Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo

[edwest2]

You keep missing my point. You say that Galileo was under the authority of he Church but no one today thinks that the authority if the church includes telling scientists what they can and can’t teach about the movement of heavenly bodies. Most people think that it would be wrong today for any religious group to try to exert such authority over scientific discourse. I think that if it is wrong now it was wrong then.

“Most people”? Really? And you missed my specific point about a specific person who was under Church authority. “Wrong today” cannot be applied to that incident at all.

God bless,
Ed

 

[MarcoPolo]

Ok, I’ve keyword searched this entire thread for the word “spectacular” which turned up 100s of responses every time a post repeats the subject line.

What I still do not see is any attempt to show the context of the “spectacularly wrong” quote. Could someone post it rather than guessing what about the incident this astronomer considered “spectacularly wrong”???

 

[cassini]

The issue for me isn’t about whether or not he had in fact proven it.Even if he had been wrong, I would still think it is immoral for some to be imprisoned for being wrong about whether or not he has provided sufficient evidence in support of a scientific theory. I am very suprised that he think that claiming to know something you don’t know is a punishable offense. Note that most atheist think this is the case with regard to believers in general. We think that you are claiming to know something that you can’t prove. But no one I know thinks that you ought to be under house arrest.

Enjoying your posts leela, you certainly are testing the Copernican Catholics. First a word regarding the distinction between a pope, the Church and churchmen under discussion. There is a distinction. A pope can be the Church under certain conditions, and not the Church under different conditions. The pope must INTEND to teach on a matter of faith and morals for it to be the Church. But a pope can give opinions, advice and instructions on a wide variety of matters, including faith and morals, without the INTENT to define anything in particular. Under these circumstances one does not consider it to be Church teaching.

Of course it was the Church that tried Galileo and found Galileo guilty of suspicion of heresy, not individuals as the Copernican apologists would have us believe. The Holy Office was the highest papal office in Rome at the time, second only to an ex cathedra pronouncement or council. Vatican I made it clear that such an ‘instrument’ of the Church used to assist the pope in his task of defining a matter of faith and morals, carried the promise of infallibility through its ordinary magisterium.

Yes, the Church even then held temporal powers that it did not have in the beginning and which it no longer has today. One radical theologian here in Dublin argues that the Church had no mandate or right to take over the absolute temporal powers that the Romans once had. That would make a wonderful thread if any are looking to start one. But the fact is that the Galileo case did not come under the realm of temporal Jurisdiction but under its teaching Jurisdiction.

It is within the Church’s teaching that it has the mandate and power to punish those that it judges as deserving of punishment in matters of faith and morals. Thus the Church of Christ had every right to order Galileo to adhere to its 1616 decree and to try him when he breached this order in his book DIALOGUE and to confine him to house arrest and to require him to a penance of saying the Psalms. This right to punish would also make another interesting thread as it is not too well known.

Now let us clarify the subject matter between Galileo and the Church. Was it a matter of faith or science, or both? That question was answered in 1615 by one of the Church’s greatest theologians Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.

‘Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.’

Bellarmine says it was a matter of faith. But what of the ‘subject matter’? For centuries man has ruled it was a matter of science, for science to determine. Thus the accusation that the Church tried and punished Galileo on a matter of science or for science. Your position Leela and that of countless Copernican catholics.
But here is the new paradigm. It was known then (see also Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini) and it is known now, that the matter IS BEYOND THE ABILITY OF SCIENCE TO KNOW. Throughout the history of Catholicism there have been and still are miracles. Are miracles a matter of faith or of science? Science can examine and reason on miracles but the answers to them lie outside the ability of science to determine. No scientist can admit a miracle is beyond science so they sign the off as ‘unknown causes’. On the other hand Catholics would hold miracles are of faith, God’s intervention, not within the ability of science to determine.
So, when God created space, He created it in a way that the relative movement between the earth and the sun and stars was/is beyond the limits of science to determine. Thus anyone’s choice of G or H is a matter of faith.

The Church held the fixed sun/moving earth belief as formal heresy. Astronomers and philosophers could use whatever system they wanted - even a fixed sun/moving earth one, in order to calculate distances, orbits, speeds, sizes, etc., etc., to obtain scientific knowledge of the cosmos, but it forbid promulgating the fixed sun/moving earth dogma of Scripture as true. In other words it did not interfere in scientific investigation, but forbid holding as a matter of faith something contrary to the Bible and Fathers of the Church. Thus the Church did not forbid a scientific matter as heresy, nor was this same matter of faith ever proven wrong by ‘science’.

