Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Elsie-T

I have yet to see how biological intelligent design theory is being proven in any scientific way. Maybe then we will see something other than religious connotations.

Elsie T is lucky. I had a huge post informing her, by a historical account from Henry Morris to William Dembski, how wrong her statement was that"the only ones referreing to religion is us"

Creationism was, and is a well financed political mission oriented activist group whove only since 1987 abandoned a theological context for their mission. They still espouse a Genesis based
scientific view and ID is merely a means to an end. Lenny Flanks 2005 op-ed on WHO ARE THE CREATION SCIENTISTS? is a good beginning on understanding for a Non USAer.
Weve been playing with these folks for almost a century (in fact ever since the US public school system was established in the early 20's).
There are so many error filled passages to present as Creation Science that when set states that we are responding to folks who hold your beliefs "for the sake of the kids who are on line" Hes not kidding at all.

Weve gone through 2 separate Supreme Court Decisions and , with the start of the new Dover Pa case this October, we shall probably ahve another. Still, the Creationists dont wish to leave science to the scientists to do the teaching. They want a fundamentalist worldview that , although masked as an innocuous form called Intelligent Design, is full of mission that William Dembski summarizes in the Wedge Document of the Discovery Institute
"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to Materialistic scientific theories...Wherein ID theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance ... and to replace it with a science consinant with Christian, theistic convictions...To defeat scientific materialism ... and to replace it with the theistic understanding that nature and humans arree created by God"

same **** different day

Your argument here is based upon a contention that reputable scientists considered the discoveries to which you allude to have been proof. That is a false statement on your part, and as it is the only basis for your contention that a theory of evolution is dogma, it shoots down your argument right away. Scientists do not abandon a theory because it fails to provide a comprehensive model. They adjust the basic statement of the theory to accomodate the new data. This is how the scientific method works, despite your silliness about circular reasoning. In the case of a contention that diverse life forms on this planet are the product of descent from common ancestors with modification through natural selection--the core statement of evolutionary theory--that basic theoretical construct stands up well, and hasn't been abandoned, nor has the data been warped to fit the theory. Were data to contradict any part of the theory, the theory would be modified. That's how science works.

Your references--such as Java man, the embryos--are sufficiently vague to suggest that once again, you're working with someone else's material, and not observations of your own.

That some people possessed of more ignorance of science that understanding invest dogmatic belief in science is not a fault to be laid at the door of science. Those whom i consider to be "professional atheists" often show the same deplorable zeal for shoving their beliefs off onto others as is characterized by the religiously fervent. That is no fault either of science or a theory of evolution. Ranting against atheists when the subject is science is a non-sequitur.



I wonder if you know what "statistical evidence" means. My remarks refer to the progession of events in an historical context, statistics have nothing to do with it. In Epperson versus the State of Arkansas, 1968, the Supreme Court found that a law prohibiting the teaching evolution was unconstitutional because the motivation was a literal reading of Genesis, and not science. In McClean versus the State of Arkansas, 1981, a lower Federal Court found that a "balanced treatement" law which required the teaching of "creation science" in science classrooms was unconstitutional, and the Supremes refused to review the case. In Edwards versus Aguillard, 1987, the Supreme Court invalidated Louisiana's "Creationism Act" as a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. In Webster versus the New Lennox School District, 1990, a lower Federal Court held that a school district has the right to prohibit the teaching of "creationism" because that constitutes religious advocacy, and therefore does not infringe a teacher's free speech rights, which do not extend to an establishment of religion--the Supremes refused to review the case. In Peloza versus Capistrano, 1994, a lower Federal court held that a teacher does not have the right to teach "creationism" in a science class because a government has the right to restrict free speech of its employees with regard to the task for which they are employed, further noting that there is no such thing as "evolutionism," that evolutionary theory does not constitute a world view or a religion--the Supremes refused to review the case. From the Wikipedia article on the Intelligent Design movement:



Clearly, intelligent design was cobbled together after a string of defeats of the attempt to foist "creationism" off onto public schools in the United States. "Statistical evidence" has nothing to do with it, but an historical narrative of the progression of events does very nicely. In anticipation of your silly objections (such as the disingenuous one with which i will deal below), this is germane to this thread, which has as its theme the movement in the United States to put "intelligent design" into science classrooms on an equal footing with a theory of evolution. This is a direct result of the failure to force "creationism" into science curricula. You may not like discussing the issue in the context of the United States and public education here; you may consider that it is not relevant to your situation--nevertheless, it is the subject of this thread.



No, it reveals your ignorance of science. If you are so assured of my ignorance and your knowledge, then put your money where your mouth is and provide evidence that science studies the immaterial. You demanded evidence from me, and i've provided it. Sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander--what's your evidence for a silly contention that science can study the immaterial?



There is no such desparation as you contend. It is clear that the intent of the movement in the United States to foist "intelligent design" off on science education is religously motivated. A question which you and all supporters of intelligent design assiduously avoid answering is how you would characterize the "designer." There can be no "intelligent design" without an "intelligent designer." Therefore, who or what is the intelligent designer? Can you provide an answer with does not refer to a suprenatural being, and therefore avoids all religious connotation? I rather doubt it.



Nonsense, i scorn your ideas, not you.



A typo is not the same thing as leaving out a word altogether. The point was not ridicule, but simply to note what i thought your sentence meant before i replied. You could equally well have claimed that the meaning was otherwise.



