Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wandeljw wrote:

Today's issue of the York Daily Record has more about Robert Pennock's testimony in yesterday's session of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Quote:
The long-term strategy of the concept's proponents, said Robert Pennock, a Michigan State University professor of philosophy and science, is not just to get intelligent design into science class, but to change the very definition of science to include the supernatural.
Pennock said the people behind intelligent design are attacking methodological naturalism, the accepted procedures of science that limit observations and hypotheses to the natural world.
It essentially says to scientists, Pennock said, "We can't cheat."
As examples of the movement's intentions, Pennock showed the court a number of articles written by the movement's leaders, including two by William Dembski, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Discovery has been part of efforts to change wording of Kansas state education standards to be more open to the supernatural in the definition of science.
"The scientific picture of the world championed since the Enlightenment is not wrong, but massively wrong," Dembski wrote in an article titled "Building bridges between science and theology."
In another article, titled "What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design," Dembski wrote, "In the words of Vladimir Lenin, What is to be done? Design theorists aren't at all bashful about answering this question: The ground rules of science have to be changed."

Naturalism is the core of their problem. Ulitmately, they can not attack evolution because as we all know, it's rock solid within the bounds of science.

Their only chance is to change the limiting factors of science, but I'm not sure any court in the world is capable of doing that. People will always pursue science because of its demonstrated functional success. If issues are weighed logically, they can not win. Only if politics and emotion are allowed to sway the rulings will they make any headway. Unfortunately, politics and emotion are tough currents to fight sometimes.

0 Replies

rosborne,

I knew you would be the first person to react to Pennock's chilling testimony!

I hope the rules of science never change. The idea of studying nature in itself is important because it yields the most usable information.

The plaintiffs have been consistently stating that science is science and religion is religion. No one wants their children to be taught a strange hybrid of science and religion.

0 Replies

We were discussing an aspect of this in the pub late last night.It was related to the soup of electro magnetic radiations in which we are bathed.If you placed a radio receiver on the bar with the right reception characteristics you could tune into "thousands" of things.Maybe be millions.This proves that the soup exists in the pub.
Now thoughts are electrical aren't they and one of the piss-artists was arguing that it might be possible to learn how to tune into them.He was saying that it was only a matter of the sensitivity of the receiver.He agreed that radiations given off by electrical impulses in brains might be exceedingly faint but that didn't mean they weren't there at all.

How could I have answered him?As an open minded scientist I mean.We don't allow cheap jibes.
I did say that it was very,very,very unlikely but how do I say it is impossible.Nuclear power looked impossible for a very long time.

0 Replies

spendius,

It is not necessary to post every thought that crosses your mind. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

You mean I suppose that you can't provide me with a satisfactory answer for my friend.

You are kidding aren't you?I hope so for your sake.
I'll post what I like mate until such time as somebody with authority says I can't.You could empty A2K of content with stuff like that.You ain't no thought police.

0 Replies

spendius,

I would never police anyone's thoughts.

Speaking for myself, I have posted many things that I am now embarrassed about. I am trying to restrain myself from posting too much. (You are correct that I need not try to inhibit others.)

0 Replies

Okay wande-

How about my friend?I told him I would consult the SDers who know more than I do.

0 Replies

Your friend's question is interesting. I am not a science professional. I do like reading about how scientists make determinations about things that are not plainly observable. I have read theories that thoughts and emotions can be described in organic, material ways. However, I am very sceptical about that.

0 Replies

wande-

Did you catch Light Fantastic.A BBC thing maybe 9 months back.Sounds like you would have liked it.It was super.Simon Schaffer presented.

Google it.

0 Replies

spendius,

Here in the United States, many BBC productions are shown on PBS. I will try to catch it. (There is usually a gap of at least one year before a BBC production is televised in the U.S.)

0 Replies

How other education officials are dealing with intelligent design:

Quote:

LOS ANGELES-State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today defended California's science standards from efforts to inject the theory of intelligent design into natural science curriculum.

"The introduction of intelligent design theory in natural science courses would be a blow to the integrity of education in California," O'Connell said. "Our state has been recognized across the country and around the world for the quality and rigor of our academic standards. Just like I will fight tooth and nail to protect California's high academic standards, I will fight to ensure that good science is protected in California classrooms."

0 Replies

I'm not sure which state Jack O'Connell lives in, but here in the State of California, over 1,500 schools failed the federal standards for two years in a row - some right here in Santa Clara County - the Heart of Silicon Valley. I'm just wondering what "quality and rigor" Mr O'Connell is talking about, although I agree with him about the integrity issue in science courses.

0 Replies

Gee-listen to this-

Quote:

"Our state has been recognized across the country and around the world for the quality and rigor of our academic standards.

What on earth does"across the country and around the world mean"?

That's an SDer is it?

0 Replies

You call that "academic standards"?

0 Replies

maybe hes dismissing K-12 and is beginning at the University level. Stanford and the UC system and CAltech arent slouches ci.

spendius having a bout of aphasia this PM?

0 Replies

Stanford is usually the university mentioned in the top slot for many specialities, and as farmerman says, UCLA, and UC Berkeley are no slouches either. Many don't hear about Cal Poly, but they're rated up there someplace in the top rung in many fields of study - including Computer Science.

It's a good thing Bush hasn't or couldn't set up standards at the university level; I'm sure he would have screwed up that too!

0 Replies

fm-

I'd rather be having aphasia,whatever that is,than thinking that "across the etcetc" constituted academic standards.I wouldn't allow my underpants to be washed with soap like that.

0 Replies

relax spendi, youre trying to read too much into it. Sometimes a statement about "our state" is just a statement about "our state".
EVer use hyperbole over there? Winnie was famous for his .

0 Replies

fm-

Yeah I know.And a previous generation put their blood where his mouth was.Bigtime.

You are making excuses for the clunker.He'll be doing "hard working families up and down the land" next.

And I thought you were an intellectual.

0 Replies

Im no intellectual, I work for a living.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know