Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

in spite of the jolularity, I am really quite upset with this turn of events.

0 Replies

What are the prospects of a court challenge, Boss?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

in spite of the jolularity, I am really quite upset with this turn of events.

Sorry to hear that. Do you see any silver lining to this? Has the decision woken up some non-fanatic Albuquerqeans? For what it's worth, this appears to have happened after the 1997(?) Kansas decision.

0 Replies

Rio Rancho opens door for 'intelligent design'
Rio Rancho is a new city separate from Albuquerque. ---BBB

Posted: 8/23/2005 10:02:00 AM

Rio Rancho opens door for 'intelligent design'
Source: KRQE News 13 / AP

RIO RANCHO, N.M. -- Rio Rancho's school board has adopted a policy allowing alternative theories to evolution to be discussed in the city's public school science classrooms. The board voted 3-2 on Monday in favor of the policy.

New Mexico American Civil Liberties Union director Peter Simonson says the policy's primary purpose is to teach "intelligent design."

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Nearly all scientists dismiss its value as a scientific theory.

Critics say it's nothing more than religion masquerading as science.

State standards require schools to teach evolution but acknowledge there will be disagreements.
------------------------------------------

Wednesday, August 10, 2005
School Policy Looks Beyond Evolution
By Elaine D. Briseño
Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer

Where do we come from?

At least one Rio Rancho school board member wants to leave that open for discussion, allowing for talks on theories other than evolution in the district's classrooms.

Rio Rancho Public Schools board member Don Schlichte, a pastor at a local church, asked the board to consider a policy that reiterates state science standards. Those standards, he said, leave room for discussion of alternative beliefs.

The proposed policy contains language directly from the standards: "Discussions about issues that are of interest to both science and individual religious and philosophical beliefs will acknowledge that reasonable people may disagree about the meaning and interpretation of data."

Schlichte told the board Monday that he wants a policy to ensure that open discussion is allowed in science classes throughout the district.

Board members Lisa Cour, Kathy Jackson and Margaret Terry said Monday they are opposed to the policy for various reasons. Board member Marty Scharfglass was absent.

The policy was up for a first reading Monday night. The board reads and discusses a proposed policy twice, voting on it during the final reading. It will most likely appear for the final reading on Aug. 22.

"Although we must teach evolution, teachers should be able to look at data and think about different alternatives," Schlichte said. "I want to ensure that teachers allow discussion on alternative theories. I don't want teachers to be scared to discuss those alternative theories."

The proposed policy says the district should "teach an objective science education, without religious or philosophical bias, that upholds the highest standards of empirical science."

Jackson said she was not sure now was the time to adopt such a policy. "The president made his statement and I want to see how that turns out. There is litigation on this (intelligent design) in other states and I want to see how that turns out, too. The timing to take this on might be premature."

Jackson, an active Christian, was referring to President Bush's statement last week that schools should teach both evolution and "intelligent design." Christian conservatives across the country want intelligent design and evolution to be given equal consideration when teaching students about the origins of life.

Intelligent design is the belief that life forms are too complex to be explained solely by Darwinian evolutionary theory. It points to intentional creation, presumably divine.

0 Replies

From now on, students can answer any science question with "god."

0 Replies

BBB

cicerone imposter wrote:

From now on, students can answer any science question with "god."

Sheeeesh! Why didn't I think of that when I was in school?

BBB

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Well, which alternative approach would you suggest to explaining the observed phenomena? And how would you demonstrate that an explanation is telling us something we don't know already?

I don't have an alternative to that approach. The Scientific Method is the best we have so far in explaining natural phenomenon and attempting to predict the future. All I am pointing out is that even by these standards, which are the most formidable human beings have devised so far, certain assumptions are made, and are agreed upon--when realized--to operate by.

The main question I was getting at in my original post, however, was that I wonder how willing ID proponents would be to have ID placed in a philosophy class, and have it questioned philosophically, seeing as how they are trying to get it inserted into science classes at the secondary school level in the US.

0 Replies

IB, Don't be so sure religionists are going to stop with secondary schools. If I remember correctly, some universities are also considering ID in their curriculum.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

reread the position statements of ID, as they pretty much agree with and support the findings of science

That's an interesting change of stance. Seems to me this entire forum has been arguing the opposite since it first started.

0 Replies

If they pretty much agree with science, I'm not sure why they're pushing ID? On second thought, maybe I do!

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

You seem to reinforce my original argument that there was no "supposed dating of dino bones at ORNL by C14", fossils of dinosaurs ARE ROCK not bone

Correct. I did reinforce your argument, but you seem to have stopped reading at that point. I am aware that fossils of dinosaurs are rock and it is not a case of "conveniently toss(ing) aside" my example from before, instead I was admitting that I may have been misinformed. Quite different. Yet you still have made no comment on the other examples I posted.

farmerman wrote:

Youve only engaged in "cut/paste" clips from preselected sites, much of which you state that you dont understand anyway

Incorrect. I realise that I chose quite a few quotes to place in my post but it is only because I felt they put it into words much better than I would. I do in fact understand that which I have posted, and am still convinced by the innacuracy of it. You have answered none of the questions which these sources raised. Let me spell some of them out:

1. How can you claim that carbon-14 dating is useful when "compared with many other radiometric elements, carbon 14 decays quickly. It is useless for dating anything older than about 50,000 years."?

2. How can you determine how much carbon-14 is left in matter when you do not know how much was present in the atmosphere to start with, or how long it has been increasing and decreasing.

3. Can you be certain, due to "the effect of variations in cosmic radiation intensity (caused by altitude, depth below the earth's surface, and astronomical events)", of the level of carbon-14 expected to be found in samples?

4. How can you determine the effect carbon "from surrounding soil, water, vegetation and animal matter", on the sample you are analysing?

5. Considering the dilution of carbon-14 by the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel, how do you accurately factor in this dilution?

Also here are some points concerning the methods used by scientists; please explain:

1."Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible"

2."No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. "

3."There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates."

4. "Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. "

5. "an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out."

6. "Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. "

Looking forward to your response to each of these questions.

0 Replies

Wandeljw wrote:

Darwin's statement about eyes and telescopes indicates he was not in favor of making such an analogy

I am aware of the intention behind Darwin's statement, that was not the point. I felt that in light of Dembski's comparisons they added more credence to ID.

wandeljw wrote:

Has Dembski, or any other ID proponent come up with actual data that challenges the massive evidence supporting Darwin's explanation?

Yes, see Michael Behe's bacterial flagellum.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Happy to amuse. May I further inquire, then...do you believe in the divinity of Jesus? Do you, further, hold that the Bible is the final authority as the Word of God? And lastly, do you consider that your activity here is not merely a matter of objective epistemological inquiry but also a matter of forwarding your personal Christian values?

Yes I do believe in the divinity of Jesus, I am however aware that many IDers do not. ID is not reliant on the divinity of Jesus, nor does it claim to prove anything of the kind. As for me, yes, I do believe that he is the divine Son of God. I also believe that the Bible is the final authority as the Word of God, but I also believe that it is open to interpretation. Once again, belief in the Bible as the Word of God is not one of the claims of ID, it is my own personal belief. In reference to forwarding values, I think that any form of debate leans as much toward an effort to convince the other side of one's own arguments as it does towards learning more on the issue at hand. Otherwise why would you people stay and continue to argue these 'medieval' and 'well-worn' arguments, unless you are intending to forward your evolutionary values onto the poor, uniformed IDers that you seem to think we are.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ladies and Gentlemen, It's obvious that IDers will never accept evolution as the last word, because anything that questions the bible as untrue must be fought with all their energy. Their total life's belief is at stake, and they must continue to find answers that refutes evolution at the cost of negating all the evidence we now have through science and technology. They know that if they give an inch, everything else they have believed will crumble

More amusing comments cicerone. I do not stake my life's beliefs in the proof of ID, my beliefs are far too important to be staked in the research of any group of scientists. My spiritual beliefs are in the world of the supernatural, something which naturalistic humanists will never understand. I have seen evidence of God working in my life and that is something which no amount of arguing will undermine.
If we lack evidence today of what I believe, I do not despair. I will simply await the day when proof will come to light. And it will.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

well, ci, its patently obvious from statements of those on these threads , that confess an ID belief, dont even know what its main "clubhouse rules" are.

As far as I know, ID has as much discussion and conflict over what they stand for and what they believe is the best explantion for the evidence they've come up with, as any scientific discipline and many theorists and scientists of ID disagree on various issues. If there are ID "clubhouse rules" I'd love to know what they are.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. It's a prediction if it was made before the various forms of DNA were actually compared. But if the prediction was made after the comparison, it's just after-the-fact rationalization. You can get my attention by showing me that this prediction was made from the Biblical record before the relevant experiments. You can convince me by also showing that a) no conflicting prediction was made based on the Biblical record, and b) the prediction was made before biologists made it based on other foundations.

