Archbishop Naumann: either allow discussion of Intelligent Design into classrooms, or

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

Then you should favor the removal of all hypotheses for which there is no evidence. If we can discuss life on another planet without evidence, there is no reason we can’t discuss a theory, currently being argued from both sides, of intelligent design without having evidence of the creator itself. We have been studying the interrelation of species and hyptohesizing on evolution without the missing link for many years.

I agreed to that many posts back. You are the one who keeps bringing up life on other planets.

As far as a missing link goes, I hate to tell you but that isn’t a scientific term. In science, we refer to such a thing as a transitional species. Are you claiming there are no transitional species?

Your comparison with astrology is a complete non sequitor.

Tell that to Michael Behe, one of the foremost proponents of ID. He admitted on the stand during the Dover, PA trial that ID and astrology are in the same boat scientifically. So when an ID specialist makes that claim, I would have to say that you are wrong about it being a non-sequitor.

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Orogeny:

I agreed to that many posts back. You are the one who keeps bringing up life on other planets.

Then, why did you keep asking for evidence of a natural designer? Maybe you forgot? Obviously, if we can’t show evidence of alien life, we can’t show evidence of a natural designer. So, we can agree that with sufficient evidence of intelligent design, it would be okay to teach ID in the classroom without evidence of the designer. Right?

As far as a missing link goes, I hate to tell you but that isn’t a scientific term. In science, we refer to such a thing as a transitional species. Are you claiming there are no transitional species?

There is no proof that one species transitioned to another, but there are connections made to fit into the Theory of Evolution. What is the transitional species before man? Can you prove it?

Tell that to Michael Behe, one of the foremost proponents of ID. He admitted on the stand during the Dover, PA trial that ID and astrology are in the same boat scientifically. So when an ID specialist makes that claim, I would have to say that you are wrong about it being a non-sequitor.

I was not aware of that, and it’s pretty funny. Why in the world would someone say that when trying to have their theory taken seriously? I stand corrected.

Peace

Tim

 

[scriabin]

I’ve been gone for a few days and I thought I’d re-read this thread’s posts to see what I’ve missed.

Although there is still excellent discussion; the one thing that stands out in my mind is that:

our sniping belittles us all.

 

[Orogeny]

Then, why did you keep asking for evidence of a natural designer? Maybe you forgot? Obviously, if we can’t show evidence of alien life, we can’t show evidence of a natural designer. So, we can agree that with sufficient evidence of intelligent design, it would be okay to teach ID in the classroom without evidence of the designer. Right?

Because you claim that the designer in ID could be a natural being. I said that if life exists on other planets, it would fall within the ream of science because it would be part of nature as opposed to the supernatural. Do you believe that the designer could possibly be a natural being? If so, then you would clearly have a problem reconciling your faith with that belief.

I agree that with scientific evidence supporting it, ID could and should be taught in science classes. However, you can’t teach ID without a designer as that is the basis for ID.

There is no proof that one species transitioned to another, but there are connections made to fit into the Theory of Evolution. What is the transitional species before man? Can you prove it?

Not to someone who refuses to follow scientific evidence to it’s obvious conclusion. I have said before in this and several other threads, there is no “proving” something in science.

If you really think that something like Archaeopteryx is considered a transition only to fit evolution, you won’t ever accept any fossil as a transitional form regardless of what intermediary features it has.

I doubt that you will change your mind, but here are a couple of links to info on some transitional forms.
talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Orogeny:

Because you claim that the designer in ID could be a natural being. I said that if life exists on other planets, it would fall within the ream of science because it would be part of nature as opposed to the supernatural. Do you believe that the designer could possibly be a natural being?** If so, then you would clearly have a problem reconciling your faith with that belief.**

I agree that with scientific evidence supporting it, ID could and should be taught in science classes. However, you can’t teach ID without a designer as that is the basis for ID.

Now, I understand. You don’t believe anything should be discussed in school unless you can reconcile it with your beliefs. That seems fair. :whacky: You can teach ID without knowing the nature of the designer, in the same way you can study the effects of gravity without knowing what causes it (as we did for years).

As far as evolutionary theory, I have no problem accepting it and having it taught in school, even with it’s shortcomings. You make a lot of assumptions about my beliefs.

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

Now, I understand.

No, actually you don’t.

You don’t believe anything should be discussed in school unless you can reconcile it with your beliefs. That seems fair. :whacky:

I threw that in as an aside, not as my major point. In fact, I don’t believe science and faith need to be reconciled.

You can teach ID without knowing the nature of the designer, in the same way you can study the effects of gravity without knowing what causes it (as we did for years).

