Dr. Paul Nelson implies the amalgamation of science and theology in this debate regarding “intelligent design”. He insists that the subject of intelligent design is as old as humankind which is for me not logical due to the fact that since the dawn of humankind, there is not firm foundation of empirical data of intelligent design or God because the scribes during ancient times believe what they want to believe in. Some philosopher came up with theories but these are only theories and not principles at all. Everything would be sheer speculation in ancient times with no experiments at all. Dr.
Nelson states Darwinian principles the somewhat falsifies such yet there are hints that he believes in this principles in his own understanding. I agree with him the concept of the “giant tree” which states that all organisms followed a certain pathway in which “creation” sporadically occurred. Yet I disagree with him that “material continuity” is a hoax because he somehow combines a Darwinian theory with theological notion of some anonymous botanist which makes me feel skeptic because you have to hold your own beliefs on a matter. Dr. Nelson speaks in a logical manner but contradicts what he mentions at some points of the discussion.
He concludes that the Material Continuity Theory a complete hoax. Why? Because after mentioning that the theory is simply a mere theory without any firm empirical basis, he resorts to theological notions simply because is no testability of evolution itself which I agree with him due to the fact that only the “intelligent designer” or God is the one who know how things really work in this world of material continuity. Dr. Nelson is not really sure of himself because it is difficult for one to make a study of an amalgamation of science and theology.
Yet he always implies logical symmetry in each theory which he emphasizes in a manner that makes the idea of God or the Intelligent Designer the right notion to believe in. But how can one claim that such notion plausible enough when he combines the study of science and theology at the same time. Dr. Nelson is skeptic as well because of the Strike Zone theory. He states that a strike zone is observable yet evolution is an empirical theory that cannot be tested at all but also implies that testing these possibilities are probable because logical symmetry is inescapable.
Now, how contradicting is that? I disagree with Dr. Nelson with such statement. Dr. Nelson gives instances that science can never hold its own whenever it comes to “creationism” because the Intelligent Designer is not a “wise” designer at all. He implies that Darwinism has hints of theology. Why? Because he claims that the very concept of biology came from theology whenever the theory of evolution is mentioned. I have this strong feeling that Dr. Nelson’s inclination to theology will always overwhelm biology beliefs.
In one biology book, it states there that “You know, it makes more sense that God should have built the world using his natural laws rather than acting directly. ”(The Origins of Species). With this in mind, Dr. Nelson is like Charles Darwin after all. Why? Because he considers that there is a God after all yet the concept of intelligent design is a separate matter. It suggests that the theory of evolution is always at hand which implies God is not an “intelligent designer” which brings us to the theory of evolution again. Dr.
Nelson is a mediocre skeptic who believes in concepts then contradicts each for it to be more complex of a study. As for the case of a student that brings the book entitled: The Plausibility of Life: Charles Darwin’s Dilemmas, it is constitutionally admissible for a student to ask a professor to discuss a subjective matter in a very objective manner in which children would not be confuse about such. Dr. Ken Miller, on the other hand, is more concerned about making each term comprehensive as possible to the panel, before speaking any of his notions in a blatant manner.
He begins what a logical definition of a design is, which Dr. Nelson failed to explain to the panel what a design means. Dr. Miller is logical in every matter he says. I agree that the correlation between function and structure is crucial to a design. Yet design is far more different than the theory of Intelligent Design which implies that there is an intelligent designer responsible for how complex matters work. He implies that design could only exist if it was created. For instance, Mount Rushmore was the sculptor responsible for its design yet it wouldn’t be possible to design it if nobody created.
These are case of “special creations” which means these creation events didn’t’ happen in theoretical space. Evolution is a gradual matter. Hence, without evolution, the concept of creation is not progressive. Creation is progressive due to the fact that each matter has its own design which cannot be destroyed but changed or evolved. Progressive creationism is relevant to our daily lives yet we simply ignore the obvious. I agree with Dr. Miller that it is apt that design is creationism because both of them complement each other.
I like the fact that this holds arguably true for the “young earth” creationists that speculated the age of our planet which is illogical because how can one make an estimate of how old this planet is if you were simply born a couple of years ago. Only an immortal person can know such. Young Earth creationists simply stand by their belief of the Intelligent Design because they believe what they want to believe in just like Dr. Nelson. Whereas, Dr. Miller explains each notion in a logical manner without contradicting statement after statement. Dr. Miller is adamant in each statement he emphasizes for the panel to comprehend.
I noticed that after each question he says, he answers it in a logical manner without hesitation. I simply disagree with him that his points of view are solely based in biology alone which makes him an advocate of science. I agree with Dr. Miller with his notion that all evidence in favor of design is actually negative evidence against evolution. Why? Because for evolution to happen, design is always crucial in every aspect of it. Dr. Miller stated that any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
I agree with him on this because design is essential for a function to take place. This holds true for our physiological functions, function begets more function which is relative to the theory of evolution. Dr. Miller is an apt professor which carries his beliefs and notions. He is not a mere “by the books” educator because he gives his opinions to each fact which is stated. I agree with him that Intelligent Design should be taught in a religion class rather than in a science class. It is preposterous to combine the study of science and theology for a class.
In one statement, Dr. Miller states that two chromosomes are unique to the human lineage having emerged as a result of head-to-head fusions of two other chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. We test evolution then it passes. It concludes an empirical data yet intelligent designer will always oppose to it because they don’t feel that science can hold its own against the idea of intelligent design is based on theology alone and not biology. Yet we have to consider each statement either factual or speculation, a notion to ponder on.
Whether this argument has its altruistic purpose for the Dover case or it can simply drown this case in to mediocrity the already tumultuous Dover case. People will always believe what they want to believe in. The Dover case will not be solved by legal litigations alone. Professors at Dover should take the initiative to extract crucial matters of every study for every student, so as to give them a clear point of view of what they are learning. Citations: The Dover, Pa. , Case and Beyond: Legal and Public Policy Implications of the ID Controversy