Posted on 09/30/2005 2:09:51 PM PDT by truthfinder9
It's amazing that these Darwinian Fundamentalists claim they're for science only to turn around and try to destroy any contrary theories or evidence. They're really getting desperate, the ID movement really has them rattled.
****
September 30, 2005
It’s happening again: another scientist, another academic institution, another attempt to stifle freedom of thought. The “Darwinist inquisition,” as a Discovery Institute press release calls it, is as predictable as it is relentless.
This time the setting is Iowa State University. One hundred twenty professors there have signed a statement denouncing the study of intelligent design and calling on all faculty members to reject it. The statement reads, in part, “We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor. . . . Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science.”
I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this thing is getting out of control. To begin with, the reasoning of the Iowa State professors is, frankly, some of the weakest I’ve ever seen. They give three reasons for rejecting intelligent design. The first is what they call “the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer”—which, even if that were true, would prove nothing. If certain features were chosen arbitrarily for study, how does that prove that no other features showed evidence of design? The number two reason given is “unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer.” That is a dubious claim; most serious intelligent design theorists have made very few conclusions about any such “wishes and desires.”
But the third reason is my favorite: They say it is “an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.” Now this gets to the heart of the matter. The statement goes so far as to claim, “Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the sciences.” I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe. I thought we were supposed to start without any foregone conclusions about the supernatural at all, that is, if we wanted to be truly scientific.
It seems to me that the intelligent design theorists aren’t the ones trying to inject religion and philosophy into the debate—the Darwinists are, starting out with predetermined conclusions.
But it gets even better than that. The Iowa State fracas started because one astronomy professor there, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, has attracted attention with a book on intelligent design. It’s a little odd to accuse Gonzalez of being unscientific; he’s a widely published scientist whose work has made the cover of Scientific American. But that’s exactly what’s happening. And here’s the kicker: Gonzalez barely mentions intelligent design in the classroom. He wants to wait until the theory has more solid support among scientists. All he’s doing is researching and writing about it.
Now the lesson here for all of us is very clear: Don’t be intimidated when confronting school boards or biology teachers about teaching intelligent design. All we are asking is that science pursue all the evidence. That’s fair enough. But that’s what drives them into a frenzy, as we see in Iowa.
That's just circular.
The central idea behind all science is that natural causes can be found for any observable phenomenon.
Such as your computer? Or are you moving the goal posts on me by redefining "natural"?
Why would any theory have to be reevaluated if it's "a priori" the truth?
> Why would any theory have to be reevaluated if it's "a priori" the truth?
The a priori assumption is that supernatural phenomena are discounted. This goes for *EVERY* theory. And so far, it's held up quite nicely.
Unless, of course, you can come up with a scientific theory that applies the supernatural...
I consider humans to be part of the natural world. I know that's not common usage, but ID proponents are not really hoping to find an older race of humans to be the designer, are they? I've been watching these threads for five years and have yet to see an ID proponent who is hoping or expecting to find a humanoid race or intelligent physical entity behind the design of earthly life.
What ID advocates are really after is proof of an omniscient designer. I know this is true because when I accuse the designer of being a criminal psychopath for designing parasites and disease, I am pounded with Bible verses.
When I speak of natural causes I mean that in opposition to supernatural causes or divine intervention. I personally don't believe in outside intervention of any kind. Panspermia is a long shot, but I would not consider it intervention. Molecules from space are likely to be similar to those formed here.
Except that with Darwinism, that is the theory. You're still not answering the question why the theory even needs to be formulated or reevaluated if it's just so "obvious".
You are apparently incapable of open minded logical thought.
A trait that you share with your "Darwinian evolution", ("it's SCIENCE!", "it's accepted SCIENCE, I tells ya!", "SCIENCE!", "SCIENCE!"), co-RELIGIONISTS.
You are really smarter than this, but apparently can't resist posting, even when you have nothing to say.
When Darwin formulated his theory of evolution, absolutely nothing was known of genetics, and there were huge gaps in the fossil record.
Everything we learn from discoveries in molecular biology or new fossil finds allows us to tweak our understanding of the processes.
ID theory takes no position on who the designer is. The only issue here is natural (defined as unintellegent, unforesighted) causes vs intelligent causes. A "supernatural" cause (whatever that's even supposed to really mean) would be a type of intelligent cause, and as far as I can see, would be scientifically indistinguishable from any other type of intelligent cause.
What ID advocates are really after is proof of an omniscient designer. I know this is true because when I accuse the designer of being a criminal psychopath for designing parasites and disease, I am pounded with Bible verses.
Whatever particular "ID advocates" say with regard to their beliefs, ID theory is that there was an intelligent cause. There's nothing more to it than that.
It's not a theory until you put som meat on it. Theories describe the attributes of causative agents. Theories describe the behavior of causes. Come back when you have a theory.
This is such an elementary requirement that I would be willing to have ID mentioned in science classes just for the joy of ridiculing it.
What I was talking about in that exchange was the bare assumption that non-intelligent causes were what brought about life. If you follow the replies back, that's what obb was saying was the only option that could be considered true a priori.
I mean, it wasn't like prior to Darwin, everybody considered it obvious that it was an unintelligent cause that was responsible, but just couldn't put their finger on how it might have happened.
ID does posit an attribute of the causative agent: It says it's intelligent. It can't go into detail further, because it doesn't have enough data to go on, but since when has that ever disqulified a scientific theory? First you establish something general, and then try, if possible, to get more specific.
This is such an elementary requirement that I would be willing to have ID mentioned in science classes just for the joy of ridiculing it.
That would actually be a good start.
BTTT
Since always. Theories must have supporting data. The theories of gravity, plate tectonics, and evolution all have large bodies of supporting evidence. A "theory" without data isn't a theory. Intelligent design, therefore, isn't a scientific theory. At best, it is a hypothesis, but more likely it is a conjecture or speculation.
ID theory works from the same data that Darwinian theory works from. It just has a different interpretation of those data.
see post # 577
Why? Is there something in it worth reading?
> Except that with Darwinism, that is the theory.
As always... incorrect.
> You're still not answering the question why the theory even needs to be formulated or reevaluated if it's just so "obvious".
What's obvious is the rejection of supernatural in scientific theories. Again I invite you to present a successful theory that employs the supernatural.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.