Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The point of these flaws is to encourage and bring about population control(Hence the reasons for deaths at childbirth). If we didn't have these flaws, humanity would be immortal, the animal kingdom would die out due to overpopulation of the humans and before we know it, we'll all be dead.

Have you ever considered that these flaws were meant to be there?

Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life?
A. Not as defined by neo-Darwinism, no.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors?
A. I doubt it.
Q. What is the alternative explanation?
A. Well, there are a number of alternative explanations. Right now, as this book shows, there are views looking at self-organization, which don't necessarily agree with that viewpoint. They may or they may not. But there is also the idea of design.
*************************************************
Q. Where in the standards does it mention methodological naturalism?
A. It does not use those words. As I mentioned before, the concept does appear on Roman Numeral page 10 and on page 98 of the Kansas science standards.
Q. Would you agree with the following: "There are many issues which involve morals, ethics, values or spiritual beliefs that go beyond what science can explain but for which solid scientific literacy is useful." Would you agree with that?
A. Yeah, I think that's a perfectly fine statement, but it does not deal with the issue which is deletion of something in the standards. This is a good addition, I'm glad you have it, but what we're discussing is deletion of statements that imply methodological naturalism.
Q. Then let me ask you this. How do you explain the large number of theists, including evangelical Christians who are scientists that do not see the methodological naturalism as a conflict with their faith?
A. Well, there's a couple of issues here. One is that the mere fact that you have somebody who holds two beliefs, A and B, does not show that they are logically consistent, so it might be some of these people are confused. The other issue is, as this debate shows, this area is extremely controversial. So I expect they've worked it out because they've adjusted other of their assumptions in various areas, and some of my friends hold exactly the view that you hold. I don't think they're bad or stupid people.
*************************************************
Q. I'm going to read you something and I want you to tell me whether or not you agree with this. "In his advocacy of special creation, I believe Johnson is merely the latest in a succession of vigorous creation advocates who have been very influential within Christian conservative circles, particularly in the United States during the 20th century. None of these advocates, however, has had any lasting influence among academic biologists. This is not because science is biased in favor of philosophical naturalism, but because the special creationist model is not supported by the facts and it is incapable of providing a more plausible explanation for the pattern of life's diversity in time and space than its evolutionary competitors. The reason why no current member of the United States National Academy of Science is a special creationist is because of the facts-- the same facts that in the 19th century convinced Wallace, Darwin and all leading Christian biologists, including Georges Cuvier, Asa Gray and Charles Lyell of the reality of descent with modification." Do you disagree with that statement?
A. I think it mischaracterizes Johnson's position.

Since when are politicians, e.g. "Kansas," qualified to say anything at all about science?

She's only asking for $31 million.

Brandon,
The Kansas politicians who are trying to change the way evolution is taught believe they are speaking on behalf of "community values".

wandeljw wrote:

Brandon,
The Kansas politicians who are trying to change the way evolution is taught believe they are speaking on behalf of "community values".

And what do community values have to do with scientific truth?

rosborne,
The philosophy professor at the Kansas hearings was born in Ireland, educated in England, and then emigrated to the United States. Do you think that maybe he and "Bibliophile" are actually the same person?!