{"id":105,"date":"2005-11-04T00:11:56","date_gmt":"2005-11-04T12:34:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.edgewiseblog.com\/mjh\/?p=105"},"modified":"2005-11-04T00:11:56","modified_gmt":"2005-11-04T06:11:56","slug":"abqjournal-intelligent-design-and-finding-new-ideas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.edgewiseblog.com\/mjh\/nada\/id\/abqjournal-intelligent-design-and-finding-new-ideas\/","title":{"rendered":"Seemingly Reasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

I had my own reaction<\/a> to Quigley’s anti-Intelligent Design <\/p>\n

column last week. He seems to have inspired many responses from both sides in letters and a column.<\/p>\n

The blatantly bible-thumping <\/p>\n

IDers are easier to dismiss. But the intellectual IDers remind me the devil will appear in a pleasant form.<\/p>\n

Below, Edenburn <\/p>\n

demolishes his own argument with one word: “current”. He seems to allow that someday science will prove ID wrong. But that’s just the <\/p>\n

devil seeming pleasant. IDers believe it cannot be proven wrong. Precisely what they falsely accuse evolutionists of believing. mjh<\/span><\/p>\n

Note: I have added an “ID” category to gather related entries; see link to left.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

—–<\/p>\n

ABQjournal: Intelligent Design and Finding New Ideas<\/a> By Mike <\/p>\n

Edenburn, For the Journal<\/p>\n

Mr. Quigley’s description of ID as a proposition is appropriate. I might expand on it a little by <\/p>\n

describing intelligent design as the “proposition” that scientifically derived empirical evidence suggests that design by an <\/p>\n

intelligent agent is the best current<\/em> explanation<\/strong> for the origin of a variety of natural systems, particularly in <\/p>\n

biology, and that natural laws and chance alone, the basis for the theory of evolution, are not adequate to explain these <\/p>\n

observations<\/strong>. …<\/p>\n

[I]nnovation usually comes from looking at things in different ways and adopting new paradigms. Some of <\/p>\n

the greatest scientific discoveries in history have come from thinking outside the box, and those have been good for business.
\n—<\/p>\n

Mike Edenburn is a mechanical engineer, former systems analyst at Sandia National Laboratories for 35 years, and a member of New Mexico <\/p>\n

Intelligent Design Network<\/a><\/small>
\n—<\/p>\n

There’s no box like that little black book. Not to say <\/p>\n

great and creative minds haven’t belonged to powerfully faithful believers. Just that fundamentalism by its nature requires closing your <\/p>\n

mind.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

—–<\/p>\n

ABQjournal: Letters to Outlook<\/a><\/p>\n

You are presenting the study of evolution as being necessary to achieving a quality <\/p>\n

education. Somehow I cannot grasp how the study of man’s supposedly evolutionary climb from monkeys is going to help me learn to read, <\/p>\n

write and add 2+2. If anything, my observation of our school system is that we are evolving back to the primate era.
\n Gary Hays<\/p>\n

Albuquerque<\/p>\n

This one is too easy. Hays doesn’t realize apes (“monkeys”) and humans evolved from a <\/p>\n

common ancestor that was neither ape nor human. He also doesn’t realize we ARE primates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

—–<\/p>\n

Quigley’s claim <\/p>\n

that “ID is bad for business” is just plain laughable. Please tell me what makes more sense in education — simply accepting evolution as <\/p>\n

truth, or evaluating evolution in light of a competing theory and then examining the evidence to see which has a greater claim to truth?<\/p>\n

Hank Happ
\n Albuquerque<\/p>\n

The devil himself speaks here. Open-minded and well-educated people <\/p>\n

— even liberal people — must consider competing theories equally. Then must we allow astrology in the astronomy class?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

—–<\/p>\n

The scientific support for a creator’s involvement in the origins of life and universe is overwhelming.
\n Earl <\/p>\n

Godwin, M.D.
\n Albuquerque<\/p>\n

Please. An essential tenet of ID is irreducible complexity — that we <\/p>\n

cannot grasp that which is most god-like. It is anti-science and anti-progress; it insist we must hit a point beyond which the answer is: <\/p>\n

god did it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

—–<\/p>\n

The proponents of ID are religious fundamentalists who are taught from birth to believe that the <\/p>\n

worldly things of this life are of no importance; that salvation, that is, the life of the world after death, is all that matters. The <\/p>\n

total lack of empirical evidence for this belief is irrelevant as Tertullian, an early Christian priest, said: “I believe because it is <\/p>\n

absurd.”<\/p>\n

The fundamentalist theocrats of all the monotheistic religions will never give up; their self-image depends on <\/p>\n

continuing the control over the masses of the deluded faithful. It is this power, not salvation, that is the prime motivation to the <\/p>\n

preachers, the witch doctors, and the theistic con artists. George Orwell would have understood.
\n Ross Milner
\n Albuquerque<\/p>\n

Amen, Brother Milner!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I had my own reaction to Quigley’s anti-Intelligent Design column last week. He seems to have inspired many responses from both sides in letters and a column. The blatantly bible-thumping IDers are easier to dismiss. But the intellectual IDers remind me the devil will appear in a pleasant form. Below, Edenburn demolishes his own argument … Continue reading Seemingly Reasonable<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.edgewiseblog.com\/mjh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.edgewiseblog.com\/mjh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.edgewiseblog.com\/mjh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.edgewiseblog.com\/mjh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.edgewiseblog.com\/mjh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.edgewiseblog.com\/mjh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.edgewiseblog.com\/mjh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.edgewiseblog.com\/mjh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.edgewiseblog.com\/mjh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}