Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I see that foxfyre is toning down her adulation of Mike Behe. As I said before, you must separate his original work from this attempt at jacking with the US Constitution and its reaffirmation in Edwards v Aguillard.
Behe was there in a clown suit when Phil Johnson gave the call for "Redefining Creationism" to be more acceptable to the courts. I dont really know hwhether Behes mid-career correction has affected his work or funding or reserach. He is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a totally "non scientific" association for the advancement of "the Science of Intelligent Design".

Now with the redefinition of "evolution" by these zealots, I suppose well have more accolytes besides spendi and foxfyre and badboy, and real life, and a few others to contend with.


REMEMBER dear IDers, Science doesnt spend one jot of a pulsation of a Cesium ion worrying about how it shall have to change its logo or stripes to be more acceptable to the courts and the candidates. Discovery Institute is the one busying itself with re-branding and mission changes all the time. Think theres an agenda?Such bullshit preaching should be given a special award for mere chutzpah.

We know that spendi is taken in by the ID concept as a worldview and feels that theres some worthy mission by being in the mix. Foxy , Im certain doesnt really understand what shes in favor of from post to post, and , Real Life(IMHO) is the pro in this group and he is part of the fold, but much better trained in the pedagogy of Creationism.

Now with the redefinition of "evolution" by these zealots, I suppose well have more accolytes besides spendi and foxfyre and badboy, and real life, and a few others to contend with.

Spendius: I don't know what the situation is where you are, but here in the United States there is a concentrated effort to reform our basic education standards in Science to reflect Christian Theology.

It is a serious threat to the future of this nation.

Joe(How many dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark?)Nation

The weird thing about this whole debate is the inability of the anti-IDers to see that most ID-ers are right there agreeing that Christian theology or any other religious theology should not be included in basic public education

foxfyre

Quote:

The weird thing about this whole debate is the inability of the anti-IDers to see that most ID-ers are right there agreeing that Christian theology or any other religious theology should not be included in basic public education

WHo knows, you may be right, unfortunately, the minority of IDers had been very active trying to have their way with the education system and the "majority of IDers" didnt try to stop them". Surely you jest, are you now beginning to deny that DOver didnt even happen?

Doesnt take long for revisionists to scurry out from beneath the woodwork.

. . . nor do I think the majority of IDers are giving overt or covert assent to Creationism being taught as science.

ELECTION 08: Presidential candidates' evolution comments cause stir
(By Michael Foust, Baptist Press, May 11, 2007)

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--When three Republican presidential candidates raised their hand during a debate May 3 signifying they didn't believe in evolution, they probably got more criticism and attention than they expected.

U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo were the only three on the 10-candidate panel to signify their disbelief in the theory that most scientists embrace but many Americans reject.

For Huckabee, a Southern Baptist, some of the criticism came from his home state.

"Obviously, I think he's wrong," current Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, was quoted as saying in an Associated Press story.

"I don't think that believing in God and believing in evolution are mutually exclusive. I think you can believe in both," Beebe added. "Obviously, I believe in God. I think He started it but then I think there's all kinds of scientific evidence that we've had evolution. That's just my belief. I guess he's entitled to his."

Tom Teepen, a columnist for Cox Newspapers, wasn't so gracious, saying the three were "volunteering their ignorance."

"So far has the Republican Party fallen into a sink of anti-intellectualism. Indeed, into fantasy," Teepen wrote. "You might as well ask the candidates whether they believe in ghosts, fairies and calorie-free doughnuts."

He continued: "Charles Darwin published his seminal 'Origin of Species' in 1859. It was quickly understood by a major part of the scientific community.... But here we are, 148 years later, and American politics still cringes before Biblical literalists who insist upon a finger-snapping God who popped creation into being in six days about 6,000 years ago. Even candidates who know better duck as many chances as they can to say that they do."

But polls show that the three Republicans were well within the mainstream of American opinion. A March Gallup Poll found that 48 percent of American adults believe God made humans "pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." A Harris poll in June 2005 found that 64 percent of adults believe "human beings were created directly by God," while 22 percent say humans "evolved from earlier species."

Even after the debate, Huckabee wasn't backing down.

"If you want to believe that your family came from apes, that's fine. I'll accept that," he said, according to the Des Moines Register. "I just don't happen to think that I did."

In a statement, Huckabee said, according to AP, "Our schools should teach children to think for themselves, not indoctrinate them, so we have to expose them to different theories and ultimately let them decide. Our public schools should present both evolution and creationism. I would not support public schools teaching only creationism. Evolution is a theory based on a lot of science, so it must be part of the curriculum."

While many Americans are skeptical about evolution, conservative Christians are even more doubtful. The Christian ministry Answers in Genesis is scheduled to open a $27 million Creation Museum this June in Petersburg, Ky., just south of Cincinnati. Its goal is to support the biblical creation account and refute evolution.

Truth to tell Joe, what you refer to is a sign of decay such as existed in late Greek and Imperial Rome where the morality and taste (feeling) from which their power derived become endangered by a restless skepticism, doctrinal conflict and dissatisfied intellects brought on by success and luxury.

When all we see, or do, or hear,or say
Seems strangely echoed back by tones of yesterday.

And memory's gushing tide swells deep and full,
And makes (Rome's) very ruin fresh and beautiful.

So stern a lesson as necessity.

Well, so we agree on something. Keep up your eternal vigilence because the vocal minority of IDers and Creationists will always try to muscle their way into the forum to control it.

The following is an amusing anecdote from Richard Dawkins' book, Climbing Mount Improbable, which explains how bananas exist with unusual anthropomorphic flair!

Note that the banana:
Is shaped for the human hand
Has a non-slip surface
Has outward indicators of inward contents (green = too early, yellow = just right, black = too late)
Has a tab for the removal of the wrapper
Is perforated on wrapper
Biodegradable wrapper
Is shaped for the mouth
Has a point at top for ease of entry
Is pleasing to taste buds
Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy


While bananas seem to have evolved for primates, the same cannot be said for all fruits. Raspberries, for example, must have evolved for birds -- thorns deter mammals.