New Intelligent Design Curriculum: “Discovering Intelligent Design”

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 23, 2013

News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A new curriculum (textbook and workbook), the first of its kind, has just been published by Discovery Institute Press, co-authored by Gary Kemper, Hallie Kemper, and Casey Luskin. Check out the book’s official website here, as well as Discovery Institute’s announcement of the curriculum at Evolution News & Views, and this interview featuring Casey Luskin.

Comments

Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue:
Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw
And in the following quote, Dr. John Avise explicitly uses Theodicy to try to make the case for Darwinism:
It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter - June 2012 Excerpt: "Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]" - Dr. John Avise - "Inside The Human Genome" There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html
What’s completely ironic is that Dr. John Avise’s theological argumentation from the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations for Darwinism turns out to be, (without Darwinian Theological blinders on), a very powerful ‘scientific’ argument against Darwinism: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/evolution-professor-special-creation.html?showComment=1340994836963#c5431261417430067209 Thus Gregory, since Darwinism is in fact heavily dependent on faulty Theological premises in order to make itself appear to be 'scientific', then why in blue blazes are you not also up in arms about their blatant use of Theology as you seem to be about ID's use? Verse and music:
Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Francesca Battistelli - "Strangely Dim" (Official Audio) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5qD9HOoGpQ
bornagain77_{May 23, 2013
May
05
May
23
23
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Now Gregory, you are a strange bird. You continue to rant and rave here on UD, (even though you swore you were going to leave UD and never come back), that ID is being completely disingenuous to the evidence. But, as Barb pointed out, why do you not hold Darwinism to at least some minimum standard accountability as well? When compared side by side, its not even close as to which theory is being disingenuous. I can't count the number of times I've been outright lied to by Darwinists,, claiming they have all this overwhelming evidence for Darwinism when in fact, when I, and others, thoroughly search the matter out, I find they have no evidence whatsoever. So paltry is the actual state of evidence for Darwinism that Plantinga observed that the main argument in Dawkin's book 'The Blind Watchmaker' was this:
"Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore It Must Be True" - Plantinga - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/
Moreover Gregory, if you are really so hyper concerned that Theology is intruding on science with ID, (although in reality science is not even possible without theistic premises as to the rationality of the world and of the human mind to comprehend it), I would suggest you take that hyper concern and apply it to Darwinism. It turns out, as has been pointed out many times on UD before, that Darwinism is based mainly on a distorted view of Theodicy as to how God should and should not act in this world. ,, Don't believe me? Well the following peer-reviewed paper shows how Darwin used Theodicy in 'Origin":
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
Here's an excellent lecture that drives the point firmly home:
The Descent of Darwin - Pastor Joe Boot - (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJqk7xF4-g
Gregory, you may say that was then and this is now. Darwinists no longer use Theological argumentation, as to how God should or should not act in the world, to make their case. Well you would be wrong if you hold that position:
The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517 Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek accompanying pdf http://www.ctvn.org/origins/pdf/1212%20Dr%20Seuss%20Biology.pdf
In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala uses theological argumentation in his book to support Darwinism and invites him to present evidence, any evidence at all, that Darwinism can do what he claims it can:
Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg
bornagain77_{May 23, 2013
May
05
May
23
23
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Gregory, everyone who authors a book has a reason (or reasons) for doing so. You harp on the ideology and propaganda of IDist; do you give atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens a free pass, or do you acknowledge that they write according to their own biases and have their own ideology?Barb_{May 23, 2013
May
05
May
23
23
2013
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Yawn, "strictly scientific." Yawn. Neutral, no agenda. Impersonal. Without ideological motivation. Yawn. "Coming Clean," harped Dembski? "most home schooled kids in America are Christian" Yup, that's the DI-IDM's main market. (And you know that a 'market' involves money, right BA77?) "Christians for the most part have little tolerance for being purposely deceived!" That's exactly why American IDism (and its 'creationist' bedfellows) is such an amazing case-in-point clearly showing otherwise! Casey Luskin is a paid lawyer PR-propagandist for the DI. Do you really believe, in your heart-of-hearts BA77, that his message is "strictly scientific," that it even could be?!?Gregory_{May 23, 2013
May
05
May
23
23
2013
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Intelligent Design/Casey Luskin/home schooling/religion.Graham2_{May 23, 2013
May
05
May
23
23
2013
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Uhh Gregory, the book is strictly for homeschooling. Thus, since most home schooled kids in America are Christian, whose families do not want their kids indoctrinated with materialistic nonsense, do you not think that if DI were truly the great big conspiracy factory that you imagine it to be, they would do their utmost to market it as a Christian book where they could benefit the greatest monetarily ? I mean really why bother? Christians for the most part have little tolerance for being purposely deceived! I have every confidence that Casey and company did their best to let the evidence speak for itself so as to let the readers draw their own conclusions as to where the evidence best leads, Darwinism, Design, random multiverse or ex-nihilo Creation by God)bornagain77_{May 23, 2013
May
05
May
23
23
2013
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

@Gregory: Have you read the book?JWTruthInLove_{May 23, 2013
May
05
May
23
23
2013
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

"Discovering ID is strictly scientific in its approach" - Casey Luskin Yeah, right. I don't buy that for a second. After dining with Luskin, not a chance. There's no philosophy, no ideology, no propaganda and no theology/worldview in the book? Tell us another whopper of a tale. ;) How many times in a single interview does the guy have to repeat "strictly scientific"? He's a lawyer, after all. He must be speaking the truth, right American IDists? This Movement-talk is transparent. "You could say that the project "evolved" from there into the curriculum we have today!" - Luskin Wink, wink, giggle, giggle. ;) (As if we really don't get the joke!) IDists are actually, honestly, really 'evolutionists' using 'cool' language too! Pass it on, using "scare quotes"...Gregory_{May 23, 2013
May
05
May
23
23
2013
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply