« Home | Bruce Prescott: A Lesson In Irresponsible Bloggin... » | Genocide or Jackson: An Idiotic Media » | London: A Tale of Two Days » | Cruise in for a Bruisin' » | SBC Observations » | Revenge of the Emergent » | Holiness -- The Exception to the Rule of Hell » | The Holy Spirit and the Exclusivity of the Gospel » | Holiness and Authenticity » | Holiness II -- Bishop Spong and The OT » 

Thursday, August 11, 2005 

Intelligent Design Links

I am very excited to say that because of the media coverage and articles such as Mr. Prescott's and Mr. Baerren's (albeit all negative presentations), Intelligent Design is getting a lot more attention lately. Unfortunately, that means that more and more people are taking pot-shots at it and building strawmen that are easily knocked down. Thus I have decided to offer some links to Intelligent Design sites and organizations, as well as to lists of books about ID that are well worth reading. While I will not be offering any anti-Design links, I will say that many exist and anyone who wants to view these need not go any further than Google to find them.


Links to ID sites:

The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club TM

The Access Research Network (ARN)

The Discovery Institute

International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID)

Design Inference Website The Writings of William A. Dembski

Center for Science and Culture (CSC)


Blogsites:

Intelligent Design: The Future

Jonathan Witt

William Dembski

Lawrence Seldon

Evolution News Blog

Denyse O'Leary

Telic Thoughts

iDesign at UCI

Kevin Miller


Books on Intelligent Design:

Jonathan Witt's List

Creation and Revelation's List

Reading List from Access Research Network

List from IDEA

I have no objection to anyone’s religion. If you want to believe in God, Jehovah, Allah, or a supreme being by any other name, do so. You can also believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, ghosts, flying saucers, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. It’s your right.

I do object when you try to force your religion on other people. If you want to stick you head in the sand and pretend that God created the universe in 6 earth days some 4,000 years ago, be my guest. But, don’t try to force everyone else to accept your screwball fairytale as being science. “Creationism”, “Intelligent Design”, or whatever other name you want to give it, is fantasy, not science. Scientists make observations about the physical world, then formulate theories to explain those observations. When, and if, further observations fail to support those theories, they are revised or abandoned. Creationist do exactly the opposite. They take a theory (fairytale) and try to find facts to back it up. Any facts that contradict this theory (fairytale), are ignored. If anyone tries to bring up these contradictory facts, they are immediately accused of fabricating them, or misinterpreting them.

In short, knowledge is gained by people with open minds. People who observe the world around us and try to understand it. Those who already “know” everything, are a hindrance to the expansion of knowledge. They oppose every idea that contradicts their beliefs, simply because every contradictory idea threatens to expose their ignorance. Today’s creationists are simply carrying on the same struggle to suppress knowledge that their predecessors waged in ages past. One need only remember how they treated Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton when they tried to contradict the then accepted belief that the earth was the center of the solar system.

So, if you want to believe in fairytales, do so. But don’t try to force the schools to teach them to our children. Our educational system is pathetic enough already. At least give the children a slim chance to learn.

Wow, I sure do not want to be confused with the 6:44 anonymous poster. I am sorry that he or she wishes to call a belief in a Supreme Omnipotent God a fairytale. I cannot claim a lot of college degrees, but it takes more imagination to think that this great complex world with all it's beauty came into existence any other way than by the design of a loving, all knowing eternal God. Man with all his knowledge could never have in the beginning of man, made himself or any animal that would evolve into man. They are trying now, but even with all the scientific knowledge that we NOW possess, cannot successfully do so. Ps. 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God".

I have not heard of force being applied to make people in the USA to conform to anyone's religion. May God have mercy on us and may it never be so, but we must not take our freedoms for granted. I am so thankful to live in the US and I praise God for the beauty of His creations - the world, family, pets and all living things. Praise His Holy Name.

I agree, there is a lot of beauty in the world. There is also a lot that is not so beautiful. Is your Supreme Omnipotent God the one who created Cancer, Aids, Ebola, and the countless other viruses that inflicts such suffering on the world? Man has caused more than enough suffering, but he certainly did not create these.

I do not disbelieve in a higher power. I just think your fairytale about how the universe was created is utter and complete nonsense. Perhaps a higher power set in motion the forces that created everything, but I see no evidence of that power guiding every step in the process. There are too many failures: missteps that did not survive. That is not intelligent design.

For your information, I do not have a lot of college degrees. I have read the bible and I have studied some science, history, and human nature. After carefully examining both sides of this debate, I can only concluded that Creationism is nonsense. I think if you will look impartially at both sides, rather than assuming that your bible is the only truth and everything else is wrong, you will come to the same conclusion.

Open your mind and try to learn. The real fool is the one who rejects new knowledge because he fears being found ignorant.

anonymous 8:46, I think it would be safe to assume that since I know my age (not young), that I probably have quite a few years on you. I will not believe that God caused aids or the other viruses, illness that you mentioned. Stop and think how aids is transmitted and realize that if men and women would honor God's plan for sex, would aids have gotten into human bodies. I think if you really have an open mind, I would like to ask you to go back and read the Bible more.

The ananymous poster writes above: "In short, knowledge is gained by people with open minds. People who observe the world around us and try to understand it. Those who already 'know' everything, are a hindrance to the expansion of knowledge. They oppose every idea that contradicts their beliefs, simply because every contradictory idea threatens to expose their ignorance."

I've got to say, I agree completely. He's hit the nail right on the proverbial head. This is exactly the problem with evolutionists. Oh, wait, was he talking about ID-ers?

Welcome back to the frying pan, neighbor.

Fairytale Anonymous,

I am sorry that you feel as you do. However, no one is "trying to force [their] religion on other people." Where is your evidence of that? BTW, how much intellegent design theorists have your read. Have you read any of Jonathan Witt, Jonathan Wells, William Dembski, or Michael Behe? If not then I suggest you do so before you begin to bash it. You admitted in your second post that you have read SOME. Then said that you have studied it carefully. These two statements are contradictory, especially since you admit that you don't have an above average education. Then you suggest that we are close minded, yet you do not really know how much research we have done and seemingly also suggest that if we truly were open minded we would come to the same conclusion as you have.

All this adds up to your own close-mindedness. I am sorry to say that to you, but you have come here and insulted all of our intellegences and yet presented no real evidence to the contrary. Your rant about God and evil is nothing new. That argument has been around for hundreds of years and many people have answered it in a variety of ways. You should familiarize yourself with those arguments.

You stated:
"Perhaps a higher power set in motion the forces that created everything, but I see no evidence of that power guiding every step in the process"

This is really an untenable position. The argument that a higher being set in motion forces that created means that those forces are intellegent in and of themselves. By God setting in motion, He had to design. The odds that random happenings bringing about our universe as we know are so utterly large that it is logically impossible. You can read William Dembski on this. If God did not guide the process, then we would not exist, nor would life since life cannot come from non-life and without the creation of living matter, none could exist.

You see Mr. Anonymous, your position is not logical, nor is it realisitic. It would be a much greater miracle for everything to come together to form what we have now than to accept that an all-knowing God who is eternal created ex nihilo (out of nothing). I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist (or even a Deist). I pray that this will challenge you to give Christian apologists a second look. Some good sources can be found at the links posted. The question is "Do you have an open enough mind to reconsider your position?"

No, D.R., it is your logic that is faulty. You are presenting a predictable pattern of arguments. You bible thumpers select the facts that support your assumption and ignore everything else. You misquote and twist your opponents’ statements in an attempt to make them look foolish. And, you use pithy slogans instead of true logic.

You ask for evidence of religion being forced on others? Look no further than the public school system. Your cohorts are at this very moment are trying to force the schools to teach creationism. As I pointed out in my first posting, this is not a scientifically sound theory. It has no place in a science class. This is myth, the stuff of religion.

I did not say that I had “read some” and later “studied it carefully.” I said that I had read the bible and studied some science, history, and human nature. I find no contradiction in that statement. I also said that “I do not have a lot of college degrees.” That is not the same as admitting that I don't have an above average education. College degrees mean that you attended college. They don’t necessarily mean you are well educated.

Your statement that “life cannot come from non-life” is not only erroneous, it is unbelievably ignorant. Every bit of matter in the universe, both living and non-living, is made from the same basic elements. Given the right combination of elements, in the right environment, primitive life forms can be created, and have been.

Your statement, “The odds that random happenings bringing about our universe as we know are so utterly large that it is logically impossible,” is equally ludicrous. Considering that the universe is infinitely large, it would be logically impossible for planets with life forms like earth to not exist.

You are correct. I do not know how much research you have done. Since I am not part of your group, I can only know what you have published. Nothing of this that I have seen to date is tenable. Your theory has been presented to and examined by the scientific community and has been found lacking. Are you in possession of some verifiable knowledge that you are not sharing with the rest of the world?

The answer to your last question is yes, I would be willing to reconsider my position. I do not think that I know everything. If you can present any real evidence that the theories I accept as true are incorrect, I would not hesitate to revise or abandon them. Even at my advanced age, I am still learning, and eagerly so.

Anonymous,

Again I think you should actually read the ID scholars, which you don't seem to have done. Also, you call for me to provide proof, yet you really honestly believe that life can come from non-life and that it has been proven. It hasn't. Show me one study that exists that proves it or which has been able to test this hypothesis or even observe it occurring. It is a gap filler for evolutionists. They assume that this is how it happened because they can't scientifically test this hypothesis. You accept that on the basis of faith, not reason or the scientific method.

As for your public schools statement, I am wondering if you think indoctrination is a good thing or if education is the goal of our schools? Allowing both views equal time respects the beliefs of Americans (among whom more than 90% believe in a god and more than 50% reject evolution in some form or another), and allows people to see both sides of an issue is much more open than scientists are willing to admit. No one is requiring anyone to believe anything. There is a huge difference in offering the two positions and making one a required belief. In the end, the Scopes Monkey Trial and subsequent court rulings never stated that ID could not be taught. The problem is that many teachers who bring up these concerns are discriminated against. That is what ID'ers are trying to end.

As for the untenableness of my own position, I don't think it is. And at least one well respected philosopher agrees with me -- Antony Flew (and truly many more). He is one of the greatest atheist philosophers of all time and possibly the greatest living one. He left his atheistic views due to ID evidences. Here is an article that you can read concerning it:

http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/12.14.html

I appreciate your honesty and for your contribution, but you cannot ask me for proof without presenting some of your own, which you have not. This forum is too limited to present all the evidence I would need to in order to convince you. That is why I posted the links, for you to examine it for yourself. I suggest that you do so. Look into what these guys are saying. There are plenty of articles on each of these sites that show flaws in evolution and problems with the fossil record and other issues related to ID. I hope you will take advantage of this.

From the God fearing, believing anonymous to the "fairytale" anonymous, it sure looks like your education has come from Prescott's site. So much similarity. In order to gain knowledge it does require an open mind to more than one opinion, but the best source of knowledge comes from the Word of God and the beginning of knowledge comes from the fear of God (awe not fright). I do pray for those that post here and on other sites. God does love you, whether you realize it or not.

The universe is composed of countless galaxies, each with billions of stars. Around one tiny, insignificant star in a distant corner of this infinitely immense accumulation is an inconsequential dust speck. On this minuscule grain there is a parasitic infestation: humans. How large an ego must humans have to think that God would even notice their existence, much less care to take an active interest in their affairs.

You say God created man. I say you have it reversed. The difference between our two opinions is yours is based on misinterpretation of select parts of second-hand translations of a book written by unknown authors and mine is based on real, observable facts.

Arguing with a fool is a total waste. I will not bother you again.

Fairytale Anonymous,

Obviously I disagree with everything you wrote, but there is no need to discuss it since you are no longer care to bother.

However, I appreciate your last statement,

"Arguing with a fool is a total waste."

Calling me a fool is the nicest thing you could say to me. Why?

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Praise God for His power to save us from perishing through the death of His Son Jesus Christ.

Godless Anonymous writes: "Given the right combination of elements, in the right environment, primitive life forms can be created, and have been." What is so incredibly frustrating about debating with evolutionists (both educated and uneducated) is the way they toss out these little gems without the faintest hope of backing them up with established facts. It's as if they don't believe they have the same burden of proof as the counter-evolutionists, creationists, ID-ers, or whomever. And in the eyes of the established, scientific powers-that-be, I suppose they really don't.

In Shattering the Myths of Darwinism , Milton suggests that Darwinism as a scientific theory has progressed to the point of being an ideology. He calls it, appropriately enough, Ideological Darwinism. And there's simply no way to argue the actual facts with ideological darwinists.

Daniel,
Sorry to post this here, but I have not been able to secure your email address. Would you mind sending it to me via my website and/or blog address? I'd like to ask you a question or two. Thanks!

Our original "anonymous" here wrote, "You ask for evidence of religion being forced on others? Look no further than the public school system. Your cohorts are at this very moment are trying to force the schools to teach creationism."

Not true. Not at all true. Not a good demonstration that your logic is of a higher quality than that of others here. One of the chief rhetorical ploys (a red herring) of ID antagonists is to try to change the subject. ID talks about one thing; antagonists talk about another thing (creationism) that carries a stigma, and in so doing try to paste that stigma where it does not belong.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are distinct programs. As the thoroughly secular Slate says, "The limited scope of Intelligent Design theory makes it compatible with a wide range of views. Some prominent ID theorists believe in evolution—or at least that species can change over time."

The only state-level school curriculum change with any momentum whatsoever has been that of Kansas, which does not even propose teaching intelligent design.

Finally, Intelligent Design is not a creationist conspiracy, as some have wrongly said it is.

Thanks Tom for posting the links and for your contribution. I have found that anti-ID folks will often grasp at any old straw in order to sound convincing. In the end their logical is rather, uh, illogical.

Good point Krelly on evidences and ideology. Darwin has become such a sacred cow in our society even among some Christians that simple propaganda can be enough to convince the masses. We have become a society that is not willing to think deeply or to challenge the status quo, but would rather listen to the loudest talking heads.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

About me

Paul was not interested merely in the ethical principles of religion or of ethics. On the contrary, he was interested in the redeeming work of Christ and its effect upon us. His primary interest was in Christian doctrine, and Christian doctrine not merely in its presuppositions but at its centre. -- J. Greshem Machen.

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates