Skip to comments.What's the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?
Posted on 12/22/2005 8:44:09 AM PST by Sweetjustusnow
In the past decade or two, a group of scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, and other thinkers have marshaled powerful critiques of Darwinian theory on scientific and mathematical grounds. Although they generally don't dispute that evolution of some sort has occurred, they vigorously contest the neo-Darwinian claim that life could arise by an undirected, purely material process of chance variation and natural selection.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The answer is easy. ID let's the "God people" get their foot in the door. It's nothing more complex than that.
The Darwinists have had a monopoly on American education every since Clarence Darrow tried to defend the right of a farming community to have their kids taught the Bible in school.
All we are talking about now is to suggest to kids that maybe there just might be scientific, statistical reasons for believing that the General Theory of evolution is simply not in accordance with the facts.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I have always thought that there were insuperable difficulties in explaining the nature of things by a purely Darwinian account. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether science will be laid down by judicial fiat rather than experiment and rational argument. At present, it is laid down by judicial fiat, as confirmed by that recent judgment.
NO ARGUMENTS ALLOWED. It's all Darwin, all the time, and you'd better like it, because the judges won't have it any other way. It's not a monopoly as long as no one is making any money off of it.
Oops, what's that you say? People ARE making money off of this monopoly? Salaries, research grants, teachers unions, cushy jobs that might be at risk if Darwin doesn't maintain his monopoly, funds flowing in to the ACLU to defend their turf?
Oh, well, so it goes. We can't allow any discussion, because ONLY DARWIN IS SCIENTIFIC. NO OTHERS NEED APPLY.
You can acquaint students with ID in a non science class like theology, sociology, english, etc., BUT NOT IN SCIENCE CLASS BECAUSE IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
Either this writer is ignorant or a liar. It's very rare to encounter an argument in favor of ID where the proponent does not get the facts wrong either by deliberate misrepresentation or rampant ignorance. Lying about ID is not the way to begin an intelligent discourse.
ha ha...clever post.
Get over it? The anti-Darwin Diproids just got whupped like a red-headed step-child.
Darwin freaks so not in pain.
"THOSE WHO NOW OCCUPY the public square will fight to keep possession of it. The advocates of Darwinian materialism believe that they are in possession of The Truth, and are perfectly willing to invoke the power of the state to suppress competing views, as the Dover suit shows."
"For many centuries, the best explanation of the origin of life and the lawfulness of the universe was thought to be design, which was not considered inconsistent with science at all. Matthew Arnold, nevertheless, presciently foresaw the direction the tides would flow in the 19th century, and well into the 20th. But of the three theories that seemed so potent during that period -- Marxism, Freudianism, Darwinism -- two have already been washed away by history. Will Darwin's theory be next? If so, the materialist worldview is at stake, and the materialists know it.
And that's why intelligent design is such a big deal."
I'm certain the scientists who study Evolutionary Theory would be more than happy fo ryou to publish your "easy critisms" ot their "simplistic logic" in the relevant science journals. I look forward to reading your monographs on the subject.
Science has had a monopoly on American science education every since... and rightly so.
It is a lot like Religion having a monopoly in religion classes or writing having a monopoly in writing class.
Further, Darwin is ancient history. There are many components to science that goes beyond darwin's incomplete and partially incorrect theories.
LOL - what exactly are "God people"?
Says the one who argues like a 13-year old.
Dogmatic Darwinists now defend radical judicial activism to
keep rational thought out of the schools (?)
You fall into the ignorant category...unless, of course, you're lying. If you read the article, then you would know what the objections raised by scientists are. You should inform yourself with accurate information about this debate.
The author is a lawyer. You can assume therefore that it is probably the latter.
1) It provides a platform for certain libertarians (whose cultural familiars are liberals) to vent their hostilities about the religious. "Rightwing Christians are defiling the Holy Altar of Science"-- these guys just want a stick to beat rightward religious with.
2) Leftists want badly to chip off votes from vulnerable GOP pols in battleground states. They'd love to embarrass enough pols and libertarians with the "uncouth" associtiation with the extremely effective Christian right--at least enough to knock a few GOP Senators out of office. Just enough to turn the Senate Democratic.
And the leftists goad the libertarians into doing their work for them--"Save Science From the Heathen!"
And yet The advocates of GOD believe that they are in possession of The Truth, and are perfectly willing to invoke the power of RELIGION AND GOD to suppress competing views
But the claims of IDs main proponents cannot be accepted on face value. There is no objective measure for detecting design in situations where we don't have clear direct information. (We know, for instance, the origin of watches.) Claims that such have been developed do not withstand critical scrutiny. There are evolutionary scenarios to produce irreducibly complex structures, despite the ubiquitious pretense among ID-ists that there are none. And of course, as Dover trial Judge Jones noted, ID is a repackaging of creationism.
No, it indeed "isn't science," Mr. Peterson. That's the big deal.
Yes, because ID offers NO FALSIFICATION CRITERIA, therefore cannot be refuted. Moreover, ID has failed completely and utterly to "demonstrate affirmatively that life exhibits evidence of design". The complete demolishing of Behe in Dover is ample testament to that -- forcing the leading light of ID to admit that his examples were a)not IC and b) that Common Descent is true and C) that God might not exist anymore based on his review of the evidence. Yeah, a great victory for the affirmative demonstation of design.
Nonsense. They got caught red-handed on both points in the Dover case, which is why they got slam-dunked in the ruling.
As for the title question, one might as well ask what's the big deal about Clinton getting a blow job and lying about it. If one believes that truth matters and that rule of law matters, then it's a big deal; if not, then I suppose it isn't.
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.