The U.S. District court ruling this week that said teaching intelligent design violated a constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools is a joke. First, go and do some research on intelligent design theory (IDT) and tell me what religion it teaches? This ruling is so wrong not just from its religious connection being off base but on what it says about schools. The religion hating crowd (mostly liberals and funny that they aren't tolerant isn't it) is apparently afraid of people making up their own minds. It's also interesting that from religious fanatics to the more broad minded IDT supporters, they all would support teaching all three THEORIES on how man got on planet earth; creation, evolution and intelligent design. Those who wish only evolution to be taught wouldn't except presentation of other theories. Students are capable of understanding the application of deductive reasoning in order to absolutely prove any of these theories as fact is not possible with what we know today. The students can also understand that millions around the world will believe one of these theories to be true, that is their belief. To only present a young mind with a single theory, evolution, on the question of the origin of man is tantamount to brain washing.
39 comments:
You just don't get it. ID is not science. It has no scientific basis. It is religion. Not a religion, just religion. Obviously your ignorance of science prevents you from appreciating the difference. Try to read this slowly. Science is supposed to be taught in science classes. Religion, whether Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Judiasm, Voodoo, etc., is not science and therefore is not appropriate for teaching in science class. What is so difficult to understand about that? Are you really that dense? Or are you just totally brainwashed?
You apparently don't do research before you decide your position is perfect do you. Do a google search on ID and look at several sources. Do you believe evolution is science? Is it based on science? Do you believe in God? If you don't do you believe in some other creator? Do you believe in an open or closed universe? If creation of our universe is cyclic who and or what started it? You have no answers. What are you scared of? Tell me why you should teach a child more than one theory!
I think we need to be teaching kids my theory of gravitation. It invokes undetectable and very quick elves (with dapper hats to boot) that move everything around as if there was some mechanical force acting upon them.
Sure, there's no experimentation to back it up, no evidence of their existence, and their actions are more easily explained by natural procesess, but - come on now! - LET'S TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!
Judge Jones, who takes no stand on the truth or falsehood of ID, beautifully demonstrated how it is not science, how its vocal proponents are religious hucksters, and how there is no controversy on the matter.
It'll take some time, but - go on - read the 139 page ruling. It's a thing of beauty.
see the problem is you don't have any cogent arguments to support your theory andy! :) So in your mind, on your planet, supporting experimentation must exist and also physyical evidence. So everything you believe in has both of these? I guess that's one way to define yourself...I enjoyed visiting your blog, this ID thing sure a hold on you...let it go!
Uh, tiny, evolutionary science is supported by nothing but cogent argumentation.
Now, granted, I'm sure you've tinkered away in your basement at everything from geology to genetics and we'll soon marvel at your discoveries that up-end science, but until then - forgive me - if I am not convinced.
ID only grabs my interest when the IDiots make the news in their latest attempt at injecting religion where it doesn't belong. Much of the blog is dedicated to numerous other things, be it my kids, my beer, or my general aversion to stupidity.
It seems like only those with a religious bent think I write just about religion, as if they can't see the forest for the trees.
Andy - Please provide us with you're superior insight by answering the following questions.
The ID theory was first formulated in the late 60's early 70's by a group of scientists-Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon-who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule.
With that said: Why would you take the opinion of a Judge, assuming he's not related to you, and throw that into the face of the SCIENTIST that formulated the theory?
mov, glad to see you on another topic....interesting you throw out this comment about degrees and credentials...what's that got to do with anything?
Let's take a look at one of the many failings in the theory of evolution:
Darwin said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Lehigh University biochemist Michael J. Behe demonstrated exactly that in his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
In the book Behe asks: "What type of biological system could not be formed by 'numerous, successive, slight modifications'?" and he answers: "Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
One great example is the biochemistry of vision which involves a series of specialized molecules that detect and amplify light impulses. All of the molecules must be present and interacting in order for the system to function at all.
ID opponents would say that the anatomy of eye developed step by step until finally you had viola, a working eye. But how the anatomy developed is completely irrelevant as to whether that evolution could take place on a molecular level.
There is also a problem with macroevolution. Microevolution is well supported but even Darwinian scientists know that the leap to macroevolution is one of faith.
In 1937, Darwinian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky called the former "microevolution" and the latter "macroevolution," and he acknowledged that the extrapolation from one to the other was an "assumption."
But that was waaaay back in 1937, we've come so far since then, right?
