Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID Failing--at Christian Institutions
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 1 of 38 (265343)
12-03-2005 9:50 PM


A piece by Laurie Goodstein appearing in tomorrow's NY Times looks at how Intelligent Design is striking out at Christian academic institutions and, intriguingly, already struck out at the conservative Templeton Foundation.
You can check the full article out here if you are signed up with NYT:
Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
First, from the Templeton Foundation:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.
They wanted to give money away to ID researchers and couldn't draw a single proposal.
How about Christian schools?
Goodstein notes:
While intelligent design has hit obstacles among scientists, it has also failed to find a warm embrace at many evangelical Christian colleges.
Does she back that up? You bet.
From Vanguard University, a Pentecostal institution:
"It can function as one of those ambiguous signs in the world that point to an intelligent creator and help support the faith of the faithful, but it just doesn't have the compelling or explanatory power to have much of an impact on the academy," said Frank D. Macchia, a professor of Christian theology at Vanguard University, in Costa Mesa, Calif., which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God, the nation's largest Pentecostal denomination.
Wheaton Univ., an evangelical university:
At Wheaton College, a prominent evangelical university in Illinois, intelligent design surfaces in the curriculum only as part of an interdisciplinary elective on the origins of life, in which students study evolution and competing theories from theological, scientific and historical perspectives, according to a college spokesperson.
At Baylor, a Baptist univ. and former home of William Dembski:
Derek Davis, director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor, said: "I teach at the largest Baptist university in the world. I'm a religious person. And my basic perspective is intelligent design doesn't belong in science class."
Mr. Davis noted that the advocates of intelligent design claim they are not talking about God or religion. "But they are, and everybody knows they are," Mr. Davis said. "I just think we ought to quit playing games. It's a religious worldview that's being advanced."
And what does the Discovery Institute think?
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific "fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
My, my. A scientist who regards skepticism as evidence of hysteria: isn't that like one preacher seeing another preacher's faith as a sign of demonic possession?
I think that's hysterical, too, Mr. West, and I'll sleep a little better tonight
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 12-03-2005 09:50 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by roxrkool, posted 12-04-2005 1:49 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2005 7:55 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 12-11-2005 3:49 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 10 by jar, posted 12-11-2005 4:08 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 19 by nator, posted 12-12-2005 9:24 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 2 of 38 (265460)
12-04-2005 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Omnivorous
12-03-2005 9:50 PM


Hmmm... that's very interesting. Even the Evangelical schools are finding ID lacks science. I wonder if they've tried changing the definition of science (a la Kansas) to look at ID... heh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Omnivorous, posted 12-03-2005 9:50 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Omnivorous, posted 12-05-2005 1:51 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 3 of 38 (265792)
12-05-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by roxrkool
12-04-2005 1:49 PM


Most Christian Academics More Sensible Than IDers
To be fair, rox, I think it indicates that most Christian academics, scientists and otherwise, do not subscribe to the intellectual flim-flam of ID.
But I share your sardonic regard of the Kansas redefinition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by roxrkool, posted 12-04-2005 1:49 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 38 (267628)
12-10-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Omnivorous
12-03-2005 9:50 PM


just cause it bears repeating (or is that bares?)
bump

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Omnivorous, posted 12-03-2005 9:50 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 12-10-2005 8:55 PM RAZD has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 38 (267646)
12-10-2005 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
12-10-2005 7:55 PM


Re: just cause it bears repeating (or is that bares?)
i got a real kick out of that first quotebox. i mean, they offered money for id! and no proposals came in!

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2005 7:55 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 12-10-2005 9:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 6 of 38 (267660)
12-10-2005 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
12-10-2005 8:55 PM


Re: just cause it bears repeating (or is that bares?)
i got a real kick out of that first quotebox. i mean, they offered money for id! and no proposals came in!
That's what astounded me: ID failed an is-it-science acid test right there. What scientist worth her salt wouldn't respond to a direct invitation to seek grant money from a sympathetic, well-heeled grantor?
OTOH, what would they study? How would they spend the money?
Bill: It all looks highly designed and irreducibly complex to me.
Bob: Me, too, Bill.
Bill: Well, let's hire somebody to type that up!
ID boils down to about a single sentence of bare assertion. They are dodging the lab for all they're worth and with good reason. To be fair, it also bears repeating that the overwhelming majority of Christian-affiliated universities seem to want nothing to do with it.

Just because as we dig a little deeper, our notions change does not mean the discoveries are not useful.--randman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 12-10-2005 8:55 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2005 10:02 AM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 12-12-2005 12:36 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 38 (267744)
12-11-2005 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Omnivorous
12-10-2005 9:28 PM


Re: just cause it bears repeating (or is that bares?)
To my mind it exposes the whole ID movement as a scam.
scam
n : a fraudulent business scheme [syn: cozenage] v : deprive of by deceit; "He swindled me out of my inheritance"; "She defrauded the customers who trusted her"; "the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little change"
coz·en v. tr.
1. To mislead by means of a petty trick or fraud; deceive.
2. To persuade or induce to do something by cajoling or wheedling.
3. To obtain by deceit or persuasion.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 12-10-2005 9:28 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 8 of 38 (267811)
12-11-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Omnivorous
12-03-2005 9:50 PM


I have mentioned this in the creationist explanation of asteroids thread. Creationists and evangelical christians may be crackpots, but they are not stupid. The main stream ones tend to publically dissociate themselves from the obviously crackpot beliefs, whether they believe them or not. This is why I tend to suspect so-called creationist sources that claim incredible things that are obviously idiotic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Omnivorous, posted 12-03-2005 9:50 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 38 (267814)
12-11-2005 3:57 PM


