Because across the country school boards and legislatures have mounted aggressive efforts to introduce intelligent design as a co-equal, alternate theory to evolution in public school science classes.
“Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade,” wrote the brilliant paleontologist and Harvard professor, Stephen Jay Gould, “a secular religion masquerading as science.” Signaling that those charges are still part of a contentious discussion about the origins of life, and how faith and science can coexist, even rabbis have come forward to lend their support to a continuation of the teaching of evolution and a resistance to pressure for public schools to question the validity of Darwinian theory and open the door to teaching alternate explanations of biological development — most specifically, the concept of “intelligent design.”
In the Chicago suburb of Deerfield, for instance, Rabbi David Oler of Congregation Beth Or this summer drafted an open letter, signed by over 200 national Jewish leaders, that affirmed their support for the teaching of evolution. The Deerfield letter followed the lead of a similar earlier open letter, the Clergy Letter, that was signed by some 11,000 religious leaders and also supported the teaching of evolution in schools. Why the sudden interest in Darwin by religious leaders? Because across the country — in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Kansas, to name several recent locations — school boards and legislatures have mounted aggressive efforts to introduce intelligent design as a co-equal, alternate theory to evolution in public school science classes.
Intelligent design is acknowledged by many observers to be the latest spin on the “creationism” concept that Gould repeatedly questioned as a true science; to him, and to other mainstream scientists, the movement was solely an attempt to legitimize a religious and Biblical explanation for life’s origins by giving it a scientific veneer. Frustrated by their defeats in court and inability to introduce creationism into schools as a viable, alternative theory to evolution, creationists have begun to publicly disavow religious sources for their philosophy and now suggest that life began through the work of an intelligent "designer," a supernatural force responsible for the entire creation of the universe and all life within it.
Unfortunately for intelligent design’s supporters, the courts have repeatedly seen attempts to introduce this pseudo-science into public school curricula as an attempt to advance a religious philosophy where the state and the law cannot condone such an intrusion, and which is specifically prohibited by the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
The intelligent design adherents, as well as their creationist predecessors, have aggressively attacked evolutionary theory as being no more valid a set of answers than their own explanation of the origin of life; in fact, they contend that evolution is merely a theory, not scientific fact, and therefore open to vigorous debate and scholarly inquiry.
If it is true that evolution is no more certain that intelligent design, they ask, why not expose students to both theories? Why keep students from investigating each scientific approach and choosing between them? "It's an academic freedom proposal," said Stephen C. Meyer of Seattle’s nonprofit Discovery Institute, the principal generator of intelligent design research. "What we would like to foment is a civil discussion about science. That falls right down the middle of the fairway of American pluralism."
There is one serious problem with the specious idea of teaching intelligent design in science classes as a concomitant scientific theory to evolution: no credible member of the scientific or academic communities has ever proven that intelligent design is anything more than a faith-based philosophy masquerading as science, grounded on the Genesis account of the creation of life. Despite the fact that they have tried, in pressing the intelligent design theory, to distance themselves from their faith, supporters have still not been able to convince the courts that intelligent design can stand on its own as a body of knowledge appropriate for science classes.
“The methodology employed by creationists is another factor which is indicative that their work is not science,” the court found in its extensive and insightful decision in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. “The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions [of the intelligent design theory].”
Science involves methodical investigation of unknown facts, with findings that are sometimes anticipated but frequently unknown, surprising, or serendipitous. Intelligent design fails as science because it was created as a specific contradiction to evolution, and was promulgated to support a pre-existing ideology. “While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose,” the court in the Arkansas case added, “they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.”
The fact that intelligent design is not science is exactly the reason that it should not be part of any science curriculum — either as an alternative theory to evolution or as intellectual exercise by which students, exercising their "academic freedom," can investigate other approaches to the origin of life.
The fact is that not every intellectual viewpoint is worthy of being discussed in the classroom, merely because one group feels passionately that their issue has intrinsic value, is true, or should be heard as part of the marketplace of ideas. Some truths are absolute and do not require a fair and balanced measurement against some contradictory body of thought. An entire intellectual "industry" of Holocaust denial research has many fervent followers, for instance, but few sentient school boards would find it palatable or reasonable to have students exposed to the "theory" that the Holocaust never occurred along with history lessons expressing the verifiable and incontrovertible fact that it did.
Ironically, deniers conduct their research and have come to their findings about the Holocaust in a manner similar to the way intelligent design theorists come to theirs. In his essay “Why Revisionism Isn't,” Gordon McFee seems to echo, in the context of revisionist history, the court’s appraisal of how intelligent design was researched and promoted. Just as creationists start with the premise that the theory of evolution is flawed and subject to doubt, wrote McFee, “Revisionists depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur and work backwards through the facts to adapt them to that preordained conclusion.” “Put another way, they reverse the proper methodology . . ., thus turning the proper historical method of investigation and analysis on its head . . . To put it tritely, ‘revisionists’ revise the facts based on their conclusion.”
Deniers may have concluded and may passionately want to believe that there was no “Final Solution,” that gas chambers were used merely to delouse prisoners, that only hundreds of thousands of Jews, not millions, were exterminated, and that the Holocaust is overall a hoax perpetrated by Jewish victims to extract sympathy and reparations from the world; but all of their invidious scholarship cannot prove the unprovable, and nor obviously would their theories deserve to be taught as an alternative "history" in public schools merely because they question history and employ perverse scholarship to deny and distort the magnitude of one of the most documented and pernicious events of contemporary times.
“‘Creation science,’” Gould wrote in an essay he called "Verdict on Creationism," “has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage — good teaching — than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?”
abbW3 You don't know anything about how the courts operate, or what a court decision means. That's the only issue I've put on the table.
I wrote both about abstractly and concretely about the issue. I instructed you about how Courts actually approach an issue, and analyzed the foundational reasoning of Kitzmiller citing from your own source. Yet you still pretend that it's an open issue.
I don't debate emotions or "feelings" with someone who can't seem to recognize the limits of their own understanding of an issue, yet lectures others on their deficiencies when they make pronouncements about science. You condemn people for making direct and absolute statements about Darwinism without a proper understanding of science, yet you persist in a foolish discussion of the courts based on a layman's questions about precise issues I and others have already addressed.
You're not serious, and continuing to restate things you are unwilling, or unable to comprehend is a meaningless exercise. Your discussion of the courts is shallow and fraudulant, and causes people to wonder whether you have an agenda when you speak from your supposed area of expertise.
"Evolution is not, however, itself the invariant tenet of faith, but merely an especially resilient inference of the underlying tenents."
Bingo. Game, set, and match.
Phillip Ellis Jackson abbW3 You don't know anything about how the courts operate, or what a court decision means. That's the only issue I've put on the table.
(Sigh.)
Ok, so we are not in agreement as to the implications of that particular verdict, nor as to what the verdict is measuring. (Among other things.) This leaves that particular area a fruitless dead end for further discussion at present. So, to discuss evolution versus intelligent design, we'll probably need to work back to where we can find propositions we can agree on.
Correct me if I err, but I presume you would dispute the proposition:
"Intelligent Design was derived from Creationism."
What rules of inference would you suggest everyone present would recognize for use in attempting to prove or disprove this (or another) proposition?
abb3w Evolution is not, however, itself the invariant tenet of faith, but merely an especially resilient inference of the underlying
tenentstenets. (FTFM)Mountain Man: Bingo. Game, set, and match.
