Some pretty important testimony in the Dover trial:
“Intelligent design” is vastly similar to creationism and should be taught as religion, not science, a Catholic theologian testified Friday, on the fifth day of a trial over whether the concept belongs in a public school science curriculum as an alternative to evolution.
Georgetown University theology professor John F. Haught said that while intelligent-design proponents do not explicitly identify God as the creator of life, the concept is “essentially a religious proposition.”
“I understand it to be a reformulation of an old theological argument for the existence of God,” he said…
“When we have a failure to distinguish science from religion, then confusion will follow,” Haught said. “Science and religion cannot logically stand in a competitive relationship with each other.”
During cross-examination, Richard Thompson, a lawyer representing the school district, asked Haught to draw distinctions between intelligent design and creationism.
Haught conceded that not all intelligent-design supporters literally interpret the Bible, but said the two concepts only differ “in the same sense that an orange is different than a navel orange.”
And let’s not forget how this all started:
Dover Area School District board members openly advocated the teaching of creationism in science class before a policy on intelligent design was adopted, two former board members testified in federal court yesterday.
The effort began in January 2002, when board member Alan Bonsell cited a need “to bring prayer and faith back into the school,” former board member Carol “Casey” Brown said in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg.
The board completed the task in October 2004, when it voted to amend the biology curriculum to include a statement on intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution, said lawyers representing 11 parents opposed to the policy change.
Brown and her husband, Jeffrey A. Brown, also a former board member, testified that they resigned in protest over the policy, which requires teachers or administrators to read a four-paragraph statement on evolution and intelligent design at the start of ninth-grade biology segments.
The parents sued, claiming that the policy violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibiting government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or to single out preference of a religion. District lawyers call the intelligent design statement a “modest policy change” that does not result in less instruction on evolution.
The statement calls evolution “just a theory” with inexplicable “gaps” and refers to intelligent design as “an explanation of life that differs from Darwin’s view.”
Bonsell and former board member William Buckingham made references to faith, God, Christianity, creationism, prayer and the Bible prior to adoption of the policy, Carol Brown said. She said that when the subject of evolution arose, Bonsell described it as “fiction” and Buckingham called it “atheist propaganda.”
In other creationism news, another survey:
Americans are divided on the issue of what public-school students should be learning about the origins of life, according to results from a survey conducted in August by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life:
Most, 78 percent, say God created life on Earth.
While 48 percent say that humans and other living things have evolved over time, nearly as many (42 percent) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
Of those who say that living things have evolved over time, roughly half (26 percent of the overall public) accept the Darwinian theory of natural selection; nearly 40 percent of people who believe in evolution (or, 18 percent of the public) say it was guided by a supreme being.
Most Americans, 54 percent, think that there is general agreement among scientists that evolution has taken place; 33 percent say that no such scientific consensus exists.
Most, 64 percent, support teaching creationism, along with evolution, in schools; 38 percent say creationism should be taught instead of evolution.
Depressing that 38% of the public thinks creationism should be taught INSTEAD of evolution.
Tim F
oy.
oy.
Bob
And who are the political allies who support the creationists? And to what purpose?
People who wreck the teaching of science in America will destroy the country’s ability to compete in the world. Why would someone want to do that?
Well, there is a segment of the country who actually believes the Bible literally except for all the contradiction which they’re mentally excised. Then there are people who cynically use the know-nothings’ fear of modernity in order to fleece them.
My guess is that there are a lot of both camps on the Good Ship Bush. It really doesn’t matter whether it’s a know-nothing or a cynic who’s running the ship of state aground. Both camps seem determined, whether their rewards are here or in the Great Beyond.
Jill
Just as depressing is that 51% of Americans who voted last November thought that GWB should be President!
John S.
You can usually find 40% (+/- 3%) of the people will believe just about anything:
Source
Jill
Just because a certain % of the public believes something doesn’t make it right, i.e. a high % of people believed Saddam was connected to 9/11, which was totally and utterly false.
carl sagan
If we can’t think for ourselves, if we’re unwilling to question authority, then we’re just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.
KC
True, Jill. My question is though, what will the result really be if creationism is allowed to be taught as science in schools? After all, for many years, we had prayer in schools, and a large portion of the public to this day does not believe in evolution, would having creationism in the classroom really be that detrimental?
scs
The only thing I know about ID is from a NYT article I read about a month or so ago. That article didn’t make it seem THAT bad. It said ID was basically a collection of critiques of evolution, and due to those critiques, concludes there was a designer. Such critiques, as I remember one example, are talking about that you need all parts of a cell to work together for a cell to live, but evolution claims that only parts of a cell evolved at a time, begging the mystery as to why cells didn’t die if that happened. That sounds like an interesting question to me. Now I believe in evolution, but -, if someone wants to bring up just the CRITIQUE part of ID about evolution, I don’t think that would be so bad. The conclusion that follows after about the designer part -well, that should be left out. I guess it depends on HOW ID is taught and teachers should be only limited to the scientific critiques of evolution.
Com Con
I know there are problems with ID, scientifically, that much is clear. But it does send a nice message to children about what the world is like. Evolution is such a cold philosophy. I would almost rather my children not believe in it, even if it is true. I feel that at some level values are more important than scientific rigor. But, still, I see where you all are coming from here.
Halffasthero
The issue is asked and answered just from your statement. Further research into the study of cells can provide an answer someday. ID states that the truth ends “here” – that an intelligent person designed this to work. The fundamental flaw with ID is that it cannot be proven false. There is no way to test it. At what point do we say the truth ends with an intelligent designer? And what would people who believe in ID accept as proof anyway, if proof starts going up against their beliefs? The truth is that a lot of harm comes from inserting religion into the scientific community. Religion, by its very nature, is supposed to be based on faith. The people who are trying to ram it into the schools as a fact are trying to turn faith into fact.
I remember reading a story about Galileo and his “theory” that the world revolves around the sun as do other planets. He had a microscope pointed at Jupiter or Saturn or one of the planets that shows a moon revolving around it. Priests were there to witness this. Even after seeing it, they refused to acknowledge it calling a trick or magic or something of that nature. The whole ID campaign is an attempt to control the “truth” of what is and is not according to their convictions. They are ultimately no different from those priests.
