Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Giving the evolutionist the last word in either scenario is the key.

It is a classic propaganda technique.

He who speaks last appears to have 'won' the argument.

Deja vu all over again ...

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2275655#2275655]timber[/url] wrote:

rl, you persist in playing the twit and put up yet another straw man. Qualified means qualified. A botanist is a scientist by definition, but without other consideration apart from credentials in botany is unqualified to design aerospace life support systems, a mechanical engineer is a equally scientist with a genetic engineer, yet neither, absent other consideration, are qualified in the other's field. A Doctor of Philosophy is a doctor, but a Doctor of Medicine is qualified to undertake hands-on healthcare. There are millions of scientists, however one chooses to define the word, and by and large, as an overall demographic, the spiritual attitudes of scientists are not much different from those of society as a whole - hardly surprising. On the other hand, when it comes to evolution, among those scientists who actually do know what they're talking about, there is to all practical purpose (99.85%) no dissent - evolution is an accepted fact.

Quote:

Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems ...

Various U.S. court decisions have concluded that "creation science" is not actually science. This is because the beliefs of creation scientists cannot be falsified; i.e. it would be impossible for a creation scientist to accept a proof that naturalistic or theistic evolution is true. That is because their fundamental, foundational belief is that the Book of Genesis is inerrant. All physical evidence is judged by comparing it to Genesis. No evidence from nature can disprove this belief. Once a person accepts a religious text as the basis of their scientific studies, they no longer are free to follow where the data leads; they cease being a scientist ...

[url=http://www.aaas.org/]The American Association for the Advancement of Science[/url] wrote:

AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.

Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.

Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:

Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;

Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;

Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;

Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.

Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02

Quote:

American Astronomical Society Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

20 September 2005

The American Astronomical Society supports teaching evolution in our nation's K-12 science classes. Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.

Astronomical observations show that the Universe is many billions of years old (see the AAS publication, An Ancient Universe, cited below), that nuclear reactions in stars have produced the chemical elements over time, and recent observations show that gravity has led to the formation of many planets in our Galaxy. The early history of the solar system is being explored by astronomical observation and by direct visits to solar system objects. Fossils, radiological measurements, and changes in DNA trace the growth of the tree of life on Earth. The theory of evolution, like the theories of gravity, plate tectonics, and Big Bang cosmology, explains, unifies, and predicts natural phenomena. Scientific theories provide a proven framework for improving our understanding of the world.

In recent years, advocates of "Intelligent Design" have proposed teaching "Intelligent Design" as a valid alternative theory for the history of life. Although scientists have vigorous discussions on interpretations for some aspects of evolution, there is widespread agreement on the power of natural selection to shape the emergence of new species. Even if there were no such agreement, "Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.

Since "Intelligent Design" is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation's primary and secondary schools.

The AAS supports the positions taken by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association of Physics Teachers on the teaching of evolution. The AAS also supports the National Science Education Standards: they emphasize the importance of scientific methods as well as articulating well-established scientific theories.

The fact of the matter is that 55% of "Scientists" ascribe to a purely naturalistic view of evolution, 40% allow there may have been a deistic role in what otherwise has been a naturalistic process, and a mere 5% swallow the Creationist twaddle hook-line-and-sinker.

Quote:

(A)ccording to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science

55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man

Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40%...include God in the process.

Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed [with] the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years."

The survey ... asked ... the same Gallup Poll question posed to the public in 1982 and 1991. In the 1991 round, 40 percent of Americans said God "guided" evolution to create humans.

While this 40% is a middle ground of agreement between scientists and the public, there is a sharp polarization between the groups taking purely naturalistic or biblical views. While most scientists are atheistic about human origins, nearly half of Americans adhere to the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years." Forty-six percent of Americans agreed with this view of human origins in the 1991 Gallup poll. Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed.

Because only a quarter to a third of Americans are Protestant evangelicals or fundamentalists, the 1991 Gallup Poll showed that many mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews believe in a "last 10,000 years human creation." The 1991 poll also showed that college-educated Americans were far more likely to accept evolution, underscoring their closer affinity to the views of scientists.2

The standard view in science is that modern-day Homo sapiens emerged 40,000 years ago and began to organize societies 10,000 years ago. The oldest humanlike ape is called Australopithecus, or "southern ape." It was found in Africa and is believed to date back 4 million years. Homo erectus developed 1.8 million years ago. Neanderthals roamed Europe and Asia beginning 100,000 years ago.

The survey was a separate but parallel study to one reported in Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6) in which 40 percent of the same scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality. Both surveys were conducted by a reporter for the Washington Times and Edward J Larson, a historian of science at the University of Georgia. The report in Nature was based on a replication of a 1916 survey that scandalized Americans by finding that 45 percent of scientists were atheists and 15 percent were agnostics.

From The University of California, Berkeley website Understanding Evolution:

Quote:

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time ...

The religionist/creationist/ID-ist position is ludicrous, insupportable, self-cancelling (through wholly internally referential rationalization), roundly dismissed by a vast majority of members belonging to the legitimate, accreditted, mainstream scientific and academic communities, and adherence to the fairytale-based cockamamie "Intelligent Design/Creationist Theory" betrays a paucity of intellectual honesty and achievement.

But then, its little wonder supermarket tabloids enjoy greater circulation than do scientific journals, or than do legitimate newspapers and periodicals, for that matter. The market for fiction, while insatiable, is fed quite easily. Non-fiction is a harder crop to grow, tougher to chew, and more work to digest, which, though it is more nourishing, is why it is embraced by a more selective demographic.

As demonstrated, the creationists/ID-ists are the ones given to innaccuracies, prevarications, mischaracterizations, falsehoods, and straw men. Actually, saying rl and ilk "play" the twit is a mischaracterization - they aren't playing.


"Every tree is known by his own fruit." (KJV, Luke 6:44)

A reprise:

While most scientists are atheistic about human origins, nearly half of Americans adhere to the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years." Forty-six percent of Americans agreed with this view of human origins in the 1991 Gallup poll. Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed.

5% certainly qualifies in my book as "isolated" - even if not quite so isolated as 0.15%

KU student group stands for science
(By Sophia Maines, Lawrence Journal-World, October 5, 2006)

There may be an election year shake-up at the Kansas State Board of Education, but those who've clashed over science and the teaching of evolution still have steam for a fight.

"It'll never be over," said John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network. "There will always be a controversy over facts relating to where we come from."

Kansas University students are joining the fray with the launch of KU Students for Science, an organization aided by and similar to Kansas Citizens for Science, a larger statewide organization that weighed in when a conservative majority on the state school board voted for new science standards that introduced criticism of evolution.

"We want to tell people what exactly science is, what is the scientific method," said Dimitra Atri, a graduate student in astrophysics and member of the new group. "We see (evolution) as a fact like we see that the Earth is round."

Though the group hasn't had its first meeting, 31 students already have joined.

It's the brainchild of Laura Murphy, a graduate student in anthropology. Murphy came to KU this year from Ohio, where she watched a similar evolution controversy as a student at Ohio State University.

The Ohio State Board of Education in February voted to undo a hotly debated curriculum standard critical of evolution.

As she made plans to start a student group at Ohio State, Murphy helped Ohio Citizens for Science. She brought together like-minded students and attended the state group's meetings. She did what she could to alert people about the issue, she said.

And when she moved to Kansas, she followed through with her plans. She called on Kansas Citizens for Science to assist her. The statewide organization provided Web space, including blog space and an online forum, at http://kusfs.kcfs.org.

And two Kansas Citizens for Science board members, both on the KU faculty, offered to be faculty advisers to the group.

The group plans to highlight students' scientific research, host brown bag discussions and promote science, Murphy said.

"We're going to be the generation who's going to be out there and eventually on the school boards," she said.

The KU group continues to grow and Murphy has been happy to see the diversity of its membership, both in religious beliefs and academic majors.
"Science is neutral on the religious standpoint," she said. "You can still certainly have meaning in your life and believe in something spiritually and still believe in the theory of evolution."

But Calvert said such groups aren't neutral. He said they are "evangelists" for a "materialistic theory of origins."

"They have their own gospel, and it's a different gospel," he said.

The Kansas board in November approved science standards critical of evolution. But the August primary election signaled a switch in the conservative majority on the board. Moderate board members have said they expect to revisit the standards next year.

What does the future hold for the standards?

