Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

[Arrian]

Originally posted by The diplomat
ID is not creationism. Some religious people have tried to make it a religious theory by trying to say that the "intelligent designer" is this god or that god, but ID is not a religious theory. ID doe not identify who the "designer" is.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org.au/

You don't appear to be acquainted with the origins of the ID movement. It's a bunch of creationists, Diplo.

-Arrian

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Arrian
You don't appear to be acquainted with the origins of the ID movement. It's a bunch of creationists, Diplo.

-Arrian

Well, if you checked my link, you'd see that Dr. Alek Kwitko is an atheist scientist who supports ID.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Well, if you checked my link, you'd see that Dr. Alek Kwitko is an atheist scientist who supports ID.

Right.

god didn't make us, aliens did !

Blessed aliens.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Well, if you checked my link, you'd see that Dr. Alek Kwitko is an atheist scientist who supports ID.

You can always find one or two nutjobs in high places to support any point. Show some kind of broader agreement than just one guy, and then you'll have an argument. As it stands, the only people who say ID isn't religious are its own supporters plus Dr. Kwitko.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Well, if you checked my link, you'd see that Dr. Alek Kwitko is an atheist scientist who supports ID.

That's even more nuts than being a religious person who believes in it.

Who could this Intelligent Designer be if not a god?

If it's aliens who designed the aliens?

No, intelligent design requires a supernatural power, whether that be a christian god or something else.

BTW, looking at that site:

"The theory of Intelligent Design is NOT a religious explanation of how we came into existence BUT a new and recognised scientific theory with an explanation that even atheist scientists can accept", says Dr Alek Kwitko, a leading consultant medical specialist and research scientist.

That is just factually incorrect. ID has no scientific grounding at all. It's religious propoganda pure and simple.

[Sava]

Originally posted by The diplomat
ID is not creationism. Some religious people have tried to make it a religious theory by trying to say that the "intelligent designer" is this god or that god, but ID is not a religious theory. ID doe not identify who the "designer" is.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org.au/

IDer: "Life is so complex it must have been designed by someone!"

But by who?

IDer: "Sorry. It was just designed. I am not saying by who though."




Sorry diplo... I don't think so. IDers have been exposed. Their purpose is to push religion into the public school system. That's why the judge ruled against it.

PWNED!!!11

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Dr. Alek Kwitko is an atheist scientist who supports ID.

Where does he elaborate on his atheism, by the way ?

[Sava]

from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,7649863.story

The judge also said: "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."

Former school board member William Buckingham, who advanced the policy, said from his new home in Mount Airy, N.C., that he still feels the board did the right thing.

"I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state," he said. "We didn't lose; we were robbed."

The controversy divided Dover and surrounding Dover Township, a rural area of nearly 20,000 residents about 20 miles south of Harrisburg. It galvanized voters in the Nov. 8 school board election to oust several members who supported the policy.

[Arrian]

Diplomat,

ID was specifically formulated by a bunch of creationists after they got their asses kicked in the 70s/80s. The new plan was to pretend that they were just pointing out weaknesses in Darwin's ToE, not asserting creationism.

If you actually delve deeper, though, the moment these people think they've found a weakness in the ToE, out comes the "God did it!" crap. Look at the (ex) School Board members in Dover! Listen to what they actually say!!

Former school board member William Buckingham, who advanced the policy, said from his new home in Mount Airy, N.C., that he still feels the board did the right thing.

"I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state," he said. "We didn't lose; we were robbed."

There is the real agenda. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. That's just a ploy.

-Arrian

[Sava]

How does common sense help us find the origins of life?

[MikeH]

ID has caused real debate in the scientific community about how science is marketed (for want of a better word). This shows how something totally without grounding can be accepted as fact by significant portions of the general public if it's marketed correctly.

It's a real concern that the actual science will get lost in a storm of marketing. Not only that but there's the whole issue about people sponsoring research for various reasons and expecting results that they can market.

That could be environmental groups or oil companies or whoever. So, for instance, we're told over and over again in the media that antarctica is melting but we're not told stuff like it's melting at the edges but seems to be actually thickening in the middle and we don't actually know if it's losing mass...

The other problem is that the general public isn't scientifically literate enough to tell the difference between pseudoscience like ID and real science. If you make it sound complicated enough, they might well believe it!

Plus the general standard of science reporting in mainstream media is appalling.

[Chemical Ollie]

The designer must be more complex than the complex system of life on earth he created, so who designed the designer?

[Jon Miller]

MikeH speaks the truth

JM

[Az]

MikeH

I do think it's rectifiable - but the question is do the people in power want it rectified?

[Arrian]

The other problem is that the general public isn't scientifically literate enough to tell the difference between pseudoscience like ID and real science.

Or patient enough to become so. The media certainly doesn't help.

I'm no scientist. In the end, I do have to take some things on faith. My faith, such as it is, is in the scientific method & peer review. Given that science is "done" by humans, it will not be flawless. It is, however, fundamentally different than (and, IMO, superior to) religion.

ID "theory" is an attempt to turn on of science's greatest strengths against it: the idea that every theory should be questioned & tested over and over, and that if a better theory can be constructed to explain things, that's the way to go (my clumsy paraphrasing aside, that's the idea). Except that ID does not offer an answer that qualifies as a scientific theory - it's answer is "see, science doesn't have all the answers! God did it!"

Meanwhile, of course, what happens when you question religious dogma?

Uh-huh.

-Arrian