Intelligent Design: Confronting Darwin with New Scientific Insights Intelligent Design, Part I

M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E ^ | 2002 AD | by Justin Hart

[JesseShurun]

To Behe
or not to Behe: id est
Behener?

[JesseShurun]

Moroni
speaking words of wisdom: The Boyds
or Behes?

[PatrickHenry]

Once more, sons of pond scum, into the trenches we go.

[PatrickHenry]

To get this thread off on the right foot, and to avoid endless repetition of ancient material, we provide a very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: < b>Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution.
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Freq uently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 19].

[xzins]

ping to 2&3.... :^)

[PatrickHenry]

A few more links:
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [Scientific American] .
The Smokey Backroom [For heated discussions].

[restornu]

CTR

[Aric2000]

There are a number of prominent KOOKS currently working on ID. Here are a few bios and links that you can Laugh at:

Geez these ID'rs just kill me, take a little creationism, throw in some darwinism, and boom, we have ID.

Creationism with scientific backing.

Sorry folks. ID is a no go, when you can prove that there is a creator, then come see me, but until you CAN prove it, it will NOT be scientific. I wanna meet him, shake his hand, say howdy, ask him how he could screw up as badly as he did.

When you can do that, THEN we will talk scientific theory.

Until then, I laugh at your silly theory and your claims that it is scientific!!

[Scully]

And daughters...hehe

[scottiewottie]

Just for clarity. Intelligent Design theory and Creationist Theory are two different species most likely not from the same class. Any characteristics in which they may be obeserved to be similar are mere adaptations due to natural selection, and do not demonstrate evidence of same genus origination.

[PatrickHenry]

I regard ID as stealth creationism. They're not fooling very many people.

[scottiewottie]

One of the more facinating things about ID is that a creator does not need to be found at all. You can have ID by simple self-existent principles of law and organization that are not created. Rather than a bang, you can have ID with matter that has always existed. No need to invent an origin for wheel, ID simply discovers the wheel that by observation was made out of pre-existent, uncreated matter.

[scottiewottie]

I see ID as the referee in the fight between bang and pond scum, measuring out fouls to both sides.

[Aric2000]

Sorry, I have to disagree, BIG time.

ID is creationism in a "scientific" cloak to hide the fact that it is indeed creationism.

Creationism is religious and faith based, the main tenet being that there was a god, supreme being, intelligent designer that created everything.

ID, claiming to be scientifically backed, the main tenet being that there was a god, supreme being, intelligent designer that created everything.

Hmm, that sounds AWFULLY familiar!!!!

Why is that I wonder? maybe because they are the SAME THING!!!

[Physicist]

Rather than a bang, you can have ID with matter that has always existed.

The evidence that matter has existed only for a finite time is far stronger than the evidence for evolution, ID, or any religious creation myth.

[Physicist]

The system that prevents our blood from clotting is yet another example. Blood clotting consists of a complex cascade of enzymes and cofactors which must be in place to work. The evolutionist’s rebuttal to this is that blood clotting experiments on mice have removed certain enzymes successfully. The Intelligent Design (ID) response is that the mice in the experiment were detrimentally affected by the reduced enzymes; which flies in the face of another evolutionary postulate: the mutated change in an organism must benefit the organism (survival of the fittest after all).

Exactly. That's what drove the evolution of the mice towards the improved, reducible set of enzymes they have now. What's the idea, here?

[VadeRetro]

The debate between the parties is raging on and may eventaully reach a fervent pitch. Currently, several school boards across the country are examing its validity to determine if they should allow it to be taught in schools.

That's where the "debate" is raging. School boards, churches, and sites like FR. Not in the halls of science, where creation/ID has nothing to offer.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The strength of intelligent design as an intellectual project consists not in presupposing a prepackaged conception of a designer and then determining how the facts of science square with that conception. Rather, intelligent design's strength consists in starting with nature, exploring nature's limitations, and therewith determining where design fits in the scheme of nature.

Thanks for the link.

I get baffled on these threads because there doesn't seem to be a positive statement of what makes ID "scientific". If I understand the statement I cut and pasted from the crevo resource, ID consists of finding observations that are not well understood and claiming that these "disprove evolutionary theory".

Does ID ever make a positive statement or prediction? I didn't see that anywhere.

I think I'm more comfortable with the anti-science folks who use their computers to post their denials that science has any value. At least that's funny.

[PatrickHenry]

O I'm the Intelligent Designer
Of the universe, what could be finer?
I made the sun, the moon, and the stars,
I carved the Face on Mars,
I've hidden the missing link,
I led Clinton to the sink.

Betwixt the fossil gaps,
Is where you'll find me ... perhaps.
Whatever you can't understand,
'Tis proof that I've played my hand.

As long as there are problems yet unsolved,
You may claim that nothing has evolved.