Browse: Home > Science > Intelligent Design Network

Intelligent Design Network

August 29, 2006

Intelligent Design Network

I promised long ago to never get political with my FamilyFirst gig. I hope today's FamilyFirst pick is not construed as a political one.

Here's the issue: The scientific and educational communities have long ago reached a consensus: life spontaneously arose, it evolved into every living thing that has ever existed, from bacteria to blue whales, from slime mold to Audrey Hepburn.

The theory (and I call it a THEORY, because its results have never been duplicated under laboratory conditions) states that an organic soup (which has also never been proven to exist) containing the chemicals necessary for life had enough electrical, magnetic, and whatever other forms of energy necessary for the equation acting upon it to eventually produce a living cell.

That cell, before it died, also began reproducing.

The reproductions continued, along with beneficial mutations and adaptations to the environment, until finally, all the life that is on earth exists.

This is NOT perceived as a theory by the scientific and educational communities. It is perceived as a proven fact.

I'm afraid I have a problem with that. So do many others.

You see, a recent poll shows that 80% of people surveyed by Newsweek magazine believe that the universe was a product of creation.

Today's FamilyFirst site is entitled Intelligent Design Network. Here's their mission:

Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from? We believe objectivity in the institutions of science, government and the media will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.

My take? Science requires an open mind. As soon as intelligent design is mentioned, evolutionists dismiss whatever is said afterward, in my experience.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org

Digg It! It's Del.icio.us! Furl It!

Written by baldguy at August 29, 2006 12:52 AM

Comments on “Intelligent Design Network”

So far, there are 11 comments on this entery. Why not add yours!

  1. Carrie Castro on August 29, 2006 11:56 AM

    If I wanted religious garbage in my e-mail box I would have asked for it. You prove to have a severe misunderstanding of the scientific definition of "theory". I suggest you do a bit of research before showing your ignorance.

  2. Trencherman on August 29, 2006 01:14 PM

    Implicit in your rant is a fallacy (defective reasoning) called Appeal to Ignorance: evolution hasn't been proved; hence intelligent design must be true or more probable. That's bunk.

    You pontificate yet have not even grasped one of your key terms, "scientific theory."

    Polls are not scientific grounds for intelligent design.

  3. Bob Douglas on August 29, 2006 04:25 PM

    Congratulations on your courage to post on this topic. Don't let the ignorant God-haters get your down. Keep up the great work!

  4. Trencherman on August 31, 2006 11:31 AM

    "Don't let the ignorant God-haters get your down."
    Argumentum ad Hominem Circumstantial: thinking that you have refuted a person's position by calling him/her names.
    False Dichotomy: The split is not between believes and non-believers. Many, many Christians see the case for intelligent design as balderdash.

  5. Ron Enderland on September 2, 2006 08:09 AM

    A theory is a fact when its results are duplicated. Create life from chemicals, I'll upgrade your theory to fact.

    BTW, it's not religious garbage. It's a very plausible point of view which, IMHO, requires much less faith than belief that life in its incredible complexity arose on its own.

  6. Ron Enderland on September 3, 2006 07:21 AM

    Implicit in your rant is a fallacy (defective reasoning) called Appeal to Ignorance: evolution hasn't been proved; hence intelligent design must be true or more probable. That's bunk.

    Yes, it is more plausible. I believe Behe's study on how blood clotting occurs makes it MUCH more likely that this amazing multistep process was a result of design rather than chance.

    I would not be surprised if mentioning Behe elicits more comments from you dismissing my views as bunk. It has been my experience that those who believe in spontaneous generation of life are much more narrow-minded and self-righteous than those who are open to the idea of design. Frankly, I believe the leap of faith necessary to believe that life sprang forth on its own despite the astronomical odds of doing so makes one fiercely guard one's tenets.

  7. Trencherman on September 3, 2006 04:38 PM

    Red Herring: Not your views but your use of Appeal to Ignorance as evidence for your views -- that's what was dismissed as bunk.
    "narrow-minded and self-righteous": Ad Hominem.
    "Yes, it is more plausible": Appeal to Ignorance -- faults in the theory of evolution are not evidence for creation.
    "Frankly, I believe the leap of faith necessary to believe that life sprang forth on its own despite the astronomical odds of doing so makes one fiercely guard one's tenets": Ad Hominem (abuse of the person).
    Nevertheless, thank you for the reply.

  8. Ron Anderson on September 8, 2006 02:50 PM

    THANK YOU!!! I completely agree with you. Whether one agrees with current accepted scientific theories or not is irrelavant. To objectively pursue scientific truths requires complete and unbiased open-mindedness. Anything else is self-serving instead of truth-seeking.

  9. Sad on September 9, 2006 05:28 AM

    Came here from a Lockergnome link. I have read Lockergnome mails for many years, but now this Intelligent Design stuff makes me sad. Have just unsubscribed from my last Lockergnome newsletter. Good luck, America.

  10. Paul on September 9, 2006 08:54 AM

    Anybody with a little math and science knows that evolution occurs. Denial means either ignorance or delusion.

    People have been crossbreeding plants and animals for ages. Pretty much everybody accepts that traits are passed on between generations thrrough DNA. Simple statistics--the law of large numbers, guarantees that traits more likely to produce survivable offspring overcome less favorable traits over time. Mutation in genes has been proven. The rest is simple math.

    It is a pity that some people who think of themselves as Christians feel threatened by science. They avoid the real world where it may threaten their preconceptions. They wish to go back to the middle ages when nobody was allowed to think wrong thoughts.

  11. Ron Enderland on September 10, 2006 08:27 PM

    Paul: I agree evolution exists. I won't bring my religious views into this discussion, however, not only am I not threatened by science, it was my favorite school subject, and I am still immersed in it. My views are much more plainly stated in my Evolution vs. Creation column dated September 3rd.

    And Sad, thanks for proving my point. Paiul, what were you saying about "They avoid the real world where it may threaten their preconceptions."?


Post a comment


Verification (needed to reduce spam):