With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
5
11
15
13
11
6
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Having a 'lemon wedge' in my tea makes more sense ...
Interesting questions
Let's just cut to the chase: ID does not perform any empirical and statistical verifications, at best they could perform statistical falsifications of a particular scientific hypothesis but even the simplest hypotheses are not easily captured in statistics and thus ID has found that most examples of supposedly 'designed' systems, cannot really be tested using ID methodology.
So let's be upfront here about what ID really is: It's the argument that when we do not fully understand how something arose, that our default position should be 'designed' not 'we don't know'. Once we agree on this simple fact, we can see if the Judge's ruling had a solid foundation.
First of all, the judge observed that the school board was strongly motivated by religious beliefs and the fact that they believed that ID presented a scientific hypothesis and thus a valid secular purpose, was their downfall when the Judge showed not only how ID is tightly linked to religious motivations (the Wedge) but also that as a science it lacked any content.
It is sufficient to point out that ID, which claims that design is that which remains when we cannot explain something using natural processes of regularity or chance, must be either the empty set or the supernatural. I doubt that many ID proponent would argue for the empty set and thus what logically remains, and what is supported by the evidence, ID's 'designer (wink, wink)' is just an evolved concept, just like 'creationist' became 'cdesign proponentist' to 'design proponent'.
- PvM
September 12, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's also be upfront about who may have erred ...
PvM:
"First of all, the judge observed that the school board was strongly motivated by religious beliefs and the fact that they believed that ID presented a scientific hypothesis and thus a valid secular purpose, was their downfall ... "
Thanks for bringing that up Pv, since I forgot to. There is strong evidence that Buckingham had religious motives, and that he had a memory slip regarding funding for the books, etc. That alone could qualify for an interpretation of 'religious motives', although Lemon Test prong 1, while requiring a "secular purpose", does not summarily rule out tentatively having a religious motive as well. None-the-less, I don't disagree with his ruling regarding the school board.
That said, none of this relates to the ID ruling, since the board members were not ID advocates, except perhaps superficially.
PvM:
" ... when the Judge showed not only how ID is tightly linked to religious motivations (the Wedge) but also that as a science it lacked any content."
The board members weren't even aware of the 'Wedge' document, a dated (ten years), internal document of DI, and neither relevant to Dover v Kitzmiller, nor to the ID hypothesis.
More on the ACLU's rubber stamped ruling, by a practicing attorney:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-we-should-not-try-to-fathom-the-hearts-of-policy-makers /
lacked any content."
- Lee Bowman
September 12, 2008 2:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There we go again
--Bowman
More on the ACLU's rubber stamped ruling, by a practicing attorney
--
Nothing wrong with quoting from a well argued submission by the ACLU
--Bowman
That said, none of this relates to the ID ruling, since the board members were not ID advocates, except perhaps superficially.
--
On the contrary, and the DI realized this when arguing in their Amicus Curiae brief that ID does have 'valid secular purposes'. Since if ID did indeed have a valid secular purpose, as the board indeed believed (it was after all claimed to be 'scientific' by ID proponents) then the ruling would have had to take into consideration the valid secular purpose aspect. Peter Irons explains it quite well in his paper.
- PvM
September 12, 2008 2:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yea, but 91% of the ruling?
"Nothing wrong with quoting from a well argued submission by the ACLU."
OK, referring to it is of course permissable, but come on, copying 91% of it. How do we know the Judge really thought much about the issue himself? We don't with that kind of antic. This seems like a misuse of the privilege to refer to a brief to me. If the Judge had done the same thing, copied 91% of a well written brief submitted by an ID group, and ruled for the other side, what do you think you would have complained about? It goes both ways my friend. The only reason you don't think this is a problem is because he supports your view, isn't that right?....
- tj10
September 12, 2008 8:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wedge is relevant
--Bowman argues
The board members weren't even aware of the 'Wedge' document, a dated (ten years), internal document of DI, and neither relevant to Dover v Kitzmiller, nor to the ID hypothesis.
--
It was relevant to the history of Intelligent Design, especially when the ID 'hypothesis' was found to be lacking scientific content.
Not surprisingly, the Judge disagreed with Bowman's position that the Wedge was not relevant
--Judge Jones
Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.
---
Hope this helps
- PvM
September 12, 2008 2:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wedge is relevant
--Bowman argues
The board members weren't even aware of the 'Wedge' document, a dated (ten years), internal document of DI, and neither relevant to Dover v Kitzmiller, nor to the ID hypothesis.
--
It was relevant to the history of Intelligent Design, especially when the ID 'hypothesis' was found to be lacking scientific content.
Not surprisingly, the Judge disagreed with Bowman's position that the Wedge was not relevant
--Judge Jones
Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.
---
Hope this helps
- PvM
September 12, 2008 2:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's been a while...
"ID's 'designer (wink, wink)' is just an evolved concept, just like 'creationist' became 'cdesign proponentist' to 'design proponent'."
...have you found the paragraphs to support your premise here yet? Anything that showed god specifically was implicated by use of the word creator?
- F2XL
January 29, 2009 8:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.