Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

From Kenneth Miller's website, a graphic showing the difference between the design argument and the natural selection argument:

Scientific literature on the addiction to oil indicates its evolution can be explained by conspicuous consumption running wild which is somewhat more relevant that the poor little flagellum.

spendi,

The graphics specifically relate to intelligent design's challenge to natural selection. Intelligent design proponents state that the complexity of some organisms indicate that they could not have evolved through the mechanism of natural selection. The favorite example of ID proponents is bacterium flagella. Kenneth Miller maintains that researchers in biochemistry have shown that components of the flagella are "selectable" and therefore natural selection is an appropriate explanation for the evolution of flagella.

spendi,

The graphics specifically relate to intelligent design's challenge to natural selection. Intelligent design proponents state that the complexity of some organisms indicate that they could not have evolved through the mechanism of natural selection. The favorite example of ID proponents is bacterium flagella. Kenneth Miller maintains that researchers in biochemistry have shown that components of the flagella are "selectable" and therefore natural selection is an appropriate explanation for the evolution of flagella.


Does the above clarify what I was trying to say earlier?

What flagella have to do with human social organisation and its drive for success I cannot imagine.

This thread is about intelligent design, not human social organisation.

In that case why are the courts involved?The precise function of courts is to arbitrate human social organisation.

The courts have specifically addressed the issue of whether intelligent design can be considered science (again, this would be more relevant to the topic of this thread).

hee hee hee.

For example, when discussing "reality" philosophers might use the term "hold a belief" as though "belief" were an "object" held by " a believer". This erroneosly extends the normal (everyday) boundaries of the word "hold" from the physical to the mental. It might follow then that "belief in God" is not an "acquisition", but a "modus operandi" and to discuss the "existence of God" with a believer makes no more sense than discussing the existence of "water" with a fish. To ask for "evidence of God" from a believer, is a "category mistake" (Ryle) like an uninformed tourist who asks "but where is the university" having been shown round the colleges and libraries in Oxford. For a believer "life itself" is "evidence of God". As an atheist I can merely dispute the necessity[/i ]or social consequences of universities/gods but not their "social reality".

It has certainly shocked me.And I have read a report today that suggests that some official circles are of a similar mind.

In desperation British and German leaders turned last week to the new "multi-polars", Russia and China, for help with Tehran. This suggests a world moving towards new axes, seeking new leadership and distancing itself from American myopia. The spectacle is similar to the free world's isolation of the Russian Comintern in the mid-20th century.

Dover ID bill: $1M
(York Daily Record, Feb 22, 2006)

The Dover Area school board voted Tuesday night to pay $1 million in legal fees to the attorneys that successfully sued the district over its intelligent-design policy.

In addition, each of the 11 plaintiffs will also receive $1 in nominal damages.

Eight of the nine board members voted in favor while Bryan Rehm, who is also a plaintiff, abstained.

The vote somewhat puts an end to one of the district's most contentious chapters, and, as plaintiff Cyndi Sneath said "lets us catch our breath and move on."

After board members voted, Beth Eveland, one of the parents who sued the district, told the board that she and other plaintiffs at the meeting considered it a fair offer.

However, she said they were dismayed that the taxpayers and children were left with the bill and believed the old board members should be held accountable. The smallest amount of accountability is an apology, she said. "It's the end of the legal drama, but there is no closure," she said.

Heather Geesey, the only remaining member from the previous board, said after the meeting that she took offense to Eveland's remarks. "I don't think I have anything to apologize for," she said.

Former board member Ronald Short also isn't planning to apologize. "I don't have anything to apologize for," Short said. "I believe in what the board did before."

The $1 million figure was the result of an agreement worked out between plaintiffs' attorneys and the district's solicitor. In exchange, the board agrees it will not appeal.

As part of U.S. Judge John E. Jones III's decision, in which he ruled Dover's intelligent-design policy unconstitutional, plaintiffs' attorneys were permitted to recoup legal fees and expenses.

Even though they have agreed on the settlement, Eric Rothschild, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, said lawyers will request an order in court entitling the plaintiffs to more than $2 million in costs.

Steve Russell, the district's solicitor, said the initial bill had been $2.5 million before negotiations began.

Plaintiffs' attorneys wanted to make sure that other school districts pondering whether to pursue a religious agenda will think twice, Rothschild said. "We think it's important that the public record will reflect how much it costs to stop an unconstitutional action," he said. "Still, we also recognize that this is a small school district."