Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo
Physics Today ^ | July 1, 2002 | Adrian L. Melott

Posted on 07/01/2002 7:25:44 AM PDT by aculeus

My deliberately provocative title is borrowed from Leonard Krishtalka, who directs the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas. Hired-gun "design theorists" in cheap tuxedos have met with some success in getting close to their target: public science education. I hope to convince you that this threat is worth paying attention to. As I write, intelligent design (ID) is a hot issue in the states of Washington and Ohio (see Physics Today, May 2002, page 31*). Evolutionary biology is ID's primary target, but geology and physics are within its blast zone.

Creationism evolves. As in biological evolution, old forms persist alongside new. After the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925, creationists tried to get public schools to teach biblical accounts of the origin and diversity of life. Various courts ruled the strategy unconstitutional. Next came the invention of "creation science," which was intended to bypass constitutional protections. It, too, was recognized by the courts as religion. Despite adverse court rulings, creationists persist in reapplying these old strategies locally. In many places, the pressure keeps public school biology teachers intimidated and evolution quietly minimized.

However, a new strategy, based on so-called ID theory, is now at the cutting edge of creationism. ID is different from its forebears. It does a better job of disguising its sectarian intent. It is well funded and nationally coordinated. To appeal to a wider range of people, biblical literalism, Earth's age, and other awkward issues are swept under the rug. Indeed, ID obfuscates sufficiently well that some educated people with little background in the relevant science have been taken in by it. Among ID's diverse adherents are engineers, doctors--and even physicists.

ID advocates can't accept the inability of science to deal with supernatural hypotheses, and they see this limitation as a sacrilegious denial of God's work and presence. Desperately in need of affirmation, they invent "theistic science" in which the design of the Creator is manifest. Perhaps because their religious faith is rather weak, they need to bolster their beliefs every way they can--including hijacking science to save souls and prove the existence of God.

William Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher at Baylor University and one of ID's chief advocates, asserts that: " . . . any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."1 Whether or not they agree with Dembski on this point, most Americans hold some form of religious belief. Using what they call the Wedge Strategy,2 ID advocates seek to pry Americans away from "naturalistic science" by forcing them to choose between science and religion. ID advocates know that science will lose. They portray science as we know it as innately antireligious, thereby blurring the distinction between science and how science may be interpreted.

When presenting their views before the public, ID advocates generally disguise their religious intent. In academic venues, they avoid any direct reference to the Designer. They portray ID as merely an exercise in detecting design, citing examples from archaeology, the SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) project, and other enterprises. Cambridge University Press has published one ID book,3 which, the ID advocates repeatedly proclaim, constitutes evidence that their case has real scientific merit. ID creationist publications are nearly absent from refereed journals, and this state of affairs is presented as evidence of censorship.

This censorship, ID advocates argue, justifies the exploitation of public schools and the children in them to circumvent established scientific procedures. In tort law, expert scientific testimony must agree with the consensus of experts in a given field. No such limitation exists with respect to public education. ID advocates can snow the public and school boards with pseudoscientific presentations. As represented by ID advocates, biological evolution is a theory in crisis, fraught with numerous plausible-sounding failures, most of which are recycled from overt creationists. It is "only fair," the ID case continues, to present alternatives so that children can make up their own minds. Yesterday's alternative was "Flood geology." Today's is "design theory."

Fairness, open discussion, and democracy are core American values and often problematic. Unfortunately, journalists routinely present controversies where none exist, or they present political controversies as scientific controversies. Stories on conflicts gain readers, and advertising follows. This bias toward reporting conflicts, along with journalists' inability to evaluate scientific content and their unwillingness to do accuracy checks (with notable exceptions), are among the greatest challenges to the broad public understanding of science.

ID creationism is largely content-free rhetoric. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University and an ID proponent, argues that many biochemical and biophysical mechanisms are "irreducibly complex."4 He means that, if partially dismembered, they would not work, so they could not have evolved. This line of argument ignores the large number of biological functions that look irreducibly complex, but for which intermediates have been found. One response to Behe's claims consists of the tedious task of demonstrating functions in a possible evolutionary path to the claimed irreducibly complex state. When presented with these paths, Behe typically ignores them and moves on. I admire the people who are willing to spend the time to put together the detailed refutations.5

The position of an ID creationist can be summarized as: "I can't understand how this complex outcome could have arisen, so it must be a miracle." In an inversion of the usual procedure in science, the null hypothesis is taken to be the thing Dembski, Behe, and their cohorts want to prove, albeit with considerable window-dressing. Dembski classifies all phenomena as resulting from necessity, chance, or design. In ruling out necessity, he means approximately that one could not predict the detailed structures and information we see in biological systems from the laws of physics. His reference to chance is essentially equivalent to the creationist use of one of the red herrings introduced by Fred Hoyle:

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there?6 Having dispensed with necessity and chance, Dembski concludes that design has been detected on the grounds that nothing else can explain the phenomenon--at least according to him.

Of course, design has no predictive power. ID is not a scientific theory. If we had previously attributed the unexplainable to design, we would still be using Thor's hammer to explain thunder. Nor does ID have any technological applications. It can be fun to ask ID advocates about the practical applications of their work. Evolution has numerous practical technological applications, including vaccine development. ID has none.

As organisms evolve, they become more complex, but evolution doesn't contravene the second law of thermodynamics. Dembski, like his creationist predecessors, misuses thermodynamics. To support the case for ID, he has presented arguments based on a supposed Law of Conservation of Information, an axiomatic law that applies only to closed systems with very restricted assumptions.7 Organisms, of course, are not closed systems.

ID's reach extends beyond biology to physics and cosmology. One interesting discussion concerns the fundamental constants. There is a well-known point of view that our existence depends on a number of constants lying within a narrow range. As one might expect, the religious community has generally viewed this coincidence as evidence in favor of--or at least as a plausibility argument for--their beliefs. The ID creationist community has adopted the fundamental constants as additional evidence for their Designer of Life--apparently not realizing that many fine-tuning arguments are based on physical constants allowing evolution to proceed. Physical cosmology is largely absent from school science standards. Where present, as in Kansas, it is likely to come under ID attack.

I have only scratched the surface here. Don't assume everything is fine in your school system even if it seems free of conflict. Peace may mean that evolution, the core concept of biology, is minimized. No region of the country is immune. Watch out for the guys in tuxedos--they don't have violins in those cases.

Adrian Melott is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. He is also a founding board member of Kansas Citizens for Science.

Letters are encouraged and should be sent to Letters, Physics Today, American Center for Physics, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3842 or by e-mail to ptletter@aip.org (using your surname as "Subject"). Please include your affiliation, mailing address, and daytime phone number. We reserve the right to edit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References 1. W. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. (1999), p. 206. 2. See http://rnaworld.bio.ukans.edu/id-intro/sect3.html. Another source is http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/JCCC/05%20Wedge_edited.html 3. W. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, Cambridge U. Press, New York (1998). For a review by W. Elsberry, see http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html. 4. M. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, New York (1996). 5. See http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/catalano/box/behe.htm. See also http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/behe.html 6. F. Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York (1983), p. 18. 7. W. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md. (2002).


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: adrianmelott; crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 541-548 next last
To: El Gato
"Cheap religious theories have gods creating matter out of nothing."

Sounds a bit like the Big Bang, doesn't it?

Here's an idea. Suppose there was nothing (as in zero), and God (or whom/whatever) grabbed it and tore it asunder. And bingo, the zero changed into +1 and -1!

Matter and Antimatter?

Something from nothing!

281 posted on 07/01/2002 6:07:26 PM PDT by forsnax5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
The point, of just that one comparison, is that life is extremely more complex than computers.

So far - depending on your definition. Allow me to point out that a computer/robots can do a great many jobs better than a man and can beat even the best human chess player on the planet. Other characteristics believed to be human-only will surely fall to the next few generations of robots/computers. And probably too damn soon.

Computers are merely a tool from our own intelligence (they cannot reproduce and require input from man).

Again, so far.

The question still remains though; did our intelligence come from stupidity?

Let's see, our teeth are a joke, our claws are so weak as to be nonexistent, we can't run fast, our skin is very poorly armored, our babies take a horrendously long time to reach survivability/maturity, so....

I guess we evolved it as a survival trait. Now is that stupid or just terribly, terribly useful.

282 posted on 07/01/2002 6:10:55 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
So that means the atheist, by default, believes in the Stupid Designer Theory. Stupidity is by definition lack of intelligence. stu·pid·i·ty [stoo pídd tee ] (plural stu·pid·i·ties) noun 1. lack of intelligence: lack of intelligence, perception, or common sense The atheist must now use stupidity (lack of intelligence) to explain everything:

Morality, intelligence, the universe, the beginning of life, plant and animal relationship/balance, etc…

The atheist laughs and ridicules the Christian for their beliefs and calls them ignorant. Is the stupid designer theory is their doorway to enlightenment? Regardless it is incumbent upon the atheist and their stupid design theory to explain life:

Kind of reminds you of the scene in Godfather where Santino Corleone asks Michael if we went to college for four years to get stupid, doesn't it. Funny thing is, that's just what "evolutionary biologists do", i.e. go to college for four years to get stupid.

283 posted on 07/01/2002 6:10:57 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: razorbak
7. Isaac Newton...firmly believed in Jesus Christ as his Savior and the Bible as God's word, and wrote many books on these topics.

See #79. I hope you got better sources on the others than you did on Newton ;)

284 posted on 07/01/2002 6:11:55 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: medved
So that means the atheist, by default, believes in the Stupid Designer Theory.

I thought it was the no designer theory?

(Scream!) what is it with you people and your constant anthropomorphizing ?!

285 posted on 07/01/2002 6:14:01 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Indeed. That would demonstrate intellectual consistency, a characteristic which is worthy of respect. However, ID, which is obviously nothing but stealth creationism, is an unworthy ploy.

Well, back to my point. So far, only one creationist has stepped up to the bar and he essentially said that his end justifies the deceptive means. I'm disappointed - maybe it will be better tomorrow.

286 posted on 07/01/2002 6:14:11 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: razorbak
28. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), formulator of the theory of relativity, which is one of the single greatest intellectual accomplishments in the history of man.

Einstein was a bright fellow and he probably has other credits to his name which will stand the test of time. Relativity will not.

Albert Einstein was trying to use relativistic time to account for the fact that light does not obey the ordinary additive laws for velocities. This was based on what he called "thought experiments", such as the mirror-clock experiment, rather than upon anything resembling real evidence or real experiments. Thought experiments, it turns out, are not a terribly good basis for physics. Moreover, the basic approach is unsound. Louis Carrol Epstein ("Relativity Envisioned"), uses the following analogy: a carpenter with a house in which everything worked flawlessly other than one door which bound, would usually plane the door until it worked. He COULD, however, purchase a couple of hundred jacks and jack the foundation of the house until the one door worked, and then try to somehow or other make every other door and window in the house work again... Light is the one door in the analogy; distance, time, mass etc., i.e. everything else in the house of physics are the other doors and windows. Epstein assumes that relativity is the one case you will ever find in which that sort of approach is the correct one, nonetheless, common sense tells us it isn't terribly likely.

It turns out there is another way in which one could account for light not obeying additive laws, and that this other way is the correct one. That is to assume that light simply does not have a velocity; that it is an instantaneous force between two points, and that the thing we call the "velocity of light" is the rate of accumulation of some secondary effect.

The story on this one lives HERE

The basic Ralph Sansbury experiment amounts to a 1990s version of the Michelson/Moreley experiment using lasers and nanosecond gates, which Michelson and Moreley did not have. Wallace Thornhill, an Australian physicist, describes it:



>I mentioned a few weeks ago that an epoch making experiment had been
>performed in the realm of fundamental physics which had great
>importance for Velikovskian style catastrophism (and just about
>everything else for that matter). The experiment, performed by Ralph
>Sansbury, is amazingly simple but has amazing consequences.
>
>Sansbury is a quiet spoken physicist from Connecticut.  He is
>associated with the Classical Physics Institute, or CP Institute, of
>New York which publishes the Journal of Classical Physics. In the
>Notes to Contributors we find the focus of the journal: "Marinov's
>experiment, Bell's theorem, and similar works reveal increasing
>discontent with the dogmas of modern physics. Some physicists
>postulate that blackbody radiation, atomic spectra, nuclear reactions,
>electron diffraction, the speed of light and all other phenomena which
>Quantum Wave Mechanics and Relativity were designed to explain will
>require different explanations. It is the viewpoint of this journal
>that the new explanations probably will be consistent with
>Aristotelian logic and Newtonian or Galilean mechanics." Volume 1,
>Part 1, in January 1982 was devoted to an article titled "Electron
>Structure", by Ralph Sansbury. The title itself should raise
>physicist's eyebrows since electrons are considered to have no
>structure. They are treated as being indivisible, along with quarks.
>
>The fallout from Sansbury's idea, if proven, is prodigious. To begin,
>for the first time we have a truly unifying theory where both
>magnetism and gravity become a derived form of instantaneous
>electrostatic force. The Lorentz contraction-dilation of space time
>and mass is unnecessary. Electromagnetic radiation becomes the
>cumulative effect of instantaneous electrostatic forces at a distance
>and the wave/particle (photon) duality disappears. Discontinuous
>absorption/emission of energy in quanta by atoms becomes a continuous
>process. And there is more.
>
>Sansbury's was a thousand dollar experiment using 10 nanosecond long
>pulses of laser light, one pulse every 400 nsec. At some distance from
>the laser was a photodiode detector. But in the light path, directly
>in front of the detector was a high speed electronic shutter (known as
>a Pockel cell) which could be switched to allow the laser light
>through to the detector, or stop it.
>
>Now, light is considered to travel as a wavefront or photon at the
>speed of light. Viewed this way, it covers a distance of about 1 foot
>per nanosecond. So the laser could be regarded as sending out 10ft
>long bursts of light every 400ft, at the speed of light. The
>experiment simply kept the Pockel cell shutter closed during the 400ft
>of no light and opened to allow the 10ft burst through to the detector.
>
>What happened?
>
>The detector saw nothing!!!
>
>It is as if a gun were fired at a target and for the time of flight of
>the bullet a shield were placed over the target. At the last moment,
>the shield is pulled away - and the bullet has disappeared; the target
>is untouched!
>
>What does it mean?
>
>Only that Maxwell's theory of the propagation of electromagnetic waves
>is wrong! Only that Einstein's Special theory of relativity (which was
>to reconcile Maxwell's theory with simple kinematics) is wrong! Only
>that, as a result, the interpretation of most of modern physics is
>wrong!
>
>As another classical physicist using a theoretical approach to the
>same problem succinctly put it:
>
>"... there emerges the outline of an alternative "relativistic"
>physics, quite distinct from that of Maxwell-Einstein, fully as well
>confirmed by the limited observations available to date, and differing
>from it not only in innumerable testable ways but also in basic
>physical concepts and even in definitional or ethnical (sic) premises
>as to the nature of physics. Thus a death struggle is joined that must
>result in the destruction of one world-system or the other: Either
>light is complicated and matter simple, as I think, or matter is
>complicated and light simple, as Einstein thought. I have shown here
>that some elegant mathematics can be put behind my view. It has long
>been known that inordinate amounts of elegant mathematics can be put
>behind Einstein's. Surely the time fast approaches to stop listening
>to mathematical amplifications of our own internal voices and to go
>into the laboratory and listen to what nature has to say." -
>Modifications of Maxwell's Equations, T E Phipps, The Classical
