In a message dated 9/30/2000 9:58:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
> And then there was Darwinism. This letter treats Darwinism as a
> straightforwardly scientific position despite the criticism advanced by
> many
> responsible, informed people that Darwinism itself rests not on
> demonstrable
> facts but rather on controversial philosophical premises. In other words,
> serious people make a case against Darwinism, precisely the case that
> Baylor's biologists themselves are trying to make against intelligent
> design.
>
Ah the ignorance of science is shining through in all its marvel.
Souder "... acknowledged University of California Berkeley law professor
Phillip Johnson and others for drafting his response."
http://inet2.agiweb.org/agi/gap/legis106/evolution.html
So much for relying on a source that has been demonstrated to not understand
the full extent of the science of evolution and who consistently confuses
naturalism with ontological naturalism.
or this one
"Even more egregiously, they say that God cannot be proved or disproved. Now
there is a philosophical statement for you. Of course many philosophers agree
with it, but there are philosophers of stature who disagree with it, too. Why
should the philosophical viewpoint of a group of biologists enjoy privileged
status? "
They say that God cannot be proven or disproven using scientific methodology.
There is nothing privileged about this viewpoint.
Check out http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/evol10.htm for more info on some
of the statements made by ID'ers
My question remains: Do any ID'ers intend to do some science to support their
assertions? Especially in light of the fact that significant problems have
been found with their arguments?
Here is more:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE
It is an old philosophical argument that has been dressed up as science. We
and other mainstream scientists refer to it as intelligent design
creationism. Some have referred to it as `creeping creationism' due to the
methods used by its proponents to sneak creation science into the
classroom. The hypothesis of intelligent design is that living creatures are
too complex to have arisen by random chance alone. However, we have
yet to see any scientific, empirical data to support this hypothesis. Some of
the proponents use statistics to show the improbability that living
creatures have arisen by random chance, but this does not say that living
things could not have arisen through such means. The members of the
Discovery Institute stress that the idea of design is entirely empirical. If
this is true, then their data should be presented to the scientific
community. If
mainstream scientists deem the data as evidence for design, then your office
will be flooded with messages from professional scientists asking for
more funding for design research. However, as the supporters of intelligent
design have never openly presented their data, we have to conclude that
either there is none or that it does not provide evidence for design.
THE PROPONENTS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN DO NOT OPERATE AS LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS
In science, all research must go through some sort of peer review. A
scientist requests funds from various agencies, such as the National Science
Foundation (NSF), which requires the scientists to give a detailed
explanation of the research to be conducted. After conducting the research,
the
scientist then publishes or presents his/her findings in peer reviewed,
scientific journals or at meetings sponsored by scientific organizations. In
this
way, other scientists can critically study the research, how it was
conducted, and if its conclusions are correct. Proponents of intelligent
design do
none of this. Their funding comes from think tanks such as the Discovery
Institute which have their own agenda. They do not publish in scientific
journals nor present their ideas at meetings sponsored by scientific
organizations. Rather, they publish books for the general public which go
through
no sort of review process except by editors at publishing companies who are
often concerned more with the financial gains and less of the scientific
merit of the book.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DOES NOT BELONG IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM.
Because intelligent design has no scientific, empirical data to support it,
we see no reason why it should be allowed into the science classroom. The
proponents of intelligent design would say that they should have equal time
in the classroom as a competing theory against Darwinism. However, in
science, a theory isn't given equal time, it earns equal time. Ideas should
be allowed into the science classroom only when they have amassed so
much empirical evidence as to gain the support of the scientific community.
Intelligent design has not risen to this level.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN COULD HAVE A SERIOUS NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SCIENCE EDUCATION
AND
RESEARCH.
Much of the proposed research from intelligent design deals mainly with
understanding the personality and limits of the designer. Within the
intelligent
design paradigm, a possible answer to any scientific question is `That's how
the designer wanted it'. This does not answer anything at all. How are
science teachers to inspire curiosity into the natural world when the answer
to every question is `That's just how it is', Also, we fear that future
school board administrators would cut funds for science education because the
role of science will have shifted from an exploration of the natural
world to an exploration into the mind of a supposed designer. This could also
have a negative impact on scientific research. Future Congresses with
the need to balance budgets may cut funding to the National Science
Foundation, Center for Disease Control, or National Institute for Health for
the
same reason as the school board administrator.
THE MEMBERS OF THE DISCOVERY CENTER ARE MISREPRESENTING MATERIALISTIC SCIENCE.
The current philosophy of science states that all observations must be
explained through empirical observations. Materialistic science does not say
that there is no God. Rather, it says that God, due to His supernatural and
divine nature, cannot be proved or disproved, thus we cannot consider
His role in the natural phenomena we observe. Therefore, the existence of God
is not a question within the realm of science. Many scientists have a
strong belief in a divine God and do not see any conflict between this belief
and their work as scientists.
MATERIALISTIC SCIENCE HAS GREATLY INCREASED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S QUALITY OF
LIFE.
Considering that materialistic science has been the predominant paradigm of
science for about 150 years, let us look at life in America before and
after the 1850's. First, all races were certainly not considered as equals.
Women were considered inferior to men in every way. Also, the number of
cause of death in women was giving birth. The infant mortality rate was equal
to any Third World nation today. People died of diseases such as
polio, small pox, and influenza. Mentally ill people wee locked up in
institutions that resembled the horrors of the Inquisitions. The average life
expectancy for people born in the 1850's was in the early sixties. Since the
advent of materialistic science we have shown that all the races are much
more alike than they are different. Medical health for women has improved to
the point that couples rarely worry if the woman and/or child will die
during birth. Also, women have become more empowered than any other time in
human history. Diseases such as polio and small pox have
essentially been wiped out in America. Also, due to improved sanitation and
health regulations, typhoid, cholera, and
malaria, are unheard of in America today. Mental illness is seen as a
treatable, if not curable, disease. Children born in the 1990's could expect
to
live to be ninety years old.
THE PROPONENTS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARE MAKING AN EMOTIONAL APPEAL AND NOT A
SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT.
The proponents of intelligent design are trying to use meetings such as the
one that you attended to make an emotional plea to the general public
about the ills that face our society. They would have us believe that all of
our problems in society can be blamed on Darwinism. As a U.S.
Legislator, we are certain you are aware of the many problems, great and
small, facing America. As any concerned citizen, we watch the news and
wonder why is there violence in the schools, why does racism and intolerance
persist, and why can't the greatest nation in the world feed and house
all of its people? The answer to these questions is neither Darwinian
evolution nor materialistic science. Rather materialistic science could be
the cure
for many of society's problems.
We thank you in advance for considering the above information and for seeking
more complete information regarding this important issue affecting
the congressional debate regarding science education programs in this
country.
Sincerely,
Cliff Hamrick, Biology Department, Baylor University.
Robert Baldridge, Professor of Biology, Baylor University.
Richard Duhrkopf, Associate Professor of Biology, Baylor University.
Lewis Barker, Professor of Psychology & Neuroscience, Baylor University.
Wendy Sera, Assistant Professor of Biology, Baylor University.
Darrell Vodopich, Associate Professor of Biology, Baylor University.
Sharon Conry, Biology Department, Baylor University.
Cathleen Early, Biology Department, Baylor University.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:H14JN0-828:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 13:47:47 EDT