News Hounds

NO
The fox core audience believes a 'theory' is not based in fact, hence the strange support for ID against the 'theory of evolution'.

Posted by: uk_dave at December 20, 2005 04:37 PM

Similarily, the fact that fox news has only around 2 million viewers for it's most popular shows, leads to the theory that fox news is a major news outlet.

Its a strange strange world in fox land.

Posted by: uk_dave at December 20, 2005 04:40 PM

Funny how the "theory" of evolution or the Big Bang "theory" was never good enough to be taught before because they were "theories". Now that this crap has come along, something that has no scientific basis at all, is all of a sudden a "theory" that is good enough to be taught in classrooms.

Look, I know plenty of creationists, me included, who do not think this is a science. It is making a mockery out of my faith. For the last time...

RELIGION BELONGS IN THEOLOGY CLASS
SCIENCE BELONGS IN SCIENCE CLASS

It is not that hard to figure out!

Posted by: jay davis PsD at December 20, 2005 04:41 PM

It's a faith theory not a real or factual theory. Let's be honest faith is what is really important.

Posted by: J at December 20, 2005 04:42 PM

You are indeed correct, Donna. ID is not and can not be a theory. Hawkins wrote that a good theory has two components. 1) It must accurately describe a large class or series of observations (i.e. data) for a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and 2) it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. ID cannot fit either criterion. Theories incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Again, ID fails here as well. The radical loony righties can scream "it's a theory" over and over, but it's not a theory. The loony right can and will call it what they want, but it's nothing but dogma, superstition, and religion.

Posted by: Dr. Matt at December 20, 2005 04:45 PM

Dr. Matt,

Beat me to it!

A theory is potentially falsifiable.

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 04:47 PM

..."However, would Fox's audience know this? Or would they assume that a 'theory' means it's based in fact? We report, you decide."
__
With all due respect Donna I feel you're giving way too much credit to Fox viewers. They are TOLD what to think and what to decide. That's all there is to it.

Posted by: bronxboy at December 20, 2005 04:48 PM

Dr. Matt & Kim,

You two are my heroes today! Thank you so much.

Donna
News Hounds

Posted by: Donna at December 20, 2005 04:49 PM

What's a bit amusing, is that the loony right will scream that, "evolution is just a theory and not a fact". Yet, when they want to teach their religious ID in public school, they want to call ID "theory".

Posted by: Dr. Matt at December 20, 2005 04:51 PM

Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told
New Scientist, October 19, 2005

...The plaintiffs' attorney told the court that the US NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory:

"THEORY: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, BEHE ADMITTTED that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition.

...Rothschild suggested that BEHE'S DEFINITION WAS SO LOOSE THAT [IT WOULD INCLUDE] ASTROLOGY AS WELL. He also pointed out that Behe's definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS's definition of a HYPOTHESIS.

Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange PROMPTED LAUGHTER FROM THE COURT, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board...

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178&feedId;=online-news_rss20%22

Posted by: -R at December 20, 2005 04:51 PM

In science as in law, words have a different meaning than they do when used in general conversation.

The Wingnuts believe "theory" - as in Darwin's Theory of Evolution - is defined as in your definition B: an unproved assumption.

Scientists use "theory" to mean just the opposite: a principle that is proved because it can't be refuted, e.g. the Newton's Theory of Gravity.

Posted by: Mark at December 20, 2005 04:51 PM

Kim is *always* my hero. :-P

Posted by: Dr. Matt at December 20, 2005 04:52 PM

Seriously,

Until I started visiting newshounds, I had honestly thought the whole creationist/ID story was something that happened in those strange states where the kids have sticky out ears and a penchant for banjo playing.

The 'discussion' a few weeks back involving dreamryder and (to a much lesser extent our old favourite 2008) which centred around the "which came first, chicken or egg?" question opened my eyes to the fact that some people do actually believe this creationist stuff and really do think that science is wrong.

I can only assume that somewhere along their educational path, some teacher somewhere messed up badly, or it is a product of the whole 'home schooling' ethos.

But ultimately, the ID supporters are ruining their kids educations for the sake of their own petty insistance that their religious beliefs be taught as education rather than spirituality.

I do wonder what the teachers must think of all this. How are they to justify to themselves having to teach an idea which is contrary to the whole premise of science education?

Posted by: uk_dave at December 20, 2005 04:55 PM

We in the reality-based community should start referring to it as The Law of Evolution. Maybe Wingnuts will feel better if it's a law rather than a theory.

Oh wait, I forgot. They don't seem to respect the rule of law either. Never mind. My bad.

Posted by: Mark at December 20, 2005 04:55 PM

Intelligence design is SUPERSTITION. Period!!! Anybody calling it a theory is either dead dumb, or too dumb to know that he is dumb! Whatever the case, only dummies will call this superstitious garbage a theory!!!

Posted by: foxisajoke at December 20, 2005 04:56 PM

The loony right can start teaching ID in public schools as soon as science is taught in Church.

Posted by: Dr. Matt at December 20, 2005 04:57 PM

Lets be frank here, the people pushing ID as a theory, or as an alternative to evolution are on a mission, and some have strong enough feelings that they will sacrifice any truth to bury that which they don't like th hear about (evolution) under a heap of garbage.

Its the same mindset that makes a religion a powerful weapon for evil people, who can easily manipulate a mass of people who are so engrained with a belief that they don't think rationally enough to realize they are being played.

Posted by: Tobin at December 20, 2005 04:57 PM

Scientists use "theory" to mean just the opposite: a principle that is proved because it can't be refuted, e.g. the Newton's Theory of Gravity.
--------------------------------------------------

The funny thing is that the right wingers think they are refuting it because they say it isn't true. In the right wing world if you say darwin is wrong then it must be wrong.

Posted by: lee at December 20, 2005 04:58 PM

Tobin, about that mission:

Will your kids be Christian?
WorldNetDaily.com, December 20, 2005

...There is NO SUCH THING AS "NEUTRAL" EDUCATION. All education is religious and imparts some worldview or other. It simply happens that for generations Christians have been educating their children in a non-Christian worldview in the public schools. Consequently, why should we be surprised to learn that our children really aren't Christians when almost all of their education has been entrusted to the public school system?

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48001

Posted by: -R at December 20, 2005 04:59 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~
The 'discussion' a few weeks back involving dreamryder and (to a much lesser extent our old favourite 2008) which centred around the "which came first, chicken or egg?" question opened my eyes to the fact that some people do actually believe this creationist stuff and really do think that science is wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dimwits like ryder and 2008 are typical mindless drones that will follow party lines all the way off the cliff into the ocean below.

Posted by: Dr. Matt at December 20, 2005 05:00 PM

Will your kids be Christian?
WorldNetDaily.com, December 20, 2005
------------------------------------------------

Why would anyone think that they could send their child to a PUBLIC school to get a religous education. Esp. since there are so many different types of christans. If I want my child to be a gnostic or even worse a catholic then I will teach my child about that particular faith. I would never leave that to a school.

Posted by: lee at December 20, 2005 05:05 PM

evolution is a fact,it is happening as I type. Live with it.

Posted by: wisedup at December 20, 2005 05:07 PM

The Simple Life

Wingnut confronted to something he doesn't understand :
Wow ! This is undoubtedly the work of God.

Wingnut confronted to someone he doesn't understand :
WHACK HIM !

Posted by: Zzorglub at December 20, 2005 05:10 PM

"Intelligent design" is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis, since it is not testable. It is a philosophical supposition that stands outside the realm of science. Of course, on a practical level, it is merely a stalking horse for fundamentalist religion.

Posted by: Dan at December 20, 2005 05:16 PM

The problem is that "evolution" refers both to the the general fact that biological creatures evolve and the specific evolutionary path that lead to our species.

Sheep believe that because scientists haven't yet traced the exact evolutionary path that homo sapiens have taken, then evolution in general is somehow unproven.

Posted by: J at December 20, 2005 05:20 PM

I, too, think if people want their children taught this - send them to a private school of their choice.

I went to a Catholic school and even we had SCIENCE classes. Jeez.

Scarlet, PbD

Posted by: Scarlet, PbD at December 20, 2005 05:25 PM

The judge also pointed out that the supporters of ID often lied to try and support their position. Very christian of them.

Posted by: TJM at December 20, 2005 05:25 PM

Donna,

You wrote "We report, you decide."

In the future, please use "We distort, you're deceived."

shoe - foot - fit

Posted by: draftedin68 at December 20, 2005 05:44 PM

Darwinism is a theory. The moderates believe in a God, or someone created the world. No one can scientifically prove creationism and no one can scientifically prove evolution. Hence an continuous argument for centuries. The US should omit this part of science out of school books and teaching.

