Daily Campus

Originally posted by

netescapist

Its a shame to hear "ID scientists" cry for a "fair hearing". Can scientific ideas be judged on the pulpit? I think not. ID proponents will have to do serious research the old fashioned way, publish papers and earn the respect of the established scientific community. Currently, all we have are a handful of papers which claim that the world is too complicated to admit natural causes.

In my opinion, even astrology and tarrot readings are more scientific in a sense, as they make falsifiable claims. Scientific hypothesis must be falsifable, and while individual claims of ID are (eg: bacterial flagellum), ID as a discipline is not, as it simply continues to list complex structures which are yet to be understood.

These are my humble views. I agree that debates are good, but we need to deny groups like Discovery Institute who are not there to discuss science but to win a PR war. I support the decision of scientists not to "debate" publicity seekers on stage.

Yes "Scientific hypothesis must be falsifable, ", and evolutionary claims are not falsifiable. Micro-evolution (small changes) can be observed, but Macro-evolution ( large changes, or a change from one genus to anotheer) has never been observed, and can never be observed, since it takes too long to happen, if it does happen. Evolutionists do exactly the same thing IDers do - list some facts and draw what they believe are logical conclusions: "It must have evolved" or "It must have been designed" Both are scientifically valid approaches to some extent, and neither can ever be proven.

Originally posted by

netescapist

Its a shame to hear "ID scientists" cry for a "fair hearing". Can scientific ideas be judged on the pulpit? I think not. ID proponents will have to do serious research the old fashioned way, publish papers and earn the respect of the established scientific community. Currently, all we have are a handful of papers which claim that the world is too complicated to admit natural causes.

In my opinion, even astrology and tarrot readings are more scientific in a sense, as they make falsifiable claims. Scientific hypothesis must be falsifable, and while individual claims of ID are (eg: bacterial flagellum), ID as a discipline is not, as it simply continues to list complex structures which are yet to be understood.


Exactly - Behe - in his testimony at the Dover trial stated as much.

These are my humble views. I agree that debates are good, but we need to deny groups like Discovery Institute who are not there to discuss science but to win a PR war. I support the decision of scientists not to "debate" publicity seekers on stage.

This is why we have to rely on inferrences. Macroevolution is an inferrence, based on the fact of micro-evolution. If small changes occur, then logically (and from a naturalistic perspective), macro-evolution must occur. I believe that design is a better inferrence based on the evidence of micro-evolution, (i.e., we only see the small changes occuring, and we don't observe evidence of the large changes of speciation) and on the observation that biological organisms are irreductibly complex (contain complex specified information [CSI]).

Randy

Originally posted by

netescapist

Its a shame to hear "ID scientists" cry for a "fair hearing". Can scientific ideas be judged on the pulpit? I think not. ID proponents will have to do serious research the old fashioned way, publish papers and earn the respect of the established scientific community. Currently, all we have are a handful of papers which claim that the world is too complicated to admit natural causes.

In my opinion, even astrology and tarrot readings are more scientific in a sense, as they make falsifiable claims. Scientific hypothesis must be falsifable, and while individual claims of ID are (eg: bacterial flagellum), ID as a discipline is not, as it simply continues to list complex structures which are yet to be understood.

These are my humble views. I agree that debates are good, but we need to deny groups like Discovery Institute who are not there to discuss science but to win a PR war. I support the decision of scientists not to "debate" publicity seekers on stage.

Realizing that it's a rather late response, but I had to address this: The problem with not allowing groups like DI, is that most, if not all of the prominent scientists and thinkers who are dealing with ID, including Dembski, Behe, Johnson, West, et.al., are DI Fellows. In this country at least, the Discovery Institute is the primary voice for Intelligent Design. Do they have a political agenda? Indeed. But their agenda is not merely political. They desire to allow Intelligent Design a voice in the scientific mainstream. If that means obstructing justice to do so, however, they want no part. This is why they were against the Dover Area School Board's policy of mandating Biology textbooks to contain a disclaimer about evolution. They recognized this as a violation of constitutional rights. They also were shrewd enough to recognize that to support such a policy would not in the long run be beneficial to them.

You mention tarrot reading and astrology as scientific, and you are correct. They deal with scientific questions. The problem with them, is that their methodologies are incorrect, and so they get incorrect results, and most, if not all scientists would agree with this conclusion concerning them.

When it comes to Intelligent Design, however, the methodology, while still in development by Dembski and others, is sound. One can question if the premise that all complex systems are the result of design, is a sound premise, because in all honesty, this has not really been proven. However, I beleive that it is as close to a "beyond a doubt" reality as we can get. It's certainly a better assumtpion than that all biological complexity is the result of unplanned purposeless necessity in nature.

So not all scientists are certain that Darwinist natural selection is the true mechanism that has brought about complexity and diversity in species. Therefore, ID still presents legitimate scientific questions, whose answers are forthcoming. It deserves a voice in the scientific mainstream. I believe it will earn that voice eventually by making sound scientific predictions about complex systems.

Randy

Originally posted by

Miles

I am so tired of the Discovery Institute and their proponents dishonest portrayals of what they are pushing and what their motives are.

First of all intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory, it is an assertion or an article of faith. Second of all their is no such thing as a "design theorist" because there is no such thing as an intelligent design theory. Again, it has been proven in a federal court of law that there is no science in intelligent design.

Every major scientific organization in north America has publicly noted that intelligent design is not science and is nothing more than a version of creationism intended to pass the constitutional test to gain currency in public science classes. It failed, see Kitzmiller v Dover.

ID advocates ignore legitimate scientific evidence in favor of creationist propaganda. The good news is the Discovery Institute and their followers are learning it is becoming increasingly difficult to fool anyone anymore.

And as much as they like to pretend legitimate scientists are scared of ID, this claim is simply false and is evidence of their propaganda war. The reason legitimate scientists aren't jumping over themselves to "debate" IDers is because IDers simply lie and there is nothing scientific to debate. Anyone who attended the recent ID rally at SMU knows full well the IDers are pushing creationism. Their debates are not intended to discovery any scientific truth, they're staged to promote their creationist beliefs. What next, will the holocaust deniers start challenging SMU history professors to debate the holocaust?

All I can say is good riddance to the Discovery Institute, let's hope this is the last we have seen of them at SMU.

Well, Why you don´t challange them to a debate?

Originally posted by

Miles

I am so tired of the Discovery Institute and their proponents dishonest portrayals of what they are pushing and what their motives are.

First of all intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory, it is an assertion or an article of faith. Second of all their is no such thing as a "design theorist" because there is no such thing as an intelligent design theory. Again, it has been proven in a federal court of law that there is no science in intelligent design.

Every major scientific organization in north America has publicly noted that intelligent design is not science and is nothing more than a version of creationism intended to pass the constitutional test to gain currency in public science classes. It failed, see Kitzmiller v Dover.

ID advocates ignore legitimate scientific evidence in favor of creationist propaganda. The good news is the Discovery Institute and their followers are learning it is becoming increasingly difficult to fool anyone anymore.

And as much as they like to pretend legitimate scientists are scared of ID, this claim is simply false and is evidence of their propaganda war. The reason legitimate scientists aren't jumping over themselves to "debate" IDers is because IDers simply lie and there is nothing scientific to debate. Anyone who attended the recent ID rally at SMU knows full well the IDers are pushing creationism. Their debates are not intended to discovery any scientific truth, they're staged to promote their creationist beliefs. What next, will the holocaust deniers start challenging SMU history professors to debate the holocaust?

All I can say is good riddance to the Discovery Institute, let's hope this is the last we have seen of them at SMU.

I doubt that the DI is going to quit now. They have already had an impact on your campus as is evident by this discussion. I find it interesting that those who are making comments here seem to have not been at the conference - I was not there either, since I live in California. However, I follow the movement towards teaching the controversy. Darwinists first began on the battle field on the defensive by stating that there was no controversy. They were proven wrong about that one.

Then they tried a different tactic by stating that ID is not scientific. The IDers have sufficiently shown that if ID is not science, then neither is Darwinist natural selection, since there is no peer reviewed scientific evidence that natural selection has led to the creation of new species. There is only speculation based upon a philosophical position of naturalism. So Darwinists start with a metaphysical position in order to show that natural selection must be the mechanism that led to the evolution of all species.

Indeed, if naturalism is all there is, then natural selection must be the mechanism. It is a logical deduction. But Darwinists have not eliminated the possibility that an inteligent designer is at work in evolution. They have only tautologically argued away intelligent design. Every argument is circular. "ID is not science, because it asserts supernaturalism, and supernaturalism cannot be scientifically validated." I defy anyone to show me the logic behind such arguments beyond circularity.

Furthermore, If ID advocates are ignoring the evidence, as is asserted above, then why is it that the ID advocates are talking about the evidence, rather than attacking the character and motives of their opponents? I find that quite interesting.

No court of law has ever, nor can ever prove that a scientific argument is false. A courtroom is not the stage for scientific debate. Even Darwinists should agree with that.

Where is your data for stating that "every major scientific organization in North America has publicly noted that intelligent design is not science?" I would like to examine that data.

Randy

Ditto Christopher: what repeatable tests has darwinism produced to prove that species has evolved into another species? Please present the innumerable amount of intermediate fossils (links) between species, so we can end this debate once and for all. What (where) are the repeatable tests with reproducible results supporting darwinism?

don

Originally posted by

Christopher

Levy and Smith:

Let's end this word game.
What does the theory of ID state I have seen various definitions?
What (where?) are the repeatable tests with reproducible results supporting ID? What does ID predict about the future (relating to how organisms will evolve via an intelligence)? How is ID dynamic enough to account for future undiscovered evidences? Scientific theories encompass these principles.

Originally posted by

Christopher

Ditto Christopher: what repeatable tests has darwinism produced to prove that species has evolved into another species? Please present the innumerable amount of intermediate fossils (links) between species, so we can end this debate once and for all. What (where) are the repeatable tests with reproducible results supporting darwinism?

don

Don:
While "darwinism" is an undefined term, you will find the scientific data you're looking for here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

And specifically about speciation here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

and here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

It is an indisputable scientific fact that natural selection combined with genetic alteration (from various sources, including viral infection, mutation, parasitism, etc.) is sufficient to produce new species.

The shocking thing is that your education has not included this basic fact. Some people clearly didn't pay much attention in science class.

Originally posted by

Gary Hurd

The authors of this letter have made two serious errors regarding intelligent design creationism. The first is the claim, "ID starts with the science, not with any religious basis."

William Dembski, in his 1999 Touchstone article "Signs of Intelligence," confirmed ID's religious foundation assuring readers, "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Later (March 7, 2004) he stated that, "Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done -- and he's not getting it."

IDC intellectual Jonathan Wells admitted that he was directed to study biology by, "... Father's (self-proclaimed Messiah, Rev. Sun Moon) words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, ..." Then he studied biology!

The godfather of IDC, lawyer Phillip Johnson following his late life conversion experience decided to reject science. Michael Behe has admitted that his creationism, and promotion of IDC follows his religious beliefs. While under oath in the Dover PA Federal Court creationism trial, Behe admitted that unlike evolution, there is no scientific research supporting ID. ID's religious foundation in creationism is fully exposed in Barbara Carroll Forrest, and Paul R. Gross (2004) "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" Oxford University Press.

The next significant error was their claim, "Intelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion)."

Again Dr. William Dembski clearly states the IDC position;

"ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your (science gh) pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. (ISCID, 2002)" In the 2005 Dover Pa. "Pandas" trial Kitzmiller v. Dover) intelligent design creationist Michael Behe was forced to admit under oath that under any definition of science that would include IDC would also include astrology.

These are not all the errors made by Levy and Smith, but I'll leave some meat on the bone for others to chew.

Gary Hurd, Ph.D.

So, Gary, I'm guessing that you think Mt. Rushmore just eroded that way? Right? And by calling Intelligent Design "IDC," you've really proved its illegitimacy, haven't you? But the best part of your non-argument is that you have attacked the persons who developed Intelligent Design theory, but you have not touched the ideas themselves. As is consistently the case with those who blindly refuse to consider the truth of Intelligent Design, you can only manage to engage in name calling. Why doesn't someone, anyone, try to actually refute the facts that Design is based on?

The reason is, you can't.

Jim

Originally posted by

Gary Hurd

But the best part of your non-argument is that you have attacked the persons who developed Intelligent Design theory, but you have not touched the ideas themselves. As is consistently the case with those who blindly refuse to consider the truth of Intelligent Design, you can only manage to engage in name calling. Why doesn't someone, anyone, try to actually refute the facts that Design is based on?

The reason is, you can't.

Jim

This is silly. ID creationism is not based on "ideas" but a belief in magic. There are no "facts" to refute. If you disagree, please feel free to post, for the first time anywhere, the scientific theory of Intelligent Design Creationism.

Best of luck.

