Category Archives: ID

Intelligent Design is Anti-Science.

From The Atheist’s Pulpit

Somebody light a

candle because Krauthammer and I are on the same side of an issue. Holy cow! Even as I savor this moment of worlds-colliding, I marvel

that I could argue Krauthammer is being unfair to some IDers (this is a disturbing universe, indeed). Those very few IDers who

believe they are pursuing a “science of irreducible complexity” — a bold new way of looking at things — feel tarred by the “Jesus on a

dinosaur” brush. Sorry, but there are many more who believe evolution is the devil’s tool and the world is 4000 years old than believe

there are merely points in an otherwise clockwork system where god intercedes. Not that truth is a popularity contest.

Still, I

always enjoy the Clash of Conservatives. Krauthammer is one of the cardinals of the Radical Right — a ‘must read’ in the West Wing (or

have read to you). Here we see the arrogance and utterly unshakable certainty directed against — good god! — forces equally arrogant

and unshakable. ‘The Truth is Ours‘, both sides shout with equal ferocity, and ‘those who disagree are beneath contempt.’

The true gift from god here is not that the ranters can’t simply give up and shout “Commie! Hippie! Democrat!” No, no, sweeter still

is that somewhere deep inside each opponent has to realize, “damn, I just called another right-winger wrong.” The Monolith of Radical

Right Infallibility called into question by its own faithful?! Hosanna! mjh

PS: I believe Krauthammer

would join me — again! — in irritation at the Albuquerque Journal’s headline, “God and Science Made the Lemurs”. There isn’t

a person alive — whom you’d want to talk to — who would say ‘science made the lemurs’. Made? Are headline writers less

educated than real journalists or does years of straining for groan-inducing puns dull the wits as much as it seems to?

Two more

specimens:

Kansas wrong to see science as an enemy of God, just ask Einstein — Quad City Times

[mjh: so much for the pursuit of brevity]

Science isn’t religion’s foe: an idea that’s still evolving — Bothell Herald

[mjh: groan]
—–

Charles Krauthammer: Evolution by any other name is still . . .

BECAUSE every few years this country, in its

infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be

superfluous � that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both

religious.

Newton’s religiosity was traditional. He was a staunch believer in Christianity and member of the Church of England.

Einstein’s was a more diffuse belief in a deity who set the rules for everything that occurs in the universe.

Neither saw science

as an enemy of religion. On the contrary. “He believed he was doing God’s work,” wrote James Gleick in his recent biography of Newton.

Einstein saw his entire vocation � understanding the workings of the universe � as an attempt to understand the mind of God.

Not a crude and willful God who pushes and pulls and does things according to whim. … Newton’s God was not at all so crude. The laws

of his universe were so simple, so elegant, so economical, and therefore so beautiful that they could only be divine. …

Let’s

be clear. “Intelligent design” may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud.

It is a self-enclosed, tautological

“theory” whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge � in this case, evolution � they are to

be filled by God. …

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple,

more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet

interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give

us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education too.
—–

QOTD: “How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God.Amen.

a Newtonian God

My first thought on

hearing that the Vatican’s astronomer spoke out against ID as pseudo-science (it is, more

correctly, “anti-science”), I thought, ‘wow, the Vatican has an astronomer?!’

Before you know it, they’ll be dealing with this

guy as they did Galileo. mjh

Vatican official rejects intelligent design teaching By NICOLE WINFIELD, The Associated Press

The

Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in

school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends

to be,” the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. “If you want to teach it in schools,

intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.” …

In a June article in the

British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God’s role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.

“If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must

move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a

watch that ticks along regularly.”

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

“God in

his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and

greater complexity,” he wrote. “He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

[mjh: as Jas. put it, ‘our god is a CEO, not some middle-manager bogged down in the daily details.’]

The Vatican

Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer

residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.
—–

Evolution News & Views
News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution
(a

site that believes “scientists, teachers, and students are under attack for questioning evolution” — [mjh: the cult

of paranoid victimhood])

CSC – Challenging Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and promoting Intelligent Design [mjh: The Discovery Institute is the center of their universe]

Creationism and intelligent design are two widely different things

The Daily Sundial – Keep classroom free of

intelligent design by Sean Paroski

[C]reationism and intelligent design are two widely different things. Creationism is based

solely in the text of the Bible, taking as literal the account in genesis of God creating the world in six days. While creationism

advocates will often try to cite scientific “facts” to back up their thesis, creationism specifically rejects evolution as a scientific

theory (except as a modern phenomenon) as well as discounting geological, astronomical and other physical evidence for the age of the

universe.

