New Rule

If you post an Attack on

any scientific principle, , Compelling and Reasoned theory or

Natural Explanation of the Universe

Replacing it with a Supernatural Explanation

You MUST be Prepared

to Offer EQUAL, Compelling and reasoned


FOR YOUR Position with:


Empirical Results of Repeatable






The Management

Intelligent Design and Science

Interesting find while surfing this morning. The ID people keep claiming they’re all about science, but the never reveal any.

ISSR Statement on the Concept of ‘Intelligent Design’

The authors of this statement constitute a group set up for the purpose by the Executive Committee of the International Society for Science and Religion. Through a process involving consultation with all members of the Society, the statement has now been accepted by the Executive Committee for publication as a statement made on behalf of the Society.

The International Society for Science and Religion is a scholarly society devoted to ongoing dialogue between the sciences and the community of world faiths.  It was established in 2002 for the purpose of promoting education through the support of interdisciplinary learning and research in the fields of science and religion, conducted where possible in an international and multi-faith context.

The society greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion. Science operates with a common set of methodological approaches that gives freedom to scientists from a range of religious backgrounds to unite in a common endeavor. This approach does not deny the existence of a metaphysical realm but rather opens up the natural world to a range of explorations that have been incredibly productive, especially over the last 400 years or so.

The intelligent-design (ID) movement began in the late 1980s as a challenge to the perceived secularization of the scientific community, which leaders of the movement maintained had been coloured with the philosophy of atheistic naturalism. ID theorists have focused their critique primarily on biological evolution and the neo-Darwinian paradigm. They claim that because certain biological features appear to be “irreducibly complex” and thus incapable of evolving incrementally by natural selection, they must have been created by the intervention of an intelligent designer. Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or “scientific” creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language.  Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of “irreducible complexity” in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes. Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be “irreducibly complex” today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow.

Scientific explanations are always incomplete. We grant that a comprehensive account of evolutionary natural history remains open to complementary philosophical, metaphysical, and religious dimensions. Darwinian natural history does preempt certain accounts of creation, leading, for example, to the contemporary creationist and ID controversies. However, in most instances, biology and religion operate at different and non-competing levels.  In many religious traditions, such as some found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, the notion of intelligent design is irrelevant. We recognize that natural theology may be a legitimate enterprise in its own right, but we resist the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science – just as we oppose efforts of others to elevate science into a comprehensive world view (so-called scientism). See the website: Here

Intelligent design is nearly universally condemned as science and as a concept. Most people recognize it for what it really is; a wedge devise to sneak WASP religion into our school systems. The only support for it is from evangelical fundamentalists, Young Earth Creationist (YEC), and some Old Earth Creationist (OEC).

Now proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) are using ‘Stealth Candidates’ who are running for positions on local and state school boards without declaring or admitting that they will advocate teaching ID in schools when elected. They just don’t get it…and they will try anything, including dishonesty, to achieve their goals. That they would use dishonesty in the furtherance of their religious sect speaks volumes about the true value of their faith.

Most people don’t analyze this battle enough, and don’t seem to realize that the ultimate goal of the religious right is to take over our country and remake it into a religious society; kind of like the Dark Ages in Europe when the Catholics ruled, and the strength and direction of your belief…decided whether you lived or died.  A lot of people don’t realize that the religious right has taken control of the Republican Party.

Cognite tute-think about it/use your head.

For latest post go: Here

more animals</a

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Internet and Religion

One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh. -Robert A. Heinlein

I was thinking today (something I studiously try to avoid), and thought back to the mid 90’s when I would occasionally argue with some Christians about God, the Bible, and religion in general.

It was tough at that time, because although I knew what the Christians were pushing was phony and tremendously wrong, I had no ammunition, no information about the depths of the Christian deceit.  All my research on religious matters was tough as I was also trying to make a living and support a pretty big family.  Because of what the subject matter was about, I pretty much did it sporadically, as I didn’t want to cause any commotion at home.

All of that started to change in late 1996 or early1997 when we got Internet access, and I started to find so much relevant information online.  Argument I had never even thought about, information to give support to my position on the silliness of Noah’s flood and the Tower of Babel, and the age of the earth, Adam and Eve, and the beginnings of the Christian faith.  All was suddenly clear…these feelings I had about the wrongness of their concepts and beliefs…I intuitively knew they were wrong, but now I had access to real scientific papers and people that were doing actual research on matters I was interested in.  I could finally know the subjects with some confidence, I could argue from knowledge, not from some vague feeling that their theology was crazy.

I am thinking that the humongous amount of information now available to atheists, agnostics and wavering Christians is slowly turning the tide of religion. The evidence, available to all with a computer and Internet connection, is now so overwhelming that the Bible is wrong.  We can, if we want, disprove just about anything thrown at us by religious fanatics. The thick fog of myth and false magic is slowly dissipating, the more knowledge we accumulate about the ball and chain of religion, the more we know of its falseness.

For latest post go: Here

more cat pictures

Add to Technorati Favorites

Intelligent Design…I Can’t get no Respect.

Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget. – Cheop’s Law. I just knew contractors were always like that :}

People who subscribe to the Intelligent design “theory” are constantly complaining that nobody accepts their “theory.” What they mean is, no real scientists or serious science journal accepts what they say; so consequently, they get no respect.

What they invariably forget to mention is that their “theory” depends on the acceptance of magic as a part of the real world. I can see why they don’t mention this, as there has never been an instance of verifiable, repeatable, testable magic in the whole history of our world.

Have you, or anyone you know, ever been witness to magic? If you think this happened, have there been witnesses, and has it been widely acknowledged as a true event? Don’t say the Bible either, as this book is widely known to be copies of copies and parts are known to be allegory and other parts could be made up theology. Also, the man who went around raising dead people, curing leprosy, and had thousands of followers is not supported in non-biblical writing. I know two billion people believe in it, but one billion people are Hindu’s, with a whole nother’ belief in world history, and apparent validity of their own Gods.

There is, of course, no recognizable physical support for any of the ‘God as a spirit’ believing religions, and there never has been. Of course ID people try to turn this around by saying that there is no evidence for evolution, conveniently forgetting that Darwin has been gathering steam for 150 years, long before ID was even a gleam in anybodies eyes, and it keeps getting stronger in proofs. The ID people need to accept that and stop trying make our whole world fit into their rather small and smothering mold.

All the “facts of science” that ID people advance, generally sound plausible to the layman, or even to the well educated sometimes. But, this same “fact”, when given to someone who is schooled in the science in question, the ID argument invariably falls apart. And the problem for the ID’ers is all of the sciences are advancing so rapidly now that even they can’t stay ahead of the curve.

The biggest problem facing the Intelligent Design fans is that they have so far been unable to come up with any convincing science or proofs to back up their claims. All of their claims (except the paranormal ones, that are inherently un-provable) have been disproved in the real world of physical sciences.

In the February issue of the conservative magazine ‘Townhall‘ (they can be found on the internet at a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, David Klinghoffer, bemoans the fact that people that believe in ID get no respect at mainstream universities. In fact they usually hide their belief from fear of being fired. He writes of Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University who was denied tenure, reputedly because of his being outspoken on ID. He goes on to describe others who have suffered in the science community because of their beliefs in intelligent design religion.

I wonder if the universities are doing this so they don’t get into the same situation as Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, where Michael Behe, author of various ID friendly books is a professor of biochemistry. The Department of Biological Sciences department, of which he is of course a member, had to come up with a disclaimer, telling the world that they do not subscribe to professor Behe’s theories. Following is that disclaimer:

Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.” My emphasis.

I think this is a fair position for the university to take, as they have to compete for serious students and faculty in the real world. Let the ID proponents form their own institutions of higher learning, get accreditation, and compete for credibility. I might add that professor Behe’s testimony in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District was singled out by the judge as specious, and that: “intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.”

It helps if you remember that a number of right wing religious organizations are trying to make the whole United States a theocracy…that is; religiously ruled and dominated by evangelical leaders…and real science…no longer taught in our schools.

Now, we as a country have some real problems admittedly, but compared to countries that are ruled by religionists, we are a profound “Paradise.” Can you even imagine how deeply disturbed our society would be if we gave up scientific inquiry in this country or indeed, the whole world?

Can you conceive of a world where trying to understand the physical universe would be considered blasphemy?

Perhaps punishable by brainwashing in government facilities.

Where you would be punished for trying to consider reality.

Add to Technorati Favorites