Further Thoughts On Intelligent Design
Dean
After looking at our recent discussion on Intelligent Design (see below) I noted one striking feature:
No one said what they thought would happen if children in the science classroom were allowed to be told that there are unexplained problems in current evolutionary theory, or if they heard that some people — even some smart people! — believe there might be some sort of intelligent design behind much of what we see in biology.
So far the strongest answer I've heard (it's the only answer I ever seem to hear, really) is that such a statement is "not science." To which I can only reply, "a belief to the contrary is not science either. Now, is a science classroom a good place for critical inquiry, or is it not?"
Those who vigorously assert that any examination of the question of intelligent design behind life is, ipso facto, a "religion" and therefore has no place in the public schools or any science classroom have yet to convince me of their case. And yes, I've spent plenty of time reading the Talk.Origins archives, and I'm familiar with the Panda's Thumb people, and yes, I'm still an atheist, thank you very much.
But let me tell you: I'm one atheist (and I don't think I'm alone) who takes a rather dim view of taking the concept of "separation of church and state" to such hysterical extremes that critical voices are silenced in, and books banned from, the classroom.
Via Matt Rosenberg, I recently came across two interesting articles. The first was a piece by Jonathan Witt explaining why he thinks science supports the notion that life may be designed by some external force. I think he's probably wrong but I certainly don't think he's an idiot, nor do I think he has a subversive "hidden agenda."
In the same paper, we also have an interesting piece by Huntington F. Willard, director of the Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy at Duke University. In it, he vigorously opposes any dissent from evolutionary theory being allowed into science classes. In reading Huntington's entire piece from top to bottom, two things struck me most powerfully:
1) He does not name one negative consequence of allowing such examination a place in the classroom, and
2) All of his arguments against it seem based on fear. Indeed, his entire thrust (if I make it out correctly) is that this is a "worrisome step" in the "wrong direction."
Worrisome to whom? And what exactly is the worry? That a 6th grader, upon hearing "some people question whether natural selection can fully explain all we see of life on Earth" will suddenly plung a wooden stake into his agnostic classmate's heart? That soon we'll see scientists subjected to mass auto-de-fe in America?
Look at any decent text on logical fallacies (this one at the atheistic "infidels.org" will do) and you'll find that Slippery Slope is among the most common logical fallacies that anyone — scientist or layman — can fall prey to. So I ask: what precisely is it that Dr. Willard and his intellectual compatriots fear?
Phrased another way: what exactly would the Theory Of The Dangers Of Intelligent Design Discussions In The Science Classroom predict?
I am reminded of an old song (with apologies to the great Meredith Wilson):
Well, ya got trouble, my friend.
Right here, I say trouble right here in Science City
Why, certainly I'm a prayin' man,
I'm mighty proud to say,
I'm always mighty proud to say it
I consider the hours I spend with a Bible in my hand are golden
Help you cultivate moral sense and an cool head and a keen eye
Didja ever try an' take an ironclad ethical stance in an ambiguous moral context?
But just as I say it takes judgement, brains and maturity to consider any faith-based question
I say that any boob can take an idea and slap it in a textbook!
Well I call that faith,
the first big step of intellectual degreda-
I say, first experimental fluid in a test tube,
then wine from a Chalice!
With a capital "C"
and that rhymes with "D"
and that means "Design!"Now I know all you folks are the right kind of parents
I'm gonna be perfectly frank
Would you like to know what kind of conversation goes on while they're talkin' 'bout "Intelligent Design?"
They'll be saying things like "irreducible complexity" and "critical examination" like reasoning fiends!
Friends, the idle brain is the clergy's playground!We got trouble!
Gotta find a way to keep the young minds shielded from ideas!
(Oh we got trouble!)
We got lots and lots of trouble right here in Science City!
(Right here in Science City)
With a capital "T" and that rhymes with "D" and that means "Design!!!!"
We surely got trouble
(trouble trouble!)
And the next thing you know your son is prayin' for visions and talkin' 'bout forbidden fruit
and listenin' to some big televang-preacher,
Hear him tell about "God's Creation,"
Not a nebulous thinking game, no,
but where they spout ideas right from The Book!
With a capital "B"
And that rhymes with "D"
And that means "Design!!!"Now all week long, your Science Class youth'll be prayin' away
I say, your young kids'll be prayin'!
Prayin' away their class time, play time, chore time too!
Never mind gettin' homework done or science project ready!
Never mind thinkin' what they're told 'til you know their little minds are safe!
Oh, ya got trouble, lots and lots o' trouble!
With a capital "T" and that rhymes with "D" and that means "Design!!"
Well it's what I think when I hear all this stuff, anyway.
One proposed solution to all this that I've heard almost makes sense. At least it seems like a nice compromise position upon first examination: let's have such questions raised in philosophy classes, or classes on comparative religion. But let me ask you this:
Who out there would like to see a philosophy teacher, or a theology teacher, taking the school's science books and explaining the flaws she sees in the materials presented? Do you actually think that would be better than just letting the kids do their critical questioning in the science class?
Inevitably someone in these discussions asks whether we should teach witchcraft, shamanism, astrology, or voodoo in the classroom. My response is, "show me who's proposing witchcraft in the classroom and we'll discuss their ideas." In the meantime, the question before us remains unchanged: is the science classroom a good place for exploring, questioning, and raising objections to a reigning scientific paradigm, or is it not?
Here's Esmay's Maxim, which I've just made up on the spot: any scientific theory, no matter how well-founded or widely accepted, which cannot stand up on its own two legs and face questioning from a young mind without running like a scared puppy to the courts for protection deserves all the kicking around it can get.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Intelligent Design Blog
- Further Thoughts On Intelligent Design
- FAQ on Intelligent Design
- ACLU Sues Over Intelligent Design
You're also right about the whining about the mere exposure to contrary ideas. There's a lot of class time, and I don't think it would hurt anyone to hear that there are other people who think a different way. Even "impressionable young minds". And science class is as good a time as any, since that's the subject you're talking about. The recalcitrance of those who are already in power in the curriculum wars is enlightening.
Remember, the Serpent is a subtle beast.
The probable answer is the combination among the human species of the curiosity of the ignorant and fear of the unknown.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
And contrary to some assertions, they have published peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
If nothing else from a pragmatist's point of view, it's extremely clear to me that a certain reactionary prejudice is so fearful of these people that they're prescribing a cure worse than the disease. It's quite clear to me that, regardless of what I think, the vast majority of humans believe there's some sort of creative force behind life and they want to talk about it. It's equally clear to me that, prior to the 20th century, the vast majority of scientific discoveries were made by people who believed there was a creative force behind life and that by studying nature they were just studying the workings of that force. If they want to look for evidence of it, rather than assume its absense, who cares? What the hell exact damage are they going to do?
Or are we going to have still more weak-sister arguments about how just nodding to them and letting them have their place at the table amounts to "establishment of a religion?"
You haven't noticed this important difference amongst those - like me - who don't want ID taught in the science classroom:
Some aren't opposed to teaching religion in public schools - they simply want it taught where it belongs: in a comparitive religions or philosophy class. Yes the ACLU is taking the war against Christianity to hysterical extremes, but just because I happen to agree with them on this issue does NOT mean that I'm ready to send them money. In fact I still think their motive has nothing to do with mine, which is the defense of the scientific method.
We live in a sea of pseudoscience and plain old poppy-cock. The only people questioning Evolution are non-scientists or creationists. Biologists don't; it would be akin to questioning Copernican astronomy for an astronomer.
There are plenty of arguments in science. You want controversy? Try global warming. My bet is that it will be forgotten in a decade as ice core studies show that the past history of the climate was much more extreme than we thought.
Evolution is as close to a fact as you get in science. Question it, and you'd better question everything else - and I pity the poor 6th grade science teacher who has to fit all of that into her curriculum!
He started by saying, "Will you accept that the greater can't come from the lesser?" Ummmm, no. He kept pushing that proposition and I finally said, "OK". So, if the greater can't come from the lesser there has to be a god because we can't come from nothing. What about, 'The whole being greater than the sum of its parts'? If you're throwing around aphorisms then lets get that one involved. The conversation stopped there because he hadn't thought about it, he was told and that was that.
He is the same guy who once told me that infinity is a finite number beyond which we can't count. He had no answer for "How many inches in infinity miles?".
Arnold has it right, IMO. Saying that we had to be created merely moves the problem back a space. How was whatever created us created? That's when the magic comes into play. I forget the name that engineers call this step, but it's the magic black box. It's where the miracle occurs.
I still think that shaman is the oldest profession and that man created the gods.
I really hope Jonathan Livingston Seagull is the real truth, but I'll have to wait until I'm dead to find out.
As I wrote in the other thread:
Show me the money.
ID is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
Where is that proof?
If it hasn't been found yet - neither has the proof been found for astrology - which many people also believe is true. Do we teach that alongside astronomy?
How about a deal? Leave ID out of classrooms but also leave out the materialist item of faith that that natural selection occurred "randomly".
Evolution is a mechanism.
God, the Demi-Urge, Aliens, and Randomness are all mechanics.
I propose that we leave mechanics out.
Or, to put it another way, everyone has to explain the universe by some sort of uncaused cause — it can't be turtles all the way down — so why don't we leave out the uncaused causer and only talk about what we can actually learn from looking at the universe?
So no more discussions of random mutations, and no discussion of God directing mutations.
(Incidentally, if you examine what most people mean when they say "random", they just mean "not directed by an intelligence", which is a purely theological statement when it comes to why the universe seems to have the (initial) configuration that it does, and why it seems to behave according to the primary laws which it does (subsequent laws which are just composites or consequences of primary laws are a different matter). Some people will probably hide behind the more mathematical definition of random (having an equal probability of coming out any way), but they'll falter the moment they try to explain what the mover which pushes particles to behave in this way is, i.e. what makes a particle 'decide' to quantum migrate now or not to, etc. When pushed hard enough, they'll have to admit that all they mean is without any intelligence behind it.)
The claim that everything we see about us just randomly bumped into existence is a far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more extraordinary claim then ID is.
When we see a computer, we assume that a group of engineers designed it and a group of workers in a factor built it and that it's not just random geological formations. The guy claiming that it is has to pony up the proof, not the guy making the obvious claim that someone made these complicated and extremely clever devices.
The ID people are making the obvious claim that all of these things which sure as hell look designed are. The atheists claim that no, in fact all of this complicated stuff (computers and all) are completely random geological formations (+/-). That's an extraordinary claim, and I've yet to see any extraordinary proof for it.
(note: evolution does not disprove ID, because evolution is a mechanism and ID is about a mechanic who uses a mechanism. Similarly, random assembly is about something (nothing?) which isn't intelligent using the mechanism by accident.)
Hint: materialism is not a default position from which evidence must be provided to demur. Materialism is itself a weird claim that requires evidence to prove.
As an example, the claim that I don't have free will is a pretty damn extraordinary one, and I've yet to see any extraordinary evidence for it that nearly compares to my constant observations which confirm free will.
I don't get your point: the saying is "the whole can't be greater than the sum of its parts". How on earth does that disprove your friend's argument?
I don't agree with your definitions, and I sure as hell don't agree with throwing out natural selection. So it's going to be tough to argue with you. Beyond this:
Want to overturn the status quo? Fine. Provide the proof.
And I can't think of anything more extraordinary than the existence of an intelligence that underlays everything.
My mistake was falling into the trap of defending an existing theory when I don't have to. Evolution and natural selection have been proven scientifically.
Prove otherwise and I'll teach ID myself.
As for the classroom, when something is being taught, it is important to put forth all the potential competing theories or notions at the same time and place. If it is a philosophical or religious theory that challenges a scientific theory, it needs to be brought up in the discussion of the scientific theory. That's simply how we learn. Kids would be confused as hell to hear one thing in one class and a competing and alternative theory in another class. Who do they believe? The value is in the discussion around why people believe what they do. That's where the young minds grow and learn to sort things out for themselves.
Those who oppose teaching ID don't want kids to sort it out for themselves, they want to indoctrinate them with one view without having to compete with alternative views. They are no better than those who want only creation taught.
Chris' idea above might also work.
Leave intelligent design in the classrooms where some someone wants to study it. But classify it correctly as philosophy and not as science.
My argument is based on the premise that all religions and systems of religions are based as much on philosophy as on the constant re-telling of ancient verbal stories and texts.
When any idea is banned out of hand, that in itself creates another politically correct vacuum which is always filled with ideas based mostly on resentment. So lets the christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, wiccans, non-believers, whatever, have their say. Just don't compel anyone to cleave to any specific opinion.
I think that the studies of modern physics and its offshoots in organic chemistry biology is the best explanation of the origin of life, and that evolutionary theory is the best explanation of how that originated life changed on this planet over more than a billion years. And I think further that the longer mankind spends pondering the ongoing results of these and related scientific studies, the more acceptance they will have even among the religious.
After all, assuming religion is in fact a type of philosophy, why can we not expect that in a world that in societies that have distanced themselves from concepts such dieties serving either as original creators or as daily guides to behavior, that people will evolve systems of ethics that might prove more useful in interpersonal and intercommunal relationships?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Well said.
And I don't care whether the questioner is 10 years old or 100.
So obviously questioning the various explanations for how evolution happens is appropriate to a science class. And if you want to believe there is an intelligence behind evolution, that's fine too. But it doesn't help explain anything so it is not germaine.
As for teaching Intelligent Design or Creationism in a science class, what is there to teach? Everything must be accepted on faith. That is not what science class is about. Science is about collecting facts, proposing theories, TESTING theories, and publishing the results to be repeated and criticized by others. Faith is not a tool in that tool box.
You ask what harm teaching ID as an alternative? I ask, what harm would there be in teaching Astrology as an alternative to Psychology? Or Crystals and aroma theropy as an alternative to medicine? How much time do you spend teaching every "alternative" to science in a science class? I suppose if you have no goals or expectations for actually communicating science information, you could simply "explore your world" in as meandering a way as you like. But if you are preparing people for future science courses, or just how to think critically, then it would be best to stick to the subject; which is science.
Because no matter what you believe, Astrology, Creationism, aroma theory, etc, are just not science.
You want to have a class on Crystals? Fine. You want a class on philosophy that teaches ID and Creationism? Fine.
And I could care less if you teach Religion in a public school.
But science is about questioning and understanding the method by which we understand the world. It's also about communicating the things we have learned about the world. It is not about retelling every creation myth in the world.
Except, perhaps, as part of a cultural anthropology course....
I commend you on a valiant attempt to drive one basic point home, but most of us have been doing everything we can to avoid your basic quesion.
I agree with your assertion. Put aside everyhing about alternative theories for just a wee minute. What's wrong with clearly ond objectively discussing the problems and holes in current evolutionary theory in the science classroom?
We do the same with other theories and laws of physics that have unresolved conundrums, such as wave/particle duality of atomic-level matter, and general relativity.
Why must we put up a false front about the many unresolved questions about speciation and the creation of complex genetic information?
What's everybody so afraid of?
I have a lot of mixed feelings on the subject. Dean, I agree with you heavily about the censorship. I'm against any and all forms of it in a major way. However, there's a huge, gaping problem with presenting ID as science (the fact that it's really NOT science at all) but NOT for the reasons most people assert or for what has been talked about here.
The problem with ID as science has nothing to do with what it's teaching or where it came from and everything to do with the fact that it's turned the scientific method, the core of what science is all about, completely on its head.
The scientific method has five steps:
1) Observe the phenomena in question.
2) Formulate a hypothesis
3) Use your hypothesis to predict other phenomena
4) Test these predictions
5) Repeat as necessary
Some proponents of ID actually have followed the first two steps and arrived at the idea through observation rather than just blind faith. But ID completely breaks down at the thrid and fourth steps. ID makes no testable predictions, and without testable predictions there's nothing to test.
I have no problem with people believing ID. And it's not necessarily a religion. But whatever it is, it's not science, either.
Modern society has done itself a large disservice by forgetting that science is a method, a tool for learning, not a collection of knowledge. It's not a collection of people. And most of all, it's not arbitrary.
Throw it in a philosophy class. Or a class of comparative religions. Hey, find a great novel by an ID proponent and include it in Lit class if you want. But it doesn't belong in any science class except to say, "this isn't the way science works, kids."
But now, the scientific priesthood has summarily declared that ID is "not science", end of discussion, end of story, and everyone must follow in lockstep or be ostracized as a moron. So I think I'm going to need to look into it a lot further and make up my own mind. I'm a skeptic and my throat is telling me that it feels something being pushed down it very hard...
When has macro-evolution - especially as regards truly new, viable species - met these:
(micro-evolution/mutation within a species/selective breeding within subspecies as with dogs has, of course, been proven along these lines for a long time. Please, those who are out-and-out hostile to ID being mentioned as "this is what some people believe" in a science class, don't conflate the two in your responses.)
Go ahead and explore ID for yourself to learn about it, but don't do it as a mindless reaction to the "scientific priesthood".
Just what the hell is that anyway?
Am I a part of it because I am a vocal advocate of the scientific method?
I am also a vocal advocate of fighting terror abroad, a vocal advocate of gay rights, and a vocal fighter of outsourcing IT jobs.
Would you be surprised if an astronomer was strident in his disbelief of astrology? I hope that wouldn't send you running to the horoscope page of the newspaper.
Likewise, Evolution and Intelligent Design should both be presented, side-by-side, for objective evaluation in our schools.(As a liberal Christian, I don't necessariy find the two concepts mutally exclusive, anyway.)
If parents have a bias for or against Inelligent Design or Evolution, that's where the parental role comes into play. Talk to your child....explain your beliefs.
Don't hide your children from info you might disagree with. Sheltering your kids makes them weaker, not stronger. Equip your kids to defend your, or their, beliefs. (The truth shall set you free.)
It's like sex ed in middle chool. Some pretty amazing stuff is told to 12 and 13 year olds. That's where the parents have responsibilities. Make sure they know your values....what you think is right and wrong are. That YOUR job as a parent, not the school's responsibility. The school's job is to just present info without evaluation.
Besides....what IS education? It SHOULD be the presenting of various ideas and histories on an objective basis, not the promulgation of one particular viewpoint. right???
Since when? Read, for example, this paper by Johnathan Wells, Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research, where he discusses the experiment he conducted on why regularly ingesting healthy amounts of vitamin D and vitamin A may prevent cancer. Pages 1-2 is how ID works, and step 3-on concern the experiment.
Step 1: page 3
Step 2: page 3
Step 3: page 3
Step 4: page 7
Step 5: easy to conduct at a laboratory near you
Is there anything you object to in his methodology?
This is a ground-breaking experiment that a neo-Darwinist may never have thought to conduct. Evolutionists tend to disregard any structure whose purpose is not immediately obvious as 'vestigial' and 'useless': the appendix, 'junk' DNA, etc. Those supposedly 'useless' structures have a nasty habit of coming back and, in fact, being very useful after all. (This goes back to what someone said yesterday about evolutionary theory having miserable predictive power.)
IDers tend to expect everything to have a purpose, and thus are much more likely to backwards-engineer a structure and find out why it exists, instead of just ignoring it. This could be very useful, and potentially open up completely new areas of science.
I ran into a little problem, though: DNA fingerprinting gave me one family tree, one protein gave me a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT family tree, and the second protein gave YET ANOTHER family tree. Which one is the correct one?
I'm not the only one that's run into this problem. I don't have the book with me now so I can't give specific information, but one study I've read about found that, when you analyze the hemoglobin in several mammal species, horses are more closely related to MICE than to cows!
One amusing experiment on a pterodactyl's DNA found that pterodactyls are most closely related to turkeys. Surprising, but not completely unexpected. The problem: the DNA was 100% IDENTICAL to a turkey's DNA. They're still trying to figure out who was eating a turkey sandwich in the lab.
Human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA--but when you start fingerprinting the proteins you run into serious problems.
Can any evolutionist here find a good explanation for this?
Micro-evolution (the kind that produces antibiotic resistance and slightly different birds on tropical islands)? Sure.
Macro-evolution? Not by a long shot.
And since we're talking here about the teaching of origins in science class, and not the phenomenon of species change or genetics in general, I'll just throw that question back at you.
Why does macroevolution get a free pass in the proof category?
I'm fine with discussing origins in philosophy or religion class, but if you're going to make the claim that non-scientific stuff doesn't belong in science class, then I look forward to your support for an initiative to remove the teaching of macroevolution from science class.
Many of the people in the pool who would support the debate for the inclusion of ID are of the agnostic, rather than atheist variety. They acknowledge that without proof of negative (which is IMPOSSIBLE) you cannot rule out the existence or possibility of a designer.
That is a long way from saying that they believe that WAS what occurred or is the most LIKELY explanation--they're just being intellectually honest in saying that you cannot rule it out. They acknowledge it then get back to the facts.
I prefer, since I home school, to have discussions on this topic by explaining the difference between belief and facts and faith and truth.
In our house, because I'm mean and nasty, I refer to discussions of ID or Creationism as "Poof Theory." There was nothing then "POOF!" there was something--put there by some thing.
But as much as I respect people's rights to discuss whatever they want, this is a HUGE stretch. Here's what I hear/understand:
Evolution is a fact. Applying it to macro or micro is still being studied. Evolution, at the micro level, is factually based and provable. Macro evolution has holes. We know that evolution exists--factually. We have a THEORY as to how it works as it is applied at the macro level. Far too many folks say "evolution is a theory." No. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is fact. HOW it works and to what we can factually apply it to is often theory--and is often not.
But here's where it breaks down: Because we cannot factually prove what happened in the gaps, because we do not yet have explanations or data for those periods in between, people choose instead an Alien Being or a Supreme Being must have caused it.
Does that seem LOGICAL TO YOU? "Oops, we cannot explain what happened in this gap, so it must be a Martian instead." You don't discount an entire process because we have a blink episode. It is entirely possible that the Martian explanation is valid, and will be proven to be the case someday, but given LIKELY explanations, MARTIANS is preferable?
Puhleeze.
This is not a way to approach science. It may be away to approach life in general, or faith, but NOT science. Any discussions, using scientific rules of evidence, would demand that the discussion of ID in the science classroom tear it apart--ripping it to shreds. This it not going to be the desired outcome of its inclusion. That is not what people who argue for its inclusion want it to be either, which is why the second step in getting Creationism included is to refuse to allow it to be discussed. It may be presented as "another opinion from a list of EQUALLY good theories" but debate it from a science perspective? NO!
Look, there are folks who believe with absolutely certainty and conviction that Crop Circles get there by Aliens. Even when folks are shown video tapes of the folks creating one, the one they are certain extraterrestrial beings designed, they REFUSE to accept it was a prankster. Even with the evidence slapping them in the face, "No" they say, that was made AFTER the fact to disprove controversial issues of alien visitation.
This issue is one of the main reasons I home school. I threw up my hands on this one. I do not want my kids to be taught Creationism as a SCIENCE, because it breaks every rule of science in order to do so. Other parents have a different opinion and I respect that. If their school doesn't include it, other educational methods are available. There are some issues that are beyond "compromise."
Allow parents who do not want their kids to learn about evolution to be excused from science. Parents can bus their kids to a Creationism class after school, the same way many Jewish kids attend Jewish schools after hours. The Jewish parents didn't expect the schools to teach their religion, but found a way to do both. It may be better to avoid the matter completely, giving parents a list of educational supplement classes available in the local area. Let each choose what works and stop trying to find a one-size-fits-all solution. It just waters down and makes boring the subject for everyone.
Seems to me that school is not where you learn about the possibility that God created the world. By the time you start critically discussing the origins of the universe in school, most times not until High School, kids should already have LONG been exposed to the theory, and most likely if they are religious or come from religious families - as the overwhelming majority of kids do - they will arrive in High School with the default belief that God created man and the universe.
If Intelligent Design and Creationism need to be mentioned as an aside, great, go for it. But that's all it is. Would it be a nice jumping off point for discussing the inconsistencies in evolutionary theory ? Sure, but again, that's all it is.
The real problem is, that NO, teaching of religion does not belong in public school. PERIOD. Once you bring it up, then who is going to manage what goes into the curriculum ? Which God is it, exactly that did the intelligent designing ? These are all very real, pragmatic questions that would have to be answered, and ones that have no simple answers. The only real answers only result in more questions that the academic institutions in this country are woefully prepared to even BEGIN answering. Not to mention the fact that of the overwhelming majority of kids brought up with some religious teaching, that those kids parents have chosen how they will represent their religious faith, and now you're asking the school to represent all faiths to all ?
It is a practical impossibility, beyond the fact that it doesn't really belong.
While they may want to talk about it, they don't want that talk to take place at school. And as I pointed out above, unless there is some master plan how all religions will somehow be equally represented, then there is no way it can be done.
I don't want ID taught in school and it's precisely because I DO want them to sort it out themselves. I say with almost 99% certainty that by the time you get around to learning about "the big bang" in school, most kids have been taught that God created it all. NOW they get the competing idea, and their church and their home is the place for that discussion to take place. Not at school.
Macroevolution is not a fact. That is why scientists still call it the Theory of Evolution It has holes and anyone worth their scientific salt ought to be exploring the holes in the theory. Microevolution is fact because we can see it. We have seen it. I can't recall a single example where science has shown us one species turning into another, and I've looked pretty hard for it.
Nothing about the Origins of Life can be proven, as far as I or damned near any scientist can see, using science. The question is outside the realm of science, which can only confirm "fact" through actual observation.
The real problem in this debate is not wih the science involved in evolution but withhow that science is used. Far too often, evolutionary theory is used as a "gotcha" to say "See? There's no God!". But that's not necessarily true. Evolutionary theory doesn't say a single thing about God at all. It simply says that living organisms change over time and may well change into completely different organisms over time.
I'm an adherent in ID, but I can't see that it ought to be taught in science class any more than the belief that evolution speaks against a deity ought to be taught there. Those discussions aren't part of science and any teach who is doing their job, when asked the question "Where did life come from" has to say "Science doesn't know. The question isn't one that science can answer".
"The claim that everything we see about us just randomly bumped into existence is a far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more extraordinary claim then ID is."
Why is it that creationist/IDers (whatever you want to call it) always act like this is so damn self evident? I don't see it. I can throw dice and see a random result. I can set them down on the table to show double 6's. Does that make me God or an intelligent designer!? I can see random results all around me and given infinity all results will occur. If the designer is up there mucking about with things, I want him/her/it to come down and explain things to me starting with why he's hiding and ending with various and sundry plagues on humanity. Like Hitler.
Teach ID in science class for what it is, a theory. Just don't present it as the only theory. We should encourage discussion in our schools and certainly should be suspicious of any entity that pushes an agenda by seeding itself in the minds of children. McDonald's is top on my list of worrisome entities.
Both ID and evolution seek to explain that which can never be observed. As such neither one can ever be a "fact" or technically science. Only a plausable explaination of what might have happened. Even if you could take a goo of non-living molecules and create life out of it would only mean that it is possible life started that way, not that it actually did.
Nevermind. If you so fundamentally misunderstood me (I never suggested throwing out natural selection), I doubt that you're intelligent enough for a serious discussion.
We went beyond that in the thread yesterday, sorry. Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity, how science uses facts to support theories not the other way around...
If by "holes" in the theory you mean "gaps", there are thousands of paleontologists who do just that by searching for fossils and adding to the fossil record.
Prove to me how ID overturns evolution? I want evidence.
Without chance, Natural Selection becomes "unnatural selection" as in a supreme being selected it. If the organism itself selected it, you would have Lamarckism - which has also been disproved. What you state isn't possible - which is why I stated that you are throwing out natural selection.
Feel free to resort to ad hominem attacks if that makes you feel better. It just weakens your position.
Look, I'll compromise. If you want to say in Science class "God may have started this whole evolution thing, we don't know, and Science will never be able to know." then fine. Say it. It will take a few minutes and it's done.
And if you want to say more, what exactly is it that you want to say?
That some creatures were created directly by God?
If so, such a statement doesn't belong in science class simply because there is no way disprove the assertion which is a fundamental aspect of the Scientific method.
Can you guys actually read the IDer's papers and understand what they're trying to say *before* you start insisting that they're wrong? So many of the commenters here have demonstrated remarkably ignorance of a theory they supposedly hate so much. Especially the ones that conflate it with creationism, which is a completely, entirely, totally unrelated theory.
And can we make up our minds here? Some of you say that ID has been utterly, completely disproven. Others say that it's not a valid scientific theory because it can't be proven or disproven. Which is it?
ID is a valid theory because it can be proven or disproven. I'm going to lay all my cards out on the table. My assertion: specified complex information is the product of intelligence. Irreduceably complex systems must either be formed gradually, guided by an intelligence, or formed all at once.
Here's the way to finally, for all time, disprove ID. If you can do this, I will publicly concede and become the most ardent neo-Darwinist alive:
Find a natural machanism that can create specified complex information and irreduceably complex systems. Take, say, the flagellum. Or any other irreduceably complex system you'd please. Explain to me in detail how the flagellum evolved. And I mean 'great detail'. I'll want probable DNA sequences or a list of probable amino acids that make up all the proteins involved. And then I'll want proof that, at some point in history, such proteins did exist.
That's it. Put up or shut up.
No kidding. The interesting thing is that my faith in G*d is stronger today than it ever has been. Evolution and my faith do not conflict in the least.
Can I have it taught? Can I have it taught as Science?
"Designer" has no meaning that I know of. Saying it is that which made things ordered, breathed life into the Universe, even created randomness, does not say how we would recognize it, or how things would be different if it did not exist, except by begging the question by saying, "Then things wouldn't be the way they are." That doesn't refer to anything in particular, either, only restates that things are the way they are, thus proving the Designer exists necessarily. So why look for it?
In my opinion the average Christian "God" concept is the same, compatible with any state of affairs in the Universe, thus literally meaningless, because it would make no difference if it [God] does not exist. Or the statement, "God exists", is no different from, "God does not exist."
Therefore, believer/athiest/agnostic do not constitute all alternatives when it comes to the Christian God or the Designer. The fourth possibility is that you don't see what sense, literally, these concepts make, therefore considering them literal nonsense.
Should literal nonsense be taught?
It means that there are observable changes over time, GENERALLY in response to external stimuli--a particular kind of food which is suited to a better teeth design, for example.
Only a partial aspect of evolution is adaptation. There would be totally random developments as well. We know, for example, that some human babies are born with capacities not seen in the general population. We are still exploring the explanations for it. We KNOW that something happened in the genetic mix, the womb, or from some environmental factor. We might choose to call those explanations "an act of God" but we don't dismiss the scientific explanation when we find one.
Sometimes these random occurrences are better suited to the environment in which the species lived. In essence, adaptation by accident. The way you describe natural selection is that it only goes in one direction--changes occurring as a result of environment. They can go the other direction as well. It could be something as simple as a meaner gene mix, causing an animal to become more dominant than it was before. The impact on the other animals in the area would be multifaceted. Some would be killed off. Those that were better at hiding or fleeing would survive (natural selection aspect), or only the animals who produced more offspring.
There are many explanations for the results. It doesn't matter that today, right at this moment in time, we do not know which of those was the most likely result. In some cases we do know. So because we cannot know with certainty we throw it out?
If we take that logic and apply it to other areas of science, say medicine, you could use the same argument to conclude that we shouldn't look for causes of birth defects, because God did it. If we found explanations for some and not others, are we to conclude in those unknown cases that God did it, but not when we find out?
There are some religious folks who believe just that. They believe that medicine, in any form, is witchcraft or devil craft. They believe that illnesses, plagues, and diseases are curses or smites by God.
How are do you want to take this? We tend to discuss with respect to Evolution because that is the most controversial (and lowest hanging fruit), but beyond that, it is pervasive in all areas of science.
So in a science class, on the issue of medical science and genetic factors, we shouldn't discuss that either? Or bring up the possibility that a supreme being did it or an alien with a anal probe was responsible whenever we get to the "we don't know yet" part?
The problem with this is that you can go nuts with it. If your pat answer for everything that we cannot explain is "God did it" then there is no reason to have science at all, other than idle curiosity. Science has RULES. Religion doesn't have any rules except Faith. They cannot exist in the same environment because they are intellectual opposites.
I plan on checking out the ID stuff at Discovery.org . I like to keep an open mind about things in general. Please do the same with Talk.origins. They cover your objections.
