists don't have a good answer for where the original atoms came from either

Here's the difference. Theists can't answer where god came from. Now the difference between atoms and god is that we know atoms exist. So theists are merely adding an unseen layer -- multiplying entities, as Occham would say.

[Varda]

bump for later

[That Subliminal Kid]

I also would like you to explain, specifically, how Intelligent Design would hinder people from studying evolutionary theory, natural or otherwise. Also, explain how specifically a desire to acquire more technological information would be harmed. Thanks.

[jlogajan]

Can you explain specifically how ID attempts to "inject God" into "science"?

Well, who is the "intelligent designer"??? A rose by any other name...

[That Subliminal Kid]

Theists would say that God didn't "come from" anywhere.