Update: Intelligent Design Movement

[suchandra 1]

This was to be expected, the materialists are outraged that according court decision teachers can present their own opinion and reasoning while teaching when they believe in intelligent design.

Instead materialists demand that "there should be no 'academic freedom' to be allowed to undermine the teaching of atheistic evolution."

Also tone is getting more and more aggressive, "This crap of intelligent design is exposed as nothing but religious fundamentalism".

Nice kali-yuga - all hell is let loose!

 

Thursday, May 22, 2008 The Post Exposes ID: West Replies

 

The Post Exposes ID: West Replies

 

 

The Washington Post tore into intelligent design a few days ago, saying, "Red-herring arguments about 'academic freedom' can't be allowed to undermine the teaching of evolution." For those who haven't followed the latest flavor of creationism, the ID strategy is to "teach the controversy" where they make up problems with modern evolutionary theory and say "Gee, this looks so complex that it couldn't have arisen by natural selection". Then the student is either to be told explicitly that there is an "intelligence" that "designed" life or allowed simply to come to this conclusion based on their Christian upbringing. The other part of the strategy is an appeal to freedom of speech. We're all for it, right? Of course. So why can't we have "the academic freedom" to "teach the controversy"? Well, because there is no controversy. In addition, is it really the place of middle and high schools to be on the cutting edge of research? Are biology teachers equipped with the knowledge that would allow a critical analysis of the intricate details of evolutionary theory? The Post has this to say: "Consider, also, that there really is no such thing as academic freedom in elementary and secondary education. A teacher can't deviate from the accepted curriculum to present alternative lesson plans or to offer his or her own notions." It is the job of scientists; specialists in the field to provide advise on curriculum. The goal of introducing "criticisms" of "a critical analysis" of evolutionary theory is to allow biology teachers with a religious bent free reign to interject their own spiritual beliefs and belief in the divine origin of humans. The "controversy" has been manufactured by religious zealots who have their own cultural goals.

 

From the Discovery Institutes' infamous leaked "Wedge Document":

 

"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. "

 

"The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. "

 

"Discovery Institutes's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. "

 

Let's not forget the Dover Trial in which the infamous term "cdesign proponentists" was exposed.

 

Let's hear what the cdesign proponentists have to say for themselves:

 

Jonathan Wells: "Father's words (Rev. Moon), my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."

 

William Dembski: "To lift that pall will require a new generation of scholars and professionals who explicitly reject naturalism and consciously seek to understand the design that God has placed in the world"

 

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." – National Religious Broadcasters, 2000

 

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." - Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.

 

"The world is a mirror representing the divine life...The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - with A., Kushiner, James M., (editors), Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001. "

 

Now, what is the Jonathan West said in response to the Post editorial: "Predictably, the Post asserts that the academic freedom bills are about “inviting creationism back into the classroom.” Except that they aren’t. In fact, the bills repeatedly and explicitly state that they only protect the presentation of scientific information, and that they don’t authorize the promotion of any religious doctrine." He even carefully quote-mines Lynn Margulis, who introduced and popularized the endosymbiont theory:

 

"Or to National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis (no friend of intelligent design!), who has written that “Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity change shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations leads to speciation.” (Acquiring Genomes [2003], p. 29). "

 

Margulis is very critical of the neo-Darwinian synthesis; which most all today will admit is incomplete (a new synthesis is in the works and includes development). Margulis is especially bitter because she was criticized for her idea for years. I personally think she goes too far from having read a few of her books. In any case, Margulis does not think the alternative to neo-Darwinism is intelligent design. She thinks the evidence points to serial endosymbiosis as the major source of evolutionary innovation and thus "macroevolutionary change".

 

West ends with an interesting little diatribe:

 

"I guess facts just don’t matter when the issue is evolution and you’re a writer for the Washington Post editorial page. After all, Post editorialists have a proud history of producing fact-free editorials on the topic (see here, here, and here). And the big media wonder why many citizens are turning to alternative sources for news and commentary?"

 

Given the facts that have been continually presented demonstrating the lies and deceit of the cdesign proponentists, it is supremely hypocritical to say something of that nature and have this as the statement of purpose on the DI blog from which West's article was posted:

 

"The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution. "

 

Posted by Clostridiophile at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://ofmicrobesandmen.blogspot.com/2008/05/post-exposes-id-west-replies.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" title="2008-05-22T06:09:00-07:00">6:09 AM</abbr>

Labels: creationism, evolution

[theist 1]

Yes they hate the idea of God so intently. Real science follows the evidence wherever it may lead and the conclusion comes after the facts are gathered. These are not real scientists they are simply atheist demons.

 

The word scientist refers to an investigator. Why are they afraid of the truth being revealed? Why are we?

[theist 1]

From Websters on-line.

 

<dl><dt class="hwrd">Main Entry:</dt><dd class="hwrd">sci·ence </dd><dt class="pron">Pronunciation:</dt><dd class="pron"> \ˈsī-ən(t)s\ </dd><dt class="func">Function:</dt><dd class="func">noun </dd><dt class="ety">Etymology:</dt><dd class="ety">Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed</dd><dt class="date">Date:</dt><dd class="date">14th century</dd></dl> 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

 

2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study ....e science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

 

3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

 

4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

 

5capitalized : christian science