Topic: Science and Faith
Intelligent Design Not Difficult to Grasp All the holes in the theory of evolution can be filled with Intelligent Design.by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
INTELLIGENT DESIGN: A PLETHORA ON OPEN-MINDEDNESS'
What do those teaching evolution' in schools have against Intelligent Design'(ID)? They believe that that there should be no intersection between religion and science, and there should always be a distinct separation of church and state. These doubters need to fasten their seatbeltunfortunately tight enough that might cause apparent asphyxiation.
If you look, scientific journals are full of inconsistencies of evolutionary theory. Most of this belief stems from fossils found that indicate some mutations occurred to eventually result in present man. An incomplete fossil record shows various holes that have never been filled. More than 400 scientists have signed a statement Dissent from Darwin'. Even 71% of the public favors allowing teachers to acknowledge the scientific controversy over origins of life (Zogby). Humans have not been around long enough to prove either theory.
More of the disbelievers immediately say ID is a matter of philosophy, not science. If you look into Webster's, Science is "knowledge based on observed facts and tested truths". Neither ID, nor evolution, fits the "tested truths" definition. But one theory seems to have an overwhelming number of observed facts.
Reasons to Believe (think-tank at reasons.org) has scientifically deduced that the chance of intelligent life forming from primordial matter is calculated to be 1 in [10 to the 131st(power)]. And, that "power" increases by 30 places upward every 6 months. This means that evolution seems much more unlikely as more information is acquired.
Neanderthals are thought to be direct proof of what evolved into humans. But scientific evidence has proved that neanderthals and ancient humans are two different species. The DNA of humans over an 80,000 year sampling time (fossils) shows NO evolution of the human genome. Even more convincing, there was no evidence of interbreeding--no human DNA found in Neanderthals (and vice versa). Evidently, in the cases where interbreeding was attempted, "inter-sterility" resulted. A usual ploy used in the debate: "Evolution is scientific, and ID is religious mythology". Per Webster's definition, ID has much more scientific evidence than evolution does.
Conclusions from several present-day scientists include:
o Einstein renounced his belief in an eternal universe, and admitted that the universe must have had a beginning.
o Famed astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "The Hubble Law is one of the great discoveries in science: it is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis".
o Stephen Hawking wrote, "If the rate of expansion one second after the 'Big Bang' had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present state. Slightly faster than the critical rate, and matter would have dispersed too rapidly to allow stars and galaxies to form."
But you constantly hear that acknowledging a Supreme Being is a religious statement. That evolution is a well-established theory. That ID is only Biblical creationism in disguise. That either you believe in evolution by default, or there is no place for you at the table of credibility. That ID is not a testable theory in any sense, and is not accepted by the scientific community. That if nearly all original species are extinct, the intelligent design creator was not very intelligent.
But real science must evolve from the theory with the most observed facts. One item we know has already been eliminated by Darwinists"that the supernatural does not exist, and that a Creator isn't compatible with scientific inquiry". In any true science theories disposing of assumptions without being able to prove or disprove them, is discarded.
Because both theories have no direct evidence, they must rely on inferred evidence. ID has all the evidence from the above calculated data, but also infers that a Supreme Being must exist, due to the data's direction. Science is always supposed to take you where the evidence leads. Unfortunately, Darwin's maxim, "survival of the fittest", has failed before.
To most, it seems obvious that there is a God. If true, the universe has a definite purpose. God made science. The old flat-earth and geocentric beliefs prove that the scientific community has been wrong before, and could be again. Because of insufficient evidence to produce an objective finding, many scientists have realized that much more faith is required for Darwinism, than for ID.
Science dictates that the chances of humans evolving from mere proteins, seem much less likely than man's environment being made by some Supreme Being for a particular purpose. A wise man once said, "Academia must never become arbitrarily exclusive of the conclusions of rational investigation." Origins of the universe seem to obviously involve ID, because it is associated with the most evidence. So buckle up, all you science teachers and politicians. Sure, it'll be hard to breath for a little while, but we're supposed to all be after the truth anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 28 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Kevin Roeten only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kevin Roeten is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Your article is full of mischaracterizations about science and ignores something very fundamental about the notion of "Intelligent Design." First of all, let me explain something that you obviouisly do not understand about science. Science does not and cannot prove anything. Science can only DISPROVE. "Intelligent Design" relies on something called "irreducible complexity" which means that something (e.g. the eye) cannot be reduced to simpler parts. This ridiculous notion of "irreducible complexity" has been disproven, (it has easily been shown that the eye has evolved from simpler parts) therefore "Intelligent Design" has been disproven.
Science does not state any explanation of natural phenomena with 100% certainty. Science works by testing and rejecting hypotheses, and after something has been subjected to such rigor it becomes established with a high degree of certainty. Science does not venture into the realm of religion or a "Supreme Being" because that requires one to begin with belief rather than observation.
Kevin Roeten quotes Hugh Ross' "Reasons To Believe" in support of the "science" of intelligent design creationism. Unfortunately, Hugh Ross is a well-known Old Earth Creationist and Christian apologist. Gosh, Kevin, you might as well have quoted Answers In Genesis or the Dishonesty Institute - but their anti-evolution disinformation and propaganda would not have been any more convincing.
It is an easily observable fact that the vast majority of supporters of intelligent design creationism are overtly or covertly religious - not scientific or scientifically literate - individuals or organizations. For some insight into why this is so, please read Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals," available at [link edited for length]
And Kevin is quoting from some extremely outdated creationist materials: The Dishonesty Institute's infamous list of people who "Dissent From Darwin" has now grown to over 700 - only a few of whom are biologists, and some of whom are dead - and in any case represent the pitifully tiny minority of about one per cent of one per cent of all living scientists, the great majority of whom, of course, understand full well that evolution is the foundation of biological science, and that intelligent design creationism is pseudoscience.
Ofcause the Fundimentalist Darwinists will only have empty critisisms of it. That is the nature of fundimentalism.
Justin is wrong about irreducible complexity: The Eye is not irreducibly complex, as it can still see when you remove parts. The bacterial flaggelum is IC. Kenneth Miller did nothing to disprove that: In reducing the parts of the BF, he completely changed the function of the BF. But function is an integral part of the concept of IC. Also, he did not demonstrate how the Type 3 secretion device can evolve gradually to a bacterial flaggelum. That is quite a long jump for evolution.
Paul Burnett's arguement is very interesting: In order to refute Darwinism and prove ID, you must be credible. (The focus here is on the person, rather than the argument.) To be credible, you may not be a proponent of ID. Therefore, we have a circular argument which isolate Darwin's theory from critisism. This effectively makes Darwinism non-falsifiable.
His critisism of the list of dissenters does nothing to change the facts. If Darwinism was as well established as Newtonian law, then this list shouldn't exist to begin with, or there should be a similar list of scientists who do not agree with Newton's law of gravity.
It is easy to call the critics "ignorant", but the critisism is never addressed, thus exposing the emptiness of Darwinian theory. It is the Darwinists, not the ID proponenets who are dishonnest. ID poses a challenge to Darwinism which Darwinists can not defeat with reason alone. Therefore, they resort to insults and smear tactics.
Intelligent Design is not science. It can provide no testable hypothesis on which to gather empirical data. None- even those promoting ID admit they have no scientific data to support their assertion.
On the other hand- evolution is backed by mountains of empirical data- the fossil record, genetics, the various genomes, pseudo-genes, retroviral DNA, embryology, vestigial organs- just to name a few. Explain why men get hernias, or the biodiversity of oceanic islands.
As for your math- it's flawed. It's been calculated that there is indeed enough time. Discovery Institute shill-boy Dembsky has been refuted.
And as for you rhetorical argument, that's all fine and good. Personally, I believe in God. But a logical argument isn't scientific. There's no data to it, and without testable, falsifiable hypotheses, then ID is not and never will be science.
"Hannodb" provides an excellent example of the level of scholarship of evolution denialists: "Ofcause the Fundimentalist Darwinists will only have empty critisisms of it. That is the nature of fundimentalism."
It's not at all unusual to find that evolution denialists are scientifically illiterate, but simple illiteracy to the point of near incoherence is somewhat less common. Thanks, "Hannodb," for providing this sample.
Not only has the bogus concept of irreducible complexity been shown to be false, but both examples of bacterial flagellum and eye evolution mentioned have been disproven...and if I had a better Internet connection this morning, I would give you some literary citations...alas. Perhaps later.
Paul Burnett: "Not only has the bogus concept of irreducible complexity been shown to be false, but both examples of bacterial flagellum and eye evolution mentioned have been disproven...and if I had a better Internet connection this morning, I would give you some literary citations...alas. Perhaps later."
I've been following the ID/Darwin controversy since 2006, and I've heard this claim quite often. And though Darwinists like to make this claim, they never back it up with evidence. Whenever they do, the "refutation" is usually a just-so story of how it might have happened, with no real empirical data to back it up.
Fortunately, Paul did promise to provide me with links where I can see this alledged evidence for myself. I'm looking forward to see it.
As for mynamehere, his post does not grant a reply, as it is clear that he is completely misinformed about the state of ID, as well as the flaws in many of the "evidences" for Darwinism.
You'll have to let me know what "mischaracterzations" of science were made in the column. You didn't seem to cite any. Science cannot prove or disprove anything. But it can decipher facts about issues that put the preponderence of the evidence clearly on one side of the argument.
There's nothing in ID that even mentions irreducible complexity. What makes you thing tha a Supreme Being didn't supply the necessary building blocks for more complicated organisms to evolve into?
Science has to get into the realm of religion. There's only so much information that can be obtained by normal methods. Please let us know when you become acquainted with other routes of information. We can talk then.
You need to go with the "preponderance of the evidence". ID has reams more than evolution ever had. And they don't want to teach ID in public schools. Go figure...
fossil record - There are many gaps in the fossil record, but probably the biggest problem for Darwinism and the greatest arguement for ID, is the Cambrium explosion.
genetics, the various genomes, pseudo-genes, retroviral DNA - Genetics, along with the rest of biochemistry, is one of the MAJOR reasons why Darwinism is in a crisis. Irreducible complexity, Information in the genome, these are all products of intelligence. To say that these phenomena could've arised purely by natural means, is to appeal to magic. There is no evidence what so ever that natural processes are capable of producing anything like this. Also, genetics has colided with homological evidences for Darwinism: If homology is a product of common decent, we should expect this to be reflected in the genes as well. However, many bodyparts that are concidered homologes, comes from very different genes. As for junk DNA, that is an arguement from ignorance. Recent studies have shown that so-called junk DNA is not junk at all, and ID predicts that very little, if any DNA will ultimately be junk.
embryology - This has been clearly debunked by Jonathan Wells.
vestigial organs- Once again an arguement from ignorance. Many organs which were thought to be vestigial, have since been discovered to perform usefull functions. There is no reason to believe that future discoveries will make the list of vestigial organs even shorter.
Kevin: "There's nothing in ID that even mentions irreducible complexity. "
Are you kidding? Irreducible complexity and Specified complexity are the two legs on which ID stands. Those are the two possitive evidences for Design in biochemistry.
Certainly even you can decipher the logic used in "Reasons to Believe". It's likely you have to open your mind a little when thinking about ID. It sounds a lot like you don't even believe in a Supreme Being. If you think you're right about something, and being proved wrong will disintegrate your worldview, it's very easy to gloss over facts.
The scientific info out there is immense. Ever hear of the Big Bang? The Gravitatiional Constant? The Laws of Thermodynamics? RNA? DNA? I can go on and on... Ever wonder how all these laws came to be?
Evololution is a hypothesis that man cannot live long enough to prove. Evolution has so many holes it's worse than a sieve.
You never did say who calculated that there is "enought time". I stated exactly what "science was". Did you comprehend the article at all? And there's HUGE amounts of data. I'm afraid you've elected to reject it for some reason. Read the column again.
Forgive me, but I've never heard the terms irreducible and specified referencing ID. I've only hear the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Maybe that's what Chemical Engineers get into.
Irreducible Complexity is a term coined by Michael Behe in his book: "Darwin's black box". It basically refers to a system, consisting of various interlocking parts, working together to perform a specific function, and where the removal of a single part will completely disable the whole to perform that function. Such a system can not evolve gradually by means of mutation and natural selection, because the whole system needs to be in place in order for it to perform its function.
Darwinists claim that this has been refuted, but their argument can be compared with the arguement that a car is not IC, because I can use one of its screws to hang a picture on the wall. That might well be true, but, function is an integral part of the argument of IC: You can not explain it away by changing the function of the system. In any case, the fact that a screw can have a different function elsewhere, does not prove that you can change that system into a car with continuous, slight modifications, aspecially when the process making those modifications have no end goal in mind.
The only observable process capable of producing IC, is design, because only intelligence can make decisions based on the future advantages of those decisions. The only other mechanism capable of producing IC is magic. It is therefore ironic that Darwinists accuse ID proponents of appealing to magic, since they're the one's rejecting the only natural explaination available.
Specified Complexity is basically another word for Information. Information is complex, non repeating patterns that specifies something. Once again, information is ALWAYS the product of intelligence.
Francis Crick's comment that "biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved." This, to me, is a tipical example of the self-deception practiced by Darwinists: The theory, not the empirical evidence, is truth. Therefore, no amount of evidence, no amount of sound reasoning, nothing will ever convince Darwinists that their theory stands on shaky ground. Anyone who calls a cow a cow is either ignorant or dishonest. Darwinism is not science, it is dogma.
It includes 11 articles of original research and reviews, three on curriculum possibilities, and a book review.
It's actual science, not religious apologia, so you may not accept or agree with it, but this utterly refutes the claims of evolution-deniers about eye evolution.
Thanks for that detailed explanation. It's unfortunate that Mr. Burnett cannot conceive of these possibilities. I understand why I never heard of such terms. Typically I read such books as "Show Me God(Fred Hereen) which does an excellent job of intermixing Gopd and science, mainly because God is the One who made science.
Mr. Barnett must understand that things and living beings tend to become less complex unless ID is somhow involved. Things are bound to evolve, but evolving into something more complex requires Intelligence. The actual chances of something evolving into a more complex organism without Someone's assistance is so infinitesimally small that it cannot even be mentioned.
Kevin wrote: "Evololution is a hypothesis that man cannot live long enough to prove. Evolution has so many holes it's worse than a sieve."
Please tell us your source for this absurd claim. Did you read it in a book? If so, please name the book.
Did you happen to see the PBS Special on evolution? It's available at [link edited for length]. I would appreciate your looking at this website, which is about actual science, and giving us your opinion - and what your opinion is based on.
Please let us know where you are getting your disinformation and misinformation on evolution. Answers In Genesis? The Institute for Creation Research? Coral Ridge Ministries? The Dishonesty Institute?
Are you aware that essentially every actual scientific society in the country - the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academies of Science, etc. - has issued a statement supporting evolution and condemning intelligent creationism as pseudoscience? See [link edited for length]
"hannodb" wrote a laughably ignorant statement: "vestigial organs- Once again an arguement from ignorance. Many organs which were thought to be vestigial, have since been discovered to perform usefull functions."
What could be the usefulness of the recurrent laryngeal nerve? In humans and all other mammals it goes from the brain into the chest, looping around the aorta in order to get from the brain to the larynx. In the giraffe, this nerve is thus about 15 feet long, whereas the larynx is about 1 foot from the brain. This unintelligent - and even dangerous - design feature makes the animal more susceptible to injury, and has no purpose other than to demonstrate our evolutionary ancestry as distant descendents of fish. (See Dr. Neil Shubin's book, Your Inner Fish, described at [link edited for length].)
Matt Ridley explains the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve as follows (from his textbook _Evolution_): “The laryngeal nerve is, anatomically, the fourth vagus nerve, one of the cranial nerves. These nerves first evolved in fish-like ancestors. … successive branches of the vagus nerve pass, in fish, behind the successive arterial arches that run through the gills. Each nerve takes a direct route from the brain to the gills. During evolution, the gill arches have been transformed; the sixth gill arch has evolved in mammals into the ductus arteriosus, which is anatomically near to the heart. The recurrent laryngeal nerve still follows the route behind the (now highly modified) gill arch: in a modern mammal, therefore, the nerve passes from the brain, down the neck, round the dorsal aorta, and back up to the larynx.”
This is the actual scientific reason for the recurrent laryngeal nerve path. What is the creationist explanation for this stupid design?
Kevin wrote: "Certainly even you can decipher the logic used in "Reasons to Believe". It's likely you have to open your mind a little when thinking about ID. It sounds a lot like you don't even believe in a Supreme Being."
Among other things I am an ordained minister. I am extremely aware of the details of intelligent design creationism, including teh fact that it is heretical. Following the 1987 US Supreme Court decision forbidding the teaching of the bogus "creation science" in public schools, a group of creationists carefully crafted a new version of creationism, where they took all the good parts out of the Genesis story, and substituted an anonymous nameless "intelligent designer." A Vatican theologian has declared this removal of God from His creation story is heresy. (I've got that citation around here somewhere...)
It gets frustrating, doesn't it Paul? We've already been through the bacterial flaggelum / type 3 secretion argument. About time for someone to bring up the blood clotting nonsence. (Psssst! Look up pufferfish)
"hannodb" wrote: "Fortunately, Paul did promise to provide me with links where I can see this alledged evidence for myself. I'm looking forward to see it."
So, have you looked at any of the links I provided yet? Comments?
For you (and really more for Kevin, who seems to ignorant about intelligent design creationism), here's the first few paragraphs of its Wikipedia article:
"Intelligent design is the term used for the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.
Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."
Read the rest of the article at [link edited for length]. If you read nothing else, at least read the "Wedge Document" ([link edited for length]) and see if you can tell if intelligent design creationism is science or religion. (Hint: The first line starts :"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God..." Yup, sure sounds like science, doesn't it?)
I didn't think ministers used the kind of language that you use. You are a real minister, aren't you? Dare to say what faith?
Actually, to prove either evolution or ID, one will likely need eons of time. Although with ID it might not take that long. A book is not needed to know how long it will take to prove that. You do believe in Judgement Day, don't you?
Are you calling anything you've heard about evolution "disinformation" or "dishonesty" for kicks, or do you simply lack the facts to disprove it?
If you're intelligent, you realize that PBS is very liberally slanted. And you'll have to let them know who ordained their material as "real" science. Ohhhh--forgive me. I shouldn't have used the word "ordained".
Are you aware that you only named a minority of scientific organizations in the country? That you are the one that used the word "pseudoscience" which the vast majority of your science organizations never used? How about the fact that you think all humans are the distant decendants of fish because of their laryngeal nerve? Doesn't other species have that nerve as well? Does that mean we're also decendents of these animals somehow?
Did you know that you used the word "heretical" incorrectly? Did you know that some vatican official is not "infallible"? Did you know that the Intelligent Designer to most IS God?
Please let me know when you decide to answer any of the above questions. If nothing else, it'll be quite entertaining.
If we are creations of a deity, then that deity is far from perfect. Our spines, for example, are much better designed for walking on all fours than for walking upright. The vaunted eye, scientists tell us, would be more efficent if it were arranged differently.
We have vestigial organs, like the appendix. I, a man, have nipples.
Then you have to deal with the nature of this deity. As Hume pointed out, there is no evidence, other than the Bible saying so, that this deity loves us. For example, why would this deity torture our most innocent, our children, by creating cancers which affect only them?
ID, after all is said and done, is a public relations gimmick from the Discovery Institute.
Don't drink their coolaid. It is poisonous to science and, ultimately, our country.
"What do those teaching evolution' in schools have against Intelligent Design'(ID)? They believe that that there should be no intersection between religion and science, and there should always be a distinct separation of church and state."
Oops...did you not get the memo? ID is not religious! I know...I don't believe that either.
"More than 400 scientists have signed a statement Dissent from Darwin'"
More than 11,000 clergy have signed the clergy letter which says:"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
Kevin wrote: "Please let me know when you decide to answer any of the above questions."
First, let's see if this discussion is about actual science or about religion. You gave us a link to Reasons to Believe, falsely claiming it was a "think-tank," when it is openly an old-earth creationist website. That's the only link you've given us - a link to a religious website.
I gave you a link to Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" - did you look at it? Yes or no?
I gave "hannodb" a link to an outstanding resource about eye evolution - did either of you look at it? Yes or no?
I gave you a link to the PBS Special on evolution - did you look at it? Yes or no?
I gave "hannodb" a link to Dr. Neil Shubin's book, Your Inner Fish - did either of you look at it? Yes or no?
I gave "hannodb" a link to the Wikipedia article on intelligent design creationism and a link to the Dishonesty Institute's Wedge Document - did either of you look at it? Yes or no?
First. For some reason, Darwinists like to remind their critics that the earth is round. It goes without saying that if the earth is round, there are certain implications involved. Such as, while you're typing and wondering why I don't respond to your posts, I was completely unaware of the world around me, in my bed in SOUTH AFRICA.
Secondly, why did you provide me with a link to the evolution of the eye? Did you miss the part where I said "The Eye is not irreducibly complex, as it can still see when you remove parts"?
Apart from that, Micheal Behe already did a fine job of explaining the evolution of the eye in his book "Darwin's black box", I really don't want to waste my time reading it in more detail. However, what I would like to see, though, are
1) fossil remains demonstrating this hypothetical scenario for the evolution of the eye.
2) a detailed biochemical explaination of how the light sensitive spot came into existance in the first place. Though it is acceptable to start with a light sensitive spot in 19th century science, we now know how that light sensitve spot works biochemically, and there should be a Darwinian explaination for that as well.
Non the less, I will take my time to go through the links you send me. So far, all darwinian counter arguements only reinforced my conviction that ID is right, and I think one should always be prepared to learn more.
As for your PBS special, that doesn't say much. I can't remember how often I've heard prominent Darwinists misrepresent ID and the DI. Unfortunately, the Darwinian prolateriat only get to hear the one sided misrepresentations of ID by promenent Darwinists, and never bother to find out for themselves what the DI actually states. So, in all fairness, here is the DI reply to the PBS special: [link edited for length]
"What is the creationist explanation for this stupid design?" You might want to look at the Ford Pinto. Bad design is not evidence for no design. The real question is not whether the design is good or bad, but whether certain features could've come into existance by slight modifications with no end goal in mind. Changing a fin into a leg is one thing. Constructing a bacterial flaggelum, is completely different.
Your comments on the history of "Intelligent design creationism" is also false. I've Read Thomas Woodwards book "Doubts about Darwin: A history of Intelligent Design". Most of the most prominent Darwin critics at the DI are scientists themselves, who used to be Darwinists. Names such as Dean Kenyon, Micheal Behe, and David Berlinski comes to mind. To claim that the ideas of these people comes from Creationism, is plain absurd.
"Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. " This is a completely false statement!!! Not all the fellows of the DI believe in ID, and they're certainly not all christian either!!! David Berlinski is an excelent example. ID does not state that the designer is God, it simply states that design can be detected in biology, based on the biochemical evidence. If the designer were aliens, it is still intelligent design.
Regarding the Wedge Document, I've read more than that, I've read this as well: [link edited for length] This just shows that Darwinists main obsession with ID has more to do with their own philosofical world view than science. Is it any coincidence that almost all the main defendants of Darwin are atheists? The Darwinian equivilent of the "Wedge document" is "The God delusion". Anyway, since whan has motive become part of the scientific method??? If the science is valid, it doesn't matter WHAT the motive of the scientist is!
Now, after you have confirmed to me that you have NO IDEA what ID is all about, I will read your links. This might take a while, so be patient.
"hannodb" wrote: " Regarding the Wedge Document, I've read more than that, I've read this as well: (link to another Dishonesty Institute document disavowing their own Wedge Document.)"
In all the list of documents you really need to read, please start with Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals." It provides a really thorough explanation of the Wedge Document.
"hannodb": "Names such as Dean Kenyon, Micheal Behe, and David Berlinski comes to mind. To claim that the ideas of these people comes from Creationism, is plain absurd."
Here's a list of some of Michael Behe's speaking engagements and writings, at the very bottom of [link edited for length] - take a look and see if you can tell if this is about science or religion.
So, you think wikipedia is a reliable source of information? The fools of Discovery should have read wikipedia BEFORE making statements on their OWN document. OBVIOUSLY Wikipedia is much more reliable source of information about ID that the people who advocate it.
And Behe is catholic. What's wrong with him speaking about religion? The fact is that before he read Michael Denton's book, and did his own research, he had no problem with Darwinism.
And David Berlinski? I suppose in a Darwinian mind, there is NOTHING wrong with the idea that an AGNOSTIC is secretly plotting to set up a Christian fundimentalist state in America. LOL!!!
And Dean Kenyon, who was at the front line of abiogenesis research, and co authored "Biochemical Predestination". There's nothing wrong with the idea that he suddenly turned into a religious fanatic to destroy science.
As for Dr. Barbara Forrest’s, she is one of the people responsible for spreading lies and misinformation about the Wedge document. If you've read the link I've send you, you would've known this.
Would I be breaking any rules if I say I concider you to be dishonnest?
Paul, tell me just one thing. If the Darwinian case is as strong as you say it is, why do prominent Darwinists find the need to spread smear campaigns, lies and misinformation about ID? "Why call it 'Intelligent Design Creationism' and present the public with a twisted idea of ID, when you can just answer the questions and challenges raised by ID?
Wandering the web, as is certainly one of my hobbies, I came across the Nolan Chart. What tweaked my interest was an article entitled "Intelligent Design Not Difficult to Grasp", by Kevin Roeten dated 4 Mar 2009. Glancing at the headline, I almost did what many Creationists do and take it as face value. Then I read a little more and had trouble containing my laughter.
Now just considering the headline, I agreed with its wording. There is nothing difficult or challenging about Intelligent Design, as espoused by those less-than-stalwart-fellows at the Discovery Institute. It's not a hard subject to grasp, for all their meanderings and re-definitions and out-and-out lies. It is pretty simple, made even easier by the complete lack of evidential support. But then I had to do what few Creationists seem capable of doing, I continued reading and his next two statements just floored me:
"All the holes in the theory of evolution can be filled with Intelligent Design"
and
"Intelligent Design: a plethora on Open-Mindedness"
Without going further into what might have actually been an interesting article, I had to stop for a second and stop laughing. Can you image that all the holes in Evolution can be filled with ID? Every single one? What Kevin here is doing is nothing more than re-stating the "God-of-the-Gaps" argument. First of all, are there holes in what we know about Biology? There certainly are! Of course none of then have invalidated what we do know, since each new thing we seem to learn supports the main details, like Evolution. The 'holes' Kevin is alluding to are in the details of how certain things happened, not that evolution did not happen. But of course if it weren't for the things we don't know, Kevin here would have even less to say.
Just a reminder, the problem with the God-of-the-gaps argument, as illustrated by St. Augustine a very long time ago, is basically how silly one looks when something previously unknown, that gets attributed to God, becomes known. The Catholic Church has apparently learned most of this lesson, but it missed Kevin. So, Kev, before we leave this little topic I want three things from you. I want you to identify three holes, you claim exist, that are better explained by Intelligent Design, and I mean real holes in evolutionary theory. I just want to have that list so as the science of biology moves forward, I get to wave them in front of you as a little reminder. Now once again, stick with evolutionary theory, not geology, physics, chemistry or other discipline, but three actual gaps within the current school of thought on evolutionary biology. Don't worry, there are a few you can choose from. But remember what happened to Michael Behe when he named what he thought were a few gaps-- it wasn't pretty -- but I am pretty confident you won't commit yourself, you'll keep making sweeping and unsupported statements.
Now moving on, the very idea of using 'Intelligent Design' and 'open-mindedness' in the same sentence is particularly far-fetched. Hey, Kev, do me a favor and read the Discovery Institute's own Wedge Strategy document on the whole purpose of Intelligent Design. There is nothing open-minded about it! It's a ploy, a way to try and knock-back evolution to try and slip in the back-door of our school system. I am not the one who first said that, your own Daddy Rabbit Phillip E. Johnson did in his document. Take exception with him, I just happen to be able to read past the headlines.
Now to the rest of your hilarious article. OK, Kev, for the record, I have nothing at all against teaching Intelligent Design in school. In fact most of us who object to ID don't have an issue with it being taught! Surprised you there, didn't I? However, I, and others, have stated this many times, on record, and will do our best to never see is the teaching of Intelligent Design in a science class as science! That is my beef! I feel the same way about Intelligent Design as I do Astrology, Phrenology, and Alchemy. If it is not science, it does not belong in science class as a scientific subject! There it is, my, and many other folks, objection to your whole platform.
Let's be clear: It's not science because some people think it is. It's not science when you lie and claim it has to be included or we are being against "Academic Freedom", Free Speech", or "Freedom of Expression" (Take your choice, your friends over at the DI use them pretty much interchangeably). It is not science because you do a bait-and-switch with the definition of words like 'theory' and 'belief'. It is not science because the Governor of Louisiana gets mislead while pandering to voters. And it certainly is not science when it offers no testability, no predictability, and has not been supported by actual empirical evidence.
As for the rest of your little article, it's nothing more than the pessimist's mis-conception of Evolution. Not only does you offer no support for Intelligent Design -- which seemed a Creationist character trait -- but you makes unsupported claims about evolution. For example you claim:
"scientific journals are full of inconsistencies of evolutionary theory"
Uh, No! Just because a journal is asking questions that have not been answered yet is not an evolutionary inconsistency. What it is doing is setting the stage for work that still needs to be done. You obviously are one of those people who think unless you have all the answers, don't bother asking questions. Hmmm, since when do we need all the answers? We've done pretty good with things without knowing everything! Hell, we can't seem to decide if light is a particle or a wave and yet we use it, and the scientific theories behind it, every single day.
But your case of verbal diarrhea keeps going. You actually get into the 'odds' argument, and have the audacity to call 'reasons.org' a think-tank. OK, Kev, I take back what I said earlier, it will be hard for you to select three evolutionary inconsistencies, because you are using Abiogenesis and the so-called odds to convince yourself Evolution is impossible. Sorry, typical ID'iot error. So there is another strike against you saying anything meaningful in your article, you just keep repeating the same junk. Look, at least get creative and quote Dembski rather than reasons.org -- his odds argument at least sounds plausible, even if it is just as meaningless. Look back in my posts of you want to see what I think of the odds argument. You won't like it.
OMG, and then you go off quote mining! Are you related to little Bennie Stein by any chance? I've read some of Jastow's work, and you are doing nothing but mis-representing him. His issues with Evolution are pretty much undocumented, after all he is an astrophysicist. But then again, you still seem to have a problem with focusing on Evolution. Try again!
Kev, you do briefly address evolution again, but only to say that Evolution and Intelligent Design have no direct evidence. Well, Kev, you are half right. If you actually opened your eyes during Biology class, you would be amazed at the evidence supporting evolution -- but then this article exposes how little you apparently know about the subject.
So let's recap the highlights. Intelligent Design can fill all of evolution's gaps? Fine, where are they? In your whole article you failed to highlight one single gap of evolutionary theory? How disingenuous of you! Is this what you call ID's open-mindedness? You make big statements and fail to back any of them up! You claim 'inconsistencies' yet fail to produce any and you offer ID as the gap-filler and fail to explain how it goes about caulking all those gaps.
So the bottom line here is nothing but warmed over Creationist arguments with not only little support of claims, but not actual effort at supporting your accusations. You aren't even particularly entertaining or original, but I will forgive that, since your source material is also pretty much devoid of any resemblance of creativity or originality.
"hannodb" wrote: "As for Dr. Barbara Forrest’s, she is one of the people responsible for spreading lies and misinformation about the Wedge document."
Dr. Barbara Forrest was a star witness at the 2005 Dover trial. As a sworn witness in a Federal Court trial, she testified in exquisite detail about the lies and disinformation in the Wedge Document and other intelligent design creationist propaganda. Her testimony was not refuted by the creationist side in the trial; the creationists lost the trial; and the judge's decision was not appealed.
But the judge did have this to say about sworn witnesses lying in his court: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." It was Bill Buckingham and other "cedeign proponentsists" (Google the term if you're unfamiliar with it) - the supporters of intelligent design creationism - who lied, not Dr. Forrest, Dr Padian and others.
And of course your linked resource from the Dishonesty Institute would say that Dr. Forrest was lying. She is telling the truth about their dishonest creation.
"hannodb" wrote: "Would I be breaking any rules if I say I concider you to be dishonnest?"
Yes, you would be breaking the rules...of literacy. But look (above) who is dishonest in this debate. It's not the pro-evolution side.
In answer to your question, why we tend to refer to ID as a form of Creationism? It's simple. (1) Read the Wedge Strategy document for yourself and you will see it -- just read for comprehension. Don't take Dr. Forrest's word for it, read it for yourself. (2) Because it was found to be Creationism based on ID proponents own testimony during the Dover Trial. (3) Because one of the DI apologetics, Michael Egnor, in a recent rant:
used Creationism to explain why the people of Louisiana, and especially their Governor, recently passed and signed into law that mis-named "Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA)". And finally (4) becuase ID has raised no challenges nor asked any questions other than attempt to smear the science behind evolution -- something they attempt often, with no success.
If youu want ID to be taken seriously, do what the Discovery Institute has been unwilling, or unable, to do -- science! That's right, get out of the limelight and go do some actual scientific work. For God's sake they [DI] opened their own lab, Biologics Institute, and it has been suspiciously silent for 5 years now. They had to open their own publications company, Discovery Institute Press, because even the level of proof required by popular press -- which is pretty low to begin with --was too much of a burden for them to bear. Quit all that, do some real, peer-reviewed publications, prove the work and then I will stand by your side and fight to get ID into the classroom. But until you actually do the work . . . you do not belong in the science classroom!
Ted wrote: "So the bottom line here is nothing but warmed over Creationist arguments with not only little support of claims, but not actual effort at supporting your accusations."
It's actually a good thing when creationists like Kevin and "hannodb" try to support intelligent design creationism with blatantly creationist arguments and tactics. It really helps disinterested bystanders understand what is really going on in this debate.
As I said in my first post, "It is an easily observable fact that the vast majority of supporters of intelligent design creationism are overtly or covertly religious - not scientific or even scientifically literate - individuals or organizations." And Kevin and "hannodb" have just helped prove my hypothesis. Thanks, guys!
Why doesn't Mr. Burnett answer questions about his ordained "ministry"? Science is defined as "a knowledge based on observed facts and tested theories". Neither ID nor evolution has any tested theories. But ID has all the facts, and evolution has fossils--but they're not connected.
Maybe a large portion of responders do not believe in God. I guess they will be awfully surprised upon their death. It's highly likely that all those in favor of evolution don't believe there is a God. Therefore, evolution is the only thing left to believe. How sad.
From now on, we need to say whether we believe that a Supreme Being exists right at the start. That way, we'll know where they're coming from. Let's see if anyone is willing to say they believe--I do!
And Ted, you need to be laughing as long as you can. I don't want to be there when you stop. Because you'll know the truth.
Kevin wrote: "Why doesn't Mr. Burnett answer questions about his ordained "ministry"?"
I was ordained years ago by the Universal Life Church. So there.
Now: Tell me how many of the linked websites I mentioned earlier you have looked at.
For extra points, list a few of the 'facts" you have determined that intelligent design creationism allegedly has. And be sure to send your list to the Dishonesty Institute, because they haven't been able to find any yet.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-03-06 21:42:52
The holes in swiss cheese can be filled with cat food but it doesn't make it better. I'll just have the cheese please, for me the holes are merely a congruent part of the whole. It is certainly no mystery why a creationist/anti-evolutionist would expect nothing less than a complete transcript of everything evolution did along the way. After all, God this this for us. He wrote it all down through divine inspiration. Evolution must surely be intelligent enough to write it all down for us or it is just a silly notion.
It is fun to read another attempt to rationalize faith through logic and "science." Some people just can't cope with a real world with "holes" in our knowledge. Everything must be "filled". It is like OCD or something where they can't relax and enjoy life if they think their ancestors looked like apes. Who cares how we became who we are today for crying out loud.
What does that question have to do with ANYTHING? How could the answer to that question possibly help our society advance past the stagnation of collectivist politics and religions when we engage in debate over such irrelevant issues? The continual focus on the irrelvant is at the core of the stagnation imposed on our species by religions. We've come a long way in documented history but this religion thing is really taking us to the woodshed these last 4000 years.
I'll never see it but I hope there will be a future in which the entire world thinks of mankind's oppression under religion the same way we now look at slavery.
Personally, I have no problem with individuals choosing to be religious. I am a staunch advocate of religious freedom and free affiliation. I adamantly support the right for individuals to choose their own way. Where I rise in opposition is when their chosen constraints begin to be imposed on others through the force of government. This appears to be a most unchristian abuse of power and influence. Jesus' ends didn't justify his means. His means EXEMPLIFIED his ends. That one key point has been obliterated from Christian behavior for convenience and material gain.
Wasn't it Gandhi who said something like, I am liking your Christ but not your Christians? (Sorry Gandhi, I'm sure you said something better.)
Keep practicing that logic pantomine though because maybe one day you'll get it, then stop.
The Dover case was not against the Discpovery Institute, but against the Dover school board. The people who were dishonnest, were the school board, not the Discovery Institute. THEY where the one's pushing creationism in the name of ID. The Discovery Institude's policy on science education is very clear: They DO want evidence contradicting evolution to be taught in schools, they DO NOT want Intelligent Design to be taught. You can search their site if you don't believe me. The reason why they did not appeal the case, was because they were never in favour of the Dover school board decision.
To Ted Herrlich
There is one major difference between creationism and intelligent design, which is why "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a lie.
Creationism assumes design, and THEN goes and look for it in nature.
Darwinism ASSUMES a natural origin, and THEN goes and look for it in nature.
ID assumes nothing, and simply goes where the evidence leads.
If that isn't clear enough, let me put it this way: creationism presumes design, while ID is the conclusion of design.
The evidence for this is the fact the many of the ID proponents are actual scientists who used to be Darwinists as well, but who, apon further investigation, found it to be lacking. Johnathan Wells, Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe are excelent examples of this. I've read the arguements of these people, and found that they made a very solid case. I then went to the Darwinists to find out how they reply to this. To my shock and horror, I found that they completely ignore the arguements, or misrepresent them, and use all kinds of irrelevant and false arguements to discredit them. Such as "Oh read the Wedge document, the DI want to reinstate a theocracy! Boohoo!" Not only is this arguement false, it is irrelevant!
The Wedge document is a response to ID, not the other way around. Just like "The God Delution" is a response to Darwinism, and not the other way arround. This constant attempt of Darwinists to cast doubt on the motives of ID scientists, rather than to answer their arguements, is anti-science to the extreme. Richard Dawkins has the very sinister motive for driving Darwinism to destroy religion. Yet, you'll never find anyone from the DI discrediting him based apon his motives rather than his arguements! If Dawkins think the scientific evidence points to atheism, and promotes this view, then Darwinists have no problem with this. However, when ID proponents believe the evidence points towards design, and therefore want to promote a theistic world view, then Darwinists suddenly claim that this invalidates their science. This is plain and simple hipocracy. Darwinists are corrupting one of the original laws of the Enlightenment: the law of cause and effect, because with regards to their judgement of ID, they almost always confuse the two.
The Darwinian protrayal of what ID is, is a blatant lie and misrepresentation. I speak as someone who listened to both sides of the argument. From the DI, I hear reasoned arguements, backed up by empirical evidence. From the Darwinian side, I hear misrepresentations of those arguements, smear campaigns and irrelevant personal attacks, and fear mongering.
I have made my case, and I'm tired of arguing with narrow minded people whos only objective is to destroy any dissent from their dogma. To any readers of my posts, if you are open minded, do the research yourself, and see if I'm lying. Go to www.discovery.org or to www.evolutionnews.org Use the search function available, and see for yourself what the DI have to say. Then compare it to Darwinian portrail of the DI, and deside for yourself who's speaks the truth.
I respect anyone who has listened to both sides of the argument with an open mind, and then decided to go with Darwinism. However, what really angers me, is this blatant dishonesty of Darwinists: To use their majority to misrepresent and smear the names and arguments of those who disagree with them, just so they can protect their dogma from critisism. And then there are the Darwinist pom-pom girls (and boys) with no mind of their own. They're only interested in reading the one-sided lies about ID, and then charge into the fight with these scewed ideas. In the end, the battle is decided by numbers, rather than reason, because, as Hitler said: if you repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it.
"hannodb" sent a link to pro-intelligent design creationism publications, including a list of articles - none of which have the term "intelligent design" in the title, and only a few which have the term "intelligent design" in the text.
"hannodb's" list also included Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Prominent Trade Presses - Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004)."
While I will freely admit Regnery Publishing is a "prominent trade press" publisher, it is not known as a publisher of actual science books - it publishes primarily right-wing propaganda such as the Swift Boat book of lies about John Kerry, "Unfit for Command." See [link edited for length]
"hanno" (who may or may not also be "hannodb") wrote: "(The Dishonesty Institute) DO want evidence contradicting evolution to be taught in schools, they DO NOT want Intelligent Design to be taught."
That's true - they want creationism to be taught rather than evolution. They want to start with intelligent design creationism, and then dumb it down further to plain creationism as soon as possible.
Who or what is the Universal Life Church? What denomination would you call that?
Actually I've looked at most of your linked websites. The poorest had to be PBS. As I said, they're very liberally oriented, so I didn't expect any better.
A few of the facts are listed right there in the original column. You did read the whole thing, and comprehended it, right? Oh, an another thing. It's blatantly false to put the word "creationism" with ID. But you should know better than that.
I'm amazed that some folks still use the word "creationist" with ID. Please stop showing your lack of knowledge by doing that.
Gotcha, Jafre. You don't believe in God either. Too much evidence that He exists, but you've refuted that too. Please let me know when you would like to hear some real facts.
Religion has been a blight on this world. Take radical Islam. But there is a religion that has all the answers and facts. You have to believe, though. Can you do that? Do you know what religion that is?
Not well schooled, just thoroughly GATVOL for all the nonsence Darwinists feed to the public as "facts".
Let me demonstrate.
In the documentary "Expelled", Ben Stein asks Michael Ruse how live first arised on earth. Now, he could've answered like Richard Dawkins and say we don't know, or he could've gone with the primordial soup story. Instead, he said : one popular hypothesis is that it happened off the backs of cristals. Ofcause the nice thing about cristals, is that every once in a while you get mistakes - mutations - which then opens the door for natural selection.
Excuse me??? Cristals are simple, repeatative chemical structures, they don't "evolve" into something else. Live, on the other hand, is based on Information, which is a NON REPEATATIVE pattern that specifies something. No, mister Ruse, your cristal hypothesis is not a valid scientific hypothesis. It is ABSURD!!! And as if that isn't absurt enough, he claims that mistakes in themselves "opens the door for natural selection". I'm sorry, mr Ruse, but do you even KNOW what Natural selection IS??? NO YOU DON'T, You think it is some magical one-size-fits-all explaination for everything. "Natural-Selection-of-the-gaps", you might say. How exactly does natural selection work on cristals? I've never seen a sugar cristal hunting for salt cristals, thereby weeding out the poorly constructed salt cristals. Mr Ruse thinks his "cristal hypothesis" is less far fetched and more likely than intelligent design. I hope he has since realised how stupid this idea is.
The fact is, you don't see a mob of Darwinists attacking mr Ruse for his absurt ideas. No, as long as your "hypothesis" does not include intelligence, you are allowed to say just about anything, no matter how stupid it is.
But here is the best part. If you argue this in a debate with a Darwinist, he will probably say you're ignorant: "Darwinism doesn't say that!". When you say that Michael Ruse said so, he will lay the additional charge of "quote mining". It doesn't matter what you do, the Darwinist always have some kind of rule forbidding that argument. You see, there is as many interpretations of Darwinism as there are Darwinists (which means it is NOT as well established as gravity - another Darwinian lie) and for a critic to refute it, is as difficult as trying to hold on to a slippery fish.
I once debated a Darwinist who claimed that Haeckels drawings are not used in textbooks. I was amazed at his Goodthink ability (Goodthink is a newspeak word from George Orwells Nineteen Eighty Four). In a documentary from the DI, they asked Eugene Scott why fraudulant embryonic pictures are still in the textbooks. She didn't deny it, she dismissed it as no big deal. How can this darwinist then claim that it is not the case? It didn't really matter, because he shifted the burden of proof to me. Fortunately, the reliable DI is there: A quick search gave me this: [link edited for length]
I've also heard a Darwinists claiming that Darwinism never claimed that there is "Junk DNA". Not even Stalin or the Holocaust Revisionists do such a great at "revising history" as the Darwinists.
Darwinism is like a priesthood. To the "ignorant masses" they feed evidence that has been refuted long ago. When someone realised the lie and confront a Darwinist, the Darwinist blame him for being "ignorant" and give a different story as to what darwinism actually says. It's like pealing an onion, you just never get to the core, where you can say, aha, this is what it is really about. Evolution is a better discription of Darwinism than it is of Biology.
So yes. I am not an expert in biology, and yes, maybe I'm wrong. But one thing I'm not, is MINDLESS!!! I'm not going to just mindlessly except any nonsence based on the say-so of some Darwinist, simply because he has a Ph.D.. Knowledge, unfortunately, is not a guarentee for honesty, it seems.
Thanks to the work Micheal Behe and Dean Kenyon, I now know a little bit of biochemistry. I realise that there IS Irreducible Complexity, and Specified complexity, and there is NO KNOWN natural mechanism that can produce these properties. Moreover, an increase of Biochemical knowledge only INCREASES the complexity, which makes the probability of a natural origin even MORE unlikely. I don't rely silly probability calculations to know it is impossible, I can see it in the biochemistry for myself!
And no, though I respect Kenneth Miller for being one of the few, if not only Darwinist who honnestly attempted to refute IC, his refutation FAILS! The only people who accept his refutation, are those with a slavish commitment to Darwinism, and for whom ANY poorly constructed argument will do. The jump from the Type 3 Secretion device to the BF is a HUGE one. Almost ALL the parts of the Bacterial Flaggelum still needs to be added to make it a BF. Not only that, the function needs to change, because the Type 3 Secretion device is not a propulsion system. So, I'm sorry to say, mister Miller, but in order to prove IC wrong, you need to demonstrate the biochemical evolution by slight modifications from the T3S device to the BF. And ALL of the steps need to provide the organism with some advantage to ensure that Natural Selection selects for the change, instead of the original design.
Also, comparative studies of other systems ARE NOT EVIDENCE to refute IC. We're dealing with biochemistry here: We know how to code DNA, and we know how DNA produce proteins. So, if you can produce a BF from a T3S device by making slight modifications in the genes, and you suceed to build a BF this way, THEN I'll concede that IC is wrong. Untill then, the burder of proof still lies with the Darwinists.
So, to all you Darwinists out there, BAD NEWS. Until you clean up your act, and stop treating the public like morons, ID is only going to win more ground. Unless you stop treating your critics like heretics, ID will continue winning ground. And THAT is what the Wegde document is ultimately about: to drive a wedge between those who mindlessly follow darwinian doctrine without question, and those who have an open and critical mind. The Wedge document is about SAVING science from the Darwinian dark ages. ID has ALWAYS BEEN THE CORNER STONE OF SCIENCE until Darwin came along. Huxley then promoted it as science, dispite Darwin's own critisism of his theory, and ever since then Darwinists have had a strangle hold on science. Atheists mixes their metaphysical worldview with science with impunity, as if it is one and the same thing. This is allowed. But when a scientist, with all the necesary creditials makes public his doubts about Darwin, he is burned at the stake for "mixing religion and science".
So, excuse me if I think Darwinists are lying and dishonnest, but they have only themselves to blame for that. If only they were more humble about the accuracy of the theory, more tolerate towards reasonable dissent, and most important of all, less anti-religious in their rethoric, I wouldn't have been here, waisting my precious weekend time, pointing all of this out!
Kevin wrote: "It's blatantly false to put the word "creationism" with ID."
Sorry, that's your opinion. I will take Dr. Barbara Forrest’s opinion over yours. (She has also delivered her opinion as a sworn witness in a Federal court trial - have you?) Anybody who reads and comprehends her paper, "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals," available at [link edited for length] can see why her opinion is correct.
It's pretty obvious that you and "hannodb / hanno" are on the side of religion in your support of intelligent design creationism and your opposition to evolution and biology and actual science. I'm sure your puppetmasters in the Christian Reconstructionist and Theocratic Dominionist movements are proud of you.
As I said, it seems you are QUITE well schooled. I liked your point about the crystals. Actually, I seem to agree with ALL your points. One that was especially true was that "knowledge" did not guarantee honesty.
Biochemistry is slighly up my alley since I am a "Chemical Engineer" and devout Catholic. It seems so many just want to forget about entropy and what time leads to. About the properties of the single carbon atom, and its inability to evolve into anything. It's absolutely necessary for most life to exist, and Somebody made it that way for a reason.
So many seem to forget those famous words from Steven Hawking about the "Big Bang". Someone MADE it that way. The chances that it didn't happen without some kind of outside help are astronomically small--no, infinitesimally small.
I also like your words about Darwinism "assuming" a natural origin, and then goes and looks for it in nature. Truer words have not been spoken.
Sorry, it's a fact if a large percentage of those who believe in ID are not necessarily creationists. Wrong again.
I've never heard of Dr. Barbara Forrest. I wonder why. Wrong again.
And you a-s-s-u-m-e that Hanno and I are only into ID because of our religious convictions. Should I tell you about the bad things that result from "assuming"?
You still didn't answer my questions from your "ministry". What are you afraid of? Do you know what trouble you can get into with a little bit of knowledge? You don't believe in God, do you?
Kevin wrote: "...it's a fact if a large percentage of those who believe in ID are not necessarily creationists."
Okay, Kevin - I'll call your bluff on this: Give us the source for this "fact." Or is this "fact" just another Lie For Jesus(TM) from the Dishonesty Institute? Is this from a credible source such as the Gallup Poll or the Harris Poll? Is it from an actual science organization? Or is it from a religious apologetics website? What's your source, Kevin? Or did you just make it up?
(And remember: Everybody knows 63.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot...)
And if you claim to know anything at all about intelligent design creationism but have never heard of Dr. Barbara Forrest (see [link edited for length] or [link edited for length] ), you're obviously lying or have been living under a large rock. But then you had never heard of irreducible complexity either - and you quoted an extremely outdated number of "Dissenters From Darwin." My goodness - I have just realized - you don't know how to use Google, do you?
And what's this obsession you have with my "ministry"? All I said was I was ordained years ago. My "ministry" consists mostly of attempting to educate the clueless about the facts of evolution and the lies of the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism. That's why I'm here.
Oh-oh. You're really starting to feel pinned down, arent' you? You seem to be thriving on every demeaning word you know.
I guess I'm around a lot of people who believe in God. They all seem to believe in ID---well, most of them at least. Why would Gallup or Harris be "credible" in this case? Do we know that all of the people that they interview believe in God? You don't seem to. Does that mean you're trying to comment on something that another person could classify as IN-credible?
I like your statistic of 63.7%. I'll bet even a few people believe it too. Who is this Dr. Barbara Forest you keep talking about? I guess she's someone else who is an evolutionist-theorist-no-quite-a-scientist-yet. I'll let you know when I hear about her. Wait--wait--I know why I have never heard of Forest. You've made "ID-creationism" up! Since there's no such animal, except as a figment of your imagination, she's a non-item anyway.
What is it about "there's nothing in ID that even mentions irreducible complexity" that you can't understand? Maybe better comprehension when you read? (Oh--and a little secret--I have a Google e-mail.)
Now why would I be upset about your "ministry"? A couple of things are obvious though. 1) whatever this "ministry" is, it has very little to do with God, 2) you really pushed it in the beginning as though it increased your importance, 3) you still haven't answered a least 3 questions, 4) your feeble attempts at adding "creationism" to ID were worthless, 5) it sounds like you have a major problem with anything that has to do with God.
If you won't answer a few simple questions like, "do you even believe in God?", this whole conversation seems pretty worthless...
Hanno said: "Darwinism ASSUMES a natural origin, and THEN goes and look for it in nature."
You are incorrect! Aside from the simple idea that there really is no such thing as \'Darwinism\', I will assume you mean \'Evolution\'. Evolution started with nothing, in fact even less than nothing. Did you know the start of evolutionary thinking dates back to Aristolte, not Darwin. But then you would have to actually learn a little Biology to know that.
Hanno also said, "ID assumes nothing, and simply goes where the evidence leads."
You have been reading to much Discovery Institute marketing. Try Phillip E. Johnson or Michael Behe -- and read for comprehension, not just scan the chapter headings. In each book they have written . .popular press so there is no standard of proof required -- They both START with the assumption of a designer, they just refuse to officially identify the designer.
Now as to going where the evidence leads, what evidence? Neither they, nor any of those less-than-stalwart-fellows over a tthe Discovery institute has offered any evidence -- let alone actually followed up on it. Even Phillip E. Johnson has admitted that there is no theory of intelligent design. Let me repeat that "There is no Theory of Intelligent Design." He has been profoundly sad -- and it has cost them funding from the Templetom Foundation, that their pet scientists, Behe, Dembski, and a few others, have yet to manage to put forth a theory that would allow ID into the science classroom. Which is why -- in accordance with their Wedge Strategy -- they are relying on the political and the emotional arguments.
This is likely the most embarassing and ridiculous defense of ID I've stumbled across yet. ID is a science because it has "observable facts"? Wow. There are so many things wrong with that statement and this article that I refuse to waste my time on it. Though I did want to mention how entertaining the comments section has become.
If nothing else, this demonstrates that the defense strategy employed by ID proponents is certainly not evolving as it continues to use the same stale ignorant rhetoric that got it started in the first place.
Kevin wrote: "I guess I'm around a lot of people who believe in God. They all seem to believe in ID---well, most of them at least. Why would Gallup or Harris be "credible" in this case?"
Don't get out much, do you? And the Gallup Poll and the Harris Poll aren't credible in your universe, but the stuff you make up is obviously credible...to you. Welcome to your world.
Kevin wrote: "I'll let you know when I hear about (Dr. Barbara Forest)."
You obviously didn't look at her links I gave you. And you obviously are not aware of the 2005 Dover Trial ([link edited for length] ). Pitiful.
You and "hannodb" are excellent type specimens of intelligent design creationists. Thanks.
"B" wrote: "This is likely the most embarassing and ridiculous defense of ID I've stumbled across yet."
I would agree with you, and I've been following this debate for decades. This one's pretty pitiful, but definitely shows how the god-botherers fall for intelligent design creationism hook, line and sinker.
Ted Herrich wrote: "Even Phillip E. Johnson has admitted that there is no theory of intelligent design."
True - here's the Johnson quote and the source: "I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world." - [link edited for length]
...but the quote probably won't do any good, because Kevin has probably never heard of Johnson and therefore won't agree that Johnson has any credibility.
From the DI you hear the lies you wish to hear and you swear by them. This is the same organization that is assisting fundamentalist politicians into passing laws called \'academic freedom\' that has NOTHING to to with actual academic freedom. This is the same orgnization that LIED to the Ohio State School Board when they when they submitted a list of 44 documents, claiming those documents dissented from Evolution and supported ID. However most of the documents didn\'t do either and when 34 of the authors were contacted, they expressed extreme surprise that their work was being used in either way. This is the same organization that encouraged several former members of the Dover PA School board to put their hands on the Bible and LIE in open court. This is the same organization that posted a list of over 700 Doctoral Scientists who "dissented form Darwinism for Scientific Reasons" and when examined, many of the 700 were not Doctoral anything, many were not even scientists, less than 20% were actually working in biology, and NONE of them were working in evolution biology. Plus the majority of the list were anti-evoution for RELIGIOUS reasons, not scinetific.
Sure, this is the organization for you to put your trust in. I hope you don\'t sernd them money because that would mean you are paying them to lie to you.
Here is some reading material you might take a look at:
Kev, you haven't heard of Dr. Forrest? Yet you claim to read the DI crapola instead of any real information? I find that hard to believe since She figures very prominently in their work, pure attempts at character assassination -- which misfired like most of their posts. Kev, you must read things very . . . selectively . . . which doesn't surprise me at all. I bet you think Casey Luskin is a biologist, rather than the fairly dim lawyer he proves himself to be with each public statement.
"Aside from the simple idea that there really is no such thing as 'Darwinism'"
A tipical dishonnest diversion tactic. First of all, Richard Dawkins also speaks of "Darwinism" in Expelled, so your arguement is totally false.
Secondly, you prefer me speaking of "Evolution", a term that is very poorly defined. Darwinism specifically refers to Darwin's ideas of the origin of species, while "Evolution" could refer only to the variations in species. Ofcause, if I use the term "evolution" rather than "Darwinism", a whole spectrum of diversatory tactics are opened for you to abuse. All in attempt to avoid the questions. I speak from experience, so I will recommend to any critic to use "Darwinism" rather than "evolution".
Kevin
I'm done with arguing with these Darwinists. I think they have shown themselves for what they are, and nothing will be achieved to continue.
An article I can really recommend to you, is Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin". Also read the comments on the article. I think it is telling. Note how they distort Berlinski's arguments. Some don't even bother to answer anything, they just scream "HERETIC!!! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!". If this is what science is, then I'll admit, I'm anti-science! Ofcause, this isn't real science, it is methodological materialism. The scientific method says nothing about assuming materialism.
Note that David Berlinski is a Darwin critic, not an ID proponent. He is also agnostic.
Not real bright, are you? Word use/definition is also described in context. When Dawkins uses the term, he is talking about the part of evolutionary theory put forth by Darwin. However when you use it, it is a perjorative.
The term Darwinism is often used by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement to describe evolution. The term has connotations of atheism. For example, in Charles Hodge's book "What Is Darwinism?", Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism." Creationists use the term Darwinism pejoratively to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief. Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools.
And Berlinski is your source? You really buy into anything the DI says, don't you? He can call himself whatever he wants., but he is a Senior Fellow over at the DI; and therefore, you cannot trust anything he says! They hold up mirros and blow smoke, and you suck it right in, don't you?
How is today's science 'methodological materialism'? The study of science is part of 'Naturalism', where explanations are sought in the physical, as opposed to the metaphysical world around us. That put a dividing line between Evolution and Intelligent Design that can only disappear if your ID crowd gets off their lazy butts and actually do the science they claim to have done. But Belinski and the rest seem incapable. You keep on reading their marketing material and believing it to be science! The rest of us will continue to learn new things and develop the new medicines and technologoes that Berlinski, and the rest -- including yourself -- prove incapable of doing.
Read the quote I mentioned and Paul provided to you. The guy who started the modern ID movement says there is no theory; "Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove." Even he agrees with me. Until you have a positive theory -- one that explains, rather than the negative of doing all you can to hurt evolution and evolution education, you really have nothing!
"And Berlinski is your source? You really buy into anything the DI says, don\'t you? He can call himself whatever he wants., but he is a Senior Fellow over at the DI; and therefore, you cannot trust anything he says! They hold up mirros and blow smoke, and you suck it right in, don\'t you?"
This is tipical of you Darwinists. Instead of awnsering the critisism against your theory, you make personal attacks against the critic\'s character. I don\'t care if Berlinski is assosiated with the Church of the Spagetti Monster. He makes a strong case, and the most prominent Darwinists fail to give an adequate reply. You go ahead and believe your Darwinian priests. Real scientists does a much better job at defending scientific theories.
"The study of science is part of \'Naturalism\', where explanations are sought in the physical, as opposed to the metaphysical world around us."
Real science is driven by EMPIRICAL evidence, not the assumption of Naturalism. From the time of Gallileo, science have operated on the assumption that the universe is designed, and could therefore by understood. This paradigm accounted for all scientific discoveries before Darwin, and probably a great number of discoveries after Darwin as well. To assume that live had a natural origin might be useful for a fruitless research program called abiogenesis, but that does not make the assumption a scientific fact. ID have made a STRONG case for design, while the "Science" of abiogenesis is going from bad to worse.
"The rest of us will continue to learn new things and develop the new medicines and technologoes"
Darwinism has provided NO new technologies or medicine. In fact, a long list of failed ideas can be contributed to darwinism : Eugenics, Nazism, communism, evolutionary phycology. It is interesting to note that psycologists who assumed that mind is a product of the brain, tried and failed to cure obsesive compusive disorder. It took a psycologist with a dualist view of mind to find a cure. The list just goes on and on. As for medicine, it has been shown that drug resistant bugs are less addapted to their environments than the original bug, and if they have to compete against the original bug without the presence of the drug, they\'ll loose out. It is for this reason that hospital bugs do not cause major epidemics. The common cold can evolve into lots of variations, but it remains essentually, a Cold. We just don\'t see the kind of plasticity that Darwinism predicts. Darwinists claims the discovery of technologies, whos discovery did not require Darwinism. Not only that, darwinism is harming our scientific progress: Without Darwinism, no one would have attributed our ignorance of non coding DNA to it being evolutionary junk. The Darwinian prediction that some features in biology should be useless evolutionary leftover, might cause the discovery of their function to be delayed for hundreds of years. And all of this to prop up a materialistic creation myth!
"Read the quote I mentioned and Paul provided to you. The guy who started the modern ID movement says there is no theory."
So Quote mining is ok then? Well, here\'s a quote for you:
"‘We take the side of science (Read: Materialism/naturalism - what ever you want to call it) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "
There is YOUR "wedge document".
Also, I don\'t know why you Darwinists like to present the arguement that Phillip E Johnson = DI. Probably because he is not a scientist. Phillip E Johnson is but one of MANY people who founded the DI. There are diverse views in the DI, and the fellows do not agree with everyone on everything. Some are christian, some are not. There are many scientists affiliated with the DI, because the DI, unlike the AAAS and the NAS and other such organisations, does not dictate how they should think and what they are allowed to question. If you want to name a organisation that promotes lies, then the NCSE is your perfect candidate, from which Darwinists freely quote. I have Eugene Scott on type, stating many falsehoods about ID. To quote to me from the NCSE, is the equivilent of quote from dr. Dino!
"You keep on reading their marketing material and believing it to be science!"
What convinced me that it is science is not so only the strength of their arguement, but also the pathetic response from Darwinists.
"Darwinism has provided NO new technologies or medicine."
I assume you're referring to the Theory of Evolution. And possibly the most ridiculous statement you've made so far.
"ID have made a STRONG case for design..."
Baloney. We're back to the IC argument. An argument that would get you a huge red F in a logic class. Removing a part from bacteria or pulling the wings off a fly *proves* nothing. 'A' can't be true so B must be true. (AKA, argument from ignorance.)
Hanno says :"Darwinism has provided NO new technologies or medicine. In fact, a long list of failed ideas can be contributed to darwinism : Eugenics, Nazism, communism, evolutionary phycology."
You do realize that NONE of these things have anything to do with Darwin or evolutionary biology? No, I guess if you had to raise them, you really don't know. let me help you. Just becasue someone tries to attribute something to Darwin, like using the term 'Social Darwinism", that doesn't mean the connection is there. But then you also have bought into Bennie Stein's little mockumentary I see.
As for your denying what evolutionary biology has accomplished, you really have been living in a cave somewhere. Do you eat meat? How about grain products, like wheat and corn? Do you enjoy an occassional beer or wine? How about have a pet around the house? Do you take any medication, like a flu shot or antibiotic? Well whether you would like to admit it or now, the science of evolution has touched -- and is touching your life. You can deny it, but that doesn't make it so. Are you into Ecology or environmental sciences? Then you will be using evolutionary biology itself. Again, live in denial if you wish, but an argument from personal incredulity doesn't mean you are right.
Also, for the record, Hanno, Quote-mining is when you take a quote and use it out of context. Not what I did when I quoted Johnson saying there was no theory of ID. He said it, and I used it well within context of his remarks and the intent of his remarks. You can try and disassociate yourself form Johnson, but that doesn't invalidate what he said.
You, on the other hand, quote-mined the Wedge Document without maintaining the context of the purpose of the document. Keep it up, every one of your posts make my case against the scientific acceptance of ID easier and easier. Thanks for your support.
I am still hoping you might actually pout forth a problem with Evolutionary biology that I explains better. But do date you haven't even address evolution, let alone filled in where ID explains anything at all. Good luck with that, but know I won't be holding my breath.
Gene said:" You all ever stop to think we just might not know? And the possibility we may never?"
Science has admitted that every day! But does that mean we should stop asking questions and searching for answers? We may never know everything 100%, but that doesn't invalidate what we do know, what we have successfully predicted, and what we put into practice each and every day.
There was a time, before Darwin, when we thought we knew all there was to know about things falling down. Then along came Issac Newton who taught us a great deal more. But as we learned more about the Solar System, we learned that Newton's theories weren't perfect and failed to explain much about orbital mechanics.
So we kept asking questions. Along comes Albert Einstein who addressed some of those questions and added to the knowledge we have about Gravity. He didn't replace Newton's work, but he made it more accurate under conditions that Newton knew nothing about.
Now with various spacecraft hurtling to the far reaches of the Solar System we find that there are points where Einstein's theories don't work well. The Voyager spacecraft are actually accelerating faster than his work predicted. No, we haven't solved it, but we will keep looking for answers. Should we have not sent up these craft because we might not have all the answers? I certainly hope not because of all we have learned! Who knows the stars may one day be in our future because of the people who kept asking the questions. We learn, we add to the existing body of work, and we continue. When the answers don't apply, we look for new ones.
I for one will continue to ask questions. I might not come up with a single answer, but I will be learning from those who do and having some fun on the way. I refuse to bury my head in the sand because I might be wrong, or I will never know all there is to know. What fun would that be?
"hanno" wrote: "Also, I don\'t know why you Darwinists like to present the arguement that Phillip E Johnson = DI."
Most supporters of evolution who are aware of the false "controversy" fomented by the Dishonesty Institute are well aware that Phillip E Johnson does NOT equal DI. The DI was founded separately, and Johnson came later. Johnson however, is undeniably "...one of the founders of the intelligent design movement, principal architect of the Wedge Strategy, author of the Santorum Amendment, and one of the ID movement's most prolific authors. Johnson is co-founder and program advisor of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture." - [link edited for length]
I promised myself not to write again, but this time I have something positive to say.
"Most supporters of evolution who are aware of the false "controversy" fomented by the Discovery Institute are well aware that Phillip E Johnson does NOT equal DI. The DI was founded separately, and Johnson came later."
You have just regained a little bit of respect in my eyes. I have no problem with people who disagree with ID and the DI, but I despies those who attempt to discredit it with smears and false accusations. (All of which, you unfortuately accepts without question)
"...one of the founders of the intelligent design movement, principal architect of the Wedge Strategy, author of the Santorum Amendment, and one of the ID movement's most prolific authors. Johnson is co-founder and program advisor of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture."
I noticed that you once AGAIN quoted from Wikipedia. As it happens, I've read the Wikipedia article on ID, and found it filled with misrepresentations and falsehoods. It was obviously written by the oponents of ID. A quote from the DI themselves would've been far more credible. However, I do visit the DI site often enough to know that Phillip E Johnson is not some kind of "spokesperson" or "doctrine leader" or someting. By far the greatest number of articles is written by practicing scientists. I know that PHillip E Johnson wrote "Darwin on Trial", but this is one of many ID publications, and there are many authors of pro-ID literature. To discredit them all based purely on their assosiation with Johnson, is intellectually dishonnest. The "Wedge Document" and Phillip E Johnsons part in the movement is completely blown out of proportion by Darwinists, and is often used as an excuse to ignore the issues raised by ID.
ID itself was born from Michael Denton's book "Evolution: a theory in crisis". Although Michael himself is not an ID proponent, his book inspired many of the current ID proponents to investigate the claims of Darwinism, and found that it is riddled with errors. The tipical Darwinian response to this is that you don't need to admit and address these issues if you can brand your critic as a "fundimentalist creasionist". This is an approach I find both dishonest and anti-science. The fact that Darwinists can not deny, though, is that Darwin has critics even in China, where scientists have no Monotheistic tradition. The entire campain against ID has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with Christophobes that fear their paradigm might fall apart.
I find it fascinating that you continue to use smokescreens in your arguments. One thing seems common with your specious arguments: you don't believe in God. If you don't believe in God, and the few resources you cite likely don't either, then you don't believe ID could have happened. So with the snap of your fingers, you've eliminated a vast array of facts. Is it scientific to elimnate facts just because you don't believe in them? Has it ever occured to you that you might be wrong? Do you just eliminate certain facts because you've decided not to believe??
Do you remember what Hawking said about the rate of expansion of the universe I mentioned in the column? What about Jastrow? What about Einstein?
Hawking cites the critical ratio of the masses of proton and electron. He says that they have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
Fred Hoyle caculated the likelyhood that carbon would have precisely the required resonance by chance, he said that his atheism was greatly shaken.
Princeton physicist Fred Dyson writes, "The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."
NASA astronomer John OKeefe says "It is my view that these circumstances indicate that the universe was created for man to live in."
Hanno--we appreciate your wisdom, and some poeple are so hardened that they refuse to look at cold hard facts. Notice all the detractors will not say that they believe there is NO God.
"Hanno" wrote: "The entire campain against ID has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with Christophobes that fear their paradigm might fall apart."
Where do you get this rampant paranoia? This sounds more like Coral Ridge Ministries than the Dishonesty Institute. I'm seriously interested in your source for this disturbed rant.
I have no issue with critics of Darwin, in fact many of the changes in evolutionary theory has started with criticism. But criticism of the details of evolution is not the business the DI is in. They claim a firestorm of controversy over Evolution, where none exists. They claim to be for academic freedom, yet are working against it at every turn. They claim to be doing actual science, yet no one has seen anything but popular press and opinion pieces put forth from venues where there is no requirement for support and proof. My issue isn't with criticisms of evolution, my issue in the sheer dishonesty being demonstrated.
Dishonest critics of anything, who tend to say one thing and mean another tends to irritate me -- and that is exactly what the Center of Science and Culture, originally called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, over at the DI have done and do today! I notice you haven't bother to address the lies the DI told the State of Ohio School Board? Or the lies told encouraging the Dover School Board? Or the misrepresentations of academic freedom in their current endeavors. Don't take mine or anyone else's word for it, look for yourself -- on some place other than the DI website. I shouldn't do this, but have you read Ann Coulter's diatribe on ID? She did what you seem to be doing, ask the DI for information and then treat it like it's gospel.
Read the list submitted to Ohio and see what the DI said about it then . . . compared to what they say about it now! Do yourself a favor, all of the documents listed have the authors, many of whom are available thorugh email. I did that, I emailed the ones I could find and unanimously they disagreed with their work being used by the DI in such a way.
Read the transcript from the Dover Trial. Read several of the books on the trial, the most interesting for me was Lauri Lebo's The Devil in Dover. She did a wonderful representation of the trial and also clearly showed the DI abandoned the support expected by several of the former school board members -- they left them hanging in the wind and after the fact said that they never advised them on their strategy. Just like they did in California with the soccer coach/wife of a Evangelical church minister when she LIED to her school board and tried to implement a 'science' class on Intelligent Design. After the fact they advised her to settle . . . after the fact!
You want to see a pack of lies, investigate the allegations in little Benny Stein's mockumentary about what really happened to the so-called scientists who claim some form of discrimination over their support for ID. They spun up the story in the direction they wanted, with little regard to the facts. Not my facts, but the facts reported during and after each incident by the parties involved. Funny how the story changes the further away you get along the calendar.
Read any of the DI so-called academic freedom bills and compare it with actual academic freedom rules in place in any of the involved states! Look at what the DI is encouraging in Louisiana -- even though the bill specifically states it will not be used to support religion, the DI helped write the enforcement rules -- which fail to enforce that requirement. Open your eyes and smell the coffee (to mix my metaphors). It's not my words that indict the DI, but their own actions!
Plus you need to re-look at Michael Denton. He is simply "not an ID proponent" but his latest work accepts evolution as a given! He's also a former Senior Fellow at the DI. Read Denton's book and its current standing, you would see that the arguments in it have long since been firmly refuted by scientists. Indeed, they were recanted by Denton himself in a later book.
You claim Johnson isn't the DI, fine! But he is one of the founders and he is the one who wrote the Wedge Document as a strategy for exactly what the DI has been doing in recent years. My God, it reads like a roadmap! He uses Denton as his inspiration, yet missed the part obout Denton recanting his stand on Evolution.
So you can run and hide if you wish, but sooner or later, if you are honest with yourself, you will discovery what the DI has been up to and what you, yourself, have been promoting -- and it is not science!
Kev, kev, Kev, you really need to put a hold on your assumptions. Did Pope Pius XII believe in God? Did Pope John-Paul II believe in God? How about over 12,000 clergy members? Are you going to claim they do not believe in God?
I know you won't bother, but take a look at http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm where over 12,000 members of many different denominations, many of them Christians, have signed an open letter in support of evolution and the teaching of evolution to our young. Here, let me help you some more:
From the Christian Clergy Letter: "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
From the Rabbinical Letter: "As rabbis from various branches of Judaism, we the undersigned, urge public school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the science of evolution to be in conflict with their personal religious beliefs, are seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism. We see this as a breach in the separation of church and state. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions and parochial schools. To teach it in the public schools would be to assert a particular religious perspective in an environment which is supposed to be free of such indoctrination."
Form the Unitarian letter: "As Unitarian Universalists, we draw from many sources, including "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life," and "Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit." While most Unitarian Universalists believe that many sacred scriptures convey timeless truths about humans and our relationship to the sacred, we stand in solidarity with our Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters who do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. We believe that religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts."
So are you claiming they do not believe in God? Yet without one shred of evidence, you make such a claim against me. and others who posted against your beliefs. You don't ask, you don't know me, the only thing you have to go on is that I disagree wiht you pretty much completely. So Sitting-in-judgement Kev, it's not that I do not believe in God, I do not believe in You! I do not believe you have an actual understanding of science, scientific methodology, biology, evolution, or even Intelligent Design. I believe that ID simply aligns well with your own religious beliefs that you will hang onto any thread in order to justify your apparent weak beliefs to yourself. If you did understand any of it you would have never written the article you did, and you would certainly not try and defend and undefensible position to the point where you have to resort to claiming people who disagree with you are anti-God!
You confuse the appearance for design with evidence for design. These people are expressing opinions, unsupported by their own work! Behe peeks at biochemical mechanisms and says "This looks like a motor, so it must have been designed. Talk about jumping to conclusions! You comments are in italics, my comments follow each one.
Hawking cites the critical ratio of the masses of proton and electron. He says that they have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
What about Stepen Hawking\'s talk to TalkAsia in 2006. He was asked point blank "To stray into matters of potential controversy, do you believe there is any such thing as "intelligent design?"
His response was a very clear "There is no evidence for intelligent design. The laws of physics and chemistry, and Darwinian evolution, are sufficient to account for everything in the universe."
Fred Hoyle caculated the likelyhood that carbon would have precisely the required resonance by chance, he said that his atheism was greatly shaken.
Yes, and he also disputed the Big Bang, in fact I believe he is the one who derisively called it "The Big Bang, a nickname that while does not describe the theory, still stuck. How about his other work, but let\'s try and stay focused on Evolution. You do realize that he NEVER disputed Evolution, he disputed a chemical begining to Abiogenesis. His ideas, again unproven by his own work, that life started on Earth from Space and evolved from there, aka Panspermia. So again we see you seen incapable of actually arguing against evolution itself, but one of the modern hypotheses of Abiogenesis.
Princeton physicist Fred Dyson writes, "The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."
Care to try again? I need a refernece, because other than an Alaska Politician, I can\'t find anything on a Fred Dyson, Princeton physicist. Oh, plus . . . remember the focus of your own article, intelligent Design and Evolution. Do you know of any actual Biologists?
NASA astronomer John OKeefe says "It is my view that these circumstances indicate that the universe was created for man to live in."
Now, what work of his proves this view? How about none! His work on tektitesis fascinating, but there have been many new discoveries that contradict some of his conclusions. But nothing in his body of work (peer-reviewed scientific work) supports this often quote-mined view of his. By the way, what does his view have to do with Evolution? His specialty is Geology, and one more time, with feeling, his work in no way contradicted the geological evidence supporting Paleontology and Biological evolution.
So once again what you are guilty of is Quote-mining, taking views and opinions and confusing them for facts and supported scientific work, and failing to find any BIOLOGICAL evidence for your position. I appreciate the fact you are still in there pitching, but can you do better than softballs. You seem to be the one blowing smoke.
Ted wrote: "I can\'t find anything on a Fred Dyson, Princeton physicist."
C'mon, Ted, cut Kev some slack - he's a creationist, after all. He obviously meant Freeman Dyson ([link edited for length] ). But, as a creationist quote-miner, he doesn't know enough about actual science to spot such an obvious typo.
Oh Freeman Dyson, why the hell didn't he say so? Freeman Dyson who freely admits to not having read any of the DI's supposed works on ID, but instead tends to express himself on 'freedom of expression' terms that too many people, like WIlliam Dembski, quote-mine and claim as evidence for ID. Kev shares the same issues Dembski has, separating opinion from evidence.
Bottom line problem with Kev and his whole article and the meager defense he keeps trying to raise is why doesn't he [kev] seem to be able to find a long list of Biologists to debunk Evoluiton? Because there is no long list of Biologists who can offer support for his position.
As for Freeman Dyson's stand on freedom of expression, I agree with him. Right now today in any classroom in the country you can introduce Intelligent Design. What you cannot do is teach is AS science because it has not yet proven itself to be a viable scientific theory. Until it does it will keep getting put on the same side of the table as Astrology, Alchemy, Feng Shui, Numerology, Tarot Card Readings. . .. And no amount of POLITICAL pressure will change that. Oh in Louisiana they might get it into the science classroom, at least until the first lawsuit, but that will not make it science no matter how much politicing they [the DI and folks like Kev here] do.
I'm glad Ted and Paul can type a whole lot faster than me. It saves me a lot of work!
And Kevin? You don't know me either. But your logic that because don't agree with you leads you to believe I am an atheist is not surprising. It is, after all, consistent with the rest of your 'logical' arguments.
Ted, You just love to put people's words in my mouth, don't you? I didn't say everyone who believes In God doesn't believe in Darwinism. Just you people that have been responding, and that means you! I've given you ample opportunity that you do believe, but you have no responded to that at all. What are you so worried about? That if there is a God, your case is blown? I would.
Notice that in your letter, if it does exist, never does it say that the pope says ID is flat out wrong. In fact, many things about your post screams "doctored up".
Burnett knows I am not a creationist. The evidence does not support it. But why hasn't anyone said they believe in God? Because they believe it'll skew their argument. And it will. Why don't you just say it if it's true?
I'll give you one more chance. No response tells me what I need to know. Have a good day!
Kevin wrote: "Why don't you just say it if it's true?"
"I believe in God." So there. But my God may not be your God. Does your God have blue eyes or brown? Long flowing white hair or short black hair? Bearded or beardless? Was man made in His image? Or was woman made in Her image? (You can't have it both ways, after all. Which one is true? (Thereby making the other false?) Think about it.)
I believe in the God the Founding Fathers believed in - the God of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine.
Obviously you fail to get the point, so let me be as clear as possible. What does anyone's belief system have to do with the discussion at hand? Your belief system shouldn't matter either, but you seem to be unable to support your statements without it. That should tell you more about yourself than I ever could.
So let me be frank: I did not answer your question for three reasons, (1) You never asked one, you made an assumption and ran with it, (2) it really is none of your business -- but I probably would have answered if you had bothered to ask, and (3) it is not germane to the conversation. The very fact you have to introduce it into the conversation means you have no credible arguments.
Your arguments are warmed-over Creationist pap, you quote-mine like an expert, and when cornered you question your opponents faith. You, sir, are a Creationist, whether you want to call yourself one or not is immaterial. The truth is in your actions.
I appreciate you biting the bullet. Evidently you don't realize there can only be one God. Woman and man were made in God's image. It says image, not total duplicate. Therefore both sexes apply. Please don't be so two-dimensional in your thinking. Maybe that's how you believe in evolution. If you really believe in a God, you would know that He would have a hand in the making of woman and man.
Hence, Intelligent Design. I personally don't even think you know what God many of the Founding Fathers believed in. The God I believe in died and was raised from the dead 2000 years ago. That's the God most of the Founding Fathers believed in.
I see that one the one hand he 'thanks you' and then he preaches to you on how you are wrong and fail to understand his . . . obviously superior . . . belief system.
Kev, if you read this -- please insert the appropriate amount of sacasm. If you aren't sure what amount that is, just peg your sarcasm meter all the way at max, and you might be close.
Plus he not only preaches to you, but he gets to decide on what God the Founding Father's believed in. Hey Kev, I think you need a history lesson. George Washington was a batized member of the Church of England, which is considered both Angelical and Catholic. John Adams was a Congregationalist and later a Unitarian. Thomas Jefferson was the most interesting of all. According to two of his many Biographers:
"First, that the Christianity of the churches was unreasonable, therefore unbelievable, but that stripped of priestly mystery, ritual, and dogma, reinterpreted in the light of historical evidence and human experience, and substituting the Newtonian cosmology for the discredited Biblical one, Christianity could be conformed to reason. Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell; and so the whole edifice of Christian revelation came tumbling to the ground."
And that in 1803 Jefferson "did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he had high esteem for Jesus's moral teachings."
Now I am not saying that all this is perfect information, I haven't done enough research to be sure. But your blanket statement to Paul: "That's the God most of the Founding Fathers believed in." is pretty much meaningless.
Sorry Paul for jumping in, but I just can't help myself sometimes :-)
"...American Founding Fathers...who were especially noted for being influenced by (Enlightenment philosophy which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) includeThomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin... Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine." - [link edited for length]
Intelligent Design (ID) is nothing more than Creationism stripped of all its specific religious dogma for the sake of getting around the First Amendment's requirement of separation of church and state. It presupposes a Designer to explain what looks designed at first glance without requiring any investigation to see if it really was designed by an intelligence. That is why ID is not science. Of course, Kevin Roeten and his allies will not understand or accept that, because they interpret everything they see in terms of their hyper-religious viewpoint, not reality.
It's kind of interesting how you always enjoy putting the word "creationism" on the words of Intelligent Design.
I'm wondering now if any of you actually believe in God. If not, imagine your surprise at the end of your mortal life.
Most of the Founding Fathers did believe in a God. But which one was it? Anybody?
And we all know that there was NO separation of church and state in the Constitution. I guess to say ID is not science is to have a pretty narrow view of what science really is. Any of you a real scientist?
It seems that most of the comments to the article above have been written by true believers. Some of them believe that God made us. Some of them believe that Mother Gaia made us.
But, as the logical positivists said, science is everything that is not ideology, and both pro-God and pro-Gaia supporters are pushing a religious ideology under a thinly disguised veil of science.
I am for a total separation of state and religion. Therefore I think that neither creationism nor evolution should be taught at government schools (those disingenuously called "public schools").
If Christians want to teach creationism in private religious schools, that's okay with me. If New Agers (or, given the connection of Darwinism with eugenics, pro-Nazis for that matter) want to teach Darwinism and evolution in private New Age schools, I have no problem with that.
But please, stop teaching religious ideological agendas disguised as science to our children, much less in schools supported by taxpayers’ money.
Contrary to the idea most of the above commentators seem to have, intelligent design is not a religious theory. Actually, if it is damaging to Darwinian atheists, it is even more damaging to religious believers.
A few days ago I opened my Mac to install a new hard drive. Surprise! After a few minutes of looking at what was inside, and seen how many different parts seem to work coordinated to an specific end, I reached the conclusion that my Mac is not the product of random evolution, but intelligent design. It was not a piece of silicon that, after billions and billions of years, was discovered by Steve Jobs and named it a Macintosh. NO! An intelligent being created it.
So, does that conclusion make me a religious fanatic? I don’t think so.
In the same fashion, I am not going to believe that the human brain -- a billion times more powerful than my Mac -- is just the product of random evolution. Moreover, the same way that computer code -- a set of instructions written to tell a machine what to do -- does not writes itself, the DNA code – which is obviously a computer code -- could not have been written by Gaia.
So, I confess that, until a better scientific -- that is, non-religious -- theory appears, I think that the better answer (which is actually a big question) is given by intelligent design. We humans have been designed. There is no other scientific explanation.
But my idea of the designer differs greatly from the one apparently in the minds of most of the commentators above. As of today, I think that we were not designed by an old man with a long, white beard, much less by a fat lady with big tits. Our designers most likely were a bunch on nerds wearing lab coats. And we need to recognize that they did a pretty good job.
There is nothing in the Constitution written for total separation of church and state. I suggest you read it again. Please don't be influenced by one letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury(Ct) Baptists.
You seem to forget God created science. There's no reason why both can't be taught in our schools. But they're not teaching creationism or Intelligent Design now. I wonder why...
We realize that the earth likely started with a Big Bang with all things. First we have nothing but energy. But then we have particles with mass much later on. How do you think that happened? Maybe you'd better read my column on the CERN atom smasher.
Wow, it sounds like you need to open your mind a little bit when you're thinking about an Intelligent Designer. You can do that, right?
You might need to redefine what you're talking about when you say "religious fanatic". It's always good to open up your mind a little bit instead of dwelling on age-old nomenclature.
Designs by humans verses allowing random chance to tune designs by humans such as computer software...
One can show an evolution for example in the OS of computers (Linux, Windows). One finds that in tuning by random chance, only simple improvements are possible even after a billion generations, eg one can make an SQL server with random mutations that is tested for "fitness" in completing the SQL better but error free over a billion generations easily and the results are *well* known, Microsoft and Oracle still use very expensive programmers rather than a network of cheap computers to do the complex improvements to performance in this multi-billion dollar industry.
If you look at the code you will find examples similar to what evolutionists claim don't happen by intelligent design eg legacy code, for example can be similar to how in nature the nervous system rather than brain does some linked functions such as heart and voice box and may be routed a long way in a giraffe. (I know from experience that a chicken or sheep after losing head still has complex reflexes controlled by nerves)
And you point being??? You must remember that evolutionists claim a lot of things, some of which not withstanding is that "Intelligent Design" cannot exist, and many even claim that God cannot exist.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