You have the loony left, which hates the word God or even someone mentioning that someone created the world. Then You have the retarded right, which believes that creationism is the only thing that happened, and there is some intelligent design. They despise Darwin.

Then there is the Modest moderates who say you know each of these sides has their point. The two should be brought up for argument in class so people and kids can get the full spectrum of one of the world's most classical arguments.

You cant be so open minded till your brain falls out, and you can't be so closed minded till you got alzheimers. Live a little and drink responsibly. Merry Christmas. Merry Hannukah. Merry kwanza

Posted by: The one and only reasonable voice (yeah I'm back) at December 20, 2005 05:44 PM

There is a great spoof to the whole ID fight, it's called the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It basically is a nonsense religion that holds the same validity as ID in the states fight to have ID taught alongside evolution. You should all check it out for a good laugh...

http://www.venganza.org/

Posted by: brokenrob at December 20, 2005 05:53 PM

I think it is more sinister than not knowing how the theory word is used.

I believe many of the educated right --i.e. politicians and the religious right-- know all too well how the word theory is used in science. But they see it as another way to drive a wedge between folks.

Their black and white message is: The righteous right is in a "war" with heathen Democrats, liberals, activist judges and secular society(the ID judge was a Bush appointee by the way). And, they say, Republicans are on your side and will save you.

Posted by: Larry at December 20, 2005 05:53 PM

OK, I am taking bets for today's feature race:
How long will it take for Fox News to tie this judgement to the War On Christmas.

Posted by: John Worthington at December 20, 2005 05:56 PM

But when you try and prove creationism then you have to disprove evolution. Disproving something that can be tested and retested throughout the world with something that comes out of a bible seems odd.

If someone proved that the whole world is only a few thousands of years old then we could talk, but i don't see it. I want someone who believes this to tell me scientifically why 99% of all the science community is wrong.

Posted by: lee at December 20, 2005 05:59 PM

John, set an egg timer.

Posted by: Dr. Matt at December 20, 2005 05:59 PM

"..you know each of these sides has their point..."

Posted by: The one and only reasonable voice
=================================================

That is how effective IDers are. They have convinced you that evolution is not "provable". And of course in the same way Einstein's theory of gravity is not "provable". But if you really want to understand how science works you have to get off your rear and study it. The peer reviewed science is out there. Read my son, read.

Posted by: Larry at December 20, 2005 06:01 PM

I think evolution bothers some people because evolution shows how everything and everyone are related. All people are related. Our furry simian friends and people are related, we had a common ancestor somewhere back in time. And we are related to cats..we shared a common four legged ancestor way back when.

And all that relatin' really bothers some.

Posted by: ufoshadow at December 20, 2005 06:03 PM

I think that if they let ID into the school system then every freaking bible study or bible school should teach Evolution.

Posted by: ohioirish1 at December 20, 2005 06:04 PM

"You have the loony left, which hates the word God or even someone mentioning that someone created the world."

Another classic right-wing distortion. Talk about God, talk about him, her, it, or them anytime you wish. Just don't do it with my tax dollars at a public school. Nothing loony about that, it's the Constitution!

Posted by: southpaw at December 20, 2005 06:05 PM

The best thing about creationism is what they say about fossils and dinosaur bones. They actually believe that god buried dinosaur bones in the ground to fake us out. You just can't make this shit up.

Posted by: J at December 20, 2005 06:05 PM

[q]
Kim is *always* my hero. :-P
[/q]

Awww! Well, it's 'cause we have matching fancy thinking caps. Of course.

I've actually been floored sometimes by the proponents of ID's basic misunderstanding of Evolution. I am a big believer in knowing at least a bit about my opponent's argument, but when a Creationist says something like "then why don't mekeys give birth to people" or "if humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys," I want to bash my skull in.

It's very, very difficult to start from step one.

That's why the "theory" thing is so problematic. It's easy to explain WHAT the word means vis a vis science, but there are many people running around out there, making the decisions, who have these very basic misconceptions. And it's not just the not knowing, that's no big deal and can be easily corrected, it's the almost willfull ignorance.

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 06:05 PM

I hear it was a very stongly worded decision. I'm proud today to be from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - Thank you, Judge Jones for not being wishy-washy and telling it like it is.

Let us embrace science and if you believe in a certain religion then look at it as God giving us science and our minds to learn from it.

Scarlet, PbD

Posted by: Scarlet, PbD at December 20, 2005 06:06 PM

Science can prove Evolution.
Science has proven Evolution.

ID is unprovable because
a) It has no positive, testable attritbutes.
Its arguments are mearly the holes its supporters see in evolution. Since holes in one theory does nothing to prove another theory. There is no evidence for ID.

b) Its sole argument is that there exists a set of facts that are unprovable. These facts are the nature of the "Designer". If ID was scince, it would state that Designer is knowable. That we should be able to track down the alien who planted life and talk to him. Since ID is based on Christianity, and the Christian god is unkowable, therefore the Designer is knowable. Therefore ID is religion.

Posted by: jboy55 at December 20, 2005 06:06 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The moderates believe in a God, or someone created the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What?! LOL! Where did you find this "fact"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~
No one can scientifically prove creationism and no one can scientifically prove evolution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's a lie. Typical for a reich-winger. Evolution can be proven with science, and there is enough data at present to support such a process. Creationism cannot be proven with science.

~~~~~~~~~~~
You have the loony left, which hates the word God
~~~~~~~~~~

You're a liar and an asshole.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Then there is the Modest moderates who say you know each of these sides has their point
~~~~~~~~~~~

So, you speak for all moderates.? You're a typical POS reich-winger faux drone who thinks they can speak for the majority. You're a tool.

Posted by: Dr. Matt at December 20, 2005 06:08 PM

First of all, I don't think it should be taught in public schools, espically biology. Let's get that out of the way.

OK

I really don't know why the two issues are exclusive. I am a creation-evolutionist. IF there is a god, who are we to say HOW they created the earth?

My favorite thing to trip people up with about Creation is the plants. The plants were created on the 3rd day but the sun was only created on the 4th day. How did the plants photosynthese? who is to say that god didn't create the world BY evolution?

I know this is a touchy subject but not everyone is on one side or the other.

Posted by: John Worthington at December 20, 2005 06:09 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~
They actually believe that god buried dinosaur bones in the ground to fake us out. You just can't make this shit up.
Posted by: J at December 20, 200
~~~~~~~~~~~~

ROFL!!

Posted by: Dr. Matt at December 20, 2005 06:10 PM

John, I agree with you. As Christian and a scientist by personal belief is that evolution was a process that God set in motion. Of course I can only provide data for the evolution part of my belief, but, it's mine and I'm happy with it.

Posted by: Dr. Matt at December 20, 2005 06:12 PM

Scarlet,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it was a federal judge not state. The opinion was pretty good. I enjoyed the fact that the Judge pointed out they had the same argument that Aquinas used. In 800 years no one has come up with a better argument for god's existence. I am a huge fan of Aquinas, he had some great logical arguments, all of which have since been disproven.

Posted by: J at December 20, 2005 06:13 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~
They actually believe that god buried dinosaur bones in the ground to fake us out. You just can't make this shit up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

And on the eight day, seeing Adam and Eve were getting suspicious, God took the bones of creatures great and small to hide them deep within the earth. And God saw that it was good... and giggled.

Posted by: John Worthington at December 20, 2005 06:14 PM

They actually believe that god buried dinosaur bones in the ground to fake us out. You just can't make this shit up.
Posted by: J at December 20, 200
[/q]

What's funny is they are always arguing with the people who think the dinosaurs were on Noah's Arc.

And they hate the people who think they were put there by the devil to deceive us.

And they disagree with the people who think they were killed by the flood.

I dunno, were dinosaurs consider "clean" or "unclean?"

I'm sooo confused.

I mean, two Unclean Brachiosaurus I can see, but 7 pair of clean? YIKES!

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 06:17 PM

John,

I can accept that people may not be on one side or the other - that is why I posted my comments on -- if people choose to believe there is a God, then look at it as God giving us science and a brain to decipher he mysteries of the universe.

I won't put anyone down for their beliefs, but I do not believe ID should be taught in science classes. I don't understand the insistence. What's wrong with the idea of teaching it in philosophy classes?

That's the part I don't get.

Scarlet, PbD

Posted by: Scarlet, PbD at December 20, 2005 06:17 PM

"Then there is the Modest moderates who say you know each of these sides has their point"

Scienctists can present their side in the science classroom and Creationist/IDers can present theirs in Subday school. Sounds fair to me.

Posted by: SouthPaw at December 20, 2005 06:17 PM

People who support creationism prove that there is no intelligent design. It is just a damn shame that their shepherds didn't teach them the difference between literal and figurative before telling them what was in the bible.

Posted by: J at December 20, 2005 06:19 PM

For what it's worth...

Partial Ingredients for DNA and Protein Found Around Star
For Release: December 20, 2005

NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has discovered some of life's most basic ingredients in the dust swirling around a young star. The ingredients -- gaseous precursors to DNA and protein -- were detected in the star's terrestrial planet zone, a region where rocky planets such as Earth are thought to be born.

http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2005-26/release.shtml

Before you make life, you gotta have the right ingredients.

Posted by: ufoshadow at December 20, 2005 06:25 PM

Scarlet,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it was a federal judge not state. The opinion was pretty good. I enjoyed the fact that the Judge pointed out they had the same argument that Aquinas used.

Posted by: J at December 20, 2005 06:13 PM
-------------------------------------------------
Thanks, J,

I knew he was a Federal Judge - I'm just happy he's from Pennsylvania.

Scarlet, PbD

Posted by: Scarlet, PbD at December 20, 2005 06:26 PM

Scarlet, PbD

That part is the easiest of all to answer. Power.

Certain Christian groups equate the popularity of evolution as acceptance that God does not exist. If god doesn't exist, then where is the churches power? How can they claim the respect (and 10% of your wage) if you don't beleive.

All they do is claim that any 'thing' that effects the church negativly is an attack on that persons faith and they preach resistance.

The War on ChristmasTM is a perfect example. 95% of Americans celebrate Christmas. It is in no way under attack if the pimply kid at Walmart doesn't say Merry Christmas to me. But with dropping church numbers (and therefore dropping collection plate takings), the chruch has to rally the troops to "defend Christianity iteslf"!!!

Oh, I do not mean all churches by the way, this comes from the top of the church organisations.

It is like smoking... get em young. If you expose ID to kids at a young age and get some aspect of religion into them, then at least some of them will refill the ranks at the churches as they grow older. If you can only teach it in Sunday school, you rely on only those who come.

The people who shout the loudest on this are usually the ones who have been manipulated by the Church and don't really know it.

Oh, and this is not just a Christian, it happens in all religions.

Posted by: John Worthington at December 20, 2005 06:30 PM

There is a very interesting site on this topic that answers certain questions for me:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

An excerpt from the FAQ section:

"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Posted by: Nihilistic at December 20, 2005 06:31 PM

Now, some chucklehead is on CNN putting forth another fallacy that there is some sort of debate amongst biological/evolutionary scientists about as to whether or not evolution is how it happened.

Liar.

He's all, well, the scientists should decide science not a judge. That's fine, buddy, but the scientists have overwhelmingly rejected ID. YOU are the people who have forced it intot he schools, and in doing so, forced it into the courtroom.

ID crybabies.

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 06:38 PM

Scarlet,
He certainly is.

Posted by: J at December 20, 2005 06:39 PM

Additionally, judges decide all the time whether something is accepted science.

(That ID guy tried to claim that the judge couldn't do that, too.)

I mean, that's how expert witnesses are let in, et all.

I hate this "God of the Gaps" stuff - this supposition that if we don't (or I, as an individual, do not) understand something, God must be the answer. If that's the truth, then why bother?

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 06:42 PM

"Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else."

Posted by: Nihilistic at December 20, 2005 06:43 PM

Ni,

Exactly. Creationists latch onto this healthy scientific debate (which is what science is about) as proof of division, when it is the exact opposite.

This constant refining and growth is exactly what science is about. There is no debate about whether evolution occurs.

Nothing wrong with debating about how it occurs.

Thank you for posting that.

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 06:46 PM

The real debate is within the ranks of the IDers. There is nothing even resembling a "theory" of Intelligent Design, and its too leading Scientific proponents, Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski merely attack Evolution in two very different ways. behe suggests that a single cell conducts far too many complex functions to have volvd on its own, hence "irreducible complexity," but once the IDer made the common cell (eukariotic, archaic, prokariotic, virus? Anyone's guess really) life was free to evolve higher order organisms. Dembski, on the other hand, uses algorythms (erroneously) to prove that, statistically, its far too unlikely for a human being to have evolved from carbon compounds without the aid of an IDer, hence evolution never happened. Now there is the real controversy in all of this. By-the-way, if you believe Dembski's argument then you should also believe that nobody ever wins the lottery-the evolution of life on a given planet and your chances of winning the big jack pot are not too far off!

Posted by: SouthPaw at December 20, 2005 06:49 PM

The whole "Why don't monkeys give birth to humans?". Well Bill O'Rielly's mum was a donkey!

(and for all you righties who are too slow for that joke, that makes him an ass)

Posted by: John Worthington at December 20, 2005 06:49 PM

So what are the facts that explain the "theory" of Intelligent Design? To me, ID appears to be nothing more than stubborn resistance to scientfic facts.

Posted by: Nihilistic at December 20, 2005 06:52 PM

yw, Kim :)

Posted by: Nihilistic at December 20, 2005 06:54 PM

"No one can scientifically prove creationism and no one can scientifically prove evolution."

Really? You can scientifically prove evolution - one way is to review the fossil record.

Posted by: james from his house. at December 20, 2005 06:58 PM

Nihilistic
IDers have no facts, per se. INstead they focus in on a lack of fossil evidence for the evolution of early life and say, "Ha! If you can't explain exactly how the mitochondrion evolved then the whole theory must be thrown out!" Who needs facts when you have a bunch of santamonious, bible-thumping "save my children from the Godless Liberal Heathans and the Mad Scientists" crap! You know?

Posted by: SouthPaw at December 20, 2005 06:59 PM

You can scientifically prove evolution - one way is to review the fossil record.

james from his house

Three other would be:

1. Compare the DNA of any two species.

2. Compare analogous structures between any two species.

3. Compare the developmental similarities of any two given species.

Posted by: SouthPaw at December 20, 2005 07:02 PM

There is a reported 95% scientific illiteracy rate among Americans. With such horrifying ignorance, comical nonsense like ID is given a platform to be debated on. My area of study is biology, and evolution is the fundamental concept that ties it all together. I'm extremely familiar with evolution and how it works. The general public itself has no genuine understanding of biological evolution, and I'm afraid a lot of people supporting Darwin here do not either. For the sake of informing everyone who is ignorant, let's make one thing clear...

Biological evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of life. That is another area of study which is tied more appropriately to biochemistry, such as abiogenesis. Do not let anyone tell you different - religious creationists tie evolution to origins all the time, sometimes even to cosmological origins. This is a deceiving practice of blurring things together to sell it as something it's not.

I don't want to sound militant or arrogant, but evolution is a fact. We are close cousins of chimpanzees, like it or not. The evidence and scientific validation of evolution is available to anyone who takes the time to read it. If you want to believe otherwise, that's your every right, but evolution is a fact.

By the way, I was watching Fox News when the reporter labeled ID as a "theory." Unsurprising, though it still didn't stop me from vomiting in my mouth. Kudos to News Hounds for pointing this out and highlighting what a scientific theory actually is. ID is certainly not.

Posted by: eiri at December 20, 2005 07:13 PM

my incomplete alternative hypothesis of Intelligent Design:

An unspecified Inteigent designer took some basic elements and designed how they would react with each other to produce lifeforms and over time new features may result from the interaction of those and other outside elements to no specified end or utility becasue that would be far more enlightening then deciding on how everything would be all at once.

Posted by: jams from home at December 20, 2005 07:16 PM

Exactly, SouthPaw. I think resistance to accepting evolution is a form of cognitive dissonance. As the scientific disciplines advance, the science of biological origins remains the one that is still consistently attacked.

Posted by: Nihilistic at December 20, 2005 07:20 PM

I apologize for the second post, but let's clear up one major factor of this.

There is no battle between science and religion. Lots of God-fearing people are brilliant scientists, and many religious people and denominations accept evolution as fact. It was Mendel, an Austrian monk, who became the father of genetics. Sir Isaac Newton was a heavily religious man, and certainly one of the most brilliant scientists in history. Even Charles Darwin was an aspiring theologian before he developed his ideas of evolution.

Do not let anyone tell you religion and science are at war. There is no such thing. The only people at war are fundamentalists fighting against reality.

Posted by: eiri at December 20, 2005 07:21 PM

Donna: You make some valid points. Intelligent design is just a reframing of creationism, and it's a ploy by religious radicals to infuse religion into public schools. Ignorance is bliss for hardcore creationists, who tend to be the least educated people in America. This Miller character has oversimplified the state of the universe. In fact, there seems to be a dichotomy of order/chaos in the world. I'm not a physicist, but there's a commonly accepted notion that everything in the physical universe is comprised of subatomic particles called quarks, which are randomly bouncing around. I suppose that one could argue that evolution and creationism are both theories. Also, the Judeo-Christian creation tale is one of several throughout the world. That said, the issue at hand is essentially not whether or not intelligent design is a theory, or whether or not it originates from Christianity. Rather, the real issue is the one of Separation of Church and State. Public tax dollars can NOT be used to endorse ANY religion. Every church in America is free to teach intelligent design, but the state cannot and should not.

Posted by: Don Key at December 20, 2005 07:22 PM

Eiri,

I agree with you completely although I hesitate to use the word "fact" that is a tricky word.

I think the biggest difference between the two is that ID has a full stop towards understanding - God created life that is all you will need to learn. Whereas Evolution is constantly being tested, validated and the theory revised and strengthened.

That being said I do not know why it is not possible to hold that God created the universe and evolution was the way that life developed in it. Not my particular view but holding to the theory of Evolution does not mean you cannot believe in an ultimate creator..

Posted by: Andrew Brusentsev at December 20, 2005 07:23 PM

eiri,

be as militant as you want.

just be careful with the vomit.

I'm still interested to know how teachers feel when ID/creationism is forced onto the curriculum.

It would be like being told to teach a form of maths where 2+2=8. Do they (can they) refuse? And if so, where do the schools go to find replacement teachers willing to teach this stuff?

Posted by: uk_dave at December 20, 2005 07:24 PM

"There is a reported 95% scientific illiteracy rate among Americans. With such horrifying ignorance, comical nonsense like ID is given a platform to be debated on..."

Posted by: eiri at December 20, 2005 07:13 PM

**********************

Thanks for placing ID in perspective.

(I majored in biology fifteen years ago. :) )

Posted by: Nihilistic at December 20, 2005 07:27 PM

It's kind of fun to watch Fox tilt windmills. But I am personally influenced by the messages from the Holy Spirit on The Christian Prophet blog which talk about the dictatorship of public schools and judicial dictatorship. It doesn't seem that enslaving children and attempting to enslave children's minds, whether being done by the political right or political left, is really serving good. Oh, well. On the bright side, a message on The Holy Inheritance blog said we are all created by love.

Posted by: A Christian Prophet at December 20, 2005 07:29 PM

Andrew,

Perhaps you can have a god, and all the stuff to do with obeying his/her rules, heaven and hell (as maybe a psychological state) etc but not as a creator of anything?

After all, most of religious faith to do with the supernatural has a degree of the illogical about it (for one thing, god is said to exist and yet we cannot see or detect him/her)so why not have a god who is just part of the universe, not the creator of it?

It's just a thought.

Posted by: uk_dave at December 20, 2005 07:30 PM

"That being said I do not know why it is not possible to hold that God created the universe and evolution was the way that life developed in it."

*******************

Because evolution is irreconcilable with the literal interpretation of certain theological doctrines. Not all of them, of course.

Posted by: Nihilistic at December 20, 2005 07:31 PM

take: 2x+2y = 8

Intelligent Design tells you it knows what the answer is becasue the answer is 8 and that is the answer becasue we are told that was the answer. It doesn't bother trying to find out or define what x and y are as it is not science.

Posted by: James from home at December 20, 2005 07:31 PM

Remember the last time religion intruded itself into science, when the church condemned Galileo for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun? How did that turn out?

Five hundred years ago the Muslim countries were the scientific leaders of the world. Why did this change so drastically? Because the Western world began the scientific revolution when it rejected supernatural explanations and sought natural causes that would be amenable to testing and verification, the essence of science. This tradition has served us so well, why would we want to abandon it now?

If folks continue to insist that schools teach nonscientific alternatives in science classes, then why stop at intelligent design? Why not teach the flat Earth theory in geography class? How about astrology as an alternative to astronomy, and shouldn't alchemy be taught in chemistry classes? Maybe Faux and others would prefer seeing a doctor trained in voodoo as an alternative to traditional medicine?

When we allow the possibility of supernatural agents, anything goes and nothing can be logically disputed or verified by others, so scientific progress stops.

If we start mixing science and religion in the public schools, then we had better make sure that our children and grandchildren start learning Chinese. Because America will have unilaterally disarmed itself in the future battle for scientific and technological supremacy.

Posted by: edfromned at December 20, 2005 07:34 PM

Uk_Dave

Agreed with you totally, and Heaven and Hell are very Christian concepts there a many types of Creators I think. I understand the illogicality of the arguements for the existence of a supreme being. There are many..

I guess my point was that the two are not mutually exclusive. It kind of cuts out some of the arguement from the ID movement especially how Fox and others present it. Evolution is for athiests and ID is for believers end of story it is just not that simple. My best friend is a practising Anglican and he also subscribes to the theory of evolution.

Funny thing is how ID presents more problems to this arguement it doesn't have to be the God of the Bible. Why could it not be the Flying Spaghetti Monster? ;()

Posted by: Andrew Brusentsev at December 20, 2005 07:39 PM

ID has no basis in fact. It is pure speculation and there is no way to prove it. Evolution doesn't even explain how life began, just how it has adapted over the years. It's fine if you want to believe in an inteligent creator. It is fine if you want to believe that designer is your cat (as I do)(well, not your cat, mine)(and don't say otherwise unless you want to start a holy war). It is fine whatever you believe, but unitl it stands up to scientific theory, it doesn't belong in science cirriculum.

FOX of course is just going to say that this is another attack against Christianity. They have it bass ackwards if you ask me....it is a defense against Christian attacks.

Posted by: DaveJ at December 20, 2005 07:41 PM

Nihilistic,

alot of agreement from me today.

Literally interpreting the Bible has many problems and yes butting up against Evolution is the least of your worries.

I think somewhere in there it says Pi is equal to 3!

Posted by: Andrew Brusentsev at December 20, 2005 07:42 PM

something that happened in those strange states where the kids have sticky out ears and a penchant for banjo playing.
Posted by: uk_dave at December 20, 2005 04:55 PM
*************************************************
Watch it yank, yer talkin' 'bout my kin.

Posted by: DaveJ at December 20, 2005 07:45 PM

Just kidding UK Dave.

Posted by: DaveJ at December 20, 2005 07:46 PM

When we allow the possibility of supernatural agents, anything goes and nothing can be logically disputed or verified by others, so scientific progress stops.

Posted by: edfromned at December 20, 2005
-------------------------------------------------

that is the scariest part of it. The ID theory is not getting much play in other countries. Well it is but only from very small numbers..the fights in school's is an entirely US phenomena..

Posted by: Andrew Brusentsev at December 20, 2005 07:48 PM

"But I am personally influenced by the messages from the Holy Spirit on The Christian Prophet blog which talk about the dictatorship of public schools and judicial dictatorship. It doesn't seem that enslaving children and attempting to enslave children's minds, whether being done by the political right or political left, is really serving good."

Posted by: A Christian Prophet at December 20, 2005 07:29 PM

*************************

If you're interested, I attended both public and parochial schools and I found the public schools to be more instructive toward encouraging free thought. Unlike the parochial school, I didn't have to contend with the added "dictatorship" called religious doctrine as well as the experience of an alleged child-molester who would regularly whip his players on the behind with a plastic bat during basketball practice. But that's just my experience.

Posted by: Nihilistic at December 20, 2005 07:49 PM

Big thanks to brokenrob for that link to venganza.org

The facts and figures contained on this site have led me and several friends to convert from christianity on the premise that we were never allowed to dress up as pirates for sunday mass, however much we wanted to. A critical policy mistake on the churches part we feel.

Posted by: Spook at December 20, 2005 07:59 PM

Nihilistic:

"I found the public schools to be more instructive toward encouraging free thought."

That's always been one of my biggest fears. When free thought is inhibited, then all progress grinds to a halt.

Both of my cousins went to Catholic high school and after one semester of college they were completely different people. One even stated that he had to start learning all over as far as science was concerned.

Posted by: edfromned at December 20, 2005 08:02 PM

Hmm...I am 31 years old from a veeery small town. Part way through grae school, one of my friends transferred to the private Catholic school in town.

I already knew about evolution (thanks, Dad!), but they didn't teach it at my school. I asked about it, and a teacher told me I asked too many questions. Thankfully, I had a satisfyingly educated father (avid in biology, astronomy, etc), so I was able to make up for it.

My friend, in Catholic school, was given a full course in evolution.

Go figure!

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 08:12 PM

Kim:

Maybe I should qualify that. That was in 1962-66. It was also in Minneapolis and from what I understand they were pretty wide of the learning curve then.

Today that state is one of most progressive and educated in the country. It just took a little longer than most. Hell, Colorado was almost as backwards when I moved here from San Diego back in '73.

Posted by: edfromned at December 20, 2005 08:37 PM

jams

my take is that if there was/is an intelligent designer....then it is possible that the designer might use evolution as a means to adapt to the environment, thus precluding the need to intervene in the "project" ...

what think ye all?

Posted by: woke dude at December 20, 2005 08:48 PM

It's only a theory that smoking causes cancer. It has never, and never will be, conclusively proven that smoking will give you cancer. That said, do those that want ID taught like the idea of a rep from Philip Morris to come into their kids school and tell the children about all the "proof" which exisits that says smoking is NOT dangerous?

Posted by: 7 at December 20, 2005 08:50 PM

even in the catholic school that i went to we were able to figure out what was science and what was philosphy/religion

Posted by: Lord Rayden at December 20, 2005 08:58 PM

lord rayden I think things are less clear in the excited states of america. religion has a fearful hold on my southern neighbors, to the point of blurring the boundaries between fact and fantasy.
lessthanzero

Posted by: lessthanzero at December 20, 2005 09:04 PM

I don’t know woke/dude. It is possible that IF there were an entity out there it might use evolution as a stand alone process, but could not the same process also exist without such an entity? Could the evolution of life just happen without any outside influence? The complexity of life does not necessarily imply that there was a creator. Someone mentioned Occam. Though Occam would not have agreed with me (he being religious), if you apply Occam’s razor to this argument you would have to go with the simplest solution. The implication there is a deity no one has ever seen (please spare me the testimonials) increases the complexity of the argument without providing much in the way of convincing evidence.
lessthanzero

Posted by: lessthanzero at December 20, 2005 09:18 PM

One interesting parallel: Should schools teach/mention Astrology as science? The problem with ID (i.e., repackaged creationism) is that there's NO scientific evidence to support such a "theory" - you have to rely on the "supernatural" (as the judge talked about in his opinion).

On a more "snippy" note - how many other species on this planet kill each other - or kill for sport/pleasure other than humans? Surely any "intelligent designer" would have considered this... As Ripley (in Alien II) said "They don't fuck each other for a goddamned percentage" - referring to those evil aliens compared to "the company"....

Of course, the irony is the judge is a GW apointee. :)

Posted by: MrTimPA at December 20, 2005 09:20 PM

Woke Dude
I would suggest looking to the Universal Constants for the hallmark of the Almighty. The weight of a proton, the strngth of the nuclear force, plank's length- it's all about the Physicas and not the Biology. It's far easier to explain how different genetic lineages have developed through mutataion and natural selection, or even to explain how life may have eveolved from non-living simple carbon compounds and proteins than it is to explain why the force of gravity is balanced so perfectly with the strong nuclear force. And this balance is essential for the birth of stars, whithout which there would be no light, no heavy elements and no life. And the crazy part is that in their quest to find a grand unified theory to explain why all of the forces of the universe are so finely tuned as to allow for the development and evolution of the cosmos the best science has been able to come up with is String Theory, which is itself unfallsifiable as of this date! Does God play Jazz Guitar? I'd like to think so. And no, String theory is not ready for the classroom yet either.

Posted by: SouthPaw at December 20, 2005 09:22 PM

The same brainless right-wing Jethro Bodine morons who profess that ID is a "theory" and should be taught in a science class - will, in the next sentence, proclaim global warming is "junk science".

When the history of this once great nation, the USA, is written 500 years from now, its decline will be attributed to right-wing idiots.

Posted by: BIORsGhost at December 20, 2005 09:25 PM

I feel a little weird about clarifying, but Occam's Razor isn't that "the simpliest solution is usually right," it's actually "one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed."

Slightly different meaning, I know, but a distinction, still.

Sorry, I feel bad for being a stickler.

ed,

It's funny where these battles are played out, right? In the late 70s/early 80s, the private classroom in my area had the best science class. Weird.

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 09:31 PM

Jazz guitar and coronet, most likely...heh,heh....

ID is not science....and it seems to me that the fundies are just muddying the waters, as usual, with an argument that nothing can be proven....

personally, i believe it is all emanating from the inside out....therefore...examination of without will not yield the info one might be looking for....

only by examing from within can one find their origin, peace, and the kingdom ....

The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there! For behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:20-21)

that is for the fundies......

Posted by: woke dude at December 20, 2005 09:31 PM

Well kim that is what I meant, to my mind simple means less assumptions. I did not mean simple, as say in simple minded, I meant simple as opposed to unnecessarily complex.
lessthanzero

Posted by: lessthanzero at December 20, 2005 09:35 PM

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate
lessthanzero

Posted by: lessthanzero at December 20, 2005 09:39 PM

Less,

I know you did, that's why I felt bad bringing it up.

I've gotten in discussion with people who claim God does it all because of Occam's, which I find baffling.

Of course, I have debated this with people who have tried to use the laws of thermodynamics to disprove evolution. Not only do they inevitably get the law wrong, but it is, of course, completely inapplicable to a life science. Wierd.

That's why I aplogized in advance for the Occam thing.

I can be so OCD sometimes.

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 09:50 PM

The problem is that they conflate the word "theory" with "hypothesis." There is a sense in which "theory" is a supposition, not yet proven, kind of synonymous in common language with hypothesis. However, in science "theory" means a well-confirmed (and falsifiable) accounting for the facts. In scientific parlance, a hypothesis is a suppostion, yet it too, unlike intelligent design, needs to be falsifiable.

Posted by: latichever at December 20, 2005 09:51 PM

Semantics rule the day in political rhetoric and manipulation. Fox knows this well. Evolution may be a theory, but it is based on an observable process, not theory, called natural selection. Intelligent Design is a matter of faith, a philosophical cave-in to a lack of data for understanding the ultimate origins of life on earth and in the universe. See what Richard Dawkins has to say about Michael Behe`s words and the rest of the work of the proponents of ID. Thank God (The Intelligent Designer?) that the Dover, PA nonsense in science classes was overturned yesterday. Questions about existence belong in philosophy, religion, music, and art classes.

Posted by: Tippersnore at December 20, 2005 09:55 PM

Kim...OCD?
lessthanzero

Posted by: lessthanzero at December 20, 2005 09:56 PM

I tend to be slightly Obsessive Compulsive Disorder-ish.

I don't wash my hands a million times a day, or anything!

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 09:58 PM

lol :)
lessthanbipolar

Posted by: lessthanzero at December 20, 2005 10:01 PM

All,

This is one of the most civil, well thought out threads that I've ever had. I just wanted to thank you all for some of the best discussions on the subject that I've seen in a long time.

And feel free to continue, I've enjoyed all your thoughts.

Donna
News Hounds

Posted by: Donna at December 20, 2005 10:09 PM

Here is a link to a PDF of Judge Jone's decision. I urge everyone to read it -he does a superb job of dismantling the ID proponents' arguments, piece by piece, using their own words to illustrate their dishonesty and contradictions. In particular, the sections in which he explains why ID is religious (starting at the bottom of p. 18) and explains why ID is not science (starting on p. 64, I think) are truly elegent - clear, concise, and without legal jargon. In fact, I even detect a bit of sarcasm - the judge (a republican!) and his law clerks must have been shaking their heads in disbelief as they assembled the document.

Plato

If anyone objects to this decision, I urge them to carefully read the decision and come back and tell us where the judge went wrong. In fact, I defy you to do this!

Posted by: Plato at December 20, 2005 10:49 PM

Sorry, forgot the link:

http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/main_docs/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 20, 2005 10:50 PM

Thanks Plato.,..,

very interesting reading....

particular interest...was the description of how the ID proponents literally pushed this down the throats of the rest of the school board by a variety of means including calling those resisting including ID as.....anti christian, atheists, going to hell, etc....

this judge indeed rifled right thru the various ploys and devices that the "fundies" use to make their illogical, unscientific arguments...

Posted by: woke dude at December 20, 2005 11:01 PM

"I'm still interested to know how teachers feel when ID/creationism is forced onto the curriculum. It would be like being told to teach a form of maths where 2+2=8. Do they (can they) refuse? And if so, where do the schools go to find replacement teachers willing to teach this stuff?"

UK Dave,
In Dover, PA there are probably only a few 9th grade biology teachers to begin with. At least some of them refused to read the disclaimer mentioning ID, forcing a school administrator to read the statements (the judge's decision analyzed this situation in detail). I don't think any teachers resigned or were fired. Most biology teachers around the U.S. would probably adopt the same position, though there is a small minority who actually believe in ID and/or creationism (and don't believe in evolution). Unfortunately, very few college/university biology programs in the U.S. have a required course in evolutionary biology, so biology majors can sometimes manage to avoid dealing with evolution except in an introductory course (for example, by taking mostly courses in human anatomy and physiology that commonly ignore evolution).

Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 20, 2005 11:14 PM

Enjoying everyone's thoughts as well ;)

Science at least how I sat through it in High School and University also has an element of that this is all the best of our abilities to observe and test things that we are searching for "facts" not "truth" (that is for the far more interesting philosophy classes).

There is a chance in the future that certain parts of any theory will have to be altered if our fundamental understanding of the universe changes or any part of it changes. eg. Newtonian Physics, Einstein, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory..they build on each other and some disprove certain portions and change the whole.

Not only that there are arguements inside the body of work that is "evolution" - slow mutations over time vs punctuated equilibria

ID has none of this. If there is a God surely he works in a more mysterious way than some fundie bible basher could ever conceive off.

Posted by: Andrew Brusentsev at December 20, 2005 11:18 PM

"no one can scientifically prove evolution." Posted by: The one and only reasonable voice
======
Our current understanding of evolutionary theory dates back nearly 150 years. In that time there have been tens of thousands of scientific articles on evolution and supporting fields of science (developmental biology, genetics, molecular biology, physiology, paleontology, geology, etc) published in peer-reviewed journals. To the extent that science can prove anything, evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can come up with some empirical evidence that refutes all of the published reasearch from the past 150 years, then please do so - you will become more famous than Darwin.

Until then, we will consider statements like yours to be a sign of your complete ignorance of the subject.

Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 20, 2005 11:24 PM

Donna,

And I was really looking forward to being able to say "We won, get over it," too!

Just kidding!

Thank you!

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 11:28 PM

Plato,

That's an interesting thought.

I wonder how it works. To begin with, I'd have to make the assumption that a person who believed in evolution simply wouldn't be generally drawn to teaching biology. I'm not saying that out of any judgment, i'm just sure if you looked, you would find a negative correlation between the belief in evolution and voluntary immersion in biology.

So the act of teaching in itself would likely weed out evolutionists without any outside intervention.

Secondly, repeated exposure to the biological sciences probably increases your knowledge base. For most of us adults, education in certain subjects, and the extent of our knowledge, end when we're not compelled. We have to actively seek them out.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 11:36 PM

I hate to do all the back to backs, but I was referencing Plato's post of 11.14.

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 11:37 PM

The Discovery Institute (DI), which has a strategy to sneak religion into schools and the public psyche called the "Wedge", is much like Fox.

DI says about evolution: "teach the controversy" when there is none, Fox says: "war on Christmas" when there is none.

So today's ruling speaks not only to the religious right but to all those playing loose with the facts for political gain.

Posted by: Larry at December 20, 2005 11:38 PM

"It's far easier to explain how different genetic lineages have developed through mutataion and natural selection, or even to explain how life may have eveolved from non-living simple carbon compounds and proteins than it is to explain why the force of gravity is balanced so perfectly with the strong nuclear force. And this balance is essential for the birth of stars, whithout which there would be no light, no heavy elements and no life."

Southpaw,
You seem to be making a fundamental mistake in thinking that the existence of the earth and its life was pre-destined. According to science, it was not - it developed in its current state, and life originated an evolved to its current state by happenstance. If you could have been around at the time of the Big Bang, or at the time the cloud of dust began to condense into the earth, there is no way you could have predicted what the outcome would be - the earth could have ended up like Mars or Jupiter or Saturn. But, it didn't.
If you find this concept troubling, here is another way to think about it: Think back to a time, let's say, 20 years ago - could you have predicted that on Dec. 20, 2005, a dozen or so people (= us) would be on the internet discussing a court case about intelligent design and evolution? No, of course you couldn't. Millions of random events had to take place that led to our being here today - any one of us could have made a different decision, or had other random circumstances influence our lives and everything could have turned out differently. But, here we are! In the same way, the earth just happened to be a hospitable place for the origin of certain forms of life, and that life just happened to evolve and surive for 3.5 billion years or so. It wasn't pre-ordained, it wasn't predictable - it just happened. Science could be wrong, of course, but it will require convincing empirical evidence to change our understanding of the history of the earth and its life forms. I'm certain there is not a scientist alive would not be absolutely flabbergasted if God suddenly made his/her/its appearance on earth in a manner that was irrefutable - but, until that happens, scientists are going to continue to rely on naturalistic explanations of our world.

Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 20, 2005 11:40 PM

woke dud: And that School Board are all out on the street looking for another job. The one thing I love about all of this is that it was ordinary people who filed that lawsuit. Maybe we should have them take on Bush and his "I'm going to spy on you if you like if or not case."

Kim: Do you know where or if your teachers even went to college? A lot of teachers back then didn't have to have a four year degree to teach. hell my P.E teacher and football coach was a D.I in the Marines.

It of course was later required and that why so many teachers quit instead of going back to school and many grads at the time realized they could make a hell of lot more money pursuing other careers. I think we lost a lot of good teachers during that period of time.

Posted by: edfromned at December 20, 2005 11:43 PM

Plato: Could you please answer a question for me?

The ID people state that the evolution theory has a huge hole in it. Is that hole the "Missing Link." I can never remember.

Posted by: edfromned at December 20, 2005 11:54 PM

Kim,
Most of the biology students (and even a few biology professors) I have known who don't believe in evolution have been interested almost solely in human biology- anatomy, physiology, health, disease, etc. They have little or no interest in zoology, botany, molecular biology, ecology, etc, and of course, no interest in evolutionary biology. This is absurd of course- the reason those students dissect fetal pigs and cats in anatomy class, and use rats and mice in physiology class, is because those animals display certain characteristics in commone with humans as a result of our shared ancestry. However, this little fact escapes those people (or they suppress any thought of it) - they see those animal 'models' as analogies (convenient resemblences), whereas in fact, they are homologies (same evolutionary origins).

So, yes, some biology students are drawn to the field but do their darndest to avoid dealing with the facts of evolution; some eventually begin to understand evolution and even embrace it - others refuse to budge. I can guarantee you there are doctors, dentists, chiropracters, nurses, etc in practice who studied biology in college but do not believe in evolution. Some of them are visible proponents of creationism and ID - they write letters to the editors of their local newspapers and their views carry some weight because of their education. That is part of the reason so many people in the U.S. believe in ID - educated people tell them it is true.

Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 20, 2005 11:58 PM

My friend, in Catholic school, was given a full course in evolution.
Go figure!
Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 20, 2005 08:12 PM
------------------
I went to Catholic School for 12 years and I was taught evolution in high school biology class by a Jesuit priest -- who was also a very good scientist and teacher. Since we were not required to beleive in a literal interpretation of the bible, there was no conflict between science and religion at all. Biology/Evolution was just another subject.

Posted by: Flatlander at December 21, 2005 12:08 AM

"The ID people state that the evolution theory has a huge hole in it. Is that hole the "Missing Link." I can never remember.

Ed,
I'm not sure if you are being facetious or serious - I'll assume the latter (even if you are joking, others may take that as a serious inquiry). All of human knowledge, including all areas of science, has huge gaps - that is why we have scholars (historians and other social scientists, natural scientists, etc) doing research to fill those gaps - we will continue to have scholarly researchers trying to fill the gaps in our knowledge for the eternity of human existence - there is just too much that we don't know (assuming there continues to be free societies somewhere on earth). The ID proponents try to argue that unless we know everything about a subject ( = evolution), we know nothing. As Judge Jones pointed out with crystal clarity, no one ever makes that claim about other fields of human knowledge. If you want to know about human evolution, here are some good quality web sites:

http://www.becominghuman.org
www.talkorigins.org
www.pandasthumb.org (has links to other sites dealing with human evolution)

On the offhand chance that you were joking, I have been trying to come up with a clever retort about the 'missing link' , but it is just too late at night. I think I've written all I can on this topic. I'll leave it to the many others who have expressed themselves very eloquently.

Cheers,
Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 21, 2005 12:17 AM

Flatlander,
Your experience in parochial school is pretty standard. Even the pope has weighed in on the subject and stated that Catholicism and science are not in conflict (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Pope-and-Evolution/pope-and-evolution.html); they deal with different aspects of the human experience. And if I am not mistaken, the Mormon Church also does not oppose the teaching of evolution at schools like Brigham Young University.
The opposition to evolution comes primarily from a few fundamentalist Christian churches.

Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 21, 2005 12:28 AM

Plato: I was being cynical there. I was kind of trying to get the topic of M.L thrown in here, as some Religious Right scholars have played that card in the past.

Your absolutely right about the vast amount of time that man has walked (knuckle dragged in some cases) the earth and there will always be questions that cannot ever be answered as our written history is so very young in comparison to the amount of time man has existed. The real answer, I think, is who cares?

We seem to have a few Neanderthals still with us here on the Hounds.

The links you provided I copied and to favorites and I’ll check them out at a later date. Reading isn’t of much interest to me tonight.

Posted by: edfromned at December 21, 2005 01:10 AM

Kim,
I just re-read your post about one's belief in evolution and teaching biology. Did you mean to write belief in ID? I hope so, otherwise you have me totally confused.

Southpaw,
I just re-read all of your posts and realize that I may have misinterpreted the one to which I responded - if so, I apologize. Related to your point about looking to physics for evidence of the Almighty: A couple of years ago, a mathematician/theoretical physicist, Frank Tippler, claimed to have identified God using calculations based on quantum theory. He initially wrote a book about it, then refined his ideas and posted them on his web site. As I recall, he was a professor at a university in Texas, but has since left main stream academia, possibly moving to the Discovery Institute (or a maybe a fundamentalist Christian college). His writing reminded me of some of the things people wrote in the 60s and 70s after taking LSD trips.

Cheers,
Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 21, 2005 01:26 AM

Dembski v. Shermer
on AudioMartini
Is life on Earth the product of a supernatural Creator or Darwinian evolution? Can science prove the existence of God? Michael Shermer, founding Editor of Skeptic magazine, goes head to head with noted Intelligent Design theorist William Dembski, fellow of the Discovery Institute. The devout and the heretical alike will gain insight from this fascinating interview. LISTEN online:

go to:

http://www.telcaster.com/ConfInt/telcaster/?Host=audiomartini

Posted by: Kent Brockman at December 21, 2005 05:00 AM

Kent,
Thanks for the link. Great site! And interesting 'debate.'
And did you catch the reference to Plato? Hehehehe...

Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 21, 2005 09:13 AM

It's annoying to hear that evolution has been proved. A scientific theory can not be proved, only disproved; you have a theory and you create experiment after experiment to test that theory. Even if the experiments support the theory, none of them PROVE the theory true; they just demonstrate it isn't verifiably false.

That's exactly Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory: it is untestable. Give me a viable experiment to determine the existence of the entity behind "intelligent design", and maybe we can allow ID into science classes.

Posted by: aprogressivist at December 21, 2005 10:06 AM

Whoops! I did make a mistake there. Oops...mean did believe in evolution!

My bad.

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 21, 2005 10:25 AM

And, of course, positive correlation.

That was weird. My brain goes so much faster than my fingers, and I am generally thinking about the next sentence before I write this one.

Evolution no likey keyboards.

Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at December 21, 2005 10:27 AM

Re: the podcast that Kent Brockman brough to our attention (http://www.telcaster.com/ConfInt/telcaster/?Host=audiomartini)

After listening to the entire discussion (I mischaracterized it as a debate - it was not), I am a bit disappointed in Michael Shermer's responses to Dembski's arguments. Dembski is clearly a bright, articulate, and reasonable guy, but many of his statements are disingenuous or misleading - they have been refuted elsewhere, and they were solidly rejected by Judge Jones in his Dover decision. Shermer, whose books, and articles in Skeptical Inquirer, are well written, was not nearly as effective as he might have been - it almost seemed that he wasn't in the mood to disagree with Dembski. The moderator of the discussion came across as well informed about the topic - a nice contrast to most of the TV journalists who cover this subject.

aprogressivist: You are absolutely correct about science not 'proving' a theory. I don't know if you were referring my post or to something someone else wrote. I used the term in a qualified way ("to the extent that science can prove anything..." ) in one of my posts because the post to which I was responding used that term. But, the scientific evidence in support of evolution is so strong that, in a court of law, the truth of evolution would be considered 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt' - Judge Jones' decision makes that clear.

Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 21, 2005 10:29 AM

Plato Wrote,
If you could have been around at the time of the Big Bang, or at the time the cloud of dust began to condense into the earth, there is no way you could have predicted what the outcome would be - the earth could have ended up like Mars or Jupiter or Saturn. But, it didn't.
If you find this concept troubling, here is another way to think about it: Think back to a time, let's say, 20 years ago - could you have predicted that on Dec. 20, 2005, a dozen or so people (= us) would be on the internet discussing a court case about intelligent design and evolution? No, of course you couldn't. Millions of random events had to take place that led to our being here today - any one of us could have made a different decision, or had other random circumstances influence our lives and everything could have turned out differently. But, here we are! In the same way, the earth just happened to be a hospitable place for the origin of certain forms of life, and that life just happened to evolve and surive for 3.5 billion years or so.

And I made a similar point in post
Posted by: SouthPaw at December 20, 2005 06:49 PM

I know Plato apologized for misinterpreting my arguments already, but people should be aware that the point being made here centers around what is called the "lottery paradox." In a lottery of say 11 tickets each ticket has a probability of 11:1 or a 91% chance of being a loser. So the guy or gal who wins thinks, "my God, the odds against my winning this thing are so astronomical that God must have produced a miracle just for me!" This is essentially Dr. Dembski's claim with regards to running algorythms to generate models of how planets and life could evolve. He found that without a "design" its just too unlikely that intelligent life would evolve. In other words, we won the cosmic lottery, ergo God must have created a miracle.

And I still maintain that Dr. Behe is arguing something completly different! First he said the eye was too complicated to have evolved on its own, then that argument was debunked (read Carl Zimmerman's "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea"). Now he has moved the goal post and insists that the "cell" is to "irriducibly complex" to have evolved on its own. But Microbiologists are fast at work solving that mystery too.

As an 8th Grade Science Teacher I can say this, there is nothing here that deserves anything other than a casual mention and a good belly laugh in the classroom. On the first day of class I explained to them the scientific method and then started to teach them about electricity. I told them that there were two possible theories regarding the origins of electrical charges. We could either explore the work of Maxwell and Oersted and create generators and electrical circuits, or we could go outside in a thunder storm and try to catch Zeus in the act of throwing lightening bolts down from the clouds. Guess what, even my 8th graders could tell the difference between what can and cannot be tested.

But, I still have faith in a creator of the Universe. I am filled with a sense of wonder and awe each time I gaze at the night sky or into my baby girl's eyes. I do not teach my faith to my students, however. After all, I'm a Unitarian, could you imagine the scandal if the Fundies heard that I was leading my children in a prayer for the souls of homophobics and gay-bashers!

Keep religion in the Church and Science in the classroom. Everything in its place!

Posted by: southpaw at December 21, 2005 11:27 AM

Great post, Southpaw!
I wish I could be confident that all middle school/junior high science teachers have your wisdom, but, unfortunately, I don't think that is the case. I know there are a lot of good, even great, public school science teachers, but there are also some who, although reasonably knowledgeable, simply can't manage to impart to their students both a sense of wonder about the universe and the skills needed to understand that universe from the viewpoint of science.
Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 21, 2005 11:51 AM

The judge's ruling covers this fairly authoritatively. Some excerpts:

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God.

As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

The judge's ruling ought to be required reading for the new social studies elective touching on ID that the (replacement) Dover board is talking about. It also ought to be required reading for anyone discussing the issue... including FauxNews commentators.

Posted by: abb3w at December 21, 2005 12:07 PM

I just have 1 question why cant you believe in evolution but still believe that a higher being started it all?

Posted by: Jim at December 21, 2005 12:26 PM

Just listened to this:
Re: the podcast that Kent Brockman brough to our attention (http://www.telcaster.com/ConfInt/telcaster/?Host=audiomartini)
Even though I have read much of Dembski's work, it's so telling to here this man speak. He is a Philosopher pretending to be a Scientist. There is nothing testable in any of his arguments, and nothing even bordering on a "theory," here. Just mathematical and statistical "marks of intelligence," which are highly subjective, and depend entirely on a world view that already accepts a "designer." For example, one of his arguments goes, "junk DNA has been shown to have purpose, therefore life was designed."

Come now William, I need a hands-on experiment for my students whereby I mix beaker A with test tube B and *poof* I get a burning bush that says, "Demski is the man! Jesus designed the world," or it ain't science!

Posted by: southpaw at December 21, 2005 02:41 PM

Ok Ladies and Gentelmen,

I see that some people are quite disturbed by the reasonable voices comments.

Again you can't prove evolution from the standpoint of knowing how the earth came to form. No one has any clear 100 percent proof of how the earth was formed. Now the people who got mad and said I was a right wing nut is misinformed. These people are all the way to the left. They only take left turns and when they have to use their right hand they get bent out of shape.

You can prove evolution as things evolving. Anyone can do that. As we all know science is not science anymore. You can make science say anything you want. Evolution is only a theory, it is not 2+2. Creationism is only a theory it is not 3+3. You have to rely on your faith on that.

Moderates see both sides. Now if you think I am a right wing nut then you have to take a look in the political dictionary and look up the word moderate. See a moderate does not believe in everything the left or right does. Loony leftist see one side and that is the only side they look on. Retarded rightist see their side and they only look through their little glass door.

Posted by: the one and only reasonable voice at December 21, 2005 04:47 PM

1&Only; says.....
"you can make science say anything you want"

uh,huh,

that is the rw belief, eh? dig up a starving scientist, willing to forego ethics or already imbued with a preordained ideology, and create a "study" designed to validate your point of view.

How is that working out for you?

From my point of view, it is precisely the rw extremists who have been permeating the political landscape with phony "studies" "proving" all the other scientists in the world wrong...

To them and you, i give you Abe Lincoln, who said....

If you say a cat's tail is a leg, how many legs does that cat have?

If you say 5, you are wrong, it still only has 4 legs.....

Just because you say the cat's tail is a leg, does not make it so.

Eventually, the truth does come out..unfortunately, the less evolved among us never look at what they are told...blindly accepting things that typically make no sense at all....and media outlets give short shrift to corrections.

Posted by: woke dude at December 21, 2005 06:40 PM

I hereby nominate this thread for the Hall Of Fame.
Thank you all.
Discourse, links, humor, passion, Divinity...and all from carbon-based objects clinging to a rock that is the third in orbit from Sol.

We now return to the ongoing educational process.

Larrymo

Posted by: larrymo at December 21, 2005 08:14 PM

the one and only reasonable voice,
So what, the NAS is just a big Left Wing Think Tank now? Could you please point us towards a Right Wing Science Organization, of merit, made up of more than just Behe and Dembski? This issue has only been politicized because the proponents of ID know that they haven't a leg to stand on in the Scientific Community. The moderate voice you say? Hows this-keep religion in church and science in the classroom.

Posted by: southpaw at December 22, 2005 12:07 AM

"Now if you think I am a right wing nut then you have to take a look in the political dictionary and look up the word moderate. "

Posted by: the one and only reasonable voice at December 21, 2005 04:47 PM

Bullshit. There is NO PLACE in rational scientific discussion for ID. You have no 'rights' on this issue, because your premise is fundamentally flawed. If I decide to claim that the universe was sneezed out of the left nostril of a big green goat, that doesn't give me the 'right' to be heard and treated as if my idea has a similar weight to those of a true scientist. There is no suppresion of free speech, because both you and I have a right to say whatever the hell we want to say on a subject, but neither of us has any right to subject others to it as fact unless we can provide the proof to back up or ideas. Neither do we have a right to force children to be educated to believe that black is white, or up is down.

We DO know how the earth formed, as we know how suns are created and how galaxies form.

We DO know that life evolved over millions of years, and that there is copious evidence of now extinct ancestors of every single living specias.

If you DON'T know any of these things then you are not talking as a moderate but as an ignorant.

Get yourself educated, read some science books and then come back and tell me which came first, the chicken or the egg?

phew
that's better

Posted by: uk_dave at December 22, 2005 03:55 AM

"The one and only reasonable voice", you commit so many logical fallacies I have trouble keeping up.

First, "Intelligent Design is a science" is not something all, or even most, right-wingers agree with. You just have to watch the flamewar on Free Republic to appreciate that the right-wing is VERY divided on this issue.

Second, you're proposing a "moderate" view point based on the premise that if view A and view B are incompatible, the correct answer must be view C, which is in the middle. For more about this fallacy, follow this link: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

Third, if you think a scientific theory has anything to do with faith, you are misinformed. A scientific theory is a logical, reductionist interpretation of the natural world. Sometimes, these theories contradict a scientist's own beliefs and expectations: the experiments to prove the existence of ether backfired, and when special relativity came along, ether fell to Occam's Razor.

All in all, your login choice is a misnomer.

Posted by: aprogressivist at December 22, 2005 09:08 AM

During the Dover, PA trial, Brown Univ. biologist, Kenneth Miller, testifying as an expert witness for the plaintiffs, pointed out that if supernatural explanations (such as: God, or an Intelligent Designer, is responsible for the creation of humans and other life forms, and presumably the formation of the universe in general, and the earth in particular) were to be allowed in science, it would effectively stop all scientific research in its tracks - ANY observation could then be attributed to the action of a supernatural entity, and there would be no way to refute that supernatural explanation - hence, no reason to look for natural explanations. God (or Mr. Intelligent Designer) would be the answer to everything, including all actions we humans take - such as my typing of the previous sentences- God was in control of my fingers, not me. This is, it seems to me, the ultimate excuse for avoiding any personal responsibility for our actions - God made me do it would be an acceptable defenes. I should think conservatives, who usually argue that individuals need to be held accountable for their actions, would want to avoid this situation at all costs. Funny how the advocates of ID/creationism didn't think of this.

Plato

Posted by: Plato at December 22, 2005 02:57 PM

THE DEVIL'S IN DARWIN
Pastor J. Grant Swank, Jr.

...Of course those espousing Intelligent Design mean by it GOD. And they mean GOD as the God of the Holy Bible. That's plain. It's simple. Therefore, I say that those supporting Intelligent Design need to go into the classrooms to state that GOD MUST BE PLACED ALONGSIDE DARWIN's make-believe for it is GOD who created all from nothing.

In other words, believers should quit playing word games. Come out and say what you truly intend. You are trying to GET THE STUDENTS OF TODAY AND TOMORROW TO REALIZE THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE. It is that God created all things from nothing because God is God. Just be up front with it...

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_10983.shtml

Posted by: -R at December 22, 2005 05:26 PM

Why do I feel that only in america could someone have such a fantastic name as J Grant Swank jr, and not be in the entertainment industry...oh wait..... he is!

"Put your hands against the monitor....heal alll, heal alll....HEAL ALLL, in the name of the lord."

Posted by: uk_dave at December 23, 2005 07:51 AM

To the extremely inaptly named one and only reasonable voice:

Coherent much? I didn't think so.

"Again you can't prove evolution from the standpoint of knowing how the earth came to form."

Your ignorance of science is shining forth like a kleig light. Evolution does not deal with "how the earth came to form," it deals with how life evolved -- and continues to do so -- over the course of many millions of years from early common anscestors.

"[H]ow the earth came to form" is covered by many physics disciplines, and is generally agreed upon by the overwhelmingly vast majority of scientists.

"As we all know science is not science anymore. You can make science say anything you want".

I don't even know what the hell you mean by that. Pseudosciences (like astrology and the ridiculous New Chronology) can be made to say whatever you want; real science cannot.

A scientist can form any sort of hypotheses based on scientific data, and design experiments to prove or disprove it. But for the idea to be accepted into scientific canon, it has to undergo rigorous and exacting testing and review by many people.

Evolution passed those tests long ago, yet even now experiments are being performed to refine it. That's the hallmark of good science; constant testing is a crucible that burns away misconceptions and irrelevant ideas and leaves the truth, as pure as we can make it.

For 150 years, the theory of natural selection has been refined and improved, but the basic concept has remained. Many thousands of scientists have confirmed its validity through hundreds of thousands of experiments.

Yet ID's proponents cannot come up with a single valid experiment to demonstrate their core tenet, which is an irrational concept by any scientific definition. It's faith-based and unscientific by its very nature.

Certainly there are gaps in evolution; not huge ones, but gaps nonetheless. All areas of human understanding have gaps. And the gaps in evolution are not as great as in many widely accepted theories. But none of those gaps have room for ID's "irreducible complexity" tripe while still using the scientific method.

If you're going to reply, at least try to know what you're talking about.

Posted by: gsmith at December 23, 2005 11:00 AM