Intelligent design advocates to campaign in Kansas

Lawrence Journal-World (Kansas) ^ | 07 July 2006 | Scott Rothschild

[PatrickHenry]

We've had double agents before. They help to keep the tortoises well fed. Creationists can't fool the Grand Master. He knows things. He knows!

[ml1954]

The drama queens are out.

Let's call this "master force" what it is: i.e, plain old ordinary intelligence. We see evidence of this "master" force designing skyscrapers, space shuttles, dog and cattle breeds, and even bacteria (e coli made to produce human insulin, for example) every day.

In fact this "master force" is even good at whipping up prejudice to protect atheism in the classrooms of America.

Did you really mean to say this? If so, you've got some issues you need to take up with the "master force".

[andysandmikesmom]

Is that kind of like the 'all seeing eye'?...I think I got that from watching the movie 'National Treasure', a few nites ago...

The Grand Master Knows..I shall remember that...

[b_sharp]

From your first link:

"The heart of the Kansas controversy over what should be taught in schools is a conflict between a naturalistic definition of science and an evidence-based one."

Is this suggesting that the 'evidence' is not addressable through naturalistic methods? If that is the case then how do we test the alternative - the supernatural?

The implicating of this is that naturalistic methodology is incapable of following the evidence. If that is so, how did science develop the technology we see all around us? Before you go claiming that only evolution is not following the evidence because it has a naturalistic bias, you had better take a serious look at all of the other sciences. They all rely on methodological naturalism.

Rather transparent attempt to poison the well, btw.

From the same link:

"Naturalism is a type of philosophy that argues that nature is all there is, has been, or ever will be. It is opposed not only to theism but to any assumption that nature incorporates design or purpose. (A Buddhist or agnostic, for example, may not believe in gods/God, but may accept that there is design or purpose in nature.) However, many prominent scientists are naturalists, and they have a tendency to think that science is the handmaid of naturalism."

This is pure unadulterated bologna. Methodological Naturalism, which is a set of 'methods' not a philosophy, was born from the efforts of a large group of Christians who, several hundred years ago decided that God created a consistent, measurable and testable natural world. This allowed them to draw conclusions from nature without the fear of supernatural interference. Simply put, without the assurance of consistency none of their work would be falsifiable. It in fact says absolutely nothing about the existance of the supernatural.

Naturalism is not used to deny a designer. Even a designer's work would have to be examined using some form of naturalist methodology. So far the best methodology, the one that produces the most new and useful ideas, is the current methodological naturalism.

Right out of he starting gate the author shows he has no clue.

[OmahaFields]

They're all con men, and such people are usually easy to con.

My mistake. I gave them too much credit.

[rwfromkansas]

I think the conservatives will be ousted again this year resulting in the standards changing, but once a few years pass, they will get put in place again.

It is a never-ending battle between both sides.

[PatrickHenry]

I think the conservatives will be ousted again this year resulting in the standards changing ...

It's bothersome to have them wrap themselves with that fine word. I'd prefer to call the creationist school board members what they truly are -- theocrats running as conservatives.

[b_sharp]

"The upshot is that when Ann Coulter takes on journalistic conventional wisdom, I do not presume that she is wrong. She says that the fossil record is that complex life did not evolve over a long geological period but appears relatively abruptly. I do not assume that she is wrong, and I appreciate her point that if you call that punctuated equilibrium or anything else, what it is not is gradual evolution."

Do not assume she is correct. The point is that she has no understanding of Punctuated Equilibrium yet speaks about it with authority. She is willfully fostering misapprehension. Her work on evolution is nothing but propaganda and should be treated as such.

[Paddlefish]

Actually, Coulter is getting roasted on scientific sites. See, for example, Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evolution: Part I.

A brief excerpt:

"All this is grist for debate on literary civility, of course, but Coulter's tome landed in my crosshairs on account of the third of her book (the last 4 of 11 chapters) devoted to assailing the Liberal's Creation Myth, Darwinian evolutionary theory. Her sashay into matters scientific delightfully illustrates a common theme in sloppy thinking. Coulter is a secondary citation addict. Like a scholarly lemming, she compulsively reads inaccurate antievolutionary sources and accepts them on account of their reinforcement of what she wants to be true. It never once occurs to her that she might find it prudent to check on the reliability of those sources before accompanying them off the cliff, either by investigating critical takes on those sources, or by actually inspecting the original technical literature directly."

You can go to other places like Panda's Thumb, etc., to review Coulter's "analysis". I haven't read her book yet, and I do like her. But what in the world gives her the cred to comment on this issue. I mean, the "lawyers" at DI can't even get the law right. But they still comment on complex scientific issues??? And given what DI did to the Dover School District after they cut and run, I'd sure be scared for my pocketbook if I was in Kansas.

[onedoug]

Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay W Richards, The Privileged Planet

[SaveUS]

"God did it, evolution bad."

Toto, I don't think we are in Kansas anymore!

[SaveUS]

"and ask if they could provide me with some clear cut explanations of their position..."

Do you expect to get answers before or after the offering plate gets passed?

[OmahaFields]

But what in the world gives her the cred to comment on this issue.

$$$$$$$

[SaveUS]

"so yes, its normal and natural for me to have my Bible with me at all times..."

Ok, but on the outside chance some freak accident happens after they figure out what you are doing, you do realize there will be a new bible story in 2000 years about God smiting(sp) you don't you? Sarah was probably doing something sneaky when she found herself turned into a salt shaker too! That was Sarah wasn't it? You might be cruising for a smiting! LOL

[js1138]

I haven't read her book yet, and I do like her.

Coulter is a polemicist. That is the way she describes herself. It works in politics, where one of the objects is to fire up the faithful to deliver the goods at election time.

It makes no sense in science.

[grey_whiskers]

Her work on evolution is nothing but propaganda and should be treated as such.

It's only propaganda if she knows it is false.

I haven't read the book yet, so I make no such claim.

(As a lawyer, she might happen to feel that whoever makes the best closing argument "wins"^TM...
not realizing that "confidence comes from consilience" notwithstanding, science just doesn't work like that :-)

Cheers!

[rwfromkansas]

I guess I should call them social conservatives or the religious-based conservatives on the board since KS has the weird way of calling anybody not calling themselves "moderate" a conservative without any sort of division on what that means.

Unfortunately, the press do simply refer to them as conservatives.

[Thatcherite]

The press where I come from refers to hardline Iranian jihadists and unreconstructed communists in Russia as conservatives too....

[PatrickHenry]

The press where I come from refers to hardline Iranian jihadists and unreconstructed communists in Russia as conservatives too....

Yes, and the press here loved to refer to Saddam's most loyal troops as the "Republican Guard." But for the Kansas creationists, perhaps Creationist Jihad, or maybe Creation Liberation Front, is close to the truth. Or maybe we should stick with Luddites, a term we've been using for a long time.

[silverleaf]

The author is "she", and she is extracting her comments from the arguments made in court regarding this Kansas case. If you find her observations illogical well, then, you cannot make them the basis of your decisions ... but a judge or judges did.

As for naturalism being evidence based...well, the starting point of naturalism is an assumption that nature created itself. There simply is no where else to go in a circle. Once you fly off the circle you are in the "no man's land" of "non science" as defined by Darwinist naturalists.

There has become no body of thought more intolerant of contrary evidence than Darwinist naturalists. That is why their articles are passionate, contain anger (cloaked in ridicule/humor/sarcasm). Devolving into ad hominen attacks on the finders of such evidence and scorn of their very efforts. ("Discovery Institute..a bunch of carpet baggers from Seattle".... etc)

That is why the author made the very cogent insight that Darwinist naturalists have defined any alternatives to their theories as ...unscientific. In many cases, they simply deign to examine or debate or even rebut the evidence .... because it is "unscientific".

That's why they were no-shows in the original case in Kansas. That's why no biologist, why anti-ID proponent Richard Dawkins, refused to take on Information Theorist George Gilder in a face-to-face ID debate (link I posed in a previous thread).

Avoidance, professional shunning, does not suggest an evidence based disciplinary approach. Darwinist naturalists scorn anyone of any credentials who dares to venture out of the plantation of thought they have chosen to define as science. Are they merely seeking to avoid poisoning the well of "pure science?" That is what they say. Apparently as our scientific technological reach grows, as the magnitude of the universe grows and defies explanation of the cosmological constant that supports mankind's existence, as each cell of each living organism becomes a universe in itself, a growing number of scientists are getting restless on the fairly limited plantation that remains around that watering hole of Darwinist naturalism.

Sure, there is huge room within naturalism for evidence...always has been, always will be BUT... as the author stated, there is at Darwinist naturalism's core, an a prior assumption. You don't have to be a scientist to understand how this limits - denies- inquiring into evidential data of a super (or supra) natural.

Science knows from history what effect denial has had on its research. Before the enlightenment it was the Church (religion) that issued the denial. Now it is a faction in the scientific community that seeks to define, control and limit its discipline and its would-be colleagues.

This by the way was the foundation of the Discovery Institute... a think tank to encourage evidential inquiry by scientists who could find no outlet for their research and findings. An alternative to "professional shunning" by a hostile controlled club whose membership criteria demanded intellectual conformity.

Her are a few of the criteria I see as required for membership in the club of pure science:

- Concepts such as "irreducible complexity" arise from ignorance of natural law, and must be accepted as unscientific conjecture ... not a theory to be proven or disproven

- Despite examples of apparent "coincidences" of design, examples of "poor design" (ie, Panda's thumbs) - must be accepted as proof of nondesign.
--- Subset: This proof requires one to believe that, logically, if there were a designer s/he would certainly be an engineer or a scientist, would create efficiently, perfectly and with order, not with the whimsy of an artist and not with human-like flaws

- In current research findings, living organisms obey the same physical laws as inanimate objects. Therefore a range of natural chemical reactions could (DID) take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods of time, self-replicating structures could (DID) arise and later form DNA.
---- Subset: OR what may appear irreducibly complex (see item 1 above) is not, because DNA ARRIVED ON EARTH FROM ELSWHERE IN THE COSMOS. We are not alone in the universe and will discover this. This is more logical than to consider the possibility of a supra natural force and a privileged species.

Although some (off-plantation, unscientific) researchers claim information theory demonstrates that DNA is a "code," and theorize that no natural process has ever created a code, these arguments merely take liberties with the definition of "code" and are examples of the logical error of equivocation, which is eschewed only in the domain of scientific thinkers

- There is a logical and philosophical problem with a supra natural undesigned designer creating a designed universe, therefore this tends to disprove any design or lead to a ridiculously unscientific endless cycle of design inference.

- Anyone who is known to practice or believe in a religion is suspect of being unable to be intellectually honest in the world of pure science (a criteria which eliminates most of the world great thinkers and many more who are here now)

On to other thoughts about your comments;
Throughout recorded history, early teleologists (including some who were Christian, some who were not) credited "nature's god" and nature as working together, in debatable levels of cooperation and intent. This phraseology is used by the Founders in our Declaration of Independence. This designer, nature's god, was called "the god of Spinoza" by Einstein. Einstein never lost his belief that the designer's methodology existed in a theory of everything, that the designer's methods could be determined by quantifying the results and going backward from there..and never assumed the designer cared much whether we discovered Him or not.

As for why science developed the technology we see all around us, from a cosmological perspective much of it seems to be following Einstein's footsteps to discover whether he was on the right path, or not.

And as for the sciences like biology, well, I think they can credit a lot of their research to a drive to disprove ID and affirm.... a-teleological naturalism.

Among so many other topics, I think it ironic that a great scientist like Francis Crick extended naturalism to include panspermia (finding ET or ET's DNA on Mars or ET's cosmic signature emanating from Sirius will disprove "God"). And that the excitement about multiverse theory is the underlying expectation it will bolster a-teleological theories.

And that kids in a public school classroom could not even be led in this debate we are having here unless perhaps the foregone conclusions of the debate were required to be "neutrally naturalist" (and a-teleological).