by cofty 195 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I've provided evidence that I.D. is creationism. I suppose that doesn't hold up for you. They try to pretend that they are not, but that has been debunked. They will continue the narrative, of course, hoping to fool people eventually. It is an effort to get a pseudoscience into the classroom, and by doing so, inject religion into the classroom. There have been many smoking guns here. But believe it if you wish. Looks like they are succeeding with some.
NC
This is from Wikipedia---references in the article can be checked.
Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. The Institute defines it as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." [1] [2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". [3] The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, [n 1] [4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity. [n 2]
ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science. It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer. [5] The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, [n 3] [n 4] [6] [7] and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws. [8] [9] [10] [11] The vast majority of the scientific community labels intelligent design as pseudoscience and identifies it as a religious, rather than scientific, viewpoint. It is rejected by mainstream science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.
Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme CourtEdwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state. [12] [n 5] [13] The first publication of the phrase "intelligent design" in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. [14] [15] From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement". [16] [n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District JudgeJohn E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [17]
binadub - Please have a look at NC's post above regarding ID.
I will put my response together this evening, remember I am in UK so there is a time difference so check back in about 12 hours.
Very briefly for now - Theistic evolution is 100% evolution but includes the additional assumption that god is the original cause. However god is NOT detectable in creation. There are naturalistic explanations for every detail.
Evidence for god in the opinion of TE is not found in the natural world. I reject TE for other reasons as I explained in my OP.
Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism dressed up as science in an attempt to avoid the separation clause of the American constitution.
The dividing line is "Paley's Watch"
Darwin's "Origin of Species" was a devastating refutation of Paley. Any idea that tries to put Paley's Watch back on the table is not science. Science is based on methodological naturalism - the working assumption that there are natural explanations for everything.
Traditional creationism points to details like the human eye or a bird's wing and asserts "that could not come about through step-by-step evolution, it must have a designer." The mantra is "complexity, complexity, complexity". ID is nothing more than a modern version of the same. The poster children are molecular systems like the blood-clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum but the arguments are the same.
Some ID proponents are unapologetic Young Earth creationists, others go a long way along the road of accepting evolution but they all want to put the superntural back into the process and dishonestly pretend they are doing science.
ID wants to stop scientific study and declare "god did it", although they are usually not honest enough to say "god" because they want it taught in American schools.
I do think the science they present should be included strictly on its own scientific merits. - binadub
Perhaps while I am putting together a more detailed reply you would accept a similar challenge. Please explain in your own words what ID has contributed to science. What precisely has ID said so far that could be taught in school? No copy-paste or videos allowed.
Later...
I'm reading a paper at the Discovery Institute---well I probably will not finsih it because it really is just a piece of propaganda---but I saw something that made me smile.
Again, my purpose has never been to deny that speciation can occur in nature, especially when speciation is defined by the trivial definition of a mere reproductively isolated population. Rather, my purpose is to test the FAQ’s claims.
As a general rule, individuals that can reproduce together are considered the same species. It is really hard to draw lines between species, especially when looking at fossils. Some researchers will use more general categories, and some will break this definition down even more and divide animals into more categories. It really depends on the need of the researchers. But the one rule accepted by all is reproductive ability. I smiled because this paper referred to such as TRIVIAL. LOL Trivial?
Think about what Trivial means. Two species are so genetically different they cannot reproduce. Their genotypes are not compatible. Their phenotypes may share similarities, but put them in a room together and there will be no baby phenotypes. This is not trivial. This is HUGE.
I.D. is just not science. It is propaganda. Christian propaganda, because they are offended when research falsifies the notion that every species was created complete and meant to only reproduce with its kind. And when we look at it that way, they are calling the Genesis rule that each species will only reproduce with its own kind----trivial! LOL
It's a trainwreck, but I'll link the paper. It is not scientific and does not follow the scientific method.
binadub - Please contrast the three Q&A points from the DI website that you pasted earlier with the record of the Dover Trial.
DI absolutely want ID to be taught in school, that was what the trial was about. As NC explained the school board had purchased copies of a creationist textbook "Pandas and People" that had all references to creationism replaced with ID. Apart from the one reference they missed of course.
ID was a sneaky attempt to get creationism into schools and when it failed their new strategy is to "teach the controversy". This is a dishonst venture. There is no controversy about the fact of evolution only unanswered questions about the details of the process of evolution.
There is controversy in every field of science but nobody is proposing we should alert students that there are gaps in our knowledge about gravity for example.
The Discovery Iinstitute are also lying about their intentions and mission. Did you research the "Wedge Document"? This is their own publication by the way, if you read it all you will find it hard to believe its not a parody. Here is a paragraph from its introduction, click here for the full text...
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.... Discovery Institutes's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Does that sound like an honest scientific venture or a bunch of christians trying to get god into science by the back door? I am happy to pile on layer upon layer of evidence that the DI are sneaky, lying, unscientific theocrats but I suspect you can work it out with a bit of research at the above links.
I am intersted in hearing how you think ID has contributed anything to science.
I can see the possibility of reconciling some bare-boned thiesm with evolution. However, I find it difficult to imagine how to reconcile Christianity with evolution. If man was created through the process of evolution, then there was no original couple. Without the original couple, there is no original sin. Without sin, there is no need for a savior. Without need for a savior, it invalidates the main thrust of Christianity (needing Christ).
TE with Christianity seems problematic to me.
MMM
MMM - to play devil's advocate again, I think that is really just a problem for JW theology.
Christian doctrine about the "work of christ" sees Jesus' death as vicarous punishment rather than Adam-Jesus equivalence.
Article about JW Ransom Vs gospel written in a previous life...
And from what I understand, the Wedge Document was leaked---it was never meant for public eyes. Please let me know if I'm wrong, but it was yet another smoking gun. More evidence that they try to hide their motives, but they are failing. Binadub, are you from the U.S.? I just wonder since these battles seem to be pretty specific here, and educators have to constantly be on the lookout for ID tactics.
NC
@cofty:
You wrote:
MMM - to play devil's advocate again, I think that is really just a problem for JW theology.
Christian doctrine about the "work of christ" sees Jesus' death as vicarous punishment rather than Adam-Jesus equivalence.
Article about JW Ransom Vs gospel written in a previous life...
I read through the article and I believe this paragraph sums up the main idea nicely:
" When we look carefully at this verse however, we find that it does not imply any shifting of blame. Paul says only that sin entered the world through Adam. He does not say that Adam was the source or originator of our predicament, but simply that sin gained entry to the human race through our first ancestor. He then makes a surprising statement that is easily overlooked. He says that death spread to all men "because they had all sinned." This clause is in the past tense, referring back to that first sin in the garden of Eden. In other words the whole human race, as yet unborn, was counted as having shared in the transgression of our representative Adam." (under the sub heading " Adam's Fault or Ours?")
I understand there is a difference between JW theology and traditional Christian theology when it comes to the doctrine of sin. But I don't see how it relieves the difficulity. Whether you buy into "Adamic sin" as the WT does, or whether you believe that each of us is responsible for our own sinful nature, and its the sarifice of Jesus that covers our individual sin (instead of equalizing Adam's), the fact remains that when you have a literal Adam playing a role in the entry of sin into the human race, evolution becomes a problem - because there was no literal Adam.
Note: I'm NOT talking about physical corruption or losing perfection in a paradise. It makes no difference if you view it as a physical fall or a spiritual separation.
Did Adam play a role? Any role? If so, there seems to be an issue.
MMM