Everyone
I'm about to bail on this thread because it's almost the weekend and I shut down the computer to be with the family.
That said, it has been a fun discussion albeit an un expectedly brutal one. No worries. I like tussles (shoulda been a lawyer... mom was right)
Anyhow, one thing that we haven't covered which we might all agree on:
The ACLU is completely out of line for bringing this matter to a federal court.
I respect local schoolboards. They alone should be the ones to decide what is and isn't taught in their schools.
If they want to teach ID - fine, go ahead. I can make fun of them. I can petition them. I can appear at their meetings and argue with them. But I won't take them to federal court.
This is why I support allowing prayer in schools. The decision should be made on the local levels - not by the Supreme Court. The Constitution makes it pretty clear where the power goes, and on such matters the highest level should be the states themselves.
Don't evolve too much over the weekend!
SK
Define "intelligence".
Is it that which intelligence tests measure or is it something else? If not, how can I create a test to decide if something is intelligent or not? Can a machine be intelligent?
What level of intelligence does it take to create "complex information"? At what point does information become too complex for atomic, non-intelligent systems to have creaded? How do I test for "complex information"?
What is an "Irreducibly complex" system? Is an ant an irreducibe? Is a microbe? A cell? Is God? How do I test for irreducible-ness?
Interestingly, an ecosystem produces complex, information. Is it intelligent? How do I test to see whether or not an ecosystem is intelligent?
A bee hive produces complex information. A bee hive also produces created artifacts of a complex nature. Is it intelligent? How do I test for a bee-hives IQ?
There's a lot of bad science out there, and a lot of very bad sciene reporting in the news. It's important to learn how to analyze the data and the studies to determine if the evidence does, in fact, support the conclusions and how strong those conclusions are. Peer-reviewed journals are full of this stuff. The letters to the editor are nearly as important as the articles themselves, since they can call the conclusions and data into question. Absolutely important.
However -- discussing evolution in this way doesn't require discussing "Intelligent Design". I specifically have a problem with the Intelligent Design people, not the idea that the earth was seeded with alien stuff, or whatever. I just think the "Intelligent Design" people have bad science. So I object to bad science being taught in the science classroom.
"Actually the Discovery Institute folks--who if you examine their list of senior fellows includes a number of biologists, astronomers, and other Ph.D. level scientists as well as some historians and philosophers--make it fairly clear that they have no answer to that particular question. Some of their members believe there might be an alien intelligence involved; others some sort of universal demiurge, still others some sort of God, and so on. They focus their study on areas where they believe life systems cannot be explained by random chance and show evidence of clear design. "
Like I said -- a lot of people don't understand evolution. I once had a conversation with a friend of mine, who was in his last semester at college and was getting ready to go to MIT to be a nuclear physicist. He always got straight A's, and was brilliant. On the other hand, he attempted to argue that evolution wasn't possible because of entropy, the fact that in a closed system, things tend towards chaos. It took me, a lowly little bio major, to point out that the Earth is not a closed system. ;) Very bright man, physics genius, but he couldn't let him own desires (he was religious) get out of the way of being objective. It's a basic physics mistake to not identify the system and if it's open or closed before you start applying thermodynamic rules to it! But this brilliant physicist did it anyway.
My objection to teaching "Intelligent Design" is that it's full of the same sort of fallacies as the above. There is room to discuss evolution, but not by using things that aren't scientifically true. It IS the same thing as suggesting teaching astrology, it's just packaged better.
"evolution does not disprove ID, because evolution is a mechanism and ID is about a mechanic who uses a mechanism."
Um, yes it does. Evolution is about change through natural selection. If someone is directing it, it is artificial selection, like breeding dogs.
"Science without questioning isn't science. That's the point of science. "
Exactly. That's why no real scientist will ever say evolution is 100% fact. But people use that against them to claim that even scientists don't believe it or some other hogwash. We say that because there's always a possibility. There is no "truth", there is merely the best model to approximate it. ;)
"But now, the scientific priesthood has summarily declared that ID is "not science", end of discussion, end of story, and everyone must follow in lockstep or be ostracized as a moron. "
I don't recall anyone saying that. Go read up on it, have a jolly time. Education is good. :) If you have any questions, post 'em somewhere. If you have an ID argument that you think holds water, I'll tell you why it does or does not. ;)
I'm not sure why having an opinion is suddenly such a problem, and invokes an idea of the "scientific priesthood". Some of us already thought through this whole thing 5 or 10 years ago, and don't need to educate ourselves or do tons of soul searching to figure out how we feel about ID. Been there, done that, got the degree. ;)
All I ask is that the science tuahgt in class is good science, and not made up so-called facts just to poke holes in a perfectly good theory. If they are *good* facts, bring 'em on.
Kacie brings up some ID paper. I'm a page in and already have a lot of trouble with it.
"TOPS then explicitly rejects several implications of Darwinian evolution.
These include: (1a) The implication that living things are best understood from
the bottom up, in terms of their molecular constituents."
When did Darwin know what a molecule was? ;) It's important to look at things at every level. That's why there are so many different scientific disciplines, making this assertion utterly wrong. Molular biologists like molecules, sure. Cellular biologists look at cells. Biophysicists look at atoms. Zoologists often look at whole animals, or groups of animals. Other scientists study entire populations.
"(1b) The implications
that DNA mutations are the raw materials of macroevolution, that embryo
development is controlled by a genetic program, that cancer is a genetic disease,
etc."
Um... Darwin didn't know about any of those things, either. What do they think embyro development IS controlled by, and where is the evidence? They're making weird assertions with no data.
"(1c) The implication that many features of living things are useless vestiges
of random processes, so it is a waste of time to inquire into their functions."
Who said that? Kacie pulls this one out speicifically, and points out that so many of these organs are later found to do something. Well, if no one is studying them, how would we ever find out they do something after all? ;)
"Finally, TOPS assumes as a working hypothesis that various implications
of ID are true."
Well, you have to prove them first, folks.
"(2a) The implication that living things are best understood from the top down, as irreducibly complex organic wholes."
Why? We've learned a lot of stuff looking at molecles and atoms and organelles and such. This is silly.
"(2b) The
implications that DNA mutations do not lead to macroevolution, that the
developmental program of an embryo is not reducible to its DNA, that cancer
originates in higher structural features of the cell rather than in its DNA, etc."
Riiiight. Now I'll give you that the developmental program isn't all DNA. A lot of it is about how the egg was made by the mom, which is due to the mom's DNA. Snails shells, for example, have a spiral. Whether they are left-handed or right-handed spirals has to do with the mother's genes for making the egg, and where she puts some of the basic building blocks of the egg. But we don't need ID for that.
What structural feature of the cell does cancer originate in? They never even mention that.
So far they want us to take a hell of a lot of weird stuff on faith, despite excellent evidence to the contrary. This isn't persuasive or good science. In a real scientific paper, they would cite each one of these assertions, even if it was "common knowledge".
"(2c)
The implication that all features of living things should be presumed to have a
function until proven otherwise, and that reverse engineering is the best way to
understand them."
Fine. You wanna know how things work. That's hardly novel.
Then they talk about "junk DNA".
"Since non-coding regions do not
produce proteins, Darwinian biologists have been dismissing them for decades
as random evolutionary noise or "junk DNA." From an ID perspective, however,
it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on
preserving and transmitting so much "junk." It is much more likely that noncoding
regions have functions that we simply haven't discovered yet."
Um, actually, we have determined functions for a lot of them. Sorry folks. There are regions that don't code for proteins, but are important to help regulate proteins and their productoins. It's just really hard to tease some of them out, because it requires a lot of 3-dimentional work, figuring out how the DNA is folded up and which parts come enear each other and how the regulatory proteins work on them. But they discover new things every day.
"On the other hand, people
asking research questions in an ID framework would presumably have been
looking for the functions of non-coding regions of DNA all along, and we might
now know considerably more about them."
Ahh, conjecture. So useful. ;) So they would have figured it out, but faster and better? :D
"They
have never been a favorite object of study within the framework of Darwinian
theory, because even though they replicate every time a cell divides they contain
no DNA (Marshall and Rosenbaum, 2000), and they have no evolutionary
intermediates from which to reconstruct phylogenies (Fulton, 1971)."
Huh? Plenty of people research organelles with DNA in them. :P Why else would we know things about them? These people are nuts.
Anyway, it's an interesting hypothesis. I hope someone actually *tests* it. You know, scientific method and all. ;) But I fail to see how ID vs. evolution has anything to do with it? Cancer is caused by multiple different mechanisms, and this could be another one -- good. The better we understand it the better. But I fail to see how evolution or not has anything to do with it. If he wants to think his beliefs in a designer helped him figure it out, good for him. Everyone thinks differently. It's a silly paper.
"but one study I've read about found that, when you analyze the hemoglobin in several mammal species, horses are more closely related to MICE than to cows! "
So? Hemoglobin is a very old protein, and horses, mice and cows aren't very unrelated. Hemoglobin is older than the ancestor of those three animals.
If I have sickle cell anemia, does it mean I'm black? ;D
"Human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA--but when you start fingerprinting the proteins you run into serious problems. "
I'm not sure what you're talking about -- what problems?
"I'm an adherent in ID, but I can't see that it ought to be taught in science class any more than the belief that evolution speaks against a deity ought to be taught there. Those discussions aren't part of science and any teach who is doing their job, when asked the question "Where did life come from" has to say "Science doesn't know. The question isn't one that science can answer"."
Indeed -- there are some hypothesis about how life on earth happened, and Crick (of watson and Crick) certainly believed it had to do with alien goop landing here. And that's, in fact, one of the theories taught in my classes. Maybe it didn't start here, but we got a little "seed" from elsewhere. And then natural selection acted on it. ;)
"Both ID and evolution seek to explain that which can never be observed. As such neither one can ever be a "fact" or technically science. Only a plausable explaination of what might have happened. Even if you could take a goo of non-living molecules and create life out of it would only mean that it is possible life started that way, not that it actually did."
There are a lot of scientific disciplines where you can't actually watch things happen, yet no one says they aren't science. I mean, quantum mechanics for instance. You can't really directly observe the quarks, can ya? ;)
Faith by virtue of the absurd itself seems to be the Mother of Nuance, as used by many of those who oppose Religion in the form of a Death Battle, thus making them religious in the same way. But they want their views taught, all symbols erased, all words to be correct, "I get to decide what's correct," ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Science is not Religion in the sense of wanting to pursue the absurd. Science pursues mystery.
Thus, likewise, if the Big Bang postulates that something came out of nothing, then nothing is "something", and something came out of something, or nothing came out of nothing, etc..
Fortuneately, nothing is not something.
The fact that no one can do it, doesn't necessarily mean it can't be done, does it?
I haven't read the papers, no, but I think I get the gist. "Look at how complex that flagellum is. It's so complex that chance couldn't create it. Someone had to make it." That's the argument, right? If you buy that argument there's only one conclusion for anyone to draw, isn't there? That there's a supreme being. God. Dance around it all you want to, if you decide that ID makes sense the next step is right up the church steps and I don't think that's lost on our religious friends one bit.
That being said, teach it! Go ahead. Please. Kids will learn their own mind one way or the other. Just give evolution it's fair shake. Now the institutions that tell them which theory will or won't be taught...those I have a problem with.
Dave:
"However, Russell, doesn't Macro-evolution / Evolution-as-origin-of-life violate the same things?
When has macro-evolution - especially as regards truly new, viable species - met these:
3) Use your hypothesis to predict other phenomena
4) Test these predictions
5) Repeat as necessary"
Macro evolution has not been demonstrated conclusively by any means. However, it has generated "testable" predictions in terms of "here's what we should expect from the fossil record" and test results in the form of "here's what the fossil record actually says."
It's weak science, admittedly. Even those in the field would acknowledge that, and I'm sure all of them would love to have the millions of years necessary to carry out a double-blind, controlled experiment. Nevertheless, it is a scientifically valid testing method, even if its results must be interpreted as less reliable than those from other methods.
Macroevolution isn't the only field where scientists have to resort to less-than-ideal testing methods. Health and medicine, for example, often require indirect testing because direct testing is flat out unethical. Nevertheless, we can gather a lot of good data that way, and actually design tests and experiments to run.
The test doesn't have to be an "active" test, like going out and throwing a ball to see how far it goes and if it really travels in a parabolic curve. Almost all astronomical tests are "passive" in nature: given theory X, we expect to find Y if we look right here. So we go looking. Uh oh - it's not there. So much for our theory. Or, maybe it is there, and it boosts our theory.
In the case of ID, what would be different? What would we look for that would be there with ID, but not there without it? Would the development of a species be less "random"? What does that actually mean, in quantifiable terms? Even if the development is found to be less random, does that actually prove anything? As unlikely as it may be, don't we have to admit that it still could happen by random chance? Correlation does not imply causation. Forgetting this rule is one reason the MSM does such a poor job of science reporting.
Show me a test, even a crude one, that we can run for ID, and I'll give you every right to show it in a science classroom. Teach the kids to run the experiment themselves. That's what science is all about. Until then, keep it in the philosophy department.
And lest anybody think I'm degrading it by saying that, let me point out that my degree is in Philosophy. Moving it to that department doesn't by any means make it unworthy of study or change its value. Just teach it for what it is, not for what it isn't.
During the course of typing this, I've come to think that perhaps the real problem is that our schools don't teach philosophy, logic, or analytical thought. Science, in our schools, isn't science at all. It's a teacher telling kids all kinds of things that "scientists" have learned. Only "advanced" science classes ever start teaching the students how to actually run experiments and think scientifically. Nowhere, it seems, do they ever teach logic (a distinctly separate method of reaching conclusions which, although it overlaps with science, is not the same thing at all).
I think that this is the problem that Dean is really getting at with his post. We don't teach kids how to think. ID can, in fact, be a useful way of doing this. My point is just to be sure that we're actually teaching them correctly. Use ID to teach them logic - find something else to teach them science.
(I think the bolded part is among the most important things if we're going to teach kids of younger-than-High School age how to think logically and investigate science for themselves)
Also, I would like to state for the record (while expecting nothing to be done about it) that I wish science classes, especially elementary science classes, would make specific distinctions about "This is what we know. This is what we came up with that we think fits the facts. These are the facts that we discovered after the theory that fit the theory, and these are the facts that don't, and these are the things we're still looking to see about because we don't know yet, and we hope you get excited enough to help us find out."
Every belief system, religious or otherwise, has its leaders and it's parishoners. And yes, I do side with those here who maintain that macro evolution, based on the evidence at hand today, is as much belief system as it is science.
We're all at the "parishoner" level here from what I can tell. Almost everyone here that I've encountered also makes up their own mind about things, but we all (to some degree or another) are influenced by opinion leaders that we have come to respect. And in the scientific community, those leaders guard the statements "[all] evolution is a fact" and "ID is not science" as if they were sacred creeds. I'm sorry, they are not. They are opinions, perhaps well-informed, perhaps not. But once a group of individuals begins enforcing creeds as dogma, the whole group dynamics begins to resemble a priesthood of believers in many ways.
I'm far from the first person to point out this dynamic. It happens all over the map, when any tight-knit group of people begins to exclude contrary opinions. That's what I love about Dean's blog - it's one of the few places I seem to be able to find any more where dogma doesn't rule.
Does anyone here question the fact that, at most universities, a scientist that raises serious questions about macro-evolution in his or her professional work, will jeopardize their career? Most likely a group of very influential scientists will do everything in their power to see that this individual is denied access to serious peer-review publications, and will probably also do what they can to make grant money more difficult to come by. The analogies to excommunication by a priesthood are certainly there.
A few threads back, I said that it appears to me that similar dynamics are found in the scientific community with regards to both global warming and evolution. And I also suggested that many here would agree in one case and not the other. And that certainly appears to be the case.
Look, all I am asking is, if you agree that science is capable of foisting a big whopper on us about global warming (or nutrition scares, or nuclear winter, or whatever), isn't it possible that something similar is occurring here, at least to some degree? Yes, evolutionary study is much older and broader, and there's plenty of data to back up micro-evolution, and some evidence that points to the possibility of macro evolution on a large scale.
