Judge Says No to ID

Hiro,

I would spend time answering your post, but I can tell you will ignore my posts anyhow.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what ID teaches. Study the concept and then come back.

People who point to dinosaur bones or the age of the earth to suggest ID is wrong needs to actually read what ID says. But I somehow doubt you are interested in learning about it. Your mind is set in stone.

It's sad people are so fearful students might believe in God.

Evolutionism is a religion...

"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)."

Shallis, Michael [Astrophysicist, Oxford University], "In the eye of a storm", New Scientist, January 19, 1984, pp.42-43.

Enjoy, merry Christmas.

Have you read up on Chrstian Reconstructionists yet? (AKA Dominionism).



If you think it's just a tiny fringe group, think again. They have a lot of money and a lot of connections. They're the money behind the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center, and its dominionist thinking that's the driving force behind these attacks on science and church/state division. Many Christians hold dominionist views without even knowing it. If you think this will all just quietly fade away you're asleep at the wheel. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg of the culture wars to come. We'd do well to pay attention to the dangerous fundamentalism brewing in our own country. They may not be blowing things up, but they are every bit as dangerous to our freedom as Islamic fundamentalism. Scary shit. Paranoia has nothing to do with it.

So much for, "Bring it on", eh?

This is how his post came across lol



mmmm pie

You need to bring it about ID tho, not creationism. Perhaps you have the two confused. Would you like for me to post a website to help you understand the difference, or do you use wikipedia

Of course it came accross that way to you. Being an atheist would cause you to regard any debate on ID with the scorn you have shown. Flame away, Mfume.

Merry Christmas

It's not really the debate on ID I regard with scorn, it's the willful ignorance. I have never understood people who, to some purpose seem to lower themselves below their ability to reason. It is that, that I scorn.

That's how I feel, but I wouldn't be rude to you just because your beliefs are so ignorant. You are welcome to believe in the faithof Macro-evolution. And I promise not to call you an ignoramus for it, even tho I think it's stupid to believe something so far fetched, something without any basis in fact. But you are welcome to your opinion, you have plenty of company, for now. And the safest place to be is on the popular side, huh? Like when science taught the earth was flat, and they would kill those who dared question science.

No, I'm not scornful of that kind of ignorance, I pity it.

The difference here is I'm telling you the world is round and I've seen it. And you're the flat earther calling me the loony.

Wrong, you are with the "Establishment" demanding I agree with the scientists, or you say I'm ignorant.

That places you in the position of being the flat-earther.

Actually, yes. I followed the links you provided in your lengthy critique of the Discovery fellows. I actually know people into that philosophy, though they don't call it "reconstructionist" or "dominion." This particular group embraces Messianic Judaism, as well as traditional NT theologies. Furthermore, I am personally dealing with a rather ugly "battle" with adherents of this philosophy.

That said, my post was in response to this:



In the end, I agree with Jimmy Carter that it is the rise of fundamentalism, not of any particular religion, that is most threatening Western Civilization.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743284577/103-7647270-6711841?v=glance&n=283155

See the idea here is you're not any different from the now defunct flat earth society ( http://www.flat-earth.org/ ). They clung to their hope that (despite being wrong), the earth was still flat because that's the way it always was before people started floating this idea of round earth around.

Now we're putting forth this evolution idea. There was a lot of initial resistance at first, then general acceptance, and now we have a bunch of desperate kooks who long for the days before the new theory when everything still made sense to them. So do you hang on until you get struck by lightning and your house burns down? That's what happened to the Founder of the recently deceased flat earth society. Good old fashioned wrath of god.

Now this ID thing. Maybe it'll get general acceptance one day, if it becomes good science by providing good experiments rather than bogus statistics and negative evidence. (which we've gone over countless times, so lets not redo all that over again until something new and exciting comes up). And maybe it won't. But generally, it shouldn't be worth your time even thinking about unless you're on the research project.

The problem with your theory is... there is no reason for me to deny a tested theory, I'd call it a Law. My faith isn't harmed if it turns out evolution was used to create the diversity of life. Your logical falicy is thinking it makes any difference to me personally. Evolution itself would indicate a very intelligent design.

The reason I doubt Macro-evolution is it's not testable, and seems very unlikely. I don't reject it as a far fetched posibility.

Oh I agree, definitely. It's by no means limited to any particular religion, or even to religion, but the ID movement is part of a very specific Christian fundamentalist agenda. It's absolutely not about having an open mind about the origins of life, or about healthy scepticism.

It's not 'my theory', it's supported by a huge body of evidence. It is not a logical fallacy that you should care or not about a given arguement. My logic can be perfect and you can still not care, but that does not make MY logic bad. (Just that not caring is more of that willful ignorance thing I was scorning earlier). Your faith isn't and never has been at issue in respect to science. Science doesn't argue that your faith is wrong. Science argues that something is a certain way. Sometimes this puts itself at odds with faiths, but not because it means to.

Now I think this has been posted before, but I'll give it to you just for good measure: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I'll also drop in a few quotes because you're not known for following links or doing research:

Here we have a particularly telling and relevant paragraph.



So whether or not you wanna rubber stamp it with "God did it" or not, the following evidence is valid and supports common descent, also known as macro evolution.

