Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SirLinksalot
Which evidence ? all you've made are assertions

The evidence I gave firmly establishing the Discovery Institute and the modern ID movement as directly descended from (or rather just a new name for) the Creation and Creation Science movements. They have made a valiant effort to distance themselves in the public (and especially court) view from their Christian theological base, but many of us still remember.

ID as it is currently presented DOES NOT MENTION THE BIBLE and LEAVES THE AGE OF THE EARTH out of the discussion. That is a fact.

Part of the distancing tactic as described above. The cleansed-for-public-release version only exists to try to backdoor theology into the public schools as science in an evangelical effort. Here are two excerpts from the preeminent textbook on Intelligent Design, one is the original, and the other is from after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which said you couldn't teach Creation in public schools as science:

Original: Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.

Post Aguillard: Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.

Do you see the similarity? The whole book is like that. It is a shining example of how ID is just Creation with a transparent veneer of science on top.

Every single article I've read from them today relating to science and technology never refers to the Bible, Koran as their authority for their arguments.

Their PR job is working, at least on you. The CSC, which is the ID arm of the Discovery Institute (the two can be used interchangeably on the subject), was founded on the concept that "nature and human beings are created by God."

Uh huh, and does the publication claim the Bible as its source of authority ?

Again, the PR job at work. Knowing their history, they believe in the Christian God in all things.

How is this deceptive ? You ought to use the inquiry based approach to ANY endeavor that attempts at finding the truth or falsity of a claim ( even ID and creationism ).

Because they don't want to improve the teaching of it. They don't want to show errors and fix them scientifically so that it can be improved (as most scientists do). They want to kill it and replace it with something entirely different and theologically based.

Basically, it comes off as a guide for it, when it is nothing of the sort.

You know ? How do you know that ? YOU SAID YOU KNOW but you don't really know.

Yes, I know, specifically from their own statements in the Wedge Document. Meyer admits the document is authentic.

In fact, if you read the Discovery Institute, they do not even recommend teaching ID in the classroom ( that's right I said it and it isn't a typo ).

Deceptive PR again, inconsistent with their stated mission, their "Teach the Controversy" program and history. The board in the Dover case did not move forward until they received help and advice from the Discovery Institute, which had arranged a legal defense (by a Christian legal organization) for when their inclusion of ID led to a lawsuit.

1) If this was Darwin's belief, then you are saying he believes in panspermia.... interesting, I never knew that. Could you show me where Darwin said it ?

It's in his autobiography. He talks about the "First Cause" (which of course to him is the Christian God) being necessary to produce something so wonderful and immense.

Simply because you throw in the name Discovery Institute shows us what ?

That they are committed to the concept of God Did It at any cost.

Since we have cultural agendas by evolutionist and cultural agendas by IDers

No, we have an agenda by a couple of evolutionists, and an agenda by the founder of, and most members of, the modern Intelligent Design movement. I don't trust anything with an agenda, be it the DI, Dawkins or the Global Warming movement (sorry, "Climate Change," they've been doing the same PR coverup as the DI).

On the other hand, evolution through natural selection came about through a genuine desire to advance science. Even Darwin, as a religious man, feared a backlash for his heretical ideas. Luckily times had changed and he didn't suffer the same fate as other correct scientists such as Galileo (the Church didn't think he had "proof" either) and Bruno.

134 posted on 06/15/2007 1:01:48 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies ]


To: antiRepublicrat
The evidence I gave firmly establishing the Discovery Institute and the modern ID movement as directly descended from (or rather just a new name for) the Creation and Creation Science movements.

The evidence you gave is fleeting, poor and unconvincing ( just like the just so stories darwinists are feeding the public ). The Creation Science Movement assumes the Bible as truth and then interpretes the evidence seen in the world and harmonizes it with scripture. The ID movement does no such thing. It does not mention the Bible, does not talk about it, much less is interested in presenting it in class.

They have made a valiant effort to distance themselves in the public (and especially court) view from their Christian theological base, but many of us still remember.

There ya go with the fallacy again -- SIMILARITY IS IDENTITY -- what BALONEY.

Part of the distancing tactic as described above

Nope, again as I said, there are agnostics and non-Bible believers who are part of the ID movement. The desire is to present BETTER EXPLANATION OF THE EVIDENCE, not belief in the Bible. ID is silent about God or the Designer

The cleansed-for-public-release version only exists to try to backdoor theology into the public schools as science in an evangelical effort.

