Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place
Do you believe in evolution?
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on April 27, 2008, 11:28:37 pm ---Sorry, but despite what you have read, there is no factual data supporting ID. It is a religious argument - a rehash of Creationism - and has no place in the academic community except in religious classes.
Are you saying that any crackpot idea has a place in academia?
That we should include Faith Healers in medical school? That to keep Faith Healing from being taught in medical school is censorship?
Do you agree with that argument? That's basically what you are saying.
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
"In December 2005, federal Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID must meet the same fate that creationism met in 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled religious doctrines can't be promoted in secular institutions under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Judge Jones wrote in his decision regarding a policy of the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district that added ID to the school's biology program:
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy...." " Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998). .... However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists' arguments: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. As already noted, however, even if their arguments are successful against natural selection, that would not increase the probability of ID." Excerpted from "Intelligent Design".
--- End quote ---
there again, you are conflating intelligent design with creationism and calling it crackpot. I don't see that, and I think that there is nothing to fear in an intelligent discussion of this theory on college campuses. however, there is a great deal to fear in the type of censorship that the film exposes, directly thru the interviews, and indirectly by creating a reaction on the left which exposes the true intent of the left.
Penthesilea:
--- Quote from: broketrash on April 28, 2008, 01:19:44 pm ---there again, you are conflating intelligent design with creationism and calling it crackpot. I don't see that, ...
--- End quote ---
ID is one variety of creationism, the neo-creationism. It tries hard to appear more modern and scientific (and distances itself from Old-Earth creationism and Young-Earth creationism), but is creationism nonetheless.
The hub of the whole ID movement is the Discovery Institute, a christian-conservative think tank. The Discovery Institute is a non-profit foundation which draws its financial sources from 22 other foundations, of which at least two-thirds state explicitly religious missions.
Furthermore it has authored a political and social action plan, the "Wedge Strategy". From wikipedia:
"The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]
Note: the Discovery Institute has initially denied the Wedge Strategy, but in 2005 admitted it is a manifesto of theirs.
I know the weaknesses of wikipedia, but the articles about the Wedge Strategy and the Discovery Institute are packed with lists of referrences, so it's easy to have a look at the sources.
Wikipedia article on Discovery Institute
Wikipedia article on Wedge Strategy
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: Penthesilea on April 28, 2008, 03:27:38 pm ---
ID is one variety of creationism, the neo-creationism. It tries hard to appear more modern and scientific (and distances itself from Old-Earth creationism and Young-Earth creationism), but is creationism nonetheless.
The hub of the whole ID movement is the Discovery Institute, a christian-conservative think tank. The Discovery Institute is a non-profit foundation which draws its financial sources from 22 other foundations, of which at least two-thirds state explicitly religious missions.
Furthermore it has authored a political and social action plan, the "Wedge Strategy". From wikipedia:
"The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]
Note: the Discovery Institute has initially denied the Wedge Strategy, but in 2005 admitted it is a manifesto of theirs.
I know the weaknesses of wikipedia, but the articles about the Wedge Strategy and the Discovery Institute are packed with lists of references, so it's easy to have a look at the sources.
Wikipedia article on Discovery Institute
Wikipedia article on Wedge Strategy
--- End quote ---
that is interesting, and seriously thanks for the research, but if proponents of intelligent design, whom I know, are not attempting to link intelligent design to old fashioned Biblical creationism in their argumentation, why should I believe that they are secret creationists?
If a Republican tells you that all Democrats are Marxists, and then to prove their point the Republican pulls up web sites "proving" that Marxism is the secret agenda of Democrats, but when talking to live Democrats you can not find any who are advocating Marxism, shouldn't you reject the "Marxian Democrat" theory as just an extreme polemic on the part of their political enemies? I think that this is what is happening to the debate over the debate over Intelligent Design.
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: broketrash on April 28, 2008, 05:09:41 pm ---that is interesting, and seriously thanks for the research, but if proponents of intelligent design, whom I know, are not attempting to link intelligent design to old fashioned Biblical creationism in their argumentation, why should I believe that they are secret creationists?
If a Republican tells you that all Democrats are Marxists, and then to prove their point the Republican pulls up web sites "proving" that Marxism is the secret agenda of Democrats, but when talking to live Democrats you can not find any who are advocating Marxism, shouldn't you reject the "Marxian Democrat" theory as just an extreme polemic on the part of their political enemies? I think that this is what is happening to the debate over the debate over Intelligent Design.
--- End quote ---
I'm sorry Broke but the majority of the scientific community and the courts have reviewed ID materials and arguments and they've all concluded that it's just rehashed Creationism. The ID people have introduced nothing new and nothing that can be considered a science. ID proponents are trying to force academia to accept ID as a science since that will give credibility to their position not because they have a credible position in the first place.
injest:
--- Quote from: broketrash on April 28, 2008, 01:19:44 pm ---there again, you are conflating intelligent design with creationism and calling it crackpot. I don't see that, and I think that there is nothing to fear in an intelligent discussion of this theory on college campuses. however, there is a great deal to fear in the type of censorship that the film exposes, directly thru the interviews, and indirectly by creating a reaction on the left which exposes the true intent of the left.
--- End quote ---
well I listend to Ben chatting with Glenn this morning and HE kept talking about God...and he is the star...so if HE says it is creationism...I will go with HIS opinion.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version