Intelligent Design in Universities

Go get 'em Mick.I would like to know just what sort of useful insights have ever been derived from 'reasoning' along an ID interpretation of nature?What real phenomenon have these pseudoscientists EVER explained,
or explained better than evolutionary biology can?The answer is none, nothing, zip, zilch.Where are the products of their so-called 'research programs'?
Any single product, for that matter.The whole premise of ID amounts to nothing more than an abdication of intellect - stuff can be just 'too complex' for us mortals to understand or explain.And don't assume, as earlier in this thread, that public schools are now safe from these fundamentalists either.Here is the latest on the war in my own intellectually challenged state.http://legislature.cjonline.com/.../050305/leg_evocase.shtmlThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-03-2005 12:49 PM

That's their angle all right.
They only want a "balance".Problem is, they have nothing in their arsenal to 'balance' the practical power and myriad useful applications of evolutionary theory.So their quest for 'balance' is little more than a series of unsubstantiated criticisms of evolutionary theory, feeble efforts to limit its implications in the eyes of students, and insidious attempts to undermine its overaching applicability, WITHOUT PROPOSING ANY SUPERIOR WORKING MODEL for analyzing change in living things.So as far as the public school curriculum, they are just fiddling with wording in the instructions that are supposed to guide teachers in formulating their lesson plans so as to water down all the more forceful statements about the power of evolutionary theory.They want to find a way to sew a seed in students minds that there are equally likely alternative explanations, without ever explicitly demonstrating why ID should merit such a status.You can read about all the exact changes they are lobbying for in the guidelines here - if you have the stomach for it http://www.kansasscience2005.com/

Mick,
PS - feel free to register your opinions on the 'minority report' if you go to the site I also forgot to mention. The IDers love to state that evolutionary theory is soooo flawed that even evolutionary biologists are in disagreement about many aspects of it.That is like saying the automobile is a failed invention because 2 car designers can't agree on what brand of tires to put on a new model...

"Tying it in" to science doesn't make it scientific.Interesting that you appear to have read The Anthropic Cosmological Principle from your reference to Barrow and Tipler.For those interested:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho17.htmThey point out a lot of seemingly precise physical laws and physical constant values are necessary for a universe with any solid matter to exist, let alone one in which life can evolve. There is an entire chapter devoted to "Design Arguments". They distinguish between 'teleological interpretations ('guided' processes) from 'eutaxiological' interpretations (processes with a final, end purpose). They hint at the inference that the entire cosmos had to be 'designed' in some way because the coincidences necessary for its existence are far too many to occur by chance alone.
However, I think the majority of scientific philosophers currently consider this movement little more than a form of mysticism. In relation to processes affecting living things, Mayr's 'Toward a New Philosophy of Biology" is a more practical, down to earth, and relevant work.http://www.amazon.com/...ader/0674896661/103-4585698-2511857My point with respect to trying to argue design and teleology with respect to biology, morphology and behavior is that they simply aren't necessary. Evolutionary biology is quite adequate without any such assumptions. They don't add anything to enhance scientific understanding. They only try and create a platform for the rationalization of religious conviction within a preponderance of undeniable scientific evidence of process.Assuming something was designed is never going to improve your understanding of it - unless you presume to know the physchology and intent of your supposed designer.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-04-2005 10:17 AM

Except the basic model of Darwinian Evolution apparently, otherwise it wouldn't comprise such a monolithic target for creationists. Hmmmm... Seems that many other non-biological branches of science corroborate Darwinian perspectives almost uniformly. True enough. True again. Only a matter of time, my friend, only a matter of time.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-04-2005 10:45 PM

Are you implying that, just because a living organism in its current state surpases some critical threshold of complexity that it cannot arise through simple, non-directed evolutionary processes?I would contend that evolution is an entirely adequate concept for explaining all living phenomena, independent of their apparent degree of complexity.What understanding is to be gained by postulating a 'designer'?

Sure there are. And plenty of them. Give me some specifics on where you think current evolutionary theory cannot or does not apply ? Perhaps some things are 'too complex' to be demonstrated mathematically. Of course. Otherwise I wouldn't spend some of my precious spare time on this board.
It doesn't mean I feel the need to 'buy in' to some sort of omnipotent designer.I challenge you, in the name of ID science, to take up the gauntlet cast here to creation scientists.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-08-2005 09:31 PM

This can be accomplished verbally in a satisfactory manner, but not mathematically.
Sometimes mathematical explanations are extant, sometimes they are not.
But verbal explanations can be just as satisfying. Evolutionary theory has no problem accepting verbal, non-mathematical explanations.
You are the one that demanded a mathematical explanation.
I simply took a cheap shot at you using your own ID terminology.