Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Setanta,

There was a minor manifestation of this controversy in Canada about a month ago. I have not seen any follow-up stories.

Quote:

McGill challenges denial of funding
(By NELSON WYATT, Canadian Press, April 5, 2006)

McGill University wants a federal agency to review its decision to deny funding to a research project examining how intelligent design theory is being accepted in Canada.

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council refused $40,000 in funding to McGill professor Brian Alters, citing among its reasons that he didn't prove scientifically accepted evolutionary theory in his proposal.

Eva Schacherl, a spokeswoman for the council, said Wednesday the multidisciplinary committee was not convinced the proposal's scholarly approach was sound or that it would provide objective results on the question.

Alters acknowledged those reasons were contained in his rejection but he was amazed he was expected to prove established scientific fact.

"Evolution is not an assumption - it's a fact of science," he said in an interview. "If someone was writing a proposal to investigate how people think about gravity, the researcher would not have to justify gravitation theory in the proposal."

Schacherl said Alters can appeal the council's decision and a new peer review committtee would be convened if there were factual or procedural errors in the way the proposal was handled. She said that so far she was not aware of any request for a review.

"I just want to underline that it is not correct to suggest that the funding proposal was not accepted because the council or the committee had doubts about evolution," she said.

"We understand the way the committee's comments were transcribed or written down or summarized could have misled him and we really regret that the note sent to him gave the impression that the committee had doubts about evolution. That was really not what the committee intended."

Schacherl noted the council has funded other research projects on evolution and gave $175,000 to Alters last year for a three-year project on concepts of biological evolution in Islamic society.

Alters said he is challenging the current situation on behalf of future applicants who might get turned down for the same reasons.

"Applicants should not have to justify a fundamental fact of science to anyone," he said. "The occurrence of evolution has not been argued since long before I was born, in the scientific community."

He said he's never seen a rejection justified like this before. McGill is arguing the rejection contains factual errors.

Alters wanted to study how the increasing popularity in the United States of intelligent design is affecting acceptance of evolutionary science in Canada.

0 Replies

Good lookin' out, Wandel. I had heard nothing of "intelligent design" in Canada, and neither had the gentleman to whom i was responding, who is in the process of becoming a naturalized Canadian citizen, if i read his remarks correctly.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

. They came up with "intelligent design" in the attempt to put a patina of scientific respectability on creationism,

That is a teleology. There is another important reason why ""they" might have come up with ID.

The fact that some people used it to promote creationism doesn't mean that is the function of ID. Creationism may be simply a subsidiary or devolved aspect of ID.Hi-jacked even. Attacking Creationism is popular with anti-IDers because it is easy and offers them opportunities to snarl but it isn't touching ID.

If one were to forgo underestimating the wisdom of the original "they" one could see ID as a unifying principle intended to bring the disparate sects back together. A doctrinal shift which allows everyone to be accomodated very similar to some of the doctrinal shifts, like tectonic plates, which Runciman describes a few of. And no doubt others.

Within the area of irreducibly complexity,which asymptotes with zero without arriving, there is room for various interpretations excluding, say, black magic.

I shouldn't think anybody would come up with ID just to put a patina of scientific respectabilty on anything,least of all creationism.

You are making assertions which provide you with an easy target for yourself and it is due to underestimating others which is quite normal of course for big-mouthed know-alls.

0 Replies

Spendi wrote:

Blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah,
etc. . . .

Nothing new here.

Nothing to see, folks, move along.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

Nothing to see, folks, move along.

Don't you think the folks can make their own mind's up about that. You sound like someone in a uniform helping people to safety. You underestimate A2kers as well it seems apart from when you're larding up one who agrees with you.

Are you claiming Creationism is another word for ID.And IC. Then all three can be treated as if they were fish in a barrel at 2 paces. Even Darwin allows for ID and he's in good company. A few school board members in Dover are hardly representitive of ID.

Anyway-nice post-especially when read in isolation.

0 Replies

I'm impressed--Spendi actually figured out the word-piucture of a policeman at an accident scene (Spendi's posts are all of the character of train wrecks).

Not that i think that suggests we can expect much coherence from him in the future--especially not in light of his history of "contributions" to this thread.

0 Replies

Well-

On Channel 911 on Rupe's wondrous digi-box illusion contrivance they just did a Consumer Alert survey of the latest technology in dildoes. I must say I felt somewhat humbled.

I wonder what Darwin would have said.

The appliance of science eh?

Maybe,if all develops according to plan,our grandsons will have bulbous bald heads,vibrate at 800 shifts a minute,have long thin specially sculpted and fashionably coloured necks with no Adam's apple (too kinky you see) and be content to be put back in a drawer when finished with.

Munufactured,of course,in extrusion machines and garuanteed untouched by human hand. (Only $9.99 in the vestry sales area and other well known hardwear outlets and free from any unfortunate dispositions such as ordinary men are prone to.)

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

If one were to forgo underestimating the wisdom of the original "they" one could see ID as a unifying principle intended to bring the disparate sects back together. A doctrinal shift which allows everyone to be accomodated very similar to some of the doctrinal shifts, like tectonic plates, which Runciman describes a few of. And no doubt others.

