| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2005 06:41:54 AM |
| Object: |
Intelligent design is a viable science |
THEOCRACY IN ACTION
Porpaganda, misinformation. misrepresenting, lies, the tools of the
theocrats
http://www.bgnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/04/4343d672ebfac
Intelligent design is a viable science
October 04, 2005
The Oracle
University of South Florida
Creationism vs. evolution is no longer the only game in town. A new
contender has arrived: intelligent design.
Since its inception, naysayers have rushed to condemn the theory as
warmed-over “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” as Leonard Krishtalka, a
professor at the University of Kansas famously dubbed it. The denunciations
of intelligent design are again being pounded out by the hour on computers
across the country as a lawsuit against the Dover, Pa. school board has
brought the issue back into the light.
Schools within the Dover district teach intelligent design alongside
evolution. But eight parents in the school district are suing the school
board, alleging that teaching intelligent design is a violation of the
First Amendment’s clause establishing separation of church and state.
The case boils down to: “Is intelligent design a scientific theory or a
religious belief?”
The traditional Darwinian bulldogs have been quick to dismiss the theory as
non-science. Testifying at the Pennsylvania trial, Robert Pennock — a
professor of science at Michigan State University — dismissed intelligent
design as a form of creationism that fails to follow the scientific method.
“As scientists go about their business, they follow a method,” Pennock
said. “Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn’t really
fall within the purview of science.”
Pennock gives the standard response of those who attack intelligent design.
They claim it isn’t science and so has no place in biology, much less as a
competing theory to evolution within the public school system.
Despite the astounding popularity of this criticism of intelligent design,
it stems more from ignorance than a cold factual assessment. Intelligent
design promoters have offered two criteria to determine whether an organism
is a product of design.
First, Michael Behe posited the notion of “irreducible complexity.” In his
1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, Behe argued that certain organic mechanisms
(like the bacterial flagellum) could not be produced through progressive
random mutation and natural selection.
A flagellum requires all 40 of its parts to work; it would have had to
evolve all of the parts at once in a giant leap, not through slow Darwinian
steps.
Any organisms or mechanisms that exhibit irreducible complexity could not
be produced through evolution and become candidates for intelligent design.
While intelligent design’s first criterion is negative — showing the
inadequacy of evolution — its second criterion explains how the theory can
positively detect intelligent activity.
In his 1998 book The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press), William
Dembski introduced the concept of “specified complexity.
“An event or object that conforms to an independently identifiable pattern
and has a low probability of occurrence is an example of specified
complexity. For example, if you see a group of leaves on the ground
arranged into your name, you assume it was arranged by something
intelligent.
The probability the leaves just fell that way is infinitesimal, and the
pattern is independently identifiable — it’s your name.
What’s more, scientists already use the principle of specified complexity.
Archeologists use it to determine which stones are natural and which are
tools created by humans. The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence
(SETI) uses it to look for intelligent communication among the surrounding
noise of radio waves. It is also used in forensic medicine and
cryptography.
These criteria — specified complexity and irreducible complexity — provide
intelligent design with a clear method. Scientists test the theory by the
criteria and see whether the evidence supports or refutes the theory the
same way they can for other scientific hypotheses.
Notice that God hasn’t been mentioned anywhere in this piece. That’s
because God is not a necessary part of intelligent design. Michael Denton,
the scientist who jump started the movement, was an agnostic when he penned
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.
Intelligent design is not just dressed up creationism. Those who continue
to straw man the position undermine their own academic credibility. People
who think dogma is only found in religion should think again.
Just dare to talk about intelligent design with any of your science
professors. You’ll get a case study in dogma real quick.
Intelligent design is a viable science
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
