Intelligent Design Philosophy Religion

The Pope on the Periphery of ID

Spread the love

[From a colleague:] “Here’s a more complete summary of the Pope’s Wednesday audience. Note the clear emphasis on knowledge of God through reason prior to revelation: “Even before discovering the God who reveals himself in the history of a people, there is a cosmic revelation, open to all, offered to the whole of humanity by the Creator.” That view is both biblical and an important theme in the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato as synthesized by Thomas Aquinas. The Pope’s point becomes even clearer when he lays aside the prepared text and speaks extemporaneously to the assembled pilgrims — including Cardinal Schönborn, who was present.”

Creation Reveals God and His Love, Says Benedict XVI
Comments on Psalm 135(136) at General Audience
Date: 2005-11-09
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=79681

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 9, 2005 (Zenit.org).- God’s created works are the first sign of his existence and love, says Benedict XVI.

From “the greatness and beauty of created things” one knows, by analogy, their author, the Pope said at today’s general audience. He was commenting on Psalm 135(136):1-9, as part of his ongoing series of reflections on biblical passages used in the Liturgy of Vespers.

“God does not appear in the Bible as an impassible and implacable Lord, or an obscure and indecipherable being, or fate, against whose mysterious force it is useless to struggle,” the Holy Father explained when commenting on the Jewish poetic composition.

About 25,000 pilgrims gathered for the audience in St. Peter’s Square.

The Pontiff told them that God manifests himself “as a person who loves his creatures, he watches over them, he follows them in the course of history and suffers because of the infidelity with which the people often oppose his hesed, his merciful and paternal love.”

“The first sign of this divine charity,” he noted, quoting the psalmist, must be “sought in creation: … the heavens, the earth, the waters, the sun, the moon and the stars.”

“Even before discovering the God who reveals himself in the history of a people, there is a cosmic revelation, open to all, offered to the whole of humanity by the Creator,” Benedict XVI said.

“There is, therefore, a divine message secretly inscribed in creation,” a sign of “the loving faithfulness of God who gives his creatures being and life, water and food, light and time,” he added. “From created works one ascends … to the greatness of God, to his loving mercy.”

When the Pontiff finished his address, he put his papers to one side and commented on the thought of St. Basil the Great, a Doctor of the Church, who said that some, “deceived by the atheism they bear within them, imagined the universe deprived of a guide and order, at the mercy of chance.”

“I believe the words of this fourth-century Father are of amazing timeliness,” said Benedict XVI. “How many are these ‘some’ today?”

“Deceived by atheism, they believe and try to demonstrate that it is scientific to think that everything lacks a guide and order,” he continued. “The Lord, with sacred Scripture, awakens the drowsy reason and says to us: In the beginning is the creative Word. In the beginning the creative Word — this Word that has created everything, which has created this intelligent plan, the cosmos — is also Love.”

The Pontiff concluded, exhorting his listeners to allow themselves “to be awakened by this Word of God” and invited them to pray that “he clear our minds so that we will be able to perceive the message of creation, inscribed also in our hearts: The beginning of everything is creative Wisdom and this Wisdom is love and goodness.”

Other papal commentaries on the canticles and psalms of the Liturgy of the Hours are posted in the Wednesday’s Audience section of ZENIT’s Web page.

115 Replies to “The Pope on the Periphery of ID

  1. 1
    ajl says:

    oh well, if you ever forget to url to PandasThumb, just type in Benedict and an expletive, and google should take you right there..

  2. 2
    jimpressario says:

    Has the pretence of ID being non-religious been official dropped?

  3. 3
    jboze3131 says:

    the pope, being a christian would more easily be open to the idea of design. an atheist, on the other hand, would be less likely to admit design. they would continue to claim the “appearance of design”.

    because theists are more likely to look for design, to support design theory, to support the search for it, etc. that doesnt make ID itself religious.

    of course darwinism calls for an unguided, purposeless process that lead to human beings, which would seem to be anti-god in more ways than one. so, since thats the case, and most people see this as atheistic- darwinism is a religious idea no? as you can see, this post is listed under philosophy and religion as well as ID. ID, because the pope supports the science here of design inference.

    religion and philosophy, because dembski also posts on these issues as well.

  4. 4
    jaredl says:

    ID is not necessarily religious. It is evidence used to justify religious conclusions, just as MN is accepted because it forces other religious conclusions.

    God is the inference to the best explanation for ID and the existence of religion.

  5. 5
    Bombadill says:

    Has the pretence of Darwinism being non-materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, been official dropped?

    Comment by jimpressario — November 10, 2005 @ 11:36 am

  6. 6
    jimpressario says:

    ‘the pope, being a christian would more easily be open to the idea of design. an atheist, on the other hand, would be less likely to admit design.’

    A scientist would follow the facts, regardless of his personal faith.

    BTW ‘admit design’? I admit that to ME a tree looks designed, but I know that this is not objective as it is through the filter of my brain and conciousness. Our brains have evolved to search for patterns and familiarity, even when they doesn’t exist; faces in clouds Jesus on burnt toast etc.
    explain how life changes over time.

  7. 7
    jimpressario says:

    Pleaes ignore that last line.

    Bombadill, where has evolution ever claimed to be non-material? Quite the opposite.

  8. 8
    Bombadill says:

    Not what I said, jimpressario. I said materialistic philosophy pretending to be science.

    “Our brains have evolved to search for patterns and familiarity, even when they doesn’t exist; faces in clouds Jesus on burnt toast etc.”

    I’m hoping this is the statement you would like us to ignore, since it is pure speculation and sans empirical evidence.

  9. 9
    jimpressario says:

    It’s not speculation at all.

    http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2.....l0402.html

  10. 10
    Bombadill says:

    The study observes the recognition of patterns in sequences of events. But they also make the assumption that our brains evolved this trait as a survival advantage, which of course is the Darwinian narritive and is debatable. And I think you are extrapolating in suggesting that this trait applies to our observance of design in nature. I’m not looking at a tree and believing that I see a large green and brown monster, I’m logically observing what I know to ultimately be physical matter which ultimately demands something immaterial and uncaused as it’s source.

  11. 11
    dodgingcars says:

    “Has the pretence of ID being non-religious been official dropped?”

    Does that means that Dawkins support of Darwinism proves that Darwinism is anti-religious?

  12. 12
    Rick Toews says:

    “Has the pretence of ID being non-religious been official dropped?”

    Pretense? I believe the appearance of design is generally uncontested, and when we can plausibly attribute apparent design to a human agent, we do so without hesitation. How, then, is it “religious” to suggest that the apparent design we see at, for instance, the cellular level may also be the product of intelligence–even if we can’t scientifically identify the agent? Since our experience tells us that design ALWAYS requires a designer, how is it scientific to reject design simply because the designer isn’t human?

    “I admit that to ME a tree looks designed, but I know that this is not objective as it is through the filter of my brain and conciousness.”

    Whose brain did you use to reach this conclusion, since you seem to regard yours as an unreliable filter?

    And if the human brain and consciousness can’t be trusted to accurately tell us when a thing is designed or purposed (as you seem to be suggesting by referencing that experiment from Duke University), how in the world do detectives, or cryptoanalysts, or archeologists, or any of a number of others do it?

  13. 13
    jboze3131 says:

    jim, you REALLY believe a man like richard dawkins woul follow the facts to design?! thats just being naive. someone who is adamant that there is no design, only the “appearance” or “illusion” of design- well, that person is going to be less likely to even search out that evidence. and when the evidnce presents itself, he or she will wave it off and claim its just an appearance of design. again, i go back to dawkins…he talks constantly about the appearance and illusion of design. his philosophical worldview precludes design from the start, so theres little chance hed accept the evidence as being not the appearance of design but actually design.

    and talking about our brains evolving to see certain things- that pure speculation not backed by any empirical evidence. if a study shows we see patterns in a lot of things, theres no way you can scientifically conclude that its because the brain evolved that way…all theyre doing is taking the mud to man evolutionary narrative in dogmatic form and fitting the facts into the preconceived story. its a speculation built on premises that, themselves, can never be falsified (mud to man evolution itself.)

  14. 14
    doctormark says:

    The difference between a scientific theory and theological theory is that in science you try to make the theory fit the observations, while in theology you try to make the observations fit the theory. If you are doing science and the observations don’t fit the theory, you adjust the theory. If you are doing theology and the observations don’t fit the theory, you attempt to explain away the observations.

  15. 15
    mentok says:

    doctormark you wrote:

    “If you are doing theology and the observations don’t fit the theory, you attempt to explain away the observations.”

    That viewpoint is only applicable when a specific theological viewpoint is considered to be infallible. There are a great many theological beliefs coming from different people. Your comment is relative to the specific person and specific nature of a specific theological belief. Your comment is not an absolute truism, it is a relative one.

    You also wrote:

    “The difference between a scientific theory and theological theory is that in science you try to make the theory fit the observations”

    That seems to be the logical route to go, but in point of fact you will find a great many scientists who do not go that route. They propose that first the theory is postulated and then they go in search of data to support that theory. Oftentimes they will then only accept observations which help their theory and they will reject or neglect observations which contradict their theory. Evolution is one field where that is the norm, also the Big Bang is another field where observations are commonly neglected and rejected if they contradict the Big Bang theory.

    This is usually due to peer pressure. Oftentimes within the mainstream academic community there are established schools of thought. If you buck the system you can possibly become the object of scorn and ridicule and your career can be adversly affected. So scientists and academics become subject to what’s been called a “knowledge filter”. This ia description of the knowledge filter from David Dwyer and Anabel Dwyer.

    “Acedemic disciplines which have an acute sense about what constitutes permissible knowledge pervades the academic field.

    This sense often results in self-censure:

    the avoidance of unorthodox and political positions, despite the presence of tenure and academic freedom and derives in part from the awareness of what might happen were one to go against the prevailing “common sense.”

    One of the most celebrated examples of this comes from the field of geography.

    Not so long ago, the concept, then called “continental drift,” now theorized as “plate tectonics,” was considered wrong.

    Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) espoused the concept of continental drift

    Wegener was demonized so that he the only academic job he could find was teaching high school.

    However, not all heretics are correct and even fewer, like Wegener, vindicated.

    As faculty, we learn the limits of acceptable knowledge and undertake extreme caution whenever we venture outside its bounds, academic freedom not withstanding.”

  16. 16
    mentok says:

    jimpressario you wrote:
    “Our brains have evolved to search for patterns and familiarity, even when they doesn’t exist”

    Since there is no proof that our brains evolved and also since there is no proof that our brains search for patterns and familiarity your statement can be considered to be purely speculative. In point of fact brains don’t search for anything. A brain is a biological machine which functions within certain limited parameters. Your mind may search for patterns and familiarity but your brain is not your mind. Your brain cannot search for patterns or familiarity because your brain cannot perceive what your eyes see. Even though the process of seeing occurs in the brain the brain itself is not seeing, your conscious awareness along with your mind is seeing. The brain facilitates sight but it doesn’t actually see anything. The brain is comprised of cells. Cells cannot see anything. They can perceive things in an unconscious mechanical manner. Just like a mousetrap can perceive when a mouse has removed the cheese. But we don’t believe that the mousetrap can actually perceive what it is doing. So the point is that the brain is not aware of what you are seeing, it facilitates sight in an unconscious mechanical fashion. It is like a computer and the person is like the user. The computer allows the user to see things on it’s monitor, but the computer is not aware of what it is doing because it is an unconscious machine. So the brain allows our mind/conscious awareness the ability to see, but the brain itself is totaly unaware of what you are seeing because it is an unconscious machine. Because it is unaware of patterns and familiarity therefore it cannot evolve due to it’s perceptions of patterns and familiarity, it cannot perceive what you are seeing. All that the brain does it does so by an unconsicous mechanical methodology.

  17. 17
    DaveScot says:

    “Our brains have evolved to search for patterns and familiarity, even when they doesn’t exist; faces in clouds Jesus on burnt toast etc.”

    Our brains are EXTREMELY good at finding patterns that DO exist. Trust me, DNA isn’t a phantom pattern that disappears or has different sequences depending on who’s looking at it. It is exactly the same spiral matrix of codons that translate to amino acids that build exquisite 3D shapes to serve specific purposes for the organism’s vital life functions, self-defense, etc.

    If you can’t see that pattern then you must be stupid or a liar. I hate to be so blunt but finding patterns is what human brains do and these are obvious, real, extremely complex patterns.

  18. 18
    DaveScot says:

    Toews

    “Whose brain did you use to reach this conclusion, since you seem to regard yours as an unreliable filter?”

    ROFLMAO! Good one. A real gem there!

  19. 19
    jboze3131 says:

    “The difference between a scientific theory and theological theory is that in science you try to make the theory fit the observations”

    that was actually fairly funny. evolutionary theory has to cram all sorts of data into a preconceived narrative (that somehow out of mud arose life, and that life somehow, thru some untestable, unrepeatable mechanism changed that one celled life into man thru billions of yrs of randomness and NS.) how many times has the ape to man line changed? theyre always trying to fit different fossils into the record…and they often reject fossils because they deem them too old or too recent to fit the already written narrative.

    theology doesnt shrug off evidence and observations…theology changes all the time. the core can stay the same, yet changes can take place.

    mud to man narratives try to shrug off observations all the time. if evidence comes about and its too old in the fossil record, they deem it impossible that it fits into this particular line of descent. if a fossil is deemed too young, they often do the same thing. if one method of dating shows too young a date for their already written narrative, theyll go with another method that shows a different age just to cram the data into the narrative. this happens all the time, especially in BioEvo. the fossil record didnt show a gradual change, so many said- to hell with it…lets just posit that most of the changes were major sudden changes, which defies all mathematical odds, but so be it- the data doesnt fit, so well shrug it off.

  20. 20
    jimpressario says:

    Lot of responses to my comment while I was at work, sorry if I don’t get to them all.

    Dodging cars :

    “Does that means that Dawkins support of Darwinism proves that Darwinism is anti-religious?”

    (Aside from the question of what ‘Darwinism’ is supposed to be) Dawkins’ outspoken atheism may be uncomfortable for those of a religious bent, but these views come out of his scientific work; the polar opposite of ID proponents whose scientific views come shaped by their religion. BTW my comment was more on the inclusion of the pope’s view on this site rather than the content. There is no mention here of the latest ID research or ideas, papers being published or even a non-vague breakdown of what ID is, but when the pope mentions something tangentially about design it’s front page news.

    Rick Toews :

    ‘Since our experience tells us that design ALWAYS requires a designer, how is it scientific to reject design simply because the designer isn’t human?’

    I disagree, snowflakes look designed but have no designer. Of course there’s also the problem of just kicking the problem down the road : who designed the designer?

    jboze3131 :

    Dawkins is, above all, a scientist. Not a preacher or a politician or a lawyer, but a scientist and, as a scientist his aim is to advance human knowledge and discover truth, wherever it may lead.

    ‘when the evidnce [for design] presents itself…’ Please share some links to this. Maybe send them to Dawkins.

    ‘Mud to man’????? You seem to be comfusing evolution with something else (abiogenesis?) Evolution is silent on the subject of the origin of life.

    Mentok :

    There is mountains of proof that we (including our brains) have evolved : http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

    ‘Because [the brain] is unaware of patterns and familiarity therefore it cannot evolve due to it’s perceptions of patterns and familiarity, it cannot perceive what you are seeing.’

    The distinction between brain and mind is interesting, but irrelevant here. The selection pressures on the brain/mind (and, by extension, the persons behaviours) are undirected (ie random). The pressures are on the lines of : does x help the organism survive long enough to make more health copies of x which will make more….etc . Lack of conciousness of the process doesn’t stop it. All selection is at the gene level at the end of the day and genes aren’t concious.

    DaveScot :

    I’m reluctant to answer your attempt at condesention, but I agree that we are good at seeing real design. That’s why I wrote ‘EVEN when they don’t exist’, a word which which you happily ignored. Pareidolia is the word for our hard-wired trait to see patterns and faces where there are none. A tree may ‘look’ designed to me because our brains evolved to search for patterns, but it doesn’t mean it was designed.

  21. 21
    Bombadill says:

    eeek, jim! You just lost credibility by linking Talk Origins. The land of reactionary straw man half-truths.

  22. 22
    DaveScot says:

    jim

    “I’m reluctant to answer your attempt at condesention”

    You’re imagining a pattern of condescension where none exists. 😉

    There are patterns in DNA. It’s not illusory. Any number of metrics and independent observers all attest to an identical pattern.

  23. 23
    jimpressario says:

    I don’t think you’re in much of a position to be adjudicating credibility. Your knee-jerk reaction is pretty lame. Did you read the page at all? Which points do you have a problem with? Your one line response is sadly symptomatic of ID proponents’ overall approach : it’s not about getting to scientific truth and advance human knowledge, it’s about knowing you’re right and then pushing your ideas and agenda. Science isn’t politics, you can’t just smear the messenger and think you’ve won because x% of people think you’re right.

    If you can’t bear to go to that page (I can see why you would find it difficult) try this :

    http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ci.....&cs=1

    or even

    http://www.google.com/search?q=evolution !

  24. 24
    jimpressario says:

    Previous post was for Bombadill,

    Davescot;

    I agree there are patterns in DNA. There are patterns ina snowflake too! Or are you of the mind that God makes each individual flake?

  25. 25
    avocationist says:

    Jim,

    “the polar opposite of ID proponents whose scientific views come shaped by their religion.”

    There is a strong tendency for someone like myself, to whom the existence of God is apparent, to be unable to accept the blind watchmaker thesis. But I have no religion, and it simply isn’t true that all IDists have religion as their motive. Many of them were convinced first by the evidence, and then because of that became more open to theism.

    “I disagree, snowflakes look designed but have no designer.”

    I’ve seen that argument before, but the propensity for certain molecules to form crystalized patterns in certain conditions is a very far cry from the level of complexity and nonrepetitive information in living cells. And then too, there is the emerging argument that all of nature in this universe as a whole looks to be designed after all. Nature’s Destiny by Denton comes to mind. He’s an agnostic, I think.

    “Of course there’s also the problem of just kicking the problem down the road : who designed the designer?”

    Obviously, people do not think God was designed or created. Why say such silly things? Of course, trying to understand that Being is uncaused and ever-existing is a mind stopper. But so are the concepts of infinity and eternity, and don’t scientists accept them? The problem is that either we must imagine that matter arose uncaused out of nothingness, which makes it just as miraculous as God (in fact more so as it is utterly illogical and goes against all reason) or we must imagine that matter is ever-existent, which is essentially to call it divine — and if we go that far, then we have already admitted that matter is not the thing we normally think of when we use that term, but rather something much deeper and more mysterious.

  26. 26
    jaredl says:

    The snowflake example bit the dust on this blog a long while back. It hits the necessity node of the explanatory filter.

  27. 27
    jimpressario says:

    Avocationist

    What is the evidence that IDers were convinced by? God may be apparent to you, but that is subjective, untestable and outside the realms of science (except maybe physcology, anthropology etc, perhaps I should say it’s outside the realms of Biology and Zoology).

    Human being are a long, long way from crystals, but these creatures are not.

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/p.....radmm.html

    Evolution is the process over time by which we get from such organisms to multi-cellular complex organisms like you and me. Evolution does not deal with matter from non-matter, or life from non-life. Are you arguing against the Big Bang here?

  28. 28
    jimpressario says:

    jaredl,please link. A search of ‘snowflake’ yields no results.

  29. 29
    doctormark says:

    Dear Mentok,

    I appreciate the fact that Wegener’s hypothesis about continental drift did not gain immediated acceptance. But I think the history of continental drift and plate tectonics actually proves my point. Initially, there was relatively little evidence to support the theory so there was relatively little support for it among scientists. But science is an ongoing process, and eventually the evidence in favor of plate tectonics gradually accumulated and Wegener’s initial speculations were found to be justified.

    In my own field of physics the initial receptions to quantum theory, and relativity theory were quite cool among many physicists. But again as the data supporting the theory piled up acceptance followed. In the case of quantum mechanics the initial primitive versions of the theory made predictions that only partially agreed with the experimental data. But as more data was accumulated it became clear that quantum ideas were pointing in a promising direction, and modifications were made to the theory that helped it become exceptionally powerful in terms of predicting the behavior of nature at the molecular and sub-molecular level.

    Similarly, in biology, evolutionary theory has undergone modifications as new data have become available. Is it a perfect theory? Perhaps not. But it does a very good job of predicting the outcome of some rather sophisticated controlled experiments, and at explaining some rather complicated changes in species with time.

    The problem I have with ID is that it is a theory that has little or no predictive power. Instead it simply invokes a supernatural agent to explain complicated natural phenomena. In the end we may have to invoke a supernatural agent to explain the origin of life; however, I see no reason why we should not try to take natural explanations for the development of life as far as they can go. Because theories based on natural laws do have predictive power.

  30. 30
    Rick Toews says:

    “I disagree, snowflakes look designed but have no designer.”

    Snowflakes look designed? I know this is a suggestion that’s been brought out a time or two ;-), and it looks as though responses have been presented–such as by avocationist, above.

    I remember hearing Dean Kenyon (in Unlocking the Mystery of Life) relating his unsuccessful attempts to find a property of nucleotides that would cause them to tend to come together to form DNA. On the other hand, as pointed out, snowflakes can readily be explained by the “propensity for certain molecules to form crystalized patterns.”

    There’s also the difference of information. DNA is coded. It’s not a pattern that can be expressed mathematically. It’s like the difference between this sentence and a sequence of letters: ABCBABCBABCBA. The one carries meaning, while the other–even though certainly a pattern that conforms to a rule–does not.

    “Of course there’s also the problem of just kicking the problem down the road: who designed the designer?”

    This one has also been dealt with before; however, why is the fact that acknowledging design may lead to more difficult questions relevant? If the design is real–and we have every reason to conclude it is–this reality is not altered by possibly uncomfortable questions that must follow that recognition.

  31. 31
    avocationist says:

    ‘lo Jim,

    “What is the evidence that IDers were convinced by?”

    But you have changed the subject. You said that ID people are motivated by religion first, and fit the facts to it. In many cases, it is the opposite. And some people believe in God and not intelligent design.

    “God may be apparent to you, but that is subjective, untestable and outside the realms of science ”

    I would not deny it is subjective, but it is not outside logic, and I hold the hope that it is not outside science. We do not know what science may be able to test one day, but we do know that science can detect many things now that were utterly impossible in the past. I believe in God for two reasons. The first is a subjective, intuitive ‘faith’ type thing, which is much weaker than the second reason, which is that of logic, which argument I gave you.

    “Evolution does not deal with matter from non-matter, or life from non-life. Are you arguing against the Big Bang here?”

    Again, you change the subject. You had stated that belief in God kicks the problem down the road, for we must find out who designed the designer. I explained.
    Now, if evolution is so very silent on existence itself, and life itself, then why all the hubris? Why so many atheists? Why do so many books say that even though various evolution theories had been kicked around, that Darwin ‘solved’ the problem of where life came from, and did away with the need of a God?

    Why would I argue against the Big Bang? It is certainly interesting, that is, why some scientists might not agree with it (I’m a layperson) but I can’t see why it matters if there was a big bang or not.

  32. 32
    jboze3131 says:

    ‘Mud to man’????? You seem to be comfusing evolution with something else (abiogenesis?) Evolution is silent on the subject of the origin of life.
    ————–

    that is the most ridiculous argument darwinists ever come up with. OF COURSE evolution deals with the origin of life…you cant proclaim that all life is the result of a mechanism then refuse to explain how on earth the mechanism could have possible arisen by itself out of nothing! for evolution to get started, you have to first posit the very first life- to do that, you have to complete write a hypothetical narrative of how this single celled life came about, and how it could possibly be SO simple as to even arise and then complicated enough to eventually transform into the next life form one step high…and then up one more level, finally up to human beings.

    you cant claim humans are the result of evolution then proclaim that you dont have touch the subject of origins! no other field of science would allow scientissts to duck this very big issue (and very big problem)!

  33. 33
    jboze3131 says:

    btw…

    “God may be apparent to you, but that is subjective, untestable and outside the realms of science”

    god is untestable, therefore outside the realms of science…yet bacteria to fish to mammals to ape to man is also untestable and unobservable, but its NOT outside the realm of science? convenient!

  34. 34
    mentok says:

    doctormark you wrote:

    “The problem I have with ID is that it is a theory that has little or no predictive power. Instead it simply invokes a supernatural agent to explain complicated natural phenomena. In the end we may have to invoke a supernatural agent to explain the origin of life; however, I see no reason why we should not try to take natural explanations for the development of life as far as they can go. Because theories based on natural laws do have predictive power.”

    I disagree. ID predicts that life as we know it will be across the board irreducibly complex, and it is because of that prediction that we can logically conclude that evolution is impossible. Also ID predicts that no intermediary species will be found in the fossil record, that prediction is confirmed by the fossil record to date. Also ID predicts that you will never be able to find how life came into existence because of the simple fact that all life as we know is dependent on a blueprint and a mechanism to process the info in that blueprint and then a mechanism to build the living organism based on that info. Therefore life has to be a product of a design and an intellect. Those mechanisms have to exist in perfect working order in a perfect stable environment in order for life to exist. It is factually impossible for those mechanisms to exist in a working model without being built. Random events in nature follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Therefore life as we know it had to come about due to intelligent design. There is simply to other option. Therefore ID accurately predicts that we will never be able to create life by experiements utilizing random events based on conditions thought to exists billions of years ago on earth.

    Evolution is not the default position on origins and diversity although it is treated as such by most evolutionists. Just because you feel that ID is not predictive enough that doesn’t validate evolutionary theory. Evolution stands or falls on it’s own merits not on the merits or demerits of other theories. But evolutionists start from the position that evolution is true and then demand that those who disagree and show why they disagree with evolution must provide an alternative theory in order for their critique of evolution to be valid.

    doctormark you also wrote:

    “Similarly, in biology, evolutionary theory has undergone modifications as new data have become available. Is it a perfect theory? Perhaps not. But it does a very good job of predicting the outcome of some rather sophisticated controlled experiments, and at explaining some rather complicated changes in species with time.”

    A one legged dog can still survive but I wouldn’t put money on him to win a race. The glaring huge gaping bleeding wounds to the theory of evolution cannot be fixed with a band-aid. Whenever I hear evolutionists claim that the current theory on evolution may be faulty but that those faults don’t disqualify it as a viable theory immediately I know that the person who holds such views is not educated on the arguments against evolution. Evolution is impossible regardless of how may predictions you think it provides in controlled experiments. You may want to read up on the arguments against evolution. The best place that I have found on the web is http://darwinismrefuted.com The author has brought together all or most of the current arguments agaisnt evolution that have been put forth by various scientists and arranges all of the info in a succinct and orderly fashion. I recommend you read that first before making any more assumptions about ID and evolution.

  35. 35
    jimpressario says:

    Rick Toews :

    I was dismissed earlier for citing a page from talkorigins.org so excuse me if I don’t take your reference to creationist Dean Kenyon and Unlocking the Mystery of Life too seriously. (A quick google tells me the answer he was looking for is a covalent bond, attached by the enzyme DNA polymerase.)

    avocationist

    “What is the evidence that IDers were convinced by?” is not changing the subject. If religious people are not bought to ID by their religion, then what? You were the one who said : ‘Many of them [IDists] were convinced first by the evidence’. I ask again, what evidence brings people to ID if not religion faith?

    “Evolution does not deal with matter from non-matter, or life from non-life”. Again not changing the subject, just pointing out that when you write ‘either we must imagine that matter arose uncaused out of nothingness…or we must imagine that matter is ever-existent’ you seem to be arguing against something other than evolution. I bought up the big bang as an example of something you might be confusing evolution with.

  36. 36
    jboze3131 says:

    “What is the evidence that IDers were convinced by?” is not changing the subject. If religious people are not bought to ID by their religion, then what? You were the one who said : ‘Many of them [IDists] were convinced first by the evidence’. I ask again, what evidence brings people to ID if not religion faith?
    ————-

    ask michael denton or anthony flew…then learn how to be honest and stop claiming that only the religious find evidence in ID.

  37. 37
    jimpressario says:

    ‘you cant proclaim that all life is the result of a mechanism then refuse to explain how on earth the mechanism could have possible arisen by itself out of nothing!’

    ‘god is untestable, therefore outside the realms of science’

    excuse me a moment…

    hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha.

    Sorry, but that I needed that. I hope you can see the irony.

    Nobody is refusing to look at the origins of life, it’s just that’s NOT evolution. Evolution deals with how life changes once started. Harvard announced in August of this year that it is pledging $1M a year to study life’s origins so it is not being avoided at all, quite the reverse. Science progresses by finding answers to things we do not know.

    http://www.livescience.com/oth.....rigin.html

  38. 38
    jimpressario says:

    ‘ask michael denton or anthony flew..’

    why?
    Darwin himself could have fallen to his knees and prayed to Allah, doesn’t make any difference to the facts of evolution.

    An argument from authority is no argument at all.

  39. 39
    jboze3131 says:

    jim-

    evolution is DUCKING the issue of origins. you cant claim a mechanism when theres no evidence any mechanism could arise from nothing without guidance.

    and you shouldnt be too quick to laugh at the so-called irony above…i was QUOTING YOUR COMMENTS when you said that god is untestable and outside the realm of science. by that logic, ape to man is also outside the realms of science, because no one has observed or tested any part of it!

    you said that NO ONE has come to support ID based on the evidence, that they only came out of religious faith. thats either ignorance on your part or a lie. because, i named ONLY two people (i could name others if you want) who came to the conclusion of ID without any religious motives. which, itself, totally destroys your claim that only religious faith brings people to the evidence and support of ID.

    btw. id probably not use livescience as a link to back your claims in this matter- i posted a link to their site the other day where it proclaimed that evolution is the unguided, purposeless process in which humans came to be, and that evolution also means that there is no god, no afterlife, no purpose for any of this, and that its all an accident. linking to a site thatmakes those bogus non-scientific claims to prove your point that ID is religious and evolution has nothing to say of it is probably a bad idea! (oops!)

  40. 40
    mentok says:

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

    From the article:

    NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

    At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

  41. 41
    mentok says:

    Now I know some critics have said that Flew’s deism or theism is weak and that his support for a God is somewhat tentative and he is also not a qualified scientist so who is he to draw support for God from science? I really don’t care what the critics say because the critics are biased who speak in that way. The ardent dogmatic atheist will not accept any scientific evidence for God apart from God introducing himself personally. And as far as I am concerned they are only harming themselves by such attitudes. It’s like if someone told you that in the next room there a person with a cure for your incurable disease which leads to immenent death and you refuse to check and see if that is true. The result is that you live in fear of your immenent death seeing nothing ahead for you after death. You live in the prison of your mind sentenced to death due to the kneejerk rejection of any possbility that the universe may have more to offer then a short life and eternal death. A person who tears down the irrational kneejerk antipathy towards the possbility that the universe offers more then what you have experienced in your few years through your little existence on a tiny rock in space is doing him/her self the greatest favor possible. You can live forever in your mind or live on death row. A wise man will want the truth to be in hisown best interest. He will seek truth with an open mind. The fool will cut off his own nose to spite his face.

    Instead of looking for ways to disprove God it is in your own best interest to do the opposite. You just may be surprised to find yourself to be a part of a living universe which can show you what you need to know if you open up to it rather then fight it’s attempts at illuminating your mind to it’s presence, within and without you.

  42. 42
    jimpressario says:

    jboze3131
    Apologies, you are right that I didn’t recognize you were quoting me. Are you saying God is testable or that evolution isn’t? I hope neither.

    As you are confused as to what evolution is (‘Evolution is DUCKING the issue of origin’ is like saying ‘The theory of Gravity is suspiciously silent on Architecture’.) I’ll cut and paste from an earlier reply.

    ‘Nobody is refusing to look at the origins of life, it’s just that’s NOT evolution. Evolution deals with how life changes once started. Harvard announced in August of this year that it is pledging $1M a year to study life’s origins so it is not being avoided at all, quite the reverse. Science progresses by finding answers to things we do not know.’

    On Flew’s great conversion he said afterwards “I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction” (Carrier 2005).

    The’re is a habit on this site of claiming arguments have been solved previously with no links or conclusions oranything beyond a dismissive comment. If no-one can link to where my snowflake example ‘bit the dust on this blog a long while back’ then I have to presume that this never happened. When you say ‘i posted a link to their site… ‘ but don’t include the link I have to be a bit sceptical about that as well.

  43. 43
    mentok says:

    jimpressario you wrote:

    “On Flew’s great conversion he said afterwards “I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction” (Carrier 2005).”

    In fact Flew admits to not being a person who has done much study of science. At first he claimed it was Gerald Schroeder who convinced him of the scientific necessity of God for the explanation of our present circumstances. What’s funny is that there is absolutely no credible theory for abiogenesis. Yet people who take argument from authority as their basis for developing their viewpoints care little about actual investigation into the facts of a topic. They seek to win an argument reagrdless of the integrity of their argument. Therefore they will quote anybody as an authority if that argument seems to back up their cause. Abiogenesis has not been proved nor is there even the slightest amount of data to support any type of theory for it. In fact it has been proven in numerous ways for it to be impossible. Even the building blocks of life have never been created in a lab using all the power of the human intellect, what to speak of a cell itself without any guiding hand in ahostile environment. Irreducible complexity proves that abiogenesis goes against common sense. A cell can only be created by another cell. Without DNA a cell cannot come into existence. Yet DNA cannot come into existence without a cell. Therefore abiogenesis is impossble. No matter how many chemicals sit around in some puddle for any amount of time they will never be able to accidentely create a cell. A cell is vastly more complex then a machine like a car, but if I told you that if we wait long enough that a puddle of chemicals will produce a ferrari by random natural forces you would call me mad. Yet you blindly accept that a self replicating machine incalcuably more complex then a car not only came about in that way but it happened repeatedly and created vast quantities of various types of self replicating machines.

    But for some people common sense is relegated to the trash bin in their disturbed desire to destroy people’s faith in God. No amount of rational scientific proof will satiate their demented urge and psychopathic drive to eliminate God from peoples lives. They may claim that what they do and that their driving force is establishing rationality as supreme over all, but in truth they are delusional and what they truly seek is to dominate over others in order to destroy peoples faith in God. They are the God killers and they are proud of it. Yet their intellectual weapons are as feeble as their minds are twisted. They are like spoiled children thowing temper tantrums who cannot see what madness has done to their objectivity.

  44. 44
    mentok says:

    About the snowflake argument. I haven’t read the link you want but I have heard people make a claim that snowflakes show that design can happen by chance. That is very true. In fact if I take some paint and throw it at a canvas I will occasionaly create a design of some sort. But what are the chances of the Mona Lisa coming about by that method? Simple designs can come about by random chance. But the more complex a design is the less chance there is for it to come about by chance.

    From molecular biologist Michael Denton:

    “To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity… Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?”

  45. 45
    DaveScot says:

    pressario

    “Or are you of the mind that God makes each individual flake?”

    No.

    Are you of the mind that snowflakes can’t be observed forming a pattern because the process happened only one time billions of years ago?

  46. 46
    DaveScot says:

    doctormark

    “The problem I have with ID is that it is a theory that has little or no predictive power.”

    Good point, doc. Use evolutionary theory and predict for me when the next human species will emerge and what features will separate it from h.sapiens.

    What, you can’t predict that?

    The problem I have with evolution is that it is a theory that has little or no predictive power.

    Don’t you just love to see people hoist on their own petards? I know I do. 🙂

  47. 47
    DaveScot says:

    ID prediction:

    ID predicts that scientists can culture bacteria for forever plus one day and at the end of the day the bacteria will not have evolved into organisms that are no longer bacteria.

    Moreover, they can accelerate the mutation rate with chemicals and radiation, they can employ artificial selection to accelerate natural selection, and still at the end of the day there will be nothing that is not still a bacteria.

    So far that prediction has proven true.

    It must be very frustrating for evolutionary dogmatists to have their theoretical beliefs shot down in flames by experimental science. I feel your pain.

  48. 48
    jimpressario says:

    Mentok,
    Your post seems like one of the most honest I’ve seen from a IDer here. Thank you.

    I was being sarcastic when I said ‘great conversion’. On the subject of argument from authority I’ll just add that before Newton, gravity existed. Just because one person (or everyone) believes something doesn’t make it true. Science is not democratic.

    On abiogenesis you are right, it is cutting edge science and there is no theory yet. However there are experiments which show the complex organics rising from simple compounds. (Miller and Urey, Schlesinger and Miller 1983,Chang et al. 1983). Also there is work on autocatalysts plus whether life could have begun deep underground and risen to the surface. Exciting times!

    Your last paragraph is where the real honesty shines through. It seems as if my first post in this thread was on to somthing, the pretense that ID is not religiously motivated is no longer operative.

    DaveScot,

    “predict for me when the next human species will emerge and what features will separate it from h.sapiens.”

    2:22AM June 14 2490

    Seriously, what a banal question. And why not save your answer and snarky comment until after someone’s replied? I need to go to work but I’ll write more later.

  49. 49
    MGD says:

    About evolutionary “predictions”

    http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

    Long but worth reading.

  50. 50
    Bombadill says:

    jimpressario, the Miller-Urey experiment is a joke amongst honest scientists, both on the ID side and Darwinist…

    1. The wrong atmosphere was used.

    2. Intelligent agents “controlled” the experiment.

    3. The end product was a brown sludge (produced by shooting electricity directly into the containers). Any idea of the vastness of the chasm between brown amino acid sludge and a single functional cell? It is mind boggling. And that’s not even considering the Irreducibly Complex functionality of a single cell.

    Dr. Stephen Meyer –

    “Miller’s work is understood by the origin-of-life research community itself to have little if any relevance to explaining how amino acids–let alone proteins or living cells–actually could have arisen on the early earth.”

  51. 51
    jboze3131 says:

    maybe i missed something, but i dont think mentok was saying that ID is religiously motivated.

    im also wondering how many times well have to listen to jim make this claim.

  52. 52
    Bombadill says:

    ID has theological implications.

    So does Darwinian Evolution.

    So does the Big Bang.

  53. 53
    PhilVaz says:

    Benedict on evolution:

    “….science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard — the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven [or six] days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion — an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green of the fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them…..

    “We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary — rather than mutually exclusive — realities. But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky…..It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith.”

    Benedict on design:

    “Microbiology and biochemistry have brought revolutionary insights here. They are constantly penetrating deeper into the inmost mysteries of life, attempting to decode its secret language and to understand what life really is. In so doing they brought us to the awareness that an organism and a machine have many points in common. For both of them realize a project, a thought-out and considered plan, which is itself coherent and logical. Their functioning presupposes a precisely thought-through and therefore reasonable design….we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.”

    All from the book In the Beginning….: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

    http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

    Pick the Benedict you like. I prefer the evolutionary Benedict. 🙂

    Phil P

  54. 54
    jboze3131 says:

    that doesnt make any sense to me. hes saying there was no real adam and no real eve, and they werent created by god the way the bible says? if thats so- why did christ say he came as the second adam (which seems to point to the fact he thought adam was a literal man made in the manner the OT mentions.) ?? if men are just evolved apes- how would that make humans special? few people would doubt were special…but if we throw out genesis as a fairytale, then what ELSE do what throw out? do we choose to throw out the virgin birth, resurrection, and other doctrines?

    if we dont throw these things out, why not? if the pope so easily paints creation as mere myth, then how is it possible to say which parts of the bible are true and what arent? if youve got issues with the very first book, how do you have ANY faith in the rest of it? why trust any of it if you cant even trust the very creation of all of this itself?

    makes no sense to me.

  55. 55
    mentok says:

    jimpressario the Miller Urey experiment did not produce “complex organics” and it is rejected as having any validity, see http://www.darwinismrefuted.co.....gy_09.html

    You wrote:

    “Your last paragraph is where the real honesty shines through. It seems as if my first post in this thread was on to somthing, the pretense that ID is not religiously motivated is no longer operative.”

    As far as my last paragraph it was nothing more then my opinion as to what motivates most evolutionists i.e they seek to change the ontological perceptions of people who believe in God, or more specifically religion. They do so because they fear and loathe religion for various reasons.

    Your first post on this thread was this:

    “Has the pretence of ID being non-religious been official dropped?”

    Since ID is pure science which concludes that an outside intelligence is the only plausible source for the natural world based on probability concepts, how is that a “pretence of ID being non-religious”? ID is upfront of what it teaches and makes no pretence about anything. Foolish demagogues thing that because ID doesn’t call itself “Creationism” or put forward any type of religious dogma that IDers are being duplicitous. The reason we don’t call ourselves Creationist’s and call ID creationism is because those are loaded terms. Those words in most people’s minds refer to specific religious doctrines. ID puts forth no specific religious doctrine. It is nothing more then an examination of scientific data. Because that data leads to a non materialistic theory, why should that theory be perjoratively labled and the scientists who promote that theory be attacked with ad hominem and straw man arguements? To suit the bigotry of atheists because they have a mental bloc against all and anyt scientific theory which does not posit a purely materialistic cause?

    What we object to is the numerous logical fallacies used in the arguments of evolutionists in their demagogic attacks on ID because it posits a “supernatural” rather then a purely materialistic hypothesis. For instance the demagogic evolutionists usually claim that ID is simply an attempt to make religion out to seem scientific and therefore it’s real purpose is to force religion on people. That absurd notion is what we object to. If through rigorous empirical methodology we come up with the conclusion that the origin and diversification of life is more probable by an outside intelligence then by random mutation, then why should mentioning that be seen as “promoting religion” and therefore not allowed? If ID and it’s conclusions were not science based, but purely religious dogma based, then that would be promoting religion in the guise of science. But since ID is in fact based on rigorous scientific research and not on any particular religous dogma, then it has just as much right to be mentioned in publicly funded schools as evolution, in fact more right because it can be proven to be more in line with scientific standards of proof then evolution. Evolution is not held up to a rigorous scientific standard yet it is promoted and taught as infallible absolute truth in publicly funded schools. In effect I am paying someone to teach bad science which ultimately has the effect of teaching that all religious beliefs are based on a myth. Philosophically and politically motivated atheists want to force their religous beliefs on children. Atheism is a type of religious belief. It posits that there is no God and all religions are bogus fantasies. Why is that allowed and seen to be perfectly reasonable to be taught to children in publicly funded schools by people who want to keep the mention of God outside of schools?

    They do not want to allow any criticism of evolution because evolution is their religion. They want to force their religion on others in public schools and they want no dissent. They use the langauage of the law rather then the spirit of the law in their attempts to keep their religious beliefs free from critical analysis in public schools. Because evolution is not treated as essentially cognate with a religious belief it is allowed free reign to preach atheism as the ultimate and supreme ontological paradigm through thinly disguised bad science in publicly funded schools.

    We object to the misuse of public education tax dollars being spent to teach atheism as absolute infallible ontological truth in the guise of science in schools. Evolution is a religion in the guise of science.

  56. 56
    avocationist says:

    Jim,

    “I ask again, what evidence brings people to ID if not religion faith?”

    This remark if annoying and insulting, and worse, shows you to be foolish. You state that you have read Dembski and Behe. Perhaps it wasn’t enough. Should you really be debating on an ID blog if you haven’t the foggiest idea that evolution theory has serious shortcomings? After all, the real names in evolution theory throughout this century have exhaustively documented those trouble spots themselves. Are you unaware of that as well? If you wanted to discuss the evidence, that is fine and a separate question. But what you keep saying is that ID people must be motivated primarily by religion, because there is nothing else it could be, i.e., no evidence. If you’re going to speak that way, there is no basis of discussion.

    The word religion means a particular set of beliefs. I already told you I identify with no religion. So perhaps you would like to modify your statement to say that people who have theistic beliefs seek to validate them through ID. However, that isn’t necessary, as many religionists and theists already accept evolution (although not to Dawkins standards).

    You have correctly noted that many IDists are religious, and most are at least theistic. I would say that for people to whom belief in God is not precluded, in other words who have a fairly open mind, they are ABLE to accept the evidence that points to a designer — because they are not precluded from a reasonably objective look at the evidence. That doesn’t mean it was their primary motivation. Rather, they simply might be people who are truth-seeking.

    Of course, most people would say they seek truth. But talk is cheap. In fact, truth is for the few.

    “Again not changing the subject, just pointing out that when you write ‘either we must imagine that matter arose uncaused out of nothingness…or we must imagine that matter is ever-existent’ you seem to be arguing against something other than evolution. ”

    Jim, You really must learn to focus. It was not me who changed the topic from evolution, it was you. You mentioned, perhaps as an aside, that to posit a God removes the question down the road, because we must wonder who designed the god. Now, there’s nothing wrong with bringing that up, and I was happy to answer it, but don’t come back and say that my answer has nothing to do with evolution, because I never claimed it did.

    It’s funny, how the ID critics will NOT stop talking about God and then they happen to notice how much God gets discussed…

    Which is OK by me; it’s my favorite topic, too.

  57. 57
    jimpressario says:

    Davescot

    “predict for me when the next human species will emerge and what features will separate it from h.sapiens.”

    As I said earlier, there is no way to predict when a seperate species will emerge; bit of a strawman really. Here’s one way how it could happen: Two populations of homo sapiens get isolated from each (say a colony a spaceship). LOTS of time passes. As the generations pass the two environments have different effects on the seperated gene pools. At some point the populations have changed so that members from one population cannot reproduce with those from the other. There are two distinct species with a common ancestor. The only feature that is predictable is the inability to reproduce with members of the first population. Aside from that there could be any number of other changes, dependent on the environment.

    I think that as we become more and more aware of the processes and how they can be changed we will speed up (maybe even bypass) the ‘lots of time’ needed. I predict a new humanoid species by 2150. Care to lay a bet?

    MGD :

    THanks for the link, it is long and I will give it the time it deserves when I can. I will direct you http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html for a rebuttal of that critique.

    jboze3131 :

    ‘how many times well (sic) have to listen to jim make this claim’.

    Ignore me, why would I care? Mentok was ranting about god killers and people killing peoples faith in god. I just commented that the mask was slipping.

    Bombadill :

    I knew mentioning the Miller-Urey experiment was a red rag to a bull. Should have left it off. Their experiment shows that organic molecules can form under abiotic conditions. It was part of a list of experimemts into abiogenesis and, as the first, I included it. It is not a joke to scientist who realize what it does and doesn’t show.

    As to darwinismrefuted.com (seriously?)

    ‘nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia’

    More recent experiments (Yanagawa et al. 1980, Kobayashi et al. 1992, Hanic, et al. 1998) have shown that you get similar results with atmospheres that more closely approximate our understanding of the early atmosphere.

    ‘there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere’

    Oxygen didn’t really enter the atmosphere in large quantities until photosynthesis evolved. The iron distribution in rock confirms this. The dominant scientific view is that the early atmosphere had 0.1 percent oxygen or less (Copley 2001)

    I’m going to be here all night if go through everything so I’m goint to stop there.

    Mentok :

    ‘But since ID is in fact based on rigorous scientific research’

    ‘ID is upfront of what it teaches’

    Please, please please link.

    It is not those who understand evolution trying to bypass the scientific forum and, instead, using politics and the courts to push their ideas. And where is ID being pushed? Peer-review journals? University research centers? Biotech industries? No. All the time and money is spent trying to get ID included in high-school via the courtroom! Why not save the money, come up with a theory and study it. Have it looked at both others in the field who can judge it. Do some more reseach, collect more data. You know, actual science work. Then, if there’s something that should be taught, teach it. That’s if it’s scientific. I personally have no problem teaching creation stories to kids. Just not science classes.

    BTW evolution is not atheism. There are many, many religious scientists around the world of every creed who have no problem living with their faith and evolution. It is only those fundamentalists who take their texts literally who see it as sacriligeous.

    Avocatioist,
    There are gaps in knowledge of evolution sure, but nothing fundamental. Certainly nothing from Behe or Demski that would constitute a ‘serious shortcoming’. I’m intrigued to hear what you think is though, so I’ll ask again (however annoying, insulting or foolish): what evidence is there for ID? Or do you think Behe and Demski have posed serious problems.

    Your comment was on an aside I had made to someone else so sorry if I seem unfocused, I’m juggling a lot of plates here. That comment was the (silly) question of who designed the designer? It’s either just the start of an infinite regress or you could say s/he was always there (this is your thinking, I believe). Neither explains anything scientifically. Of course, you can believe whatever you want, just don’t try to teach it to high school kids as science.

  58. 58
  59. 59
    MGD says:

    “It is not those who understand evolution trying to bypass the scientific forum and, instead, using politics and the courts to push their ideas”

    Who filed the lawsuit in Kansas ????

  60. 60
    jboze3131 says:

    id just like to point out more blatant lies from jim:

    “It is not those who understand evolution trying to bypass the scientific forum and, instead, using politics and the courts to push their ideas. And where is ID being pushed? Peer-review journals? University research centers? Biotech industries? No. All the time and money is spent trying to get ID included in high-school via the courtroom! Why not save the money, come up with a theory and study it. Have it looked at both others in the field who can judge it. Do some more reseach, collect more data. You know, actual science work. Then, if there’s something that should be taught, teach it. That’s if it’s scientific. I personally have no problem teaching creation stories to kids. Just not science classes.”

    ———-
    creation stories? how is common descent a creation story? look up the word CREATE, then post another comment filled with dishonesty.

    IDers dont do scientific study on ID? wanna e mail behe and tell him hes full of crap?

    IDers are trying to get ID pushed into schools? umm wrong. thats not even the goal of the discovery institute, as you well know. youre just being your usual dishonest self.

    you show a wonderful grasp on theology i see…”It is only those fundamentalists who take their texts literally who see it as sacriligeous”. damned those fundies. i mean, why on earth would someone take a holy book literally? i guess people should take it as a fairy tale…then umm they would base their lives, their behavior, their morality on fiction? so, youre advocating people act like idiots and follow things they dont believe are actually true? and somehow, those people are in some way fools…in their thinking of religion AND science? this coming rrom a guy who seems to say that the ones with common sense are those who base their lives on things they know arent literally true, just fantastic fairytales of wonder! uhhh yea.

    not to mention your arrogance is beyond astounding. a tip- if youre going to continue to post a minimum of 2 or 3 lies each and every time you comment, id drop the arrogant sarcasm from your attitude. it makes you look like a fool.

  61. 61
    jimpressario says:

    jboze3131,

    I never said common descent was a creation story. It isn’t. In fact I’ve been consistent in differentiating between evolution and the science of origins.

    ‘IDers are trying to get ID pushed into schools? umm wrong. thats not even the goal of the discovery institute’

    You are (willfully?) misreading my comments (and then calling me a liar!) I didn’t say the Discovery institute wanted to get ID into schools, did I? I said ‘IDers’. There are ID proponents on school boards trying to do just that. Witness Dover. The Discover Institute’s line is teach the controversy. Never mind that, while there is plenty of real controversy, there is none on whether evolution actually happens.

    The discovery instute is an organisation for social change, not science. From the wedge document : “Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.”

    On religion, I don’t care one way or another what someone’s personal beliefs are, or how literally they take it all. Honestly, believe in Adam and Eve if you like. Or that the world sits on the back of infinite stacked turtles. Whatever floats your boat. It’s quite possible to read the bible (for example) in other ways though. The catholic church in October said that some parts of the bible were not literally acturate (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html); do you think they are idiots? If you don’t believe every word in the book (never mind which version or language) it doesn’t necessarily make it all a fairy tale, does it?

    ‘this coming from a guy who seems to say that the ones with common sense are those who base their lives on things they know arent literally true’

    Once again, I didn’t say that. There would be nothing sensible in living a life on a lie. As I said, you could be a christian who reads the bible metaphorically, or are they not good enough christians?

    tip – if you’re going to call me a liar, find some lies. Don’t just look for sentences you can misinterpret to your own end.

  62. 62
    MGD says:

    “It is not those who understand evolution trying to bypass the scientific forum and, instead, using politics and the courts to push their ideas”

    Here’s your lie. It’s the anti ID crowd who brought the lawsuit(s), not the other way around.

  63. 63
    jboze3131 says:

    jim. you continue to say ID is a religious idea and nothing else. i said that COMMON DESCENT is not creation…in the sense that, behe believes in common descent, i know. not sure about other IDers. so, clearly ID is not a religious idea and its not creationism. creationism doesnt accept common descent in this manner.

    you then try to imply all IDers are out to get ID into schools. the main ID organization doesnt even want that…you dont think your implication is false?!

    you say “The Discover Institute’s line is teach the controversy. Never mind that, while there is plenty of real controversy, there is none on whether evolution actually happens. “…trying to imply that IDers dont believe in evolution in any sense. of course evolution happens, but there is definitely a controversey as to whether it happens on the scale its claimed to take place on. your implication that IDers dont accept evolution is false and your claim that there is absolutely no controversey on the bigger picture is also false.

  64. 64
    Mats says:

    This will surelly give some nightmares to Catholic compromisers

  65. 65
    puckSR says:

    This argument is really getting petty, but from what i have read…this is pretty much how all of your arguments turn out(all Evol vs ID arguments both sides)

    Lawsuit:his point is not who sued…his point is why they sued. They sued because ID was being introduced in grade school. It doesnt really matter who sued. The point he is making is still valid. Lets be honest here..ID is still not accepted by the scientific community. If any “new theory” that was not fully validated was introduced at the grade school level, there would be a problem.

    Fundamentalism: Fundamentalism by definition refers to a literal interpretation of the bible. In other words; if you believe the bible to be literal your a fundamentalist christian. If you believe the bible to be non-literal your not a fundamentalist christian.

    Pope: The Pope is advocating a design that is very different than the one that ID is advocating. The Pope’s designer could even be appreciated from a deistic point of view. ID on the other hand could only be appreciated from a theistic point of view.

    Bible: If the bible is not wholly true, then that does not change much. I frequently refer fundamentalists to George Washington. His biographies are full of anecdotes that never actually occur. Many of the quotes attributed to him are paraphrased or purely imaginary. Does this mean that George Washington is not true? No. Does this mean that we do not know anything about George Washington? No. We know a great deal about him. Even most of the false stories about George Washington were created to illustrate a point…a point that is normally true.

    Sorry, but some of this was just people arguing over misunderstanding

  66. 66
    jboze3131 says:

    “Lets be honest here..ID is still not accepted by the scientific community.”

    what does that mean? are dembski, behe, and many others not part of the scientific community? and so what if the majority dont accept it? consensus in science is pointless.

  67. 67
    puckSR says:

    i was not trying to invalidate anything….I was simply pointing out that it is not accepted by the scientific community.

    We generally do not “teach the controversy” in grade school. If there are two theories, and one is relatively new and untested, grade schools normally teach the more accepted and older one.

  68. 68
    puckSR says:

    by the same token of your argument we should be teaching about aliens in high school biology classes

    (Im not comparing aliens to ID, except to debunk the argument that a handful of supporters is enough to allow a subject to be taught in a classroom)

  69. 69
    mentok says:

    puckSR you wrote:

    “by the same token of your argument we should be teaching about aliens in high school biology classes

    (Im not comparing aliens to ID, except to debunk the argument that a handful of supporters is enough to allow a subject to be taught in a classroom)”

    What’s funny is that more people in America believe in alien visitation then those who don’t. In in 2002 there was a Roper poll ( http://www.scifi.com/ufo/roper/ ) taken on UFO beliefs. 56% of Americans believed in UFOs. More than two-thirds of Americans say that the government is not telling the public everything it knows about UFO activity (72 percent) or extraterrestrial life (68 percent).

    jimpressario you wrote:

    ” I said ‘IDers’. There are ID proponents on school boards trying to do just that. Witness Dover. The Discover Institute’s line is teach the controversy. Never mind that, while there is plenty of real controversy, there is none on whether evolution actually happens”

    There is no controversy over whether evolution happens? What’s it like there on planet jimpressario? Over here in this section of the universe, a little place I like to call Earth, there has been a big controversy going on for years in the scientific community and in the public square. I don’t know about other plantes so thanks for the input slim. You also said:

    “Mentok :

    ‘But since ID is in fact based on rigorous scientific research’

    ‘ID is upfront of what it teaches’

    Please, please please link.”

    I don’t know what it’s like on your planet jimbo. But over here in our little corner of the Milky Way we have this newfangled contraption called a book. They’re these things which folks can look at and they contain little symbols which correspond to words, ya know what I mean? Anyways these collections of words we call “books” here on Earth. There’s been a bunch of books written by scientists over the years. Also over here on Earth there’s this weird thing called the “Internet”. It’s kinda like magic, all you gotta do is know how to type to use it. Some of the more fancy ones you can just talk to and it unnerstands what yer saying, like I said…”magic”. Anywho there’s this thing called a “search engine” on that there internet. If you type something into the “search engine” it does this thing where it “searches” for whatever you want! I know, amazing! Anycuz, the way to find out the stuff you want to know these day on earth is to use a search engine it’s really easy and fun, even my 7 year old niece uses it, so it’s pretty user friendly.

    puck you wrote:

    “Lawsuit:his point is not who sued…his point is why they sued. They sued because ID was being introduced in grade school. It doesnt really matter who sued. The point he is making is still valid. Lets be honest here..ID is still not accepted by the scientific community. If any “new theory” that was not fully validated was introduced at the grade school level, there would be a problem.”

    The “scientific community” aint the boss of me sonny jim. If I want ID in schools and I try to get it in introduced ta schools, tough luck. If the “scientific community” doesn’t like it let them try and stop me. There are plenty of scientists who beleive in ID. I don’t take kindly to mob rule. Here in ‘merica we have a thing called freedom of speech and a little thing I like to call “learnin”. If you wuz also smart like them thar “scientific communists” er, I mean “community”, then you wood welcome learnin cuz I herd thatz what them folks is a liken. I is all fer learnin, why is some folks not?

  70. 70
    puckSR says:

    The point of my comment was clarification.
    Its great that ID people like to lob poo at Evolutionists
    Its great that Evolutionists like to lob poo at ID people.

    Your all just really flinging poo though.

    Mentok made a very good point
    Most Americans believe in Alien Visitation
    Most Americans believe in ID

    Many(the most subjective word you could possibly use) scientists believe in both.
    Why dont we teach it in school? Because the scientific community doesnt back the belief. Science is not a democracy, but the neither is the scientific community. The fact that some(a much less subjective term) scientists support ID doesnt really mean much. Some scientists support Loch Ness monster, alien abduction, Sasquatch, and an electric universe.

    ID may one day prove to be the ultimate theory…that is not really up to any one person to decide. The point is still valid that we generally do not teach “theories” to grade school kids that we dont generally teach to kids in higher education. Why?

    Because a 12 year old is no where near being able to decide a scientific debate.
    Think about it, most kids in grade school still believe a lot of false information. I am referring to completely wrong information across many fields of study…not debated theories.

    I suggest that ID scientists actively start teaching more classes in biology. Then once they prove the validity of their theory, then begin introducing it more into popular literature and and grade school.

    Freedom of Speech? Wow, you really do not understand the limits on your freedoms. Besides, public school is not considered a forum. You may believe that the Nazis really didnt kill 10 million Jews, but you had better not try to teach that in public school.

  71. 71
    jboze3131 says:

    Actually, taking SETI into consideration, mainstream science doesn’t really frown upon the possible existence of aliens. An absurd idea to me personally, but think about it- the search for aliens is a scientific mainstay, but inferring design in nature is religious psuedo-science unworthy of classroom time? Come on, now!

  72. 72
    puckSR says:

    no wait…..
    Many scientists believe in God..just not intelligent design.
    A common belief among scientists is that God exists, and that he somehow created reality

    Many scientists believe in Aliens, just not alien abduction/vistitation
    A common belief among scientists is that Aliens exist, and have live somewhere in the Universe

    Most scientists do not believe in Intelligent Design
    Most scientists do not believe in Alien abduction/visitation

    Many non-scientists believe in Intelligent Design
    Many non-scientists believe in Alien Abduction

    The similiarities are striking between these two topics…right down to the fact that many scientists believe in IT in a vague sense…but not in the specific sense that is being proposed by some people(abduction/intelligent design)

  73. 73
    jboze3131 says:

    well, the poll he linked to was general belief in UFO’s, which was general belief of the existence of aliens. and the majority of americans believe aliens exist (i personally do not). so, were not talking about belief in alien abduction- im sure that percentage of belief would be much lower than general belief in the mere existence of alien life forms.

    still, consensus is for politics not science. the consensus has been wrong many times before and will surely be wrong many times to come.

    it doesnt matter to most people what a majority of people think on an issue. i think its safe to say that the scientific consensus is with evolutionary psychology, which is an absurd field that constantly fails to predict behavior. if were to believe EvoPsych- wed have to wonder about the people who never have children, considering the claim is that were all preprogrammed by our genes to replicate these genes (reproduce) as much as possible. that deep inside the mind, we all want sex because we all want to spread our seed. why then do we use birth control and worry endlessly over pregnancies? what of those adults who never want and never have kids. are they somehow evolutionary rejects?

    life itself defies the concepts of evolutionary psychology. if were walking robots controlled by our genes, we should behave like animals, but we dont. we dont treat others the way animals often treat others of their own species and especially others of different species.

    ill just stop with that rant there. point is- thats pretty mainstream, and you can easily see what a crock it is. i, myself, have no desire to have children, so i must be, myself, a reject in regards to evolution- im bucking the trend toward reproduction and replication of my dna (as are millions of others!) not to mention, the hour glass shape that evo. psych. says is the most beautiful (based on the concept that men are attracted to women who have the physical attributes that are geared toward being able to have babies and healthier babies- i dont like that shape myself, so again im a reject to evolution.) women are supposedly attracted to men who have physical and personality qualities that would make them better able to inpregnate them and thats their goal- also nonsense for most women. it just doesnt work in the real world on any real level, yet its mainstream stuff that the consensus, i would say, totally accepts.

    which says a lot about the consensus in general on this issue and many others.

  74. 74
    MGD says:

    How do you get this?

    “Lawsuit:his point is not who sued…his point is why they sued”

    from this:

    “It is not those who understand evolution trying to bypass the scientific forum and, instead, using politics and the courts to push their ideas”

    “not those who understand evolution”

    sounds like who to me.

    And why do the ACLU, the NCSE and the other usual suspects lawyer up so readily? Could it be to protect their creation myth from public scrutiny and preserve their social status and power? Why, yes I think it might be.

  75. 75
    avocationist says:

    Jim,

    “There are gaps in knowledge of evolution sure, but nothing fundamental.”

    I find them fundamental.

    “Certainly nothing from Behe or Demski that would constitute a ’serious shortcoming’. ”

    Oh well.

    “I’m intrigued to hear what you think is though, so I’ll ask again (however annoying, insulting or foolish): what evidence is there for ID? Or do you think Behe and Demski have posed serious problems.”

    There’s nothing insulting about asking that question. It is insulting when you say that the only reason to be persuaded to ID ideas is religion. Yes, I think Behe and Dembski have posed serious problems. I strongly suspect there isn’t much point in elucidating them, however. A few people do approach things with an open mind, but most of the time that is not what is occuring in these discussions. The sad reality of the human condition! There is far, far more dreaming going on in people’s waking lives than they care to see. Thus, one’s interpretation of reality is more than 50% motive, and less than 50% fact based.

    The fossil record alone refutes gradualism. Homolgy presents severe problems. IC systems, and complex information are further problems. The origin of life by chance looks impossible. All evidence points firmly away from gradual accumulations of mutations and random chance.

    Here is my ID prediction: Soon, perhaps a few years hence, as molecular and embyronic biologists continue their discoveries, they will find out what those epigenetic, body plan problems, or even just regular genetic mechanisms are — the walls that prevent an animal type from ever becoming another type, and that will finish off Darwinian evolution. I don’t mean speciation, rather it is going to be on the level of family or genus. The phenomenon of microevolution will then be understood to be limited, having no possibility of leading to macroevolution.

    “That comment was the (silly) question of who designed the designer? It’s either just the start of an infinite regress or you could say s/he was always there (this is your thinking, I believe). Neither explains anything scientifically. Of course, you can believe whatever you want, just don’t try to teach it to high school kids as science.”

    The objection that it doesn’t explain existence scientifically is saying that anything our sense extendors have not yet figured out can be safely mocked and assumed not to exist. Truly we are at the summit of all knowledge in 2005! All things have been discovered.
    If science cannot explain existence, then science is pretty limited, isn’t it?

    Look, don’t tell me not to teach something as science when all scientific evidence points to intelligence preceding us in this universe, and all science refutes Darwinian evolution, and has long since refuted it.
    Kids are being taught as science that there is no meaning to life, that humans possess no noble nature, that all is ultimately futile, and half of them are on antidepressants.

    If one looks at the history of man’s foolishness, it consists more than anything else of making a mountain of assumptions upon a few grains of evidence. That is the state of knowledge upon which they teach our kids that they were the result of accidental and purposeless processes.

    Darwin’s theory succeeded because men were in the mood for it.

  76. 76
    puckSR says:

    Correction: If you will notice earlier i referred to Alien abduction/visitation. UFOs would constitute Alien Visitation

    Not to get on a soapbox but i have to address this statement
    “we dont treat others the way animals often treat others of their own species and especially others of different species. jboze”

    We are social, so compare humans to other social animals to be fair. We interact with each other. We share with each other. We sometime become angry and attack each other. How would you say that a pack of dogs acts differently than humans, or chimps? The only real difference is the complexity of the interactions

    Towards different species? We frequently treat other species cruelly, just like most animals? There are very few animals that are generally treated compassionately by humans.

    The whole topic of society is not in the realm of ID or evolution. They both would explain that sometimes societies exist and sometimes they dont. They both lack good evidence though. Some animals are cruel to their own species and other animals are kind. This seems to show no design at all(be it intelligent or evolutionary design).

    “Kids are being taught as science that there is no meaning to life, that humans possess no noble nature, that all is ultimately futile, and half of them are on antidepressants.”-avocationist

    Science does not bring up the issue of “meaning of life” or “humans possess noble nature”. If ID is introduced into the curriculm you would actually be teaching that…if the Designer is evil. If the designer is evil and sadistic, then wouldnt that be worse for children to learn? Thats why these issues should not be mentioned in a science classroom. Topics such as these should be reserved for more approriate classes…like philosphy.

  77. 77
    puckSR says:

    “A few people do approach things with an open mind, but most of the time that is not what is occuring in these discussions.”

    This phrase is very confusing and troublesome. I hear it frequently though, especially from the religious people, dont misunderstand though, im not accusing you of being religious.

    An open mind does not equal non-skeptical
    too often i hear someone who is a disbeliever told that they do not possess an open mind.
    What you are really trying to say is that they are too skeptical.

    An open mind simply suggests that they are capable of acknowledging your opinion, and that they could consider the possibility of it being correct.

    I believe that many people on both sides of the debate have considered the possibility of their opposition’s correctness. They have been open-minded, but now they are simply too skeptical of their opposition’s viewpoint to accept it.

  78. 78
    DaveScot says:

    As well as the other criticisms mentioned of Miller-Urey, their flawed experiment only produced a subset of the 20 amino acids employed by all living organisms.

    Perhaps the most amusing thing is that there’s nothing better than the fatally flawed 60 year-old Miller-Urey experiment for chance worshippers to point to.

  79. 79
    DaveScot says:

    pressario

    What a lame answer to my question about the predictive ability of evolutionary theory!

    Hint: in the future when you are confronted with an honest question give an honest answer and leave the equivocation at home.

    The standard theory of evolution which pretends to explain the origin of species has no predictive power. It’s a just-so story about past events that can never be repeated or tested. Get used to it.

  80. 80
    jimpressario says:

    Things have got very petty so I’ll make this my last post.

    DaveScot:

    Hardy worth bothering with. I did answer your question, though I can understand why you chose to ignore it. Your question was not ‘about the predictive ability of evolutionary theory’, it was a very specific question about when the next human species will emerge and how it would be different. Let me repeat my answer on the timing part for you: ‘there is no way to predict when a seperate species will emerge’. That’s it. That’s all you need. You question was just a pathetic strawman argument. No-one would say that evolution could predict such a thing.

    I then when on with a thought experiment to explain what differences would occur, regardless of timescale. If you recall the answer is that the only certain difference will be that members from the two populations will not be able to reproduce.

    See no equivocation. But like I said much it’s much easier to throw insults than dealing with what was actually written.

    Speaking of which I included the Miller-Urey experiment in a list of experiments to prove that work was being done in the field of abiogenesis. I also included Schlesinger and Miller 1983,Chang et al. 1983 rendering this qoute : ‘Perhaps the most amusing thing is that there’s nothing better than the fatally flawed 60 year-old Miller-Urey experiment for chance worshippers to point to.’ false. BTW there are plenty more, and with work in Harvard plenty more to come.

    Now your turn: Pick out two words from what I’ve written, write a sneering paragraph on how I’ve lied/ignored your question/missed the point etc and then finish off with a pompous sentence about how ID is destroying evolution.

    Pathetic.

    avocationist:
    You say that Behe and Dembski have provided serious problems to evolution, but then say ‘I strongly suspect there isn’t much point in elucidating them, however.’ Why? In case someone proves how those problems don’t exist? To quote you from earlier : ‘Of course, most people would say they seek truth. But talk is cheap. In fact, truth is for the few.’ I’m sorry but I laughed like a drain.

    And then this :’The fossil record alone refutes gradualism. Homolgy presents severe problems. IC systems, and complex information are further problems. The origin of life by chance looks impossible. All evidence points firmly away from gradual accumulations of mutations and random chance.’

    At least it’s a step in the right direction but, could you be any more vauge?

    What is your problem with the fossil record? Is it that you expect to see a smooth continuum of species morphing into each other? Which IC systems a promblem? Perhaps if you gave specifics we could find an answer or even proof of ID!! As to your last sentence, what references are you using? Where’s the evidence? If you want ID to be taken seriously then the ideas need to be robust enough to stand up to scutiny. If you have to hide them behind generalities then… well you can see why it might seem you have something to hide.

    ‘The objection that it doesn’t explain existence scientifically is saying that anything our sense extendors have not yet figured out can be safely mocked and assumed not to exist’

    Not at all, just that it is unscientific and should not be taught as such.

    MGD:
    On the lawsuit, the school board were pushing their worldview into the classroom politicaly( against the scientific advice they were presented with), They were the ones trying to bypass the scientific community. Any lawsuit was an attempt to raise the standards back up.

    mentok :

    You’re pretty ham-fisted with the sarcasm. If you get the chance pick up a couple of Brit comedy DVDs. I suggest Blackadder (series 2 and 4) and The Office (UK version) as well as the obligatory Fawlty Towers. Still, it allowed you to avoid the subject for a while.

    Here’s the deal: One of the main critisisms of ID is that it is religiously motivated. That that critisism exists is fact. Now, there are some, many of you here on this board, who disagree; who say it’s scientific. OK, fair enough. If ID is scientific, where is it science? You see, I’ve done all that reading and googling stuff and haven’t found anything concrete that would lead me to believe that ID is science. That’s why I ask for links and references. If you are so convinced that ID is scientific, what have you read that I haven’t? What exactly has lead you to your conclusions. The burden of proof is on ID. If all you have is strawmen arguments, arguments from incredulity, arguments from authority and lies (on one site I was directed to Kent Hovind’s site!) followed by insults and righteous indignation at someone actually questioning the theory then, well, it becomes a little obvious that ID isn’t science at all. I quitting this thread, but I am interested: if you have a site that you feel best explains what ID is and where the facts that support it are then I’d be very happy to take a look.

  81. 81
    DaveScot says:

    puckSR

    I think you’re forgetting that evolution made it into the classroom in the first place via judicial fiat (Scopes Trial). Now 80 years later the same method is being applied to keep criticism of evolution out of the classroom.

    You don’t see the irony there? Who’s the bad guy in all this that keeps using judicial fiat to get their way in the classroom?

  82. 82
    DaveScot says:

    pressario

    “If you recall the answer is that the only certain difference will be that members from the two populations will not be able to reproduce.”

    Okay. You made a prediction based on evolutinary theory.

    The next step is to verify the prediction through observation and experiment.

    What? You can’t do that?

    A prediction that cannot be tested is no prediction at all. Duh. Now don’t go away mad, just go away.

  83. 83
    puckSR says:

    DaveScot:

    “I think you’re forgetting that evolution made it into the classroom in the first place via judicial fiat (Scopes Trial). Now 80 years later the same method is being applied to keep criticism of evolution out of the classroom.”

    Wrong….Evolution was taught in schools before Scopes. Scopes challenged the right of a state to alter it’s teaching to appease a religious majority.

    If you remember history correctly, and im sure you dont from what you stated earlier. Evolution was banned. Evolution was already being taught in many schools, but the creationists(and yes they were religious) wanted it banned because it violated fundamentalist ideology. They challenged the right of the State to ban a commonly held scientific belief.

    Now, they are trying to ban ID on the same concept of ID being religious. You may argue that ID is agnostic, but it is still Theism. You cannot have ID without Theism, but you can have Evolution with Theism, Deism, or Atheism.

    It is really funny. The Pope is even smart enough to realize that any “design” philosophy would be just that..a philosophy.

    Lets forget the whole ID vs Science argument. Explain this to me…what exactly has ID shown to be true that would completely violate Evolution? When we discovered that heat was not an invisible gas a few centuries ago, they performed a simple experiment using friction to explain how it could not be gas, but was instead energy.

    ID has some great arguments..its a very interesting philosophical perspective. The problem is that you haven’t found your golden key yet. Someone earlier suggested that microbiologists would soon discover limitations to DNA that does not allow for unlimited change. This would be a golden key.

    Right now ID is simply trying to bust Evolutions ass. That is great, but even if you completely destroy the Theory of Evolution, your going to need to supply more than observational evidence…since that is how you are trying to bust Evolution..with observational evidence.

    You are going to need a concrete experiment that can be repeated. Most likely in genetics. Darwin didnt have these problems, they didnt know about genetics. You have this problem…i guess it is time to get to work.

    The burden of proof is not on the existing theory, it is completely on the new theory

    ::Rant over::

  84. 84
    DaveScot says:

    puckSR

    I’m not sure what point you think you’ve made saying evolution was already being taught. Special creation has been taught in the past too. Try to remain focused on the concept of judicial fiat, how it’s been applied, and whose view has benefitted from it.

    Scopes established (on the appeal) that a law barring the teaching of ape to man evolution was unconstitutional. Thus evolution was able to force itself in, by judicial fiat, where the people didn’t want it. The people make their wishes known through legislative bodies.

    Now the shoe is on the other foot and the people want material critical of evolution taught in their schools. Again, by judicial fiat, evolutionists are excluding criticism of evolution from the public classroom.

    Your homework assignment is to tell me who has benefitted by the judiciary branch of government ruling that duly passed laws regarding evolution in the classroom.

    Take your time. I want you to get it right this time.

  85. 85
    avocationist says:

    Jim and Puck,

    I apologize Jim, you’ve been rudely treated.

    “Science does not bring up the issue of “meaning of life” or “humans possess noble nature”. ”

    Maybe not science, but the evolution that is being taught specifies that the process is random and undirected, and has no purpose or goals.

    “If ID is introduced into the curriculm you would actually be teaching that…if the Designer is evil. If the designer is evil and sadistic, then wouldnt that be worse for children to learn?”

    I’m afraid I just couldn’t get the logic of that. Can you restate it?

    “This phrase is very confusing and troublesome. I hear it frequently though, especially from the religious people, dont misunderstand though, im not accusing you of being religious.”

    It has little or nothing to do with religion.

    “An open mind does not equal non-skeptical.”

    I absolutely concur.

    “Too often i hear someone who is a disbeliever told that they do not possess an open mind.
    What you are really trying to say is that they are too skeptical.”

    It may be true that the atheist does not have an open mind, but the lack of belief lies somewhat elsewhere, in my opinion. Meanwhile, the religious fundamentalist has a closed mind as well.
    On the contrary, I’d like to see people be far less gullible than they are.

    “An open mind simply suggests that they are capable of acknowledging your opinion, and that they could consider the possibility of it being correct.”

    I’d say that’s a pretty good definition.

    “I believe that many people on both sides of the debate have considered the possibility of their opposition’s correctness.”

    I really think the evidence, based on their writings, shows that a huge percentage of Darwinists have not ever seriously considered the other side. Whereas a rather large number of IDers not only have considered it, but even once accepted it. I would be an exception to the above; I never accepted evolution theory as such, but then, I also reserved judgement because I had not looked into it.

    You are the voice of reason, aren’t you Puck?
    ********************

    “You say that Behe and Dembski have provided serious problems to evolution, but then say ‘I strongly suspect there isn’t much point in elucidating them, however.’ Why? In case someone proves how those problems don’t exist? To quote you from earlier : ‘Of course, most people would say they seek truth. But talk is cheap. In fact, truth is for the few.’ I’m sorry but I laughed like a drain.”

    No, I have read the rebuttals to some of the ID articles, specifically the Ken Miller vs Behe/Dembski flagellum debates, the Berlinski fish eyes paper debates, and the rebuttals and responses to the Meyer article. In all those cases, from my biased point of view, the Darwinists never left the starting gate. some of their arguments seemed fair enough, but the final responses usually evaporated them.
    The reason I said it seemed futile is that after reading Dembski and Behe you said only religion could cause someone to adopt ID. So there seems a wide gulf.

    You laughed like a drain? Well my remark was definitely philosophical, but I do stand by it. Few people are serious about truth, and of those, very few have much fortitude.

    “What is your problem with the fossil record?Is it that you expect to see a smooth continuum of species morphing into each other?”

    Yes, of course I do. Transitional species ought to be far more numerous than ‘fixed’ ones. The record doesn’t have to be perfect at all, but the fossils do not show evolution, and they did not in Darwin’s day and he acknowledged that.

    “Which IC systems a promblem? ”

    I think the flagellum is a good one, but I also think any cell is another, and I think there are probably thousands upon thousands of good examples.

    “As to your last sentence, what references are you using? Where’s the evidence? If you want ID to be taken seriously then the ideas need to be robust enough to stand up to scutiny. If you have to hide them behind generalities then… well you can see why it might seem you have something to hide.”

    It is fair enough, but the way you go about the questions, it is as if I must start with ID101 and make long lectures. That would take so much time. And I could never do justice to the books I’ve read, and if I even began to, it would be a lot of work. I’m just now on the home stretch of Michael Denton’s Evolution: A thery in crisis. I had waited to buy it because I figured it was rather old now, anyway. But I am very impressed — he has laid out nearly all the arguments and he was the pioneer, not Behe and not Johnson. You say I’m hiding behind generalities, but I assume you are aware of the arguments against Darwinism.

    “Not at all, just that it is unscientific and should not be taught as such.”

    Well the assumption that there is no God or Being or Intelligence preceding us in this universe is not at all scientific, and that is what kids are being taught. It is a metaphysical position, and it isn’t fair to allow it. There’s nothing inherently scientific about assuming no God, and assuming God in no way prevents us from searching into the works of things.

    “If ID is scientific, where is it science? ”

    I find this remark so odd that I rather think it would be more fair to turn it around. Why does ID and/or evolution criticism seem unscientific to you?

    Shattering the Myths of Darwinism is a secular book written by a science reporter who accepted evolution until he researched it. I read it more than 5 years ago, long before I ever heard the phrase “intelligent design.” Denton is an agnostic, altho with obviously spiritual leanings.

    The argument from the fossil record you should know well enough. The many arguments about chance are good, and I find it pathetic that Dawkins erred so badly in his book Mount Improbable (I think). Johnson demolishes him well. In my opinion, there is no excuse for a world renowned scientist to fail to make a simple calculation. As Johnson says, Dawkins discussed chance, but never calculated the chance of anything. He simply assumed that enough time could account for various evolutionary proposals. He tried to coax people by saying that a long-lived alien with a lifespan of a hundred million years would see a perfect hand of bridge dealt from time to time, and it would be nothing to write home about. Johnson does the math. the chances if the alien played 100 games a day for one hundred million years is one quadrillionth that they would see a perfect game of bridge in their lifetime.

    But you see that took me 20 minutes to look up, and his entire chapter on chance is quite good and deals with various aspects of fixing genetic changes in a population, the building up of information and so on.

    What are we to make of England’s leading intellectual being so sloppy in his thinking, and what are to to suppose about his motivations when he is so outspoken about his antipathy to religion? Are we to to give him the credit of being objective and super scientific and smart? Are we to suppose he was not engaging in rhetoric? Why didn’t he do the math? He wasn’t curious? He doesn’t think that way? This is a PhD? This is the meticulous way the world gives out its respect to authorities?

    All the arguments that I see against Darwinian evolution are scientific and rational, dealing with the same data that evolutionists use.

  86. 86
    avocationist says:

    Hey Puck,

    “Now, they are trying to ban ID on the same concept of ID being religious. You may argue that ID is agnostic, but it is still Theism. You cannot have ID without Theism, but you can have Evolution with Theism, Deism, or Atheism”

    Well, I disagree that theism or deism are tenable, that is, they rest on very shallow metaphysical thought processes, but I can’t really go into my personal understanding of the nature of God. You do realize that guys like William Povine at Cornell (I think) openly state that evolution leads to atheism and shows there is no God, meaning or afterlife?

    “Explain this to me…what exactly has ID shown to be true that would completely violate Evolution? ID has some great arguments..its a very interesting philosophical perspective.”

    It is important to note that ID is considered to be an inference, an interpretation of scientific data. I’m not sure you should go so far as to call it a philosophy…so are we to consider any good arguments against gradualist, random mutation and natural selection evolution to be an argument in ID’s camp? Denton has a chapter I just finished called “A Biochemical echo of Typology” that does a great job, I think, of helping to demolish evolution. I also really like the arguments from information theory. Are you saying there must be one final triumphant argument? I guess in that case it all depends on how much you need to be convinced. As I said, I think the fossil evidence alone is sufficient, although if all the other evidence were more favorable, I’m sure the fossil record could be explained. However, that isn’t the case.

    The Golden Key was me – just remember you heard it from me first!

  87. 87
    MGD says:

    “MGD:
    On the lawsuit, the school board were pushing their worldview into the classroom politicaly( against the scientific advice they were presented with), They were the ones trying to bypass the scientific community. Any lawsuit was an attempt to raise the standards back up.”

    The school board was doing their job, setting the curriculum, how dare they cross the Scientismic Priesthood! Now I may not agree with what the school board did (let’s try teaching the 3R’s and get that right first), but they are not responsible to that priesthood but to the people who elected them. Those who have been voted out of office are paying for the controversy no matter what the reason.
    This spin, by the way, doesn’t exonerate you from a charge of dishonesty. It was not the proponents of ID who took this to court. As for raising the standards, using legal tricks to protect a favored theory from public examination proves that this is a worlview in its death throes. If there is no controversy, teach the counterclaims and refute them.

    “And why do the ACLU, the NCSE and the other usual suspects lawyer up so readily? Could it be to protect their creation myth from public scrutiny and preserve their social status and power? Why, yes I think it might be.”

    Souns like worth rereating.

  88. 88
    DaveScot says:

    My bad on the Scopes appeal. I thought it’d been overturned on constitutional grounds but it was a technicality. Not until 1968 did SCOTUS rule that it was unconstitutional on establishment grounds to ban the teaching of evolution.

    The points still stand however. Evolution first gained the undeniable right to be taught in public schools via judicial fiat and now it has gained an undeniable right to escape criticism in public schools via judicial fiat.

  89. 89
    puckSR says:

    DaveScot:
    You are truly twisting the facts on Scopes.
    In both Scopes and Dover, the question is being raised over personal ideology in the classroom. They are not “escaping criticism” in public schools. The public generally does not have the information to decide the argument over most scientific matters. Look at a number of the polls that are performed each year to help you decide this fact(over anything). The American public is ignorant, and no matter what your opinion(ID or Evol), we probably should not leave this debate in the hands of the public.

    Avocationist:
    Christianity is a form of Theism.
    Evolution can easily be explained in the context of Theism or Deism.

    ID is more strongly associated with Theism than Evol, but the argument can be made for either.

    Besides, why are we judging the merit of a scientific theory based on its religious tendency?

    You also make a huge mistake Avocationist
    You claim that the Atheist has a closed mind? But the ID proponent has an open mind?
    You argue that ID proponents have an open mind because many supported Evol at one time.
    But most Atheists were religious at one time, shouldnt the same argument apply?

    Get back to me on this, since i believe that your using somewhat contradictory logic.

    Oh and let me explain the morale issue with ID. ID is much better morally for children if we teach that the creator is good. A good theistic deity is better than atheism for moral purposes.
    However, in the event that the designer is evil, or at least sadistic, wouldnt that actually be even worse for young people than a religiously abstinent deity?

    BTW Agnosticism always leans towards Religion. If they leaned even the slightest towards non-religion, then they would identify with Atheism. Just my personal observation.

  90. 90
    MGD says:

    “Souns like worth rereating.”

    thats: sounds like worth repeating

  91. 91
    puckSR says:

    “And why do the ACLU, the NCSE and the other usual suspects lawyer up so readily? Could it be to protect their creation myth from public scrutiny and preserve their social status and power? Why, yes I think it might be.”

    You do realize that this all sounds like a conspiracy theory right?

  92. 92
    MGD says:

    “You do realize that this all sounds like a conspiracy theory right?”

    No, I didn’t mean it that way.A little paranoid are you? What is a conspiracy anyway? When people of a like mind work for a common goal. Maybe in secret? This is no conspiracy as it’s all being done in the open. Still, why the obsession with this subject? Would it be permissable to teach about some new theory about gravitation, for instance, that differed from general relativity, but was able to answer some questions better than GR? What about alternatives to quantum theory? Would that be ok? Then why not ID? Because it may have theistic connotations to some? Darwinism has athiestic connotations to some, why dont we ban it? The ACLU certainly seems to have a secular agenda. In any case I believe that the people should decide what their children learn, not advocacy groups and not lawyers.

  93. 93
    puckSR says:

    Hmmm

    Im sorry, im trying to throw some fairly objective information into the mix so i have to challenge the idea that “ID may have theistic connotations to some”.

    ID=Theism….ID cannot be Deistic or Atheistic…please explain a situation in which it could be
    Evolution may appear Atheistic…but it can easily fit inside a Theistic or Deistic viewpoint

    this has been the center of a massive debate on this website…the atheism of Darwinism.
    Darwinism in non-denominational
    ID is inherently Theistic

  94. 94
    DaveScot says:

    puckSR

    “The American public is ignorant”

    Elitism is ugly, puck.

    “, and no matter what your opinion(ID or Evol), we probably should not leave this debate in the hands of the public.”

    Well my friend, I’m afraid that’s how the system works in the United States. Maybe you should move somewhere where benevolent dictators decide public policy. I hear Singapore ain’t all that bad…

  95. 95
    DaveScot says:

    puckSR

    As to your denial that the courts are being used by Darwinian narrative apologists to shield the story from criticism…

    The following sticker, inserted into Cobb County Georgia HS biology texts was objectionable and the ACLU sued the school district for its removal and won the suit.

    Sticker: “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

    What sayeth you now to that, Puck?

  96. 96
    avocationist says:

    Puck,

    “Evolution may appear Atheistic…but it can easily fit inside a Theistic or Deistic viewpoint.”

    I don’t agree because the idea of a God who somehow has nothing to do with matter is inherently a contradiction. If there is a God, that God is the source of existence itself. We already have departed from Darwinism in the strictest sense. Once we have a God who is the source of existence, how can we ever imagine that life is an accident?

    “Evolution can easily be explained in the context of Theism or Deism.”

    Not if you believe that life is fully accounted for by random processes without goal or purpose.

    “Besides, why are we judging the merit of a scientific theory based on its religious tendency?”

    I wasn’t. I was judging whether a philosophic theory is compatible with a scientific one.

    “You also make a huge mistake Avocationist
    You claim that the Atheist has a closed mind? But the ID proponent has an open mind?
    You argue that ID proponents have an open mind because many supported Evol at one time.
    But most Atheists were religious at one time, shouldnt the same argument apply?”

    I didn’t exactly state the the atheist has a closed mind. My opinion is it is a matter of perception, and that does involve a willingness, but it is also a matter of individual development.
    Yes, your are right that an atheist often has a somewhat open mind. Darwin, for example, and he is very typical, said that Christianity is a damnable doctrine and he didn’t see why anyone would want it to be true. He is completely correct, and so it often happens that the person who is able to think for himself and who cannot bear the cruelty of Christian doctrine, responds with atheism. (I think Christian doctrine needs to be reformed.) However, the atheist often stops thinking much after his rebellion, and remains stuck in a reaction to a negative theology, which is on a low level of understanding anyway.

    “However, in the event that the designer is evil, or at least sadistic, wouldnt that actually be even worse for young people than a religiously abstinent deity?”

    Well, I’m all for truth, whatever it is. I hardly think the deity can be evil…an abstinent deity is already a bit evil (tho not sadistic), and a nonexistent deity is a recipe for existential despair.

  97. 97
    DaveScot says:

    Puck

    “Evolution may appear Atheistic…but it can easily fit inside a Theistic or Deistic viewpoint.”

    Intelligent Design may appear Theistic…but it can easily fit inside an Atheistic or Agnostic viewpoint.

  98. 98
    puckSR says:

    DaveScot:
    Im not being an elitist. The american public is not generally the brightest group. Most public is not. Im not saying that the British public is any smarter. OR the Chinese. Im just saying that a lot of people in the world are dumb. The fact that a significant percentage of our population cannot name the president should be a strong indication of my point.

    What alternative is currently presented to evolution?
    Creationism———->Judeo-Christian…religious
    ID——————->Theistic…religious
    Magic—————->???….not religious
    Dont Think about it–>Stupid.not religious

    The fact that all alternatives to evolution are either inherently religious or plain stupid should explain their actions. They wanted good religion free education

    Avocationist:

    Darwinism to a Deist:
    God created the reality in which we now exist. He knew how and when things were going to fall together(determinism). He created the properties of nature, and the laws that govern nature. He allowed the universe to unfold according to his design. One of his designs was evolution. He knew beforehand how things would evolve, because he designed evolution, and the enviroment that it was occuring in. He knew we would be the eventual product of this evolution.

    Darwinism to a Theist:
    Same as above, except that God has the free-will to occasionally reach down and tinker with his creation. i.e. Jesus, miracles, that sort of thing. If this bothers you, ask yourself this question…is God constantly moving the cosmos? No, because he created them so that they could keep moving, He is not spinning the planets with his hand.

    I think now would be a good time to look up Deism, since you obviously had no idea what i was talking about in my recent post. While you are at it, you may want to look up Theism too, since that is the definition i am working with.

  99. 99
    puckSR says:

    DaveScot:

    Explain to me how ID can fit into an Atheistic viewpoint?

  100. 100
    MGD says:

    Hmmmm… Id=theism. What if ID is true? Can we still not teach it because ID=Theism acording to you? If there is design in nature are we not allowed to see it? Can we only teach theories that can have athiestic interpretations? Why? Who’s point of view does this serve?

    “Evolution can easily be explained in the context of Theism or Deism.”

    Evolution meaning descent, certainly. Darwinism or any other naturalistic hypothosis is a harder nut to crack (and swallow). Just because some may accept Darwinism and still be theists doesn’t mean that the two positions are compatible, perhaps they are only being thoughtless, or diplomatic, or scizophrenic. Who decides? You? The ACLU?

    Sticker: “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

    Dave, the offending words are: “open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” 🙂 Such words are the enemies of indoctrination.

  101. 101
    puckSR says:

    MGD, i believe i just explained a Theistic/Deistic approach to evolution

    We could most definately teach Theism, if you could prove it more completely.
    Personally, before attempting to introduce proof of God, i would find a lot more evidence than i would to introduce a new scientific theory. Besides, if you prove that Theism is true, it simply means that we will abandon the long standing belief that science must be approached from a naturalist perspective. This, of course, would help alot. All of those impossible problems….God did it.

    MGD, who decides? Well i expect that the SCOTUS will eventually get to decide. They will have many briefs filed explaining both sides positions, and in the end…due to the mass of briefs supporting Theistic evolution, they will side with evolution being compatible with Theism.

  102. 102
    MGD says:

    “We could most definately teach Theism, if you could prove it more completely.”

    Who said anything about teaching theism? ID is not theism.Is there any evidence you would accept for it anyway? I doubt it.

    “Personally, before attempting to introduce proof of God, i would find a lot more evidence than i would to introduce a new scientific theory”

    So when Darwinism falls (and it will)you will erect another naturalistic myth to take its place because any theory that is not naturalistic is unscientific to you. And when that one falls? I do not accept the naturalistic definition of science but I’m more concerned about whether a theory is true than if it is “scientific” by some arbitrary deffinition. I have been studying this crap for 23 years and I have a degree in biology so dont bother trying to change my mind, it is quite closed (like yours) :).
    Bored now.

    ps: oh yes! let the damned lawyers decide!

  103. 103
    observer_in_context says:

    When you take a moment to mentally encompass and breathe, it’s exciting, isn’t it? That we are each a part of it all, whatever it is, a being in existence. No matter what you believe, the last statement is true for each one of us, albeit subjectively. And though subjective, there is enough commonality in our individual experiences that we can debate the nature of existence, our origins, and ourselves. It is impossible to discuss our origins without making inferences as to the nature of existence because it is this nature of existence that makes way for our origins (in whatever form or method that happens to be). Within each of us lies our undeniable, individual, subjective truth. Outside of all of us is objective truth, the kind of truth that remains true regardless of whether any one or all of us perceives it or not. It is extremely difficult, but not impossible, for any human mind to see much at all beyond its undeniable, subjective truth. Sorry, that’s life, seen through your eyes, interpreted and reasoned by your brain. Individual (or even collective) subjective truth will never match the absoluteness of objective truth. It is objective truth, objective reality that holds the key to how we have become and which buoys and enables our own naturally limiting subjective truth. How can we escape the bonds and bounds of our subjective truth to see more of this objective truth that is the source of existence and our origins? We seek to become more objective. And what does “truth” demand to be found within a subjective human mind? Brutal, blunt, selfless and uncaring honesty, within ourselves and with others.

    ob·jec·tive
    adj.
    1. Of or having to do with a material object.
    2. Having actual existence or reality.
    3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
    b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

    Focusing on definition 3a, it must be said (and is obvious by reading many of the comments in this thread) that very few humans are capable of being objective. Avocationist pointed this out earlier by commenting, ‘Of course, most people would say they seek truth. But talk is cheap. In fact, truth is for the few.’ Again, looking at definition 3a, objectivity only arrives when one lets go of many things: Firstly, the need to win. If you simply must win then you simply cannot be objective. If the truth is all that is sought then there is nothing to lose and therefore no need of seeking to win.

    Secondly, banish the words “I believe” and think a thousand times before using the words “I know”. Failing to do so will prejudice all subsequent inquiry and you will forever be at the mercy of subjective thinking that will lead you to “a” truth, but not “the” truth. Further, do not turn speculation into immutable truth. That is the surest way to build a flimsy house of cards.

    Thirdly, and this is paramount, any concern of your being must be denied. You cannot be objective if you are concerned with preserving your place or status, even your very life or being. Fear, love, hope, desire, and the will to survive, while significant and useful traits for being human, have little to do with being objective or for discovering truth. You cannot seek to stack the deck of understanding such that there be a favorable outcome for you, for now or for eternity. Doing so will only result in you blissfully deluding yourself. Truth, objective truth, says let the chips fall where they may. This is where honesty is required and most difficult to hold steady. Selflessness may seem so inhuman. But in the search for objective truth, selflessness will hold the light pure in comparison to the obscuring pall of the “Me, me, me! What’s in it for me?” kind of selfness. Even wondrous feelings of aw should be guarded. Aw, like any emotion, can be a great motivator. Allow emotions to be motivators for seeking the truth not for deciding what truth is or what truth could be, should be, or must be. Objective truth flows objectively regardless of any subjective claims made on its behalf.

    Fourthly, don’t mentally paint the object with colors that make it most pretty. If you don’t paint it with false glitziness its natural beauty will eventually emerge for you to appreciate. (“Truth is beauty, beauty is truth.” “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” You should always seek to have a clear, sharp eye for maximum exposure to natural beauty, natural truth.)

    Fifthly, be unbent, be inquisitive. You cannot begin with the anthropic principle and seek to be objective from there forward. Nor can you begin with thoughts that an intelligent designer is foolish and seek to be objective from there forward. Part of letting go is the letting go of our prior truths to relearn them again, objectively. What harm can that be if they were true after all? They would be as the captured butterfly set free.

    Oh, and just one other thing… This really should be about YOUR understanding of things, right? You don’t want to go on through life feeling like your concepts are brought to you courtesy of the mind of Joe Blow, do you? Understand that, just like you, Joe Blow lives a subjective existence. He is no more capable of striving for objective truth than you are. If it is important enough, do it for yourself. Toss what Mr. Blow has convinced you to be true out the window and seek truth for yourself. Perhaps you will find yourself basking in the glow of beautiful, self-evident, objective truth. And perhaps it will be the same as what you had assimilated from Mr. Blow before. Even so, it will be warmer and truer. Adhering to the rules laid forth, with time and your own independent deep contemplation, you will discern objective truth, as best an innately subjective mind can. That is what you want isn’t it? The truth? You do want the truth, right, no matter where it leads, no matter what sacrifice?

    Now, focusing on definition 2, “having actual existence or reality”, well, that’s what this debate is all about, right? (Please forgive me for not being well versed on either side of the issue.) On the one hand, ID says that the complexity of living things leads to the inescapable conclusion that there must be an intelligent agent at the root cause of life. On the other hand, evolution is saying that regardless of how life arrived, it appears through evidence of an incomplete fossil record that complexity has steadily evolved from humble beginnings to man and perhaps eventually beyond. Neither is provable to be 100% correct. In that sense one could argue that they are on equal footing and that if one is taught and advocated then so should the other in the name of fairness and the quest for understanding and truth. However, if the quest for truth is for objective truth then whatever “truth” is proposed should pass through the objectivity filter described above and emerge unchanged, unscathed.

    Yes, I have opinions, what I have come to perceive as objective truth. And my objective truth continues to evolve as new information is acquired via my subjective reality, filtered objectively as best I can. I know that I have not contributed substantively to either side and I apologize if I have merely taken up space. However, much of the dialog here moved me to note to all that truth is and that it does not bow to any agenda other than the most sincere quest.

  104. 104
    observer_in_context says:

    Now, I must admit, speaking objectively, that with the emergent subjective mind may have also come emergent subjective reality. It may very well be that reality is forever emergent and shapes itself to the subjective experience. Ok, philo-babble off. I just wanted to give you an example of how objective objectivity should be.

  105. 105
    avocationist says:

    Oh Puck,

    No need to be snotty, I had looked up both definitions, although mine did not include the front-loading scenario under deism.

    I really don’t think accepting theism or ID means the naturalistic approach would change. Why would it? Is nature inconsistent because God created it? How is it any less amenable to study? Do you realize that the question of whether or not there is a God, and if so what kind of God, is already a fact, and that we are studying nature just fine?

    Are you an agnostic?

  106. 106
    puckSR says:

    While your expertise is in biology…mine is in theology/philosophy

    ID is theistic.
    Theism-is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe.

    If you havent noticed I am referring in particular to the secondary part of the definition

    My mind is very open, and in a way, you could say that I believe in ID…if it is as loosely described as Avocationist claimed it to be in another comments section.

    I will ask you a question that upsets your theory of theistic science.
    How do you determine what justifies divine intervention?
    I know you strongly claim that biology is pushed by the hand of God, but what standard will you put forth to determine without question divinity of an action?
    Evolution of species…hand of God
    abiogenesis…hand of God
    astrophysics…?hand of God?
    earthquakes…?hand of God?
    plate tectonis…?hand of God?

    see…it all depends on how loose your definition for intelligent design.
    However…the looser it gets, the closer your “theory” gets to philosophy.

  107. 107
    puckSR says:

    Avocationist…I am a very religious person…far from being agnostic…but my personal beliefs do not matter

  108. 108
    DaveScot says:

    puckSR

    “While your expertise is in biology…mine is in theology/philosophy”

    While your expertise is in theology/philosophy, mine is in digital design. DNA is a digital code. Trust me, it’s designed.

  109. 109
    DaveScot says:

    puckSR

    “Explain to me how ID can fit into an Atheistic viewpoint?”

    Easy. The intelligence is of natural origin and violates no known physical laws in its actions.

    We already have scientific knowledge of one intelligent agency capable of genetic engineering. They are embodied as bipeds wearing white coats drinking coffee around gene splicing machines and engineering workstations.

    According to the evolutionists the agents mentioned above are of natural origin and violate no known physical laws. That seems to fit well enough into an atheistic world view. There is nothing whatsoever that prohibits other kinds of intelligent agency from acting in the universe. The key to sticking with science is not postulating intelligent agents that violate the known physical laws that govern time and space and matter and energy. Of course there always remains the possibility, likelyhood in fact, that there are physical laws yet to be discovered and these may have some bearing on the emergence of intelligence and design.

  110. 110
    DaveScot says:

    puckSR

    “Im just saying that a lot of people in the world are dumb.”

    I’ve an IQ of 153. To me, you’re “dumb” too. Should I discount your opinion because of it?

    Stop calling the public dumb unless you want a taste of your own medicine.

  111. 111
    DaveScot says:

    puckSR

    You seem to have dodged, dived, ducked, and dodged the following point I made to you, thus I shall throw it at you again:

    As to your denial that the courts are being used by Darwinian narrative apologists to shield the story from criticism…

    The following sticker, inserted into Cobb County Georgia HS biology texts was objectionable and the ACLU sued the school district for its removal and won the suit.

    Sticker: “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

    What sayeth you now to that, Puck?

    Well? [tap tap tap]

  112. 112
    puckSR says:

    DaveScot:

    I have always been told that humility is the hallmark of a wise man…..Hmmm

    I thought the reasoning behind challenging the sticker was made clear DaveScot
    The sticker is suggesting “questioning” Evolution…this would imply seeking alternatives
    All current alternatives to Evolution are considered religious
    I know, I know….ID isnt religious, its just theistic
    The lawyers are currently arguing in Dover that ID is religious…thus the reasoning.

    If you would like me to explain this again…just ask

    Hmmm..so the intelligent designer could simply be human?
    If the Intelligent Designer is another biological organism, then wouldnt that biological organism need some form of creation? It would have either been created by yet another biological organism, and some organism at some time would have had to been created in a different way; or your suggesting, and i believe you are, that the other organism may not be as constrained by our biological laws….in which case, perhaps we are not as constrained as we believe by biological laws.

    I typically find the “who created God” question laughable, but in this case it is rather relevant. Please do explain, since this is at least an attempt to make ID non-theistic.

  113. 113
    DaveScot says:

    puckSR

    “I have always been told that humility is the hallmark of a wise man…..Hmmm”

    Then I suggest you get enough humility to stop calling the public “dumb”. Physician, heal thyself.

    The Cobb sticker makes no mention of any theory except evolution. Try again and stick to the facts.

  114. 114
    pmob1 says:

    Puck,

    I have a mild clinical interest in your intellectual delusions. Could you please tell me:

    1) Which Smart-O-Meter you use for Dumbness detection?
    2) What is the percentage of Really Smart people in Western society?
    3) The proper role of Mind Police in structuring curriculums for hayseed offspring?

    Thanks,

  115. 115
    pmob1 says:

    Puck,

    In #106 you say: “…but my personal beliefs do not matter.”

    To the contrary, your personal political beliefs are the main issue. Would the following points accord with your beliefs regarding secondary education in America?

    Local voters shall not control their own science curriculums.

    National Science Police shall control local science curriculums.

    Students may entertain competing theories except in biology.

    Although theories are notoriously ephemeral, Darwinism shall be taught as infallible.

    Standard Form Darwinism shall be determined by a Science Sanhedrin composed of bureaucrats.

    The Science Sanhedrin shall preside over a centralized, command-and-control knowledge system.

    The Standard Form shall be promulgated in every classroom of every school of every district of every state in the Republic.

    No district shall deviate one single angstrom from the Standard Form unless a Standard Emendation be issued.

    Deviation from the Standard Form shall result in threats and lawsuits.

    When expedient, Sensitive judges may pose as Great Science Savants.

    “Mean,” “dumb” judges may not pose as Great Science Savants.

    The Science Sanhedrin shall receive regular blandishments and boot-cleanings.

    Wonderstruck villeins in smallheld lands shall pay annual Sanhedrin Tax to maintain Police Science, Lawyer Science, Papal Bull Science and their respective toadies in the manner to which they’ve grown accustomed.

    Simple Hayseed folk shall annually sing “Lawdy I feel so happy…” in the form of a contrapuntal round.

Leave a Reply