Originally posted by

Gary Hurd

The authors of this letter have made two serious errors regarding intelligent design creationism. The first is the claim, "ID starts with the science, not with any religious basis."

William Dembski, in his 1999 Touchstone article "Signs of Intelligence," confirmed ID's religious foundation assuring readers, "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Later (March 7, 2004) he stated that, "Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done -- and he's not getting it."

IDC intellectual Jonathan Wells admitted that he was directed to study biology by, "... Father's (self-proclaimed Messiah, Rev. Sun Moon) words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, ..." Then he studied biology!

The godfather of IDC, lawyer Phillip Johnson following his late life conversion experience decided to reject science. Michael Behe has admitted that his creationism, and promotion of IDC follows his religious beliefs. While under oath in the Dover PA Federal Court creationism trial, Behe admitted that unlike evolution, there is no scientific research supporting ID. ID's religious foundation in creationism is fully exposed in Barbara Carroll Forrest, and Paul R. Gross (2004) "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" Oxford University Press.

The next significant error was their claim, "Intelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion)."

Again Dr. William Dembski clearly states the IDC position;

"ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your (science gh) pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. (ISCID, 2002)" In the 2005 Dover Pa. "Pandas" trial Kitzmiller v. Dover) intelligent design creationist Michael Behe was forced to admit under oath that under any definition of science that would include IDC would also include astrology.

These are not all the errors made by Levy and Smith, but I'll leave some meat on the bone for others to chew.

Gary Hurd, Ph.D.

Dr. Hurd,

William Dembski is an Evangelical Christian. One would expect him to find religious insight in ID. But that does not make ID inherently religious. There are others who accept ID, who believe that the designer may be space aliens from another world (transpermia). I believe that view to be a little far fetched myself, but It is clearly not a religious view. The point is that one can understand and accept ID without having any prior religious commitment. Many evangelical Christians accept ID, still many others do not. There are many who want to hold onto young earth creationism, and see ID as opposed to this belief. I think that the issue of whether ID is religious or not needs to be resolved before a person who is opposed to ID can really see the light. The fact remains that ID theorists are looking at data when they conclude that complex organisms are the result of intelligent agency. They are not looking at scripture, or following religious rites or dogma any more than they would if they were not following ID, but natural selection.

When Dembski says that ID is the Logos, he is referring to mind. "En arche ho Logos" is from John's gospel, and states that before all existence, the Logos existed. Logos is thought or "The word." So Dembski is not necessarily making a religious observation, but interpreting the data to John's conception of the Logos. In other words, he is stating that John understood that all existence comes into being first from intelligence. The evidence fits with John's belief, and not the other way around. John's belief does not dictate the evidence.

Religion should never dictate the conclusions of science. Science should lead the religious person to interpret the scripture in light of physical evidence combined with scripture. This is what Dembski is doing. He sees evidence for design, realizes that design requires intelligence, and he finds in scripture where that intelligence is spoken of in John's gospel. There is notheing inherently religious about this other than affirming what the science is telling us in the scriptures, and realizing that the scriptures are telling us something truthful about our reality.

Randy

Originally posted by

Gary Hurd

The authors of this letter have made two serious errors regarding intelligent design creationism. The first is the claim, "ID starts with the science, not with any religious basis."

William Dembski, in his 1999 Touchstone article "Signs of Intelligence," confirmed ID's religious foundation assuring readers, "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Later (March 7, 2004) he stated that, "Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done -- and he's not getting it."

IDC intellectual Jonathan Wells admitted that he was directed to study biology by, "... Father's (self-proclaimed Messiah, Rev. Sun Moon) words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, ..." Then he studied biology!

The godfather of IDC, lawyer Phillip Johnson following his late life conversion experience decided to reject science. Michael Behe has admitted that his creationism, and promotion of IDC follows his religious beliefs. While under oath in the Dover PA Federal Court creationism trial, Behe admitted that unlike evolution, there is no scientific research supporting ID. ID's religious foundation in creationism is fully exposed in Barbara Carroll Forrest, and Paul R. Gross (2004) "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" Oxford University Press.

The next significant error was their claim, "Intelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion)."

Again Dr. William Dembski clearly states the IDC position;

"ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your (science gh) pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. (ISCID, 2002)" In the 2005 Dover Pa. "Pandas" trial Kitzmiller v. Dover) intelligent design creationist Michael Behe was forced to admit under oath that under any definition of science that would include IDC would also include astrology.

These are not all the errors made by Levy and Smith, but I'll leave some meat on the bone for others to chew.

Gary Hurd, Ph.D.

Our book, Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism 2004, Rutgers University Press, Matt Young, Taner Edis (Editors), explicitily addressed and exposed the failure IDC as a science focused effort.

Originally posted by

Gary Hurd

The authors of this letter have made two serious errors regarding intelligent design creationism. The first is the claim, "ID starts with the science, not with any religious basis."

William Dembski, in his 1999 Touchstone article "Signs of Intelligence," confirmed ID's religious foundation assuring readers, "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Later (March 7, 2004) he stated that, "Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done -- and he's not getting it."

IDC intellectual Jonathan Wells admitted that he was directed to study biology by, "... Father's (self-proclaimed Messiah, Rev. Sun Moon) words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, ..." Then he studied biology!

The godfather of IDC, lawyer Phillip Johnson following his late life conversion experience decided to reject science. Michael Behe has admitted that his creationism, and promotion of IDC follows his religious beliefs. While under oath in the Dover PA Federal Court creationism trial, Behe admitted that unlike evolution, there is no scientific research supporting ID. ID's religious foundation in creationism is fully exposed in Barbara Carroll Forrest, and Paul R. Gross (2004) "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" Oxford University Press.

The next significant error was their claim, "Intelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion)."

Again Dr. William Dembski clearly states the IDC position;

"ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your (science gh) pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. (ISCID, 2002)" In the 2005 Dover Pa. "Pandas" trial Kitzmiller v. Dover) intelligent design creationist Michael Behe was forced to admit under oath that under any definition of science that would include IDC would also include astrology.

These are not all the errors made by Levy and Smith, but I'll leave some meat on the bone for others to chew.

Gary Hurd, Ph.D.

I should also add, that "Logos" was a Greek philosophical concept before it made its way into the New Testament. The ancient Greeks understood that mind comes before matter. They were Creationists in a sense. John was merely stating his agreement with the philosophy, while introducing some new information as to the identity of the Logos. He beleived that Jesus was the "Word of God" become flesh.