Within the area of irreducibly complexity, If one were to forgo underestimating the wisdom of the original "they" one could see ID as a unifying principle intended to bring the disparate sects back together. A doctrinal shift which allows everyone to be accomodated very similar to some of the doctrinal shifts, like tectonic plates, which Runciman describes a few of. And no doubt others.

Within the area of irreducibly complexity,which asymptotes with zero without arriving, there is room for various interpretations excluding, say, black magic. there is room for various interpretations excluding, say, black magic.

Ahhhh were that it were true there sport. Unfortunately the bounds of irreducible Complexity get soundly crushed each new day. One can pronounce something irreducibly complex only as long as noone proves otherwise. Thats the gamble of such a preposterous concept.
However, not that IC has had no use to real science. I understand that the specific search on clathrin transport (as a spinoof from Mike Behes pronouncements) has led to the discovery of anascent bacteriostat. Sometimes being wrong can have unexpected consequences that are even of some use.

So hold your head high spendi, (if you can).

Quote:

Within the area of irreducibly complexity,which asymptotes with zero without arriving,

Might I suggest some better economy of language... asymptotic without arriving at zero , is sorta like saying pizza pie.

0 Replies

Your typing seems much improved, FM. What are you doing wrong?

0 Replies

from wandel's clip

Quote:

"Applicants should not have to justify a fundamental fact of science to anyone," he said. "The occurrence of evolution has not been argued since long before I was born, in the scientific community."

Can anybody see the color purple that gunga will turn when he reads this stand alone statement??

I wanna be there with the valium.

0 Replies

Im getting some more feeling back into my left arm. My wife accidentaly (at least that was her story) poked me with a hot spoon on Tuesday and I nearly hit the ceiling.
WOW I CAN FEEL PAIN. Its amazing how even some unpleasantness is welcome over the complete numbness I had just a few weeks ago.

I remember it all, It started while I was posting some piece of tripe on one of gungas "scholarly" submissions.

HMMM, seems to be all about gunga today for me.

0 Replies

UK UPDATE

Quote:

Creationism debate moves to Britain
(Tim Walker, Independent News, May 18, 2006)

For once, an evolutionary biologist and a creationist agree on something. Professor Steve Jones, the author of an updated version of Darwin's Origin of Species, and John Mackay, an Australian preacher who believes the book of Genesis constitutes literal truth, are both convinced that creationism is making a comeback in British classrooms.

"It's a real social change," says Jones, a lecturer at UCL. "For years, I've sympathised with my American colleagues, who have to cleanse creationism from their students' minds in their first few biology lectures. It's not a problem we've faced in Britain until now. I get feedback from Muslim schoolkids who say they are obliged to believe in creationism, because it's part of their Islamic identity, but the people I find more surprising are the other British kids who see creationism as a viable alternative to evolution. That's alarming. It shows how infectious the idea is."

Creationism encompasses a spectrum of beliefs, from the Bible's account of creation in six days, a matter of mere thousands of years ago, to the more equivocal "intelligent design" (ID) theory, which seeks some form of accommodation with evolution.

Its opponents see the teaching of creationism in any form as an alternative scientific theory as a way for its exponents to drive religious dogma into schools across the entire curriculum. In about 50 independent Christian schools in the UK, creationism has been a feature of biology teaching for about 30 years; the fear is that state schools will begin to follow suit.

Jones's concerns are shared by the Royal Society and other scientific organisations; by the British Humanist Association (BHA) and the Secular Society; and by teachers' unions such as the NUT, who at their recent conference called for an end to state funding for faith schools "to prevent the growing influence of religious organisations in education and the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as a valid alternative to evolution."

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has said that creationism should not be taught in schools. Jacqui Smith, schools minister until the latest cabinet reshuffle, was forced to draft a statement to the BHA, saying that the only controversies that could be taught in science lessons are scientific ones, and that "creationism cannot be used as an example of a scientific controversy, as it has no empirical evidence to support it and no underpinning scientific principles or explanations".

Despite this, a recent Mori poll for the BBC found that only 48 per cent of the British population accept the theory of evolution; 39 per cent of people surveyed preferred to put their faith in creationism or ID. Over 40 per cent believed that the controversial theories should be taught in school science lessons.

******************************************************

"There is no controversy," Jones says. "Evolution is a central fact in biology. I am entirely unsympathetic to those who push creationism as an alternative scientific theory. It's astonishing that they have hijacked a place in the media."

0 Replies

Set, I went back a page or two to catch up, and I came across your excellent summary of the Creation/ ID "bad days at Black Gulch " saga. One item you may want to add is the actual origin of the term ID and Phil Johnsons Book "Darwin on Trial". His argument was compelling enough to those of the body that the "scientifc" principles by which they later became known (Irreducible complexity, Sudden appearance, "fully formed speciation" etc) were actually conceived. So, in this movement, as in many other bogus science movements (like Piltdown man), the whole thing was cooked up by a lawyer. Its just a minor footnote but Ive found that a lot of students have asked, where and when did the term intelligent design come into use?

Actually it goes back to Paley but, in his day, there was never a contention that anything else stood against Creation. There was no need for the wordCreationism as opposed to evolution.
So in its most modern form, we can thank Phil Johnson , or not.

0 Replies

I'm not entirely certain that i agree with the contention that in Paley's day there were no objections to the argument from creation. In fact, i rather think that the sudden interest in "natural philosophy" (although generally what we would call science, it's focus was what we would call biology and geology) at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries--and which was usually done by the religiously devout avid to explore "god's creation"--must have lead to some significant questioning of the Genesis story. After all, more than two thousand years ago, Cicero advanced the argument from complexity, although referring to sundials or water clocks--strongly suggesting that there was a significant degree of impious public opinion, else why defend the concept of theistic creation?

I think that Hooke undestood to where the exploration of natural philosophy could lead, and hence his clock-maker analogy. I think that, thereafter, Paley simply took that argument, and refined it somewhat, updating it for the beginning of the nineteenth century. From an historiographic point of view, such pronouncements inferentially suggest that the authors thereof were combatting impious opinions in their own societies.

0 Replies

Hi fm. When I was in Costa Rica last February, I fell and injured my left hand, the two left fingers. I told my physician about it on my annual visit, and she made an appointment for me with a neurologist that I saw yesterday. When I first injured the hand, I lost control in my two fingers (no strength), and it felt numb. When I went to see the doc yesterday, he did some tests with electric shocks to see if there was any damage to my nerves.

I still don't have full strength in my fingers, but it's been getting better. I hope the doc will be providing good news when I get the report.

It might be a good idea for you to see a neurologist to test for the injury you sustained.

0 Replies

CI, I guess you were away when I had my sudden numbness attack. I always have had a certain degree of numbness in my left arm. I was hurt in an explosion that removed 2 fingers and tore up my arm with shrapnel. A few weeks ago, I was working in the barn and I wrenched my arm when a sheep I was shearing bolted and I tried to hang on. The remaining piece of shrapnel in my upper arm had moved and cut a nerve ending and asmall blood vessel. I had surgery on Tues of that week and I was examined by more neurologists than terry Schiavo.. I was more afraid of a stroke than anything. (I am such a hypochondriac, I am always getting rare and unusual diseases, so Im kind of like a joke in my family, "Hey Vladz gettin any new diseases this week?" Im getting ok, they did a neural set with some sort of gloob that actually can help inmajor neural repair, so this was a piece of cake."

Set I said

Quote:

there was never a contention that anything else stood against Creation. There was no need for the wordCreationism as opposed to evolution.

Yeh youre right, I spoke too quickly and stand corrected(Holy **** Im starting to sound like RL ). Hooke was the premier agnostic to geologists as he was one of the first to equate fossils with extinction and his geological references were clearly agnostic ,since he didnt care whether a deluge, glacier, or earthquake caused the moving of earth blocks. To which, when I think more slowly, I should add Scheuchzer, Cuvier, Buffon, Arouet, etc. I have to clarify a term like "standard of belief" versus"cutting edge science" . The two dont often merge in popular culture.

I should have qualified it from a standpoint that johnson, Hovind, safarti and other ID "pioneers" include Paley as one of those to whom they , by refernce, owe foundational allegiance.

0 Replies

There is certainly no doubt that Paley's (unoriginal) statement of the watchmaker analogy has been pounced upon by the creationists and their "irreducible complexity" cousins. It's a prime example, though, of seeing things selectively. When put in a context of Cicero, Hooke, Voltaire and so many others, one begins to realize that the idea is not new, is not scientifically-founded, is therefore, rather, a rhetorical position, and inferentially suggests that there those who have questioned theistic creation for thousands of years, in many places and in many eras.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

There is certainly no doubt that Paley's (unoriginal) statement of the watchmaker analogy has been pounced upon by the creationists and their "irreducible complexity" cousins. It's a prime example, though, of seeing things selectively. When put in a context of Cicero, Hooke, Voltaire and so many others, one begins to realize that the idea is not new, is not scientifically-founded, is therefore, rather, a rhetorical position, and inferentially suggests that there were those who have questioned theistic creation for thousands of years, in many places and in many eras.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Might I suggest some better economy of language... asymptotic without arriving at zero , is sorta like saying pizza pie.

Yeah I know. When I got to it I was trying to word it short and sweet and I included the tautology because I thought it might make my prose more comprehensible and save explanations. I'm aware that anybody who doesn't know what asymptote means doesn't know what ID means either.Or IC. But neat of you to notice.

I'm glad your improving. Couldn't you not pretend it's not getting better and then you might avoid chopping all that firewood. That's what WC Fields would have done.

What did you think of my post about one of Mr Murdoch's late night programmes? It's been greeted with silence like my selection by female intuition post and a few of the other unpredictable ones.

Do you think us men have had it?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

....I thought it might make my prose more comprehensible and save explanations.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know