Intelligent design isn't science

[RandomGuy]

"In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether [intelligent design] is science. We have concluded it is not," he wrote in his opinion."


Christian Science Monitor
Tuesday, 12/20/05

WASHINGTON AND BOSTON – "Intelligent design" is just another name for creationism - and therefore teaching it in public schools violates the constitutional principle of church-state separation.
That is the bottom line from the decision in perhaps the biggest courtroom clash on the theory of evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial. On Tuesday a federal judge ruled that Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District broke the law when it became one of the first school districts in the United States to include intelligent design in its science curriculum.

The ruling is a blow to certain Christian conservatives, who have been pushing intelligent-design initiatives in upwards of 30 states. It comes as vindication for scientists who have seen this push as an attack on the method of scientific inquiry.

"What's ... important about this case is that it validates the separation of church and state," says Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "Even more important, it's a question of teaching good science."
(end excerpt)

(Click here for the full story from the CSM) (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1221/p01s01-ussc.html)

I agree with the bit that intelligent design is something of an attack on the method of scientific inquiry.

Unsurprisingly to me, the judge also found that the push for ID was in reality a thinly veiled attempt by Christian fundamentalists to get their beliefs taught as fact in public schools. This much is obvious to anybody on either side who is honest about the issue .

[xrayzebra]

Yep, you are correct. But I find that the "theory of evolution" is just that. a
theory. I find, again in my own mind, that God's word is more important than
some Englishman who observed some animals on an isolated island. Sorry
"science" has been wrong as much as it has been correct. And correct today, in
scientific terms, will and can be wrong tomorrow. That is a fact. And why do we
still have monkeys and apes and fish.

[boutons]

"something of an attack"

why the weasal words? :)

creationism/ID are

frontal attacks on discrediting all of scientfic endeavor,

frontal attacks on the Constitution's separate of state and whatever-BS-calls-itself-a-"church".

frontal attacks on education as the means for transmitting knowledge, culture, and civilization from one generation to the next.

[RandomGuy]

Yep, you are correct. But I find that the "theory of evolution" is just that. a
theory. I find, again in my own mind, that God's word is more important than
some Englishman who observed some animals on an isolated island. Sorry
"science" has been wrong as much as it has been correct. And correct today, in
scientific terms, will and can be wrong tomorrow. That is a fact. And why do we
still have monkeys and apes and fish.

Yeah, that silly science that was wrong about gravitational acceleration, the laws of thermodynamics, lasers, metallurgy, vaccines, anti-biotics, and they must have gotten that whole space travel thing wrong because moon landings aren't in the bible...

Scientific inquiry is a process, and has had some failed theories, but evolutionary theory isn't one of them. To simply ignore it because one wants to cling to a literal translation of ones holy book is silly to me.

Religion is more about morals and ethical behavior than anything else, and shouldn't be telling scientists anything more than what is ethical, not what is factual.

[RandomGuy]

"something of an attack"

why the weasal words? :)

creationism/ID are

frontal attacks on discrediting all of scientfic endeavor,

frontal attacks on the Constitution's separate of state and whatever-BS-calls-itself-a-"church".

frontal attacks on education as the means for transmitting knowledge, culture, and civilization from one generation to the next.

Heh, it is more of a "flanking manuever" than a frontal assult. Frontal assaults have been tried, so now the religious fundamentalists are probing for openings, and trying to work around what they haven't been able to do directly

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think this just reveals the laziness of Christian parents. Isn't it the parents job to teach their own children about God and religion and the meaning of life? That's the standard argument against teaching sex ed in public school.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, that silly science that was wrong about gravitational acceleration, the laws of thermodynamics, lasers, metallurgy, vaccines, anti-biotics, and they must have gotten that whole space travel thing wrong because moon landings aren't in the bible...

Scientific inquiry is a process, and has had some failed theories, but evolutionary theory isn't one of them. To simply ignore it because one wants to cling to a literal translation of ones holy book is silly to me.

Religion is more about morals and ethical behavior than anything else, and shouldn't be telling scientists anything more than what is ethical, not what is factual.

Are we talking about the law of physics or theory. Of course you are mixing
the two. Vaccines, antibiotics have had their failures also. space travel
is physics again. But much of space is still theory, wobbling stars, so on,
and so forth. Make fun as you want. But you still didn't answer a fundamental question. If all things evolve, how come we still have the same
animals?

[xrayzebra]

I think this just reveals the laziness of Christian parents. Isn't it the parents job to teach their own children about God and religion and the meaning of life? That's the standard argument against teaching sex ed in public school.


Yeah, teaching morals is completely out of the question. Never teach the
consequences of your actions. Just how to prevent something. Maybe they
should just stick to teaching Darwins theory.

[Medvedenko]

There's nothing intelligent about ID....seriously.
I do however have no problem teaching or learning about Christianity, or any other religions and their beliefs about the origin of life.
Hey xray...if you were born or raised in India what would your thoughts and beliefs represent...oh yeah, the environment around you.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yeah, teaching morals is completely out of the question. Maybe they
should just stick to teaching Darwins theory.

sounds like a science class to me

[Extra Stout]

I find, again in my own mind, that God's word is more important than
some Englishman who observed some animals on an isolated island.
I had this long disussion with hegamboa a couple weeks back.

In summary, you are not choosing between God's Word and Charles Darwin.

You are choosing between a particular hermeneutic of a particular passage of God's Word, and an entire established field of scientific inquiry.

My views differ from yours because I read the Hebrew mind differently.

[Extra Stout]

Yeah, teaching morals is completely out of the question. Never teach the
consequences of your actions. Just how to prevent something. Maybe they
should just stick to teaching Darwins theory.
They teach more in school than just science. I remember when I went they had social studies, and history, and English, and math, and also music and art, and I also got to choose electives.

I thought siloing the subjects was a good idea because that way they didn't have to lump everything together when they taught.

Others prefer holisitc teaching because it ties everything together, how it's all interconnected. Maybe some Christian schools do it that way.

[RandomGuy]

I think this just reveals the laziness of Christian parents. Isn't it the parents job to teach their own children about God and religion and the meaning of life? That's the standard argument against teaching sex ed in public school.

Yup. If you want your kids to be devout Christians, that starts at home, not school.

[RandomGuy]

Are we talking about the law of physics or theory. Of course you are mixing
the two. Vaccines, antibiotics have had their failures also. space travel
is physics again. But much of space is still theory, wobbling stars, so on,
and so forth. Make fun as you want. But you still didn't answer a fundamental question. If all things evolve, how come we still have the same
animals?

We don't. That's the point. :)

[xrayzebra]

We don't. That's the point. :)

That is the point, you do.

[Extra Stout]

That is the point, you do.
There are fossil records of a whole bunch of extinct species which don't fit into the taxonomy of currently surviving animals.

Or, the shorter form, no we don't.

[FromWayDowntown]

That is the point, you do.

Wait, so because a zebra is still a zebra, evolution is a failed theory? That makes little or no sense to me.

Again, I think the most pragmatic course on this issue is the clearest approach to it: if parents believe that their children should learn intelligent design or creationism, why is a Sunday School not good enough? Why should public schools be burdened with teaching something that is entirely an article of faith?

I'm a Christian, but I can assure you that I wouldn't want to ask a public school teacher to imbue the tenets of Christianity in my children. That is a job for me, my family, and my Church.

Please, someone, explain to me why that isn't enough.

[xrayzebra]

Wait, so because a zebra is still a zebra, evolution is a failed theory? That makes little or no sense to me.

Again, I think the most pragmatic course on this issue is the clearest approach to it: if parents believe that their children should learn intelligent design or creationism, why is a Sunday School not good enough? Why should public schools be burdened with teaching something that is entirely an article of faith?

I'm a Christian, but I can assure you that I wouldn't want to ask a public school teacher to imbue the tenets of Christianity in my children. That is a job for me, my family, and my Church.

Please, someone, explain to me why that isn't enough.

I will answer you question with a question. Should we not give an
opposing view to a theory. T H E O R Y, all "scientist" agree that it is
a theory not cast in stone. What is wrong with giving both points of
of the theory of how the earth was created. Darwin doesn't explain that
if I am not mistaken.

[Extra Stout]

I will answer you question with a question. Should we not give an
opposing view to a theory. T H E O R Y, all "scientist" agree that it is
a theory not cast in stone. What is wrong with giving both points of
of the theory of how the earth was created. Darwin doesn't explain that
if I am not mistaken.
Big Bang <> Evolution

Big Bang theory is very friendly to Biblical ex nihilo account of creation. Also, it is the best available theory to explain the measured data.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I will answer you question with a question. Should we not give an
opposing view to a theory. T H E O R Y, all "scientist" agree that it is
a theory not cast in stone. What is wrong with giving both points of
of the theory of how the earth was created. Darwin doesn't explain that
if I am not mistaken.


sure, if you can find a competing scientific theory. There's tons of theories about the earth's origins from all types of cultures, zebra, but I doubt you'd like those being taught to your precious little ones.

[FromWayDowntown]

I will answer you question with a question. Should we not give an
opposing view to a theory. T H E O R Y, all "scientist" agree that it is
a theory not cast in stone. What is wrong with giving both points of
of the theory of how the earth was created. Darwin doesn't explain that
if I am not mistaken.

Because one is entirely rooted in religion, which is an entirely private matter for individuals to deal with on their own, and the other is rooted in science, which is a matter that we ask public schools to teach. We teach many scientific theories in schools, largely because many of the mysteries of the universe have not been fully resolved. But, importantly, the scientific theories we teach are rooted in the principles of science -- they are religiously neutral and not simply articles of faith.

If you'd prefer absolute consistency, then the solution is to not teach either, rather than to use public schools as a means to convey entirely religious messages.

Want religion, go to church.

[xrayzebra]

sure, if you can find a competing scientific theory.

Science? He was an observer. Just like the writers of the books of the
bible were observers. He came up with a theory, which people thought
made sense. Come on give me a break. His islands still exist and the
animals he observed still are in the same state they were. Shouldn't
they have some changes?

[hendrix]

Are we talking about the law of physics or theory. Of course you are mixing
the two. Vaccines, antibiotics have had their failures also. space travel
is physics again. But much of space is still theory, wobbling stars, so on,
and so forth. Make fun as you want. But you still didn't answer a fundamental question. If all things evolve, how come we still have the same
animals?

You're kidding right?.
We dont have the same animals. WE ARE NOT the same animals.

[Oh, Gee!!]

++++another thread discussion killed by xray+++++

[xrayzebra]

++++another thread discussion killed by xray+++++

And it is my fault? How, I ask questions. You have the answers?
I don't have them. But I do have beliefs. That is wrong? But I don't
see where you have to get upset because I question your beliefs.
Something doesn't compute here.

[Extra Stout]

Science? He was an observer. Just like the writers of the books of the
bible were observers. He came up with a theory, which people thought
made sense. Come on give me a break. His islands still exist and the
animals he observed still are in the same state they were. Shouldn't
they have some changes?
You are aware that in the intervening century-plus, thousands of other scientists have done scades of peer-reviewed research, right? They haven't just stood there and dumbly accepted Darwin's hypotheses.

Some of Darwin's ideas have been summarily disproven, in fact.

[boutons]

nah, just ignore xz, he's not capable of normal human intelligence and discussion, right down there with gtown.

[Oh, Gee!!]

And it is my fault? How, I ask questions. You have the answers? I don't have them. But I do have beliefs. That is wrong? But I don't see where you have to get upset because I question your beliefs.
Something doesn't compute here.

xray, my happiness doesn't hinge on whether evolution is true. It's not a religion

[xrayzebra]

You are aware that in the intervening century-plus, thousands of other scientists have done scades of peer-reviewed research, right? They haven't just stood there and dumbly accepted Darwin's hypotheses.

Some of Darwin's ideas have been summarily disproven, in fact.

My point, science is changing all the time. Sometimes something is proven
wrong, when in reality it is correct, and proven so in later studies. Happens
everyday, if you are to believe the papers. I know this isn't really
that relevant, but look at studies made on coffee. My goodness, it
has been found bad/good/not so good/maybe it is bad/terrible/on and on.
But the studies have been made by so called scientist. My point being,
in our culture anyway, and Muslim culture also, God created earth and
all creatures, what is so wrong in telling OUR children this is a belief that
is held by others. It really has not been disproven.

[Oh, Gee!!]

My point, science is changing all the time. Sometimes something is proven
wrong, when in reality it is correct, and proven so in later studies. Happens
everyday, if you are to believe the papers. I know this isn't really
that relevant, but look at studies made on coffee. My goodness, it
has been found bad/good/not so good/maybe it is bad/terrible/on and on.
But the studies have been made by so called scientist. My point being,
in our culture anyway, and Muslim culture also, God created earth and
all creatures, what is so wrong in telling OUR children this is a belief that
is held by others. It really has not been disproven.

It can't be proven either through scientific inquiry. It is a matter of religious faith and, as such, has no place in public school let alone science class.

[FromWayDowntown]

My point being, in our culture anyway, and Muslim culture also, God created earth and all creatures, what is so wrong in telling OUR children this is a belief that is held by others. It really has not been disproven.

You want to tell that to your children about an article of faith, do so -- or send them to Sunday School, or religious schools.

Why is it not enough to leave that for families and churches? Really, I'm curious.

[Extra Stout]

I know this isn't really
that relevant, but look at studies made on coffee. My goodness, it
has been found bad/good/not so good/maybe it is bad/terrible/on and on.
But the studies have been made by so called scientist.
Blame the journalists for that one. There will be an article in the New England Journal of Medicine saying, hey, there's a correlation between this and that, next we're going to do a study to see if some other thing correlates. The media takes that and runs with it, next thing you know, you see "Doctors Prove Watching Porn Decreases Cholesterol" or something in print.


My point being, in our culture anyway, and Muslim culture also, God created earth and all creatures, what is so wrong in telling OUR children this is a belief that is held by others. It really has not been disproven.
There is less disagreement about this than you think. I've had a lot of liberals come out and say, sure, you can teach in schools that "According to Christianity, God created the universe." They say you just need to keep it in history or sociology class, rather than in science class.

[hendrix]

My point, science is changing all the time. Sometimes something is proven wrong, when in reality it is correct, and proven so in later studies.

Thats beacuse those are field experiments or attempts to find a quick solution to some problem. Nobody developed a "theory on coffee". :lol

[boutons]

xz doesn't have a clue how science works, or much of anything else either.

the evidence supporting biological evolution is overwhelmingly supportive, going back 100 years, form 1000s of scietists, and studies.

that IDer and creationists jerkoffs find what they consider and anomaly in evolution doesn't totally destroy all the supporting evidence, except when you have that objecive.

evolutionary theory has both wonderful explanatory and predictive power, and is one of the most heavily supported theories in science.

but, this is all pearls before swine ...

[DarkReign]

Simple shit.

Evolution can be marginally tested to scientific standards.

ID cannot.

Period.

[RandomGuy]

I will answer you question with a question. Should we not give an
opposing view to a theory. T H E O R Y, all "scientist" agree that it is
a theory not cast in stone. What is wrong with giving both points of
of the theory of how the earth was created. Darwin doesn't explain that
if I am not mistaken.


The theory of evolution does a MUCH better job at explaining the observed facts than the theory of intelligent design.

You are side-stepping the issue of how ID is being used to advance teaching the Christian faith in schools, I noticed.

[RandomGuy]

Simple shit.

Evolution can be marginally tested to scientific standards.

ID cannot.

Period.

Very simple, indeed.

I looked at a couple of ID websites provided by jocchejam, and when they came to things that didn't fit into their theory neatly, it was always shrugged off as "god did it". THAT really made me assign a LOT less weight or credence to their interpretation of the way we came into existance.

That isn't science.

[smeagol]

ID does not oppose evolution. It's just a compliment to evolution.

[Yonivore]

“Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? To see what’s at stake, consider Mount Rushmore. The evidence for Mount Rushmore’s design is direct—eyewitnesses saw the sculptor Gutzon Borglum spent the better part of his life designing and building this structure. But what if there were no direct evidence for Mount Rushmore’s design? What if humans went extinct and aliens, visiting the earth, discovered Mount Rushmore in substantially the same condition as it is now?"

"In that case, what about this rock formation would provide convincing circumstantial evidence that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point to an intelligence. Such features or patterns constitute signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. Intelligent design may therefore be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence.“
Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are considered the pillars of modern western thought. They differed in many ways but had one thing in common—they were reductionists who claimed that all higher realms of existence could be explained by lower natural causes. They were the pillars of naturalism.

But their ideas were tested during the twentieth century and found wanting. Freud was the first fall. Incidents in his career were cited to call into question both his integrity and his scientific competence, and psychiatry seemed to make more progress through medication than through Freudian analysis. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s inflicted a death blow on Marxism, which is now seen as not only failing to deliver its promised utopia but as creating an inhumane tyranny. Darwin is the last man standing, but his theory is rapidly eroding as modern biological science reveals amazing complexity and design that cannot possibly be explained by Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutations and natural selection.


“Freud is dead, Marx is dead, and Darwin is not feeling very well.”
In the 19th century, we thought that there were two fundamental entities of science: Matter and energy. At the beginning of the 21st century, we now recognize that there is a third fundamental entity, and it is information. It is not reducible to matter; it is not reducible to energy.

All theories put forward in the twentieth century to reduce information to matter-like the random origin of life, self-organization of matter, the biological theory of evolution that has tried to explain species' genetic information through the mechanism of mutation and natural selection-have failed. Professor Phillip Johnson, a leading critic of Darwinism, wrote:


“The real duality at every level of biology is the duality of matter and information. The philosophers of mind-science fail to understand the true nature of information because they assume that it is produced by a material (i.e. Darwinian) process and hence is not something fundamentally different from matter. But this is merely a prejudice that would be swept away by unbiased thinking.”

As Johnson states, "information is not matter, although it is imprinted on matter. It comes from elsewhere, from an intelligence..." Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, expressed much the same thought:


“A coding system always entails a nonmaterial intellectual process. A physical matter cannot produce an information code. All experiences show that every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind.... There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter...”

Therefore, the source of the information in nature cannot be the matter itself, as the materialists claim. The source of information is not matter, but rather a supra-material Mind. This Mind existed before matter. The Mind created, shaped and organized the whole material universe.

Well?

[Peter]

One agenda versus another. Yawn.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well?

So we should teach that God is great in our public school science classes?

Why even bother with Sunday Schools when you can have Monday through Friday Schools?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well?

So, it's obvious that science can only explain so much. The universe and the things contained therein are made in such a way that some people could/and do reasonably infer that there was some intent or intelligence behind the design. That's wonderful and all but it ain't science.

The next obvious questions are: Who or what is the designer? God you say? Which God? What are God's attributes? Is it one God or many gods?

I don't see how you teach ID as an alternative (or compliment) to evolution theory without getting into heavy theological questions. That's why it doesn't belong in science class. And it probably doesn't belong in public school at all since we are supposed to seperate questions of theology and faith from state-approved curriculums.

[jochhejaam]

You want to tell that to your children about an article of faith, do so -- or send them to Sunday School, or religious schools.

Why is it not enough to leave that for families and churches? Really, I'm curious.
Christians believe in life after death either with God in Heaven or without him in Hell. Many children live in families that are void of any mention of God, Jesus Christ, heaven, hell or the Church. You get quite passionate about a the hypothetical innocent on Death Row possibly having his mortal body wrongfully terminated, where's the passion for those that are in need of spiritual education in an area that has eternal repercussions that affect not only the physical body but the soul?
Many slip through the cracks of uncaring or unknowing parents and family and are never taken to church and I see electives in school as a safety net for those that fall into this category.

Being a Christian yourself what's the justification for wanting to deny them this? Why so impassioned for the possible wrongfully innocent executed on Death Row and yet so passoinate against taking advantage of every possible avenue to educate children in an area that leads to death of both body and soul?
I'm also curious.


Matthew 10 : 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. -Jesus Christ-

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]So we should teach that God is great in our public school science classes? QUOTE]



If ID isn't Scientific (a large and growing part of the scientific community does not support this premise) it can be taught as a religious elective as an alternative view, or supplement if you prefer, to Evolutionary Theories.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Many slip through the cracks of uncaring or unknowing parents and family and are never taken to church and I see electives in school as a safety net for those that fall into this category.

you obviously have never heard of separation of church and state. So public schools should convert heathens?

[Nbadan]

I don't see how you teach ID as an alternative (or compliment) to evolution theory without getting into heavy theological questions. That's why it doesn't belong in science class. And it probably doesn't belong in public school at all since we are supposed to seperate questions of theology and faith from state-approved curriculums.

Bingo. ID belongs in a college philosophy course not a HS.

[Spurminator]

I disagree with the general assumption that ID is an intentional slippery slope to Creationism by fundamentalists. Even if ID was somehow passed off as Science and taught in the classroom, it would still be an enormous fight to even consider bringing Creationism into public schools.

While it's not Science, it does have value as a philosophical theory... And I think teaching about world philosophies (not just Western) would have value in the Public School system.

[Nbadan]

I disagree with the general assumption that ID is an intentional slippery slope to Creationism by fundamentalists. Even if ID was somehow passed off as Science and taught in the classroom, it would still be an enormous fight to even consider bringing Creationism into public schools.

While it's not Science, it does have value as a philosophical theory... And I think teaching about world philosophies (not just Western) would have value in the Public School system.

Yeah, if high-schoolers were educated enough and wise enough at this point to make intelligent decisions, but most still lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish between fact and non-fact. No need to muddy the waters further with ID.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I disagree with the general assumption that ID is an intentional slippery slope to Creationism by fundamentalists. Even if ID was somehow passed off as Science and taught in the classroom, it would still be an enormous fight to even consider bringing Creationism into public schools.

Who is fighting so hard for ID to be included in public school cirriculum? Fundamenatlist Christians.

So you propose to teach kids that the universe is a product of an intelligent designer without revealing the identity of the "intelligent designer?"

Okay class, I know you heard all this hooey about evolution but it is my duty as a teacher to inform you that evolution is not the entire story. There was something more powerful that set everything into motion.

Kid raises hand: Are you talking about God?

Teacher: I can't answer that question.



While it's not Science, it does have value as a philosophical theory... And I think teaching about world philosophies (not just Western) would have value in the Public School system.

Okay, so teach ID in philosophy and not in science (because it is not science).

[mikejones99]

James Silas and Mr. T win this round.

[jochhejaam]

you obviously have never heard of separation of church and state. So public schools should convert heathens?
That's an ignorant assumption and follow-up and is therefore not worthy of dialogue. ]<flicks the mosquito known as Oh, Gee off of his arm and looks for something other than a lightweight fluff post>[/SIZE]

Try to come up with something that's doesn't fall into the "unfounded charge" category and isn't so preposterously absurd and then maybe we can have an intelligent exchange of ideas.

[hendrix]

I love wikipedia, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

Argument from ignorance

Eugenie Scott with Glenn Branch and other critics have argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.[69] In the argument from ignorance, one claims that the lack of evidence for one view is evidence for another view (e.g., science cannot explain this, therefore God did it). Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a dichotomy where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living organisms.

Intelligent design proponents often point out that intelligent design's goal is to prove design and not to identify the designer or its origin. Some critics have responded that positing a designer that accounts for many things but which requires no explanation is not a contribution to knowledge, but a rhetorical device used as a thought-terminating cliché.

They feel many intelligent design concepts could be described in these terms, especially the neologisms, which they contend are designed to end the desire for further investigation rather than to serve as the basis of scientific hypotheses.

This has also been characterized as the "God of the Gaps" argument, which has the following form:

* There is a gap in scientific knowledge
* The gap is filled with acts of God and therefore proves God.

Scientists state that this argument contributes nothing to scientific knowledge since it can be used for any question. (i.e. Why is the sky blue? God did it.)

[Spurminator]

Yeah, if high-schoolers were educated enough and wise enough at this point to make intelligent decisions, but most still lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish between fact and non-fact.

If we assume they're smart enough to distinbguish between fact and theory in Science, why can't we assume they're smart enough to distinguish ID as a philosophical theory? I don't think you're giving them enough credit. It's not about protecting them from possibly converting to Christianity, or promoting it... it's about education.

[JoeChalupa]

God created Heaven and Earth.

[Spurminator]

Who is fighting so hard for ID to be included in public school cirriculum? Fundamenatlist Christians.

So you propose to teach kids that the universe is a product of an intelligent designer without revealing the identity of the "intelligent designer?"

Okay class, I know you heard all this hooey about evolution but it is my duty as a teacher to inform you that evolution is not the entire story. There was something more powerful that set everything into motion.

Kid raises hand: Are you talking about God?

Teacher: I can't answer that question.

Why couldn't they answer the question? God is not Taboo in public schools, just religious propaganda.

Saying that "People believe in God" is not the same as saying "There is a God." If we ever get to a point where schools can't teach about various world religions then we're just as bad off as if we were promoting Christianity.


Okay, so teach ID in philosophy and not in science (because it is not science).

Which is exactly what I said.

[boutons]

"God is not Taboo in public schools"

In practice or in curricula, means what?

"where schools can't teach about various world religions"

history of religion, comparative religion, etc are all valid academic subjects, but mostly at post-HS level.

But I bet the fascism of the ID/creationits/evangelicals would cause them to fight the mention in HS of ANY non-Christian religions presented on non-judgemental, equal footing with Christianity, lest their children have a broad education and appreciation of a wider world.

For the Christian radicals, much as for the radical Muslims, Christianity is the only valid religion.

[scott]

I disagree with the general assumption that ID is an intentional slippery slope to Creationism by fundamentalists. Even if ID was somehow passed off as Science and taught in the classroom, it would still be an enormous fight to even consider bringing Creationism into public schools.

At least in the Dover case, the plantiff's did a remarkable job of showing that it WAS. I encourage you to give a crack at the 139 page opinion. The Dover school board members were on record of wanting to introduce creationism into school before they settled on their statement referring students to ID. The textbook they were referred to, "Of Pandas and People", has had several verions... the court examined two versions, one prior to the Supreme Court's ruling that "creationism" cannot be taught in schools and one after. Amazingly, before the Supreme Court ruling, all mentions of the word "Intelligent Design" previously read "creationism."

Maybe, just maybe, there are some ID proponents out there who are NOT creationists (in the fundemental Christian sense), but they are the vast minority and are certainly not represented in ID's push. Take the Discovery Institite for example, the leading organization pushing ID... in their 5 year strategic plan that was considered by the court, they explicitly say that they want to replace evolution in schools with a Christian view of the origins of life.

[xrayzebra]

Kid raises hand: Are you talking about God?

Teacher: I can't answer that question.



Okay, so teach ID in philosophy and not in science (because it is not science).

Okay, in my college years, in world lit. We studied the bible. I had a
Prof from the University of Edinburgh who was teaching in our class. Naturally, all of us in the class ask essentially the same question only in
a different way. We ask him did he believe there was a God. He gave
almost the same answer as above, a phrased a little different. We are
studying lit, not religion. He was a great teacher, but never got an
answer from him. One way or the other on his beliefs.

[scott]

Here is a link to the full opinion.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

It's 139 pages, but it is worth the read. If you are short on time, I recommend the last 10 pages or so.

[scott]

In his opinion, Judge Jones also mentioned something that is often overlooked in any "ID/creationism" debate. Certain proponents of these design theories like to act as though ID is some new "science" or revalation as to the origins of life, when it actually nothing more than Thomas Aquinas's Great Designer theory, which he developed way back in the 13th century. St. Thomas Aquinas was a great thinker on many levels - but I don't think there is any debate of whether he was a theologian or a scientist.

[xrayzebra]

In his opinion, Judge Jones also mentioned something that is often overlooked in any "ID/creationism" debate. Certain proponents of these design theories like to act as though ID is some new "science" or revalation as to the origins of life, when it actually nothing more than Thomas Aquinas's Great Designer theory, which he developed way back in the 13th century. St. Thomas Aquinas was a great thinker on many levels - but I don't think there is any debate of whether he was a theologian or a scientist.

And another problem is that some people look at Darwins' theory as
their holy text, never to be challenged in anyway. Like many Greene's look
at Mother Earth. I think they could be called the modern day Druids.

[scott]

I particularly enjoyed this part of the ruling:


Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

[Marcus Bryant]

If we assume they're smart enough to distinbguish between fact and theory in Science, why can't we assume they're smart enough to distinguish ID as a philosophical theory? I don't think you're giving them enough credit. It's not about protecting them from possibly converting to Christianity, or promoting it... it's about education.

Yet would not a complete education require some examination of the history and structure of religious faith?

What this debate seems to boil down to is that you have two extremes which would like to foist their beliefs upon impressionable young minds.

[scott]

And another problem is that some people look at Darwins' theory as
their holy text, never to be challenged in anyway. Like many Greene's look
at Mother Earth. I think they could be called the modern day Druids.

What people are those? "Darwinism" is not a prevailing scientific theory. "Evolution" is. While "Evolution" may have its roots in Darwin, Darwinism and Evolution are not one in the same.

[xrayzebra]

What people are those? "Darwinism" is not a prevailing scientific theory. "Evolution" is. While "Evolution" may have its roots in Darwin, Darwinism and Evolution are not one in the same.

Splitting hairs. It is his theory. But have it your way. People do not
want evolution challenged and consider it like their bible. Otherwise they
wouldn't be fighting as hard as they do to not have it challenged.

[FromWayDowntown]

Christians believe in life after death either with God in Heaven or without him in Hell. Many children live in families that are void of any mention of God, Jesus Christ, heaven, hell or the Church. You get quite passionate about a the hypothetical innocent on Death Row possibly having his mortal body wrongfully terminated, where's the passion for those that are in need of spiritual education in an area that has eternal repercussions that affect not only the physical body but the soul?
Many slip through the cracks of uncaring or unknowing parents and family and are never taken to church and I see electives in school as a safety net for those that fall into this category.

I still believe that it is the object of the Church, rather than the State to instill those values. I don't see that as being terribly controversial. I am passionate about the State not interfering in the way that individuals operate their lives unless and until that operation negatively affects the rights of another. At that point, the State should be in the business of punishing, but not in the business of condemning. I think the State should neutrally respect the any autonomous person to live his life, whether that person is free or, because of his actions, incarcerated.

Inculcating purely religious values -- something that you appear to acknowledge ID to be -- is not the State's business. If children in some families are not exposed to religion and religious values, the solution isn't to teach religion in public schools. The solution is for churches to reach out to kids by offering extra-curricular activities or finding other ways to get involved in the lives of those children and, through that process, teach the Word of God. If that's a hard thing to do, so be it, but churches should the conduit for religious information, not State entities. Beating children over the head with articles of faith and purely religious dogma through the machinery of the State is terribly close to the foundation of a theocracy.


Being a Christian yourself what's the justification for wanting to deny them this? Why so impassioned for the possible wrongfully innocent executed on Death Row and yet so passoinate against taking advantage of every possible avenue to educate children in an area that leads to death of both body and soul?
I'm also curious.

Again, I'm not about denying it to those children -- I am about ensuring that it comes from places that are competent to deal with the questions that are a part of the development of any religious faith. Why is a public school teacher competent to deal with the religious and philosophical complexities of religious questions? Why would a public school teacher be any more competent to deal with that than a pastor or a minister? And if your answer is to say that the pastor or minister should be permitted to teach in the public school, why is it not enough to say that the elective course will be held outside of the school context in a church?

You posit that the course could be taught as an elective and imply that making the course elective would elminate the concerns for theocracy, but that makes a gigantic assumption. It's an equally plausible assumption that the kids from non-religious families who would be interested in taking such an elective would be just as likely to have been drawn into churches to seek those sorts of answers -- that, or they would be likely to be interested in attending extra-curricular activities offered by a church. Otherwise, the kids you get in that course will be mostly kids with religious backgrounds who, again, can get ID teaching at their churches.

It's all about the proper role of the State, joch; I can't see it ever being a good thing for the State to take up the mantle of religious education, particularly in a religiously-pluralistic society.

[travis2]

Splitting hairs. It is his theory. But have it your way. People do not
want evolution challenged and consider it like their bible. Otherwise they
wouldn't be fighting as hard as they do to not have it challenged.

Actually, not true. The theory of evolution is as far beyond Darwin as we humans are above microbes. Not only has the field of knowledge advanced, but some things that Darwin proposed are no longer accepted.

That's the way of scientific exploration.

Also, I do not consider the ToE my "bible". Actually, I find that highly offensive. When ID advances to the level of a scientific hypothesis, I would be more than happy to consider it.

Unfortunately, it is basically an argument ad ignorantium at this point...which is a logical fallacy.

[Extra Stout]

Christians believe in life after death either with God in Heaven or without him in Hell. Many children live in families that are void of any mention of God, Jesus Christ, heaven, hell or the Church. You get quite passionate about a the hypothetical innocent on Death Row possibly having his mortal body wrongfully terminated, where's the passion for those that are in need of spiritual education in an area that has eternal repercussions that affect not only the physical body but the soul?
Many slip through the cracks of uncaring or unknowing parents and family and are never taken to church and I see electives in school as a safety net for those that fall into this category.
You need a revolution to make that happen. The First and Fourteenth Amendments get in the way, and I don't imagine attempts to amend them would go anywhere.

[jochhejaam]

You need a revolution to make that happen. The First and Fourteenth Amendments get in the way, and I don't imagine attempts to amend them would go anywhere.
It would have to be presented in such a way as to not infringe on the Constitution. I'm not referring to a denominationally biased Bible thumping course where our youth is threatened with damnation or given the opportunity to give their life to Christ at the end of the class. I'm talking about an in depth cirriculum that teaches Christianity/Religion from geneological, historical, and moral viewpoints

It has undeniably played a major part in the history of our Country from it's founding to the present and most assuredly into our future. I don't think the teaching of this in our Public Education system in some significant form should be stifled.

[Spurminator]

At least in the Dover case, the plantiff's did a remarkable job of showing that it WAS. I encourage you to give a crack at the 139 page opinion. The Dover school board members were on record of wanting to introduce creationism into school before they settled on their statement referring students to ID. The textbook they were referred to, "Of Pandas and People", has had several verions... the court examined two versions, one prior to the Supreme Court's ruling that "creationism" cannot be taught in schools and one after. Amazingly, before the Supreme Court ruling, all mentions of the word "Intelligent Design" previously read "creationism."

Maybe, just maybe, there are some ID proponents out there who are NOT creationists (in the fundemental Christian sense), but they are the vast minority and are certainly not represented in ID's push. Take the Discovery Institite for example, the leading organization pushing ID... in their 5 year strategic plan that was considered by the court, they explicitly say that they want to replace evolution in schools with a Christian view of the origins of life.

You may be right, but in my opinion the motivation of the proponents is not a relevant legal argument. The only discussion should be whether ID is relevant or substantiated enough to be taught as a Scientific Theory, and whether its inclusion in curriculum qualifies as religious promotion.

[jochhejaam]

I still believe that it is the object of the Church, rather than the State to instill those values.
And if the Church fails miserably to the detriment of our youth too bad or so what? There's a large part of the population that either cannot or will not instill moral values into their children and you don't want taxpayer money to attempt to stress the importance of morality in the classroom?
FWD, are you saying that outside of religion man has no innate or engendered moral values to pass on from generation to generation?

If the answer is that there are indeed vallues that can be promoted or taught that would not infringe on the establishment of religion clause what would they be?





BTW, your previou

[FromWayDowntown]

And if the Church fails miserably to the detriment of our youth too bad or so what? There's a large part of the population that either cannot or will not instill moral values into their children and you don't want taxpayer money to attempt to stress the importance of morality in the classroom?

You're absolutely right that I don't want taxpayer dollars devoted to teaching religious values to children in public schools. The United States Constitution makes it clear that government is not to play that role.

If churches cannot fill the gaps, then the Church needs to reexamine the means by which it undertakes its work -- indeed, joch, what you want the State to do IS the mission of any church, and that mission does not end (in most cases at least) with those who are already members of the congregation. Why burden the Church's work with endless layers of buerocracy and state-imposed regulations?


FWD, are you saying that outside of religion man has no innate or engendered moral values to pass on from generation to generation?

I'm not saying that -- I am saying that passing those beliefs down from generation to generation is not a matter that the State should regulate or in which the State should otherwise be involved. I think that's actually fairly simple.


If the answer is that there are indeed vallues that can be promoted or taught that would not infringe on the establishment of religion clause what would they be?

General societal values, some of which (though not all) are contiguous with the teachings of the Church, are taught in schools through societal interaction and discipline that is meted out. Those values are also incorporated in laws that govern our behavior in society at large. We teach kids those laws and that there are consequences for violating those laws, too. That's all within the purview of a public school's mission.

If you go beyond that, what values do you teach? I mean, Christians generally read the same Bible, but there are differing interpretations among denominations concerning the meaning of certain passages and the application of certain principles. For instance, there are certainly Christian churches that do not view homosexuality as an abomination and certainly others that view it precisely that way -- which view should prevail if we're to teach Christian values in public schools? How do you decide? How do you decide what issues are or are not too controversial to be considered in that curriculum?

And, again, why is it, joch, that the school should take on any of the responsibilities of the church? You never really answered my question -- you posed a question to me. I'd like you to answer mine: why is it that public schools are better equipped and preferrable fora for the inculcation of religious doctrine? If you think that religious education in public schools is so essential, why aren't you arguing for religious re-education for those who have already graduated but weren't privy to such teaching -- after all, if you suggest that this is such an urgent societal need, why should it only apply to children? Are adults beyond teaching and salvation?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]You're absolutely right that I don't want taxpayer dollars devoted to teaching religious values to children in public schools. The United States Constitution makes it clear that government is not to play that role.
Okay with religous values, the question at the end of my sentence which you really didn't respond to was, "you don't want taxpayer money to attempt to stress the importance of morality in the classroom?"
Morality is nonexistent without religion?






If churches cannot fill the gaps, then the Church needs to reexamine the means by which it undertakes its work -- indeed, joch, what you want the State to do IS the mission of any church, and that mission does not end (in most cases at least) with those who are already members of the congregation. Why burden the Church's work with endless layers of buerocracy and state-imposed regulations?
The wishes of the people should be fulfilled by the state FWD, why shouldn't the majority of taxpayers that do want morality stressed (not State Religion) in the classroom be accomodated? For those of you that are in the minority and don't want moral values reinforced in the classroom we can provide schools that are void of all absolutes and moral truths. I assume that would work for you.




I'm not saying that -- I am saying that passing those beliefs down from generation to generation is not a matter that the State should regulate or in which the State should otherwise be involved.
So you do not want your/our children to have moral values reinforced in the classroom?



General societal values, some of which (though not all) are contiguous with the teachings of the Church, are taught in schools through societal interaction and discipline that is meted out. Those values are also incorporated in laws that govern our behavior in society at large. We teach kids those laws and that there are consequences for violating those laws, too. That's all within the purview of a public school's mission.

They're taught the downside of poor behavior through discipline and that in and of itself does not stress or promote a proper understanding in children about the upside or virtue of following and implementing morality into their character, all they learn is the by product or consequences of poor behavior. That's not enough.
And don't keep telling me that's solely the responsibility of the church, kids probably spend 35 hours in school and 0 (<--most) to maybe 3-4 in church.
I know, tough luck for those unfortunates.









And, again, why is it, joch, that the school should take on any of the responsibilities of the church?
Who says teaching morality is exclusively the responsibility of the Church? Where did you come up with that?










[QUOTE]I'd like you to answer mine: why is it that public schools are better equipped and preferrable fora for the inculcation of religious doctrine? They're not and I never stated that they were.




If you think that religious education in public schools is so essential, why aren't you arguing for religious re-education for those who have already graduated but weren't privy to such teaching -- after all, if you suggest that this is such an urgent societal need, why should it only apply to children? Are adults beyond teaching and salvation?
I thnk you may have lost your focus at the end here, the discussion is on what's being taught in the Public School classroom FWD and you're questions here have nothing to do with that nor can they be applied as arguement to anything I've stated. Let's try to stick to the topic at hand in this thread.

[Guru of Nothing]

Morality is nonexistent without religion?


Who says teaching morality is exclusively the responsibility of the Church? Where did you come up with that?

Bu-bye. Thanks for playing.

ETA: Dammit, I just saw the question mark in your first quote above. So, if you are suggesting that morality is possible without religious influence, I take back my comment above.

But seriously, we all have morals - it's just that some are better than others.

[Yonivore]

Not by chance (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=8f7f51f2-a196-4677-9399-46f4f17b5b61)

Relevant excerpts, [obviously, I recommend you read the entire article]:


Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.

Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.

Is this appearance of design merely illusory? Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."


consider an even more fundamental argument for design. In 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions--the information--for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.

Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis" according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins. The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of "sequence specificity" that characterizes codes and language. As Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." As Bill Gates has noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."

After the early 1960s, further discoveries made clear that the digital information in DNA and RNA is only part of a complex information processing system-an advanced form of nanotechnology that both mirrors and exceeds our own in its complexity, design logic and information storage density.

Where did the digital information in the cell come from? And how did the cell's complex information processing system arise? Today these questions lie at the heart of origin-of-life research. Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And to date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by reference to the laws of chemistry. Saying otherwise would be like saying that a newspaper headline might arise as the result of the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly "something else" is at work.


Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but warmed over creationism or as a "religious masquerading as science." But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design. Nevertheless, it too must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence not our philosophical preferences or concerns about its possible religious implications. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads."

[Peter]

Perhaps man's methods cannot detect God's presence?

Anyways, for now I feel that concepts like ID should be left to philosophical examination and out of science courses. But it obviously would be exceedingly difficult to have much of a discussion about faith in a public school without much controversy.

[Phenomanul]

Originally Posted by article


Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but warmed over creationism or as a "religious masquerading as science." But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design. Nevertheless, it too must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence not our philosophical preferences or concerns about its possible religious implications. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads."

This is exactly the sort of concept that must be taught... why would the above phrasing be wrong in any biology textbook???

[Oh, Gee!!]

This is exactly the sort of concept that must be taught... why would the above phrasing be wrong in any biology textbook???

because it is a meta-physical concept

[Phenomanul]

because it is a meta-physical concept

Right on cue...

"Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design."

[Oh, Gee!!]

Right on cue...

"Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design."


the debate isn't a scientific debate, it's a philosophical one.

[Yonivore]

Perhaps man's methods cannot detect God's presence?

Anyways, for now I feel that concepts like ID should be left to philosophical examination and out of science courses. But it obviously would be exceedingly difficult to have much of a discussion about faith in a public school without much controversy.
But, that argument extends to Darwinism as well. Just as many theists use Intelligent Design theory to point to a Creator; atheists point to Darwinism as proof positive there is no God.

So, if you're going to argue that Intelligent Design theory shouldn't be taught in school because of the theological/philosophical implications or the risk that theists will exploit that to introduce religion in violation of the establishment clause; then, similarly, you could argue that Darwin's theory of evolution is being exploited in much the same theological/philosophical manner by atheists.

For example; in an essay, “Is Science a Religion? (http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html)”, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins is frank enough. Perhaps the leading figure on the Darwin side, he forthrightly states that...


“...faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”
He equates God with an “imaginary friend (http://beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889.html)” and baptism with child abuse. In his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Dawkins observed that Darwin...


“...made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
There is Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, of the University of Texas, who defended Darwinism before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003. In accepting an award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2000/april2000/weinberg.html),Weinberg didn't hide his own feelings about how science must deliver the fatal blow to religious faith:


“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition.”
When Weinberg's idea of science triumphs, then...


“...this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, [and] we'll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

There is University of Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, a prominent combatant in the Darwin wars being fought in an archipelago of websites. He links his own site (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/benny_was_kind_of_passionate_i_guess) (recently plugged in the prestigious journal Nature) to a “humorous” web film depicting Jesus' flagellation and crucifixion, a speeded-up version of Mel Gibson's Passion, to the accompaniment of the Benny Hill theme music “Yakety Sax,” complete with cartoonish sound effects.


“Never let it be said that I lack a sense of reverence or an appreciation of Christian mythology.”
In another blog posting, Myers daydreamed about having a time machine that would allow him to go back and eliminate the Biblical patriarch Abraham. Some might argue for using the machine to assassinate other notorious figures of history, but not Myers (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/so_lets_make_sure_it_doesnt_get_that_bad_here/): “I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler.”

Then there is the Darwinist chairman of the religious studies department at the University of Kansas, Paul Mirecki. He emerged from obscurity recently when his startlingly crude anti-Christian writings (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/boyles200511301455.asp) came to light. Mirecki's bright idea had been to teach a course about “mythologies,” including intelligent design. Things got interesting when it came out that he followed up his announcement by crowing in an e-mail to a list-serve: “The fundies [Christian fundamentalists] want [ID] taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology.'“

My favorite is Tufts University's Daniel C. Dennett. In his highly regarded Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he tells why it might be necessary to confine conservative Christians in zoos. It's because Bible-believing Baptists, in particular, may tolerate “the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world.” In other words, they may doubt Darwin. This cannot stand! “Safety demands that religion be put in cages,” explains Dennett, “when absolutely necessary....The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for.”

In fact, both Darwin and design have metaphysical implications and are expressions of a certain kind of faith. Intelligent Design theorists are not willing to submit to the assumption that material stuff is the only reality. [modern] Darwinism takes the opposite view, materialism, which assumes there can never be a supernatural reality.

In this it only follows Charles Darwin, who wrote the Origin of Species as an exercise in seeking to explain how life could have got to be the way it is without recourse to divine creative activity. In a pious mode intended to disarm critics, he concluded his book by writing of “laws impressed on matter by the Creator.” However readers immediately saw the barely concealed point of the work: to demonstrate there was no need for “laws impressed on matter” by a Creator.

In short, there is no coherent reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.

And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or one may choose God.

[Phenomanul]

the debate isn't a scientific debate, it's a philosophical one.


Semantics cop out... the inclusion of math and probability into the realm of genetic code and genetic eventuality is a scientific pursuit....

Fact of the matter is that our genes contain information far greater than any natural process can create....

Do we ignore this...

NO we need to continue research in search of such mechanisms...

My personal hunch is that they won't be found... but the search much continue... looks like a scientific problem to me Mr. T.

[Yonivore]

the debate isn't a scientific debate, it's a philosophical one.
Really? Neither Darwin or Plato explain the existence of DNA sequencing or of the nanotechnology contained in biological cell structure.

And, if evolution nor philosophy can explain it, maybe science can. But, first, you have to allow the hypothesis to be explored. And, barring it from education is, in effect, stifling that exploration.

The Intelligent Design theory is based on the scientific principles that information is the result of intelligence and that irreducably complex machines can only result from information born of intelligence.

What's wrong with teaching and exploring that theory in schools?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Really? Neither Darwin or Plato explain the existence of DNA sequencing or of the nanotechnology contained in biological cell structure.

And, if evolution nor philosophy can explain it, maybe science can. But, first, you have to allow the hypothesis to be explored. And, barring it from education is, in effect, stifling that exploration.

The Intelligent Design theory is based on the scientific principles that information is the result of intelligence and that irreducably complex machines can only result from information born of intelligence.

What's wrong with teaching and exploring that theory in schools?

because it cannot be proven or disproven using the accepted principles of scientific inquiry. It's a philosophical/theological question.

[Phenomanul]

Good insight Yonivore... I've been trying to show this implied hidden 'agenda' when others claim that all ID proponents are only out for their own religious agenda... But found not the time to show several 'proof beyond doubt' exampes...

[Oh, Gee!!]

Semantics cop out... the inclusion of math and probability into the realm of genetic code and genetic eventuality is a scientific pursuit....

Fact of the matter is that our genes contain information far greater than any natural process can create....

Do we ignore this...

NO we need to continue research in search of such mechanisms...

My personal hunch is that they won't be found... but the search much continue... looks like a scientific problem to me Mr. T.


ID isn't a search for truth. It purports to be the Truth but it cannot be verified through physical tests, experimentation, or peer review as we know it. "Love conquers all" may be true as well, but I doubt that it can be proven scientifically.

[Phenomanul]

because it cannot be proven or disproven using the accepted principles of scientific inquiry. It's a philosophical/theological question.


Oh... so now you are choosing to constrain what scientific methods are valid.... The more we learn about our world the better the methods to explore it arise... Science my friend is always changing despite the 'inside-the-box' beliefs of many to think it is a "Standard"...

[xrayzebra]

^^ well see everyone is still beating this thread over the head. No pun intended.
Good Morning everyone. Beautiful day out. Must evolved from somewhere.
Ah, yes. Over the horizon.....Just jesting.

[Phenomanul]

ID isn't a search for truth. It purports to be the Truth but it cannot be verified through physical tests, experimentation, or peer review as we know it. "Love conquers all" may be true as well, but I doubt that it can be proven scientifically.

Please....!!! those examples are not analogous at all....

How do you measure love... certainly not in any measureable units... but there are ways... ever heard of the logistical signals... >,<, =

Me dying for a friend would show my love for that person more than me poisoning that person... Extreme example, I know but there is a point.

NOW... that is completely different from saying one can't measure the genetic complexity of a gene...

One, it is measureable... Two, the pursuit to understand how it arose is scientific....

[Oh, Gee!!]

Oh... so now you are choosing to constrain what scientific methods are valid.... The more we learn about our world the better the methods to explore it arise... Science my friend is always changing despite the 'inside-the-box' beliefs of many to think it is a "Standard"...


I'm not choosing to limit scientific methods, the scientific community is doing that. But if science expands too far, it no longer remains science.

[Phenomanul]

I'm not choosing to limit scientific methods, the scientific community is doing that. But if science expands too far, it no longer remains science.

There is a flaw to the above argument...

Is that what Galileo would have said of the Hubble telescope?

You must use the newest technologies available to pursue the search for answers to the more complicated mysteries of this world...

[Yonivore]

because it cannot be proven or disproven using the accepted principles of scientific inquiry. It's a philosophical/theological question.
So, you agree with most Darwinists that the "appearance of design" in DNA sequencing and cellular nanotechnology is merely illusory?

The theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.


Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.

Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.
Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place.

This leaves the origin of molecular machines like the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism-natural selection-that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.

Is there a better alternative? Based upon our uniform and repeated experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems, namely, intelligence. Indeed, whenever we encounter irreducibly complex systems--such as an integrated circuit or an internal combustion engine--and we know how they arose, invariably a designing engineer played a role.

To suggest that biological cells and their constituent parts evolved from nothing is akin to saying a Ferrari could materialize on the top of Mount Everest if the component chemicals were given enough time to arrange themselves over and over and over and over and over again...

[Yonivore]

So, how do we know the statues of Easter Island were made by human hands?

[Phenomanul]

To suggest that biological cells and their constituent parts evolved from nothing is akin to saying a Ferrari could materialize on the top of Mount Everest if the component chemicals were given enough time to arrange themselves over and over and over and over and over again...

And even a Ferrari is no match to the level of complexity contained by most organisms....

[Oh, Gee!!]

NOW... that is completely different from saying one can't measure the genetic complexity of a gene...

One, it is measureable... Two, the pursuit to understand how it arose is scientific....

ID doesn't stop at measuring the complexity of things, it gives an unverifiable explanation for that complexity, God. What methods do you propose for providing evidence of that conclusion?

[Oh, Gee!!]

There is a flaw to the above argument...

Is that what Galileo would have said of the Hubble telescope?

You must use the newest technologies available to pursue the search for answers to the more complicated mysteries of this world...

What technology are ID'ers proposing? ID is a supra-scientific explanation for what we haven't yet discovered.

[Phenomanul]

Again I'll point you to this...





Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but warmed over creationism or as a "religious masquerading as science." But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design. Nevertheless, it too must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence not our philosophical preferences or concerns about its possible religious implications. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads."

[Oh, Gee!!]

So, how do we know the statues of Easter Island were made by human hands?

Biology and scientific inquiry? :lol

I'm now a creationist.

[Oh, Gee!!]

But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.--Originally posted by some dipshit then taken for granted as Truth by Yoni and hegamboa

Because biological data can only explain so much. So what? We fill in the blanks or finish the story with theories that can't be tested by any available scientific means?

[Yonivore]

Biology and scientific inquiry? :lol
There is no physical evidence they were crafted by humans. It is presumed they were simply because they bear the tell-tale marks of design.

Same thing with life. It's fundamental constituent parts bear the tell-tale marks of design.

Archeology is a physical science aimed at solving mysteries such as the construction of the Easter Island statues, Stonehenge, etc...

Why deny there is just as much of a benefit to exploring the apparent design features of biological structures?

[Oh, Gee!!]

There is no physical evidence they were crafted by humans. It is presumed they were simply because they bear the tell-tale marks of design.

Same thing with life. It's fundamental constituent parts bear the tell-tale marks of design.

Archeology is a physical science aimed at solving mysteries such as the construction of the Easter Island statues, Stonehenge, etc...

Why deny there is just as much of a benefit to exploring the apparent design features of biological structures?


I was joking, hence the lol. I don't think it would be bad to "explore the apparent design features of biological structures," but so far that can only be done using philosophical or metaphysical arguments. ID'ers aren't proposing any new technology (gamboa's word) or scientific principles for doing what you're asking.

[Yonivore]

But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.--Originally posted by some dipshit then taken for granted as Truth by Yoni and hegamboa

Because biological data can only explain so much. So what? We fill in the blanks or finish the story with theories that can't be tested by any available scientific means?
Well, to prove any hypothesis conclusively, you have to be able to reproduce it outside the realm of your influence as a scientist. Under this constraint, astronomers and evolutionists are lost because, they have neither the space to recreate a universe nor the time to recreate evolution from primordial soup to Albert Einstein.

So, in reality, evolution can only be approximated in scientific experiments. And, based on your assessment of what makes science valid (the ability to apply scientific means to a hypothesis) Intelligent Design theory is more tenable than Evolution.

After all, we are close to being able to reproduce the flagellar motor. We've already done so on a macro scale. We are not so close to being able to survive billions of years to test the theory of evolution.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'll leave this thread now because we're going in circles here. But I will say this, Spurs will beat the Pistons on X-Mas day.

[Yonivore]

I was joking, hence the lol. I don't think it would be bad to "explore the apparent design features of biological structures," but so far that can only be done using philosophical or metaphysical arguments. ID'ers aren't proposing any new technology (gamboa's word) or scientific principles for doing what you're asking.
Then, we're back to denying the teaching of this theory in schools. If you don't think it would be bad to explore the design features of biological structures, why is it bad to teach this theory in schools?

If it's apparent enough to warrant scientific exploration, it's significant enough to let our children know that the scientific community is seriously investigating the implications.

Intelligent Design proponents never suggested that the theory of evolution be supplanted by Intelligent Design theory; just that it be taught as being as scientifically relevant as Darwinian evolution theory.

[Phenomanul]

I was joking, hence the lol. I don't think it would be bad to "explore the apparent design features of biological structures," but so far that can only be done using philosophical or metaphysical arguments. ID'ers aren't proposing any new technology (gamboa's word) or scientific principles for doing what you're asking.


Talk about selective reading....

I wasn't referring to any specific technologies in particular I was making the point that one must use the best available methods in search for truth...

You were proposing we simply stick to what we knew... that in itself was a scientific oxymoron... because you were proposing we stifle any argument or pursuit which would hurt Darwinian principles...

[Yonivore]

...because you were proposing we stifle any argument or pursuit which would hurt Darwinian principles...
And, there, I think you've hit on the source of all opposition to Intelligent Design theory.

Unfortunately for opponents to ID theory, Intelligent Design doesn't contradict Darwinian theory; Darwin never explained how life originated -- only how it has adapted and evolved in response to natural selection and environmental forces.

[Phenomanul]

And, there, I think you've hit on the source of all opposition to Intelligent Design theory.

Unfortunately for opponents to ID theory, Intelligent Design doesn't contradict Darwinian theory; Darwin never explained how life originated -- only how it has adapted and evolved in response to natural selection and environmental forces.


Yeah... but I've always maintained that you can't explain one without addressing the origin of the other...

[boutons]

"Intelligent Design doesn't contradict Darwinian theory"

Then why do Thomas More Institute and Dover/Kansas school boards insist that ID theory is an alternative to Darwianian theory?

The nullificaion of Darwinian theory is a key objective of the ID movement.

[FromWayDowntown]

Okay with religous values, the question at the end of my sentence which you really didn't respond to was, "you don't want taxpayer money to attempt to stress the importance of morality in the classroom?"
Morality is nonexistent without religion?

I don't want taxpayer money to attempt to stress religious morality in the public school classroom.

Morality is co-existent with religion -- there are overlaps, but there are also facets of what you term "morality" that are only contiguous with religious doctrine. Again, I don't believe that State resources should be expended to teach religious doctrine in public schools. I do think the non-religious aspects of "morality," in a broad sense, are already inculcated by the social aspects of public schools.


The wishes of the people should be fulfilled by the state FWD, why shouldn't the majority of taxpayers that do want morality stressed (not State Religion) in the classroom be accomodated? For those of you that are in the minority and don't want moral values reinforced in the classroom we can provide schools that are void of all absolutes and moral truths. I assume that would work for you.

That is complete and utter nonsense. The will of the majority should NEVER subjugate the rights of the minority -- that's precisely what the Constitution was intended to prevent. We don't even elect a President by popular wish.

If you were right -- if State is intended solely to fulfill the wishes of the people, I'd have to infer that you believe either: (1) that overt State-sponsored racial discrimination could be revitalized if enough people would support it; or (2) the true will of the people is important only in certain subjects. In either event, you can't possibly be correct in presuming that the Constitution permits the majority to trample upon the guaranteed and fundamental rights of the political, social, religious, or racial minority. I'm appalled that you would even suggest that to be true.

It's not an answer in a Constitutional sense to say that the minority can just go elsewhere -- we tried that once before, when we segregated the races and told blacks that they could just go elsewhere. That proved to be both unconstitutional and bad public policy.

The solution to the problem you're concerned with isn't schools segregated between some "moral majority" and others. The solution is to reenforce the proper division of labor between public schools on the one hand and churches and families on the other.


So you do not want your/our children to have moral values reinforced in the classroom?

That's right; I'm taking the altogether controversial stance of wanting my/your children to have the sort of religious moral values you're contemplating enforced and reinforced at home and in church.


They're taught the downside of poor behavior through discipline and that in and of itself does not stress or promote a proper understanding in children about the upside or virtue of following and implementing morality into their character, all they learn is the by product or consequences of poor behavior. That's not enough.
And don't keep telling me that's solely the responsibility of the church, kids probably spend 35 hours in school and 0 (<--most) to maybe 3-4 in church.
I know, tough luck for those unfortunates.

So are you suggesting that we include moral education in every classroom setting? I still don't get what it is that you want me to say, joch.

I categorically disagree with the idea that public schools should be in the business of attempting to address moral/religious issues as a subject of education. Kids get out of schools these days struggling to read, write, add, and subtract. You want to now take an amorphous and idiosyncratically-nuanced concept like morality and ask public schools to try to inculcate those values as well -- and to do so without (or perhaps in spite of) the Establishment Clause? Will you be happy with anything other than public adoption of sectarian teaching?


I thnk you may have lost your focus at the end here, the discussion is on what's being taught in the Public School classroom FWD and you're questions here have nothing to do with that nor can they be applied as arguement to anything I've stated. Let's try to stick to the topic at hand in this thread.

I AM sticking to the topic, joch. I'm trying to understand where the policy choice that you want made finds its logical end. In reasoning out any policy decision, it's important (I think) to understand why the choice is being made and to apprehend whether the policy can be applied consistently over a broad spectrum of circumstances -- a policy that is inconsistently applied isn't a very good policy. You've broadened the scope of this from the notion of ID as a public school subject to some broader notion that public schools should be teaching morality. I'm taking you up on that assertion, and wondering where your policy finds its end -- if government makes a policy choice to instill the sort of moral values that you wish to provide via public education, why shouldn't that policy be made applicable to adults who weren't afforded that sort of education while in school?



Ultimately, I don't think that you'll convince me that the province of the State includes either: (1) education concerning articles of faith; or (2) inculcation of anything other than purely secular moral values. I also think that schools already provide some semblance of secular morality through the social setting of a school. If you wish to go beyond that, I don't think the State is competent to convey religious values to children in any sense; I do think that the onus of providing that sort of education falls solely upon the family and the church, which are the entities with competence to perform those tasks. I also don't think the State can begin even quasi-religious education and satisfy the teachings of every sect (notwithstanding the significant Constitutional concerns that would arise from parents and students who are genuinely atheistic or agnositc), thus putting the State in a position of choosing which sects' values it will respect and teach. And I don't find that result to be compatible with Constitutional norms, which tell me that the will of the majority cannot trample upon the fundamental rights of the minority.

[Yonivore]

Yeah... but I've always maintained that you can't explain one without addressing the origin of the other...
Therefore, I believe you teach both and openly discuss the controversy between the two and the areas in which each compliment the other.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Talk about selective reading....

I wasn't referring to any specific technologies in particular I was making the point that one must use the best available methods in search for truth...

You were proposing we simply stick to what we knew... that in itself was a scientific oxymoron... because you were proposing we stifle any argument or pursuit which would hurt Darwinian principles...


What "best available methods" are ID'ers proposing to prove their theory? I'm not saying stick what we knew, I'm saying that the ID'ers aren't offering any ideas or methods for proving their theory. In general, you start with your conclusion/hypothesis and provide evidence for it. The ID'ers conclusion/hypothesis is "there must be an intelligence behind the design." The beginning point is the observation that there is some complexity to living things. That's fine. But they show no link (as of yet) between the complexity of the design and the ultimate conclusion that something intelligent designed it. They say one could infer the conclusion from the observation alone. Probably they're right, but that's not science. Not yet at least.

[Phenomanul]

"Intelligent Design doesn't contradict Darwinian theory"

Then why do Thomas More Institute and Dover/Kansas school boards insist that ID theory is an alternative to Darwianian theory?

The nullificaion of Darwinian theory is a key objective of the ID movement.


read between the lines....

Darwin's paper was titled "Origin of Species" again it doesn't address the origin of Life... What most assume as the "Theory of Evolution" is not the same as what it implies. ID does not contradict the written theory... ID's own implications do however, contradict the implications of "Evolution"...

[Oh, Gee!!]

Therefore, I believe you teach both and openly discuss the controversy between the two and the areas in which each compliment the other.


Or, you could teach your own kids your own philosophical/theological beliefs.

[boutons]

"you teach both and openly discuss the controversy between the two and the areas in which each compliment the other."

That's your position. Is that the majority ID position, or the position of the Thoman More Inst or of the Kansas/Dover school boards?

There is no evidence for super-natural designing entity, no matter how complex biological mechanisms have become in 3.5 billions years. Perhaps ID "scientists" should spend their research billions on experiments for detecting super-natural designer(s).

In K-12 syllabus, can anyone find one where deep, hard-core, paradigm- challenging courses are taught even in 12th grade?

[Yonivore]

What "best available methods" are ID'ers proposing to prove their theory? I'm not saying stick what we knew, I'm saying that the ID'ers aren't offering any ideas or methods for proving their theory. In general, you start with your conclusion/hypothesis and provide evidence for it. The ID'ers conclusion/hypothesis is "there must be an intelligence behind the design." The beginning point is the observation that there is some complexity to living things. That's fine. But they show no link (as of yet) between the complexity of the design and the ultimate conclusion that something intelligent designed it. They say one could infer the conclusion from the observation alone. Probably they're right, but that's not science. Not yet at least.
How do evolutionists prove their theory? Put a blob of mud on a table and wait 5 billion years?

No, they make assumptions, based on known facts, about how things "evolved" over time.

However, this theory has some glaring holes. One of the most prevalent is the failure to explain the sudden appearance of many marine body "styles" approximately 530 million years ago.

But, the most significant failure of evolution is that it doesn't explain the origin of the biological life from which the results of the theory are said to explain.

[Yonivore]

Or, you could teach your own kids your own philosophical/theological beliefs.
The structure of a cell and it's origin are neither philosophical or theological. They exist. Intelligent design is, as best I can tell, the only theory that proposes to explain the origin of that structure.

[Phenomanul]

What "best available methods" are ID'ers proposing to prove their theory? I'm not saying stick what we knew, I'm saying that the ID'ers aren't offering any ideas or methods for proving their theory. In general, you start with your conclusion/hypothesis and provide evidence for it. The ID'ers conclusion/hypothesis is "there must be an intelligence behind the design." The beginning point is the observation that there is some complexity to living things. That's fine. But they show no link (as of yet) between the complexity of the design and the ultimate conclusion that something intelligent designed it. They say one could infer the conclusion from the observation alone. Probably they're right, but that's not science. Not yet at least.


Again... you're hung up on the methods... You were right we seem to be going in circles...

How can we offer anything if entire generations of students are being instructed...no.. being told to accept the fact that this is not a valid scientific pursuit???

As for the methods, I'm suggesting that the pursuit itself will generate them... but all you care about is stifling that pursuit.... Without the aid of advanced instruments we wouldn't even be able to look at the complexity behind our genomes. Fortunately our desire to understand how genes can be used to prevent and eradicate diseases is enough of an incentive to keep generating technologies and methods to further that pursuit.

You my friend are asking for a technology to measure the presence of GOD... That is a wholly different thing all together and I'm sorry I can't provide that for you. But that's just it... GOD wants to meet you on grounds of faith not grounds of "OK now that I can see you, I believe in You".... it would be way too easy then...

The mere fact that we are alive is example enough of GOD's grace... He could easily wipe out sin by destroying the world... NO, instead HE has given us a chance to find HIM so that we might be saved... I don't intend for you to embrace this belief, I'm just pointing out why a "pursuit to measure GOD" would be negated by GOD's purpose.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The structure of a cell and it's origin are neither philosophical or theological. They exist. Intelligent design is, as best I can tell, the only theory that proposes to explain the origin of that structure.


The existence of an intelligent designer is a matter of fact like the existence of cells and living organisms? The theory of an initiating, intelligent (and invisible?) force is neither philosophical nor theological? We just don't agree on this one.

[Phenomanul]

"you teach both and openly discuss the controversy between the two and the areas in which each compliment the other."

That's your position. Is that the majority ID position, or the position of the Thoman More Inst or of the Kansas/Dover school boards?

There is no evidence for super-natural designing entity, no matter how complex biological mechanisms have become in 3.5 billions years. Perhaps ID "scientists" should spend their research billions on experiments for detecting super-natural designer(s).

In K-12 syllabus, can anyone find one where deep, hard-core, paradigm- challenging courses are taught even in 12th grade?

You assume the current status of most K-12 curricula is logical and adequate...

Why on earth would you teach a foreign language to students in high-school... Studies have shown that the minds of children under the ages of 8-11 can learn new languages 100 times more efficiently than minds past this age range....

Much misdirected effort went into my 3 years of high-school "french" for me to have only "marginal" dominion of the language today...

[Extra Stout]

But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.
So ID is an inference. That's a good and fine logical construct. When I do apologetics, I use inferential logic. I'm all for it. But that alone is not science.

Inferring the notion of ID would make a hypothesis, were it faslsifiable. But I can't fathom how one would construct an experiment, be it examination of the fossil record or whatever, to falsify the hypothesis. At best, results would be inconclusive, and the ID proponent could make another inference.

I've beaten this into the ground, but ID falls into the same fallacy as creationism, though it appears more sophisticated. As Westerners, we have accepted that science is the be-all, end-all of uncovering truth, and if something can't be proven scientifically, then we don't need to concern ourselves with it. That religious people even go to the trouble of coming up with things like ID means they have accepted this fallacy.

But that fallacy is like saying that the hammer is the be-all, end-all of tools, and if a job can't be done with a hammer, then it's not worth doing, and then going out and trying to build a house with just a hammer.

So the scientist, whose job it is to put up sheetrock and lay shingles, gets along OK, but the theologian, whose job it is to lay the foundation, looks like an idiot when he insists upon trying to do it with a hammer.


So, in reality, evolution can only be approximated in scientific experiments. And, based on your assessment of what makes science valid (the ability to apply scientific means to a hypothesis) Intelligent Design theory is more tenable than Evolution.
A. Scientist proposes evolutionary mechanism (hypothesis).
B. Scientist reviews fossil record or DNA to test hypothesis (experiment).
C. Hypothesis either is verified or falsified by experiment.

ID is a perfectly fine realm of study, in the sense that it looks at the body of data and infers the existence of creator. Great. I agree. I have discussions about this all the time on the philosophical and theological level.

But it's not science. And frankly, I hate it when it's used as science, because every new scientific discovery puts the theistic case into retreat. ID argues that some biological feature could not have devleoped on its own, then a biologist figures out the mechanism for its development, and the ID conception of God shrinks. It's called the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, and for as many ID proponents who say it isn't, well, sorry, it is.

Meanwhile, serious scientists are making discoveries that bring up ten new baffling and wondrous questions for every one they answer, getting all tingly and spiritual because of it, and yet the ID folks are nowhere to be found, because they're back making simplistic arguments about things long since settled.

My problem with the ID/evolution debate is not that I am an enemy of ID so much that the way proponents argue the case makes for terrible theology. We should have gotten past this notion that if we cannot explain it, God must have done it, long ago. God is bigger than just the things we don't understand yet about the world.

[scott]

Therefore, I believe you teach both and openly discuss the controversy between the two and the areas in which each compliment the other.

Why those two? Since ID has as much scientific backing as my theory that Invisible Dancing Purple Elephants planted the seeds of life here on earth so that they could harvest our organs to maintain the propagation of their species... why doesn't the IDPE theory get discussed? Is it because ID has been determined church friendly (in fact, as been shown by the court, ID in many cases is just two words used in the place where one was once used - creationism) whereas religious text makes no mention of the IDPEs?

What I find most ironic about the now-ousted Dover school boards plea to "keep an open mind" to Intelligent Design in regards to Evolution is that they themselves were quite obviously closed-minded on wanting some form of creationism taught in schools. Most people I talk to don't have a problem with the teaching of ID, just so long as it is done in a proper framework. And while many in this thread continue to stress that ID and Evolution are not exclusive one another (which I would certainly agree with) - that has been shown not to be the feeling of the majority of the ID proponents.

The other fatally comic error I see on the behalf of ID proponents is the constant mention of Darwin and his theory on the Origin of Species. Again, Darwin's theory is not prevailing scientific theory. The theory of Evolution, as it is known today is not Darwin's theory. The continual desire to make such a connection beyond the fact that Evolutionary theory has its roots in Darwin does nothing more than act as a giant flashing neon signing reading "Idiot Here, Please Ignore."

If ID proponents ever wish to be taken seriously even in a philosophical framework, they need to do their homework. This isn't the 19th century anymore, science and even philosophy have "evolved" (if you will) since then. Arguing ID's merits versus other scientific or philosophical theories is a fruitless endevour if it is done on antiquated terms. I often see IDers trying to draw light to the flaws of some of Darwin's specific observations (with the beak of finches, for example), which is roughly tantamount to trying to argue that the world is a triangle because you have proof that it isn't flat.

And, for anyone who has even taken introductory Philosophy in college (which I thought was a requirement?), the basic theory of Intelligent Design is already discussed. What additional inclusion do IDers really seek? Why is there such an impetus on bringing this (quite complex) debate to the 9th grade battle front? There is a clear motive behind such an impetus, and it certainly is not the promotion of scientific understanding.

[scott]

The structure of a cell and it's origin are neither philosophical or theological. They exist. Intelligent design is, as best I can tell, the only theory that proposes to explain the origin of that structure.

Eureka! The problem is that you obviously don't read enough. Try something outside of the Yonivore approved list of OpEd writers.

[boutons]

"How can we offer anything"

If you've got it, offer it!

"that the pursuit itself will generate them."

then go pursue, and get other pursuers to pursue, publish, get peer reviews, let it be challenged, de-bunked, re-formulated, by the best minds around, over generations, and let's see what you come up with. This is how knowledge of the natural universe progresses, aka, science.

"all you care about is stifling that pursuit"

bullshit. hardcore scientific research is NOT performed in highschools now, why should you expect ID "research" to be one in HSs?

"asking for a technology to measure the presence of GOD"

ah, so ID really IS all about religion, and not about (natural) science.

"GOD wants to meet you"

do you have evidence of that? there is a Tower of Babbling Bullshitters all telling us what God wants. You're lost in the babble.

So here we have YV trying to take God and religion out of ID (which I'm pretty sure is the MINUSCULE MINORITY position), while hegam keeps bringing God into ID.

So teaching ID, a brand new idea dating back to?, as a credible, and nullifying alternative to all of science, with evolutionary biology as the bleeding edge victim, is really all about teaching super-natural religious beliefs by a particular fringe cult in highschool. The judge's ruling was slam-dunk, nuked-ly correct.

[Yonivore]

ID argues that some biological feature could not have devleoped on its own, then a biologist figures out the mechanism for its development, and the ID conception of God shrinks.
Example please.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You my friend are asking for a technology to measure the presence of GOD... That is a wholly different thing all together and I'm sorry I can't provide that for you. But that's just it... GOD wants to meet you on grounds of faith not grounds of "OK now that I can see you, I believe in You".... it would be way too easy then...

Honestly, who is the intelligent designer? God. Everybody knows that's what ID is getting at. The whole premise of ID rests on the existence an intelligent designer (or as I call him, God). If that fact can't be proven scientifically, then what is the point of ID?

[Phenomanul]

So ID is an inference. That's a good and fine logical construct. When I do apologetics, I use inferential logic. I'm all for it. But that alone is not science.

Inferring the notion of ID would make a hypothesis, were it faslsifiable. But I can't fathom how one would construct an experiment, be it examination of the fossil record or whatever, to falsify the hypothesis. At best, results would be inconclusive, and the ID proponent could make another inference.

I've beaten this into the ground, but ID falls into the same fallacy as creationism, though it appears more sophisticated. As Westerners, we have accepted that science is the be-all, end-all of uncovering truth, and if something can't be proven scientifically, then we don't need to concern ourselves with it. That religious people even go to the trouble of coming up with things like ID means they have accepted this fallacy.

But that fallacy is like saying that the hammer is the be-all, end-all of tools, and if a job can't be done with a hammer, then it's not worth doing, and then going out and trying to build a house with just a hammer.

So the scientist, whose job it is to put up sheetrock and lay shingles, gets along OK, but the theologian, whose job it is to lay the foundation, looks like an idiot when he insists upon trying to do it with a hammer.


A. Scientist proposes evolutionary mechanism (hypothesis).
B. Scientist reviews fossil record or DNA to test hypothesis (experiment).
C. Hypothesis either is verified or falsified by experiment.

ID is a perfectly fine realm of study, in the sense that it looks at the body of data and infers the existence of creator. Great. I agree. I have discussions about this all the time on the philosophical and theological level.

But it's not science. And frankly, I hate it when it's used as science, because every new scientific discovery puts the theistic case into retreat. ID argues that some biological feature could not have devleoped on its own, then a biologist figures out the mechanism for its development, and the ID conception of God shrinks. It's called the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, and for as many ID proponents who say it isn't, well, sorry, it is.

Meanwhile, serious scientists are making discoveries that bring up ten new baffling and wondrous questions for every one they answer, getting all tingly and spiritual because of it, and yet the ID folks are nowhere to be found, because they're back making simplistic arguments about things long since settled.

My problem with the ID/evolution debate is not that I am an enemy of ID so much that the way proponents argue the case makes for terrible theology. We should have gotten past this notion that if we cannot explain it, God must have done it, long ago. God is bigger than just the things we don't understand yet about the world.

Such arrogance to think you have it all figured out... no???

I don't agree with your definition of science... (again I have had several civilized discussions with you to know that we have agreed to disagree on many principles... we just have to add another to the list).

First you say ID "is a perfectly fine realm of study" and then you go on and claim that they don't fall in your definition of science... intriguing.

[scott]

As for the methods, I'm suggesting that the pursuit itself will generate them... but all you care about is stifling that pursuit.... Without the aid of advanced instruments we wouldn't even be able to look at the complexity behind our genomes. Fortunately our desire to understand how genes can be used to prevent and eradicate diseases is enough of an incentive to keep generating technologies and methods to further that pursuit.

You are proposing the methods will work themselves out in a 9th grade science class? Why don't IDers spend a little time to develop some methods before trying to include the discussion in a science class room? Scientists just don't come up with theories and start teaching them in classes and then hope they can find evidence for them later. By your own admission, it sounds like ID hasn't been thought out too well.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Such arrogance to think you have it all figured out... no???

I don't agree with your definition of science... (again I have had several civilized discussions with you to know that we have agreed to disagree on many principles... we just have to add another to the list).

First you say ID "is a perfectly fine realm of study" and then you go on and claim that they don't fall in your definition of science... intriguing.

Study is not always science. It can be religious, philosophical, literary, etc. I'm sure you knew this.

[Yonivore]

My problem with the ID/evolution debate is not that I am an enemy of ID so much that the way proponents argue the case makes for terrible theology. We should have gotten past this notion that if we cannot explain it, God must have done it, long ago. God is bigger than just the things we don't understand yet about the world.
Who said the intelligence has to be God? Why not an alien species? You seem too eager to box ID theorists into a theistic constraint. When, in fact, there are ID theorists that are either agnostic or atheistic as well. They merely deduce from the scientific evidence that the only explanation for some of the characteristics of biological life is intelligent design. The theory, itself, doesn't pretend to say where that intelligence originates.

I also take exception to your back-handed insult that "serious" scientists eschew this theory -- inferring there are no serious scientific minds doing this research.


Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science)

[Oh, Gee!!]

Who said the intelligence has to be God? Why not an alien species?

This actually hurts your argument. Na-Nu Na-Nu. And the author of your article quotes philosophy journals, and goes on the Michael Medved (right-wing nut job) show supporting ID. and it's not a scientific paper, it's an editorial.

[Phenomanul]

"How can we offer anything"

If you've got it, offer it!

"that the pursuit itself will generate them."

then go pursue, and get other pursuers to pursue, publish, get peer reviews, let it be challenged, de-bunked, re-formulated, by the best minds around, over generations, and let's see what you come up with. This is how knowledge of the natural universe progresses, aka, science.

"all you care about is stifling that pursuit"

bullshit. hardcore scientific research is NOT performed in highschools now, why should you expect ID "research" to be one in HSs?

"asking for a technology to measure the presence of GOD"

ah, so ID really IS all about religion, and not about (natural) science.

"GOD wants to meet you"

do you have evidence of that? there is a Tower of Babbling Bullshitters all telling us what God wants. You're lost in the babble.

So here we have YV trying to take God and religion out of ID (which I'm pretty sure is the MINUSCULE MINORITY position), while hegam keeps bringing God into ID.

So teaching ID, a brand new idea dating back to?, as a credible, and nullifying alternative to all of science, with evolutionary biology as the bleeding edge victim, is really all about teaching super-natural religious beliefs by a particular fringe cult in highschool. The judge's ruling was slam-dunk, nuked-ly correct.

Dude... chill out.. You didn't have to go Inspector Javert to point out I was Christian... In fact to make it easier for you all you had to do was paste links to other threads where I have embraced my Christianity... I haven't tried to hide this fact....

Notice that whole paragraph was positioned at the end of the argument... I was simply trying to point out that scientific endeavors should not be dismissed on the "possibility" that is has any religious implication. I happen to believe in "full-blown" creationism.... but that has lesser grounds being taught in the classroom than ID is. Proposing ID for the classroom, however, is not the same as trying to instill a more philosophically involved Creationism theory in school.

Yeah... so before you go on another "inspector"-like tirade and question people's motives at least bring out more concrete proof....

[Yonivore]

Honestly, who is the intelligent designer? God. Everybody knows that's what ID is getting at.
No, they don't. That's your presumption...and, if I may say, the premise behind why there are so many opponents to even exploring the theory.


The whole premise of ID rests on the existence an intelligent designer (or as I call him, God). If that fact can't be proven scientifically, then what is the point of ID?

God, is a religious construct that confers more than intelligence. It also conveys omnipotency, omnipresence, and omniscience. Intelligent Design theory merely poses the intriguing question of how do you explain the apparent design features of biology? It doesn't go on to say that the intelligence behind the design is still present or directing the progress of it's creation.

You're making that leap...not the serious ID theorists and scientists.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, they don't. That's your presumption...and, if I may say, the premise behind why there are so many opponents to even exploring the theory.



God, is a religious construct that confers more than intelligence. It also conveys omnipotency, omnipresence, and omniscience. Intelligent Design theory merely poses the intriguing question of how do you explain the apparent design features of biology? It doesn't go on to say that the intelligence behind the design is still present or directing the progress of it's creation.

You're making that leap...not the serious ID theorists and scientists.

So, ID says we know there's an intelligent designer, but we can't figure out who it is, what it is, it's characteristics, etc. First, that's even worse than what I originally thought about ID (assuming you're right and I was wrong). Second, that's bullshit. ID is about God, probably the Judeo-Christian God.

[Phenomanul]

Study is not always science. It can be religious, philosophical, literary, etc. I'm sure you knew this.

The genetic code does not fall under the other categories... I'm sure you knew this...

[Oh, Gee!!]

The genetic code does not fall under the other categories... I'm sure you knew this...


but belief in a first mover, intelligent designer does. I'm sure you know this deep down inside but won't admit it

[Yonivore]

This actually hurts your argument. Na-Nu Na-Nu.
My point being that ID theory doesn't identify the intelligence.


And the author of your article quotes philosophy journals, and goes on the Michael Medved (right-wing nut job) show supporting ID.

Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2004):213-239.

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417.I.

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In i>Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004)

In fact, of the long page of references there were exactly FIVE philosphy journals mentioned ... at the end of the bibliography.


and it's not a scientific paper, it's an editorial.
I think the National Academy of Science disagrees.

W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in The Design Inference, well-known physicist and science writer Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149.

[Yonivore]

So, ID says we know there's an intelligent designer, but we can't figure out who it is, what it is, it's characteristics, etc. First, that's even worse than what I originally thought about ID (assuming you're right and I was wrong).
Why? Darwinism presumes the evolution of species without addressing their origin. Plus, we're no closer to solving the mystery if serious scientists are ostracized simply for positing a theory based on the available scientific data.


Second, that's bullshit. ID is about God, probably the Judeo-Christian God.
That's a prejudicial and inflammatory characterization you cannot support. And, one with which I personally disagree. I believe Intelligent Design theory and research are about explaining why the substructures of biological life have the appearance of design.

Can you name another field that is exploring that question?

[boutons]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

.... is that ALL there is?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think ID'ers and Yoni for that matter are not geniune in their stated motives.

[DarkReign]

Hey Yon, I think you represent a very small minority of the people pushing ID.

Youre open to any explanation of the Designer, be it God, aliens, Alla, etc.

Whereas your contemporaries (I believe) do not. They are pushing the 7-days theory (theology) and they barely attempt to hide it.

The point is, for as much sense as you may or may not make, youre objective and thoughtful. Open to possibilities. I am sure you could care less, but I think thats good.

ID in its current form, pushed by the current people pushing it, is not. Its Judeo-Christian with no argument about it. Its a religious masqarade. It IS what it IS, in its current form.

Without knowing all the points made in the ID argument, I sincerely doubt anyone of those school board morons put half as much effort as you did into this thread.

Sorry, but youre not a mover or a shaker (nor am I). Thumbs down to being Joe-nobody (me too).

[Yonivore]

I think ID'ers and Yoni for that matter are not geniune in their stated motives.
That's all well and good, I think anti-ID Darwinians are not genuine about their motives either.

What's that got to do with trying to understand the appearance of intelligent design at a micro-biological level?

[Yonivore]

Sorry, but youre not a mover or a shaker (nor am I). Thumbs down to being Joe-nobody (me too).
The major "mainstream" media didn't pay any attention to the blogosphere because they didn't understand the media and felt it inconsequential.

That perception led to Dan Rather's early retirement and is beating the hell out of the "paper of record," The New York Times over their repeated misrepresentations and missteps.

[Oh, Gee!!]

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/images/spo051005gif.jpg

[velik_m]

interesting article on the subject:

http://templeofpolemic.proboards42.com/index.cgi?board=theo&action=print&thread=1130126466

[Extra Stout]

First you say ID "is a perfectly fine realm of study" and then you go on and claim that they don't fall in your definition of science... intriguing.
Did you not catch my point about there being other fields of study besides science?

ID also does not fall into my definition of art, or literature, or engineering. I imagine you will not be irritated at all about my saying those things, which gets back to my point about the unreasonable pedestal upon which we place science in this society.

[Yonivore]

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/images/spo051005gif.jpg
Interestingly, the cartoon doesn't conflict with the ideas of the Intelligent Design theory. Thanks, I'll save that one for the file.

[Yonivore]

interesting article on the subject:

http://templeofpolemic.proboards42.com/index.cgi?board=theo&action=print&thread=1130126466
The article is about creationism -- not intelligent design. Two different topics.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The article is about creationism -- not intelligent design. Two different topics.


nice try

[velik_m]

The article is about creationism -- not intelligent design. Two different topics.

read it

[Extra Stout]

Here are some problems I have with the way scientists pursue evolution:

1)Methodological naturalism: they assume that everything can be explained naturalistically. This gets passed off as science; however, it is just a philosophy about science. There is a difference between keeping this as an operative in the practice of science versus building one's whole Weltanschauung around it. This, to me, would be the analog to ID, not evolution itself.

2)Biological reductionism: A prime example of what I mean by this would be in brain science, where scientists have discovered a part of the brain that predisposes man to believe in a Deity. On the one hand, a Christian, upon hearing that, might recognize the Biblical teaching that man was created to recognize and worship God, and think that brain science is pretty cool to have found that. On the other hand, an atheist, upon hearing that, would say, "Oh, that explains why it's so hard to get rid of religion -- it's biological. There must be an evolutionary reason why the human brain developed that way." They try to reduce everything down to a material base. And they pass that off as science.

What also bugs me is that the theistic side, rather than arguing those points, cedes them and tries instead to find naturalistic and biological evidence of God.

[Yonivore]

read it
Why? The bias is apparent in the title. It will obviously be written to pretend that creationism and intelligent design are one in the same.

[Phenomanul]

Did you not catch my point about there being other fields of study besides science?

ID also does not fall into my definition of art, or literature, or engineering. I imagine you will not be irritated at all about my saying those things, which gets back to my point about the unreasonable pedestal upon which we place science in this society.


No, I did catch it... as I asked !Oh Gee!... how is the pursuit of genetic understanding not science???

Sure... it has implications in other fields, but I'm not suggesting we push those implications down other people's throats.... let them draw their own conclusions.

The extremist proponents in the other camp (and I believe we have had this discussion before) much like the extremists in the ID camp DO have agendas... You do see it. I completely see eye to eye with Yonivore's ID viewpoint even though it is not the same as mine... I want people to draw their own conclusions.... pulling it out of the classroom will mean that the topic of disscusion will eventually be pulled out from state university classrooms as well... You would be blind to think that this would not be the case.

So now what, this discussion would only be delegated to private universities... They want to see this discussion wiped off the map altogether... Yonivore's quotes from Evolutionary proponents were very overt in their intentions.

And to address boutons' comment: why shouldn't this discussion be pulled out of H.S. classes????

Simply because that is where students begin to really think about their place and purpose in this world... understanding the world is essential to their question... Don't give me the b.s. that all philosophical thought should stay out of H.S. My high school biology professor was much like you in that he rarely hid his contempt toward the 'other' theory... guess what?? he pretty much brainwashed every single one of those students into feeling the same way he did... I questioned his motives and reasoning on several occasions only to find disdain.... I still ended up with an A+ despite his best efforts to make a fool out of me. And I placed 1st in the STATE UIL SCIENCE competition with a perfect score in the Biology section.

[velik_m]

Why? The bias is apparent in the title. It will obviously be written to pretend that creationism and intelligent design are one in the same.

it's not actually about creationism or intelligent design, it's about why such ideas are becoming popular and what consequences such thinking brings

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, I did catch it... as I asked !Oh Gee!... how is the pursuit of genetic understanding not science???

because you're not pursuing a scientific understanding. Science can only explain so much. I can live with that. But you propose to supplement biology with supernatural, religious, theological, metaphysical theories. The Bible only explains so much, do we need to supplement that with other fields of study as well?

[Extra Stout]

Simply because that is where students begin to really think about their place and purpose in this world... understanding the world is essential to their question... Don't give me the b.s. that all philosophical thought should stay out of H.S.
I agree with you on this. In science class, it is not as if they just do experiments all day, i.e. pure science. They teach about the history of science, the ethics of science, the implications of science on other fields, and certainly the philosophy of science.

hegamboa's anecdote is fairly typical -- a science teacher with an openly hostile bent towards religious faith who abuses science to shove a naturalistic worldview down students' throats. That is every bit as bad as a teacher who evangelizes in class; however, secularists have succeeded in framing the argument so that belittling students' faith becomes "science."

[boutons]

"think about their place and purpose in this world"

I don't think HS is where many kids expect to find those deep issues addressed.
what HS course does "my purpose in the world" fit into?

That's a "meaning of (my) life" question, which is a religous, spiritual, philosophical question better addresssed in an appropriate organization outside of school, by parents, whatever, but not in a publically funded school.

[Phenomanul]

"think about their place and purpose in this world"

I don't think HS is where many kids expect to find those deep issues addressed.
what HS course does "my purpose in the world" fit into?

That's a "meaning of (my) life" question, which is a religous, spiritual, philosophical question better addresssed in an appropriate organization outside of school, by parents, whatever, but not in a publically funded school.

To think that these issues are not being faced in high-school would be foolish....

[Yonivore]

it's not actually about creationism or intelligent design, it's about why such ideas are becoming popular and what consequences such thinking brings
Well, I woul assert that the consequences of teaching creationism (a theistic approach) are probably in line with what you believe while, I don't see any more onerous consequences to exploring design theory (a scientific approach) than I do for exploring Darwin's theory of evolution.

[FromWayDowntown]

I want people to draw their own conclusions.... pulling it out of the classroom will mean that the topic of disscusion will eventually be pulled out from state university classrooms as well... You would be blind to think that this would not be the case.

But, as a matter of Constitutional law, you're wrong about that. Courts have, since Establishment Clause jurisprudence arose, differentiated between public secondary schools and public colleges and universities. The Establishment Clause concerns that exist in public secondary schools are muted (at least to some degree) in a collegiate environment. With all due respect, you don't understand the law if you posit that rejecting ID in public high school curricula will lead inexorably to the same rejection in public university curricula. I would tell you that just the opposite is likely to be true -- largely because ID can be included in public university curricula as a philosophical question left open by the current state of evolutionary theory.



So now what, this discussion would only be delegated to private universities... They want to see this discussion wiped off the map altogether... Yonivore's quotes from Evolutionary proponents were very overt in their intentions.

I don't know that there is some viewpoint discrimination that segregates evolutionists to private universities. I think there are some scientists who believe that science can and will eventually explain the creation and development of all physical properties in the universe. It may be that for those scientists, their educational background has caused them to be distrustful of religion; but that does not mean that science is inherently antagonistic to religion -- it just means that some scientists believe more in science than in religion. It strikes me as quite likely that there are equal or greater numbers of scientists who seek to square their scientific enterprise with their religious beliefs. They aren't heralded much in this debate, but I know a good many scientists who are among the more religious people I know.

[Yonivore]

But, as a matter of Constitutional law, you're wrong about that. Courts have, since Establishment Clause jurisprudence arose, differentiated between public secondary schools and public colleges and universities. The Establishment Clause concerns that exist in public secondary schools are muted (at least to some degree) in a collegiate environment. With all due respect, you don't understand the law if you posit that rejecting ID in public high school curricula will lead inexorably to the same rejection in public university curricula. I would tell you that just the opposite is likely to be true -- largely because ID can be included in public university curricula as a philosophical question left open by the current state of evolutionary theory.

I don't know that there is some viewpoint discrimination that segregates evolutionists to private universities. I think there are some scientists who believe that science can and will eventually explain the creation and development of all physical properties in the universe. It may be that for those scientists, their educational background has caused them to be distrustful of religion; but that does not mean that science is inherently antagonistic to religion -- it just means that some scientists believe more in science than in religion. It strikes me as quite likely that there are equal or greater numbers of scientists who seek to square their scientific enterprise with their religious beliefs. They aren't heralded much in this debate, but I know a good many scientists who are among the more religious people I know.
I agree the courts have differentiated between high school and secondary education. And, I agree with the courts on the matter of the establishment clause.

However, my argument is that intelligent design theory wouldn't violate the establishment clause. Concluding, however, the intelligent designer is a deity, to the exclusion of any other possible answer, would.

You can teach intelligent design theory without concluding the designer is God.

[FromWayDowntown]

To think that these issues are not being faced in high-school would be foolish....

Those issues are being faced in high school, but not in classroom settings. I don't recall ever having a "place in the world" discussion in a classroom setting at any point in my public high school, and I was around the most motivated students (now graduates of Harvard, Yale, Duke, Rice, among others; now working as physicians, scientists, lawyers, and entreprenuers) and taught by the best teachers in that school. We were taught the subject matter and given some practical application for certain abstract concepts -- but that didn't pour over into any sort of philosophical investigation into any of the issues discussed. The kids in those classes were the best equipped to handle those sorts of discussions, yet they never arose -- and somehow, we all proceeded to find success beyond our apparently-inadequate high school.

I suspect, knowing many who weren't included in those classes, that had such discussions arisen in other classrooms, with other students and other teachers, the result would have been either the virulent spread of misinformation in the guise of fact, violent disagreements, or mindnumbed students who had little or no interest in participating in such discussions.

[FromWayDowntown]

I agree the courts have differentiated between high school and secondary education. And, I agree with the courts on the matter of the establishment clause.

However, my argument is that intelligent design theory wouldn't violate the establishment clause. Concluding, however, the intelligent designer is a deity, to the exclusion of any other possible answer, would.

You can teach intelligent design theory without concluding the designer is God.

I don't dispute that in the abstract -- and there may be some instances in which some students can appreciate the nuanced way in which the material would be presented. But there are students who don't necessarily deal in the abstract and who want concrete answers. When the theory is presented and Johnny or Sally asks the teacher who this intelligent designer is, how should that question be answered? Surely, at some point, that question will arise and at some point the answer has to contemplate the possibility of a deity-based explanation for the design. The intersection of those points is a huge Establishment Clause problem in a public high school setting.

[Phenomanul]

But, as a matter of Constitutional law, you're wrong about that. Courts have, since Establishment Clause jurisprudence arose, differentiated between public secondary schools and public colleges and universities. The Establishment Clause concerns that exist in public secondary schools are muted (at least to some degree) in a collegiate environment. With all due respect, you don't understand the law if you posit that rejecting ID in public high school curricula will lead inexorably to the same rejection in public university curricula. I would tell you that just the opposite is likely to be true -- largely because ID can be included in public university curricula as a philosophical question left open by the current state of evolutionary theory.




I don't know that there is some viewpoint discrimination that segregates evolutionists to private universities. I think there are some scientists who believe that science can and will eventually explain the creation and development of all physical properties in the universe. It may be that for those scientists, their educational background has caused them to be distrustful of religion; but that does not mean that science is inherently antagonistic to religion -- it just means that some scientists believe more in science than in religion. It strikes me as quite likely that there are equal or greater numbers of scientists who seek to square their scientific enterprise with their religious beliefs. They aren't heralded much in this debate, but I know a good many scientists who are among the more religious people I know.


You know at some point this will not be the case. Once 99.99999999% of the population accepts the evolutionary theory as fact anyone with a differing viewpoint will be marginalized no matter where they pursue their counterpoint data.

I won't argue legal matters with you, for I know that this happens to be your realm of expertise... At the same time I would point out that what is law today won't always stand as law tommorrow. And I know you know that.

As for your other comment, yes... there are exceptions to every movement... and not everyone shares the same motive. I'm just suggesting that you can't point to the ignorant "bible thumpers" variety ID proponent and criticize his "creationist" motive without realizing that there is an analogous counterpart in the other camp with anti-religious motives of his own.

[DarkReign]

I'm just suggesting that you can't point to the ignorant "bible thumpers" variety ID proponent and criticize his "creationist" motive without realizing that there is an analogous counterpart in the other camp with anti-religious motives of his own.

That very well maybe true.

But the anti-religious stand on the soapbox of proven/provable science.

The other camp stands on theology, which has no standard of testing or years of righteous criticism.

[FromWayDowntown]

You know at some point this will not be the case. Once 99.99999999% of the population accepts the evolutionary theory as fact anyone with a differing viewpoint will be marginalized no matter where they pursue their counterpoint data.

I don't know that, and you just assume it. Even if you're right, that sort of tacit viewpoint discrimination exists in almost any field of education when an important question has not been settled. Do we compel that teachers provide information about both sides of the argument in those realms, too? I don't recall, for instance, that history teachers are compelled to raise contrary arguments concerning the genesis of matters as to which there is historical hypothesis but no settled answer.


I won't argue legal matters with you, for I know that this happens to be your realm of expertise... At the same time I would point out that what is law today won't always stand as law tommorrow. And I know you know that.

True enough. But the principles of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in this sense are quite well-settled. Ultimately, however, it's an unwise idea to set policy decisions based on some the possibility that extant law could eventually be reversed when there is absolutely no indication that there is a reversal coming.

Since we're guessing, though, I'll tell you that if the future brings any significant change in the way the Establishment Clause is applied to public education, the more likely possibility is that more religion will be allowed in public secondary schools -- that public secondary schools and public colleges and universities will be treated more similarly than they currently are treated. Just a guess.

[Yonivore]

I don't dispute that in the abstract -- and there may be some instances in which some students can appreciate the nuanced way in which the material would be presented. But there are students who don't necessarily deal in the abstract and who want concrete answers. When the theory is presented and Johnny or Sally asks the teacher who this intelligent designer is, how should that question be answered?
How about, "no one knows." It's the same answer science teachers give when Johnny or Sally ask them how life originated.

Surely, at some point, that question will arise and at some point the answer has to contemplate the possibility of a deity-based explanation for the design.
Not necessarily. As I've already explained designer <> deity. Deities have some qualities that are not necessary for one to be a designer. How many mechanical engineers do you know that can give you the current disposition of every machine they've devised? That's a characteristic assigned to a deity, not a designer.

The intersection of those points is a huge Establishment Clause problem in a public high school setting.
Is this any different than the science teacher who, when asked if the theory of evolution proves there is no God, says, "yep, absolutely -- God is dead thanks to Charles Darwin."

Because, atheistic science teachers do that all the time.

[hendrix]

"A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate. This debate has not taken place in scientific circles, but in the cultural and political realms."

[FromWayDowntown]

How about, "no one knows." It's the same answer science teachers give when Johnny or Sally ask them how life originated.

And if no one knows, then why teach it?

Look, I see that point, but if kids are as thirsty for this sort of knowledge as you posit them to be, then at some point, the idea of a deific designer has to come up. If you truly are to complete the educational process on that topic, the issue of intelligent design as a religious construct has to come up -- it would be a horribly incomplete answer (and, I think, a waste of time) to tell students that there is this countervailing theory, but that we can't really answer any questions about it because there are matters of faith involved.


Not necessarily. As I've already explained designer <> deity. Deities have some qualities that are not necessary for one to be a designer. How many mechanical engineers do you know that can give you the current disposition of every machine they've devised? That's a characteristic assigned to a deity, not a designer.

That strikes me as an implausible explanation. There is some designer that created what now exists, but that the designer is not necessarily a deity. Where did that designer come from -- if there can be no explanation for earthly existence other than the existence of a designer, then who designed the designer?


Is this any different than the science teacher who, when asked if the theory of evolution proves there is no God, says, "yep, absolutely -- God is dead thanks to Charles Darwin."

Because, atheistic science teachers do that all the time.

I'd like to see some proof that that is happening pervasively. I could see anecdotal evidence that some science teacher somewhere said something like that, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that any teachers "do that all the time."

[Yonivore]

And if no one knows, then why teach it?
Well, because even if you don't know, you can still explore the evidence presented that biological life is designed.

We don't know how the universe originated but we teach astronomy and we discuss theories about why things operate the way they do.

Darwinian evolution doesn't tell us how species originated but we teach that theory.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse.

Look, I see that point, but if kids are as thirsty for this sort of knowledge as you posit them to be, then at some point, the idea of a deific designer has to come up. If you truly are to complete the educational process on that topic, the issue of intelligent design as a religious construct has to come up -- it would be a horribly incomplete answer (and, I think, a waste of time) to tell students that there is this countervailing theory, but that we can't really answer any questions about it because there are matters of faith involved.
I disagree. I wholeheartedly believe design theory isn't dependent upon there being a deity at the helm.


That strikes me as an implausible explanation. There is some designer that created what now exists, but that the designer is not necessarily a deity. Where did that designer come from -- if there can be no explanation for earthly existence other than the existence of a designer, then who designed the designer?
You're presuming science must lead to an ultimate answerable. Sometimes, the truth is larger than we are. For instance, I doubt we'll ever learn what was before the big bang, but the presumption is that something was before -- and that hasn't stopped us from teaching big bang theory in school even if we don't know from what that bang eminated.

Not knowing or even understanding the principals that could lead to understanding should preclude you from exploring those things you do know.


I'd like to see some proof that that is happening pervasively. I could see anecdotal evidence that some science teacher somewhere said something like that, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that any teachers "do that all the time."
Why, given the constructs of high school education, how could they answer it any other way?

How would you answer the question?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Why, given the constructs of high school education, how could they answer it any other way?

How would you answer the question?

Er, evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, but we are not here to discuss that? In other words, that won't be on the test.

I don't see where you would automatically have to go the "God is Dead" response.

[Yonivore]

Er, evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, but we are not here to discuss that? In other words, that won't be on the test.
Intelligent design neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, either.


I don't see where you would automatically have to go the "God is Dead" response.
Hyperbole.

It is reasonble to suggest that a good portion of science teachers would use the question to show that Darwinian evolution tends to preclude the existence of a God...even if they personally were believers in a diety.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Intelligent design neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, either.

bullshit, if that's not what it attempts to do in reality


Hyperbole.

It is reasonble to suggest that a good portion of science teachers would use the question to show that Darwinian evolution tends to preclude the existence of a God...even if they personally were believers in a diety.

so, in other words, you pulled it out of your ass.

[Yonivore]

bullshit, if that's not what it attempts to do in reality
Why is that bullshit?


so, in other words, you pulled it out of your ass.
So, what proof do you have that intelligent design theory would be taught as proof of God's existence?

I made the arguement early on that theists are just as likely to argue that intelligent design proves God's existence as are atheists to argue that Darwinian evolution proves there is no God.

Under this premise, Darwin evolution shouldn't be taught for the same reasons you argue intelligent design shouldn't be taught; because people will exploit it for religious reasons.

Darwin doesn't explain the nano-technology or DNA sequencing in a living cell. What's wrong with teaching they have traits of intelligent design?

In other words, human beings -- using their intellectual capacity -- designed the internal combustion engine. Is it just a coincidence the flagellar motor of a bacteria uses some of the same design principles, developed by man, to make a bacteria move?

I think that's a very interesting question. Before we had knowledge of the flagellar motor, we designed a similar machine. Wow! How is that?

That's what should be taught in High School.

[Phenomanul]

Why is that bullshit?


So, what proof do you have that intelligent design theory would be taught as proof of God's existence?

I made the arguement early on that theists are just as likely to argue that intelligent design proves God's existence as are atheists to argue that Darwinian evolution proves there is no God.

Under this premise, Darwin evolution shouldn't be taught for the same reasons you argue intelligent design shouldn't be taught; because people will exploit it for religious reasons.

Darwin doesn't explain the nano-technology or DNA sequencing in a living cell. What's wrong with teaching they have traits of intelligent design?

In other words, human beings -- using their intellectual capacity -- designed the internal combustion engine. Is it just a coincidence the flagellar motor of a bacteria uses some of the same design principles, developed by man, to make a bacteria move?

I think that's a very interesting question. Before we had knowledge of the flagellar motor, we designed a similar machine. Wow! How is that?

That's what should be taught in High School.


They won't listen they have cotton packed in their ears and shades over their eyes...

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, because even if you don't know, you can still explore the evidence presented that biological life is designed.

We don't know how the universe originated but we teach astronomy and we discuss theories about why things operate the way they do.

Darwinian evolution doesn't tell us how species originated but we teach that theory.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse.

I'm not trying to be obtuse and I hope I'm not coming off that way. I am, however, trying to test your argument.

We teach astronomy and discuss theories about why things operate the way they do, but we do so because the theories have been developed through the application of scientific principles and are not articles of faith.

Darwinian evolution, assuming that things are already in existence and are changing to evolve (even to the point of augering the creation of new species) is equally testable and verifiable for all but the ultimate question.

ID, as a means for explaining existence that, I suppose subsequently gives rise to evolution, is wholly different in the sense that it is almost entirely philosophical -- and, in some sense, spiritually-rooted. One who does not believe in the existence of God (or another deity) is unlikely to believe in a more abstract sense, that there is some designer (whether a deity or not) who created all that exists -- it would be wholly antithetical to that belief system. In that sense, then, there has to be a spiritual component to ID.


I disagree. I wholeheartedly believe design theory isn't dependent upon there being a deity at the helm.

You wholeheartedly believe that. What makes your belief any more worthwhile than the belief shared by others, that ID doesn't make sense without a deity as the designer?


You're presuming science must lead to an ultimate answerable. Sometimes, the truth is larger than we are. For instance, I doubt we'll ever learn what was before the big bang, but the presumption is that something was before -- and that hasn't stopped us from teaching big bang theory in school even if we don't know from what that bang eminated.

Not knowing or even understanding the principals that could lead to understanding should preclude you from exploring those things you do know.


I'm assuming that you meant "should not preclude you . . . ."

But that is exactly my point. In public high schools, we teach what we know (or what scientific theory can prove) and don't engage in the metaphysical/quasi-spiritual issues that are the precursors to that information. Evolution might not explain how anything got here, but it is a plausible explanation for why things are as they are today. Smart students who are concerned with developing more fact or testable theory in that regard have the wherewithal to investigate further and ask the questions that arise from the theorized truths we now know. It's not as if a student who would be predisposed to undertake that search would be unlikely to do so except for a brief explanation of a precursor theory of existence; indeed, just the opposite result (a student feeling the question has been satisfactorily answered) strikes me as the more plausible possibility. That, to me, is precisely where the rubber meets the road in the context of public secondary schools -- we shouldn't be in the business of teaching deeply-abstract theory in that setting; get the facts out and in the context of science, deal with testable theory, and allow students who are so inclined to delve further into the subject through college and independent study.


Why, given the constructs of high school education, how could they answer it any other way?

Faced with that question, I'd tell a student that the existence of God, juxtaposed against any scientific theory, is something that should be asked of his or her parents and his or her church. Again, I think those are the institutions that are best equipped to answer that question.

[boutons]

"Is it just a coincidence"

No, Newtonian laws of physics, mechanics have to be obeyed by everybody and everything. Flagellation of an appendage in a fluid for locomotion works for swimming snakes, fish, mammals, human swimmers, etc.

"Darwin evolution shouldn't be taught for the same reasons you argue intelligent design shouldn't be taught; because people will exploit it for religious reasons."

No, because ID is super-natural, without evidence, ("this stuff's complex, some intelligence had to design it as is") and has not not won credibilty as part of the world's commonly agreed culture and civilization the way science has, to be transmitted to .

Because ID is tainted with religion, and even worse, creationism, the IDers, as seen by this week's PA ruling, will have a long, hard time getting ID accepted in public, secular schools.

[velik_m]

So, what proof do you have that intelligent design theory would be taught as proof of God's existence?


If there is intelligent entity behind our design (and creation), which given the complexity is obviously very powerfull, you are very close to the definition of god (you only have to add immortality, and some would argue not even that).



I made the arguement early on that theists are just as likely to argue that intelligent design proves God's existence as are atheists to argue that Darwinian evolution proves there is no God.

Under this premise, Darwin evolution shouldn't be taught for the same reasons you argue intelligent design shouldn't be taugh
t; because people will exploit it for religious reasons.

Evolution theory does NOT challenge the existance of god. (it does however challenge the notion that everything was created in 7 days, which for some people is the same)



Darwin doesn't explain the nano-technology or DNA sequencing in a living cell. What's wrong with teaching they have traits of intelligent design?

In other words, human beings -- using their intellectual capacity -- designed the internal combustion engine. Is it just a coincidence the flagellar motor of a bacteria uses some of the same design principles, developed by man, to make a bacteria move?

I think that's a very interesting question. Before we had knowledge of the flagellar motor, we designed a similar machine. Wow! How is that?

That's what should be taught in High School.

Maybe because it's the best way to do it? Evolution promotes best solutions.

[travis2]

So ID is an inference. That's a good and fine logical construct. When I do apologetics, I use inferential logic. I'm all for it. But that alone is not science.

Inferring the notion of ID would make a hypothesis, were it faslsifiable. But I can't fathom how one would construct an experiment, be it examination of the fossil record or whatever, to falsify the hypothesis. At best, results would be inconclusive, and the ID proponent could make another inference.

I've beaten this into the ground, but ID falls into the same fallacy as creationism, though it appears more sophisticated. As Westerners, we have accepted that science is the be-all, end-all of uncovering truth, and if something can't be proven scientifically, then we don't need to concern ourselves with it. That religious people even go to the trouble of coming up with things like ID means they have accepted this fallacy.

But that fallacy is like saying that the hammer is the be-all, end-all of tools, and if a job can't be done with a hammer, then it's not worth doing, and then going out and trying to build a house with just a hammer.

So the scientist, whose job it is to put up sheetrock and lay shingles, gets along OK, but the theologian, whose job it is to lay the foundation, looks like an idiot when he insists upon trying to do it with a hammer.


A. Scientist proposes evolutionary mechanism (hypothesis).
B. Scientist reviews fossil record or DNA to test hypothesis (experiment).
C. Hypothesis either is verified or falsified by experiment.

ID is a perfectly fine realm of study, in the sense that it looks at the body of data and infers the existence of creator. Great. I agree. I have discussions about this all the time on the philosophical and theological level.

But it's not science. And frankly, I hate it when it's used as science, because every new scientific discovery puts the theistic case into retreat. ID argues that some biological feature could not have devleoped on its own, then a biologist figures out the mechanism for its development, and the ID conception of God shrinks. It's called the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, and for as many ID proponents who say it isn't, well, sorry, it is.

Meanwhile, serious scientists are making discoveries that bring up ten new baffling and wondrous questions for every one they answer, getting all tingly and spiritual because of it, and yet the ID folks are nowhere to be found, because they're back making simplistic arguments about things long since settled.

My problem with the ID/evolution debate is not that I am an enemy of ID so much that the way proponents argue the case makes for terrible theology. We should have gotten past this notion that if we cannot explain it, God must have done it, long ago. God is bigger than just the things we don't understand yet about the world.

Bravo!

[jochhejaam]

Excellent civilized discourse on the subject in this thread from FWD, Yoni, hegamboa and Stout with some nice sideline contributions from a few others.

One of the better exchanges I've seen since I've joined the forum, thanks guys.

[RandomGuy]

ID does not oppose evolution. It's just a compliment to evolution.

Have you read the websites?

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

As I have stated, it is merely a thinly disguised attempt to subvert science in the classroom and replace it with religious dogma.

[RandomGuy]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]So we should teach that God is great in our public school science classes? QUOTE]



If ID isn't Scientific (a large and growing part of the scientific community does not support this premise) it can be taught as a religious elective as an alternative view, or supplement if you prefer, to Evolutionary Theories.

ID isn't scientific.

Support the thesis a "large and growing part of the scientific community does not support th[e premise that ID isn't scientific]"

Don't use weasel words like "large and growing"

Try finding a poll that says "x% of scientists think ID is a scientific theory".

You and I both know that the portion of the scientific community that thinks ID is a scientific theory is NOT large, and to say it is "growing" is also misleading in that it implies that the theory is gaining more acceptance over time.

It may be growing in acceptance, but probably not among scientists.

[RandomGuy]

I disagree with the general assumption that ID is an intentional slippery slope to Creationism by fundamentalists. Even if ID was somehow passed off as Science and taught in the classroom, it would still be an enormous fight to even consider bringing Creationism into public schools.

While it's not Science, it does have value as a philosophical theory... And I think teaching about world philosophies (not just Western) would have value in the Public School system.

The judge that heard the case disagrees.

He saw no small amount of evidence that the members of the school board that voted for the inclusion of ID pretty much all but said that is what they were trying to do.

I think it is just a *bit* niave to think the fundamentalists aren't using this psuedo-science to further their own agenda.

[Yonivore]

So, if we gain the intellectual capacity and technology to actually assemble the component parts of a living cell then actually do so and let evolution take over, we're God?

Because if nature can randomly assemble chemicals and come up with life it would seem humans would eventually gain the ability to do it themselves...it's just a matter of coming up with the technology to do the assembly.

If we can't, why not?

[Phenomanul]

The judge that heard the case disagrees.

He saw no small amount of evidence that the members of the school board that voted for the inclusion of ID pretty much all but said that is what they were trying to do.

I think it is just a *bit* niave to think the fundamentalists aren't using this psuedo-science to further their own agenda.


I think we've agreed that these school board members were the least qualified individuals to stand up in court in favor of ID....

It's a less glorified 'repeat' of the 1925 Scopes Trial...

Anyways it would be even more naive to think that agnostics/atheists don't have an agenda of their own when it comes to resisting the ID movement.... or to believe that they don't form a major backbone of the 'evolutionary' establishment.

When was forensics psuedo-science???

[boutons]

"it would seem humans would eventually gain the ability to do it themselves"

Of course. It's great to see you coming along so well in your acceptance of the inevitable.

Any limited, infantile dumbshit who defines God because "He can do what man't can't do" is insulting God. Happens every day.

[scott]

Anyways it would be even more naive to think that agnostics/atheists don't have an agenda of their own when it comes to resisting the ID movement.... or to believe that they don't form a major backbone of the 'evolutionary' establishment.

I'd agree that most agnostics/atheists do have an agenda when resisting the ID movement - founded or unfounded.

However, the "evolutionary establishment" probably includes about 99% of professional scientists. To assume that the majority of these people are atheist or agnostic is more naive (or maybe just stupid) than anything else suggested in this thread.

Like I've said previously, ID in it's current form is like trying to argue that the world is a triangle because there is proof that it isn't flat. The majority ID "scientists" seem to be so behind the curve on current science that it isn't even funny. They are arguing over things that have been settled for decades, and they aren't bringing anything new to the debate. The continued use of words like "Darwinism" shows that certain posters in this thread are about on the same level of advancement on scientific topics as the scientists who are scoffed at by their peers.

[Yonivore]

However, the "evolutionary establishment" probably includes about 99% of professional scientists.
What percentage of those see design elements to biological species and are interested in seeing if the theory conflicts with evolution?

[FromWayDowntown]

What percentage of those see design elements to biological species and are interested in seeing if the theory conflicts with evolution?

I suspect a large percentage of those are looking for means to explain existence in the first instance and are open-minded (if not completely sold) on the idea of an intelligent design. I also suspect, however, that the resistence to teaching that lies largely in a desire to see that science teach testable theories rather than an untestable belief.

There seems to be a notion in this thread that one need not be religious to support the teaching of ID, but that one must be hostile to religion in wishing that it not be taught.

[scott]

What percentage of those see design elements to biological species and are interested in seeing if the theory conflicts with evolution?

"Design elements" and "evolution" are not naturally in conflict with one another - so why would anyone actively seek to find a conflict unless they had already developed the preconcieved notion that we can only have one or another?

Andrew Flew is many times held up as a poster boy for ID, and while I personally find him to be a crackpot, he is dead-on in one regard: he is constantly saying we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads." As it turns out, the evidence doesn't lead to ID as much as non-scientist ID proponents would probably like to believe. And it certainly does not lead to observing any design elements which are contradictory to evolution.

One can infer design - but it is just that, an inference, and does nothing to "debunk" evolutionary theory. In every instance in which IDers have attempted to poke holes in currently prevailing evolutionary theory, their criticisms have been quite effortlessly brushed aside not because they aren't given the time of day but because they are easy to brush aside from a scientific perspective. "Irreducable complexity" is the most notable of such criticisms.

While ID itself may not inherently be religious in that it names "God" as a creator (although it would be a mistake to not acknowledge that the currently prevailing ID movement is, in fact, just creationism repackaged), it makes the same logical leaps of faith that any religion does - attempting to make inferences to some "greater" force based on a lack of information.

ID may be in fact turn out to be the origin of life on Earth. Maybe it was God or a colony of Space Monkeys. But there is no reason to believe either of the two - certainly not to the point to want to suggest that there is some "designer" out there to a bunch of 9th graders. ID is something that should be pursued, and when ID scientists have something to bring forward that is more credible that what is presented now, the debate can continue in the appropriate circles. ID, as an idea and theory, needs significantly more refinement to be seriously considered - and it isn't because it is a controversial or provocative topic but rather because it must live up to the same standards as any theory. You don't take half of a product design idea to a manufacturing facility floor, and you don't take an theory in its infant stages to 9th grade classrooms. There has been no restriction on what ID proponents and/or scientists can do with their own time by the court's declaration that ID (in its current form) is not science.

[jochhejaam]

ID isn't scientific.

It may be growing in acceptance, but probably not among scientists.
And you saying it isn't scientific settles the debate, thanks. :lol
Here's a good read RG.

William A. Dembski's ground-breaking work _Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology_. ID theory says nothing about creationism. It only seeks to reestablish design as a valid means of causation (along with chance and necessity) by identifing actions or events that demonstrate the clear indications of intelligent agency, using what Dembski calls the "explanatory filter." Simply put, the filter identifies events that are contingent, specific, and sufficiently complex in order to make an inference of design. Any event demonstrating these three criteria may reasonably be attributed to intelligent agency, while any event which does not meet all three criteria are thus rightly attributed to other modes of causation, namely chance or necessity. In order for a design inference to be made, then, the event MUST meet all three criteria. Simply because some events (for example, the Big Bang hypothesis) have theistic implications, this does not instantly relegate analysis of such events as religious. They still remain scientific in essence. THAT the universe is designed can still be discussed in any science class. WHO or WHAT designed the universe is not germane to the issue, just as one may know that a wristwatch is the product of design without having to cite the name of the watchmaker who made it. The standard objection to ID theory, which Mr. Krauthammer reiterates in his column, is that ID theory is just creationism in pseudoscientific garb. Along with this objection comes the usual ominous warning that the proponents of ID theory want to discard evolutionary theory and replace it with this warmed-over creationism. The assumption underlying this objection is that evolutionary theory is scientific, while any idea with theistic overtones is religion and thus not scientific. But this is circular reasoning. It assumes as a given the very thing that it seeks to establish: namely, that the theory of evolution is scientific and that ID theory is not. The fact is, regardless of any objections to ID theory, it is at the very least just as scientific as evolutionary theory, even more so. That's because evolutionary theory is NOT scientific. The evolutionary HYPOTHESIS is scientific, because it is based on empirical data, to wit, the fossil record. But the THEORY used to describe that hypothesis is not--it is simply the assertion that evolutionary change occurs due to two factors: natural selection working in tandem with genetic mutation. But the great shortfall of evolutionary theory is that there is NO data (that's right, absolutely NONE) demonstrating an instance where natural selection or mutation result in new speciation. Despite this appalling lack of evidence supporting the theory, it is still widely accepted as valid, and even taught in our schools as such. That is the great objection to evolutionary theory. And it is also the reason why an idea like intelligent design OUGHT to be taught in our schools. ID theory has empirical evidence to support it. The theory of evolution does not. For this reason, ID theory has greater explanatory power than evolutionary theory, which makes ID the superior theory. That Mr. Krauthammer calls such a superior theory rubbish demonstrates that he hasn't researched the matter very well, if at all. Intelligent Design is scientific, Chuck. Deal with it.

http://www.townhall.com/blogs/soapbox/TerryM/story/2005/11/18/176185.html

[danyel]

Some more extracts form the judges conclusion


Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.


To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.


The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

[danyel]

from Wikipedia which Hendrix already posted but went unnoticed...


The overwhelming majority[3] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science.[4] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[5]

[3]See Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. A Newsweek article reported The Discovery Institute's petition being signed by about 350 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
[4] Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't. H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact
[5]"Creationism, Intelligent Design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science" In Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition National Academy of Sciences, 1999
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/25.html

[ChumpDumper]

William A. DembskiWell, he has doctorates in math and theology -- so I guess they could teach ID in those classes.

Might help his cred if he took some biology classes though.

[Yonivore]

"Design elements" and "evolution" are not naturally in conflict with one another - so why would anyone actively seek to find a conflict unless they had already developed the preconcieved notion that we can only have one or another?
I agree but, your statement on the 99% seemed to infer that only 1% thought the ID theory had any serious merit.

[jochhejaam]

Well, he has doctorates in math and theology -- so I guess they could teach ID in those classes.

Might help his cred if he took some biology classes though.
Good take on the article CD <sarcasm> and let's not oversimplify or understate his credentials.


William Dembski
A mathematician and a philosopher, William A. Dembski is associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University and a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in Seattle.

Dr. Dembski previously taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of seven books. In The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in a post-Darwinian context and analyzes the connections linking chance, probability, and intelligent causation.

http://www.meta-library.net/bio/billd-body.html

[ChumpDumper]

Might help his cred if he took some biology classes though.Let's not forget you did nothig to refute this.

[scott]

I agree but, your statement on the 99% seemed to infer that only 1% thought the ID theory had any serious merit.

You could make that inference from my statement... if you had already made up your mind that the "Evolutionary establishment" were by definition anti-theistic or anti-design. That's an assumption of mainstream IDers that only hurts their cause.

[scott]

ID theory has empirical evidence to support it. The theory of evolution does not. For this reason, ID theory has greater explanatory power than evolutionary theory, which makes ID the superior theory. That Mr. Krauthammer calls such a superior theory rubbish demonstrates that he hasn't researched the matter very well, if at all. Intelligent Design is scientific, Chuck. Deal with it.

This comes as news to scientists, and it is precisely this type of... well rubbish for lack of a better word... that will continue to keep most IDers as being indentified as "fringe" theorists.

[danyel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

ID as science

The scientific method is based on an approach known as methodological naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. Intelligent design proponents have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution, and want a redefinition of science to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[44] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[45] violates the principle of parsimony,[46] is not falsifiable,[47] is not empirically testable,[48] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[49]

In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[50] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."[51]

Intelligent design critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

* The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
* The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
* There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
* The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

[44] Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories [82]
[45] Intelligent design is generally only internally consistent and logical within the framework in which it operates. Criticisms are that this framework has at its foundation an unsupported, unjustified assumption: That complexity and improbability must entail design, but the identity and characteristics of the designer is not identified or quantified, nor need they be. The framework of Intelligent Design, because it rests on a unquantifiable and unverifiable assertion, has no defined boundaries except that complexity and improbability require design, and the designer need not be constrained by the laws of physics.
[46] Intelligent design fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.
[47] The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation, hence making Intelligent Design and the argument from design analytic a posteriori arguments.
[48] That Intelligent Design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that Intelligent Design violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.
[49] Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that need not be accounted for, the designer, no further explanation is necessary to sustain it, and objections raised to those who accept it make little headway. Thus Intelligent Design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data
[50] The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureats Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." [83]
[51] Intelligent Design is not Science - Scientists and teachers speak out. Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. 20 October, 2005. [84]

[Yonivore]

You could make that inference from my statement... if you had already made up your mind that the "Evolutionary establishment" were by definition anti-theistic or anti-design. That's an assumption of mainstream IDers that only hurts their cause.

My point being related to your other statement:


I'd agree that most agnostics/atheists do have an agenda when resisting the ID movement - founded or unfounded.

And, it is these agendized agnostics and atheists that are preventing design theory from being seriously considered in academia.

I would venture a guess that a good portion of those 99% who hold evolution as established science also see design as a theory that should be investigated.

[Phenomanul]

I'd agree that most agnostics/atheists do have an agenda when resisting the ID movement - founded or unfounded.

However, the "evolutionary establishment" probably includes about 99% of professional scientists. To assume that the majority of these people are atheist or agnostic is more naive (or maybe just stupid) than anything else suggested in this thread.

Like I've said previously, ID in it's current form is like trying to argue that the world is a triangle because there is proof that it isn't flat. The majority ID "scientists" seem to be so behind the curve on current science that it isn't even funny. They are arguing over things that have been settled for decades, and they aren't bringing anything new to the debate. The continued use of words like "Darwinism" shows that certain posters in this thread are about on the same level of advancement on scientific topics as the scientists who are scoffed at by their peers.


Ummmm scott are all rectangles squares...??? how about are all squares rectangles????

I believe you jumped into this argument at a point where you completely ignored the point I was trying to make.... wouldn't hurt if you went back and read the other pages to this thread...

Anyways... I'm not suggesting that all evolutionary proponents are atheist... I'm trying to point out the fact that some of the more important proponents are.... but anyways... you felt inclined to suggest I was making blanket statements.

[RandomGuy]

My point being related to your other statement:

And, it is these agendized agnostics and atheists that are preventing design theory from being seriously considered in academia.

I would venture a guess that a good portion of those 99% who hold evolution as established science also see design as a theory that should be investigated.


And you base this on WHAT factual knowledge? hmmm?

Design theory doesn't stand up to the scientific method and deep down you know it, whether you admit it in public or not.

[RandomGuy]

So, if we gain the intellectual capacity and technology to actually assemble the component parts of a living cell then actually do so and let evolution take over, we're God?

Because if nature can randomly assemble chemicals and come up with life it would seem humans would eventually gain the ability to do it themselves...it's just a matter of coming up with the technology to do the assembly.

If we can't, why not?


To answer your first question:

No.

For your second point:

We're getting there. Having the capability to do such doesn't quite make us on par with God. Not exactly sure what your point is though.

[RandomGuy]

I think we've agreed that these school board members were the least qualified individuals to stand up in court in favor of ID....

It's a less glorified 'repeat' of the 1925 Scopes Trial...

Anyways it would be even more naive to think that agnostics/atheists don't have an agenda of their own when it comes to resisting the ID movement.... or to believe that they don't form a major backbone of the 'evolutionary' establishment.

When was forensics psuedo-science???

Of course they have an agenda in "resisting" the ID movement.

It is called good science. Not quite a sinister motivation is it?

Also, you are painting with too broad a brush.

All people who think ID isn't science aren't "out to get" Christianity as a whole.

Evolution and the Bible aren't mutually exclusive, and that is something that NO scientist who does believe in ID will admit.

[RandomGuy]

I'd agree that most agnostics/atheists do have an agenda when resisting the ID movement - founded or unfounded.

However, the "evolutionary establishment" probably includes about 99% of professional scientists. To assume that the majority of these people are atheist or agnostic is more naive (or maybe just stupid) than anything else suggested in this thread.

Like I've said previously, ID in it's current form is like trying to argue that the world is a triangle because there is proof that it isn't flat. The majority ID "scientists" seem to be so behind the curve on current science that it isn't even funny. They are arguing over things that have been settled for decades, and they aren't bringing anything new to the debate. The continued use of words like "Darwinism" shows that certain posters in this thread are about on the same level of advancement on scientific topics as the scientists who are scoffed at by their peers.

Exactly.

[RandomGuy]

And you saying it isn't scientific settles the debate, thanks. :lol


I think I have a little more science on my side to be able to say so.

I have read some ID stuff and can say it sounds more like pseudo-science than it does real science.

They use a lot of scientific sounding language, and try to mimic the procedures of real science, but when it comes right down to it, it boils down to "it has to be this way because my interpretation of the bible says it is". Whether you have the intellectual honesty to admit that is another thing.


Since you were kind enough to give me a quote, perhaps you explain how the author reaches the following two conclusions:




1) But the great shortfall of evolutionary theory is that there is NO data (that's right, absolutely NONE) demonstrating an instance where natural selection or mutation result in new speciation.

2) ID theory has empirical evidence to support it. The theory of evolution does not.

That sounds like a blanket dismissal and a closed mind if I ever heard it, but perhaps you could enlighten me as to what factual basis he has for saying it.

[RandomGuy]

There seems to be a notion in this thread that one need not be religious to support the teaching of ID, but that one must be hostile to religion in wishing that it not be taught.

I agree. (shrugs) It is the nature of any ideologue to do so.

[Phenomanul]

I agree. (shrugs) It is the nature of any ideologue to do so.


Shrugs (sigh) good example ^^ of why we tend to believe this way.... of people in the other camp.

You really can't have it both ways.... I want someone to tell me when 'science' recreated millions of years in a laboratory experiment to support 'evolutionary' principles following the 'sacred' scientific method... if they can run such experiments without recurring to inferences or logical deductions then come back to me... claiming that ID thinking is erroneous pseudo-science is a scheme long used to suppress any validity to what ID is trying to answer...

The article above actually explains the two conflicting parameters that don't coincide with any evolutionary mechanism... super-uber-complexity and mathematical improbability....

[scott]

Ummmm scott are all rectangles squares...??? how about are all squares rectangles????

I believe you jumped into this argument at a point where you completely ignored the point I was trying to make.... wouldn't hurt if you went back and read the other pages to this thread...

Anyways... I'm not suggesting that all evolutionary proponents are atheist... I'm trying to point out the fact that some of the more important proponents are.... but anyways... you felt inclined to suggest I was making blanket statements.

I call bullshit on that statement. Blaming atheism/agnosticism/anti-Christians/etc. is a nice saftey blanket to hide behind, but it doesn't hold up except in a congregation in IDers. To date, ID has been rejected in scientific communities not because "important evolutionary proponents" are atheist... its because ID's "science" isn't science.

If dragging up quotes from people who are atheist and reject ID is supposed to prove your point (and they have been deemed the "important evolutionary proponents" because... ?), then job well done - you win the prize for top cliche message board debate skills.

Even if these "important evolutionary proponents" who are atheists do exist, and they are indeed out to derail the ID movement... who cares? Do all pursuits of knowledge cease to exist because Richard Dawkins (who is considered "the leading figure on the Darwin side" because... Yonivore said so? And what is the "Darwin side"? As I've pointed out... Darwinism is not a prevailing scientific theory - evolution is) or some UT professor says "God is dead"? If there is anything to be found, those with the drive and desire will find it. As of now, however, there has been no ID scientific revalation - certainly not one that would allow ID to be considered science.

It isn't the atheists keeping ID out of the science club... its the science part - any thought to the contrary deserves about as much attention as any "the NBA hates the Spurs and that is why we lost" theories.

[scott]

The article above actually explains the two conflicting parameters that don't coincide with any evolutionary mechanism... super-uber-complexity and mathematical improbability....

Neither of those things are in conflict with evolution either. Given the immense size of the universe (assuming that there isn't some other theory of the size of our universe that is also in some debate I don't know about), even the most improbable of odds are really not that improbable. Even within our own galaxy it is estimated that there are anywhere from 1 to 30 billion stars with planets (a range of 1 to 30% of the estimated number of stars in our galaxy). Even if there is only 1 "inhabitable" planet for every third star in the galaxy, you may be talking about having to get to 1 in 10 billion odds before you are talking about anything remotely "improbable" (and even 1 in 10 billion isn't improbable... thats an even money bet). Now consider the millions/billions/kazillions of galaxies in our universe... "mathematical improbability" itself is what becomes mathematically improbable.

The article you referenced doesn't explain anything to support ID or debunk evolution... it's just a rehash of the arguement as old as humanity itself... "we are unable of fathoming something, so there must be some greater intelligence behind it."

[jochhejaam]

This comes as news to scientists, and it is precisely this type of... well rubbish for lack of a better word... that will continue to keep most IDers as being indentified as "fringe" theorists.
Hello scott.
I'm quite sure he didn't just pull this opinion out of his hat, he's quite credentialed and his opinions, even if not agreed with, should certainly provoke more than being cavalierly dismissed as "rubbish".
I thought it was a nice outtake that he derived from his studies and it was posted to possibly provoke substantive arguement (it's worthy of debate) not disdainful potshots.

Being "fringe" is relative to where you stand on the issue.


















<Happy Holidays to ya> :)

[jochhejaam]

Originally posted by RandomGuy: Christian Science Monitor
Tuesday, 12/20/05

WASHINGTON AND BOSTON – "Intelligent design" is just another name for creationism - and therefore teaching it in public schools violates the constitutional principle of church-state separation.

This reply from the Center for Science and Culture (CSC).

Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.



Does Discovery Institute favor including the Bible or creationism in science classes or textbooks?

No. Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.



http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

[jochhejaam]

What is the theory of intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.



Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists (for RG) to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.



Intelligent edit <design> does attempt to "imbue the tenets of Christianity into our children" or is it even remotely close to being "entirely rooted in religion" as FWD suggests.

It isn't "teaching children about God and Religion" or a "matter of religious faith" as Oh Gee suggests.

It isn't a "flanking manuever by fundamentalists" or "wanting your children to be devout Christians" as RandomGuy suggests.

It's not "teaching or learning about Christianity" as Medvedenko suggests.

For those that are honestly interested in learning more about what ID is there is solid information in the link provided.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

[Yonivore]

aren't "string theory" and "super-symmetry theory" just theories...yet, you don't hear any opposition to those being discussed in school.

[hendrix]

Because thats science. There is a scientific method you know... that this BS "theory" doesnt respect, you know?
And that no member of the science community has ever seen any paper submitted to discussion as normal procedures in science suggest. (Reference: wikipedia)

[jochhejaam]

Very simple, indeed.

I looked at a couple of ID websites provided by jocchejam, and when they came to things that didn't fit into their theory neatly, it was always shrugged off as "god did it". THAT really made me assign a LOT less weight or credence to their interpretation of the way we came into existance.

That isn't science.

"God did it" Random Guy, provide proof of them "always" shrugging things off that don't fit into their theories in that manner.

<hint, you won't be able to provide it from the links I provided>

[jochhejaam]

Because thats science. There is a scientific method you know... that this BS "theory" doesnt respect, you know?
And that no member of the science community has ever seen any paper submitted to discussion as normal procedures in science suggest. (Reference: wikipedia)
Wilkipedia is far from anything more than a general reference and it's methods and criteria for submitting and publishing information has recently fallen under public scrutiny and been rebuked for submitting as fact information that the submitter meant as a hoax.

Intelligent design is subject to and has passed peer review.

Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs?

Yes. Although open hostility from those who hold to neo-Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas, research and articles supporting intelligent design are being published in peer-reviewed publications. Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe. Additional peer-reviewed books about design theory are scheduled to be published in 2003 and 2004 by Michigan State University Press and Cambridge University Press. In the area of journals, Michael Behe has defended his concept of "irreducible complexity" in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophy of Science published by the University of Chicago. There is also now a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations. Finally, the works of design theorists are starting to be cited by other scholars in peer-reviewed journals such as the Annual Review of Genetics.

[jochhejaam]

But the anti-religious stand on the soapbox of proven/provable science.

The other camp stands on theology, which has no standard of testing or years of righteous criticism.
So many misconceptions and I'm assuming it's based in part in the incorrect belief that it's a thinly veiled version of Creationism and partly because of not being thoroughly educated in the theory of Intelligent Design.

[jochhejaam]

An article from 11/30/05 published in USA Today


'Intelligent design': What do scientists fear?

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckelis a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.



The issue: Should public schools teach "intelligent design," the theory that the universe and its life forms are so complex that a higher cause must have been involved in making them?

Bob: Cal, I'm going to stray from the consensus liberal line on the issue of intelligent design. The Dover, Pa., school board had a good reason to allow the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific alternative to Darwinism in the school system's science classes. Despite the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that evolution is the sole explanation for all living things, these scientists have yet to prove the theory conclusively. Not only are there still gaping holes in the evolutionary chain from single cells to man, the science crowd hasn't come close to explaining why only man among all living things has a conscience, a moral framework and a free will.

Cal: What I find curious about this debate, not only in Pennsylvania, but in Kansas and throughout the country, is that so many scientists and educators are behaving like fundamentalist secularists. Only they will define science. They alone will decide which scientific theories and information will be taught to students. That sounds like mind control to me, Bob. If their science is so strong on the issue of origins, why not let the arguments supporting intelligent design into the classroom where it can be debunked if it can't be defended? You liberals are always accusing us conservatives of censorship. It sounds like your side has picked up the disease on this one.

Bob: One reason is that your side insists on making this debate about religion. I believe there is a good science debate here. Many people believe that the Christian community is using intelligent design as a backdoor for teaching creationism. If not, this issue would not be in the federal courts in a constitutional argument over separation of church and state. But there are a number of serious scientists who believe in intelligent design as a theory of evolution based on scientific argument.

Cal: Exactly right, Bob. And many of them have advanced degrees from the same universities from which the evolutionary scientists have graduated. And what about some of the greatest names in science — men like Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler and Galileo? Charles Darwin was a devout Christian as a young man, but his religious views — like his scientific ones — "evolved" as he got older. By the time he wrote The Origin of Species, he was as good a practical secularist as any non-believer. Was the later Darwin smarter than the combined wisdom of those scientists who believed the universe did not come into existence by chance but had a creator behind it? Readers can Google "scientists and intelligent design" for the names of many more scientists who believed someone was behind what we see in the sky with our eyes and beyond through a telescopic eye.

Bob: Good, now you're talking science, not theology.

Cal: But I doubt the secular fundamentalists and their judicial friends will ever allow this debate to occur. That's why I support, for this reason and many others, pulling conservative and Christian kids out of public schools and placing them in private or home-school environments where they can get a real and truthful education.

Bob: Cal, if you encourage Christian believers to take their kids out of public schools, then it's likely intelligent design will never get a fair hearing and forever be seen as Biblical creation only. That's not fair to those who want competing theories to Darwin introduced as a scientific debate, not a theological food fight.

Cal: Fair point, Bob, but the primary responsibility of parents is to their children. If they are teaching them one thing at home and in their place of worship, and they are subsidizing with their taxes the teaching of conflicting views — which are taught as truth in the government schools — they are undermining the very things in which they believe. School choice would settle a lot of this, but those politically beholden to the National Education Association aren't about to allow parents the freedom to choose where to educate their kids.

Bob: Some public school systems may well be hostile to Christian dogma, but most are looking at intelligent design as a church-state issue, and until told otherwise by the federal courts will continue to keep the debate out of science classes. You can't blame them. Nearly the entire school board in Dover was defeated over this very issue in the last election. Pulling Christian kids from public schools only helps the "Darwin only" science crowd.

Cal: Scientists have accepted theories in the past that proved to be wrong. Science is supposed to be about openness to competing ideas. But the very people who want to impose evolution as the only scientific explanation for life on the planet violate this basic tenet of science when it comes to intelligent design.

Bob: True, but these scientists will say the overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution, and no other theory comes close. Well, of course it doesn't because no other theory has been studied seriously. This crowd has a vested interest in proving Darwin correct, and anything else is dismissed out of hand. This from the same scientific community that for years believed the universe was shrinking. They have since discovered the Big Bang and now believe the universe is expanding.

Cal: You're making my point, Bob. Science advances by considering all theories and evidence, not by conspiring to teach only one to the exclusion of others. This is Flat Earth Society thinking.

Bob: But if this debate continues to be viewed as an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to get their beliefs into the public schools, then intelligent design will never get a fair hearing, and it deserves one. The scientists who view intelligent design as a science, not a dogma, believe that the smallest building blocks of life are so complex that they couldn't simply evolve from amoebas. That's about as far as I can go in my understanding of all this.

Cal: What has been set up is a false premise: that the Bible and science are in conflict and that nothing in Scripture can be tested scientifically. That is just not true. But when God asks Job — "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" — the question should make scientists humble about their certainties concerning the origins of the earth and of human life.

Bob: There you go again mixing science with the Bible. We both want to see intelligent design introduced into the scientific debate. Can't we leave the Bible out of this while we're trying to convince the public that this is a debate about science? It's a means-ends issue, Cal.

Cal: Some Christians are trying to water down what they really believe for the wrong reasons. It would be better for them to exit the government schools so they can teach their beliefs without compromise. For those who remain — like you — and want intelligent design taught alongside evolution, why not have a series of televised debates so the public could make up its own mind?

Bob: That's a start. The scientific community has gone out of its way to depict intelligent design as a religious view. Most people have no idea that serious scientists believe there is a strong case for intelligent design. These scientists have been denied a forum, and a series of public debates would be educational and give the intelligent design researchers a chance to tell their side.

Cal: Surely C-SPAN would carry the debate if the scientists were prominent enough. Anyone opposing the debate would be rightly labeled a censor and anti-academic freedom. That should make the liberals choke. Sound like a good idea to you, Bob (except the part about choking liberals)?

Bob: I'm all for it. I just wonder if the Darwinists will show up.

Cal: Maybe we can offer them some bananas as an incentive. As they eat them, they can contemplate their heritage. :lol


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-30-common-ground_x.htm

[Phenomanul]

Good dialogue between Bob and Cal....

A debate is certainly what is needed....

[Phenomanul]

Neither of those things are in conflict with evolution either. Given the immense size of the universe (assuming that there isn't some other theory of the size of our universe that is also in some debate I don't know about), even the most improbable of odds are really not that improbable. Even within our own galaxy it is estimated that there are anywhere from 1 to 30 billion stars with planets (a range of 1 to 30% of the estimated number of stars in our galaxy). Even if there is only 1 "inhabitable" planet for every third star in the galaxy, you may be talking about having to get to 1 in 10 billion odds before you are talking about anything remotely "improbable" (and even 1 in 10 billion isn't improbable... thats an even money bet). Now consider the millions/billions/kazillions of galaxies in our universe... "mathematical improbability" itself is what becomes mathematically improbable.

The article you referenced doesn't explain anything to support ID or debunk evolution... it's just a rehash of the arguement as old as humanity itself... "we are unable of fathoming something, so there must be some greater intelligence behind it."


As great as those odds seem..... I'm talking about even greater odds... numbers we seldom ever fathom...

An excerpt from "The Collapse of Evolution" written by Scott M. Huse...



Evolutionists insist that highly complex systems consisting of numerous interrelating components can arise through purely random and aimless processes. A brief consideration of probability statistics will reveal the absurdity and naiveté of such a viewpoint...

To illustrate, consider the likelihood of just spelling the word evolution by randomly selecting nine letters from the alphabet. The probability of success in only 1 chance in 26^9 trials. This is equivalent to 1 chance in 5,429,503,679,000! For such a modest request (accidentally spell a nine-letter word) these are rather bleak odds.

Consider a series of twenty cards that are numbered one through twenty. If these cards are thouroghly shuffled and then laid out successively in a line, the chance of laying them down in numerical order from 1 to 20 is 1 in 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 This huge number in known as 20 factorial, or 20! (the symbol ! represents factorial), and can be calculated "easily" by multiplying together all the numbers from 1 to 20.

Obviously, as the number of components increases, the probability of getting the desired result decreases rapidly

Let us consider the chance of development of a very simple system composed of only 200 integrated pars (simple compared with living systems). The probability of forming such an ordered system in 1 in 200 factorial, or 1 chance in 788,657,867,364,790,503,552,363,213,932,185,062,29 5,135,977,687,173,263,294,742,533,244,359,449,963, 403,342,920,304,284,011,984,623,904,177,212,138,91 9,638,830,257,642,790,242,637,105,061,926,624,952, 829,931,113,462,857,270,763,317,237,396,988,943,92 2,445,621,451,664,240,254,033,291,864,131,227,428, 294,853,277,524,242,407,573,903,240,321,257,405,57 9,568,660,226,031,904,170,324,062,351,700,858,796, 178,922,222,789,623,703,897,374,720,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

This colossal number can be written more simply as approximately 10^375. Thus, there is only 1 chance out of 10^375 of selecting the proper arrangement for a 200-part integrated system on the first trial. But what if we keep on tryin gdifferent combinations over and over again? Won't we eventually achieve the desired result? Well, to begin with, there are only 10^80 electrons in the known universe. Assuming this to be the maximum number of parts available to work with, only 1 x 10^80 / 2 x 10^2 = 5 x 10^77 groups of 200 pars each could be formed at any one given time. But we have to form 10^375 such groups to be certain of getting the correct one. Assuming that none of the first trial groups work, let us continue trying over and over again at a generous rate of 1 billion (10^9) trials per second. Futhermore, to give the evolutionists every possible advantage, let us keep on trying for a period of 30 billion years(10^18 seconds) since this is the presumed age of the universe. But even granting such liberal concessions, we find that the maximum number of trial combinations which could be attempted is still only (5 x 10^77) (10^9) (10^18) = 5 x 10^104.

this is far too short of the needed 10^375 trial combinations required for success.

And so, even after all this, the chance that 1 of these 5 x 10^104 attempts would yield the desired result of a 200-part system is only 1 out of (1 x 10^375) / (5x10^104) = (2 x 10^270). Simply stated, the chance that a system composed of 200 integrated parts could develop by mere chance is for all practical purposes, nonexistent.

For his defense, the evolutionist might move for a mistrial on the basis of being misunderstood. Rather than suggesting that our 200-part integrated system be suddenly organized all at once, he is proposing that it develops gradually through a step-by-step mutation/ natural selection process. Unfortunately for the evolutionist, this argument only serves to weaken his cause. The probability of organizing a 200-part system by this step-by-step process in 1 out of the number represented by the series 2! + 3! + 4! + ... +200! Obviously this number is much larger than the 200 factorial and the chance of our 200-part system developing by this step-bystem mechanism is far less than its chance of developing all at once which was, for all practical purposes, a zero probability.

And yet a 200-part system is ridiculously primitive compared with living systems. Modern research by NASA has demonstrated that the most basic type of protein molecule that could be classified living is composed of at least 400 linked amino acids. Each amino acid, in turn, is made up of a specific arrangement of four of five chemical elements, and each chemical element is itself a unique combination of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Golay has demonstrated that the chance formation of even the simplest replicating protein molecule is 1 in 10^450 Wysong has calculated the probability of forming the proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity to be 1 in 10^167,626, even when granting astronomically generous amounts of time and reagents!! Who can imagine what the chance of formation of a more complex structure or organ such as the cerebral cortex in the human brain would be? It contains over 10,000,000,000 cells each of which is carefully arranged according to a specific design, and each of which is fantastically complex in itself!

Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, at a conference on "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution," concluded that the probability of evolution by mutation and natural selection is inconceivable.

"We believe that it is not conceiveable. In fact if we try to simulate such a situation by making changes randomly at the typographic level... on computer programs we find that we have no chance (i.e. less than 1/(10^1000). Even to see what the modified program would compute; it just jams and crashes...."

Given the exceedingly small probabilities of the preceding discussion (e.g. 1 in 10^375, 1 in 10^450, 1 in 10^1000, and 1 in 10^167,626), it is very significant to note that mathematicians generally consider any even with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10^50 as having a zero probability (i.e. it is impossible).