So Dembsky believes that Jesus is the designer. Others who accept ID believe differently, and not necessarily religiously. Take Antony Flew for example. He is now a Deist (as were Jefferson and Einstein). Deism is different than Atheism in that adherents believe that a god exists, but they are not religious in the sense of having a belief that this god can be communicated with or appealed to. To the deist, the creator is absent from the world of human beings, and cannot be appealed to.

Randy

Originally posted by

M. Stahl, PhD.

Levy and Smith are either sadly uninformed regarding the entire discussion about the "Intelligent Design" movement, or deliberately misrepresent it. They state, without attribution or reference, that "Intelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion)". This is, of course, pure fantasy. There is no observation about biology that supports any of the various assertions of ID, and certainly no ID-related experiments. If Levy and Smith disagree, they are invited to cite the scientific literature that supports their position. They cannot do so, of course.

They also falsely claim that Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemist, was a "Darwinist" (whatever that is supposed to be; Levy and Smith fail to say) and now supports ID because of "mounting scientific evidence on the side of ID." Unless they are prepared to accuse Behe of perjury, this is also apparently false. Behe himself testified that his support of ID does not stem from scientific evidence at the Dover trial. It was at this trial that Behe was also forced to admit that ID is approximately to biology as astrology is to astronomy. To put it kindly, it is dishonest of Levy and Smith to omit this information in their piece.

Neither Smith nor Levy is a scientist, and this is amply demonstrated in their utter lack of understanding of scientific process when they claim that "Scientists can test for such ["complex specified"]information, and studies of molecular machines and DNA reveal that they contain high levels of such information and are irreducibly complex." In fact, there is no objective way of knowing that any kind of complexity is the product of an intelligent agent, and certainly none that does not depend on understanding the characteristics of the designer. The fields of archaeology, anthropology, and forensics all stand in stark contrast to Smith and Levy's absurd claims. Moreover, naturalistic evolutionary pathways have been proposed and studied by actual scientists for every model system (the eye, the flagellum, etc.) once suggested to be "irreducably complex". This issue has been expanded on in the scientific literature and was also featured in the Dover trial, and again it is disingenuous at best for the authors not to point this out.

To use their word, it is "silly" to suggest that "intelligent design" as a concept did not receive a "fair hearing". In fact, the idea that life was designed by an intelligence was of course the dominant paradigm of all biology for thousands of years, from the time of Plato and Aristotle through Galen. As more evidence was collected, this ancient idea was replaced by the best supported scientific theory of all time, evolution. If they wish to claim "Intelligent Design" has not received a fair hearing from scientists I would point out that the capitalized version is a political movement only, pushed by a tiny fringe group of extreme social conservatives. I invite them to research the "Wedge" document.

In the end, these authors grossly misrepresent the political movement known as "Intelligent Design". It is difficult to ascertain whether this is due to ignorance or dishonesty, but in any case it is obviously best to disregard their input unless and until their contribution begins to correlate with reality. Frankly, they should both be embarrassed.

You state: "It was at this trial that Behe was also forced to admit that ID is approximately to biology as astrology is to astronomy."

This is not what Behe stated. I read his testimony. What he did state was that astrology is scientific, in that it seeks to provide answers to questions concerning our existence, and is falsifiable. The comparison is not between astrology and astronomy, but between all scientific questions. They seek to find answers to questions concerning existence, and they are falsifiable. The fact that astrology is falsified does not mean that it does not seek to answer scientific questions. The fact that it's methodology is incorrect does not negate its basic scientific nature. ID is the same, in that it seeks answers to questions of our existence, and it is falsifiable. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection fits in the same category.

Now the real questions concerning ID should not be whether it compares more to say, astronomy or astrology, but whether it asks and answers valid questions. ID in its purity asks the question: how do irreducibly complex biological systems come about? Natural Selection answers this question by stating that irreducibly complex biological systems come about via random and unplanned mutation over long periods of time. ID counters this by recognizing that irreducibly complex biological systsms contain complex specified information (CSI - see Dembski's books The Design Inferrence, and Intelligent Design) in the form of DNA, which could not have evolved through unplanned and random mutations.

So if you could somehow falsify ID's assertion with evidence that irreducibly complex biological systems can come about through random unplanned mutation, then you win. So far, Darwinists have not done so.

Randy

Originally posted by

Dave Rintoul

You wrote: Intelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion).

False.

A typical ID scenario goes like this.

Observation: There sure is a lot of information in DNA.
Hypothesis: Since information usually results from intelligence, DNA must be intelligently designed.
Experiment: ??????????????????????????????
Conclusion: DNA is designed.

So, is this your conclusion from the reading of and/or listening to ID materials? What have you read or listened to that you come to this conclusion?

So what have I read about ID? How typical of ID folks to avoid the question by asking another irrelevant one!

I have read No Free Lunch, Pandas and People, Traipsing into Evolution, and some more. More relevantly, I am a biology professor and can recognize pseudoscience when I smell it.

Now you get to answer the original question. What testable hypothesis and EXPERIMENT that provides positive evidence for ID has ever been published? And in what peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Thanks again

Originally posted by

Tomas Martin

...

Has evolution proven using the scientific method how the cell has come into existence? Or for that matter the origin of life? The "Theory" of evolution can be used to hypothesize..., but can it prove the emergence of life through experiments?

The famous Miller experiment feebly tried to demonstrate this. And by fixing the deck, he was able to make amino acids (in what I would call a high school level experiment...). Evolution enthusiasts hailed this as the holy grail of "proof". ...Until it was shown that his doctored experiments did not match the early atmosphere. And that is why mention of this experiment is now taken out of biology books. OR when it is in a biology book (they hate to let go), they have a disclaimer...

So, come on you evolutionists, admit that you do not have all the answers. Was Professor Whiteside's attempts to explain the cell and the origin of life part of the scientific method? Truly you jest. And if that is the best you guys have to offer... Well, then, I have to say "It's not very intelligent..."

The origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution, so, no, it hasn't. You should learn the difference between abiogenesis (how life began) and evolution (how life developed after it appeared).

Here's the short version explaining why you're wrong about the Miller/Urey experiments: They were intended to show that amino acids could form in what are believed to be the condition on Earth billions of years ago. They did. There has been some discussion about the amount of oxygen (which hinders or prevents formation of amino acids) in the atmosphere, and when oxygen appeared, but geologists agree that oxygen was not always present, since certain minerals react to it, and minerals going back far enough show little or no reaction. That would mean the first amino acids would have had to have appeared earlier, or possibly beneath the surface of the oceans by thermal vents. But questions about the composition of gases hardly constitutes "feebly tried to demonstrate." Miller-Urey is considered a landmark experiment.

