Albert Alschuler, "The Dover Intelligent Design Decision, Part I: Of Motive, Effect, and History" (2005)

[Note: I tried to use either the blockquote or italic HTML tags to indicate Professor Alschuler's quoted words, but neither worked in the "Preview" display. So I am just using quotation marks.]

"The first amendment makes intelligent design unmentionable in the classroom."

This was not the court's holding, and it was not the plaintiffs' argument.

Many science teachers will continue to mention ID in the classroom.

The court held that the specific policy in Dover mandating that teachers read a religiously motivated and factually misleading statement to their students is unconstitutional.

"When the Fundamentalists (the court often capitalizes the word) found themselves unable to ban Darwinism, they championed “balanced treatment,” then “creation science,” and finally “intelligent design.” According to the court, the agenda never changed."

The specific textbook that the Dover policy encouraged students to seek out for more information about ID is in fact a creationist textbook. As is detailed in Judge Jones's opinion, the words "creationism" and its variants were simply replaced in post-Edwards drafts with the words "intelligent design," but the content was exactly the same. The same factual errors. The same references to the supernatural (which is outside the proper domain of science).

"Does that make any mention of intelligent design unconstitutional?"

Again, no it doesn't, and neither the Court nor the plaintiffs' argued otherwise.

"It seems odd to characterize the desire to go far as the law allows as an unlawful motive."

Going as far as the law allows would have been fine. Going beyond that was not.

"The Dover opinion appears to say that the forbidden preference taints whatever the board may do, and if the public can discern the board’s improper desire, any action it takes also has an unconstitutional effect."

The district court is bound by Lemon, as both the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed. Under Lemon, desire (i.e., purpose) matters. That may be a poor test, but it's not the district court's fault.

In any event, the Dover policy was unconstitutional under the effects prong as well as under the purpose prong, so the same result would have obtained if purpose had been ignored.

Also:

"[ID proponents] uniformly . . . focus only on where the biological evidence leads."

This is a disputed fact and there is much evidence against it.

Professor Behe, for example, was drilled on cross-examination for being unfamiliar with the biological evidence he had rejected.

Reply to maurile: Pandas and People, the text the Dover board suggested to students but never assigned, is a thinly disguised creationist text, just as the court concluded. I have no problem with the decision insofar as it holds that officially recommending this text is unconstitutional. But the opinion is full of pronouncements that go far beyond the specifics of the Dover case. For example: "An objective observer would know that ID and teaching about 'gaps' and 'problems' in evolutionary theory are creationist, religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of creationism." In Dover, moreover, the board may not direct teachers even to mention intelligent design. I quoted part of the relevant language in the first sentence of my post: "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from . . . requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

maurile --

It's interesting that you reject anything referencing the "supernatural" as unscientific. This begs two questions:

1. How do you define supernatural? If God in fact exists, is he or she necessarily "supernatural"? Does this mean that God exists on a plane that is not a part of "nature"? Does this mean that human science, along with its attendant admittedly imperfect understanding of the laws of nature and physics, holds a monopoly on the world of "nature"? What does this suggest about principles attempting to reconcile what we think we know with what we clearly don't know (e.g., Einstein's Theory of Relativity) -- does this mean those theories are "unnatural" and therefore "supernatural" and shouldn't be mandated in the classroom?

2. If something is unscientific, does this make it religious? And if something is religious, does this make it unscientific? If so, it seems we have an irreconcilable tension given the effects prong of the Lemon test: a decision or policy either way will have the effect of helping science and thus hurting religion, or of helping religion and thus hurting science. Don't forget that the First Amendment and Establishment Clause provisions are meant to PROTECT the free exercise of religion -- should courts be in the business, then, of deciding who wins the science vs. religion war?

This strikes me as an extraordinarily ignorant intervention in an ongoing debate that will affect what innocent schoolchildren will learn. Al, do you know anything about the actual scientific status of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection? Do you know anything about the theory of Intelligent Design? If so, then you must presumably know that there is no secular purpose or explanation for teaching Intelligent Design in a high school biology class. Isn't that the central issue in this case? Isn't that why the court was correct to turn to an (accurate) historical explanation for why this nonsense is being served up as a serious competitor to one of the great triumphs of science in the last 200 years?

Psychoanalysis requires decoding real motives through a layer of hidden meanings. There are no layers of hidden meaning here. The meanings are on the surface, unless one is ignorant of the underlying scientific and philosophical issues. In that case, I suppose there could be some uncertainty about what the Dover Board's purpose really was.

Reply to Albert Alschuler: When the court says that "ID" is a "religious strategy," I think it's clear that the Court was referring specifically to the version of ID being pushed by Of Pandas and People.

It is possible to formulate a version of ID that is purely scientific (i.e., a testable, falsifiable theory) -- but none of the people associated with the current ID movement have done so, and that kind of hypothetical version of ID really wasn't at issue in Kitzmiller.

If the court didn't mean to restrict its ruling to the version of ID relevant to Kitzmiller, but meant to pronounce that all possible forms of ID are inherently religious, then the Court overstepped its bounds. That's not how I interpret its decision, however.

Also, while the Court did hold that the board may not require teachers to mention ID, that is quite different from holding that teachers may not mention ID (which is what it sounded like you were saying in your blog entry).

Teachers are still free to discuss ID, and many of them do. ID is a perfect topic, for example, to use in illustrating what qualifies as science, what does not, and why.

Reply to The Law Fairy:

1. "How do you define supernatural?" I don't. I tend not to use the term, and every definition I've seen by others is self-contradictory. I used the term in my first comment only because it was used in Of Pandas and People. But see below for what I think Of Pandas and People meant by it, and why what it meant is unscientific.

"If God in fact exists, is he or she necessarily 'supernatural'?" No. I'd define nature as encompassing everything that exists. So if God exists, he's natural.

I don't understand the rest of your questions under heading #1.

2. "If something is unscientific, does this make it religious? And if something is religious, does this make it unscientific?" No. Neither.

What makes an idea scientific is the ability to test its predictions empirically.

Traditional statements about God are untestable because "that's what God wanted to happen" can explain any possible observation. There's no observation or experimental result that could possibly falsify the God idea.

If a bunch of people pray for Eric and he dies anyway, well, maybe that's what God wanted to happen. All results can be explained that way.

Such thinking is impossible to incorporate into the scientific method. And it is this kind of thinking -- the kind that is off limits to empirical falsification -- that I think Of Pandas and People meant when they used the term "supernatural."

I think Prof. Alschuler's analysis is right on. I've posted some similar comments on my site here: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/archives/2005/12/dover_id_decisi.html

"They uniformly disclaim reliance on the Book and focus only on where the biological evidence leads."

How can you make such a plainly unsupported statement and not expect to be called on it? For instance, from the decision:
> Second, Buckingham&rsquo;s wife, Charlotte, gave a speech that exceeded the normal time<br> protocols during the public comment section in which she explained that “evolution teaches nothing but lies,” quoted from Genesis, asked “how can we allow anything else to be taught in our schools,” recited gospel verses telling people to become born again Christians, and stated that evolution violated the teachings of the Bible. ...
> During this religious speech at a public Board meeting, Board members Buckingham and Geesey said &ldquo;amen.&rdquo; Third, Buckingham stood by his opposition to the 2002 edition of the textbook entitled Biology. Fourth, Bonsell and Wenrich said they agreed with Buckingham that creationism should be taught to balance evolution. Fifth,<br> Buckingham made several outwardly religious statements, which include the following remarks. “Nowhere in the Constitution does it call for a separation of church and state.” He explained that this country was founded on Christianity. Buckingham concedes that he said “I challenge you (the audience) to trace your roots to the monkey you came from.” He said that while growing up, his generation read from the Bible and prayed during school. He further said “liberals in black robes” were “taking away the rights of Christians” and he said words to the effect of “2,000 years ago someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?”
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<p>

Also, who cares if they are "good people." As you concede, that intended to put forth a religiously based curriculum when you said:
> &quot;The court offers convincing evidence that some members the Dover school board would have been delighted to promote their old time religion in the classroom. These board members apparently accepted intelligent design as a compromise, the nearest they could come to their objective within the law. <p>

Their actions, this "compromise", was attempting to teach a concept in order to endorse a religious viewpoint. This is a religious motivation and not a secular one. This was not determined by 'psychoanalysis' but by numerous witnesses who testified to repeated lies under oath by the decision makers regarding their connection and the decision's connection to religious groups.

A motivation to teach religious views guised as science clearly violates the endorsement clause. Attempting to justify otherwise is a futile attempt in double think.

"A motivation to teach religious views guised as science clearly violates the endorsement clause. Attempting to justify otherwise is a futile attempt in double think."

a. So, when David Liu at Harvard announced that he would prove that God does not exist in his latest research project, we don't have a philosophical worldview that is double think and unjustifiable? If not, then that is a double standard on the part of the materialist, isn't it? What about Carl Sagan saying, "The cosmos is all that there is, all that there was, and all that there ever shall be" as an axiom. Is this a "scientific" statement? Examples could be added ad infinitum.

Philosophical naturalism, the denial that there is any God or intelligent being outside the physical universe, is not part of the scientific theory of biological evolution (or any science for that matter) but it is often smuggled into the presentation of scientific theory by the at least implicit suggestion that evolution *alone* is responsible for the emergence of complex life forms or that an intelligent being was *not* involved in the process. ID takes aim at this insidious attempt to pass off fundamental philosophical or worldview commitments as part of scientific theorizing rather than the framework in which such theorizing is situated.

b. I noticed you referred to school board members. The blog article refers to those who champion ID which I believe refers to Behe, Dembski, Flew, and others.

c. The statement you are "calling" refers to the definiton of fundamentalism as believing the Bible is literally true. Antony Flew believes in ID, he is a deist, not a Christian. There are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and agnostics who are among the 400 or so who support ID openly in the scientific community. A few days ago, I understand some representatives of Orthodox Judaism signed onto it. If ID violates the establishment clause, which religion is being established? Not all of the are theistic. In fact, some of these are pantheistic and panentheistic, and there are deists and agnostics.

d. Some believe the Big Bang theory has religious implications? Should we no longer teach it if theistic evolutionists decide to take up the cause of ID?

e. How is atheistic naturalism not a competing worldview or in some sense religious as well? On what basis can you say that naturalism is not also foisting a religious agenda of some sort in the schools? It's awfully convenient to limit all worldviews that do not presuppose philosophical naturalism but give the one that does presuppose it unlimited sway.

e. By your own yardstick, we can now discount the testimony of Barabara Forrest, a vocal atheist critic who testified in , since she has engaged in similar shenanigans for the other side of the aisle. Its also worth noting, in her testimony, she noted that a key sign of creationism was a rejection of specifically Darwinian evolution. ID maintains that *certain* features of the universe in general and living beings in particular cannot *adequately* be explained by unguided natural processes, the processes that are constitutive of traditional scientific models of biological evolution, but these features can be adequately explained by postulating an intelligent designer. This is clearly *not* a denial that biological evolution has played a role in the production of complex life forms, including humans. ID is challenging the idea that *all* features of living beings can be *adequately* explained by mechanistic or unintelligent causes. ID is challenging the *completeness* of current scientific models of the origin of life. ID is not creationism. Although every creationist advocates ID, not every ID advocate is a creationist.

g. To say that the philosophers and scientists who are ID advocates are pushing ideas based on faith and not a scintilla of evidence is both uncharitable and patently absurd. It is *itself* an ungrounded and uninformed assertion that, whether intended or not, evades the intellectual responsibility of engaging the arguments presented by ID advocates. You may think that these arguments are weak. Fine. But then the claim should be that the arguments of those individuals are weak, not unjustifiable. The challenge would be to critique the arguments, not attempt to bring ID down by establishing some sort of guilt by association with creationism through discussing the comments of a board of education composed of lay persons who are not, themselves, the ones presenting the theories in journals, et.al.

"A motivation to teach religious views guised as science clearly violates the endorsement clause. Attempting to justify otherwise is a futile attempt in double think."

a. So, when David Liu at Harvard announced that he would prove that God does not exist in his latest research project, we don't have a philosophical worldview that is double think and unjustifiable? If not, then that is a double standard on the part of the materialist, isn't it? What about Carl Sagan saying, "The cosmos is all that there is, all that there was, and all that there ever shall be" as an axiom. Is this a "scientific" statement? Examples could be added ad infinitum.

Philosophical naturalism, the denial that there is any God or intelligent being outside the physical universe, is not part of the scientific theory of biological evolution (or any science for that matter) but it is often smuggled into the presentation of scientific theory by the at least implicit suggestion that evolution *alone* is responsible for the emergence of complex life forms or that an intelligent being was *not* involved in the process. ID takes aim at this insidious attempt to pass off fundamental philosophical or worldview commitments as part of scientific theorizing rather than the framework in which such theorizing is situated.

b. I noticed you referred to school board members. The blog article refers to those who champion ID which I believe refers to Behe, Dembski, Flew, and others.

c. The statement you are "calling" refers to the definiton of fundamentalism as believing the Bible is literally true. Antony Flew believes in ID, he is a deist, not a Christian. There are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and agnostics who are among the 400 or so who support ID openly in the scientific community. A few days ago, I understand some representatives of Orthodox Judaism signed onto it. If ID violates the establishment clause, which religion is being established? Not all of the are theistic. In fact, some of these are pantheistic and panentheistic, and there are deists and agnostics.

d. Some believe the Big Bang theory has religious implications? Should we no longer teach it if theistic evolutionists decide to take up the cause of ID?

e. How is atheistic naturalism not a competing worldview or in some sense religious as well? On what basis can you say that naturalism is not also foisting a religious agenda of some sort in the schools? It's awfully convenient to limit all worldviews that do not presuppose philosophical naturalism but give the one that does presuppose it unlimited sway.

e. By your own yardstick, we can now discount the testimony of Barabara Forrest, a vocal atheist critic who testified in , since she has engaged in similar shenanigans for the other side of the aisle. Its also worth noting, in her testimony, she noted that a key sign of creationism was a rejection of specifically Darwinian evolution. ID maintains that *certain* features of the universe in general and living beings in particular cannot *adequately* be explained by unguided natural processes, the processes that are constitutive of traditional scientific models of biological evolution, but these features can be adequately explained by postulating an intelligent designer. This is clearly *not* a denial that biological evolution has played a role in the production of complex life forms, including humans. ID is challenging the idea that *all* features of living beings can be *adequately* explained by mechanistic or unintelligent causes. ID is challenging the *completeness* of current scientific models of the origin of life. ID is not creationism. Although every creationist advocates ID, not every ID advocate is a creationist.

g. To say that the philosophers and scientists who are ID advocates are pushing ideas based on faith and not a scintilla of evidence is both uncharitable and patently absurd. It is *itself* an ungrounded and uninformed assertion that, whether intended or not, evades the intellectual responsibility of engaging the arguments presented by ID advocates. You may think that these arguments are weak. Fine. But then the claim should be that the arguments of those individuals are weak, not unjustifiable. The challenge would be to critique the arguments, not attempt to bring ID down by establishing some sort of guilt by association with creationism through discussing the comments of a board of education composed of lay persons who are not, themselves, the ones presenting the theories in journals, et.al.

Hmm. Looks like you're getting hit from both sides, here. It's always a lively debate. Thanks for your commentary anyway.

What you are talking about is called the genetic logical fallacy.

maurile said:

"What makes an idea scientific is the ability to test its predictions empirically."

Thus, Evolution is non-scientific. At least, the commonly held "Common Ancestor" variety (i.e., "macroevolution"). Or, can you point me to any real-world "scientific and EMPIRICAL tests" of "its predictions"?

It seems to me that the main problem the judge had with ID was the requirement and allowance for a supernatural intelligent causation (e.g. the Designer).

Assuming that "life" is not supernatural (e.g. we're not breaking any natural laws by being alive), then designing and causing life should not require supernatural powers. So there is no need for a designer to be supernatural, is there?

A version of ID which does not claim any supernatural causation, but only an intelligent causation should be seen as equally a science then for example forensic science is seen.

GMLK, it seems that by your characterization of "supernatural," *nothing* qualifies as supernatural. If even a deity is not supernatural, then what is? And if nothing is supernatural, then why use the signifier "natural" when you've conflated its signified with that of "supernatural?"

Also, it seems likely that in a state of pre-existence, nature itself does not exist. It therefore seems silly (impossible?) to claim that the creator (excuse me, your "intelligent designer") created existence out of nothingness without the use of supernatural abilities/powers.

One does not need to be a fan of intelligent design to believe that the ruling in this case was shockingly gratutious and uncivil. Foes of ID are better off persuading their opponents through discourse rather than litigation. If ID is now a "religious theory" then is a law banning ID would now an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of religion clause? This is one area the courts ought to stay out of.

ADR, isn't it unconstitutional for religion to be taught (as science, even!) in public schools? And if that's the case, how can you say that the courts should simply "stay out of it?"

Additionally, I wonder how about your assertion, "Foes of ID are better off persuading their oppents through discourse rather than litigation." Why and how would they be better off this way? ID is a religious belief which does not belong in a high school biology course, unless the purpose of said course is to teach students how *not* to think scientifically.

Editor's Note: We have removed a colorful trackback that was recently posted here. The substance of the trackback was to criticize another commenter for being unnecessarily rude. Ironically, the trackback was itself somewhat over the top, and so we have removed it.

Douglas Bender states:

"Thus, Evolution is non-scientific. At least, the commonly held "Common Ancestor" variety (i.e., "macroevolution"). Or, can you point me to any real-world "scientific and EMPIRICAL tests" of "its predictions"?"

You seem to assume that the hallmark of an empirical theory is that it is empirically verifiable--which is partially correct. However, at least since Karl Popper, philosophers of science have noted that empirical falsifiability is perhaps an even more essential feature of empirical theories. And for a hypothesis or theory x to be falsifiable, the proponent of x need only be able to specify what observational evidence would, in principle, disprove x. It is painfully obvious that evolution (whether it be macro or micro) is falsifiable in this respect. So, what evidence would, in principle, speak against macroevolution? Discoveries of fossils that are out of place--e.g., fossils of bunny rabbits that date to the Pre-Cambrian (I forgot who originally gave this example--but I think it was Gould). Or perhaps fossils of humans that predate fossils of dinosaurs. The possibilities for refutation are endless. So, perhaps opponents of "evilution" should spend more time conducting field work (digs, excavations, etc.) and less time forcing tax payers to beat back juvenile attempts to redefine science in a way that makes room for creationism to count. Minimally, it is clear that you cannot falsify a scientific theory purely from the arm-chair (e.g., by simply redefining science in a way that suits one's needs). Refutation in science requires us to get our hands dirty. Simply waving a proposed revisionary dictionary definition of science at evolution will not do the trick.

Overall, I think Mr. Bender's comment--which is lamentably widely shared I am afraid--is fueled by a lack of understanding concerning some of the basic principles of scientific methodology and the philosophy of science. But luckily it's an intellectual shortcoming that a good introductory text to the philosophy of science would cure.

Douglas J. Bender wrote: "Thus, Evolution is non-scientific. At least, the commonly held 'Common Ancestor' variety (i.e., 'macroevolution'). Or, can you point me to any real-world 'scientific and EMPIRICAL tests' of 'its predictions'?"

tnadelhoffer already answered this. (It was J.B.S. Haldane who said "fossil rabbits in the precambrian.")

I'll add a plug for the article "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" at talkorigins.com that describes all kinds of ways in which evolutionary theory is testable. (I'd link to it, but apparently HTML tags don't work in these comments. It's easy to Google for, though.)

This is not a matter of genuine dispute.

I should have also pointed out that creationism and ID (unlike evolution) are NOT falsifiable--even in principle. After all, proponents of these views cannot specificy what would count as evidence against their view. Until they make such a specification, they can neither justifiably don the mantle of science, nor can they expect to have their beliefs peddled to school children as if these beliefs are legimitately scientific.

What about Big Bang theories? Are those falsifiable? Any theory that posits to expllain the origin of matter seems to me quite difficult to prove or disprove -- yet the Big Bang is the favored explanation for the origin of existence.

"What about Big Bang theories? Are those falsifiable?"

Yes. Attempts so far to falsify the theory have failed, though. Cosmic background radiation exists, and variations in that radiation are consistent with the current structure of the universe.

Also, for Douglas Bender, see the Dover trial testimony of Kenneth Miller, who discusses extensive genomic evidence for the common descent of humans and chimps.

Following the logic of the initial argument then if I can say that Darwinists are not because now they relabelled themselves Evolutionists (if that exists since evolutionary scientist are not cult members).
> Please stay from rehashing the old and tired arguments from creationism and for once in your life be honest and ethical and preach for religion openly. Do not hide your affiliations and be proud to be called Christians. Onward Christian men !!!!!!!<p>

The Big Bang theory came about as the result of studying scads of empirical data about the rate and direction of movement of star systems and matter across space from a galactic central point. No doubt people more scientifically gifted can speak to its conformity with scientific principles.

I think it's also worth noting that the Intelligent Design debate is not an isolated one with respect to the religious right's attempt to assert a Christian-faith-based understanding of the world in secular circumstances and, in so doing, claiming a falsely secular purpose (and therefore a right to equal time) and attempting to undermine the secular endeavor they are trying to replace. Intelligent Design might sound harmless enough -- we often hear cries about why it's such a big deal to assert that we might have been created for a reason (and aren't the scientist big, bigoted meanies for acting like we weren't) -- but those cries, while made by well-meaning people, ignore the man behind the curtain.

