Intelligent Design, a Small, but Growing Movement in Univerisities

[scout64]

The world's most prestigious scientific journal recognizes the growing dissent from Darwinian evolution on the university campuses.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html

[RGD]

The world's most prestigious scientific journal recognizes the growing dissent from Darwinian evolution on the university campuses.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html Dissent among generally religously motivated students with little real knowledge of evolutionary biology. What is your point? These aren't scientists dissenting - the number of scientists who dispute the MS is quite small and doesn't appear to be growing (otherwise we wouldn't keep seeing Dembski and Behe's names popping up). <edited>

[RBH]

The money quote from Salvador was"The critical thinking and precision of science began to really affect my ability to just believe something without any tangible evidence," he says.Strange. "Critical thinking" was the mantra of the IDists in Ohio a couple of years ago when they were trying to ram ID into the State Science Standards. Now we see it's actually ID's enemy. Gee. Whoda thunk it?

RBH

[JLK]

As for his personal future, Cordova adds that he would like to continue pursuing a career in science. Next year, he plans to apply to study cosmology at graduate school.Only one guess needed as to why Young Earther Cordova would want to do that.

...Cordova explains how intelligent design helped him resolve his own spiritual crisis five years ago. Since high school, Cordova had been a devout Christian, but as he studied science and engineering at George Mason, he found his faith was being eroded. ...So Cordova turned to his scientific training in the hope of finding answers. "If I could prove even one small part of my faith through purely scientific methods that would be highly satisfying intellectually," he says.ID battle cry: "Follow the evidence! Wherever it leads! ...........to proving faith."

[Albion]

If you can prove faith by scientific methods, why bother to have faith? What does he actually have faith in if he thinks he's used science to prove it?

[PatrickHays]

If you can prove faith by scientific methods, why bother to have faith? What does he actually have faith in if he thinks he's used science to prove it?

Exactly. What is the need of faith if one has proof?

[erimir]

"The critical thinking and precision of science began to really affect my ability to just believe something without any tangible evidence"

And what a horrible thing it is to believe things only when you have reason to :rolleyes:

So he turned to ID - because it doesn't have any evidence, but it claims to be science. Now he's a faith-based scientist and everything's all good again!

The bit about the woman covertly proselytizing in Afghanistan is just ridiculous. The natural conclusion of that isn't that she's necessarily right about Christianity - another obvious explanation is that she's an idiot who is putting herself in danger for something that's not true. Which one requires more unlikely beliefs - that someone is stupid, or that Christianity is true?

But not like I expect anything better. The martyr argument seems to convince a fair number of people (of course, martyrs for any other belief are irrelevant).

*edit* I would say that I'm not opposed to classes on Intelligent Design and I might even take one - assuming these classes taught FACTUAL information and didn't OMIT important information either. Of course, no ID class could teach only factual information and give the whole story and have ID come off as the superior theory, so it's not really in their interest to have such a class. I don't even mean necessarily a class where ID is ridiculed or anything, just one where they're not allowed to rely on plainly false claims and have to allow the criticisms of ID to be fairly presented.

[Martin B]

I'm not too concerned about ID finding its way into science. Imagine if tomorrow every biologist accepted ID on some level or another. Then what? It provides no new information, answers no scientifically interesting questions, and basically tries to arrest scientific progress. Most scientists, being much more motivated than that, would continue on their merry way actually doing science. While they might find that ID is a nice belief it realy offers nothing to their work. It would disappear faster than it emerged.

[_Naturalist_]

I just want to hear the theory. Or perhaps they have several, to explain everything that is unexplained?

By the way, the article mentions ID as a way to bridge the gap between science and faith. First of all, why is this necessary at all? Secondly, what does ID have to do with faith? I thought it was a scientific theory! I suppose it wasn't. Oh well, no surprise there.

The only way to solve this entire problem with ID and creationism is to simply keep it away from science, and to never call it science when it isn't science.

[Meatros]

The world's most prestigious scientific journal recognizes the growing dissent from Darwinian evolution on the university campuses.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html


That took place at my old college! I can't believe it. I'm a little disappointed in my college and in the fact that I wasn't informed about this (my mother works at Mason and tries to keep me informed about these sorts of things going on around campus).

