Intelligent Design Supporters Say Idea In 'infancy', But Gaining; Biologists Disagree

[Reverend AtheiStar]

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/14242169.htm

 

Intelligent Design supporters say idea in 'infancy', but gaining; biologists disagree

DYLAN T. LOVAN

Associated Press

 

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade.

 

the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be "dead."

 

The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he believes the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.

 

"I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said.

 

Dembski is one of the country's leading proponents of intelligent design, which asserts that certain features of living organisms are best explained by an intelligent cause. The ideas put forth by Dembski's movement have piqued the interest of some local school boards, churches and politicians - including Kentucky's governor and President Bush.

 

But biologists call Dembski's statements on the death of evolution absurd. They say intelligent design, or ID, has failed as a science, so its supporters are trying to foster interest in a receptive public.

 

Dembski, who holds a Ph.D. in both mathematics and philosophy, teaches a course on intelligent design at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. He calls Darwinian evolution "viscerally unacceptable" to most Americans.

 

"It is a reasonable question to ask if there are patterns in biological systems that point us to intelligence," he said in an interview. "It is a reasonable question to ask what are the limits to evolutionary mechanisms."

 

Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher called design by an intelligent source a "self-evident truth" in his annual State of the Commonwealth address in January. Fletcher has said he would encourage schools to teach the concept.

 

That is despite a December ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania that ID should not be taught as science in Dover, Pa., schools.

 

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones wrote that "overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Jones found intelligent design failed as a scientific theory because it can't be tested.

 

"He pretty much pegged it for what it was," said James Krupa, an associate biology professor at the University of Kentucky. "It really should just be called God theory."

 

Krupa said evolution science is not dying.

 

"It's the driving force, it's the foundation of all biology," said Krupa, who teaches evolution courses at the university. "Natural selection and evolution theory are getting stronger and stronger."

 

For the American public, opinions on evolution vary.

 

According to a 2004 Gallup poll, about 35 percent of Americans believe Darwin's theory is well supported by evidence, another 35 percent said it is not and 29 percent said they didn't know enough about it.

 

Several state legislatures are considering bills critical of the traditional teaching of evolution in the classroom. Legislators in Oklahoma and Missouri have introduced measures to change science teaching standards. In Nevada, a masonry contractor has introduced a constitutional amendment that says there are many questions about evolution.

 

"It's an ongoing debate; I'm not surprised that the public tends to be somewhat interested in it," said Rob Crowther, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which funds intelligent design research.

 

That debate is fueled by a belief that Darwinian evolution is linked to atheism, said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, and former UK professor.

 

"This is actually, I think, key to understanding this whole controversy in this country: people think that because science restricts itself to a natural cause, it's therefore saying that God had nothing to do with it."

 

Dembski and other ID proponents say intelligent design is in its "infancy" and not yet ready to be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom. Crowther said the Discovery Institute actually opposed the actions by the Pennsylvania school board that brought the federal court case.

 

"People assume that we must be actively and aggressively seeking for intelligent design to be put in the classroom, and that's not our position. What should be required in a classroom is more about evolution, and by that we mean students should be able to learn not only the evidence that supports it, but also some of the criticisms of the theory."

 

That is enough for now, Dembski said.

 

"I guess I would say that even though intelligent design has a long way to go, it seems to me evolutionary theory is so problematic that just about any alternative that's scientific, or has the possibility (of being scientific) should be allowed on the table."

 

__

 

National Center for Science Education: http://www.natcenscied.org/

 

Discovery Institute: http://www.discovery.org

 

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: http://www.sbts.edu

[Thurisaz]

IDiocy cannot "fail as a science".

 

For that, it would have to be science. At least a bit.

[Entgegen]

The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he believes the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.

And a hypothetical model with no empirical support and bases itself on arguments of incredulity can?

 

 

Dembski is one of the country's leading proponents of intelligent design, which asserts that certain features of living organisms are best explained by an intelligent cause.

Well when all your explainations come from your rectum you can explain just about anything.

 

 

He calls Darwinian evolution "viscerally unacceptable" to most Americans.

Because "most Americans" don't have any sort of fundamental understanding of evolution.

 

 

According to a 2004 Gallup poll, about 35 percent of Americans believe Darwin's theory is well supported by evidence, another 35 percent said it is not and 29 percent said they didn't know enough about it.