We are really going over the same ground here. I know that the prediction needs to have been made before the discovery for it not to be an 'after-the-fact rationalization', however as I have said before:

Quote:

First of all, it would be impossible for ID advocates to predict this before biologists, because many ID advocates are biologists

You keep referring to biologists vs ID advocates. They are one and the same.

Quote:

Secondly, when the discovery of 'junk DNA' came on the scene, many biologists predicted some sort of usage it, just as many predicted that it was left over from some prior evolutionary purpose. A timeline of the emergence of these predictions is irrelevant because obviously nothing had been proven at the point of their discovery. If ID advocates came out with predictions after the use of junk DNA had been found, then yes, they would not be predictions. However, function for biological structures has always been a prediction of intelligent design, not one that surfaced only after 'junk DNA' came on the scene.

As for the timeline you require in order to be adequately convinced, I have absolutely no idea where to find one. Most scientists do not publish predictions before they have completed experiments to verify them. Therefore there are no datable predictions to be found online for either the evolutionary biologists or the ID biologists. If you could find such information yourself, I would be quite surprised.

0 Replies

"My spiritual beliefs are in the world of the supernatural..."

My beliefs are based on what I can observe first hand that seems consistent with common sense and logic.

Most religious' beliefs cannot be proved by observation of what we deem to be our reality. I don't believe in Santa Clause, life after death, and prayer. All I know is that I was the product of my parents having sex. I've been fortunate to have been born in the USA where many are able to maximize our educational and economic life - compared to the rest of the world. It had nothing to do withy any god. My grandfather who came to this country in 1893 had more to do with our lifestyle and good fortune.

My political and religious beliefs are different than all of my siblings. They are christians, because our mother converted to christianity from buddhism.

0 Replies

give it up guys, it's hopeless

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

Ha ha- OR, I could be overestimating your knowledge of even a high-school version of evolution. I'm so sorry that I didn't properly explain these to you:

1) The Stanley Miller Experiment: Miller in 1953 conducted an experiment by reproducing the atmosphere of early earth and he subsequently produced amino acids. The only problem here is, Miller chose a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapor as the make up of the atmosphere, a combination which all scientists reject now. The current hypothesis is that the early atmosphere consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor. An experiment using these chemicals produces not amino acids, but formaldehyde and cyanide (or embalming fluid!)

2)Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryos: This biologist juxtaposed drawings of an embryonic fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit and human showing that they were all strikingly similar at early stages of development. Obviously this would show evidence of universal ancestry. Unfortunately, however, Haeckel actually used the same woodcut to print embryos from different classes because he was so confident of his theory that he didn't have to draw them separately. He was exposed in the 1860's for this fraud, however, these drawings still appear in high school textbooks today. Haeckel also stacked the deck by choosing examples that happen to be more similar (ie. a salamander instead of a frog for the amphibian class). The other problem is that Haeckel misrepresented the stage of development- the embryos were at mid-point development (which embryos tend to look similar anyway)- directly contrary to his claim that all embryos have universal ancestry evident from the earliest development.

3) The Java Man is actually on the cover of the 1998 edition of 'The Origin of the Species'. Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois excavated on an Indonesian Island in 1891 found bones in the riverband which he dated back half a million years. He claimed that the find represented a stage in the development of modern man from a smaller brained ancestor (ie. "the missing link between apes and humans" Martin L. Lubenow, "Bones of Contention"; Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker, 1992, p 87) HOWEVER, what is not so well known is that "Java man consists of nothing more than a skullcap, femur, three teeth and a great deal of imagination" (Hank Hanegraaff, The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, Nashville, Word, 1998, pg 52). In other words, evolutionists created him more out of what he should look like if Darwinism were true.

As to your claims that I am working with someone else's material, well- of course! You wouldn't be so arrogant to claim that everything you post is based on your own observations and experiments, would you?

Quote:

Ranting against atheists when the subject is science is a non-sequitur.

Here I quote Dawkins: "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from an agnostic position and towards atheism" (Richard Dawkins, 'On Debating Religion', The Nullifidian, December 1994) Sorry, Setanta, the two have more of a link than you may care to admit.

