Scientists attack 'intelligent design'

H

Huwy

Secular Humanist
Registered Senior Member
This was in the news in Australia! :p

Scientists attack 'intelligent design'
From: By Leigh Dayton
October 21, 2005

A COALITION of more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science educators has condemned the teaching in science classes of "intelligent design" - a creationist-like theory of the origin of life.

The group says it is "gravely concerned" that intelligent design is being taught in schools as an alternative to evolution.
"It's important scientists take a stand on this because intelligent design is nothing more than creationism dressed up in a tuxedo," says Mike Archer, dean of science at the University of NSW and the driving force behind the letter. "It's the same mishmash of theology and science."

The letter urges governments and educators to oppose the teaching of intelligent design in the nation's science classes.

Federal Science Minister Brendan Nelson declined to comment. But a spokesman said that while Dr Nelson believed parents and teachers should decide whether or not intelligent design was taught, it was not a "replacement" for evolution.

Evolutionary theory - first proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859 - explains the diversity of plants and animals as the result of natural selection. It is based on observations of the natural world and can be tested.

By contrast, intelligent design theory - refined by the conservative Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington - contends that life is too complex to have emerged without divine intervention in the form of an "intelligent designer".


here is the link
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16984118-421,00.html
 
and science educators - that would include teachers.

I reckon thats more people than those who go to church for easter!
 
I find the inference in your last post that one cannot be a scientist and a Christian offensive. Would you like to:
a) Clarify
b) Retract
c) Piss me off
 
please someone here....define evolution for us?........are Darwnists speaking of blind forces that just happen to select life forms and then somehow consciousness emerges.....for the sake of simplicity p-lease summarize* for us the main essential points regarding evolutionary theory.....thanks
 
I think that one can not be a good scientist and deny that evolution is a fact.
Evolution and Chritianty, however, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I do not think Religious Dogma (which, honestly is the root of ID) should be taught in public schools outside of an impartial historical perspective.
If people want to teach ID as an alternative to, or in conjunction with, evolution, they can do it at home of in the church, as they have for many years.
 
Last edited:
duendy,
The main thing to remember, that most people who deny evolution seem to conveniently forget or simply not understand, is that evolution and Darwinsim are not interchangeable terms.
Evolution is a fact.
Darwin came up with a theoretical model to try and explain/determine the how's and why's.
 
Any scientist who is also a christian, cannot be an ordinary traditional, orthodox "christian" - due to a conflict of fundamental believes.

I accept that there may be many "alternative" christians who are also scientists - they may believe in god, an afterlife (in some form), and (like me) believe that jesus was a wonderful generous man. They may follow in the path of jesus and his teachings, but would also have to deny entire sections of the bible - because it is just mythical fiction.

The adam and eve, ID, earth is 5000 years old bullshit - thats just plain incompatible with common knowledge. Do I need to refer to common knowledge for you?

If Jesus was executed by the Jews, - and died (for more than say 10 minutes) then he died. The stories about his resurrection are either due to a mix-up - or plain denial.

People must have been so gullible back then, believing something because they wanted to - or because they couldn't accept the facts.
It scares me, how many people haven't changed.
 
it is gullibility when the Christian myth is believed, and understood, in a literalist way, which i am afraid even many scientists do, both theist, and athiest.........
On one side they will accept 'God' and on other side wll reject 'God', yet both acceptance and rejection are within the same criteria of literalist understanding!
 
Huwy said:
Any scientist who is also a christian, cannot be an ordinary traditional, orthodox "christian" - due to a conflict of fundamental believes.
Click to expand...
Huwy, I don't know what's worse - your ideas about the beliefs of an "ordinary traditional, orthodox 'christian'", or your implications about "fundamental beliefs" of anyone with the job description of "scientist".
 
Huwy said:
Any scientist who is also a christian, cannot be an ordinary traditional, orthodox "christian" - due to a conflict of fundamental believes.
Click to expand...
Huwy, thank you for what I take to be, at least in part, a response to my post. I see you have chosen option a), which was what I thought, and hoped, you would choose.

Let me note that I am not a Christian, though I find much in the Christian moral structure that is worthy.