Intelligent design differs significantly from creationism in several key aspects. First, it has no basis in any specific

religious tradition, unlike creationism’s reliance on the Bible.

Second, it does not reject scientific findings about the origins

of species, the age of the universe or other discoveries of the natural sciences. Intelligent design is primarily a critique of the

interpretation of the evidence derived from those sciences.

Intelligent designers claim that missing evidence in the fossil record

and the natural complexity of living creatures cannot be accounted for by the theory of evolution alone. They claim that such complexity

and missing evidence implies that the universe must have some supernatural designer that directs the development of organisms. This

“designer” is non-denominational and its hands-off approach to directing the universe bears little resemblance to the God of the Bible,

who is always involving himself in human affairs in one way or another.

Thus, the claims of scientists and anti-religion types

that intelligent design is a violation of separation of church and state is inaccurate since intelligent design does not advocate a

specific religious creed.

However, the argument that intelligent design is not science does have significant weight.

the company one keeps

Letter: Proof of

intelligent design exists – Friday, 11/18/05

Unfortunately, the idea that intelligent design is religious faith in disguise is

simply wrong. It appeals to those with such faith, because it assures them their faith is in fact independently supportable by science.

But when they intrude with their beliefs upon the scientific arguments for or against intelligent design, the faithful are as wrong as

the scientists who dogmatically oppose it …

Intelligent design is about the fact that one can today determine, scientifically,

that the world was largely designed.

The real news is that this is possible because there is not merely a single, one-time design

of everything in the world. Whatever you may believe about an original Creation of All, the fact is that there was, less than twenty

thousand years ago, a deliberate redesign. According to the scientific evidence–of which mainstream scientists like Dr. Cornell are

ignorant, and disdaining to learn–not only the Earth but the entire solar system was remade. …

[Scientists] complain that there

are no articles showing evidence for design in the peer-reviewed literature, but that is because such articles are not allowed, by

official fiat. Readers need to know that is simply an incompetent stand for a scientist to take: You may not be able to prove God, but

you can demonstrate design of the world. I know. I’ve done it. And I am being suppressed, denied the opportunity to contribute knowledge

that would stop the current war of words over design, and show how intelligent design can – and must (if you want students to learn the

truth)- be presented in science class.

Dale Huffman
Gallatin, TX
—–

The End of the Mystery: The Design of the Gods – Lulu.com

I am

a professional research scientist in physics and mathematics. I submitted this article to the magazine New Astronomy, only to have the

online submission unceremoniously “removed by the editor”, without explanation. (I have in the past also sent letters announcing my

discoveries to Science magazine, but they too were ignored.) Modern science is broken; it is not confronting the evidence, it is not

seeking the truth. …..

[from] Finding the Design of the gods
by Harry Dale Huffman

The first light shone on the

design in 1996, when I discovered the location of Hyperborea, which the Greek poet Pindar described, around the time of the seventh

century BC, with these words: Neither by ship nor yet by land shall one find the wondrous road to the gathering place of the

Hyperboreans.

Hyperborea was no ordinary land, you see. It was a “blessed” land, in Greek myth, where the inhabitants celebrated

always, and “the dances of the girls, the twanging of lyres and sound of flutes are continually circling.” (Pindar again.) Above all,

“Hyper-borea” means “beyond north”, so its location was said to be “beyond the north”.

It turns out there is such a place, and if

you happen to pass by it, and remember as you do the above quotes, you’ll very likely find it, as I did. It is in the starry sky, near

the celestial north pole (CNP)

know your enemies

The Wedge Strategy – Center for the Renewal of Science and

Culture

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western

civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative

democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal

idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. … This materialistic conception of

reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art….

The

cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. …

Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of

Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. …

[T]he Center explores how

new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case

for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs

policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism. …

FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

The social

consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are

convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. …

We are

building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has

come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist

worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. …

Alongside a focus on

influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. …

The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design

theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific

social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.

GOALS

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic

explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

* To see

intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design

theory.
* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
* To see major new

debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year

Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in

specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology,

ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate

our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

more

Antievolution: Features

AntiEvolution.org | The Critic’s Resource on AntiEvolution

AntiEvolution.org provides

concise and accurate information for those who wish to critically examine the antievolution movement.

Wherein Mark disproves the existence of god

I encourage you to read Robert Rouse’s entire letter clarifying his definition of ID. It is a thoughtful, articulate statement. I sympathize with Rouse because I believe his grasp of

the subject is quite different from those who believe dinosaurs roamed Eden and rode on the Ark. Still, they share the same camp.

