Trek
Valued Senior Member
Like I said for the third time, not all scientists think so. Are you going to appeal to popularity like Pinball?
Intelligent design redux
- Thread starter Pinball1970
- Start date
Trek
Valued Senior Member
Whatever you have?
Still waiting for you validate your claim.
Let’s hope it’s 6th time lucky.
Again straight from the author:
"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends, I have developed a strategy for doing this... We call our strategy the 'wedge' ".
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"The first thing you teach is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When did you realize that the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1."
Thus, the author himself admits that the purpose of the wedge strategy is to get God - and God-driven creation - into schools, and ban "naturalist materialism" (i.e. science.)
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Sure.
But I think you now need to cite who these scientists are that you have in mind. I guarantee they have no research published in serious journals that calls into question the principle of evolutionary change.
Trek
Valued Senior Member
“I discovered a lot of loose ends in Darwin’s theory,” Johnson said. “And I’m the kind of person who, when I see a loose end, I have this irresistible desire to pull on it.” Johnson’s “pulling” led to a paper that eventually became the draft of his first book “Darwin on Trial,” and the movement known as intelligent design was begun…
The movement holds that the biological aspects of life are too complex to have evolved randomly, but must have been produced by an unidentified intelligence. Johnson differentiated the theory from Creationism because intelligent design doesn’t claim that there is anything supernatural about this creative intelligence..
“We know today that cells are much more complex than Darwin thought,” Johnson said. “They have their own chemical factories, sophisticated transport systems and cell repair facilities, so the position that this level of complexity could come together just by chance seems remote.
We concluded that life springs from some unidentified intelligence.” Intelligent design also challenges scientists who claim that the evidence of evolution is everywhere—from fruit flies branching into new species to bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics—by insisting that scientists use only small scale variations within a species to explain evolution.
Unlike Creationists who claim the world was created in just six days, intelligent design does not deal with the question of how long it took to create the world, Johnson explained. “The Creationists are up against all of the scientists. I tried to narrow the debate and bring the movement into the realm of science,” he said. “Scientists couldn’t dismiss the theory of an intelligence because they investigate types of intelligence all of the time.” Intelligent design has caused controversy throughout the world. A federal judge ruled recently that intelligent design cannot be taught in biology classes in a Pennsylvania school district because the teaching of the Bible does not belong in science classes, but Johnson isn’t concerned about the theory being taught in public schools. “We want to discredit Darwinism [The point of the wedge document],” Johnson said. “This theory has had an enormous impact on secularization because it eliminates the Creator.
The movement holds that the biological aspects of life are too complex to have evolved randomly, but must have been produced by an unidentified intelligence. Johnson differentiated the theory from Creationism because intelligent design doesn’t claim that there is anything supernatural about this creative intelligence..
“We know today that cells are much more complex than Darwin thought,” Johnson said. “They have their own chemical factories, sophisticated transport systems and cell repair facilities, so the position that this level of complexity could come together just by chance seems remote.
We concluded that life springs from some unidentified intelligence.” Intelligent design also challenges scientists who claim that the evidence of evolution is everywhere—from fruit flies branching into new species to bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics—by insisting that scientists use only small scale variations within a species to explain evolution.
Unlike Creationists who claim the world was created in just six days, intelligent design does not deal with the question of how long it took to create the world, Johnson explained. “The Creationists are up against all of the scientists. I tried to narrow the debate and bring the movement into the realm of science,” he said. “Scientists couldn’t dismiss the theory of an intelligence because they investigate types of intelligence all of the time.” Intelligent design has caused controversy throughout the world. A federal judge ruled recently that intelligent design cannot be taught in biology classes in a Pennsylvania school district because the teaching of the Bible does not belong in science classes, but Johnson isn’t concerned about the theory being taught in public schools. “We want to discredit Darwinism [The point of the wedge document],” Johnson said. “This theory has had an enormous impact on secularization because it eliminates the Creator.