Whatever. I’ve got to say that I am quickly tiring of trying to explain why ID shouldn’t be taught in science class. I’ve asked for scientific evidence of ID many times and no one can seem to find any and yet they want ID taught as science. And still claim that ID isn’t based on faith.

Gravity can be measured and predictions can be made based on observations of the effects of gravity. Evolution is supported by evidence from multiple scientific fields. How do these compare to ID? ID can’t be measured, can’t make predictions, has no evidence, can’t be falsified, can’t be tested.

So let’s teach ID as science. And no, it isn’t based on faith. Whatever.

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Tim,

I’m sorry to have frustrated you, but I was only responding to one of the possible arguments against ID - that it is faith not science. My stance is the same as it was on a previous thread where we discussed this subject:

1. The Theory of Evolution is the current accepted science dealing with the origin of species.
2. We should take one day (one day!) in a science class to discuss the various understandings of origin of species. To me this is similar to the one day in my Biology class when we talked about life on other planets…it’s theory, possibilities, open-minded discussion about what could be. It didn’t destroy my understanding of scientific method.

If I were a Biology teacher, I would end the day with a simple statement, see item 1 above, and get on with the real teaching. My son’s Biology teacher did something along these lines. He is an athiest, and he explained that some people believe in creation. I would add a brief explanation of ID and explain it’s refutations by other scientists. Done.

If one of the students wants to study the ID theories in more detail and discuss them in class, all the better! Let the theories be argued. (Hopefully, the teacher is capable enough to argue it effectively.) That’s what school is for.

God Bless,

Robert

PS I don’t believe in a natural designer. It would be contrary to my faith.

 

[rlg94086]

A couple of links from the Discovery Institute…

[Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture(name removed by moderator)age](http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...ogram=DI Main Page - News&callingPage=discoMa(name removed by moderator)age)

[discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3275&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMa(name removed by moderator)age](http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...ogram=DI Main Page - News&callingPage=discoMa(name removed by moderator)age)

Discovery Institute News
1511 3rd Ave Suite 808 - Seattle, WA 98101 - (206) 292-0401 x107
**The Myths Surrounding Intelligent Design **
By: Tristan Abbey
The Stanford Daily
February 21, 2006
Original Article

The [Stanford Daily] Editorial Board rightly called for an “Intelligent debate of intelligent design” last week (Feb. 17). Framing the discussion as a face-off between reason and religion, however, propagates a misguided mythology that obscures, rather than clarifies, the controversy.

First, criticizing neo-Darwinism is not the same as promoting intelligent design. While microevolutionary mechanisms, such as the coupling of random mutations and natural selection, have clearly been demonstrated, they fail to explain macroevolutionary changes (e.g., morphological novelty). Neo-Darwinists argue there is no difference between the two kinds of evolution, but that claim is vigorously contested by many developmental biologists and paleontologists.

Second, creationism is not the same as intelligent design. Reasons to Believe, a creationist group which accepts that the earth is billions of years old, dismisses intelligent design as “not science.” The Institute for Creation Research, which argues for a literal six-day interpretation of Genesis, similarly criticizes intelligent design for not being biblical.

Third, intelligent design theorists, by and large, do not support the mandating of intelligent design in public schools. The real story out of Wisconsin is not the hypothetical “ban on teaching intelligent design,” but the critical approach to science adopted in 2004 by the town of Grantsburg and to which this “ban” is a reaction. Grantsburg’s policy states: “Students shall be able to explain the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. This policy does not call for the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design.” Who could argue with that?

Sadly, neo-Darwinists do argue with that by stereotyping critics of evolutionary theory as religious zealots, by reducing the debate to the simplistic but familiar terms of science vs. faith, and by persecuting researchers like the Smithsonian’s Rick Sternberg for keeping an open mind. Pernicious caricatures notwithstanding, the signatories to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism now stand at over 500 scientists, including several who earned their doctorates from Stanford. As science advances, why has this number continued to grow?

 

[needmorelight]

I think someone posted this in another thread : “NO MORE EVOLUTION THREADS!” . I say learn about the nature of scientific inquiry, what consitutes a scientific theory, and learn why evolution through natural selection has been accepted by many scientists AROUND the world. Hardly a fairy tale for those of you who seem to have double PhDs on this subject. Evolution DOES NOT say “there is no God”. In fact, science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. Otherwise, we won’t have biogists like Francisco Ayala, Ken Miller, Simon-Conway Morris who also happen to be Christians.

As for ID not religion but science–there’s an author named Zechariah Sitchin who wrote plenty of books about what he claims that human beings were the products of genetic engineering by a superior race of beings called the Nephilim that inhabit a yet undiscovered planet in our solar system which supposedly orbits our sun every 3600 years. Doesn’t this fit ID “theory:”? If not, why not? Why can’t we teach this in a biology class? After all, at least this “theory” is testable in principle, unlike the “God did it” hypothesis that is obviously being promoted by the Discovery Institute.

I agree to a certain degree with rlg94086. If I were a biology teacher and someone asks me about ID, I would use ID as an example of an untestable and therefore, an unscientific hypothesis. ID belongs in a philosophy or theology class, not in a natural science class.

By the way, someone mentioned string theory. Lawrence Krauss, a physicist who has criticized the ID movement, has also criticized string theory as unscientific.

 

[coyote]

Scientology has its own version of ID. Based on the pro-ID arguments, Scientology ontology should be allowed “equal” time in biology classes.

Heck, the Hindu explanation of the universe has a flat earth balanced on the back of a tortoise. If ID is valid for biology, then the Hindu version of the universe is valid for astronomy and geography. Not only that, but the universe was seen inside the mouth of the Hindu Lord Krishna. Better add this tidbit to astronomy classes too.

BTW, let’s not neglect the fact that ORIGIN of life on earth is a college level topic. It is not taught in High School.

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

Creation, or Evolution? Or, are they the same thing?

With all of the known micro-evolutions (limited minor-variations) among all species (kinds), folks have taken the leap-of-faith into “believing” in an alledged “macro-evolution” (a species evolving into another species - kind).
Limited minor-variations ARE proven, but “macro-evolution” is not yet proven. Will it be?
It is imagined, speculated, hypothesized, but not proven.
Folks are divided in the “belief” that it will, or will not be “proven”.
Who’s gonna be the most objective?

What will your answer be when someone asks you,
“In the Light of Science and the Bible, How did things begin? Naturally? Or, supernaturally?”

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

“Darwin, it has become commonplace to acknowledge, never really addressed the “origin of species” in his book of that title.” –Niles Eldredge, Ph.D. (geologist, paleontologist, and atheist), “Progress in Evolution?” -New Scientist, vol. 110 (June 5, 1986), pg. 55. -On: Darwin’s Origin of Species by Natural Selection (1859) (Ch. 6.)

“Much of what Darwin taught has been rejected and surpassed by modern evolutionists, but the doctrine of natural selection has been maintained.” –Geisler, When Skeptics Ask, pg. 212. {Darwin’s Gradualism Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium.}

“Creationists, of course, have always argued that, while natural selection is a real process that serves to eliminate unfit organisms, it could never create the complex, wonderfully adapted organisms found in the living world.” –H.M. Morris, The Modern Creation Trilogy, vol. 2, Science & Creation (1996), Master Books, pg. 34.

“Their theory (Niles Eldredge & Stephen Jay Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium)…appears to be based solely on the absence of transitional fossils. Darwin, after all, understood suddenness to be evidence of Creation. If this is true, then it supports what Creationists said all along – the sudden appearance of fully formed animals is evidence of Creation.” –Geisler, pg. 231.

What will your answer be when someone asks you,
“In the Light of Science and the Bible, How did things begin?
Naturally? (No ID)
Or, supernaturally?” (ID)

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

In, “The Supreme Court Decision And Its Meaning,” an evaluation of Louisiana’s 1987 “Act for Balanced Treatment of Creation Science and Evolution,” it states:

• “Creation-science is the scientific evidence supporting abrupt appearance in complex form. That evidence includes the abrupt appearance of complex life in the fossil record, the systematic gaps between fossil categories, the genetic limits on possible change, and the vast information content of all living organisms [DNA, etc.].
  Seven judges of the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals (the lower court decision) forcefully agreed in a dissenting opinion, that creation-science indeed is scientific, as well as that balanced treatment for a creation-science and evolution indeed is constitutional.” -Wendell R. Bird, J.D. (Yale). –IMPACT article, No. 170, The Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Attorney Wendell R. Bird’s entire concise evaluation (No. 170) may be reviewed at: icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=type&ID=2

What will your answer be when someone asks you,
“In the Light of Science and the Bible, How did things begin?
Naturally? (No ID)
Or, supernaturally?” (ID)

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

Gee, is there a way to verify each Pope’s historical view on a possible evolution and/or a possible literal six-day creation?

Douay-Rheims Bible
EXODUS 20:11
“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.”

Again, from the time that this current Pope expressed his views, are all of the next successions bound to follow suite - no matter what?

(For example, say one or more of the past Popes expressed that it was in literally six days, like it says in the Scriptures.)

Oh! What inconsistency!

Who’s then, The Heretic?