This is a bit depressing.

[RGD]

Silly me - this is an ego thread - I note that scout64 is Sal Cordova. He must be proud of getting his picture in the paper....

[DinoStoned]

Hm, is this trend only in the United States?
In any case, sometimes you can be well-educated and yet lack critical thinking skills . . .

[thexrated]

It will be very hard for some of the graduates from these universities to find a job in a future. Especially abroad. You probably have read already how some graduates from Kansas have been ridiculed, and not because they might be bad at what they do, but because they have this stamp of "Intelligent Design".

These movements aren´t as popular elsewhere in the world, as they are in the US. And when in the future you will compete for same academic jobs around the wolrd, the graduates from the US are already at disadvantage. Honestly, who wants to hire scientists who do not believe in Methodological Naturalism and Scientific Method, but vouch for supernatural?

What comes next? "Oh sorry boss, I can´t do research on that, it is intelligently designed and off-limits for us mere humans".

Or when some IDer is not capable of figuring out a problem, "Oh, it is so complex, it must be designed, no wonder we could not figure it out", and proceeds to move the problem in the section of Intelligently Designed.

In my opinion, likes of Cordova, are nothing but attention seeker, but who will in later in the life have problem finding any serious work in the fields of science. But we all know what is more profitable than doing science, writing books and lecturing. In away, it is a smart career move, he will get funding from some faith-based group to do "research" and spread the word, and at the end becomes probably better known than typical scientists in your country. If you looking for fame and fortune, ID is the way.

[pangloss]

Salvador?

My goodness, that was a terrible article. I agree with RGD - <edited>

He is still peddling the 'stack of coins' argument, for crying out loud...

[JPD]

I just want to hear the theory. Or perhaps they have several, to explain everything that is unexplained?


Its all gas and no trousers. They are trying to explain God without God (whatever they hold 'God' to be). All that is needed to integrate ID into society is, once or twice a day, an appointed ID proponent turns and says "You know, I think God designed this" and grins like a fool while the non-believers study the ceiling of whichever classroom, lecture theatre, laboratory etc they happen to be in at the time. It seems to me that they have given up on trying to demonstrate the undemonstratable - the existence of God - and have jumped onto the undemonstratable's activities, hoping that everyone will concentrate on that and forget that there is no evidence to support the existence of God in the first place.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Exactly. What is the need of faith if one has proof?
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful as a bacterial flagellum could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes like this:

'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'the bacterial flagellum is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading evolutionary biologists claim that the Intelligent Design argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm).

-- Douglas Adams, more or less ;)

[MrDarwin]

So whereas 0.3 percent of scientists in general, and 0.01 percent of biologists in particular, ever thought "Intelligent Design" was a workable scientific hypothesis, the numbers are now up to 0.35 and 0.015, respectively.

[anders]

Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book,
If that's so, you sure deserved it.

[JAKOB]

The world's most prestigious scientific journal recognizes the growing dissent from Darwinian evolution on the university campuses.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html


What I like about the paper is that it openly admits than there are (of cause) examples of biology that has not yet been fully explained (with respect to evolution and increasing complexity). That will probably always be the case, right?
This does of cause not constitute an argument in favour of ID, but it leaves the backdoor open for speculation about ID, a backdoor that will never ever be closed. That is an important realisation, I think. :huh:

[Oolon Colluphid]

If that's so, you sure deserved it.
Bloody agents. I've never seen a penny. :D

[RGD]

What I like about the paper is that it openly admits than there are (of cause) examples of biology that has not yet been fully explained (with respect to evolution and increasing complexity). That will probably always be the case, right?
This does of cause not constitute an argument in favour of ID, but it leaves the backdoor open for speculation about ID, a backdoor that will never ever be closed. That is an important realisation, I think. :huh:
But this door has always been open. Science does not dismiss ID a priori - after all, we have evidence of Intelligent Designers (us, ants, crows, other apes, etc.). We know they exist. The question is just whether Intelligent Designers are responsible for certain events. The ID movement has not put forward any reliable test for design independent of information about the designer - therefore we must dismiss the movement as being scientifically vacuous (e.g. Salvador, who is, in my mind more of an embarrassment to the ID folks than anything else).

So don't worry about ID being eliminated a priori - it's not.

[Non-praying Mantis]

Bloody agents. I've never seen a penny. :D

Maybe your other future philosophical works: Where God Went Wrong, and Who is this God Person, Anyway?, will sell better. ;)

NPM

[DarlingSin]

Bloody agents. I've never seen a penny

That's because you didn't go to the Great Publishing Houses of Ursa Minor to pick up your royalty cheque :Cheeky:

Good Adams paraphrase, BTW.

[perfessor]

Bloody agents. I've never seen a penny. :D
Let me be your agent. I'll pay double!

[JLK]

The world's most prestigious scientific journal recognizes the growing dissent from Darwinian evolution on the university campuses (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html).
The world's most prestigious scientific journal then recognizes (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341053a.html)... ...intelligent design tries to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature. This approach makes it less theologically heavy-handed than its predecessor, but it also poses a threat to the very core of scientific reason.
Nature editorial: Dealing with design

[JAKOB]

But this door has always been open. Science does not dismiss ID a priori - after all, we have evidence of Intelligent Designers (us, ants, crows, other apes, etc.). We know they exist. The question is just whether Intelligent Designers are responsible for certain events. The ID movement has not put forward any reliable test for design independent of information about the designer - therefore we must dismiss the movement as being scientifically vacuous (e.g. Salvador, who is, in my mind more of an embarrassment to the ID folks than anything else).

So don't worry about ID being eliminated a priori - it's not.

So the best way to fight ID is to always explain the limitations with ToE. Otherwise Salvador et al. will gain momentum by pointing out where ToE has not (yet) convincingly explained biology...

[RGD]

So the best way to fight ID is to always explain the limitations with ToE. Otherwise Salvador et al. will gain momentum by pointing out where ToE has not (yet) convincingly explained biology...
Not at all. We're not fighting ID - we're fighting this particular ID movement. A movement characterized by vacuous assertions, no science, and a theological agenda. (And here Sal remains the perfect poster-child). We are fighting the movement by pointing out the religious basis behind it and the lack of any science in what is claimed to be a scientific theory. The limitations of the TOE (I've no idea what you're referring to, since it doesn't have any) are not relevant to this struggle. This isn't about science: it's about religion and politics.

[Albion]

I think it's rather sad that people with science degrees are out there claiming that a particular theory must have a problem because it doesn't explain everything or because there are gaps in it. Such people really ought to know that this is the case for all general theories and that it's a sign of strength rather than weakness. The problem with a theory starts happening when it's contradicted by evidence, not when it doesn't fully explain every last little observation. The latter simply means that more work needs to be done and that the explanation is a work in progress, which is exactly what a useful theory should be.

The theory of evolution is no different from other general theories in having gaps; it's no different from other theories in having strength in depth of support by data. The only difference is that it gets up some people's noses for theological reasons. The response from creationists to this theological difficulty, which is to try and suggest that the theologically difficult theories are scientifically problematic in an attempt to discredit them and make them go away so that the creationists get to feel comfortable with their theology again, is just downright dishonest. If people are having theological problems with areas of science, they should be trying to resolve them in ways that don't involve trying to undermine those areas with claims that they're poor science.

[MagiNoir]

The world's most prestigious scientific journal recognizes the growing dissent from Darwinian evolution on the university campuses.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html

The dissent is has nothing to do with Darwin it is the Christian community Trying to separate them selves from Creationists and the Creation Science cult.
ID appeals to ill educated Christians who have given up defending creationists and it gives the non-fundamentalist denominations an alternative.
The myth the are trying to spread is that there is a movement of non-religious people but, this is only to make the churchgoers to keep their faith.

[RBH]

Welcome to II, MagiNoir.

RBH

[JAKOB]

Not at all. We're not fighting ID - we're fighting this particular ID movement. A movement characterized by vacuous assertions, no science, and a theological agenda. (And here Sal remains the perfect poster-child). We are fighting the movement by pointing out the religious basis behind it and the lack of any science in what is claimed to be a scientific theory. The limitations of the TOE (I've no idea what you're referring to, since it doesn't have any) are not relevant to this struggle. This isn't about science: it's about religion and politics.

