• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation Science House Bill 3826

You are kidding, right?

The Intelligent Design is the propaganda of the Discovery Institute, which found the modern Intelligent Design.

And the Discovery Institute were founded by 2 lawyers/politicians and political journalists:
  1. Bruce Chapman (journalist, politician)
  2. George Gilder (political journalist, economist)

Neither of these guys have any qualification in science (not life science, eg biology, and not earth science or astronomy).

Likewise, Phillip E. Johnson, who was senior member of Discovery Institute, was a law professor, but his qualification was a bachelor in English literature. He started Intelligent Design within Discovery Institute, but like the DI's founders, he has no background in science, whatsoever.

Johnson was also the main author of the Discovery Institute's manifesto or mission statements, known as the Wedge Strategy or the Wedge Document.

It list out their anti-evolution movement have everything to do with using propaganda, lawyers and politicians to promote ID to be taught in schools' science classrooms, using media, books, journals and applying legal and political pressures upon school boards to have the schools teach creationism in science. But ID is creationism, not science.

So the basis of Intelligent Design come from 3 senior members with no qualifications in biology.

You talk of politics, Jollybear, but you seemed to don’t know that the Discovery Institute by men involved in politics.

Stephen myer, mike behe and others on the board of ID, are scientists.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Ya, but DNA is not a rock, its a code of information.

Ya and DNA is not a rock.

DNA is a chemical. It interacts via chemical laws. It acquires its information via chemical laws.

So how does the current info tell us that intelligence is not "required" to originate DNA?

Because it and its information can be produced without intelligent intervention, via only the chemistry of the components.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Oh so you think because newton died before darwin he would not believe in God if he died after darwin? I dont think thats feasable to believe at all due to the fact there wer atheists even in newtons day.
We do not know. He certainly believed in a God as creator - so did virtually everyone else as there was no other explanation.

I think newton if alive today would support stephen myers ID movement.
:facepalm:


No, evidence was given and evidence is given still today.

Some court judgements are stupid rullings, look at all the innocents that go to jail as an example.
There was plenty of evidence given by the science side.


Ya, you can barry your head in the sand if you want.
I don't think it is me who is burying my head!!


The name is samantics. Created, designed, engineered, architecture, it dont matter. What matters is there evidence? Yes. Constantly nitpicking over samantics and motives does not give respect to ID scientists that do real science. And, frankly, thats wrong.
Yes, there is plenty of evidence.
ID scientists will gain respect when they publish papers for peer review. Until they do that they are just make believe.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Stephen myer, mike behe and others on the board of ID, are scientists.

Phillip Johnson is the one who started Intelligent Design at the Discovery Institute (DI), before Meyer and then Behe joined DI, Jollybear.

Meyer was a geophysicist, who graduated in Earth science, but have no qualifications in biology or in one of the biology-related fields. And Earth science may studied among other things like geology, he is no expert in paleontology (study of fossils). Meyer also worked in oil company, but he may know a thing or two about hydrocarbon compounds (eg oil and natural gas), but again, it doesn’t make him expert in Evolution, or biology in general.

As to Behe. He may be a biochemist, and DI’s leading expert in biology, at the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District trial (2005), he backpedals so many times with his claims and made so many mistakes and provided no evidences to support either Irreducible Complexity (IC) or for Intelligent Design, that his so-called expert testimony was instrumental for the defendant losing the case.

The judge rightly ruled that Intelligent Design is a religious concept, not science, and cannot be taught in science classrooms as “science”.

Intelligent Design is just another name for creationism, without calling it “creationism” - hence Intelligent Design is creationism-in-disguise - so this mean that the Discovery Institute (and all its senior members, including Meyer and Behe) have been lying.

The Wedge Strategy (WS) is DI’s own document that showed their mission statement or manifesto that Intelligent Design is indeed another name for creationism, but they want to hide ID’s true nature. The WS also encouraged its members to use deception and propaganda to support ID (eg books, articles), to intimidate and put political and legal pressures on teachers and school boards to teach ID creationism in schools.

Anyway, Behe is a joke, if you really think that Discovery Institute is the best they got.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Im certainly not aware of that. From speaches ive heard stephen make they want the controversy taught. Where did you hear the oposite?
It's on their website:

"Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?
No."​

He did do this. But due to the strong bias, he can only acheive so much.
Stephen Meyer published a paper on ID creationism in a scientific journal? Citation please.

Stephen in his speaches addressed this question. He said all great ideas in the past went through the fire of resistence before being accepted.
And how many of those became accepted through speaking at churches, making movies, going on Christian radio, and such?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
There was a school board election which resulted in the IDer losing their seats.
Yes, they did. Wonder why. Because voters in the district realized the problems that arise when they don't pay attention to the kind of idiots they elect to positions on the school board.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Yes, they did. Wonder why. Because voters in the district realized the problems that arise when they don't pay attention to the kind of idiots they elect to positions on the school board.

I was just pointing out those that created the situation (2004) were not in power to appeal.

The case really highlighted an issue with the district itself. A lot of parents only took an interest in the school board when the media spotlight forced them to action.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
No, evidence was given and evidence is given still today.
Evidence was given by the IDers. That evidence was rejected, point by point, by scientists.

The IDers/defendants tried to reject the notion that ID and Creationism were the same. They had to attempt this because the Courts had already ruled that is was unconstitutional to teach Creationism. They testified, under oath, that ID and Creationism were two different things.

The science side presented overwhelming evidence that ID and Creationism were one and the same. This was one of the major factors in the judge ruling for the plaintiffs.

The judge seriously considered holding some members of the defense in contempt for lying under oath.



Read the transcript, I did.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member

Because abiogenesis is such an extraordinary claim it will take extraordinary "proof" to establish it as fact, and I can only see this being accomplished by an actual demonstration.

.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Because abiogenesis is such an extraordinary claim it will take extraordinary "proof" to establish as fact, and I can only see this being accomplished by an actual demonstration.

.
Is it that extraordinary? We do know there was an abiogenic event. The problem is that we do not know the details.

I think that the best we will be able to show various possible pathways to life. I do not think that there is just one right answer. Finding a way that life could have arisen on its own does not prove that life had to follow those steps.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
DNA is a chemical. It interacts via chemical laws. It acquires its information via chemical laws.



Because it and its information can be produced without intelligent intervention, via only the chemistry of the components.
Simply not true. Chemical reactions cannot produce information. Chemical reactions are not information.
 
Top