The Galileo case then was 100% of faith. It was the presentation of H. as proven that brought the subject matter back into the realm of science.

Alas, the implantation of H into the minds of men was probably the most potent illusionary drug ever. This is because it renders the mind incapable of accepting anything other than a proven solar system in which the earth is one of the planets. Man has two choices in science and faith now. One lead to truth that will set the Church free of all acusations of error, unfairess and unjustice, the other leaves the Church and the whole Galileo case in chaos with no end to argument and dispute, censorship and intolerance.

 

[Leela]

Ok, I’ve keyword searched this entire thread for the word “spectacular” which turned up 100s of responses every time a post repeats the subject line.

What I still do not see is any attempt to show the context of the “spectacularly wrong” quote. Could someone post it rather than guessing what about the incident this astronomer considered “spectacularly wrong”???

see the OP

 

[MarcoPolo]

see the OP

I don’t see anywhere in the OP that gives the context for the “spectacularly wrong” quote. Perhaps you can post the entire context of the speaker’s comments.

 

[Leela]

I don’t see anywhere in the OP that gives the context for the “spectacularly wrong” quote. Perhaps you can post the entire context of the speaker’s comments.

I posted the link to the article the quote comes from in the OP. Here it is again:

guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/17/pope-astronomer-baptise-aliens?CMP%20=twt_gu

 

[MarcoPolo]

I posted the link to the article the quote comes from in the OP. Here it is again:

guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/17/pope-astronomer-baptise-aliens?CMP%20=twt_gu

I understand that. Perhaps I’m not clear in what I’m asking. The article only says the following:*The pope’s astronomer said the Vatican was keen on science and admitted that the church had got it “spectacularly wrong” over its treatment of the 17th century astronomer Galileo Galilei.*It gives no context for the two words in quotes. I want to see the entirety of the quotation. What did the astronomer specifically think the Church got so wrong? There were many facets to the incident and this quotation does not give the context.

If you do not know the context of the quotation, that’s fine and you can let us know that you do not know what the astronomer’s full comment actually says.

 

[Leela]

I understand that. Perhaps I’m not clear in what I’m asking. The article only says the following:*The pope’s astronomer said the Vatican was keen on science and admitted that the church had got it “spectacularly wrong” over its treatment of the 17th century astronomer Galileo Galilei.*It gives no context for the two words in quotes. I want to see the entirety of the quotation. What did the astronomer specifically think the Church got so wrong? There were many facets to the incident and this quotation does not give the context.

If you do not know the context of the quotation, that’s fine and you can let us know that you do not know what the astronomer’s full comment actually says.

All I know is what was reported in the article.

 

[wanstronian]

It was hardly just an opinion.

Maybe you’ve canvassed lots of people’s opinions in the background. If not, I repeat that you’re welcome to your opinion. Not sure what your motiviation is for pursuing this, but I don’t want to go down any rabbit-holes at the moment. Let’s leave it.

That is irrelevant. This is just a red herring. You don’t throw out an hypothesis as junk because it doesn’t address problems that it doesn’t address. Science doesn’t work like that.

I was just answering your comment, where you complained that it was invalid to claim purpose at an organism level. How is it a red herring to validly respond to that objection? Seems to me you’re just calling it that because your objection just got flattened.

You seem very keen to lecture me on science, but you’re missing the point. I’ve explained upthread why ID isn’t scientific, and I’ve responded to your specific objection where you erroneously assumed that I thought that science involved no hypotheses.

I’m not quite sure what your complaint is now.

Maybe so, but you’re addressing these problems with an internally contradictory two-pronged attack which turns out to add up to a straw man. Your only alternative is to say that you’re attempting to address problems with two forms of ID (which, it seems to me, both seem to be straw man versions of the real ID theory I’m familiar with).

Not two ‘forms’ of ID, two claims of ID that I’ve seen. I’ve already explained this to you. I’m addressing them discretely and separately. I don’t think that I’m attacking a Straw Man - I’m debunking the defenses of ID that I’ve seen. I’m happy to discuss the ID ‘theory’ with which you’re familiar, as it’s seemingly different to that which I’ve read about.

I’m no expert on ID. I doubt that anyone has perfectly acceptable answers to some of the questions you ask, and some of the questions you ask are irrelevant (based on a parochial Popperian view of science), but there are lots of possible answers and they don’t all support your position. What I’m interested in seeing is an actual explanation from you that isn’t just a straw man or a fallacious appeal to authority.

