Skip to comments.Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution
Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution at Knoxville Conference
KNOXVILLE What is intelligent design and what scientific evidence supports it? Why is it so controversial? How does it differ from Darwins theory of evolution? Is there a purpose to the universe? What new scientific facts are turning evolutionary theories upside down? This one-day conference will answer these and other intriguing questions.
The emerging scientific theory of intelligent design is a hot topic at universities and research institutions around the world, and is now the focus of a day-long conference called Darwin vs. Design, coming to the Knoxville Convention Center on March 24th.
Join The New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel and a panel of scientists and experts at the Darwin vs. Design Conference as they explain the evidence for Darwins theory of evolution and the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design Saturday, March 24th.
Featured speakers include:
-Lee Strobel, journalist and bestselling author of The Case for a Creator.
-Dr. Stephen Meyer, Director, Center for Science and Culture (CSC) at Discovery Institute, and co-editor of Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
-Dr. Michael Behe, Lehigh University biochemist and author of the bestselling book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, and CSC senior fellow
-Dr. Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet, and CSC senior fellow
Attendees will interact with intelligent design scientists and philosophers whose discoveries in cosmology, biology, physics, and DNA present astonishing scientific evidence that is overturning the evolutionary thinking of the past. Conference goers will hear firsthand the astounding implications these discoveries are having on our society, our politics and our culture.
The conference is $55 for General Admission and $5 for Students and teachers (with valid school ID at time of admission). Advance purchase group rates are also available by contacting email@example.com. Purchase tickets online at www.ticketweb.com (use key word Darwin). For more information visit our website at www.darwinvsdesign.com.
There's no business like show business.
Someone probably would've said the same thing to Galileo or Copernicus, I'm sure.
Galileo and Copernicus charged the general public for glitzy Power Point displays? LOL
You know what I'm talking about Alter. Let's attempt to keep things civil.
Intelligent Design "Scientists"
Thanks for the laugh.
I'm not sure I do. You seem to be comparing a bunch of second rate polemicists (Behe, Meyer, et al) with Copernicus and Galileo. Do I really need to dignify that with a response? Just to play along for a moment... what, exactly have they discovered?
Sort of hypocritical when such "ardent supporters" of Galileo and Copernicus hound Creationists.
As with Galileo and Copernicus, let them present their evidence--and then let science take its course.
If you didn't get EarthBound's point, then you can read comment 13. Somewhat the same basic idea.
The "establishment" (whatever the heck that means) has "hounded" (whatever the heck that means) legitimate scientists. It has also rejected the work of innumerable hordes of frauds, fakes and charlatans. Is being rejected by mainstream science your gold standard for authenticity?
As usual, you manage to use a good deal more tact than I could. Yes, that is what I was saying.
I take it Michael Denton will not be presenting.
Opinion: your point was figuratively crystal clear; Alter Kaker just chose not to understand it.
This looks an awful lot like and advertisement. Isn't that against the rules on FR?
Isn't it ironic how the left always spews that there can't be science involved in Creationism but push science in Evolutionism, which is basically a theory, philosophy, with no more proof than Creationism, and demands the same amount of "faith".
It's a press release. Which are allowed. Nice try though.
Actually, both of you are embracing obscurity over clarity.
Pons and Fleischmann were rejected by the scientific community -- would you compare them to Copernicus and Galileo as well? Every fraud and huckster will love this comparison.
But not by scientists of their day (of whom there were pitifully few). Those who decried Galileo and Copernicus were churchmen who were afraid of what their findings would mean for the Biblically-based order they'd established.
This is "What That means"
The following is from UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM; December 2006
INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN
SMITHSONIANS TOP OFFICIALS PERMIT THE DEMOTION AND HARASSMENT OF SCIENTIST SKEPTICAL OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION
Major findings of this staff investigation include:
Officials at the Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights. There issubstantial, credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him, and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers. Given the factual record, the Smithsonians pro-forma denials of discrimination are unbelievable. Indeed, NMNH officials explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the Meyer paper and his views on evolution. On September 13, 2004, Dr. Jonathan Coddington, chair of the zoology department, wrote to crustacean curator Dr. Rafael Lemaitre that he could not find a legal basis for terminating Sternberg, but added: I suppose we could call him on the phone and verbally ask him to do the right thing and resign?3 A few hours later, Dr. Lemaitre responded that a face to face meeting or at least a you are welcome to leave or resign call with this individual, is in order.4 Finally, in an email on October 6, 2004, Dr. Coddington (in his capacity as Dr. Sternbergs supervisor) stated that he was planning to meet with Dr. Sternberg to convey the message that if he had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment.5 Clearly, the NMNH management was trying to make Dr. Sternbergs life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave, since they knew they had no legal grounds to dismiss him.
These are some of the "FACTS" that some people would rather not deal with.
Interesting. Could one not say that these guys are attempting to fight the Evolution establishment?
By the church, correct?! To support religious doctrine, the church and true believers attacked the scientists talking about observed fact.
Yes, I do see the similarity now!
The ID movement *has* presented their evidence. So far, that evidence not been even remotely persuasive.
> The emerging scientific theory of intelligent design ...
Anybody know if they've got a testable, potentially falsifiable hypothesis to go with that yet?
Or is it still in the same place as the department of astrology?
Kindly note that no actual research was described in Meyer's article -- it had no more place in a Smithsonian journal than a volleyball column would. Somehow, the Institute didn't like that! The horror!
No all ID scientists are morons. Young Earth CREATIONISTS are. The straw man is that you cannot believe in the Christian God ID concept unless you believe the Earth is 10,000 years old and the Bible is 100% fact.
Methodological naturalism subsumed under, or compressed into, Darwin's name. This conference will treat of philosophical underpinnings taken up by people of various faiths.
If I see a cardboard box am I being scientific or unscientific if I say it has the appearance of design? Even if an intellectual entity designed and built that box, I could say the intellect has the appearance of intelligent design, too. But I would be speaking philosophically.
So it comes down to appearance vs. substance. The substance of science is information (evidence) that cannot be interpreted apart from intelligent design.
Every thread these guys come with the same silly prattle. Every thread, someone has to laboriously explain to them the meaning of "theory" in science, and then they run along only to troll on the next crevo thread. This is as tiresome as it is inane.
While I disagree vehemently with the YE concept of ID and think it is a political cancer, I did not mean to suggest that all ID scientists are morons. I was refering to the "oxymoron" comment. I apologize.
ten bucks says that they get up say something along the lines of "We have proof of ID right here...And hold up a bible" and walk out. Will refunds be given for the $55 entry fee, or is that simply considered tithing?
For starters, that the natural world is vastly more complicated than the Darwinists tried to tell us.
They are challenging Sacred Darwinian Dogma. Speak not with them, nor have intercourse with them, cast them into outer darkness, before the Holy Paradigm be defiled. The Prophet Dawkins hath spoken unto thee.
There's no business like show business.
What was that saying about a fool and his money?
What amazes me is how similar evolutionists and Socialists really are. Both want to be able to define their own narrow set of "facts" as the "only" truth, and then rule everything else out of bounds. Likewise, both groups rely on "facts" which, if freely discussed, would probably be rejected by the majority of thinking people. In many ways, your average Darwinist is like your average Social Democrat.
They were lucky to get together in the first place?
Please ping me if you do.
In other words, there are people of Christian faith who believe in God but also accept the reality of science.
So try not to alienate those of faith who are on your side. :-)
The problem is the people who believe ID as a scientific concept, and not a philosophical one. As a science, ID is noncorporeal.
What's funny is this whole type of discussion is that creationists aren't even "rejecting science", they are rejecting bad science passed off as received truth - something that evolutionists argue that religion does.
Let's face it - there are quite a number of conceptual and evidential reasons to question just about every tenet of evolutionary theory. Some of these reasons might end up being good reasons, and some might not. The problem is not the invalidity of arguments made by creationists (well, except for that whole "geocentricity" thing). The problem is that evolutionists point-blank refuse to allow their theory to be challenged scientifically. To "prove" their theory, they come up with any number of circularly-reasoned arguments based off of their own theories that they then USE to suggest that they've proven their theories. When someone DOES challenge, instead of responding like the mature adults that degrees in science might suggest them to be, they instead act like spoiled five-year olds who are told that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
What amazes me is how creationists can claim that the theory of evolution is responsible for everything from socialism to capitalism to dandruff.
"Evolution provides the scientific orthodoxy for the philosophies of Marxism, fascism, racism, apartheid and unbridled capitalism."See Answers in Genesis
Evolution is a theory, ID is merely a hypothesis
I must concur.
Nevertheless, remember you have allies in many people of faith. The official positions of the bulk of Christendom believe in God AND an old earth.
Sorry NucSub, I am using "evolution" in the broad-based sense that includes all of those areas, not just biological evolution.