Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

CON Forum
» back to
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     The wedge document
       And why it shows that ID is not science.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin


|      |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:

We had a little talk about the Wedge document in an earlier thread, and I just want to captuer the essence of it here, making it a more primary topic in its own thread. The wedge document outlined the ID movements plan to replace evolutionary theory as the best explenation for the evolution of life, so to speak.

The wedge document states for instance:

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

We'll focus on the "solid research" part of their document and we'll once more link to the Dover Trial, in which Michael Behe stated that there was no research he knew of that supported ID's newest pet. The Irreducible complexity of the immune system.

I quote from the trial transcript:

Q. Let's go on to immune system. That's
another biochemical system that you argued
in Darwin's Black Box and you argue in your
testimony is irreducibly complex, is that
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm correct in understanding that you
have not written any peer reviewed articles in
scientific journals arguing that the immune
system is in fact irreducibly complex?
A. No. My argument is in my book, that's
Q. And nobody else has written any articles in
peer reviewed scientific journals arguing that
the immune system is irreducibly complex?
A. Nobody has used those terms, but there are
articles which speak of the requirement for
multiple parts.
Q. They discuss what the immune system is
comprised of?
A. Yes, in terms of it needing different
several different parts.
Q. But those are not articles that argue for
the irreducible complexity of or do not argue
that the immune system can't evolve because it
is irreducibly complex?
A. No, they don't argue that.

In other words, they aren't doing any research to support their position, they don't know of any research supporting their position, but they still assert their position is logical and correct. ((They being the ID movement))

Based on what exactly ?

Posts: 103 | Posted: 05:52 AM on May 7, 2009 | IP

|      |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:

In my opinion they just hope for blurriness.

By ID they just want to implant a blurry changing entity, devoid of attackable content.
-You can't explain this phenomenon if your god is X.
-Well, then He's not X.
-But you can't explain this other phenomenon if your god is not X.
-Well, then He's X.

They want to point out that, just like they can't prove the biblical account, we can't prove abiogenesis, or the Big Bang. So we're the same.

In their mind that means an objective 50% chance that they're right, and 50% for us (that would be the real phase I). Then just a little faith and/or twisted reasoning would make you jump to the conclusion that God did it.

They want to believe that, since we can't disprove some blurry supernatural entity (i can disprove Yahweh easily, just like i can disprove the invisible pink unicorn: by contrasting incompatible alleged traits), that automatically gives it a 50% chance.

Well, we can't disprove Bertrand Russell's flying teapot either.

Does that give it a 50% chance?
Does that make teapotists just as sane as ateapotists?

(Edited by wisp 5/7/2009 at 2:18 PM).

Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at

Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:10 PM on May 7, 2009 | IP

|     |       Report Post

Junior Member
Post Score

Rate this post:

to me, Behe's "science" credentials imploded when, in the course of the Dover trial, he described an experiment that would disprove his theory about the bacterial flagellum.  Someone (presumably the lawyer for Kitzmiller, et al) pointed out that this experiment could be conducted in just two years and asked Behe if he had undertaken the test of his hypothesis, to which he replied no, he didn't think that would be fruitful.  

It proved to me that Behe's work a true scientific exploration of the world, but rather, an attempt to prove a hyposthesis that has metaphysical implications for Behe in which he is invested.

Posts: 26 | Posted: 11:06 AM on May 12, 2009 | IP

|      |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:

Michael Behe teaches biochemistry at Lehigh University.

It is interesting to note that Lehigh U's Department of Biological Sciences makes this statement on their website:

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

From their web-site:

Lehigh U Dept of Biological Sciences

I imagine Behe must be quite an embarrassment to the other faculty members at the university.

Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:47 PM on May 12, 2009 | IP
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread


Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.