Nowhere near that final. Consider the proposition:
"Of present alternatives, the current version provided in the Theory of Evolution is the description of biology which present evidence indicates is most probably correct."
I presume you are disinclined to accept this. Feel free to correct me if in fact you have no problem with it. Also feel free to ask for clarification before we proceed if you feel this is ambiguous or unclear.
This proposition is an inference of the underlying tenets. To reject the evolutionary inference, you must reject one of the primary tenets, or show how the conclusion is incorrectly inferred from the tenets. I indicated the list of tenets earlier: Science thus becomes dependent (due to this paper) on the philosophical assumptions that propositional logic is valid for formal inference, that the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of set theory (which serve as the modern foundation for all mathematics) are self-consistent (though they need not be complete), and that Reality is relatable to Evidence.
So, we can start with those. Do wish to reject one or more of these tenets, or would you prefer to proceed to examine how these tenets lead to inferring the above proposition?
Abb3w, I'm glad we agree that there is nothing a court can do to stop a coherent "accepted" theory. That's all that matters to me. Dover found that the Discovery Institute had no science. I knew that. It didn't even have anything for ID'ers to do like intelligence generation/detection labs or experiments such as in self-assembly that are like Creationists maintain forces made a "Poof!" and life was there instead of waiting forever for randomness to do and cannot.
I keep the definition of what a theory is to the most simplest form possible because it's unnecessary to complicate things until the whole class is scared out of science by all the hard to make sense of rules and methods.
Hypothesis is a coherent true/false statement that can be tested either way with experiment.
Law (in science) is a coherent brief statement that fully explains a testable phenomena.
Theory is a coherent statement that best explains a testable phenomena.
The religiously inspired Charles Darwin could not even describe a mechanism. We still don't know half of it. But that doesn't matter to a theory. All that does is how useful it is to scientists. So even though Evolutionary Theory was relatively sketchy and not 100% true it still made sense of many things. Time makes a useful theory real.
Also have to consider that the Big Bang Theory was written by a priest and connects to the subatomic as the real Theory of ID does exactly. Only thing a teacher can do is insert religion to whatever extent the Big Bang allows. And could maybe explain how the 48-47-46 fusion is their Adam and Eve moment but I see no harm done especially where the students are mainly Creationists. And believe it or not Galileo wanted to be a monk. Einstein saw his theories as revealing the Creator. It only makes sense that religiously inspired ID would lead to another great theory!
More dishonesty from abb3W.
This isn't a case of two people looking at a glass and one seeing it half full, the other half empty. It's an example of one person who actually knows what Courts do and how they operate (and therefore what a court decision "is" — or "isn't"), and another person who applies a layman's understanding of "facts" to court actions, and forms a decision based on his feelings.
It wouldn't be an issue if abb3w didn't lecture people about making uninformed statements and judgments. Once again the person who lectures us all on the proper way to think about issues exempts hiumself from the same standards he requires of everyone else.
How about the absolute premise that no Designer is required for evolution, therefore any alternative that presupposes a Designer is rejected a priori?
Gary Gaulin Abb3w, I'm glad we agree that there is nothing a court can do to stop a coherent "accepted" theory. That's all that matters to me.
Glad I found some point of agreement.
Would you also agree that until such time, attempts to include ID in the curriculum are premature?
Gary Gaulin I keep the definition of what a theory is to the most simplest form possible because it's unnecessary to complicate things until the whole class is scared out of science by all the hard to make sense of rules and methods.
This is an excellent approach for teaching children. Adults, however, I feel should be able to handle subtlety and nuance. (Optimistic, perhaps.) It is necessary to be precise about the meanings of the terms first, so that the results implied are formally correct. After that, they can be simplified to facilitate building understanding by the kiddies.
The definitions you use are close, but not exact. For example, experiment is not the only means of hypothesis testing, merely the easiest; "relationships within evidence" might be more exact than "testable phenomena"; and it might be worth noting that "best" has a strict mathematical definition, though the details aren't suitable for the overall K-12 curriculum.
Gary Gaulin Also have to consider that the Big Bang Theory was written by a priest
As I've noted, HOW you form your conjecture or hypothesis is largely irrelevant to the process of science. Get inspired by the fall of a ripe apple, drink excessive amounts of coffee, or have a vision of a seraphim choir descending with inscribed golden tablets. All good… provided the results withstand testing.
Gary Gaulin and connects to the subatomic as the real Theory of ID does exactly.
Here, I'm afraid, is a point I must differ. As you noted, "theory" is limited to the best explanation. As I noted (repeatedly), "best" has a formal and precise mathematical meaning associated in the context of science. ID does not meet the criterion of best; it is thus a hypothesis, not a theory.
Gary Gaulin And could maybe explain how the 48-47-46 fusion is their Adam and Eve moment but I see no harm done especially where the students are mainly Creationists.
I certainly see no harm in parents explaining it that way, or teachers at a private school. For public school teachers to do so, however, would seem to be a problem under the present case law. I would consider it better to enthusiastically encourage students to talk to their parents and/or religious leaders as to how science should be interpreted within their faith.
Gary Gaulin Einstein saw his theories as revealing the Creator.
His religious views were subtle and nuanced enough that both pro- and anti-theists find support from quoting him. If you really want to discuss him in depth, we can, but it's a bit of a quagmire, and not that relevant to the matter at hand as far as I see.
Phillip Ellis Jackson More dishonesty from abb3W.
I'll omit characterizing your response. "We disagree" is enough.
Let's leave the courts aside and go to whether or not you would dispute the proposition:
"Intelligent Design was derived from Creationism."
More important, what general rules of inference would you suggest everyone present would recognize for use in attempting to prove or disprove this (or another) proposition?
Mountain Man How about the absolute premise that no Designer is required for evolution, therefore any alternative that presupposes a Designer is rejected a priori?
This is not an absolute premise, nor are such alternatives rejected a priori. Rather, the lack of need for a Designer is a formal inference of the premises via evidence. I can help go over that, too. However, first we must address the premises themselves.
Again, the list of tenets from earlier: Science thus becomes dependent (due to this paper) on the philosophical assumptions that propositional logic is valid for formal inference, that the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of set theory (which serve as the modern foundation for all mathematics) are self-consistent (though they need not be complete), and that Reality is relatable to Evidence.
If necessary, we can deal with them one by one. I usually prefer to start with the Commutativity of Logical Exclusive Disjunction when doing so is needed. Would you agree that (P OR Q) may be logically inferred from (Q OR P), and vice-versa?
abb3W: We don't "disagree". You are wrong, because you have no idea what you are talking about, and won't accept the fact that you are violating the dictate you criticized everyone else for — that one should actually know what they are talking about before they make definitive statements. You want to weasel out of the issue by saying that we simply “disagree”. I know what I’m talking about, and can back my position up with real analysis, real life experiences, real relevant education, and real facts. You want to rely on intuition and feelings to support your case, and call it a draw.
I’m not interested in a discussion where we share our feelings. The purpose of this website is to engage in genuine debate, not just listen to people shoot off their mouths and then duck the issue when they’re caught making silly statements; particularly when we’ve been treated to the insufferable condemnation of a blowhard who lectures us on what others need to do to back up their position while he just spews his feelings about issues he doesn’t even remotely understand.
Since your standard is that it’s now okay to simply share feelings about the Courts rather than engage in a real discussion, there’s no reason to analyze any other aspect of your claims about science and evolution. All we need to do is express an emotion that conflicts with your analysis, and we’ll call that a draw too. After that we can express our feelings about dark matter and the devaluation of the Euro, and share any other feelings we might have on anything else that pops into our minds.
And to think that some of us wasted a good portion of our lives actually studying, living, or otherwise understanding an issue when all we need to do is say “we disagree”, and then move on to the next topic.
"The role of the courts of "trier of fact" is noted in the Seventh Amendment. In a jury trial, this function is reserved to the jury, with the judge serving merely as the arbiter of law. However, in a trial before a judge alone, the judge serves as arbiter of both."
Oh, good God (if you can forgive the expression). Courts are not triers of fact in any sense external to the court. They make decisions regarding "facts" in the context of what is permissible and allowable in a legal case, the culmination of which is to find a verdict, and not to discover or confirm a new fact. Courtrooms aren't laboratories. Courts decide how facts (as they determine them) fit into a broader legal context to reach a binary decision in a two-outcome case.
"The first reference to "Republican" was by me, to the judge in KvD. PEJ was responding; as such, Kitzmiller v. Dover is inherently relevant."
He was responding to your characterization of "Republican" judges universally adhering to a particular legal philosophy – not to "Republican" judges in the context of the case you cited. The case wasn't relevant to the point he was making, your characterization of judges based on the political party of the person who appointed them was.
"I thought the balance of the evidence was made clear in the verdict, that posters at a website called "Intellectual Conservative" would be reasonably familiar with the evidence presented in the case, and that respondents would make clear the framework they were using to dispute this. My apologies if this is overly presumptuous."
The "balance of evidence" in the legal case says nothing about the merit of this, or any other, ostensibly scientific inquiry in any sense external to the courts. You keep going back to this legal case as "proof" that intelligent design is the same as religious creationism, and therefore may be dismissed out of hand with no further discussion. Rather than keep returning to this issue to belabor the point and discuss the nature of law and justice and science and truth, you could have sidestepped it entirely by just saying yourself "here's why intelligent design is the same as creationism, and here's why intelligent design and creationism are not science". You could have then had a rousing debate with the people who disagree with you on the merits of the facts in question instead of on the basis of legal trivialities and technicalities. I personally couldn't care less, as I've read all of these arguments ad nauseum and long ago become bored with the entire issue as a matter of discussion. I just don't understand why you are dancing around pointless and irrelevant legal intricacies instead of addressing your chosen topic of dicussion directly, especially given the ostensibly absolute and unquestionable nature of your evidence.
And "the evidence" is set by an a prioi assumption that no Designer is preferable over a Designer.
Phillip Ellis Jackson We don't "disagree". You are wrong, because you have no idea what you are talking about.
By "we disagree", I was limiting my response.
More exactly, you do not appear to be stating your premises, indicating your inferences and basis therefore, and presenting a conclusion with sufficient clarity for me to reach agreement that they form a valid thesis, or even see if there is any common framework to allow any mutually agreeable inference of any kind.
Yes, you went through the "legal and intellectual foundation of the Court in deciding whether something violates the Constitutional provision against the establishment of religion". This is a good description of the function of the court as arbiter of law. My initial reference to Kitzmiller was not referencing this function, (though I did later), but to its separate function as arbiter of fact, via use of (as Patrick Mulligan put it) "a standard of evidenciary proof".
Alternatively, since you don't seem to consider this relevant to whether ID is derived from creationism, we need to step back (as I was trying to do) and determine whether we have any commonalities in how we judge the nature of "fact", in the hopes of allowing any basis for a discussion.
Phillip Ellis Jackson I know what I’m talking about, and can back my position up with real analysis, real life experiences, real relevant education, and real facts.
If you care to state your membership in a US bar association, I will concede your expert status, all inferences based on US law you care to make within that expert status.
Whether or not you do so, I intend to raise no further points of US law.
Phillip Ellis Jackson: And to think that some of us wasted a good portion of our lives actually studying, living, or otherwise understanding an issue when all we need to do is say “we disagree”, and then move on to the next topic.
Hardly. It means we need to step back to see if there is any framework by which we can come to agreement on anything, to then work back towards the original point of discussion.
Thus, I repeat: would you dispute or not the proposition:
"Intelligent Design was derived from Creationism."
and again more important, what general rules of inference would you suggest everyone present would recognize for use in attempting to prove or disprove this (or another) proposition?
Patrick Mulligan: Oh, good God (if you can forgive the expression).
Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti…. =)
Patrick Mulligan: They make decisions regarding "facts" in the context of what is permissible and allowable in a legal case, the culmination of which is to find a verdict, and not to discover or confirm a new fact.
Agreed.
Patrick Mulligan: Courtrooms aren't laboratories. Courts decide how facts (as they determine them) fit into a broader legal context to reach a binary decision in a two-outcome case.
Also agreed. The decisions thus may be oversimplifications. However, I felt they seemed to be a potentially useful first approximation. Since Phillip Ellis Jackson is objecting strongly to even using this as a starting approximation, and furthermore seems (from what I can make out) to be conflating the consequent implications of rulings of law based on rulings of fact with the rulings of fact themselves, my hypothesis is disproven. (I suck.) I'm dropping the legal line of pursuit for that reason.
Patrick Mulligan: He was responding to your characterization of "Republican" judges universally adhering to a particular legal philosophy – not to "Republican" judges in the context of the case you cited.
If you feel my post implied that this character of "Republican" judges was universal, I apologize. I merely intended to indicate the general conservative tendency, and that the judge in question had indicated such a conservative nature in other rulings.
Patrick Mulligan: The "balance of evidence" in the legal case says nothing about the merit of this, or any other, ostensibly scientific inquiry in any sense external to the courts.
While disagreeing with "ostensibly scientific" as a characterization, I'd agree that it is not definitive, comprehensive, nor dispositive. That's not quite "saying nothing" however. However, the point becomes moot.
Patrick Mulligan: You keep going back to this legal case as "proof" that intelligent design is the same as religious creationism, and therefore may be dismissed out of hand with no further discussion.
A bit of a straw man, that. I claimed that ID is derived from creationism, and that (at the time of the ruling) it taxonomically remained creationism. This leaves potential for considerable discussion, via dispute of either premise or consequences. EG: a counter assertion that it has changed sufficiently to no longer be a variant of creationism – a new species, so to speak. =)
Patrick Mulligan: Rather than keep returning to this issue to belabor the point and discuss the nature of law and justice and science and truth, you could have sidestepped it entirely by just saying yourself "here's why intelligent design is the same as creationism, and here's why intelligent design and creationism are not science".
In hindsight, that probably would have been a better approach. I'm lazy, and the court case covered a lot of the associated evidence; pointing to the case was easier than typing it all up. Proceeding as you suggest at this juncture, however, is pointless, since the remarks lead me to doubt chances for getting agreement as to a basis for inference, let alone subsequent propositions or inferences therefrom. My focus is thus shifted to that.
Mountain Man: And "the evidence" is set by an a prioi assumption that no Designer is preferable over a Designer.
No. The evidence consists of any human sensory observation, such as "I see the sky looks blue today", "I hear a whirring", "my (insert anatomy) seems hot/cold/pained/etc", "the burning smell seems stronger near the window than near the door", "this tastes sweet", or "I feel queasy/dizzy/happy".
It is not an assumption that "no Designer is preferable over a Designer". This is rather an inference derivable from the assumptions and the properties associated with demarcating "something designed" from "something not designed".
I'd like to get back to the assumptions that are made that I've explicitly stated. Would you agree that (P OR Q) may be logically inferred from (Q OR P), and vice-versa?
Also, missed closing a tag before:
Patrick Mulligan: Rather than keep returning to this issue to belabor the point and discuss the nature of law and justice and science and truth, you could have sidestepped it entirely by just saying yourself "here's why intelligent design is the same as creationism, and here's why intelligent design and creationism are not science".
In hindsight, that probably would have been a better approach. I'm lazy, and the court case covered a lot of the associated evidence; pointing to the case was easier than typing it all up. Proceeding as you suggest at this juncture, however, is pointless, since the remarks lead me to doubt chances for getting agreement as to a basis for inference, let alone subsequent propositions or inferences therefrom. My focus is thus shifted to that.
Blug it; missed different closing tag. "In hindsight" and after is me, not Patrick. Sorry about my incompetence with HTML; I'm too used to blogs and such with a "preview" option before submitting.
"Sensory perception," i.e., anything perceived by the senses is acceptable…scientific, and anything not perceivable is unacceptable. Therefore, nothing exists that cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. This is another a priori precondition.
In other words, "science" is subject to the senses, and anything not subject to the senses is not "science," a concept imposed on science relatively recently, to its detriment.
So, if one can narrow the definition of science enough, it becomes simple enough to dismiss competing theories as "not scientific."
Truly breathtaking anti-intellectualism.
Mountain Man "Sensory perception," i.e., anything perceived by the senses is acceptable…scientific, and anything not perceivable is unacceptable. Therefore, nothing exists that cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled.
Pfft. Easy counterexamples from physics include the antineutrino, magnetism, entropy, and the particle-wave duality. From sociology, I think "society" and "government" would qualify also as existing without being seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. (Cue quips about how much government stinks.) I think "morality" is real, though as I noted I feel the definition needs work.
Things not perceptible are unacceptable as evidence. However, Reality potentially includes anything which may be inferred from evidence.
Thus again I ask after a means of inference: would you agree that given it is shown "The plum is purple OR the book is yellow", is it valid to infer "The book is yellow OR the plum is purple" from this? And more generally that (P OR Q) may be validly inferred from (Q OR P) and vice-versa?
Mountain Man anything not subject to the senses is not "science,".
I'm not sure "I feel happy" fits the restriction as "subject to the senses". The sight of a bush burning without being consumed certainly would.
Also, if you have some other particular examples you feel ought to constitute "evidence", you should certainly feel free to see if I would agree they should be included in the category which I would refer to as Evidence.
Abb3w, I can agree by saying that attempts to include ID in the curriculum are unnecessary. The self-assembly experiment to go with it was already published by the National Science Teacher Association and the rest of the science behind it has no problem passing peer-review either. It's in a sense already there as a result of how real science moves on its own.
Best thing for those who want to transform the classrooms is to first get them up to date by including the dust/clay/mineral science from Harvard and rest of the now routine science I referenced in the design theory blog. The theory is to explain more about origins in a more faith-friendly way but does not require a special class. It would be used in bits and pieces teachers find helpful in what they already teach or to answer questions from students. Theory becomes accepted by one more scientist or teacher every time they find an idea from it useful to them in lab or class. Years from now it will be the only theory of ID anyone remembers.
What any of us think of it now doesn't change anything. But being Illegal in Pennsylvania must be rather thrilling for some teachers there. Here's how it went in the Dover area in a topic on Evolution and a couple others kinda smiling at everyone:
http://exchange.ydr.com/Schools-and-education-f87.html
We can agree on many things but I have to disagree about ID being a hypothesis. It is not a true/false question that can be completely answered with a quick experiment. The theory contains many facts.
The following of levels of organization into the subatomic like the Big Bang Theory does is actually quite shocking. We now have two theories in agreement on where the "search for the Creator" goes which might not interest you but those who find it the greatest challenge of the all are the ones who write the great theories. The science is for them.
We are getting closer to 100 comments. Please poke Abb3W with a pointed stick again so he can express his wounded feelings. Seems to me that this discussion has strayed far off track but only 31 more posts to go.
By the way who is John Galt?
Gary Gaulin: The self-assembly experiment to go with it was already published by the National Science Teacher Association and the rest of the science behind it has no problem passing peer-review either.
I'm not familiar with this experiment; can you give a quick outline of details or the publication citation info to look it up?
Gary Gaulin: We can agree on many things but I have to disagree about ID being a hypothesis. It is not a true/false question that can be completely answered with a quick experiment.
The answering by a "quick" experiment isn't required for a hypothesis; merely the ability to distinguish it from the null hypothesis. The theory of evolution is also a hypothesis, in the same sense, and correspondingly as complicated to test comprehensively.
Also, I'd note that science never gives absolute true/false answers. It's a philosophically and mathematically inherent limitation. Data gathering corresponds to statistical sampling, and there is always a chance (howsoever slight) that every one of the points of data humanity has ever collected are each a statistical fluke. The best science can do is indicate the balance of probability between outcomes indicated by the data.
"The fact is that not every intellectual viewpoint is worthy of being discussed in the classroom, merely because one group feels passionately that their issue has intrinsic value, is true, or should be heard as part of the marketplace of ideas."
Then why is Marxism still taught in universities as a viable political-economic system, even in view of its failed, barbaric record?
abb3w,
It was YOUR assertion. You wrote, "The evidence consists of any human sensory observation…" Do you remember writing that? Are those your words?
So why do you refute your own claim?
Hey, Mickey G, was I right or was I right? Self-avowed believers in "science" can't put a logical thought together. Waste of time and bandwidth.
abb3w: I’m happy to state my credentials to make an informed statement about the Courts. After that, I expect you to state your credentials to do the same.
I have a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago, a Masters Degree in public policy from the State University of New York at Albany (full scholarship — room, board, and tuition), and a BA from SUNY Albany (graduating Magna Cum Laude). I’ve taught graduate level courses on public policy at DePaul University and the University of Chicago, focusing on American politics and the courts. I headed up a two year effort to reorganize the Dallas County Criminal Justice System. For this I was invited to the White House to receive personal recognition from President Reagan, whose staff used my program to help develop a national template for other communities to follow. I was also an expert witness in a Federal court case, and was involved in a civil case involving one of the companies I owned. I understand how the courts function from an academic and practical level, from the highest court in the land to the local constabularies. I know what courts do, what they don’t do, what a court decision is, and what it is not. I know what elements of the evidentiary process are consistent across all court proceedings, and what are not.
To supplement this understanding of how the courts actually function in American society, have the following additional credentials. I’ve worked in Washington DC for the top political firm (Cassidy and Associates), reporting to Bob Beckel who ran Walter Mondale’s campaign, Jimmy Carter’s Press Secretary, a former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several former congressmen of both political parties, and two former cabinet officers. I was the primary staff support for the final negotiations of an international treaty, dealing directly with individuals like John Negroponte. I also ran the government affairs office of a Trade Association for 11 years, dealing with state as well as national issues. I’ve been personally briefed on legislation by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I was staff to a US congressman during his election campaign (I wrote his speeches and developed his issues). I was the chief of staff to the committee that re-wrote the charter for the City of Dallas. I was Executive Director of 6 public-private sector management studies of governmental institutions (one of which was the criminal justice study I mentioned above). I was actually invited to the White House a second time to receive similar recognition for another one of these studies. And when I turned 40 I left all this behind to start a marketing firm that represented the national offices of the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society and Easter Seals, among others. I sold my interest in that enterprise 5 years later, started three more successful companies, and retired in my early 50s.
This is the education and life experience I draw upon to frame my judgments. You could have understood a lot of this by following the link under my name back to my website.
Now kindly state yours to make similar definitive statements about the courts and what they “clearly” do.
Note: I’m not interested in your scientific background. I haven’t challenged the notion that evolution exists; in fact as I stated earlier I personally support that position. I believe in a purposeful God, and see no conflict between a God-driven intelligent design of the universe and human evolution.
Since we’re on the subject, for all your scientific knowledge (I haven’t challenged you on that, by the way — so no need to document it for us), you have a nasty habit of reducing complex issues to straw man arguments. Discussing whether people who believed in creationism developed, support, or now believe in ID is an example of this.
I mentioned earlier that unlike creationism, ID does not rely on biblical stories but employs modern scientific tools like mathematics to state its case. ID isn’t “science” like chemistry is science, but it uses science to support its reasoning. Rather than discuss this, you dismissed the notion in a silly, superficial way: “While ID does employ some of the concepts of science, it does so incorrectly. The most egregious is their abuse of the mathematics of probability, when the average shmuck is unable to grasp the Monty Hall problem or even why it's dumb to draw to an inside straight.”
Well, my understanding of ID comes from the “average shmuck” Roy Abraham Varghese, who is the author of “The Wonder of the World”, and is the editor and author of various books on the interface between science and religion. Of these, “Cosmos, Bios, Theos”, was described as "the year's most intriguing book about God" by Time magazine, and “Cosmic Beginnings and Human Ends” won a Templeton Book Prize in 1995. Roy, with whom I co-authored a novel, is a former atheist. He doesn’t fit your cartoon model of someone with links to fundamentalist religious sects who embraces intelligent design theory as a surreptitious way promote biblical creationism.
So what do I conclude from all of this?
1. We’ve gone several days with you maintaining that the courts have somehow proven that ID is just a disguised form of creationism, even though you know nothing about how courts function and what a court decision actually is. You still want to discuss the courts with a layman’s understanding of “facts” while lecturing us about the need to employ precise language and understanding when we discuss scientific matters. You won’t admit that you’ve violated your own self-imposed ‘rules’, and admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Now that I’ve shown you my credentials in this area as you’ve demanded, if you can’t match mine I expect you to concede the point that you’re making ignorant, uninformed statements about what a court decision “clearly” is. [It’s okay to do so --- we all know it. But until you admit it, you have no credibility in anything you say.] We don’t “disagree”. You are wrong. Until you admit this or show me superior credentials (since that was your challenge), this will be the single point I discuss with you. I won’t move on to another topic until this first matter is closed, since it goes to the core of your basic honesty in this debate. I don't derbate blowhards; there's no point to it.
2. Once we settle issue #1, unless and until you retract your cartoon assessment of ID, there’s also no point in debating you. You appear to have absolutely no idea what ID is other than what you’ve surmised from press releases condemning the Discovery Institute. You want to debate one group’s pronouncements on ID without bothering to educate yourself about what ID actually is in its full manifestation. To consider, by extension of your comments, Roy Varghese to be a “shmuck” again illustrates that you approach this as an agenda-driven matter, rather than a genuine debate. Nothing anyone says will convince you to alter your agenda-driven conclusions (as our court discussion has more than illustrated).
Now, to get back to your challenge to me, since you raised the issue, let’s hear why we should all believe that your credentials are better than mine in assessing the actions of the courts.
Mickey G,
I don't know, but did you feel the market go out from under you when Atlas stumbled?
Bob Stapler, yes I did. That is what happens when you are blinded by Abb3w's brilliance…just can't see where you are going. Looks like we really have a range war underway.
Only 25 more comments to make 100 unless someone else jumps in before I submit.
I find that those supporting certain viewpoints reach the level of a religious fanatic and see that fanaticism shown in the comments.
What is wrong with following the Socratic method in education? Why shouldn't teachers expose the soft underbelly of unproven theories?
Anyway I am tired of this one although I enjoyed the comments of mountain man, Phil Jackson and others. Good to see a spirited exchange and learn from it.
Abb3w, here's the self-assembly experiment:
http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/4/tst07_074_07_72
The following is what was submitted for peer-review. Except for editors helping to reword the text to better fit their in-house style it is what was published in the journal:
http://members.aol.com/fromscience/experiments/cellmembrane.html
The "Creator Hypothesis" project demonstrated a hypothesis. In this case science is either evidence for a Creator or evidence against, which is a true/false type statement.
http://creator-hypothesis.blogspot.com/
Mickey G: We are getting closer to 100 comments. Please poke Abb3W with a pointed stick again so he can express his wounded feelings.
You've not particularly managed to wound my feelings. I usually spend more time on fora where 100 comments is a slow thread, but there's usually more participants as well.
sedonaman: Then why is Marxism still taught in universities as a viable political-economic system, even in view of its failed, barbaric record?
The university level allows for deeper exploration of subjects than K-12 education as students narrow in on a specific field. This includes deeper exploration of failed ideas, and consideration of why they failed; I also don't know how widely it's taught in the US as "a viable political-economic system" even at the university level. I never encountered it presented thus. One of the disadvantages to universities using tenure to protect the expression of socially controversial ideas is that it means protecting those who express ideas that frankly aren't credible.
I'd have absolutely no problem with presenting material on Intelligent Design at the university level.
Mountain Man It was YOUR assertion. You wrote, "The evidence consists of any human sensory observation…" Do you remember writing that? Are those your words? So why do you refute your own claim?
That was my wording, yes, in an attempt to clarify. I also explicitly noted "I feel happy" No, I don't refute my own claim; I've asked for suggestions as to what else should be considered in the primary category of evidence, and how best to express the idea. If you have a better suggestion, please make it.
Mountain Man Hey, Mickey G, was I right or was I right? Self-avowed believers in "science" can't put a logical thought together.
There's a difference between putting a thought together and conveying it clearly. I hear professors bemoaning that gap in their students fairly often. As for logic, you so far appear unwilling to even stipulate to Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction.
Phillip Ellis Jackson I'm happy to state my credentials to make an informed statement about the Courts. After that, I expect you to state your credentials to do the same.
I have a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago, a Masters Degree in public policy from the State University of New York at Albany (full scholarship – room, board, and tuition), and a BA from SUNY Albany (graduating Magna Cum Laude).
I will agree this (and the rest) qualifies you as an expert on politics and the political implications of law. However, this is not the same as being an expert on the law itself.
I do not have any such comparable credentials, and that your practical experience with the law is considerably more than mine. My understanding of the role of the courts is limited to what I have read in case law, a few law texts, and on-line. My formal education includes a wide variety of science and mathematics courses in pursuit of (at various times) Mechanical, Nuclear, and Computer Science degrees… with no final degree ever being achieved, primarily due to ADD related issues. I'm presently employed anyway by the University of Virginia's School of Engineering as IT support for the Department of Science, Technology, and Society. (I hasten to add this means I in NO WAY speak for this Department, School, or University.) The department concentrates on the interactions of Science and Society, especially in the practice of engineering, education, and technology. I avail myself of their libraries and their expertise as my whims take me. My interest in biology is merely tangential to a hobby interest in certain aspects of sociology.
Of course, that doesn't make me an expert on the law, or any of this. It just means I'm an over-read flake.
Phillip Ellis Jackson Now kindly state yours to make similar definitive statements about the courts and what they "clearly" do.
My 8th grade english teacher would have smacked your knuckles with a ruler over your reading comprehension. To revisit each use I made of the word "clearly":
abb3w In particular, the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case established via the "cdesign proponentsists" transitional form that intelligent design was clearly creationism under a new name.
The "cdesign proponentsists" transitional form was discovered as a direct result of the historical event of the KvD case. I feel this particular evidence made clear that "intelligent design was creationism under a new name". You find this concept profoundly objectionable. Ergo, it's (by definition) not clear.
abb3w Furthermore, the evidence of the history of the movement clearly shows – sufficient for proof in court of law – that Intelligent Design is a variation on creationism. With that clearly established, the balance of proof shifts to it's proponents to show that what they are doing constitutes science.
In the first use "sufficient for proof in court of law" is used as a qualifier. You argue this is not sufficient for any other context. Fine enough; it can no longer be considered clearly established. And thus, I need to find out what means we might agree something may be clearly established.
abb3w Again: it is not the ruling, but the evidence presented during the case which shows ID is clearly religious based, and does not yet meet the standards of science as demarcated by Philosophy of Science.
You don't see the evidence makes it clear; ergo, it's not clear. So, I am attempting to move the discussion to finding out what means we might agree something may be clearly established. Without that, discussion will collapse completely to the Python argument clinic.
Would you be willing to agree that from (P OR Q), I may be logically inferred (Q OR P), and vice-versa?
Phillip Ellis Jackson I mentioned earlier that unlike creationism, ID does not rely on biblical stories but employs modern scientific tools like mathematics to state its case. ID isn't "science" like chemistry is science, but it uses science to support its reasoning.
It uses some of the tools of science; it omits what I would consider the most important tool of science.
Phillip Ellis Jackson Rather than discuss this, you dismissed the notion in a silly, superficial way: "While ID does employ some of the concepts of science, it does so incorrectly. The most egregious is their abuse of the mathematics of probability, when the average shmuck is unable to grasp the Monty Hall problem or even why it's dumb to draw to an inside straight."
The dismissal is only superficial in that I have not detailed the analogy. The errors are comparable. If you want, I can detail them from foundational principles.
Phillip Ellis Jackson Now that I've shown you my credentials in this area as you've demanded, if you can't match mine I expect you to concede the point that you're making ignorant, uninformed statements about what a court decision "clearly" is. [It's okay to do so - we all know it. But until you admit it, you have no credibility in anything you say.]
"Ignorant" and "uninformed" would imply that I know nothing of the matter. Asking me to admit that is inappropriate. "Underinformed" I'd have no problem with on any subject from anyone, as long as they can produce new information. Nothing you presented is new; it's merely differing in emphasis from the lawyers who've talked to me about the role of law and the courts. If you feel any of my statements constitute my trying to convey what a court decision "clearly" is, I most certainly withdraw them. That feels far too close to practicing law without a license for my comfort.
I agree that the court rulings do not make the facts clear.
Phillip Ellis Jackson 2. Once we settle issue #1, unless and until you retract your cartoon assessment of ID, there's also no point in debating you.
Certainly, conditional only on your providing a description of what you understand Intelligent Design to be, so that we have something to debate.
Phillip Ellis Jackson You appear to have absolutely no idea what ID is other than what you've surmised from press releases condemning the Discovery Institute.
I'm willing to stipulate you almost certainly have a better understanding of what ID is than I do. However, my readings not only include such press releases, but the releases from the Discovery institute itself, and a close readthrough of Dembski's "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities".
Phillip Ellis Jackson To consider, by extension of your comments, Roy Varghese to be a "shmuck" again illustrates that you approach this as an agenda-driven matter, rather than a genuine debate.
I do not claim Roy Varghese is a "shmuck". I refer to the general population at large; the audience, not the author. If you want a less colorful and more exact phrasing, change "shmuck" to "US Citizen" and strike the poker reference.
Phillip Ellis Jackson Now, to get back to your challenge to me, since you raised the issue, let's hear why we should all believe that your credentials are better than mine in assessing the actions of the courts.
I still feel your complete dismissal of the role of the courts as trier of fact and use of an evidentiary standard is excessive, rather than insisting such "facts under the law" are an approximation in need of extensive refinement. That said…
There is no reason for others to accept my credentials as better than yours in assessing the actions of the courts.
So, since we do not agree, if either is to convince the other of anything, we will need to find some starting point of agreement. Would anyone still posting be willing to agree that (P OR Q) may be logically inferred from (Q OR P)?
abb3w is a flake. First thing he's got right.
He insists on an answer to his "disjunction" misdirection but still can't put two and two together himself.
He sets up criteria for science (that which can be sensed), then dismantles it with examples of things that can be known apart from the senses. He admits that those who adhere to the theory of evolution have a religious devotion, but insists that ID is disqualified because of religion.
He discloses that he is not qualified in the field of law and the courts, grants Dr. Jackson the competence that has already been demonstrated, then clings to his thesis nonetheless.
Despite his "impressive" resume, I conclude that abb3w is an unusually bright 8th grader. Perhaps when his thinking skills mature (which is by no means guaranteed), he might consider coming back to IC. Until then, however, he ought to stay in school, get his drivers license, and grow a moustache when he is able.
Abb3W: Clearly you don’t have the education, training or experience to clearly state that the courts clearly decided that ID is clearly a disguised form of creationism.
Clearly you are unwilling to concede that you clearly made an “ignorant” and “uninformed” judgment, since you want to define “Ignorant" and "uninformed" as implying “that I know nothing [substantively] of the matter.” The “matter” is what courts do, and what a court decision is, and clearly you have no substantive knowledge in this area. You have instead a series of platitudes that you trot out in a clearly ignorant and uninformed way, and you want us to accept these platitudes as a clear indication that you have made an informed and cogent observation. This, clearly, is absurd.
The fact that you are now clearly prepared to drop your original claim and go on with a conversation as if it’s just a simple disagreement over terms is clearly inadequate. You clearly made a mistake, and you just as clearly won’t admit it. But then to further insult my intelligence, you just as clearly want to go back and insist that the courts decided the issue after all, because that’s the way you “feel” about it. And you again insist on using a layman’s understanding of terms to assess court actions while railing against those who won’t approach a discussion of science with the precision and clarity you demand. [Courts try facts under the constraint of procedures and rules of evidence, and therefore exclude material evidence that has an objective bearing on the ultimate truth of a matter. Why is this so hard fore you to grasp? They decide whether an issue meets the standards established by the law, not whether something "is" or "isn't" in an objective sense.]
This clearly is the same issue I’ve always had with you, where I’ve told you previously I have no tolerance or respect for anyone who clearly does not recognize their own limitations while lecturing others about the need to be precise and properly informed when they make their case. I didn’t ask you to clearly define your credentials, since I always take a person’s argument at face value and let it stand on its own merits unless they make an issue out of questioning my credentials.
However, since you brought up the issue, by your own admission you clearly have no particular expertise in the subject other than as a hobby of sorts. If your assessment of my credentials is that “I will agree this (and the rest) qualifies you as an expert on politics and the political implications of law. However, this is not the same as being an expert on the law itself”, then clearly someone who has never finished a degree, has admitted problems focusing, and treats the issue as a “hobby” has no clear standing to make any informed judgments at all.
This means that you are clearly presenting a series of agenda-driven feelings and emotions, rather than actually engaging in a genuine debate. Debating emotions or feelings is clearly not something I intend to do, and it’s even more clear that I see absolutely no value in debating someone who won’t clearly admit what is clear to everyone else.
If it isn’t clear to you by now, no one is interested in debating opinions, which is all you clearly bring to the table. And it’s even less of an interest to me when you clearly don’t even seem to know what ID is. You’ve apparently read one book, a court transcript, and a press release or two from the Discovery Institute, and based on that have apparently concluded that those who believe in ID (“the general population at large; the audience”) are “shmucks” for believing in God and a purposeful universe. Clearly, with the failure to accomplish things that you’ve identified in your own background, you are in no position to call anyone a shmuck. [By the way, my brother has a combined MBA and Law degree from Virginia. I know the caliber of students and faculty at Virginia. You had no reason to fear that anyone would mistake your reasoning about either the law or ID as something formally associated with the university.]
Finally, I told you about the sources I relied on to form my judgments about intelligent design. I’m not interested in giving you a tutorial on the subject when you can go to that source and clearly see for yourself. I’m not holding out much hope that you’d (a) actually do it, or (b) comprehend what you’ve read, since you still can’t understand why I’ve made an issue about your ignorant and uninformed judgments about the courts; and think that my background only gives me a somewhat limited ability to claim that courts do not decide the ultimate, objective truth of a matter.
I hope this is clear enough for you. Clearly.
This whole discussion has become rather silly, bogged down in legal technicalities and philosophical tangents.
A couple simple facts:
-the very people who came up with the "intelligent design" creationism scam are conservative Christian creationists. Not only that, but they are determined to reconfigure society into a Christian theocracy. Just google "Wedge Document" and have some fun reading that.
-all the arguments in favour of intelligent design creationism are derived from earlier creationist arguments. This is what made it possible to transform a creationist text into an "intelligent design" text by simply replacing Creator/Creationism/Creationists with Intelligent Designer/Intelligent Design/Intelligent Design proponents. And again, this textbook was put out by the very people who perpetrated the intelligent design scam in the first place.
-more importantly for the purposes of this article, is that there is no scientific theory of intelligent design creationism. Scientifically speaking, there's literally nothing to teach. Until there is, talk of putting into the science curriculum is, to put it plainly, somewhat misguided.
Mickey: We're not quite at 100 yet, but I clearly expect us to get there soon :)
abb3W:
Re: "One of the disadvantages to universities using tenure to protect the expression of socially controversial ideas is that it means protecting those who express ideas that frankly aren't credible."
How can an idea be controversial if it is not credible?
Uima, since intelligent design is a Christian theory where do the Jews and Muslims come up with the same idea?
The question I would really like to have you answer is how did the first particle come into existence? If you cannot answer that you cannot claim Darwin's theory is anything except an unproven theory which has some parallels to what is actually happening but unable to fully explain the processes.
As far as I can tell the question above is not driven by any religious leaning…as Jack Webb said in Dragnet "I want the facts maam, just the facts"
Never trust an analysis that speaks in superlatives — "all the arguments"; every single one, with no exceptions period, not even the atheist whose book I quoted earlier!
And, never trust an analysis that relies on the number of Google hits to prove a point. Just type in “moon landing hoax” and you get 475,000 hits. I guess that proves that Neil Armstrong is a liar.
One day, perhaps, someone who opposes ID will actually make an effort to present a real argument against it, instead of relying on a cartoon version of reality to discuss it.
MM — to your question in Comment 83: An idea can in fact be controversial if it is not credible, but only if it is expressed by a moron. Thus, the controversial ideas of Code Pink supporters.
There are also atheists, deists, buddhists, and nominal religionists of all sorts who believe in ID.
Theocracy, Uima? Name one Christian leader that has suggested such a thing. The only people who have ever even used the word are leftists who are trying to demonize average, everyday Americans.
Those same leftists, by the way, love to tell other people what to do, think and say. For example, speech codes, smoking bans, equipment warning labels, emissions control devices, requiring religious expression to be private, a convoluted tax code that makes citizens perform for the government, etc… I would say that leftists already have the theocracy that they accuse Christians of wanting, the only difference is the god is government.
Theocracy? Please.
MickeyG: "Uima, since intelligent design is a Christian theory where do the Jews and Muslims come up with the same idea?"
I didn't say ID could only be applied to Christianity. Indeed, ID was (pardon the pun) purposely intelligently designed to foster a 'big tent' strategy, uniting anyone who just simply doesn't like evolution for whatever reason. Part of the problem with ID is that it's so vague that it could mean pretty much whatever anyone wants it to mean. However, the people that came up with the idea, and are pushing its propaganda, are specifically Christian creationists. They also use the earlier arguments of Christian creationism under a scientific-sounding veneer. This is why it was found by judge Jones in Dover that ID couldn't uncouple itself from its creationist antecedents.
"The question I would really like to have you answer is how did the first particle come into existence? If you cannot answer that you cannot claim Darwin's theory is anything except an unproven theory which has some parallels to what is actually happening but unable to fully explain the processes."
Darwin's theory – by which I suppose you mean evolution – has nothing to do with how the first particle came into existence. It deals with how life on earth changes through time.
PEJ: "Never trust an analysis that speaks in superlatives — "all the arguments"; every single one, with no exceptions period, not even the atheist whose book I quoted earlier!
And, never trust an analysis that relies on the number of Google hits to prove a point. Just type in “moon landing hoax” and you get 475,000 hits. I guess that proves that Neil Armstrong is a liar."
My point has nothing to do with the number of Google hits. I said to google the Wedge Document so you can read it because the Wedge Document itself is the point. It specifically links ID with Christian theology. It's from the Discovery Institute, the organization that's running the intelligent design idea.
"One day, perhaps, someone who opposes ID will actually make an effort to present a real argument against it, instead of relying on a cartoon version of reality to discuss it."
It's up to the ID people to come up with a scientific theory of ID if they want it accepted as science. So far they've failed spectacularly. You can't just say, "Oh maybe there's some sort of intelligent design! Prove me wrong!" In science, those who're proposing a theory have to actually present it and defend it. The ID community has not done this.
MM: "Theocracy, Uima? Name one Christian leader that has suggested such a thing. The only people who have ever even used the word are leftists who are trying to demonize average, everyday Americans."
Again. The people running the ID scam want nothing less than to overthrow secularism. They tell us this in their own words in the Wedge Document and elsewhere. They want society run according to their version of Christianity. If that's not a theocracy, it's pretty damn close.
Uima: all you've done is speak in glittering generalities about ID, and what 'all' the people who support it want to do.
You offer nothing but your opinions based on a limited contact with what some people have written about ID.
ID isn't science the way chemistry is science. Read "the Wonder of the World" if you want to expand your limited understanding of what ID is, and what it isn't.
"In science, those who're proposing a theory have to actually present it and defend it."
In science, when proposing a new idea, it is incumbent on it's proponents to explain it, defend it, show it is reproduceable. By definition, ID cannot be explained using the scientific method, and so cannot now or ever be a "science."
