Judge Says No to ID

First the Vatican and now the judicial branch.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/index.html

~Ulrika~

OK....this is an honest question, as I really don't know the answer....

IF Intelligent Design is not a valid alternative to Evolution, then what is? Are these schools allowed to teach anything BUT Evolution?

Evolution is, after all, only a theory. No one can honestly say they know with 100% certainity how life began on Earth, all we have are theories. So, in all genuine seriousness, what alternative theories or viewpoints are taught to students besides Darwinism (or Evolution, if you prefer)?

Evolution does not directly address origin of life, or origin of all. You might seek out chemistry or physics for that. As to 'only a theory'? We're only a human after all... What I've learned of science is it doesn't usually claim absolute certainty in anything. Thus the theory. If we were more pretentious, we would just call it a law. But I think that would hurt the objectivity of science. That being said, we'll teach them something else as soon as something more comprehensive comes along to replace evolution. So far, nothing has.

Now the fun part here is you could probably get away with putting ID in something like chemistry, if we taught ambiogenesis in chemistry to high schoolers, but we don't. So I don't expect it to be taught there. Or possibly one of those vague ID-like versions of the secular big bang in physics, but we don't really teach the big bang in physics with any more credibility than we do "god snapped his fingers and the big bang happened". I mean, sure, whatever ya want. Kids should probably be more concerned with learning about motion, vectors, friction, forces and the like. And you won't find the juicy theories, like string/membrane or multiverse theory until college.

I never had a problem with schools having disclaimers saying evolution is a theory. Fine. Just keep religion out of it and come up with a real alternative and I'd have no problem letting my kids hear about it. I'm glad the judge saw through the thinly veiled creationism and I'm surpised more haven't.

Gravity is only a theory, too.

You going to jump out a window and test it? No.

I tried, but I cannot match the eloquence of this post.

Natural selection is an observable process.

Large scale evolution is not. Mankind hasn't exactly been keeping accurate records for the millions of years necessary to document transitions from one species of life to another.

There have been many conflicting theories put forward to explain the apparently rapid transition from one species to another, mostly devised to explain the lack of transitory specimens in the fossil record.

Even the theory of evolution itself isn't a single, unified theory, but is rather a conglomoration of smaller theories that are put under one heading. To make things more complicated, these theories change and evolve over time (no pun intended).

I won't claim to be an expert on the matter, but from what I've seen, there is no incontrivertable evidence for any single theory regarding the origin and development of life on Earth. Evolution, alien transplant, or creation by Divine Intervention all seem equally as likely to anyone who is open-minded enough to admit that they might be wrong.

The problem isn't the validity of any one theory. The problem is Belief. Evolutionists are unwilling to stomach the thought that there be a divine creator, just as members of every religion from Christianity to the followers of Zorbo the Cosmic Slug can't conceive of a universe not created by their diety.

At its heart, the nature of science is to ask questions and accept the answer that best fits the evidence. Instead, what we have is a scienfitic institution that makes the evidence fit their pre-defined conceptions.

Throw any piece of data out there and I can create a coherent theory that makes that data fit blind evolution, 7 day creation, or Zorbo's Great Sneeze. That doesn't make me right, and it certainly doesn't give me the right to force-feed my theories to entire generations of students without giving equal time to the opposition.

A fair treatment of evolution would show the data, give explanations of how the data fits the various theories, and allow the student to make up their own mind. Instead (at least when I was in high school), only the pro-evolution data was shown, with no mention of the fact that the data can be interpreted in different ways.

However, the mere fact that there is this much hue and cry against showing alternatives, all in the name of "not promoting religion" tells me that Evolution has actually become a sort of religion of its own.

It's really too bad that the same people who say we should be open -minded have become completely closed to any opinions but their own.

Gravity is accepted as a Law of Nature.

The only theories about gravity are about what creates it. These theories are being studied and tested by scientists in an attempt to understand what makes gravity tick and eventually find ways to counter it or create it artificially.

Fortunately for us, science isn't about belief. It's about evidence. It's about deriving a testable hypothesis from the existing evidence that not only explains the existing evidence, but can also make accurate predictions that can then be verified. Evolution is the only theory explaining the development of life on Earth that meets those criteria. As soon as someone comes up with a competing theory that has equal or greater evidence to support it, and can make equal or more accurate verifiable predictions, it will no doubt supplant evolution as the standard theory. People who portray evolution as a kind of faith or dogma demonstrate only their complete lack of understanding about what science is and how science works.

Good news on the verdict, as utterly and completely predictable as it was

i just thought it should be pointed out that mankind ritself has created living organisms from slapping together basic components.

man has created life, in a very basic form, but we have created life. we are intelligent. we decided to do it and how to do it and what to put together to acheive that effect.

we used our intelligence to design life.

thus, intelligent design.

-

now, we have also seen archealogical evidence of some evolutionary variations. there exists proof that some things have turned into other things through mutation or some other evolutionary process.

-

so, tell me.. can we really say one is what happened or that the other is not?

if we can create basic forms of life, why couldn't higher forms of life have had a hand in the creation of life on Earth?

-

i agree that we shouldn't be teaching one thing or the other exclusively, simply due to the fact that we have no conclusive evidence of either.. and we have evidence of the possibility of either.

until we can go back and watch for ourselves, or some aliens come down here with a recording of the history of our humble beginnings and we can all watch how it all happened.. i say let's not force any one school of thought on our children.

let's be honest.. we just don't know.

How about this theory: Science is science because the majority of scientists say so. Most scientists wouldn't say "life was created by an unknown intelligent lifeform" and therefore it is not science. When scientists decide there is another theory they can call scientific, based on their own special criteria, then maybe the courts will consider paying for its inclusion in state funded curricula. There is separation of church and state, but not science and state, and that's that.

I personally got an emotional stiffy of happiness just reading the first post of the thread and feel like celebrating.

It's been pointed out again and again, in these forums and everywhere, that science is about method. ID does not conform to scientific method. For that reason, ID cannot be taught in a science class as a viable alternative to evolution, because ID is not science.

So far, ID does conform to poor philosophical method. So ID can be taught in a philosophy class as an example of a poorly developed philosophy.

ID also conforms to examples of secularized religious dogma. So ID can be taught in a class on religions.

In short, ID is a philosophical or religious alternative to science. It is not a scientific alternative to evolution. Hence, its place in a school curriculum is very clear. Which is what the federal judge in Pennsylvania pointed out, thank God.

If ID were actually science, I'd support adding it to the science classes - but last time I checked - it was not.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

From: someone

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.




How about now?

It is more than arguable that large scale evolution does have lots of evidence.

The entire world is covered in fossils, and unlike common understanding, it is pretty clear to see how various life forms relate to one another.

It is a rare, rare thing when there is a fossil found that does not match evolutionary constraints - perhaps an highly inconsistent skull shape for a member of a species, or whatnot.

The evidence for evolution was so overwhelming that even god-fearing, 18th and 19th century scientists could not ignore it.

One of the most powerful evidences was 'parallel' evolution, where various creatures of radically different origin converged on features suitable to the same condition. Such as marsupials taking on many of the niches held by rodents, tigers or wolves elsewhere, and evolving into strikingly similar forms to accomplish the demands of their particular niche.



This would be great for a year-long class on evolution, but unlike a course on cooking, it takes time to see where, when and how the pieces of evidence fit together. I would be surprised if students got more than a week or two on the subject.

There was a reason why the concept of large scale evolution went hand in hand with exploration and travel. Finding similar fossils in South America and Africa, up to a time; finding comparable fossils in Devonian cliffs in England -vs- elsewhere in the world, comparing rock strata in a meaningful way via multiple independent methods, and so forth.

So... presenting the evidence - I fully agree. Make it an elective, make it a pre-med course for greatest practical effect. Though not everyone will be lucky enough to have fossil dinosaurs in their classroom.

Depends on what you mean by "only a theory".... see. they teach it AS a theory... not a fact.

Hence.. the ... "teaching of Darwin's THEORY of evolution"

Why do we teach that an not intelligent design???

Because schools don't care what you believe religiously.

That's what catacism is for.

I wish people would stop trying to push their religous beliefs on others by damanding that what they believe be integrated into schools.

Let's look at some other bibilcal beliefs and ponder why they are not taught in schools.

1. The Sun goes around the earth.
(well some folks STILL dont' get this one)

2. Accourding to the bible... PI is 3.
(cubits measurement of a circle on the ark)

3. Earth is less than 10,000 years old

4. Fossils where placed by the devil to confuse us.

So when you say "as an alternate", we are free look at any scientific argument.

Faith is not science.

Should we be allowed to teach alternative to the earth going around the sun?

If you don't think evolution is likely, fine.. study it and show your ideas.

But in this case it all boils down to "this idea counters my faith, thus I must kill it"

"Inteligent Design" was ruled to be creationism in a new wrapper.

You can belive as much as the bible as you wish and the more you do the more it will rub agaist ideas taught in public schools.

*heh I still remember the kids who thought they could tell skeletons apart by counting the ribs*

well when a theory gets enough backing.. they tend to call it the LAW of gravity.

Gravity is going to be turned on it's ear if we discover that gravitrons do exist.

See guys.. what science is a bunch of falable, incorrect info, that gets tested over and over and over.

I'll say it again (*puts on foil hat*). Intra-species micro-evolution is the type of evolution that can be empirically validated. We all agree that species "adapt" to their environments (e.g., the British peppered moth). Thus, the science of "adaptation" is pretty much settled.

Inter-species macro-evolution, however, is another matter. We don't have undeniably compelling "evidence" to support the hypothetical morphing of amoeba to ape to human being. There are bits and pieces of the fossil record which are worth examining, but at this juncture in history, it would be rather arrogant to assert that inter-species evolution is a settled matter of science fact.

Given that we don't have millions of years to perfect an empirical test, the latter paradigm requires a type of "faith" construct. Perhaps our atheist and agnostic friends will eventually grasp this distinction.

Not entirely true. The 18'th and 19'th centuries saw the rise of Atheism: something previously completely unknown. Evolution was devised as a non-theistic explanation for the origin and development of life on the Earth.



That's exactly what I mean about having multiple explanations for the same phenomenon: creation theory says that the fact that the structure of the octopus eye and the human eye are so similar is evidence of a common creator: He (or she) used parts the same blueprint for multiple creatures. The fact that rats fill a niche in one part of the world and marsupials do it somewhere else doesn't mean that they evolved to fit that niche. It simply means that their design was flexible enough to begin with that natural selection picked that species to fit that niche.

My point is this: we could argue in circles all day about the validity of the evolution theories. The fact remains that human beings choose to believe what they want to, regardless of the evidence. When someone invents the first time machine and goes back to take time-lapse photography of the universe being born, we'll find out the truth. Until then, the issue remains in doubt.

Evolution can't be tested by science: the overall scope of life developing on this world is just too large to test. Until the day someone comes up with a way to test it and prove that it can't happen any other way, the theory must remain in doubt. To NOT doubt it goes against good science.

The most important ingredient in scientific inquiry is a healthy sense of doubt. In one of my recent college classes, I was taught that we shouldn't approach scientific inquiries from the attitude of proving our hypothesis, but rather we should try to disprove our hypothesis. Only when all avenues of disproof have been explored can you start to think your theory is close to true.

So far, every single item of data I've seen can be interpreted in many ways. It's no more difficult to fit the data I've seen in to a creation or ID model than an evolution model.

Agreed, Paolo.