Rouse insists that people like me have ID wrong when we characterize it as inevitably giving up and saying god did it.

Intriguingly, Rouse says that ID depends upon examining known products of intelligence (say, a watch) and recognizing similarities in

natural processes and objects and, thereby, concluding those things must also be a product of intelligence. Astonishingly, this fails to

recognize that our very intelligence is the result of this process. The hand and mind that made the watch were made by the unknowing

Universe. Language is clearly a tool of intelligence. It is not a gift from god — in my mind. So, beings like us, with such a still-

limited grasp of the Universe, look around and project our own intelligence on other things, when that intelligence was actually

projected onto us in the first place. By natural processes we can analyze without a god/creator/designer/mighty being.

This

failure to recognize we are inside the black box we’re trying to describe makes Rouse seem like a child who believes the world

disappears when he covers his head. It destroys what on the surface seemed like a skilled defense. Beware: the proponents of ID will

appear in attractive form and will be able to quote science forward and backward.

I am intrigued by this quote: “Science cannot

prove nor disprove the existence of a supernatural being.” Can religion prove it? Isn’t the whole point that there is a

difference between proof and faith? Scientists can have faith, but Science cannot advance on it.

Pardon the heresy, but science

can, in fact, disprove vast sections of specific religions. Atlas does not hold the earth on his broad shoulders nor is it balanced on

the back of a giant turtle. These are historical inaccuracies that can live on today as metaphors. There is no reasonable doubt that the

world is more than 10,000 years old, that the earth was not created before the sun, that there were no dinosaurs 10,000 years ago, etc,

etc — beliefs that a religious fanatic a century ago would have found absurd. Real scientists don’t want to get into this game, but if

you keep pressing this issue, someone will debunk your faith and make you look like a fool. Please don’t make that necessary. Faith and

religion have some value to some people — though I am not one of them. Let’s leave religion intact and do the same for science.

“[D]on’t ban the science because you’re afraid of what it may mean on a spiritual level.” I think those of us who oppose ID in

science classes would tolerate it in a comparative religion or philosophy class, as long as it was given no more weight than the story of

coyote throwing a blanketful of stars into the heavens. mjh

Continue reading Wherein Mark disproves the existence of god

It Takes a Lawyer…

ABQjournal: ID

Adopts Oldest Trick in Lawyers’ Book By Sergio Pareja, Law Professor

It’s about time for a law professor to chime

in on the intelligent design debate. … What is needed is a simple explanation of the issues combined with an explanation

of the legal strategies involved. … [mjh: always start with a joke to put your readers at ease.]

In

this country, it appears that there now are four primary views on the origin of life.

First, there is atheistic evolution. …

Second, there is theistic evolution. …

Both of these first two views on the origin of life are completely

compatible with evolution as it now is taught in public schools.

The third view on the origin of life is the strict

creationism view held by fundamentalist Christians. The first two views are not compatible with this third view and, as

a result, evolution as it is now taught in public schools is in direct conflict with strict creationism. …

Intelligent design is

the fourth view on the origin of life. ID takes advantage of the fact that scientists have not proved every detail about how life

evolved. Specifically, ID aims to find failings and gaps in evolutionary theory. It asserts that the only explanation for these gaps is

some supernatural occurrence or, in other words, an action by God.

ID does not say “God,” but ID advocates are not talking about

aliens. …

So why are scientists so threatened by ID when they are not threatened by theistic evolution? And why do strict

creationists appear to embrace the teaching of ID in schools? Because ID says that we have scientific evidence that God regularly and

frequently uses miracles to alter the natural flow of things.

If this is true, it means that scientific observation is

worthless. We can never know if our observations mean anything because God may have altered the natural flow of things. …

For

example, if high school students accept the “scientific” theory that the creation of the human little toe is a miracle, then it is only a

small step to convince them that God could have miraculously placed fossilized dinosaur bones around the world to make the world appear

to be billions of years old.

Suddenly, creation four thousand years ago in six 24-hour days is equally as plausible from a

“scientific” standpoint as evolution. That goal, I believe, is what is really driving the ID movement.

ID ignores faith’s

wonderful role. Matters of faith, by definition, cannot be proven by science; if they could, there would be no need for faith. …

Our society has been unique from the start in that our most influential founders took a reasoned approach to virtually

everything, especially science. [mjh: “from the start … a reasoned approach to virtually everything”? well,

that may be a bit self-congratulatory]

PS: I hope someone will read Pareja’s entire piece specifically to tell me what

he meant by “the same tactic that lawyers and law professors have used for ages.” I missed something there. mjh