PEJ: "You offer nothing but your opinions based on a limited contact with what some people have written about ID."
I offer my opinions based on what the people who are running the intelligent design creationism scam themselves are saying. Is there somewhere else I should look?
"ID isn't science the way chemistry is science."
Absolutely right. It's not based on methodological naturalism, there's no theory, it's not testable using the scientific method. It's not science. It's religion.
Actually, the ID movement might be part of an earlier science movement that is still alive and growing both inside and outside of the public schools. Here's where that began:
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=765
Uima: Read "The Wonder of the World" by Roy Varghese as I suggested earlier.
"ID" is no more monolithic than "science" is monolithic. Whatever its history might have been years ago, it is more than a cartoon caricature of the Discovery Institute today. This is like condemning quantum mechanics because its scientific lineage can be traced back to people who centuries ago once believed that “science” involved spontaneous generation.
Here are the basic elements to the theory of Intelligent Design.
1. God exists. [Note: a belief in God is not the same thing as one religion’s interpretation of God. The religion may be right or wrong about Jesus, Allah, Jehovah or Buddha being “God”, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether God exists or not.]
2. There are things that are “real” that cannot always be proven by science, such as “God exists”, and “love exists”. [Science can measure lust, but can’t “prove” love].
3. God, being God, acts purposefully. Man is one of those purposeful creations.
4. The fact that man cannot always measure or comprehend every element of this purposefulness speaks only to man’s limitations as a mortal being, not to the absence of purposefulness. My dog doesn’t understand physics, yet the laws of physics clearly exist.
5. While man is not always able to discern every detail of this purposefulness, he can at times recognize the pattern. Some of this recognition even comes from “science” (mathematics). [This is akin to what Einstein believed].
6. The fact that man can understand some of the mechanics of a process (i.e. how a cell actually divides and grows) does not prove that God does not exist. My understanding of how a car words does not disprove the existence of General Motors.
7. Consequently, it is not irrational to believe that a purposeful God created a purposeful universe with purposeful laws, some of which we understand in detail, some of which we recognize as part of a larger pattern, and some of which we do not (and never will — because we aren’t God) understand at all. Reality is not simply that which man is able to measure and understand.
8. Ergo, there is nothing incompatible between a theory of human evolution (the mechanism by which God expresses His purposefulness), and a theory of intelligent design. Both elements ask and answer different aspects of the same question. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/06/08/the-politics-of-science-and-religion/ By contrast, creationism seeks to impose a specific, religious interpretation of God and creation.
ID is not science the way chemistry is science, and should not be taught in a science classroom.
Before anyone pounces on this as a reason to exclude ID from the schools, “social science” is not science the way chemistry is science, and it is allowed in the classroom.
Before anyone points out that ID has an ideologically “religious” element to it (a belief in God as the foundational assumption of all religions), and therefore should be excluded from schools since it is agenda-driven, Marxism is an agenda driven social science as well, and it taught in our schools.
Finally, to believe in science does not demand that one be an atheist. If a scientist can believe in God, then a scientist can believe in purposefulness instead of complete randomness; an actual beginning to the universe instead of it “just appearing”, and so forth. Only human hubris would define reality as only that which a human can directly measure or test.
So, while individual people may debate about which religion best describes God, a specific religious belief is not necessary to believe in God and/or that God that acts purposefully, even if man can only read a part of God’s mind to see all the details. Science can actually help see the patterns and appreciate the larger picture. That is, once the cartoon version of this debate is set aside and people begin to deal with a more accurate understanding of what Intelligent Design means.
The goal was to produce a testable and teachable scientific theory that keeps the search for the Creator going. Nothing in it can be left up to the imagination. The first theory to stands on its own scientific merit is the only one the future will remember.
I'll read that book, but if it's like the other ID/creationist material I've read, then it'll probably be a little light on the science. A lot of it tends to be like those eight points you listed above. There's a god, and this god does….stuff. I want to focus on number seven:
"7. Consequently, it is not irrational to believe that a purposeful God created a purposeful universe with purposeful laws, some of which we understand in detail, some of which we recognize as part of a larger pattern, and some of which we do not (and never will — because we aren’t God) understand at all."
A lot of people believe that, many scientists included. But unless we know what the purposes are, and the mechanisms employed, then there's nothing to test, thus no science can be done with that notion. It's simply a philosophical or religious idea. Which is fine, but it isn't science, and it's the science side that I'm concerned about. It's science classes that the Discovery Institute wants to push ID into, even though there isn't any science of ID, and the people doing the pushing are evolution-denying creationists. Due to the 1987 Edwards vs Aguillard SCOTUS decision, creationism was ruled unconstitutional to teach as science in public schools. The creationists then changed 'creationism' to 'intelligent design', stopped mentioning god and the bible, and tried again.
The thing you seem to be describing is some sort of vague theism, and have appropriated the term ID to describe it. That's not what I'm after. I'm talking about ID as it derived from creationism: a specific form of evolution denial.
One more thing:
"Before anyone points out that ID has an ideologically “religious” element to it (a belief in God as the foundational assumption of all religions), and therefore should be excluded from schools since it is agenda-driven, Marxism is an agenda driven social science as well, and it taught in our schools."
The problem is not that it's agenda-driven (almost anything ccould be construed as having an agenda) but rather that it is religious. Public schools cannot teach either that god exists or that god does not exist. It's a first amendment issue.
The only way to prove the existence of God through the scientific method is to die, and then have a direct conversation with him. Otherwise, a belief in God remains at its foundation a matter of faith. This isn’t to say that believing in God is an irrational act. Through the proper application of science we can indirectly observe God through His handiwork, and in seeing the bigger picture recognize that God does indeed exist.
The problems human beings always get into is when they try to anthropomorphize God. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but God still is who He is regardless of what we think. [This, by the way, is the same difference between something that is thought to be “divinely inspired”, and “divine”. Divine is perfectly correct; divinely inspired means some of the details are not necessarily correct].
The reason mainstream science fights ID is because some people want to substitute “religion” for “God”, and make a theory about the meaning of life (Intelligent Design) into a scientific explanation of life. This is as flawed a way to proceed as it is to assert that God does not exist at all because science can’t prove it.
Science can help bolster the case for ID, but ID isn’t science. Let science be science and ID be ID, and stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Then maybe both sides can explore the issue from the common ground they share, instead of constantly attacking the other’s position by pointing to the elements they don’t share.
From:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
Click here for video
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.
Uima — I wrote my last comment before you posted yours. Personally, I don't think you and I are too far apart in our reasoning. I reject all notions to substitute a religion's view of God for what God "is", just as I reject the notion that unless science proves something through the scientific method, that something cannot exist.
I reject a purely creationist view of ID just as I reject a pseudo-science view of science, or a purely scientific view of reality. This is simply common sense.
Gary: Everything depends on what something means. The problem I find is that in rejecting the notion of pure randomness, creationists reject the notion of human evolution period.
There's absolutely no reason why a purposeful God cannot have created man through an evolutionary process. This idea may violate one religion's view of creation, but who is man to tell God what he can/can't do, or how He can do it?
And to round out the criticism, because science cannot measure purposefulness by the scientific method, it doesn't mean that no purposefulness exists.
God created science, if you really want to get down to basics, by creating the laws of nature, and creating man, and giving man an ability to appreciate the world around him. Why therefore must science automatically conflict with the notion of God?