ScottBeach Anonymous

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. ID is as most an unverified scientific hypothesis.

See http://intelligent-design-hypothesis.com

1 year, 6 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

paulburnett Anonymous

Blair, take a look at the primary difference between the sites that say Intelligent Design (ID) is science versus those that say ID is not science. EVERY mainstream scientific organization says ID is religion, whereas essentially all the supporters of ID are overtly or covertly religionists.

Doesn't it make sense that if you want to decide if something is or is not science, you would value the opinion of organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science or the National Science Foundation or the National Center for Science Education and all other science organizations, whose expertise is in understanding science? Or would you listen to the opinions of religious organizations (some of which try very hard to to hide their religious background) as to whether or not ID is science.

Here are two quotes from the Dover decision: "We have concluded that (intelligent design) is not [science], and moreover that (intelligent design) cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." - Judge John Jones, Harrisburg, PA, December 20, 2005. The judge also stated: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." These religious fanatics have lied to us before, and they will continue to lie to us. Remember that.

1 year, 6 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

bluesdfw Anonymous

Don't forget what the M in SMU stands for. The college is owned and run by religious types, not scientists. The school has not endorsed ID. Leave that to the Baptist Universities. They are simply allowing a conference on it on school property. Big deal. All the science departments at SMU have done is give a big publicity boost to something that would have been ignored had they not complained about it. Who said scientists are smart?

As science, ID is crap. However the scientists should have enough "faith" in their own evidence to put it up against the crackpots, not whine about letting them have their say. The modern world needs to stand up on its own two feet against whatever version of the Taliban wants to have annointed as the only "official" view. Otherwise, they win. Let 'em have their say, then present the contrary evidence. I'm sure all 40 people at the conference will be impressed and no minds will be changed either way. The ID people can keep on looking for pieces of Noah's Ark and the scientists can go back to their research projects and ignoring the perceptions of the uneducated general public.

Hey, maybe next month SMU can sponsor a scholarly discussion about Batboy, The Fort Worth Goat Man, or Bigfoot and invite the learned experts from the Weekly World News to speak. Maybe the science departments could even sponsor it. It could be a great celebration event for the upcoming Bush Library. Now that's entertainment!

1 year, 6 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Desertphile Anonymous

The chief problem with these letters is that occutlists will see them as attemps at "censorship." If the university allows other religious conferences on their campus then the "Darwin vs. Design" religious conference should also be allowed. The university, however, should make it very clear that the conference is a religious one and not a scientific one.

The "design" religious belief has had many thousands of years to make its case and it has failed to do so: it no longer deserves any consideration. Creationists have failed to prove their case after many thousands of years: there is no reason to think that they will do so given another 5000 years or more.

1 year, 6 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Desertphile Anonymous

Quoting Ron Okimoto:

The goal of the current intelligent design scam artists is not to prove the existence of their "designer," [gods] because they know that they can't do that. Their major emphasis has been lying about it so that they can push their political objectives. They want to keep students as ignorant as possible about this issue. Just ask them for their [intelligent design] lesson plan for public schools. They never produced one in all the years that they advocated teaching it. Why, [therefore], would [intelligent design] be good enough for home school?

If they really had something worth talking about they wouldn't have had to come up with their "critical analysis" scam that doesn't even mention that [intelligent design] has ever existed. The same dishonest perps that have been pushing the the intelligent design scam are [now] pushing "critical analysis." So why do they have to do that? If [intelligent design] were all that they claimed, why can't they demonstrate it?

Anyone that goes to one of these conferences and thinks that they have learned anything is deluding themselves. Just think, if there were anything worth learning or discussing, why didn't it come out some of these same guys had to testify under oath? Why did Behe claim that his "designer" could be dead? Why couldn't they come up with any valid means of testing their ID notions? Why did Behe claim that he didn't think that he had to test his junk? That is the answer of a crackpot, not a serious scientist. If you can't verify what you are spewing, what good is it? ID is just as vacuous as arguing whether invisible pink unicorns are really pink. Dog and pony shows like this can't change that fact.

1 year, 6 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

StardustSociety Anonymous

StardustSociety believes in both the established facts of evolution and the Creator,{Intelligent Designer}who developed the nature of the universe, starting from hydrogen, to elements, to bacterial life to all forms of life,many with incredible instincts plus man with abstract thought. All was,and is today the same [porous] ancient atoms. The search for truth and wisdom should lead to humility and spirituality.

1 year, 6 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

CastleHills Anonymous

With this conference at SMU, Texas begins its documented slide into the Middle Ages.

Hey, I'd like to hold a conf there on how the Earth is the center of the Universe, and the sun revolves around us. What, you say, it's not true? So says you.

Also, I'd like to go to SMU to research technology that will prevent ships from falling off the flat end of the Earth.

1 year, 6 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

bluesdfw Anonymous

>Blair wrote: >1.) You have no idea what ID is

It's just the latest in a long line of attempts to inject religion into science. The recent attempts in Pennsylvania to force the school systems to teach it along with science make that clear.

>2.) You don't understand ID can walk hand-in-hand with science AND evolution

See above. The monkeys are not amused.

>3.) You don't know what the Taliban is

I know exactly what the Taliban is. We have our own versions of the Taliban here. They may be fundamentalist Christian instead of Muslim, but their goals are similar. See the above reference to Pennsylvania.

>I can't think of any scientist who >disagrees with the idea that everything in >the universe started from a single point.

You must not know many scientists. You need to enlarge your sample size. I suspect most would simply say they don't know.

>But if the universe started from a single >point, why did it start? How did the >unconscious become conscious?

Now you are getting into religion. I think you'll find multiple theories on both subjects.

>As smart as Darwin was, neither he nor >anyone else can explain that one. But if >you think life began through thunderstorms >and sheer dumb luck then life is >meaningless.

Life is what you make of it. Darwin has nothing to do with it. If you think your life is meaningless based on how you perceive the genesis of it on this planet, that's a sad state of affairs. What some carbon atoms did or didn't do some 5 billion years ago has no bearing on how I live my life today.

>There is no religion, no morality, no >reason - you have boxed yourself in a >corner because there is no point to >anything.

Huh? What corner? Those are your assumptions. Why is there "no point to anything" if a bolt of lightning created life instead of some great cosmic muffin? If you want to get into a discussion of religion versus morality and reason you are in for a long and brutal punishment. That would make for an interesting conference.

The funny thing is I think the scientists were dopes for complaining about this conference. They should certainly be allowed to hold it on campus. The scientists were acting like the Taliban trying to prevent it. A university should be a place for a free exchange of ideas. Even if they are dumb ideas. What they should do is show up at the conference and ask questions. Lots of questions. Batboy wants to know.

1 year, 6 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

J_Mortimer Anonymous

"If there are no consequences (sure, you could hurt someone - big deal, it doesn't matter) then why aren't more people just saying, screw it, I'll do whatever the hell I want. How does science explain morality?"

There are consequences. Science doesn't explain morality. Its not intended to. If by "no consequences" you mean "no cosmic after life consequences" or "consequences enacted by a deity" or some such thing, then I might refer you to Plato's dialogue Euthyphro which deals with the fundamental issues of connecting god with morality. It turns out trying to connect god to morality is just as difficult and trying to work it out without a god. Even the Greeks figured that out over 2000 years ago.

"why do the people who support evolution say anything else that tries to explain our existence is ridiculous."

Well I think evolution is the best theory going but I don't say others are "ridiculous" (unless of course they actually are). I say others are not supported by the evidence.

Alleged explanations which rely on a designer or a deity fail because they aren't explanations at all. They are, in fact, an attempt to end explanations by mere substitution and definition. Those substitutions beg for the same answers as those they are intended to explain.

A general comment to the crowd regarding SMU: If the science department hadn't spoke up, then that would equal implied acceptance.

Imagine a conference that was designed to doubt the occurance of some historical event(s) (such as the holocaust didn't happen, or 9/11 was an American CIA plot). If the history department didn't speak up they wouldnt be doing their duty as professors. Likewise, the science faculty has a duty to speak up because their silence would imply acceptance. I don't blame them for speaking up.

J

1 year, 6 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )