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?”
By the way, Phil, you have the honor of post number 100. Congrats to you. Obtuse thanks goes to abb3w, and then to Uima, who picked up the flickering torch of ignorance and hurled it with renewed vigor into the great wasteland of straw men, caricatures, stereotypes, one sided analyses, and scapegoating.
MM: “Uima, regarding your post 89, I restate my request: Name one Christian leader that has stated a desire to establish a theocracy. Who are “these people?” Who are the “they” you are referring to?”
I’ve already told you several times: the Christian creationists at the Discovery Institute and those associated with them. Read their Wedge Document. It says scary things like this:
“The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.”
“This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.”
“Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.”
“The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source”
“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
These people are apparently pretty upset with the secular way things are run now.
By the way, if you want a particular name, Philip Johnson is considered one of the leaders of the ID movement and is thought to be one of the principal authors of the document. Another name is Howard Ahmanson, who is a major financial backer of the Discovery Institute and has deep ties with the Christian Reconstructionist movement. He told a newspaper in 1985 that “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”
MM: “And by the way, you ignored the second half of my post. It is the Left that wants theocracy, and it is already substantially on the way to installing it. Their god is government, and they are forcing people to serve it via the power of law and the courts.”
I ignored it because I failed to see the relevance it had to anything. I still fail to see it now. You think the left wants some kind of theocracy without god. Besides not knowing how that’s even logically possible, I really have nothing to say about that. I’m talking about how the Discovery Institute is trying to pass off their religion as science.
PEJ: “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.”
Agreed.
Uima,
Your extensive quote did not use the term theocracy, did not discuss the concept of theocracy, did not mention any tenets of theocracy, and in fact the writer admired the opposite: “…representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.”
Leftism is totalitarian (see my examples above), it is actually in operation in this country, and it is far more a threat to liberty than your imagined theocracy ever will be.
You fear bogeymen when the real thing is in operation right under your nose. Get a grip.
By the way, I tried to track down the obscure quote ostensibly uttered by this Howard Ahmanson a nearly a quarter century ago. All I could find were hostile citations by theocracy “watchdogs,” which footnoted and referenced each other.
This is a leader in the Christian community trying to impose theocracy? Clear and present danger? You’ll have to do better than that.
MM: “Your extensive quote did not use the term theocracy, did not discuss the concept of theocracy, did not mention any tenets of theocracy, and in fact the writer admired the opposite”
Erm, if they admire the opposite, then why do they want to destroy the secular culture we have, and remake our entire culture – including as they mention politics, economics, literature, art (I guess science goes without saying) – according to Christianity? I mean, they say it just flat out: they want to completely remake our pluralistic, secular, progressive society (one which apparently got this way by being infected with “materialism”) into one which is consonant with “Christian convictions.” So what if they didn’t use the actual word ‘theocracy’? These people are bidding for political power in order to instill Christ into, well,everything….including politics.
And just why are they talking about all this “renewing culture” stuff anyway? This again shows my main point: these people don’t care about science. They don’t want to do science. They want to remake society entirely. Luckily their plans are failing and nobody seems to be much listening to them.
MM: “By the way, I tried to track down the obscure quote ostensibly uttered by this Howard Ahmanson a nearly a quarter century ago. All I could find were hostile citations by theocracy “watchdogs,” which footnoted and referenced each other.”
The reference is from the Orange County Register. I like your words of “obscure” and “ostensibly” and “quarter century ago.” He said it. He’s a Reconstructionist. He’s giving the Discovery Institute millions of dollars a year. He must like what they’re trying to do. *shrug*
MM: “This is a leader in the Christian community trying to impose theocracy?”
You’re the one who brought up the ‘Christian leader’ term. I wouldn’t exactly call Ahmanson a Christian leader, I guess, but I never claimed he was.
You know, I have read a lot about what ID proponents have said in this debate, but precious little of what scientists believe themselves. This should be relevant: who is better to define what a “science” is?
Well, I can tell you from 25 years+ previously in science/engineering that there are many, many scientists and engineers who are religious and see no issue with combining the two seemingly incompatible beliefs.
Simply, they believe that G-d created a system of how things work. Thus, the physical systems we reveal are merely the “rules” set into to motion to govern that particular mechanism.
Now how simple is that?
However: they also do not believe in strict scripture, in the sense of “the sun stopped” G-d of Biblical proportions. It’s more of a Spirit who is a motivating force way behind the scenes.
I have been very busy, not online much the past few weeks (it’s my beginning peak season at work). But I had to throw this in, from my own Dilbert-ish professional past experiences.
“te people running the ID scam…” Hmm, sounds like he could be a LEADER?
Teh LolZ FuNDameNtAliStS?
Sounds about right.
Philip, I agree with what you said in comment #100 but am not worried about “rejecting the notion of pure randomness”. It’s impossible to be truthful and objective when purposely not telling the whole story.
Pure randomness could never form life. It would right away randomly fall apart again even where it did. It’s the “Poof!” and it’s there that makes a cell possible including the self-assembly experiment published in NSTA’s high school teacher journal. It’s very real science that has no problem through peer-review.
There are primarily “good guesses” like in chromosome crossovers where incredible amounts of change is introduced by the way the intelligence mechanism inherently works. The small amount of “random change” present from “accidents” is relatively small in comparison to what serves a purpose like in crossover where this prevents giving birth to exact clones of each other. An intelligence mechanism needs this guessing mechanism in order to generate new successful responses to environment.
The moment a self-replicating intelligence mechanism exists the genetic memory on its own forms without first needing the genes to make a cell. The simplest (Occam’s razor) pathway for abiogenesis is Metabolism-First.
Arguing that pure randomness will throw a cell together, is unnecessary and actually somewhat ridiculous. There are forces that bring together then sustain all of its structures. From that we can logically infer that the Creator still exists and is still here. Always was and always will be, otherwise we would likewise cease to exist.
Gary: I might be guilty of not stating my proposition clearly. “Pure randomness” was just another way for me to say Darwinism.
Darwinism has become such a politically loaded term that to use it tends to throw the conversation off into a tangent of atheism, “neo-Darwinism” vs. classical Darwinsm, punctuated equillibrium vs. natural selection as Darwin first envisioned it, and so on.
So take out “the notion of pure randomness” in comment 100, and substitute “the (or Darwin’s) theory of evolution”.
Creationists, in rejecting Darwin, tend to reject the notion of evolution period. To them, it isn’t that Darwin got key elements of the process wrong, it that there was no human evolution at all. The bible gives a version of human creation, and that’s all there is to say about it.
I’m not telling people what they should or shouldn’t believe. I’m just saying that this isn’t science. If creationism is offered as a counter to, or co-equal with a scientific theory, it will fail on both accounts.
ID speaks about God, not religion. As long as ID isn’t used to substitute one religion’s notion of God for a discussion of God Himself, then ID is not the same as creationism. It still isn’t science like chemistry is science, but it isn’t just abstract philosophy either, since it does use aspects of science to state its case.
Proponents of ID and science are best served, in my opinion, by recognizing what science is (and isn’t), and what ID is (and isn’t). They ask and answer different questions about life. When this happens, science will no longer fear that ID is trying to impose religious doctrine on scientific investigations, and IDers will appreciate that aspects of the mind of God may in fact be read through science.
Science and ID are not incompatible. They are only at odds when each side projects its biases and fears on the other’s core beliefs.
This is the only point I’ve been consistently trying to make (not counting the silliness I had to correct about the American court system).
“Science and ID are not incompatible. They are only at odds when each side projects its biases and fears on the other’s core beliefs.”
Yeah, that’s succinctly it. If you merely view science as something set into motion by *someone* or *something* using rules it’s up to you to determine, it makes things a whole lot easier to manage.
Excellent way to describe it Phillip! Atheists use what Creationists call “Darwinism” against them. It’s a personal interpretation of science, not science that scientists use in the lab.
The controversy has advance Creation Science in a way that parts of it is now “science” and includes the theory I presented in comment #20. In time it would not be controversial to teach the theory itself anywhere. That in turn makes it illogical to suggest that Creationists always propose non-science. I know that in the past it was possible but not anymore. That is a good thing. Small price to pay for progress bringing Creationism to real science via ID.
I was in a very complimentary way called an honest Creationist. Others on both sides seem to consider me to be one, so I am. Yet the legal system couldn’t keep what I write out of the schools with riot police lined up in front of every school in the nation. A Creationist representing Creationists with a coherent theory teachers find wonderfully empowering is one heck of a situation everyone will just have to get used to.
There is now highly scientific Creation Science. For a sample of the “culture change” here’s a video called “Science is Golden” (legally published artist property) from The Grates in Australia that some in Kansas are already to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecuC8Iumd2A&feature=PlayList&p=F1A39516BF4F9CFB&index=0
Metaphorically speaking, the treasure chest full of golden science crabs did not come from the Discovery Institute. But Creationists who matter the most already know that and don’t care where it came from they’re just glad the science is scurrying off on its own into everything. Can also say that we now kinda pirated Darwin’s vessel but the Darwinians think they see Charles in it so the music takes over their mind without them knowing it but none care. Hehehe.
;D
Gary: as a certified “social scientist”, I always cringe at that term. It’s become an accepted way to describe a person with a Ph.D. in political studies, but I can tell you first hand it isn’t “science”. Except for certain voter polling methodologies (and today most of those are so agenda-ridden they’re no longer objective), it’s a bunch of theories, assumptions, ideologies and personal opinions imposed on reality.
The only way to act responsibly when discussing politics is to clearly identify the author’s biases/methodology/approach etc. when offering an analysis, as I’ve tried to do in my articles. Yeah, some things can be regarded as independent facts (i.e. there are three branches of the Federal government), but when these facts are then placed in an analytical framework to give them meaning, that’s where the assumptions and biases influence the points being made.
So, in the same way I cringe at the term “social science”, I cringe at the phrase “Creation science”. Creationism is a religious doctrine. Elevating it to a “science” misstates, in my opinion, what it is, and what it can do, and leads to a quite harsh (and legitimate) push back from others who see science as devoid of religion. It also unfairly calls the notion of ID into question. And finally, by blurring the concept of science by including a religious/philosophical theory about the meaning of life as an example of science, it inadvertently allows others with an even stronger claim to science to introduce philosophical/agenda driven politics into their scientific theories. If “Creation science” is a science, then an atheist’s view of natural selection is certainly science too.
The only way we’re going to make progress in this debate in this country, I believe, is to stop excusing the introduction of personal biases into science. Natural selection can be discussed without relating everything to the absence of God. But if Creationists want to promote “creation science”, then not only will the atheists be justified in promoting their agenda (instead of simply explaining a process), they will win the debate, because more of what they do is traditional science than what Creationists do.
Science can help explain aspects of ID, but ID isn’t science. And creationism can never be science, just as Darwinism should never be a religion.
How do we scientifically test ID? For example… what experimental results, if found, would disprove it?
How do we scientifically test for ID?
Hypothesis: God is the personification of intelligence, and everything he creates has a purpose.
Test: Find someone whose life reflects utter meaningless(perhaps even someone who participated in this conversation).
Conclusion: There can obviously be no Intelligent Design.
I guess science just proved that God doesn’t exist.
I am quite amazed at the ignorance of the pro-evolution crowd.
Remember that for hundreds of years it was a “proven scientific fact” that spontaneous generation fully explained the origins of life.
You were considered a complete moron if you questioned spontaneous generation.
Then came Darwin who believed characteristics passed from parent to offspring by the environment. This was called “Acquired Characteristics” and was undebatably considered truth. You remember the old experiments where they would cut off the tails of mice for several generations believing that eventually the mice would be born without tails.
Then the science of genetics came along and totally disproved yet another “proven scientific fact”. Now you believe that we evolved through random genetic mutations. We are still looking for an example of even one positive genetic mutations, but you believe that countless billions and billions of them have taken place.
The more we learn about the complexity of DNA the more it looks like your latest “proven scientific fact” will fall by the wayside.
But this time you are completely sure that there are no holes in your theory.
Fine, believe what ever you want, but don’t stand in the way of those that actually want to seek the truth. And if it happens to lead to “Intelligent Design” or even “Creationism” so be it.
Hmmph.
There are major problems with labeling ID as a “science,” and they’re quite simple: science, by definition, means whatever your scientific paradigm, it must be repeatable. It must also be explainable. Creationism is neither.
And this is always the issue with ID. Most of it’s explanations devolve to “you must take this on faith.” That’s all fine and well, and doesn’t affect my own personal beliefs, but neither does it make ID a science.
There’s a tendency of ID proponents to explain away these problems by responding, “well *Inflation* can’t be reproduced,” or “no one has ever *seen* a Big Bang, so…”
Back to “explainable.” All of these things may be mathematically, and as a physical process, defined. ID cannot do this.
Until you can sit down and explain the Almighty in terms of Dot-Products and Differential Equations, and reproduce miracles on demand in the Laboratory, you essentially have nothing.
LAM: To summarize your point — The laws of science do not explain or account for the existence of God, but the existence of God explains and accounts for the laws of science (though the order God gave to the universe).
Yes, precisely. Considered as the former, it makes little or no sense; taken as the latter, it is acceptable.
It’s the micromanagement and focus on niggling little details that truly irks me. Presuming God created the all, why does he then need to adjust or continually micromanage everything? He’s God, after all. It was all set into motion, with a set of wise and effective rules, requiring no 24/7 overseer to make it all work.
It’s as if ID proponents keep saying, “God still isn’t *important* enough, so we must involve him in every tiny detail.” That’s witless. Continual micromanagement, as I am certain you professionally know, is a sign that you aren’t comfortable with your decision, your plan is/was flawed, and you can’t trust anything – the true mark of a Bad manager.
That certainly cannot be a description of God; that’s Nancy Pelosi.
I love how people say stuff like this:
“I am quite amazed at the ignorance of the pro-evolution crowd.”
and then proceed to put on a laughable display of ignorance themselves. Spontaneous generation, afaik, was never considered proved at all. Darwin certainly did not advocate inheritance of acquired characteristics, and it was just an idea that some scientists (like Lamarck) had. It didn’t survive scrutiny, so it was abandoned. That’s how science works. We know beneficial genetic mutations take place. Why some people want to deny basic stuff like this continuously baffles me.
I need a drink…
Let’s test ID to see if it is science. Here we will start with the definition the ID movement is to follow to the letter:
“1. What is the theory of intelligent design?”