Here's another little tidbit to chew on: one of the puzzles that must be solved to be able to support macro-evolution requires that a specimen "grow" an extra chromosome, and that this chromosome be passed on. Futhermore, the extra chromosome must be beneficial for that species to propogate and supplant its predecessor.

So far as I've been able to determine, when you add an extra choromosome to a child, it usually dies before it's born. In the rare case that it lives, you have a deformed and defective specimen. I have never heard of a case where additional chromosomes actually made the resulting offspring stronger... and the odds of two specimens having the same beneficial extra chromosome, finding each other, and producing children with that same chromosome are just shy of impossible.

At the risk of giving offense: imagine two Down's Syndrome kids mating and having a kid. Now imagine Down's Syndrome kids taking over the Earth, and Homo Sapiens dying off in favor of Homo Downs.

Sound fantastic? That's exactly what we're talking about with other species.

Atheism didn't 'rise' in the 18th or 19th century any more than Orthodox Christianity suddenly 'rose' with the fall of the Soviet Union.

It simply became more safe to speak of it.

Regardless, fossil evidences from around the world became very difficult to ignore, and were treated by religions of the time much in the same way gravitational theory was treated. Some rather laughable explanations for fossils were put forth, and disproved over and over by the same sort of folk who eventually restored Galileo's credibility in the world of science.



Rather than a grand 'plot' against religion, a creator simply isn't a necessary part of evolutionary theory on any scale.

Sure, one could argue that parallel evolution was part of a 'grand design'. But if so, that grand design was an atrocious one. Feeling, thinking creatures being preyed upon and eaten? Cancer? Mad cow disease and wasps laying eggs inside spider bodies, larvae eating their way out? Please.

God has a very sick sense of humour, in that case.

Addressing your last point - you are correct - creationism fits the evidence. Flawlessly. As it would fit any evidence of anything, by virtue of that anything's presence. Thus, the problem.



I think the larger question is: knowing that evolution is a measurable phenomenon on short time scales, how could it *not* create sweeping changes over millions of years?

Now, because of this, likely you will assume I am an atheist. Well, unless you frame your thoughts precisely like Chip, you would be quite wide of the mark.

Not 'grow'. Usually what happens is a break in a chromosome into multiple parts, or duplicate.

Considering that there is a very, very high percentage of junk DNA in any strand, a break is often not a big deal.

On top of that, there are lots of people with multiple chromosomal fragments within the human population, alive and well (ever heard of XXY males?). Some people never even realise they have such. XXY happens between 1 in 500 and 1 in 1000 male births. It is not a beneficial mutation, but gives some sense of what variation is possible. A lot.

It's still speculative, and therefore, pseudo-science.

Put it however you want, it's obvious to all but the most dedicated history revisionist that religion has been the single most dominating force in human history (or the single biggest excuse, depending on what the issue is) up until the most recent couple of centuries.

Certainly, there were stupid theories put forth by stupid people. Fossils? The simplest explanation is Noah's flood. If you believe the story of a worldwide cataclysm (which is difficult to ignore, since nearly every culture has some sort of global flood story), then it makes sense that millions of creatures were buried alive in a manner that left them open to fossilization. Certainly you agree that it requires a cataclysm to create a fossil... a dinosaur just keeling over dead would either be eaten or simply rot before it could become embedded in rock.



Ahh... that's the question, isn't it? So-called "young Earth" creationists believe that we've only been around for 10,000 years or so. I won't go in to the data that is used to back this up, since this isn't an "evolution vs creation" thread.

My point all along has been that belief in anything: God, Allah, Bob the Space Alien, or even "nothing at all" is a choice from which your viewpoint is naturally derived. Belief in evolution or creation is a natural consequence of that choice. The problem comes in when people start to think that their choice is the only choice.

I personally find it hard to believe that it's anything but anti-religion. Considering some of the issues going on in my hometown, I know for a fact that the same people crusading against ID in schools are the same ones trying to get the Ten Commandments removed from any public edifice.

The two things are not coincidence.