I’m a bit unclear here - what are you expecting me to explain? I’ve explained why ID isn’t scientific (notwithstanding your to-be-revealed version). I’ve explained the problems with the claims that I’ve seen made by ID proponents. I’ve explained why I’m not attacking a straw man. I’m not sure why you think I’m appealing to authority, unless you’re expecting me to have derived the established axioms of science all over again by myself instead of making reference to the pre-existing ones which have been shown universally to work? I’m not convinced you understand the Appeal to Authority fallacy - you do realise it’s specifically in reference to false authority - a person or organisation that doesn’t actually have any genuine knowledge of the subject… don’t you?

No, your logical flaw is self-evident, as I have pointed out. You pretend you’re attacking something called “ID”, but you can’t decide what the rational structure of this ‘ID’ theory that you’re attacking actually is.

The only logical flaws you have ‘pointed out’ are the straw man and the Appeal to Authority, both of which I have shown to be incorrect accusations on your part. Before this turns entirely into a slanging match, why don’t you state your understanding of the theory of ID. What are its claims, what are its substantiations of those claims? Feel free to point me towards a link (but don’t expect me to go buy a book).

That’s obviously a stupid suggestion - why would I suppose that?? And why would you suppose that I might suppose that???

I know, it’s stupid. Just couldn’t understand how you missed my justification of the statement.

Your original claim: “Reason and religious faith are mutually exclusive”, is not even close to your new claim here. If you think it is, you not only know nothing about faith and reason, you are also *very *bad at logic.

I’m not saying that people with religious faith are incapable of reason. I’m saying that religious faith is not a product of robust reasoning. They’re mutually exclusive within the domain of religion. Maybe I should have specified this.

How’s this for starters: Reason and religious faith are not mutually exclusive.

Well, actually I asked you to tell me how they are related, not to just baldly assert that they are. (Must be a theist thing…)

But actually, let’s just put the faith/reason thing behind us - it’s not pertinent to the thread subject anwyway. Describe ID to me, and lets discuss that.

 

[cassini]

I understand that. Perhaps I’m not clear in what I’m asking. The article only says the following:*The pope’s astronomer said the Vatican was keen on science and admitted that the church had got it “spectacularly wrong” over its treatment of the 17th century astronomer Galileo Galilei.*It gives no context for the two words in quotes. I want to see the entirety of the quotation. What did the astronomer specifically think the Church got so wrong? There were many facets to the incident and this quotation does not give the context.

If you do not know the context of the quotation, that’s fine and you can let us know that you do not know what the astronomer’s full comment actually says.

Marco, I would think “spectacularly wrong” in the context it is used means 110% wrong, the exact opposite to the truth, stupidly wrong, causing embarrassment to the likes of him in his job as Vatican stargazer. Nobody today gets a ‘puffed-up’ job like that in Church or State who does not think like an evolutionist and Copernican, speaks like an evolutionist and Copernican, sees no creation like an evolutionist and Copernican, hears like an evolutionist and copernican. Sorry, I got the order wrong, Copernican and then an evolutionist, in keeping especially with popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

 

[Betterave]

Maybe you’ve canvassed lots of people’s opinions in the background. If not, I repeat that you’re welcome to your opinion. Not sure what your motiviation is for pursuing this, but I don’t want to go down any rabbit-holes at the moment. Let’s leave it.

You seem like an intelligent enough guy. I hope you’re not intentionally missing my point here, namely, that my ‘opinion’ was grounded in argument/explanation, so it wasn’t just an opinion.

I was just answering your comment, where you complained that it was invalid to claim purpose at an organism level. How is it a red herring to validly respond to that objection? Seems to me you’re just calling it that because your objection just got flattened.

That seems like premature groundless boasting. How did my objection get flattened?

You seem very keen to lecture me on science, but you’re missing the point. I’ve explained upthread why ID isn’t scientific, and I’ve responded to your specific objection where you erroneously assumed that I thought that science involved no hypotheses.

I’m not quite sure what your complaint is now.

My point is the same as ever: you’re conflating different claims with different epistemological structures and pretending that they constitute a unified theory (which happens to be wrong) called “ID.” This is a poor analysis because even if ID-proponents argue the way you claim they do, their analysis of their own position as a single theory would be mistaken. You should not criticize their views as if they were not mistaken on this point.

