ID is not science, it is creationism which is religion disguised as science. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District , 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005
No appeal to a higher court was made. Ruling stands. ID is not science, it is creationism which is religion disguised as science.
LOL
Really? These guys are in my home town.
How is the public science education in your home town? Have you checked out the science books at the grammar school and high school levels?
I don’t understand your point.
Firstly, I don’t know any peer-reviewed work that thinks Science takes a stand on God’s operations on Earth.
So, in a way, VIRTUALLY ALL peer-reviewed papers have no beaeing on God (intentionally).
So, Secondly, on what basis do you claim there are NONE AT ALL?
@JoeG, do you understand the stance that PeacefulScience.org exists? It would appear you do not.
@Jordan [quote=“Jordan, post:144, topic:960”]
Can you define that for me? I’m a physical chemist and not a biologist. I’m not sure what you mean when you say “blind” or “arising via stochastic processes”.
[/quote]
Hi Jordan-
Well Dawkins defined it in “The Blind Watchmaker”. Natural selection is blind- it does not see ahead. It is mindless in that it doesn’t plan. It is non-telic. As Jerry Coyne wrote Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless.
Darwin’s whole point was to provide a materialistic (non-telic) mechanism that replaces Paley’s watchmaker. Stochastic processes are blind and mindless.
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”
“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.”- UC Berkley on Evolution
Natural selection- The process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population- Mayr “What Evolution Is”
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance also plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction. Ibid
According to mainstream thought evolution proceeds via blind and mindless processes. It is without purpose. Stuff happens, it gets sorted- rinse and repeat for innumerable generations over deep time, and here we are.
That is pretty much the debate-> does evolution proceed via blind and mindless (non-telic) processes, telic processes or a combination? ID goes with the combination. Meaning ID says that organisms were intelligently designed to be able to adapt but random effects still creep in.
Please read Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution
Apologies for the delay
@Patrick [quote=“Patrick, post:146, topic:960”]
ID is not science, it is creationism
[/quote]
That is totally false. Creationism, YEC, OEC and progressive, are all subsets of ID but ID is more than those subsets. ID does not say anything about worship- nothing on who, how, when, why nor when. You have to redefine religion to say that ID is religion. John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:
“The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them.”
Mike Gene, author of “The Design Matrix”, had an essay about Intelligent Design that opened with:
"What is Intelligent Design? If you ask a critic, he will probably tell you that ID is a disguised version of Creationism and nothing more than a Trojan Horse to get God taught in the public schools. If you ask a typical proponent of ID, he will probably tell you that ID is the best explanation for various biotic phenomena.
For me, ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins – with a question":
Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?
“The first thing to note about the question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t even have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it.”
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. – William A. Dembski
Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., “Darwinism, Design and Public Education”, pg. 92):
High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
ID is testable and potentially falsifiable. That is by far more than blind watchmaker evolution has
George, It appears that you don’t have any clue as to what is being debated. Please read my response to Jordan. I don’t know the peaceful science stance. I do know that its members don’t understand ID, IC nor what is being debated.
ID is not about God and science does take a stance on telic and non-telic processes
I think my question stems from my experience as a physical chemist studying chemical reaction dynamics. Molecules have random motion, but they also tend to fall into the lowest energy configurations. In other words, the motion itself is random but the randomness is on a “guiding” (potential energy) surface that leads somewhere (the most stable product). Is that kinda like ID?
I can see you are a little lost… and no wonder with all these half-naked atheists walking around… speaking about stochastic or unguided processes… or Evolutionist beating up on ID folk.
@swamidass, it would be great if we could put a pause on even DISCUSSING I.D. in a negative light. You and I certainly don’t have much interest in PeacefulScience.Org becoming a network of anti-design insurgents!
Joe, here is the scoop from MY perspective:
Ever since I was invited to Peaceful Science, my animosity towards I.D. has continued to drop like a wayward anvil.
All the Christians here (or just about all?) believe God made life to his specifications. The ultimate point of the Peaceful Science dialogue is to work out the details of how we can allow for the idea that God created His humanity in TWO ways:
By allowing for BOTH kinds of creation, it makes it possible for Christian evolutionists to accept another miracle to go along with the already accepted miracle of God’s birth, death and resurrection on Earth;
And it allows for Evangelicals to cope with the idea that there is a reason we find millions of years of fossils left in the ground… AND a reason why God needed to create an historical Adam.
If you are here to defend ID, I understand your motivations. I’m now focusing my attention on why disputes over ID is not necessary for Peaceful Science to provide a reasonable middle ground for Christians of all stripes!
We are not here to PROVE or disprove ID. We are here to PROVE that God COUULD have used both methods of creation to create the Humanity he wants!
Edit: Revised per @Jordan’s influence!
Prove that God did or that he could have? Just curious.
Yes and no. ID would say that the way elements, molecules and chemicals react is all part of the intelligent design of the universe but no designer intervention was required after information, the laws, matter and energy were made and set in motion (pardon the pun).
In other words that they tend to fall into the lowest energy configurations is part of the design and could help explain why nature tends to seek the line of least resistance. Or maybe that’s backwards- nature tends to seek the line of least resistance because down at the elementary level there is a tendency to fall into the lowest energy configurations.
So it all depends on origins. One of the questions science asks is how did it (whatever you are investigating) come to be the way it is- Three basic questions - Understanding Evolution
meaning the question you would be trying to answer is “Why is it that molecules have random motion, but they also tend to fall into the lowest energy configurations?”- did it just happen, just a coincidence or part of some intelligent design? Which answer will help me explore this further and advance the understanding of what you are investigating?
The guidance in biology would be something greater than artificial selection. It would be the built-in ability to effect change. It just so happens that the bulk of that in us is in the immune system, with the rest coming from behavioral changes. We just reproduce too slow. James Shapiro has written about a category of evidences supporting the claim that some mutations seem to be driven and don’t just happen.
I am not lost and evolutionists can’t beat up on ID folk. ID has the science not evolutionism.
Blockquote We are here to PROVE that God used both methods of creation to create the Humanity he wants!
Good luck with that.
I’m going to edit my earlier post.
As soon as you said:
Prove he DID Vs PROVE he COULD
I think the latter phrase has the better tone! Thank YOU, @Jordan