“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
Now all we have to do is find whether there are explanations other than “undirected process such as natural selection” that when added up is evidence for an “intelligent cause” being present. The most obvious evidence is in our cells where their intelligence/behavior sum to our intelligence/behavior. From there a behavioral “feedback” keeps goes from level to level into the mysterious subatomic realm. The science is there.
Evolutionary theory does not explain how intelligence works. There are other sciences for that.
Random mutation and natural selection does not explain the self-assembly phenomena. Evolutionary theory predicts a slow over time formation of cellular vesicles but I have an experiment in the classrooms that shows that with mixing these membranes spontaneously form in water. This is more the essence of Creationism where a force made of forces brought life together. Science now indicates certain dust/clay gets parts of the Reverse Krebs Cycle going and has other uses, meaning Genesis might have somehow got something very important correct.
Not teaching SCIENCE that now exists is simply dumbing-down the curriculum to satisfy religious bias from the other side that often wants no mention of “intelligence” regardless of what experts in that area of science are publishing. In this case the proper word for using the classroom to trash the reputation of respected scientists would be “negligence” so we’re starting off with an unfortunate situation that teachers would not knowingly contribute to.
Intelligent Design is the name of a “movement” that described a “theory” to coherently explain “intelligent cause” and even the founders said they only had a “hunch” but of course all focus on the extremist positions even after the Discovery Institute clearly saying that many in ID have no problem with evolutionary theory. Therefore all claims that ID says evolution did not happen are FALSE and I mean every single one of them are FALSE. Watching people go in circles with false statements is hard to endure. One reason for me being motivated to bring people back to reality.
The way the situation works in SCIENCE there is now a “Theory of Intelligent Design (Version 3,7)” that says “one step at a time builds upon a previous morphological design as is evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of like morphological design present for the descendant design to have come from.” so either prove that is FALSE or accept that it is TRUE in which case the theory of ID stands on its own scientific merit in regards to the fossil record and all else stated.
Everyone please address the science, not personal politics. There is now a theory in comment #20. What someone else’s theory says, is now irrelevant.
The true issue with ID is it is not possible under the “rules” set by ID proponents to attempt to falsify the Hypothesis (a crucial element with good science and the scientific process). If every objection that may be explored to expose fundamental flaws with ID is nullified with a “take it on faith,” then it fails the test.
How do you attempt to prove false anything that can be explained away with “it happened, don’t worry about it, just take my word on it?”
GG: “”The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”"
Yeah, I’ve seen that statement (or others very similar to it) before. That’s great. How do we test that intelligent design is involved in biology? Remember if it’s not testable it’s not science.
“Now all we have to do is find whether there are explanations other than “undirected process such as natural selection” that when added up is evidence for an “intelligent cause” being present. The most obvious evidence is in our cells where their intelligence/behavior sum to our intelligence/behavior. From there a behavioral “feedback” keeps goes from level to level into the mysterious subatomic realm. The science is there.”
Umm, okay? What is the evidence? How do we test for intelligent design?
“Evolutionary theory does not explain how intelligence works. There are other sciences for that.
Random mutation and natural selection does not explain the self-assembly phenomena. Evolutionary theory predicts a slow over time formation of cellular vesicles but I have an experiment in the classrooms that shows that with mixing these membranes spontaneously form in water. This is more the essence of Creationism where a force made of forces brought life together. Science now indicates certain dust/clay gets parts of the Reverse Krebs Cycle going and has other uses, meaning Genesis might have somehow got something very important correct.”
But the evidence for intelligent design….?
“Not teaching SCIENCE that now exists is simply dumbing-down the curriculum to satisfy religious bias from the other side that often wants no mention of “intelligence” regardless of what experts in that area of science are publishing.”
This is bogus. Your “science” doesn’t exist. If it does, where is it? Why, when I search the science literature, can’t I find any papers on intelligent design?
“The way the situation works in SCIENCE there is now a “Theory of Intelligent Design (Version 3,7)” that says “one step at a time builds upon a previous morphological design as is evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of like morphological design present for the descendant design to have come from.” so either prove that is FALSE or accept that it is TRUE in which case the theory of ID stands on its own scientific merit in regards to the fossil record and all else stated.”
This is gobbledeegook. This “building upon a previous morphological design” is exactly what evolution does. Precisely where is the intelligent design in this? How do you know? How do you test intelligent design?
Last Angry Man, that’s the job of a theory. It gets everyone on the same page as to what science has to say about a phenomena. After that there is no need to speculate. The theory makes sense of it. In this case the “intelligent cause” is found going into the subatomic. As does the Big Bang where it’s described with physics instead of intelligence science. Is that identical conclusion a coincidence or evidence this is going to be the next great theory in science?
Gary, lest we forget, a Theory is a Hypothesis that has been “proven” (such as it were), and somewhat codified as in “Da rules as we understand them” (My original professional background was hard science and Engineering). Without meeting all of the proper criteria and benchmarks, ID can’t ever be referred to as a Theory. It never rises to that level, inasmuch as it takes multiple assumptions as being the same as fact, and disallows any challenging of them as legitimate.
