Comments on: Is Intelligent Design a Religious Movement?: Conclusion

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:30:57 +0000

If one raises the argument that Intelligent Design is not science, but merely a religious movement (and I could certainly understand why someone may argue that), then Evolution should also be categorized under the same heading. Both have scientific aspects to them, both try desperately to make sense of a question that is extremely mysterious, and both use unnatural means to explain the appearance of complex organism injected with information (God or Chance).

-Chris
(thecrite.blogspot.com)

By: malcolm

malcolm — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:20:23 +0000

You said
“Michael Behe, in his response to that decision, sums up the issue well, stating that the courts mistaken ruling was premised on…

… a cramped view of science; ”

What you should have continued to mention is that Behe admitted in court, under oath, that his definition of science which would allow ID in would also allow astrology and palm reading to be classified as science.

By: CDavidParsons

CDavidParsons — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:06:59 +0000

Evolutionists also believe in a designer; howbeit, extraterrestrial beings planting seeds on earth eons ago.

THERE IS A NEW DISCIPLINE. Try and dice this one.

“The Quest for Right”: A Creationist Attack on Quantum Mechanics.

By Stephen L of the newsgroups.derkeiler.com

Here’s a different take on creationism/ID: “The Quest for Right,” a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics:

“American Atheists base their reasoning on Quantum Interpretation, hand in hand with Quantum Mathematics. Summoning the dark forces of quantum mysticism, with mathematical incantations, possesses the power to bewilder, and thus con, the average persons seemingly at will, into believing the bizarre and surreal: Z Particles, Neutrinos, Leptons, Quarks, Weak Bosons, etc. Mystics attempt to pass off quantum abuses as legitimate science, by expressing the theories in symbolic fashion. These formula represent the greatest hoax ever pulled upon an unsuspecting public….The objective….is to expedite the return to classical physics, by exposing quantum dirty tricks. That is, unethical behavior or acts,…to undermine and destroy the credibility of Biblical histories. These dirty tricks include: Absolute dating systems, Big Bang Theory, Antimatter, and Oort Cloud. These…have no further station in Science.”

http://www.questforright.com

A more sophisticated way to argue against Darwin is certainly to argue against modern physics. Without modern physics, you lose astrophysics too, which enables the author to make the case for YEC [young earth creationism]. The author goes on to “prove” that things like red supergiant stars and X-ray pulsars don’t really exist, except in the imagination of scientists.”

By: Unapologetic Catholic

Unapologetic Catholic — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:57:04 +0000

“Additionally, however, The Discovery Institute’s policy emphasizes that there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntary discussion of the scientific theory of design in a classroom, and that teachers should not be persecuted or harassed if they choose to discuss the scientific evidence for design.”

The Discovery Institute’s opinion is legally incorrect.

“The Dover decision of December 2005 which classified intelligent design as religion, not science, perpetuated the confusion that intelligent design is identical to creationism.”

This misrepresnets the court’s ruling. I suggest you read it closer. The court foung that “intellgient design” is a sham. A ’sham” is a spurious deceitful imitation of something else. In this case, the court found that there was no science underpinning “intellgient design” at all. Behe, for one, agreed with that in his own in-court testimony.

The judge also heard unrebutted testimony that intellgient design’s arguments are the same arguments prevously used by young earth and old eart creationists and no new arguments have been made by intellgient design not already made by any earlier varieties of creationism.

On that foundation, the court concluded that intelligent design was a sham for both the old earth and the young earth varieties of creationism–a mere “relabelling of creationism” in the judge’s words.

The opinion is thoughtful and well supported by the testimony at trial. I highly recommend it to all who are interested in this subject.

Wikipedia has a good summary of the case, including summarries of the witness testimony and a link to the opinion itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District