Intelligent Design, Intelligence, and Other Urgent Matters

Ned, I’m sure today’s ruling won’t be the end of the argument about intelligent design, if, for no other reason, than Pat Robertson can wring out still more national attention by condemning Judge Jones and the people of Harrisburg to the same fate as the “godless” citizens of Dover.
In my well-worn American Heritage desk dictionary, “science” is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” I see intelligent design as an alternative theoretical explanation of evolution, but one based on religious feelings and opinions instead of observation and experimental investigation. Judge Jones’ ruling appears to me to be a lucid restatement of the decision in the Scopes trial.
My high-school chemistry teacher once mentioned to me that science can explain how things happen, but it can’t explain who causes them to happen. Perhaps it’s an oversimplification, but this explanation is, to me, the crux of the conflict between evolution and intelligent design: evolution doesn’t (and can’t) postulate who or what is behind it, while intelligent design begins with the premise that God is indeed behind the process. How can that premise be verified? To me, intelligent design is an leap of faith and not based on scientific observations.
Good luck with coping in the NYC transit strike. Since I’m in one of the far-flung outposts of Western Civilization, I’d just like to remind you who are more in the center of things that you should be thankful you didn’t have to cope with Chicago’s below-zero wind chill temps this morning. I now know how a frozen green bean must feel!

We will never know when we came from, From the ape? from God? it doesn’t matter how much we look, we will never, never find out. So instead of wasting dollars and time in things that will never find out, one thing that we do know is that hunger comes from a belly being empty, so my point is let’s give it a rest and direct all that money to things that really matter, if a human being came from god or the ape she or he still gets hungrey if it doesn’t eat.

ID proponents seem to really be in love with the concept that “fairness” and “open debate” should lead to ID being taught along with evolution in public schools. I totally disagree. Teach it in comparitive religion classes in public schools? No problem. Teach it in philosophy classes? No one disagrees. The problem, folks, is when you insist on teaching it in science classes. It is not, repeat, is not science.
And don’t even get me started on the ID lies.
[1] “Evolution has major gaps.” No, not really, and we continue to learn more every day.
[2] “Evolution is only a theory.” Wrong. Evolution is a Scientific Theory. A very different thing.
[3] “Scientists are still debating evolution.” No, they aren’t. Something like 40 mostly non-biological scientists are trying to debate tens of thousands of biological scientists most of whom also hold firm Christian beliefs.
[4] “There are no intermediate fossils.” Wow, where did you get that idea. There are millions of intermediate fossils. There are thousands of excellent intermediate fossils on the primate evolutionary line alone. And there are thousands and tens of thousands more being found every year.
Is there an Intelligent Designer? Maybe, maybe not. Can evolution explain everything else since that first beginning of life? You bet it can.

One of the biggest mistakes is that ID is simply a theoretical/theological viewpoint, and that evolution is the only scientific explanation. This is not true, even though this is how most commentators characterize the arguments.
Human population studies will not take us back a million years. They may take us back a few thousand years or even as much as 25,000 years; but, no human population growth ever observed could ever take us back to 1,000,000 years ago. That is simple high school mathematics.
Our textbooks and our evolutionary scientists would have us believe that you could easily line up the human and pre-human fossils, and they would make a nice neat line, from the most primitive-looking fossils occuring earliest in history and the most man-like fossils occurring much later in evolutionary history. THIS IS FALSE!! The oldest human/pre-human fossils that we have, using the dating methods of the evolutionists agree exactly with modern human skeletons. If you were to look at the thousands of human/pre-human fossil remains which we have, and to put them in the order of their age (according to evolutionists), you would end up with a mess, with modern humans living side-by-side the primates that we supposedly evolved from.
There are things taught in high school textbooks, e.g., the evolution of the horse or how human brain size illustrates human evolution, that EVERY EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST knows is flat-out false.
As we learn more and more about the single cell, we do not find things becoming more simple; we find them to be complex beyond our ability to understand at this point.
Students are taught about the geological layers and how the layers containing the oldest fossils are the oldest layers, and that the layers which contain the newest fossils are the newest layers. The charts found in any geology book or science book with this chart implies that the oldest layers are on the bottom. However, THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE FOR OVER 95% OF THE EARTH.
I could go on and on.
Personally, I do not want a high school teacher teaching ID. But, what would be nice would be for the science books to actually contain the truth about what we know; and for them to list the problems of evolution side-by-side the evidence in favor of evolution. Simply tell the truth based upon the evidence we have; simply take what we actually know and report that honestly in the textbooks. Is that too much to ask?
Furthermore, if the students want to argue these points, would this not be the ideal subject matter for them to debate? When students feel passionately about something, they are willing to investigate the material on their own. They are willing to develop arguments and charts and papers to show what they have studied. What better topic to explore the scientific method and what better topic to debate? Any intelligent science teacher would sit back and let his students argue the points.

I’m not sure where one of the previous posters, Scut Fargus, gets his information on the age of human fossils.
Articles on the National Geographic website offer some much older ages for the human fossil record. Please visit this site or let me know where you found your information on the age of human fossils.
Even 25,000 years ago is much more than the “Christian” biblical story of creation will allow. You will find references to the earth’s age being somewhere over 4 billion years old so evolution has had a long time to work.
The National Geographic articles offer scientific evidence that the oldest modern human fossils date back some 195,000 years ago. Other evidence pointing to hominid (genus Homo) fossils date back 1.8 million years ago.
Why do you believe that humans can not live side-by-side with other primates from which they might have originated from?
Evolutionary lines branch out from a common ancestor as a result of genetic mutations. They do not follow a linear path where one species dies out as another species is created. If that were true, the world would not be as diverse as it is today. Also, consider all the species that have died out during this evolutionary time. If these dead-end species were the result of an intelligent designer…I would deem the designer neither effective, efficent, or intelligent.
Geology does not dictate that layers “on the top” are the newest layers. The earth is constantly pushing up and exposing older geological layers, folding them over, eroding them and sometimes depositing their contents amongst other layers. There are many independent scientific dating techniques using ratios of elemental isotopes found in surrounding rocks, minerals and the fossils themselves. They do not simply rely on geology.
I’m not sure what simple high school mathematics he is referring to concerning human population growth that only takes us back to 25,000 years ago. Early human population growth was not dictated by simple mathematics. We were subject to environmental/climate diasters and unlike today, we were not at the top of the food chain.
Those who wallow in Intelligent Design should spend some time doing some critical and scientific analysis of their own religous beliefs. Rather than having stickers in biology textbooks stating that evolution is “a theory, not a fact”…maybe we should be placing stickers in Bibles stating that the content should be examined with an open mind since not a word of it is proven fact.

Be it that results are suited in threes. Who said, “Thesis – Anti-thesis = Synthesis?” I want to tell a story, not to offend, but to entertain. God is GOOD. Simple. Everything that comes from God is Good. God is an energy source of Goodness. God had already given “life”, but as good is good is good they were inherently good. No free choice. They were spirited and lovely but were capable only of beauty and good-will. Love was the life force.
A desire to love that is. But this is not quite a relationship of love. God desired to relate His Goodness to an entity that would relate back out of desire for Him. A desire that was perfect and included the power to create at free-will, like God. Man was created in perfection and so it was for thousands upon thousands of years. Men lived to be 1000 years old, and in this lifetime they maintained or retained their perfection such that they returned to God and eternal life. But remember you can’t mix oil and water.
There came a time when man created what we know today as mythology. They put themselves into animals, plants, rocks. There were the centaurs, eagle-lion things, etc. Remember mythology-WOW, but true. (We) forgot who and what we were. We had now “fallen from grace.” God could no longer take that which was not like Him back.
Love and free-will explain what we see today. God allows us to continue out of Love and hopes that we may return to Him, but a misguided free-will painfully separates the One. God multiplies 1X1X1X1X1X1X1ad infinitum, such that the answer is always One. Laws, and rules were necessary as the only means of mercy and hope. Man had brought death upon himself. There was no second chance. There would be no eternal life, death had previously been unknown to God. Man was now evolving in a downward spiral. “God cried.” And out of the purest formation we know of Love, God created the “many mansions” and another chance, or reincarnation.
There are Karmic and Cosmic Counsels which oversee our creation. They have different names now, but they are the Krishnas, the Yogi’s, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, etc. As well as ascended Masters from other places. (Our name- Persons or the Pure Sons of God. Alpha to Omega hence we get atom.) These people have to come up with the ideas and efforts to motivate and direct us. They make huge sacrifices. God was losing His loving creation, not because He is not all powerful, but because of free-will.. He could only supply the Power, Man had to know how to utilize it for Happiness. That was the intrigue in this relationship. We had to love and serve God because we wanted to. And if we did, we could do that which living Masters still do today and have done in the past, because it is their life’s devotion.
Anyway, we spiraled into the caveman, where nature was not able to provide us with the knowledge of fire. We could no longer maintain our place in orbit. We were to be swung off the axis. There was no link to the Power Source-man was lost and could no longer maintain a place in the spheres for lack of energy. A Cosmic Counsel was called and the person known in Daniel as the “Ancient of Days” “came and took his throne.” This is who they tried to build Shamballah for. It was never completed. It says that the Angels were being defeated until the Ancient of Days took his throne. Then it talks about it now becoming possible for the coming of the Lamb/Lion…
This master took the 100′s of thousands of light year energy garnered within his aura and entered a desperate world in hopes of teaching us to rekindle the light within our hearts-the Holy Spirit. If he failed, he and his men that were allowed to come with him, would receive second death. When God granted reincarnation that ended “death.” Yet second death is still possible. That means no reincarnation, no ascension. It means we evolved from perfection into nothingness. We learn that nothing ever really goes away, trash, etc., however this would be the exception.
Souls now passed through many phases in an evolutionary manner, just as we see on Earth. For now, yes we are allowed to continue, in spite of ourselves, into what is an effort at reclaiming eternity. Once again, you can’t mix oil and water.
Think about Hobbes’ description of man’s life as nasty, brutish, and short. It still holds true today. I think once we were given free-will, evolution became the expression, but was never to necesitate in and of itself, a negative. Jesus is 2000 years more powerful than he was as Jesus. He just keeps on evolving-positively in Goodness. The outside mirrors the inside. We look at physical evolution when both that and the evolution of mind are by-products of Spirit. Mind does not exist without Spirit, and its scope and depth is granted as to the scope and depth of the soul. Physical evolution is maintained by Spirit. Scientists amuse me. They put the cart in front of the horse and then find a way to eliminate the horse. And then they state that it isn’t ready yet. Truth has no time frame, it is always ready!
There is truth to both sides, they just need to integrate. Thesis-Anti-thesis=Synthesis
All of this debate is very important. The Truth must surface if we are to survive. The Church is the bad guy because they are hiding our origins, inspite of their Creationism Campaigns they really don’t want us to know that nobody is any better than anybody else. This hinders gov’t entities and starts things like liberation theology. Government is no longer for the people. The Church has the people, but the goverment has the military. And yea, the Church sold out to the governments a long time ago, and not for the sake of peace, but as a form of coercion, so goverments can rape and pillage with the Church’s blessing. Good is Good. Bad is Bad. There are no rationalizations necessary. Look at history!
Example: Don’t picket Wal-Mart! Picket the government that allows and gives life to Wal-Mart as we know it! It is the Church that is holding out for political reasons! Why can’t the Church tell us that evolution fits into Creation and is unavoidable. It just messes up our history books, doesn’t change the Bible or undermine Creation in any way. We know the Egyptian pyramids are over 12,000 years old, re-write history books, it is no big deal. It is ok to not know, but it isn’t ok to lie when you do know.

Hackler Sir
In regards to your stated question:
“Too bad Christians can’t manage an intellectually rigorous and honest defense – but then, what can you do when you’re defending an archaic Iron Age philosophy in the intellectual environment of the 21st century?”
Pseudo-intellectual! Compared to what? To the pyramids we can’t duplicate, Tesla’s unused inventions, Einstein’s personally destroyed works, etc.
First of all, yes it is absolutely true that insecurity in one’s self creates the need for religion. Religion is not a mass, it is an individualized, or undivided, effort that takes place One to one. The effect of religion as a mass is synergistically comprised of the ones.
The outside mirrors the inside. Man is still lost, and left to his own devices would perish. If religion is in trouble it is because Man is in trouble. Then of course it precedes that if Man is in trouble then religion is in trouble. Don’t put the cart in front of the horse and eliminate the horse. The division amongst religions is not religious, it is one to One.
Is it a reflection of their own insecurity in their own belief that some people find those of other faiths unsettling?>>>>>>>>>>>>
Absolutely. But may I restate, It is a reflection of their own insecurity in their own belief that some people find those of other faiths, jobs, color, race, income, intelllect, beauty, etc. unsettling. Now do you blame religion or Man? Some people will continue to blame God. Religion has nothing to do with it, the responsibility has always been one to One. Man is unsettled and unsettling in his separation. The trap I speak of is that if Man is in trouble then religion is in trouble. Manipulation.
This further blinds and confuses Man by misrepresentation of the Truth, such that it is now not entirely an insecurity for lack of faith and effort on Man’s part, but because of lies and deceit by the oligarchy (of men.) So yes the religions are lacking in Truths or the Truths are shrouded such that religion now compounds the insecurity if one cannot find the Holy Spirit and connect one to One within or without the Church.
It is a reflection of being lied to, it is a reflection of being led away from the Truth by the hand. The recurring question is not a question at all. It is and was the idea!!!!
They are holding up the right hand and striking you with the left. Division! Divide and conquer!
The opposite of individual, or undivided!
Capitalism has greatly altered the perception of the word individual. A paradigm shift to accentuate anomic integration within a pot that is melting apart rather than together. (Highest handgun murders in the world, teenage preagnancy, and on down the line.)
Creationism has nothing to do with religion or Christianity.
For those of you who care, Jesus said, It is not so much that you believe in me, as that you do the Father’s Will.
There have been many Christs or wayshowers. Jesus’ job as the Christ was all for the sake of the Resurrection(How do I spell that?). But had he not prepared and remained cleansed, he would not have been able to resurrect, as he had to follow Earth’s laws.
Yogi’s in India, etc can do stuff similar to this, for it is their life’s devotion. It is our Gift when we prepare to receive it!

I think intelligent design is an interesting idea. And I do not speak against it either, except in private, just as I do not speak against Christianity. None of this has anything to do with science.
Apparently, you have an irrational tendency to put words in people’s mouths, and then attack these words. This is called the “straw man” approach to debate because it is pointless.
I never said a “science with no soul is the enemy.” I don’t have any use for the word “soul” at all in fact, since I have no evidence soul exists. Likewise, I have no use for the word “belief,” since my reality is constructed only from what is known. I do not construct a perspective based on unknowns. I have thoughts and feelings, and these things are demonstrable. What’s soul, and how is it distinguished empirically from thought and feeling?
Neither did I say anything about “proof.” There is never proof in science. This demonstrates my premise – we are ignorant of that which defines our species – technology (currently science).
I do not “put weight in” science journals. I simply recognize the simple fact that without peer review there is no science. Again, most Americans do not understand this – my very point.
I never said anything about “unspirited science.” I’m talking about the lack of science. I have no use for the word “spirit.” How is it demonstrably different than emotion and thought?
There are many problems bringing about our decline in leadership, the one I mentioned that is relevant to the topic of teaching religion as science is our ignorance regarding technology. Technology has been the primary force in human history since the paleolithic era – not religion or philosophy. You are right, that technology is a double-edged sword, as are all human disciplines. But humans are defined by their technology, and there is evidence that technology has helped us evolve into what we are – so complex, powerful technology is not simply going to go away when we have positive relationships. The key to our success as a species will be to maintain understanding of, and wise control over, developing technology. Compassion and ethics are essential, but are not in themselves going to help society understand it’s powerful and complex technology. That is simple fact. Students in science class need to understand that organisms are evolving in the lab in order to combat disease. Their relationships with their spouses are a very separate issue. Please do not change the subject of this debate to “relationships.”
Getting back to the issue – it is whether ID should be taught in science class. It shouldn’t be, because it’s not science. That so many people fail to understand this (a majority according to polls) is evidence that they don’t understand the rather simple distinction between rational, empirical problem-solving and religious belief. The goal of science and technology is to solve problems, and it is based on observation. The purpose of religion varies, but religion is based on revealed truth. Both the basis and goals are completely different. What I hear you saying is that science can’t teach us ethics, morality, compassion, etc. and I agree. They are separate and distinct! So if you have a religious belief that we lack “spirit” in science – that’s fine, but it’s a religious belief. It’s one that I don’t share, since belief is a bias, and to do good science you must reduce bias as much as possible. Technology defines my species, and is the basis of my survival. Religion does / is not.
I agree that relationships are not always rational, but this is irrelevant to the topic of pretending religious belief is science and teaching it as such. We do not need to “teach” irrational subjects in science class.
Liberation Theology is not science, and the point that you don’t enjoy it is irrelevant to the topic also.
Frankly, I don’t need religion in order to be loving, content, responsible, ethical, compassionate, thoughtful, creative, constructive, helpful, knowledgeable, or wise.
We wield enormous power over Nature and our fellow human beings by virtue of the science and technology we do not understand. Medicine, longevity, this Internet, and the economy of the U.S. are the very direct result of technology, not religion. That is a very basic fact which the public definitely takes for granted.
THE PEOPLE, not just the intellectual elite, will need to understand technology to wisely control it, or will die by it.
As an aside, there’s no good reason to think there ever was a singular creation event. Evidence strongly supports the idea that there is no beginning or end to either time or space (see Sci. American, 5/2004). My personal philosophy is that the notion of creation is a limitation, imposed on the human mind by orthodoxy.
You have every right to believe in creation. But until there is evidence it’s real, I’m personally not interested in constructing a perspective of reality based on it. My perspective of reality is based on the study of what is observable and knowable – reality itself as best we can discern it rationally. Your perspective of reality is based on belief, in what I would characterize as the irrational and unknowable. That’s why I teach science and you teach religion! I suggest we keep it that way.

The issue is not teaching Intelligent Design. We need to teach our children the drawbacks and pifalls of Darvin’s theory. All of us know Darvinism is not perfect, there are many things which Darvin’s theory can not prove. Like Sex, complex organs like eyes etc.
If you are not willing to teach your children the religious things no problem, But the children must know Darvinism is not perfect. They have the right to know the problems or issues which can not solve by Darvin’s theory.
Please do not mindwash our children for believing the Darvin’s theory. Since there is no other theory strong enough to prove scientifically, Darvinis theory has some value but it might not be the correct one. There are many things still science can not prove scientifically…the LIFE itself is a mistery.