Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[C1ay]

In light of your answer to question 3, your belief that matter and energy have always existed is scientifically invalid. Why? Because you're accepting them as a "given". To you, the existence of matter and energy is inexplicable. They just "always were".

Not really, observation shows matter and energy exist. Observation shows that they cannot be created or destroyed. Lacking any evidence that they were created, they must have always existed.

 

In light of your answer to question 4, please explain the existence of the natural processes? See… you've got the same problem. Natural processes, in your mind, are eternal and need no explanation.

Observation shows that nature exists.

[Erasmus00]

Fine. Got it. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

 

Fine, then describe to me testable criteria I can use to support either your designed hypothesis.

 

Are you KIDDING me? Have you ever heard of DNA? NO RIGOROUS EXAMPLES? Holy smokes.

 

How is that DNA must have been designed? Give me criteria I can use to test for this design. What features do desgined systems have that undesigned do not? If it is designed and laid out, why is there so much junk DNA? How is it that organisms develop new abilities (such as the bacterial ability to digest nylon, as I believe C1ay mentioned earlier)?

 

Natural selection CAN explain MICRO-evolution… we I.D. proponents are "on-board" with micro-evolution. But natural selection CANNOT explain macro-evolution.

 

What exactly is the distinction between micro and macro evolution? Are you suggesting that many small changes can't add up, over time, to large changes?

 

Care to explain why the hedge is a silly example? Do you understand where that example leads? Do you understand that DNA has a LANGUAGE underlying it? Do you understand that only intelligence is capable of producing LANGUAGE?

 

Why so condescending? Do you always think that those people who don't agree with you must be morons, who don't understand the slightest thing about DNA, and hedge trimming?

-Will

[Fishteacher73]

What evolutionary mechanism are you referring to? Can you name one? Natural selection? Natural selection CAN explain MICRO-evolution… we I.D. proponents are "on-board" with micro-evolution. But natural selection CANNOT explain macro-evolution.

The terms macro and micro evolution are pointless and not used in any other context than those trying to bolster ID.

Care to explain why the hedge is a silly example? Do you understand where that example leads? Do you understand that DNA has a LANGUAGE underlying it? Do you understand that only intelligence is capable of producing LANGUAGE?

DNA mutations occur randomly (unless you want to cite a vindictive malevolent "god" for them). Those that are harmful are selected against. Natural selection is the "spell checker" if you may. Advantageous mutatiouns are not selected against. This is how they arive....

 

In a series of only four tiles, the odds against that are not that large. In fact, I'd say that compared to the odds of bushes growing naturally to spell the name of the city where they are growing, your scenario is downright LIKELY. If I dumped a bag of scrabble letters on the floor, I might indeed get short sequences of letters in close enough proximity to one another, and in the proper alignment so as to be legible according to conventions of our language. "CAT", for example. But here's the catch… it's really only a message if it's the message I INTENDED.

It is easy to find intended words in retrospect. Just look at the Nostradamus prophecies..

I INTENDED to type this particular message to you today. If I thought chance could produce this message, I wouldn't have bothered to type it… I'd have mowed the lawn instead. Back to your cracks, if there were a longer sequence which continued the pattern which you describe, then at some point we MIGHT have to conclude that some disturbed person was cracking your tiles. But at the level you describe, while it is interesting and impressive, it can be explained quite comfortably by reference to chance.

I would be inclined to examine the stucture of the tiles...Perhaps the instialation was wrong.. I would call a plumber before a priest.

DNA, however, is a whole new ball game. Hundreds of MILLION base-pairs, all ordered precisely according to a LANGUAGE CONVENTION common to living organisms that geneticists refer to as the "Universal Genetic Code." And elsewhere in the cell, a system that processes, translates, interprets that code and builds proteins accordingly. You gonna try to compare THAT to 4 cracked tiles? He, he… I don't THINK so!! (by the way, there's a rigorous example for you, discovered something like 30 years ago)

I see no real evidence for a intelegent agaent in DNA...There are vast areas of junk DNA, it is reasonably simple to thwart and links to a common ancestry...not IC.

[Lolic]

I think Stephen Meyer said it best, "there is a massive Darwinian bluff going on". Why?.. evolutionists can't account for the origin of information in DNA, the origin of information to create a new cell or a fundamentally different body plan. They resort to dogmatic statements that their "just so" stories are science. To say there is no controversy is a proven lie (documentation below). For this to be taught to students without an explanation of the good, bad and ugly of evolutionary theory is simply wrong and city after city is standing up against it. If it was a FACT of science, the evolutionists would have shown up in kansas when the school board considered changing it's science standards. But since they had to agree to be questioned, they declined. Since when do real scientists act in this manner? The public will clean up this aspect of science since it is apparently unwilling to do so itself. The public has a vested interest since their children are being educated with this false information.

 

Problems with Evolution

 

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin

 

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination."

Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University

 

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."

Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77

 

"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."

Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist

 

"If they could demonstrate the power of material mechanisms to generate biological complexity and diversity, we wouldn’t be having this discussion -- Darwin on Trial would never have been written and the intelligent design movement would not exist."

William Dembski

 

"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view."

Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.

 

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.

 

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981)

 

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact."

Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University

 

"Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms...The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts...I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea."

Dr. Jacques Monod, Nobel Prize winning scientist

 

It never ceases to amaze us that when we were in kindergarten they taught us that a frog turning into a prince was a nursery fairy tale, but when we got to college they told us that a frog turning into a prince was science! The Bible says that only a fool says in his heart, "There is no God". By following evolution we have literally become a nation of fools following false, unscientific data.

Ron Carlson, Fast Facts on False Teachings

 

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

 

"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin."

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology"

 

"Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels."

Dr. William Fix, in his book, "The Bone Peddlers."

 

"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology."

Dr. Arthur Koestler

 

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."

Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician

 

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."

Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London

 

"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."

Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,

 

"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it."

Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,

 

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin

 

"It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine."

Dean H. Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco State University

 

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleontology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about, but that is heresy."

Dr. David Pilbeam, Professor of Anthropology at Yale University, American Scientist, vol 66, p.379, June 1978

 

"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution' "

Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils

 

"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."

Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981

 

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.

 

"I shall discuss the broad patterns of hominoid evolution, an exercise made enjoyable by the need to integrate diverse kinds of information, and use that as a vehicle to speculate about hominoid origins, an event for which there is no recognized fossil record. Hence, an opportunity to exercise some imagination."

Dr. David Pilbeam

 

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, "Evolution, Erratic Pace"

 

"Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted."

Dr. T.H Morgan

 

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."

Dr. P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937

 

"I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law."

Dr. Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London (1966) [an ichthyologist (expert on fish) in a 1988 address before a meeting of the Linnean Society in London]

 

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes."

Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.

 

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist

 

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."

Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

 

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96.

 

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University

 

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict."

Dr. David Berlinsky

 

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Dr. Ronald R. West

 

"In terms of their basic biochemical design....no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth."

Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist

 

"We should reject, as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

Biochemist, Franklin M. Harold "The Way of the Cell," page 205

 

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation."

Professor Phillip E. Johnson

 

"The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them. Humanity has endured as the center of the heavens moved from the earth to beyond the sun, as the history of life expanded to encompass long-dead reptiles, as the eternal universe proved mortal. We will endure the opening of Darwin's Black box"

Michael j. Behe, Biochemist "Darwin's Black Box, pg. 252"

 

"Miller is presupposing precisely the point in question, namely, whether evolution, a materialistic form of it, can bring about biological complexity. Sample enough organisms, and you’ll find structures in different states of complexity that perform the same basic function. But arranging such structures according to some similarity metric and then drawing arrows marking supposed evolutionary relationships does nothing to show whether these systems in fact evolved by material mechanisms. Similarity may suggest evolutionary relationships, but evolution is a process, and the evolutionary process connecting similar structures needs to be made explicit before the similarity can legitimately be ascribed to evolution. Miller’s analysis never gets that far. He gestures at similarities but never demonstrates how evolution accounts for them."

William Dembski

 

"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."

Dr. Johnathan Wells, author of the book, "Icons of Evolution"

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

SHEESH!!!!!!!! THAT WAS A LONG ONE! MY POOR EYEBALLS ARE GONNA BE :rolleyes: FOR WEEKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! :hihi:

[emessay]

Intelligent design existence in life system :

1. There is basic automation principle : INPUT-->BLACK-BOX-->OUTPUT ( FEEDBACK-->INPUT) [ we define as a byte of 1(one) basic of loop of flow-chart]

Example : Thermo-nuclear fusion reaction in our Sun :[ H + H --> Helium+energy+photon]. Is there any feedback to input ? How many loops we can describe it in flow chart, then compare with our life system ?

2. There are huge numbers of flow-chart in life system from basic procaryote-->eucaryote-->plant and animal kingdom-->conscious human-->conscious universe.

3. Whether God or Alien is exist or never exist, there are basic designs in quantum, atomic, molecules, stars, planets, galaxies but there are huge intelligent designs in life evolution system.

4. Is it all still unknown or is it all from evolution via primordial soup of matters ?? Which better to teach to 'intelligent humans' ?? They are the future , we are going to be the past reflections.

[TRoutMac]

Lacking any evidence that they were created, they must have always existed.

 

We lack evidence that matter and energy were created? Really?

 

Haven't you overlooked the most obvious evidence of all? (that matter and energy were created) Matter and energy EXIST. The mere fact that something EXISTS is itself evidence that it was created.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Now if we could only the issue of how or who to everyones satisfaction with substantiated proven irrefutable evidence the world would be a better (or worse if all religions were prover false on all counts!) place. :rolleyes: the circle begins again

 

Incidently I only mention religion and worse in the same breath because I believe morality stems more from religion than any other environmental influence!

[johnkwhite]

Wow! Isn't there [/u]anyone in support of evolution?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

I have no problem with evolution!...I have even seen it in action! Look at the physical differences between (what's the word I'm looking for here? races? Ethnicities?

 

A far as I can tell genetic mutations are evolution (or attempts to evolve) and are likely linked to harmfull (whatevers) in the environment or as in the case of humans much longer life spans. Our bodies weren't designed to live for as long as people are living today thanks to modern medicine. Nor were they intended to live in such a poluted environment.

 

It is my personal belief that cancer is the body's attemt to adjust to survive hence certain cancers are passed on to our offspring in a missguided attemt by our bodies to yield more durrable offspring.

[C1ay]

Matter and energy EXIST. The mere fact that something EXISTS is itself evidence that it was created.

Not if there was no beginning and it existed forever. PROVE that there was a beginning, conclusively.

[Boerseun]

Sheesh!

 

This topic has been thrashed out, over and over, repeatedly, in hundreds of other threads.

I implore all of you to go and read them, go over the old arguments pro/con (specially the new members) so that we don't end up spiralling down the deep dark scary pit of endless repetition.

 

As far as Intelligent Design goes, just the following:

 

1) Intelligent Design assumes an Intelligent Being of some sorts put the whole thing in motion.

2) There is no possible experiment to test for or against this Being's involvement in the forming of Universe as we know it. It is not falsifiable, or verifiable.

3) Science deals with things that can be tested in a lab, repeated in any lab world-wide, and results from such tests that can be compared between lab A and B. Things that can't be tested falls outside the realm of science. End of story. Hypothetical issues that can't be tested, belongs in phylosophy, or metaphysics.

4) ID does NOT belong in Science Classrooms, because it does not fall in the field of science. It's almost like trying to teach needlework in Accounting 101. It is not relevant to the field. Science doesn't say religion is wrong - matter of fact, science has very little to say about religion at all. At best, science says religion in any form is improbable in the light of current evidence. Give us a slice of God so that we can check it under a microscope. You can't, so there's no way of testing for or against. Therefore, religion and science shouldn't be antagonistic towards one another, they should just understand that the two cannot operate in the same field, and make their peace with it.

 

But under no circumstances would I condone the dilution of proper science by allowing an institution like organised religion to barge into a field of knowledge and research of which it understands very little, with the threat that if we don't accept ID in the Initial Cause we'll burn in Hell. Once again - bring us a piece of Hell so we can test it. Is Hell enothermic or exothermic? There's a lot of potential tests I can think of, but religion fails to bring any testable, verifiable evidence to the party. Does an increase in sinners lead to a rise in the average temperature of the Universe? It should, seeing as more sinners will take up more space in Hell. What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics say about that? The only possibility is that Heaven should exhibit a nett energy loss to compensate, implying that Heaven should freeze over eventually. Do they issue angels with harps or parkas? That might be indicative...

 

The day Religion can prove itself scientifically is the day I'd let my kids learn about Intelligent Design in Science Class. ID has nothing to contribute. That old hoary chestnut still needs to be answered: If God created everything, who created God?

 

I wager $1000 in cold hard cash that all the members answering (pro-ID) to my rambling above will duck and dive around the question above, ignore it, or whatever, without coming up with an answer. So - Science might be looking for an Initial Cause, and if we assume God did it, then we will start searching for the Cause of God. That's how science work. There's no holy cows in the lab - everything's up for scrutiny.

[rockytriton]

Sheesh!

This topic has been thrashed out, over and over, repeatedly, in hundreds of other threads.

I implore all of you to go and read them, go over the old arguments pro/con (specially the new members) so that we don't end up spiralling down the deep dark scary pit of endless repetition.

 

Yea, I knew that would happen here, that's why I originally just posted this in the watercooler section as a joke.

 

4) ID does NOT belong in Science Classrooms, because it does not fall in the field of science. It's almost like trying to teach needlework in Accounting 101. It is not relevant to the field. Science doesn't say religion is wrong - matter of fact, science has very little to say about religion at all. At best, science says religion in any form is improbable in the light of current evidence. Give us a slice of God so that we can check it under a microscope. You can't, so there's no way of testing for or against. Therefore, religion and science shouldn't be antagonistic towards one another, they should just understand that the two cannot operate in the same field, and make their peace with it.

 

What about English class? Nobody knows for sure exactly how the English language was created, maybe we should teach in our English classes that God gave the English language to people.

 

Once again - bring us a piece of Hell so we can test it.

 

You will have PLENTY of hell to test with when you are burning in the eternal fire of afterlife! :rolleyes:

 

jk of course!

[TRoutMac]

Not if there was no beginning and it existed forever. PROVE that there was a beginning, conclusively.

 

That's what I thought. I run into this every time… you're confusing the word "evidence" with the word "proof". In a court trial, isn't it correct that BOTH sides present "evidence"? Isn't it also true that only one side (typically) comes away having proven their case? So obviously, there's a big difference between proof and evidence… let's not mix them up, please!

 

YOU said (not me) that we lacked "ANY EVIDENCE" that matter and energy were created. Well, I've just demonstrated that to be patently false. The fact that these things exist at all is EVIDENCE that they were created. I did NOT cite that as PROOF that they were created.

 

Regardless of whether I can PROVE that matter and energy were created by virtue of that evidence or any other evidence, it is absurd to suggest, as you did, that there is NO evidence that matter and energy were created.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

Wow! Isn't there [/u]anyone in support of evolution?

 

Why SHOULD there be anyone in support of evolution?

 

Near as I can tell, John, Lolic and myself are the only ones in this forum supporting Intelligent Design. I myself have fielded questions and challenges from 4 or five of you, as has Lolic.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

1) Intelligent Design assumes an Intelligent Being of some sorts put the whole thing in motion.

 

"Assumes" is not the right word and is very misleading. Intelligent Design is not based on an assumption. Intelligent Design uses the scientific method to conclude that an intelligent agent created the universe. We don't presuppose that there IS an Intelligent Designer, we ONLY presuppose that there COULD be an Intelligent Designer. Your side, however, presupposes that there CANNOT be an Intelligent Designer. THAT is not open-minded, objective OR scientific. It's called "stacking the deck". You ASSUME there is no Intelligent Designer BEFORE you even approach the evidence, then you reject the evidence on that basis!!

 

2) There is no possible experiment to test for or against this Being's involvement in the forming of Universe as we know it. It is not falsifiable, or verifiable.

 

This is absolutely wrong. You can "test" I.D. by examining things that we KNOW to be designed by intelligence, (you might call the "control") and compare that with things we find in nature to see IF the things found in nature exhibit the same kinds of properties. And they do.

 

For example (just one of many): Objects designed by intelligent humans, particularly very complex objects that rely on functionally integrated systems, (a car, for instance) are built according to a set of instructions that were devised by that same intelligent agent. Compare that with the cell. It has functionally integrated systems within it, and it carries with it a set of instructions. I.D., as a hypothesis, passes this test. And again, this is just ONE example of MANY.

 

3) Science deals with things that can be tested in a lab, repeated in any lab world-wide, and results from such tests that can be compared between lab A and B. Things that can't be tested falls outside the realm of science. End of story. Hypothetical issues that can't be tested, belongs in phylosophy, or metaphysics.

 

You've just described evolution to a tee.

 

4) ID does NOT belong in Science Classrooms, because it does not fall in the field of science.

 

Wrong again. EVOLUTION does not belong in Science classrooms. EVOLUTION is not based on science. (remember, I'm talking about MACRO-evolution) Intelligent Design IS based on science. Evolution is an outright fraud.

 

Science doesn't say religion is wrong - matter of fact, science has very little to say about religion at all.

 

Science may not address religion, or Christianity, to be more specific. But more and more, science appears to be supporting the Biblical account. And NOT for the SAKE of supporting the Biblical account, but as a reasonable conclusion based on observation and experimentation that would appear to support the Biblical account.

 

That old hoary chestnut still needs to be answered: If God created everything, who created God?

 

You're skipping ahead of the game a bit, because strictly speaking, the identity of the Intelligent Designer is not provable, as I've already stated. BUT, I am personally convinced that the Intelligent Designer IS God. So, on that basis, I will answer your question.

 

The God described in the Bible is SUPERNATURAL (and eternal). Science HAS reached conclusions which support His existence, (or, the existence of an Intelligent Designer) but science can never learn anything about Him BECAUSE science is of necessity limited to studying what is natural. Science has proven that, in the natural realm, the universe is finite. It had a beginning. It is not infinite, it is not eternal… and that every effect must have a cause. IN THE NATURAL REALM. But we cannot presume to know that the same rules apply in the supernatural realm, a realm where science has no knowledge, can we? So, God, being supernatural, needs no creator.

 

Having answered your question, it really makes no difference, because I believe in an eternal God and you believe in eternal matter and energy. If you think it's ridiculous to believe in an eternal God, then you must also think it ridiculous to believe in eternal matter and energy. So if you think you're escaping "that old hoary chestnut" by adopting a naturalist world view, well, you're just fooling yourself. Every natural process you discover will need to be explained by another natural process, which in turn will need to be explained by ANOTHER natural process, and so on.

 

I wager $1000 in cold hard cash that all the members answering (pro-ID) to my rambling above will duck and dive around the question above, ignore it, or whatever, without coming up with an answer.

 

You can e-mail me directly and I'll give you the address where you can mail the check, thank you.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[johnkwhite]

Why SHOULD there be anyone in support of evolution?

 

Near as I can tell, John, Lolic and myself are the only ones in this forum supporting Intelligent Design. I myself have fielded questions and challenges from 4 or five of you, as has Lolic.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

Perhaps my response to Lolic's posting of a list of anti-evolution quotes was misunderstood. My response was a gentle reminder to the poster that when one argues by way of appeal to authority and selective observation, that the persuasive force of the argument is watered down and even lost sight of, if not balanced against relevant contrary opinion and observation. Of couse there are many supporters of evolution. Thus, it is not helpful to our understanding of whether ID should be examined in science classes by falling into the trap of faulty reasoning--which we all must be wary of when we feel the need to prove our point. And that goes for the teeth-knashing arguments of evolutionary biologist and paleontology communities, too. In fact, the list presented by Lolic would make a great exemplar in science classes of how not to present one's arguments, because it would acquaint students with the idea of how the framing of issues and use of unbalanced (faulty) use of authority and selective observations can end up costing the argument, even if the argument would otherwise lend itself to balanced debate. For example, use of the term "ID" in framing the question is faulty without a precisie statement and examination of its premises and defining attributes, or any conclusions drawn end up begging the question and 'round and 'round we go again. There is a shibbloleth in science that repeatability is the cornerstone of science and if the experiment and its result are not repeatable jot and tittle then it is not worthy of scientific examination. That is not altogether accurate in my mind. For example, sticking a lightning rod in an oak tree so as to attract lighting to watch the mighty oak blow up or catch fire is a repeatable experiment, (pranksterism and a wasted youth ) but that doesn't mean that it cannot reasonably be inferred from watching lighting strike an oak tree without a lightining rod stuck in it, that one cannot reasonably conclude that lighting strikes cause mighty oaks to blow up or catch fire in the absence of lightning rods.

 

A thoughtful examination of evolution in light of teleological and anthropomorphic thinking is a fundamentalist Christian creationist's worst nightmare because it underscores the scientific possibility for a universal orderer who communicates to us through physical laws of nature, and that marginalizes the "only road to salvation is our brand" brand of "god"" so popular in fundamentalist monotheistic cults and sects, e.g., catholocism, 700 clubbers, ralphreiders, muslim fatwahists, etc. There is no better starting place for examination than jumping right into the differences between Gould's and Teilhard de Chardin's concepts of evolutionary science, with ample doses of the multitheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic and atheistic creation myths. My personal view of things is that Teilhard de Chardin (and there are others in his camp) and the scientific anthropomorphists (cosmologists and physicists who see a statistically impossible order in the universe and from that conclude there is an orderer) are on the right track and that there is a point to the universe, and that the universe is in the process of evolving a consciousness in its parts, of which man is a part, and that there is an upward evolutionary direction, i.e., increase in complexity??, to that process, and that we can find evidence of this process through science. I personally respect Gould's work in making sense of the gaps in the fossil record that so bothered Darwin, but I think his own personal view of science as an atheistic process weakens evolutionary science because his condemning of the teleologic approach of Teilhard de Chardin was so well presented, that few if any are ready to be caught examining the teleologic approach. (In fact, Teilhard de Chardin is not without companions in Gould's attack on teleology. Gould is equally disparaging and quite dismissive of Hawkings, Wheeler, Tipler and others who see an orderer in the Universe, and that means his otherwise brilliant arguments explaining the gaps in the fossil record are weakened in the same way Lolic's approach is weakened---he fails to take into account the possibility that there is another explanation. And that is something all of us must avoid in the debate.

 

So, I don't know if this means I agree with your position on ID or not.

 

jkw.