Why isn't Intelligent design not allowed in public schools?

"Look at these many statements by Phillip Johnson, a professor of law at Berkeley."

OK. Let's take a look.

First sentence.

"Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives."

Well, since it is methodical naturalism and not philosophical naturalism that scientists use, do we really need to go further? He cannot even get his first premise correct.

Maybe there are a few other biggies.

"If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks?"

I guess he is hoping that no one bothers to check what is meant by "animal groups." Since this means phyla in this context, his point is greatly reduced if someone checks up on him. And since it means phyla, it must be pointed out that that there were no birds, no mammal, no reptiles and no amphibians in the Cambrian. There are no grasses, no flowering plants, no trees and in fact no seed bearing plants of any kind. There may have been some early fishes, but no sharks, no lobefinned fish.

Is this supposed to be a deliberate misdirection in his choice of words?

"Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature."

Flat out wrong.

There have been many documanted cases of mutation and selection bringing about novel features. In addition, as has been demonstrated on other threads, the genome bears many features that trace the history of such innovations.

"If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God’s use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that."

Flat out wrong.

There are many such instances documented.

"When you ask a Darwinist, 'What evidence do you have for your mechanism that random variation and natural selection can actually do any creating?' the Darwinist will say, 'Well, tell me what God looks like, Why did he do this or that? I want you to show me God doing the creating because if you can't show me that, we can get rid of God or the creator and what's left is Darwinism, so it's got to be true.' "

Hahahahahahaha.

Yes, please try that. Ask that question to a biology professor or even to those on this forum and see if you get that answer. This is a riot.

When similar questions are asked, I think most people who accept evolution and who are reasonably knowledgable will enter into a recitation of some of the facts.

I guess we now see why there is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Johnson may know the law well, but it is a fallacy to appeal to his opinions on either the facts or the philosophy of science. But lawyers sure are slick.

 

The title of the thread asks ID is not taught in schools. I'd still like to know just what it is that ID supporters would like to be taught. As far as I have sen, there is no positive evidence for ID to teach. There is not a testible, falsifiable theory of ID. That is why it cannot be taught.

Or, as I expressed the same thought on the last page.

And on an off topic note... I hope everyone has a very merry Christmas and can celebrate the true meaning of the season with their loved ones.

 

Actually, much of Einstein's theory is in serious doubt today.

Go to Google or Yahoo and type in "was Einstein wrong" and you will see many articles on the subject. </font>[/QUOTE]Science is continually moving forward. Yes, there have been cases where Einstein was proved wrong and there are competing theories out today. My point is that I don't think we will ever get it exactly right. Only God knows the true facts that lie behind the mysteries of the universe.

Man will take steps, like those of Newton and then Einstein who proved him to be wrong in the general case. For our science these men continue to be great contributors in their time.

 

I agree with you StraightandNarrow, man will never figure it all out. I actually look at that as a positive thing, science will never lose it's mystery and wonder. I think that is exciting.

UTEOTW

That is nonsense to say that Intelligent Design does not have positive evidence to show. Go to ANY ID website and you will find numerous articles from many different fields that show good science.

Here is a quote from an evolutionist.

"ICR's followers take science more seriously than most scientists do..."
"[ICR faculty have] absolutely respectable, legitimate doctorates from major American universities..."
"...more than half of the adults in North Carolina accept the general outline of the creationist argument."
-From a Ph.D. thesis in anthropology, by evolutionist Paul Toumey.

ICR= Institute for Creation Research

Comment- Well, some evolutionists are honest enough to admit that many Creationists are very competent scientists who show good scientific evidence for creation.

Was Wernher von Braun, the famous rocket scientist a competent scientist? Look what he said:

"...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"
-Dr. Wernher von Braun.

As the law professor stated in a previous post, evolutionists try to label creationism as religion in order to exclude it from science. But von Braun knew better. It was true science that shows the incredible complexity of life and the order of the universe which proves that life and the universe did not come about through random chance as evolution teaches.

The reason evolutionists do not want ID in the schools is simple. ID has far better evidence on it's side and makes more common sense too. After a century of pushing this atheistic fairy tale on people, less than half of the public believe in evolution. If people are exposed to the better science of ID they will reject evolution in even greater numbers. Evolutionists know this is true. Evolutionists also know that their science and evidence are very poor. They believe it only to reject God which is the ultimate goal.

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."

-Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

 

Nice blathering of quotes. I, frankly, do not care one iota about quotes. They are not evidence. Furthermore, as has been shown by a close inspection of dozens of your quotes, such quotes must be viewed in the light of their original context to even know what was meant. You leave the context out and it has been shown that this almost always changes the meaning of your quotes. Or you take old quotes and ignore what has changed since. Like your 19th century quote from Etheridge.

So now that you have avoided the question, let's return to it.

Just what is it that you plan to teach concerning intelligent design in a science classroom?

All you have to do here is go to the the primary literature and show me your evidence for design and how you plan to teach it.

Stay away from dishonest quoting, that is not science and is not a lesson plan.

Stay away from arguments from ignorance.

Stay away from fallacies of the false dilemma.

Stay away from secondary sources.

Just give me what it is you would teach. Present some ID facts.

Show where anything in biology can be demonstrated to only be possible as the result of intelligent design. Tell us how you can tell. And do so without false dilemmas or personal incredulity. Give us your positive evidence from primary sources.

I'll even allow you an exception here. Show us where it is impossible for anything in biology to have been the product of natural causes. Again, you must avoid your own personal incredulity.

Tell us what you would have taught.

[ December 26, 2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

Amazing

You consider well known quotes from famous scientists like von Braun as dishonest and ignorant.

But you accept the fallacious arguments of evolutionists as gospel.

Ever heard of that great river in Egypt?

You know.... Da Nile.

I could and have shown you numerous articles from a scientific argument that shows evolution cannot take place.

I have shown you probably hundreds of quotes, many from prominent evolutionists themselves who admit a lack of evidence for evolution.

I and others have posted Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 numerous times where God himself says in simple, easy-to-read straightforward language that God created the world in 6 days.

You have seen plenty of evidence. You ignore it willingly.

 

"You consider well known quotes from famous scientists like von Braun as dishonest and ignorant."

Yes, I consider your quoting dishonest. I have examined dozens of your quotes now and shown where their meaning has been changed by removing context. Or where the quote never actually was said. Or where the quote was so outdated as to not applicable anymore. Come on, you gave us a 19th century quote from Etheridge in your last post and neglected to tell us how ancient your quotes often have to be.

"I could and have shown you numerous articles from a scientific argument that shows evolution cannot take place. "

I have seen a lot of out of context quotes from you and quite a bit of personal incredulity, but I have yet to see you take primary sources and make a positive case for ID/YE or even to show that anything in biology could not have possibly evolved. Not a single instance.

"I have shown you probably hundreds of quotes, many from prominent evolutionists themselves who admit a lack of evidence for evolution."

Quotes are not evidence.
Quotes are not evidence.
Quotes are not evidence.
Quotes are not evidence.

Especially when the meaning is changed by removing context. Especially when they are made up from whole cloth. Especially when they are so old as to not accurately represent modern knowledge.

So let's go at this again. It is very instructive that you keep avoiding answering this question.

Tell us just what it is that you think should be taught. Give us you positive evidence for what you wish to have taught. Do so using primary sources and avoiding quoting without context, personal incredulity and contrived dilemmas.

Make a case for us. Tell us what should be taught. Show where anyhting in biology can only have been produced through ID and how you know.

Put something on the line for us. Make a case, in your own words. (i.e. no long copy and paste jobs) Give us sources to support you case.

Can you do it?

 

"You have seen plenty of evidence. You ignore it willingly."

If you think you have made convinving case using positive evidence from primary sources in the past, then just provide us a link or even better a link and a copy.

Remember: No quotes without context (a link where the original can be read in its entirety). No secondary sources. No false dilemmas. And no personal incredulity.

 

JWI, out of curiosity, I checked UTE's profile and what subjects he has participated in. He has done nothing on BB that I can find which is not dealing with the creation/evolution debates and it seems that is all he is here for. He is not interested in anything you or I have to say regarding data, quotes, sources, logic, Bible, or anything else. He is here, from what I can see and from what I have read of his posts over the past few years, for one reason and one reason only: to support evolution.

I'm not sure it is worth the time to continue where this poster is concerned. He is most definitely not interested in discussion! Nor does he seem to be interested in Bible or matters pertaining to faith or in building up the body. He seems far more interested in tearing it down and challenging the faith of many who simply believe God knows how to tell the truth.

 

Helen

I have not been here long, but I have noticed that. I have tried to figure out what UTEOTW stands for. United Theological Evolutionists of the World????

I don't know why I agrue with evolutionists. The Bible says,

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. [[[The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.]]]

It is obvious that evolutionists are so brain-washed that they cannot entertain any evidence against it, which is abundant.

I personally do not care if UTEOTW or Paul of Eugene and others want to believe in evolution. But I do care that they spread this lie, especially to young people.

So, I am torn whether to fight against evolution, or ignore it as 1Tim 6:20 says.

 

"JWI, out of curiosity, I checked UTE's profile and what subjects he has participated in. He has done nothing on BB that I can find which is not dealing with the creation/evolution debates and it seems that is all he is here for."

Short memory?

You know as well as I do that I have historically posted on other subjects. It has been a gradual process by which I have mostly restrained myself to one. I still read in many of the topics here even if I choose not to participate. And it is not uncommon around here for posters to gravitate to particular subjects. In this case, I must get under your skin for taking a position opposite that of yours and for challenging the validity of your husband's ideas when you choose to bring them up.

And you also know full well why it is that I am so interested in this subject. I was once YE and it was personally finding the YE material to be so vacuous and dishonest when I began reading it that turned the tide for me and sent me to examine other ideas.

You misrepresent my motives by claiming that I am trying to tear down anyone's faith. On the contrary, I am trying to prevent other's faith from being damaged by YE by pointing out the worst of its flaws and by showing that there are folks who accept evolution who keep their faith. It is the YEers who constantly attack those who disagree with them as lacking faith and by questioning their motives.

YOu also know that I chose to confine my discussion to here where poeple can choose to participate or not. I realize that it is a divisive subject and I choose not to discuss it often in the real world. Not many people know how I really feel.

And everytime I hear the same old YE material, such as the quote mining, my opinion of YE gets set more firmly.

 

"I have not been here long, but I have noticed that. I have tried to figure out what UTEOTW stands for. United Theological Evolutionists of the World???"

I registered on a day I was home sick. After trying a couple of screen names based on my real name that were taken, I went for something way off the wall that I knew would not be taken. In this case, it is an acronym for a favorite U2 song of mine about the betrayal of Christ b Judas. Until the End of the World.

"I personally do not care if UTEOTW or Paul of Eugene and others want to believe in evolution. But I do care that they spread this lie, especially to young people. "

The challenge of lie is often made but never substantiated. At least in the case of evolution. No one seems to be able to come up with cases of people using deliberate lies to currently support evolution. YE, on the other hand, has many cases which are easy to show.

So, JWI, do you yet have any positive, testible, falsifiable evidence for ID/YE from primary sources that does not involve incredulity, false dilemmas or out of context quotes?

 

UTEOTW

How does believeing the simple creation account in Genesis tear down a person's faith? Millions of Christians over the centuries have believed this to be a literal account without ill harm.

It is evolutionists that tell people the Bible is a myth. Look at all the evolutionists here who say they believe the Bible, yet cannot defend evolution from the Bible. Paul of Eugene suggested that Genesis is prose or poetry that God gave us until evolution could show the truth.

This is a nice way of saying God lied to millions of believers for thousands of years.

God could have easily told us that man was formed from a simpler creature just as God told us Eve was formed from Adam's rib.

What a foolish argument.

It is evolution that says the Bible is wrong. Most evolutionists are openly atheistic. The theory of evolution exists to prove that life could form without God.

The great leaders and teachers of evolution are almost entirely atheists. They have no moral code except secular humanism.

Yet you trust evolutionists, and claim Christians are dishonest liars.

 

I'm sorry, but I missed hearing about the cases where Einstein was proved wrong. Where was that?

[ December 26, 2005, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]

 

Adequate and substantive replies do not constitute lack of interest.

Taunts without substance constitute evidence of lack of substance.

 

"How does believeing the simple creation account in Genesis tear down a person's faith?"

It does not. And when I run into people who could not care less about the evidence and take their literal six day belief solely on faith, I try and quickly offer that we agree to disagree.

It is those who think that the evidence supports them that causes the harm. Most are harmless, honest, good people. But if you look at what the YE leaders have to say, it is very easy to find constant misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the facts and it is not much more difficult to find cases that seem fairly obvious to be out and out lies. I put the people supplying you with most of your quotes into that category.

When those that have been always taught that YE is the only way uncover the duplicity, it can really challenge their faith. The are plenty of anecdotes of people who have lost their faith over it.

When those who are not saved see it, those few bad apples may have ruined the witness of many good, Christian persons when it comes to ever reaching them.

"Millions of Christians over the centuries have believed this to be a literal account without ill harm."

And before Darwin, some also realized that it was not literal.

This is also a fallacious appeal to numbers.

"Look at all the evolutionists here who say they believe the Bible, yet cannot defend evolution from the Bible."

I do not think that any of us call it "myth." We do not think that it addresses the literal method of creation.

I cannot defend quantum mechanics from the Bible either, but I accept it.

"This is a nice way of saying God lied to millions of believers for thousands of years."

Nope.

If He was not intending to give a blow by blow account, then He did not lie. He had a purpose for what He told us and how He chose to do so.

"Most evolutionists are openly atheistic. ... The great leaders and teachers of evolution are almost entirely atheists."

Here is how that primary source thing works.

In November 1991, the Gallup Organizations conducted a poll of the beliefs of Americans concerning creation. THey found that 45% of the scientists polled accepted either YE or TE. So it is not true that scientists are "almost entirely atheists."

"The theory of evolution exists to prove that life could form without God. "

Nope.

Scientific theories take no such position. They cannot take any such position. They exist only to explain the observations of the Creation.

So, JWI, do you yet have any positive, testible, falsifiable evidence for ID/YE from primary sources that does not involve incredulity, false dilemmas or out of context quotes? It is getting more and more interesting that those who say that ID/YE should be taught cannot tell us what should be taught.

 

Adequate and substantive replies do not constitute lack of interest.

Taunts without substance constitute evidence of lack of substance. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Simple. Evolution really happened. Anybody who studies the evidence with anough digiligence and intelligence with an open mind will discover that to be true. So by saying they must choose between trusting the God of the Bible and the truth about evolution, you invite them to conclude the God of the Bible isn't real.

That is because Evolution is a scientific discovery God chose to allow us to find out, not something He chose to reveal in His word. Properly interpreted, His word is consistent with evolution.

Yes. God gave us the brains and the natural world to investigate on our own. I suppose it was part of that "freedom" thing He seems to have worked so hard to give us . . .

You know, if you really would take the Bible's word for things instead of the findings of science, you would at least have the virtue of being consistent, although wrong. But you don't do that. You only do that when you haven't been convinced by the science to believe over and above what the Bible has to say on the subject.

This is shown in particular by your acceptance of the scientific heresy, contrary to every teaching of the Bible, that earth rotates as the cause of day and night. How many verses tell you literally that the sun rises? What about Joshua commanding, not the earth to halt its rotation, but the sun to stand still, and the scripture narrative says it did, indeed, stand still? What about the chamber where the sun goes at night?

For some strange reason you have decided to accept modern science's view on this subject and deny the scriptures.

So many clerics were caught wrongly denying Copernicus and Gallileo the right to teach their new fangled, anti-Bible science!

If you think God we accuse God of lying about creation today then why not accuse God of lying about the rotation of the earth anyway? It is the same principle!

Oh, its different.

Why is it different?

The real reason is, you are smart enough and know enough science to be able to tell you'd BETTER say the earth rotates because its TRUE.

Well the same situation is happening with regards to evolution and the age of the universe. The science is becoming so clearly in favor of the truth of evolution and the age of the universe that the diehards who oppose these new truths are forced to use bad logic, bad science, misquotes and such every time they try.

When you raise the idea, then, that we are going contrary to scripture, you are fullfilling the words of Christ:

Luke 11:46
46 But He said, "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers.
NASU

Luke 11:52

52 "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering."
NASU

 

Well those who do believec in ID are scoffed at and all of thier sources are called liars and fraudulent or just plain stupid.Okay I'm going to accept that position.
Now prove to me with facts which are indisputable that evolution is hard science and that evolution is indiputably true.No quotes allowed.

 

Paul of Eugene

It is amazing. When someone points out scientific reasons against evolution (lack of transitional fossils, irreducible complexity, etc...)your response is to try to prove the Bible is full of mistakes.

Personally, I have no problem with the terms Sunrise and Sunset. We still use these terms to this very day. People are not confused at all by these terms. The Sun does appear to rise and set to our perspective.

Even literature is written from different perspectives. This is not unusual at all.

But you and the other evolutionists strongly imply that God himself is ignorant of the very universe he created.

You believe there is no "good science" that argues against evolution. You are wrong. Here is a very good site. I think if you will read the 14 chapters shown, you will see very scientific reasons why evolution cannot be true.

http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_toc.htm

It is amazing the evolutionists fight so hard against Intelligent Design. The lastest fight in Pennsylvania was to prohibit a single 100 word statement to be read one single time to students before evolution was to be studied. The statement simply pointed out some serious problems with evolution that evolutionists themselves have admitted many times. It also included information that some scientists have other theories for the origin of life based on complexity that argues for an intelligent designer.

But evolutionists could not even allow this one single statement to be read. They claimed it was teaching religion.

What a mistake. If evolutionists like yourself could show all the many mistakes in the Bible, you could easily discredit ID or Creationism.

Yes, according to you and other evolutionists, God is not very intelligent. God thinks the Sun turns about the Earth. God thinks insects have 4 legs.

You do not seem to have much respect for God or His Word.