NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw this last night on CBN, which i rarely watch, because of the politcal bias of the Right Wing. Well anywho, this article is intresting. I don't really get heavily into this type off thing, but im sure there are those of you out there that will love to debate and disect this thing apart. So, have fun!





Intelligent Design Grounded in Strong Science
By Gailon Totheroh
CBN News Science and Medical Reporter


CBN.com – SEATTLE, Washington - The Dover, Pennsylvania school board is on trial in the state capitol. Their crime? They wanted to tell high school students once a year that evolution is only a theory. They also wanted to mention an alternate theory: Intelligent Design, or ID.

That was too much for some parents. They sued, claiming ID is religious and therefore illegal in school. The judge will decide the case in the next few weeks.

So is ID really just religion in disguise? Do both biology and astronomy support ID? And who are these people promoting ID?

To answer those questions, we went to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the major proponents of ID.

Dr. Stephen Meyer is the head of Discovery's Center for Science and Culture. He says to ban design theory as mere religion is wrong.

"And in fact,” Meyer said, “it's a science-based argument that may have implications that are favorable to a theistic worldview, but the argument is based on scientific evidence."

But perhaps these ID experts are not really reputable?

Mayer stated, "These are people with serious academic training. They are Ph.D.s from very, not just reputable -- but elite -- institutions. And they are people doing research on the key pressure points in biology and physics, and so their arguments are based on cutting-edge knowledge of developments in science."

So what is the evidence from researchers like biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute?

He is an expert on a special kind of bacteria called flagella. Inside the bacteria are exquisitely engineered ‘inboard motors’ that spin at an amazing 100,000 revolutions per minute.

Darwin said that such complexity must have developed piece by piece. Behe said that is bunk. All the pieces must be in place at the same time or the motorized tails would never work.

Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that -- ID does.

Behe makes the case for ID in a video called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." The video’s narrator declares, “A thimbleful of liquid can contain four million single-celled bacteria, each packed with circuits, assembly instructions, and molecular machines..."

"There are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from one end of the cell to the other,” Behe explained. “There are machines that capture the energy from sunlight, and turn it into usable energy."

ID experts say the more you know about biology -- and some of the weird creatures like this island lizard -- the worse it gets for Darwinism.

Consider the workings of the genetic code. That code produces all kinds of molecular machines, plus all the other components of life. ID advocates say that to believe those components are just Darwinian accidents takes a blind faith in the creativity of dumb molecules.

So with growing evidence of ID, isn't Lehigh University proud of this cutting-edge scientist who teaches there—and wrote the 1996 bestseller "Darwin's Black Box?" Hardly.

In August, all the other (22) biology faculty members came out with a political statement on the department's Web site. They stated that "Intelligent design has no basis in science."

But they cited no evidence, and made no references to any scientific research.

Dr. John West, a political scientist at Seattle Pacific University, is senior fellow at Discovery Institute. He says these political responses to scientific issues are getting nasty.

West remarked that "hate speech, speech codes, outright persecution, and discrimination is taking place on our college campuses, in our school districts, against both students and teachers and faculty members."

In fact, universities are evolving into centers for censorship. Five years ago, Baylor University dismissed mathematician Dr. William Dembski from his position, primarily because he headed a center for ID there.

This September, the University of Idaho banned any dissent against evolution from science classes -- a slam on university biologist Dr. Scott Minnich, a noted supporter of ID.

"The school seems to be confusing where it's at,” West said. “Is it in Moscow, Idaho, or the old Moscow, Russia? ...in issuing this edict that…no view differing form evolution can be taught in any science class."

And at Iowa State University, more than 100 faculty members have signed a petition against ID -- an apparent political attempt to intimidate ISU astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez because he writes about ID.

Gonalez is, in fact, co-author with philosopher Dr. Jay Richards of "The Privileged Planet." Both scholars are also connected with the Discovery Institute.

The book and related video argue that astronomy also shows evidence of design. For instance, the earth has numerous aspects just right for our existence.

Gonzalez explained, "...We find that we need to be at the right location in the galaxy...that we're in the circumstellar habitable zone of our star (correct distance from the sun)...that we're in a planetary system with giant planets that can shield the inner planets from too many comet impacts...that we're orbiting the right kind of star -- it's not too cool and not too hot.”

These are just four of 20 some characteristics of earth that make our planet unique -- right for life, right for discovery by human science.

Richards said, "So you have life and the conditions for discovery happening at the same places. That, to us, suggests that there is something more than a cosmic lottery going on. That sounds like a conspiracy rather than a mere coincidence. So that to me is a tie-breaker in the question."