The deep pockets behind creationism promotion and Intelligent Design have a lot in common, as they do with efforts like teaching abstinence-only "sex education" (because it works! except that it doesn't), fighting for Ten Commandments plaques (because are laws are based on it! except that they're not) and promoting laws that let pharmacists single out which contraceptive prescriptions they won't fill (because they're concerned about women's health! except when they ignore other issues that affect women's health) and anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives (to "protect the family"! except that it doesn't). Were Intelligent Design an isolated, independent effort, the purposes behind its promoters might be less suspect. But its supporters are part of a coordinated political effort to impose more religion in public spaces, and their tactics are they same in this case as they have been in every other case. It's not "guilt by association" or even the "vast right-wing conspiracy" as much as it is "I've heard this song before, and the chorus stinks."

At its most basic level, science is a search for answers, not a set of answers. Even without a background in the scientific method, it seems obvious that the Intelligent Design theory is not a theory requiring additional research -- it's an answer. It doesn't ask additional questions -- it shuts down discussion, because we can already know the answer to any remaining, nagging unknown. Is it complicated? Is it so complicated that we can't explain it with our current knowledge base? Well, then it must be part of our Intelligent Designer's Intelligent Design! It's handy and comforting, and religious people see through it as being a comforting, religious message with a wink towards those secular ninnies who don't know the Truth with a Capital T, but it doesn't fit with the purpose of science, which is to keep knowing more. And it also can be used to nudge out of favor any number of other scientific disciplines where we really don't know all the answers, like why normal cells become cancer cells (maybe we're intelligently designed to die and go to heaven! uh...ixnay on the eavenhay...), cloning challenges (can't do it right because we weren't designed to make clones of ourselves!) and other scientific frontiers where the religious right wants the power to govern the message but feels impotent to do so when restricted to playing by the rules of science.

Big Bang theories can be evaluated and rejected. Different results in the measurements of redshifts and the cosmic background radiation could have easily knocked the Big Bang out of contention. Such an outcome would have made Fred "Steady-State Universe" Hoyle a lot happier.

Note, it's not that ID couldn't be formulated as a scientifically testable theory, it's that nobody has succeeded in that task so far. As it stands now, ID is only a wistful glimmer. As Judge Jones properly observed after considering the evidence, there is *no substance* there. In addition to merely being possible, you've got to have some content too. Otherwise, why not teach "morphic resonance" or Raelian beliefs as if they were reasonable alternatives? Why not talk about invisible pink unicorns? Merely having a few scientists (out of the vast majority) who side with ID doesn't mean much. I can point to a couple biologists I know who are convinced of reincarnation. The facts are that right now, ID exists only as an empty placeholder. There's no science there.

I understand the arguments, but they are well downstream of the original intent of the 1st Amendment. The courts have far overstepped the bounds of the language. The language is clear as a bell. (Yes case law has extended it and I understand this issue has been dealt with many times.) But, would we be having these difficulties if the courts themselves had not gotten "entangled" in the establishment or dis-establishment of religion apart from actions of Congress?

"Congress shall make no law...." The Constitution no more prohibits the school board in Dover PA from making a law than the Constitution prohibits the Courts from "making law" by judicial fiat.

Professor Alschuler is obviously ignorant of the history of the creationist movement and their tactics and he obviously has spent very little time thinking about "intelligent design" and why it is scientifically vacuous.

Perhaps Professor Alschuler should read Judge Jones' decision a few more times. Eventually, he might gain a more accurate understanding of Judge Jones' holding and also a more accurate understanding of why "intelligent design" is worthless to scientists.

Professor Alschuler should also read ekf's post carefully because ekf has hit several nails very firmly on the head, just as Judge Jones did.

Finally, I would appreciate Professor Alschuler's answer to the following question:

ID "theory" claims that mysterious alien beings "intelligently" created every living species of organism that ever lived on the earth for the past 4 billion years.

How does ID "theory" distinguish between that fantastic and bizarre proposition and the proposition proposed by Enterocraftic Theory which states that mysterious alien beings defecated every living thing that ever lived on earth, including two infamously deluded creatures named Jesus Christ and Mohammed?

I'm very serious and I assume that Professor Alschuler has a very serious answer to this question. If he doesn't, then I expect Professor Alschuler to join me in demanding that Enterocraftic Theory be taught in science class.

Go for it, Professor Alschuler. Step up to the plate and try to be honest.

Good luck.

P.S. For the record, I'm an evangelical Christian and I am disgusted by the liars at the Discovery Institute, as we all should be.

-----------
> &quot;Congress shall make no law....&quot; The Constitution no more prohibits the school board in Dover PA from making a law than the Constitution prohibits the Courts from &quot;making law&quot; by judicial fiat.<br> ------------
> Are we supposed to pretend that the 14th amendment didn't happen?<br>

I think that the Kitzmiller ruling actually does an excellent job of illustrating why motive IS relevant which is that in practice, children and parents will understand the subtext, particularly when the text is as clumsy and transparent as it is in this case.

It might be possible to build a version of ID which is not a clumsy and transparent attempt to put god into biological history, but it manifestly hasnt been done, as Judge Jones could see for himself very clearly having heard six weeks of evidence on the matter.

I think that the Kitzmiller ruling actually does an excellent job of illustrating why motive IS relevant which is that in practice, children and parents will understand the subtext, particularly when the text is as clumsy and transparent as it is in this case.

It might be possible to build a version of ID which is not a clumsy and transparent attempt to put god into biological history, but it manifestly hasnt been done, as Judge Jones could see for himself very clearly having heard six weeks of evidence on the matter.

Here's the problem with the talk about radiation and other such things that could "falsify" the Big Bang theory -- they're based on what is essentially a guess about how the universe started. I could just as easily say, God built a nuclear reactor and set it off, and that's how the universe started. Sure, it's falsifiable, because if there aren't any trace effects from the reaction left in the universe, then I'm wrong. But that doesn't make it scientific. It's still a guess. It's a historical reconstruction based on educated GUESSES about what may have happened billions of years ago. But I honestly don't see how postulating a Big Bang is any more scientific than postulating an other natural First Cause. The Big Bang is just a way to explain the origins of the universe without having to appeal to God or something we can't fit into a laboratory -- essentially it's just a result of man's arrogance at thinking he can understand and manipulate nature, and anything he can't understand or manipulate is "unscientific."