Its seems logic to me that the ID movement benefits from (correctly) pointing out the gaps/limitations with the ToE theory, especially if evolution experts, in the heat of discussion, consistently become a bit fundamentalistic about the subject and will not recognize ANY limitations/gaps. There is of cause nothing controversial or new about pointing out the limitations of science. But from a common/non-scientific point of view the IDs come out as "rebellious truth speakers". That is in my view an important point of the paper, and as I said that is what I like about it.

Somewhere deep, deep down in the psychology of ID supporters, there is something satisfying about pointing out the limitations of science. Not purely from an actual religous point of view,it has rather something to do with "vitalism", and this appeals to many people, perhaps everybody? So the best way to fight the ID movement is to openly admit the limitations of ToE that we "experts" find trivial. So we disagree.

[RGD]

But Jakob, I've no idea what limitations you are referring to. Certainly I'm not claiming that we understand everything about how evolution works, but to work against a movement which says "well, the TOE can't explain A, B, and C" by saying "well, the TOE can't explain D, E, F, G, or H" is not only counter-productive, it's silly.

Better far to point out that the TOE does explain A, B, and C, and point out that the "theory" of ID presented by people such as Sallie is errant nonsense.

And why do you think that people enjoying pointing out the 'limitations' of science are doing so because they believe in 'vitalism'? Most of the people I know don't believe that at all.

[primate]

The myth the[y] are trying to spread is that there is a movement of non-religious people but, this is only to make the churchgoers to keep their faith.
But Salivadore and Meyer make it clear that ID is about religion. From the Nature article:the concept is that a divine hand has shaped the course of evolution
according to Meyer, is why a 1999 funding document from the Discovery Institute argued that intelligent design had "reopened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature"

Salivadore wants to use his scientific training (but not the scientific method) to "prove" that "Christianity [is] a True Faith™" in spite of his claims that ID "does not even attempt to prove the type of deity involved" or "have any theology to it."

The ACLU couldn't have asked for a better point man from the movement's vanguard.

[Limbo]

Criticisms of ID based on social, religious, educational, philosophical, or cultural grounds, including complaints about the identity, motives, or capabilities of the designer, miss the mark. Design theorists argue that specified complexity can be objectively and reliably defined and detected so that the probability of non-design nears impossibility and the probability of design nears certainty. This is intelligent design’s central tenet. It is on this point, and only on this point, that intelligent design as a scientific undertaking can be appropriately challenged and criticized.

[RBH]

primate wroteSalivadore wants to use his scientific training (but not the scientific method) to "prove" that "Christianity [is] a True Faith™" in spite of his claims that ID "does not even attempt to prove the type of deity involved" or "have any theology to it."As far as I'm aware, Sal has no real scientific training, even though he describes himself as a scientist in his ARN profile. He has degrees in engineering and math, and perhaps physics (I'm not sure about the third), but no science and (AFAIK) no post-graduate degrees.

RBH

[pangloss]

But Salivadore and Meyer make it clear that ID is about religion. From the Nature article:

Salivadore wants to use his scientific training (but not the scientific method) to "prove" that "Christianity [is] a True Faith™" in spite of his claims that ID "does not even attempt to prove the type of deity involved" or "have any theology to it."

The ACLU couldn't have asked for a better point man from the movement's vanguard.


Funny thing is, I doubt Sal and pals (is scout really Sal? patheitc!) even have the smarts to recognize the fact that they keep letting slip their lies (re: ID really is just creationism).

[pangloss]

primate wroteAs far as I'm aware, Sal has no real scientific training, even though he describes himself as a scientist in his ARN profile. He has degrees in engineering and math, and perhaps physics (I'm not sure about the third), but no science and (AFAIK) no post-graduate degrees.