This is grossly disingenuous, as you have willfully taken that remark out of context. I wrote: "H. L. Mencken wrote that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. I'd extend that to point out that no one ever went broke relying upon the credulity of the dogmatically religious--or political, for that matter." I know you're not American, and the applicability of the statement i made in extension of Mencken's remark is not referential to nationality. You don't even get a "nice try" for that crap.



I don't "type away, day in, day out"--again, you resort to belittling characterization, which is unsurprising given the poverty of your debating position. There is a large difference between naïve and uninformed. You use this sort of strawman frequently--i did not characterize the silent readers as naïve. It is precisely because one expects that the silent readers will make up their own minds on such a subject that one is at pains to present the entire story, and not simply allow a slanted, willfully disingenuous and unsupported string of contentions such as are embodied in "intelligent design" to go unchallenged. The rest of your sneers, from the point at which you write: "I give people who read this forum more credit than that." are non sequiturs, since you are falsely contending that i do not give them credit for being able to make up their minds. Your silly lecture which follows displays your ignorance of me and of this forum. The more than 20,000 posts which i have contributed are spread across a wide range of topics; perhaps as many as half concern themselves with history--as subject upon which i am qualified to make statements from authority and for which i have consistently demonstrated the ability to provide sources for my statements. My remarks in this thread are motivated by a layman's knowledge of the subject, which at the least equals your own, and by the interest which i have in the subject of teaching in public schools in the United States. Once again, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it, the subject of this thread is the presentation of "intelligent design" for inclusion in science curricula in the United States.



Oh yes, i recognize a belittling sneer when i read one.

So, if you have the intellectual honesty, tell us what is the nature of the "ingtelligent designer" if not a deity. If the motivation is not religious, then how do you explain that aspect of "intelligent design?"

You mean somebody is actually trying to divorce ID from a deity? I think they've lost it all! Their brains aren't functioning like it should.

DOVER PENNSYLVANIA UPDATE

wandeljw-Ive been told by some colleagues that the "circus" atmosphere is really kicking in at Dover. When I get home we have a series of meetings and are going to review the statements of support from over 75 different science organizations and Academies in the US. Today the National Society of Agronomy and SOil SCience has weighed in on the ID case. I never even knew that there was a National Society of Agronomy and Soil SCience.

Ive heard that there is a thriving "collectible market" growing in and around Dover. As much as I am repulsed by anything with the self serving title "collectible" I have to admit, Im really curious about what these items may be.


set, my favorite ruling, just for its abstracts alliterative content is the 1997 Freiler v Tangiipahoa Parish BOE.. It had, only 10 years after Ed v Aguillard, tried to require that teachers post a"this is only a theory" disclaimer whenever evolution was taught. At the same time the disclaimer wasnt required whenever Creationism was mentioned. The disclaimer was required by the board to "insure critical thinking".The US District Court said
"we're already supposed to be teaching the kids critical thinking, and the BOE is merely disclaimimg evolution when, in reality, Creationism is the actual religious viewpoint.

For the kiddies not familiar with the various court rulings, go visit the national center for science education website http://www. ncseweb.org and look up resources and the documentation of the 6 district court and 2 supreme court rulings dealing with this entire issue. Also the old talkorigins archive has the entire court proceedings if we really want to catch up on some needed sleep.
Elsie T is a non US , Im gonna cut her some slack because she just has no idea how long and with what fervor this entire issue has been followed in the USA.She has no appreciation of how, With our school systems in enough trouble, we(and our brain challenged president) decide that we need to add shamanism and mythology to our science classes.
Elsie, you may be so warned but the Discovery Institute has a worldwide master plan to carry the word of Intelligent Design into the various nations. Its already gained foothold in Russia and many of theAsian, African, and South American countries where hand in hand , the fundamentalist "soul savers" are teaching science with a Creationist foundation. In S America Theyre not even bothering with the Intelligent Design requirement since thats only an impediment imposed on the US schools by the District courts and that nasty Supreme Court.

That's a good point about the fundies. They have made a concerted effort for thirty years or more to pass the "good word" in the "third world." The success they have enjoyed in South and Central America is strong evidence of the extent to which people there feel marginalized or forgotten by the Catholic church. Personally, i intend never to let up on the bible-thumpers, because i consider them the greatest proximate threat to freedom in the world today--that goes for christian fundies as well as the Muslim variety.

my heart is broken we have now experienced sin in Albuquerque, we have the invasion of the body snatchers, the albuquerque school board last night authorized ID to be taught. film at 11.

Dys


What? I'm shocked, I'm devastated! I going to immediately remove my two dogs from third grade before their minds are ruined for ever.

BBB

My sympathies...to you, Di, and everyone else in the town...but especially to the children.

well dys, all I kin say is, if the fence needs mendin, get some big pliers.

Oh ****, BEWARE of Russell Humphries, he lives in Albuquerque and is a "faculty member" of the Discovery Institute.
Fortunately Roger Wiens and Don Gonzales are also out there. The fight (and it will happen) will probably begin as a nice class action and, depending on whose moves more quickly, could be a candidate for the "improved " Supreme Court.

Farmerman


Wow! That's deep. Quick, somebody write that down.

BBB

Pity. Have you considered joining the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and demanding that their creation myth be taught in biology classes too?

Looks like this is the first step on our way to a religious democracy before Iraq.

I was totally convinced of the rectitude of their theology by the irrefutable proof they offer about the inverse relationship between the number of pirates and global warming . . .


Arg, Mateys ! ! !

And I because this was a first attempt at apastamology

Their exegesauce is good, too . . .

My own conversion occurred when they promised me the stripper factory and the beer volcanoes in the afterlife.

They got all the angles covered, don't they?