Uima, you are forgetting that an “accepted” by science theory is soon in every classroom including religious schools where they are free to connect to the Bible, Quran or other scriptures. In a couple of generations that is how all will define “intelligent cause” and “intelligent design” and it will be like the Big Bang theory connect to religion but not teaching because of that would then be seen as absurd.
Last Angry Man, Darwin’s theory could not even describe a mechanism! Over a hundred years later it’s still not fully accepted. The thinking that a theory has to be proven by some magic process is totally false. Einstein even updated the theory of gravity scientists thought was proven gospel truth.
Theories like this are normally controversial. Only thing that matters is that it’s “useful” to people. That’s it.
And a theory contains hypotheses. Like the one I just extracted that could be made into a true/false as could have Darwin to his theory since it does not describe much more than things changed over time.
Academia lost track of how to define these things. Whatever you were taught is as least partially wrong.
What I was taught was rigorous and detail-oriented. ID is most certainly not.
If I raise an objection to a “…and the Lord went…” point, and have it shut down with, “well, you just have to take it on faith” response, it cannot be a science. Nothing is proven. We’re just all to accept, that’s a good little boy, have a cookie level.
Further: a theory does not “contain hypothesis’,” a theory is a mature, experimentally and mathematically-accurate, testable, reproduceable idea – it a hypothesis put to the test and has survived.
I cannot explain ID in terms of mathematics or physics; I cannot explain it in terms of strict logic. In point of fact, I can not do any of these things AT ALL.
I can easily “explain ID in terms of mathematics or physics” and explain it with many sciences. But for some reason that is ignored when one is convinced that it’s garbage before having even understood it. I think a social scientist calls that “denial”.
Your opinion of something else someone said that was false to begin with, is no longer the issue here. Please provide scientific evidence the following is false.
Theory of Intelligent Design (Version 3.7)
Gary S. Gaulin, 2008
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause _ mechanism where predictability of subatomic particle/energy behavior produces emergent atoms which produces emergent molecules which produces emergent cells which produces emergent multicellular organisms like us. Forces (bonding, polar) self-assemble cell membranes and crystalline designs where molecular behavior produces simple snowflakes to the highly complex genome catalyzed ATP synthase and flagellum motors. Simple starter mechanisms include short wave UV sunlight powering clay/dust/mineral semiconductor crystals to take part in the Reverse Krebs Cycle assembly line that takes the Carbon atom from CO2 gas giving off O2 to build a series of molecules one carbon atom at a time then when as large as can be it breaks in half forming two identical molecules where both could go around again to become four then eight on up in this molecular replication that forms the core metabolic cycle of a cell that produces the starting molecules needed to self-assemble cellular components for a self-organizing genome with RNA/DNA based memory with environment sensitive trial and error self-learning producing two main types of intelligence either the moment to moment cellular intelligence of the cell itself (stem cell migration then differentiation, somatic hypermutation) or the genetic intelligence where successful responses remain in memory in the population keep going the billions year old cycle of life that through continual reproduction of previous state of genetic memory with modification one step at a time builds upon a previous morphological design as is evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of like morphological design present for the descendant design to have come from.
New designs at the multicellular level are in part guided by what the organism itself intelligently finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. Examples include the peacocks where females selecting the largest most attractive tail design, led to males with brilliant displays, even though this makes it more difficult to fly from predators. In humans the looks of “sex symbols” sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.
Occasionally, chromosome complexity increases when two entire chromosomes fuse at opposite ends to become one. This has made humans unique among its kind where such a fusion makes a total of 46 chromosomes, instead of the 48 of all great apes. Here, a parent passed to offspring a fused copy in one of the two parental gametes, to birth a being with 47 chromosomes. That fusion then passed into the population where the fusion would then on occasion have the fusion in both gametes to make the first 46 chromosome beings. From a man and woman both with 46 (fusion in both gametes) could only come 46 chromosome offspring, us.
http://scientific-design-theory.blogspot.com/
Quite easily. The above merely describes scattered and disjointed fragments of various scientific specialties, strung them together, and stated “this is the answer” in a disjointed, “stream of thought” form. I may as well state “The Orange is Asparagus with the Morphology of Dobermans and mottled Kidneys,” and claim it makes sense.
That was not science, it was all random maunderings.
And what is your opinion of Living Systems Theory that parallels this?
A good place to begin catching up on what’s been going on in science is linked to this Wiki on emergence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
After you know where science now stands, read the theory again.
No, this is also a scientific incorrect methodology. In one post, you mixed Cosmology, Biology, Genetics, Physics, and Material Science as one “proof,” and made zero sense whatsoever.
The scientific method does not say “when I show you you have made a fallacious statement you get to ask another question if challenged on it, rather than actually providing a blunt answer” it is incumbent on you to prove where you are correct. None of this, “I won’t address your objection(s), I will merely move along to another question” act. You haven’t proven statement number one that you should be able to just move along to question number two, three, nth.
So please answer my prior point: how is it a proof that you just blended together scraplets of several sciences inappropriately, and in a way that made zip scientific sense?
I am out for the evening; I will followup on this tomorrow AM.
Last Angry Man, the answer ended up in 135 due to our like being on the same wavelength but out of phase. I was thinking ahead of you on that one, go this cycle often. At least you are at the stage where you agree that the theory of ID has science in it by saying “blended together scraplets of several sciences” which none the less establishes it is science now doesn’t it?
Take some time to link from the Wiki on emergence into systems theory and other topics to see how the first sentence is stating something that has already been well described. The rest helps explain the self-assembly and self-organizing aspects. Going all the way to the chromosome fusion is because the theory is to in time cover all of origins with not a single thing left out in between.
I ask scientists and educators who see Creationists interested in a doable science as a result of their interest in ID to not say a word about ID being bad just give them 100% of your time explaining the science they want to connect with then let them have fun with it. Some might find that their calling in science that way.
Good science education requires the best you can showing people what they are describing. Not slapping them with tongue.
Respectable scientists saw that the theory the Discover Institute described might in some way be doable. Early on many signed onto that then later regretted having said so because of the way the Discovery Institute represented them, but that’s another issue. So the fact remains that the description of the theory has already been shown to have some scientific merit.
There is now a collection of now routine science in support of the theory no matter how poorly worded it is at this time. Has to be good enough for now.
Scientists who did put their name on the Discovery Institute’s list can this way get the last laugh even where the (for what it’s worth) theory itself is kinda weird looking to you at first. At the same time it knocks out what the Discovery Institute has been doing that the serious scientists resent. You don’t even want to get in the middle of that one! Besides, arguing the same old evolution arguments all over again forever is dreadfully boring now. Need some other way or all will go mad doing that again.
And what about the molecular motors like in flagella the Creationists have been whipping science with? Other explanations didn’t include the fact that they are CRYSTALS that like snowflakes and just “Poof!” on their own form where there are many tubulin molecules in the proper environment to form that design. Evolutionary theory does not even care about crystals but this theory does because crystals have many “designs” including ATP synthase. So the theory has little things in it like this that I’m sure you missed that makes it much more than it looks in regards to explaining how cells work. That’s how to explain things more properly!
Creationists were taught to have their kids hammer their science teachers with things like how a flagellum or ATP synthase can form. They can now throw away all the garbage answers then go into crystals and tubulin and all sorts of other things the student never imagined possible. That’s a good teacher who is able to connect with anyone.
Teachers holding up damning statements that cannot figure out what the student is looking for is a bad teacher. Students (and parents who plan to coax) who plan to torture until these teacher understand the theory and blog have my blessing. But please be merciful. Idea is to teach the teachers with fun dancing around to Science Is Golden music to fully muddle the Darwinists.
We have to stay on the topic of alternate theories and curriculum. So you more or less have to show that there is nothing in the theory of use to teachers. But you cannot do that because to spite its thorns this is the best explanation that now exists to make sense of the controversy teachers are in the middle of and how to use it in their favor.
At the same time their not knowing that ID’ers have a new theory and tactic is just asking for trouble not telling them about it so you’re later stuck explaining why the system in charge of that had their head in the sand instead of helping. A few million dollars into another shrine to Darwin is no problem while I’m stuck funding what was so NEGLECTED it’s scary to fully comprehend yet I can’t even afford a car to get to my day job! People who know I’m explaining way more than the six figure people ever came up, have good reason to be as angry as I am about what academia considers important.
As you can see the theory helps complicate things for those who should have done better by science and Creationists while simplifying things for the teachers on the front lines that want to be fair to students. I know for a fact that this is going to send even you as they say “back to the books” with what is at least in the Wiki link as will Creationists and anyone else who for one reason or another has to figure it out. Everyone is well challenged. But it’s lot of fun when you see it as one of those things that helps get science moving again. All you have to do now is do a better job of explaining origins and ID better than all I presented. And for further information (for the few who will even link to it) here is how version 3 of the theory progressed over time:
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=909&sid=14d0946b9368ac31c80759de6fe1a88d
If you do make it through all pages then I hope you enjoyed the jet assisted takeoff! It helps to be well motivated.
:D
Mr. Gaulin, you ask, At least you are at the stage where you agree that the theory of ID has science in it by saying “blended together scraplets of several sciences” which none the less establishes it is science now doesn’t it?
“Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.” – Jules Henri Poincare
Can you propose an experimental result that would disprove your theory? For example, when J.B.S Haldane was asked for something that would disprove evolution, quipped “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” Can you propose an observation that, if discovered and demonstrated to you, would lead you to conclude that your theory was incorrect?
On this issue, Raymond and I are in complete agreement. ID is not science the way chemistry, physics, etc. is science. It employs science to reach some of its conclusions, but it is not “science”.
And if ID is not science, Creationism certainly isn’t science.
