Intelligent design: the forbidden topic

Intelligent design: the forbidden topic

There are 59 comments on the Tomahawk Online story from Aug 1, 2012, titled Intelligent design: the forbidden topic. In it, Tomahawk Online reports that:

In today's society, students in public education are taught from the very beginning about evolution and its pivotal role in the creation of life on Earth.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Tomahawk Online.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#1 Aug 1, 2012
Apparently, this kid has never heard of the Wedge document.

"We no longer assume the Earth to be flat, nor the Sun to revolve around the Earth; science has given us circumstantial evidence that prove these primitive assertions to be untrue."

Circumstantial evidence??? I guess he hasn't heard of space travel either.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#2 Aug 1, 2012
<<Text of the article>>

In today's society, students in public education are taught from the very beginning about evolution and its pivotal role in the creation of life on Earth. Advocates of evolution seem very confident in their evidence; however, even the chief pioneer of this theory - Charles Darwin - openly admitted some of the flaws in his rationale. In his book The Origins of Species, Darwin wrote, "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

The Achilles heel of evolution has always been the limitations of its explanatory ability. Evolutionary biologists can only go back so far in time before their hypotheses and conjectures prove themselves obsolete. Scientists today can only cling to their dated evidence and hope for further explanations as technology progresses.

In a way, the premise of science isn't to prove things, but disprove things. We no longer assume the Earth to be flat, nor the Sun to revolve around the Earth; science has given us circumstantial evidence that prove these primitive assertions to be untrue. Evolution is no exception to this rule - it's perfectly feasible that the origins of life resulted from something entirely different than the macro-evolutionary patterns students are taught in schools today.

Why then, with so many questions regarding its viability, does evolution remain the only taught explanation for the origination of life? Many in the scientific establishment negate intelligent design simply because they assume it to be nothing more than a religious stunt masquerading as science. Nonetheless, there are people in the scientific community who refuse to accept the monopoly society has placed over this topic, people who are keenly aware of the problems evolution possesses. They remain silent, however, because if they were to ever come forward as being sympathetic toward intelligent design, they risk being ridiculed and ostracized from their peers.

In order for intelligent design to be taken seriously, it is important that it not be directly associated with creationism (though creationism is a pertinent form of intelligent design); this would only give ammunition to the individuals proclaiming intelligent design to be nothing more than a "derivation of religious fabrication." It should be presented in a scientific manner, for it is a viable scientific affair. Once it is finally on the table, then we'll be able to have healthy, objective discussions about the possible paradigms for intelligent design and its role in the creation of life on Earth.

We should strive to create a world where people - and teachers - are open-minded about these specific issues, where ideas aren't thrown away simply because of stereotypes or personal vendettas. We should endeavor to create curriculums that seem less like one-way streets, and more like the tantamount levelness of which America embodies.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3 Aug 1, 2012
I would like to pen a response to this terribly written article to "The Tomahawk".

The author's use of quote-mining, the deflection of ID as a tool of Creationists, etc begs for it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#4 Aug 1, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
I would like to pen a response to this terribly written article to "The Tomahawk".
The author's use of quote-mining, the deflection of ID as a tool of Creationists, etc begs for it.
Agreed. Though I didn't see anywhere to respond.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#5 Aug 1, 2012
I'm surprised the author doesn't realize the damage his own comments did to his position. Just the "In order for intelligent design to be taken seriously, it is important that it not be directly associated with creationism (though creationism is a pertinent form of intelligent design)" alone reveals the problem with the entire ID movement.

Instead of it actually not being associated with Creationism -- which might lend credence that it is not a religious concept, hwe seems willing to look toward an artificial separation, an apparent dichotomy, but fails to realize how foolish an idea that is.

The bottom line is the current ID movement is a form of Creaitonism and no about of disassociating will change that. The only thing that might change it is some actual scientific work by the ID proponents. Why isn't he calling for that?(Which, of course, is a rhetorical question.)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#6 Aug 1, 2012
ID isn't forbidden.

It's just no-one's bothering to do any research in it yet.

Not even the mooks who invented it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#7 Aug 9, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
I'm surprised the author doesn't realize the damage his own comments did to his position. Just the "In order for intelligent design to be taken seriously, it is important that it not be directly associated with creationism (though creationism is a pertinent form of intelligent design)" alone reveals the problem with the entire ID movement.
Instead of it actually not being associated with Creationism -- which might lend credence that it is not a religious concept, hwe seems willing to look toward an artificial separation, an apparent dichotomy, but fails to realize how foolish an idea that is.
The bottom line is the current ID movement is a form of Creaitonism and no about of disassociating will change that. The only thing that might change it is some actual scientific work by the ID proponents. Why isn't he calling for that?(Which, of course, is a rhetorical question.)
Are you too stupid to understand that there is abundant scientific research already done supporting ID?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#9 Aug 9, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you too stupid to understand that there is abundant scientific research already done supporting ID?
Hello.

So, could you briefly restate the independently verified testable predictions ID makes and how they have helped advance our understanding of biological processes?

While you're at it, how about a quick review of the major falsifiable measures that have been stated for ID too.

Thank you.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#10 Aug 9, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you too stupid to understand that there is abundant scientific research already done supporting ID?
How about some links to this supposed "scientific research" instead of insults? Hint.... Discovery Institute is not a scientific research institution.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#11 Aug 9, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you too stupid to understand that there is abundant scientific research already done supporting ID?
ID "Evidence":

Flowerz iz purty, babies iz kwewt.
I dont unnerstan scienz, therefor Goddidit wif MAJIK!

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#12 Aug 9, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you too stupid to understand that there is abundant scientific research already done supporting ID?
Actually there isn't. This isn't my opinion. During the Dover Trial ID poster-boy Michael Behe admitted that no one had done any actual scientific work to support ID, not even himself. A couple of years later Phillip E. Johnson, the daddy rabbit of the Discovery Institute stated quite categorically that he was disappointed in Behe, Dembski, and the rest of the ID 'Theorists' for failing to produce the actual science that would support ID as science.

In addition, ID 'work', such as it is, isn't published as science, it's published as popular press and Christian books, not under the imprint as scientific publications. Even Stephen C. Meyers latest publication "The Signature in the Cell" while marketed to be the latest scientific work supporting ID, it was published under HarperOne, Harper-Collins religious imprint, and it contained no science, just more apologetics and an attempt to re-write the history of his own failure to get an ID supporting paper published.

So if you really think there is scientific work support ID, you are drinking too much Discovery Institute kool-aid. You might try doing some research before making foolish and completely unsupported statements.

If you still wish to believe your own foolish statement, let's hear it. Show me one real example of actual sceintific work supporting ID. You do know what that means, right? not something that sounds scientific, but actual scinetific work supported by evidence, observations, and experimentation. Let's hear it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16 Aug 9, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there isn't. This isn't my opinion. During the Dover Trial ID poster-boy Michael Behe admitted that no one had done any actual scientific work to support ID, not even himself. A couple of years later Phillip E. Johnson, the daddy rabbit of the Discovery Institute stated quite categorically that he was disappointed in Behe, Dembski, and the rest of the ID 'Theorists' for failing to produce the actual science that would support ID as science.
In addition, ID 'work', such as it is, isn't published as science, it's published as popular press and Christian books, not under the imprint as scientific publications. Even Stephen C. Meyers latest publication "The Signature in the Cell" while marketed to be the latest scientific work supporting ID, it was published under HarperOne, Harper-Collins religious imprint, and it contained no science, just more apologetics and an attempt to re-write the history of his own failure to get an ID supporting paper published.
So if you really think there is scientific work support ID, you are drinking too much Discovery Institute kool-aid. You might try doing some research before making foolish and completely unsupported statements.
If you still wish to believe your own foolish statement, let's hear it. Show me one real example of actual sceintific work supporting ID. You do know what that means, right? not something that sounds scientific, but actual scinetific work supported by evidence, observations, and experimentation. Let's hear it.
You are lying about Behe's comments in Kitzmiller.

I have read the entire transcript.

Point to the portion where he admits they have done no science.

Again, you are a liar.

Kitzmiller Transcript, Day 20; Dr. Scott Minnich:

Q. Do you know employ principles and concepts from intelligent design in your work?

A. I do.

Q. And I'd like for you to explain that further. I know you're prepared several slides to do that.

A. Okay, this is just a reiteration in terms of how we function in the laboratory during the last half century, we've gained a greater understand of biology at the molecular level than the entire history of efforts in the proceeding millennia, and I don't think that's an overstatement. The vast inroads we have made in our understanding of the cell came by techniques essential to a design engineer.

Q. If you can read on from "our understanding of the cell"?

A. All right. I lost my place, let's see. Came by techniques essential to a design engineer, not elements derived from the theory of evolution. The mainstay technique of modern biology has made use of the concept of irreducible complexity of the cell's subsystems. And if I can have the next slide I'll iterate on what I mean by that.

Q. This concept of irreducible complexity, that was coined by Dr. Behe, is that correct?

A. Right, right, but I think any working molecular geneticist recognizes that this really explains the approach that we take. This is from Mike's, one of his publication, but I co-opted it here, "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is necessarily composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and where the removal of any one of the parts causes a system to effectively cease functioning."

Q. Could you explain a little further this article, its findings and its implications for intelligent design?

A. Again it's a review of the reason, you know, that we've teased out why pathogenic organisms regulate production of a flagellum in a host environment, and they switch between these type three systems. We show in this paper that there is a logical reason for this, because if you operate these systems simultaneously, in other words if we artificially express flagellum protein, which makes up the filament of the flagellum in the host environment, it will be recognized and secreted by that nano syringe.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#17 Aug 9, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
ID "Evidence":
Flowerz iz purty, babies iz kwewt.
I dont unnerstan scienz, therefor Goddidit wif MAJIK!
Stick your thumb back up your ass and be quiet, moron.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#18 Aug 9, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you too stupid to understand that there is abundant scientific research already done supporting ID?
Uh, yeah, that amazing "scientific theory" that tells us that something did something, somehow, somewhere, at sometime!

So actually the only REAL mystery is whether you are just another typical lying dishonest shill for the DI or whether you're really dumb enough to buy their BS.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#19 Aug 9, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello.
So, could you briefly restate the independently verified testable predictions ID makes and how they have helped advance our understanding of biological processes?
While you're at it, how about a quick review of the major falsifiable measures that have been stated for ID too.
Thank you.
ID in a nutshell, according to Bucky no Hair - "Evilushun iz rong therefore GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!"
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#20 Aug 9, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are lying about Behe's comments in Kitzmiller.
I have read the entire transcript.
Point to the portion where he admits they have done no science.
Again, you are a liar.
Kitzmiller Transcript, Day 20; Dr. Scott Minnich:
Q. Do you know employ principles and concepts from intelligent design in your work?
A. I do.
Q. And I'd like for you to explain that further. I know you're prepared several slides to do that.
A. Okay, this is just a reiteration in terms of how we function in the laboratory during the last half century, we've gained a greater understand of biology at the molecular level than the entire history of efforts in the proceeding millennia, and I don't think that's an overstatement. The vast inroads we have made in our understanding of the cell came by techniques essential to a design engineer.
Q. If you can read on from "our understanding of the cell"?
A. All right. I lost my place, let's see. Came by techniques essential to a design engineer, not elements derived from the theory of evolution. The mainstay technique of modern biology has made use of the concept of irreducible complexity of the cell's subsystems. And if I can have the next slide I'll iterate on what I mean by that.
Q. This concept of irreducible complexity, that was coined by Dr. Behe, is that correct?
A. Right, right, but I think any working molecular geneticist recognizes that this really explains the approach that we take. This is from Mike's, one of his publication, but I co-opted it here, "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is necessarily composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and where the removal of any one of the parts causes a system to effectively cease functioning."
Q. Could you explain a little further this article, its findings and its implications for intelligent design?
A. Again it's a review of the reason, you know, that we've teased out why pathogenic organisms regulate production of a flagellum in a host environment, and they switch between these type three systems. We show in this paper that there is a logical reason for this, because if you operate these systems simultaneously, in other words if we artificially express flagellum protein, which makes up the filament of the flagellum in the host environment, it will be recognized and secreted by that nano syringe.
Translation: "Engineers make stuff therefore cells HAD to have been designed!!!"

"By uh, something intelligent, somehow, somewhere, at sometime."

"Oh, and maybe without evilushun. Or if evilushun DID happen then it DEFINITELY had something intelligent behind it doing SOMETHING... intelligent. Otherwise evilushun wouldn't work without something intelligent. No, I don't actually have any alternative mechanisms or evidence for 'em, I just know that something intelligent did something intelligent otherwise evilushun wouldn't work OKAY?!? Oh, and by the way did you know evilushun wuz like SO responsible for Hitler, Stalin and all the EVIL ATHEISTS! Yeah I said atheists. No, ID doesn't have nuthin' to do with religion, nope! Nosirree-bob! But ATHEISTS ARE AHOLES, MAN!!! Oh and here's some religious apologetics by AIG, YECers, Rev Moon of teh Moonies and Harun Yoyo, but SERIOUSLY dude, ID doesn't have anything to do with religion!"
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#21 Aug 9, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Stick your thumb back up your ass and be quiet, moron.
Yeah, cuz his neck is so thick and he can snap yer neck while eatin' a sammich at the same time too cuz he haz teh BIG MUSCLES!

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY M C A!!! Come on and sing it Bucky Y M C A AAAAAAAA!

And didja know he went to the same charm school as Skippy the Skeptic?

.

So, Buck.

What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of ID? Who or what is the designer and how can we tell? What mechanism did it use to do whatever it is you think it did and how can we tell? How is "design" measured? How is CSI (Complex Specified Information) quantified? When and where did it do whatever it is you think it did and how can we tell? What observations can be made in regards to ID? Why is this (potentially all-powerful universe-creating) designer apparently incapable of evolution and how were these limits determined scientifically? What useful scientific predictions does ID make? How can it be tested? How can it be falsified?

Thanks again in advance for not even bothering to answer these questions with anything but the usual cut & paste DI apologetics which just so happens to coincidentally be a couple o' mouse clicks and 6 seconds away from Young Earth Creationism BS - but ID doesn't have anything to do with religion, nope! Nosiree-bob! Honest!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#22 Aug 9, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, yeah, that amazing "scientific theory" that tells us that something did something, somehow, somewhere, at sometime!
So actually the only REAL mystery is whether you are just another typical lying dishonest shill for the DI or whether you're really dumb enough to buy their BS.(shrug)
You are still as dumb as you were on the other thread before I ran you away.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#23 Aug 9, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are lying about Behe's comments in Kitzmiller.
I have read the entire transcript.
Point to the portion where he admits they have done no science.
Again, you are a liar.
Kitzmiller Transcript, Day 20; Dr. Scott Minnich:
Q. Do you know employ principles and concepts from intelligent design in your work?
A. I do.
Q. And I'd like for you to explain that further. I know you're prepared several slides to do that.
A. Okay, this is just a reiteration in terms of how we function in the laboratory during the last half century, we've gained a greater understand of biology at the molecular level than the entire history of efforts in the proceeding millennia, and I don't think that's an overstatement. The vast inroads we have made in our understanding of the cell came by techniques essential to a design engineer.
Q. If you can read on from "our understanding of the cell"?
A. All right. I lost my place, let's see. Came by techniques essential to a design engineer, not elements derived from the theory of evolution. The mainstay technique of modern biology has made use of the concept of irreducible complexity of the cell's subsystems. And if I can have the next slide I'll iterate on what I mean by that.
Q. This concept of irreducible complexity, that was coined by Dr. Behe, is that correct?
A. Right, right, but I think any working molecular geneticist recognizes that this really explains the approach that we take. This is from Mike's, one of his publication, but I co-opted it here, "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is necessarily composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and where the removal of any one of the parts causes a system to effectively cease functioning."
Q. Could you explain a little further this article, its findings and its implications for intelligent design?
A. Again it's a review of the reason, you know, that we've teased out why pathogenic organisms regulate production of a flagellum in a host environment, and they switch between these type three systems. We show in this paper that there is a logical reason for this, because if you operate these systems simultaneously, in other words if we artificially express flagellum protein, which makes up the filament of the flagellum in the host environment, it will be recognized and secreted by that nano syringe.
Buck, are you so personable face to face?