Jack Lindahl
“Depressing that 38% of the public thinks creationism should be taught INSTEAD of evolution.”
Hey! This is America. We create reality.
RSA
And death is such a difficult subject, too. I teach my kids that everyone lives forever, and funerals just involve people taking a long nap.
Bob
Com con,
The nice message sent to children about the world, courtesy of Intelligent Design? He’s got the whole world in his hands? But if He allows earthquakes, hurricanes and tidal waves, He’s still got the whole world in his hands, except we can’t figure out where we screwed up if that’s why he’s wreaking havoc.
Believing in The Big Guy Up There being in ultimate control helps us to justify screwing over and being screwed over. Over and over. Generally, the actual source of our problems is closer than heaven.
jobiuspublius
As far as I know ID is not only non-testable, it has not produced any testable predictions. That is an emportant distinction. Predictive ability is the holy grail of science. It’s what makes it usefull and worth pursueing.
ID is just profiteering and false gadflying by some, a cloaked power grabb by others, and overall an attack on science and education. It’s a hodge podge and so are it’s proponents.
jg
Its not cold. Thats just how its been explained to you. Nothing about evolution says there is no God or that God isn’t the reason we are all here. It just says that organism change, they adapt to their environment. Cumulative changes over a long period of time result in new species in some cases. None of this is earth shattering. Its us using the brain God gave us to observe the world he built doing its thing.
The problem comes from the fact that over the years our observations and scientific discoveries have been finding holes in the biblical stories of our origins. A flat 6000 year old earth that had a sun revolving around it was a part of those stories and those things aren’t true. And it was a painful process to admit they weren’t true. This latest one is going to be just as painful.
scs
I think you are both misunderstanding what ID is, at least from what I read about it. ID does not go about providing any predictions. All it is, is a CRITIQUE of evolution, in a scientific way. It talked about the evolution of the eye, cells, etc, and why those parts would be difficult to evolve in parts because of the systematic design of those parts, which is true. There is no definitive conclusion YET in evolution as to how that happened. I’m not saying there won’t be soon. So in terms of that, I don’t see what the big deal is about it. As for insisting about the actual designer part, I believe the ID theory leaves that vague. So, if schools teach ACTUAL ID theory, and don’t cross over into creationism, I think it would in some ways add to the scientific debate.
Ancient Purple
We already have a critique methodology for science. It is called peer review.
scs
Yes and so far there are some under-explained gaps in evolution, as determined by scientific peers. Why not teach those too?
jobiuspublius
You don’t need ID to critique evolution. The fact that ID claims the existance of some undefined intelligent designer, because evolution has yet to answer questions, makes ID a scam, not science.
If evolution education is found wanting it would be enough to teach it’s limitations and various unresolved questions, not assume a designer.
Part of the problem with ID is that it is fractured. There is no “theory” other than: Life is designed. Which, is not proven. Then there is all this other baggage that various people bring to it. ID is the door to chaos in science.
scs
.
Yes I agree that would be ideal, and should be enough to satisfy people who are creationists.
Com Con
Scs, I feel that there is a certain arrogance here on the left. They can’t admit there are problems with the philosophy of evolution, not just moral ones but scientific ones. I’m not saying it’s incorrect, but last I checked it was still a theory. Why all the certainty? Why the need to hide the gaps? If they love open debate so much, then why not have an open debate about evolution instead of just calling the people who oppose it names.
jobiuspublius
Lol, tell them Sunday school a super duper double plus good ap science course, Theological Science or something like that.
scs
Huh? Please explain.
jobiuspublius
I don’t think the scientific community has done the best job they could have in countering ID. It is hard to have an open debate with people who have an ulterior motive in disparaging evolution and a double standard.
scs
Thats why I think people shouldn’t be afraid to address the concerns of creationists, because if you don’t, they will just block out science. It is only by debating openly with them that you will be able to show them the scientific progress evolution has made.
jobiuspublius
Set aside some time for ID/creationism, make it optional in some respect, tell the IDers/Creationists something that makes them feel special about why other people don’t want to go to their classes. It was a poor half-joke at best I guess.
jobiuspublius
scs, I may have misunderstood you. I thought you didn’t mind if ID got into the school curriculum. I do.
scs
I think its okay to “examine” or debate ID in the school, since it’s a current hot topic and some people think they may subscribe to it. Heck, I would have debated whether the earth was flat in the times of Galileo, just as an intellectual exercise. Not to teach it as truth, just as an examination. What’s the big deal? Like I said, science and truth will win out in the end.
jill
So if we start teaching ID in public schools will kids who go on to college be able to seriously study ID in college, in a science department? And I’m not talking about Christian colleges but mainstream academic institutions. Is there a degree offered in ID? Anywhere? Besides the Discovery Institute.
RSA
There are gaps in every field of science; if there weren’t, there wouldn’t be scientists working in that field. Two useful question to ask are whether high school students are properly equipped to evaluate the gaps and whether Intelligent Design gives a fair analysis of the gaps in evolutionary theory. In both cases, the answer is No.
jobiuspublius
The big deal, scs, is that the IDers want to hijack science. They are not satisfied with being a topic or example in current events, critical thinking, or religion where they might have a better fit.
Mac
com con
Your comments on Evolution being “just” a Theory tels me you are from the Scooby-doo School of theories.
When Shaggy has a Theory, its a WAG (wild assed guess), when Professor Shaggy presents a Scientific Theory, its the culmination of the process of thought known as Science.
It starts with Hypothosis- Shaggy-“I bet there is a ghost in the basement” opens door- Ghost comes out. Shaggy proved correct, Shaggy concludes there is a ghost behind every basement door. Professor Shaggy has same idea”I postulate that there are no disembodied spirits of any kind behind every basement door”- opens door, turns on light, shines laser around room takes careful measurements, weighs the air, takes samples, sets up recording devices for a month and after analyzing their data, concludes – no ghost here, but that is just here. More experiments are needed. He goes to hundreds of ‘haunted’ houses and after preforming the same experiments on each place and now having a mountain of information proving that his original hypothosis was correct due to a mountain of facts, Postulates the Theory of Dark Places. It says that There are no Ghosts, or Spirits. He presents his Information to back up his Theory to other scientists who look at the data, test it for themselves, and poke holes at the “Gaps”(have there ever been Ghosts?, Did you look in Attics? Etc.) and after all of the holes are plugged then Science accepts the Theory of Professor Shaggy.
