European Union visitor's information about cookies used and data collected on this blog.

European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used and data collected on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.

As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies, and other data collected by Google.

You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. If you include functionality from other providers there may be extra information collected from your users.

Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.

Following the announcement of Google+ API deprecation scheduled for March 2019, a number of changes will be made to Blogger’s Google+ integration on 4 February 2019.

Google+ widgets: Support for the “+1 Button”, “Google+ Followers” and “Google+ Badge” widgets in Layout will no longer be available. All instances of these widgets will be removed from your blog.

+1 buttons: The +1/G+ buttons and Google+ share links below blog posts and in the navigation bar will be removed.

Please note that if you have a custom template that includes Google+ features, you may need to update your template. Please contact your template supplier for advice.

Google+ Comments: Support for Google+ comments will be turned down, and all blogs using Google+ comments will be reverted back to using Blogger comments. Unfortunately, comments posted as Google+ comments cannot be migrated to Blogger and will no longer appear on your blog.

Learn more.

Open

Source

Is Intelligent Design Science - My perspective?

Is Intelligent Design Science - My perspective?

Then supposedly learned men within the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement start defining their political policies with an attack on the basic principle of science – the fact that – ‘science does not comment on the supernatural’ or as Jay Richards would out it that so-called ‘methodological naturalism’. Then it is on to that ‘purposeless causes when exploring nature’, well one should first define ‘purposeless’, since if something does not, just by doing that something because it can, does in fact have purpose. As with most enquires within the ID Movement, an applied and assumed assigning of purpose or design is given from the position of authority – the infamous Intelligent Designer (IDer). That Intelligent Agency (IA) is by definition – supernatural, especially when used outside the defined principles of science and that usage of IA is an all encompassing answer to everything of and in the universe.

          The persuasiveness of the argument that ‘methodological naturalism’ is used as the backbone within science, is not an issue, it is simply a fact, well for those who practice valid science that is. And no, the universe is under no obligation to conform to anyone’s definition, especially those religious political scientists, at the Discovery Institute. But more to the point, the universe does not have a viewpoint of any type and it is mankind’s interpretation of the universe, which creates the obligation of ‘methodological naturalism’ to be used as a measuring tape of our understanding of the universe and everything in it. There is a design like structure within all of nature because nature follows all of the laws of scientific theory, which are of course an unconsciously effects the actions of nature, but without a plan or perceived outcome.

          Religion is a word that is built on blind faith, it is a word that simply answers everything, never fully, correctly or based on evidence, but it is more of a filler concept or word grouping, that fill a gap in mankind’s knowledge or understanding. As within science, specific meanings are ascribed to give words, for an understanding between all scientists of all scientific disciplines – a standard vocabulary within scientific methodology that is to be followed and maintained.

          Now, if you have a lawyer by the name of Philip Johnson, who has come along after becoming a born-again Christian, – which has absolutely nothing to do with his new found interest in the sciences – well strictly according to him, of course; has come forward with an idea of how to get Creationism back into the Science classroom. Mr. Johnson is to use his legal background and expertise change and redefine some wording or in such cases, simply removing whole words and their definitions. The simplest examples of legal trickery used commonly in his old profession, would be say the definition of ‘person’ and ‘child’. These two words are very common and one’s understanding would be very clear, but not in the legal profession because within the legal world – specific and altered definitions have been given. The question one should be asking is why would there be a need to legally define both ‘person’ and ‘child’, if everyone already would know their definition. Simply put, by redefining these words one changes the scope of their impact. A words ‘person’ and ‘child’ are legally defined and represent both real and fictitious concepts in law. The point I wish to purvey is that within both law and science, words are given specific meanings, in order to maintain an orderly and comprehensive dialogue between fellow scientists or fellow lawyers.