Trek
Valued Senior Member
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural…
www.discovery.org
Trek
Valued Senior Member
What exactly do do you mean by “serious journals”?
Again, his very own words make that a lie:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"Nature" is a serious journal. Peer reviewed, articles selected for importance, validity and rigor.
The Flat Earth Society newsletter is not a serious journal.
Trek
Valued Senior Member
I hope you’re not triggered bilvon
Trek
Valued Senior Member
Where is the devious, dastardly plan to TEACH creationism as science to kids in schools.
There has probably been about 10 attempts to answer that question thus far, and all have fallen short.
Expressing a belief in God is not a Trojan horse tactic to teach creationism as science in schools.
We are looking for a type of curriculum. Otherwise it’s nothing but paranoid fear mongering, or some insecurity you have about darwinistic evolution.
Trek
Valued Senior Member
Apparently I’m correct in saying that not all scientists accept Darwinism…
Right here: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
Absolutely. And some "scientists" think the Earth is flat and vaccines don't work, too.
Trek
Valued Senior Member
Since you didn't understand it I will use simpler words again.
Some people who claim they are scientists don't accept evolution because they misunderstand it, either unintentionally or intentionally. Some people who claim they are scientists don't accept the round-earth "theory" because they don't understand basic facts about gravity, the atmosphere and several other things. Some people who claim they are scientists don't think vaccines work because they have no understanding of how our immune system works.
The above is not proof that evolution/a spherical Earth/vaccines are fake. It is proof that anyone can call themselves a scientist.
Trek
Valued Senior Member
Where does he say to teach it as science?
“We're not trying to prove the character of God through science. That's a bad idea. What I'm trying to do is clear away the misunderstandings, the debris that prevent people from accepting that God who wants to accept them.”
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/180898...not-trying-to-prove-the-character-of-god-thr/
Trek
Valued Senior Member
So none of those scientists a) aren’t real scientists, they only claim to be scientists.
b) If a scientist doesn’t accept Darwinism (I don’t know anyone who doesn’t accept evolution), you’re not a real scientist (that’s what it sounds like to me)
Is that right?
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Ones with a high Impact Factor would be a good start. Certainly in an active field like evolutionary biology that would be a decent measure.
Last edited:
Trek
Valued Senior Member
With all this stuff about “proper scientists” and peer reviewed scientists being the cream of the crop. I’m going on a search to find out what makes a scientist a scientist, or a good scientist. And to see if being peer reviewed makes for a more advanced scientist. So far I have come up with these descriptions…
What makes a scientist a scientist?
Curious. Scientists are curious about their world. They want to know why things happen and how things work.
There are many traits that are important for scientists to have. Some of the most important ones include careful observation, curiosity, logic, creativity, skepticism, and objectivity.
What makes a scientist a scientist?
Curious. Scientists are curious about their world. They want to know why things happen and how things work.
- Patient. Scientists are patient as they repeat experiments multiple times to verify results.
- Courageous. Scientists work to discover answers often times for years and with numerous failures. They recognize that failed experiments provide answers as often as successful ones.
- Detail-oriented. In science, answers are built upon observations and collected data. Close attention to details is important in the development of science theories. Detailed observations in one experiment could also lead to answers in another.
- Creative. Contrary to popular opinion, scientists must be creative, able to think outside the box and envision things that cannot be seen.
- Persistent. Scientists recognize their work may take decades, and that their approach may be wrong and their work could be proven false by future scientists.
- Communicative. Scientists need good communication skills. They may need to work as part of a team, share information with the public or collaborate with colleagues around the world.
- Open-minded and free of bias.Scientists need to suspend judgment so they can continue to observe and collect data while searching for the best possible solution. Even though they’re working with a hypothesis in mind, they must remember there are many more hypotheses.
- Critical thinkers and problem-solvers.Scientists need to analyze information and make critical decisions to solve experimental problems or world problems.
There are many traits that are important for scientists to have. Some of the most important ones include careful observation, curiosity, logic, creativity, skepticism, and objectivity.