We don't have all the answers. (Of course, religion has none of the answers.) Look up "scientific method." I don't think it means what you think it means, mostly because you make no sense.

Take some science classes before you challenge science. At least read a book that hasn't been written by a creationist who intended not to inform, but to lie. It's always easier to make a point when you're not profoundly ignorant about the subject.

It should have been named Intelligent Design vs. Stupid Chance...


Anyway in response to Mr. Galapagos, you state "You should learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution."

Here's the long answer...

In answer to your comment, I do know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. But, do you know the similarities? Evolution assumes that all life forms have developed by random chance and mutation. There is no cause, intelligence, or design involved in evolution. It seems highly probable that most scientists that "believe in evolution" also "believe" that abiogenesis somehow brought life into existence by a similar random process. Would you agree with that definition?

So, back to my original post...

Professor Whiteside's speech is a typical representation of what evolutionists believe and how they extrapolate evolution into abiogenesis, which was why I referred to the Miller-Urey Model...

Now, Professor Whiteside stated (and note, he uses the word "believe" hardly "scientific") the following:

"Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea."

Now if that statement isn't a leap of faith, then please tell me what is.

Professor Whiteside continues "Perhaps it was by the spontaneous emergence of simple autocatalytic cycles and then by their combination. On the basis of all the chemistry that I know, it seems to me astonishingly improbable. The idea of an RNA world is a good hint, but it is so far removed in its complexity from dilute solutions of mixtures of simple molecules in a hot, reducing ocean under a high pressure of CO2 that I don't know how to connect the two."

His speculation that this was due to spontaneous emergence and that at the same time this would be astonishingly improbable. Now, that makes sense...

The point I was making, if you would have read the excerpts from Professor Whitesides speech, was that random chance and mutation would be hard-pressed to produce life, so how did that happen. And, if you assume that first life was guided by something other then chance, then what was it...? And with all the so-called knowledge scientists have, Professor Whitesides states that he has "no idea" how life began and then he discusses the complexity of the cell and the improbabilities surrounding it's coming into existence.

Mr. Galapagos, you are quick to hurl insults at someone you do not know. You are incorrect when you state "Here's the short version explaining why you're wrong about the Miller/Urey experiments..."

Here's why. Read the following recent excerpt from P. 254 Holt Biology, copyright 2004: "Reevaluating the Miller-Urey Model. Recent discoveries have caused scientists to reevaluate the Miller-Urey experiment. We now know that the mixture of gases used in Miller's experiment could not existed on early Earth...When these gases are absent from the Miler-Urey experiment, key biological molecules are not made..." Holt's most recent Biology book has removed this experiment totally with a disclaimer. I could cite other sources that have similar information regarding the Miller-Urey Model.

Also, here's an excerpt from a review of the same biology book:

http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/PDFs/TBSE.TEA.Holt.Biology.Texas.Johnson.Raven.MSR.0.1.pdf

"The very next page (254) clearly points out in the section "Reevaluating the Miller-Urey Model" that the Miller experiment was flawed. The gases Miller used could not have existed in the early earth atmosphere. If the experiment was flawed, (and it was), in this and other ways, then the results do NOT prove that 'basic chemicals of life could have formed spontaneously'. In addition, the chirality of the molecules produced in Miller's experiment was racemic, consisting of approximately equal amounts of dextro and levo rotated amino acids (right and left handed constructions). This is significant in that racemic mixtures of this type are poisonous to life, not conducive to it. Hence, Miller's experiment did not produce the 'stuff of life' but rather the 'stuff of death'."

I'm curious, why don't you cite any sources or offer scientific proof to back your claims? It is not very scientific to not cite any sources to back your claims.

Professor Whiteside continues "The cell is a bag -- a bag containing smaller bags and helpfully organizing spaghetti -- filled with a Jell-O of reacting chemicals and somehow able to replicate itself." This is a real scientific statement... I especially like the part where he says "somehow able to replicate itself". Where is the scientific method in this?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the cell been around after abiogenesis? Maybe you are the one that needs to read some science books. It is these types of points that Professor Behe discusses when he talks about the cell and irreducible complexity.

BTW, I do agree with your comment "We don't have all the answers." But, I also disagree with your followup comment "Of course, religion has none of the answers." I assume that you somehow know without a doubt that religion has "no answers.

When Professor Whiteside said he "most chemists believe that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth." He is exercising faith, because to date this evidence he is hoping for has not yet been seen. ". The apostle Paul states: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen..." So, here is an example that religion has some answers, at least when it comes to defining faith...

You also state "Look up scientific method. I don't think it means what you think it means, mostly because you make no sense."

Again, you hurl insults... You say I make no sense, but, is it possible that have difficulty understanding different arguments that are not in agreement with what you believe in.?

This type of hyperbole is typical of evolutionists. Attack the people who express different viewpoints instead of coming up with an intelligent (oops, sorry that's a word evolutionists don't like) argument based on facts. And when evolutionists run out of valid arguments they say something like "Evolution is a fact, end of discussion...". And everyone is supposed to fall over in awe and concede their points when they hear this...

You also state "Take some science classes before you challenge science. At least read a book that hasn't been written by a creationist who intended not to inform, but to lie. It's always easier to make a point when you're not profoundly ignorant about the subject."

FYI, I worked on an article written by Professor Whiteside a few years ago. I have worked in scientific research (at a national laboratory) and in scientific publishing (working on well over 1000 articles). So please don't assume (evolutionists are good at that) that I do not know the scientific method.

When you only want to hear one viewpoint, you close your mind to other possibilities. I'm not disagreeing with micro-evolution (changes on a small scale within species, even ID agrees with that), what I do disagree with is macro-evolution. There are other explanations to life other than random chance. Maybe these explanations are not as grandiose or imaginative as the ones that most evolutionists dream up... but, maybe, just maybe, some of these possibilities are just as valid, if not more so...

If Professor Wise had his way, I could envision 3 SMU Professors posing with signs stating: See no design, hear no design, and speak no design...

Maybe someday history will prove ID right, so have your day in the sun bashing something you know nothing about. Well, so much for free speech (and fair and open debate). I guess for the moment Stupid Chance wins...!

Originally posted by

Tomas Martin

In answer to your comment, I do know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. But, do you know the similarities? Evolution assumes that all life forms have developed by random chance and mutation. There is no cause, intelligence, or design involved in evolution. It seems highly probable that most scientists that "believe in evolution" also "believe" that abiogenesis somehow brought life into existence by a similar random process. Would you agree with that definition?

Of course not. Do you imagine that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are "random"?

Clearly your understanding of science is lacking here. Before posting more, I suggest you improve it.

Originally posted by

John Karasek

Levy and Smith protest that "the U.S. Supreme Court has never dealt with the teaching of intelligent design. The only time it did strike down a non-evolutionary theory was when it struck down the teaching of 'creation science' in 1987."

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching so-called "creation science" in public schools was unconstitutional. Because of this holding, creationism advocates coined a new phrase, "intelligent design", to describe their views on the origins of species. Unfortunately for them, the 2005 Kitzmiller trial revealed to the world that "intelligent design" is nothing but a new label for creationism. Dr. Barbara Forrest's testimony, illustrating how after the Supreme Court decided Edwards, the publishers of the planned creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People" simply replaced "creationism" with "intelligent design" throughout the text, and then published this revised text. In all other material aspects, the planned creationist book was unchanged.

Thus "intelligent design" was introduced to the public.

IDC was, and is, nothing more than a failed legal strategy to circumvent the holding in Edwards.

This is simply false. The term "intelligent design" was coined long before "Of Pandas And People" was first published. Creationists are not the ones supporting ID. They are separate entities. YECers in particular are generally cautious about accepting ID, since ID makes no claims as to the age of the earth, and makes no claims to biblical inerrency or of a literal interpretation of scripture.

The argument that ID is nothing but Creationism in new clothing is false, and has been shown to be false, but people keep bringing it up. It's time to stop beating that horse.

It is very convenient to use Kitzmiller v Dover School Board as a litmus test for the truth or falsity of Intelligent Design. Let us remember that K v D was a legal procedure, and not a scientific experiment. The law has no business determining what is and what is not science. Furthermore, the DI has revealed unquestionable documentation showing that Judge Jones in his ruling on the scientific validity of ID in KVD, copied virtually verbatim, opinion provided by the ACLU. It was not his own original opinion, and it certainly cannot be used to determine the "scientificity" of ID.

Randy

Originally posted by

John Karasek

This is simply false. The term "intelligent design" was coined long before "Of Pandas And People" was first published. Creationists are not the ones supporting ID. They are separate entities. YECers in particular are generally cautious about accepting ID, since ID makes no claims as to the age of the earth, and makes no claims to biblical inerrency or of a literal interpretation of scripture.

The argument that ID is nothing but Creationism in new clothing is false, and has been shown to be false, but people keep bringing it up. It's time to stop beating that horse.

Randy, you are incorrect or lying. (As an ID apologist you should be used to this state of affairs). As Barbara Forrest was forced to admit under oath in the Kitzmiller trial, Of Pandas and People was originally written as a classic "creationist" text and only later were the phrase "intelligent design" and such (often clumsily) inserted in later versions.

For just one of many examples that came out at trial:

From the original draft:
"Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, creationist version, FTE 4996-4997, pp. 2-14, 2-15)"


From the published version:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, intelligent design version, FTE 4667, p. 2-15)"

Oops!

"Intelligent design" is nothing more than a fancy new synonym for creationism. After all, what is supposed to have done the "designing" if not a "creator"? Let's not fall for Randy's silly word games.

"'Of Pandas and People' simply replaced "creationism" with "intelligent design" throughout the text, and then published this revised text. In all other material aspects, the planned creationist book was unchanged.

Thus "intelligent design" was introduced to the public.

IDC was, and is, nothing more than a failed legal strategy to circumvent the holding in Edwards. "

In my last post I was commenting on the assertion that the term intelligent design was introduced to the public first in the book "Of Pandas and People." This is what is asserted, and it is false. Intelligent Design was coined long before that.

Randy

Originally posted by

John Karasek

Levy and Smith protest that "the U.S. Supreme Court has never dealt with the teaching of intelligent design. The only time it did strike down a non-evolutionary theory was when it struck down the teaching of 'creation science' in 1987."

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching so-called "creation science" in public schools was unconstitutional. Because of this holding, creationism advocates coined a new phrase, "intelligent design", to describe their views on the origins of species. Unfortunately for them, the 2005 Kitzmiller trial revealed to the world that "intelligent design" is nothing but a new label for creationism. Dr. Barbara Forrest's testimony, illustrating how after the Supreme Court decided Edwards, the publishers of the planned creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People" simply replaced "creationism" with "intelligent design" throughout the text, and then published this revised text. In all other material aspects, the planned creationist book was unchanged.

Thus "intelligent design" was introduced to the public.

IDC was, and is, nothing more than a failed legal strategy to circumvent the holding in Edwards.

[QUOTE]The term "intelligent design" was coined long before "Of Pandas And People" was first published. Creationists are not the ones supporting ID. They are separate entities. YECers in particular are generally cautious about accepting ID, since ID makes no claims as to the age of the earth, and makes no claims to biblical inerrency or of a literal interpretation of scripture.

The argument that ID is nothing but Creationism in new clothing is false, and has been shown to be false, but people keep bringing it up. It's time to stop beating that horse.

It is very convenient to use Kitzmiller v Dover School Board as a litmus test for the truth or falsity of Intelligent Design. Let us remember that K v D was a legal procedure, and not a scientific experiment. The law has no business determining what is and what is not science. Furthermore, the DI has revealed unquestionable documentation showing that Judge Jones in his ruling on the scientific validity of ID in KVD, copied virtually verbatim, opinion provided by the ACLU. It was not his own original opinion, and it certainly cannot be used to determine the "scientificity" of ID.[/QUOTE]

How are you wrong, Randy? Let me count the ways:

1) Whether or not some people were using the term before "Pandas" was published, this is the ID movement's first prominent publication, and remains one of its most prominent; and it has been and continues to be endorsed and defended by leading lights of the movement (for example, Discovery Institute co-founder Stephen C. Meyer co-wrote a "teacher's note" for the '93 edition; and last year Institute fellow John West tried to have the American Library Association declare it "Banned Book of the Year"). I notice you don't challenge the essential facts stated in the previous poster's comment about the creationist provenance of the book. In general, that ID's essential ideas, arguments and goals are the same of those of creationism is clear to any honest observer; "Pandas" is simply the most succinct and clear-cut demonstration of that.

