Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial


#1

It’s on tonight!


#2

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again;

Intelligent Design is NOT Science. It’s Philosophy. It doesn’t belong in Science classes because of that. Now granted, I know ID to be the truth, but it really shouldn’t be taught in Science.


#3

Watched it, taped it, will watch again. Well done. Some of those Dover creationist people (Buckingham, etc) are dumb as a box of rocks. If I hear “It’s JUST a theory” one more time I’m gonna punch a hole in my computer and TV. :stuck_out_tongue:

Phil P


#4

And that pain you would then feel would follow from just the theory of F=ma. It would be theoretical pain, you might say.


#5

Respectfully, I don’t think you understand Intelligent Design. At least you understand it differently than I do. It is a claim about certain biological structures allegedly pointing to a designer. That is science, not philosophy. It makes no claims that the designer is the First Cause of the Universe.

It may well be bad science, but the claim it makes is a scientific one.

The traditional philosophical arguments about God as the First Cause are working on a completely different level.

Edwin


#6

I recorded it and just watched it. All I can say is AAARRRGGGHHHH!

I’ll sum up my feelings by citing one quote from a young-earther on the program: “God didn’t create monkey and then make man from a monkey. He created man.”

No, my foolish friend. God created dirt and then made man from dirt!

Why is it OK with these people to “decend” from dirt, but not OK to “decend” from a monkey? I could just scream. Oh, that’s right, I already did.


#7

<< Why is it OK with these people to “decend” from dirt, but not OK to “decend” from a monkey? I could just scream. Oh, that’s right, I already did. >>

That’s the Buckingham (or maybe Bonsall) guy. I heard that Ken Miller was going to put a blurb on the back cover of the new edition of his Biology textbook for high school students, and quote Buckingham as follows:

“…Laced with Darwinism…” – Bill Buckingham

Of course Ken Miller takes that as a compliment! :thumbsup:

Phil P


#8

ID is nothing more than Young Earth Creationism with a new label. It is not science, period.

ID goes beyond stating that the complexity of life shows evidence of a designer, and claims that the various forms of suddenly arose fully formed. It is based on a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, not on any scientific research.

The thing that bothers me about YEC/ID is that they think that belief in evolution is inherently antithetical to belief in a designer (Creator). They do not allow for Theistic Evolution, in which God used evolutionary processes to bring life into its current various forms. Pope John Paul II even said that evolution, properly understood, is not contrary to faith.

They cannot cope with the idea that Genesis may be an allegorical work which points to spiritual truths about God’s relationship to Creation, and to Man. To their way of thinking Genesis is either literally true, or it is not true at all.:rolleyes:

Interestingly, these ID/YEC types are, for the most part, Fundamentalist Protestants who believe that Christ was speaking figuratively when he said “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood” in John 6, and “Take eat this is my body/drink, this is my blood” at the Last Supper.:shrug:


#9

you never answered why there was only centimeters of moon dust. Or could you tell me why there is not nearly enough mud on the ocean floor for billions of years (but only a few thousand years worth) or perhaps you could explain polystrata fossils to me? Polystrata fossils go through several layers of million year old dirt. Many fossilized trees are found that exist at once in several layers of supposedly really old dirt. Can you explain this?


#10

In your view, is this “designer” itself a part of nature, or beyond it (i.e., supernatural)?

Thanks,

Don
+T+


#11

An excellent portrayal. Along with this, I highly recommend Edward Humes’s fine written account, Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, & the Battle for America’s Soul (HarperCollins, 2007).

Blessings,

Don
+T+


#12

"There’s a lot more than one inch of dust on the moon; Armstrong only sank in one inch, which is a different matter. After all, you only sink into loose beach sand about an inch, although it’s certainly a lot deeper.

The surface of the moon is composed primarily of debris called “regolith,” which is from 36 to 60 feet deep and consists of boulders of varying size intermixed with dust. Most of the material is made up of lunar rock shattered by meteorites; the remaining 1 to 2-1/2 percent is the pulverized remnants of the meteorites themselves. Much of the dust is in the form of tiny glass spheres created in the heat of the meteorite impact. Dating of lunar samples has established the age of the moon at about 4.6 billion years. "

straightdope.com/classics/a1_159a.html


#13

ID says that there is an intelligence behind the universe, while YEC says that everything was created 6,000 years ago and in six days. How is that the same thing?

Even if it is not science, it may still be true. Saying it isn’t science doesn’t accomplish anything other than change the philosophic term used to describe it. The argument still stands.


#14

If ID stopped at simply claiming that there is an intelligence behind the universe, I would agree with you.

ID does not merely state that there is an intelligence behind the universe. It states that life on earth arose, suddenly, fully formed like Athene from the head of Zeus. And that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and in six days. It is a deliberate re-labelling of YEC to make it appear to be a scientific theory. In the PBS program, there is ample documentation of this, including drafts of the “ID” textbook that show that it was originally a YEC text with the word “creationism” replaced by “intellignent design”.

The term “intelligent design” was deliberately chosen to replace “creation” to get around the legal restrictions of teaching a particular religious point of view in biology classes. It was basically an attempt to make an end run around the Establishment Clause by tweaking the terminology.

Some of the teachers interviewed in “Judgement Day” were believing Christians, active in their church, who were opposed to teaching ID in their classrooms because they saw that it was an attempt to introduce a particular Fund’ist religious doctrine into science classes. When school board election time came around, the ID’ers deliberately smeared them and falsely claimed that they were atheists. And made death threats against the teachers who were opposed to teaching ID, as well as their children. And against the judge who presided over the trial (himself a YEC believer) who ruled that ID was religion, not science.

Nice bunch of folks.


#15

It is precisely that it draws this conclusion that makes it philosophy.
Although God can be known from creation through science, scientists cannot coment on God and remain in the realm of science science.
Look at our court system for how this works on a practical level. A doctor or other scientist is called in to testify in a criminal case as to how someone died. In their testimony they are asked questions as to the evidence. In the end of their testimony they are asked for conclusions they make from the evidence and opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the individual. In the last part they are going outside observation and reporting on the evidence and giving opinion. As such the jury is instructed often times to realize that the conclusion is that of the individual based on the science and not the science itself.


#16

This is odd and I can’t seem to find it any other place. The website listed doesn’t seem to give any source either.


#17

First of all, doesn’t ID merely state that certain biological systems will cease to function if any one of their many components are removed? There still scientific debate as to whether natural selection can explain this phenomenon, no? That aspect remains scientific, does it not? It is the speculation that these biological systems have a designer that move toward a more philosophical nature.

But, why would science that tells us what happened in the universe, say, 10,000 years ago be any different than the philosophical side of ID?

Neither conclusion comes from empirical evidence…both come from deductions based on observations made in the present.


#18

Well…it may be that Intelligent Design is just Creationism with a new coat of paint; but that shouldn’t bother anybody. After all, Punctuated Equilibrium is just the Hopeful Monster with a new coat of paint, so they’re not that much different on a philosophical level. It all depends on which school of theology you’re dealing with. :slight_smile:

What I want to know is, how did life spontaneously arise from a lightning bolt striking a mud puddle?


#19

I’m curious, could you run through the theory of punctuated equilibrium and explain what’s wrong with it? What about it seems unlikely to you?

What I want to know is, how did life spontaneously arise from a lightning bolt striking a mud puddle?

It didn’t. Who said it did?


#20

There are several flavors of ID. True ID says only that the processes of the universe which led to the creation of life, man, etc. are not random. There is design to the fundamental laws of the universe, and even within these laws there is some intelligent hand at work to “speed things up.” And it says that it is possible to use scientific means to determine that things happened non-randomly.

ID does NOT say that the earth sprang from nothing fully formed. That is absurdly incorrect. And exactly the opposite of what ID says. That is young earth creationism which is NOT ID. Yes, some YEC’rs have appropriated the name ID for their own purposes. But that doesn’t change actual ID. YEC’s have modified scientific evidence for their own purposes as well, and you probably don’t go around saying that science is just creationism in disguise.

So the Dover trial brought out the YEC’rs trying to appropriate the name ID and bring creationism into the classroom. Yes, that’s wrong, it’s bad, it’s not the right thing to do. It gives ID a bad name by saying that it’s something that it’s not.

But the trial proved nothing about ID. It just proved that YEC, which IS NOT ID, should not be in the classroom.

I repeat, ID is all about “the universe was designed, and some processes were speeded up by that desigining hand.” This is NOT saying speeded up so the earth was created in 6 days. It says speeded up so intelligent life could exist in only 13 billion years.

ID accepts the age of the universe as 13 billion years, or whatever the current estimate is. It also points out that this is a factor of a billion billion billion too short a time for life to have emerged from “random” events.

Have you actually ever read original ID documents?

The only thing ID and young earth creationism have in common is that they both believe God was involved. So some people lump those together as “creationism” which I suppose is correct. But please realize that “God was involved over 13 billion years” is not the same as “sprang fully formed.” PUUUHLEES!!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.