Spring Break
Breaking down the definition: Intelligent Design
MARTEE ORTIZ
Issue date: 4/2/07 Section: News
|
“The news media is notorious for defining [intelligent design] very very badly,” Luskin said.
Proven even by the raise of hands in Luskin’s Monday night lecture, many Americans know only half the definition of intelligent design, the only half the news media releases. People often confuse it with creationism.
To inform people who may have digested a little too much of what the media has fed them, Casey Luskin answered the questions: “What is intelligent design?” and “Is it testable?”
Intelligent design is purely scientific, based on facts and theories; ID does not offer proof or evidence to God as creator, which provides one way it differs from creationism. Creationism is a belief. Intelligent design is a theory, and yes it is testable. Beliefs are not necessarily testable.
So to answer the question, “What is intelligent design?” Luskin explained that intelligent design is not saying that God created the earth, instead ID is a theory that life and therefore the universe did not arise by chance: an intelligent entity designed and created it. ID is about the facts that negate Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“I myself do believe in a benevolent God…but a scientific argument for design in biology does not go that far,” Dr. Michael Behe, an American biochemist, said. Once again, Luskin makes it very clear that ID is not about proving God’s existence; that is a belief.
Is intelligent design testable? Luskin went on later to compare ID to a bacterial flagellar motor which is similar to a rotary engine as used in Mazda RX7s.
This model is proven to be irreducibly complex which means that if someone were to take away any major part, the engine would not work properly or at all. This test proved intelligent design.
Another test is the bicycle. In the lecture, Luskin showed that a functional bicycle must include two wheels, a form to power the bicycle (the chain and pedals), handle bars to steer and a frame that holds everything together.
Notice that he did not include that the bike needs a seat to function; the seat provides an added luxury which does not affect the functioning of the bicycle itself.
One does not need a seat to ride a bike. “If you don’t have those core parts, you won’t have a functioning system… If you knocked out one of those parts, the bike would stop working,” said Luskin. The conclusion: because of the bike’s irreducible complexity, it was made by intelligent design.
Now to relate to the human body instead of a motor or a bicycle, most people should know that without a heart, lungs or a stomach the body would not survive, making the body complex and hence created by an intelligent design.
Casey Luskin also refuted Darwin’s common descent tree, which is thought to provide links between different species of life. This tree was said to show people how they evolved from common descent. This proved a difficult task since the limbs on the tree were going every which way.
“In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be,” said Dr. Niles Eldredge, an American paleontologist.
Luskin then later called the tree the Darwinian tangled bush because there is literally no logic to the direction of the branches.
So the tree turns into a tangled bush, and now, Darwin is proven wrong red-handed.
Year ago, when Darwin’s argument first hit big, it tried to prove “junk DNA.” This dreadful mistake proved its worthlessness when doctors (under their oath to help better anyone in their care) radiated a woman’s thyroid – vital in the human body.
The thyroid, much like taking a wheel off a bike, which was thought to be useless and therefore a junk DNA aftermath, helped in disproving part of Darwin’s theory.
This blind leap of faith into Darwinism proved painful to
the woman and deadly to Darwin’s theory.
Luskin ended with admitting that he himself is a Christian and believes in God but assured everyone listening that this theory cannot prove God’s existence.
“I am a Christian. Intelligent design is not an argument for the existence of God... Data says that these structures did not come out blindly, but instead by an intelligent process.”
Though not many people attended this argument for intelligent design, Casey Luskin did well to prove his point, which provoked tough questions at the end of lecture that he seemingly answered with ease.
“Intelligent design does have a positive case,” said Aaron Vandenbos of the Boise State University Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club. “There is a lot people
do not know.”
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 39
Tim
posted 4/02/07 @ 2:02 AM MST
As an anonymous poster on a Science blog recently put it:
"ID represents a body of unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable pseudoscience which purports to explain the origins of all scientific phenonema observed in the universe. (Continued…)
Joe Blough
posted 4/02/07 @ 2:05 AM MST
"Proven even by the raise of hands in Luskin's Monday night lecture, many Americans know only half the definition of intelligent design, the only half the news media releases. (Continued…)
Richard Forrest
Richard Forrest
posted 4/02/07 @ 3:11 AM MST
The opening sentence of this article is true: the media have misrepresented Intelligent Design. It has been referred to incorrectly as science. I can find little else which is true, and much which is categorically false. (Continued…)
melissa
posted 4/02/07 @ 6:11 AM MST
there are too many examples of "unintelligent design" to believe in intelligent design. why is it so bad to think we just arose by chance? our purpose here is to be good to others and make ourselves and others happy. (Continued…)
Jay Kanta
posted 4/02/07 @ 7:44 AM MST
Casey Luskin and Michael Behe are trying to reduce the scientific standards of America for purely theological reasons.
The flaggelum they so proudly proclaim is "irreducible" has been shown by biologists, such as PZ Meyers, to have other functions when reduced. (Continued…)
desertphile
posted 4/02/07 @ 8:46 AM MST
Rev Luskin is, of course, lying when he asserts that "Intelligent Design" is not Creationism and that it is testable (i.e., falsifiable). ID is only promoted by Creationists, and its political agenda is the same as Creationism. (Continued…)
Ron O
posted 4/02/07 @ 8:55 AM MST
If intelligent design is testable at this time, why didn't Behe and Minnich (two other Discovery Institute associates) claim that it was, and why hadn't they tested it? Their claim under oath was that ID had never been tested and was not being tested that they knew of. (Continued…)
Tom von Alten
posted 4/02/07 @ 9:16 AM MST
"People often confuse ID with creationism," because the Discovery Institute has done little more than put lipstick on that pig.
Luskin and pals argue from personal incredulity and in favor of a magical explanation, and lord a'mercy they just don't *understand* why people don't rally up for their simple explanation of things. (Continued…)
Tracy P. Hamilton
posted 4/02/07 @ 12:20 PM MST
To those wondering if what Casey Luskin says about ID not being creationism is true, do an internet search for "cdesign proponentsists".
infidel57
posted 4/02/07 @ 2:19 PM MST
ID is not a scientific theory. It is an argument from ignorance. "We can't imagine how this could have happen without and intelligent designer, therefore Goddidit. (Continued…)
Post a Comment