Thus, we find that it is mathematically impossible for even the most elementary form of life to have arisen by mere chance. Life is no accident. It is not even something that brilliant scientists can synthesize. the bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules completely rules out the chance of life originating apart from super-intelligent design an planning. The most logical and resonable conclusion that can be reached based on mathematical analysis is that complex, ordered systems, which so characterize the world in which we live, never happened by mere chance.

[jochhejaam]

A repudiation of the ACLU's position on ID. Many agnostic scientists support ID


Anti-ID stance is good old intolerance again

By: David K. DeWolf and Randall Wegner
Philadelphia Inquirer
October 18, 2005

In the thinly disguised play based on the Scopes trial, Inherit the Wind, the Clarence Darrow character (Drummond) cross-examines the William Jennings Bryan character (Brady). To prove how intolerant Brady is in defending the law that forbade the teaching of evolution, Drummond asks Brady to suppose that Mr. Cates, the Scopes character, "had enough influence and lung power to railroad through the state legislature a law that only Darwin should be taught in the schools!" Brady responds by saying, "Ridiculous, ridiculous!"

Though fictional, Inherit the Wind is the lens through which much of the modern debate about evolution is seen. And though the ACLU lost the Scopes case, it won the culture war, and today it is seeking to achieve what was thought ridiculous 80 years ago. It seeks in the courts what Tennessee passed in the legislature: the exclusion of a competing theory.

The ACLU has a variety of clever arguments as to why it is a "civil liberty" to exclude any competing theory. It claims that anything other than Darwinism is not science and that the only alternative to Darwin's theory is a "supernatural creator" who can't be investigated scientifically. This is plainly false. The scientists who have questioned Darwinian evolutionary theory point to scientific evidence (the fossil record, the digital information content in DNA, the engineering structure in cells) and use scientific reasoning to explain that design is the most likely cause.

Even when it is pointed out that peer-reviewed scientific articles have presented the case for intelligent design, the ACLU retreats to the position that it is only a "minority" view, and that "mainstream scientific organizations" disagree. This, from the group that supposedly defends minority views.

The ACLU claims that intelligent design is inherently religious. Certainly some who have advocated intelligent design are religious. Others decidedly are not. Many agnostic scientists support intelligent design. The theory is driven by the science, not by a religious dogma, and the theory stops where the science stops. It doesn't purport to suggest what the intelligent cause was. Should anyone be afraid of the implications of science, even if one of the implications may be to consider that we did not evolve from lower life forms?

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a more inclusive view about teaching alternatives. In 1987, the court struck down a Louisiana statute that prohibited teaching evolution unless biblical creation was taught. In doing so, the court affirmed the constitutionality of teaching "a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind."

It is because the law is so clear on this point that the ACLU has desperately fought to control the definition of "science" to exclude design. In doing so, it imperils not just the science curriculum in Dover, but also scientific thought in general. When the Nobel Prize in medicine was recently awarded to the scientists who proved that ulcers were caused by bacteria, it was duly noted that they faced enormous opposition from the scientific and medical establishment, which was convinced otherwise. Today, a number of scientific groups have enshrined neo-Darwinism as a "proven" theory, but it would be a sad day (and, again, tragic irony) if the ACLU succeeds in getting a court to rule that anything other than the current orthodoxy doesn't qualify as science.

More than 400 scientists have signed a statement declaring that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," and that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The ACLU thinks that telling high school students that they should critically examine the theory of evolution should be illegal because it "disparages" the theory.

Questions exist as to why the Dover school board adopted its policy and whether it adopted the best policy it could have. We all suffer if the ACLU succeeds, however, in creating a scientific monopoly by labeling a scientific theory that explains our origins as mere religion because the theory explains various scientific facts in terms of design. When you step back and look at what the ACLU is actually asking for, you have to have the same reaction as the fictional character in Inherit the Wind: "Ridiculous!"


David K. DeWolf ([email protected]) is professor of law at Gonzaga Law School. Randall Wegner ([email protected]) is constitutional attorney with Clymer & Musser P.C. of Lancaster.


http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2948&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

[boutons_]

"the exclusion of a competing theory."

You rabble are so easy to rouse, your knees so easy to jerk, your emotional agendas are transparent, and clouding what little brains you have.

Every damn theory that comes along isn't suitable for teaching in schools.
So what do you teach? You select the theories that have withstood the test of time, have tons of supporting evidence, from the entire world's scientific community, preferably overwhelming evidence, that have explanatory and predictive power.

Does that mean such taught theories are perfect, that they are unassailable, will not be overturned? no, it just means that these are the best theories we have selected to pass on in secular, public education.

ID has NONE of those characteristics, and has as much scientific "support" as Scientology. Why not teach Scientology as science in schools?

What's totally bogus and insincere and profoundly dishonest about ID is that while ID has not won its merits and credibility outisde of the classroom between scientists, the IDers think their little religiously-tainted theory is the equal of all of science and there should be taught in schools.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

My god some you people are fucking stupid.

Improbability does not equal impossibility so using that as an argument to refute evolution is a cliche argument used by people who don't understand jack shit about the evolution other than what they hear on tv.

ID doesn't belong in science class.

They don't show "conflicting" theories of any theory that aren't widely accepted. Hence the term "accepted theory". If another theory of life had some substantial support, you better bet that it would be in science books along with evolution.

How many experiments published have been in support of Intelligent Design again?
(btw, whoever assumed all proponents of evolution are athiest is a fucking retard, not one professor i have talked to is athiest)

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

I guess that those who push for the ID in the classrooms, are also all for teaching historical materialism in Economics, since it's not a proven theory supported by the majority of the scientific community, right?

If they teach Intelligent Design, should others religious theories as Confucianism, Buddhism, Islam, Scientology, etc., be allowed in the classrooms?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think this "theory" should be taught as well:

Aztec Creation Story

The mother of the Aztec creation story was called "Coatlique", the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes. She was created in the image of the unknown, decorated with skulls, snakes, and lacerated hands. There are no cracks in her body and she is a perfect monolith (a totality of intensity and self-containment, yet her features were sqaure and decapitated).

Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars. Then one day Coatlique found a ball of feathers, which she tucked into her bosom. Whe she looked for it later, it was gone, at which time she realized that she was again pregnant. Her children, the moon and stars did not believe her story. Ashamed of their mother, they resolved to kill her. A goddess could only give birth once, to the original litter of divinity and no more. During the time that they were plotting her demise, Coatlicue gave birth to the fiery god of war, Huitzilopochtli. With the help of a fire serpent, he destroyed his brothers and sister, murdering them in a rage. He beheaded Coyolxauhqui and threw her body into a deep gorge in a mountain, where it lies dismembered forever.

The natural cosmos of the Indians was born of catastrophe. The heavens literally crumbled to pieces. The earth mother fell and was fertilized, while her children were torn apart by fratricide and them scattered and disjointed throughout the universe.

http://www.indians.org/welker/legend.htm

[jochhejaam]

If they teach Intelligent Design, should others religious theories as Confucianism, Buddhism, Islam, Scientology, etc., be allowed in the classrooms?


If ID were a religious theory you'd might have a point Magic, but it's not so you don't.

Confucianism, Buddhism, Islam, and Scientology are religions not religious theories.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

If ID were a religious theory you'd might have a point Magic, but it's not so you don't.

Confucianism, Buddhism, Islam, and Scientology are religions not religious theories.

You can't call ID science. It is misleading, at most it's metaphysics, and it could be even said that it belongs to the field of theology.

[jochhejaam]

...you people are fucking stupid.

...is a fucking retard,...
Typical CBF post, both infantile and incoherent.

[danyel]

How is it that ID is any more scientific than Creationism? neither are scientific enough, they just dont meet any criteria.

They don't belong in a science classroom, they belong in a philosophy/religion classroom.

[danyel]

these scientists will say the overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution, and no other theory comes close. Well, of course it doesn't because no other theory has been studied seriously. This crowd has a vested interest in proving Darwin correct, and anything else is dismissed out of hand.

Well, maybe its just because no other theory has been serious enough, or shown an amount of supportive evidence to require any further study...


Most people have no idea that serious scientists believe there is a strong case for intelligent design.

Who? How many? What evidence do they show?

[boutons_]

"are religions not religious theories."

But all great religions have had their own Creation Myths, and ID is a myth, a belief, "this shit's so complicated SomeBody had to dream it up, but there's no shread of evidence of SomeBody's agency" other than the fact that we IDers BELIEVE there MUST BE a Designer.

One of the primordial "natural laboratories" proposed for the creation of first biological molecules is clay, because it has some weird, surprising elecrtro-chemical behaviour under pressure and heat. The Bible says God fashioned Adam from, sonofabitch, clay.

Does that prove the Bible is scientific? no
Does that prove that life arose from clay? no

ID's basic concept is that "this shit's so complicated, we can't understand it, we can't imagine how it go so complicated, esp on its own over billions of years. Therefore, we terminate thought, we quit, and say a Designer created it".

Somehow, my understanding of Designer is that He wants us to keep striving towards Him, which precludes terminating thought and quitting the search for knowledge.

[Yonivore]

Thread off the rails...

First, no one has claimed in this thread that Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate, valid, scientific model.

Second, I don't believe Darwinian evolutionary theory contradicts -- hell, it doesn't even address -- any theories of the origins of biological life.

Third, intelligent design isn't creationism but creationism depends on intelligent design just like Darwinian evolution depends on some pretty creative mathematics at times.

Fourth, there are unmistakeable signs of design in the living cell that cannot be explained by the theory of evolution or any existing theory for that matter. What's the big fucking deal with exploring whether or not these design features are illusory or not?

Fifth, until the 1950's every brain on the planet thought the universe was contracting. Well, it ain't.

[danyel]

there are unmistakeable signs of design in the living cell that cannot be explained by the theory of evolution or any existing theory for that matter

Yet


What's the big fucking deal with exploring whether or not these design features are illusory or not?

No big deal at all, it just isn't science and doesn't belong in a science classroom.

[hendrix]

Good dialogue between Bob and Cal....
A debate is certainly what is needed....

There is no debate. There won't be any debates. This is not science and all the reference you people have been posting are (what a surprise) from advocates. Thats about it.
You can say all you want about it, but since ID is so closely related to creationism, only "believers" would support such a lame attemp to block knowledge from people. This is obscurantism. It's what all religions have been doing since the rising of churches.
Old conservative (aka right wing) methodology to permanently further their agendas in trying to discredit every single theory, author or basic notion they dont like, so they can keep the stupid sheeps still.

[Yonivore]

No big deal at all, it just isn't science and doesn't belong in a science classroom.
It's as much science as string theory.

[boutons_]

So let's teach string theory in highschool so the kids can judge for themselves about string theory. We don't want to muffle or persecute the string theorists.

[ChumpDumper]

Is string theory being taught in middle school?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=hendrix]There is no debate. There won't be any debates. This is not science and all the reference you people have been posting are (what a surprise) from advocates. Thats about it.
References for anything implies that they're an advocate. Thanks for stating the obvious.



You can say all you want about it, but since ID is so closely related to creationism, only "believers" would support such a lame attemp to block knowledge from people.
And just what "knowledge" is ID attempting to block?






This is obscurantism. It's what all religions have been doing since the rising of churches.
Old conservative (aka right wing) methodology to permanently further their agendas in trying to discredit every single theory, author or basic notion they dont like, so they can keep the stupid sheeps still.
And just what is ID trying to obscure or discredit?
If you think it's evolution you're dead wrong.

Is Discovery Institute trying to eliminate, reduce or censor the coverage of evolution in textbooks?

No. Far from reducing the coverage of evolution, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. The true censors are those who want to stop any discussion of the scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

[danyel]

It's as much science as string theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory


String theory remains to be verified. No version of string theory has yet made a prediction which differs from those made by other theories—at least, not in a way that could be checked by a currently feasible experiment. In this sense, string theory is still in a "larval stage": it possesses many features of mathematical interest, and it may yet become supremely important in our understanding of the Universe, but it requires further developments before it is accepted or falsified.

I agree, String Theory is just a theory yet it does comply with several more criterias than ID as to be called more scientific than ID. For example it is Consistent (internally and externally), Parsimonious, Progressive as posted in a couple links before.

[danyel]

The true censors are those who want to stop any discussion of the scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

Censors? so they have scientific gathered proof that evolutionary theory is wrong and Science Mag (for example) is refusing to publish it? give me a break...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You've got to have scientifically gathered proof, gathered through a scientific method, in order to refute a scientific theory, or else well, it isn't science...

[danyel]

There is no debate. There won't be any debates. This is not science and all the reference you people have been posting are (what a surprise) from advocates. Thats about it.
You can say all you want about it, but since ID is so closely related to creationism, only "believers" would support such a lame attemp to block knowledge from people. This is obscurantism. It's what all religions have been doing since the rising of churches.
Old conservative (aka right wing) methodology to permanently further their agendas in trying to discredit every single theory, author or basic notion they dont like, so they can keep the stupid sheeps still.

Although I do share some of the same opinions, I believe you go nowhere insulting people and their beliefs. If you think they are wrong, explain them why, eventually if you are right most people will agree with you or at least accept the possibility that they might be wrong, if they don't well maybe they were right to begin with...

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

For a start, this isn't a scientific debate. Anyone who believes that ID should be debated as a scientific theory, desires to go back into pre-science times, where knowledge and religion were almost the same thing. At most, this is a philosophical (metaphysical specifically) debate. Whoever thinks that this isn't true, and Intelligent Design is science, should go back and read about 200 years of history and evolution in science. If they still believe that ID is science, it's not because they have a strong case for it, but actually because they want to go with their agendas.

Some people said that those who back the Evolution Theory have agendas. Of course they do, the difference is that the agenda is to debate evolution within a scientific discussion (and it's not a big Communist International Conspiracy, you have right wing & religious scientists who accept this as a fact). Some people who support Intelligent Design don't want to take the debate into the metaphysical realm, that's the big difference. Just check this thread and those who oppose to ID in highschools are a very different bunch of people, with very different political views, but they all have two basic ideas that should be respected as a symbol of reasoning and Modern Era:

- Evolution is a scientific theory, ID isn't. Any debate of metaphysical nature is for philosophy or pseudo-science. Evolution and its supporting and opposing scientific theories are a debate for science. Intelligent Design isn't.

- Public state education must not be mixed with religion (and ID is a theory mainly motivated by religion). Doing it would be going backwards in the history of humanity, pre-French Revolution, Scientific Era, where things that couldn't be explained were considered "supernatural acts", "Divine intervention", "an act of God", etc.

I'm quite frankly suprised that so many people in the U.S. are even debating this. A country that has based a large part of its success and power on scientific progress, now has a very real and dangerous posibility of moving back into the Dark Ages if the ultra-religious agendas are allowed in the schools. This is a further proof that Islamic and Christian extremists are both real threats in today's world. While one group has its methods based into violence and terrorism, the other is moved by similar reasons, but acts differently. The U.S. has never been an historical supporter of laicité (specially in political speeches), but the ultra-religious point that is reaching right now is really scary.

[hendrix]

Although I do share some of the same opinions, I believe you go nowhere insulting people and their beliefs. If you think they are wrong, explain them why, eventually if you are right most people will agree with you or at least accept the possibility that they might be wrong, if they don't well maybe they were right to begin with...

In the "so they can keep the stupid sheeps still." part of my previous post I was referring to all of us. I guess you refer to that part (I dont insult to anyone, except to the ID theory itself :lol )

[Guru of Nothing]

I'm quite frankly suprised that so many people in the U.S. are even debating this.

It goes something like this, "I support intelligent design because I am opposed to homosexuality."

[Phenomanul]

For a start, this isn't a scientific debate. Anyone who believes that ID should be debated as a scientific theory, desires to go back into pre-science times, where knowledge and religion were almost the same thing. At most, this is a philosophical (metaphysical specifically) debate. Whoever thinks that this isn't true, and Intelligent Design is science, should go back and read about 200 years of history and evolution in science. If they still believe that ID is science, it's not because they have a strong case for it, but actually because they want to go with their agendas.

Some people said that those who back the Evolution Theory have agendas. Of course they do, the difference is that the agenda is to debate evolution within a scientific discussion (and it's not a big Communist International Conspiracy, you have right wing & religious scientists who accept this as a fact). Some people who support Intelligent Design don't want to take the debate into the metaphysical realm, that's the big difference. Just check this thread and those who oppose to ID in highschools are a very different bunch of people, with very different political views, but they all have two basic ideas that should be respected as a symbol of reasoning and Modern Era:

- Evolution is a scientific theory, ID isn't. Any debate of metaphysical nature is for philosophy or pseudo-science. Evolution and its supporting and opposing scientific theories are a debate for science. Intelligent Design isn't.

- Public state education must not be mixed with religion (and ID is a theory mainly motivated by religion). Doing it would be going backwards in the history of humanity, pre-French Revolution, Scientific Era, where things that couldn't be explained were considered "supernatural acts", "Divine intervention", "an act of God", etc.

I'm quite frankly suprised that so many people in the U.S. are even debating this. A country that has based a large part of its success and power on scientific progress, now has a very real and dangerous posibility of moving back into the Dark Ages if the ultra-religious agendas are allowed in the schools. This is a further proof that Islamic and Christian extremists are both real threats in today's world. While one group has its methods based into violence and terrorism, the other is moved by similar reasons, but acts differently. The U.S. has never been an historical supporter of laicité (specially in political speeches), but the ultra-religious point that is reaching right now is really scary.

What??? I think you better check your own extremism.... :rolleyes

[Phenomanul]

It goes something like this, "I support intelligent design because I am opposed to homosexuality."


Weak take. Your opinion.... Oh... and quit confusing the issue...

[Phenomanul]

My god some you people are fucking stupid.

Improbability does not equal impossibility so using that as an argument to refute evolution is a cliche argument used by people who don't understand jack shit about the evolution other than what they hear on tv.



Dude you are talking to a math major.... before you go on another insulting tirade calling people stupid at least make sure they won't make you look like a fool...

Anyway, the orders of magnitude complex design requires is beyond imagination.... those numbers don't lie and are reproducible in any mathematical analysis.

If you had actually taken time to read the excerpt you might have been amazed that such complexity even for the simplest of proteins can not be obtained even while accounting for every second in a "30-billion year old" universe.

Don't like the odds... tough.



ID doesn't belong in science class.

They don't show "conflicting" theories of any theory that aren't widely accepted. Hence the term "accepted theory". If another theory of life had some substantial support, you better bet that it would be in science books along with evolution.

Hello... the "evolutionary establishment" has been dead set in disallowing ANY idea that differs from evolution from getting exposure...





How many experiments published have been in support of Intelligent Design again?

Evolution whether you recognize it or not requires as much faith as ID does. What most fail to realize is that the "unguided" natural process which governs "evolution" cannot be proven with the scientific parameters posted earlier....

Give me one experiment that proves evolution....

From those, give me any experiment that does not rely on inferences or rate observations to try and cover what occurred over "millions and millions of years."

Fact of the matter is you nor anyone else can produce such an experiment because as far as I know no one has created a time machine.




(btw, whoever assumed all proponents of evolution are athiest is a fucking retard, not one professor i have talked to is athiest)

C'mon CBF please..... Is this supposed to be an argument with any statistical relevance??? I seriously doubt you went around asking all your professors whether they were atheists or not... Anyway, if the professors at my university (@ MIT) were cleary divided on the issue how is it that your establishment wants to say there is no debate...

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown

The will of the majority should NEVER subjugate the rights of the minority -- that's precisely what the Constitution was intended to prevent.

...the true will of the people is important only in certain subjects. In either event, you can't possibly be correct in presuming that the Constitution permits the majority to trample upon the guaranteed and fundamental rights of the political, social, religious, or racial minority. I'm appalled that you would even suggest that to be true.

the will of the majority cannot trample upon the fundamental rights of the minority. So are you suggesting that we include moral education in every classroom setting? I still don't get what it is that you want me to say, joch.

I wasn't inferring that the minority's rights be subjugated to or trampled on by the majority. In some cases the complete opposite is true, example; we have a small minority of people that don't want the Commandments displayed on public grounds so what's the solution, trample on the will of the majority because of the gross misinterpretation of Congress passing no law respecting the of establish of Religion. Thus the rights and will of the majority have been subjugated and trampled on by the minority (read ACLU).

The First Amendment regarding religion did not intend for religious symbolism or morality to be removed from Government, it was their intention that Government not take the step of meddling in the affairs of the general population by creating a State Religion.

Moralilty or lack of morality is a part of all religions as far as I know but it is not non-existent without religion.
You're either knowingly or unknowingly supporting the humanism/humanist agenda of values clarification, that morality is relative, there is no clear right or wrong and there are no moral absolutes, that's what's reinforced in our children (good old fasioned brainwashing) in Schools where broaching the subject of morality is anathema.

So what's the problem with instilling and reinforcing moral values into our children? What's the objection to that on face value? What fundamental rights of the minority (not minorities, there is a big difference here) in the Constitution are violated by this?

And teaching morality without tieing it in to one particular religion is not brainwashing.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Don't like the odds... tough.

still does not mean its impossible



Evolution whether you recognize it or not requires as much faith as ID does.
:rolleyes