Judge Says No to ID

Wait until you see my warrior army of flying triops.

i think it's important to note that this arguement (at least from my viewpoint) has nothing to do with religion at all.. or faith for that matter. to me, this is ALL scientific debate and scientific ONLY!

when i say that intelligent design is a possible explanation, i don't mean "God/Allah/Zippy the All-Being" is responsible, i mean it's worth noting that there may be some intelligence behind the construct of biological life.

my personal hunch is that BOTH evolution and intelligent design are responsible for the multitude of lifeforms on Earth and beyond.

BUT.. i could be wrong on both counts. perhaps there's another force responsible that none of us are aware of.

plus, like i said before.. mankind has created life.. so why is it so hard to believe that it's possible that it happened a long time ago due to some other external influence?

-

also, just as an interesting side note.. the whole cataclysmic flood thing along with the fossils here, there and everywhere..

whether it's true or not is not my point.. my point is what is put forth in the Bible compared to our known achealogical history.

according to the Bible, "Noah's Flood" was the first time mankind experienced rain. previous to that, water hadn't fallen from the sky, it collected as a type of dew upon the ground and the Earth was shrouded by a cloud cover that enveloped the entire planet.

now wait.. what about the theory of a massive comet/aasteroid, whatever lpummeting into the Earth resulting in a cloud of dust and debris that covered the planet killing off dinosaurs? (yes, i know this is highly refuted, just humour me, k?)

how long would such a cloud last? how would it dissipate? would it be possible that eventually it would need to come down? perhaps as precipitation? (i'm not trying to force an opinion here, i'm seriously wondereing what the possibility of all this is)

Interestingly, the differences between the octopus eye and the human eye are often cited as arguments against ID. The human eye has a blind spot. This is a result of a hole in the retina, where a bundle of nerves coming from light receptors goes through the retina on its way towards the optic nerve. The octopus has no such blind spot, because the nerve coming out of a light detecting cell in the octopus eye comes out the other side of the retina: directly towards the optic nerve. It seems pretty clear that the octopus retina is better "designed" than the human one. Why have a blind spot when you don't need to have one?

For that matter, why have a bipedal human with a spine much better suited to a quadruped (and so leading to lots of back pain problems that would be easy to avoid with a bit of better structural engineering)? Why have your waste removal conduit mixed up with your reproductive system? Why have whales with vestigial lower limbs? It makes no sense whatsoever if you're designing these things, it makes perfect sense if these are just left over or "good enough" features, that aren't causing enough harm to kill off the species but are too big a thing to remove by the tiny steps that evolution takes.

Does it use the scientific method? If not -- it's not science.

Because God put things that way to test our faith.

Sorry, Seifert, I figured it was the only defense. Haha.

ID is a belief that "God" created the world. Outside of a book there is no way to reproduce this belief today.

Evolution is a theory that is backed by the use and observation of darwinism.

Also remember relgion (in general) has a poor history of giving proof towards why things should be other then using a book written by someone with noone mentioned in that book coming forward.

Example of relgion not following common sense/science:

Roman Catholic church declared less then 10 years ago it is ok to believe the world is round.

I am always astounded by the lack of education in the general public, seeing grown adults hold positions that I had moved beyond a decade ago. The fact that there are groups who have differentiated and selectively labeled short- and long-term evolution as a technique to undermine observed fact and theory astounds me. It demonstrates a profound lack of understanding and ignorance of biology on the most basic level.

It always frustrates me that for every batch of unwashed fools we indoctrinate on the subject, there are always a fresh batch ready to take their place when this discussion comes around again.



What percent will actually follow that link? None, I'd imagine.

~Ulrika~

With regard to living in an era of hyperagressive ad clutter, perhaps you could post the link at normal size so that people who have unconsciously immunized themselves against advertisements can actually see the link. At least it wasn't red.

I'm only half kidding. I constantly don't see things in aggressively large fonts.

Oh it was a joyous verdict.

One of the interesting twists in the trial is that the ID defendants lied under oath about where they came up with money to purchase creationist books which were donated to the school library. Apparently, the money was raised by a church group and laundered through an individual who purchased and donated the books. The judge commented on the irony that such a religious group would lie under oath.

~Ulrika~

read:indoctrination (see below)

Um, does not the referenced Web site, below, make a similar distinction? Micro vs. Macro?

Oh? And just when have you observed single-celled organisms transition into complex, multi-cellar forms? How exactly are we undermining observed fact?

On the issue of intra-species adaptation we can agree, Ulrakasheim. Beyond that, you are simply imposing a worldview and an agenda.

Followed it. Did I read every word? Nope. Will I? Remember, I'm the patron man-idiot, so I probably wouldn't understand it, anyway.

Your inability to comprehend basic biology and the science behind it is a damn shame. I am truly torn, with half of me wanting to help you learn and the other half wanting to crush you for being an impediment to rational thought. (Hey, at least I'm honest.)

In the end my only choice is to accept you and your beliefs for what they are -- and I do.

~Ulrika~

1. It doesn't generally take a cataclysm to create a fossil. Just plenty of mud, and in some cases a stinky enough environment where the only 'predator' is bacteria. Case in point: the famous Arcaeopteryx fossil.

Also, along the northern coast of the Sahara, there are numerous whale skeletons in the valleys of dry deserts. No cataclysm there; and they aren't even really fossils yet from what I understand; only some thousands of years old. The seas retreated, and when the whales died the predators didn't really disturb their bones much.

Sea shells - no cataclysm required in that case either.

But you do touch upon one of the greatest 'debates' out there - the religious 'cataclysmic' origin takes did influence skepticism. Thus Uniformitarianism was born: the default 'denial' or 'prove me wrong' stance of skepticism often became 'prove your cataclysm.' Only now in the last twenty or so years has Uniformitarianism itself been properly challenged.


2. With regard to 'young earth' - yes, absolutely correct. Evolution as proven fact, in everything from bacteria to fruit flies to Darwin's finches, would require a miracle to not cause dramatic changes over 250 million years of life. Evolution wouldn't stand a chance of making such complex changes over only 10,000 years - not enough generations.


3. Yes, likely the commandment-strippers are evolutionists as well as atheists. I'm sure the round-earthers were often atheist too.

The Pope and the Vatican seem to have learned much from history, and have already moved past this entire debate as well. It has little bearing with regard to their main message anyway.

Your inability to see beyond your preconceptions is equally unnerving. On NPR, this evening, an important distinction was made regarding the Dover case. In no way was intelligent design discredited; rather, the judge made a finding of fact that clearly puts ID into a philosophical/spiritual bucket, and evolution into a scientific bucket. Given that our Constitution prohibits the establishment of state-sponsored religion, the judge rightly ruled against the defendants.

Science cannot, nor does it portend to, touch on every facet of the human experience. I mean, sheesh! Didn't you watch Spock and Kirk go at it? There are your archetypes -- and they both were right.

Your religious beliefs pollute your rational thought. As long as you hold on to your religious bias (the belief in unprovable creationism) you will continue to manufacture excuses why well-tested biological observations, theory, and methodology are flawed.

~Ulrika~

The line is a lot more blurred than you might think.

Lots of bacteria demonstrate multi-cellular behaviour under various environmental conditions.

In fact while some maintain a free-swimming state in individual forms, those same bacteria interact with chemical messengers and form specialisations when food is scarce, or in a particular area, &c.

In some cases it is harder to believe that the complex organism is merely made of bacteria that still can free-swim.


Another incredible example is coral.

Here you have a symbiotic creature made of two kinds of organism, and able to mate outside its species under certain circumstances.

Morphologically they can change so drastically that the young are not even recognisable as offspring of the parents, without DNA testing of all symbionts involved.

Corals can bud, sexually and asexually reproduce, form symbiotic relationships with different algae species depending on temperature and so on.

Studying coral makes 'upper school evolution' courses seem trivial, for the whole range of molecular biology is open to organisms under the pressure of natural selection, not just the simple choices that most people study and then forget.



The final point: one decent microbiology course really shows how evolution came to be so accepted, even if you just look at the example organisms.

A good understanding of organic chemistry doesn't hurt, either.

Without understanding those two, there is a lot of ground to cover. It would be like telling a 19th century scientist that electronic computers can exist on a desktop - a person with that background simply wouldn't have enough general understanding to make an informed guess.

a theory is not an observed fact. the confusion is that in everyday speech, theory is often used to mean hypothesis.

a hypothesis is a proposed model. once it is tested using accepted scientific method and it holds up to the tests, it becomes a theory. however a theory is only a model, and is not a fact. the future can bring about new observations that refute the theory.

natural selection and spontaneous mutations are two observations that support the evolution theory.

that is not a test of the theory of gravity. the theory of gravity seeks to explain the cause for bill falling to is his death after he jumped out the window.

i'm sure i've said this before, but this is the layman's view of science. science is based on a belief in a system that very cleary defines how to think and how to work weighed against the politics of academia. that does not make it less valid. it is important to recognize the limitations of a tool that we rely so heavily on.

interestingly, the greatest leaps in scientific knowledge increase not from the labour of the scietific method but momentary leaps of intuition that must later be accounted for by the method.

here's really amazing peace of piece of writing i came across last year:

Grosz, Elizabeth. “Feminism and the Crisis of Reason.” Space, Time, and Perversion. New York. Routledge. 1995.

Wee, let's play Tit-for-Tat. Hey, I think there's a great idea for the next extreme-adrenaline reality show! (*crowd roars*)

a) My religious beliefs are pliable. Can you say the same about your worldview?

b) I am not manufacturing excuses for those elements of evolution science that can be unequivocally demonstrated. As with most scientific fields, there are still plenty of frontiers left to be explored (e.g., the behavior of the walrus in the wild).

c) You assume that my position is anti-thetical to your own. However, I have no qualms with micro/intra-species evolutionary theory. Tell me, though, how macro/inter-species evolution is a "well-tested" biological observation, theory and/or methodology?

d) Just because a particular philosophy cannot today be proven does not presume that same condition to be a future constant.

Ulrika, in many ways, yours is a bully pulpit more offensive than that of the average smarmy televangelist. It's your approach, more than anything, that oft offends.

Actually you can! It's called Procreation! Making Babies!! WOOT! We, and I mean every living critter on this planet, all start as a single cell created by the union of two cells.

As for my 2 cents on ID vs Evolution: Sure teach it!! But dont teach just a one-sided christian version!! I'd like to hear the Sumerians, Mayans, Hindu, Satanist, Taoists, Judean, and all other religion's version of creation taught. The United States allows for Freedom of Religion and Equal Rights of ALL religions. If one side is to be taught, then all must be taught.

And to further the problem- To teach only a Christian ideology, who's? Roman Catholic? Born-Again? Baptist? Protestant? Methodist? They all have their differences and similarities.

I went to a Catholic Private School. Got a damn good education. My family PAID for me to have schooling that involved religion.

There are many other cultures who's creation beliefs are much older than the Bible. And they all seem to follow the same pattern. So who's to say?

In 5000-10000 years, Religion as you now know it will have changed. Today's Religions are the Future's Myths.

Now, had the group that was FOR I.D. had a mixture of other religions with them, then maybe it would've been allowed.

ALso, in the Constitution it does NOT state "separation of Church & State", but rather The Goverment can not make laws regarding the religion it's people must follow. Religious Freedom. Therefore, since a Public school is funded by the Goverment, they shouldnt allow anything that favors one religion over another or teaches a religious belief. What if my Catholic child was being taught Satanic Rites in a public school? Should I then be okay with that?

On the website: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html
You will find this:

Jefferson did not have a hand in the authoring of the Constitution, nor of the 1st Amendment, but he was an outspoken proponent of the separation of church and state, going back to his time as a legislator in Virginia. In 1785, Jefferson drafted a bill that was designed to squash an attempt by some to provide taxes for the purpose of furthering religious education. He wrote that such support for religion was counter to a natural right of man:

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Jefferson's act was passed, though not without some difficulty, in Virginia. Eyler Robert Coates wrote that the act was copied in the acts or constitutions of several states, either in words or in concepts. Jefferson himself was in France by the time word of the act reached Europe, and he wrote back to America that his act was well-thought of and admired.

Jefferson's letter specifically pointed out by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v US (98 US 145 [1878]). For details on the Reynolds case, see the next section. It has been a notable metaphor for the 1st Amendment's non-establishment concept ever since.

The only thing worse than an offensive bully pulpit is an offensive bully pulpit that is backed by verifiable observations, sound methodology, and testable theories. I admit that I am of the latter.

~Ulrika~

Why won't you answer my question?

You're pulling my leg, right? The union of two human reproductive cells is in no way analagous to the metamorphosis of an amoeba into a worm over millennia.

Actually, you may be surprised to learn that I support Judge Jones findings and his decision in the Dover case. I don't think it is appropriate to teach ID in public schools for the very reasons you cite, above. Keep in mind, though, that all the Dover school board had required was a one-minute pre-amble that offered up ID as an alternative. The curriculum was, otherwise, unchanged. Even so, I would rather leave ID education up to the church (until such time as it meets empirical standards).

Make yourself comfortable. That's a long wait you're looking at.