The print copy of the H.A. has different letters, one of which is:

Intelligent design is 'pseudoscience'? by Rev. Floyd C. McElveen 

I can't believe that yahoo brought up Piltdown. Next time, he'll mention those "fossil" footprints in Texas of humans walking side by side with dinosaurs.

There's just one criterion that holds for science that doesn't hold for creationism (and "intelligent design" is just the latest alias for creationism): falsifiability. Any scientific theory can conceivably be disproven by new data. By its very nature, "intelligent design" is not falsifiable, because it is based on the principle of Biblical inerrancy.

Ergo, it is not science. It is an article of faith. I know plenty of biologists who believe in creation as an article of faith, but they do not pretend it is science. I also know plenty of Christians who don't buy the 7-day "model" for creation.

The entire "creationist movement" is fairly unique to the United States, BTW. Just another thing that gives furriners reason to laugh at us

Ho hum. This really is a slow day, huh? I guess I should post jokes to another thread or something...

USM Sympathizer wrote:

---

Invictus wrote:
 The entire "creationist movement" is fairly unique to the United States, BTW.

Invictus,
Why do you think this is the case?  I'm genuinely curious.  Thanks.

---

Well...the U.S. may be a catalyst, but we don't have a franchise on the squabble. I just returned from Vienna, where Cardinal Schönborn was raising eyebrows by raising the "intelligent design" issue:
Kardinal Schönborn wirft im KURIER-Interview den Kritikern an seinen Evolutions-Theorien Unsachlichkeit vor. Sie mögen doch beweisen, dass es keinen göttlichen Plan für die Entstehung...
Let 'em prove there's no divine plan, he sayeth. Note that the cardinal is good buds with His Holiness Ratzinger. I would anticipate more mutterings along these lines out of Yurp.

I hark back to my teacher, C.S. Lewis, who did believe in physical evolution. What he did not believe in, and thought to be a great threat, was the idea of moral evolution. He did not share our modern notion that people are getting "better" -- one of the fundamental teachings of my otherwise beloved "Star Trek" universe. And friends, I would say that the belief in human perfectablity by human effort is a pervasive "fundamentalism" all its own.

I wish the HA poll or someone would satisfactorily define "intelligent design" before they ask our opinion.

PS did anyone see in the news that the biblical pool of Siloam has just been located? Interesting, that.

LVN wrote:

---

 I wish the HA poll or someone would satisfactorily define "intelligent design" before they ask our opinion.

---

Well, LVN, I hear it is like this.

Creationism = god did it.

I.D.= an intelligence did it. (Notice I didn't use the word god. )

I guess I'd better stay out of this discussion . . . .  

Orderly Universe wrote:

---

Why is it that we speak of the law gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, but when it comes to evoluation we speak of the theory of evolution? If one can subscribe to the law of gravity, why can't they simultaneously subscribe to the theory of evolution? Indeed, they can. Ask yourself if you do, and you'll undoubedly answer in the affirmative. Can one subscribe simultaneously to the theory of evolution and the doctrine of creationism? Certainly they can. Many do. I believe there is a hidden agenda in this mounting national controversy between evolution and creationism. It is a political, not a scientific issue. When I hear the thundering roar of those who believe the two are incompatible, I can't help but think that the radical left evolutionists do not understand creationism; and the radical right creationists do not understand evolution. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand either of them.

---

Interesting discussion.  I would say there is a scientific theory of gravity that ("explains") predicts the observed phenomena of gravitation.  The theory works so well at the macroscopic level of our existence lay people (and scientists when speaking casually) call it a "law".  But that is imprecise language.

The scientific theory of evolution ("explains") predicts observed phenomena of evolution. (By the way there is evolution is all of science, not just biology.  For example in astronomy there is stellar evolution, but for some reason no one seems to bother debating stellar evolution and the bible.) 

Evolution says nothing about origins.  Most I.D. people confuse evolution with origins and ask, "Where did it all come from?"  Biological evolution deals only with the change in DNA over time.  It says nothing about what started it all.

 Check out:     http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q01

There is evidence to suggest that scientific theories may have some validity in explaining the origin of life on our planet and the changes that have taken place since its origin. However, there is not enough evidence to completely prove or disprove these theories and therefore render them FACT or FICTION. They remain THEORY.

Again, we have a problem of point of view and interpretation on the board. How many here have actually read Darwin's works for themselves? I'd wager that not many have made an in-depth study...most probably just remember what they were taught in high school or college. In its most basic sense, evolution is correct...organisms change and adapt over time...witness extinct short-necked giraffes and the heightening of humans over time. On the other hand, there is no concrete proof that humans evolved from apes; there is just suggestive evidence. To present evolution as THE FACTUAL representation of the origin of humans is reckless and irresponsible.

While there may be some evidence to suggest that evolution may be correct, but it cannot be proven without a doubt, so it remains THEORY and should only be presented as such. There is much that we do not understand about our environment. I look forward to the day when scientists are willing to admit that fact and begin teaching theories as theories and facts as facts.

What the Intelligent Design supporters are doing is not so very different than what is being done with affirmative action and other "reversal" strategies. Creationism was the only explanation taught for many years. Then scientists revolted and began a heavy-handed crusade to push evolution as the truth. The ID movement is simply a grass roots backlash against 50 years of teaching the THEORY of evolution as FACT.

I am quite interested at the thinly veiled disdain most here seem to have for those with religious faith. Understanding that some may subscribe to the "Religion is the opiate of the masses" philosophy, can anyone explain why this disdain exists? Why are those with religious faith inferior to those with no faith?

Comparing Apples and Oranges wrote:

---

 But if you are a scientist you have only one theory to use.

---

Comparing Apples and Oranges,

Close, but no banana. In science there are competing theories - not just "one" theory as you suggest. Testing competing theories is what keeps science viable (it also provides the fodder for many dissertations and other empirical research). Scientific theories are knocked down (disconfirmed) quite frequently. For some reason the theory of evolution seems to have become a religion for many scientists and beyond the realm of testing (I'm sure to get flamed now!), just as the theory of evolution has become a charged and emotionally- laden term for extremists at the other end of the spectrum.  

Suggestive of Nothing wrote:

---

Darwin does suggest that men may have evolved from apes. Having read it myself, I can tell you that it is there.

---

But think of the well known scientists whose theories have been disconfirmed and whose works are now of largely historical interest. People with tuberculosis, for example, used to be put in dark cold caves which served as hospitals. The theory behind that was wrong. What an unhealthy environment to  place to put TB patients. Medicine didn't persist in holding on to that theory of treatment when it was disconfirmed. Some of the early Greeks had rather bizarre theories about the nature of the human body. We no longer subscribe to those "theories."  But for some reason Darwin is very much like a God to some scientists who still seem to interpret his works literally.

Suggestive of Nothing wrote:

---

There is evidence to suggest that scientific theories may have some validity in explaining the origin of life on our planet and the changes that have taken place since its origin.

But this theory is NOT EVOLUTION.  Let's be clear and use precise language so we don't get confused.

 

However, there is not enough evidence to completely prove or disprove these theories and therefore render them FACT or FICTION.  They remain THEORY.

This is a confusion often made.  No scientific theory can be proven.  Scientific theories can only be "supported" by evidence or proven false.  You are trying to discuss a precise system by using laymen’s imprecise language.  Do you realize the theory of gravity can't be proven? 

 From the link I supplied earlier; "In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."

You are using the word "theory" in the nonscientific sense as a guess or hunch.  That is leading to your confusion.

 Again, we have a problem of point of view and interpretation on the board. How many here have actually read Darwin's works for themselves? I'd wager that not many have made an in-depth study...most probably just remember what they were taught in high school or college.

You seem to be the one confused. 

In its most basic sense, evolution is correct...organisms change and adapt over time...witness extinct short-necked giraffes and the heightening of humans over time. On the other hand, there is no concrete proof that humans evolved from apes; there is just suggestive evidence.

This is not true.  Evolution doesn’t say humans evolved from apes.  From the link: "...scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago."  

As I said above science doesn't deal with "concrete proof".  There is no "concrete proof" of the theory of gravity.

Your confusions are multiplying and making your logic invalid.

To present evolution as THE FACTUAL representation of the origin of humans is reckless and irresponsible.

It is the only scientific phenomena and theory available.  Again your use of the word "factual" is not scientific.  It is the best scientific explanation of the evidence observed.

While there may be some evidence to suggest that evolution may be correct, but it cannot be proven without a doubt, so it remains THEORY and should only be presented as such.

See above. Scientific theories are never proven.  Your word THEORY is incorrectly used with the layman’s meaning.

There is much that we do not understand about our environment. I look forward to the day when scientists are willing to admit that fact and begin teaching theories as theories and facts as facts. What the Intelligent Design supporters are doing is not so very different than what is being done with affirmative action and other "reversal" strategies.

Note these are not scientific but rather social activities proving that you were talking about two different things and confusing the issues.

 Creationism was the only explanation taught for many years. Then scientists revolted and began a heavy-handed crusade to push evolution as the truth. The ID movement is simply a grass roots backlash against 50 years of teaching the THEORY of evolution as FACT.

No. Science had no evidence to formulate a theory.  People used the bible and other origins stories for centuries.  Then science obtained evidence that needed to be explained resulting in the theory of evolution.  People of little faith felt threaten and could no longer blindly believe.  They produced the "backlash" against science to protect their belief system.  From the link: "Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.

 

 

---

Orderly Universe wrote:

---

Comparing Apples and Oranges wrote:  But if you are a scientist you have only one theory to use. Comparing Apples and Oranges, Close, but no banana. In science there are competing theories - not just "one" theory as you suggest. Testing competing theories is what keeps science viable (it also provides the fodder for many dissertations and other empirical research). Scientific theories are knocked down (disconfirmed) quite frequently. For some reason the theory of evolution seems to have become a religion for many scientists and beyond the realm of testing (I'm sure to get flamed now!), just as the theory of evolution has become a charged and emotionally- laden term for extremists at the other end of the spectrum.  

---

Of course they are competing theories. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.  I wasn't speaking of all of science. But as for as the phenomena of evolution, I know of only one theory presently used in science.  Of course, there are variations inside this theory that are being debated and tested.  But these are just different versions of how it occurred.  This is going on with any theory of science when you explore new areas. 

 

I don't know why you say evolution has become a religion to some scientist.  Give some examples.  I do know scientists get tired debating evolution with people who don't know science because they want their religion taught in the same course.  The fight is really between the rational and the irrational.  Science doesn’t believe in believing because it isn't rational.  If it were rational then it isn't "believing".

 

 

in the final analysis, there is no analysis.....previous post a sj faux pax