forums.creationscience.net

Intelligent Design is most certainly a hot topic. Unfortunately, it is most often misrepresented by the media. The idea of Intelligent Design does NOT come from the creation camp. It is the only logical conclusion that can be reached from the evolution camp, since the philosophy of evolution is not an adequate mechanism for accounting for the irreducible complexity of organics. Intelligent Design does NOT say that the Designer is the Designer of the Bible, i.e. God, it simply says that the complexity found in organics could not arise through the mechanism of evolution. Stay tuned and we'll figure it out, but it could not have been through evolution. Associated Press has an interesting article this morning:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... esign.html

I am in Palmer, Alaska at this time conducting a seminar. Not only is the scenery awesome, but the reasoning of those attending the seminar as well --- how refreshing!

If one buys ID then a question is "When did the designer do this work?" Several billion years ago? 6000 years ago? All at once? Or is it a continuing design process?
Anyone have any responses to that?

Again, as per my previous post, intelligent design comes from the evolution camp, not the creation camp. Unfortunately, this is most often misrepresented by the media.

Really, guess I missed the gist of your post as well as the basics of ID. What is your evidence for the statement that ID comes from the "evolution camp"? To the best of my knowledge most evolutionary biologists do not buy into ID.

My questions remain however, whether to be answered by ID'ers, evolutionary biolgists or creationists.

My link in the aforementioned post is a beginning.

Try again, it does not support your claim that ID comes from "the evolution camp". In fact when it states that the chairman of the Czech Academy of Sciences called the ID conference "useless" you should get a clue as to what main stream science thinks about ID.

ID is not science. It is an attempt to get ID (creationism) in the back door of schools, especially in the US, without rigorous peer review or any substantial support from the vast majority of those who deal in science. To take the position that there are specifics in biological systems that we do not understand now so they must have been created is intellectuallly dishonest.

And I would like someone to attempt to answer my earlier questions. When did the Designer do the work?

Personally,
I think God is the intelligent designer. I think He took a lot of or a long period of what we call time to do it.
Jukia,
Read the article linked in my post "Was Creation Revealed in Six (or Seven) Days?". Tell us what you think. There is a link there then that article has a few more links that I think make good sense. Moses and the Israelites could have been shown over a six (or seven) day period what transpired before Adam's advent.
How long the period covered in the revelation was, I think, billions of years.
To describe it in human language was as hard for Moses as describing the glory and splendor of Heaven was for John at the other end of the Bible.
SQ

One other thing. If as Doc says the ID theory is coming from the evolutionists why are the evolutionists so upset about it being taught in schools? Does this imply a little jealousy among scientists? Is one kind of evolutionary teaching as good or bad as any other?

Quite simply, the statement that ID is coming from "evolutionists" is not quite accurate. While it may be that there are some who have an evolutionary background who have determined that ID deserves some consideration it is clear that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists think other wise. ID is really based on creationism. Call it a Designer or Creator, seems to make no difference to me.
If ID is valid science then go through the peer review process and publish real research. Dont try to get in the back door with fundamentalist members of school boards.

Here is the link and the text of an article concerning the overthrow of the Dover, PA school board in last night's election. The old board had been sued for requiring a disclaimer in the biology classes saying there is an alternative to evolution.
The suit ended recently. Have you been following the reports of it in the news?
It seems to me that the evolutionists have been opposing the mention of intelligent design. If ID is an offshoot of evolutionism why the opposition?

SQ



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09dover.html


School Board
Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: November 9, 2005
All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.

Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press
The school board in Dover, Pa., called for teaching intelligent design.

Among the losing incumbents on the Dover, Pa., board were two members who testified in favor of the intelligent design policy at a recently concluded federal trial on the Dover policy: the chairwoman, Sheila Harkins, and Alan Bonsell.
The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum. The policy was the subject of a trial in Federal District Court that ended last Friday. A verdict by Judge John E. Jones III is expected by early January.
"I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about," said Bernadette Reinking, who was among the winners.
The election will not alter the facts on which the judge must decide the case. But if the intelligent design policy is defeated in court, the new school board could refuse to pursue an appeal. It could also withdraw the policy, a step that many challengers said they intended to take.
"We are all for it being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology class," said Judy McIlvaine, a member of the winning slate. "It is not a science."
The vote counts were close, but of the 16 candidates the one with the fewest votes was Mr. Bonsell, the driving force behind the intelligent design policy. Testimony at the trial revealed that Mr. Bonsell had initially insisted that creationism get equal time in the classroom with evolution.
One incumbent, James Cashman, said he would contest the vote because a voting machine in one precinct recorded no votes for him, while others recorded hundreds.
He said that school spending and a new teacher contract, not intelligent design, were the determining issues. "We ran a very conservative school board, and obviously there are people who want to see more money spent," he said.
One board member, Heather Geesey, was not up for re-election.
The school board voted in October 2004 to require ninth grade biology students to hear a brief statement at the start of the semester saying that there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, that intelligent design was an alternative and that students could learn more about it by reading a textbook "Of Pandas and People," available in the high school library.
The board was sued by 11 Dover parents who contended that intelligent design was religious creationism in new packaging, and that the board was trying to impose its religion on students. The parents were represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and a private law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

As I have suggested before, ID is not an offshoot of evolutionary theory. It is rather an offshoot of creationism.
The Pennsylvania school board election is interesting
As is the Kansas school board's decision to rewrite its standards in such a way to "allow" teaching intelligent design. Perhaps they will next provide for teaching alchemy in chemistry class.

The IDers claim they want the schools to be able to "teach the controversy". However there is none. There may be controversy within biology with respect to the specifics of evolution but there is no controversy in main stream science with respect to the basics.

ID is not science. It is creationism masquerading as science. I am glad my kids are well out of school and happy not to live in Kansas.