"You don't need to ask me," said Steve Abrams, the board's chairman who supported the controversial standards. "I'm not going to be chairman. I'm not going to be setting the agenda."

But Abrams, who is not up for re-election until 2008, said he'll still be able to weigh in at board meetings.

"I think we have great science standards," he said.

Four other seats on the 10-member board also will be up for election in 2008. And few expect the controversy to have disappeared by then.

"The next two years are a time to work on educating the populace in an anti-divisive manner to perhaps take some steam out of the radical conservative position that people like Steve Abrams represent," said Jack Krebs, president of Kansas Citizens for Science. "There's no doubt that politically we'll be back in this in two years."

"I think we have great science standards," he said.

The 40% I mentioned clearly refers to theistic evolutionists (IDers) , not creationists.

The percentage is quoted in the article you referenced as well.

You should read more carefully.

... Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40%...include God in the process.

Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed [with] the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

... The survey was a separate but parallel study to one reported in Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6) in which 40 percent of the same scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality.

The persistantly ignorant, mendacious manner of your discourse confirms the academic and philosophic bankruptcy of your proposition.

KANSAS UPDATE

Quote:

KU student group stands for science
(By Sophia Maines, Lawrence Journal-World, October 5, 2006)

But Calvert said such groups aren't neutral. He said they are "evangelists" for a "materialistic theory of origins."

"They have their own gospel, and it's a different gospel," he said.

It's interesting to watch the creationists try to pin creationist language onto science.

I have to wonder just how long it'll be before reasonable people just get sick of the transparent spin and begin to laugh at it.

real life wrote:

The 40% I mentioned clearly refers to theistic evolutionists (IDers) , not creationists.

The percentage is quoted in the article you referenced as well.

You should read more carefully.

Read and comment on what's there, rl, as opposed to your common practice of twisting what is said, thereby playing the twit and exposing your proposition and the manner in which you forward that proposition to the ridicule they merit. Nowhere is it stated that 40% of scientists support or endorse any form of ID-iocy. What is said is:

Quote:

... Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40%...include God in the process.

Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed [with] the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

... The survey was a separate but parallel study to one reported in Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6) in which 40 percent of the same scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality.

Now, "including God in the process" and expressing a belief in a "God who answers prayers and in immortality" hardly puts the scientists at discussion anywhere near where you would have them be - whether you recognize or understand that or not. The persistantly ignorant, mendacious manner of your discourse confirms the academic and philosophic bankruptcy of your proposition.

Theistic evolutionists are one type (but by no means the only) of IDer; and I made that clear as well.

real life wrote:

Theistic evolutionists are one type (but by no means the only) of IDer; and I made that clear as well.

Theistic evolutionists are not necessarily IDers. The majority are probably people like me who do not rule out some degree of spiritual influence in the grander realities beyond the Big Bang (physical universe). But that in no way implies that they think natural processes (cosmologically or evolutionarily) were tweaked by mundane superbeings.

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process...............

Despite such affirmations, however, 55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man, according to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science.

"I am surprised to find that so many are theistic evolutionists" Duncan Porter, a Virginia Tech botanist and Darwin scholar, said in an interview. "As an Episcopalian, I don't compartmentalize those things," he said of God and evolution, "I put them together in an overall view." Rick Potts, director of human origins at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said it is not unusual to find religious beliefs in any community including scientists.

But "I'm happy to see that 55% are taking a naturalistic approach," he said...............

A number of state surveys of teachers have been conducted over the years, and although the questions, samples, dates of distribution and many other factors are not comparable, the data all seem to point in the same direction: a surprising number of practicing teachers do not accept evolution, and do not understand key concepts. In Table 4, I present data culled from a number of studies (states and dates indicated) in which teachers were asked about giving "equal time" to creationism in their science classes. Roughly one third look favored this possibility. I think such results reflect teachers' profound misunderstanding of the nature of science.

The term 'theistic evolutionist' would not apply to an atheist or an agnostic. The article describes theistic evolutionists as those who 'include God in the process', not as those who simply 'do not rule God out.'

They do not believe that naturalistic causes alone are sufficient to account for the diversity of life on Earth as we see it today.

In my opinion, scientists who "include God in the process"
feel God's role is spiritual rather than physical. Such scientists
would keep spiritual explanations separate from their work in
physical science.