Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

ros and BBB, It appears that the individual that BBB ran into DID NOT fully comprehend even ID. The "scientific" branch of ID is giving the hardcore (The Dembskis contingent) stomach distress. In all areas of "evolution" the first ID scientists on the Dover side have all, in deposition, given a vote of confidence to common ancestral ascent and organic evolution. Theyve pretty much demolished all that which good young (and Old) earth Creationists try to disperse.
I understand this week that the judge asked some very pointed questions of the ID side about
"why, if your areas of agreement are so close to those of standard science, do you advance a hypothesis that states emphatically (but seemingly with only a statement of "this I believe") that a designer is the center of the origin of life"? "Doesnt this imply a cReator and only thaT"?
The judge, according to my colleague whose in our chair this week journaling for the AAUP, is quite not a pushover for the religious right. The town is getting ugly though. Im thinking of going up and taking some pix of the posters and crap in the town and at the courthouse in Harrisburgh.

0 Replies

farmerman, Bring back some good pictures; we're all waiting for some good news.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

rosborne979 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I was in a class last week. During the lunch break, we were discussing several issues including frustration with Albuquerque's schools.

What class were you in?

Learning how to overcome monkeyhood.

BBB :wink:

0 Replies

Did you succeed? LOL

0 Replies

no pix in court ci. I can, however , sketch up a storm.

0 Replies

fm-

I really enjoyed reading your post No 1596142.In fact the more times I read it the funnier it got.Not that I know what it means mind you.

I'll have to wait until c.i. has assimilated it and offers a critical analysis of the content before I can come to a definitive conclusion on whether it is an exercise in double negative exponentials or a serious contribution to this extremely important matter we are discussing.

0 Replies

spendius wa honto ni baka desukala shigataganai.

0 Replies

c.i.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Did you succeed? LOL

Only to the extent that I've overcome the uncouth practice of swinging by my tail.

BBB

0 Replies

c.i.

I Googled your exciting phrase and it said that it didn't match anything they had in stock.

Are you an iconoclast?

0 Replies

John Haught, a theology prof at Georgetown was a witness for the plaintiffs at the Kitzmiller v Dover SChool Board trial. In direct testomony he said that , while ID proponents dont identify God as the creator, the concept of ID is essentially a religious proposition, Its a reformulation of an old argument made for the existence of God.
Haught said that there is no conflict between science and religion except for a small group of fundamentalists. In cross examination, the lawyers for the school board (who are from the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor) asked Haught to draw distinctions between intelligent design and Creationism. Haught conceded that not all ID supporyters literally interpret the Bible, but, he then said'The two concepts differ in the same sense that a Valencia orange is different from a navel orange"

The Thomas More Law Center states as its mission,
"To Defend the religious freedom of Christians" whhhaaaaaa?

0 Replies

fm-

The Thomas More Law Centre may state its mission as you say but I'm sure a man of your perspicacity,wisdom,experience and intellectual rigour will know better than to take it with any more than a pinch of salt.

0 Replies

splendid spendius ! hee hee hee !

0 Replies

Transcripts from Dover trial.

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

0 Replies

Quote:

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ~Theodosius Dobzhansky

Is this really true? I would like somebody to point out to me any specific branch of biology (besides evolutionary theory itself) that has actually been helped by the theory of evolution. I don't think there are any, so I invite anybody to prove me wrong. (note: I want a cited quote from an actual scientist. Don't just insist that there is.)

I also invite anyone to offer me an actual proof of evolution. After all, the scientific method requires an experiment to be performed. What experiments have been used to confirm evolution? Has it ever been repeated under controlled conditions? Has anyone actually observed it happening?

Here's a novel idea. If neither intelligent design NOR evolution are observable, repeatable, or testable, and neither has led to any practical applications or advances in everyday life or other fields of research, why don't we just forget about teaching evolution in public schools and leave ALL questions of origins at home?

0 Replies

ghostofgauss wrote:

[Here's a novel idea. If neither intelligent design NOR evolution are observable, repeatable, or testable, and neither has led to any practical applications or advances in everyday life or other fields of research, why don't we just forget about teaching evolution in public schools and leave ALL questions of origins at home?

I agree..a novel idea. While we're at it. Since none of us were in Jerusalem to witness the crcifixion, let's leave all religion at home.
Oh, and also...since none of us observed Shakespeare at work...let's not speculate on his intebtions in writing "The Merchant Of Venice" :wink:

0 Replies

Why teach anything? Nothing is certain, all is releative. America is going back to the days of pre enlightenment. And personally I dont give a damn.

0 Replies

Quote:

Since none of us were in Jerusalem to witness the crcifixion, let's leave all religion at home.
Oh, and also...since none of us observed Shakespeare at work...let's not speculate on his intebtions in writing "The Merchant Of Venice"

I agree that none of us were there to see those things, but there were OTHER people there who wrote eye-witness accounts of the crucifixion and Shakespeare. None exist for evolution. And as far as I know, religion is left to the home for the most part (at least in the U.S.). But I'm completely behind you with not speculating on Shakespeare's intentions.

(And if Steve doesn't care, why did he post? :wink: )

Here's a new quote for you:

Quote:

"For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis."
~Professor Philip S. Skell, member of the National Academy of Sciences, in an open letter to Dr. Steve Abrams, Chair of Kansas State Board of Education, during the Kansas evolution hearings

0 Replies

Our cousin is a little bitter right now after Tony dragged his country into our Crusade.

0 Replies

Dr. Kenneth Miller on the practical applications of evolutionary theory:

Quote:

Any therapy for infectious diseases is predicated on a profound understanding of the evolutionary processes by which the bacteria or viruses acquire resistance to the agents that are used against them. And if one doesn't understand the evolution of resistance, one is not going to be a very effective physician.

(This is only one example of the importance of teaching evolutionary theory.)

0 Replies

Here's the last paragraph from Skell's letter to the Kansas Board of Education:

"Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research.

I commend you for your efforts to ensure that students are more fully informed about current debates over neo-Darwinism in the scientific community."

Yours sincerely,

Professor Philip S. Skell
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus
Penn State University

It is not surprising the Prof Skell is also a member of the Discovery Institute.

My personal comments: Dr Skell only implies that many scientists are questioning evolution, but doesn't provide names or why. He calls evolution a theory that has not been proven. It seems to this reader that Dr Skell still does not understand "scientific theory" or what science does. Evolutionary theory has many observable proof. Creationism has none. What is Dr Skell trying to sell?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know