Intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- KuzII0
Hi discipler, thanks for posting the links i wanted. But the Discovery Institute bio's doesn't reveal that any of those personalities are not religious or have a religious bias.
Stephen C Meyer - Christian and Theologian
John G West - devoutly Christian
Behe - Chrisitan
Dembski - Christian theologian
Jay W Richards - Devout Christian and Theologian
Wesley J Smith - Christian
Jonathan Wells - Christian theologians
Benjamin Wiker - Catholic Christian
Jonathan Witt - Theologian (presumably that means he's also a Christian).
Can't seem to Google or Wikipedia the rest of them, can't be bothered with the associate fellow list. I don't know disicpler, seems to me that this ID lark is overwhelmingly being pushed by some seriously religious academics, rather than those agnostic Scientists that you claim.
- KuzII0
Oh, and those are just the Discovery Inst. Fellows. We shouldn't neglect:
www.iscid.org/fellows.php
discipler
(Nov 8 05, 08:58)LOL! The ISCID is run and started by the EXACT SAME PEOPLE as the discovery institute! Dembski, Behe, Wells et al! lol, was this your attempt to demonstrate ID's acceptability in the wider scientific community?
aww, bless ;)
- kelpie0
he's asleep Kuz.
- KuzII0
who discipler? yeah i assume so...
*squeezes kelpie's bum
- Nairn0
He's dreaming of Jebus.
- discipler0
hehe, nice try Kuzz. Thank you for that shining example of dishonest reporting. You a journalist major? Any port in a storm, i guess, heh.
Any person who knows how to click on a link, can quickly see that these guys are stalwart intellects with more than sufficient credentials. Just a few examples of what Kuzz conveniently failed to mention:
Stephen C. Meyer:
Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology. Published author.
William Dembski:
A mathematician (MIT post doctorate) and a philosopher, William A. Dembski is associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of seven books.
Michael Behe:
Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures.
In addition to publishing over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals, he has also written editorial features in Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times. His book, Darwin's Black Box discusses the implications for neo-Darwinism of what he calls "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems.Those are just 3 examples out of the 42 or so Fellows at DI alone.
- pavlovs_dog0
you are boring and stupid.
- KuzII0
hi discipler. thanks for replying.
I think you missed my point. You said:
"You conveniently neglect to mention the scores of numerous others who are agnostic ID proponents"
My point was in reply to that, because i haven't come across ANY agnostic ID proponents (let alone the scores that you claim! lol). Every single one seems to have a religious agenda. I mean, i'm not arguing that religious zealots aren't good enough to achieve science and philosophy degrees, far from it. I was just being specific to the ID debate, that instead of being this, you know, "movement" that's taken mainstream science by storm - ID seems to be the cause celebre of the usual suspects - you know the devoutly religious theologian scientists that are Dembski, Meyer et al
Do you see what i'm getting at? I'm not for a second saying that Dembski didn't go to univeristy and get a Phd, and Meyer got some too. Just, i don't see any agnostics championing ID... anywhere. This is essentially why i think ID's a dishonest movement.
ok? :)
*kisses
- KuzII0
what's even funnier, i think, is that neither Meyer, nor Dembski, nor Wells has published one single peer-reviewed piece on Intelligent Design.
In fact, the one peer-reviewed ID piece that was published by Meyer in the "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" was immediately repudiated by the publisher, stating that Meyer's article did not meet simple scientific standards and should never have been published by them
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_st…
that's quite funny that!
- KuzII0
*waiting for discipler to post this link:
- discipler0
I hear where you are coming from Kuzz. First, I should have clarified that there are more proponents of ID in the world, than just the handfull who are Fellows at Discovery and who are in the spotlight. I have met many in my journey and several of them are agnostics, there are even some atheists (who believe that the Intelligent Designer(s) were highly intelligent aliens).
There is no question that many of the ID proponents in the spotlight are educated in theology in addition to their respective scientific disciplines. Which of course would make sense, since the implications of ID clearly point to a higher intelligence. Similarly, there are many Darwinists in the spotlight who are decidedly atheistic, being consistent with the materialistic world view which undergirds Darwinian evolution.
I would agree that there would be questionable motives of the ID'ers if A:) There wasn't science to support their position and if B:) They were agressively trying to have ID taught as the only theory in schools. But, Discovery's position is simply to want to see Darwinism taught in it's entirety. As an ailing notion with severe gaps and inconsistencies.
- discipler0
You did indeed post the link for me, thanks. ;)
What you'll find is that the "no peer review" tactic is just that... a tactic. The enemies of ID have proven over and over that they are willing to use blatant falsehood to censor the ID position. People like Eugenie Scott seem to have no qualms about outright lying. It shows their desperation, really.
- KuzII0
yeah, but you see discipler, that's very cynical. It seems to me, that since the discovery institute is run by so many devout Christians(more than your average cross-section of a think tank!) , then maybe their desire to promote ID alongside Darwinism is just a trojan horse? I mean that the 1987 Supreme Court ruling that Darwinism cannot be banned in school must have deflated them quite a bit. So i guess they thought by making ID be taught "alongside" is the best they could hope for?
And if the science is so compelling - why is the peer-reviewed literature so scant?
- discipler0
Furthermore, when the Big Bang theory was proposed, many mainstream scientists tried to censor it. They were uncomfortable with it's theistic implications. It did not immediately get published in peer reviewed journals. Science takes time to accept new ideas. Peer reviewed journals are careful about publishing science that is new.
- discipler0
Kuzz, that's the same propaganda that the anti ID Darwinists like Barbara Forrest have been using for a decade. The 1987 ruling was regarding Biblical Creationism - not ID.
What is the bottom line? The bottom line is what is the latest scientific discovery and where does it point? This is about following the evidence wherever it leads.
Again, the science portion of Discovery is interested in seeing the full story of Darwinism taught.
- discipler0
When you take a close look at this issue and the people on both sides, you find out that one is promoting current science and the other is trying to censor using political rhetoric. Why? Because they know they don't have a scientific leg to stand on.
- KuzII0
That's interesting discipler. None of the peer-reviewed stuff on that disco link i posted holds water.
Just to take a couple of examples: Disco says that Michael Behe's book was peer-reviewed! But this is an out and out lie. Because, listen to this, this is the sum of the peer-review of Darwin's Black Box:
When Behe's publishers were unsure about publishing his book, the editor told his wife, who was a student in the class of this ultra-religious professor - Michael Atchison.
The editor's wife said, "hey why don't you ask my professor if you should publish." In Atchinson's own words "I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately 10 minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript. I told him that the origin of life issue [which has nothing to do with evolution, -jml] was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up and I never thought about it again. At least until two years later.
... In November 1998, I finally met Michael Behe when he visited Penn for a Faculty Outreach talk. He told me that yes, indeed, it was his book that the publisher called me about. In fact, he said my comments were the deciding factor in convincing the publisher to go ahead with the
book"Here's the link:
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri99…
Does that honestly sound like peer-review to you? If not - why would the Disco Insti claim it was? I'm sure you find this shocking, so you must now admit DI is pretty damn dishonest, or atleast very liberal with the term "peer-review".
Furthermore, I went to this website
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr…
It is the United States National Library of Medicine's website that contain's 15 MILLION Peer-reviewd scientific literature on life science and biomedical articles.
Do a search in its database and see what you find.
, enter “intelligent design” in quotation marks, which searches for the two words together. When I searched this produced 25 references, of which 13 were irrelevant to this discussion, five were news articles, six were critical of ID, and one was a historical review. “Irreducible complexity” in quotes gets five hits, one irrelevant and the others critical of ID.
Where is the peer-reviewed literature again?
- ********0
Are you a scientist discipler?