Talk:Richard Sternberg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Intelligent design is not scientific creationism
A fair presentation of the ID point of view requires one to acknowledge its claim that in terms of their proposal Creationism an ID are substantially different. see below Dembski's quote on the subject:
The 'creationism' charge has been widely refuted by ID proponents as a charge of abuse that avoids dealing fairly with the substantial issues of this controversy. erasmocbc 19:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the text book "Pandas and People" entered as evidence in the Dover PA trial along with evidence that it had originally been published with the words "creation" and "creationism" but that later versions (after the Edwards trial that ruled that Creationism was religious) the words were replaced with "Intelligent Design" and such?
Apple Rancher 04:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, you can read Barbara Forrest's testimony at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6am2.html#day6am539 — Dunc|☺ 12:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Charge of Creationism
"Despite intelligent design’s clear linkage, both methodologically and in content, with existing sciences that sift the effects of intelligence from undirected natural forces, critics of intelligent design often label it a form of creationism. Not only is this label misleading, but in academic and scientific circles it has become a term of abuse to censor ideas before they can be fairly discussed.
To see that the creationist label is misleading, consider that one can advocate intelligent design without advocating creationism. Creationism typically denotes a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis as well as an attempt to harmonize science with this interpretation (Morris 1975). It can also denote the view common to theists that a personal transcendent God created the world, a view taught by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Johnson 2004). In either case, however, creationism presupposes that the world came into being through a creative power separate from the world.
Intelligent design, by contrast, places no such requirement on any designing intelligence responsible for cosmological fine-tuning or biological complexity. It simply argues that certain finite material objects exhibit patterns that convincingly point to an intelligent cause. But the nature of that cause—whether it is one or many, whether it is a part of or separate from the world, and even whether it is good or evil—simply do not fall within intelligent design’s purview. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Contra Gentiles (III.38), put it this way (quoted from Pegis 1948, 454–455):
- By his natural reason man is able to arrive at some knowledge of God. For seeing that natural things run their course according to a fixed order, and since there cannot be order without a cause of order, men, for the most part, perceive that there is one who orders the things that we see. But who or of what kind this cause of order may be, or whether there
be but one, cannot be gathered from this general consideration.
Consistent with this statement, Aristotle, who held to an eternal uncreated world and to a purposiveness built into the world, would today hold to intelligent design but not to creationism (see his Physics as well as his Metaphysics in McKeon 1941)."
quoted from Dembski's "In Defense of Intelligent Design." p.3-4. [1]]
erasmocbc 21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh do come along. See the articles on intelligent design and creationism that explain that ID is a form of creationism. Intelligent design is defined and treated as a form of creationism by its supporters.
-
- You will have to prove this point with relevant quotations from it supporters.
What is presented above is Demsbki's attempt at a strawman of creationism, by defining creationism as young earth creationism, followed by the argument that he is not being that' silly.
-
- It is rather his exposition of the ad-hominem attepmt to preempt a fair discussion of the issues using descrediting labels.erasmocbc 20:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Yet ID calls for a intelligent designer - a creator God. The sociological links between the ID movement and creationism are easy to demonstrate; both historically, economically and the stated views of its proponents - everyone knows who the intelligent designer is, but no-one is prepared to say because it reveals the faith-based nature of this pseudoscience. Dunc|☺ 19:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- This is a forgone conclusion that is rejected by ID advocates.erasmocbc 20:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
In the case of Sternberg it is an unfounded charge.
-
- "They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."
-
- An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist." [2]
erasmocbc 20:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
If you want to extend the ad-hominem attack upon this man you will have to justified it. But do not just raise the charge without justification.
The article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" is not an article on creationism. erasmocbc 20:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not so well read on the issues at hand, but having read carefully over the internet about the article, and the person in questiong, I 've come to the conclusion, that the evolutionists are a mean spirit bunch and demonstrate a worse kind of fanatisism than that of the worst type of islamic say zealot. That's what happens when science takes the mantle of authority in metaphysics, while still maintaining the supposed exactness of science itself...In any case it's a shame to see such a slanderous and ad hominem article, and completely uncalled for, for that matter, in wikipedia... 213.170.207.96 05:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted External links
BTW, why delete the external links with information on Sternberg and the controversy. The washington Post, and the Wallstreet Journal are both reputable sources. Is there any reason not to include these in a fair presentation of this case. Further more. The ones proposing the change have not justified their changes in this discussion page. Is wiki a means for abuse? or for fair presentation of information? erasmocbc 20:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Only" Peer-Reviewed Article
Duncharris, why did you revert? Have you reason to believe that the article in question is the only one "advocating" intelligent design? ID advocates claim that now they have at least several more-- for one example, see Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62. Maybe all the articles went through in similarily shady situations and maybe they are wrong, but as this is a disputed claim wikipedia doesn't seem the best place to make it (see NPOV).
Or am I missing something here? --AlsatianRain 23:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- The original wording was accurate. Claiming to have multiple peer-reviewed publication and actually having them are two very different things. The claims on the Discovery Institute regarding peer reviewed pro-ID articles appearing in mainstream scientific journals have been shown to be exaggerated, with either the publications being either not mainstream science or the article not actually containing any actual research in favor of ID. FeloniousMonk 20:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
