Intelligent Design IS Creationism....IS religion... not science, not scientific theory, not fact ,,.. not credible Intelligent design From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Intelligent design is the claim 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. It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God. Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory, and seek a fundamental redefinition of science, no longer limited to natural explanations, but accepting supernatural explanations as well. The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life," are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science say it is pseudoscience;others have concurred or termed it junk science. The use of the term "intelligent design" began in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes titled Of Pandas and People.[31] The following year a small group of proponents formed the Discovery Institute and began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. The "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in a 2005 trial challenging its intended use in public school science classesâthe "Dover trial." In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Neo-creationism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Neo-creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science, with a foundation in naturalism, is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion. Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements, thus effectively excluding religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe. A spectrum of arguments comprises neo-creationism and most claim to be scientific theories. Of these, few are openly religious, yet most make thinly-veiled religious allusions. Two forms of neo-creationism are intelligent design and abrupt appearance theory, a claim that first life and the universe appeared abruptly and that plants and animals appeared abruptly in complex form. Unlike their scientific creationist forebears, neo-creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such a young Earth, or in a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible. Common to all forms of neo-creationism is a rejection of naturalism, usually made together with a tacit admission of supernaturalism, and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism", which generally is meant to refer to evolution, but may be extended to include such concepts as abiogenesis, stellar evolution and the Big Bang theory. Neo-creationists also make sociological claims, arguing that naturalistic science, as an "atheistic enterprise", is at the root of social unrest, family breakdown, and nihilism. Various neo-creationist groups claim to run scientific enterprises that conduct legitimate scientific research. Notable examples are the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture. Neo-creationists have yet to establish a recognized line of legitimate scientific research and thus far lack scientific and academic legitimacy, even among many academics of evangelical Christian colleges who are presumed to be their natural constituency. As do postmodernists, neo-creationists reject the traditions arising from the Enlightenment upon which modern scientific epistemology is founded. Neo-creationists seek nothing less than the replacement of empirical and logical evidence with ideology and dogmatic belief. Thus, neo-creationism is considered by Eugenie C. Scott and other critics as the most successful form of irrationalism. Motivating the neo-creationist movement is the fear that religion is under attack by the study of evolution. An argument common to neo-creationist justifications is that society has suffered "devastating cultural consequences" from adopting materialism and that science is the cause of this decay into materialism since science seeks only natural explanations. Science is therefore atheistic, they claim. They believe that the theory of evolution implies that humans have no spiritual nature, no moral purpose, and no intrinsic meaning, and thus that acceptance of evolution devalues human life directly leading to the atrocities committed by Hitler's Nazi regime for example. The movement's proponents seek to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".Phillip E. Johnson, 'father' of the intelligent design movement, states the movement's goal is to "affirm the reality of God." ID works on the principle... when you can't blind 'em with brilliance blind 'em with bullshit.
Hoyle (one of the great minds) sums up his findings as follows: A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely. * Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1968) * Bruce Medal (1970) * Henry Norris Russell Lectureship (1971) * Royal Medal (1974) * Klumpke-Roberts Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (1977) * Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, with Edwin Salpeter (1997) Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."
In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty." http://www.geraldschroeder.com/tuning.html
Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125).
3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.) Penrose continues, Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/tuning.html
Is not a scientific interpretation. It is not science. "Really amazing" is not being scientific.It is not science. "Remarkable" is not being scientific. It is not science. "possible evidence" is not scientific. It is not science. An argument from incredulity is not a scientific argument. It is not science. on the other hand Intelligent Design IS Creationism. ..religion in disguise
Take a typical sandy beach on a romantic evening in summer. Is it not extraordinary that all those grains of sand and molecules of water, salt and even gold, would come together at once by pure accident, to configure themselves in such a perfect arrangement as to make this exquisite moment in the moonlight? The "odds" of such an occurrence by random chance alone is simply beyond reason. It must be by design that we are here together at this instant to enjoy it all. No, wait -- a wave crashes against the shore. And, now the arrangement is different -- but no less beautiful -- and, perhaps even more so than before, because the glistening of the moon upon the newly wet sand is like a polished jewel to our eyes. This arrangement, too, must be on purpose -- the wave and the moonlight and the breeze and the two of us, here at this moment cannot be other than by the creator's unfathomable plan. OK, so much for the dream. We know, absolutely, from scientific experiments so well tested that they are beyond possible controversy, that the starlight falling upon our hypothetical beach are all the product of quantum forces which are unpredictable, except within statistical limits. We cannot know in advance, when an elementary particle will decay and cause a thermodynamic interaction to produce a photon, which will fly out into space towards Earth and smack headlong into the sand, finally to reflect onto our retina. Could it be that the frequency wave produced by the photon which stimulates our brain to see the beach is unleased in our universe at one moment, and simultaneously released in an infinity of other universes at other moments, so as to create an "illusion" of randomness -- when in reality all possible propagations of the same wave actually occur, and all in different universes? That would completely explain randomness as being theoretically capable of predetermination, and simultaneously, it would explain how our moment under the stars could fall into place so perfectly as if by design. Do we sit upon the shore of this beach in every one of the other universe where this moment occurs -- or, in some other universe, is the beach sitting silently, by non-human eyes, or by no eyes at all, to contemplate the beauty. We will never know the answers to such questions, because the event horizon created by the speed of light in our universe, holds such knowledge forever at bay. We can choose to believe that all is purpose -- or accident -- or both. But we will never know for sure.
you misunderstand the science and your analogy manifests your confusion about probability. You are comparing things that very likely could happen (given our fine tunings) with things that were so unlikely to happen it is impossible they happened by chance. (that we have these fine tunings). It is funny that apparently you (implicitly) and stu are arguing that the best minds in science including nobel prize winners do not understand probability.