Not really. For example, Darwinists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz and Rudolf Raff wrote in Developmental Biology in 1996: "Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest… The origin of species -- Darwin’s problem -- remains unsolved." In 2001, Darwinist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: "A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution)."
ID maintains that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than unguided natural processes.
Three things are noteworthy about this description of ID. First, design is inferred from evidence, not deduced from scripture or religious doctrines. All of us make design inferences every day, often unconsciously. ID attempts to formulate our everyday logic in terms rigorous enough to warrant inferences from the evidence in nature. This is clearly not the same as biblical creationism.
Second, ID doesn't explain everything in terms of design. There is still room for chance and necessity. Furthermore, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be designed even if it is flawed. Nor does ID purport to explain everything in the history of life; extinction, among other things, may be undesigned.
Third, ID does not tell us the identity of the designer. Although most proponents of ID believe that the designer is the God of the Bible, they acknowledge that this belief goes beyond the evidence in nature.
Actually, "modern" ID, as evidenced by its strongest proponents and their testimony in the Dover trial, made clear that ID is nothing but warmed over creationism, most clearly illustrated by the search & replace of the word "creationism" with "intelligent design" in their (cough) textbook, Of Pandas and People. This was a direct response to the constitutional spanking that so-called "creation science" got in the courts.
I take the ruling of a judge because the judge is not simply offering his opinion but considering the words of a vast ocean of scientists against a couple of loons like Behe and Dembski who ADMIT IN COURT that (a) there is no significant or productive ID research to be seen, (b) if we redefine science to allow for ID, even astrology becomes science, and (c) they are unable to offer anyway in which ID does not become a religious matter.
As for the research of where information comes from (and, yes, evolutionary science has evidence of the creation of new genetic information, all without the magical hand of God), it is not "research" or "science" to say "Wow, that's really hard to understand, I bet God did it."
Further, pointing out gaps in evolutionary theory does not support ID. It's a false dichotomy that creationists latch on to, but since their entire worldview is one walking logical fallacy, it's hardly surprising.
P.S. For Tiny - you said "let it go," and I will, just as soon as the anti-science religio-thugs quit trying to corrupt my childrens' education with magical thinking.
Andy, I don't actually have a religious bent...you're making that assumption with little information. But lets say you don't believe in a God, or something greater than man, you believe that man evolved from a "primordial soup"...if you're confident in your belief what would be wrong with teaching children the other theories on the origin of man? After all it seems most people on the planet, and by a wide margin, don't believe man just evolved. So why not let people decide for themselves? You haven't answered this question? I don't care if you do this in a class called science. In fact religion is pervasive why not give kids a background on all major religions. That would even freak out some from one faith or another. I wouldn't care. We need to teach deduction and not just answers, and not theory as fact. Again, why are you so afraid?
mov, just like you think we don't get it, we think you don't get it. My 4 and 7 year old can understand that my wife and I have a belief about the origin of man that we can't prove it, we take it on faith. They can understand that this belief has a lot of history. They can understand that billions of others believe in another explanation for the origin of man. And that none of them are absolute and that even those theories whose roots you believe to be good science still have an element of faith for their proponents to fully adopt them. If a 4 and 7 year can understand this why can't you? You don't give people enough credit. Do you think you're so superior that you must dictate what theories people should hear? By the way, it's interesting you in a very short blurb reduced all of those who believe in a God to people whose entire belief system is based on magical thinking. You must think that most of mankind is truly messed up! It's too bad you don't have some magical thinking of your own. Although I assume you do since we don't fully know how to explain the universe. Oh, well maybe you can...if you can maybe you explain black holes for me, the singularity, and either where all that matter and light goes unless it goes to a single point of infinite density..now there's some magical thinking!
Andy, I don't actually have a religious bent...you're making that assumption with little information.
Sure, it's an assumption, but I also was pretty clear about not indicting you with theocrats in my previous comment, instead lumping them separately from you.
...if you're confident in your belief what would be wrong with teaching children the other theories on the origin of man?
Absolutely nothing, in a comparative religion class. Further, they are not "theories" in the scientific sense of the word, they are "stories." Your post title that evolution is essentially "just a theory" is either dishonest or shows a lack of understanding of a theory in science and the layman's idea of a theory. One is rigorous and supported by observation, the other is a hunch.
After all it seems most people on the planet, and by a wide margin, don't believe man just evolved.
The number of people believing a proposition has exactly zero bearing on the validity of said proposition.
So why not let people decide for themselves? You haven't answered this question? I don't care if you do this in a class called science.
