Intelligent Design

Victory for Intelligent Design

Spread the love

I know this is a bit of a repeat of old news, but I thought some of you might appreciate a slightly different take on the McGill failure to put ID in it’s “proper place”.

The proponents of what came to be called “intelligent design” are naturally being denounced by “respectable scientific authority,” and since advocacy of “ID” is obviously a career terminator, only about 10 percent of scientists (many safely retired) have done so. But their number is growing, and the movement is regarded by the scientific establishment as a serious danger.

See what else Mr. Byfield has to say about it here.

From the first article above you might also be interested to note that Alters, the McGill professor attemting to debunk ID,

was the only Canadian to testify in the Dover Pennsylvania school board case, that teaching the Intelligent Design theory in schools is unconstitutional. He called the ruling against ID “a major defeat for the proponents of a religious concept that attempts to introduce supernatural causation into science, where it simply doesn’t belong.”

4 Replies to “Victory for Intelligent Design

  1. 1
    glennj says:

    Ted Byfield worte:
    ….
    Close to 600 years ago the established authorities of the Western world – people who everywhere commanded unquestioned respect– knew as an incontrovertible fact that the sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth….When a devout Christian named Copernicus propounded as fact that the Earth and all the planets actually revolved around the sun, and offered mathematical evidence, he was quietly dismissed as deluded….The revolution of the sun and planets around the Earth was not an assumption, declared the pope of the day, but a well-established fact, and these dangerous meddlers were popularizing their nonsensical views among students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers.
    ….

    HEY! Ted Byfield stole my idea!!!!
    (I guess I wasn’t all that original after all.)
    This is what I wrote here on Feb. 17, 2006.
    This was in response to a post by GilDodgen (see http://www.uncommondescent.com.....chives/828 )
    ….
    GilDodgen wrote:
    “One day, in the not-so-far-distant future, contemporary origin-of-life researchers will be looked upon as our generation’s alchemists.”

    Another comparison will be to pre-Copernican, Ptolemaic astronomy.

    Every time something doesn’t fit an ND prediction, no problem, just add another epicycle!
    ….
    Ptolemy assumes that everything rotates around the earth and so he found ways to explain the motions of the planets.

    Ptolemy found that epicycles could explain EVERYTHING (just like multitude of crazy “mechanisms” devised by NDers).

    His system utilizes at least 80 different epicycles in order to explain the motions of the Sun, Moon, and five known planets TO PRESERVE AT ALL COSTS his a priori assumption.

    As planets rotated around the earth, they followed not only their orbits around the Earth, called deferents, but they also went about in numbers of smaller orbits, or epicycles, as they went around their larger paths.

    These smaller epicycles were wonderful! They explained why planets sometimes seemed to slow down, speed up, and even go slightly backward while continuing their larger general rotation about the Earth.

    Occam’s razor slices Neo-Darwinism as neatly as it slices Ptolemian astronomy.

    ( See http://personal.monm.edu/zmuhr.....ePaper.htm )

    Comment by Red Reader — February 17, 2006 @ 11:53 am
    ….

  2. 2
    glennj says:

    P.S.
    Not that anyone has expressed the least bit of interest in this, but yes, I am Red Reader. I’ve come out from behind my pseudonym. But I did it for a very good reason.

    Since the day Dr. Dembski turned moderation over to DaveScot and allowed several others to start posting here, it seems to me that the blog has become even more professional and more evidence based. (Please do not take this to mean it wasn’t so before: just that the small cadre of contributors here has sharpened and honed the defense of ID in positive and productive ways.)

    I kept posting as Red Reader for a while, but that pseudonym seems out of place now because of the stepped-up emphasis on checkable sources.

    P.S.S. Another reason for using my real name is I too hope to earn posting priviledges here oneday with posts reflecting historical perspectives on the ID debate.

  3. 3
    Joseph says:

    “a major defeat for the proponents of a religious concept that attempts to introduce supernatural causation into science, where it simply doesn’t belong.”

    That diatribe has a longer life than Jason. Time for Barfly, I mean Byfield, to take the 3 hour ID challenge…

    Even though educated people understand that ID is not about supernatural causation (by the time we figured out the intelligence was supernatural, if that were the case, it would be too late to deny the inference anyway), how does any alternative to ID get away with claiming a solely natural causation when it is obvious that natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature because natural processes ONLY exist IN nature?

    IOW regardless of your stance, except those saying nature didn’t have an origin, which is another can of worms altogether, it all comes down to some non or super-natural process and THAT is why the debate is about intelligent vs. unintelligent processes (mechanisms).

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    We will see how long this government spokeswomen keeps her job or is overruled.

Leave a Reply