Presented without comment:
At issue in the Dover lawsuit, brought by 11 parents in Federal District Court, is whether intelligent design is really religion dressed up as science, and whether teaching it in a public school violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
The More center’s lawyers put scientists on the witness stand who argued that intelligent design – the idea that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that a higher intelligence designed them – is a credible scientific theory and not religion because it never identifies God as the designer.
…
The chairman, Bowie Kuhn, the former baseball commissioner, said the board agreed that the center should take on an intelligent design case because while it is not necessarily based on religion “it is being opposed because people think it is religious.” And that was enough for a group whose mission, as explained on its Web site, is “to protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square.”
“America’s culture has been influenced by Christianity from the very beginning,” Mr. Thompson said, “but there is an attempt to slowly remove every symbol of Christianity and religious faith in our country. This is a very dangerous movement because what will ultimately happen is, out of sight, out of mind.”
See the Panda’s Thumb for much, much more.
*** Update ***
A quick note- John Derbyshire addressed an aspect of the intelligent design debate that I had not really thought about before:
Ayala’s remarks illustrate an aspect of the I.D. business not much commented on: it is an entirely American phenomenon — really, an outgrowth of American folk religiosity. You can find a scattered few I.D. followers in other countries, but I.D. is not a public or pedagogic issue anywhere but in the U.S.A. People in other countries are just baffled by it; scientists in other countries just shake their heads sadly. This is not the case with any scientific theory that I am aware of. Real science is international. The presence of a strongly national coloring is, in fact, a pretty good marker of pseudoscience. Compare, for example, the “Soviet science” (Lysenkoism, Marrism, etc.) of Stalin.
There is nothing wrong with folk religiosity, of course. I personally regard it as a strengthening and cohesive force in the national life, and in the conservative movement. I am happy about American folk religiosity, and regard it with cheerful approval. But– It. Is. Not. Science.
A good point- John
ape
oh no.
it’s over in the UK too, I’m afraid.. the Vardy City Academy fiasco.
although this is, of course, very much an ‘export’ from the US.
Anderson
The Kleiman post that Derbyshire links to is smokin’. Check it out if you missed it.
ape
Further evidence that “ID”/ Creationism is reaching beyond just America: Islamists like it too: http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2004/09/Article02.shtml
Steve S
I do not understand this statement at all. Where do people get this nonsense?
It appears to me that his argument is based upon fear. A fear that exemplifies a lack of faith on his part.
I suspect that problem with Christianity today, and the reason why it is in the decline has more to do with the fact that the self-appointed Christian leaders are not Christians. People like Fallwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc. They’re doing far more damage to Christianity than any secular athiests could ever possibly do.
jg
Same thing is happening now that happened in Galileo’s day. Facts are coming to light that put religious teachings in doubt. We’re at the awkward phase where religion is reeling from the ‘attack’. Soon they will adapt and find a way to include the new facts into religion. Then this christinaity is under attack nonsense will go away….for awhile.
Shygetz
The ID movement, at its heart, is a dishonest attempt to disguise creationism, so finding an honest ID’er is gonna be hard.
Steve S
But Darwin game out well over a hundred years ago. Christians in Europe have already come to grips with it and realize that it does not interfere with religious doctrine.
The Bible merely says God created man… it does not say how he did that.
And this whole Evolution thing was dealt with back with Scopes monkey trial. It’s been a dead issue for decades. Why now?
Something else is going on.
I think the term ‘wacko’ and the Abramhoff memos may be the link.
jg
It was never a dead issue, only politically. Lots of people never bought evolution. Since the republican party now wins election by playing to fears they are taking up a cause that will get many people voting with them. Same thing they do with Roe V Wade.
DougJ
I understand disagreeing with ID. It’s natural that militant secularists would prefer the idea of a Godless universe. But why do you have to *hate* the ID supporters so much? Doesn’t all that hatred eat you up inside?
jg
No.
les
9,151 militant secularists:
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
Boombo
I’ve found hatred to be a very effective fuel source. Some day it might even replace those little noodles I like, once I can get the right ratios worked out.
jcricket
When even the Vatican is on the side of science you know the ID proponents are intellectually bankrupt.
It’s not a war of “Christians/religious folks” against “militant secularists”. It’s mostly fundemantalist evangelical Christians vs. everyone else (both religious and not). OK, perhaps the Norquist’s of the world have made a devil’s bargain with the religious fundamentalists “not to oppose” their attempt at sending America back to Puritanical days.
If you want to know why America is falling behind other countries all over the education spectrum, look no further than the ID debate.
Krista
It keeps me warm and toasty.
As far as ID goes, I really like Derbyshire’s point. There might be a few people believing in ID in other countries, but only in the U.S. is it being taken as seriously as it is, to the point where the courts are getting involved. And it’s not that other countries are solely secular. Up here, there are some very, very, very religious people. Some of them probably don’t believe in evolution. But they know perfectly well that their religious beliefs do not belong in a public school science class. If you want your kids to not learn about evolution, send ’em to privately funded religious school.
Walker
ID is far, far more dangerous than an attempt to disguise creationism. It is an attempt to expand the definition of science to go beyond naturalism and include supernatural reasoning. This “embrace and extend” tactic, if successful, could seriously damage the legitimacy of science education in this country.
Why stop at evolution? The Bible said the sun moves around the Earth; let’s throw out Copernicus as well. If you throw in enough epicycles, Ptolemy’s model still works (while I am joking, this is actually true; properties of Fourier series guarantee that enough cycles will eventually converge to a close enough answer).
I am sure the New Agers would be pleased, though. Astrology and alchemy courses to satisfy that pesky science requirement.
DougJ
Walker, why do you hate Ptolemy?
JonBuck
DougJ:
And what of that militant secularist organization known as the Catholic Church?
DougJ
Jon, 2 points:
(1) The Jesuits who run the Church (secretly) are in fact militant secularists in many cases. Haven’t you ever read the Magic Mountain?
(2) At least the Catholic Church isn’t preaching a message of hate against ID proponents.
JonBuck
DougJ:
You know, I really don’t expect to convince you of anything. All I hope is for you to recognize that there are many millions of people of many faiths who have no problems with evolution. If this fact makes you uncomfortable, that’s not really my problem.
jaime
.
Kinda like Ghostbusters.
SeesThroughIt
Well, I hope so. This “Christianity under attack” bullshit is…well, bullshit. Bullshit to the Nth degree. You can still pray, right? You can still go to church, right? Your preacher hasn’t been arrested, right? You can still read the Bible, right? Then shut the fuck up and stop crying about how you’re “under attack.”
Perhaps people are finally waking up to how Societies Are Worse Off When They ‘Have God on Their Side.’
Also, only tangentially related but funny/scary, “I am a GodWarrior!”
jg
I doubt they really believe that. They just don’t have a political party willing to use them to gain office…yet. There isn’t a religious person on this planet who doesn’t think the world would be a better place if everybody believed what they believed and lived life the way they did. Most just realize the futility of forcing others to believe what you do.
jg
‘…forcing others to believe what they believe.’ I think that makes more sense.
The Cavalry
That’s completely right: there’s no way to force other people to think like you do. And I think that’s the problem with some on the side of evolution: you think that by belittling the opposition, you win the argument. There’s a lot of people, though, who are undecided about the origins of life and you need to persuade them instead of browbeating them.
SeesThroughIt
That would be great, except that by and large, such people are unpersuadeable because the nature of the confllict is that they don’t understand and/or refuse to accept basic definitions and principles. So you get arguments like:
“Evolution’s just a theory!”
“Evolution’s just a way to take God away from people!”
“The Bible doesn’t talk about evolution, and the Bible is always right about everything, so evolution must be wrong!”
“A watch is too complex to NOT have been designed, and humans are more complex than watches, so we must have been designed!”
“ID is science, even if it can’t be backed up scientifically!”
“My grandfather was not a monkey!”
And so on. How is one supposed to “persuade” people who are either incapable of grasping or unwilling to grasp the most basic aspects of the debate? How is one supposed to “persuade” somebody who is immovably convinced that their religion is right and everything else is wrong, wrong, wrong?
The Cavalry
I don’t know about that. I’m on the fence myself. And I’m sick of being called an idiot for it. I think the case isn’t so clear as a lot make it out to be.
Faux News
Also, only tangentially related but funny/scary, “I am a GodWarrior!”
Well it’s nice to see a Free Republic/RedState.org member in real life. :-)
Red Dawn
It keeps me warm and toasty.
WOLVERINES!!!!
jg
Evolution doesn’t speak to the origins of life. Evolution doesn’t say there is no God. Evolution says things (organisms) change in reaction the their environment. Its not up to belief, it happens.
scs
This is the definition of a scientific theory:
Like I said in the past, I don’t know what ID proponents want to do with ID, but if you stick to the ID teachings itself, they are not in and of itself ‘creationist’. To repeat, ID merely challenges natural selection as being the only way that species evolved. It does not conclude anything about a supernatural “designer”.
To those who conclude that it is not a SCIENTIFIC theory, I believe you are mistaken. After all, this theory was designed by scientists and it shows. It is a scientific theory as it presents scientific examples to illustrate a hypothesis that natural selection was inadequate to design complex biological systems, shows some scientific examples as to illustrate this point and draws a conclusion from these examples like any other scientific theory to support the hypothesis that natural selection was inadequate and that a more ‘intelligent’ design mechanism would have been necessary.
Now whether it is a CORRECT scientific theory is a whole other debate. But you can’t argue that scientific methods were used in this theory. (And don’t bother to try to rebut this unless you are science aware and/or actually know what actual ID theory is.)
Doug
Just, fwiw, Intelligent Design is trying to make its way to Indiana. (Follow up here.)
The Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives is thinking of introducing legislation requiring ID to be taught in Indiana’s science classes. This announcement came right on the heels of a report (PDF) on Indiana’s lackluster performance on technology issues. (The annual Indiana Technology Profile shows the state fell behind or stayed the same against other states in 14 of 23 measurements, such as patents gained per worker and employment in high-tech services.)
Steve S
That’s the problem. It’s not provable or falsifiable. We can’t run experiments to test our theories. So it’s not really science.
It’s a great philosophical concept and it’s not new, people have been talking about the idea of ID since Darwin first came out. But it’s not science.
I don’t understand why Darwin scares you so. Darwin was not describing a universal law, he just had a theory to explain how some things evolve. That’s maybe the real problem here, the ID proponents are operating based upon an irrational fear that they may be incredibly wrong.
That’s a sign of weakness, which makes me really question their faith.
scs
I am not an ID proponent and evolution doesn’t scare me. I am merely making an intellectual argument here and trying to be intellectually honest about a theory. I am not a sheep who follows the masses, sorry.
I feel there is not point even pursuing my point as the people don’t seem to get it. “We can’t run experiments to test our theories. So it’s not really science.” ID theory gives many examples of complex design in biology and explains why natural selection may be inadequate to explain it, that’s it.
You need to EXPLAIN WHY it is NOT a scientific theory as according the the definition of a scientific theory and not keep repeating the same empty mantra.
oscar wilde
“Religion is the fashionable substite for belief”
jg
The whole point of ID is that we were designed by a supernatural designer yet you say thats not what ID proposes? It doesn’t merely challenge evolution its a full on attack. ID came about as a way to ‘explain’ creatonism ‘scientifically’. Its pure crap. It says that some things are too complicated to have come about by chance therefore they were designed that way. Its too hard to figure out so stop trying and realize God did it. But they don’t say God, they say ‘designer’. And the ‘designer’ has abilities we humans don’t have or understand, the abilities are supernatural. Once you use the word supernatural you are no longer talking science. Science uses observation and experimentation to understand the natural world. Supernatural phenomanon need not apply.
jg
Why can’t natural selection explain it? Lets give it a shot I bet eventually they will explain it. ID says it was done by a designer, end of story, stop looking for explanation. Don’t you feel like you’re being told a grown up Easter Bunny story?
scs
No that is not the point of ID, as I read it. They never say “designer”, they never say “supernatural” and it doesn’t have to be “god”. Look it up. It could be theorectically some other natural process other tham natural selection that we don’t know about. But either way that’s not the point of the theory or the point of my argument. My argument is that ID IS presented in a scientific way and is scientific theory, due to the fact that it relies on natural observations to support its hypothesis. Whether it is correct theory or not, I don’t argue.
Ross
Ok, please check this out, everyone. That is, if you want to see an exhaustive list of the arguments against evolution.
There is a section on ID somewhere in here.
Anderson
God, I just know this shit is going to hit Mississippi sooner or later, and I am going to be 24/7 on it …
One of my Top 10 Moments Of Realizing I Had To Get Out Of The Relationship was when my girlfriend mentioned she wasn’t all that convinced about this evolution stuff.
Richard Bennett
That’s one of the classic red flags.
Charles N.
Scs, the very name “intelligent design” implies the supernatural, God or whatever you want to call it. Can natural processes produce intelligently designed results? No.
You could use the particulars of the ID arguments against the particular natural processes that evolution porports causes changes in organisms. But, even if you disprove the particulars you are taking a giant leap when you say that design is required to reach these results. The arguments made are essentially negative rather than positive (i.e. this casts doubt on this theory and since this theory is flawed it must be our theory by default). In my view, it really does amount to a “science cannot explain it” view of the world.
jg
Its not presented in a scientific way (what does that mean anyway, science sounding words?) and its not a scientific theory. There are no observations, none. Just assumptions. Nothing is provable or falsifiable and it makes no predictions that can be observed, its not science.
The more you try to learn about ID you’ll notice that all it doesn is take the opposing position on evolutionary topics. It’ll say evolution is wrong and give you scientific sounding terms like irreducible complexity and the insecure people swoon.
ID is for people who don’t fully believe in Creation but also don’t like what they’ve been (incorrectly) told about evolution and the origins of man.
First there was Creationism, then there was Creation Science. Now its ID.
scs
As JG said:
I just spent about two posts explaining how ID delves into observations of the natural world and about the difficulty in explaining complex biology by natural selection. It gives some real world examples of why this is so. That is an OBSERVATION of the natural world., whether you like it or not.
As to Charles N, good response, because you actually examine actual ID claims. But-
I don’t know if I agree with that. Our brains are natural, so to speak, and (sometimes) they do things intelligently. But seriously, like I said, I make no claim as to the validity of ID. I just feel that the theory is misunderstood by reactionaries.
rs
scs,ID “theory” is based entirely on the inability of the theory of evolution to explain everything about the orgins of life-ID offers no “predictive,logical,testable” mechanism to explain Earth’s biodiversity.It’s proper place is in a comparative religion class.
CaseyL
scs, do you know what the scientific method is?
Richard Bennett
ID is misunderstand because it’s not a coherent theory, and some would argue it’s not a theory at all. There are at least three parts to ID:
1. A set of critiques of natural selection that says it can’t explain the observable data.
2. A half-baked alternative that evokes a designer to explain “irreducible complexity”.
3. A half-baked abuse of information theory that seeks to distinguish designed systems from evolved systems on the basis of system characterisitics and some breath-taking leaps of probability.
The goal in each case is to undermine the naturalistic explanation of natural phenomena, and to put in its place a supernatural explanation.
Thus, it’s not an alternative scientific theory, it’s an alternative theory to science itself. Science doesn’t care whether God, the Easter Bunny, or Elvis created man, it just wants to understand the process that was used. ID doesn’t care about the process, it just wants to put God back into the school curriculum so that teenagers will stop giving each other blow-jobs.
You can blame it all on Clinton, of course.
rs
I guess we can count on Clinton getting the high school vote.
Richard Bennett
He got 60% of the non-HS-grad vote.
tzs
As said before, ID is like arguing that because you got a royal flush in poker, it proves the existence of the Poker Fairy.
Hey, rather than just limply waving your hands at something you don’t have an explanation for and muttering about “irreducible complexity”, might it not be better to try, gee, UNDERSTANDING it first? Have you shown that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to be done in a standard, random mutation way? And none of this “probability” stuff. Before you want to throw out Occam’s razor and the whole kit and kaboodle of scientific thinking, show me that you understand statistics at first. Show me that you understand the probability of anything that has happened already is one. None of this “well, it has to have mutated into a flagellum within 200 generations (how do we know this? What are the error bars?) and you’ve played around with bacteria and only had a similar flagellum develop in 500 generations.” How do you know if we don’t do the experiment over and over again that we don’t have a 200 generation run? PROVE IT!
ID is for intellectual wimps without imagination.
ppGaz
“Difficulty in explaining” A is not evidence of B.
ppGaz
Exactly.
Steve S
OBSERVATIONs are not the sum of what make science. The scientific method relies upon observation, hypothesis, prediction and testing. ID relies only on observation and hypothesis. It cannot be tested, therefore it is not science.
To best understand ID, you ought to watch the 1980 movie “The Gods Must be Crazy”… in which a group of Bushman find a coke bottle and think it has been delivered to them by God. Why? Because they’ve never seen a coke bottle before, and they have no knowledge of how one could possibly make a coke bottle. Therefore it has to have been made by God.
Now we think of that as being silly and superstitious. A coke bottle doesn’t come from God.
Imagine how future generations will feel about ID? Primitives attributing to God what they don’t yet understand…
Steve S
And to be quite clear, I do believe that God has a place in the creation of the Universe.
Newton didn’t invent Gravity. Before Newton there was still gravity, people just didn’t understand it. Theories and such are not inventions. They are discovering the rules of how our Universe operates.
Guess who created those rules?
That’s where God comes into play, as far as I’m concerned.
Richard Bennett
ID attributes to God things that we as a people actually do understand, so it’s not just stupid, it’s crazy.
The Cavalry
As I understand it, there are some things that go in the fossil record — I won’t say gaps because I know that’s a hot button word — that can’t fully be explained by evolution. Why not posit that these things were done by a higher power?
ppGaz
Well, it illustrates the power of belief even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Also known as “faith”.
ppGaz
Because absence of evidence for A is not evidence of B.
CaseyL
“Why not posit that these things were done by a higher power?”
You, and anyone else, can posit that all you want to.
But not as part of the science curriculum.
Because ID is not science.
The essence of science – the thing that makes science “science” – is testability and reproducibility.
The mechanism of evolution is proven. Certain characteristics, genetically heritable, are selected for, by survival of the genotype. Certain other characteristics, also genetically heritable, are not selected for, by the non-survival of that genotype.
Quick example: drug-resistant diseases. How do you think drug-resistant diseases happened?
Another example: humans with higher melanin skin levels withstand ultraviolet radiation better than humans with lower melanin skin levels. Why do you think Africans, Arabs and South American Indians have darker skin than Europeans?
What are ID’s testable hypotheses? How would you design an experiment to test them?
There aren’t any. ID offers no testable hypotheses. ID offers no experimental protocols. ID starts with an unproven, unprovabe first premise.
It’s not science.
Richard Bennett
Why not posit they were done by a Giant Pink Bunny? The honest answer to many questions is “we don’t rightly know”, and when that’s the case that’s what we should say by way of explanation.
WinAce wrote a cute essay on the Irreducibly Grotesque that highlights a number of organisms that are troublesome to evolutionary theory. Go check it out.
CaseyL
I admit, I just skimmed that WinAce essay, but I don’t see how the organisms he (?) talks about are “troublesome to evolutionary theory.” I’m not sure how he concludes that the more complex and grotesque an organism is, the more that “proves” ID. I think a stronger case can be made for the opposite (i.e., evolutionary) pov.
Is WinAce being sardonic?
I’d like to see an ID’er take a stab at explaining the human appendix. And wisdom teeth.
Ross
Calvary: that is what is known as “God of the Gaps”
It’s a really bad idea because once we figure out something that was previously divine intervention scientifically, people feel like their God is being reduced. Giving God credit for the rising of the sun or the solar system or species diversity or whatever, and ignoring the miracle of existance in the first place, puts God in too small a box.
scs
To repeat ONCE again, ID theory (as I have read it) does not say anything about the existence of GOD! It says that natural selection does not adequately explain the development of complex systems, therefore the theoretical mechanism is incomplete. It draws NO conclusions after that, even though you all keep trying to put them in there.
To put it another way, Theory A does not adequately explain Process B, based on observations gained in experiments, and therefore Theory A is not complete.
Now IF Process B is NOT adequately explained by Theory A, that SHOULD be the scientific conclusion. Now I’m not saying that that is the case, as evolution is working on all kinds of models and theories now. But the way the ID theory is presented is done in a scientific way, as they have some replicable experiments to bolster their claims. Anyway, I’m not saying the theory is correct. It’s probably wrong actually. I’m just saying it is presented in a scientific format. In its limited scope, it’s not just complete hocus pocus like some make it out to be. And who knows, maybe there IS some missing step in the process. I’m kind of wondering about if there may be something like self-selection. Just always good to keep an open mind on everything.
Richard Bennett
WinAce’s essay was a parody, CaseyL. The organisms he describes are much more problematic to a believer in a benevolent creator than to a scientist.
scs, the claim that descent with modification doesn’t explain complex systems is malarkey, based on what can most charitibly be described as a poor understanding of species biology, information theory, and probabilty. These processes can be quite adequately simulated with computer models and there are no gaping holes.
The fossil record is obviously incomplete in the realm of single cell organisms, but there are physical reasons for that so it’s not something to get all over-excited about.
ppGaz
Well, actually, that’s exactly what it is.
Larry
You get to teach ID in my public school when I get to teach Darwin in your religious school.
Deal?
Thought not.
And don’t spew public funding at me until you eschew all tax breaks.
demimondian
Bizarrely, the “irreducible complexity” argument is demonstrably false, where I’m using “demonstrably” in the mathematical sense: there exists a proof that random variation is capable of searching any target space to find optimal results for any piecewise continuous function.
CaseyL
scs: It is good to keep an open mind. The trick is to not keep one’s mind so open that one’s brains fall out.
You say ID “draws NO conclusions after that, even though you all keep trying to put them in there.” Wrong.
ID posits the existance of a “Designer”: an unknowable, unidentifiable, unfindable Entity capable of creating complex systems straight out of the box by an act of will alone, and capable of knowing exactly how those complex designs will develop over aeons. That’s “God,” scs. Refusing to call ID’s Designer “God” is like refusing to call a boxlike structure with four axled wheels, an engine, a fuel and exhaust system, an ignition system, driver and passenger seats, and a steering wheel an “automobile” just because there’s no big sign on it that says it is one.
You say the way ID “is presented is done in a scientific way, as they have some replicable experiments to bolster their claims.” What replicable experiments have they done?
Jcricket
Look, stop arging with scs. Despite voluminous evidence to the contrary, he (?) clings to the belief that ID is not repackaged creationism. Despite evidence to the contrary, he seems to think that ID is a consistent theory, or that it has explanatory power. Despite all evidence to the contrary, he insists it’s not about God.
SCS – You’re alone in your beliefs about ID. The other proponents of ID disagree with you. Take a look at the actual testimony of the ID proponents in the Dover trial, it contradicts what you say. The only way I can see you persisting in your beliefs is if you cling to the ridiculously weak notion that the Discovery Institute really is only interested in “suggesting” that there might be other explanations for certain aspects of evolution. If that’s all they were saying, there would be no controversy.
Come to think of it, that’s one of the benefits of ID, it can be whatever you want it to be. Perhaps we should file ID in the “fantasy” section of the library?
Ra-men.
Fran
Yes it is…
…no it isn’t.
Yes it is…
…no it isn’t.
Well, it seems that the Wedge Strategy,, of the Discovery Institute has worked.
The Wedge Strategy suggests that just having a discussion about the relevance of ID vs evolution is a win.
And the winner is…dogmatic thinking.
Tim F.
CaseyL,
I knew someone else who used that tagline. Let me know if you ever visited the Atlantic boards.
scs
See you are all making assumptions on incomplete evidence. I’m not even religious. I’m just open-minded. Teach away.
Well I’m just going by what I read about it in a long NYT article about it a month or so ago. I am presuming they are using the original theory from the people who made it. I agree that the problem is that many people make the theory to be whatever they want it to be. In the small scope that I thought it to be, it didn’t seem that bad.
jg
You’re crazy man. Calling the God of Poker a fairy? I’d avoid any big bets until I could make amends if I were you.
Because its lazy. And as others have pointed out it creates a shitstorm when its proven (as it no doubt will be given enough time) that God didn’t do it, not directly anyway. See Copernicus, Galileo, Columbus, and Darwin for examples.
CaseyL
Tim F, I don’t remember where I first read that. Possibly in a book. But it is a great line.
scs says:
Well, now you know that ID is that bad. It’s dishonest pseudo-science hackery intended to take advantage of the fact that most Americans don’t know what a “theory” is in the scientific sense; don’t know what “the scientific method” is; don’t know what the time-tested, universally-accepted standards of testable, reproducible research are; and are basically science illiterates.
ID takes advantage of people in service of an anti-science agenda.
ID is a scam. A con game. A lie.
Anyone who believes in ID is a mark. Period.
jg
Find more sources. I heard that article was a little too pro-ID.
My favorite ID’er quote. Why experiment when I believe what I say? Pure science SCS.
http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/?nav=navoa
scs
I’ll put my knowledge of science agains yours any day dude. So go to hell. Oh wait, you don’t believe in hell. Never mind.
scs
To repeat : Theory A does not adequately explain Process B, based on observations gained in experiments, and therefore Theory A is not complete.
Your job, as a scientist, is to then show that Theory A DOES adequately explain Process B. (Which I believe a few posters touched on) That’s all. Ain’t no use arguing religion or ranting and raving on how stupid ID proponents are. Stick to the facts, like a true scientist would.
Kimmitt
Two responses:
1) It’s called “Intelligent Design.” There are plenty of folks who work in mainstream science who are leery of current explanations for macroevolution and complexity. Intelligent Design not only posits a solution, it names it.
2) How stupid do you think we are? I agree that a few folks in the ID movement are genuinely concerned with complexity issues, but the movement as a whole is composed mainly of know-nothings. Further, a 9th grade science classroom is patently not the place for anything other than established theory. The ID focus on cramming their fringe beliefs into school systems smacks of proselytization.
scs
That has nothing to do with the thoery. We don’t judge theory for who believes it, we judge it for what it says. It’s not a country club. Once again, it’s facts, not perceptions.
Well I guess that is probably true. Although the flip side is to discuss it could also be invigorating, because the kids could be having the hot debate we are having now. Debating it might help them brush up on their critical thinking skills as they could thoroughly examining science theory and then defend or attack it against other beliefs. That’s the main reason I don’t think it would be so terrible. But I agree, not necessary.
Kimmitt
If it actually is a theory. But we judge whether or not something is a theory put forward in good faith based, among other things, on the credibility of the presenter. ID is patently not put forward in good faith.
scs
Maybe. Like I said I am not an ID pioneer or anything. Just know the little I read on it.
Richard Bennett
I second that, Kimmitt. If ID were a theory in the scientific sense it would make a prediction, but it doesn’t (unless you count the Rapture and Judgment Day as parts of ID.)
jcricket
Like everyone here has said a 1000 times – you’re willfully ignoring all the evidence to the contrary about the origins, facts and purposes of ID. You can’t seriously claim to “put up your science knowledge against” anyone if you maintain such naive beliefs about ID. First try reading Panda’s Thumb if you don’t understand what ID is about. The Dover trial is very illuminating.
Second, ignoring for the moment the “whole” of ID theory, every single criticism ID levels against evolution has been thoroughly discredited by scientists. Try reading the Talk Origins web site and then honestly say you believe ID offers something to the “debate” about evolution. The best “expert” ID can offer (Michael Behe) only remains a professor because of tenure, given how thoroughly wrong he is about everything in biology and chemistry.
Let’s recap, ID isn’t a scientific theory, is only supported by organizations whose purpose is to re-insert Christian and/or religious teachings back in school and doesn’t even offer a single legitimate criticism of evolution. You keep falling back on this idea that “ID” is simply a mechanism to get students to think critically, which is either hopelessly naive or willfully ignorant of the facts.
jcricket
Why not offer up, uncritically, Holocaust Denial? Or the theory that the US government actually flew the planes into the WTC? How about the theory that blacks have lower IQs than other races. Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Sounds like reasonable source material for me. There are thousands of “theories” (in the colloquial sense) that people earnestly believe in. We don’t teach these, or “teach the controversy” for all sorts of good reasons.
If we want to teach that there are some people that believe the earth is 6000 years old, but that they are contradicted by the fossil record, carbon dating, plate tectonics, astronomy, physics, etc. – then fine. But that doesn’t appear to be what you want.
You want ID to be presented as if it’s, at face value, a valid scientific theory with “equal footing” to evolution. Since it’s so far from that that it’s not even science, there is nothing to debate in science class.
scs
Like I’ve said a thousand times, it doesn’t matter WHO started the theory. It could have been the devil or Hitler himself, I don’t care. (Uh-oh, I guess too many posts on this subject – Hitler invariably came up.) Your argument is the theory is bad because ‘I don’t like the people who came up with it’? Please.
As to your point about teaching kids about ID. The other possiblities you mentioned are either totally controversial, not suitable for kids, or completely off the mark. Like I said, ID in its LIMITED, original form is mostly a critique of certain aspects of evolution. I think it may hold interest for kids in a science class just to get them debating about science and because it’s a current interest topic possibly affecting other students their age, and they might want to find out what all the fuss is about and put their two cents in. But either way it doesn’t matter to me. I just don’t think the world would come crashing down if someone wanted to bring it up in class. I am not for censorship, I am for the free exchange of ideas.
And you said “You want ID to be presented as if it’s, at face value, a valid scientific theory with “equal footing” to evolution.” I am assuming you are not a scientist, because your arguments are full of SOOOO many presumptions not supported by the facts. Have I ever said that? Pleeeeease. You might need a refresher course in scientific methods. You have to observe your data first before you come up with the conclusions.
scs
This is what I said before:
The fact that the judge had to even go through that long line of questioning shows that it ID is scientific in scope- just not correct science. An example of something completely UNscientific to me would be, ‘evolution doesn’t exist because the Bible says so’, or ‘the the stars aligned and created biology’. Now THAT would be hocus pocus, as there was nothing at all there based on any kind of logic or any observations of the natural world.
But Behe doens’t do that. Behe makes an, to me, interesting point, about how long certain mutations may take. That is a scientific claim by him, based on real observations of the length of time certain complex mutatations of bacteria may need to develope. That is not hocus pocus. Now he is probably WRONG about the amount of time the mututations he says would take too long occur, and it is much less time than he claimed, according to some just 20,000 years, which would be presummably long enough to accomplish all the necessary mutations you need.
But you can’t deny that his claims were based on some real observations that certain complex mutations CAN take many years to evolve, and you need more science to prove that the speed of those mutations is sufficient to explain evolution.
Kimmitt
http://www.pandasthumb.org
Lots of info on the recent ID trial in Dover, with plenty of slipups by the ID folks. They’re not just liars, they’re really stupid liars.
scs
1001 times. Irrelevant.
demimondian
The argument about mutation rate is irrelevant — and, by the way, not at all new. If the only mechanism by which the expression of hereditable material could change was substitution, then he’d have some ground to maneuver. Problem is, Ed Lewis started studying homeotic genes arose back in the forties (you know, just about as soon as the technology was there) precisely because he was worried about it, too.
The mechanism of functional evolution by duplication and divergence is well known and well understood in biology. John Holland’s work in self-organizing information systems shows how efficient that is, relative to unstructured mechanisms.
The Cavalry
I’m a little surprised that everyone here (except me and Scs, it seems) is so strongly in favor of evolution and against ID. A show of hands: how many of you consider yourself liberal/progressive? That’s what I thought.
Richard Bennett
It not necessary to be a liberal Air America fan to recognize that ID is a load of crap, Cavalry. I voted for Bush Jr. and strongly supported the liberation of Iraq. Are you some kind of born-again, literal-text-of-the-Bible retard?
ID is an attempt to defraud, nothing more.
Kimmitt
No, it is not — if the statement is not presented in good faith, it is not a theory. If the persons presenting the statement are lying, badly, when they say it is presented in good faith, it is not a theory.
Shygetz
scs–The correct scientific term for what Behe is attempting (and failing–read the Nature article on evolutionary modeling and complex systems) to do is refute a theory. ID is not a theory. It is not even a scientific hypothesis. It makes no testable predictions. It is backed up by zero experimental evidence. It does not involve naturalistic explanation, and therefore is of no predictive value. It is a philosophy–a non-naturalistic way of looking at the world. It does explicitly invoke a designer. It does not say explicitly say the designer must be supernatural, but it does state that the designer must be more complex than us. Therefore, it must also have a designer, etc. Eventually, you must get to a supernatural designer, so it does invoke a supernatural designer through logical inferrence, encouraged by the ID proponents themselved. Not one ID experiment has been proposed, much less carried out. Refuting evolution is not sufficient support of a theory–it is a false dichotomy to say “natural selection OR intelligent design.” The work the ID people have done to refute evolution has been thoroughly debunked–most notably Behe and Dembski’s work. Even if absolutely correct, ID is a philosophy that has no predictive value for the naturalistic world, and therefore no standing as a scientific theory (unlike superstring theory, which makes predictions that are not currently testable with modern technology, but should be in the foreseeable future).
And I am an analytical biochemist with a Ph.D. in Genome Science and Technology, so I think I am qualified to answer your challenge.
tzs
Heck, scs, let’s mandate Zacharias Stichin’s stuff be taught as an alternative–you know, the guy who argues that we’re nothing more than the result of alien experiments?
Anything wrong with that?
Barney Frank
I have no dog in this fight, but I will say this; the supporters of evolution routinely call on Gallileo as their antecedent. Yet they tend to sound far more like his close-minded, condescending persecuters than him. If science consists of calling opponents idiots and psychos and explaining that a single celled organism became an orangutan because some bacteria become drug resistant then I guess everyone here has a Phd.
I tend to agree that many, perhaps all of ID’s tenets are probably untestable and unfalsifiable.
However I have yet to see a single tenet of macroevolution that is testable or falsefiable as well.
The arguments for macroevolution seem as tautological as ID, consisting essentially of “we observe a progression of species in the fossil record, and we only have the theory of natural selection to explain this, therefore it does.”
Evolutionists even cite something as profoundly unscientific as plugging a huge number of assumptions into an algorithm and then setting a computer off to determine if this algorithm will evolve as evidence for their theory. The design inherent in something as silly as this exercise would seem to indicate this was an experiment set up by an IDer not a Darwinian, neo or otherwise.
The fact is, very good science is done on the micro evolutionary scale. But on the macro evolutionary scale the science amounts to no more than guesses, assumptions and philosophy. The sad fact is IDers and evolutionists are much closer than they want to admit in that on the larger picture their beliefs are a matter of faith. If I were a hard scientist I would be as uncomfortable with the likes of Messrs Dawkins, Gould etal as I would with Behe and his group. The only difference I can see is the defenders of evolution tend to be considerably less civil than the IDers.