Well, at least the 29 percent actually had the capacity to admit their ignorance of the subject without tossign in their opinions of the validity of the theory.

 

 

Dembski and other ID proponents say intelligent design is in its "infancy" and not yet ready to be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom.

Nor will it ever be ready to be taught, as there is no empirical support for something based on an argument fallacy.

 

 

"I guess I would say that even though intelligent design has a long way to go, it seems to me evolutionary theory is so problematic that just about any alternative that's scientific, or has the possibility (of being scientific) should be allowed on the table."

Not until it is shown to be scientific should any "theory" be given equal merit to that of something as scientifically powerful and unifying as evolution.

[narcissist]

In other words, they believe that Darwinistic processes will lead to the rejection of belief in Darwinistic processes.

 

LOL. Their has to be a latin term for that kind of stupidity.

[Lycorth]

Heh... evolution, dead in ten years? That means evolution will have greater acceptance in ten years. We all know how Xian predictions for the future tend to go. Remember that guy named Paul and his prediction that Jesus™ would come back during his generation?

[Saviourmachine]

Let us set up debates that do not have to do with religious issues/upbringing. What about connectionism versus symbolism in cognitive psychology? Anyone interested?

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Dembski is one of the country's leading proponents of intelligent design, which asserts that certain features of living organisms are best explained by an intelligent cause.

 

Same old "Because it works" theory. Since life works it was intelligently created....horseshit. If it didn't work, they wouldn't be here ranting about it. It's the same shit that people have been spewing since the dawn of time,

 

"We don't know the exact cause for lightning, we just can't explain it, so lightning must have come from ZEUS THE THUNDER GOD!"

"We don't know what disease is, we just can't explain it, so disease must have come from APOLLO THE PLAGUE BRINGING SUN GOD WHO BREEDS MAGGOTS IN DEAD DOGS!"

We don't know the exact cause for life, we just can't explain it, so life must have come from JEHOVAH THE CREATOR GOD!"

 

Why does man feel the need to diefy everything that we cannot, at least as of yet, fully explain? Why do they diefy those things in nature that we need to survive? Egypt worshiped the Nile and made it a god, Babylonians, Summerians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Celts, Hebrews, Christians all did the same thing and came up with different answers to the "why's" but all diefied those things which supported them or gave credit to some unknowable, undetectable, mysterious god/s. Wake up.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

IDiocy cannot "fail as a science".

 

For that, it would have to be science. At least a bit.

 

That's true. It's successful as an ad campaign, though. That's really what it is. It's a media tool to get Chrsitains drooling at the prospect of taking over and installing, once and for all, a theocracy.

 

 

Here's what my good friend Linda (she goes my the name of Moonpearl around these parts) had to say about the whole matter. She made some excellent points:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Evolution has been proclaimed "dead in 10 years" for, oh, i don' know, at least 20 years now, probably longer. Jesus is coming back within the next ten years, too. My preacher told me so way back in the sixties! So, it's gotta be true.!!!

 

And all the stuff that is happening in the Middle East, with the Soviet Union supplying arms to . . . .oh, wait a minute. (Forgive me, I'm having a Daylight Savings Time induced Senior moment?????) Anyway, as Hal Lindsay and whats-their-"Left Behind"-faces will tell you, it all shows God's plan and Jesus is coming back soon. Just you see, all them Jews in Israel will be accepting Jesus as their Messiah any day now. It is part of the grand and glorious scheme that has been in motion since creation, 6000 BC. Great story, isn't it? Awesome, Halleluyah. Then you will see that we have been right all along. We are going to be vindicated, just you see, amen.

 

It is so wonderful to see all the detailed studies being produced by the ID movement that definitely and positively points to my Creator as being the Sky Daddy who formed Adam out of clay. I am so happy to see all the peer reviewed papers and studies that show how it all happened! And what do those Evil-utionists say about that Vapor Canopy, eh? I guess that shows them. But they are so hard-hearted against the Lord that they won't accept ANY proof, no sirreee. They just knock holes in our bible and go on in their hell-bent blasphemous ways as if they didn't pay any credence to our reasoning. They are so caught up in the idolotry of Intellectualism that they won't stop and bow to our Lord Jesus Christ even were he shining right before their very eyes. They just go on thinking all this irreducibly complex stuff happened without God speaking a Word, hah! They say I worship a God of the Gaps, and the gaps are getting smaller - but my God keeps getting Taller, I say! So, there. QED

 

Let us set up debates that do not have to do with religious issues/upbringing. What about connectionism versus symbolism in cognitive psychology? Anyone interested?

 

If that's what you want then why don't you start a thread on it?

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Heh... evolution, dead in ten years? That means evolution will have greater acceptance in ten years. We all know how Xian predictions for the future tend to go. Remember that guy named Paul and his prediction that Jesus™ would come back during his generation?

 

lol... It reminds me of the way I always viewed Mal Vincent's reviews of movies. If he loved it, it sucked horribly. If he hated it, it was wonderful! I became an avid reader of his reviews because in his strange backwards way, he was always "right!" lol... I'm also reminded of the success of the Disney boycott. It lasted how long and did what damage? lol... I had completely forgotten about it until they announced they were stopping it -- officially. The idea has already long died. Why? Because Disneyland and Disneywolrd are fun places. Disney movies are good. Their cartoons, series and TV movies are also good. They are a top notch company and they entertain the kids. Can this be said of church? Nope.

[Asimov]

Let us set up debates that do not have to do with religious issues/upbringing. What about connectionism versus symbolism in cognitive psychology? Anyone interested?

 

...I have no idea what that is.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Because "most Americans" don't have any sort of fundamental understanding of evolution.

 

That's true. They believe what's filtered through Dembski, through their church or through whatever relkigious source they get their information from. This is why we so often see the poor uneducated Christians attacking strawmen and then acting triumphant when all they've slayed is a delusion.

[Asimov]

Because "most Americans" don't have any sort of fundamental understanding of evolution.

 

That's true. They believe what's filtered through Dembski, through their church or through whatever relkigious source they get their information from. This is why we so often see the poor uneducated Christians attacking strawmen and then acting triumphant when all they've slayed is a delusion.

 

Here's something hilariously interesting.

 

I'm at my grandmas house right now, and there's a book (among millions) called "case for creation". It was published in 1967, and guess what? They use the same arguments like "they teach evolution as a fact!" and all that shit!!

 

Bahahaha...get some new arguments, assholes!!

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Because "most Americans" don't have any sort of fundamental understanding of evolution.

 

That's true. They believe what's filtered through Dembski, through their church or through whatever relkigious source they get their information from. This is why we so often see the poor uneducated Christians attacking strawmen and then acting triumphant when all they've slayed is a delusion.

 

Here's something hilariously interesting.

 

I'm at my grandmas house right now, and there's a book (among millions) called "case for creation". It was published in 1967, and guess what? They use the same arguments like "they teach evolution as a fact!" and all that shit!!

 

Bahahaha...get some new arguments, assholes!!

 

I think what they mean by that is evolutionists use evidence to prove what they assert. How dare they? They're supposed to use threats of punishment, promises of rewards, appeals to emotion and references to a compilation of primitive, nomadic goat herders like we do! Not fair! Not fair! lol...

 

Bahahaha...get some new arguments, assholes!!

 

They won't. They'l just repackage the same old ones, such as the ancient argument from design, and pretend like they've stumbled over something brand new. There's no shortage of Liars for Christ ™!

[Onyx]

Ironically, I see more Evolution breakthroughs than ID/Creationist breakthroughs (zero)

 

Lemme me see about that.

Evolution breakthroughs

 

*A transitional fish to human and etc

* 4 percent difference between us and chimps

etc etc etc

 

ID breakthrough

 

*Debates (idiotic ones)

*Bible (only proof)

 

See who's thriving?

[Reverend AtheiStar]

ID breakthrough

 

*Debates (idiotic ones)

*Bible (only proof)

 

See who's thriving?

 

The only "breakthroughs" I see for them are not in research or discovery for their position, but rather in how to promote it. That's where they shine. That's where their millions go. New books, tv appearances, shows, little movies slipped into the Smithsonian, etc. It doesn't matter if it's true. They know, since ID is just creationism, that when they promote it they'll capture a large swath of America because it happens to be the dominant superstition here. So, that's what they do.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be "dead."

 

The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he believes the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers.

 

"I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said.

 

The only disintegrating I see around here are all the churches being converted into condos

 

LOL! That's a wonderful idea. At least it'd be used for something practical. I pass churches and I am floored by the sheer waste. It's a building devoted to absolutely nothing!