Not two ‘forms’ of ID, two claims of ID that I’ve seen. I’ve already explained this to you. I’m addressing them discretely and separately. I don’t think that I’m attacking a Straw Man - I’m debunking the defenses of ID that I’ve seen. I’m happy to discuss the ID ‘theory’ with which you’re familiar, as it’s seemingly different to that which I’ve read about.

See above for the first part here. As for the theory I’m familiar with, it’s Behe, as I’ve already mentioned. And I believe you have referred to Behe as if you knew what he was about, so I assume I shouldn’t have to explain his theory to you.

I’m a bit unclear here - what are you expecting me to explain? I’ve explained why ID isn’t scientific (notwithstanding your to-be-revealed version). I’ve explained the problems with the claims that I’ve seen made by ID proponents. I’ve explained why I’m not attacking a straw man. I’m not sure why you think I’m appealing to authority, unless you’re expecting me to have derived the established axioms of science all over again by myself instead of making reference to the pre-existing ones which have been shown universally to work? I’m not convinced you understand the Appeal to Authority fallacy - you do realise it’s specifically in reference to false authority - a person or organisation that doesn’t actually have any genuine knowledge of the subject… don’t you?

No you haven’t explained why it’s unscientific. Your gesturing towards abstractions like “the established axioms of science” is about all the explanation you’ve given, so far as I’ve noticed (did I miss something?). I actually do understand the appeal to authority fallacy. An abstract appeal to the authority of “science” or “the established axioms of science” is not an appeal to a legitimate authority.

The only logical flaws you have ‘pointed out’ are the straw man and the Appeal to Authority, both of which I have shown to be incorrect accusations on your part.

No you haven’t.

Before this turns entirely into a slanging match, why don’t you state your understanding of the theory of ID. What are its claims, what are its substantiations of those claims? Feel free to point me towards a link (but don’t expect me to go buy a book).

You have referred to the wrongness of Behe yourself, have you not? Therefore you must already know what Behe claims, if you know that it is wrong.

I know, it’s stupid. Just couldn’t understand how you missed my justification of the statement.

Which statement? The obviously wrong one: “Reason and religious faith are mutually exclusive”?

I’m not saying that people with religious faith are incapable of reason. I’m saying that religious faith is not a product of robust reasoning. They’re mutually exclusive within the domain of religion. Maybe I should have specified this.

That’s still pure assertion and is obviously (obviously) false. I really don’t know where to begin in addressing such a naive assertion. Can you give me some reason why you make this claim?

Well, actually I asked you to tell me how they are related, not to just baldly assert that they are. (Must be a theist thing…)

So what’s good for the atheist (bald assertion) is no good for the theist, huh? (And sorry, what must be a theist thing?)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Marco, I would think “spectacularly wrong” in the context it is used means 110% wrong

Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe it referred to something specific. If you find the entirety of the astronomer’s comments, please share it with us so we may know.

 

[wanstronian]

You seem like an intelligent enough guy. I hope you’re not intentionally missing my point here, namely, that my ‘opinion’ was grounded in argument/explanation, so it wasn’t just an opinion.

My “You’re entitled to your opinion” was in response to your “I think your post was misleading on this point.”

That seems like premature groundless boasting. How did my objection get flattened?

Your objection was that my ‘purpose’ criterion was aimed at an organism level, but that “ID arguments… do not address purpose at the whole organism level…” So I pointed out that if you infer purpose at a sub-organism level, you must ultimately infer purpose at a higher hierarchical level, potentially ad infinitum, otherwise you are not actually explaining anything. Therefore, stating that the “purpose” criterion was badly aimed doesn’t actually change anything, unless you also propose that suborganism ‘purpose’ is mere whimsy on behalf of the intelligent entity.

My point is the same as ever: you’re conflating different claims with different epistemological structures and pretending that they constitute a unified theory (which happens to be wrong) called “ID.” This is a poor analysis because even if ID-proponents argue the way you claim they do, their analysis of their own position as a single theory would be mistaken. You should not criticize their views as if they were not mistaken on this point.

And my response is also the same: I have identified two common, but different, aspects or defences of ID and show why they, in isolation, are either logically flawed or simply unscientific. It is you who have erroneously conflated two separate aspects of ID, despite my repeated clarification.

I can criticise whatever argument I see given as a defence of ID. Just because you claim to have a different view of ID, that doesn’t mean I’m forbidden from commenting on the other defences I see.

See above for the first part here. As for the theory I’m familiar with, it’s Behe, as I’ve already mentioned. And I believe you have referred to Behe as if you knew what he was about, so I assume I shouldn’t have to explain his theory to you.

As far as I’m aware he rests his case on the hypothesis of irreducible complexity, which, as I’ve already pointed out, has been debunked countless times. Not once has a single example of his been unexplainable by natural processes. And even if that were not true, simply claiming that something is irreducibly complex proves not a damn thing. It’s an argument from ignorance. “I can’t see how this happened naturally, therefore it didn’t happen naturally. Therefore there must have been a designer.”
I’ve already pointed out the flaws in Behe’s arguments upthread, I’m surprised you’ve been protesting on the grounds that I’ve misrepresented ID. Behe is the personification of empty rhetoric, all he ever does is assert that X or Y is irreducibly complex, assert that “evolution has limits,” then completely and utterly fail to fill his invented disconnect. He asserts “design,” but neglects to explain anything about the designer.

No you haven’t explained why it’s unscientific. Your gesturing towards abstractions like “the established axioms of science” is about all the explanation you’ve given, so far as I’ve noticed (did I miss something?). I actually do understand the appeal to authority fallacy. An abstract appeal to the authority of “science” or “the established axioms of science” is not an appeal to a legitimate authority.

I’ve done what I can. The “rules” of science aren’t official law, they don’t even seem to be written down somewhere. That doesn’t mean they’re not real. To criticise me simply because I can’t point to an immutable “Rules of science” book is just bad form on your part. ID is scientific only if you redefine science to accept supernatural non-explanations to fill gaps in your theory.

But ok - let’s see if you contest the authority of the hundreds of thousands of scientists and teachers represented by the following official organisations:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
“[T]o date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution…the lack of scientific warrany for so-called ‘intelligent design theory’ makes it improper to include as a part of science education” aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
“Is intelligent design a scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory? No. Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory” aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

American Astrononmical Society
“‘Intelligent Design’ fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers. Since ‘Intelligent Design’ is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation’s primary and secondary schools.” web.archive.org/web/20061206093237/http://www.aas.org/governance/council/teachevolution.pdf

(more…)

 

[wanstronian]

(… continued)

American Geophysical Union
“Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory.”

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
“‘Intelligent design’ is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. …“intelligent design” might be appropriate to teach in a religion or philosophy class, but the concept has no place in a science classroom and should not be taught there.”

Botanical Society of America
"The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. As professional scientists and educators, we strongly assert that such efforts are both misguided and flawed, presenting an incorrect view of science, its understandings, and its processes."botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

National Center for Science Education
“‘Intelligent Design’ creationism (IDC) is a successor to the ‘creation science’ movement…IDC proponents usually avoid explicit references to God, attempting to present a veneer of secular scientific inquiry. IDC proponents introduced some new phrases into anti-evolution rhetoric, such as ‘irreducible complexity’ (Michael Behe: Darwin’s Black Box, 1996) and ‘specified complexity’ (William Dembski: The Design Inference, 1998), but the basic principles behind these phrases have long histories in creationist attacks on evolution. Underlying both of these concepts, and foundational to IDC itself, is an early 19th century British theological view, the ‘argument from design’…IDC promoters focus less on “proving” creationism and more on rejecting evolution and redefining science to make it more compatible with their version of Christianity.”

US National Academy of Sciences
“Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.” nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25

National Science Teachers Association
“We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.” nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794

Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences
“It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.” lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

Council of Europe
“Creationism in any of its forms, such as ‘intelligent design’, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes…[T]he intelligent design theory is anti-science: any activity involving blatant scientific fraud, intellectual deception or communication that blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science may be called anti-science. The intelligent design movement would seem to be anti-science for several reasons. Firstly, the nature of the science is distorted. Secondly, the objectives of the science are distorted. The writings of the leaders of this movement show that their motivations and objectives are not scientific but religious” assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm

Intelligent Design is not Science Intiative (a coalition of scientific bodies)
“(Intelligent design) is a theological or philosophical notion… Evolution meets all (scientific) criteria but ID meets none of them: it is not science.” web.archive.org/web/20070811105349/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html

International Society for Science and Religion
“We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language. Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of “irreducible complexity” in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes.” issr.org.uk/id-statement.asp

American Association for the Advancement of Science
“Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory.’” aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per26.pdf

Judge John Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
“we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/6:Curriculum,_Conclusion#Page_136_of_139

(more…)

 

[wanstronian]

(… continued)

The Science Council
“Intelligent Design is a creationist belief that suggests that the biological complexity of human beings is evidence for presence of a God or an ‘intelligent designer’. There are concerns that it is sometimes advanced as scientific theory but it has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and it is not accepted by the international scientific community.” sciencecouncil.org/Creationism.php

The Royal Society
“[ID’s] supporter make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treat gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist - as if they were evidence for a ‘designer’. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.”

Plus your Pope doesn’t believe in ID, I understand.

Is that enough authority for you, or do your own beliefs somehow trump the professional opinions of hundreds of thousands, not to mention the opinion of the head of the religion to which you claim affiliation?

No you haven’t.

Yes I have.

You have referred to the wrongness of Behe yourself, have you not? Therefore you must already know what Behe claims, if you know that it is wrong.

Yes, and I have mentioned the repeated debunking of Behe’s “Irreducible Complexity” bleat on this thread already. It seems I am supported by an overwhelming number of scientists and scientific bodies.

You lose.

 

[reggieM]

Is that enough authority for you, or do your own beliefs somehow trump the professional opinions of hundreds of thousands, not to mention the opinion of the head of the religion to which you claim affiliation?

Most of these 900+ scientists support Intelligent Design.
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Here’s a new scientific journal supporting ID
bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/index

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal’s scope.

 

[wanstronian]

Most of these 900+ scientists support Intelligent Design.
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Right - so your ‘authority’ is the creationist body The Discovery Institute, which invented ID purely as a way to circumvent the laws that prevent superstition being taught in science classes. Sorry, I gotta say I think that my list of legitimate scientific organisations (incidentally representing an order of magnitude greater number of scientists than yours) probably trumps your list of pseudo-scientific kooks.

Here’s a new scientific journal supporting ID
bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/index

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal’s scope.

Ha ha!! I like it! How best to answer the criticism that no ID paper is ever published in a scientific journal? Set up a ‘scientific’ journal purely for the purpose of promoting ID as a science!! I wonder who it’s funded by…? Why, The Discovery Institute! What a surprise!!

The trouble is, IDers can spout pseudo-science all they like; they can set up pseudo-scientific journals funded by lying institutions till the cows come home. It might fool the hicks who already believe in all this nonsense, but it won’t fool anybody who actually knows anything. And it won’t get ID into the science class. BECAUSE ID IS NOT SCIENCE.

 

[buffalo]

(… continued)

You lose.

Definition of Intelligent Design

                                      What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
           
                                                **Is intelligent design the same as creationism?**

                                      No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an  effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature  acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product  of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected  process such as natural selection acting on random variations.  Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how  the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design  starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what  inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the  scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern  biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through  science is supernatural.                     
                 Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge  the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of  Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of  intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees  the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent  design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to  conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers,  it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit  intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design  is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who  wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the  merits of its case.                     
                                 
           
                                                **Is intelligent design a scientific theory?**

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

 

[buffalo]

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

 

[reggieM]

Right - so your ‘authority’ is the creationist body The Discovery Institute, which invented ID purely as a way to circumvent the laws that prevent superstition being taught in science classes. Sorry, I gotta say I think that my list of legitimate scientific organisations (incidentally representing an order of magnitude greater number of scientists than yours) probably trumps your list of pseudo-scientific kooks.

Let’s see the empirical, scientific proof that your list is “legitimate”.
First, study geology, astronomy, physics and biology and find the word “legitimate” there. Then find the accompanying “correct” definition of the term. Then find in the rocks and neutrons how to “correctly apply the term”.
Failing that, you offer an opinion. It has as much value as anyone wants to give it.
Scientists who are more highly credentialed than you are support ID as science.
Therefore, ID is science.
That argument from authority is pretty simple.

Ha ha!! I like it! How best to answer the criticism that no ID paper is ever published in a scientific journal? Set up a ‘scientific’ journal purely for the purpose of promoting ID as a science!! I wonder who it’s funded by…? Why, The Discovery Institute! What a surprise!!

The trouble is, IDers can spout pseudo-science all they like; they can set up pseudo-scientific journals funded by lying institutions till the cows come home. It might fool the hicks who already believe in all this nonsense, but it won’t fool anybody who actually knows anything. And it won’t get ID into the science class. BECAUSE ID IS NOT SCIENCE.

As above, your opinions are interesting, but they’re just based on your own philosophical biases and assumptions.