No one is saying that the bible cannot be literally believed. All we’re saying is that it is not science. Arguing that ID and/or creationism is science the way chemistry and physics are science calls the motives of the proponents into question, and helps bolster the arguments of the original essay in this comment thread.
We can’t demand that science rid itself of its ideological, quasi-religious biases if proponents of Creationism or ID insert the same into a discussion of science.
Mister Gaulin: Listen to what Phil wrote just prior to this post. We do not reject religion. We reject the notion that ID and Creationism are a Science. They simply are not.
In my prior post, I tried to point out to you that a science is not a random assemblage of bits of other sciences all cobbled together. That’s what ID attempts to do.
It seems that we’re having parallel conversations at times.
In my opinion, ID is a worldview, as is evolution. Both are looking at the same set of data, but interpreting those data according to a worldview.
One side says that the perfect balance of the universe and amazing order found in nature is evidence of design, while the other side says that it is the result of unguided processes. Both assumptions are extra-science.
Phil is right about quasi-religious bias. It is on both sides, to their detriment.
Raymond, there are probably hundreds of ways to disprove it. You could demonstrate that emergence is based on random mutation and/or natural selection. Or show scientists that intelligence needs no memory. Or we could have a total revelation when someone proves that instead of polar forces molecules are pushed to where they belong by the many fingered goddess Darwinia.
Any upset in any one of the scientific facts in the theory relies on would require a rewrite or scrapping. Same thing for the scientific facts that come out of the ground as they apply to Evolutionary Theory.
Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would be a problem for both theories. But as long as we need new flu shots to keep up with evolution both theories would still stand. The only way I know of to completely disprove evolutionary theory is prove that DNA never ever changes. In such a case Evolutionary Theory would be incoherent therefore no longer be accepted. The theory of ID would still exist but not be able to explain/predict the origin of life like it now does.
Mountain Man, Evolutionary Theory covers a parking space sized area of science that says things changed over time. The Theory of Intelligent Design covers the rest of the shopping mall, and the “Reserved For Charles” space just got paved over.
Mr. Gaulin,
You have used the example of virus mutation as proof of evolution. But, is it? The virus remains a virus, a highly specialized simple organism. It’s form and function are unchanged by these mutations, and have remained unchanged for millions of years. The lowly virus does change its mode of attack in response changes in its hosts, and even the type of available host influences its arsenal. This is a constant competition between hosts and parasites. The ability to change tactics does not necessarily make an evolutionary change because it is not irreversible. Humans also sometimes change in ways that are reversible. For example, a better diet makes us taller, smarter and healthier, but the loss of this diet will cause a reversal. Should the viral host, likewise, lose whatever defense it gained, the virus may revert to its previous chemical weaponry to gain entry. This suggest more of an adaptation without evolution.
I think we’ve moved beyond parallel conversations, and are now into parallel universes.
GG,
Irrelevant. Address the point.
Phil,
You have a penchant for accurately and succinctly stating the the truth about these things.
Hi Bob,
That was an excellent question! I had to think a little while on that one for the best answer I can give.
If the only genetic evidence of living things having changed over time was our immune system somatic hypermutation (change not passed to offspring) then it would certainly take the wind out of Evolutionary Theory’s sails. The fossil record would then show humans living among the Precambrian rabbits. Good side of the situation is there would be no HIV and other diseases. And we would all know each other better because we would all be clones of each other. All I would find in my dinosaur tracksite are footprints of clones, making prehistoric habit and morphology very easy to infer from the evidence. That would simplify things but make ichnology a boring science with little left to figure out.
A flu virus would genetically pass on the new traits. But like you say it’s still the same virus. The morphology would be unchanged but then again there would likely be new protein designs added to the shell to help invade cells. That would have the science scene looking like it was in Darwin’s day. There would be a small number of scientists defending a floundering evolutionary theory scientists see no need for like I now am with the other theory.
If all of a sudden we were to find ourselves with entirely different facts then there are those who would argue that Evolutionary Theory was true even when all they had left was a shaky paper claiming to have detected a single base pair change. I’m sure that Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers would struggle on to the bitter end defending it.
I have to say that whether Evolutionary Theory would still be true depends on who you asked. Even now, scientists have numerous ways of defining evolution. Were the evidence to be different they would quickly divide.
In my case I look for the “random mutation and natural selection” mechanisms. Somatic hypermutation has that but it’s not passed on so evolutionary theory as we know it would have to change but could still be useful explaining what it can. RM and NS are represented in the theory’s computer model but in intelligence science it would be more of a random guess and environmental challenge. My being able to see that the RM and NS thinking having merit in this respect helps me see the mechanism that Evolutionary Theory suggests. Problem though is without a “memory” working with it, evolution is impossible. Crossovers, jumping genes and such look random but really are not. There is a purpose for it being there and doing what it did. If the genome were “stupid” in the sense that it left everything up to pure random chance then we would probably now be no more evolved than algae.
