“One approach deduces a theory based on a loop of observation and testing... The other starts with faith in the desired outcome and looks for reasons to support the foregone conclusion.

It's backasswards.”

“I don’t think I have any objections to most of that, Nigal. I will say that...

…the theory of life beginning from ooze

…is not Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory is that all life is related. It is a theory based on the concept of “descent with modification” meaning that more complex creatures evolve from simpler ancestors over time. The process for modification, called natural selection, is based on the passing on of beneficial genetic mutations from generation to generation. Recall that his book was called, “Origin of Species”… a study of the diversity of life.

“Belief” doesn’t enter into it. The scientific method is a totally open framework for approaching problems. It is a four part process:

1. Observe and describe a phenomenon.
2. Form a hypothesis to describe the phenomenon.
3. Use the hypothesis to predict other phenomena.
4. Perform experiments that test the predictions the hypothesis makes.

If the experiments of the predictions prove accurate then our confidence in the hypothesis is improved. We may devise other experiments to further test the hypothesis. After numerous tests have passed and a number of peers have reviewed and accepted the work as valid, the hypothesis may at some point be called a “theory” because it has proven useful. This in no way means it’s an accepted fact never to be tested again. In fact should the hypothesis or theory ever prove inaccurate it is not unlikely it could be modified or thrown out altogether.

So any scientist who claims to be a positivist would be willing to consider Intelligent Design as a plausible hypothesis under these terms. So now that a hypothesis has been formed (steps 1 and 2 are complete) one would move to steps 3 and 4. Sadly this is where I see those that support the hypothesis of Intelligent Design break down.

Arguments against Evolution aren’t the same thing as the sort of predictions and tests one would require to support a scientific hypothesis. That is to say, arguments against Evolution aren’t support for Intelligent Design. Likewise arguments for Intelligent Design aren’t arguments against Evolution. Another way to say this is that if you want to talk about Intelligent Design as a theory then you need to do so based only on the theory of Intelligent Design, the predictions it makes, and the measurements that have supported its position. It’s relation to Evolution is irrelevant.

Sadly if you look at the quote from my last posting you will see that groups like ARN haven’t figured this out.

Through this two-pronged approach of critiquing Darwinism on the one hand and providing a positive alternative on the other, the Intelligent Design movement has rapidly gained adherents among the best and brightest in the academy. Already it is responsible for Darwinism losing its corner on the intellectual market. If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy. And since no aspect of western culture has escaped Darwinism's influence, so no aspect of western culture will escape reevaluation in the light of Intelligent Design.

This approach isn’t the scientific method. It’s religious politicking in the form of “pseudo-science”.”

“"…the theory of life beginning from ooze

…is not Darwin’s theory."

Exactly. I mean Darwin believed in a Creator. I think if you remove the very beginning there's really not that much controversy to it. Both beginnings are unprovable.

I would be interested in what other theories there are besides these two because I’d be interested in having them presented as well. Key word presented. I don’t care for how Darwin’s theory is taught as fact now.

But really this is all way above my head anyhow which is why I generally stay on the sidelines. That and my view comes more from the spiritual and mystical views. It’s only when one theory is said to be presentable and the other isn’t that I chirp in. I’d say the same for anyone who wanted Darwin’s work removed too.”

“Haha, I can relate. I have done a lot of reading but it's not my cup of tea.”

“Nigal

As stated above, the Theory of Evolution does not discuss the very beginnings of life.

You are right, the beginning of life from 'ooze' is not yet (and possibly never will be) fully testable and certainly not yet proveable. Science classes do not have much to say about what caused the beginnings of life. Science classes discuss what has been observed (ex. stratigraphy and the fossil record), what has been tested (famous example of the grad student with his early Earth environment in a flask...protein combinations (??)), and offer some possible reasons. This is why it is science. Folks are looking for the underlying causes and trying to test out of their hypothesis'....but not stating that A. definatly happened because of B.

TESTABILITY and OBSERVATION. Theory of Evolution has both of those parts. And as Darwin said at the time Origin of a Species was published....it's not a perfect theory and there is so much more work to be done on it.

Now, on to creationsim and intelligent design. These two beliefs, and all other 'creation by higher being' ideas derived from the other beilef systems of different cultures, are just that - beliefs. You cannot test these ideas. Ever. The basic tenant of these ideas requires faith. Not scientifically testable.

Religous beliefs belong in religous settings or theology classes and not in a science class. To discuss religous beliefs in a science class is a waste of precious time which is needed for the development of scientific minds.

"It’s only when one theory is said to be presentable and the other isn’t that I chirp in."
Nigal
7:16:27 PM
9/04/05
ignore this user

There are very good reasons behind the raging arguement between the scientific community and the religious community. I think most of the confusion comes from the fact that most people do not really understand what it means to approach something scientifically and what it means to approach something on the basis of faith. I also think most people do not undestand what the Theory of Evolution is. They just hear from someone else that "man evloved from apes". This is not the theory. Another problem is that people do just what you've admitted to doing Nigal (and I think it's perfectly human to do so)...and that is to "chirp in" on something without fully exploring all the angles of the debate. In the process, a tremendous amount of misinformation is passed along.

Theory of Evolution - scientifically based (open to being proved wrong)

Creationism/Intelligent Design - faith based
(not testable)”

“Please don't take offense at this Twink but let me know when ya get your phd in evolutional studies. :) I appreciate your point of view though.

Thanks anyhow though.
last edited: 9/05/05 11:52:22 AM”

“Nigal, the PhD thing doesn't really enter into it. The scientific method (which is all Twinkle Toes is talking about) is very simple and is taught in elementary school.

1. Observe and describe a phenomenon.
2. Form a hypothesis to describe the phenomenon.
3. Use the hypothesis to predict other phenomena.
4. Perform experiments that test the predictions the hypothesis makes.

Sadly if you look at the quote from my last posting you will see that groups like ARN haven’t figured this out. They only do the first two steps (observing and making a theory) but in order to support their theory they take a political approach rather than a scientific one. Here is that quote gain from the ARN web site:

Through this two-pronged approach of critiquing Darwinism on the one hand and providing a positive alternative on the other, the Intelligent Design movement has rapidly gained adherents among the best and brightest in the academy. Already it is responsible for Darwinism losing its corner on the intellectual market. If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy. And since no aspect of western culture has escaped Darwinism's influence, so no aspect of western culture will escape reevaluation in the light of Intelligent Design.

This “two-pronged approach” isn’t the scientific method. It’s religious politicking in the form of “pseudo-science”. They are replacing the “predict, observe, and verify” steps with “make arguments against Evolution and promote our theory.” It’s marketing at best and not science. They aren't proving a theory, they are promoting an "alternative" in an attempt to "unseat" a theory they don't like.

I have no issues with Intelligent Design being considered for inclusion in public schools, but I expect that it will be held to the same burden of proof that any theory would be held to. I am thinking that this isn’t something you would have strong disagreement with based on your prior post.”

“Quick question:

What books have you guys read that takes the possition of ID?”

““Nigal, the PhD thing doesn't really enter into it.”

So someone having a phd and viewing things from both sides has no merit and Twink’s view carries the same weight? To simply discount Id from the outset because you don’t feel it can fall within the four points is a bit dismissive. Both evolution and creationism have their points and they both seem to have their sticking points also. This does not mean they can not both be presented.

As I said before I take things from a largely spiritual and mystical view so I don’t even see why science has to be the single factor either.”

“A bit of an offense taken.

As pitts pointed out, the heart of the arguement is based on scientific method vs. faith. Both of which are discussed repeatedly in science classes from primary school through graduate studies.

Also, Nigal, you would be extremely surprised to discover what the people of TT are qualified in, or at very least, informed about to discuss. Though I do not yet have a PhD. in evolutionary studies, this is a topic which is closely tied to research I am conducting in both my undergraduate/graduate level studies (I'm doing both at the moment) level studies (both in a university and professional environment). Two of the projects I'm working on: 1) cephalopod adaptations and 2) coadaptations of 'parasitic' sponges and host molluscans.

I admit I've not read a book completely devoted to the topic of I.D., I have read several papers, articles, etc which discuss the stance of the idea.

Can you recommend any that you've read?
last edited: 9/05/05 12:35:38 PM”

“No offense was intended Twinks.

“I admit I've not read a book completely devoted to the topic of I.D., I have read several papers, articles, etc which discuss the stance of the idea.”

So you have completely discounted the theory with very little real research into it then?”

“I do not consider having read several scholarly papers, articles, etc (something which I continue to do) as "very little real research".

Please, Nigal, recommend some of the literature which you have read so that I may be able to continue to inform myself.”

“"Please, Nigal, recommend some of the literature which you have read so that I may be able to continue to inform myself.”

As I stated in the thread above that I just now got my first book on the subject. It's not a big issue for me. I was interested to see what those who oppose ID have read about it as there is too much of a "ID = Jesus Freak" tone and was wondering what everyone's actual grasp of the subject was.

I'm sensing a lot of anger here and havng had these types of discussions with you before I don't want this to drag on and get emotional. So please take the last word let's drop the whole thing. We'll call this a day and once I apologize for offending you.”

“For clarification, I'm not angry. I do, however, feel passionately about this topic because I see it as a way for religious fundamentalists to sneak religion into the sciences.

Here is a link to an article written by the founders of the I.D. network:
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

I'm in the midst of chemistry and geophysics homework and have not finished reading the paper. However, what I've garned thus far, and based on the information which I've alraedy gathered, the underlying implication for I.D. rests in accepting that there is an intelligent 'something' behind the design of life. For me that premise equals pseudoscience.”

“Nigal: I will openly admit that I have only read one book on the topic: "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology" by William Dembski. I highly recommend it. I would offer to send it to you but I know for sure it's buried in a milk crate in my garage somewhere. I have only read this one book, so I can't say how it compares to other books on this topic, but Dembski is an excellent writer and I found the book quite readable. Here is a link.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830815813/103-7539500-3770258?v=glance

You can get it for 11 bucks on Amazon. I wouldn't be shocked if your local library would have it. Perhaps others on this thread can recommend other books.

On the flip side you can always read "Origin of Species" by Darwin. I have read it several times. For sure your local library will have that. It is a shockingly easy book to read. Lots of people shy away from it because they think it's a heavy topic... well it's not a John Grisham novel but it's still fairly easy to follow. I have only read a few other related books, however.”

“To simply discount Id from the outset because you don’t feel it can fall within the four points is a bit dismissive. Both evolution and creationism have their points and they both seem to have their sticking points also. This does not mean they can not both be presented.

I totally agree. I am not dismissing Intelligent Design. I am only saying that the scientific method is a long-standing litmus test for the validity of any theory. It is a positivist approach to proving things out that has worked for a very long time. There is no reason why Intelligent Design should have a problem using the scientific method as a way to support it’s validity. In fact, if it was to use this approach and proved itself out I doubt there would be any problem getting it taught in the public school system.

My problem is that many proponents of Intelligent Design take the approach that if they can tear down Evolution that they have somehow proven the case for Intelligent Design. The approach of groups like ARN is to first “tear down” Evolution while at the same time “promoting” their theory. It’s an elaborate marketing campaign… not science. Now for sure these groups have a right to promote anything they want, but it’s not science (it's marketing) and as such has no place in science class.
last edited: 9/05/05 8:05:19 PM”

“looks like twinks is the new female liberal s-rge”

“LOL!”

“That's funny CB!”

“Does this mean she has to change her name to Tw-nkle T-es? LOL!”

“Both theories have their place in academics IMHO because both are improvable they are, thus, both equally valid.

Nigal, this is the kind of crap that IDers love to confuse the public with. The hallmark of a scientific theory is falsification, rather than "provability". The TOE is falsifiable and predictive. ID is neither. The TOE is scientific. ID is not. The TOE should be taught in science classes. ID should be relegated to a comparative religions class.”

“I can appreciate your view Mutt but to hold one single theory up as fact and truth and exclude all others is the same type of intellectual oppression that the Church used to participate in.

I’m not saying that ID is true over evolution or that it really should be put in public schools. I simply don’t like the academic community itself dictating what is fact and truth. If ID science is bullchit then it will come out in the class room.”

“but to hold one single theory up as fact and truth and exclude all others

No one is doing this - that's the point. Right now there's only one scientific theory, and that's the TOE. But *nothing* is preventing anyone from falsifying it. As a matter of fact, the scientist who does make a paradigmatic falsification of the theory will be as famous as Darwin, and will likely change the course of many different branches of science. That's the nature of science - to be open and falsifiable and changeable - unlike the stark opposite we see with ID/Creationism's "goddidit".

You simply conflate lay terms with scientific terms to make an invalid point - like Sarge was doing earlier with Pitts. Not teaching non-science in a science class is neither "exclusion" nor "oppression". Also, scientific fact != lay fact.”

“"You simply conflate lay terms with scientific terms to make an invalid point - like Sarge was doing earlier with Pitts."

gee, thanks”

“big bang
TOE
BIG TOE
ID
TOE TAG

my head hurts”

“its a crash bang big bang toe id thang!”

“underlying implication for I.D. rests in accepting that there is an intelligent 'something' behind the design of life. For me that premise equals pseudoscience.”

But if there is a pre-existing underlying implication that there IS no intelligence behind the design of life, it too is psuedoscience. There can be no predetermined exclusions if science is really "science", it must look at all data and all possibilities. And, whether you agree or not, there is MUCH scientific evidence to suggest there is intelligence behind life and the universe. Many many many many MANY many PhD scientists hold this view and question current teachings on origins.

I am only saying that the scientific method is a long-standing litmus test for the validity of any theory.

You cannot use the scientific method on origins of species. You just can't. It's impossible, and even if it could be done it would contradict "random mutations" because obviously mutations aren't predictable and repeatable. Period. If current evolutionary thought were able to be proved via the scientific method, it would actually validate intelligent design. Period.”

““its a crash bang big bang toe id thang!”

It's acrashbangsmokingdopeafterworkthang!”

“C.B. has a crush on my toes.”

“Pssst... Crash Bang... off-subject but I checked out your website (very nice by the way!) and on your "Photo Gallery Index" page you have a photo in the bottom right labeled "Half Dome" when in fact that's "Liberty Cap". FYI.
last edited: 9/06/05 6:21:48 PM”

“if there is a pre-existing underlying implication that there IS no intelligence behind the design of life, it too is psuedoscience.[sic]

I am not sure where you see this assumption. The fundamental thing with science is not to apply one little law or situation to everything. The idea is to approach problems with a wide field of vision. Intelligent Design, in fact, does the opposite of this. It takes a narrow view and applies it to a broad set of problems and then refuses to back up it’s claims.

That said, this thread isn’t about Evolution, is it? It’s about whether or not Intelligent Design as a theory is something that can be taught in science class. That means it must satisfy the Scientific Method which is a very time-tested way of measuring how valid a claim of a given hypothesis actually is. This process doesn’t involve “promotion” or comparison to other theories. Either your theory can withstand the process and prove itself out or it can’t. Yet look how ARN and other Intelligent Design advocates approach the problem (sorry for repeating this at third time):

Through this two-pronged approach of critiquing Darwinism on the one hand and providing a positive alternative on the other, the Intelligent Design movement has rapidly gained adherents among the best and brightest in the academy. Already it is responsible for Darwinism losing its corner on the intellectual market. If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy. And since no aspect of western culture has escaped Darwinism's influence, so no aspect of western culture will escape reevaluation in the light of Intelligent Design.

They don’t care about the effectiveness of their theory as a science, science class, or Public Schools. They don’t care about Evolution and certainly don’t want it taught alongside Intelligent Design. If they did they would make predictions with it and verify these predictions as the Scientific Method says they should. What they are interested in is displacing Evolution and having their views taught in its place… not along side Evolution as some would claim is their goal. Read what they say… “…If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism...”

It’s your brains they are trying to wash...”

“The idea is to approach problems with a wide field of vision. Intelligent Design, in fact, does the opposite of this. It takes a narrow view and applies it to a broad set of problems and then refuses to back up it’s claims.

Oh man! Anyway, pitts, I don't wish to get in a long discussion with you because I have neither the time nor inclination, but the fallacy in the above statement is glaring. You're saying "ID" has a narrow view, yet current evolutionary thought that AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDES it does not? ha ha! OOOoOO0ookay then. They both are theories independent of themselves and should be discussed on their scientific merit. It is, in fact, current evolutionary thought that won't allow this. ID says, "teach both", current evolution says, "exclude ID and ONLY teach me". So, pitts, you are most wrong in your assumption.

That means it must satisfy the Scientific Method which is a very time-tested way of measuring how valid a claim of a given hypothesis actually is.

We are talking about origins. No one was there with a video recorder or camera or taking notes. You cannot apply the Scientic Method to origins. You simply cannot. You cannot test it and repeat it and predict it. In fact you cannot even state how "life" was formed in the first place because we cannot even make life out of nothing as it is.

pitts, it's YOUR brains they are trying to wash with a monopoloy on thought that is questioned by a massive list of PhDs who they are trying to squelch. I have posted the huge list previously and they are respected PhDs from all fields of sciences. But I know how you feel about it and so be it. I know otherwise so we're good to go and we'll see how this pans out in the public arena. Whether you or I think one way is neither here nor there and has no bearing on the grand scheme of things. I just hope, for the sake of credible science and true discovery, that more than one theory on "origins" can be taught using the same scientific principles.”

“Personally, I believe that God set in motion the forces creation. I believe that humans evolved from other species. And, some time between conception and birth, God infused me with a soul. I have zero scientific proof for this because there is none. It is a belief.

But, I think that ID should be taught in the public schools. In fact, it should be deemed a "core academic subject." That way anyone teaching it would have to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind.

Anyone hoping to teach it would have to have a major or master's degree and certificate in intelligent design from an accredited university.

I would just love to see someone walk into the University of Michigan trying to get their "intelligent design" degree.”

“Many many many many MANY many PhD scientists

how many?”

“Gee, you didn't see the list? It was obnoxiously huge. I'm not gonna repost it here nor search for it, it's there if you wanna see it. I'm not into this debate like you guys are.”

“Okay, CB, I'll humor ya... it was a few weeks back.

-----------------------------------

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State””

“Here's a list from Ohio ALONE!

We Oppose:

• Religious or anti-religious indoctrination in a class specifically dedicated to teaching within the discipline of science;
• The censorship of scientific views that may challenge current theories of origins.


Robert DiSilvestro, Ph.D., Biochemistry, Professor, Human Nutrition, The Ohio State University
David Zartman, Ph.D., Genetics & Animal Breeding, The Ohio State University
Dale W. Schaefer, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Cincinnati
Daniel Kuebler, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biology, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Karl A. Weber, Ph.D., Physical & Theoretical Organic Chemistry
Paul Madtes, Jr., Ph.D., Chairman, Biology Department, Mount Vernon Nazarene College
W. John Durfee, D.V.M., DACLAM, Director, Veterinary Research Resources, Case Western Reserve University Medical School
Stanley A. Watson, Ph.D., Cereal Chemistry, Ohio Agricultural Research & Development Center, The Ohio State University, Retired
Mark B. Swanson, Ph.D., Biochemistry
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., M.S., Ph.D., M.S.B.S., M.P.H., Department of Biology, Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio
Walter L. Starkey, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Timothy W. Schenz, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry
William V. Everson, Ph.D., Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Fellow, Cincinnati, Ohio
Steven Gollmer, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Physics, Cedarville College
Georgia Purdom, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biology, Mount Vernon Nazarene College
David H. Ives, Ph.D., Biochemistry, The Ohio State University
Drazen Petrinec, M.D., F.A.C.S., Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine
James Menart, Ph.D., Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Wright State University
Jeffrey Weiland, M.D., College of Medicine, The Ohio State University
Rudolf Brits, Ph.D., Nuclear Chemistry
David A. Johnston, Ph.D., Research Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wright State University
George F. Martin, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Anatomy and Neuroscience, The Ohio State University
Melody L. Davis, Ph.D., Chemistry
Gregory Ness, DDS, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The Ohio State University
Leroy Eimers, Ph.D., Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville College
Glen R. Needham, Ph.D., Entomology, The Ohio State University
Sherwood G. Talbert, P.E., MSME, Mechanical Engineering
Joseph R. McShannic, M.D., F.A.C.S., Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine
Jerry D. Johnson, Ph.D., Diplomat A.B.T., Toxicology
Mitch Wolff, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wright State University
Gerald S. Wegner, Ph.D., B.C.E., Entomology
Robert Lattimer, Ph.D., Chemistry
John A. Fink, M.D., F.A.C.S., Associate Professor of Surgery, Northeastern Ohio College of Medicine
Don Mahan, Ph.D., Professor, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University
Pavi Thomas, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering
Donal P. O'Mathuna, Ph.D., Professor of Bioethics and Chemistry, Mount Carmel College of Nursing, Columbus
Kimberly Kinateder, Ph.D., Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Wright State University
Ron Neiswander, M.S., Chemistry, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University
Gerald P. Chubb, P.E., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation, The Ohio State University
Mark D. Foster, Ph.D., Chemical Engineering, The University of Akron
Kenneth S. Cada, M.S., Inorganic Chemistry
Arthur Dalton, M.D., Assistant Professor of Surgery, Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine
William Notz, Ph.D., Statistics, The Ohio State University
Patrick H. Young, Ph.D., Chemistry
William Shulaw, DVM, Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University
Robert E. Bailey, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, Prof. Emeritus Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Alfred Ciraldo, M.D., Assistant Professor of Surgery, Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine
Kim Laurell, DDS, MSD, former Assistant Professor of Prosthetic Dentistry, The Ohio State University
K. David Monson, Ph.D., Analytical Chemistry
Henry R. Busby, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Boshkos, M.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine, Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine
Richard Slemons, DVM, Ph.D., Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University”

“then they need to get to work proving it”

“Buck is simply re-hashing his oft-refuted b.s., but this is interesting:

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

and

We Oppose:

• Religious or anti-religious indoctrination in a class specifically dedicated to teaching within the discipline of science;
• The censorship of scientific views that may challenge current theories of origins.

Neither of these statements by itself is a statement against the TOE. In the first statement, *of course* one should be skeptical of the evidence! The mechanism behind macro evolultion is far from fully understood. That's just good science. Also from the first statement, *of course* one should carefully examine the evidence! Again, that's just good science, and that's exactly what scientists who are interested in the TOE do!

The second statement is much the same, *of course* no one wants "indoctrination" regardless of their view of the TOE. And *of course* valid dissenting scientific views shouldn't be excluded from discussion. Again, that has nothing to do with one's belief in the TOE.

The lists Buck provides are obviously meaningless.

The problem for the Creationists/IDers is the same one that has dogged them from the beginning: THEY DO NOT HAVE A VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Period. End of debate. There's no getting around that fact.”

“Personally, I believe that God set in motion the forces creation. I believe that humans evolved from other species. And, some time between conception and birth, God infused me with a soul. I have zero scientific proof for this because there is none. It is a belief. (reformed lurker)

reformed lurker: I have been thinking a LOT about this since you posted it. I have to say that this is well stated. I think a lot of people feel this way. This discussion on Intelligent Design is a bit tedious because so much of it is tied up in what you believe. I don’t mind wrasslin’ on topics like this so long as it’s in good faith and my posts aren’t seen as intellectual bullying. I guess I am trying to say I really respect your statement and specifically I don’t want be disrespectful.

For me personally, belief has two components. There are things I believe because I have faith… and it’s this faith that makes my belief strong. I accept these things as “proven” even though I can’t see or observe them because of my faith. You can’t prove that God knows you and loves you personally… you simple know it’s a fact… a fact reinforced by strong faith, years of experience, and quality fellowship.

I have no faith in science and never will. I don’t expect to believe anything it tells me without it gaining my confidence. I gain confidence in the theories science presents to me because of papers I read and experiences I have that support what it claims. The more things a theory claims that turn out to be correct the more confidence I have in that theory. Some theories have proven correct so many times that I can say I have such a high level of confidence in them I sort of “believe” in them, but would never say anything in science “proven”.

Intelligent Design is not a matter of spirituality. If it was it would have no place in public schools. It’s a matter of science. Those that developed the theory will quickly claim that this is the case. So like any other theory I expect that it will work to win my confidence by showing me what it is capable of doing. To date nothing that I have read (which I admit is only one book) has earned even the slightest bit of confidence. In fact, the statements that its proponents make have done just the opposite. Their approach of tearing down Evolution while promoting their theory is basically a lobbying campaign in my eyes. I see at as no reason to have any confidence in what they say.

So I agree with pretty much everything you say, but Intelligent Design hasn’t earned my confidence and until it does I feel its place is in a laboratory/university/seminary and not in the public school system. That is my personal belief based on my level of confidence in the theory.”

“bravo! bravo! well said, pitts.”

“Their approach of tearing down Evolution while promoting their theory is basically a lobbying campaign in my eyes.

Hi pitts®. I'm curious which ID book you've read? Most ID scientists are still evolutionists and don't shoot down "evolution" per se, just that random mutation and natural selection are not solely responsible for the origin of species and their development into what we see today.”

“I'd just like to say that it's really pathetic that someone out there finds it neccessary to slander me and circulate false, disgusting photos of me to other people on TT as the only means of making themselves feel better. What? Am I that intimidating? Is it illegal for a woman to have opinions and voice them? Do you circulate nasty things about other TT'ers when you feel intimidated or your poor little feelings have been hurt? Seriously, get a life! And next time, why don't you photoshop a body without crooked boobies onto a cut out of my head? Prick.

"Reigning Diva of TT"

ps - do you even know what the word harangue means?

pps - why don't you handle this in public instead of lurking and stalking...oh, I know, because you are a pathtic loser of a coward.
last edited: 9/08/05 11:44:48 AM”

“just that random mutation and natural selection are not solely responsible for the origin of species and their development into what we see today.”
Buck
4:36:25 PM
9/07/05

Prove it. Oh wait... you can't.”

“Somebody post those pictures so that we can decide.”

“Yeah, we should all see the pictures in order to properly judge their content.”

“Most ID scientists are still evolutionists and don't shoot down "evolution" per se, just that random mutation and natural selection are not solely responsible for the origin of species and their development into what we see today.

Again, this would be inclusive of many scientists who have no respect whatsoever for ID, but believe there probably are other unidentified natural mechanisms at work.

This is how IDers dishonestly try to inflate their numbers and supporters, as I pointed out earlier. And like the true ID proponent, Buck keeps trotting out the same refuted fallacies time and time again. Buck shows us that ID preys on the stupid - those who are susceptible to eventually believe what is repeated often enough. I have yet to see *any* ID argument that hasn't been shot down by science, but because there are so many stupid people, ID seems to be growing anyway. Amazing example of a meme...

Buck, you're dishonest and preying on the weak - whataguy!
last edited: 9/08/05 12:49:35 PM”

“This isn't new folks they have been pushing it for years, look back on William Paley's book from 1802 entitled Natural Theology..., where Paley compares the complexity of living things to the inferior complexity of a watch that we know to be designed by an intelligent being. Just as a watch could not exist without a watchmaker, Paley argued, living things could not exist without an intelligent designer. This argument from analogy runs as follows:

"in crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answwer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever; nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurtity of his answer. But suppose we had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had given before, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.

.....That the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended it's construction, design and use.

Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature, with the diference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation"

In Paley's case as in many other ID'ers the intellectual designer is "God"”

“Mutt, sorry, but everything you just said is wrong and has been refuted.

Phaedrus, use the scientific method to prove evolution. Oops, wait, you can't!

Twinkle Toes, personally I think your views are valid and well-thought out.”

“Wouldn't "God" be the intelligent designer by definition?

People define God as their creator and the creator of the universe, so obviously the IDer would be "God".

What would the IDer be if he weren't a "God"?

That doesn't mean they're pushing a religion, it's just the title of the IDer.

If they said the IDer was "Jesus Christ" or "Jehovah", etc., then that would be different.”