Correction. It is the "as-is-public-release" version to try to present better explanation of the evidence to the public schools in an effort to present better science. The book Exploring Evolution MENTIONS NOTHING OF ANY God, much less the Bible.

Here are two excerpts from the preeminent textbook on Intelligent Design, one is the original, and the other is from after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which said you couldn't teach Creation in public schools as science: Original: Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands. Post Aguillard: Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera. Do you see the similarity?

Yes I see the similarity. But I have some questions which bring your presentation to doubt :

Where did you get THAT definition of Intelligent Design ? Did you get it from an official ID supporting website like Discovery Institute ? Or did you get it somewhere else ? Or did you make it up, or did somebody hostile to ID or who does not take time to understand it simply redefine it based on his/her warped understanding of ID ?

Here is what I read from Discovery's website :

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NOTE : There is no mention of the word ---- ABRUPTLY as you use it.

ID is not even hostile to the idea of Evolution RIGHTLY DEFINED AND UNDERSTOOD IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT.

Here is what I got from Discovery's website :

Q: Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.


As I said, when you postulate INTELLIGENCE, there IS BOUND to be similarities with what Creationists see as God, but that does not mean there is no difference, and also THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE POSTULATE IS FALSE.

BTW, Suppose someone at some school board meeting declared that Darwin’s theory of evolution was in accord with their religion. Does that then mean that person’s connection of evolution and religion renders evolution a subject that violates the establishment clause? I think it’s safe to say that’s a resounding no unless one can establish that what’s actually taught in the classroom corresponds to religion.

This is pretty simple stuff to explain away

So explain away... I've got time... But please be convincing...

The whole book is like that. It is a shining example of how ID is just Creation with a transparent veneer of science on top.

Really ? You've read it huh ? OK, tell me where the book mentioned the days of creation, The God of the Bible, The Flood, etc. and then maybe you're right to use the term CREATIONIST but not until.

Their PR job is working, at least on you.

It is working precisely BECAUSE people use their HEADS to think. They know that just because there are similarities, there are also DIFFERENCES. It isn't working on you because you refuse to acknoledge the DIFFERENCES.

The CSC, which is the ID arm of the Discovery Institute (the two can be used interchangeably on the subject), was founded on the concept that "nature and human beings are created by God."

Yeah and I should believe you over their statement. READ IT AGAIN HERE :

Founded in 1990, the Institute is a national, non-profit, non-partisan policy and research organization, headquartered in Seattle, WA. It has programs on a variety of issues, including regional transportation development, economics and technology policy, legal reform, and bioethics. The Institute's founder and president is Bruce Chapman, who has a long history in public policy at both the national and regional levels. Mr. Chapman is a former director of the United States Census Bureau, and a past American ambassador to the United Nations Organizations in Vienna, Austria. Mr. Chapman has also served as a member of the Seattle City Council and as Washington State's Secretary of State.

2. What is the Center for Science and Culture?

The Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design. Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities. The Center's Director is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University.

3. Is Discovery Institute a religious organization?

Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

Again, the PR job at work.

Call it PR if you want, it is the ARGUMENTS they present that is more important. Does it BETTER EXPLAIN what we observe or not. PR is SECONDARY and as far as I'm concerned, immaterial to the ARGUMENT.

Knowing their history, they believe in the Christian God in all things.

SO WHAT ? I could also say knowing the history of atheistic supporters of Darwinism they DON'T believe in the Christian God in all things. In fact they believe Random Mutation + Natural Selection can create everything. What does that leave us with ?

Because they don't want to improve the teaching of it. They don't want to show errors and fix them scientifically so that it can be improved (as most scientists do).

The fact that they are presenting a theory that has better explanatory power MEANS they want to improve the teaching of it. Also, ID CAN BE IMPROVED UPON if that means critiquing some explanations based on the ID framework does not comport to evidence.

They want to kill it and replace it with something entirely different and theologically based.

When a theory has BETTER EXPLANATORY POWER, why not present it as a competing explanation ? And if it NOT better, let the arguments be open UNTIL the better theory wins. SUPPRESSION gets you nowhere. Filing Lawsuits are even worse.

Yes, I know, specifically from their own statements in the Wedge Document. Meyer admits the document is authentic.

Oh no you don't. Read this from the Dsicovery Institute :

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#generalQuestions

Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?

No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.


As I said before, if you read the Discovery Institute, they do not even recommend teaching ID in the classroom ( that's right I said it and it isn't a typo ).

Deceptive PR again, inconsistent with their stated mission, their "Teach the Controversy" program and history.

Entirely CONSISTENT. THERE IS A CONTROVERSY and QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ASKED REGARDING DIFFICULTIES WITH THE THEORY ITSELF THAT WANTS TO MONOPOLIZE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

The board in the Dover case did not move forward until they received help and advice from the Discovery Institute, which had arranged a legal defense (by a Christian legal organization) for when their inclusion of ID led to a lawsuit.

The Dover case came as a result of a LAWSUIT filed by people who did not want ID presented in school. BTW, Discovery's s science education policy has been consistent and clear. They DO NOT RECOMMEND teaching ID in school, but believe that that teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible ( I do too by the way ). Here is their own statement :

We strongly believe that teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible, but we think mandatory inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula is ill-advised. Instead, we recommend that schools require only that the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinism be taught, while not infringing on the academic freedom of teachers to present appropriate information about intelligent design if they choose. Although we believe teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible, we think mandating intelligent design politicizes what should be a scientific debate and harms the efforts of scientists who support design to gain a fair hearing in the scientific community. Our science education policy is a matter of public record. We have explained it repeatedly to reporters and to school board members, and it is clearly stated on our website.

It's in his autobiography. He talks about the "First Cause" (which of course to him is the Christian God) being necessary to produce something so wonderful and immense.

If this is true, then I have no arguments with Darwin here. Which leads me to the next question --- if the Christian God bothered to create, why can't he DIRECT and GUIDE ? There isn't any good reason why He can't given that He is supposed to be INCARNATE ( you can't be a Christian God and not be Jesus Christ ).

That they are committed to the concept of God Did It at any cost.

Wrong. Here is what they say in their website ( you can call it PR all you want. It has been consistent since day 1 ) :

Intelligent design theory does NOT claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause. Nor does it claim that the intelligent cause must be a “divine being” or a “higher power” or an “all-powerful force.” All it proposes is that science can identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence.

No, we have an agenda by a couple of evolutionists, and an agenda by the founder of, and most members of, the modern Intelligent Design movement.

Sorry, no dice. I've met and spoken and argued with too many evolutionists to believe this. The agenda is TOTAL SECULARISM by LOTS of Darwinists.

I don't trust anything with an agenda , be it the DI, Dawkins or the Global Warming movement (sorry, "Climate Change," they've been doing the same PR cover-up as the DI).

The you shouldn't trust a lot of Darwinists as well since their PR is to claim that they are not Anti-religion when a lot of them truly are. At least guys like Dawkins come out openly.

But that for me as I said is SECONDARY.

You have an agenda for society as well I. My agenda for instance is to see America become Less liberal and more conservative. But that has LITTLE TO DO with the truth or falsity of Darwinism or Intelligent Design.

On the other hand, evolution through natural selection came about through a genuine desire to advance science.

Maybe by Darwin himself, but unfortunately, there are too many Darwinists today who have ( as you call it ) personal agendas. So, personal agenda is BESIDE THE POINT when we argue about theories. The more relevant issue is this --- WHICH ONE IS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ?

As I said before, long before Darwin was born, there have been Iders like Newton and Copernicus whose genuine desire were to advance science. I doubt that those religious Iders would not want to Advance science. That would be counter to honoring God with your mind ( The first and greatest commandment as presented by Jesus ( assuming as you said, Iders are Christian ). There is no dichotomy between being religious and being genuinely desirous of advancing science. I daresay that it does the God one worships no honor if one wants to pervert His truth. If nature is God's creation, why would a genuinely religious IDer dishonor Him by attributing things to Him which He did not do ? ( unless to you of course, all IDers are hypocrites ).

Even Darwin, as a religious man, feared a backlash for his heretical ideas.

Uh huh, and I guess people who are sympathetic to men like Guillermo Gonzalez should also fear backlash for ideas considered heretical today.

Luckily times had changed

In many cases, they haven’t really.

and he didn't suffer the same fate as other correct scientists such as Galileo (the Church didn't think he had "proof" either) and Bruno.

The ones who persecuted Galileo were also ESTABLISHED SCIENTIST in case you were not paying attention. Read all about it here ( not the one the secular media wants you to believe ) :

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/000755.html
138 posted on 06/16/2007 10:07:24 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson