Evolution vs Incompetent Design

[esskreemr]

We don't have an active thread on the ID-Creationism/Evolution debate.

Today:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/in...ign/index.html

A Pennsylvania school district cannot teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site. (Opinion, pdf)

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes.

[jeff]

I think this one can be written down as "the good guys win one". The fact that the judge is a Bush-appointed Republican should prevent claims that a radical leftist atheist made this decision - props to him for his judgement.

I don't suppose the evidence shown in court where textbook material with "creationism" crossed out and replaced with "intelligent design" helped when the ID proponents were trying to claim that ID has nothing to do with religion or creationism. I thought "Thou Shalt Not Lie" was one of the Big Ten Rules...

[academe]

A good site for info on the pro-science side can be found at:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/

The sad thing in all this is that the spin cycle will begin as all the standard suspects trot out why the decision is right or wrong. I have to say that we have now entered into a "cottage industry" type of situation where all kinds of people are making all kinds of money keeping this controversy (actually anything that can be made into a controversy) going...

Science education in our country has greater issues to face than having to constantly deal with pseudo-science concepts like ID...

Now let's talk about something that really matters, like revising the rating system...heh!

[YankeeRebel]

Originally Posted by academe

Science education in our country has greater issues to face than having to constantly deal with pseudo-science concepts like ID...

Sadly, the debate over "Intelligent Design" represents an on-going effort by radical conservatives to revise general education in this country. If the truth doesn't neatly conform to the radical conservative worldview, they choose to re-write the truth instead of changing their worldview. They are trying to create a new reality by replacing science with pseudo-science and history with revisionist history.

What strange times we live in . . .

[esskreemr]

Personally, I think it's a shame that it even comes down to a 'seperaton of church and state' issue.

Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory, no matter how they try to dress it. It is a metaphysical concept that CANNOT be proven in a laboratory. It is a system of pattern recognition that fails to account for why many of the elements of disorder or outright BAD DESIGN exist in many systems, such as our own bodies.

Please keep the 'a posteriori' in philosophy where it belongs.

[Elbethil]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory, no matter how they try to dress it. It is a metaphysical concept that CANNOT be proven in a laboratory. It is a system of pattern recognition that fails to account for why many of the elements of disorder or outright BAD DESIGN exist in many systems, such as our own bodies.

Please keep the 'a posteriori' in philosophy where it belongs.

I agree.

Also, I just thought that I'd add a link to the "Project Steve" site:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp
(There's a lot of good science resources on the matter on their links page, too. )

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Please keep the 'a posteriori' in philosophy where it belongs.

Yes, by sticking it into the ... of those closet creationists.



Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[sabreur]

The text of the opinion is available on the web (for instance, on the Washington Post site)--it is well worth downloading and reading.

[jessicasimpson]

I know that Alien life forms fit into the ID theory, does anyone know how much equal time is allotted to the Extraterestrial aspect of ID compared to God?

[Slim]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

We don't have an active thread on the ID-Creationism/Evolution debate.

To have a debate, you need people willing to put forth opposing views. I doubt very much you are going to find anyone here arguing the intelligent design position.

[Goofy]

Originally Posted by Slim

To have a debate, you need people willing to put forth opposing views. I doubt very much you are going to find anyone here arguing the intelligent design position.

You're probably right on that. I won't argue in favor of Intelligent Design because I feel that the sanitized, politically correct label and content cheapen faith.

[jBirch]

I did it last time... The vitriol was quite extensive.

Anyone else wanna give it a go this time?

James.

[jBirch]

As a starter though, anyone have any idea why there are fixed laws of the universe? Why gravity, for instance, is a constant and not variable? Why energy is conserved in every interaction?

From what did the Universe first evolve, I wonder?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by sabreur

The text of the opinion is available on the web (for instance, on the Washington Post site)--it is well worth downloading and reading.

Initial read through seems to focus not on the substance of the ID claims but rather on the perception that ID is related to fundamentalist Christianity as a rebuttal to Evolution. It is the relationship that drives the perception that ID is Christian creationism revisted. The perception then drives the judgement.

ID is not religious per se, but because it is used by religious groups it becomes so. Teaching it therefor, becomes a matter of teaching religious doctrine and is banned by the First Ammendment to the US Constitution.

It's also interesting to note that the US Court believes that any research into a "Divine Creator" must, perforce, be religious/philisophical and not scientific.

Interesting.

James.

[esskreemr]

I would like to point out that other groups support the idea of 'Intelligent Design':

The Raelians:

http://www.rael.org/rael_content/rael_summary.php
The messages dictated to Rael explain that life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural 'God'. It is a deliberate creation, using DNA, by a scientifically advanced people who made human beings literally "in their image" -- what one can call "scientific creationism." References to these scientists and their work, as well as to their symbol of infinity, can be found in the ancient texts of many cultures. For example, in Genesis, the Biblical account of Creation, the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as the singular word "God", but it is actually a plural word which means "those who came from the sky", and the singular is "Eloha" (also known as "Allah"). Indigenous cultures all over the world remember these "gods" who came from the sky, including natives of Africa (Dogon, Twa, etc.), America, Asia, Australia, and Europe.

Leaving our humanity to progress by itself, the Elohim nevertheless maintained contact with us via prophets including Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, etc., all specially chosen and educated by them. The role of the prophets was to progressively educate humanity through the Messages they taught, each adapted to the culture and level of understanding at the time. They were also to leave traces of the Elohim so that we would be able to recognize them as our Creators and fellow human beings when we had advanced enough scientifically to understand them. Jesus, whose father was an Eloha, was given the task of spreading these messages throughout the world in preparation for this crucial time in which we are now privileged to live: the predicted Age Of Revelation.

UFOlogists

http://www.yesweekly.com/main.asp?Se...41&TM=45596.82
“We’re never going to be treated with the same kind of respect,” Pye says about his scientific work, “because this is something no one really wants the answer to.”

Instead of emerging from a primordial soup, or the hand of some divine being, Pye proposes that humans originated from some kind of intergalactic science project. Oblivious to the Napoleon Dynamite reference, he presents a liger (combination lion/tiger) as evidence of the power of genetic engineering.

“Science would have you believe that mother nature [created us],” Pye said. “It isn’t natural, it happened in a genetics lab.”

Pye has traveled the world spreading the gospel of intervention theory. He finds a credulous crowd in Greensboro; they hang on his every Power Point bullet.

“Cheetahs are weird,” he says. The tan portion of their coat is composed of dog fur, while the black spots are cat hair, he adds. Scientists have ignored this obvious evidence of prehistoric cloning because they cannot explain it.

[esskreemr]

I would also HIGHLY recommend (which will most likely ensure that some don't ) reading this collection of essays:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

[Goofy]

This is a good commentary on the Pennsylvania ruling:

http://my.brandeis.edu/news/item?news_item_id=104307

[ThatReallyHurt]

Here's a thought... what if life was indeed planted here by some force - for the sake of argument, let's say some aliens dumped their garbage here three billion years ago, and the bacteria on the pop cans and used dental floss gained a foothold and evolved into what we see today.

Who'd claim victory then?

[Epee_Pox]

So where did the aliens come from, then?

Seriously, I have no idea why people want non-science taught in science class. You want to teach philosophy or religion, teach it in a philosophy or religion class. For crying out loud!

Science is based on objective, empirical data. Evolution is an explanation that fits the observed data. ID is based on the absence of objective, empirical data. ID is an explanation that is independent of observed data (in addition to begging the question it purports to answer).

Why again does ID belong in a science class?

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Why again does ID belong in a science class?

The advocacy of "intelligent design" is a key part in an open conspiracy on the part of the Christian fundamentalist community to establish their beliefs as the core belief structure in the United States.

The New York Times had an eye-opening (although sadly uncritical, from a scientific point of view) series a while ago on the motivations of those advocating intelligent design. A key quote (I paraphrase) was "If we can win on evolution, we can win on everything else."

The core issue, as the judge in the case noted in his opinion, has nothing to do with the validiity of various scientific theories; it has everything to do with maintaining the separation of church and state, and the denial of efforts to establish a theocracy in the United States.