As for being proud to be who I am, or not trying to hide my motivations, I'm happy to say I'm a Christian. I don't think everything in the Bible should be taken literally. I don't know if we evolved from monkeys or if everything was created in 6 days. I don't believe abstinence-only education works (Lord knows it didn't for me), I sure as hell think women have a right to birth control, I think anti-religious zealots are whining when they complain about a religious judge posting the Ten Commandments, and I think gay people should have the right to marry. I also think that there are legitimate gaps in evolutionary theory, and there's nothing unconstitutional or unscientific about people wanting to point those out, whatever their motivations are. Since when does the Constitution make it not okay to enhance our scientific understanding of the universe just because some of the people who want to do so are religious? In my mind, THAT'S the position that runs afoul of the First Amendment.

It is a logical fallacy to suggest that just because some members of a certain proponent group espouse wrong, illegal, or unpalatable ideas, necessarily means that the other ideas they espouse are similarly wrong, illegal, or unpalatable. If this were the case, we'd have to turn back the clock decades on our medical research, since we owe a lot of what we know, particularly about pre-natal care, to the brutalities inflicted by Nazi Germany on the men and women they tortured in their prison camps. It's simple-minded and intellectually lazy to attack an idea based on its proponents rather than based on its merits. This is why Judge Jones got it wrong -- this is why the revised Lemon test is probably wrong, too.

There are valid criticisms of ID theory, but there are also valid criticisms of evolutionary theory. So why does the law favor one for being secular? Since when is religious affiliation automatic grounds for suspicion? I think we're headed in a dangerous direction when we hold people's motives constitutionally suspect for no other reason than that they have closely held religious beliefs.

The Law Fairy wrote: "There are valid criticisms of ID theory, but there are also valid criticisms of evolutionary theory. So why does the law favor one for being secular?"

You're completely missing the point. The law doesn't favor one for being secular. The law favors one for being scientific.

There is no secular purpose for mandating the teaching of unscientific ideas in a science class.

What novel predictions does your nuclear reactor theory make that we can test? Big bang theory -- like evolutionary theory -- made novel predictions that have been confirmed. If you want to put your nuclear reactor theory on equal footing with them, let's hear some of its testable predictions.

Actually, maurile, you're incorrect. The Lemon test isn't a test of scientific soundness. Scientific soundness is up to school boards, and the school board in this case determined that ID was scientific. It was ruled unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment -- which governs state endorsement of religion. Judge Jones ruled that the school board couldn't make a scientific determination about ID because it was religious. Thus, evolution is preferred by the COURTS because it is secular -- it may be preferred by school boards because it is scientific, but we're not arguing here what school boards should decide, we're arguing what they should be ALLOWED to decide.

And it seems to me many of the people here arguing against ID theory are throwing around the words "unscientific" and "religious" somewhat interchangeably -- that is to say, the primary problems people seem to have with ID theory are that many of its proponents make reference to God. I'll admit I'm not an expert on either ID or evolutionary theory -- but saying that something has religious overtones doesn't make it unscientific. Unless you'd like to rescind your earlier contention that you don't pit science and religion against one another.

Let regilion run you're life not my country.

Law Fairy

"Scientific soundness is up to school boards, and the school board in this case determined that ID was scientific."

No they didn't. And here's where the willful mispresentation begins (am I surprise? No, because I read Judge Jones' case).

Read Judge Jones' case. Where was this "determination" of the scientific legitimacy of ID made, who made it, and how did they make it?

Or is that somehow not relevant, Fairy?

I have a theory called Enterocraftic Theory Fairy which says that mysterious alien beings defecated all the species of life that ever lived on earth for the past 4 billion years, and also defecated forth two infamous deluded creatures named Jesus Christ and Mohammed.

I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology. I have a few dozen friends who are professional scientists who will sign a statement that this theory is a legitimate alternative to "ID theory."

So let's teach it, okay?

I've got a bunch of other theories, too, Fairy. They are all designed to entertain schoolchildren and encourage them to "think critically" about deities, Messiahs, prophets and other "scientific" "forces".

Fairy also writes

"saying that something has religious overtones doesn't make it unscientific."

Nobody said that. Nice strawman, Fairy.

Professor Aschuler, please note that dustkickers like Fairy are commonplace in the creationist apologist barnyard. If I've seen one, I've seen five hundred.

Judge Jones had to listen to their garbage and wade through their testimony for six weeks. That's why he wrote the opinion that he did.

The Law Fairy wrote: "Actually, maurile, you're incorrect. The Lemon test isn't a test of scientific soundness."

I didn't say it was.

But the Lemon test does ask whether the government action under consideration has a primarily secular purpose or effect. Since there is no legitimate secular purpose for mandating that unscientific ideas be presented in science class, the court had to determine whether ID was a scientific idea.

Both sides presented their evidence and argument on that issue, and so aided by the parties, the court got the right answer.

Deborah Spaeth wrote: "Judge Jones had to listen to their garbage and wade through their testimony for six weeks. That's why he wrote the opinion that he did."

Exactly right.

Nick Matzke's post at the Panda's Thumb really hit the nail on the head perfectly.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/boy_they_really.html

The Law Fairy writes:

"...the school board in this case determined that ID was scientific."

Perhaps you didn't read the opinion or transcripts closely enough. From page 131:

"...most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous."

If they never knew what ID was, it seems impossible to conclude that they determined it was scientific.
> <p>

Leo Strauss taught you well to lie to the rubes, eh Albert?

"It is possible to formulate a version of ID that is purely scientific (i.e., a testable, falsifiable theory)"

Actually, maurile, that isn't possible. ID is, fundamentally,

a) A negative claim against a scientific theory -- as such it is not the sort of thing that can be a scientific theory.

b) An argumentum ad ignorantiam -- a form of false dichotomy. A scientific theory cannot be based on a fallacy.

c) Explicitly silent on the very thing that such a theory would have to be vocal about -- the facts about the designer that would allow making predictions about its actions.
> <p>

I'm not responding to each individual argument about the scientific soundness of ID. Here's the point I'm trying to make, if others can manage to open their minds a crack to see that I'm not, strictly speaking, making an argument for the scientific soundness of ANY particular theory. I'm not a scientist. I'm a lawyer. As a lawyer, it is not my place to determine what is scientific. The same would hold true if I were a federal judge. What WOULD be my place would be to determine if someone has violated the Constitution. I'm arguing that Judge Jones got it wrong. Just because people espouse a scientific theory because of their religious beliefs, doesn't itself make that theory unscientific. And even if it did, that's not the court's place to say.

Whether or not the board was correct in determining that ID was sound science -- which, regardless of their REASONS for believing so, is in fact what they determined -- is not for the court to say. The court is to leave those concerns to the school boards and the people. The people in this case voted in a new school board. Good for them -- that's their right as citizens.

What's troubling about this case is that a federal judge took it upon himself to beat down a group of religious people who have views about science that are different from the majority view. Here's the problem with the Lemon test: you can't look at individual people's MOTIVES in determining whether something is religious or not. Individual motives are separate from legislative motives. Judge Jones either became confused on this point or ignored it.

You want to talk about straw men, let's talk about the defendants in this case. I doubt any serious proponents of ID theory would choose these people as their poster children. Frankly, they're not the sharpest tools in the shed. That the judge devotes so much time to criticizing them and their ideology belies his own motives. Perhaps we ought to apply the Lemon test to judicial decisions themselves -- don't forget that the First Amendment says you can't inhibit religion, either.

Deborah, I applaud your efforts to seek out new answers to the ultimate questions of life. Way to avoid the trap of lazy thinking and step outside the box.

Unless, of course, you were being sarcastic. But I'm sure that, as a doctor, you know better than to simply accept what other scientists tell you as true as gospel. Whoops -- sorry, I used a religious word! Can't have that in the annals of real science...

Is Perfesser Albert ignorant or dishonest? Surely he is one or the other when it comes to the subject of promoting religion in public schools.

He writes

" The court’s response – “well, that’s what they say, but we know what they mean” – is uncivil, an illustration of the dismissive and contemptuous treatment that characterizes much contemporary discourse."

Here the Perfesser spits on "contemporary discourse" but consider: Judge Jones opinion is well over 100 pages long. He lays out the facts and the law as plainly as a judge can. His analysis and reasoning is presented for us to see and consider.

How is Judge Jones' opinion "uncivil," "dismissive," or "contemptuous"?

The answer is: it's not. It's the Great Perfesser Albert's smear piece that is uncivil, dismissive and contemptuous because it completely misrepresents what Judge Jones actually wrote and held.

I agree that contempory discourse is diminished. But it's dishonest propagandists like Perfesser Albert that are causing it to be so.

"Many evolutionary biologists undoubtedly regard religion as akin to sorcery"

How about Ken Miller, the biologist who testified that ID is garbage? He's a Christian. How about the evangelical Christian who heads the National Institute of Health who knows that "ID theory" is creationist garbage? What about the fact that most scientists who are Christians think that the ID peddlers at the Discovery Institute are worthless anti-science charlatans trying to establish a Christian theocracy in the US?

Somehow the Great Perfesser, defender of free thought, forgets to mention such simple facts when he smears Judge Jones' well-reasoned opinion.

But the Great Perfesser undoubtedly lives in a bubble with other great "thinkers" of our time where inconvenient facts are shoveled under the carpet and useful facts are "created" to tell a story that pleases the storyteller.

In the "old days" we'd call such people liars. Nowadays, I'm told that people like the Great Perfesser merely have a different "worldview."

Maybe someone should remind the Perfesser that he still lives on planet earth and some of us aren't drinking the kool-aid.

"And it seems to me many of the people here arguing against ID theory are throwing around the words "unscientific" and "religious" somewhat interchangeably"

No, only you are doing that, as with you first post:

"maurile --

It's interesting that you reject anything referencing the "supernatural" as unscientific."

Despite maurile's explicit and extensive denial of this characterization, you continue to make it. This is both dishonest and unintelligent -- ID is *both* unscientific *and* religiously motivated. Without the latter, Establishment wouldn't be relevant, and without the former, it wouldn't apply.

"if others can manage to open their minds a crack"

Pot to kettle. Your claims are disingenuous and wrong, but you are completely closed to seeing or acknowledging error in your own statements.

"Just because people espouse a scientific theory because of their religious beliefs, doesn't itself make that theory unscientific."

For the forty billionth time, this is a strawman. By your own admission, you are incompetent to judge whether ID is unscientific -- but those who ARE competent have done so and testified in Kitzmiller; THAT is why it's unscientific, not "because of their religious beliefs". Sheesh. Are you phenomemally dishonest, or just plain stupid? Take your pick.

