Evidence for God from Science

Okay, the trial has started and the ACLU are infringing and forcing and imposing secularism and evolution on our students. Instead of letting state decide democratically how and what they want their students to learn (let alone question evolution) the ACLU must force their will on the people using the courts. Let's hope and pray the Intelligent Design movement wins this case.

SOURCE: CLICK HERE

Dover Intelligent Design Trial Information

Here is another perspective:
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87429/
http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/D ... VsIDC.html

I am not Robert T. Pennock but I admire his work. In his book Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, he demolishes the arguments for Intelligent Design and reveals how it is a form of sectarian religion under the facade of science.

RobertT.Pennock wrote:Here is another perspective:
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87429/
http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/D ... VsIDC.html

I am not Robert T. Pennock but I admire his work. In his book Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, he demolishes the arguments for Intelligent Design and reveals how it is a form of sectarian religion under the facade of science.

And evolution is nothing but deist dogma converted to atheist dogma under the guise of science as well-but do the religious implications of a theory mean it's automatically wrong? I assume you will say no as you believe in evolution despite what it comes from.

I also doubt he has demolished Intelligent Design-you'd think scientists would have stopped debating Intelligent Design proponents if he had. And he obviously has his facts wrong-ID is the result of science, not religions presumptions. BUt, fine, believe it is, keep yourself sheltered :-p

Well, I guess you are correct about Pennock failing to demolish Intelligent Design Creationism because of the reason in your post. Pennock is not a scientist but a philosopher of science. Most importantly in Tower of Babel he quells the Christians' fears about evolution stating that methological naturalism does not falsify theism.

I do concur that evolution is sometimes taught as a dogma in public schools. An important aspect of the this view is abiogenesis. Biology textbooks cite the Miller experiment as a "proof" of chemical evolution but do not candidly discuss the scientific problems of chemical evolution. For example, they will site Julius Rebek's Amino Adenosine Triacid Ester as an example of a self-replicating molecule. Of course, it is not germane to prebiotic simulations because it reacted in a chloroform solution not in an aqueous solution, also the molecule replicated way too accurately for it to an example of neo-Darwinian chemical evolution. Another example of the "dogma" of chemical is the promotion of the vogue RNA World hypothesis. RNA is a favorite prebiotic molecule because it could act as a catalyst and it is also endowed with the ability to store information. Of course there are problems with this hypothesis as enumerated by Cairns-Smith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... th_RNA.asp).

The former digression on abiogenesis is meant to state that I argee that evolution should not be taught as a dogma to condition children to envision the world in the perspective of methodological naturalism. Rational inquiry should be facilitated in biology classrooms on this controversial topic and not be presented as a solid scientific fact. It is important to mention this could be achieved without any allusion to an intelligent designer (i.e. God.)
BTW, who else would be the Intelligent Designer? Why would aliens (as adocated in the Raelian cult) be considered an option? One must wonder how did they came into existence.

BTW, who else would be the Intelligent Designer? Why would aliens (as adocated in the Raelian cult) be considered an option? One must wonder how did they came into existence.

Ask Miller that one :-p that's his belief. Seeding from aliens. He has actually been quoted recently in a science magainze-can't remember which.

The former digression on abiogenesis is meant to state that I argee that evolution should not be taught as a dogma to condition children to envision the world in the perspective of methodological naturalism.

And that is all that the ID leaders want at the moment. The pro and cons taught, not just the pros.

Rational inquiry should be facilitated in biology classrooms on this controversial topic and not be presented as a solid scientific fact. It is important to mention this could be achieved without any allusion to an intelligent designer (i.e. God.)

But if the evidence points to it-if the trademarks of intelligence and design smear the universe...why not be allowed to come to the comclusion.

Ask Miller that one :-p that's his belief. Seeding from aliens. He has actually been quoted recently in a science magainze-can't remember which.

Which Miller? Did the illustrious Stanley Miller give up on the primordial soup paradigm? Kenneth Miller? He is an orthodox neo-Darwinian so why would be believe an intelligent being intervened in the developement of life on earth and even if he did believe in an intervening intelligence atleast "planting" the seed of the Darwinian tree of life, why would he say its aliens? He is a Catholic and I expect he would give God credit for creating the first cell not aliens alledgely doing His will.

Stanley Miller

Darwinian tree of life

There is no Darwinian tree of life-the evidence has replaced it with a front lawn.

Well, I guess you are correct about Pennock failing to demolish Intelligent Design Creationism

Being a strong ID advocate I take offense to these continual misportrayals of ID as Creationism being a given. If one can't see the differences between ID and Creationism, then I think they're ignorant to what ID says, or they are simply being intellectually dishonest.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:

Well, I guess you are correct about Pennock failing to demolish Intelligent Design Creationism

Being a strong ID advocate I take offense to these continual misportrayals of ID as Creationism being a given. If one can't see the differences between ID and Creationism, then I think they're ignorant to what ID says, or they are simply being intellectually dishonest.

Kurieuo

B) intellectually dishonest

I just came across an article which I'd recommend, that makes mention of that speghetti monster as an intelligent cause which became so popular, and I believe concludes honestly on the ID position:

In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears, researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying spaghetti. It's science.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... _creation/

Kurieuo

AS I see it the dover trial isn't really about ID, but about freedom of expression. Science classes should equip people and encourage them to think with scientific processes and evidence, promote independant thought, and explain the proper use of reason and logic. Science is becoming rotten and smelly.

I guess it depends on what one means when they say "Intelligent Design." The metaphysical applications of intelligent design are tolerable, but a science classroom is supposed to be empirical and unbiased. Personally, I am a patron of natural theology and the fine-tuning arguments but they are rather subjective in nature thus not being required in a public school classroom . I personally think the notion of God creating new species de novo or ex Nihilo absolutely unnecessary and replusive. Furthermore, it is NOT supported by the evidence. Let biologist Jerry Coyne speak about this topic: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05 ... index.html

Also I think the tone of Dr. Coyne would explain why most scientists are not embracing Christianity. He deems Christianity a religion which abandons rational inquiry to believe in a fantasy not supported by empirical evidence. Although, this is not directly expressed by Dr. Coyne, I derived the conclusion from the article.

RobertT.Pennock wrote:I guess it depends on what one means when they say "Intelligent Design."

True. I am not for creationists taking the term and applying it to their cause, and I am not for others saying it is simply creationism dressed up in a cheap tux kind of attitude. I often feel many over look what the main people behind the movement say in exchange for cheap media comments and misinformation by people who are simply repulsed by two words "intelligence" and "design".

RTP wrote:The metaphysical applications of intelligent design are tolerable, but a science classroom is supposed to be empirical and unbiased.

I am for ID not being taught in the classroom. It is simply not developed enough to even put forth a scientific theory. Did you know that the Discovery Institute (which essentially consists of all the main ID folk), are actually against the Dover school policy which suggests ID as an alternative? Instead "Rather than require students to learn about intelligent design, what [the Discovery Institute] recommend is that teachers and students study more about Darwinian evolution, not only the evidence that supports the theory, but also scientific criticisms of the theory." (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2847)

That is all. And I don't see why the protest if people accept that the science classroom should be empirical and unbiased. Clearly there is a bias, and one in favour philosophical naturalism. Of course naturalists respond, but "Science" only deals with natural causation and natural explanations. I don't believe this to be entirely true, since we have scientific fields such as archeaology and forensics, and such fields deal with non-natural explanations also. When applied to the field of biochemistry, cosmology, and so forth, let us assume it was indeed created by some unknown entity. What would we expect to find? What kind of information should be sought?

I see the article you link to may touch on such things, but it is quite long so I'm still to get around to reading it more fully.

Kurieuo

Also I think the tone of Dr. Coyne would explain why most scientists are not embracing Christianity. He deems Christianity a religion which abandons rational inquiry to believe in a fantasy not supported by empirical evidence. Although, this is not directly expressed by Dr. Coyne, I derived the conclusion from the article.

Then he doesn't know Christianity. The Apostle Paul, for example, says to see if something is true before believing it. I think your source is suffering the effects of the Age of "Englightenment" Hangover. But if you prefer playing with strawmen instead of playing with the big boys...fine.

It seems somewhat odd that he would say that-when science was started in earnest by Christians. I think they'd be good examples that Christianity does not in fact say abandon reason.