The Problem with Debating Creationists/Intelligent Design Proponents

[mrfocus]

You CANNOT reason a person OUT of position that they did not REASON themselves into.

Creationism, Intelligent Design and all their pseudo-scientific offspring are religious dogma masquerading as junk science.

Here are three easy steps for any creationist / IDer to determine whether or not this stuff should be taught in the science classroom.

1) Does Creationism start with a falsifiable hypothesis?
No. Fundamentalists will never admit that one of the possible outcomes of investigating creationism could be "it's false."

2) Does Creationism provide useful predictions?
No. It simply tries to twist and cherry-pick observations to fit a preconceived dogma. It provides no help with predicting things like genetic drift, change in allele frequency over time, etc.

3) Does Creationism have empirical evidence that doesn't immediately fail tests like Occam's Razor?
No. It does not.


A scientific theory is a well-proven, complete set of rules and laws that has extensive empirical evidence.

For example, the THEORY of relativity (used every day in GPS positioning devices, space travel, satellite navigation), HELIOCENTRIC THEORY of the universe (the earth revolves around the sun), the Germ Theory of Disease Causation (used in medicine every day) etc.

The Adam and Eve story is not even a hypothesis (the precursor to a scientific theory), as it is not falsifiable.

</end rant>

[mzteris]

1. One of the primary prerequisites

of a "true believer" is NOT to question. It's all about "faith". NO THINKING ALLOWED!!! Asking questions - and thinking - is the sin of unbelief.

That's why No Child Left Behind is so crucial - it teaches unquestioning memorization and no critical thinking skills.

[rbjensen]

2. Awesome quote

"You CANNOT reason a person OUT of position that they did not REASON themselves into"

I've never been able to understand why anybody even cares about "the creation." What does it have to do with the price of gas, with going to work, with raising your kids? Talk about a freaking tempest in a teapot. Well, maybe it keeps us from freaking out about the really important stuff.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Education is never "a freaking tempest in a teapot"

Duh.

[rbjensen]

5. The teapot

I'm talking about is sitting on the fundamentalist table. I don't mean we should lie down and let them teach creationism in the classroom. I just can't understand why they (fundies) makes such a big deal about it. Why do they care? But because they do, we have to respond. The concept of teaching the creation myth in a science classroom is just screwy.

Now, to me, they answer is to teach creation myths in history class. Or call them creation beliefs if "myth" is offensive.

And in science class teach the science. Be honest about the theory's weaknesses because there are some unanswered questions. And maybe one of these kids will figure out the answers one day.

But the whole issue befuddles me. Maybe I'm just too involved in the here and now.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Well, you have a point

They believe that Creation is part of the fundamentals and that the fundamentals are important. Probably if they enforced a theocracy and everyone "believed", then they would be able to spend lots of time on the issues that really interest them, namely how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and other equally crucial questions.

They aren't called fundamentalists for nothing.

[grumpy old fart]

9. I.D. in schools is just a first step, a foot in the door so to speak......

The goal is to move religion, fundie christian of course, into schools. This but the trojan horse.....

http://www.yuricareport.com/Science/PoliticizedScholarsAttackEvolution.html

http://www.yuricareport.com/Strategies_Propaganda/TheWedgeStrategy.html

[Dudley_DUright]

3. Which is why scientists refused to appear at the kangaroo court

state school board hearings in Kansas. The fundies don't play by the same rules of evidence and logic.

[hobbit709]

6. You have to remember that their biblical creation

was the result of heat-induced hallucinations in a group of itinerant sheep-herders.

[yellowdogintexas]

8. another primitive culture's attempt at explaining things

that they do not understand.

humans are blessed/cursed with the intelligence to want to know why things happen

Your dog doesn't want to know why it gets dark at night, he just goes to sleep. Humans want to explain why it gets dark at night.

[Jim__]

10. A reason to debate them is to get out the truth.

Creationists are fighting a political battle. Their request: "allow both sides to be heard" sounds eminently reasonable if it is not countered with t he reasons that creationism hasn't earned the right to be heard in school as an alternative theory.

That said, the forums in which they are opposed have to be carefully chosen. If the forum is under the control of the creationists, the opposing side won't be heard anyway; and any scientists in attendance will merely serve as foils.

[carl_pwccaman]

13. Honesty and Methodology.

The 'allow both sides to be heard' is an appeal to relativism.

At issue is that both scientists and religionists contradict each other in what they think arrives at truth, whether seen as objective or not.

But each uses entirely different methods in entirely different fields, and so they aren't even approaching the same questions in any kind of way that can be put on the same level, it's apples and oranges.

It is dishonest to claim that something fits a category that it just does not fit. Scientific method is what it is, and if you aren't applying scientific method, then it isn't science, and no matter how much you criticize evolution, it still is approached way more scientifically than creationism. The subject of science class concerns the subjects scrutinized by scientific method, and the consensus of scientists who use such methods to verify each others ideas of reality.

Similarly, history has methods.

So I'd argue on honesty, and about methodology. The rest is about the evidence and reasoning that is the basis for the consensus view and digging into the research itself. No alternate that does not uphold a similar degree of rigorous methodology, need apply.

ID is philosophy or theology, depending how it is done. That's a different field than history, biology, or geology, it's that simple.

[hunter]

11. Creationism is just another way of telling the Creator He's full of shit.

All God's Creation is an open book, but the "Creationists" slam it shut. I have no patience with them.

[Jim Bob]

12. As a believer in ID, please allow me to reply

Thank you for raising these points. It is an interesting topic for discussion. While I respect your view, it appears to me that the secular viewpoint you espouse is open to the same criticisms that you level against Creationism.

Specifically,

1) Does materialism (the belief that there is no God, that there is no reality other than the material world, and that all matter in the universe just spontaneously appeared by itself) start with a falsifiable hypothesis?
No. Materialists will not even specify what would constitute evidence tending to disprove their belief. They will never admit that one of the possible outcomes of investigating materialism could be "it's false."

2) Does materialism provide useful predictions?
No. Materialism postulates that the only reality is the material world. That postulate does not in itself yield any useful predictions. Science sometimes does, and sometimes doesn't. But materialism does not. It is simply a philosophical belief.

3) Does materialism have empirical evidence that doesn't immediately fail tests like Occam's Razor?
No. It does not. The simplest explanation for the existence of the universe, with all of its infinite complexity is that it was created by a supremely intelligent Creator. The universe contains innumerable machines and mechanisms, logical and mathematical rules and physical laws, etc. These characteristics are routinely acknowledged to be evidence of intelligent, purposeful design in virtually every other context. Yet when observed in the natural world, these characteristics are postulated to be not designed, but spontaneously appearing with no cause. This postulate, it seems to me, is clearly contrary to Occam's Razor.

I welcome your comments to the above.

[trotsky]

14. May I ask exactly what that has to do with the price of tea in China?

The thing that makes debating with creationists and now IDers so difficult is that you choose to argue points that are irrelevant at best, misleading or dishonest at worst.

1) Science classes about evolution aren't teaching the philosophy of materialism, they are teaching the theory of evolution. And the theory of evolution says NOTHING about whether there could or could not be a god. It does "say" that from the EVIDENCE, a god is not necessary to have caused evolution to happen. But that is not the same thing as saying a god cannot exist. If you still have difficulty understanding this, please consult the Catholic church, which accepts evolution.

2) You've got to be kidding me. First off, again you go with the deliberate confusion of materialism with what is taught in science classes (i.e., implying that teaching a subject matter without mentioning a god is the same thing as teaching there is NO god). Second, materialism actually does provide us with useful predictions. Materialism, at its core, says that we can learn how the universe works by observing it. Meaning that when we observe a phenomenon, we can learn how it works and yes, how to predict it. Materialism states that the universe is NOT subject to the whims of an invisible dude in the sky, and that instead behaves according to constant laws.

3) Quite the contrary, materialism is essentially Occam's Razor made into a philosophical theory. Since all we can directly observe is matter and physical laws, those become the simplest explanation. It is the creationist/IDer who views an "infinitely complex" universe and then postulates an even MORE "infinitely complex" (how one entity can be MORE infinite than another, is an exercise for the ID reader) deity to "explain" it. Besides, if the reason we MUST postulate a designer to explain the complexity of the universe, why don't we have to postulate a designer OF the designer, since HE (or she or it) is so much more complex?

[Jim Bob]

18. Thank you for your thoughtful reply, trotsky

I think perhaps you are not facing the real problem, but avoiding it by talking about "evolution" instead of "materialism." You are right that the theory of evolution (in the sense of gradual changes of living organisms due to natural selection) does not contradict theism.

However, the more important question, IMHO, and certainly the question that is in dispute between ID and anti-ID proponents is not how organisms change over time, but rather, the origin of life and the universe. It seems to me that the dispute is not really over evolution (no one is proposing that the teaching of the theory of evolution be outlawed)but rather, over materialism vs. theism. Materialism postulates that there is no deity. Theism postulates that there is.

As far as I know, materialism has advanced no satisfactory theory (or even conjecture) as to where all of the matter in the universe came from, how it was generated, or why. The mass of the observable universe is estimated to be 3 x 10 to the 55th power grams, which is roughly equivalent to the mass of 25 billion galaxies the size of the Milky Way. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=342 Are you aware of any process known to science whereby such an incomprehensible quantity of matter can be generated from nothing? Our observation of the universe shows that stars and planets do not self-generate. It therefore seems to be a wildly improbably speculation to suggest that the universe was able to somehow self-generate without a Creator. That, of course, is just my point of view.

In specific response to your points:

(1) I do not believe that ID proponents object to the teaching of evolution in science classrooms. They object to the teaching of the theory that humans evolved from single-celled organisms through a wholly materialistic process, and that the single-celled organisms spontaneously appeared and came to life, and that the matter from which those single-celled organisms were formed also spontaneously appeared with no involvement of any Creator --- while deliberately prohibiting the teaching of any alternative theory.

(2) you mention that the universe is subject to laws. How do you believe those laws were promulgated? Do you assert that these myriad, complex laws of the universe just spontaneously appeared, along with all of the matter, time and space? By what natural process known to science are such laws promulgated? Take, for example, the law of gravity as discovered by Newton: "If object A has mass Ma and object B has mass Mb,then the force F on object A is directed toward object B and has magnitude F = G Ma Mb / r2" By what natural process did such a law come into being?

I happen to agree that we can learn much about the universe by observing it. However, from my point of view, the observation of the universe leads to the conclusion that there must have been a Creator, because matter, time, space and laws do not self-generate, and the universe seems to have all of the hallmarks that are recognized in other contexts as being indicia of something that has been created.

(3) I disagree with your premise that all we can directly observe is matter and physical laws. Countless people report having observed supernatural events and beings. Literally every culture of people that has ever lived on the planet has believed in the supernatural, I think it is safe to say.

As for your argument about having to postulate a designer of the Designer, I do not agree. The Designer, as I and most other theists understand Him, is the original, uncreated Creator of space, time and the universe. It is not coherent to ask who created such a Creator, because by definition, He is uncreated.

So, although I can see that we disagree on many fundamental premises and conclusions, I respect your point of view, and invite your comments to the above.

[trotsky]

19. You have illustrated my point.

Instead of addressing the validity of evolution, you instead attack "materialism" (which is not taught in science class, to my knowledge) as well as abiogenesis, which is also not officially part of evolution.

I love too how defenders of science and reason are now called "anti-ID proponents." Give me a break!

First, you say:

It therefore seems to be a wildly improbably speculation to suggest that the universe was able to somehow self-generate without a Creator.

This is known as the argument from ignorance. Since you personally can't imagine how something could be true, it therefore must be false. Well, I can't imagine how a god could be loving and caring and allow something like Katrina to happen, so therefore your god doesn't exist. Do you accept that? If not, why do you expect others to accept you using the same reasoning?

Next:

They object to the teaching of the theory that humans evolved from single-celled organisms through a wholly materialistic process, and that the single-celled organisms spontaneously appeared and came to life, and that the matter from which those single-celled organisms were formed also spontaneously appeared with no involvement of any Creator

Abiogenesis ("life" from "non-life") is a process separate from evolution. Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time. It starts with the first instance of alleles (genes) in an organism. It takes no position whatsoever as to where that first organism came from.

while deliberately prohibiting the teaching of any alternative theory.

That's because "intelligent design" is not a theory. It doesn't offer any testable propositions, it doesn't explain anything, it doesn't yield any contribution towards understanding whatsoever.

from my point of view, the observation of the universe leads to the conclusion that there must have been a Creator, because matter, time, space and laws do not self-generate, and the universe seems to have all of the hallmarks that are recognized in other contexts as being indicia of something that has been created.

This is your opinion, and not based on scientific fact or thought process at all. Thus, it does not belong in a science class. "Because matter, time, space and laws do not self-generate" - says who? Are you an authority on this?

Countless people report having observed supernatural events and beings. Literally every culture of people that has ever lived on the planet has believed in the supernatural, I think it is safe to say.

Another logical fallacy - the argumentum ad populum, i.e. "the majority can't be wrong." I'm guessing this is something else I don't need to explain why it's silly - consider at one time that literally everyone once thought the earth was flat. Did that make it so? (By the way, you're wrong - there have been and are cultures that did not have god beliefs that you would recognize as such.)

Finally, you declare your deity off-limits for the same questions you raise for science. A simple declaration - no supporting evidence at all, no reasoning, just saying "This is so." Again, this is NOT SCIENCE and does not belong in a science class.

I respect your opinion too, but I will fight you with all my strength to keep your myths from being taught in my public schools. Teach them in your church where I will never interfere, and where they belong.

[Jim Bob]

20. Again, you are focusing on evolution

defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time, which I think is not the issue in dispute, politically.

To my knowledge, no public figure is calling for the prohibition of teaching of evolution in this or any other sense.

The only issue is whether teachers should be prohibited from teaching ID as an alternative theory.

You said: "I can't imagine how a god could be loving and caring and allow something like Katrina to happen, so therefore your god doesn't exist." If I may be so bold as to steal your line -- What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? ID proponents are not urging the teaching of the existence of a loving, caring God. They are advocating that teachers be allowed to present as an alternative theory that the universe was created - which, IMHO, is a valid scientific hypothesis which can be tested by observing the universe and looking for indicia of design. ID proponents are not urging that Christianity or any religion be taught in the public schools.

You said: "'Because matter, time, space and laws do not self-generate' - says who? Are you an authority on this?" No, I am no authority. However, I am unaware of any instance in which a planet or star has been observed to self-generate. I am also unaware of any self-generation of laws, space or time. Are you aware of any instance of self-generation of any of these? Are you aware of any possible method that any of these could spontaneously pop into existence without a cause?

You said: "This is your opinion, and not based on scientific fact or thought process at all." I disagree with your characterization. It is based on the thought process of induction. Since there is no known instance of laws, space, time, or matter spontaneously self-generating, it is a reasonable inference to conclude that they do not self-generate.

You said: "Another logical fallacy - the argumentum ad populum, i.e. 'the majority can't be wrong.'" No, I didn't say the majority can't be wrong. I just said that I disagree with your premise that all we can directly observe is matter and physical laws. I gave as two counterexamples the fact that countless people report having observed supernatural events and beings, and that every culture of people that has ever lived on the planet has believed in the supernatural. Even if my second counterexample turns out not to be true (you did not specify the cultures that did not believe in the supernatural), my point remains: It is not the case that all we can directly observe is matter and physical laws.

I am somewhat bewildered at the intensity of your opposition to allowing an alternative viewpoint to be presented in school. ID proponents are not trying to indoctrinate anyone. No one is suggesting that kids be forced to accept ID. However, people are insisting that kids be forced to accept "not-ID." In fact, the anti-ID people are refusing to even allow the ID theory to be heard by the students. This, it seems to me, is anti-intellectual and contrary to the principles of education and learning. If ID is so preposterous and wrong-headed, it will surely fail in the marketplace of ideas. But trying to silence it, so that students never get the chance to study it and reach their own conclusions, just seems unfair to me.

[trotsky]

21. "ID" is not science.

Period. It is religious myth, and belongs in a church, not a public school. Evolution is testable, falsifiable, and backed up by evidence. "Intelligent design" is none of these.

If you think differently, then prove me wrong. Suggest an experiment we can perform to disprove "intelligent design." What kinds of phenomena does "intelligent design" predict? What evidence points towards it - OTHER than "I just don't see how it could have happened any other way" or "I see indicia of design"?

(Sidenote: what exactly ARE "indicia of design," anyway? The human appendix? Flying insects having nerves re-routed from way down in their abdomen back up to their wings? Tons more are listed on this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html. All of these are excellent examples AGAINST an "intelligent" designer - do you consider them evidence AGAINST your theory?)

[Jim Bob]

22. I disagree with your assertions

Characterizing ID as "religious myth" seems to me to be nothing more than name-calling and serves no useful purpose. ID is not tied to any particular religion, and it is not necessary to be an adherent of any religion to study the theory of ID.

Also, I disagree with your statement that Evolution is testable, falsifiable and backed by evidence. MICROEVOLUTION is observable and perhaps testable. However, no one, to my knowledge, is proposing that microevolution be banned from the classroom. MACROEVOLUTION is not testable or falsifiable, or even observable as far as I know. Do you know of any experiments that we can perform to disprove macroevolution?

Again, I think you are focusing your argument on microevolution, because it is observable and noncontroversial. But that, IMHO, is avoiding the real issue in dispute, which is "Where did mankind and the universe come from?" The disagreement is between those who say it is worthwhile to consider whether we may have been created (ID proponents) and those who say such consideration must not be allowed, because we were not created (those opposed to allowing ID to be taught). It seems that the anti-ID people are making the more affirmative statement, and that if they want to ban the teaching of ID as an alternative theory, it is incumbent on them to prove that there was no creation.

You still have not offered any theory or even conjecture for how this tremendously vast universe came into being without being created. I am not trying to put you on the spot, but I am seriously interested in what anti-ID advocates believe in this regard. Do you ever think about it? Do you have any ideas?

As for your questions, I honestly don't know what sort of experiments can be done to determine whether the universe was created. I also don't know any experiments that could prove it was not created. But I think that it is legitimate to draw inferences based on observed reality. Since there are no known instances of matter, space, time and laws self-generating, it is reasonable to draw the inference that they do not. It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on those who assert that, by some unknown process that has no scientific explanation, the universe self-generated, even though there is no example of self-generation that has ever been observed or that can be explained by any materialistic process.

You asked: "What kinds of phenomena does 'intelligent design' predict?" I suppose it predicts that the universe will be found to be in balance, and to have sophisticated mechanisms in place to keep it in balance. For example, attractive forces cause molecules stick together, allowing matter and life to exist. I am not a physicist, but I am sure that countless examples of wondrously complex and amazingly improbable phenomena can be observed in the universe, for which the most reasonable induction is the existence of a Designer. Albert Einstein was, of course, a theist. He said "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." He also said: "God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically." So, while I may fail to come up with scientific experiments that prove ID (while you simultaneously fail to come up with scientific experiments that prove not-ID), I believe that I am in good company, in the sense that Albert Einstein was an ID adherent.

[trotsky]

23. "Microevolution" vs "macroevolution"

is a false distinction trick right out of the old creationist handbook. And you expect me to believe "intelligent design" is something different, eh? Wrong. It's the same creationist propaganda repackaged as something new, supposedly not tied to a *specific* religion. Please be honest - no one is being fooled.

All along you have attacked me as trying to focus on evolution, but you see, that's the central issue. You're the one constantly going OFF track, derailing discussion into the philosophy of materialism, abiogenesis, and even the creation of the universe. None of those has anything to do with evolution, which is defined as the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Why does the universe have to have been created? You can do nothing but beg the question, and your "god of the gaps" exists only so long as science can't give an answer that pleases YOU. I gave you a chance to name just ONE way in which "intelligent design" could be falsfied - i.e., shown to be wrong. You instead deflected the question onto what you perceive to be shortcomings in current cosmology theories. That's not what I asked. You have failed to establish "intelligent design" as a theory, since you apparently cannot give one instance in which it can be proven wrong.

By the way, Albert Einstein also said, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

So don't be so quick to claim Einstein as a fellow creationist.

Please, can't you just keep your religious views in your church? I haven't seen anyone attempt to come into it and teach science, so why can't you return the favor?

[Jim Bob]

24. I am not insisting that ID be taught to the exclusion of evolution

You, however, are insisting that macroevolution be taught to the exclusion of ID. You are asserting that ID is bunk. Therefore, you have the burden, it seems to me, to show that "not-ID" is falsifiable, much more than I have the burden to show that ID is falsifiable.

How, again, did you say that macroevolution could be tested and falsified?

One way to attempt to falsify ID would be to come up with any instance in which a universe has spontaneously self-generated. Or even an instance of any matter, time, space or laws self-generating. That would at least be some evidence to raise a doubt about ID. But I don't think there has ever been such an instance. Do you know of one?

ID makes sense, because it is consistent with observed reality, IMHO. Stuff doesn't create itself. Not-ID, by contrast, makes no sense to me, because it cannot be explained by its own principles.

If I throw an apple into the air ten trillion times, and it comes down every time, I am reasonable in inferring that it will come down again if I throw it up again. In the same way, I submit that it is reasonable to infer that matter, space, time and laws do not self-generate, if through experience and observation, no known instances of self-generation have ever occurred in the 17 billion year history of the universe. Not that this is an ironclad conclusion, but just a reasonable scientific inference based on observation.

As for Einstein, the point I made is that he, a pre-eminent scientist, believed that the universe was created. Whether he believed in a "personal god" or not is irrelevant to that issue.

