Monday, May 15, 2006

Intelligent Design is Creationism, ID advocates say!

This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.
- Phillip E. Johnson, "Witnesses for the Prosecution", World Magazine 1996
` What is Intelligent Design? I could tell you myself, but why don’t I let its main proponents tell you first? Unfortunately, they tend to contradict themselves. For example, they will usually state publically that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Christianity, as in this statement by one of the main proponents of ID:
Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments. Whereas the creator underlying scientific creationism conforms to a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying intelligent design need not even be a deity.
—William Dembski, The Design Revolution , 2003
` In fact, he has also said just the opposite:
Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.
—William Dembski, “Intelligent Design’s Contribution to the Debate over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris,” 2005
` He even tells us why that is:
Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God … The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ … And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.
—William Dembski, National Religious Broadcasters convention, February 6, 2000
` And how should this be accomplished? Another main proponent tells us in an interview:
The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’
—Phillip Johnson, “Missionary Man,” Church & State magazine, 1999
` And why hide their religious intentions?

So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.
-- Philip Johnson, "Berkeley's Radical", Touchstone Magazine, 2002

` Clearly, it's a religiously motivated plan to gain converts. And what about the supposedly scientific part? Both Johnson and Dembski have much to say. Here is a small sampling:
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
--Phillip Johnson, "Let's be Intelligent About Darwin", Christianity.Ca, February 6, 2004
Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.
—William Dembski, “Research and Progress in Intelligent Design,” 2002 conference on Intelligent Design
` Right, because they’re not exactly practicing science. Paul Nelson explains:
We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.
—Dr. Paul Nelson, “The Measure of Design,” Touchstone magazine, 2004
` On top of this, the notion that Intelligent Design is not creationism has also been covered up in pro-ID popular literature:
` As discovered in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, a major ID publication was indeed discovered to be Creationist in content. You see, in 1983, there was a draft of a book called Creation Biology; in 1986 it was called Biology and Creation, in early 1987 it was Biology and Origins, and later on that year there were two more drafts of the same book, both entitled Of Pandas and People.
` What does that tell you about this supposedly ID-but-not-Creationism book?
` In Biology and Creation, the definition of the word ‘creation’ was as follows;
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.
` After the Supreme Court had ruled creation science out of public school science classrooms, the second draft entitled Of Pandas and People was altered in a distinctive way: The editor, Charles Thaxton, deleted all evidence of the words ‘creation’, ‘creation science’, and ‘creationist’ and in their stead wrote of ‘Intelligent Design’. Observe:
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, wings, etc.

` In other words, Creationism and Intelligent Design are explicitly defined as the same thing, and one term simply took up the role of the other.
` Speaking of Dover, pro-ID school board member William Buckingham said on local Fox News a week after the June 14, 2004 school board meeting; “My opinion, it’s okay to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else such as creationism.”
` Both local papers reported that he had said that his reason to ‘balance’ Darwin’s theory with creationism was because; “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?”
` If that doesn’t sounds like a religious motivation specifically to get creationism into the science classroom, fundamentalist Christianity must not be a religion.

` And how did this all begin? Conveniently, I have read a story in Seattle Weekly last February called Discovery’s Creation. A Seattle Think Tank launched the modern Intelligent Design Movement with a simple memo. The idea has evolved into a media sensation. And the cause has mutated beyond rational control.
` I had paraphrased this article in my HFBGN thusly:

` In late January of 1999, a memo was found in a downtown human resource office by a man named Matt Duss. It read: TOP SECRET NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION. Its title: The Wedge.
` And what is The Wedge? ‘Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies.’ The plan? Replace ‘materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God’, and ‘defeat scientific materialism’ with a new scientific paradigm ‘consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.’
` Though the DI was not well-known then, says former Discovery fellow, Phillip Gold, then it is now the most popular resource for their new kind of non-science science. “Considering that they did it with very few people, very little money and no established power base, it’s far and away the most successful campaign of its kind I’ve ever seen.’
` Originally, the first director was Stephen Meyer, who teaches at Whitworth College in Spokane, which states its mission as ‘to provide its diverse student body an education of the mind and heart, equipping its graduates to honor God, follow Christ, and serve humanity.’ “Whitwoth’s community of teacher-scholars is committed to rigorous and open intellectual inquiry and to the integration of Christian faith and learning.
` At the now-called Center for Science and Culture, seven fellows hold advanced degrees in biological sciences. ‘Thirteen profess philosophy/theology’ at Biola College in L.A., Messiah College in Gratham, PA, and Wheaton College in Wheaton Ill.
` “With such a roster, very little of the center’s research into the weakness of Darwinism has been of the experimental, lab-oriented, peer-reviewed kind.’ They say it ‘is only part of the larger mission to open the scientific discourse to evidence and viewpoints that have been suppressed, even persecuted, by the Darwinian establishment.”
` “In parallel with a mission of training the media to take it seriously, the Center for Science and Culture from the beginning had been looking for local school districts and state boards of education that might be sympathetic to the campaign. It struck gold near home in 1999.”
` Roger DeHart, a Skagit County high school science teacher, had been teaching students from a non-science book called Of Pandas and People for nearly ten years. [Yes, the one that was once called Creation Biology!] He was in trouble now, and the DI came to his aid. Hart quit to witness for the DI as a harassed high school teacher.
` As they spread from state to state, they stopped being so adamant about teaching ID… instead, they wanted students to know that there is a controversy, and dropped Renewal from their Center’s name.
` In Kitzmiller vs. Dover, Lehigh University biochemist Michael J Behe was cross-examined by Eric Rothschild and discovered:
* That no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design’s claims.

* That Behe’s own book was not, as he had claimed, peer-reviewed.

* That Behe himself criticizes the science presented as supporting intelligent design in instructional material created for that purpose (!).

* That Intelligent Design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God.

` And;

* That the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1745-1805) in his 1802 Natural Theology: or Evidences of the Ecistence and Attributes of the Petty, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, were he sums up his observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, “The marks of design are too strong to be got over – that designer must have been a person. That person is GOD.’

` This kind of thing happened more than once during the trial: In the end, Judge Jones couldn’t find enough legal difference between ID and other versions of creationism that have been banned unequivocantly by the Supreme Court since 1968 to let it go. It is creationism trying to look like something it isn’t – science.

` And let’s keep that in mind, Jones forcefully wrote it off Dec 20, 05 – ‘in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial.’
` That’s the very short and long of it.


` Addendum: it is evident that my friend Anonymous Dawn advocates the claims of Michael Behe. Besides being well-known for distorting scientific facts and misrepresenting the opinions of scientists, he is also known to tell falsities about his own work in order to make it look more attractive.
` According to this quarter’s Skeptic magazine article ‘The Dover Decision’:

On the stand, Behe tried to establish that his book [Darwin’s Black Box] had been subjected to peer review, one of the bedrock processes of vetting the credibility of scientific writings. He testified that his book had undergone even more thorough review than a normal journal article would have because of the controversial nature of the subject. He specifically named Dr. Michael Atchison of the University of Pennsylvania as one of the book’s reviewers.
` But NCSE’s Matzke remembered an article written by Atchison in which he stated that he had not reviewed the book at all but had only held a ten minute phone conversation with the book’s editor over the general content. When the plaintiff’s attorney introduced this article during cross-examination, it was clearly a blow to Behe’s claim that the book had “received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.”
` The cross examination of Behe also undermined the credibility of his testimony in several other ways. One of Behe’s central claims has been that there is no serious scientific work or progress on how complex biochemical systems like the flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system could have evolved, and he testified as much. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, in a Perry Mason-like flourish, pointedly dropped dozens of peer-reviewed books and journal articles about the evolution of such systems in front of him; Behe admitted that he had read virtually none of them.
` They also questioned him about a paper he had written in 2004, widely regarded by creationists as a peer-reviewed pro-ID paper. That cross examination established that, despite the fact that he and his co-author had essentially rigged the parameters of their evolution simulation to make evolution as unlikely as possible, biochemical systems requiring multiple unselected mutations – the very type of system he claims could not have evolved in a stepwise fashion – could evolve in a relatively short period of time.
` The irony! Now, how anyone can trust people who lie so much about their motives – never mind what they make up about scientists and their findings – eludes me.
` This is not to say that there are not legitimate biologists who are Christians, of course. It's just that they do not allow their religion to interfere with their work.
` Generally, Christian biologists agree that there is no reason to ignore evolution (especially since modern biology centers around it) and that natural selection must be the way that God chose to allow different forms of life to unfold. Even Whitworth professor Dr. Lee Anne Chaney states that Intelligent Design is not useful in science:
As a Christian, part of my belief system is that God is ultimately responsible. But as a biologist, I need to look at the evidence. Scientifically speaking, I don’t think intelligent design is very helpful because it does not provide things that are refutable — there is no way in the world you can show it’s not true. Drawing inferences about the deity does not seem to me to be the function of science because it’s very subjective.
` As you have probably noticed, I have not yet even begun to get into the distortions of Darwin's theory, findings and opinions of modern scientists, and other misinformation about science that is constantly being churned out by the ID movement.
` I will have to some time, of course. For now, it is enough for me to establish that Intelligent Design and Creationism are one and the same, and that the Wedge movement behind it is all is a thinly diguised political deception meant to gain converts.
` The very fact that people are trying to push creationism and fundamentalistic Christianity into a completely different realm, the science class, just goes to show you how amazingly out of hand it's gotten.
` Could somebody tell me that isn't a self-righteous missionary plan meant to violate people's constitutional rights? Or, furthermore, can someone tell me how anyone can respect what is going on?

17 comments:

Galtron said...

I can cheerfully say that both Intelligent Design as well as the reiterations of your article are what Judge Jones would call 'Breathtakingly redundant!'

I mean, can it get more obvious?

S E E Quine said...

` Not unless the ID people made a musical about it, but realistically... no.

Anonymous said...

“Clearly, it's a religiously motivated plan to gain converts.”


Unfortunately, your logic is flawed. It appears that you are claiming that if a scientist attempts to prove his/her own religious views through the use of science, that this automatically means that the goal of his/her scientific activity is solely to win religious converts. Therefore, nothing that this scientist does could possibly be “real” science, because his/her views will always be intrinsically skewed by his/her unquenchable desire to win more converts. Therefore, whatever this person says is pure balderdash.

I think that you need to refine your knowledge of Christianity. There are various theological differences among Christians regarding the predestination of humans. A significant number of Christians with a theological slant called "Calvinism" would in fact claim that God and God alone chooses those people that will experience a conversion, and that absolutely nothing that human beings could do could interfere with God's desire to see someone converted/not converted if he ordained for that to happen. In fact, it is impossible to "win" converts according to a Calvinist. If a person becomes a believer, it is solely an act of mercy on God's part. Therefore, the whole idea of "winning" converts is out of the question, because it gives humans too much credit for the work that is God's work alone. So, your idea that the whole goal of those that believe in creation is to convert others to Christianity would definitely be flawed in the case of Calvinists (and there are a huge number of Calvinist Christians worldwide). Many Calvinists would in fact claim that their goal in advancing the theory of creationism is not to win converts, but rather to glorify and honor God through a better understanding of the creative process.

There is a possibility that you didn’t bring up – the possibility that people can have a duality of purposes and hold simultaneously both an interest in seeking after truth in science, and an interest in seeking after truth in religion. Notice the underlying commonality – pursuit of TRUTH. I will break it down for you a bit. Example – a person can eat because they LIKE to eat. However, this same person probably also eats because it sustains their body, and they would die if they didn’t eat. Parallel – A scientist can participate in science because they are on a quest to seek after truth. At the same time, this person could also participate in science because they believe it confirms the truth of their own religious beliefs. That doesn’t make their discoveries any more or less valid. Truth is truth, regardless of the motives for its discovery. Gold is still gold, whether it is found in the crown of a king, or whether it is melted down and made into a ring in a pig’s snout by some idiot that didn’t even know it was gold in the first place!

I think that first and foremost, you have to admit your own bias against religion. And, like you, those that do believe in god/gods/goddesses etc. do have their own worldviews from which they construe their own reality. All people DO have their own way of viewing reality, whether or not they profess to be a follower of a major world religion. I know people who hold to neo-pagan beliefs that believe that the world was created by numerous deities of some sort. Muslims would claim that the world was created by Allah. Orthodox Jews would say that the world was created by the Old Testament Jehovah. Fundamentalist Christians would claim based upon the first book of John in the New Testament that Jesus was involved in creation in some capacity. All of these various religions have their own ideas on morality, the meaning of life, the nature of God/gods, and how a person receives eternal reward. But, I’m not sure that holding to any of these beliefs, nor a multitude of others, nor even attempting to use science to strengthen their own religious viewpoints, would disqualify any of these believers from being able to discover truth via science.

I suggest you study the lives of scientists such as Arthur Stanley Eddington, Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Matthew Fontaine Maury, Gregor Mendel, James Clerk Maxwell, William Thomson, James Prescott Joule, John Frederick William Herschel, Michael Farady, Leonhard Euler, Carolus Linnaeus, Roger Bacon, and Johannes Baptista van Helmont in more detail. Even the most skeptical atheist would have to agree that these people made significant contributions to science. And yet, all of these people were devout believers in a creator. Should we dismiss their contributions as gobbledygook simply because of their firm belief in a creator? Gold is gold. Truth is truth. If someone from Discovery Institute made a significant scientific breakthrough, would you discount what they have to say just because of where they worked?

--Dawn Tareila Harr

Aaron said...

Give 'em hell Spoony.

S E E Quine said...

` I'm assuming that you managed to read the entire post despite the HTML errors.
` I was having problems to begin with, and the next day I came into the library and fixed them. And today, I discovered that my fixing it had somehow caused the bulk of it to become invisible.
` That happens sometimes when I put forth too much formatting.
` I have fixed it for good, anyway.

` Anyway, where to start? For one thing, Intelligent Design is not science. At all.
` They simply distort scientific discoveries that have already been made and say 'See? That's not consistent with what scientists think!' Either that, or they say; 'Look at what scientists think! That isn't consistent with the science they practice!' Which of course it isn't, but they don't think that in the first place, now do they?
` Please understand that because I only have twenty minutes left that I cannot give you several convincing and detailed examples of this.
` I will, however, in the future.

` If they are not trying to gain converts, then why are they trying to push ID into science classrooms (and fail because it's more than evident that it isn't science)? Do you think the Intelligent Design proponents are all Calvinists or something?

` What part of 'The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’ is not about pushing God to the public?
` Since ID is not science, then why are they trying to put it in a science classroom where it does not belong?

` Furthermore, what makes you so convinced that religion is equal with science on discovering truth? What has it given us? Art? Yes. Organizations? Yes. Technology of any type? No. The discovery of such things as genes, or really anything new? No.

` Science has nothing to do with morals, nor does it attempt to decipher the meaning of life.
` Science works with what can be done, and working with the real world to make things happen. Scientists are not concerned with the same things that religions are.

` Those scientists you have listed (so far as I know) largely have not let their religious biases color their significant contributions to science as much as they made ideas work in the real world.
` It is very important to understand here that just because a scientist believes in something does not mean that they pretend their religion is scientific, or for that matter, that science is a religion.

` You have evidently been taught by the IDists that scientists are simply 'close-minded' bigots who scorn religious scientists.
` Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, I would absolutely not scorn the work of an IDist at all if it was actually valuable. The reason why scientists do not take them seriously is because they have not discovered anything new.

` I have to go right now, as my hour is up at this odd minute (which is unusual, as hours begin and end on the hour, but my computer has been malfunctioning and so I have more time) but please keep in mind that my response is pending.

Anonymous said...

Im an agnostic and believe evolution accurately describes how we came to be. I increasingly feel uneasy however that statements like "Science has nothing to do with morals, nor does it attempt to decipher the meaning of life" arent quite accurate.
I think evolution describes the process of us getting here but has nothing about it that affirms or denies possiblity of an intelligent source behind it. Scientist however, which are the part of science with unavoidable human bias, seem overwhelmingly to draw the conclusion that evolution process does answer the question, and the answer is "there is no intelligent causation". So whats going on in science community that leads them to that basic world view instead of the answer "there is no evidence for or against intelligent causation"?
I think it has a lot to do with a rebellion against popular long standing religious assertions and dogma, and that being the case it unnavoidably sets itself up as replacement assertions and dogma. Science wants to take the high ground by claiming religion has no place in its field, yet sees no problem of the toes its stepped on by venturing over into religions field.
Heres my problem. One side gets to inform and influence young minds and the other side is locked out. Forget that intelligent design ideas arent in science class to counter the subtle but effective "random chance only" worldview. It isnt even allowed in study hall or the lunch room for fear it "MIGHT influence young minds"! WTF? Im for the free flow of ideas personally and the current set up in academia aint it.
One worldview is accused of desiring to control and censor the masses, and the other worldview is ACTUALLY DOING IT!
Thanks for allowing me to enter the frey.
Steve

S E E Quine said...

` I have walked home from the library, taken a nap, eaten lunch, typed this reply to Steve from my home computer, and have walked to Zippy’s Java Lounge with it (on the CDC) for the express purpose of posting it – so I apologize for not responding to anyone else if anyone else has posted.

` It is true that ethologists can indeed give us some ideas about what is best for us – I’m just saying that the job of a scientist does not involve telling people how to live their lives.
` Also, scientists have no scientific interest in trying to figure out the meaning of life. Why? They don’t assume that there is such a thing in the first place because as yet there is no evidence for it.

I think evolution describes the process of us getting here but has nothing about it that affirms or denies possiblity of an intelligent source behind it.

` Any biologist will tell you that this is true. Unlike your assumption, the scientific answer is that there is no evidence for or against intelligent causation, as you cannot prove a negative.
` Scientifically, it follows that, because we do not need intelligence to explain the world, nor can we decect whether or not this is true, the idea is utterly useless and so does not matter in scientific practice one way or the other.
` This is what Ockham’s razor is for; for simplicity’s sake, if something can be explained just fine without assuming something or other, then that something or other is not needed in the equation.
` In other words, it is superfluous and therefore scientifically meaningless. (This does not mean that it has to be personally meaningless!)
` So, why entertain the possibility of a religious explanation that contributes absolutely nothing to a perfectly good explanation when it has no scientific basis?

` What irritates scientists are people who insist that they have empirical evidence for their supernatural beliefs (of any kind) when in fact they have nothing of the sort. (Of course, on the surface it could fool anyone who is not scientifically literate.)
` It used to be that I did not understand this at all, and so I thought that scientists were close-minded and all that. Eventually, I learned that this appearance was due to my ignorance.
` My problem was that I was mistaking pseudoscience for science. I didn’t understand the difference, and indeed most people do not. Obviously, scientists (who practice science) can tell whether or not someone is using the careful methodology of science as they do, or if they are skipping steps or anything else.

` The reason Intelligent Design is not allowed in science classrooms is because it isn’t science, not because scientists don’t like it. Since the arguments for ID do not follow the scientific method to begin with, how is it supposed to give kids an idea of what the scientific method is?
` If you teach kids how to battle claims with straw man arguments, off-subject retorts, distortion of evidence and pessimism (as in Behe’s ‘Evolution is just impossible! So there!’) then they will not understand that such techniques in arguments are not a part of science, nor could such teachings possibly promote any amount of skeptical thinking.
` So, if you’re going to teach kids the scientific method, then don’t teach them something that breaks all the rules and then tell them that this complete contradiction somehow fits. (There is already enough confusion and ignorance about this subject!)

` In other words, this issue has nothing to do with opinions or censorship. This has to do with people who are not behaving like scientists, yet are complaining that people are telling them as much.

Anonymous said...

I suppose if youre looking to maintain simplistic explanations then applying Ockham's Razor is the way to go. The problem with applying it, seems to me to automatically bias one from considering a more complex solution. Ockham's Razor is about playing probabilities based on "available" evidence. Which is basically what science needs to adhere to so it doesnt play a game of speculation. Just because applying the Razor with todays available evidence points to not needing an intelligent source, it should not block our mind from possibilities thus biasing further research. As a follower of science i recognise human limitations on researching an intelligent source and therefore i tend to just state "we just dont know"...as opposed to the more rigid " its too complex a solution and theres no need to even consider it".
Lets say we humans finally get around to really advanced stage in artificial intelligence field and begin making robots that design and make other robots. A few million years from now a scientist comes upon one of these robots traveling through space. Hes going to study this robot and see its amazing capabilities at regeneration. Hes going to study this advanced robot and see its evolved state of being biologically driven creatures like ourselves, instead of the nuts , bolts and electricly driven machine we began with. Hes then going to apply Ockham's Razor principle and conclude this robot creature had no intelligent source before it? Only problem is he would be wrong.
We have to be careful to guard against thinking science offers us certainties when in fact it can only offer us probabilities. We have to be careful in discounting ideas that surpass current scientific capabilities. The wonders of science should humble us to possibilities, not bias us with rigid dogma.
You say you dont want to teach kids to "not break the rules" and steer clear of "complete contradictions". Maybe if Albert Einstein had been "taught" a little more he would have just been known as a pretty good patent clerk.
Steve

Galtron said...

Uh, dude? Take another look at what Spoony wrote:

` If you teach kids how to battle claims with straw man arguments, off-subject retorts, distortion of evidence and pessimism (as in Behe’s ‘Evolution is just impossible! So there!’) then they will not understand that such techniques in arguments are not a part of science, nor could such teachings possibly promote any amount of skeptical thinking.

Einstein did not use straw man arguments, he did not change or ignore evidence, he did not make up pointless arguments that did not directly have anything to do with the subject, he did not simply deny other's reasons for contradictory theories of the universe because he felt like it.

In contrast, those are the kind of thing politicians do when they lie! (The exact techniques are also used by ID people.)

So, Einstein had reasons to come up with the theories that he did: he found evidence for them with the scientific method! No one could prove him wrong: That's why he was so revolutionary!

Can't you see any difference? Perhaps it would help if you read about it:

S E E Quine said...

` !!!?!?! Goodness, Galtron! You know, I was actually writing a response to Steve and what you posted is similar to part of it!
` In fact, I would be finished by now if it weren't for the fact that I was hanging out with Flinch all afternoon, and then with Lou Ryan all night and all morning!
` Indeed, I was taking advantage of the fact that my response is an entire post to explain the scientific method myself!
` In the meantime, your response may be more than adequate!
` Nevertheless, come tomorrow I'd get below ground if I were you.

Anonymous said...

Hi Galtron,
Im very familiar with scientific methods. I guess my thinking is this...Evidence of an intelligent source behind existence means we have to be able to study that source. Which ultimately falls in the category of studying what occured just before the big bang. We cant do that. So science is accurate when it states theres no evidence for an intelligent source, but its sorta like looking in a cars glove box & stating you see no evidence of a spare tire in the trunk or an engine and transmission under the hood.
Steve

Galtron said...

Okay, then you only study what you can study. If there's no observation in the real world that suggests Intelligent Design (and so ID would have no effect on anything we know) then it doesn't have any use. You can think what you want to, but it cannot be brought into the realm of scientific practice.

If ID is not science, then how can you possibly teach it in science class?

It doesn't matter if there's a spare tire in the trunk - if there's no way to observe any trace of it in the glove box, then it makes no difference in the work of scientists who live in the glove box.

If you can imagine something to be true, even when there would probably never be any way to observe it, that is a completely different kind of thought. It has nothing to do with what scientists are there for.

You may know something about scientific thought, but maybe you never thought of why it is the way it is:
If science doesn't need something to explain anything, if that thing is completely extra and superfluous, then you couldn't use it in the real world!!! It has no impact on our practical lives!!!! It belongs in speculative thought that has nothing to do with the practical world, because you could never prove it was true.
Anything you can observe and touch, even indirectly, is something that science deals with, any time, any place, by anyone.

If the universe was created by something in such a way that life evolved, it makes no difference about the theory of evolution at all, because it is still the way it is!!

BUT, what you apparently do not realize is that ID is not really the main issue of Intelligent Design! ID is merely a bunch of creationists trying to say that there is scientific evidence for God.
And when you look at what their 'evidence' is, it is clear that they are ignoring and distorting most of scientific knowledge we already have in order to get it that way.

Really, that is what ID is all about anyway, and that is why scientists and science teachers are so angry about it -- not only is ID not needed, kids can't learn real scientific facts from it!!

Wyrden said...

Yea! Those people are like only one step away from being Flat-Earthers! And if someone wants to believe the earth is flat, it's their choice - it has nothing to do with scientific observations, even though the FEs insist THEYRE the one's being scientific!

Thank goodness not many people take them seriously - it's kind of hard to, I guess, because nobody's willing to believe their 'scientific measurements'.

Galtron said...

That, and the fact that anyone can see that a) the earth is round and b) Flat Earthers are completely insane.

S E E Quine said...

` Heh heh! Proud to be an 'ignorant beast of the field!'
` Well, I hope Steve reads that response I wrote him without bursting into flames.

Anonymous said...

As a science teacher (with a BS in Bio and an MS in Chemistry) who is a Christian*, I think that there is little thought and emphasis on science is what can be proven empirically, and that faith, by nature, can not be proven empirically. Faith is by very definition, something to believe in without empirical evidence. There should not be conflict between IDers and evolutionists in classrooms, unless one does not have a clear and accurate view of what science is and does. ID can not be scientifically examined, so it does not belong in a classroom. However, teachers of evolution need to be clear about where wholes in evolution theory exist. This is important not because it confirms ID, but because it is where current science research is based. All science is based on filling in the holes on what we do not yet have a confident answer for, or for reevaluating "knowns" in light of new information. Scientists will tell you there are no absolutes- just things that we are fairly close to certain about, but can change when other "truths" change. Example: in the 1920s, it was believed that proteins were the molecules of inheritance, and DNA used for control of osmotic pressure in the nuclei. With the use of X-ray crystallography, as well as other methods of observation/ measurement, we now know, with a good amount of certainty, that DNA is the molecule that carries our inherited information. There are still holes, but now we are concerned with what the so-called "junk DNA" (non-coding regions)does- it was once thought to be useless, but now there is less certainty to that.

Science is the search for truth or answers, but it also was begun as the search to prove God, and to better know him. Dawn Tareila Harr is correct on her statements about "founding" scientists. But science also constantly evolves (I know, I know) in light of new knowledge. ID does not.

*for the record I do believe in inspired evolution, which some scientists do consider ID, and some Christians do NOT consider ID...I make both groups angry.


Jennifer

S E E Quine said...

` Good to know people are reading way back in my archives!

` You know what's funny is that Dawn is no longer a fundamentalist, but is now a liberal Christian and sees now that evolution makes sense and that ID is, as I've written more recently, based on false ideas about evolution.
` In other words, the false ideas/ assumptions/ alleged facts make no sense, giving the impression that evolution makes no sense, etc.
` It is awfully suspicious that the picture of evolution given by the IDers doesn't change no matter how much scientists try to correct them. In this way, they give the illusion that science is dogma because they keep telling the same story.
` So, what is ID theory? Well... they don't have one yet. Just spouting off false ideas about evolution, still!

` But I digress. So, you are a science teacher, I see! And one who is probably adamant about teaching children the difference between science and faith?
` I suppose a teacher who actually spells out what science is would be considered a good science teacher!
` So, what is this 'inspired evolution' you speak of? Don't worry, I'm not the type to get angry ;) (Though maybe I was when I wrote this article....)