I would, however, disagree quite strongly with your assertion that a scientist who is a Christian cannot be a traditional Christian. I was raised in a Protestant environment wholly free of the bizarre fundamentalist beliefs that appear to be prevalent in the US. Within the UK, for certain, and I am pretty sure within Europe, there simply is not a conflict between science - especially evolutionary science - and Christianity. The creation myths within the Bible have long been recognised here as being metaphors for the act or process of creation.

Equally, and to echo Pete, I cannot see how the fundamental beliefs of a scientist can run counter to any generic religion. Their individual beliefs may be antagonistic, but these beliefs would be philosophically based, not scientifically based.
 
Well, lets not forget that the theory of evolution explains NOTHING about how and where and when life actually began. Evolution is, as I see it, a fact of nature. But it doesn't explain how it all BEGAN ....and, as I see it, that's where intelligent design picks up.

Evolution does NOT explain it all ...and so many people seem to forget that FACT.

Baron Max
 
I don' tknow any reoutable scientist that claim evolution DOES explain it ALL. "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific alternative, however, therefore should not be irresponsibly touted as on in our public schools. Why not teach any other creation myth with no supporting evidence what-so-ever?
 
Evolution does explain how, approximately when, and approximately where life began on Earth. Evolution doesn't explain how reality came to be and quite frankly it shouldn't (that's far beyond the scope of the model).

The reason that the world is pissed of about ID is because it's introduced as part of a science curriculum... SCIENCE... where theoretical models are built upon REAL supportive evidence. ID has no supportive evidence and that turns their 'theoritical' models into theological models. It belongs in a religious history curriculum *at best*.

On a sidenote, if knowledge is missing / inomplete about something then I have noticed a triend for believers to substitute the void with 'God' did it.
 
Baron Max said:
Well, lets not forget that the theory of evolution explains NOTHING about how and where and when life actually began. Evolution is, as I see it, a fact of nature. But it doesn't explain how it all BEGAN ....and, as I see it, that's where intelligent design picks up.

Evolution does NOT explain it all ...and so many people seem to forget that FACT.

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Why does Intelligent Design feel the need to 'pick up' where things can no longer be explained? It is a philosophy, not science.

They way you phrased it, suggests to me that you think I.D. is necessary because there are things science hasn't proved yet...
 
yes the 'missing link'....and yes ..we are human. some of us anyhow, and we want to explore questions like this. science hasn't an answer--well positivist science aint anyhow. has the Christian realigion? well its all so archaic init...?
so, what then?
 
Baron Max said:
Well, lets not forget that the theory of evolution explains NOTHING about how and where and when life actually began. Evolution is, as I see it, a fact of nature. But it doesn't explain how it all BEGAN ....and, as I see it, that's where intelligent design picks up.
Click to expand...
If that's where ID stayed, then no one would care much.

Evolution does NOT explain it all ...and so many people seem to forget that FACT.
Click to expand...

Most confusion seems to be on the side of anti-evolutionists. The idea the Evolution is supposed to explain everything is a surprisingly common misconception among creationists and ID'ers.

To a scientist, it's an odd misconception. Every theory has a well defined scope - no theory is meant to "explain it all".

But it's easy to see why religious people get that misconception. After all, they're coming from a world view in which ther *is* a single concept that explains it all. This is also why religion and science don't get along. The more things that scientists find can be explained in detail, the more religious people fel that their faith is losing "territory". Finding an explanation for something previously attributed to God isn't far from blasphemy.
 
Baron Max said:
Well, lets not forget that the theory of evolution explains NOTHING about how and where and when life actually began. Evolution is, as I see it, a fact of nature. But it doesn't explain how it all BEGAN ....and, as I see it, that's where intelligent design picks up.

Evolution does NOT explain it all ...and so many people seem to forget that FACT.

Baron Max
Click to expand...

ID can't explain the origin of life. Evolution can postulate several plausible models.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Evolution can postulate several plausible models.
Click to expand...
Actually, that would be the job of biochemists studying abiogenesis.

I'm led to believe that it's outside the scope of evolution research. (Or so I'm told)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top