I wouldn't count ID out.
ID is still on the rise. The fact research money was reportedly available, but no one took them up on it is very interesting. You guys see it as a failure of ID. I see it as evidence ID can get research money, and if the scientists it was offered to turned it down, I strongly suspect you will see some that get some grants for specific research.
I can think of a lot of areas for ID research, such as:
1. Researching adaptive mutations.
2. Researching degrees of non-randomness in mutations.
3. Comprehensively researching the fossil record, such as the theorized land mammal to whale evolution, to see if the numbers of fossils of theorized transitional species is what one would expect for ID or for evolutionary models.
5. Quantum physics research that could be related, except this would be hard to do unless one could fine a QM physics researcher interested in the subject.
6. Researching consciousness since presumably ID would need to include a Designer with consciousness. For example, researching NDEs more could be a start to defining what human consciousness is in terms of where it occurs.
Heck, I can think of a lot of areas for research, and wouldn't mind being involved in helping to put together a group to research the fossil/transitional question, but I am not a paleontologist. So it'd have to be some others doing much of the work.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 03:58 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by MangyTiger, posted 12-11-2005 5:30 PM randman has replied
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 12-11-2005 6:36 PM randman has replied
 Message 20 by nator, posted 12-12-2005 9:36 AM randman has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 38 (267815)
12-11-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Omnivorous
12-03-2005 9:50 PM


IMHO, there is absolutely no reason for interest in or research into Intellegen Design. If the concept of ID should prove to be true, it is a moot issue anyway. If something can be changed or modified by other than natural processes it is by definition beyond our capability to implement. If that is the case, then the only possible value, and the absolute most that can be expected from ID, is a foot note somewhere saying "This (fill in the blank) was influenced by non-natural forces therefore any conclusions or observations cannot be used for understanding or predictive purposes.
Researching ID is a total waste of time.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Omnivorous, posted 12-03-2005 9:50 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 11 of 38 (267843)
12-11-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
12-11-2005 3:57 PM


Re: I wouldn't count ID out.
I see it as evidence ID can get research money, and if the scientists it was offered to turned it down, I strongly suspect you will see some that get some grants for specific research.
And I strongly suspect nobody gives a flying f**k what you suspect - put up or shut up. Show us a case of actual ID research being funded.
ID is still on the rise
ID might still be on the rise in terms of the social/political/religious agenda that really lies behind it, but in terms of real science it's still got what it's always had.
Nothing - Squat - Zero - Bugger All - Nada - you get the picture.

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 3:57 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 10:23 PM MangyTiger has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 12 of 38 (267860)
12-11-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
12-11-2005 3:57 PM


Re: I wouldn't count ID out.
randman writes:
The fact research money was reportedly available, but no one took them up on it is very interesting. You guys see it as a failure of ID. I see it as evidence ID can get research money, and if the scientists it was offered to turned it down, I strongly suspect you will see some that get some grants for specific research.
Rand, re-read (or read, eh?) the OP. The foundation invited grant proposals from ID scientists so that ID research could be funded: no proposals were received.
No ID researchers were offered any money because they failed to offer any proposals. So it certainly is NOT evidence that "ID can get research money"--it is evidence they cannot produce minimally acceptable research proposals.
The point is not that ID scientists turned down money; they weren't offered any money, for the simple reason that they couldn't come up with any proposals for minimally rigorous scientific research.
The irony, of course, is that IDers whine endlessly about being suppressed by the scientific establishment.
ID is still on the rise.
Pull!
KA-POW!
Pull!
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 12-11-2005 06:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 3:57 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 10:24 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 38 (267924)
12-11-2005 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by MangyTiger
12-11-2005 5:30 PM


Re: I wouldn't count ID out.
All zip and no substance....a good evo response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by MangyTiger, posted 12-11-2005 5:30 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by MangyTiger, posted 12-12-2005 2:35 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 14 of 38 (267925)
12-11-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Omnivorous
12-11-2005 6:36 PM


Re: I wouldn't count ID out.
No ID researchers were offered any money because they failed to offer any proposals. So it certainly is NOT evidence that "ID can get research money"--it is evidence they cannot produce minimally acceptable research proposals.
Assuming that is correct, I think that will change because I just thought of a bunch of good ideas for proposals, and I beleive ID scientists will take advantage of the offer of research money.
You have to realize the idea is bigger than the Discovery Institute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 12-11-2005 6:36 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by MangyTiger, posted 12-11-2005 10:46 PM randman has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 15 of 38 (267942)
12-11-2005 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by randman
12-11-2005 10:24 PM


Re: I wouldn't count ID out.
No ID researchers were offered any money because they failed to offer any proposals. So it certainly is NOT evidence that "ID can get research money"--it is evidence they cannot produce minimally acceptable research proposals.
Assuming that is correct, I think that will change because I just thought of a bunch of good ideas for proposals, and I beleive ID scientists will take advantage of the offer of research money.
Are you getting delusions of adequacy randman?
So you are seriously telling us that ID is going to change from not being able to produce minimally acceptable research proposals because you came up with a bunch of good ideas on an internet forum?
Either you're even more barking than I thought or you're a long-term troll who's just seeing how far he can push the edges.

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 10:24 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AdminNWR, posted 12-11-2005 11:24 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024