RBH

I got a kick out of how in one thread on ARN Sal, as such folks often seem to do, tried to indicate that engineers are better scientists than scientists are and therefore should be given greater attention on all matters, especially if they are creationmists, and used as an example vonBraun and the space program. Someone pointed out that 1. von Braun was a Nazi who designed rockets that killed civilians and 2. much of the early space program was little more than trial and error, and referred to all those cool films of rockets blowing up on the launch pad and so forth. Sal had no snippy come back for that...

[pangloss]

Criticisms of ID based on social, religious, educational, philosophical, or cultural grounds, including complaints about the identity, motives, or capabilities of the designer, miss the mark. Design theorists argue that specified complexity can be objectively and reliably defined and detected so that the probability of non-design nears impossibility and the probability of design nears certainty. This is intelligent design’s central tenet. It is on this point, and only on this point, that intelligent design as a scientific undertaking can be appropriately challenged and criticized.

Well, that central point was identified as a result of the 'research' by those seeking to unroot 'Darwinism' and supplant it with Christian theology.

And as they have not demonstrated the validity, much less the applicability, of their central tenet, there is little else to argue against.

[RGD]

Criticisms of ID based on social, religious, educational, philosophical, or cultural grounds, including complaints about the identity, motives, or capabilities of the designer, miss the mark. Design theorists argue that specified complexity can be objectively and reliably defined and detected so that the probability of non-design nears impossibility and the probability of design nears certainty. This is intelligent design’s central tenet. It is on this point, and only on this point, that intelligent design as a scientific undertaking can be appropriately challenged and criticized. And this point has been quite thorougly addressed: even Behe admits that IC systems can evolve; and Dembski's Explanatory Filter is both logically flawed and unworkable.

That's why this is not an argument about science; this is an argument about whether religion constitutes a 'scientific' explanation of the universe.

[perfessor]

As far as I'm aware, Sal has no real scientific training, even though he describes himself as a scientist in his ARN profile. He has degrees in engineering and math, and perhaps physics (I'm not sure about the third), but no science...
At this point, I must clear my throat, raise my hand and say that, as an engineer, with degrees in physics and math, I can easily understand how a person with such training might loosely describe himself as a "scientist". I myself would not quibble with this self-description. But it can be misleading to non-scientists, no argument there, if used to imply a level of expertise in unrelated fields.

[RBH]

Perfesser, no offense, but I worked with engineers (aerospace and defense) for 10 years. I met my first spiritualist medium and attended my first materialization seance in the company of (believing) electrical engineers. My perception of them has been warped ever since. :)

RBH

[JAKOB]

But Jakob, I've no idea what limitations you are referring to. Certainly I'm not claiming that we understand everything about how evolution works, but to work against a movement which says "well, the TOE can't explain A, B, and C" by saying "well, the TOE can't explain D, E, F, G, or H" is not only counter-productive, it's silly.

Better far to point out that the TOE does explain A, B, and C, and point out that the "theory" of ID presented by people such as Sallie is errant nonsense.

And why do you think that people enjoying pointing out the 'limitations' of science are doing so because they believe in 'vitalism'? Most of the people I know don't believe that at all.

I think that pointing out the limitations with ToE is important when presenting it for the general population: the message should be "If you want a complete and uniform description of the world you have to go to religion, science can never give you that."
This attitude is not silly(!?), and in the long run will not be counter-productive.

[RGD]

I think that pointing out the limitations with ToE is important when presenting it for the general population: the message should be "If you want a complete and uniform description of the world you have to go to religion, science can never give you that."
This attitude is not silly(!?), and in the long run will not be counter-productive. So perhaps you'll answer the question: what are these 'limitations' that you keep referring to? And why would such a message - that science is inherently incomplete, but theology isn't - be beneficial in terms of eliminating bad science from science classes?

I don't see much point in counteracting attempts to introduce religion into American classrooms (which are bad enough already) by saying "religion has all the answers."

[RGD]

Oh, and out of amusement I'd like to point out that Sal is Ego-posting this link in lots of places on the web. EVCforum, for example, where he apparently joined solely for that purpose. Ah, the power of seeing your name in print.

[primate]

Criticisms of ID based on social, religious, educational, philosophical, or cultural grounds, including complaints about the identity, motives, or capabilities of the designer, miss the mark. Design theorists argue that specified complexity can be objectively and reliably defined and detected so that the probability of non-design nears impossibility and the probability of design nears certainty. This is intelligent design’s central tenet. It is on this point, and only on this point, that intelligent design as a scientific undertaking can be appropriately challenged and criticized.The conditional probabilities of supernatural design and organic design would both have to be known beforehand in order to make a valid comparison of the two. Supernatural design doesn't automatically become the default position if organic design proves impossible. This is called the Law of Likelihood. To date, organic design hasn't been proven impossible and no supernatural design of anything in the universe has ever been observered, let alone had a known probability of occuring.

Specified complexity equates to patterned improbability. Substituting this phrase into your sentence above, we get "patterned improbability can be objectively and reliably defined and detected so that the probability of non-design nears impossibility and the probability of design nears certainty." The meaninglessness of the jargonistic 'specified complexity' becomes apparent.

_________________________________________________________________

My daughter is working on her third grade science fair project. I tried to talk her into doing a science fair project on ID, but she had one recurring obstacle that she couldn't overcome. She identified her problem and framed it in the form of a question:

Problem: Are biological organisms supernaturally designed?

She then stated her hypothesis:

Hypothesis: Some biological organisms are the result of an intelligent agency.

Ignoring the problematic hypothesis for the time being, she ran into a brick wall when she had to propose an experiment to test her hypothesis, namely she couldn't conceive of any that would test for the supernatural:

Experiment: ?

Maybe Limbo could offer a suggestion.

[perfessor]

Perfesser, no offense, but I worked with engineers (aerospace and defense) for 10 years. I met my first spiritualist medium and attended my first materialization seance in the company of (believing) electrical engineers. My perception of them has been warped ever since. :)

RBH
No offense taken. I suppose it just might be possible that some small number of engineers could have an inflated sense of the depth of their scientific knowlege, and you just happened to meet up with them at the seance.

The rest of us are perfectly normal, however. ;)

[JAKOB]

So perhaps you'll answer the question: what are these 'limitations' that you keep referring to? And why would such a message - that science is inherently incomplete, but theology isn't - be beneficial in terms of eliminating bad science from science classes?

I don't see much point in counteracting attempts to introduce religion into American classrooms (which are bad enough already) by saying "religion has all the answers."

I am bit confused about whether you actually do not understand my view, or whether you just dont agree with it. I really dont know how to express it otherwise, so I will repeat myself:

The ID movement gains momentum from pointing out that ToE has not explained everything (as you said yourself). This is what I call a limitation. Others call it gaps. People with no real insight into biology may find this a surprising and novel statement and may therefore become interested in ID.

As for my "vitalism" thought, I think that many people is a bit offended by Darwin. Not that they neccesarily believe in the creation myth as an alternative, but in their everyday life they just dont see how natural selection has any relevance. Other than a cynical attitude to life. I have observed this attitude in several of my friends.

So when an ID guy take the stand and first states that ToE has not explained everything and next introduces some force/idea called intelligent design in its place, he may come across as both bold/rebellious (expressing the truth that nobody else dares to say) and likeable (presenting an alternative to the cynical thoughts of Darwin).
I think that was some of the reasoning behind the paper, and I like it.

[RGD]

I am bit confused about whether you actually do not understand my view, or whether you just dont agree with it. I really dont know how to express it otherwise, so I will repeat myself:

The ID movement gains momentum from pointing out that ToE has not explained everything (as you said yourself). This is what I call a limitation. Others call it gaps. People with no real insight into biology may find this a surprising and novel statement and may therefore become interested in ID.

As for my "vitalism" thought, I think that many people is a bit offended by Darwin. Not that they neccesarily believe in the creation myth as an alternative, but in their everyday life they just dont see how natural selection has any relevance. Other than a cynical attitude to life. I have observed this attitude in several of my friends.

So when an ID guy take the stand and first states that ToE has not explained everything and next introduces some force/idea called intelligent design in its place, he may come across as both bold/rebellious (expressing the truth that nobody else dares to say) and likeable (presenting an alternative to the cynical thoughts of Darwin).
I think that was some of the reasoning behind the paper, and I like it. No, I understand your position (though I don't agree with it). What I'm puzzled about is your comment that one should tell people that religion has all the answers - as a defense against the incorporation of bad science in science classes. You're not addressing that question.

[pangloss]

At this point, I must clear my throat, raise my hand and say that, as an engineer, with degrees in physics and math, I can easily understand how a person with such training might loosely describe himself as a "scientist". I myself would not quibble with this self-description. But it can be misleading to non-scientists, no argument there, if used to imply a level of expertise in unrelated fields.


There are certainly engineers that are scientists. But Salvador is not one of them. As best I can tell, he has never had a job outside in the field. Any field.

[scout64]

The title of junior scientist was the of the official title of the position I held when I worked as a defense contractor at the Army Night Vision Labs. My degrees are BS Computer Science, BS Electrical Engineering with a minor in music, and BS in Mathematics with a minor in physics so far.

I suppose there is been somewhat of an interdisciplinary rivalry between the Darwinian Biologists and the Creationist Engineers as to who does better science and what the definition of science is.


folk epistemology is close to that which works best for engineers, starightforward, consistent, factual, with no nonsense. In fact, there are an unusual number of engineers in the creation science movement

George M. Marsden
who testified in Mclean vs. Arkansas, 1983 against the creationists


As far as field work? Ha! Life in the ivory tower is the home of true electrical engineers. :)

[RGD]

The title of junior scientist was the of the official title of the position I held when I worked as a defense contractor at the Army Night Vision Labs. My degrees are BS Computer Science, BS Electrical Engineering with a minor in music, and BS in Mathematics with a Minor in physics so far.

I suppose there is been somewhat of an interdisciplinary rivalry between the Darwinian Biologists and the Creationist Engineers as to who does better science and what the definition of science is.



As far as field work? Ha! Life in the ivory tower is the home of true electrical engineers. :) Did you do any actual "science" while working as a "junior scientist" in the ANV lab? My understanding is that the lab is principally doing mechanical refinements to existing technology - the title junior scientist would appear to be something of a misnomer.

[Albion]

I suppose there is been somewhat of an interdisciplinary rivalry between the Darwinian Biologists and the Creationist Engineers as to who does better science and what the definition of science is.

Creationist engineers aren't doing science, never mind whether it's better science or worse science. The definition of science has something to do with the scientific method; creationism isn't part of that method.

[RBH]

The title of junior scientist was the of the official title of the position I held when I worked as a defense contractor at the Army Night Vision Labs.I also held that title for a year in a the development & evaluation laboratory in an aerospace & defense firm in the mid-1960s before being promoted to "associate scientist" and then "scientist" in the company's Systems & Research Center. In that firm, a "junior scientist" executed work designed and supervised by senior people; there was no independent activity as a "scientist". One was basically a glorified technician. At the "associate scientist " level one participated in research design and execution. At the "scientist" level one operated as a genuine researcher, devising research plans, obtaining funding, designing the experiments, supervising junior people in execution and data gathering, and having responsibility for data analyses and interpretations and for overseeing and doing report writing.

RBH

[Roland98]

In light of this post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1462272#post1462272), please refrain from insults to Salvadore's person.

Thanks,

Roland98
E/C moderator

[Roland98]

Discussion of "what is faith" sent to GRD. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=124008)

[JAKOB]

No, I understand your position (though I don't agree with it). What I'm puzzled about is your comment that one should tell people that religion has all the answers - as a defense against the incorporation of bad science in science classes. You're not addressing that question.

Of cause religion has the answers, that is what religion is for?!... nevermind, we disagree...

[MagiNoir]

- after all, we have evidence of Intelligent Designers (us, ants, crows, other apes, etc.). We know they exist.

Huh? What evidence? How are multicellular organisms indicative of design? :confused:

[MagiNoir]

Of cause religion has the answers, that is what religion is for?!... nevermind, we disagree...

If religion has all the answers, how come religious people don't have any answers?
:confused:

[RBH]

Huh? What evidence? How are multicellular organisms indicative of design? :confused:All the named organisms make and use tools or other artifacts (e.g., beaver dams, fungus-farming ants, tool-using crows and chimpanzees). They are designers.

RBH

[RGD]

Of cause religion has the answers, that is what religion is for?!... nevermind, we disagree... But does religion have science? - which is what we're arguing about.

We have people who, on the basis of religious motivations, advocate the introduction of poor or non-existent science into the curriculums at our schools. You would counter these people by telling the public that science is limited and religion has all the answers.

I'm just trying to understand why you think that's a good technique.

[pangloss]

The title of junior scientist was the of the official title of the position I held when I worked as a defense contractor at the Army Night Vision Labs. My degrees are BS Computer Science, BS Electrical Engineering with a minor in music, and BS in Mathematics with a minor in physics so far.

Well, just the person to disprove evolutionary BIOLOGY!


I suppose there is been somewhat of an interdisciplinary rivalry between the Darwinian Biologists and the Creationist Engineers as to who does better science and what the definition of science is.

Actually, I think any scientist is skeptical of the claims of any engineer that professes not only to be doing science better than they are, but in fact to be able to comment authoritatively on any field of science by virtue of their engieering background.
As is implied by your posts.
Toss in some nonsense about the space program and the flawed pseudologic is complete.



As far as field work? Ha! Life in the ivory tower is the home of true electrical engineers. :)

I followed the thread on ARN wherein you were going to 'prove' that molecular heierarchies should be destroyed if 'Darwinism' were true.

I notied that you never did. Also that you declared all of the sudden that you would actually perform the analyses and provide answers 'at your leisure'.

In other words, you had never done the calculations/analyses, yet 'knew' - with your engineering and music background - that the result you wanted would be the actual results.

Is that how creationist engineers do science?

You just 'know' what the answers are and so do not have to actually do the analyses? Maybe that is why von Braun the creationist engineer had to try and try again so many times to get a rocket that worked properly.

Shades of Warren Bergerson....

[primate]

In fact, there are an unusual number of engineers in the creation science movement

George M. Marsden Hmm, I wonder if there is some social psychologist somewhere who has researched this. I was talking casually with our firm's electrical engineer about 2 months ago when he told me he had been to church the night before and his pastor had told him that before the Fall, Eve had a pouch on her side which she could look into and check for babies. It was sooo difficult to suppress the inner howls especially given how earnest he was about this. All I could manage to ask was if he thought some vestigal traces might be found someday to which he replied, "Oh yes".

Intelligent Design, a Small, but Growing Movement in UniverisitiesYou mean 'Universities'.

[ImmortalTechnique]

Most scientists overwhelmingly reject the concept of intelligent design. "To me it doesn't deserve any attention, because it doesn't make any sense," says Bruce Alberts, a microbiologist and president of the National Academy of Sciences. "Its proponents say that scientific knowledge is incomplete and that there's no way to bridge the gap except for an intelligent designer, which is sort of saying that science should stop trying to find explanations for things."



from the article

[scout64]

Pangloss referred to the thread at ARN:

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/001918/p/6.html

[pangloss]

Pangloss referred to the thread at ARN:

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/001918/p/6.html


Yes, thats teh one.

A prime cautionary tale in trying to "prove" things that you do not fully understand.

I wonder - do you even know how wrong you were?

[Mentis]

Much of the interest can be traced to US teenagers, more than three-quarters of whom believe, before they reach university, that God played some part in the origin of humans.

So much of this interest is traced back to teenagers, huh? The fact that scientists are least likely to believe God played a role and that pre-college teenagers are most likely should show that an increase in knowledge decreases this notion.

Personally, I'm not really concerned with this movement. Most of those who support this are those that would believe it even if it wasn't taught. Scientists and educated, rational individuals will never believe something that can't be proven and is only in place because of lack of information. People who support ID do so because they need to have an explination for everything unknown. If we can't understand something or we really don't have a lot of information on it, they can just pin it on ID. It's convenient and simple, that much I'll grant them.

some biological systems are too complex, periodic explosions in the fossil record too large, and differences between species too great to be explained by natural selection alone.

In essence, they are explaining something that has not been completely proven with something that cannot be proven. How much help is that, really?