>Journal of Physics, Vol 2, 1, Jan 1983, p. 21.
>
>Ralph Sansbury has now done precisely that!
>
>In simple terms, Sansbury gives the electron a structure by proposing
>a number of charged particles (he calls subtrons) orbiting within the
>classical radius of an electron. A simple calculation gives the
>surprising result that these subtrons are moving at a speed of 2.5
>million light years per second! That is, they could theoretically
>cover the distance from Earth to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy
>in one second. This gives some meaning to the term 'instantaneous
>action at a distance'. (Note that this is a requirement for any new
>theory of gravity). (Also I have always considered it evidence of
>peculiar naivety or arrogance on the part of scientists, such as
>Sagan, who search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) by using
>radio signals. What superior intelligence would use such a slow, and
>therefore useless, interstellar signalling system?) Such near infinite
>speed requires that there can be no mass increase with velocity. The
>speed of light is not a speed barrier. All of the experiments which
>seem to support Einstein's notion are interpreted by Sansbury in a
>more common-sense fashion. When an electron or other charged particle
>is accelerated in an electromagnetic field, it is distorted from a
>sphere into an ellipsoid. The more electromagnetic energy applied to
>accelerating the particle, the more energy is absorbed by distortion
>of the particle until, ultimately, at the speed of light, there is an
>expulsion of the subtrons. Under such conditions, the particle only
>APPEARS to be gaining mass.
>
>Notably, in the past few months, scientists in Hamburg using the most
>powerful electron microscope have found on about a dozen occasions out
>of 10 million trials, relativistic electrons recoiled more violently
>off protons than had ever been seen before. This may turn out to be
>direct experimental proof of Sansbury's model of the electron having
>structure.
>
>To return to the experiment involving a "chopped" light beam: One of
>the major requirements of the new theory is instantaneous
>electrostatic forces between subtrons. This forms the basis of a
>radical new view of the basis of electromagnetic radiation which is
>now the subject of stunning experimental confirmation. In Sansbury's
>view, a signal from a light source is received instantly by a distant
>detector and the speed of light delay in detecting the signal is due
>to the time taken for the ACCUMULATED RESPONSE of the subtrons in the
>detector to result in a threshold signal at the electron level. This
>is totally at variance with orthodox interpretations which would have
>the light travelling as a discrete photon or wave packet at the speed
>of light.
>
>In terms of the gun and target analogy, it is as if particles of the
>bullet are being absorbed by the shield from the instant of firing, so
>that when the shield is pulled aside there is no bullet left to hit
>the target.
>
>It is not possible to overstate the importance of this work because it
>lends direct support to a new model of the electron in particular, and
>matter in general, which EXPLAINS magnetism, gravity and quantum
>effects without any resort to the kind of metaphysics which allows our
>top physicists to think they can see "God" in their equations.  The
>new classical physicists can mix it with the best of them when it
>comes to the mathematics but they are more prepared to "go into the
>laboratory and listen to what nature has to say."
>
>This work is of crucial importance for Velikovskian re-arrangements of
>the solar system in recent times because astronomers have been able to
>say that such scenarios defy the laws of physics - which is true,
>insofar as they know the laws of physics. To discover that gravity is
>a form of charge polarization within the particles that make up the
>atom, rather than a warp in space (whatever the hell that means),
>gives us a simple mechanism by which the solar system can be rapidly
>stabilised after a period of chaotic motion.
>
>There is an impression, as I reread the work of Sansbury and other
>classical physicists, that what we are facing is something like "Back
>to the Future". And like the movie of that name, the possibilities
>that we encounter will seem like science fiction come true. But it is
>well-known that science fiction writers are better at predicting the
>future of science than experts!


287 posted on 07/01/2002 6:14:22 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Let's see, our teeth are a joke, our claws are so weak as to be nonexistent, we can't run fast, our skin is very poorly armored, our babies take a horrendously long time to reach survivability/maturity, so....

So, your own intelligence came from stupidity? Let’s get more specific, was there any intelligence required in forming you brain? (I am not referring to your parents)

Your brain:
Now is that stupid or just terribly, terribly useful.

288 posted on 07/01/2002 6:20:47 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: razorbak
Good post! A nice rejoinder to the contemporary assumption that study of the natural sciences "naturally" leads one to atheism.
289 posted on 07/01/2002 6:22:31 PM PDT by Map Kernow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
So far, only one creationist has stepped up to the bar and he essentially said that his end justifies the deceptive means. I'm disappointed - maybe it will be better tomorrow.

I assume you mean Trib7. I'm impressed that a creationist did have the integrity to admit the reality of the situation; but the rest of them don't surprise me. So many of that school bring extraordinary discredit to their position by their tactics here.

290 posted on 07/01/2002 6:31:08 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Another typical evolutionist article, insult opponents, bash Christians, attack strawmen.
291 posted on 07/01/2002 6:34:40 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Don't you ridicule people for literally reading the Bible? Why do you do it in order to attack them? Seems rather hypocritical to me.
292 posted on 07/01/2002 6:35:22 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Hey there Patrick. Can you tell me specifically which part of ID theory deals with the actual designer? I'm anxious to see you quote Dembski or his colleagues where they discuss let alone mention the designer in any specific way. They don't. Which is why your contention, though oft repeated, is bunk. You know it too. If I'm wrong, you'll entertain us all by embarrasing me and proving with references why I am wrong. Good luck.
293 posted on 07/01/2002 6:38:12 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Exactly. Most people don't check their integrity at the door (or the keyboard).

Very true. I guess that goes a long way in explaining why there are so many bigots on these threads that try desperately, though fruitlessly, to use science to prop up their particular religion- atheism in most cases.
294 posted on 07/01/2002 6:40:16 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: general_re
7. Isaac Newton...firmly believed in Jesus Christ as his Savior and the Bible as God's word, and wrote many books on these topics.

Actually, that statement is accurate. Newton was certainly not orthodox, and was definitely not a standard Trinitarian but he appeared to firmly believe in Jesus as the "Lamb" and "Messiah" and absolutely considered the Bible to be God's word. See link

295 posted on 07/01/2002 6:41:09 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
That's exactly what I mean. If the "intelligent designer" is just another term for the specific god of your religion, then why not call it "God" and quit pussyfooting around with the deceptive labels?

Intelligent design is not a deceptive label. It is a scientifically legitimate position which has been held by many of the brightest people on earth. It was the position of allmost all scientists before the charlatan Darwin wrote his gibberish. It is very simple really and not to hard to understand. It states that organisms are too interrelated to have ever developed piecemeal as evolution states. It is the theory which Darwin tried to explain away in his Origins through rhetoric instead of science. The great advances in science since Darwin, have more than verified the interrelatedness of all aspects of an organism and blown away the nonsense rhetoric of the charlatan pied piper of atheism.

296 posted on 07/01/2002 6:41:41 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Balrog, quit your belly-aching and step up to the bar yourself. Step up and make the case that we're all supposed to concede to. Make the case, by quoting Dembski's work or providing references to exact work, that Intelligent Design is "stealth creationism". Start by defining Creationism. Next, show us exactly where any part of Intelligent Design work involves the designer. You and your side-kicks really make me laugh. You keep pressing people to concede to the most absurd and embarassingly ad-hoc conclusions imaginable and then wonder why when nobody does. Now, make your case, with references. I dare you. Make me look like a fool, shut us all up once and for all, and make the case. Then book mark your post and make sure you spread it around to all these threads, as I'm sure it will be the comprehensive analysis your boisterous and pompous on-line persona would lead us to believe it will be. I look forward to your scholarly analysis. When we see it, we'll discuss it, and then I and others will no doubt "belly up" to the proverbial bar. Get choppin'!
297 posted on 07/01/2002 6:44:55 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
However, ID, which is obviously nothing but stealth creationism, is an unworthy ploy.

Unlike evolutionists, unlike Darwin, ID'ers are not so dishonest as to try to pass themselves off as what they are not. It is evolution which is stealth atheism. It was developed by an atheist, proclaimed by atheists, accepted by atheists.

298 posted on 07/01/2002 6:46:38 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
I think it would be more accurate to blame atheists for misusing science and abusing substantive evolutionary theory based on actual empirical evidence, than it would be to blame evolutionists for anything. These are separate sets of people which do indeed overlap. The perpetrators are those with an anti-religious axe to grind, that much is painfully obvious. It's evident in the amazing way in which religion continually raises its head, or has its head raised, on what begin as threads on subjects of a scientific nature. From my view, the religion tends to be broached by the atheists pushing secular humanism, materialism, and natural evolution on the rest of us, weilding benign fields of study as tools with which they can attack their arch-nemesis, the dreaded "Creationist".
299 posted on 07/01/2002 6:52:04 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: That Subliminal Kid
Hey there Patrick. Can you tell me specifically which part of ID theory deals with the actual designer?

The doctrine of "Intelligent Design" absolutely reeks with the implication of a designer. Are you seriously suggesting that ID means no designer? If so, welcome to the evolution side of the debate.

300 posted on 07/01/2002 6:53:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 541-548 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson