Intelligent? Design
- Started
- Last post
- 391 Responses
- discipler0
who funds the discovery institute? the site that you cite so often?
what are their religious affiliation?
mrdobolina
(Jan 2 06, 11:23)1. I don't know and I don't care. I'm concerned with the science, not who funds a public policy think tank.
2. Discovery has no "religious affiliation".
Read what I just linked.
- ********0
that group looks like some non-profit organization. they might be fueled by grants, etc. I have no idea
- mrdobolina0
do you know who richard melon scaife is?
- ********0
"Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature
that are best explained as the result of intelligence."I have no problem with that as long as it's not a trojan horse for a load of other bullshit
- discipler0
Nope. Don't care, either. Did he have something to say about the Bacteria Flagellum, or DNA encoding, or the Cambrian Explosion?
- ********0
Know him all too well. He's a Pittsburgher (BIGTIME OLD MONEY). He was in cahoots with Carnegie and the Mellons. http://www.mellon.com
no doubt about it, Right wing money. hahah I used to have classes in Scaife Hall. There aren't too many Carnegies left, they intermarried with the Scaifes here. But the ironic thing is that Theresa Heinz Kerry is in bed with them too. Never judge a book..
- discipler0
What should concern you Rand, is that kids are currently being taught a 150 year old narritive based on antiquated data, prior to the advent of biochemistry and molecular biology.
We have new data. We should teach our kids this new data. Not censor the free exchange of ideas. Especially when the new idea has WAY more merit than the old one.
- ********0
hey mrdobolina, Carnegie which was his forefather used to bring in immigrant classes from all over and purposely mix them with each other so they couldn't communicate in English as to form Unions in the Steel Mills. crazy right?!? 100% true
- Kirshar0
ok, discipler, I can agreeingly change my stance based on everything you've posted, but based on the same info, I can see how the religious organizations attached themselves to the idea so easily.
Through scientific discovery, it leaves yet another question mark on the idea of "how did this begin and become what it is today"?
With that open-ended question, all it takes is a mere suggestion of God being the "intelligent designer" far greater than ourselves for the churches to instantly adopt this idea and support it, unlike tradidtional evolution, it gives them a foot in the door once again.
Of course, it couls always be aliens.........
- mrdobolina0
my point, discipler, by pointing out that richard mellon scaife is the majority funder of the discovery institute is that he does have a very definite right wing agenda.
It is no conspiracy to realize that the right wing in this country cater to christians at any cost, because they are huge voters.
So it is absolutely a biased source of information that is heavily funded by right wingers that are successful by making christians happy, thus voting republican.
follow the money motherfuckers.
- ********0
thanks for letting me know what should concern me.
received intellectual concepts and received faith do very little to encourage direct perception of the self-evident intelligence in nature
- dablammit0
So, discipler, who's your favorite designer?
- discipler0
Kirshar, there is no question that ID is friendly to theism because it points towards a powerful intelligence - but... so what? If the evidence points toward a very powerful designing intelligence, we have an obligation to follow the evidence (wherever it may lead us). Even if we are uncomfortable with these implications.
The problem is that people are conflating the science with it's implications. Darwinism has theological implications and so does ID. So does the Big Bang. But nobody is going to call the Big Bang a religious notion.
- nessdog0
Yep.. I'm with the Alien theory. I read it in a book.
- discipler0
mrdobs, I don't care if Rush Limbaugh and Anton Levae are supporters of the Discovery Institute. They don't pull the science out of their rear ends. The science remains science regardless of who is funding an organization who proclaims it. And there are plenty more organizations and individuals who support ID that have no affiliation with Discovery.
- Kirshar0
and for mrdobolina's compelling arguement, I'll never put it past our government, the right, or anyone else of such standings to use their resources to skew any and all information for their own benefit.
- discipler0
Again, from one of the founding members of Discovery and the article I posted:
"According to a spate of recent media reports, intelligent design is a new "faith-based" alternative to evolution-an alternative based entirely on religion rather than scientific evidence.
As the story goes, intelligent design is just creationism repackaged by religious fundamentalists in order to circumvent a 1987 Supreme Court prohibition against teaching creationism in the public schools.
Over the last year, many major U.S. newspapers, magazines and broadcast outlets have run stories repeating this same trope.
But is it accurate?
As one of the architects of the theory of intelligent design, and the director a research center that supports the work of scientists developing the theory, I know that it isn't.
The modern theory of intelligent design was not developed in response to a legal setback for creationists in 1987. Instead, it was first formulated in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists-Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon-who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule.
In the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, Thaxton and his colleagues first developed the idea that the information-bearing properties of DNA provided strong evidence of a prior but unspecified designing intelligence. Mystery was published in 1984 by a prestigious New York publisher-three years before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision.
Even as early the 1960s and 70s, physicists had begun to reconsider the design hypothesis. Many were impressed by the discovery that the laws and constants of physics are improbably "finely-tuned" to make life possible. As British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it, the fine-tuning of numerous physical parameters in the universe suggested that "a superintellect had monkeyed with physics" for our benefit.
Nevertheless, only the most committed conspiracy theorist could see in these intellectual developments a concealed legal strategy or an attempt to smuggle religion into the classroom.
But what exactly is the theory of intelligent design?
Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. "
- Kirshar0
hey d, I agree with you 100% on that.
- nessdog0
Have you got a link to the actual scientific research atall?