Shaggy meanwhile only has to convince Scooby.
Yes Science is Cold and Logical and lacks the warm fuzzy feelings of many religions of the past, i.e. human scacrifices, ritual disfigurements, slavery, declaring war on others who disagree. And yes you may want to fuzzify stories of the origin of life, just remember that The original warm and fuzzy story of Adam and Eve had some serious flaws in it. When did Adam and Eve get married? Living in Sin? Who did Cain and Able marry? Incest?
My kids have had the story of life laid out for them since they were old enough to listen, and they are now both Doctors with kids of their own. Life is Immeasurably fascinating with the cold facts uncovered. Science is something to admire and strive towards, rather than something to shy away from.
Night.
a guy called larry
The problem, as I see it, is that ID doesn’t have a damn thing to do with science. Science is a method of determining how stuff operates. Suppose someone asks “why is the sky blue?” If they get an answer along the lines of “wavelength of sunlight, particles in atmosphere, Rayleigh scattering, blah, blah,” they are getting an answer to a question they didn’t ask. This is the how of the sky being blue, not why. ID concerns itself with why. Evolution is a mechanism. To put one on par with the other is just ridiculous, and I suspect the motives of those who do, even if it’s the “teach both” crowd.
Oh, and for the “only a theory” guys, quantum physics is all only theory, too, so there shouldn’t be any trouble with a few religious idealists getting their hands on a few nukes, now should there? Yeah, me too.
EL
Com Con Says:
I feel that there is a certain arrogance here on the left. They can’t admit there are problems with the philosophy of evolution, not just moral ones but scientific ones. I’m not saying it’s incorrect, but last I checked it was still a theory. Why all the certainty? Why the need to hide the gaps? If they love open debate so much, then why not have an open debate about evolution instead of just calling the people who oppose it names.
Gravity is ‘still’ a theory. Quantam mechanics is a theory. Relativity is a theory. And there are gaps and inconsistencies in some of these – but the more we learn, the better these theories explain the phenomena scientists observe. The same is true of evolution. So if you’re saying you’re just concerned about the parts where all the data isn’t known, you’re going to have to pick at all the scientific theories.
For scientists, open debate is welcome – as long as it uses facts and scientific method. When it ceases to do these things, it ceases to be science, and belongs somewhere else.
scs
.
From what I read about ID – parts of it DOES use science, very specifically, to debate evolution. Now the “designer” part isn’t of course, but that doesn’t take away from the science part.
Mike
scs Says:
For scientists, open debate is welcome – as long as it uses facts and scientific method
.
From what I read about ID – parts of it DOES use science, very specifically, to debate evolution. Now the “designer” part isn’t of course, but that doesn’t take away from the science part.”
The other day John directed us over to Roger Simon’s site with the snark about how Roger is questioning ID, which is good and everyone here was happy, blah, blah, blah. What John DIDN’T pick up though (maybe on purpose?) was some of the comments in reaction to that post from Mr. Simon. This one in particular pretty much IMO destroyed Mr. Simon’s argument, John’s and nearly everyone else’s on this site. No one here will agree with it of course (like I care), but here it is, I don’t know who this guy is, but I think it’s fair to say he has his act togther:
“This goes right at the heart of your speech in New York. Any blogster can come online and state an opinion without an iota of evidence.
Then the feedback loop appears, inuendo, insults are thrown about based upon the readership skill level and obviously the ‘reporters’.
Its an immediate loop back. Not all post or insulting or derogatory in nature, some actually try to answer the issue at hand. It is the immediacy of feedback and the accuracy of your arguments which can be verified, checked, rechecked and proven to be falsified or upheld within a matter of minutes or hours.
Now, to the subject matter at hand. ID vs evoltuion. Question. Is a screen writer and novelist educated enough to comment on “Theories” of a information-rich complex systems from a scientific background with any reliability?
Answer. Only if that writer has a scientific background, degree, or at the very least college level classes(or knowledge) in the subject of evolutionary fields. Furthermore, has the writer actually read any scientific literaturer from the scientist who are proponents of ID? For example, is the opinion based upon one’s presuppositional viewpoint or actual research and logic?
Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, is hardly anyone to sneeze at with regards to scientific qualifications to question neo-Darwinist attitudes and analysis of the current state of evolution. He is highly qualified and respected in his field of expertise. He is one of thousands who question the DOGMATIC approach of the current state of scientific inquiry into complex biological processes and the answers currently provided within today’s classroom.
Strawmans and false inuendo abound in these debates. Many used in this comment forum now which do not address the failings of evolution to answer such basic questions as to ‘how’ we got here. ‘How’ did life arise. OR even a simple ‘deduction’ on the ‘evolution of the knee’. I welcome anyone on here to explain scientifically how the human knee evolved. There is no equivalent in the ape or chimp world to the knee of a human being. There is no crossover from the supposed pre-upright man.
Another straw man used by its detractors is that ID says things are to complex to understand. That is blatantly not true. It states that their is design such as evolution cannot reasonably explain by gradual changes over time or by irreducicble complexity. For my example, from what I’ve learned there are at least 16 parts to a knee joint which absolutely must be in place for it to function fully. Take out one part and the whole knee falls apart or is seriously degraded to the point that it breaks down in any further use. Or in the famous case put forward by Michael Behe – the bacterial flagullum. ID states that the information required, for example, like aboslute specific code for a functional computer program required to add and subtract data is required for the entire program to function. Take out one line and it stops adding and subtracting the data altogther, not just partially but in whole. Not only that, but it also states that the program could never work in bits and pieces by itself without the whole mechanism in place to support it at one time. All information must be present at one time for the program, or the bacteria to function. Otherwise it does not exist. Evolutionist in order to get around this obvious knowledge propose all sorts of mechanisms for why such an increase in information might occur. Problem is, from computer simulations, to actual test on fruit flies, they’ve never recreated new information outside the original gene set which could show such a leap of newly created complex functions with new information in the DNA.
Truth is no one knows scientifically without a doubt. There is only speculation – as seen by the ‘scientific’ research for life by SETI. Or, in the case of Gould’s proposal for leaps in the fossil records.
Feedback questions appear immediately with all anxiously awaiting to see what your answer is Roger. Will the writer, in this case, you Roger, qualify your comments? I do not question your right to share your opinion on such subjects, but I do question your ability based upon the short piece you threw up for debate and the fact that I do not know your background. Maybe you have a PhD in moleculor biology? Physics? Advanced Engineering Degree?
Evolution is not simply one theory. There are vast differences and arguments within the community itself of ‘HOW’ evolution works. The problem that most scientist have with the “How” part of it, is that many believe none of the theories offered to date have any sound logic and are based upon scientific methodology.
Now, lets lenghten and enlighten the feedback loop by a link to say, a more informed opinion from a scientist on the other side of the issue: Link… Instead of relying on MSN and in this case uninformed BLOG opinions, let go to the core of the debate as seen from the other side reporting on the subject.
I invite Roger and others here to read any number of articles posted by scientist, you know with PhD’s who have authored papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, have issued patents and received rewards, and stand as professors, leaders and directors at leading universities around the nation and indeed around the world. The list is growing day to day and month to month that do not accept evolution as the panacea proposed by neo-darwinist such as Richard Dawkins – an atheist.
Each person has their bias. An atheistic presuppositional viewpoint is no more reliable than that of a theistic view. Science in and of itself does not point to truth per say on an individual basis for reliability if that person is not willing to follow the evidence. If one is so locked into a doctrine that materialism and reductionism is the only valid viewpoint, then their logic will only lead one way.
It is supposed to be a scientist goal in finding the truth of nature. But then, theistic veiwpoints do not deny this either, but in fact encourage one to seek the truth in all things with knowledge and humility from the Judeo-Christian perspective based upon writings, knowledge and wisdom passed down throught the ages that hold true today. Believing in G_d or in Jesus does not prevent one from having logic or the capability to do scientific research. In fact, prior to Darwin and after him, great scientist with a belief in God contributed wholeheartedly to remarkable scientific breakthroughs in our age and before. I continue to see such smug comments by people who could not wear Isaac Newton’s underwear, let alone step into his shoes. Yet Isaac was a firm believer in God and revelation. In fact, he penned more writing about the Bible than he did on Mathematics and physics.
Whether or not one agree’s with say, even Young Earth Creationist – one cannot deny their logic on matters of controversy surrounding certain aspects of evolution. It is very easy to say evolution is a fact. It is yet another to produce the evidence. Gaps exist which cannot be explained, therefore new theories are developed by leading evolutionist such as Gould who proposed “punctuated equilibrilism”. This is to say, since evolutionist cannot find proof and evidence within the current fossil records, therefore a new theory is required to overcome the lack of any evidence for gradualism. The fact that a leading evolutionist world renown and respected should put forth such a new theory should quiet or at least humble some opinions on here about the state of evolutionary theory.
And certainly one cannot deny their knowledge and abilities in the scientific fields, with nobel prize winners and scientist who in fact before Darwin were responsible for fantastic leaps of knowledge.
The sad truth is, science descriminates now against those who don’t share their absolute doctrine. The inventor of the MRI known today was not invited to share in the revolutionary aspect of his invention as a Nobel Prize winner and it is widely known he is a young earth creationist. For the Nobel Prize committee to award him with such distinction is to award his viewpoint and therefore not allowed by the scientific community at large. Honestly I have questions on both sides of these issues. But how the Nobel Orgainization could not include the original inventor of such technology innovations should be a black eye to all scientist.
So… with that in mind, one should turn a critical eye towards MSM again.
Finally, a critical eye towards sensationalistic headlines worthy of the National Enquirer. Roger if you’re using satire, fine, I can see the humor.
But if the headline is an accurate description of your views, then I’m worried about the future of PJMedia’s supposed walk to legitimacy.
The truth is this opens up much larger questions in the role of our educational system and its lack of open debate, the right of the people and the majority to elect representatives and no taxation without representation.
A judicial decree was made on false logic of a letter from Thomas Jeffereson and has forever now until this day been legitimized on the left as ‘separation of church and state’. Truth is, that statement and its logicall progression through our educational system is not based upon any factual wording in the constition or the first amendment. Paraphrasing, Congress shall ‘make no laws’ respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.
Debating ID or the theories of evolution has nothing to do with ‘making laws’ or establishing a religion.
Our schools suffer from any real ability to let children hear other viewpoints. To cut off a child or adult from sharing their views is to deny freedom of speech. We have gone from one extreme to another. Now we should head back to the middle with moderation. Otherwise, how is it one can do reports and research on class projects about Islam, yet deny Christian or Judaistic philosophies?
The problem is not one of pushing religion. The problem is allowing people to discuss openly their beliefs, the facts, share knowledge and openly look at why, where and how these came to be established on a historical basis up to modern times.
It used to be children were taught biblical narratives in school, parables, even ABC’s based upon Biblical words and names.
Today, you can’t mention Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, Paul or Mary without a lawsuit from the ACLU. This is truly a sad situation. Grownups, need to grow up.
Allow free discussion to take place. One of the posters on here earlier made a good point. Education is not aboout blocking out viewpoints, it is about discussing them and making informed opinions and decisions based upon the evidence put forth.
If parents who are religious and pay taxes would like to have their children read the bible in a classroom or their peers in a optional and voluntary classroom environment as a subject of history, then those parents have the rights as ‘tax payors’ to demand their rights of the government to represent their choices. Otherwise, they’re not truly being represented by the government. Having a child read a bible in class or listen to other viewpoints on evolution will hardly bring this nation down economically, nor will it be the equivalent of the ‘establishment’ clause. Instead, it will simply answer to the will of the people, which is what our constitution guarantee’s.
Finally, evolution is hardly a fact and it is hardly falsifiable itself based upon the theories set forth today. Gradually or in Leaps, neo-darwinist get evolution either way without an ounce of evidence or proof.
Variation within Species – yes, MacroEvolution, unproven by any data known to man, No.”
Dave Ruddell
ID is not ‘just a critique’ of evolution. A critique would say “Hey, there’s gaps in the theory of evolution. You need to be able to explain those, or else maybe you should try a new theory”. ID says “Hey, there’s gaps in the theory of evolution. That means God designed things.” ID makes a positive claim. A claim that cannot be disproven.
Dave Ruddell
Instead of ‘disproven’ above, I think I should have said ‘falsified’, just for the sake of clarity.
Com Con
Aren’t we splitting hairs now? Aren’t the anti-ID attacks of the left, in essence, just a matter of hair-splitting regarding notions of causality and association.
jobiuspublius
From what I saw of the 2004 presedential debates, parts of it featured a combat veteran trying to ignore the 80 pound monkey in the room.
Your’re another DougJ creation.
EL
From what I read about ID – parts of it DOES use science, very specifically, to debate evolution. Now the “designer” part isn’t of course, but that doesn’t take away from the science part.
No, not really. True science means starting with observations, making hypotheses based on the observations, and refining with testing to reach conclusions. It means being willing to change with new information.
ID starts with a conclusion and the proponents aren’t willing to change that conclusion no matter how much evidence they’re offered. That’s called faith. Nothing wrong with faith, but it isn’t science, no matter how it’s dressed up.
jobiuspublius
Just because one percieves a design, i.e., a mechanism, does not mean that there is a designer, or mechanic. It sounds counter intuative, but, we should not let the anthropomorphic aspects of our language have their way with our minds.
Second, I have seen no proof that it is impossible for irreducible complexity to evolve. Not knowing how something irreducibly complex came to existance is not proof of intelligent design or the hopelessness of evolution.
Hey, I don’t need my nipples any more. Who wants them?
scs
Okay, did any of you ever read any ID theory? Like I said, I read only one article in the NYT on it, although it was a pretty long and in-depth article. I suggest you search for it on their site. (and I am just speaking from memory, don’t quote me on the following)
ID Observation – An accepted theory of biology is a cell needs all parts of itself to function, otherwise it will die. Evolution theorizes that only specific parts are evolved at a time. Hence the conundrum, if only parts of the cell evolved at a time, how did not the whole cell die.
ID Hypotheses based on the observations – Cells did not evolve piecemeal as stated by evolution, but instead had a more systematic development. How this systematic development happened is not clear according to intelligent design.
ID Refining with testing to reach conclusions – Research is being done to understand the systematic development of cells.
How is this not scientific theory? First you should all educate yourself and understand what the ID thinking is before you knock it. That’s what a true enlightened thinker does.
scs
Hey, its only an interesting theory, not proof. You shouldn’t make more of it than it is, which is mostly a critique.
Com Con
Scs, that was an excellent article on ID in the New York Times, I agree.
At some level, ID is about challenging the “orthodoxy” of evolution, much the same way that Galileo and Einstein changed the orthodoxy of science in their eras. ID has the potential to open up whole new scientific vistas. So many liberals are so anxious to kill fetuses to get stem cells because of the possibility of breakthrough treatments through stem cell research. What if ID promises new medical breakthroughs as well? Isn’t that reason enough to look into it?
jobiuspublius
The parts came together, then the cell came into existance. How? TBD.
Then, how do they know there is a designer? That’s the problem with ID. I assumes a designer. Why? Because, somebody has to BE the CAUSE. It’s just plain english.
Results? Johnny Come Latelys, the evolutionists are way ahead of the Game.
scs
Well ComCon, I’m not saying that I don’t believe in evolution, cause I do. But I agree that different ways of thinking about evolution may advance our understanding of it.
jobiuspublius
Yes, maybe they will discover doctors and big-pharma.
scs
Well from what I read, they leave it open, although some people I’m sure then assume an intelligent designer. Like I said, that was the unscientific part. But the whole part/system thing is still interesting.
jobiuspublius
Being a critique does not make it science. Theories require proof. If it’s unproven, it’s a hypothesis.
All you DougJs are making me reach for my voodoo doll.
jobiuspublius
Yes, it’s all so Rovian. I’m schedualing you for an early morning sesion with my voodoo doll.
scs
Theories require proof. If it’s unproven, it’s a hypothesis.
Wrong, man. If its proven, its no longer theory, it’s a fact. A theory is “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena” according to dictionary.com. But we need a real scientist on here to comment.
jobiuspublius
Facts are data. Proof is what glues them together into a theory. Pencil in afternoon voodoo doll session.
scs
jobiuspublius, you are starting to make things up now. Proof is not part of the idea of a theory. Principles are part of a theory, not proof. Read above definition of ‘theory’. I’ll pencil in the session, but I hope you have time to teach it.
Beej
ID is about a great deal more than simply positing an alternative to evolutionary theory. Check John’s archives for links to the goal statement of the Discovery Institute. ID is the wedge issue they want to use to “Christianize” education.
scs
jobiuspublius, let me clarify. You can try to “prove” a theory, but the theory itself is not proof, it is an explanatory principle.
scs
Maybe that’s how some people want to use it. But that has nothing to do with actual ID thinking. One should be able to separate the two.
jobiuspublius
scs, ID smells so Rovian to me. It certainly ain’t science or good cologne. I’m going to have to expand my voodoo doll collection.
Mac
jobiuspublius;
Could you stick a pin in my back for sciatica? Thanks.
I have been trying to think of a time in history when science, real science, has had such a serious attempt to roll back progress. I can’t do it, can you think of any?
I have seen reasons here from abortion advocation to zygote manipulation, left versus right, pagan versus zealots. Cold and Sterile to Warm and Fuzzy.
Whatever happens in this country with its wretched little squabbles over wording and rights will only help hold this country back from scientific progress. The rest of the world will continue to advance, without us. Remember that Darwin was not a Citizen of the USA and did not actually start a new religion.
BTW while you are sticking the pin in my lower back, the right knee needs some arthritis relief. Thanks
Pb
No doubt many of them did die. Surely many others were quite useless. But out of the froth of combinations and permutations arose cells, nonetheless. Anyhow, I’d wager that at some time or another, cells did have extraneous or redundant parts, which got out-competed over time by more efficient cells (which would require less material per cell, a distinct evolutionary advantage).
Is this an example of the great amount of thought that goes into ID? I mean, like, the sort of thing that can be debunked with a minute or two of rational thought? If so, I’m none too impressed.
Also, I bet the IDer who came up with this one isn’t familiar with the common puzzle of the ‘word ladder’, wherein you start with one word and try to get to another word by only altering one letter at a time, and preserving a valid chain of words. (example: false->valse->valve->calve->carve->carte->carts->tarts->torts->toots->tooth->troth->truth)They probably just look at it for a minute, declare it impossible, and then decide that God must have intervened to turn word A into word B.
jobiuspublius
Mac, I can target those areas. But, I must warn you that I’m not too well versed in the art of the needle. My area of expertise is in fire and chain saw. I could remove the parts designed to evolve to failure, but, you’ll have to find a replacement specialist if you want those parts again.
Com Con
I don’t find your example very convincing. Words are much simpler than living beings.
Also, neither I nor Scs rejects evolution. We are merely saying that ID provides an interesting critique of evolution and that this kind of “outside the box” thinking that we see with ID is just the sort of thing that might lead to new scientific break throughs.
My Pet Goat
ID isn’t science. It won’t lead to anything except more FUD in the minds of those who are swayed by it and are too lazy to look into the debunking that has been done of every single strawman, lie and other type of BS peddled endlessly by the flim-flammers from the Discovery institute. Most of us would love to see someone prove the existence of God through science, hence the interest in ID among the uninformed. But you’re barking up the wrong tree in this case, it isn’t a scientific theory, as others upthread have explained. Nor are the attempts to ‘disprove’ evolution scientific. Beside, science is not the best prism to look through to find evidence of God, and in reality, it likely never could be. Oh, and lets’ not get into the lie that ID isn’t all about proving the existence of God, just some ‘designer’.
If you have a real interest in looking at the debunking of the crap spewed by IDers, a good place to start is talkorigins.org. If you don’t have a real interest, then you reveal yourself as a willfully ignorant dumbfuck and fundie tool if you keep on asking others to give it a chance. ID and its proponents deserve to be exposed for the liars they are.
ppGaz
Did this thread evolve into the bizarre theater of persona versus persona …. or was it designed this way by an intelligent being?
Could something so complex as this thread have just happened without the creative hand of a supreme being?
Tim F
scs,
Yes, I wrote a critical review of Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box as part of a course on evolutionary theory. Boiling down my review into a single sentence, Behe’s book consisted of equal parts uninformed speculation and autofellatio. In other contexts I have had the chance to interview individuals representing a number of stages on the ID-creationism continuum and I can say that not a one has impressed me with their understanding of ‘science.’
Com Con
My Pet Goat — I’m not going to argue with someone who thinks it is funny to name himself that. You might as well call yourself Michael Moore.
EL
I read the same NYT article.
This is part of the problem right here. By your own description, ID’s observation is focused on attacking Darwin’s theory, and it’s obviously for ideological reasons. ID isn’t focused on observing the original data, and coming up with the best theory to explain it. ID’s goal is simply finding way to explain why Darwin is wrong. To ‘Christianize’ science, as one of their documents has admitted.
Wearily… It isn’t scientific theory because it starts with a preset conclusion. ID is determined to get a specific end, and is seizing on any fact that seems to support its ideas, instead of looking at everything de novo and finding the theory that best fits all the facts. Their ‘wedge document’ has admitted the goal is not to do impeccable science, but to ‘slant’ science to their liking.
They may be right that their is an intelligent designer. They may be wrong. But they are not going about it with the tools of science and in a spirit of scientific inquiry. They are about faith, not science. Teach it in philosopy, not science class.
My Pet Goat
In other words, you have nothing more to say in favor of ID – and an utterly lame-ass excuse to avoid owning up to it. So I guess you can’t be DougJ, he’d be more resourceful than that.
tzs
ID is nothing more than the whole “god of the gaps” schtick, warmed up over.
What pisses me off is the IDers not only don’t understand the theory of evolution, they don’t seem to have read anything about philosophy, either.
Nor do they understand anything about statistics. Arguing for ID is like arguing someone getting a royal flush proves the existence of the Poker Fairy.
Mac (Michael Moore)
To embrace ID by referring to the “gaps” in the fossil record is denying more than just evolutionary biology. The entire study Earth Sciences is thrown out as well. Paleontology, Stratigraphy, Geology, Geomorphology may as well not exist. Never mind that they were firmly established sciences, listing the ages of the earth and its animals relatively accurately, long before Darwins Theory of the Origin of Species came along. The theory fit the facts know at the time. A progression of animals from simple types to more complex ones can be observed through the fossil record. Yes there are periods that the fossil record is incomplete. Considering what it takes for anything to be fossilized, its amazing we have any fossils at all. But to point a gaps in the fossil record and exclaim “See, here is where the Magic Happened! Deny it at your eternal Peril!” Strikes me as just a bit heavy handed.
I do believe in the Poker Fairy. I do believe in the Poker Fairy. I do believe in the Poker Fairy… (checks the hole card)… Rotten Fairy
Mac
To embrace ID by referring to the “gaps” in the fossil record is denying more than just evolutionary biology. The entire study Earth Sciences is thrown out as well. Paleontology, Stratigraphy, Geology, Geomorphology may as well not exist. Never mind that they were firmly established sciences, listing the ages of the earth and its animals relatively accurately, long before Darwins Theory of the Origin of Species came along. The theory fit the facts know at the time. A progression of animals from simple types to more complex ones can be observed through the fossil record. Yes there are periods that the fossil record is incomplete. Considering what it takes for anything to be fossilized, its amazing we have any fossils at all. But to point a gaps in the fossil record and exclaim “See, here is where the Magic Happened! Deny it at your eternal Peril!” Strikes me as just a bit heavy handed.
I do believe in the Poker Fairy. I do believe in the Poker Fairy. I do believe in the Poker Fairy… (checks the hole card)… Rotten Fairy
Mac
To embrace ID by referring to the “gaps” in the fossil record is denying more than just evolutionary biology. The entire study Earth Sciences is thrown out as well. Paleontology, Stratigraphy, Geology, Geomorphology may as well not exist. Never mind that they were firmly established sciences, listing the ages of the earth and its animals relatively accurately, long before Darwins Theory of the Origin of Species came along. The theory fit the facts know at the time. A progression of animals from simple types to more complex ones can be observed through the fossil record. Yes there are periods that the fossil record is incomplete. Considering what it takes for anything to be fossilized, its amazing we have any fossils at all. But to point a gaps in the fossil record and exclaim “See, here is where the Magic Happened! Deny it at your eternal Peril!” Strikes me as just a bit heavy handed.
I do believe in the Poker Fairy. I do believe in the Poker Fairy. I do believe in the Poker Fairy… (checks the hole card)… Rotten Fairy.
scs
.
There is no preset conclusion from what I read, it starts with an observation. Like I said, I am no expert on ID. And I am sure that since ID is so new, its not just one cohesive idea, but many different takes, some people pushing creationism more than others in it. But from what I mainly got from it is, that ID explores the conundrum between the evolution of parts and systems, is an interesting idea. What is so hard to admit about that? If you all can’t admit that evolution has not fully explored that relationship yet, you are not logical thinkers and instead are so affraid of the BAGGAGE that comes with ID, that you can’t admit an interesting idea when you hear one.
Anyway, that’s why I don’t think teaching this main point of ID in school is so bad, as I think its educational. After all, until I read a little on ID, I had no idea there was this conundrum in evolution between the parts and the systems and so I learned a little about evolution. Like I had said before, the IDEAL way would be to talk about the gaps in evolution in class in a scientific way and forget ID. But I do think there is this dogma out there to in effect treat evolution as religion and if you question its methods in any way, you cause a panic. That’s not logical thinking and thats why I kind of embrace a little ID, cause I want to rebel against “groupthink”.
scs
Okay Mac, I still don’t think you get it. Or maybe I don’t get it, please correct me if I am wrong. ID merely questions the mechanism behind the evolution of systems. If you have an iron-clad explanation for that from evolution, please inform me. I’d love to learn as I am an open-minded person.
DougJ
Just so everyone knows, scs is not me, DougJ. My parody posts would not be as tedious as what scs writes. At least I hope not.
Mac
Sorry about the multiple posts. Didn’t mean to do that.
ID is claiming to have an explanation that we need to take seriously. OK. Science at its most basic is an attempt to describe the Universe as it is, a natural environment. ID is an attack on science, not just evolution, forget evolution for a bit, and concenrate on what ID is saying. It poses as a “science”, but it most basic proposition is “there has to be a designer”, a supernatural, by definition, designer. Science can not test a supernatural item with natural sciences. Super-Natural exisists beyond our Universe, again by definition. Science is not about supernatural, it just can’t study them. Therefore anything that insists that something is in the realm of the supernatural, cannot not be a science. It is a religion, a cult, other things I can’t think of at the moment, but not science.
For example: Many years ago people believed that the stars were holes in the bowl of the firmament of heaven, and allowed the light of heaven to shine through. Since then much has been learned about the stars, and we would look upon the former definitions of stars with some fondness at how quaint it was. Now imagine that a group of people, with a political agenda, said that we should be teaching students, both versions of what stars are. Astronomers would be up in arms. The Bowl Stars (BS) could say that there are gaps in our theories of Gravity and Time, Space, that we don’t really know what dark matter is and since we have all of these controversies, wouldn’t it be better to at least accept a little that the BS should have a equal footing as hundreds of years if research?
It boils down to this. BS and ID go hand in hand, and if there are serious people who want to debate their validity as an exercise in verbal jousting, by all means go ahead. In fact if you want to teach BS,ID go ahead and do so, just do it in a Mythology type class, i.e. Religious, Supernatural, Astrological, Feng Shui, or Dowsing, just not in an Astronomy or Biology class.
Some will consider me an atheist, but to God I’m the loyal opposition. If when I die, and I find out I’m wrong, I will square my shoulders walk right up to God and say “I owe you an apology”.
I hope this helps, but I fear it won’t.
Pb
Com Con,
In that case, I suggest you address the rest of my post instead.
So in other words, you see ID as a stimulus to help in the evolution of science? Heh, I’ll endorse that too!
Pug
Most Americans, 54 percent, think that there is general agreement among scientists that evolution has taken place; 33 percent say that no such scientific consensus exists.
Hmmm…I wouldn’t have thought that fully one-third of the American public watches Fox News and listens to right-wing radio. Guess I misunderestimated their audiences.
Harry Frank
scs,
Why on earth do you think they call it ID (intelligent design)?
ID’ers are not simply criticizing evolution, they postulate that an intelligent designer is responsible for evolution.
There are plenty of controverises in the field of evolution and biologists are working on them. But they (the controversies) don’t have anything to do with ID.
And, by the way. As far as I know teachers are alllowed to bring up ID in their teaching of biology. But why anyone think they should be FORCED to bring it up and then, as you do, claim they are against GROUPTHINK, is beyond me.
Krista
Hey, Dowsing works. That’s how we found the perfect spot for our new well when our old one kept going dry and couldn’t be dug deeper.
Jcricket
I can’t believe we go nearly 80 comments without a reference to one of the best evolution resources on the web, Talk Origins. This exhaustive web site neatly refutes nearly every Creationist and ID argument, from the big (“Noah’s Flood”, “Young Earth”) to the small (“irreducible complexity”, “Piltdown man”).
For example, here is a comprehensive review and refutation of Michael Behe’s claims. Simply put, it is not true that it’s “all or nothing” with knees and cells, and Behe is not a trustworthy source.
At a higher level, evolution is both a fact and a theory. It has been observed, its predictions have proven accurate and it has withstood nearly 150 years of scientific scrutiny from around the world.
ID is not science and offers nothing in the way of advancing our knowledge of anything, other than how groups can manufacture controversy where there is none by taking advantage of the general public’s inability to understand how science works. See also the “Republican War on Science” book that John references often for more examples of this).
EL
Let’s start with the type of argument you’re using: “What is so hard to admit about that?” assumes that I should admit something, and I’m refusing – loaded question. What am I not admitting that is so self-evident?
I freely admit that evolution hasn’t explored everything yet. Neither has quantum mechanics, or gravity, or relativity. So why only single out evolution? If you want the gaps taught, teach the gaps in every theory. If you’re not supporting that, than your hidden agenda – promoting religion at the expense of science, becomes evident.
If someone questions evolution without reference to the supernatural, more power to them. But if you attack scientific method, than yes, I do worry. Why? Because this country that I love, America, will fall very far behind others in scientific endeavors. That will happen if we teach our children that science is negotiable, that it can be whatever you want it to be, that facts and observations can be brushed aside for the convenience of religion. That panics me.
Jcricket
Not to burst your bubble, but your success in finding a new spot for your well is far more likely to be a result of geological factors and probability (i.e. lots of good spots in your area), rather than dowsing, which has failed hundreds of scientific tests
I’m not arguing you didn’t find a good spot after performing “dowsing”, just that every experiment that starts with the premise “dowsing works” fails to substantiate that dowsers are any better than people “flipping a coin”.
scs
Mac, that’s not what I read about in ID. Its called Intelligent Design, not Intelligent DesignER. What ID claims is that there has to be a more “intelligent”, systematic mechanism to evolution. It leaves the actual “designer” part vague. But maybe I got a wrong impression on that, please show me in the ID writings where I am wrong.
And as to DougJ, “My parody posts would not be as tedious as what scs writes” , sorry I am being tedious, but I feel I have to explain the same things over and over again to people who are using preconceptions to argue.
Now here’s where you all are going to think I’m really crazy. You know how in pop physics they talk about electrons being in effect, “intelligent”, and being able to synchonise in inexplicable ways? I am wondering whether an organism is more intelligent than we think, and can effect changes in itself for reasons other that natural selection, whether an organism can somehow self-select mutations that are advantageous to its survival. Anyway, just a crazy thought, don’t crucify me on this.
scs
.
Yes, as I said, that’s really what I think people ought to be able to do, as they should be able to do with any theory, and it seems that that is not allowed in the pop group think thats exists now.
Krista
Jcricket – Hey, maybe it was just a coincidence, and maybe it has failed tests, but it seems a bit interesting that my boyfriend went out, dowsed the spot, noted the coordinates on his GPS, and then I went out, without having known where he found the spot, and wound up divining the exact same spot, which is where we wound up finding a very good vein of water.
I’m a big believer in science, and don’t believe in most of the mystical, magical, or religious bullshit. But…sometimes stuff just works, and we can’t explain why.
whatsleft
The problem, scs, is that ID doesn’t just “question evolution”, it also posits the supernatural, which is anti-science. Also, there are the myriad other anti-science reasons to be against ID, which have been ably stated upthread. Saying that ID is only about design, not designer, does not remove its supernatural argument.
EL
You are misreading a lot. You can question evolution all you want, with accurate facts. You can’t question any scientific theory with the supernatural as it ceases to be science at that point. ID says that some intelligence designed life. Whether you specify the designer or not, you’ve still brought in the supernatural. And that, by definition, IS NOT SCIENCE.
Mac
Krista, fortune smiles on the prepared, but the fact that you and your boyfriend located the same spot to install a well, has more to do with your knowledge of the ground and the area than the silly dowsing rods you were carrying. dowsing has never worked. If you think you are a dowser of some skill and can demonstate it james randi has a million dollars for you.
Mac
scs
who or what did you think was doing the “intelligent” design?
Design implies designer.
scs
If I knew that, I’d get a Nobel prize. But to repeat, that’s not the point of the theory anyway. The thrust of the thinking is pointing out the difficulty of achieving complex designs piecemeal, which I still believe is an interesting “scientific” idea, ripe to be nailed down by evolution. The question is not, what does ID think of the world, the more important question is, how does evolution sufficiently explain this conundrum? The burden of proof is on evolution. Once that can be sufficiently explained, any worries you all have about other ideas will be mute, as the facts will speak for themselves. Until then, its interesting to contemplate the holes in accepted dogma.
whatsleft
I see, scs, since, in your opinion, evolution doesn’t satisfactorily explain um, evolution, then we should definitely look to the supernatural? Although, of course, that whole “piecemeal” thing has been debunked.
Mac
scs
ID says that systems are irreducibly complex. That has been disproven. See the following
Saying something and then showing proof for something are two very different things.
Jcricket
SCS – The burden of proof is also on ID to prove, scientifically, that the supposed holes in evolutioniary they claim exist, do in fact, exist. They do not (as pointed out at Talk Origins). The eye, cells, knees, etc. are not irreducibly complex. Systems can and do evolve over time, in parts/piecemeal. ID is simply wrong on that basic level. End of story.
There are some gaps in small parts of evolutionary theory, however, those cannot be explained scientifically with reference to a “unknowable” intelligent designer. There are actual scientists in any number of fields performing additional experiments and efforts to dig into these puzzles.
ID offers nothing to science and will not answer any of the questions it poses (even the valid ones).
Big E
re: “64 percent, support teaching creationism, along with evolution, in schools; 38 percent say creationism should be taught instead of evolution.”
This is why the country is so screwed up…
These folks contribute money to Jimmy Swagart, Jim & Tammy, Oral Roberts etc., they can’t tell the difference between an ‘honest’ church and a fraud…. and a lot of the time it seems that they can’t think for themselves.
Faith is a very positive thing but blind faith is dangerous.
SeesThroughIt
Faith can be a positive thing, but it isn’t necessarily good for society or necessary for a good society.