Quote:

I wonder if you know what "statistical evidence" means.

I do, thanks. Nice try though. Setanta, it is all very well for you to claim that Intelligent Design arose as a direct response to Creationism being excluded from schools, however, this is only your assessment of the events. I'm sure you realise that even if there is a correlation between the two, this does not prove that one directly influenced the other. High school psychology. You did not show this understanding in your posting.

I am well aware that the legal system has prevented the teaching of Creationism. I would like to know though, if you accept the decision by the court this time, will you accept the legislature's moves to introduce the teaching of Intelligent design in the future? If not, why are you relying on the 'authority' of the system this time?

Quote:

From the Wikipedia article on the Intelligent Design movement

Ha ha ha! I could not stop laughing when I read who you were trying to quote! You must be getting desperate! You do understand, don't you, that anyone can submit or edit an article in Wikipedia? There is absolutely no way to account for biases or qualifications.

Quote:

This simply reveals your ignorance of science.

Quote:
No, it reveals your ignorance of science.

Oh, Setanta- we could go on all day, couldn't we!? The fact is, that Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. The materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. I have shown this time and time again on this forum, I will not do so again now.

Quote:

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?

Again, nice try, but it is not the function of scientists to philosophize on who or what is the designer. Stop trying to conflate science and religion.

The rest of your post didn't really warrant reply.

0 Replies

Elsie_T wrote:

Oh, Setanta- we could go on all day, couldn't we!? The fact is, that Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. The materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. I have shown this time and time again on this forum, I will not do so again now.

No, you have not shown it at all. You make vague references which you will not discuss in detail until called upon to do so, because they don't support your thesis. Evolutionary biologists don't rely upon Miller for the basis of their work. Haeckel's embryos equally are not a basis for evolutionary biology. That there may be school texts which use such illustrations is in no way attributable to any fault in evolutionary biology, and in any event, you've not demonstrated either that it is true that the embryos appear in school texts, or that it is wide-spread. In fact, school texts in history, an area in which i can claim to be expert, are notoriously fallacious. That in now way detracts from the valuable work of careful historical researchers. Your claims about Java man are equally specious--you quote an IDer for your refutation, as opposed to using the work of a credible and peer-reviewed author. Which was exactly my point about you using vague examples. To the uninitiate, it would seem you had real evidence, but you don't. You have a few examples from ID talking points which are used to case doubt on a field of study which relies upon the work of thousands of reputable women and men.

You carefully edit what others have written to as not to be obliged to answer cogent objections to your thesis. Your responses to me in the past, and in this example, show you picking and choosing portions against which you think you can make your strongest argument. To date, your argument consists of statements about science which you cannot support (you continue to fail to demonstrate in what regard science can be said to study the immaterial), or material from IDers which FM has easily shown to be canards.

Quote:

Here I quote Dawkins: "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from an agnostic position and towards atheism" (Richard Dawkins, 'On Debating Religion', The Nullifidian, December 1994) Sorry, Setanta, the two have more of a link than you may care to admit.

You needn't keep saying you're sorry, i already know that. Note the title of the article to which you refer. If Dawkins wishes to advance such a thesis in a debate for which the topic properly is religion, that in no way authorizes a silly contention that atheism has created and uses a theory of evolution to forward an agenda. This is similar to Karl Rove's political technique--to attack the opponent's strength. The strength of the movement to prevent the imposition of ID on school curricula in the United States rests upon pointing out that it attempts to impose a religious view, which violates the no establishment clause of the first amendment to our constitution. It is a pathetic technique, successful only with the religiously fanatical, to attempt to suggest that people who do so are forwarding an atheist agenda. The link which you allege does not in fact extist, you are indulging a post hoc fallacy.

Quote:

Quote:
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?

Again, nice try, but it is not the function of scientists to philosophize on who or what is the designer. Stop trying to conflate science and religion.

One again, the Rove technique. It is because ID attempts to combine religion and science that it is being opposed. Your silence on the nature of the putative designer shouts out the falsity of your position. Once again, if you allege there is evidence of "intelligent design," what is the nature of the alleged designer? If you cannot answer that question without reference to a deity, without reference to a religious principle, you have failed utterly to dismiss the charge that ID conflates science and religion.

Quote:

The rest of your post didn't really warrant reply.

Yes, it is convenient to mount such an attack in the midst of a fighting retreat during which your army of allegations and accusations melts around you.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know