Judge Says No to ID

Elspeth, my point was never to say ID is responsible, only that it's possible.

just as evolution is possibly solely responsible, but that isn't proven either.

i was simply trying to elucidate that ID has scientific merit, at least enough to warrant that it's a possible part of our history, not even solely, just that it may have had some part in our development somewhere along the line.

although, as a side note, it's interesting to take into account that there have been some odd developments in the history of mankind that suggests some external influence. on this point, i'm not talking about origins of the species, rather presenting thought on some interaction from that originates from outside our natural development.

in any case, my point.. Egyptians. this was a culture of barely advanced abilities. archealogically speaking, there seems to be a massive leap in technology not common in standard human development. where a people appear to have suddenly come into the knowledge of advanced mathematics and similar schools of thought.

now, i'm not offering this as any type of "proof". it's just something to mull over and consider what it could mean to the arguement at hand. basically, if there were an outside influence that imbued ancient Egyptians with advanced knowledge, then couldn't that offer the possibility of an external influence earlier in our histiory?

i was never trying to prove anything concretely. i have simply been trying to debate whether ID is scientifically viable as a possibility. due to my research, i have to say that yes.. it is. but keep in mind, this is my opinion and i encourage everyone to come to their own opinions through un-biased research.

It is possible that there is currently a china teacup orbiting Saturn. It would be virtually impossible to prove otherwise. We don't spend time considering this possibility because there is no evidence for it, and it doesn't fit into our models of how we think the world works. In order to change those models, you've got to have some good evidence.

This happened when relativity became the best explanation, bettering Newtonian mechanics. There was the new theory, the evidence to back it up and the new model of how the world works, and so it became accepted as the new best explanation.

ID fails on a number of accounts. It has no evidence and it doesn't provide testable predictions or any model of how the world works.

Just like the china teacup, it is of course possible, but then many things are possible. People are free to daydream whatever they want, but without evidence there isn't any science to it.

Ooh! Fun analogy in a great post.

~Ulrika~

This is, of course, true. Provided one is not using the definition of 'science' that... er... scientists use.

"It is possible" does not, by itself, render a subject worthy of study.

Given enough qualifications, almost literally ANYTHING is possible. Including the fact that the universe sprang fully-formed ten minutes ago from the brow of a superintelligent pink kumquat named Fred, complete with a retroactive false history (and memories) stretching back thousands or billions of years (depending on whether you follow the bilbical or scientific version of the age of the universe).

That scenario is not, however, at all likely.

Furthermore, and more importantly, it cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested, then there's no point to studying it (with science) WHATSOEVER. You can't make any statements about the veracity that are grounded in observable facts, which is what science is all about. And until that changes, it has no merit or credibility as a scientific theory. It is the realm of myth, philosophy, and/or faith.

Explain the mechanism, explain the point at which it occurred, provide compelling evidence for this actually occurring, and describe a means of testing all of these things. That will make it a viable (but not necessarily true) scientific theory, at least until those things are actually tested. Vague allusions to Egyptians or the coincidence of eye design or whatever will never be sufficient in place of that.

The fact that life can be created by intelligent entities is not in serious doubt; humans create life naturally all the time (reproduction), we have had some limited success in doing so artificially (cloning, genetic engineering ... we've been deliberately breeding new forms of life for thousands of years) and an improved capacity to do so (or even create it from basic building blocks) is easy to see coming at this point. That's a quite different question than whether it actually happened as the origin of life on Earth.


As far as Evolution not being "proven" ... nothing in science is ever proven in that sense. It's all about probabilities. Evolution is far more probable than The Kumquat Fred Theory. So it is with I.D.

Do you care to ponder the actual points I made or would you rather just say "Chip is mean!"? Yes, I'm maligning a group of researchers who hold advanced degrees because they aren't using them to perform science. They're using their perceived intellectual clout to sell you snakeoil. I hate to see intelligent people get suckered.

I already know that you're "mean," so there is no point in stating the obvious. Anyway, wasn't I doing exactly that -- pondering your assertion that a group of researchers are basically impotent? At any rate, it appears that you are making ad hominem attacks against a group of researchers without making any effort to justify your assertions. Have you performed an exhaustive review of their credentials? Have you examined what their peers have to say? Or, are you just making your blanket statements based on a cursory overview of the Discovery Web site, or worse yet, acting with discrimination because the Discovery group has a faith affiliation?

Likewise, I hate to see intelligent people make half-baked accusations without due diligence.

I give up Paolo. Yes I've read a lot of what the Discovery Institute has to say and I've read a lot of commentary about them from other scientists. Have you? I laid out for you in plain english exactly why I don't think their argument, and specifically what you quoted, has any merit, as have many other people. You've yet to address a single one of my points. Instead you're just playing the "poor persecuted christian" card and casting me as a bigot. It's a bullshit tactic, and it's exactly the kind of thing you're accusing me of. When you want to debate the actual substance of the argument, get back to me.

Let's look at the Discovery Institute fellows and advisors (summarized from wikipedia and other sources)

Howard Ahmanson, Jr. - major funder of the institute. He funded the magazine Chalcedon Report, which carried an article calling for homesexuals to be stoned. He's a Christian Reconstructionist (read up on it. Scary shit). No science credentials or degrees.

Francis J. Beckwith - President-elect of the Evangelical Theological Society, associate director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies and associate professor of church-state studies at Baylor University. No science credentials or degrees.

Michael J. Behe - Author of the now infamous "Of Pandas and People." On the stand in the Dover case he was forced to admit that under the definition he's using to claim ID is science, Astrology would also qualify.

Bruce Chapman - Founder of the institute. No scientific credentials or degrees. He was also a fellow at the Hudson Institute which has among its mission statements "respect for the importance of culture and religion in human affairs"

William Lane Craig - philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. He is a prolific author and lecturer on a wide range of issues related to the philosophy of religion, the historical Jesus, and the coherence of the Christian worldview. No scientific credentials or degrees.

William A. Dembski - mathematician, philosopher, theologian and neo-creationist. In 1999 he was invited to establish the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor by Robert Sloan. Dembski taught Sloan's daughter at a Christian study summer camp. "The center's mission, and the lack of consultation with the Baylor faculty, became the immediate subject of controversy. The faculty feared for the university's reputation – it has historically been well-regarded for its contributions to mainstream science – and scientists outside the university questioned whether Baylor had "gone fundamentalist". Faculty members pointed out that the university's existing interdisciplinary Institute for Faith and Learning was already addressing questions about the relationship between science and religion, making the existence of the Polanyi Center somewhat redundant. In April 2000, Dembski hosted a conference on "naturalism in science" sponsored by the broadly theistic Templeton Foundation and the pro-ID Discovery Institute, seeking to address the question "Is there anything beyond nature?". Most of the Baylor faculty boycotted the conference.

A few days later, the Baylor faculty senate voted by a margin of 27–2 to ask the administration to dissolve the center and merge it with the Institute for Faith and Learning."

"Critics of the intelligent design movement frequently object that ID proponents have published no papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of the conjectures of intelligent design. The same criticism has been levelled at Dembski's Design Inference. However, Dembski claims that the book has in fact been peer reviewed. Dembski states: "this book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory". In fact, The Design Inference was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers; the book does not apply Dembski's argument to biology and evolution, the battleground in which ID stakes its claim. The book's content is limited to examining the question of how to recognize intelligent design, Dembski's "explanatory filter"; it does not provide scientific evidence or justification for concluding that life was designed. Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been published in a peer-reviewed journal for mathematics and philosophy, it is false to claim that any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design has been so published in the arena of scientific press in which the topic is debated, which is what Dembski implies."

George Gilder - co-founder of the institute, prominent antifeminist. No scientific credentials or degrees. "During the bubble years of the late 1990s, critics accused Gilder of "front running"; purchasing stocks in little known companies and before using his media influence to drive up their prices, then dumping them on the market. In practice it is difficult to prove or disprove such accusations. In Gilder's case, the practice would not be illegal, since he was not a licensed broker or analyst. Many if not most of the compainies lauded by Gilder in his "Gilder Report" went bankrupt in the post 2000 Nasdaq meltdown. Gilder later claimed that he saw the Nasdaq meltdown coming, however he never shared this insight with his subscribers at the time, and his personal investment losses do not speak well of his prescience." Not sure what any of that has to do with biology or the sciences, but interesting nonetheless.

Phillip E. Johnson - considered the father of the ID movement. He came up with the "wedge strategy" which seeks to undermine the teaching of evolution and supplant it with ID. More on the wedge strategy can be found here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html Author of Darwin on Trial. Stephen Gould's review in Scientific American called the book "full of errors, badly argued, based on false criteria, and abysmally written."

Stephen C. Meyer - philospher of science, theologian. "On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer, appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article as not meeting its scientific standards and not peer reviewed. The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID."

J.P. Moreland - Christian apologist, theologian, and philosopher. He holds a PhD in philosophy. No scientific credentials or degrees.

Paul Nelson - grandson of the creationist autor Byron Nelson. Young earth creationist. Edited the book "Creationist Writings of Byron C. Nelson." PhD in philosphy. No scientific credentials or degrees.

Scott Minnich - associate professor of microbiology at U of Idaho. Finally someone with relevant credentials! He's a proponent of "irreducible complexity" which as has been pointed out over and over again has no real scientific merit since it's not falsifiable. He's also been involved in research regarding the Shroud of Turin. He was an expert witness in the Dover trial. " the defense asserted that intelligent design is rooted in science, frequently citing Dr. Michael Behe's work. In what often sounded like an advanced biology course, expert witness Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University, said that, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community." Defense witness Dr. Scott Minnich conceded as much. When testifying about how it was a risk in his field to come out as an intelligent design proponent, Pepper Hamilton attorney Steve Harvey replied, "That's because the entire scientific community rejects intelligent design, doesn't it?" Minnich answered, "That's correct."" http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/21779res20051123.html

George Weigel - Adjunct fellow at DI. Author and Roman Catholic theologian. Here are some of the books he's written: The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God, Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II, The Final Revolution: The Resistance Church and the Collapse of Communism, Cathlolicism and the Renewal of American Democracy, among others. Weigel was president of the James Madison Foundation, and a principal at the Pueblo Institute during the Reagan administration both of which were used to launder money that went to the contras as part of the Iran/Contra scandal. No scientific credentials or degrees.

John Corrigan Wells - The only other person with a degree in biology. He also holds a doctorate in theology. He's also, interestingly enough, a Moonie. Here's an interesting response from the National Center for Science Education to his "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher" that makes an interesting read. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7719_responses_to_jonathan_wells3_11_28_2001.asp

So, Paolo, there's some research for you. You could of course do your own if you so desired.

OK, back the truck up, Chipster. Back around post #49, after the Dover ruling, I asserted that it was time to shift the debate from a scientific basis to a philosophical basis. Despite that fact, you continue to react to me with the assumption that I am promoting ID as pure, empirical science, which I am not.

Next, how exactly am I playing the "poor persecuted Christian" card? Would you say that you are able to evaluate matters of faith without a severe bias? Furthermore, I'm not the one calling your "experts" to task, but that's exactly what you are doing WRT the Discovery group. Why is it so offensive for me to press you for a full justification for your summary dismissal of a group of researchers that, as far as I can tell, has far more impressive credentials than your own? What is so damn threatening, now that the debate has shifted, to now ponder the possibility (aka philosophize) of an intelligent design? Does your personal agenda prohibit "what if" scenarios, just because certain hypotheses cannot currently be tested? Don't make me wrong, Chip, for your own negative disposition.

Gaze at your navel all you like, just don't do it while attempting to teach science class. (Which I think was the point of the thread.)

Yep, and I agreed with that as I stated exactly in the post you claimed was dismissive and mean. It was part of my detailed explanation of why I have a problem with the DI stuff you posted. Which I may add you are still not addressing. You can't judge science with philosophy. they're apples and oranges. The central argument in this thread is the scientific merit or lack thereof of ID, further emphasized by your bolded quote from the Discovery Institute about how it's a scientifically valid field of research. If you're only asserting philosophical validity why did you bother to quote and bold that statement? You can't have it both ways.



Because rather than addressing the points raised against ID and it's validity (even as philosphy) you'd rather cast aspersions at your opponents and imply that they're bigots.

"I loathe the smug, self-aggrandizing approach taken by those who continue to dismiss philosophy and/or theology because those studies don't adhere to the scientific method."

"I already know that you're "mean," so there is no point in stating the obvious. Anyway, wasn't I doing exactly that -- pondering your assertion that a group of researchers are basically impotent? At any rate, it appears that you are making ad hominem attacks against a group of researchers without making any effort to justify your assertions."

I just gave you a very long justification for my assertions.



Just pointing at the letters after someone's name doesn't make me go "oooh, expert!" My opinion of the DI and it's principals didn't form in a vacuum, nor is it the result of bigotry. Again I gave you a great deal of information about the principals in DI, their qualifications to debate science, and other pertinent facts about their backgrounds. Did you do the same before you decided to be wowed by their credentials? They have nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of the arguments used by the DI.

You're welcome to have a different opinion than mine, but dismissing mine as biased, mean, and uninformed isn't something I'll accept without strong rebuttal.

Um, hasn't been my agenda.

Wow, I'm impressed. Other opponents wouldn't have bothered. I'll take more time to review, after work.

By the way, I do my own research. You were originally making blanket statements; I asked you to justify them. You have done so, and I respect that. I'll address your other post, separately.

Well the thing to understand about navel gazing, or philosophy as some call it, or theology (which seems to be a variation), is that everything is valid within it. You can talk about anything all day and that's okay. It can even talk about scientific stuff, but that doesn't mean it has any merit. I can set up perfectly valid philosophical 'what if' scenarios for WW2 histories (which are very popular in literature btw), but that doesn't make them historically accurate.

So basically, since you agree that the debate has shifted to the realm of philosphy, you have agreed that it is now completely irrelevant to science. Great. Good. Fine. Keep it there. Heck start a topic on that.

Thankya. You should know by now that I generally don't tend to talk out of my ass.

Ummm... has that been scientifically proven?

*runs, hides, changes hair color, name, and number of limbs*

It was new information to me. After reading several news articles on the Dover decision, I went searching for collateral information. After coming across Casey Luskin's article, I posted it in order to add more substance to the debate. I thought Luskin's point, "...design is not a negative argument against evolution," was provocative enough to warrant a fair evaluation.

That said, you and others still assume that I "agree" with the article; in actuality, I hadn't formed a full opinion and just wanted to discuss it. I also thought it appropriate to supply a definition of ID as communicated by associated researchers. Unless we can agree on terms, we're talking in circles.

In truth, I agree that it is an unconfirmed syllogism to state that design necessitates a designer. However, that is not any sort of basis for abandoning the field of study.


And I say there is evidence of bias. Most of the opposing views have been rooted in evolutionary science. I have already made it quite clear that I consider macro-/inter-species evolution to be a form of philosophical pseudo-science, but evolution "fact" has been the opposing rally cry. How was that not addressing the points raised?

I stand behind that statment. No one here is winning any popularity contests, and I doubt that any of our passive readers' minds are changing. Bully pulpits, even scientific ones, are counter-productive.

I posted this before seeing your lengthy reply.

When? I think I must have missed that... And, I am willing to give credentialed individuals the benefit of doubt before tarring and feathering them. On the other hand, when dealing with anonymous posters who assert expert status, how should their comments be evaluated when compared to public experts? For all I know, you're sitting at home channeling David Koresh as he tries to make amends for Waco. (And vice versa.)

I'll give you informed. Mean was your term; I just threw it back at you with sarcasm. Biased? We all have biases.

My opinion is....... let the government keep the failing public schools, as the rest of the People move on to homeschooling or private schooling. Long ago American public schools were the envy of the World.

My apologies for assuming your motive. Since the Discovery Institute along with the law firm that talked the Dover school board into doing what they did are the two driving forces between the ID movement I assumed you were already familiar with them. Most of them are theologians, and the ones that aren't are there for religious reasons, not scientific ones. If a doctor sells you a car it's not a medical procedure because he's a doctor. The primary financier of the institute is a Christian Reconstructionist with a hardcore agenda aimed at turning the United States into a Christian theocracy. They've been on my radar for a long time.



This is why I recommended the Dawkins book as it specifically addresses your misgivings about macro evolution.

I don't even accept ID as philosophy as it has nothing to do with ethics, metaphysics, or epistomology. In fairness it does have some tiny basis is epistomology, but nothing that can't be covered in full in about ten seconds after which it has nothing further to add. In fact, religion as a whole is pretty much a dead end as far as philosophy goes. It's got useful things to say about ethics and morality (and just as many truly awful things to say about them) but nothing new in 2000 years. Just an endless rehashing of the same old stories and the same paltry few common sense moral axioms that aren't unique to religion. Since there's nothing new under the sun in religious thought or study, after a point it becomes a lot of navel gazing that does nothing to advance human thought or understanding.

I heve been in the chatrooms, I have been in the forums, I have been in the universities, I have seen cable television and the home shopping network.
having seen this, homeschooling scares the bejeezus out of me.

Lets write snazzy headlines for this article. If I was the newspaper editor mine would read:

Judge rules: Teachers must check ID at the door

Yes, sort of. I agree that the ID debate is best postulated within a philosophical framework. Completely irrelevant to science, though? I only concede that ID is currently un-testable, and therefore, cannot be empirically validated.

One thing I find interesting is that so much of advanced science revolves around wildly theoretical hypotheses. In that vein, why can string theory be debated within a scientific framework, but not ID? I'm not placing ID on the same level as string theory, mind you. However, string theory is still an unproven hypothesis, and as such, it technically belongs in the realm of philosophy. (To my knowledge, we currently lack any means by which to measure dimensions five and above...)

To bottom line it for you, I take issue with the apparent double standard.

Chip,

If religious people can't be scientists you would not disqualify, because of a bias due to their belief system, who then can be scientists? Can only atheists be scientists?

Does the fact atheists believe there is no God cause them to be biased due to their belief system?

Can only atheist scientists be trusted?

A few (read: great many) words from someone who has done their own research, unlike many ID supporters who keep their noses out of real science and barely take it out of an ancient book written by people who believed the Earth was flat like a dinnerplate and that the heavens were draped over the Earth like the domed cover on said dinner-plate.

The theory that the Earth and planets goes around the sun was first stated some time around 250bc by a man by the name of Aristarchus. He measured (with very little accuracy, but his math was perfect... his instruments were the inaccuracy) the size and distance of the sun and moon in relation to the Earth. His findings lead to the theory of solarcentricity (sun in the middle).

hypothesis noun
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Evolution is a theory. As such, it is an explanation of various proven facts, including but not limited to:
Humans have strikingly similar skeletons to apes. PROVEN FACT
Mammals all have mammary glands. PROVEN FACT
Mammals and Reptiles both have five digits and four limbs. PROVEN FACT
An orangatan was once mistaken for a primitive human and elected into British Parlament. PROVEN FACT (a funny fact too, they even taught it to eat with a fork)

Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. The statements it makes are untested, based on conjecture and hearsay. The evidence supporting it is tentative at best. Namely, a really old book says so.
God created the world. UNTESTED
God created the animals. UNTESTED
God created mankind. UNTESTED

It may be true that we can't go back in time and prove either Evolution or Intelligent Design through observation. It is however possible to gather more and more evidence. The evidence that we find is rarely in disagreement with the theory of evolution.

When the evidence is in disagreement with evolution, the theory of evolution changes to reflect the new data. For instance, Darwin originally thought humans were descended from trees, not apes. He said that our torso is the trunk. Our legs and toes are the roots. Our arms the branches and our hair the leaves. He was, quite simply, wrong.

Scientifically speaking, Flying Spaghetti Monster is a hypothesis, not a theory. Scientifically speaking, angels pushings the planets around the sun in a manner that happens to coincide with Newtonian laws of motion is a hypothosis and not a theory.

Then there's one more thing to mention here. There is a difference between science and pseudoscience. Science can be tested. Pseudoscience cannot be tested. To this end. "God created the world" is untestable. The only way we can test it is to ask God. God is being rather mute on the subject when questioned by the Scientific community.

Angels pushing the planets around the sun can be tested. We can aim a telescope and look for the angels... When we do, we find that there are no angels. However, the fact that we can test it makes the statement a scientifically valid hypothesis, even if it is wrong. If we turn around and say that the angels cannot be detected with human instruments because they exist on a plane beyond the perception of any device mortals can make, then it ceases being scientifically valid as a hypothosis. Then it enters into the realm of pseudo science because it loses its testability.

We have much evidence to support Evolution. Radio carbon dating for instance. Yes yes, I'm well aware of the problem with temperature causing the atoms to decay faster. Are you aware that the temperature stays almost identical year around after you go down 6 feet deep? The only thing that could really change the readings on something that's been buried more than 6 feet for the majority of the time is an ice age. Those don't last but a few thousand years... So for a fossile about 65,000,000 years old, we're looking at a margin of error of about 15,000 years. That's not much by comparison. That's only a margin of error of 0.0234375% not much at all and it's actually 99.9765625% accurate.

We have DNA evidence. DNA is a very hot thing these days. It was originally thought that rabbits were rodents. They've since been reclassified to their own family entirely. Originally, skunks were a part of the mustelid family (otters, badgers, ferrets, mink, weasels, etc) but they've since been given their own family. All thanks to DNA which shows they're along different evolutionary branches.

Speaking of taxonomical classification which is utilized by evolutionists to classify animals. Did you know that the taxonomical classification system was originally invented by a creationist by the name of Carl Linnaeus. Linnaeus invented taxonomical classification after a passage in Genesis.

Genesis 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind.

Note, in two individual places in the same sentence, it says "according to their/its own kinds" hence taxonomy. Now, I'm not a religous person, I just find it's handy to keep up on some things when dealing with overzealous thumpers.

I'd like to conclude by saying that evolution does not preclude any deity or religion. As a matter of fact, evolutionary theory has yet to have any evidence for the seperation of a basic life form into bacteria, plants, fungi and animals.

However, rather recently, we have discovered a form of life that may be the base upon which all others sprang. They call it "archaea". However, archaea is not fully researched yet and some think it to be merely the most basic and simple form of bacteria. Others believe that it is along side bacteria, taxonomically speaking. Much like birds are beside mammals and reptiles, or plants are next to animals and fungus.

Archaea were first described in extreme environments. Such environments as deep under the sea floor, inside the flow tunnels of geysers, etc. They have sine been found in more mundane places as wetlands, sewage and soil. It's much easier to find something once you know what you're looking for.

At any rate, evolution neither promotes nor contradicts the Christian Bible. I seem to remember a similar incident. Galileo Galilei was charged and convicted by the Vatican with herecy because he publicly promoted (and with very convincing scientific evidence) that the Earth goes around the sun. The Vatican eventually admitted that Galileo was right. It took them roughly 350 years to admit it. The year they admitted they were wrong and Galileo was right and that it's not herecy was in 1992. Yes that's right, it happened when every single one of us here on the forums was already alive.