Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Its funny but, your entire following argument of blather may have made some sense IF it were the "aetheistic scientists" who were using the court systems and trying to foment rebellion via some extra-constitutional ploy. Unfortunately you must place a huge mirror in front of your movement and acknowledge that it is you, not I that is the provacateur. Its typical that the IDers attempt to slip in under a radar deck that soon responds by reminding youre chjamions that religion doesnt belong in science class. At that time your champs then begin to scream "viewpoint discrimination". You are entertaining at least. I hope you didnt wste any important brain cells on that last post, it was precious. Total pee pee wetness, but nevertheless precious.

Well, theres yer problem mate. You need some DEPENDS.

(Sorry, couldn't help it).

They're just throwing mud on the wall to see which one sticks. It's because of desperation that they try to think of all the variables and minutiae that they think more people can buy in to.

It's a hopeless struggle, but their lives depends on it. (Wasted ones: how does one devote their whole lives to something that turns out to be baseless/fiction?)

Their lives probably do depend on it. The Discovery Institute pays it's principals handsome salaries.

As do all participants I imagine. Your singling out the DI for such a cheap smear, as if there is something wrong with handsome salaries, destroys all your scientific credibility and you might be better advised to visit threads where emotional content is acceptable which it isn't on a science thread.

Where? I don't see a problem in not having a cell phone. There are a lot of advantages in resisting such expensive devices with which one can be tracked and moidered.

Maybe the Discovery Institute's principles pay handsome salaries.

Religion needs no help from them. They are trying to take over territory.

Templeton Foundation

According to a New York Times article, The Templeton Foundation, who provided grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, later asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research. Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, was quoted as saying "They never came in." He also said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth."

In 2007 in the LA Times Pamela Thompson, Vice President for Communications of the Templeton Foundation wrote "We do not believe that the science underpinning the intelligent-design movement is sound, we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and the foundation is a nonpolitical entity and does not engage in or support political movements."[2] The same day the Wall Street Journal also included a letter from the same Pamela Thompson making much the same point: "The foundation doesn't support the political movement known as 'Intelligent Design.' This is for three reasons: We don't believe the science underpinning the 'Intelligent Design' movement is sound, we don't support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge and the foundation is a non-political entity and does not engage in, or support, political movements."

In February 2007 the Discovery Institute began a campaign to counter the unfavorable statements of Harper and Thompson citing a "report" published on the intelligent design wiki, ResearchID. This campaign quoted clarifications from Charles Harper of the Templeton Foundation denouncing intelligent design and distancing the Templeton Foundation from the intelligent design movement, notably a clarification by Harper that a Wall Street Journal article published "false information" that "mention[ed] the John Templeton Foundation in a way suggesting that the Foundation has been a concerted patron and sponsor of the so-called Intelligent Design ("ID") position," ResearchID and Discovery Institute claimed that this was indicative of larger errors and bias: "The media has misrepresented the record of the intelligent design research community." Critics of intelligent design responded by noting that though Harper appears to have "confirmed that while the first statement about a formal call for applications was false, the real point of the article, that ID advocates don't do very well in terms of actual research and scientific review, remains true and valid" a point the Discovery Institute glosses over. The Templeton Foundation posted a response to the Discovery Institute's campaign, saying:

1. The John Templeton Foundation has never made a call-for-proposals to the ID Community.

2. The Henry Schaefer grant was from the Origins of Biological Complexity program. Schaefer is a world's leading chemist, and his research has nothing whatsoever to do with ID.

3. Bill Dembski's grant was not for the book 'No Free Lunch.' Dembski was given funds to write another book on Orthodox Theology, which was not on ID, however he has never written the book. From our FAQ... Does the Foundation support I.D.? No. We do not support the political movement known as "Intelligent Design." This is for three reasons 1) we do not believe the science underpinning the "Intelligent Design" movement is sound, 2) we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and 3) the Foundation is a non-political entity and does not engage in, or support, political movements. It is important to note that in the past we have given grants to scientists who have gone on to identify themselves as members of the Intelligent Design community. We understand that this could be misconstrued by some to suggest that we implicitly support the Intelligent Design movement, but, as outlined above, this was not our intention at the time nor is it today. -- Templeton Foundation

Bruce Chapman President, who claimed he would never take more salary than an average science professor salary from 2006: $167,486
This is addition to an expense account which takes care of three vehicles, first class air transportation. (I'm surprised they haven't bought a Lear Jet).

The middle average salary 2006 for college professors earned between $36,590 and $72,490

The argument that college professors and scientists are happy to testify in Texas or any litigation on evolution taught in schools is moot.


More on The ICR Lawsuit
By Timothy Sandefur on April 21, 2009 6:04 PM | 89 Comments | No TrackBacks

There’s more on the ICR’s lawsuit against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board over at Tony’s Curricublog, and from Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science. Shafersman makes an important point here:

ICR claims it “met or exceeded” the 21 Standards of Certificates of Authority. In fact, ICR did not meet several of those standards which was the basis of the THECB’s refusal to grant the Certificate of Authority. Three of those unmet standards were faculty qualifications, the curriculum, and academic freedom of the faculty and students. The standard of judging these things is comparison with other Texas institutions of higher learning that offer the same Master of Science Degree in Science Education. ICR was in no way comparable to other institutions, which was the original THECB justification for denial of the certification. Indeed, ICR compares so unfavorably that in my opinion it would never be able to achieve accreditation from a legitimate accrediting association, and I believe ICR’s plan was to keep renewing its state Certificate of Authority indefinitely (or seek legislative assistance in some fashion.…)

ICR’s claim that it suffers from “anti-accommodational evolution-only-science enforcement policy practices” is frankly absurd. ICR has every right in the world to teach its Creationist pseudoscience to paying students and can continue to do that, so that falsifies its claim of illegal victimization by the State of Texas. It has no right, however, to demand that its graduating students be awarded a Texas-certified Master of Science degree, since under no definition of science or practice of legitimate science education in the United States is ICR’s curriculum “science.”

I read the first few lines but there was nothing new so I gave it up.

Naturally. You don't really want facts.

Of course not, because it completely belies all the crap about scientists and science professors gaining financial wealth by testifying before school boards and courts. Chapman could find a cause that would make some money and be worth his time until he stumbled onto ID and the Wedge movement. DI is non-profit alright -- the profit is lining the pockets of those who started it as excessive salaries. Besides, it's time for trolls to stick their noses back into their old moldy Bibles and reread the about Creationism.

But that is true of all organized religions. Many of those people live much better than the average of their congregates.

Right -- tithe, tithe, tithe.

Look at it this way; many protestant religions ask their followers to contribute 10% of their income to the church. Let's assume they have somewheres close to 500 members, and their average income is about $55,000; $5,500 X 500 = $2,750,000. Pretty good take for one day/week work, wouldn't you say with some marriages and funerals thrown in for more "contributions?"

A poem by the new Brit Poet Laureate.

its called Mrs Darwin, and it goes like this,

Not all

Discovery Institute represents themselves as a science organization, not a religious organization. However, because of what they've been involved in and the Wedge tactics, they've been unmasked. Whether the Gates and Amensans (sic) continue to be the major financial backers after Templeton backed out remains to be seen. There are other organizations with sites and blogs who ask for donations and the fruitcake element in our society will give it to them despite their bad press (which they bring upon themselves).

As far as organized religion, they Trinity Broadcast Church in Costa Mesa who built that ugly multi-million dollar edifice next to South Coast Plaza got their money from TV evangelism and their principals would often come into my gallery and dine at the same restaurants. They knew how to spend their parishioner's tithing with a 5 million dollar house on Lido Island, five cars including tow limousines, a private jet, and on and on. Dare I say that their decadent extravaganzas seem to have become the norm?
If there's money left over to actually help the poor, like the homeless, it isn't showing. If anyone believes there are science or science professor organizations who operate in this way, where's their proof? Answer: they have none. They're just blowing out bullshit and I don't want to be in their range.

http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/5794630.jpg

Now if anyone wants to discuss butt-ugly architecture. Had to provide a link as they don't want to embed this piece of crap.

That site is blocking embedded images and couldn't even link to it. Here's another pic of the entire complex from the air, about $ 250 million worth of real estate:

If you look at all the mission statements of the DI, you can see that their "Renewal of..." is a religious statement throughout and Johnsons Wedge Strategy uses the "Jesus centered" language in their preamble.
They have just discovered the scientific connection in 1992 when it became more convenient for the entire organization (which until the USSC AGUILLARD decision, had been a sleepy little backwater org).

Theyve mainstreamed themselves by being historically and genetically connected to Creationism but after 1992 , believing that just denying this connection is good enough for the "rubes" (like spendi, who buys their utterances HL/S)