2) SOME creationists reject ID, or are wary of it. Many others embrace it. Regular folks who are anti-evolution, the ID movement's "base" that provides most of its sociopolitical support, rarely draw much distinction, and tend to freely mix and match "sciencey"-sounding ID language that impresses them, with the most naive, old-fashioned Creationist concepts (dig around a little in the Evolution vs. Creationism forum, www.evcforum.net, for plentiful examples; or read any detailed account of the Dover case.) ID leaders are often careful to try to distance themselves from old-fashioned creationism in those public fora where it suits their PR purposes; but they know which side their bread is buttered on and make efforts not to completely alienate the creationist base - being coy about exactly what they believe about the age of the earth is one common tactic. And their speeches and "conferences" tend to be for and/or sponsored by creationist-leaning religious organizations. In short, ID is a variant or subcategory of creationism, that some creationists reject because they see it as betraying some important tenets, and others embrace as an acceptable and even appealing newer version of the basic tenets. A rough analogy would be a schism in a religion, such as the splitting of Christianity into Catholicism and Protestantism.

3) Whenever IDists lose in a courtoom or congressional chambers or school board meeting room, they complain that it isn't the proper venue for scientific questions to be decided. Yet they are the ones who keep dragging the issues into these venues. Agreed, in a more perfect world, scientific questions would be debated and settled in proper scientific fora. But IDists have abandoned the battlefield of science (original research, peer-reviewed papers, etc., none of which they bother with) and picked the battlefield of politics and public opinion (mainly by trying to get their ideas into high school classrooms through school board and statehouse politicking). So that's where their opponents will fight them. It's enormously hypocritical for IDists to complain about that. Especially in the specific case of K v. D, where both defendants (the ID/creationist side) and plaintiffs (the pro-evolution side) specifically asked the judge to rule on the question of whether or not ID could properly be considered science.

4) Judge Jones adopted many of the plaintiff's "findings of fact" in the section of his opinion dealing with the question of whether or not ID is science. It is standard procedure for judicial opinions to incorporate findings of fact from either or both sides. The DI's "study" on Judge Jones' opinion is either ignorant of, or deliberately dissembles about, that fact, and also exaggerates the amount of wording he *did* incorporate. It's a positively childish bit of mud-slinging because they can't win on the merits of their case. Frankly, I hadn't know any of the above myself, and had never heard about the DI's claims in this regard. It took me 2 or 3 minutes of casual googling to find out everything I've stated above. (The most succinct summary is at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#.22Study.22_criticizing_Judge_Jones.) So in a way I owe you a little thanks for helping me learn something today, Randy. Too bad you didn't bother to do the same first.

Originally posted by

John Karasek

Levy and Smith protest that "the U.S. Supreme Court has never dealt with the teaching of intelligent design. The only time it did strike down a non-evolutionary theory was when it struck down the teaching of 'creation science' in 1987."

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching so-called "creation science" in public schools was unconstitutional. Because of this holding, creationism advocates coined a new phrase, "intelligent design", to describe their views on the origins of species. Unfortunately for them, the 2005 Kitzmiller trial revealed to the world that "intelligent design" is nothing but a new label for creationism. Dr. Barbara Forrest's testimony, illustrating how after the Supreme Court decided Edwards, the publishers of the planned creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People" simply replaced "creationism" with "intelligent design" throughout the text, and then published this revised text. In all other material aspects, the planned creationist book was unchanged.

Thus "intelligent design" was introduced to the public.

IDC was, and is, nothing more than a failed legal strategy to circumvent the holding in Edwards.

"1) Whether or not some people were using the term before "Pandas" was published, this is the ID movement's first prominent publication, and remains one of its most prominent; and it has been and continues to be endorsed and defended by leading lights of the movement (for example, Discovery Institute co-founder Stephen C. Meyer co-wrote a "teacher's note" for the '93 edition; and last year Institute fellow John West tried to have the American Library Association declare it "Banned Book of the Year"). I notice you don't challenge the essential facts stated in the previous poster's comment about the creationist provenance of the book. In general, that ID's essential ideas, arguments and goals are the same of those of creationism is clear to any honest observer; "Pandas" is simply the most succinct and clear-cut demonstration of that. "

Actually, Philip Johnson's "Darwinism On Trial" would fit more with being ID's prominent publication. I don't think Pandas is really all that important as a book that presents Intelligent Design. I think the realy important books would be Dembski's The Design Inferrence, and Behe's Darwin's Black Box.

While it is true that Panda's started out as a book that presented Creation and then changed that reference to Intelligent Design, It is not true to conclude by this that Intelligent Design then is nothing but Creationism. The writers of Panda's saw something new in the teaching of ID, that they viewed as more scientific and reasonable than what they were referring to at the time as Creation. Pandas never was a Creationist book. It presented the creation as true from a scientific perspective always, and never referred to this truth from a biblical perspective. The fact that the term "Creation" was used is no surprise whatsoever, and is not as big a deal as you make it out to be. Scientists quite often use the term "creation" to refer to nature.

2) SOME creationists reject ID, or are wary of it. Many others embrace it. Regular folks who are anti-evolution, the ID movement's "base" that provides most of its sociopolitical support, rarely draw much distinction, and tend to freely mix and match "sciencey"-sounding ID language that impresses them, with the most naive, old-fashioned Creationist concepts (dig around a little in the Evolution vs. Creationism forum, www.evcforum.net, for plentiful examples; or read any detailed account of the Dover case.) ID leaders are often careful to try to distance themselves from old-fashioned creationism in those public fora where it suits their PR purposes; but they know which side their bread is buttered on and make efforts not to completely alienate the creationist base - being coy about exactly what they believe about the age of the earth is one common tactic. And their speeches and "conferences" tend to be for and/or sponsored by creationist-leaning religious organizations. In short, ID is a variant or subcategory of creationism, that some creationists reject because they see it as betraying some important tenets, and others embrace as an acceptable and even appealing newer version of the basic tenets. A rough analogy would be a schism in a religion, such as the splitting of Christianity into Catholicism and Protestantism.


No, you have it all wrong here. You are correct that some YECers and some OECers reject ID because it betrays a literal interpretation of Genesis. This is correct. However, ID is in no way a variant of creationism. If that were true, then no atheist or agnostic would ever embrace it. The fact remains that atheists, agnostics, theists and deists all embrace ID. In fact, you will find that the scientists who predominantly support ID are in the fields of engineering, the biological sciences, and the physical sciences, more than the die-hard Darwinists, who tend to be in less empirical fields, such as zoology, and the earth sciences - I.E., ID scientists tend to demand more empirical evidence for ID than do Darwinists of natural selection.

3) Whenever IDists lose in a courtoom or congressional chambers or school board meeting room, they complain that it isn't the proper venue for scientific questions to be decided. Yet they are the ones who keep dragging the issues into these venues. Agreed, in a more perfect world, scientific questions would be debated and settled in proper scientific fora. But IDists have abandoned the battlefield of science (original research, peer-reviewed papers, etc., none of which they bother with) and picked the battlefield of politics and public opinion (mainly by trying to get their ideas into high school classrooms through school board and statehouse politicking). So that's where their opponents will fight them. It's enormously hypocritical for IDists to complain about that. Especially in the specific case of K v. D, where both defendants (the ID/creationist side) and plaintiffs (the pro-evolution side) specifically asked the judge to rule on the question of whether or not ID could properly be considered science.


"Whenever IDers lose in the courtroom"? Hasn't happened much, but I'll give you that. First off, let me point out that the DI tried to get the Dover Area School Board to back down on its insistence of having the disclaimers in the text books. The DI thought it was a bad idea. They knew before the trial started that the school board had a religious agenda, and they did not wish to be involved in it. But the DI provided expert witness as far as desiring to present to the court the facts concerning ID. That is all. They never supported the school board. I've been following ID long before the verdict was reached in Dover, and have followed the aftermath. Behe testified because he believed that his own ideas were on trial. Dembski provided written testimony, but elected not to testify. The DI provided other expert testimony, but all of those were involved because Judge Jones made it clear from the start his own agenda of proving ID false. He did not do so.

4) Judge Jones adopted many of the plaintiff's "findings of fact" in the section of his opinion dealing with the question of whether or not ID is science. It is standard procedure for judicial opinions to incorporate findings of fact from either or both sides. The DI's "study" on Judge Jones' opinion is either ignorant of, or deliberately dissembles about, that fact, and also exaggerates the amount of wording he *did* incorporate. It's a positively childish bit of mud-slinging because they can't win on the merits of their case. Frankly, I hadn't know any of the above myself, and had never heard about the DI's claims in this regard. It took me 2 or 3 minutes of casual googling to find out everything I've stated above. (The most succinct summary is at Wikipedia:

DI admits that it is common practice for a judge to use the findings of fact from both plaintiffs and from defendant sources. This is true. However, Judge Jones not only used the ACLUs "Findings of Fact", but he copied them 90% verbatim. This is what the DI pointed out. So Judge Jones did not so much as weight the evidence in the case, as he agreed with the plaintiffs, and did not even consider the evidence. The DI really did not need to send any expert witnesses. It didn't matter. Judge Jones apparently made up his mind even before the trial started. He also thought that the film "Inherit The Wind" would provide him with perspective. How biased is that?

Randy

Originally posted by

Rich Owen

All the comments above miss the point of the article. Specifically, that Dr. Wise was part of an effort to shutdown debate on campus for a view they disagreed with, while almost simultaniously claiming (falsly) that the opposition was trying to do that to him.

The posters above seem to agree with Wise regarding his view of ID. Fine. We get that. But do you also agree that views counter to Darwinism should be banned from campus?

Finally, did any of you above actually attend the event, to find out what ID proponents are saying, or have you simply acquiesced to Wise' appeal to authority and the consensus view, without any attempt understand what ID really says and claims? From reading the above posts, I am forced to conclude the latter.

Did you read any of the posters here, Rich? I am forced to believe not. ID is a relious scam that pretends to be science. No one in their right mind would want such a dishonest scheme promoted on campus. This has nothing to do with "Darwinism" and everything to do about protecting the integrity of SMU. Would you advocate holocaust deniers should present their case on SMU campus grounds in the name of free speech? And would you claim SMU was trying to censor criticism of the holocaust by not allowing said deniers a voice on campus?

No offense but keep your ID charade in church and science in the science class.

Originally posted by

Rich Owen

The posters above seem to agree with Wise regarding his view of ID. Fine. We get that. But do you also agree that views counter to Darwinism should be banned from campus?

I bet none of the posters critical to ID would agree that views counter to ANY scientific theory should be banned from campus - as long as those views are legitimate science backed up by output of the scientific process. Views counter to existing theories are sought after! Instant scientific recognition would result! Guaranteed Nobel prize if you can refute ANY scientific theory of the stature of Evolution.

What took place at SMU was the equivalent of an assembly claiming that 2+2=5. Wouldn't you expect the Math department to not want to be associated with that?

Dave

Originally posted by

Rich Owen

All the comments above miss the point of the article. Specifically, that Dr. Wise was part of an effort to shutdown debate on campus for a view they disagreed with, while almost simultaniously claiming (falsly) that the opposition was trying to do that to him.

The posters above seem to agree with Wise regarding his view of ID. Fine. We get that. But do you also agree that views counter to Darwinism should be banned from campus?

Finally, did any of you above actually attend the event, to find out what ID proponents are saying, or have you simply acquiesced to Wise' appeal to authority and the consensus view, without any attempt understand what ID really says and claims? From reading the above posts, I am forced to conclude the latter.

Pardon me, but you are either joking or you have failed to understand the basic facts on the issue. Would you really insist that teaching Intelligent Stork at SMU, as an alternative to the Sex Theory of Babies, is somehow a good and proper thing to do?

It is not an issue of "banning" a false and absurd and occult belief (Creationism, which is currently being called "intelligent design") because it is contrary to whateverthehell you mean by "Darwinism:" it is an issue of opposing false and absurd and occult belief because it is false, absurd, and occult. There are hundreds of thousands of churches in the USA where "intelligent design" Creationism belongs: it does not belong at SMU nor at any other non-cult school. Religion does not belong at SMY under the pretense of it being "science."

Further more, there is currently no alternative to evolutionary theory: it is therefore impossible to ban such a thing. If some day there ever is an alternative to evolutionary theory, it will replace evolutionary theory and be called "evolutionary theory:" it must explain and dewcribe and make predictions better than current evolutionary theory. (Good luck with finding such a new theory.)

There is no "debate" on the issue, therefore it cannot be "shut down." Creationism ("intelligent design") lost: science won. One may debate "intelligent design" all one wants to at church where it belongs.

You should also try to understand that evolution is a fact, and evolutionary theory (which is not a fact and never will be) describes, explains, and makes predictions about the fact of evolution. Therefore any attemps to "ban views contrary to" what I assume you mean by "Darwinism" (i.e., evolutionary theory) are entirely 100% justified and REQUIRED by schools.

Firther more There is no such thing as "Darwinism." "Darwinism" ceased to exist some time around the 1930s, and it never had anything to do with science and certainly nothing to do with Charles Darwin, evolution, and evolutionary theory. When you use the word "Darwinism" you, frankly, make yourself appear to be more than a wee bit ignorant on the subject.