I'm aware of the slant the article places on the facts.
The Kansas City Star did not take a definitive position on whether ID or evolution was right, and it's a reputable newspaper. This is an unsubstantiated claim.
There is not any debate within science.
quote:
Page not found - Texas A&M College of Science
Two of the nation’s top scientists will visit the Texas A&M University campus next week to discuss one of the hottest topics in modern science as part of the annual Trotter Endowed Lecture Series.
As recipients of Texas A&M’s 2005 Trotter Prize, Dr. William Dembski, an associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University, and Dr. Stuart Kauffman, director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary, will address the origin of life in a public lecture Monday (April 4) at 7 p.m. in Rudder Theatre. The presentation, which is free and open to the public, will be followed by a reception in the Rudder Exhibit Hall.
Two central questions will form the basis of their scholarly debate: What are the defining features of life, and what causal processes can originate life and subsequently increase its complexity? For Dembski and Kauffman, the answers depend largely on approach, not to mention widely differing perspectives.
quote:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus}
National Public Radio program Justice Talking will host a debate on intelligent design and how to teach evolution in front of a live audience Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:30 PM at The National Constitution Center, featuring Discovery Institute senior fellow Dr. Paul Nelson, a proponent of the theory of intelligent design, and philosopher Dr. Niall Shanks, a defender of Darwinian evolution. The debate is free and open to the public.
Plus, in addition to these two examples, every time someone published a reply to one of the works by an ID scientists, that would count as debating ID. Saying that there is no debate is just your own extreme viewpoint.
ID has an obvious motivation for avoiding any association with these failed efforts of YEC Creationism, but they're still not going to fool anyone. Every time there was court case almost all those testifying for Creationism were affiliated with evangelical religious or theological institutions, while those on the other side represented a large number of different secular institutions and were members of a wide variety of religions, including no religion. If ID ends up in court like Creation Science did, ID's origins from within evangelical Christianity will be obvious from the backgrounds of those representing it.
After I spent more than half of my lenghtly post showing how terrible this argument is and refuting it with multiple pieces of evidences, you refuse to refute the majority of my counter-argument and instead reiterate what you just said. On top of that, you've given no proof that ID is thinly-veiled Creationism (except for Dembski, which is only one exampe, but I'll refute that later in the post); you only claim that this is true. Given all of that, you can not continue to compare Creationism and ID and argue for the link between the two. Even Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research know that creationism and ID are different, but you can't see the truth on this one. This claim about creationism and ID is just becoming so frivolous now that I'm starting to get personally offended by it.
One of the primary promoters of ID, Dembski, is now director of the Center for Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. What does this seminary have to say about itself? Well here, read for yourself at
About Baptist Seminary | Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:
Southwestern strives to provide a community of faith and learning that develops spiritual leaders with a passion for Christ and the Bible, a love for people, and the skills to minister effectively in a rapidly changing world.
Wow, sounds like a real bastion of science, doesn't it! That's where your great ID leader is now, running a department at a seminary. I guess he decided to pass over all those prestigious opporunities to join the faculty at MIT and CalTech and Stanford and Carnegie Mellon because of this stunning opportunity at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
This is yet another argument I've seen before and has been refuted. Dembski can be both a Christian and a scientist, but he knows to keep the two separate, just like Kepler, Morse, Pasteur, Galileo, Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, Faraday, and Bacon. I think he once talked about what ID means (and doesn't mean) to the Christian world, but never about what Christiany means to ID (that is, he doesn't base claims off of the Bible rather than science). Furthermore, your quote about Southwestern's mission is a blatant use of a straw man. That quote was never intended to be applied to ID at all; it's just a general statement of the school's mission.
Now you can try to rehash and reword this religion argument meant here, but there is still one problem you haven't addressed: that you are using the ad hominem logical fallacy (and a generalization as well). That's what this argument basically boils down, and unless you can show me that this is not using the ad hominem logical fallacy, this argument can not stand.
I'm sorry that you've been taken in by this article, but there is no legitimate scientific research going on in ID.
Once again you continue your unsubstantiated claim about this article's credibility. Relying on such weak and low attacks to make your point true shows the weakness of your position. You seem to forget that there are scientists who are attending these hearings, scientists who are on the committee, etc. (unless you want to claim that the Kansas City Star lied). The scientific debate is being played out within these hearings. Furthermore, any action to add ID (and any curriculum change of any type) to the curriculum would have to go through the school board, regardless, regardless of how credible ID is, so ID's credibility and the proposal to add it to the curriculum could be considered separate from each other.
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-21-2005 04:38 PM
™ Version 4.2