Does Intelligent Design Seek to Undo Modern Science?

Biologist Kenneth Miller thinks so. published online July 11, 2008 The proponents of Intelligent Design seek nothing less than a true scientific revolution, an uprising of the first order that would do a great ...

[TedHOhio]

Since Intelligent Design is the brainchild of the Discovery Institute and since their manifesto, the Wedge Strategy, now a decade old, is still their driving document. Dr. Miller's statements are certainly true. Here is a summary of the Wedge Document which describe the strategy.

The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers. According to critics, the wedge document, more than any other Discovery Institute project, demonstrates the Institute's and intelligent design's political rather than scientific purpose.

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

* "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
* "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

I think it's pretty clearly stated!

[Fossil Bob]

TedHOhio wrote:

Since Intelligent Design is the brainchild of the Discovery Institute and since their manifesto, the Wedge Strategy, now a decade old, is still their driving document. Dr. Miller's statements are certainly true. Here is a summary of the Wedge Document which describe the strategy.
The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers. According to critics, the wedge document, more than any other Discovery Institute project, demonstrates the Institute's and intelligent design's political rather than scientific purpose.
The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:
* "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
* "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
I think it's pretty clearly stated!

They're working on it...

They aren't getting very far, though...

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

They had 2,000 years to state their case.

So far, they seem to be loosing....

Science has only had 150 years on the case for evolution....

Hmmm.

[John]

Intelligent design discounts and ignores the quantum leaps that a scientific (if you will, agnostic) view of our world and human activity. I think the crux is not creation, it is the behavioral sciences where modification and dialog are ascending over punishment and judgment.

One of the small miracles I witnessed was a weekend with a five year old. He had quite a temper as a young er child. By his fifth birthday, he has much less temper and bullying, and he is a natural desire to cooperate with adults as they work, to fit into important activity, and to teach younger children.

ID folks wrongly believe that we have no morals. To the contrary, we believe sincere pursuit of truth and conduct based on results is the foundation for morality.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

John wrote:

Intelligent design discounts and ignores the quantum leaps that a scientific (if you will, agnostic) view of our world and human activity. I think the crux is not creation, it is the behavioral sciences where modification and dialog are ascending over punishment and judgment.
One of the small miracles I witnessed was a weekend with a five year old. He had quite a temper as a young er child. By his fifth birthday, he has much less temper and bullying, and he is a natural desire to cooperate with adults as they work, to fit into important activity, and to teach younger children.
ID folks wrongly believe that we have no morals. To the contrary, we believe sincere pursuit of truth and conduct based on results is the foundation for morality.

Oh, I agree.

Moral behavior is definitely a fundamental part of human behavior.

The key is to look at the human species, not individuals.

As a species, our ability to cooperate (and what else IS moral behavior, but cooperating with the majority of society?) is astounding.

Regardless of our individual culture or religious beliefs, our ability to cooperate outweighs them all.

[John]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, I agree.
Moral behavior is definitely a fundamental part of human behavior.
The key is to look at the human species, not individuals.
As a species, our ability to cooperate (and what else IS moral behavior, but cooperating with the majority of society?) is astounding.
Regardless of our individual culture or religious beliefs, our ability to cooperate outweighs them all.

The only reply I can offer is HD Thoreau's famous remark to the effect that someone who correctly perceives an issue is a "majority of one."

The tricks are knowing when I correctly perceive an issue, and recognizing when another lone individual correctly perceives an issue. A Einstein's remarks on tolerance being an attitude help me grasp what I believe is an unresolvable dilemma.

When we propound and consider ideas, we are engaging in an individual effort in a cooperative way. When we look at ourselves, it is wiser to look at what we are and from that consider what we would like for us to be as a family, community, a civilization or a species.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, ID seems to use an answer as a means to ignore the question. It is not just wrong, it's sad.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

John wrote:

<quoted text>
The only reply I can offer is HD Thoreau's famous remark to the effect that someone who correctly perceives an issue is a "majority of one."
The tricks are knowing when I correctly perceive an issue, and recognizing when another lone individual correctly perceives an issue. A Einstein's remarks on tolerance being an attitude help me grasp what I believe is an unresolvable dilemma.
When we propound and consider ideas, we are engaging in an individual effort in a cooperative way. When we look at ourselves, it is wiser to look at what we are and from that consider what we would like for us to be as a family, community, a civilization or a species.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, ID seems to use an answer as a means to ignore the question. It is not just wrong, it's sad.

ID is what we can term, "Fractally Wrong"

That is-- it is wrong at any level of inspection.

[McGoo]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, I agree.
Moral behavior is definitely a fundamental part of human behavior.
The key is to look at the human species, not individuals.
As a species, our ability to cooperate (and what else IS moral behavior, but cooperating with the majority of society?) is astounding.
Regardless of our individual culture or religious beliefs, our ability to cooperate outweighs them all.

Would you define the ability of ants to cooperate as moral?

[John]

McGoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you define the ability of ants to cooperate as moral?

Alternatively, today we successfully treat many behavior difficulties as medical disorders, and the patients respond productively and responsibly.

In the past, sufferers of these disorders were isolated or punished for because they were assumed to have committed a sin or indulged moral weaknesses. I view this as immoral.

Or to use another alternative, today we are learning to use genetics to correctly plan courses of treatment or provide reliefs and cures. Many oppose this genetic research based on fears that seem to me unfounded. I consider this immoral also.

I do not believe research on human embryos is moral, but I think that humans have an obligation to always think through their fears and look at facts. This ID stuff is rationalization because people fear what science is explaining.

[McGoo]

John wrote:

<quoted text>
Alternatively, today we successfully treat many behavior difficulties as medical disorders, and the patients respond productively and responsibly.
In the past, sufferers of these disorders were isolated or punished for because they were assumed to have committed a sin or indulged moral weaknesses. I view this as immoral.
Or to use another alternative, today we are learning to use genetics to correctly plan courses of treatment or provide reliefs and cures. Many oppose this genetic research based on fears that seem to me unfounded. I consider this immoral also.
I do not believe research on human embryos is moral, but I think that humans have an obligation to always think through their fears and look at facts. This ID stuff is rationalization because people fear what science is explaining.

I think a science dealing with morals (If there is or can be such a thing) is or would be fascinating.

[John]

McGoo wrote:

<quoted text>
I think a science dealing with morals (If there is or can be such a thing) is or would be fascinating.

I agree with you, and many seem to be trying. I was reading 1 Sam and 2 Sam this morning. It struck me that David stood out among rulers at this time for his morality, but today, he would surely be indicted, tried and convicted.

While many wring their hands at our vices and errors, I am thankful for the progress we have made in some 3000 years.

Want to ask though, A Einstein said that we arrive at morals through trial and error, as we do in science. I can't put my finger on the issue, but I am not comfortable with his statement. Thoughts?

[Kong_]

McGoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you define the ability of ants to cooperate as moral?

I believe this is an example of anthropomorphizing a species traits. The same for "cooperation" with bees, etc. It is part of their survival pattern for sure, but it's highly doubtful it's cooperation as we know it.

[Kong_]

McGoo wrote:

<quoted text>
I think a science dealing with morals (If there is or can be such a thing) is or would be fascinating.

It may be a stretch, but there is a "science" dealing with highly immoral behavior (murder, rape, theft, etc):

Criminology.

As to HOW we arrived at what society at-large considers to be "immoral" and how the parameters of what is considered "immoral" changes over time, THAT would be quite interesting....

[Drew Smith]

McGoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you define the ability of ants to cooperate as moral?

I doubt that morality has any meaning within an ant species. The concept of morality would seem to require that the individual be able to willingly choose among at least two different possible courses of action, where the individual can predict the consequences of each possible course. It's not apparent to me that individual ants have such an ability.

[Darwins Stepchild]

McGoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you define the ability of ants to cooperate as moral?

My take on this...

Well, it depends largely on how you define "moral". If it means following society's rules, then yes. Ants always follow their society's rules.

However, if you require an aspect of free will in you definition of "moral", then no. Ants have virtually no free will. Almost every aspect of their behavior is hard wired and they can act no other way.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

McGoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you define the ability of ants to cooperate as moral?

Within the limits and association of ant "society" certainly.

Individual ants, within their own context, are moral with each other or they are not.

You seem to be assuming that there is some sort of absolute, here, when there is not.

Human morality cannot, nor should not, be applied to ants, and vice-versa.

But, within the context of ALL humans, there can certainly be concepts that are "moral" and "immoral".

That being said, you'd have to justify your choices somehow.

If you rely on supernatural belief-- then one supernatural belief is as good as another's. For there is rarely justification for supernatural belief. And there is, to date, zero objective justification.

However, there are plenty of SECULAR justifications for moral and ethical behavior.

[McGoo]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Within the limits and association of ant "society" certainly.
Individual ants, within their own context, are moral with each other or they are not.
You seem to be assuming that there is some sort of absolute, here, when there is not.
Human morality cannot, nor should not, be applied to ants, and vice-versa.
But, within the context of ALL humans, there can certainly be concepts that are "moral" and "immoral".
That being said, you'd have to justify your choices somehow.
If you rely on supernatural belief-- then one supernatural belief is as good as another's. For there is rarely justification for supernatural belief. And there is, to date, zero objective justification.
However, there are plenty of SECULAR justifications for moral and ethical behavior.

No I wasn't assuming there was some absolute but I was curious if there were behaviour patterns in other creatures similar to humans.
The first thing that springs to mind (Now) is parenting, Not sure how consistant this is in humans though

I knew ants lived in communities so it was the first one that sprung to mind (then).

I suspect it might be impossible to gather objective informaion.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

McGoo wrote:

<quoted text>
No I wasn't assuming there was some absolute but I was curious if there were behaviour patterns in other creatures similar to humans.
The first thing that springs to mind (Now) is parenting, Not sure how consistant this is in humans though
I knew ants lived in communities so it was the first one that sprung to mind (then).
I suspect it might be impossible to gather objective informaion.

Complex parent-child interactions have been observed in other mammals.

Baboons, elephants, whales, wolves, lions to name the few off the top of my head I've read about.

Heck, even certain reptiles exhibit complex parent-child relationships (alligators, certain snakes).

With primates, the complexity seems to be the deepest-- and much of it could be learned behavior, passed down from mother to child. We are only now learning about some of it, especially contrasting zoo raised animals with their wild brethren.

For example, in elephants, young males older than adolescent, but too young to have mates/herds, often wander alone or in small groups.

There was a new elephant preserve (where, I forget) that had imported several matriarchal groups-- female elephants with their young. No mature males, as they assumed that the young males would grow and fulfill that role.

How wrong! The young elephant males, when they left the "nest" or circle of the older females, and went out on their own, got into all sorts of problems.

They were out of control, and destructive-- often rampaging into human settlements, causing a ruckus.

So, back to established herds, and look closely and the solitary male behavior-- what kept the younger ones in check? Answer-- older, wiser males.

Solution: import a few mature bulls into the newly re-populated area.

Worked like a charm-- within weeks, the older bulls had put "the hammer" on the wild younger males, and they calmed down.

It seems the younger males needed a role model of the older males, in order to "know" how to act. Or else the older males simply "slapped some sense" into the younger males, either way works for me.

Complex? Certainly. As complex as humans? Easily! Remove our technology, and we are not that different from they.

[McGoo]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Complex parent-child interactions have been observed in other mammals.
Baboons, elephants, whales, wolves, lions to name the few off the top of my head I've read about.
Heck, even certain reptiles exhibit complex parent-child relationships (alligators, certain snakes).
With primates, the complexity seems to be the deepest-- and much of it could be learned behavior, passed down from mother to child. We are only now learning about some of it, especially contrasting zoo raised animals with their wild brethren.
For example, in elephants, young males older than adolescent, but too young to have mates/herds, often wander alone or in small groups.
There was a new elephant preserve (where, I forget) that had imported several matriarchal groups-- female elephants with their young. No mature males, as they assumed that the young males would grow and fulfill that role.
How wrong! The young elephant males, when they left the "nest" or circle of the older females, and went out on their own, got into all sorts of problems.
They were out of control, and destructive-- often rampaging into human settlements, causing a ruckus.
So, back to established herds, and look closely and the solitary male behavior-- what kept the younger ones in check? Answer-- older, wiser males.
Solution: import a few mature bulls into the newly re-populated area.
Worked like a charm-- within weeks, the older bulls had put "the hammer" on the wild younger males, and they calmed down.
It seems the younger males needed a role model of the older males, in order to "know" how to act. Or else the older males simply "slapped some sense" into the younger males, either way works for me.
Complex? Certainly. As complex as humans? Easily! Remove our technology, and we are not that different from they.

With the greatest respect Bob, why distinguish our technology from our complexity. One might assume technology was a gift.

The Elephant example is very interesting but for some uncanny reason not entirely suprising lol

It does show very well some traits recognisable to humans as being moral related
But a human moral trait that I would consider very important, without really being able to say why, is individual moral "fibre", I can't think of a better word and maybe we don't need to, where a human might do something contrary to the group but motivated by somthing distinguishable from pure stuborness alone. Not an easy distinction to make, even in humans, at the best of times I'll grant
Going back to the Elephants, the temporary change of behaviour might be considered in moral terms or as an expected (from now on) change based on evironmental factors but I think a better indication of moral behaviour (similar to humans) would have been, had one or more of the young elephants not gotten into trouble. That behaviour could then have been then examined in more details, to see what could have motivated it.

[Dawn Wessel]

What Christians don't know:

(Genesis):
Adam (Hebrew)='ruddy'
man (Hebrew)=‘ruddy’, rosy, the flush of red blood

'Adam' and 'man' are synonyms

"man became a ‘living soul’"(Genesis):

soul (Hebrew & Greek)= animal principle/breathing creature

- does not mean a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth/dust of the ground/primordial ooze)

The translations clearly reveal that Adam/man was not initially a ‘human’ being, as many believe but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (which had to have been a primate/chimpanzee because of other evidence and more recent human genome DNA mapping).

However,'religious' tendencies are observed strictly in the ‘human’ species. If human beings are ‘soul (animal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in other animals? Could it be because human beings have something the other animals don’t have?

animal = soul
human being = soul + immortal spirit

One primate, ruddy, wandered into the supernatural realm on all fours but exited on two legs (which created weak human backbones). He gained a supernatural spirit which caused his body to morph and he and Eve passed on that form to their descendants.

[e-mail]