And there is more -- the finely-tuned underlying rules of the universe-- or physical constants. One of them is gravity. But what if gravity were not constant?

A film clip from Privileged Planet says: "Imagine a machine able to control the strength of each of the physical constants. If you changed even slightly from its current setting, the strength of any of these fundamental forces -- such as gravity -- the impact on life would be catastrophic."

In plain terms, a bit more gravity would mean any creature larger than the size of a pea would be crushed into nothing. And a little less gravity would mean that the Earth would come unglued and fly off into space.

But Darwinism has been maintaining that advanced life is easy to produce all over the universe.

"Almost everything we've learned in the area of astrobiology suggests that, 'Look, this is just not going to happen very often' -- now that might be sort of depressing for script writers for sci-fi movies, but that's where the evidence is taking us," Richards said.

Despite the attacks on ID, Meyer said the design interpretation of the evidence is exposing Darwinism as a theory in crisis:

"I think we're reaching the critical point where Darwinism is going be seen as simply inadequate,” Meyer asserted, “ -- and therefore the question of (intelligent) design is back on the table."

Just as this city of Seattle has all the earmarks of ID, so does nature, except that nature is infinitely more intricate.

I think that either way you look at Evolution, it's a theory, which is not what most people think is a theory. A theory is a generally supported explanation after years of testing and research. And Intelligent Design should not be taught in a science class, but it can be explored in philosophy or theology. What's the problem with that? We have all studied Zeus, and there's no proof for him.

Intelligent Design Grounded in Strong Science

I stopped reading right there. It totally reveals the hogwash that is sure to ensue.

The book and related video argue that astronomy also shows evidence of design. For instance, the earth has numerous aspects just right for our existence.

Gonzalez explained, "...We find that we need to be at the right location in the galaxy...that we're in the circumstellar habitable zone of our star (correct distance from the sun)...that we're in a planetary system with giant planets that can shield the inner planets from too many comet impacts...that we're orbiting the right kind of star -- it's not too cool and not too hot.”

These are just four of 20 some characteristics of earth that make our planet unique -- right for life, right for discovery by human science.

Richards said, "So you have life and the conditions for discovery happening at the same places. That, to us, suggests that there is something more than a cosmic lottery going on. That sounds like a conspiracy rather than a mere coincidence. So that to me is a tie-breaker in the question."
That's one of the most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard. As they used a lottery metaphor, I might as we reply with it:

1) The first three paragraphs are like winning the lottery and then marvelling that your ticket happened to have just the right numbers - of course it does, that's why you won the lottery, and every week someone will have the right numbers - does this mean there is some intelligent being choosing your numbers for you?

2) The second part of the argument is equivalent to suggesting that there's some sort of conspiracy because some people but lottery tickets and then go on to win.

I can't imagine then kind of misunderstanding of probability that would lead someone to make such bizarre statements.

Intelligent Design Grounded in Strong Science

I stopped reading right there. It totally reveals the hogwash that is sure to ensue.


Well that shows how closed minded you are.

Wow. Point for point, every generic creationist argument that has been produced and debunked on this forum. We're more influential than CBS!

Intelligent Design Grounded in Strong Science

I stopped reading right there. It totally reveals the hogwash that is sure to ensue.

No need to read it. It's just the same old arguments again.

Well that shows how closed minded you are.

Intelligent Design is not science, as science does not resort to the supernatural. It's really that simple. To say that ID is based in "strong science" is hogwash, and I ain't wasting my time reading it. I've read this sort of crap before, and now know not to bother any more. It's all the same sort of "well, if there's something that ID proponents claim that our current understanding of evolution cannot explain, ID is right and/or some deity must have done it!" or "this is so 'complex,' there must be a designer, because, well, I want there to be one" BS.

biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute

he also agreed in court that what he calls 'science' would equally place the idea of reading your future in the stars firmly into the realm of science. seriously, in the dover case he said that id and astrology have the same scientific standing (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/90330/).

-snip-

I watched a program that explored the possibilities of life on other planets recently, that completely disagreed with the idea that conditions really similar or exactly like those of Earth were needed for life. In fact, in the two example worlds they used, one was a planet locked in synchronous rotation around a red dwarf, and the other was a moon orbiting a gigantic gas giant type planet.

Life evolved on Earth due to the conditions surrounding it, true. But that doesn't mean that the conditions that resulted in life on Earth are the only ones that will produce it... not to mention the fact that none of that has any thing to do with evolutionary theory.

Now, if they're trying to argue that only Earth's conditions could produce us, well, yeah. But we evolved to fit the Earth, the Earth wasn't altered to produce us.

Okay, the argument I see is, "I can't explain this, therefore it must be created by God."

I can't explain the Internet. It's incredibly complicated and well beyond my capability to design. Therefore it must have been created by some higher intelligence: God. But, I've heard on good authority*, Al Gore invented the Internet. Therefore, it follows logically, that Al Gore is God. This argument caries as much weight as any in favor of Intelligent Design. So, it's your choice -- accept ID and Al Gore as your God and Creator, or maybe learn a little real science. Your choice, I won't force anything on you.


(BTW: the authority was Al Gore -- you can't get much better than God Himself.)

Intelligent Design Grounded in Strong Science

I stopped reading right there. It totally reveals the hogwash that is sure to ensue.

Science is all about trying to disprove your own hypotheses and come to an answer that reflects all data. Science shouldn't be selective, so open your mind up.

Science is all about trying to disprove your own hypothesse and come to an answer that reflects all data. Science shouldn't be selective, so open your mind up.


Ok, look at what I highlited in bold. Now, think about it. ID relies on a designer who can alter the laws of nature. How do you falsify that? You always have the excuse "God/Designer can alter the laws of nature, so nothing is impossible". If the theory relies on a being that can do the impossible then it's not falsifiable. Therefore it's not scientific. Behe has admitted as much recently.

Science is all about trying to disprove your own hypotheses and come to an answer that reflects all data. Science shouldn't be selective, so open your mind up.

And science is not about unfalsifiable "hypotheses" and/or the resorting to the supernatural, which is what ID is.

And science is not about unfalsifiable "hypotheses" and/or the resorting to the supernatural, which is what ID is.

Science has come to prove things which were thought to be supernatural, like gravity. If noone ever bothered to look into this, because it was "supernatural", we would have never understood gravity.

Science has come to prove things which were thought to be supernatural, like gravity. If noone ever bothered to look into this, because it was "supernatural", we would have never understood gravity.

The "intelligent designer" in ID is defined as being supernatural! That's the whole point of the ID hogwash. It is not a falsifiable hypothesis. And that's just not science.

Why is this such a popular topic here? Is ID a "theory"?

NO.

It's a idea, nothing more. A belief if you will. However, does that mean that eventually it could be proven.

Yes, if of course there is a proponderence of evidence that supports it, as in all other theories.

What people need to remember is that theories are NOT facts. But they do need to have alot of evidence to support them. Right now ID has a long way to go in that depatment.

Science has come to prove things which were thought to be supernatural, like gravity. If noone ever bothered to look into this, because it was "supernatural", we would have never understood gravity.

You seem to misunderstand. When Newton explained gravity, he did so with the expectation it could be explained. He didn't start with God did this and let's do some experiments. You make a false analogy.

As far as science shouldn't be selective, it has to be. If science allowed for unfalsifiable theories, we'd be teaching science classes about aliens and polka-dotted fairies that clean your toilet while you sleep.

I don't see any problem with teaching ID on an equal footing with evolution.

Afterall, it's always good to hear both sides of the debate.

In the same way we should teach the DaVinci code on an equal footing as the Bible in religous studies, its only fair to teach both sides of the debate....

I wait for the chorus of agreement from ID advocates and creationists.:)

If science allowed for unfalsifiable theories, we'd be teaching science classes about aliens and polka-dotted fairies that clean your toilet while you sleep.

Astrobiology.

<snip>

And the FSM too. We want to hear all the sides of the debate don't we.

And the FSM too. We want to hear all the sides of the debate don't we.

Yeah but that's been done before, I'm trying to be original.

Yeah but that's been done before, I'm trying to be original.
original? In a ID Vs Science thread? Why not go for world peace while you're at impossible tasks?

original? In a ID Vs Science thread? Why not go for world peace while you're at impossible tasks?

To be fair I haven't seen anyone linking the DaVinci Code to ID before. I'm sure someone somewhere's beaten me to it but I haven't seen it on this forum.

Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that -- ID does.
As much as they like to believe it, magic is not a scientific explanation

I saw this last night on CBN, which i rarely watch, because of the politcal bias of the Right Wing. Well anywho, this article is intresting. I don't really get heavily into this type off thing, but im sure there are those of you out there that will love to debate and disect this thing apart.

Consider it dissected.

CBN.com – SEATTLE, Washington - The Dover, Pennsylvania school board is on trial in the state capitol. Their crime? They wanted to tell high school students once a year that evolution is only a theory. They also wanted to mention an alternate theory: Intelligent Design, or ID.

ID isn't an alternate theory because it doesn't meet the scientific criteria necessary to classify it as a theory. Behe, one of the most prominent ID proponents there is, testified in the Dover trial and claimed it was a theory according to his definition of what a scientific theory was... the cross examination then revealed that according to his definition of what a scientific theory was astrology is a scienntific theory.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

"And in fact,” Meyer said, “it's a science-based argument that may have implications that are favorable to a theistic worldview, but the argument is based on scientific evidence."

And look how he goes into detail as to how that is...

But perhaps these ID experts are not really reputable?

Perhaps?

See astrology as scientific theory.

Mayer stated, "These are people with serious academic training. They are Ph.D.s from very, not just reputable -- but elite -- institutions.

Which have virtually disowned them over their unscientific approach to this issue in some cases.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

(Behe again, that would be where he teaches.)

And they are people doing research on the key pressure points in biology and physics, and so their arguments are based on cutting-edge knowledge of developments in science."

Such as... oh, he stopped again.

So what is the evidence from researchers like biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute?

He is an expert on a special kind of bacteria called flagella.

For crissakes, flagella aren't bacteria. They're a component OF bacteria.

Inside the bacteria are exquisitely engineered ‘inboard motors’ that spin at an amazing 100,000 revolutions per minute.

No, the flagella ARE the "motors"... nice to see they have someone who thoroughly checks their facts before submitting an article.

Darwin said that such complexity must have developed piece by piece. Behe said that is bunk. All the pieces must be in place at the same time or the motorized tails would never work.

A claim already disproven. They work perfectly well as secretory systems with some peices removed, providing a perfectly viable evolutionary pathway by which they could have been adapted to locomotive purposes through cooption.

Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that

Yes it does.

- ID does.

No it doesn't.

Consider the workings of the genetic code. That code produces all kinds of molecular machines, plus all the other components of life. ID advocates say that to believe those components are just Darwinian accidents takes a blind faith in the creativity of dumb molecules.

No, it takes a well grounded understanding of basic statistics and the power of natural selective pressures on constantly mutating populations. There is no "creativity" involved except in a metaphorical sense. Something anyone who had the first clue about evolutionary theory and who wasn't interested in intentionally deceiving the uninformed would understand quite well.

So with growing evidence of ID,

None -> none does not represent growth by any definition of the word I'm familiar with.

isn't Lehigh University proud of this cutting-edge scientist who teaches there—and wrote the 1996 bestseller "Darwin's Black Box?" Hardly.

Yes, we know.

But they cited no evidence, and made no references to any scientific research.

Besides the last 140 years of research worldwide in the biological sciences.... ALL of which supports evolutionary theory.

Dr. John West, a political scientist at Seattle Pacific University, is senior fellow at Discovery Institute. He says these political responses to scientific issues are getting nasty.

That's hilarious. The IDers who commit the entirey of their efforts to attempting to use political means to sway uninformed school boards into altering science teaching standards while contributing NO peer reviewed scientific research to back up their claims are accusing the other side of playing politics...

West remarked that "hate speech, speech codes, outright persecution, and discrimination is taking place on our college campuses, in our school districts, against both students and teachers and faculty members."

And bring on the politicizing. "Hate Speech"?

Well, calling someone an ignorant moron could be considered hate speech I suppose...

In fact, universities are evolving into centers for censorship. Five years ago, Baylor University dismissed mathematician Dr. William Dembski from his position, primarily because he headed a center for ID there.

Baylor (which is a Baptist University) only relieved Dembski of an administrative position because he couldn't get along with the people he was supposed to be in charge of. He retained his professorship.

This September, the University of Idaho banned any dissent against evolution from science classes -- a slam on university biologist Dr. Scott Minnich, a noted supporter of ID.

"The school seems to be confusing where it's at,” West said. “Is it in Moscow, Idaho, or the old Moscow, Russia? ...in issuing this edict that…no view differing form evolution can be taught in any science class."

The actual statement issued by the university:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/ID/594_university_of_idaho_affirms_ev_10_5_2005.asp

And at Iowa State University, more than 100 faculty members have signed a petition against ID

The actual petition, which is a statement that ID isn't a science... which it isn't.

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/08/23/430a8680abec8

Good for them.

-- an apparent political attempt to intimidate ISU astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez because he writes about ID.

Yes, the poor persecuted ID people, victims of the unreasonable insistence of the scientific community to only teach actual science as science.

Weep for them.

Gonzalez explained, "...We find that we need to be at the right location in the galaxy...that we're in the circumstellar habitable zone of our star (correct distance from the sun)...that we're in a planetary system with giant planets that can shield the inner planets from too many comet impacts...that we're orbiting the right kind of star -- it's not too cool and not too hot.”

That's like saying that hole in the ground had to be just the right shape to make the puddle that formed in it form exactly the way it did.... therefore someone must have deliberately designed that hole just to make that puddle!

Of course the water just would have formed a different shaped puddle somewhere else is the hole wasn't there.... but let's not bother ourselves with rational thought when making up stories about supernatural beings engineering every detail of the entire universe just so they would be sure life would emerge on one specific little tiny ball of rock around one specific little star in one specific little galaxy is so much more entertaining.

These are just four of 20 some characteristics of earth that make our planet unique -- right for life, right for discovery by human science.

The fact that humans live on it makes it right for discovery by human science.

Richards said, "So you have life and the conditions for discovery happening at the same places.

Like the remarkable coincidence of having rivers just happen to pass right underneath bridges! I mean what are the odds... those rivers could have run anywhere!

That, to us, suggests that there is something more than a cosmic lottery going on. That sounds like a conspiracy rather than a mere coincidence.

And that to me sounds like he's an idiot.

And there is more -- the finely-tuned underlying rules of the universe-- or physical constants. One of them is gravity. But what if gravity were not constant?

Why wouldn't it be (unless there was some supernatural being messing around with it and changing it all the time)?

A film clip from Privileged Planet says: "Imagine a machine able to control the strength of each of the physical constants. If you changed even slightly from its current setting, the strength of any of these fundamental forces -- such as gravity -- the impact on life would be catastrophic."

The impact on life as we know it would indeed be catastrophic... because life as we know it has spent the last several billion years adapting itself to the conditions created by those constantds as they are now, not conditions as they don't bloody exist.

It's like saying if you remove just one little load bearing support a whole building would fall down and then acting all amazed that the building could possibly exist. Well no shit, you built the building to rely on the load bearing support in the first damn place. It doesn't mean the building couldn't be built completely differently with the support completely different or removed altogether.

In plain terms, a bit more gravity would mean any creature larger than the size of a pea would be crushed into nothing. And a little less gravity would mean that the Earth would come unglued and fly off into space.

His definitions of "a bit" and "a little" appears to differ considerably from mine.

But Darwinism has been maintaining that advanced life is easy to produce all over the universe.

Because it is.

"Almost everything we've learned in the area of astrobiology suggests that, 'Look, this is just not going to happen very often' -- now that might be sort of depressing for script writers for sci-fi movies, but that's where the evidence is taking us," Richards said.

But it's a big universe. It's going to happen somewhere.

Despite the attacks on ID, Meyer said the design interpretation of the evidence is exposing Darwinism as a theory in crisis:

The creationists have been saying that for 100 years. Literally. It's never had any resemblance to reality before and it doesn't now.

"I think we're reaching the critical point where Darwinism is going be seen as simply inadequate,” Meyer asserted, “ -- and therefore the question of (intelligent) design is back on the table."

No, it isn't. Even if evolutonary theory WAS discarded, which simply is not going to happen barring some truly spectacular new discovery in the biological sciences that somehow invalidates the research data of the last century and a half or so, ID isn't a scientific alternative in a position to replace it.

What a sorry excuse for an article.

I was most ammused by the beginning where it equates a PhD to being all knowing. I happen to go to one of those reputable universities. Not only do I go to one, but I actually go to the one they mentioned (University of Pennsylvania). I can say from first hand experience that though it may take a certain level of intelligence to succeed here, not everyone is all that logical.

It's sort of funny that they are quick to say that someone has a PhD so they must know what they are talking about, but yet are basically saying that 99% of those with biological science PhD's don't know what they are talking about.

Actually on a side note, I know at least 3 ID people in the biological sciences here (but I won't out them). All three of them are very intelligent and are capable of being logical. Though their belief in ID is because they take a literal interpretation of the Bible that they will not abandon no mater the evidence. Only one of them is open about being an ID supporter while the other two told me in confidence. I wonder how many others there might be that believe in ID but are afraid to admit to it. I would like to point out that I believe in evolution.

This the kind of person that makes me want to hop into my car, drive west for a few hours, and beat the shit out of them. I'm very damned proud of being a Pennsylvanian and I will not have idiotic fools like these peopletarnishing the name of my home state.

Off topic but Jocabia..I notice you are from the great state where in which i reside as well..so what part are ya from? myself, i am from mount vernon which is down south of springfield and sorta near STL..

Consider it dissected
No, the flagella ARE the "motors"... nice to see they have someone who thoroughly checks their facts before submitting an article.


What a sorry excuse for an article.



I read through it again. and yes it is a very sorry excuse for an article. I myself as a christian, and one the kinda believes that God used evolution, was more or less disgusted by it..how ever...it was intresting to see how they once again twist things around to fit their agenda.. oh btw good job on the dissection of it :P

Off topic but Jocabia..I notice you are from the great state where in which i reside as well..so what part are ya from? myself, i am from mount vernon which is down south of springfield and sorta near STL..

I know where it is. I born in Chicago Heights (south suburb of Chicago). I currently live in both Champaign, IL, and Sarasota, FL.

I've heard on good authority*, Al Gore invented the Internet.

(BTW: the authority was Al Gore -- you can't get much better than God Himself.)Hintervald = liar

Not mine

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/Gymoor/emptycage.jpg

Hintervald = liar

I think it was humour.

Gymoor: Heh.:p

This shit just depresses me. This country is falling apart, or at least that's the impression I get from all this intelligent design bullshit in the media. It's like that famous movie about the Scope's Monkey Trial, only instead of black and white it's colored red white and blue.


They wanted to tell high school students once a year that evolution is only a theory. They also wanted to mention an alternate theory: Intelligent Design, or ID.

Greetings! Let me refer you to the fucking minor clarification that evolutionary theory is science and just because you have an alternate viewpoint that colloquially you call theory, does not mean you can compare the two.

It's sort of like comparing a Law of Thermodynamics with.... a Law against shooting buffalo from the second story of a building in Texas. Hey they're both laws, right? Let's teach them both in law school11!!!!

So is ID really just religion in disguise?

Yeah, it's in disguise like Hitler's dressing up as a nazi was a disguise. Boy he sure fooled me!


"And in fact,” Meyer said, “it's a science-based argument that may have implications that are favorable to a theistic worldview, but the argument is based on scientific evidence."

"May" have implications that are favorable to a theistic worldview? You're trying to prove that God, aka Intelligence, created aka Designed all life on the planet. What are the other 'implications?' Aliens? How come it's always religious zealots supporting ID then? Never the folks at, say, SETI? Because theres only one implication here, Meyer, it's you people trying to dress up God and make Him palatable to science, one public school, one law at a time.

Fuckers.


He is an expert on a special kind of bacteria called flagella. Inside the bacteria are exquisitely engineered ‘inboard motors’ that spin at an amazing 100,000 revolutions per minute.

Great. My SPERM is too complicated to have been produced by mere living organisms. It must have been intelligently designed!

Not to be overly hostile (too late) but if you want more 'evidence' about the exquisite engineering of my sperm, I suggest getting on your knees... and please ignore any religious implications by that statemet.


Darwin's gradual theory has no good explanation for that -- ID does.

Bullshit it does. "God did it." That's not an explanation.

Behe makes the case for ID in a video called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." The video’s narrator declares, “A thimbleful of liquid can contain four million single-celled bacteria, each packed with circuits, assembly instructions, and molecular machines..."

"There are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from one end of the cell to the other,” Behe explained. “There are machines that capture the energy from sunlight, and turn it into usable energy."

ID experts say the more you know about biology -- and some of the weird creatures like this island lizard -- the worse it gets for Darwinism.

Oh okay. So the worse it is for Darwinism, the more evidence there is for "God did it?" Brilliant. I didn't know scientific knowledge was a zero sum game. Then again I didn't know my jism was exquisitely engineered either, but hey.


Consider the workings of the genetic code. That code produces all kinds of molecular machines, plus all the other components of life. ID advocates say that to believe those components are just Darwinian accidents takes a blind faith in the creativity of dumb molecules.

ID advocates are full of shit. I'm tired of correcting them when they show an obvious lack of understanding of even high school level biology.


In August, all the other (22) biology faculty members came out with a political statement on the department's Web site. They stated that "Intelligent design has no basis in science."

But they cited no evidence, and made no references to any scientific research.

It takes evidence to show something is not scientific? Hey pal, my scientific theory is that My Holy Sperm impregnated the Flying Spaghetti Monster to create the universe.

Now cite evidence, and make references to scientific research that proves me wrong.

Bitch.


This September, the University of Idaho banned any dissent against evolution from science classes -- a slam on university biologist Dr. Scott Minnich, a noted supporter of ID.

CENSORSHIP I SAY! CENSORSHIP! THEY ARE NOT LETTING US TEACH RELIGION IN SCIENCE CLASS!

NEXT YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE WRONG FOR PRIESTS TO MOLEST LITTLE BOYS!


The book and related video argue that astronomy also shows evidence of design. For instance, the earth has numerous aspects just right for our existence.

Gonzalez explained, "...We find that we need to be at the right location in the galaxy...that we're in the circumstellar habitable zone of our star (correct distance from the sun)...that we're in a planetary system with giant planets that can shield the inner planets from too many comet impacts...that we're orbiting the right kind of star -- it's not too cool and not too hot.”

I also believe that the continent of North America has numerous aspects just right for the supremacy of the United States of America, thus, showing that continental formation was designed.

We have found that we needed to be at the right location on the planet - in the habital temperate latitude, in the northern hemisphere... that we're in a resource-rich environment with two large oceans that shield us from invasion or domination by Western or Eastern powers...

Hey how about that, I can "prove" my scientific theories too! By showing what an amazing coincidence it all is, I have shown scientifically that America was designed for the United States!

Thank God, er that is, I mean, thank Intelligence.

To merely further show the stupidity of the 'Earth is perfectly designed for us!' argument: If it wasn't, we wouldn't know about it, because we wouldn't exist. Or (assuming the presence of souls) we would exist on a different planet that is hospitable to life of any sort, and we'd marvel at how perfectly that world was designed for our bodies.

The whole bloody point of evolutionary theory is to show why we're perfectly designed for the Earth (which we're not; sweat glands are our main method of cooling, yet hot areas tend to have little water, which we need to replenish our sweat); therefore, using it as an argument for ID is just plain ignorant.

Hey, I have an idea, istead of arguing the samo samo, we have the Bible-believers speak for the Darwinists, and the people that think we came from monkeys argue for the Theists! That way, we can have the same old arguement, but it'll be fresh, and humorus!

I've pretty much memorized the creationist arguement, have you?

Hey, I have an idea, istead of arguing the samo samo, we have the Bible-believers speak for the Darwinists, and the people that think we came from monkeys argue for the Theists! That way, we can have the same old arguement, but it'll be fresh, and humorus!

I've pretty much memorized the creationist arguement, have you?
Yeah, it goes something like this:

I have no comprehension of even high school biology, so that proves that God did it.

:d <-- I cliked on the big toothed smily face, but apparently, the divine hates me.

EDIT

I read through it again. and yes it is a very sorry excuse for an article. I myself as a christian, and one the kinda believes that God used evolution, was more or less disgusted by it..how ever...it was intresting to see how they once again twist things around to fit their agenda.. oh btw good job on the dissection of it :P

So why'd you post it then?

Hey, I have an idea, istead of arguing the samo samo, we have the Bible-believers speak for the Darwinists, and the people that think we came from monkeys argue for the Theists! That way, we can have the same old arguement, but it'll be fresh, and humorus!

I've pretty much memorized the creationist arguement, have you?

Wait? You just put the Bible-thumpers on both sides of the argument, because the only people I've heard say that we came from monkeys are the people who believe in Creation.

By the way, I don't know any Darwinists. Darwin laid the groundwork for some of the theory, but it only moderately resembles the postulates of Darwin at the present time.

So why'd you post it then?

It's your run-of-the-mill mini-troll.

Well, I read the article and I'm convinced. ID is proven to be true by science. It throws evolution right out the window. Now we have to look at evidence to decide what this intelligence is. Hmmmm... well, we have no evidence of their being a supernatural presence that could have been responsible for the design. Is there a possibility of a natural presence? Well, given the size of the universe and the number of planets, stars, etc., one would have to logically conclude that there is life elsewhere. Intelligent life. Wait, intelligent life, intelligent design. We have a winner.

I want that we were designed by aliens to be taught in science classrooms.

Now I lay me down to sleep.
I pray Intelligence my soul to keep.
If I should die before I wake,
I pray Intelligence my soul to take.

People have never observed your brain using the five senses, but why is it that one can say with assurance that you have a brain?

My point is that something not proved by science can still be true. And no, I don't think creationism/ID/whatever should be taught in schools.

Intelligent design is not a science, it's philosophy.

... it's the old Ontological Argument back from Philosophy 101.

Because I can conceive of a God, therefore he exists, they reasoned around the 11th century.

Please let's call it what it is.

Evolution is backed by science. I.D. is a philosophy backed by money.

And they call that science!!!

Personally I believe in "Intelligent Design", I call it "Evolution". If there is some sort of Intelligence at work I think that Evolution is the "proof".

There is no evidence to explain a theory that the universe was magically created from a mythical rabbit's hat.

When will people accept that science is only concerned with HOW. It doesn't try to explain WHY, that's the preserve of religion and philosophy. Why do so many view the two as mutually exclusive?

Hey, I have an idea, istead of arguing the samo samo, we have the Bible-believers speak for the Darwinists, and the people that think we came from monkeys argue for the Theists! That way, we can have the same old arguement, but it'll be fresh, and humorus!

I've pretty much memorized the creationist arguement, have you?

Who are these people that believe we came from monkeys? They must be more insane than the creationists! Hell, even Darwin never said "we came from monkeys".

I have a question.
Evolution promotes further understanding and leads to more research in understanding biology.
What is the next step with ID theory? How can science use ID theory to effectively probe and discover new things in science?

Who are these people that believe we came from monkeys? They must be more insane than the creationists! Hell, even Darwin never said "we came from monkeys".
I need you to speak for yourself. HOO! HOO! HOO! AAAHH! AHHH!

I need you to speak for yourself. HOO! HOO! HOO! AAAHH! AHHH!

Wha?

Even evolutionists know that monkeys and humans shared a common ancestor. We didn't come from monkeys . . . .

When will people accept that science is only concerned with HOW. It doesn't try to explain WHY, that's the preserve of religion and philosophy. Why do so many view the two as mutually exclusive?

Well then couldn't you ask, "How did the Universe begin?" or "How could there be a God?"

Science is always going to have some contrast with Religion, because religion makes certain claims that are contrary to naturalistic science.

Wha?
Hoo?

He is an expert on a special kind of bacteria called flagella. Inside the bacteria are exquisitely engineered ‘inboard motors’ that spin at an amazing 100,000 revolutions per minute.

Flagella are not a type of bacteria,flagella is the plural of flagellum.a flagellum is a long, threadlike appendage, especially a whiplike extension of certain cells or unicellular organisms that functions as an organ of locomotion.

No biochemist would make that mistake.in fact bacteria and flagella have little to do with biochemistry,i would have thought they'd be more concerned with enzymes and the like,and chemical reactions in organisms,not their means of locomotion.

Flagella are not a type of bacteria,flagella is the plural of flagellum.a flagellum is a long, threadlike appendage, especially a whiplike extension of certain cells or unicellular organisms that functions as an organ of locomotion.

No biochemist would make that mistake.in fact bacteria and flagella have little to do with biochemistry,i would have thought they'd be more concerned with enzymes and the like,and chemical reactions in organisms,not their means of locomotion.


Do they also occur in organisms inside the cell?

Intelligent design is not a science, it's philosophy.

... it's the old Ontological Argument back from Philosophy 101.

wrong faulty argument. ID is a reheated version of paley's teleological argument in reverse.

Do they also occur in organisms inside the cell?

I'm not sure,i don't see why they wouldn't,but i don't know.i've never heard of organelles(structures within an organism) having flagella.but i'm only in 6th year honours biology.
for those of you unfamiliar with the irish school system 6th is the last year in secondary level,after which i hope to go to college(3rd level,highest there is).

in fact bacteria and flagella have little to do with biochemistry,i would have thought they'd be more concerned with enzymes and the like,and chemical reactions in organisms,not their means of locomotion.

but locomotion in cells is accomplished through biochemical reactions. and behe claims that flagella are 'irreducibly complex', and therefore could not have developed through an evolutionary process. he's wrong, and has been shown exactly how multiple times. he then runs away crying and moves the goal posts. poor guy.

Well then couldn't you ask, "How did the Universe begin?" or "How could there be a God?"

The second question is not addressed by science because there is no observable phenomena on which to base the question.

The first question is something we attempt to answer with the "Big Bang" theory. There is observable phenomena, we examined it and came up with the best possible explanation for how the universe came into being. We do not address why questions, however.

Science is always going to have some contrast with Religion, because religion makes certain claims that are contrary to naturalistic science.
If religion makes a claim that goes against observed phenomena, that is the responsibility of religion to address, not science.

but locomotion in cells is accomplished through biochemical reactions. and behe claims that flagella are 'irreducibly complex', and therefore could not have developed through an evolutionary process. he's wrong, and has been shown exactly how multiple times. he then runs away crying and moves the goal posts. poor guy.

Ah,right so.

heeheehee,sily behe.