Intelligence is a memory driven mechanism that causes things to happen that are not otherwise possible like the computer model’s critter soon learning to navigate from feeder to feeder or a molecular cycle that once going does not stop until it figures out how to build an Internet to satify it’s need to keep on going, learning, like us. Behavior from the levels below ours feedforward in a way that makes us much like it.
And Mountain Man please forgive me! I could not resist. That is somewhat how my world view sees ID in comparison to ET. The paving over Darwin’s space is because ID ends up covering a small space where ET already was (or that’s my excuse anyway) And the repaving did help make it look a little better! After 150 years it sure needed it…
For the other parallel conversation the Last Angry Man worded as “We reject the notion that ID and Creationism are a Science.” the best way I can think of for you to see what I do is picture the world after Creationists fully accept the theory I am working on. In a debate on what Evolutionary Theory represents they’ll floor the most daring of the professors then the rest of the professors will be with us too. If you call that Creationism then virtually every scientist in the nation would be a Creationist. There is no way you’ll get any more than laughs telling them that what I describe is not science and was from some scripture or something.
Creation Science also entered “science” with the Big Bang theory. But the world did not end. Arguing this theory is not science is like today arguing that the Big Bang Theory is unscientific because it came from a priest and put a Trojan into the subatomic.
When you say “ID is not science the way chemistry, physics, etc. is science.” it’s the same thing as saying “Evolution is not science the way chemistry, physics, etc. is science.” where here both are true for the simple reason that chemistry and physics are science subjects and ID/Evolution is the name of a phenomena. Logic like that only makes science dizzy.
When Creationists are doing science as they now already are doing, you can’t tell them they are not doing science unless of course you like being laughed at. So you have to get specific and separate what they do that is scientific from what is not, and even then it doesn’t matter because a Creation Scientist just tries to search for the Creator in science. We all know it is part religion. So what’s the go with harping on us like it’s proof everything is garbage?
Challenges to the theory in this forum are clearly showing how solid it actually is. Raymond and others sometimes ask good questions that anyone defending a theory loves because they know someone is likely objectively studying it. Question away like that. But there are useless oversimplifications and circular logic to beware.
You can reject Creationism or ID being science. But that does not prevent science coming from it.
GG:
I did go to the link to the Message Board you’d provided. Notably, the very next post following yours succinctly raised some of the very objections that I have been getting at.
For every physical mechanism, there is a prime mover. But in science, we can identify and quantify that first event, even if we cannot necessarily reproduce it as yet. ID cannot do this.
This is not by any means the first time I have gone down this path with a proponent of ID and Creationism. The ID objections always seem to follow the same morphology: identify areas where science is as yet a bit fuzzy on precise mechanisms and driving root causes, and proclaim, “ah ha!” Yet science can adequately describe the remainder of the physical processes seen in nature despite it’s deficiencies; ID cannot do so. It continually defaults right back to “and a miracle occurred.”
And I regret to say, that isn’t science. Science doesn’t “come out of Creationism,” Creationism co-opts already known physical mechanisms and files the serial numbers off of them, then states “here is proof of our claims.”
Do you savvy the body of work known as Chaos Theory, e.g. non-linear mathematics? It shows that even in chaotic behavior, order exists. It is shown how randomness may create ordered events, despite the underlying chaotic behavior, demonstrating the indeed evolution is on the correct path.
A species of Periwinkles along the UK’s shores have begun to diverge into two related species within human memory (the last few hundred years), and is being intently studied. And this is only along the first 20-30 feet going inland. The conditions right at the waters edge are very different than that even 10 feet inshore, and this species is diverging to reflect their environment.
There is a species of Butterfly, also within the UK, that has diverged due to pollution. Trees in many areas of the UK have grown darker external bark, due to soot and particulates. The Butterflies in these areas have diverged from their brothers by becoming darker as well, providing some protective camouflage. Again, an example of evolution in action, right before our eyes.
You’d mentioned the Big Bang as an example. But we do have a good idea how even that occurred, via quantum fluctuations. And these are well-known. In point of fact, the very PC you’re using right now operates using physical mechanisms based on Quantum Physics. So there’s some hard proof right at your fingertips, quite literally.
Finally: well, what do you know. You’re another “Masshole” like me (Allston/Brighton here).
LAM,
Is one of the Periwinkle species superior or more complex than the other? What about the butterflies?
MM: not superior, just more fit for their specific environment. For example, you can see that the original species of Butterflies, had they not adapted and altered to fit the progressively darker tree bark they favor dwelling on, would be increasingly visible by predators.
As I recollect about the Periwinkles, the species farther inshore had begun to adapt to less water and a different set of nutrients, e.g. what was available to them in that specific environment. Again, a necessary and beneficial adaptation.
In the interests of complete disclosure for GG, I am not only science-trained, I worked in Science and Engineering for over twenty years, and also moderate a very large science Message Board where I have been a “professional skeptic” when these topics (and others of a like nature) have popped up. So when I say I am not unfamiliar with this debate topic and how it usually progresses, I am not whistling “Dixie.”