Intelligent Design: Giving Creation a Brand New Name
Is Intelligent Design a "science"?…
"Intelligent Design is not an evangelic Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generically theistic thing… Intelligent Design is an emerging scientific research program. Design theorists attempt to demonstrate its merits fair and square in the scientific world, without appealing to religion authority."
- William A. Dembski
The Design Revolution (2004)
… or is it really just Creation?
"Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient… The conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ."
- William A. Dembski
Intteligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (1999)
William Dembski, the poster boy of Intelligent Design, was brought up Catholic, and went to all-male Catholic school growing up. As far as I'm concerned, he grew up already brainwashed, where his disbelief in evolution was inevitable really.. To make matters worse, he "sold his soul" to become a born-again uber-Christian during a hard time in his life. I always thought this as strange. Why does Christianity always seeze you during your most vulnerable times? He later went onto college to study Pyschology, which is a dangerous weapon in his hands, considering he is a rather manipulative poster boy, with a goal in convincing the law that Intelligent Design is a more appropriate "science" to be teaching in our classrooms than Evolution is!
Judging by these two quotes from two books written by Mr. Dembski, one has to wonder; Is Intelligent Design just another science, or is it really a coverup to sneak Creation into our schools? Well, it depends who My Dembski is talking to, or trying to convince. If he's reaching out to a scientific/secular audience, then he will say Intelligent Design is a "science", and will "run away" cowardly when any scientist challenges Intelligent Design, because it is the only "science" lacking any evidence what-so-ever. However, if it's a Christian audience he's talking to, well then Intelligent Design is the scientific story of Creation, and that Christ is responsible for everything in science. Even then, I personally still do not get how Christ influences any science, would it not be God? Catholics think all three are of the same essence, so perhaps he's getting the names mixed up?
Traditionally, Intelligent Design is supposed to be an alternative to the Big Bang Theory, but may or may not also include evolution. Most IDers believe God created everything in its present form however. The key in that sentence, was "..believe God created..", God with a capital "G". The problem with Intelligent Design is that IDers will tell the public, government, secular, and scientists that Intelligent Design is based around "a creator", it could be any god. But when it private, they will openly admit that they are teaching the story of how the Christian God created everything. Intelligent Design is just a cover up of the Christian story of Creation. Thankfully, so far, the judges have been able to see through their lies, and that Intelligent Design is not a science at all.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Fossil Dating, Misunderstood.
It seems to be that fossil dating is commonly misunderstood, despite the fact that science and evolution are actually taught in school (I cannot imagine what it would be like with Intelligent Design taught in school… like the Dark Ages I'd imagine). Maybe it's that creationists refuse to accept evolution, and refuse to learn about it. It seems that many of them read only about their side of the story (a.k.a. the Bible) but don't read about what's on the other side of the fence. They will ask things like "How do you know something is 1 million years old if you don't know anybody who is that old?"
Carbon-14 dating is based on radioactive decay. The air, plants, and all livings animals (including humans) all have the same constant ratio of standard Carbon-12 to Carbon-14 at any given time, while they are alive. Since Carbon-14 is radioactive, over time it will decay into nothing. It's the ration between the constant Carbon-12, and the decaying Carbon-14, that we can tell its age from. Since the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5,700 years, there will only be half the amount of that particular sample in every 5,700-year cycle. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. And when you look at the ratio of standard carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample, it is possible to determine the age (within 60,000 years) of anything that was once living. precisely. Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, 60,000 years IS about as accurate it can get. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well, that all have their own ranges, both short and long.
Potassium-40 is another radioactive element that is commonly found in living beings and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other radioisotopes for radioactive dating are Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years). So clearly, an age can be precisely determined for just about anything. This method cannot be used on fossils however, since they lack the radioactive isotopes used in the dating process. To determine a fossil's age, igneous layers (volcanic rock) beneath the fossil (predating the fossil) and above it (representing a time after the dinosaur's existence) are dated, resulting in a time-range for the dinosaur's life. Thus, dinosaurs are dated with respect to volcanic eruptions.
I find it strange when one argues relentlessly against dating methods, despite the mounting evidence, yet they can read "There was a great flood" out of the Bible, and immediately believe it, with no evidence what so ever.
Popularity: 14% [?]
Astronomers Detect First Split-Second of the Universe
Scientists announced today new evidence supporting the theory that the infant universe expanded from subatomic to astronomical size in a fraction of a second after its birth.
The finding is based on new results from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite, launched in 2001 to measure the temperature of radiant heat left over from the Big Bang, which is the theoretical beginning to the universe.
This radiation is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), and it is the oldest light in the universe.
Using WMAP data, researchers announced in 2003 that they had pieced together a very detailed snapshot of the universe as it was about 400,000 years ago, and that they had determined things like its age, composition and development.