But geez, the holes are there, and they're still rather larger in some cases. So why must the scientific opinion leaders (who set the tone of the debate for the rest of us) man the barricades so tightly?
Macro evolution has not been demonstrated conclusively by any means. However, it has generated "testable" predictions in terms of "here's what we should expect from the fossil record" and test results in the form of "here's what the fossil record actually says."
Good Lord what kind of double speak is that?
So if I find a bone (suspect it to be from the fossil record) in my back yard.
Test the results in the form of "here's what the fossil record actually says."
Result of test: It is either a) truely a fossil of (whatever) extinct animal, or b) the bone of a late common animal.
Querry?: How does that prove or disprove anything about evolution macro or otherwise.
Non a conclusive demonstration indeed.
"...if you agree that science is capable of foisting a big whopper on us about global warming (or nutrition scares, or nuclear winter, or whatever), isn't it possible that something similar is occurring here, at least to some degree?"
Yes, John. I believe both sides are perfectly capable of hitting us with a big juicy whopper.
I understand that ID is a scientific theory, but, honestly, is it not just being used as a tool for conservative religious forces to support their agendas in college, government and classrooms? In this thread I note that all of the people that support ID are religious, but it seems the atheist and agnostics don't support ID other than to say it's a valid theory.
I can understand why Huntington thought it was worrisome to teach this in the classroom. It feels like a foot in the door for a "conservative" agenda I don't support. But I believe in open dialogue in the schools, too. I can't have it both ways.
I think it's necessary to let ID be brought to light. But necessary for people like those that congregate here to continue to watch what happens around us very carefully.
There were a few paradigm shifts with respect to religious teaching and science.
The first was the blasphemous assertion that the earth was not the center of the universe, and worse, that the earth revolved around the sun. A few burnings and executions later, we got over it and accepted it as fact.
A later one had to do with the organ that was the center of the body. The heart had been thought of as synonymous with the soul. But that flew in the face of mounting scientific curiosity that the actions of a human being were effected when the brain was damaged. Those that suggested that the brain had something to do with it were cast out of scientific circles.
Having a scientist on a vessel traveling the world, documenting the flora and fauna was not a common practice until the 19th century. Darwin was one of the first to do that. Well, that's not exactly correct, but he was one of the first people to notice that there was similar plant life all around the globe but that each was uniquely suited to its environment. It seems obvious today, but either no one observed it before that, or no one took the time to document and explain how that might have occured. At that time, for example, people thought that coral was a permanent fixture, sort of like rocks or mountains. They did not believe it was a living thing. It grew so slowly that no one saw it grow. This perked Darwin's interest and he began observing coral where ever he went. He began noticing that the fish that lived near the coral were different, depending on other factors (temperature, tides, weather, etc.). As he paid closer attention to the coral he began looking at other things with this same detailed curiosity.
He wrote The Origins of the Species after those adventures. At his wife's insistence however, he kept it locked away for 20 years. He knew, and she knew (being a devout woman) that Charles Darwin would be excommunicated if he published it. So he hid it away. I don't remember the catalyst (it's been a while since I studied this), but he decided to go ahead with it and published it towards the end of his life.
All the predictions about the reaction came down on Darwin as he and his wife expected they would. Had it occurred a few hundred years before, burning might have been the likely consequence.
Now the interesting thing about Darwin's observations, that he tied together with his theory of the evolution of the species, was that he got most of it wrong. He got the details wrong.
The same thing could happen in this comment that I'm posting. I could have remembered the details a little incorrectly. His book might have been kept in a closet not a drawer, held in secret for 22 not 20 years. But the essence of it is correct.
These are the types of things that Darwin got wrong. His estimates may have been that something was 1,500 years old, but carbon dating with better science equipment now date it closer to 2,000, 20,000, or 200,000.
In some cases he was just flat out wrong in his theory, but in other things he was wrong in detail. 50,000 years rather than 30,000.
What was not wrong, and had not been challenged until that point, was that Darwin put the age of the planet, at longer than the Biblical age of 5,000-6,000 years.
That in itself was enough to cause a fuss. Before that moment there was no question that the world was just as old as it said in the Bible and no older.
What changes would result because of that?
That may seem like a minor point to us today, but it was ENORMOUS at that time. Even if he hadn't written another word, THAT would have gotten him excommunicated.
If we didn't have a fixed time for the age of the planet, maybe all things didn't occur at the same time. It was from that that we later discovered that dinosaurs were not on the earth when man was. There were dinosaurs that existed before other dinosaurs. Regions of the earth that under went enormous or cataclysmic changes, all in a scale of time no one before had ever considered.
And that is one statement: the earth is older than it says in the Bible. If Darwin estimated that the world was 55,000 years old and he was wrong, was he WRONG? Sure, he was wrong about the detail, we know now it's much older than that, but he was right conceptually--that's it is older than we have been thinking.
Extrapolate that ONE thing that Darwin's work allowed science to explore and multiply it times a million. Those are the outcomes of Darwin's work and what he left us: Permission to look beyond what we accept as the explanation given to us in the Bible.
That radically altered science. It altered the future of every science: medicine, biology, zoology, etc.
It also radically altered the way that science was taught to children. The discovery of the molecule, then the atom, then DNA play a part. But in all of these discoveries, first someone needed to break down the wall of the Biblical explanation in these fields: Maybe the Bible was wrong about these things.
In that respect, for what he accomplished, and the train he set in motion, he is respected as a hero and a champion of science. It enabled scientists to explore and discuss issues that before that point might have gotten them executed or cast out to sea.
You can't take that away from science anymore than you can separate Galileo from astronomy. Galileo wasn't right about everything either. Many folks over the years set to prove him wrong so they could restore the Biblical explanation as the factual one. We have pictures now. We have satelite photos which prove that the earth revolves around the sun. Until then, until we had pictorial evidence, it was "just theory" too.
None of this means that we are not questioning what the scientific community tells us. Science and our understanding of it evolves, too. Corrections and adjustments are made as we discover more about something. Gene therapy, genetic engineering, DNA testing, all of these are results of the ideas that Darwin set in motion. All of the assumptions we have today will be corrected and fine tuned over time. It doesn't make them wrong. It just means we didn't know as much as we will know later.
It isn't going to back in the box. There are folks like myself that are comfortable with all this uncertainty. Some folks don't like it and wish to return to the fixed Biblical explanation.
It isn't going to happen.
I stand amazed and unworthy. Amen.
There's an awfully lot of bad science (or non-science) taught in K-12 these days; most children seem to come to college thinking that "science" is another name for "authority" or "magic".
If you want to propose teaching ID that's fine, but you shouldn't propose to teach it as biological science, because it's neither biological nor science. Comparative Creation Myths 101, perhaps.
"If your pat answer for everything that we cannot explain is "God did it" then there is no reason to have science at all, other than idle curiosity. Science has RULES. Religion doesn't have any rules except Faith. They cannot exist in the same environment because they are intellectual opposites."
With respect, you're wrong on that one. Prior to the 20th century, few saw religion and science as being in any way contradictory. Many, many scientists also held strong religious convictions. Their attitude towards science could be summed up as, "God created a world that has certain fixed laws. By scientific experiment, we can better understand the world that God created, and thus better understand Him." Among those who held such attitudes were Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Mendel -- hardly insignificant names.
I submit that historical evidence contradicts your thesis, and that approaching science from a perspective of intelligent design (as the above-named did) does not lead to bad science.
But if I remember my chemistry classes correctly (long time ago) you could bounce photons off them and measure the change in direction. Granted, it's analogous to a blind man finding the location of a car by hitting it with another car, but it works. :-)
And actually, I'm not certain that quarks don't fall into the "theoretical" realm as opposed to "fact" realm. We have been wrong about the nature of the atom so many times before, I'm not ready to say our current models are the correct ones. Just that they answer the questions we have asked so far.
We also don't know what makes up quarks, or what makes up the things that make up the quarks or what makes up the things that makes up the things that make up the quarks and all the way down. There's got to be a turtle down there somewhere. :-)
This whole thing boils down to this. Those who have any agenda other then teaching the fundamentals of science are clouding the issue.
The curriculum doesn’t even need the discussion of evolution to prepare children for our communities whether that be higher education or the job market.
To be honest wouldn’t our time and energy be better spent dealing with real issues like abuse and malnutrition? These have far more effect on creating educated productive citizens than this discussion ever will.
I've mentioned before that I'm a Christian Emanationist- that I believe a Creator creates as unconsciously as we breathe. There is no intelligence, no design inherent to creation, no opposition to evolution. The Diety created Demiurge created universes, etc. It all just bubbled forth.
And by this, I'm saying that Creationists ask the wrong question. Creation, by its nature, is relaed to that singular event, the beginnings of existence. It has little to do with the paths of life afterwards.
My 2 cents.
One more factoid:
IIRC, Darwin wrote his treatise whilst travelling with a very religious and conservative Captain he didn't like at all. Some speculate that he formed his theory of evoluion specifically to piss the man off.
Remarkable that it can still do so, eh?
Well, now you have stirred up the hornets, finally gratifying Dean's Will, I hope.
Malnutrition, like poverty, hardly exists in the U.S., much to the potential consternation of Socialists and a myriad of people, some "Christians", who wish to "redistribute wealth" to themselves, thus also making a strike on moral decadence, while thereby ensuring their own Salvation by earning credits in the eyes of the Ideal, or gaining access to Heaven, "there to become a creature with wings, half-man and half-bird".
Malnutrition has morphed/evolved into "fear of being hungery", which is rampant and has apparently caused many to become obese, causing McDonalds to get rich, a mortal sin, as some see it.
I was driving along when I, likewise, heard a big rif on Poverty which I first thought was a parody put out by the evil Capitalists to deride Socialists, when it was the instead in fact the "Poverty Initiative", or something like that, which was trying to practice the evil capitalism of Socialism, by redistributing wealth to itself, also making everyone *feel good* who contributed/tithed.
Other Greens/Socialists/Religionists deride genetic engineering on grounds of the Evil Capitalist model, and also on the messing-with-Mother Nature model, which will no doubt cause the spread of mutants among us, creating Zombies at best, who will only cause more malnutrition, as can be easily seen, and is against "God's will" to boot.
At the base of all this useless confusion is the failure to confront the fear of existence, which leads to looking for the Designer as a route toward finding Salvation, which as you rightfully suggest, is a great waste of time. But it must be dealt with in concert with dispelling substitutions of the other false paths by which people seek Salvation in order to escape fear, which are equal wastes of time.
The discussion here certainly serves to make a pass at all the problems by making people think about what they are doing if they want to solve real problems, and if they want to know themselves, a part of understanding how everything works, which is an endless process, and the only route I know of which can confront individual fear. It is one which uses free-thought, which we have and what we are, produced by the Universe of which we are a part. We are not going to find Salvation elsewhere, as though we don't already have it. Therefore, I am not looking for it, the Designer, or Ultimate Truth.
If elected, I....
And if evolution is the reigning theory among the scientific community at large, yes, it should be taught as the best, but incomplete, explanation that scientists can come up with. But also introduce the fact the evolution scientists disagree, often radically, as to the processes that were involved. And teach that the creation of complex genetic information through purely random processes is not something that scientists can replicate, but that it is a crucial mechanism that must in fact occur for the theory to ultimately hold.
I agree with others who say that it's really not that important to teach in the first place, since knowledge of the theory of evolution wasn't required in order to build the entire body of incredibly useful scientific knowledge prior to Darwin. And it also has almost no effect, for the most part, on most scientific endeavors outside of the life sciences. And, as others have mentioned, even in those realms, the assumption of design probably has often led people to useful scientific hypotheses that otherwise would not be so readily put forth.
And yes, I think that many Christians are way too quick to jump on any "scientific" bandwagon that gets rolling. As a Christian myself, I find it quite embarrassing at times. And it's not just in the evolution realm that this occurs. A few years back, some scientists made claims that DNA analysis disproved the Book of Mormon. (I have no opinion, I've never read the research.) Evangelicals went wild and ran with this without any critique that I ever heard. I wouldn't have minded it as much if they weren't disparaging the great evil of modern science every other day of the week.
If I (or anyone else) is going to demand intellectual honesty from the scientific community, we need to demand it from the faith communities as well. Faith and reason may be different animals, but they aren't polar opposites. We all reason, and we are people of faith in some form or another.
"If we take that logic and apply it to other areas of science, say medicine, you could use the same argument to conclude that we shouldn't look for causes of birth defects, because God did it."
Oh come on. I can turn that one right around on you:
"If we take that logic and apply it to other areas of science, say medicine, you could use the same argument to conclude that we shouldn't look for causes of birth defects, because it just happened randomly, like everything else."
Natural selection says, boiled down, "if there are traits that tend to make those who have them more numerous, then those with them are typically more numerous." There are some details when you apply this to genetics (it's actually clearer, I think, in molecular genetics than in the kindergarten pundit squares type genetics), but if you actually know what you're talking about (e.g. "species" is a barely meaningful term), it boils down to that. It's an extremely powerful concept, but it has its limits.
In particular, why things aquire variations is not explained. Note: talking about mutations due to UV, transposons, copy errors, etc. does not explain why these mutations occur, only how they occur.
I'm all for teaching people the mechanics of how these things works (molecular biology is an incredibly fascinating field).
What I'm not in favor of is teaching atheist religion in schools. And why the initial configuration of the universe was the way it was, why this particular photon went in this direction, and why that particular atom quantum migrated and made the chemical reaction happen are all things that science cannot, nor ever will be able to, explain. (Plus, science can never prove the axiom that everything actually follows the rules, as infirm as they are given what we know of quantum, 100% of the time, putting it firmly in the realm of religion (i.e. you cannot disprove miracles, you can only have faith that they never happen, nor can there be anything but prejudice involved in deciding whether they're likely or not, which is equivalent to the question of whether the positive assertion requiring proof is the miraculous or the invariant obedience hypothesis).)
For the lazy:
GoogleAds picked up on my comments at my blog, TheRazor, and posted this ad that read:
Intelligent Design:
Purchase lapel pins that promote traditional Christian values.
Given the back and forth here, I thought the humor would be appreciated.
Shoot them all. This will apply an evolutionary pressure against both, making them eventually disappear. Problem (eventually) solved.
If you call it a "Continuation Interruption Procedure" (or something similarly antisceptic), it won't even sound like something bad, and will eventually come to be the "moderate" position.
Note: I do not endorse the above, but I challenge anyone to disprove it as a factual assertion.
I would be very grateful if someone could point out some references to some example predictions.
It's my impression that evolution, as an origins theory, is mostly the art of making up stories about how the fossil record turned out in the way it has, and that new discoveries in the fossil record tend to refute rather than confirm the theory of the day. I'll admit to my possible ignorance, though.
(Though every other time I ask questions like this, people seem to be more inclined to shout me down and try to get me to ACCEPT THE TRUTH, YOU IDIOT! So I hope someone can forgive my general impression that macroevolution is nonscientific, based on the preferred argumentative style of its proponents, and provide me with a counterexample in this area as well.)
Sir Alexander Fleming merits as much or more recognition as does Darwin. His discovery of penicillin in 1928 was an enormous breakthrough in the biological sciences but one can seriously doubt it had anything to do with evolution.
Flemings discoveries rested on the findings of Pasteur and Koch and had little to do with evolution or evolutionary theory.
The suggestion that discoveries in gene therapy, DNA etc are due to Darwin's evolutionary efforts is highly challeneable. True,Dr. Fleming was an observer in micro-biological science. Yet, to suggest that science and evolution are the same thing misses the point.
As Dr. Fleming once said,
"One sometimes finds what one is not looking for."
I oppose the teaching of any variety of creationism in science class. I'm a conservative, a Christian, believe in free speech, the whole schmear--but I've always been hostile to pseudo-science trying to elbow its way into the curriculum. Not least because there is a limited amount of time to spend each semester on a subject. I don't want students to waste that time by requiring schools to humor loud flat-earthers.
I especially detest creationism because its proponents have been so dishonest over the years: misrepresenting evolution, ignoring or suppressing facts fatal to their illusions--even vandalism, like when someone carved a human footprint into a slab containing dinosaur trackways. The assertions creationists so insistently raise have been addressed and disposed of many times. Yet they still keep coming back, in myriad guises, but always with the same core fallacies. And not, I'm