Next we have many examples:



Okay, huge reptiles turning into tiny birds, I think that's pretty analagous to a fly turning into an amphibian? Good enough yet?



Okay, lizards turning into people, not good enough yet?






Okay and we also have whales and wolves related to the same ancestor. Behold the mighty blue whale and the pitiful chihuaha, you were begotton by the same thing.

and if you want to say it's not falsifiable, well it is:



So ironically, if we ever DID find 'angels', we would disprove macroevolution. Thus far, evidence is lacking. There is a lot more educational stuff on that site if you're into reading.

Siro,

I don't think you read any of my posts at all. Read back, you'll see the closeness or similarity in design of creatures support ID. A designer would use designs from other creatures that are effective for the application. So your data supports ID, thanks.

However, you might want to update the dinobird theory a bit. The bird uses different digits as per this link... http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/5338/666

Now, lets see what some others have to say about design:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Kevin, in all due respect, what does your opinion on evolution have to do with a school board breaking the law and getting caught red handed? They all belong behind bars as far as I am concerned for attempting to subvert the Law of the Land.

Susie,

They were elected to make decisions on local school curriculum. They, like many other school boards, have looked at the debate and decided to give students access to all the data. The judge incorrectly found ID to be a religious idea. ID teaches life was designed. It doesn't point to a creator or a particular God/religion. Therefore, it's not unconstitutional, as it's not establishing any religion.

It's amazing to me how people will insist the courts are the way to decide these issues, as if a judge can rule on science or religion. Judges are not experts in either field of study. But at the least, we should expect a judge to know ID doesn't establish any religion. ID doesn't even discuss religion, God or anything supernatural.

As has been pointed out numerous times, ID does support itself (among other things), so it is not valid science. It is valid metaphyics and we can discuss it in a 'creation of time/matter' aspect, but it does nothing in this debate. If you ARE talking metaphyics, please let us know so we don't jump on you about science, and we can have a good conversation.



Here is confirmation of the particular example of dinosaur to bird (since you didn't check): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#fig3.1.1

By the way, the evidence I am linking you to (and originally presented) is more up to date than the evidence you managed to dig up. Further, there are articles below that explain the whys of the digit groupings on the very page YOU linked me to. This leads me to believe you were satisfied at the first page you gleaned as "my opponent is wrong" and didn't bother to check beyond that.



Nobody in your list is qualified to comment on evolution. None of them. MANY of them are qualified to enter into metaphysics debates on the origin of the universe and how that might have happened. But the mechanisms of macro and micro evolution really have absolutely nothing to do with that.

So lets not quote a laundry list of people irrelevant to the conversation next time? I mean I could just quote any thread in General and that's how relevant the quotes you put up there are.

The courts interpret the law and in this case they did it correctly. Their decision has nothing to do with how valid the proven fact of evolution is. It has to do with forcing school children to be exposed to the school boards particular religious beliefs and that is about as un-American as you can get.

I'm sorry but I really do believe the Constituion is a "perfect document" despite what many fundamentilists believe.

I love this quote...

"Ultimately, intelligent design’s attempt to rewrite the principles of biology is as futile as an attempt to create Christian mathematics, or Islamic physics."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1958799,00.html

Chip I have long given up on beating sense into thick skulls. Let them have their delusions. I am only debating this for god knows what reason.

Please, I don't accept talkorigins any more than you accept the Bible. Posting from that site doesn't provide unbiased data.

Let me give you some from others, since you apparently know more than all those people
who are astrophysicists, astronomers, physicists etc etc.

How about ...

J.Y. Chen Chinese paleontologist

In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin. The Wall Street Journal August 16, 1999

Francis Crick (1916–2004) Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Nobel laureate 1962, Professor at the Salk Institute Web GP

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. Life Itself (1981) p.88

Albert Einstein (1879–1955) Web GP

In every true searcher of Nature there is a kind of religious reverence, for he finds it impossible to imagine that he is the first to have thought out the exceedingly delicate thread that connect his perceptions. Conversations with Einstein 1920

My Comprehension of God comes from the deeply feld conviction of a superior intelligence that reveals itself in the knowable world. In common terms, on can describe it as "pantheistic". "Kaizo" 1923

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings. 1929

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. "Ideas and Opinions"

The more I study science the more I believe in God.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Colin Patterson (1933 – 199 Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History

Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else. Evolution (1999) p.109

So the general theory of evolution is a historical theory, about unique events -- and unique events are, by some definitions, not part of science for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. Evolution (1999) p.117

George Wald (1906 - 1997) Professor of Biology at Harvard University Nobel Laureate Web Amazon GP

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. "The origin of life" Scientific American

Susie,

Please show me what religion ID establishes and how. Since the creator could be an alien or other physical life form ID is religion neutral. How difficult is that for this judge to comprehend?

The constitution is fine, it's the activist judges who are misinterpreting it that causes the problems.

It was written in plain English for all to understand.

ID doesn't establish a religion. End of story. The judge is wrong because he, like many here, confuse creationism with ID.

Dang it how many times do I have to repeat this? The court didn't rule on evolution. What they ruled on was the illegal teaching of the school board's mandatory version of their brand of religion in public schools.

Please read the decision before you all go spouting off.