I do care, because it isn't science. Is this difficult to understand?
Everyone is still completely free to decide for themself what to believe, but if they're going to get a passing grade in science they better learn what science actually says.
Hey, maybe if a kid wants 2+2 to equal 74, we should teach this "new math" in math class. You know, what are we afraid of?
You must think that most of mankind is truly messed up!
No, I think most of mankind is irrational when it comes to origins, and suspend the type of critical judgment they use in almost every other scenario, instead saying "it's faith, baby, faith."
It's too bad you don't have some magical thinking of your own. Although I assume you do since we don't fully know how to explain the universe.
Only if my magical thinking is "We don't know yet." When you suddenly say "Goddidit," you've got no reason to continue the search for answers. Essentially, ID says "we don't understand how that happens" (even though, we now understand much more, as evidenced in the Dover ruling) and then says "it must be a superbeing!"
That's not science, Tiny; that is, indeed, magical thinking.
Andy perhaps it's the judge who's the loon.
Here's one account of what happened:
"Relying almost exclusively on the evidence presented by the ACLU's witnesses, Jones held that ID is not science. He claimed that the witnesses established that ID relies on "supernatural" explanations, that it was untestable, and that it had produced no peer-reviewed literature. Each of these claims was carefully rebutted by the briefs submitted by amici, including the Discovery Institute and a large group of scientists who urged the court not to try to settle the question of the definition of science and the scientific status of intelligent design.
Judge Jones also reviewed the conflicting views of irreducible complexity presented by Michael Behe and Ken Miller. Whereas the Cambridge University Press thought the issue sufficiently provocative that it recently published a volume entitled "Debating Design," in which both scientists presented their views, Judge Jones took it upon himself to declare a winner in the debate.
Perhaps most startling and ironic about the case was Judge Jones' adoption of the testimony of John Haught, a theologian who testified for the ACLU. Haught gave his opinion that ID is religion, not science, but he quickly assured the court that there is no incompatibility between evolution and religion. Judge Jones picked up on this assurance and at the end of his opinion stated, "Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
This is like a judge assuring us that it is "utterly false" that Judaism is inconsistent with eating pork. "After all," a judge might say, "A distinguished rabbi testified that true Judaism no longer emphasizes dietary laws, but focuses on the ethical duties we owe to one another." Alarm bells should go off when a judge believes that he can resolve hotly contested issues about what someone's religion does or does not permit. But then again, after having taken upon himself the task of deciding what constitutes good science, Judge Jones' willingness to decide theological questions should come as no surprise."
andy, so you see no holes, no gaps, no unexplained components to the THEORY that man evolved? And the word theory doesn't only refer to a branch of science. It's clear from your comments on this you believe evolution to be fact. I think it galls you to no end that someone doesn't believe that evolution explains the origin of man. I suspect if there was a comparative religion class you wouldn't allow your kids to attend it. And you can't just use your definition of what a "theory" is and say that a belief in a certain religious God and that this God created man isn't a thoery for the origin of man.
Splash Two -
I've read the decision, all 139 pages of it, and the judge does not just rely on the Plaintiff's testimony but quotes, at length, the Defendants.
It's amusing to watch the Discovery Institute and Thomas More Law Center spin the story, but anyone who has read the ruling will see through it.
Tiny -
andy, so you see no holes, no gaps, no unexplained components to the THEORY that man evolved?
Never said that; however, the broader point of common descent with modification is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. That evolution happens is not an ongoing debate in the scientific community; a thorough understanding of the natural mechanisms driving it from various directions is where the discussion now resides.
And the word theory doesn't only refer to a branch of science.
Again, never said it did. I said, though, that in science, the word "theory" has a different meaning from what the layman means when he says "Hey, I have this theory...."
It's clear from your comments on this you believe evolution to be fact.
Yes, I also believe that gravity exists and that the Earth is not the center of Everything. Call me crazy.
I think it galls you to no end that someone doesn't believe that evolution explains the origin of man.
No, it simply saddens me that people cling to their irrational beliefs. You know, as they say, faith is believing in spite of the evidence.
But, hey, free country. Just keep it in your homes and churches, not the science class.
I suspect if there was a comparative religion class you wouldn't allow your kids to attend it.
Of course I would. However, a comparative religion class would (a) not present myths as fact, (b) would not favor one myth over another, and (c) would be a study of the history, spread, and content of various religious belief systems.
I changed from Christian to atheist because of my looking into comparative religion, philosophy, and science. How could I not want my kids to have that same educational experience?
And you can't just use your definition of what a "theory" is and say that a belief in a certain religious God and that this God created man isn't a thoery for the origin of man.
No, but I can use the definition of theory as used in science to say something is not a scientific theory. This might come as a shock to you, but words have varying meanings - that's one reason the dictionary (that's the big book with all the words in it) is so thick.
To wit:
Theory
Andy, I love how only you have the truth and therefore people like me must be knuckle dragging idiots.
I've never said what I believed. I've given some support to ID and I've shown some problems with evolution.
I would much rather have the debate go on between scientists without judges involved.
And believe or not there are plenty of extremely intelligent people who support ID. Many of them have written peer reviewed papers that cover a wide variety of topics.
None of which you'll read because you've already made up your mind.
Andy, I love how only you have the truth and therefore people like me must be knuckle dragging idiots.
Sorry, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that evolution explains the diversity of life on the planet. If you believe otherwise, in the face of all this evidence, then - indeed - perhaps your knuckles are scraping the pavement.
I've never said what I believed. I've given some support to ID and I've shown some problems with evolution.
Your "problems" with evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. A simple visit to Talk Origins would bear this out. Gaps in the theory, however, do exist, as they do with most scientific theories, but that is not evidence for ID.
There is nothing to support ID. There is no science with experimentation and data behind it, as even the hacks from the Discovery Institute were forced to admit.
I would much rather have the debate go on between scientists without judges involved.
So would I. It's too bad that the ID side can't generate any real scientific information supporting their cause and instead have to try to sneak it in through the schools.
And believe or not there are plenty of extremely intelligent people who support ID. Many of them have written peer reviewed papers that cover a wide variety of topics.
That's great. Of course, having expertise in one area doesn't mean jack when you claim a belief in a different area. I can write an excellent paper on business process improvement, but I wouldn't expect the psychiatry community to worship my opinion on mental illness.
None of which you'll read because you've already made up your mind.
No? You really should visit my bookshelf sometime...
Andy, I also haven't said what I believe, and that's because I have no singular belief on the bigger question. That is the question of the origin of the universe or all matter. Yes, evidence does support evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet. How do you explain things beyond our planet? Your apparently ok with the magic in the theories on that? But see I see the holes in all these THEORIES and so don't fully align with any one of them. YOu apparently do....you think everything also must fit YOUR definition of science which you have demonstrated is as limited as your thinking on these bigger questions. I think your view is truly arrogant.
Well Andy,
"Sorry, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that evolution explains the diversity of life on the planet. If you believe otherwise, in the face of all this evidence, then - indeed - perhaps your knuckles are scraping the pavement."
-----I've never said it didn't. And I quoted Darwinian scientists who had a problem with macroevolution. Sorry if you're not all on the same page, of course those that aren't must be hacks.
"Gaps in the theory, however, do exist, as they do with most scientific theories, but that is not evidence for ID."
-----I've never said it was, I merely pointed out the problem. I find it funny that people who are "refuted by the scientific community" happen to be members of that community. Is there no room for more than one theory?
Darwinists believe that there is an appearance of design but it's illusory.
ID is simply the opposite.
What is wrong with teaching kids two sides of an argument? Why must they all genuflect to the orthodox theory which is basically taught as fact rather than theory.
This idea that ID scientists are all "flat earther's" is just nonsense.
Creationism is not ID. Creationism is totally Biblically based. ID is not rooted in the Bible. The basis of the theory of ID is nanotechnology. The book "The Mystery of Life's Origin" by
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen marked the beginning of the ID.
"It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest elements of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?" (Agnostic non-creationist, Dr. Michael Denton)
A question worth asking in my knuckle dragging opinion.
Andy, you have me hooked in trying to convince you that your way isn't the only possible way...I hate that you sucked me into the debate since you're unlikely to conceed there is any credence for other explanations as to how this all got here. I find it your love of your definition of a scientific approach to explain your position and then really ignore the holes. In this case the holes matter. It's possible the explanation for just one hole completely destroys your current conclusion. But you're not open to that possibility. How can you claim to have an open mind and apply science to a question and not be open to any answer or direction that either newly created theories, new theories on how to interpret evidence in hand, or new evidence? It's also interesting that you throw out that the "scientific community" (who is that exactly? :)) has refuted ID. Ya, well there are plenty of scientists that believe in it, or creation or a host of things. That's my point...you can align with any particular thinking you like but to believe in something that is by definition theory as absolute is flawed.
