Gilder: ID Dingbat
The New Zealand Herald — I see that the Creationists have managed to hijack the debate in, of all places, New Zealand thanks to religious propaganda doled out by the Discovery Institute in Washington State. Futurist and Forbes stock picker George Gilder is one of the “fellows” behind that organization, by the way. It seems to be modeled after the Hudson Institute and other well-run social agenda religious right-wing organizations.
The debate also has been simmering in New Zealand. Chief proponents of intelligent design here include Investigate magazine editor Ian Wishart and Auckland University School of Engineering associate professor Neil Broom, author of How Blind Is a Watchmaker?
The argument was rekindled last week when 500 New Zealand schools received unsolicited DVDs and workbooks from the Christian-based Focus on the Family organisation.
The material comes via the Centre for Science and Culture (CSC), a division of the Discovery Institute, a religion-based conservative think-tank in Seattle. It criticises Darwinism and promotes the idea of an “intelligent designer” outside the laws of nature to explain the intricate complexity of living organisms.
“Intelligent design people will tell you it doesn’t mean there was a God. It just means something intelligent designed it. I’m much more comfortable saying God’s there and he made it,” says Michael Drake.
The principal of Carey College looks pleased with his answer. It avows his faith. Drake exudes the unshakeable rightness, some might say smugness, of a committed Christian.
The private school in Panmure teaches a literal interpretation of creation found in Genesis alongside the teaching of evolution. Drake believes in a young Earth – one that’s about 6000 to 10,000 years old because that’s what you get if you add up all the begats in the Bible.
Questions of carbon dating are not a problem. “It’s perfectly possible to say God created the world at a point in time and at that point in time it [the Earth] was fixed with so many carbon 14 and so many ordinary carbon molecules – why not? God is God.”
And, according to these folks, he’s apparently a prankster. Seems like a sacreligious assertion to me.
I can see that dvorak and his left wing followers are the only ones that come to this blog. Anyone that doesn’t agree with you is called stupid, uneducated or fools and run off. Liberals that cannot argue their points call people names.
Thomas called me “completely ignorant ” and “US education system” .. ” failed with you”. I would put my IQ and my educational background against yours any day…. But see you don’t know me but yet you say I am ignorant, based on fact, no, based on that I don’t agree with you…
No need to reply I will not be coming back to this site, Dvorak and his followers can have this sad onesided bias site.
Ardan,
You are judged on what you say. You claimed that people discount ‘intelligent” design out of fear. This is false. They discount it because it does not qualify as science.
Questioning the prevailing mechanistic theories of evolution is perfectly acceptable. However, to question either that evolution did not happen or that “intelligent” design ideology is science is to argue from a stance of ignorance.
Back to the bacteria that was accidentally created originally in a lab in the 60′s or 70′s. Even though it was created accidentally, it was in fact “created” in a controlled environment by an “intelligent” designer. Even though the desired effect was not achieved. Correct ?
Rick,
Design requires intent. Since the bacteria were created by accident, there was no intent and thus no “design” involved. In addition, the designers of the experiment simply designed *what* was to happen, not *how* it happened. In order for it to have been designed, the *how* would have to have been defined ahead of time.
There was an intent. It’s just that the desired intent, was not achieved. Instead a hybrid bacteria was created. I admit that the bacteria adapted due to exposure to the antibiotics,(evolution among same species).But the process was still hosted by an intelligent designer. It was all conducted in a controlled environment and introduced by an intelligent source. The two elements (bacteria and antibiotics) did not come together on there own. Once the effect was noticed then the super bacteria from that point on was intelligentlly designed. I believe there is proof of evolution (ie. horse to race horse ) among same species only. But I also believe there is evidence for intelligent design as well (ie. DNA ).
> It’s just that the desired intent, was not achieved.
That’s not design; that’s happenchance. What you are suggesting is that maybe life was designed “by accident.” Then, how do we tell which life was created by intentional design, which life was created by accidental design and which life was created by random events? It is not logical to claim something was designed and then claim it happened by accident. They are mutually exclusive.
Thomas, I haven’t given up. I’m still thinking.
Science = cgs measurable, always
Non-cgs = scholastics of any color
Sapienti sat!
The Nova special was great. I highly recommend people read it.
Anyone who thinks that ID is anything more than a way to get creationism taught to children in public schools does not understand how science works, or does not care.
I spent over 5000 hours in a fundamentalist church growing up don’t believe a word of it. I’m not anti-Christian. I do have enough experience with them to know that Christians have a serious problem in dealing with people who don’t believe their story.
Whatever.