Intelligent Design in Universities

quote:

---

I believe the interest level is significant enough for administrators to consider offering the courses out of purely marketing and financial considerations.

---

That would be great, Sal. Good luck!

Just incase Sal has moved on (hes a busy guy these days) you can probably get the answers to your questions here:Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Centeror here:http://www.arn.org/index.html

quote:

---

My question, stemming out of general scientific ignorance---is to ask whether I.D. students are open minded enough to study traditional disciplines along with I.D. theories.

---

One would have to be an open-minded free thinker in the first place to rebel against the scientific authority and study ID...otherwise they would blindly follow the scientific masses in their unquestioning acceptance of neo-darwinism.

quote:

---

And this is an important point...one cannot really be against a theory such as evolution (or claim to be a proponent of a competing hypothesis) without understanding the theory you don't like. Look at it this way, if I set out to try to refute a study that someone else did, I make pretty darn sure that I know everything I possibly can about what they did, how they came to their conclusions, etc....I don't say, that study offends me or the first author is a jackass but I don't know what he did but he must be wrong. Another way to look at it, many of us on the evolution side have read ID publications and are familiar with what they propose...how many IDists are even familiar with the ToE?

---

IOW, one must blindly accept ToE...unless you are scientifically qualified. And if you are qualified, yet still don't accept ToE, then you are a quack...or a creationist in disguise...or supporting a hidden agenda or something...and open to ridiclule and bigotry.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-04-2005 11:15 AMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-04-2005 11:17 AM

quote:

---

An utterly despicable and cynical philosophy of education, scordova.

---

Then talk to the administrators and department heads. Its not Sal who set up the system, he's just working within it.Colleges have to consider profit. So, if someone wants a particular subject to be offered, profit plays a role in that decision, no matter what subject it is. Its a fact of life in America.Yes it would be nice if profit were not a factor in education, but it is unfortunetly.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-04-2005 03:32 PMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-04-2005 03:34 PM

quote:

---

Where is truth in science anymore as an investigative body of thought?

---

Well said.Your posts are well constructed and thought provoking. Thank you Jerry.

quote:

---

Exactly how is ID, which posits an unknown force capable of manipulating events on many scales in some unknown yet effective manner (a decent definition of a deity) not just a sham for simple religious creationism?

---

I can see how it looks that way, sort of how it can look like atheists and/or secular humanists support darwinism.I don't see how creationists could support ID...they differ on too many KEY issues...This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-05-2005 09:14 PM

quote:

---

Catholics
A large majority of Protestants
A large majority of Mulims
Hindus
Buddhists
A large majority of Jews

---

Seems to me that they would be equally entitled to accept evidence for ID. If they were to do so, would it mean that ID is creationism in disguise?This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-05-2005 11:56 PM

quote:

---

Why do you think that the ID movement specifically refuses to discuss the age of the Earth if not to keep Young Earth Creationists on board ?

---

According to this they seem willing to state their opinion:Did Edwards vs. Aguillard Spawn Intelligent Design? No | Evolution News

quote:

---

It certainly does; and old earth creationists, Jews, Muslims, agnostics and atheists. We don't particularly care what your religious views are.

---

Don't forget us Jedi The Force is indeed intelligent in its own way...and it is strong in you, Jerry!

One thing that is abundantly clear is that right or wrong Jerry is using science to argue ID...just has his opponents use science to argue against him.The scientific community at large needs to stop writing it off as nothing more than creationism.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-06-2005 01:03 PM

As an interested member of the public (as opposed to a member of the scientific community) I find this thread extremely valuable.Jerry has done a great job against several opponents. Frankly I tend to side with him at least in terms of this thread, partly because I sence more hostility from some of the others, which leads me to wonder how much their emotion clouds their judgement.Emotion is everywhere in this debate. One MUST empty the mind of emotion when dealing with issues like this. Otherwise you are on the path to the Dark-side. This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-06-2005 06:13 PMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-06-2005 06:14 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if the discussion has reached the point where it crosses over to personal judgement calls and interpretations.Can it be stated that the boundaries of this point can be reached in scientific terms? If so it seems silly to me to say ID is not science.Take Global Warming for instance. Some scientists are on one side of the issue, and some are on the other. Yet the majority does not seem to claim that the minority is practicing pseudo-science...just wrong in their interpretation of the evidence. Why? Because both sides are expressed in purely scientific terms. This is an important distinction.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-07-2005 11:54 PM

quote:

---

It is only philosophy at this point.

---

IF that is proven to be the case, I would then say that philosophies are like lenses through which science...and by extention all of humanity...views reality. Naturalism is the philosophical lens through which mainstream science would like to view the origin question. The question is, which lens brings the origin question into focus better?It seems to me we cant find that out until we try both lenses. We have tried the naturalism lens for long enough. For science to say, "No! we refuse to try that lens!" seems somehow...evasive.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-08-2005 02:26 AM

Schrafinator writes,

quote:

---

Now, do you mean methodological naturalism or ontological naturalism?

---

I believe ID is compatable with methodological naturalism. For instance, ID makes no references to a supernatural agent. For all ID seems to care the designer could be little green men from Mars...since its about design detection and not designer indentification...

quote:

---

The supernatural is not specifically denied by MN; it could exist, but MN has no way of detecting the supernatural.

---

Detecting earthly evidence of design and detecting the supernatural are two different things. The ID lens and the supernatural lens are likewise two different things.Paisano says,

quote:

---

Ask yourself why among mainstream scientists you'll find people of almost all religious views.

---

I assume you are refering to scientists whose expertise deals directly or indirectly with the origin of life. In sciences which dont deal with origin, it really wouldnt matter which ideological or religious 'lens' scientists use to view reality. Correct?So lets get more specific. Why would we find different religious views among mainstream Origin Scientists? Oh...wait. We dont. A religious Origin scientist is branded a creationist. A heretic. A pseudo-scientist. An outcast from the mainstream. Cut off from their peers. Well, they are in good company. Galileo for instance.Very enlightened we've become since Galileo's day, eh? Do you think he would be proud of the mainstream scientific community if he were alive today?Pure science is impartial to a particular ideology or religion. Its the different interpretations of the evidence that differentiates the scientists at this point.

quote:

---

Do indeed be objective.

---

I'm trying!! This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-08-2005 06:31 PM

To put some of what I was saying in another way, I found this excerpt,

quote:

---

Both ID and universal common descent are causal history explanations. Furthermore, they are both use abduction - an inference to the best explanation. They both look at biological features that we see today and attempt to give the best explanation for what we see. Meyer argues that because of this, they are methodologically equivalent theories. What this means is that while specific descent or design theories may be better or worse than the other, in general, design and descent are scientific equals. That is, if you hold one to be science, then the other one must also be science (whether either of them are good or bad science cannot be known until the specific theories are looked at, however).

---

prosthesis