          The defining moments the ID Movement becomes a failing political concept, is when its starting point is within the realms of the supernatural, since ‘science does not comment on the supernatural’. It is precisely at that point, where the ID Movement and Science part company, and ID falls under various headings, such as religion, philosophy, politics, wishful wanting, falsehood, etc. Secondly, when the ID Movement tries to redefine ‘scientific methodology’ because it does not allow the supernatural, but only incorporates ‘methodological naturalism’, within its framework and study. Thirdly, when the ID Movement gets to have full reign over the definition of ‘best’ and also gets to judge exactly what the Movement decides what that ‘best’ represents within the universe – can only be described as taking place in a pipe-dream. Fourthly, the ID Movement is under a self-delusion that the Sciences do not recognize design in nature, which is a falsehood, but more to the point and correctly – science does not recognize the need to add a fictitious IDer or other sky fairies – into scientific theories. Science observes various designs, patterns, configurations, repetitions, structures, re-occurring themes etc., all of which help science understand the natural world around us. Finally, and more as a matter of fact issue, Copernicus, Kepler and Newton may have been spiritual as they ventured into the Sciences, with a religious world viewpoint, but their science prevailed when and only when it veered away from the supernatural.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao, were atheists towards a defined God!

Well, Stalin and Mao were Atheists and they did commit terrible crimes, but they didn't commit those crimes behind the banner of Atheism. They committed those crimes mainly for political reasons and were probably a little mental insane, to boot.

If Atheists commit crimes and that defines that all Atheists are criminals, then the fact that.....

Adolf Hitler was raised with a Roman Catholic upbringing, by his parents. When he left home, he was a moderate Catholic and rarely attended Mass or received the all of the sacraments. Adolf Hitler often praised Christian heritage and professed a belief in Jesus Christ, by way of the German Christian culture.

In many of his speeches and in his publications Adolf Hitler spoke of Christianity being the central motivation for his anti-semitism. He had stated that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." It has been reported that in his private statements, that show Adolf Hitler as a religious man, but still critical of the traditional Christianity doctrine. Even though at the same time, he adapted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical structure, liturgy and phraseology within his political antics.

Adolf Hitler advocated for a Positive Christianity, which was a belief system he had purged of those ideals he objected in traditional Christianity. Also, of which he had reinvented the role of Jesus - he was to be a fighter - who fought against the Jews. He also favoured aspects of Protestantism, which were sympathetic to his causes and objectives.

Adolf Hitler belief structure was affected by Arthur de Gobineau's - struggle for survival between the different races - theory. Providence was to guide his "Aryan race" to be the torchbearers of civilization - of which the Jews were the enemy to all civilization.

And as a point of fact - Hitler saw the Jews as a people, not a religion. I believe he thought it was easier to demonize a people, than a religious ideology.

......Hitler was actually a Roman Catholic and all Catholics believe and support the crime of murder of the Jews and the Justification of the Holocaust, just because they are Catholics.

**Catholics = Hitler / Hitler = Holocaust / Catholics = Holocaust**
= represents - belief in

Seems to be a very rational and deductive reasoning to me - no not really.

To put in more simply:

1. Bad men - do bad things.
2. Bad men - in the name of religion, do bad things - in the name of religion.
3. Bad men - in the name of politics, do bad things - in the name of politics.
4. Bad men - with unlimited power, perform unlimited acts - of crudity.

But hey, why let factual, historical documented accounts; get in the way of your view of the truth.

Data and Evidence with Intelligent Design: Allah as the Intelligent Cause.

Data and Evidence within Intelligent Design: Allah as the Intelligent Cause.

          To fully appreciate any political philosophy, such as that of the Intelligent Design Movement, one should look at the selected terminology and meaning applied to Intelligent Design (ID). The meaning of ID to be given was supplied by the Frequently Asked Questions section and is stated as follows:

          ‘Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process as natural selection.’

          And there you have it, a bunching of scientific sounding terminology that properly explains ‘God did it’ or if you want ‘the Intelligent Cause did it’; also available and is more widely used is ‘the Intelligent Designer did it’. All three phrases are expressions to explain the assumed ‘who’ part of ID equation, but the problem is they all do not explain absolutely nothing, since there is no explanation of the ‘how’ something was done.

          The ID Movement is a self-described community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars, one of which was a law professor at Berkeley, who totally misunderstands the Theory of Evolution and natural selection, but still states they follow a scientific research policy that seeks evidence of design in nature. This scientific research policy of ID, actually opposes methodological naturalism as a whole, which is the basic principle within all science, to limit it to natural phenomena and causes. As a fundamental understanding within scientific methodology, that science does not comment on the supernatural, period.

          If one was to actually analyze the definition expressed by the ID Movement, a clear and utterly confusing understanding can be made, by asking a few questions:

- ‘holds that certain features’

          To define ‘certain’ as a specific and known, but not named or would that ‘certain’ are that is indefinite or hard to describe be the definition expressed. The question I would more incline to ask is ‘who decides the ID Movement’s self-appointed design theorists, are able to determine which ‘certain features’ are a product of chance, natural law, ID or a combination thereof? When intelligent agents act, what instrumentations and reference points are used to conduct the observation of the types of acts, which illustrate the fact that an intelligent cause is present?

To properly address the present of intelligent agents is to first assume that intelligent agents actually exist and then assume that one can judge when they act.

- ‘best explained’

          To define ‘best’ as the most desirable, excellent or beneficial, of which begs the question of ‘who’ determines the criteria that calculates the level of ‘best’. When the usage of ‘best’ is drawn on, it is from the individual’s point of view, which makes it a subjective term. To apply intelligence to the understanding of any type of informational construct, one would have to possess the knowledge, experience or perspective of the properties beforehand to decipher and apply a pattern of recognition. Those design theorists, of which the ID Movement applies to differentiate between natural design used within the Theory of Evolution and the supernatural. The special scientific methods, created and exclusively employed by those individuals in the ID Movement, of which single-handedly violate the defining principle of all science – science does not comment on the supernatural.

          The ID Movement accepts evolution when defined as simply ‘change over time’ and the acceptance of the relation of common ancestry of living things. The dominant problem with the ID Movement seems to stem from an outdated expression of ‘Neo-Darwinism’, of which has been replaced as Modern Evolutionary Biology (MEB), due to advances in both technological and scientific discovery. The driving forces expressed with MEB are through natural selection, which is driven by the occurrences of mutations, predictable and purposeful processes that have a possibility to effect the discernable direction towards the survival of a species.

          The ID Movement, as a whole and through whatever exercises it wishes to undertake, shall always result in the same outcome, when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, Neo-Darwinism and Modern Evolutionary Biology – simply put – absolutely none. As soon as any representative of the ID Movement, be it a lawyer, philosopher, mathematician, theologian or biologist utilizes a research policy that incorporates an intelligent cause as a possible explanation – all credibility is lost. More so, any and all questioning ceases at when intelligent causes act, without any investigation into the ‘who, how and why’ it acted, which I understand the data and evidence points to the intelligent cause as ‘Allah, through his prophet Muhammad because he is the one and only creator and sustainer of the universe’.

Tammy Kitzmiller of Dover Penn., the trial and the failings of Intelligent Design.

Tammy kitzmiller at the courthouse

The Dover Board of Education obtained the legal services of the Thomas More Law Centre, a conservative Christian not-for-profit law centre, to represent it in court. The Board stated that Intelligent Design (ID) was not ‘religion in disguise’, regardless of the Thomas Moore Law Centre’s involvement. The same Law Centre, that uses litigation to promote ‘the religious freedom of Christians and time-honoured family values’, along with being ‘the sword and shield for people of faith’.

Then there were the three golden boys, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and John Campbell, the big guns of the Discovery Institute, who withdrew their expertise prior to giving the defense their depositions, apparently due to not having personal attorneys during depositions.

From the Discovery Institute, there was good old John West, who portrayed the American Civil Liberties Union’s involvement as ‘Orwellian’, in its stifling of scientific discourse and its use of the courts. Then after the decision was handed down, John West continued with:

“The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of scientific ideas and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won’t work. He has conflated the Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover School Board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it”.

I’m not sure if it is pure ignorance of scientific methodology or simply a matter of self-delusion from the standpoint of all the members of the Discovery Institute’s position that openly opposes methodological naturalism. This principle at the most basic of levels, of which limits the pursuit of science and scientific investigation, to natural phenomena and natural causes. By this definition, the supernatural is not applied or without assuming its existence or non-existence, is purely beyond the relm of science and a natural explanation.

From the decision as a footnote, which kind of sums it all up for the need of due diligence for the position held by the Board Members, a public office, with specific expectations:

‘Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID, but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it’. In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree’.

          To claim an error or even an error in ignorance is tolerable, as long as a peaceful remedy is available and obtained, but to perform an outright error in ignorance and then proceeding to initiate conflict is totally unacceptable. There was an offer to avoid any legal fee payments, if the Dover School Board members took the opportunity to rethink their decision and rescind the policy, immediately after the filing of the lawsuit. The offer was rejected and the lawsuit proceeded to court, the Dover School Board members were dishonourable and the court decision went against them.

Dover High School Biology Statement of 2004.

Dover High School Biology Statement

On November 19, 2004, the Dover Area School District issued a press release stating that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth-grade biology class at Dover High School:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case is to become ground zero for the very first direct challenge to expose the fraud being played out, involving Intelligent Design (ID) being taught in a public school. The ID movement being a political based platform that is trying to sell the psuedo-science (a masquerade of Christian science), a self designated alternative to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

As with any salesman, those within the ID political machine targeted a bunch of like-minded political Christian customers, who would buy the ID product without having the knowledge or performing the due diligence required for their positions as Board Trustees. Without understand the pseudo-science that is ID, members of the Dover Board of Education, William Buckingham and Allan Bonsell both placed their youth-earth creationist religion, above their oaths of office and incorporated the use of ID into the ninth-grade science classrooms.

This matter actually started over a year early, in June of 2004 at a Board Meeting where Mr. Buckingham raised objections to the use of the Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine’s widely excepted textbook – Biology: Discovery Life. The objections were rooted around the allegations that the textbook was ‘laced with Darwinism’ and there was ‘nothing to counterbalance it’. The Board Meeting being a public affair, had caused Mr. Buckingham’s revelations to become newsworthy and published in the city of York’s newspapers.

The account, as described by Mr. Buckingham, was that of a telephone call he received by one Seth Cooper, a Discovery Institute staff attorney, who proposes the benefits of ID. Mr. Cooper’s tasks included communicating with legislators, school board memebers and teachers, about the topic of ID and the responsible route of scientific and educational advantages within a public science cirrcumlum.

As with any scam, when the light of scrutiny is shone, ID and its backers Seth Cooper and the Discovery Institute could not dive for cover quick enough, especially in bailing on any alleged advice given to Mr. Buckingham. Mr. Cooper is to have after the fact stated, that he called Mr. Buckingham to steer him and the Dover Board of Education away from ID, the inclusion of ID, the use of ID in the classroom or for the mentioning of ID within the school cirricumlum, all of which is denied by Mr. Buckingham’s account. Also, it is contended that Mr. Cooper informed Mr. Buckingham to clarify any information which was shared cannot be seen as legal advice and Mr. Cooper and the Discovery Institute were not to be held for any legal responsibilities.

I find it quite peculiar that the Discovery Institute the main backer of ID, would preach the virtues of ID and the possible uses of it, then only distance its self from ID’s teaching or mention within the Dover Board of Education’s cirriculum, when public scrutiny is applied.