Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

IDEA Club comes to UC Berkeley

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Go to http://idea.berkeley.edu for the new website for UC Berkeley’s IDEA Club (IDEA = Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness):

For too long the students have been dogmatically told that ID is just pseudo-scientific religious dogma. This website will offer Berkeley students accurate information on what ID is and is not. When students realize that ID does have scientific content behind the unfortunate politics, they will realize that the critics of ID on this campus are just arguing against themselves based on strawmen arguments. Their characterization of ID as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” will only work if the students don’t read the ID material for themselves. It seems that incredulously asserting that ID theorists are bad scientists also works well . . . that is, until students read the material for themselves. The Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe was initially rejected too, because the physicist who proposed it also happened to be a priest. However, today it is widely accepted among physicists and astronomers. Likewise, we want our fellow students across all disciplines to know the science of ID, regardless of the politics.

Comments
wmmalo Do you always continue trying to talk to people who don't want anything to do with you or am I special?DaveScot
October 10, 2005
October
10
Oct
10
10
2005
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
One strongly loyal to one's own social group, and irrationally intolerant or disdainful of others. That is the best Wikipedia has so far. Your 'tolerance' deceives you.wmmalo
October 10, 2005
October
10
Oct
10
10
2005
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
wmmalo Talk to the hand. I have zero tolerance for bigots.DaveScot
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT
Dave I would never call you a 'close-minded bigot', or attempt to convince you of anything different than what you believe. I would like to know how ID theory would develop beyond the 'recognition' of a greater 'Intellect'. What assumptions could/would be drawn? The current discussions on 'intended design' address the 'implications' of such a 'planned' system. If ID is an overzealous effort to 'moralize' science by establishing a 'creator, designer, supreme intelligence' it is of the utmost importance to explain where further investigation would be directed. If we accept design, we must next look at the intellect and intentions of the 'designer'. How would that unfold? Predestination - a flaw in the design?wmmalo
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
wmmalo I can't convince you of anything. You're a close-minded bigot.DaveScot
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
umm in no scientist, but if genetic mutations are random, and the theory of mud to man posits that there is no goal or purpose, isnt it all, in the end, random? if something has no real goal, no real purpose, then its random in general. i just have trouble with that concept- in any other field of study, randomness wouldnt be seen as a factor in creating ANYTHING, yet random mutations that somehow lead to better fitness (and this IS truly circular reasoning) which leads to more with those mutations surviving is considered not only probable- but if you deny this is the case, youre an anti-science fool somehow? is there any other field of study where anyone would ever posit that trillions of random acts could somehow work as a creative force with no guided input each step of the way?jboze3131
October 8, 2005
October
10
Oct
8
08
2005
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
"No, adaption and selection are non-random, but map to fitness landscapes. Why do people have such difficulty honestly describing the theory? " You presume such fitness landscapes even existed in the first place. Do Darwinists even bother to assess how probable those fitness landscapes were? Or do they do the Avida thing, and effectively assign a probability of selction pressures existing at 100% rather affixing a more realistic and honest value (like closer to 0%)! You were talking about difficulties in describing a theory honestly? :-)scordova
October 8, 2005
October
10
Oct
8
08
2005
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
If evolution is a religion, it’s news to me, and I believe quite a few would be shocked to hear Darwin was a prophet. I respect your concern, but I don’t quite recognize the danger, unless there is a fear that the theory may be plausible to some degree. If Evolution is a religion and ID is science, someone better clue in the rest of the world. I don’t believe evolution theory demands ‘faithful’ adherence to a compromising ‘morality’. Religion is far easier to grasp than any science. It doesn’t take a lot of courage to submit to a ‘greater power’. Pascal’s Wager works just as good today as it did in the 17th century. I wouldn’t worry about evolution theory coming from the pulpit. If the science of ID is worth its weight, there will be no reason it won’t be taught as an alternate view to Darwinian Theory. If on the other hand, it fails to address the ‘implications’ it poses, it can only be considered as more theistic mortar. Convince me ID is not a ‘crusade’, fueled by the fear of godless immorality and atheistic domination; that it does not overreach religious authority.wmmalo
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
"Why is evolution ‘theory’ so threatening?" Because it has become dogmatic, exclusive, and unimpeachable. It's no longer a scientific theory. It's a state religion.DaveScot
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
"Sounds a bit defensive. I’m not sure persecution is the correct term." You perhaps don't see what I see. I see biology majors reluctant to be seen by their biology professors coming to IDEA club meetings. Some professors are real scoundrels: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2504 Persecution I'm afraid is the state of affairs in some places. I know many faculty who are fearful as well: http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/professordumped031203.htmscordova
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
"He rejects Darwinian evolution and will spend the rest of his life as a scientist studying the craftsmaship of a supreme Mind. The world of science would be fortunate to have more minds like this student." Take a clever kid and brainwash him so he mistakes philosophy for science.2perfection
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
If 'design theory' is found to be true... 1. It's an alien, then we are just animals or complex machines with more importance than high-yeild chickens. 2. It's God, then he designed all the diseases and parasites and deliberately created people with sub-optimal systems, and so is a bad go. no worship for him, rejection of 'god given' rules. 3. People come away with a range of interpretations, and until the designer tells us what his design specification is we are absolutely no better off.2perfection
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
"Evolution, the theory suggests a random system of mutation, adaptation and selection. " No, adaption and selection are non-random, but map to fitness landscapes. Why do people have such difficulty honestly describing the theory?2perfection
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
I don't believe it's necessary to know the composer to enjoy the symphony. No one is suggesting students of "Desgn Theory" are idiots. "At the IDEA chapters I see so many bright ID leaning students suffering needless persecution." Sounds a bit defensive. I'm not sure persecution is the correct term. Why is evolution 'theory' so threatening? A "supreme Mind" might be a difficult source define, and far more difficult to accept, unless you mean 'God'. ID, the theory, is an idea worth exploring, and I applaud the efforts to advance the science. I do feel it is a task that relies heavily on observation and interpretation of the same 'empirical evidence' as the 'origin of species'. We all wish to know the answer. It may a lifetime; actually it does take a lifetime.wmmalo
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
wmmalo asks "What would be next? " Just because I know who the designer is of a work of music (say Rachmaninoff) does not in any way diminish my desire to learn more about the designed object. Likewise with life, if we conclude design, it will be all the more intriguing to study the works of the designer. Science will then be flooded by highly motivated students who believe they are studying the craftsmanship of a supreme Mind. At the IDEA chapters I see so many bright ID leaning students suffering needless persecution. Should not these students be rather encouraged to participate in the scientific enterprise rather than discouraged. They constitute a large portion of the student poplulation that has been so far alienated by Darwinists. IDEA has given these bright minds a place to feel accepted. I'm pleased to say that I've seen several ID leaning biology majors graduate who have been a part of our IDEA clubs. Some of the home schoolers in our IDEA chapters started college (yes college) as young as age 14. One extremely bright home schooler who started college at age 15 has a triple major in scientific disciplines, will graduate next year and go on to a PhD. He was a part of IDEA. He rejects Darwinian evolution and will spend the rest of his life as a scientist studying the craftsmaship of a supreme Mind. The world of science would be fortunate to have more minds like this student. That's what's next.scordova
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Evolution, the science, explores biological systems by attempting "connect the dots". Evolution, the theory suggests a random system of mutation, adaptation and selection. Neither the science nor the theory of evolution is based on the assumption that the "origin of life" would be discovered, let alone explained by observation alone. Assuming evolutionists fill the "gaps" and substantiate the flawed system of 'hit and miss' genetics they hypothesize, what effect would such 'information' have on the human psyche? Humanity as a whole? Now assume the Design Theory is developed and accepted. The 'science' is proven. The life we are experiencing is a 'perfect' system, flawlessly patterned, an exquisite 'creation' unfolding before us, with us, in us. Where would such awareness lead science? Thought? Humanity. Could conclusions be made? What would be next?wmmalo
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
When one of them tries to weasel out of the argument by saying evolution doesn't speak to origins just start talking about front-loaded evolution and see how fast they change their tune.DaveScot
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
I found it interesting that UC Berkeley has a very extensive web site in support of evolution and its teaching in schools but makes the statement that it is a misconception that evolution involves the origin of life and says Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified. Whether or not we understand how life began, we do understand a lot about what happened during the history of life—though there is still much to learn. See: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml I would think that origin of life is the evolutionist's "holy grail" which they dare not give up. I wonder is the ACLU would mind if the statement on the Berkeley web site could be made part of all biology courses.Jerry
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply