Intelligent Design

[gluadys]

Wow,

I never thought there would be such a quick backlash on a Christian forum to the ID debate. And I am already reading many people here who do not "clearly" understand the whole debate that did occur in Dover concerning ID.

Who am I? I have nothing to hide concerning my position or identity, my name is David Napierskie and I was selected

Trying to get your post counts up fast, eh?

Now, what does the term "Darwinism" mean to you personally?

 

[vossler]

Wow,

I never thought there would be such a quick backlash on a Christian forum to the ID debate. And I am already reading many people here who do not "clearly" understand the whole debate that did occur in Dover concerning ID.

Don't worry, unfortunately it's quite normal. I went through the same thing when I first got here. Anything and everything that challenges the idol of evolution gets that kind of response.

Please disregard the naysayers, I personally would like to know more how this issue ever received the negative publicity it did. I assume that when the school board implemented this initiative that you had the support of parents. How did you so overwhelmingly lose it?

 

[notto]

How did you so overwhelmingly lose it?

When they couldn't show that ID was actually science in the courtroom.

That will usually cause parents to lose interest in something claiming to be science.

It was an embarrassment. The book that was presented as a book on ID was simply a book that had replaced the term creationism with the term intelligent design. It showed that ID is simply creationism which has already been shown and ruled to not be science.

 

[Dracil]

Yeah, gotta love the "cdesign proponentsists"

 

[Mallon]

I never thought there would be such a quick backlash on a Christian forum to the ID debate.

Because as most of us understand it, IDism is a dishonest approach, and therefore unChristian. If you believe otherwise, we can debate its merits here.

And I am already reading many people here who do not "clearly" understand the whole debate that did occur in Dover concerning ID.

The trial transcripts are all available online. Perhaps you would be willing to support your point?

 

[Perrard]

Wow,

I never thought there would be such a quick backlash on a Christian forum to the ID debate. And I am already reading many people here who do not "clearly" understand the whole debate that did occur in Dover concerning ID.

Who am I? I have nothing to hide concerning my position or identity, my name is David Napierskie and I was selected to take Bill Buckingham's position when he resigned. I am not one of the "original" board members when ID was voted on, merely one of the board members that went though the trial and re-election.

If you want to google my name up, you'll get a broad measure of the media's response to my position on the board and some of my questionable tactics after the election. I've had my play with the media and their very slanted agenda on the whole ID debate.

As for my definition of "Darwinism" I will offer the following:
... The term "Darwinism", ... has numerous meanings depending on who has used the term and at what period. A better understanding of the meaning of this term is only one reason to call attention to the composite nature of Darwin's evolutionary thought.
-- Joel Hanes

To Darwinists evolution means naturalistic evolution, an insistence that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects, which can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature, such as God. In the beginning, an explosion of matter created the cosmos, and undirected, naturalistic evolution produced everything that followed. Thus, no intelligent purpose guided evolution. If intelligence exists today, that is only because it has itself evolved through purposeless material processes.
-- Phillip E. Johnson

We can spend years here debating what exactly evolution means to each individual since it carries many distinct characteristics and definitions. I for one believe in segments of evolution. But understand that I do not subscribe to evolutionists that state that man was created through natural selection or merely evolved through cataclysmic circumstances.

ID in Dover was not a teaching tool to sequester our children into another line of teaching concerning evolution, and this is where the general public and media gets it 100% wrong.

ID was mentioned in a 4 paragraph statement that only referenced ID to the 9th grade biology students. Any "teaching" of ID was prohibited, and students were informed that they could research on their own, in the library, through a book called "Of Pandas & People".

For those of you who need a little educating concerning Pennsylvania, we have a "law" in place that allows parents/students to "op" out of any class they deem controversial or against their religious beliefs. Students or parents submit to the principal/administration why they believe a certain class or portion thereof would be a problem for the student. This also clearly applied to ID.

But instead the school district was sued by 11 parents (most of which never spoke out against the school board or administration for their actions) and 3 law firms. Furthermore we were persecuted by our local newspapers, the "York Daily Record" and "York Dispatch".

I feel that evolution in school must have an alternate view due to the significant ramifications it implies upon our children. Currently we teach out children that they evolved through some scientific process and therefor their lives just "happened". No divine insight, no importance to their creation, no hope, just a simple occurrence that evolved through millions of years.

Why can't teachers discuss the flaws concerning Darwin's "theory"? Nowhere are public schools given any latitude to even discuss any debate on this. Why? If the scientific community is so assured that their assumptions are full proof, then they should be open to debate.

Remember that before Darwin was accepted, the only acceptable scientific theory was creationism, read your history folks, creationism was taught as science at one time! And the Scopes Trial of 1925 was a defeat initially for Darwinism.

For all the intelligent people out there that want to profess their expertise and professed intellectual superiority, I find it hard to believe that they believe their inception into this world was due to cosmic dust, millions of years of evolution and natural selection.

 

[Perrard]

My apologies, I have a slow connection and I didn't realize my statements were being posted constantly. If someone could erase my previous postings. I meant to have everything post in 1 segment, not all over the place... Also I was still editing my post. d

 

[Mallon]

Currently we teach out children that they evolved through some scientific process and therefor their lives just "happened". No divine insight, no importance to their creation, no hope, just a simple occurrence that evolved through millions of years.

Correct. That's what Sunday School is for.

Why can't teachers discuss the flaws concerning Darwin's "theory"?

What flaws? Would you be willing to debate them here?

Remember that before Darwin was accepted, the only acceptable scientific theory was creationism, read your history folks, creationism was taught as science at one time!

So was flat-earthism, ether, and geocentrism. What's your point?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I feel that evolution in school must have an alternate view due to the significant ramifications it implies upon our children.

How about an alternate view due to the facts?

Currently we teach out children that they evolved through some scientific process and therefor their lives just "happened". No divine insight, no importance to their creation, no hope, just a simple occurrence that evolved through millions of years.

You seem to think that a science classroom is the appropriate forum for offering "divine insight," "importance to their creation," and "hope."

I should remind you that we also teach our children that should they fall out of a 30-story building, gravity will just "happen" to accelerate them at a rate of 32 feet/second/second. No divine protection, no importance to their preservation, no hope, just a simple stain on the sidewalk 300 feet below.

That can have some significant ramifications upon our children... where's the alternate view to that?

Why can't teachers discuss the flaws concerning Darwin's "theory"? Nowhere are public schools given any latitude to even discuss any debate on this.

Which flaws might those be?

Why? If the scientific community is so assured that their assumptions are full proof, then they should be open to debate.

You were given the oppertunity to debate in a court of law... both sides were heard, and ID came up laughably short. How would the classroom be any different?

Remember that before Darwin was accepted, the only acceptable scientific theory was creationism, read your history folks, creationism was taught as science at one time!

So was alchemy and astrology. Furthermore, at one time, slavery was taught as an acceptable moral practice, heresy was a capital offense, and an interracial relationship most commonly ended in a lynching.

At one time, people engaged in activities which are now considered absurd, obsolete, and/or barbaric. As a former member of a school board, your responsibility was to lead children forwards, not back.

Apparantly the voters felt the same way.

And the Scopes Trial of 1925 was a defeat initially for Darwinism.

How so? The issue was never whether or not evolutionary theory and/or Darwinism was actually true... although many people, then and now, wanted it to be the issue.

The issue was a simple question of law: Did John T. Scopes violate the Butler Act? Of course he did! That was the whole point of his action! Scopes was practically recruited by the ACLU to break this law, so that it would attract public attention. His guilt was a foregone conclusion... his conviction a slam-dunk.

For all the intelligent people out there that want to profess their expertise and professed intellectual superiority, I find it hard to believe that they believe their inception into this world was due to cosmic dust, millions of years of evolution and natural selection.

Well, you are entitled to your beliefs... nobody's denying you that.

 

[KerrMetric]

To Darwinists evolution means naturalistic evolution, an insistence that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects, which can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature, such as God. In the beginning, an explosion of matter created the cosmos, and undirected, naturalistic evolution produced everything that followed. Thus, no intelligent purpose guided evolution. If intelligence exists today, that is only because it has itself evolved through purposeless material processes.
-- Phillip E. Johnson

Johnson is describing an atheistic evolution with some non-evolution material thrown in to poison the well. Typical rubbish from him.

ID in Dover was not a teaching tool to sequester our children into another line of teaching concerning evolution, and this is where the general public and media gets it 100% wrong.

Not 100% - far from it in fact.

ID was mentioned in a 4 paragraph statement that only referenced ID to the 9th grade biology students. Any "teaching" of ID was prohibited, and students were informed that they could research on their own, in the library, through a book called "Of Pandas & People".

Would you care to tell us what the first copies of this book said?

For those of you who need a little educating concerning Pennsylvania, we have a "law" in place that allows parents/students to "op" out of any class they deem controversial or against their religious beliefs.

And this is why parents should have little say over curricula.

I feel that evolution in school must have an alternate view due to the significant ramifications it implies upon our children.

What, that they actually might learn some science as opposed to myth?

Currently we teach out children that they evolved through some scientific process and therefor their lives just "happened". No divine insight, no importance to their creation, no hope, just a simple occurrence that evolved through millions of years.

That is not true. The topics you list there do NOT belong in a science class. You have a Sunday School don't you?

Why can't teachers discuss the flaws concerning Darwin's "theory"? Nowhere are public schools given any latitude to even discuss any debate on this. Why? If the scientific community is so assured that their assumptions are full proof, then they should be open to debate.

Because the "flaws" are advanced minutae and not basic tenets of the theory. The kids are not ready for that level of biology.

Remember that before Darwin was accepted, the only acceptable scientific theory was creationism, read your history folks, creationism was taught as science at one time! And the Scopes Trial of 1925 was a defeat initially for Darwinism.

Which Creationism? Hindu? Christian? Islamic?

For all the intelligent people out there that want to profess their expertise and professed intellectual superiority, I find it hard to believe that they believe their inception into this world was due to cosmic dust, millions of years of evolution and natural selection.

You do realise this is an appeal from incredulity? It is also a mischaracterisation of many evolution supporters. You are implying evolution = atheism --- a well known canard of those without a real argument.

 

[gluadys]

As for my definition of "Darwinism" I will offer the following:
... The term "Darwinism", ... has numerous meanings depending on who has used the term and at what period. A better understanding of the meaning of this term is only one reason to call attention to the composite nature of Darwin's evolutionary thought.
-- Joel Hanes

To Darwinists evolution means naturalistic evolution, an insistence that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects, which can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature, such as God. In the beginning, an explosion of matter created the cosmos, and undirected, naturalistic evolution produced everything that followed. Thus, no intelligent purpose guided evolution. If intelligence exists today, that is only because it has itself evolved through purposeless material processes.
-- Phillip E. Johnson

I asked for your definition, not Joel Hanes or Philip Johnson's definitions.

I agree with Hanes that a better understanding of the term is needed, but I don't know what he means by the "composite nature of Darwin's evolutionary thought." Would you like to hazard a clarification. Not asking you to read Hane's mind. But when you read this, what does it say to you?

Johnson is clearly outlining a philosophical position which has nothing to do with Darwin's theory. One might ask in this case what group of people are Darwinists? Who espouses the notion that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed system and cannot be influenced or directed by any intelligence? He cannot be referring to scientists, since many of them do not make that assumption.

We can spend years here debating what exactly evolution means to each individual since it carries many distinct characteristics and definitions.

I note that after quoting what two people say about "Darwinism", you go on to speak of what "evolution" means. Are you then contradicting your sources and equating "Darwinism" with "evolution"?

"Evolution" may have many meanings outside scientific circles, but it has a clear meaning in science. It is the change in species over a span of generations, whether the small changes that occur in every generation that make for individual and varietal differences, or the long-term accumulation of change that leads to speciation.

I doubt you can find a scientific source that gives a different definition.

What "evolution" means to each individual is irrelevant in science class. In science class the only pertinent definition is the scientific definition.

I for one believe in segments of evolution. But understand that I do not subscribe to evolutionists that state that man was created through natural selection or merely evolved through cataclysmic circumstances.

I accept fully the scientific account of evolution, including human evolution. But I do not subscribe to the notion that humanity "merely evolved" through any sort of circumstances. That is not a Christian perspective on evolution.

I feel that evolution in school must have an alternate view due to the significant ramifications it implies upon our children. Currently we teach out children that they evolved through some scientific process and therefor their lives just "happened". No divine insight, no importance to their creation, no hope, just a simple occurrence that evolved through millions of years.

It is not up to the public school to teach theology. But teachers should not be teaching children that science or any scientific theory is opposed to religious beliefs either. The teaching of evolution does not require teaching an atheist philosophy and any teacher adding such a philosophy to the teaching of science should be reprimanded and shown the proper way to teach the topic.

Why can't teachers discuss the flaws concerning Darwin's "theory"?

Most of the so-called flaws are either misrepresentations of evolution or deal with details that require a post-secondary understanding of evolution to evaluate. I have yet to see a flaw that deserves mention in a primary or secondary school classroom.

Nowhere are public schools given any latitude to even discuss any debate on this. Why? If the scientific community is so assured that their assumptions are full proof, then they should be open to debate.

As I see it, the scientific community is not concerned with assumptions. It is concerned that students learn scientific conclusions and how scientists were led by the evidence to those conclusions. Referring to conclusions as assumptions doesn't make them any the less genuine conclusions.

For all the intelligent people out there that want to profess their expertise and professed intellectual superiority, I find it hard to believe that they believe their inception into this world was due to cosmic dust, millions of years of evolution and natural selection.

Well, you are in the wrong forum to speak to people with those beliefs. All of us are Christians here, and the TEs among us believe that the actions of cosmic dust, evolution and natural selection are part of the way God makes the world work, and that all of these things work according to the wisdom and purposeful intention of the Creator.

IOW the evolution = athiesm canard won't work here.

 

[KerrMetric]

IOW the evolution = athiesm canard won't work here.

We said the identical thing at the end of our posts.

 

[shinbits]

ID is science, because it's falsifiable. There's a recent thread with a whole bunch of posts as to why it is.

ID should be given a chance in schools.

 

[KerrMetric]

ID is science, because it's falsifiable. There's a recent thread with a whole bunch of posts as to why it is.

ID should be given a chance in schools.

How on Earth is it falsifiable?

 

[The Lady Kate]

How on Earth is it falsifiable?

I second that question...

 

[Dannager]

ID is science, because it's falsifiable. There's a recent thread with a whole bunch of posts as to why it is.

ID should be given a chance in schools.

Yeah, thirded. Could you provide us with one example of a piece of evidence that could disprove the notion that the universe or any portion of it was designed by a supernatural being?

 

[Dracil]

Shall I fourth that question? Yes, I think I shall!

 

[random_guy]

ID is science, because it's falsifiable. There's a recent thread with a whole bunch of posts as to why it is.

ID should be given a chance in schools.

If it was the thread asking for an improvement on the human body to show it was not intelligently designed due to a flaw, that didn't falsify intelligent design. No where in ID does it state the designer had to create without flaws. All it shows is the designer might be drinking on the job.

 

[shinbits]

No where in ID does it state the designer had to create without flaws.

This is true also.

 

[The Lady Kate]

This is true also.

So the existence of flaws doesn't falsify ID, rather, in indicates the possibility of an intelligent, but possibly incompetent designer...

Which brings us back to the question... how does one falsify ID?