Tim Campbell wrote:
> By John G. West
> Pyrrhic victory.
> It's a phrase proponents of Darwin's theory might do well to ponder as
> they crow over the decision by a federal judge in Pennsylvania
> "permanently enjoining" the Dover school district from mentioning the
> theory of intelligent design in science classes.
Tim, you seem to be a decent guy, but trying to promote a hypotheses
based on faith as a theory is just plain wrong.
> Contrary to Judge John Jones' assertions, intelligent design is not a
> religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory
> that holds there are certain features of living systems and the
> universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause.
There is no scientific evidence presented for this. It is a postulation
and has not been verified by experiment. What evidence?
Who says so?
Nothing, I repeat, noting can have existed before the universe.
Nothing can not create something. To exist, something has to have a
place to exist in.
No legal
> decree can remove the digitally coded information from DNA, nor
> molecular machines from cells. The facts of biology cannot be overruled
> by a federal judge.
What is this supposed to mean. We can analyze and decode the
information. We can make predictions based on it. We can see that all
living organisms contain the same type of coded information.
Research on intelligent design will continue to go
> forward, and the scientific evidence will win out in the end.
> Still, Darwinists clearly won this latest skirmish in the evolution
> wars. But at what cost?
Evolutionary theory is based on the scientific evidence.
You can do al the research you want on ID, but until you can make
predictions based on factual evidence, it is still simply a hypotheses.
Calling ID a theory is equivocation and is fallacious.
> Evolutionists used to style themselves the champions of free speech and
> academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. But increasingly, they
> have become the new dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censor****p
> of dissent.
> Now, Darwinists are trying to silence debate through persecution. At
> Ohio State University, a graduate student's dissertation is in limbo
> because he was openly critical of Darwin's theory.
What was the criticism. Was it based on research and scientific facts?
At George Mason
> University, a biology professor lost her job after she mentioned
> intelligent design in class.
Again, what are the facts. How did this teacher present the subject?
At the Smithsonian, an evolutionary
> biologist was harassed and vilified for permitting an article favoring
> intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed biology journal.
Who says so, where is the evidence that this happened?
Can you produce an article backed up by more than the person who made
the claims?
> Those who think they can stop the growing interest in intelligent
> design through court orders or intimidation are deluding themselves.
> Americans don't like being told there are some ideas they aren't
> permitted to investigate. Try to ban an idea, and you will generate
> even more interest in it.
The idea is not banned, this post is proof of that. However, one can
not present ID as a fact in the academic community and expect to be free
to promote an idea based on faith with no scientific proof. No academic
research, not quantifiable data, no repeatability.
> Efforts to mandate intelligent design are misguided, but efforts to
> shut down discussion of a scientific idea through harassment and
> judicial decrees hurt democratic pluralism. The more Darwinists resort
> to censor****p and persecution, the clearer it will become that they are
> championing dogmatism, not science.
Better look again. Darwin evolution theory is based on scientific fact.
It has made predictions as to the fossil record and those predictions
have been verified.
Genetics show that all living organisms are related. That the only
difference between humans and chimpanzees is 1% of DNA.
It has shown the existence of ancestors ancestors of various animals
evolved and were not created simultaneously.
ID also disputes the age of the earth. Most of it proponents claim the
earth and all the animals, plants, insects, indeed the whole universe
was created only 5000 years ago. Yet we have writing from Babalonia
that started 5000 BC, and we know people were living in communities
several thousand years before that.
The fossil record does indeed go back 2 billion years or more.
People did in fact exist over 500,000 years ago, and their ancestors did
in fact exist 3 million years ago.
Humans are in fact anthropoids, and are in fact a member of the ape
family.
ID depends on faith, I.E., we will find proof. Well when the primitive
minds who are trying to promote this fallacy actually find some evidence
let us know. Assertions that something must have been designed, simply
because the method by which they evolved has not been totally explained,
does not contribute to knowledge or scientific understanding. Indeed,
such assertions only serve to undermine the quest for knowledge by
substituting unprovable views as facts.
ID is a thinly disguised restatement of creationism.
> John G. West is associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for
> Science & Culture, andassociate professor of political science at
> Seattle Pacific University.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-12-21-oppose_x.htm
>
--
******************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* http://bobcathoh.50megs.com/tinLC/
*
* david l kayp at earthlink dot net *
******************************************
|