The previous data showed that the universe was about 13.7 billion years old. It also revealed that it wasn’t until about 200 million years after the Big Bang that conditions were cool enough for the first stars to form. Scientists were also able to conclude that the universe is composed of about 4 percent real matter, about 23 percent dark matter, and about 73 percent dark energy.
The researchers collected observations of this polarization signal to create a map of the early universe, allowing them to test a sub-theory within the Big Bang theory, called “inflation.”
Inflation theory states that the universe underwent a rapid expansion immediately following the Big Bang.
“During this growth spurt, a tiny region, likely no larger than a marble, grew in a trillionth of a second to become larger than the visible universe,” said WMAP researcher David Spergel, also from Princeton University.
The new observations reveal that the early expansion wasn’t smooth, with some regions expanding faster than others.
These fluctuations are thought to have led to clumping of matter that allowed the formation of galaxies.
“A major question that people have asked for decades is where do stars and galaxies come from? The answer coming from WMAP data supports the idea that quantum fluctuations are the answer,” Greene said. “WMAP’s data supports the notion that galaxies are nothing but quantum mechanism writ large across the sky.”
The new findings brings humanity closer to answering one of its oldest questions, that of where we come from, Greene said.
Popularity: 9% [?]
Light Years: The Earth is Older than the Creationist claims
Dictionary.com:
light-year also light year (lt
yîr
)
n. The distance that light travels in a vacuum in one year, approximately 9.46 trillion (9.46 × 1012) kilometers or 5.88 trillion (5.88 ×
1012) miles.
According to www.faqs.org the furthest object in the Universe that has been discovered is 25 billion light years away. This means, in order for the light from that object to reach us (the satellite), 25 billion years of time had to have elapsed. This is what I never understood, and brings up numerous questions. For one thing, Creationists say the Earth is 5,000 years old. Since Genesis says that “object” was created right after Earth was, then the Bible is saying that star is only 5,000 years old. If that was the case, its light would not have reached us by now, not by a longshot. Further more, on the other hand, that object is at least 25 billion years old, and so it’s reasonable to assume the Universe is at least that old. So what if the Bible’s wrong, and God really created everything 25 billion years ago (no big deal right, just another fault in the Bible right?). Well this too raises a question.
The Bible says he created the human race around the same time (a.k.a. 25 billion years ago). Now can you honestly believe that in the span of 25 billion years, that humans have not evolved one bit? I’ve sat there are have really tried hard to think about how long 25 billion years is, it’s impossible. There is so much change, how could we not have evolved in a period of 25 billion years. So even then, there’s no way we created, at least in our present sense.
But no creationist will ever admit to us being created as something else and have evolved, nor would they admit 25 billion years of existence. So for now, I guess we can just assume the Creation account is just plain wrong. And if that cannot be trusted, how can God’s existence be trusted? That is my dilemma.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Intelligent Design: Shot Down in 2005
Declaration of Independence - 1776
Origin of Species - 1858
Intelligent Design - 1987
ID gets its ass kicked - 2005
Details
Judge John Jones, a federal judge, and a church-going Republican, dealt a major setback to Intelligent Design. He ruled that it is
unconstitutional to teach the concept in public school science classes
because it is “a religious view.”
Jones’ ruling is not binding outside the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, but attorneys and outside experts say it will have broad
impact on judges, lawyers and school boards. This is how the system works, in that judges largely make their decisions on previous rulings from other cases and judges.
Jones cited Supreme Court rulings that
teaching creationism, which holds that God created all life, violates
the First Amendment wall between church and state. He said evidence at
trial established that intelligent design is “a mere re-labeling of
creationism.” Intelligent design theory does not answer the
question of who or what is the designer. Jones said “no serious
alternative to God as the designer” has been proposed by ID proponents.
In his ruling, Jones said intelligent design
“violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and
permitting supernatural causation”; it relies on “flawed and illogical”
arguments; and its attacks on evolution “have been refuted by the
scientific community.”
The judge also said: “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.”
Judge John Jones is what’s called a “good” Christian, in that he realizes the importance of seperation of Church & State, and keeping his beliefs to himself. And he obviously realizes that ID is another way of saying “Creation”, and if we teach it in school, we might as well declare the U.S. as a Christian Communist nation.
President Bush, definately our most intelligent president to date, and makes me absolutely proud to be an American, also weighed in on the issue of
intelligent design. This man of brilliance
says schools should present the concept
when teaching about the origins of life. That’s great and all, but
there’s a huge problem with this. Intelligent Design is not science, it
is religious belief. Therefore it cannot be presented in a science
class nor in school at all. Why can’t anyone get this?
Source: USAToday, paraphrased and commented by me
Popularity: 6% [?]