I am not trying to push my religious views in your science classroom. From my POV, this has nothing to do with religion. I believe in academic freedom, however. I think if a high school science teacher desires to present ID as an alternative scientific theory, the government should not silence her.

[trotsky]

25. You have demonstrated that you cannot support your position...

by showing a way that it can be falsified. Wanting to be shown an instance in which "a universe has spontaneously self-generated" is a ridiculous test, since you cannot conclusively demonstrate that THIS universe did not spontaneously self-generate. Your only "proof" that it did not is that you just don't see how it could. Sorry, but that's just not going to cut it.

Should I assume that when I present an empty box, if a perfectly-designed creature or universe does not appear within it after you pray, that "intelligent design" is false? Why not? That's what you are asking for proof.

I consider this discussion at an end. But all is not lost - you have perfectly illustrated the original poster's point, so you did end up helping in a significant way. Please, I implore you, keep your religion in your church and out of my schools.

[Jim Bob]

26. It is interesting to me that anti-ID people seem so incurious and

closed-minded. They have no guesses as to the origin of the universe. They offer no explanation for where all of this colossal quantity of space and matter came from.

You have failed to answer any of my questions. You are the one definitively asserting that the universe was not created, yet you are unable to offer any evidence to support your theory, nor can you even hypothesize an experiment that would result in falsifying your theory.

I actually did offer some ideas of how ID could potentially be falsified - or at lease how there could be some accumulation of evidence to cast doubts on ID. If there were ever any instances of laws, time, space or matter self-generating, for example. But, you were unable to point to a single instance of any such thing ever occurring. Except, preposterously, you posit that THIS UNIVERSE spontaneously self-generated. You have begged the question by positing your own conclusion.

Your "empty box" argument is misplaced in this discussion. ID proponents do not contend that humans, through prayer, can create a perfect creature or universe. This is a classic straw man argument technique that you are employing.

Again, ID is not about religion. It is about science, academic freedom, and keeping an open mind.

[trotsky]

28. You bristle at answering the same questions you throw at others.

This is not about "keeping an open mind," this is about religious adherents trying desperately to get their literal creation myth taught in schools.

I am sorry that you don't like the answers science has to give right now. Unfortunately that doesn't mean you get to make up your own.

[dwckabal]

27. Wrong, wrong, wrong

Obviously, you have absolutely no knowledge of how science and the scientific method work.

While many scientists argue as to an exact definition of scientific method, there is a general consensus that the following are involved in thinking scientifically:

• Induction: Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data
• Deduction: making specific predictions based on the hypotheses
• Observation: Gathering data, driven by hypotheses that tell us what to look for in nature
• Verification: Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypotheses.

These steps are at the core of what philosophers of science call the hypothetico-deductive method. Through the scientific method, we can form the following generalizations:

• Hypothesis: A testable statement accounting for a set of observations
• Theory: A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses
• Fact: A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement

A theory can be contrasted with a construct: a non-testable statement to account for a set of observations. "God created life" is a construct.

Through the scientific method, scientists aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation; and scientists avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation. There is nothing wrong with personal insight as a starting point (whether you call it intuition, insight or whatever). But intuition and insight do not become objective until they are externally validated.

Science leads us towards rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. Science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority, rather than logic and evidence.

What does all that have to do with the issue at hand? ID doesn't even begin to fulfill the definition of a theory, because it offers nothing in the way of testable hypotheses.

You said:
You are asserting that ID is bunk. Therefore, you have the burden, it seems to me, to show that "not-ID" is falsifiable, much more than I have the burden to show that ID is falsifiable.

This is wrong. ID is claiming that evolution, a tested, observed theory, is incorrect. Therefore, it is up to the ID proponents to show that everything scientists have accepted (through the above processes) for 150 years, is wrong. You may not like it, but that is how the scientific community works. In order to think outside of the box one must first know what is inside the box (it's called graduate school), one must be able to convince those in the box that the box needs reinventing (it's called peer review), and, of course, one must be right (it's called research).

Lee Anne Chaney, Professor of Biology at Whitworth College, a Christian institution, wrote in a 1995 article in Whitworth Today: “As a Christian, part of my belief system is that God is ultimately responsible. But as a biologist, I need to look at the evidence. Scientifically speaking, I don’t think intelligent design is very helpful because it does not provide things that are refutable—there is no way in the world you can show it’s not true. Drawing inferences about the deity does not seem to me to be the function of science because it’s very subjective.”*

Intelligent-design theory lacks, for instance, a hypothesis of the mechanics of the design, something akin to natural selection in evolution. Natural selection can and has been observed and tested, and Charles Darwin’s theory has been refined.

At a 2002 conference on Intelligent Design, leading ID scholar William Dembski said: “Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.” In 2004, ID theoretician Paul Nelson wrote in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: “We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ – but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”*

You said:
I am not trying to push my religious views in your science classroom. From my POV, this has nothing to do with religion.

This is the most disingenuous statement I have ever read. Even the Big Daddy of ID, William Dembski, has said as much:

In a 2005 web article on “Intelligent Design’s Contribution to the Debate over Evolution,” Dembski wrote: “Thus, in its relation to Christianity, Intelligent Design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”*

Through this whole thread, you have thrown out false dilemmas, arguments from ignorance and majority, and red herrings (materialism, self-generation). Soon you'll be resorting to ad hominum attacks and claiming persecution.

“Intelligent Design” is nothing more than a linguistic place filler for something unexplained by science. It is saying, in essence, that if there is no natural explanation for X, then the explanation must be a supernatural one. IDers cannot imagine, for example, how the bacterial flagellum (such as the little tail that propels sperm cells) could have evolved; ergo, they conclude, it was intelligently designed. But saying “ID did it” does not explain anything. Scientists would want to know how and when ID did it, and what forces ID used. Invoking ID as God’s place filler can only result in the naturalization of the deity. God would simply become another part of the natural world, and thereby lose all of the transcendent mystery and numinous praxis that delimits religion and science.*

*From eSkeptic, tuesday, April 5th, 2005, originally printed as an Opinion Editorial by Michael Shermer in the Los Angeles Times, March 30th, 2005.

[Jim Bob]

29. I think you are avoiding the issue

This is not 1925. Nobody is trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution. Evolution is not the issue. What people are trying to outlaw is the teaching of ID.

As justification for prohibiting teachers from teaching ID (or even noting it as an alternative theory), anti-ID advocates assert that ID is false (variously described as "myth," "superstition," "religion masquerading as science," etc.) As the party making this affirmative claim, it seems to me, the anti-ID advocates have the burden of demonstrating that ID is false.

Referring to evolution as an "accepted" scientific theory falls far short of offering proof that ID is false. First, you are engaging in the same argumentum ad populum that you accuse me of employing. Just because a majority of scientists may "accept" evolution to be true or ID to be false does not make it so. There was a time when most scientists "accepted" that the Earth was flat. That did not make it true. Second, the theory of evolution does not contradict ID. Evolution seems to offer no explanation for the central question in dispute: Was the universe created, or did it arise by itself through natural processes, without the intervention of a Creator?

At most, macroevolution could purport to explain how different species arose on the Earth (although there seem to be no testable, falsifiable propositions in macroevolution), but it can never explain how life arose from inanimate matter, nor can it explain how the inanimate matter came into being in the first place.

Because it cannot be tested or falsified, macroevolution would seem to be at least as useless as science as you assert that ID is. Moreover, macroevolution fails to offer any explanation for the central questions in dispute - the origin of life and the universe.

If you disagree, please tell me how evolution (even the dubious macroevolution theory) offers a testable hypothesis that would account for the generation of the first life form in the universe, or for the generation of the matter of which the universe is composed.

I am concerned that opposition to allowing ID to be taught in schools has nothing to do with scientific objectivism, but is instead grounded in anti-religious fanaticism and bigotry (although from my POV, ID has nothing to do with religion, anti-ID proponents seem to see it as religion, and oppose it on that basis). As I mentioned above in this thread, if ID is so obviously wrong-headed, surely it will fail in the marketplace of ideas. To prohibit all consideration of ID seems to be an intolerant and closed-minded point of view.

However, that is JMHO, and I an interested in your thoughts on the issue.

[trotsky]

30. You still have yet to demonstrate that you even understand evolution.

How can you offer an alternative "theory" when you don't even understand the current one?

Let me repeat, ONCE AGAIN, what evolution is: the change in allele frequency over time in a population.

Let me repeat, ONCE AGAIN, what evolution is NOT: abiogenesis - the theory that life arose from non-living components OR cosmology - the study of the origins of the universe.

Your persistent misunderstanding and mischaracterization of evolution causes you to continually put forth these absurd "tests" for evolution, which it will naturally "fail" because it DOES NOT ADDRESS those items. Answers to those are found in other branches of science, of which you obviously have no knowledge.

[Jim Bob]

31. I am the one who said

"the theory of evolution does not contradict ID" in the first place. I do not "misunderstand" evolution. I have stated from the very beginning of this discussion that your reference to the theory of evolution misses the point. The subject under discussion is ID. The theory of evolution does not contradict ID. As you point out, the theory of evolution involves the change in allele frequency over time in a population. Given that definition, how could changes in allele frequency over time in a population possibly be pertinent to a discussion of whether ID should be allowed to be taught in school? Whether allele frequencies change over time in any given population has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the universe is intelligently designed or not.

Let me say for the umpteenth time: No one is trying to prohibit the teaching of evolution! Your continual references to evolution seem to be nothing more than a deliberate attempt to avoid answering the question of why ID should be banned from the classroom.

I never said that evolution "failed" any "tests." I simply said that it cannot account for the origin of life or the origin of the universe, and therefore it does not suffice as a proof that ID is false.

Meanwhile, you have offered no guess as to what mechanism could possibly result in the spontaneous self-generation of the universe. Nor have you offered any examples of any self-generating matter, space, time, or physical or mathematical laws.

A legitimate inquiry in science is the origin of life and the origin of the universe. ID offers a theory that accounts for both of these. Evolution has nothing to do with the issue, because it does not attempt to explain either of these events.

In your last line, you state that other branches of science (of which you snidely proclaim I have no knowledge) provide "answers" to these questions. Yet you fail to mention the answers in your post. Since I am so woefully ignorant, please enlighten me. You have had plenty of opportunity.

Also, I would appreciate it if you did not exhibit such a condescending attitude toward me personally. It is uncalled for. You have accused me of reaching conclusions without a "thought process," having "no knowledge" of the subject, and failing to "understand" it. How about laying off the personal attacks and just answering the questions?

Thanks.

[trotsky]

35. When you refuse to answer questions,

it should not surprise you to get the responses you do. And I'm sorry, but it is patently clear that you do NOT have knowledge or understanding of what you criticize - because you yourself admit it.

"Intelligent design" is not science, and does not belong in a science classroom.

Thanks for playing.

[Jim Bob]

42. I didn't

refuse to answer any questions. You did.

[trotsky]

47. I answered all VALID questions

for an evolution - "intelligent design" discussion.

[dwckabal]

37. Bingo!!

I am concerned that opposition to allowing ID to be taught in schools has nothing to do with scientific objectivism, but is instead grounded in anti-religious fanaticism and bigotry

Zero to persecution in less than ten posts!:applause:

Referring to evolution as an "accepted" scientific theory falls far short of offering proof that ID is false. First, you are engaging in the same argumentum ad populum that you accuse me of employing. Just because a majority of scientists may "accept" evolution to be true or ID to be false does not make it so. There was a time when most scientists "accepted" that the Earth was flat. That did not make it true.

Again, your ignorance of science and the scientific method is glaring. Why do you think no one believes the earth is flat anymore? Did God tell them? NO! The Flat-Earth hypothesis (if there was indeed such a thing) fails the Observation and Verification aspects of the scientific method. Evolution has passed scientific rigor, with some changes that have not altered the basic theory Darwin put forth 146 years ago: Natural Selection is the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organisms have evolved gradually into all species observed today. Again, scientists do not have to prove that ID is false; ID-ers have to prove that their theory better explains the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation.

And to try and answer your persistent question about the origin of inanimate matter, all I can offer is this: Science may not be equipped to answer certain "ultimate"-type questions—these have typically been philosophical or religious questions, and therefore have not been part of science. I'm sorry if this seems like a non-answer, but there you have it. As for the origin of life (not the origin of the components of life), biochemists have a very rational and scientific explanation for the evolution from inorganic to organic compounds, the creation of amino acids and the construction of protein chains, the first crude cells, the creation of photosynthesis, and so on.

Please ask yourself these questions:

1. Do I believe that the first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America prohibits introducing religious dogma and/or tenets into government-funded, i.e. public, schools?

If no, then this discussion is over, because your agenda has now been revealed, and all of your posturing is a ruse.

If yes, and you consider ID to be religion-free, then ask yourself this question:

2. Would I permit the teaching of, in a scientific setting (i.e. public school), the phlogiston theory? What about the miasma theory of disease? Maybe the Theory of the four bodily humours would be suitable for our children to learn.

If you think that these obsolete scientific theories should be taught as fact, then again, this discussion is over, as you obviously do not care if your children grow up learning the difference between pseudoscience or superstition, and science and the scientific method.

If no, then we are in agreement, because like the above mentioned theories, Intelligent Design fails the Observation and Verification aspects of the scientific method. It is a God-of-the-gaps argument, regardless of whether the god in question is specified or not.

[Jim Bob]

45. Now wait a cotton-picking minute

I never claimed to be persecuted, despite your goading.

I think that the hysterical opposition to allowing a teacher to expose her students to ID in a high school classroom is unjustifiable, and IMHO is motivated by anti-religious bigotry. No one is talking about persecution.

As to your second point, natural selection has nothing to do with the topic, because it does not controvert ID. Natural selection does not say anything about whether the universe was intelligently designed by a Creator or not.

Thank you for your honest concession that science has no explanation for the origin of matter.

Thank you also for your attempt to provide a scientific answer for the origin of life. However, as you probably know, abiogenesis is discredited as scientific theory. As Hubert Yockey states:

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from p. 396.

"Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions . . ."

Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, ISBN 0-521-80293-8).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Not only is there no scientific explanation for how abiogenesis could have occurred, calculations show the probability of it occurring to be effectively zero.

The following is a paragraph from this essay by Robert Kofahl: http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay44.htm

"In 1977 Prof. Hubert Yockey, a specialist in applying information theory to biological problems, studied the data for cytochrome a in great detail.1 His calculated value for the probability in a single trial construction of a chain of 100 amino acid molecules of obtaining by chance a working copy of the enzyme molecule is 1/1065 , or the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 65 zeros. This is a probability 100,000 times smaller than my very rough estimate published two years earlier. Prof. Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest theoretically conceivable living organism would have to possess a minimum of 124 different protein molecules. A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be P124P = (1/1065)124 = 1/108060, the fraction 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 8060 zeros. Truly these are extremely small probabilities calculated through a statistical approach. They tell us that the probabilities for the chance formation of a single working protein molecule or of a living cell are effectively zero.Prof. Morowitz made a careful study of the energy content of living cells and of the building block molecules of which the cells are constructed. From this thermodynamic information he was able to calculate the probability that an ocean full of chemical "soup" containing the necessary amino acids and other building block molecules would react in a year to produce by chance just one copy of a simple living cell.2 He arrived at the astronomically small probability of Pcell = 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros! Yet he still believed in abiogenesis. Back in the 1970s Prof. Morowitz admitted in a public debate at a teachers' convention in Honolulu that in order to explain abiogenesis, it would be necessary to discover some new law of physics. At that time he still believed in abiogenesis, the spontaneous formation of the original living cells on the primeval earth. However, some ten years later he finally stated that in his opinion some intelligent creative power was necessary to explain the origin of life."

So, while the idea of a "primordial soup" sponaneously generating a single-celled living organism, which later evolved into all life on Earth, is not only unsupported by any evidence, it is so improbable that it takes a great deal more "faith" to believe that it happened than to believe in ID.


As to your questions, the answers are:

1. Yes.

2. No.

The obsolete and discredited theories you mentioned should not be taught as fact, as you hypothetically propose. They have been proven wrong. ID has not. Also, no one is suggesting that ID be taught as fact -- only as a theory for the origin of life and the universe.

[trotsky]

46. If you are interested in learning about abiogenesis

from a source OTHER than science-haters and anti-science bigots, you should peruse this link.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

(By the way, Yockey has repeatedly shown a pro-supernatural bias in his writings.)

[dwckabal]

52. Opposition to ID

is not based on "anti-religious bigotry," but on the fact that ID is not a theory, nor is it science.

Don't you get it?

It is irrelevant to say ID has not been proven wrong, because there is nothing that can be proven! ID is a construct, nothing more. To say ID is a theory is to ignore the very concept of what a theory is. You might as well say you believe in the Theory of God. Try that in your church, and see how far you'll get.

Oh yes, and Hubert Yockey; what's his background again? Physics and information theory. Funny, I thought that the study of life was called biology. Yockey, like Dembski, is trying to apply information theory to biology, and failing miserably. I find this particularly laughable:

The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive.

This is crap. If Yockey has a better explanation for abiogenesis, then why doesn't he put forth a theory? He doesn't have the background. So, he can sit back and criticize the "primordial soup" experiments, while offering no alternative explanations of his own. How convenient.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. "science has no explanation for the origin of matter."

Here's One!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-3.html

Oh, and as of now, you can't prove it's NOT true- which, according to the logical constraints which you place upon "God", MUST mean it IS true...

...right?

Although, actually, there are legitimate methods -pointed out by the authors themselves- via which this theory could be observationally verified or discredited.

And something else jumped out at me, from this paper.. the last paragraph:

As a final remark, we feel that it is important to realize that Inflationary theory is based on Quantum Field theory, a well-established theoretical framework, and the model has been carefully studied and vetted for 20 years. Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in String theory and is brand new. While we appreciate the enthusiasm and interest with which the paper has been received, we would suggest some patience before promulgating these ideas in order to leave time for us to produce some follow-up papers that introduce additional elements and to allow fellow theorists time for criticism and sober judgment.

That's what real scientists sound like.

[Az]

38. Misrepresentation

The objection is not to teaching ID. It is to teaching ID in a science class. Science classes teach science. ID is not accepted science. It should not be taught in a science class.

Many would welcome ID and even fullfledged creationism if it were taught in a comparitive religion course. This would be the proper format for such a subject.

[Az]

39. Further misrepresentation

Evolution does not propose a theory of the origin of the first life. That is an entire different field of stufy called Abiogenesis. We don't have a theory strong enough in that particular subject to sufficiently declare anyone of the competing theories acceptable.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Do you understand how science works?

How, precisely, is "Intelligent Design Theory" science?

And how is it different from Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory?

[Jim Bob]

53. Yes, I do.

Science works like this:

Scientific methods or processes are considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by scientific communities. Scientists use observations and deductions to develop technologies and propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment and further technologies developed. Any hypothesis which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. Once it has been established that a hypothesis is sound (by use of the above methods), it becomes a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Materialism is not science. It is a religious/philosophical viewpoint that rejects all supernatural phenomena and consists of a belief that the only reality is the material world. It is not capable of being tested or falsified through the scientific method.

Macroevolution is also not science, because it is not capable of being tested through experimentation, and it offers no testable predictions, etc.

Atheists believe that there is no God, and they want all children in America to be mandatorily indoctrinated with their religious belief that there is no God. I find this unacceptable.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Well, too bad.

The only reference to "God", in terms of existence or non-existence, I remember receiving in public school was in the pledge of allegiance, and it doesn't belong there, either.

(..it's always interesting that erstwhile creationists and ID defenders posit a black-and-white dichotomy between the teaching of evolution and the inclusion of the male, Christian God in public schools. Leaving out all kinds of possibilities, like the possibility of multiple gods, for instance. Or I wonder how they would react if we all said, "okay, you know what, you can bring a deity into public schools, but she has to be referred to ONLY in the feminine aspect- you know, One nation UNDER GODDESS". For some strange reason, I suspect they would go bat-shit crazy at the idea)

But teaching evolution, or 'macroevolution' as you put it, doesn't have jack diddly squat to do with atheism-- OR whether or not there is a "God", or a "Goddess", or a whole messload of "Gods".

With regards to what you call macroevolution- the long term evolution, change, and history of the tree of species on the planet earth, there is EVIDENCE to back up the theory. Not everything in science has to be tested through experiment to be valid. For instance, the theory of relativity is considered valid with regards to the behavior of large amounts of matter at speeds approaching the speed of light, despite the fact that we can't approach those speeds ourselves. Scientists have valid explanations and predictions for the behavior of matter in extreme conditions, like close to black holes- that can be tested by observation in some cases, but not by experimentation.

Likewise, the EVIDENCE in the form of fossil AND DNA records (by the way, it's only been in the past couple decades that we've been able to examine human and other animal DNA genomes up close... want to take a wild guess what "theory" the DNA evidence backs up 100%???) backs up the theory of evolution.

Here, you like Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution#Evidence_of_evolution

Morphological evidence

Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard parts (like bone) and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Fossil evidence of organisms without hard body parts, such as shell, bone, and teeth is sparse but exists in the form of ancient microfossils and the fossilization of ancient burrows and a few soft-bodied organisms.

Nevertheless, fossil evidence of prehistoric organisms has been found all over the Earth. The age of fossils can often be deduced from the geologic context in which they are found; and their absolute age can be verified with radiometric dating. Some fossils bear a resemblance to organisms alive today, while others are radically different. Fossils have been used to determine at what time a lineage developed, and transitional fossils can be used to demonstrate continuity between two different lineages. Paleontologists investigate evolution largely through analysis of fossils.

Phylogeny, the study of the ancestry of species, has revealed that structures with similar internal organization may perform divergent functions. Vertebrate limbs are a common example of such homologous structures. A vestigial organ or structure may exist with little or no purpose in one organism, though they have a clear purpose in others. The human wisdom teeth and appendix are common examples.


Genetic sequence evidence

Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms reveals that phylogenetically close organisms have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas <4>, and 6.6% from baboons<5>. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct mistakes in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce.

Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA which are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration<6>.

Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is also done largely by comparison of existing organisms. Many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is theoretically possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor.

There is no evidence- NONE WHATSOEVER- to back up "intelligent design". If there was, or if some turned up tomorrow, it would become science- and people like me would have no. problem. with. it.

But for now, at least, yes, I am an "Atheist", at least in the sense that I most certainly do not believe in an all-powerful, invisible sky-man who, with a 14.5 billion light-year-wide universe to "run", seems strangely obsessed with the sex habits of the hairless apes of planet Earth.. but, frankly, I don't care what other people teach their children, just so long as they (hopefully) teach their kids that they can believe what they want but they should leave other people (and their beliefs) the fuck alone. Of course, I'm not one of the people letting my beliefs get in the way of others getting their birth control prescriptions filled, or preventing gay couples I've never met from making a lifelong committment to each other.

"God" should be left out of public schools altogether, as should Zeus, Apollo, Satan, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster. That is NOT the same thing as "teaching atheism". It just leaves religious indoctrination where it belongs, i.e. in the churches, sunday schools, and the home.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Saying "This is too complex to occur on its own" is conjecture

not evidence.

And as far as the agenda of ID proponents, who are you kidding? It's perfectly clear who, and what, they're shilling for:

I refer you to the widely distributed "Wedge Paper" from the "Discovery Institute", the so-called "brains" behind the ID "movement"

http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html

(emphasis added)

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Now, I shouldn't have to tell you that SCIENTIFIC TRUTH doesn't change according to what spurious "social consequences" are attributed to it. Scientific truth is scientific truth. Gravity or the speed of light don't change because people think they make girls have sex before marriage. But this is what the ID "agenda" is all about. It's about "replacing science".

Who, exactly, is the "Discovery Institute"? Good question.

http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_

Founded in 1991 by former Reagan administration official Bruce Chapman, the Seattle-based Institute has an operating budget of over $2 million. "Intelligent design" creationism has become such a central feature of the organization's work that it created a separate division, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, to devote all of its time to that cause.

The Institute enthusiastically endorses what law professor and ID champion Philip Johnson calls the "wedge" strategy. (See "Insidious Design," page 8.) The plan is straightforward: use intelligent design as a wedge to undermine evolution with scientific-sounding arguments and thereby advance a conservative religious-political agenda.

***

Over the last decade, nearly every book used in the intelligent design movement has either been distributed by the Institute or was written directly by one of the group's scholars. Of Pandas And People, Icons Of Evolution and Darwin's Black Box are all staples on the Discovery bookshelf. Institute representatives are well aware of legal restrictions on religion in public schools, so they rarely use theological criticisms of evolution in their work. Behe, for example, is a Catholic with eight home-schooled children. When asked about creationism in a February interview on National Public Radio, he said it isn't his area of expertise.

"To tell you the truth, I'm not real knowledgeable about creationism," Behe said.

The strategy of making ID appear scientific, and not religious, is intentional. The Institute's Stephen Meyer co-authored an article in the Utah Law Review in 2000 critiquing the legal landscape. While Meyer noted that the Supreme Court prohibits traditional creationism from public schools because it is based on biblical literalism, he wrote that excluding intelligent design, with its "scientific" underpinnings, would be tantamount to "viewpoint discrimination."

Wow, for a "Scientific" outfit, these ID "scientists" sure seem awfully insular, and self-referential. One supposes that, like the Oil Industry "scientists" who dispute global warming, they probably don't get out much.

In order for that scheme to work, ID advocates at the Discovery Institute try desperately to hide a religious agenda. Occasionally, however, one of the Institute's fellows will slip and speak his mind.

Two years ago, at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting, the Discovery Institute's Dembski framed the ID movement in the context of Christian apologetics, a theological defense of the authority of Christianity.

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."

The Institute's religious agenda has won it the backing of wealthy financiers and foundations. For example, California multi-millionaire Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., has singled out the Discovery Institute for big contributions. (Ahmanson is aligned with Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the Religious Right that seeks to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.)

What were you saying, again, about these folks not having an agenda? ....and about it not having anything to do with birth control or gay marriage? I forgot.

It's absurd to talk about OUTLAWING the teaching of Intelligent Design (you can teach whatever you want, in CHURCH)- but it's not SCIENCE, and as such it doesn't belong in SCIENCE class. Saying "wow, this is too complex to have happened on its own" is not a scientific statement, it is speculation- and furthermore, its not speculation backed up by the evidence.

The burden of proof is on the presenter of a scientific theory. A situation where you start with a conclusion and then assume its true because you can't specifically disprove it is, again, religion.

For something like "intelligent design" to be taught as science it has to have evidence to BACK IT UP. There is none. To say that certain cellular processes are too complex to have arisen independently over 4.5 billion years is an interesting piece of conjecture, but its not a basis on which to junk, or even offer "alternatives" to evolutionary theory. And if you read that Discovery Institute piece closely (you know, the one from the "God and Culture" conference) you see that the "gaps" in which they are trying to find "god" are small, indeed. They ignore the literal MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution and natural selection.

Of course, ignoring evidence comes easy to folks who've had 2,000 years to practice.

And there certainly is no more evidence to lead to the single, all powerful supernatural designer, than there is to point to a multitudinous pantheon of designers (if things are that complex, wouldn't the same logic that points to ONE designer point, more logically, to several or a higher number?) likewise, there is no more evidence for what the Discovery Institute is promoting than there is evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you think teachers should be "allowed" to push ID in science class (when, really, what you're talking about is oftentimes at the forced impetus of school boards and elected officials) then you have to accept that ID doesn't get any more special treatment than any other "scientific" theory to explain these instances of alleged "irreducible complexity" and the like, from the Yanomamo Creation myth to the idea that this is all a dream we dreamed, one afternoon long ago.

:hippie:

But, I suspect, it's just one, particular 'splanation that you would like to receive special treatment, coincidentally the one which (you feel) validates your personal spin on theology. Sorry, science doesn't work that way.

And, again, if this mysterious, singular, male "Intelligent Designer" is SO CONCERNED about the truth of "his" handiwork being proclaimed in science class, then he should provide some SCIENTIFIC evidence to back it up.

Lastly, I'm sorry if you feel that evolution is somehow incompatible with your theological worldview. I happen to know many devout Christains, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus who don't see any incongruity between learning the truth about origin of species and the 4.5 billion year history of, and wonderous diversity belonging to, evolved life on planet Earth--- and their personal faith. Apparently you do, but, again, the fact that you can't make your beliefs gel with scientific reality doesn't change the truth or the scientific method by which it is determined, any more than it would if you objected to your children being taught that the Earth was round.

As a last resort, of course, you can home school them...

like the guy from the Discovery Institute does.

[Az]

56. Actually there is quite a bit of evidence for "macro" evolution

There are also plenty of examples of speciation (what scientists call it) in both the field and in labs. Here are a couple of links.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[Warren DeMontague]

57. "Stuff doesn't self-generate"

Do "Gods" self-generate?

In the 17 billion year history of the Universe, has anyone ever SEEN a "God" create a universe, or SEEN "God" self-generate?

[Az]

58. The classic who made god problem

God is so complex that someone must of obviously created him/her/it. If we are going to attempt to discard the scientific explanation for the universe by claiming that such complex things have to have been made by a mind, then we can't simply discard the rule when we get to the position we happen to like.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. "Because matter, time and space do not self-generate"

but "Creators", presumably, DO?

Oh, and as far as matter, you are incorrect. According to quantum theory, matter is "self-generating" all the TIME, albeit for extremely short durations.

Much is not known about the nature of matter, time, and space, I'll grant you that. But that doesn't mean The Church, an institution which has a historical batting average of 0 with regards to statements pertaining to all three of the above, should be given some kind of credence as any kind of final arbiter about where they "came" from, much less whether or not they are capable of "self-generating"


"The universe seems to have all the hallmarks that are recognized in other contexts as being indicia of something that has been created"

Oh, really? Like what? A manufacturer's stamp? "Made in China"? A warning label? Do Not Remove The Tags From These Mattresses? An FBI statement pertaining to copyright law?

That statement means absolutely nothing, but it does bring up an interesting point. If "God" so badly wanted the truth of his existence to be proclaimed loudly in public school science classes, it would be a relatively simple matter for him to make his presence, and his historical validity, pretty frickin' obvious. Hell, he could show up TOMORROW with DVDs of the Flood and Noah's Ark and Stopping the Sun in the Sky for Joshua, and pass them out to those pesky scientists, while laughing "Whuh Huh Huh, Silly Mortal, Ye Shall Burn In Ye Fiery Furnace For Your Scientific Insolence... But Thanks For Playing!"

Sure, he could make his existence DAMN obvious through physical evidence, or even a sudden appearance on prime-time TV. He hasn't, and he doesn't. Of course, the faithful tell us this is the purpose of "faith". Okay, so, great. That's all well and good- but then you should have enough "Faith" to leave matters of the faith where they belong- in CHURCH- and NOT in public school SCIENCE classes.

[PatsFan2004]

15. As a former chemistry teacher, I observed that among young

people the theory of evolution makes sense, but it seems to me that as folks get older, the theory of evolution seems to make less sense to them. Why do people put more credence in Creationism as they get older? Is it senility or experience or propaganda?

[blackthorne]

16. It's Fear

They're getting older, more aware of their mortality, and THEN they think perhaps they'd better "clean up."

[trotsky]

17. Propaganda.

Older people are generally more removed from academia. School is where people get exposed to different viewpoints - and once they leave it, they are only exposed to one viewpoint unless they expend effort to collect others. It's much easier to just sit back and go with the flow, and in a country as religiously f*cked up as this one, the fact of evolution is one of the first things to go.

Think about it - their church likely tells them that to acknowledge evolution is a SIN. So it's either hold on to evolution, which doesn't necessarily benefit you at all - you're here either way - or grab onto creationism or now ID so you can "get right with gawd" and not be burned in hell forever because he loves you so much.

[Az]

44. Quite simple

Because they do not go to weekly meetings where the theories of evolution are reinforced before them.

While in school teachers are seen as authority figures and the ideas they present are accepted as such. Over time these ideas fade as other ideas recieve more input.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Your quote:

"The simplest explanation for the existence of the universe, with all of its infinite complexity is that it was created by a supremely intelligent Creator."

Oh, really?

Okay, who created the creator? Or is he magically exempt from the same logical strictures and requirements you place on everything else?

And why only one "supremely intelligent Creator"? If the universe is so complex it requires creation, why not a number of them? Why not an infinite number of Creators? Because the bible says so?

[Az]

32. The real problem is the target audience

The general public (and politicians that appeal to them) are not scientists. Scientists form their arguments to convince other scientists. They are not as concerned with emotional appeals as they are with paths of logic.

Time after time its the same story. A creationist and a scientist enter into a debate. If it is before a group of citizens the creationists need only present their argument in a congenial manner and toss a couple of questions to the scientist that will send them into a frenzy trying to answer. The fact that they poke at difficult questions without having to provide difficult answers of their own means they will always win in the court of public opnion.

In debates before accreditted scientists creationists are invariably evicerated. They simply cannot make their arguments before the scientific community. Thus they turn to the lawmakers and public opinion.

Its really not a popular thing to say we are not the center of the universe and special above all creation.

[Jim Bob]

33. The attitude here is amazing to me.

There really seems to be an attitude of derision and contempt for all non-atheists here. Yet this is the "religion and theology" forum on a website that is supposed to represent Democratic party values.

The vast majority of Democrats are non-atheists. In fact, the percentage of Americans who self-identify as atheists is as low as 0.4% according to a poll posted on www.atheistempire.com:

http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/index.html

Of course, the majority of those 99.6% of Americans who are non-atheist are Democrats, since the majority of Americans are Democrats.

According to this 2003 Harris poll http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=408 , the number of Democrats in the U.S. who believe in God is 78%. This is the lowest percentage I have found in any poll of American Democrats.

Yet here on this "religion and theology" board at DU, those who believe in a Creator are ridiculed, scoffed at, and basically characterized as idiots. Az's post even seems to take a contemptuous and condescending view of the general public's intelligence.

Why so much hostility to the majority of Democrats?

It makes no sense to me.

[Az]

34. Contempt?

Are you suggesting that everyone in the general public has a phd in biology? That everyone has a deep understanding of the current state of scientific exploration?

There is no contempt here. There is simply a recognition that science is a process that has developed very very complex theories. Not everyone has the background or education to understand this particular subject. This problem is ironically exasterbated by the religious rights assault on our education system.

All this being said there is no contempt of the general public contained here. Merely an understanding that we each focus on our own particular areas of study and that the bulk of the general public are not phd'ed biologists. I would no more trust a random member of the general public to decide the truth of evolution than I would trust one to perform heart surgery on me. I will seak a cardiologist for one and a biologist for the other.

[trotsky]

36. Newsflash

It's not the Democrats pushing "intelligent design." Nope, it's the ultra-fundie Republicans. Be careful about criticizing Democrats - look around at who you have allied yourself with, mmmkay?

[arwalden]

40. Indeed.

[Jim Bob]

41. To me, it is not a question of "allying" myself with anyone.

It is not a political issue from my POV. It is an issue of academic freedom.

Also, I think that the government should not promote one broad religious viewpoint (atheism) over another (theism).

[Az]

43. When teaching science

Its probably a good idea to stick to accepted standards of science. Particularly in grade school. Kids aren't really the proper adjudicators to decide between various positions. And when the theory being proposed isn't even a proper theory or representitive of valid scientific process it simply fails to meet the standards of a science class.

[trotsky]

48. Atheism is not a religious viewpoint

any more than baldness is a hair color.

Neutrality towards religion is not the same as atheism, though pro-theocratic anti-science bigoted religious folks like to portray them as the same.

[Az]

59. It would be better to say

That atheism on its own is not a religion. There can be religions that have as one of their positions an atheistic stance.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Scientific Truth is not a democratic process.

99.6% of the people could believe the moon was made of green cheese, but that wouldn't change the evidentiary basis of saying it's made of basaltic rock.