Hey Andy, curious if you celebrate Christmas? Have a Christmas tree? Take your employers paid time off for Christmas? When you were growing up did your family celebrate Christmas? For a time, did you believe in Santa Claus?
Sorry, Tiny. Your arguments don’t wash. My religious beliefs have no more to do with the question being debated than yours do. The question is whether school children are to be told that a religiously inspired myth is an acceptable substitute for hard scientific facts. ID is nothing more than a feeble attempt by a bunch of fanatical religious fundamentalists to cover up the discrepancy between their legend and the actual facts that science has revealed. The vast majority of the world has already realized that the story of creation as related by the Bible is an allegory, not a literal description. Get with the program. The earth and the universe are billions of years in the making. It wasn’t created in seven earth days a mere four thousand years ago. The argument that some things are too complicated to have evolved is equally specious. Open your eyes and look at the universe. It is immensely vast. There are billions upon billions of planets where life is evolving. The complexity thereof is almost unimaginable.
anonymous, funny how you mix "complexity thereof is almost unimaginable" with calling evolution scientific fact. Nobody here has said anything about taking the bible literally? You don't understand my position, I don't know what's in fact the truth here and neither does anybody else. Maybe man will never know. But even applying pure "science" to these questions still only leaves theory and no absolute...yet you seem to think that's not the case..so who has their head in the sand?
I've never said it didn't. And I quoted Darwinian scientists who had a problem with macroevolution.
No, you misrepresented Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff, who - a simple Google search would show - were proposing a new synthesis of evolutionary knowledge, not discrediting macroevolution but rather seeking additional pathways to explain it. That is, supporting evolutionary theory. Bzzt, thanks for playing.
Of course, you'll first have to dig through a few pages of Google results in which dishonest creationists misrepresent the scientists words the same way you do.
If you would, provide the entire text of the Nature article and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Carroll is doing much the same as the other three. Of course, quote-mining and removal of context are favorite weapons of the creation crowd, knowing full well their legions won't bother to read the whole thing (e.g. have you read the Dover decision yet?).
P.S. Nice job of plagiarizing without attribution from Jonathan Wells ofthe Discovery Institue. Not only are you dishonest about evolution, but you steal from the ID crowd too. Impressive!
I find it funny that people who are "refuted by the scientific community" happen to be members of that community. Is there no room for more than one theory?
Of course there is - and when ID rises to the standards of a scientific theory, it will have a place. Right now, though, it's nothing but an argument from personal incredulity and appeals to first causes. Sorry, we've covered this: that's not science.
Darwinists believe that there is an appearance of design but it's illusory.
ID is simply the opposite.
Alas, being "simply the opposite" doesn't qualify something as science. I believe the Earth goes around the sun. Geocentrism is simply the opposite. Let's teach both, evidence be damned.
What is wrong with teaching kids two sides of an argument? Why must they all genuflect to the orthodox theory which is basically taught as fact rather than theory.
Descent with modification is an observable fact. The many mechanisms of modifcation and the rate at which they occur is where the research is focused now (e.g. the theory part).
This idea that ID scientists are all "flat earther's" is just nonsense.
It was a comparison based on the absurdity of each position in light of evidence available today. I suppose an IDer can - AND WILL - always look for the god of the gaps as our understanding increases, but intellectual honesty isn't a hallmark of that camp.
Creationism is not ID. Creationism is totally Biblically based. ID is not rooted in the Bible. The basis of the theory of ID is nanotechnology.
You'll then have to explain why "Of Pandas and People" is the textbook endorsed by the Discovery Institute and the most prominent proponents of ID such Dembski, Behe, and Meyer, and why the book simply replaced the word "creationism" with "intelligent design" when creation science got spanked.
The book "The Mystery of Life's Origin" by
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen marked the beginning of the ID.
(snip quote)
Wow, a quote exemplifying exactly what I said before: ID is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity.
Also funny that you would quote Denton, since he apparently accepts that microevolution and speciation occur. But, then again, you quoted Dobzhansky too, who said (also in 1937) "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
With friends like you, the ID crowd doesn't need enemies.
Sorry, Tiny, I don't believe my personal expressions on this or any religious holiday have anything to do with the discussion at hand.
Andy,
I don't really think you can plagarize in a comment thread on a blog. I'm not trying to publish my work here and pass it off as someone else's.
Had I said it was from Dr. Wells you would have said he was simply another "loon" anyway.
Why is the Darwinian scientists have only the "truth" in mind when they talk about their theory but you attribute malice and dishonesty to anyone with another idea.
Nowhere did I claim to be a creationist or a strong supporter of ID, I was just debating you, cuz that's what I like to do.
Asto evolution and ID, I simply think the question is worth asking, sorry you don't.
"ID is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity."
---Isn't that where all science comes from? An attempt to answer questions that arise through observation because you're incredulous that you don't inherently understand how things work.
I don't really think you can plagarize in a comment thread on a blog. I'm not trying to publish my work here and pass it off as someone else's.
Then you should make clear when you are copying from someone else, word for freaking word. Plagiarism is not contingent upon where it is done; it is a classification of an action.
Had I said it was from Dr. Wells you would have said he was simply another "loon" anyway.
Yup, might have - but I'd also evaluate what he said, just like I did when you said it. In short, such quote-mining does nothing to hurt evolution nor support ID, regardless of who is spouting it.
Why is the Darwinian scientists have only the "truth" in mind when they talk about their theory but you attribute malice and dishonesty to anyone with another idea.
Quote-mining out of context, failing to provide access to said context, and contradicting one's own statements, say, in a trial in Dover (read that decision yet?) would seem to me to be malicious and dishonest.
The ID camp is driven by an agenda to defeat so-called godless materialism, as evidenced by the DI Wedge Document. This is not about science.
Nowhere did I claim to be a creationist or a strong supporter of ID, I was just debating you, cuz that's what I like to do.
Alas, you're on the losing side of this one, compadre.
Asto evolution and ID, I simply think the question is worth asking, sorry you don't.
Never said it isn't worth asking. I simply said it isn't in the purview of science as ID stands now.
Isn't that where all science comes from? An attempt to answer questions that arise through observation because you're incredulous that you don't inherently understand how things work.
Whether or not one is incredulous about one's understanding doesn't drive science; the lack of understanding drives science.
The argument from personal incredulity in ID is not that the evidence indicates a designer but that the ID proponents say "We don't understand how it could have happened this way, so there must be a designer."
Science stops at the comma above, and religion begins right after it.
Sorry, Tiny, I don't believe my personal expressions on this or any religious holiday have anything to do with the discussion at hand.
Shoot...I was hoping to catch you being a hypocrite in our debate...foiled again!
Here's what get frm Discovery Institute:
What is the "Dissent from Darwin" list?
"Since Discovery Institute first published its statement of dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 300 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution. The full statement signed by the biologists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Such prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list of biologists also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others."
Somehow the line: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Doesn't really sound like creationism disguised to me. Imagine, scientists being skeptical! We can't have that now can we?
Shoot...I was hoping to catch you being a hypocrite in our debate...foiled again!
It would only be hypocritical if I said I didn't believe in God but then celebrated Jesus's birth anyway. I do spend the holidays with family, and I do take both paid time off and required time off, but there's no mention of Jesus or God or away in a manger.
That's no more hypocritical than saying my British wife should stay home while I go to a July 4th cookout.
And this as well:
Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?
No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.
Splash Two -
Ah, yes, the famous "list of scientists." You might be interested then in the NCSE List of Steves; be sure to read the bit about the DI's continuing dishonesty with their list.
Re: the DI stance on mandating intelligent design.
So, in other words, they want evolution taught as science. OK, consider it done, as that's exactly how it was taught to me.
Of course, the "wedge document" outlines their plans for putting religion in the schools through a backdoor (beginning with the so-called "teach the controversy" approach). The problem is that the things that the DI considers problems, simply aren't, as once again evidenced in the Dover decision (go on, all 139 pages are available online for free).
andy, you're an intelligent and fun guy to debate and hopefully you'll chime in on other posts. I think the comments on this post have hit a record number for my blog. I just have two more questions and I'm done with this post.
1. Are you open to the possibility that evolution as an explanation for man is wrong?
2. Do you believe there are any scientific theories that are generally accepted, as likely to be correct, could be proved incorrect by new evidence or arguments?
1. Are you open to the possibility that evolution as an explanation for man is wrong?
Of course, the scientific method demands it. For example,find a modern rabbit in clearly pre-Cambrian strata and evolution is in deep doo-doo.
2. Do you believe there are any scientific theories that are generally accepted, as likely to be correct, could be proved incorrect by new evidence or arguments?
Regarding the diversity of life? No, I think evolution is the best explanation to date and the evidence supports it.
Could that change? Sure.
Post a Comment