After the Dover decision, is it clear to everyone now that intelligent design is not science?

Question

And is a thinly disguised version of creationism/genesis?

Opinionated: Belief in evolution and a supreme being are not mutually exclusive of each other. The Catholic Church has accepted the theory of evolution.

Ũniνέгsäl Рдnтs™: Yes. I was very pleased with the way Nova presented the topic.

Questioner: intelligent design is not a testable theory, thus it does NOT qualify as science.

That was proven without a shadow of a doubt during the Dover court case, which led the (GW Bush-appointed) judge to side with the plantiffs of the case.

Sorry.

And the Discovery institute is a thinly disguised front for religious fundamentalists as was pointed out to the judge by the plantiff's attorneys.

Answer 1

It should be.
Sadly though there are still people who are gullible enough to think that "peanut butter disproves evolution" and that Kirk Cameron knows his **** from a hot rock.
It's those people that should be pitied and, hopefully, sent back to remedial grade 6 science class...

Answer 2

It should have already been clear, of course.

What Dover clearly demonstrated is that the United States' position is that teaching "intelligent design" in the public schools is an illegal violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and that the creationists pushing it deliberately lied in order to break the law. In short, the United States has properly sided with science on this issue, and the creationists are fighting against the United States. I think it's very important to be clear about who is on whose side.

Answer 3

Probably only to people who study science and understand what it takes for something to become a theory.

There are some people who think that in science, a theory is nothing more than a guess and theories have to be proven before they mean anything.

Of course, there are some who know that is not true, but there are too many out there who believe otherwise. I really think we need more science education in the schools these days.

Answer 4

Of course, the courts never make a mistake, do they? And, as far as Nova, you need to read the other side of it:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/14/over-after-dover
http://crev.info

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.

Although it has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece, William Paley is probably the most famous for using the design argument. In 1802, he came out with a treatise called Natural Theology. He began by arguing that if one were to discover a watch lying in the middle of nowhere and they were to examine that watch closely, the person would logically conclude that it was not an accident, but had purpose; it had a designer. He went on to argue that the overwhelming design in the universe is evidence of a Grand Designer.

Now, is this a valid argument? Well, we detect design all the time. If you find an arrowhead on a deserted island, you assume it was made by someone, even if you can’t see the designer. We can tell the difference between a message written in the sand and the results of the wind and waves on the sand. The carved heads of the presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features.

The thing is, reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

What about teaching it in school? I'm sorry, but I have to agree with George Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about . . . Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Good science teaching should include controversies. But, whenever you mention this kind of stuff, evolutionists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects.

As Cal Thomas has said, “Why are believers in one model—evolution—seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It’s because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.”

Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and unicorns, etc., a significant percentage of the population believes in ID.

Answer 5

It's crystal clear to me. Three cheers for Public Television and Nova in particular.

Answer 6

The catholic church is a cult.Evolution is NOT science either.Evolution and Creation are BOTH based on faith.Neither one is science.

Answer 7

I would never be so foolish as to resort to lawyers and judges to determine what is and is not "science". How about resorting to the scientific method?

Answer 8

Those who do not want to know will choose to live in ignorance....

It was a great Nova program, wasn't it!

Answer 9

Intelligent design Is crap.
Creation as in the bible or the bible is wrong .
Fancy words don't hide the truth.

Answer 10

that's the thing with true believers ... faith supplants everything and logic no longer has any effect. Martin Luther famously said reason was the enemy of faith.