I never have to lie. Read the transcripts of Behe's cross-examination, you will see his comments. No one is doing the work, no one is planning to do the work, and behe himself isn't planning on doing the work. Do your homework next time!

So, in quoting Minnich's testimony, where is the scientific research? What backs up his opinion? Nothing. All smoke, mirrors, and marketing and you fell for it. You should be so proud!

Did you read all of Minnich's testimony where he admitted that his ONLY paper on the subject was not peer-reviewed science? I doubt it, you sound like someone who only reads the parts that seem to agree with your philosophical opinion and never think critically or dig deeper.

One of the problems with ID 'research' was well said by Dr. Chancey, Chair of the Religious Studies Department at SMU:

"Many religious groups-Christian and other-do not regard evolutionary theory as a threat. For many people of faith, science and religion go hand in hand. When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day."

ID 'Theorists' do not do the work to support their ideas. If you have some real science to show, please do! You will fail, like so many others have failed.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#25 Aug 10, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are lying about Behe's comments in Kitzmiller.
I have read the entire transcript.
Point to the portion where he admits they have done no science.
Again, you are a liar.
Kitzmiller Transcript, Day 20; Dr. Scott Minnich:
Q. Do you know employ principles and concepts from intelligent design in your work?
A. I do.
Q. And I'd like for you to explain that further. I know you're prepared several slides to do that.
A. Okay, this is just a reiteration in terms of how we function in the laboratory during the last half century, we've gained a greater understand of biology at the molecular level than the entire history of efforts in the proceeding millennia, and I don't think that's an overstatement. The vast inroads we have made in our understanding of the cell came by techniques essential to a design engineer.
Q. If you can read on from "our understanding of the cell"?
A. All right. I lost my place, let's see. Came by techniques essential to a design engineer, not elements derived from the theory of evolution. The mainstay technique of modern biology has made use of the concept of irreducible complexity of the cell's subsystems. And if I can have the next slide I'll iterate on what I mean by that.
Q. This concept of irreducible complexity, that was coined by Dr. Behe, is that correct?
A. Right, right, but I think any working molecular geneticist recognizes that this really explains the approach that we take. This is from Mike's, one of his publication, but I co-opted it here, "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is necessarily composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and where the removal of any one of the parts causes a system to effectively cease functioning."
Q. Could you explain a little further this article, its findings and its implications for intelligent design?
A. Again it's a review of the reason, you know, that we've teased out why pathogenic organisms regulate production of a flagellum in a host environment, and they switch between these type three systems. We show in this paper that there is a logical reason for this, because if you operate these systems simultaneously, in other words if we artificially express flagellum protein, which makes up the filament of the flagellum in the host environment, it will be recognized and secreted by that nano syringe.
Yet the Court ruled he was full of crap. Why was that? Perhaps a preponderance of the evidence concluded he presented no evidence?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Geology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Earthquake 'more powerful than Italian quake' s... Wed Italy repeat 7 yr... 1
News Preliminary 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Strikes Ce... (Apr '09) Wed repeat 7 years later 5
News Major earthquake in central Italy leaves numero... Wed Abruzzi Italy 1
News At least 10 reported dead after magnitude 6.1 e... Wed lots more dead 1
News Hopes Rise for Underground Carbon Storage Scheme Aug 21 tina anne 1
News As oilpatch bleeds jobs, Alberta's high-tech se... Aug 15 The Drill Sargean... 5
News Earthquake: 3.5 quake strikes near Borrego Spri... Aug 9 LSMFT 1
More from around the web