Intelligent Design is described as a movement that believes that the complexity of life can only be explained by an appeal to an intelligent designer. But that’s what William Paley was saying back in 1806. No mention of Behe. No mention of Dembski. They set up their strawmen, and then knock them down.
It’s disappointing to watch (and hear), but modern scientific techniques will more and more point to some kind of designer, and away from Darwinian fundamentalism.
“…a biochemist, a mathematician, and an emeritus profesor of Law…” refer to, I suspect, Michael Behe, Bill Dembski and Phil Johnson. Remember this broadcast was for a British audience, to whom these names mean nothing.
For example a search on UK Amazon has the following addendum when checking availability of No Free Lunch. “This hard-to-find title is subject to an additional handling charge of Ã‚Â£1.99 per item (excluding VAT).”
When I said that neither Behe or Dembski were mentioned, I meant that their thinking was not addressed. Isn’t it amazing that ID is “debated” while the content of books with the very title, “Intelligent Design”, is not discussed. Dembski’s is a probabalistic argument; Behe’s a logical one. Why are they avoided?
As I said, this was for a British audience. ID has made no impact in the UK; I’m afraid there does not appear to be anyone promoting it there.
Why would ID need to be ‘promoted’? If it is science (as claimed) then the arguments and facts and should speak for themselves.
If it’s just a public relations exercise combining religion, politics and deceptive scientific-sounding jargon, however…
It is obvious why it needs to be promoted…because it is being shut out by radical left wing atheists that control the science ciriculum at the University level who control the peer reviewed journals. Also, ID is young and it has the right to have time to germinate or die-with a fair hearing.
Sounds a bit paranoid to me – not all scientists are “radical left wing atheists”! In fact there are scientists across the globe of every political hue and holding every creed who understand that all living beings on this planet share common ancestry. How do they know? Because the hypothesis has stood up to intense scrutiny over the past 150 years. ID is not science because there is no hypothesis; nothing that could be falsified.
“ID is young and it has the right to have time to germinate or die-with a fair hearing.”
Yes, that’s true, but ID proponents don’t want a fair hearing. They want to bypass the hypothesis, the data collection, the analysis, the peer reviewing etc, and have their ideas placed straight into school science classes! To be taken seriously by the scientific community (radically left wing or otherwise) perhaps the discovery institute would be better off using their money to fund actual research rather than for hiring a top public relations firm (Creative Response Concepts).
Vax, you are repeating the party line. I have no patience for it here. You are out of here. –WmAD
Your statement is false. the ID folks have specifically stated that they do not want ID to be formally taught in schools…they just want the whole story of evolution to be taught. If they were allowed to build their thesis in a regular academic setting, then they would not have to hire a PR firm.
I did not say most scientists, I said the scientists that are in charge of the peer reviewed journals and the science ciriculum that is being pressed and taught.
I mean no ill will, but these are the facts. Most scientists are fair minded, but the ones that drive the ciriculum are the ones that control the medium. Most scientists just want to excel at their job and go home to their families-not be hassled by a boss by taking a position that may get them in trouble or fired or denied a degree or ostracized. I can give you ample evidence of this happening in the past year.
You must be logged in to post a comment.