The Fairy:

"What's troubling about this case is that a federal judge took it upon himself to beat down a group of religious people who have views about science that are different from the majority view."

The view of those "religious people" is that the practice of science -- i.e., methodological naturalism -- is inherently anti-religious.

That is why Bill Buckingham demanded that Dover "take a stand for Jesus" and teach that evolutionary biology "has flaws" and that "mysterious alien beings creating all the life forms that ever lived on earth" is a legitimate scientific alternative to the explanation favored by the overwhelming majority of experts.

The Judge showed that the views about science held by those "religious people" was WRONG. Not "different." WRONG.

Read the decision, Fairy. And try not to lie about it. You know, like the liars in Dover and the liars at the Discovery Institute.

Let's say for the sake of argument that my religion says that people named George are going to hell because they are dirty animals. I have every right to believe that. And I have every right to tell people my belief.

Let's say that my religion starts paying for ads that say "People named George are dirty animals. Going to hell! It is written by the Prophet!!!! Beware those who claim otherwise! They are heretics!"

And I broadcast this 24 hours a day for a ten years.

Now, everyone knows that people exist named George. And animals exist. So I go to my school board and I say, "Hey it's time to start teaching our kids this important scientific fact about people named George."

And I point to these hundreds of thousands of people who believe me that these Georges are dirty animals who are going to hell, including some Ph.D.s (DUDE, PH.Ds! WOW!) who are doing "research" that will "eventually" "show" "scientifically" that George is a dirty animal.

We even find some people named George who are really dirty. And we remind people that humans are animals! So philosophically it's hard to argue that there isn't some truth to our claim. And nobody can say FOR SURE that there is not a hell, so it's always a possibility there is one. Compelling huh?

Now, it so happens that just about every biologist on earth thinks that this claim that "every person named George is a dirty animal who is going to hell" is pure garbage.

Is it wrong for a Judge to "beat me down" when I claim that my "theory" is "scientific"?

Go for it, Fairy.

The only real distinction between my hypo and the facts in this case is that the evidence that some people named George are dirty animals going to hell is better than the evidence that mysterious alien beings created every life form that ever lived on earth for the past 4 billion years ....

... that and the fact that I didn't lie about the fact that I was trying to shove my religious beliefs down the throats of kids in public schools ...

> <p>

I love this brethtaking bit of question begging by Prince Albert:

"While professing to offer no opinion concerning the truth of intelligent design, the court consistently reveals its contempt for this theory."

As the testimony in Kitzmiller clearly showed, ID is not a scientific theory. But that doesn't establish that it's *false*.

Consider the claim that George Bush is guided by divine providence. That could be true -- I suspect that Judge Jones, a churchgoer appointed by Bush, believes that. But directing teachers to suggest that as a possible cause of world affairs in political science classes would richly deserve contempt.
> <p>

Wow, Jay, counting to forty billion is pretty impressive. Did your mommy teach you that?

It doesn't matter whether people in Kitzmiller testified that it was unscientific: until we make a law that says courts are the arbiters of science (which would be a bad law to make), presenting scientific testimony is a red herring. My point was and is that what constitutes "science" is up to the school boards. The fact that Judge Jones feels the need to kick the previous board while it's down, when it's practically a MOOT POINT because the new board will change the standards, is troubling.

My points about "supernatural" and "scientific" were made in reference to this quote from maurile, way back in the first comment:

"The same references to the supernatural (which is outside the proper domain of science)."

But, hey, go ahead and pretend I put words in maurile's mouth. It's easier to criticize me that way.

And I'm not making up what people have said. I'm not accusing all critics of ID of believing a certain set of ideas (though it would be nice if they would extend proponents of ID the same courtesy) -- but there is a link here between dismissing it as "religious" and "unscientific." The definition set out about empirically testing something that is scientific, and I'm not arguing that this isn't widespread in the scientific community, is biased against effects we can't test in a laboratory setting. There is a bias in society towards things that are termed "scientific." Thus, when you interchange "religious" and "unscientific" -- which the judge did by fashioning his opinion as one that rejecting the policy as unscientific as well as unconstitutional -- then you make religion inferior to science. When done by a government entity, THIS is unconstitutional.

It's not just the opinion, either. For instance, PantsB said:

"Their actions, this "compromise", was attempting to teach a concept in order to endorse a religious viewpoint. This is a religious motivation and not a secular one. This was not determined by 'psychoanalysis' but by numerous witnesses who testified to repeated lies under oath by the decision makers regarding their connection and the decision's connection to religious groups.

A motivation to teach religious views guised as science clearly violates the endorsement clause. Attempting to justify otherwise is a futile attempt in double think."

This criticism, regardless of its validity, isn't a scientific one. It's a political one. THIS is how we're confusing the issue. But, please, by all means, keep calling me disingenuous. It is a lot easier then confronting me on the validity of my legal arguments.

And, I can't resist. Here's a quote from Deborah:

"Professor Aschuler, please note that dustkickers like Fairy are commonplace in the creationist apologist barnyard. If I've seen one, I've seen five hundred."

Hmm. So... if someone as dumb as me will defend an idea... it's wrong! I think that's one of my favorite logical fallacies.

Dear (Anonymous) Law Fairy,
> I have a bargain for you and all of the other folks who think Judge Jones &quot;got it wrong.&quot; We'll be sure to include a discussion in high school biology classrooms of the holes and gaps in evolutionary theory--after all, without such a discussion, budding scientists don't know what problems to examine. Indeed, any good biology teacher is ALREADY doing this--assuming, of course, they are even allowed or encouraged to give evolutionary theory more than a mere passing glance. Obviously, there's no harm in teacing students about some of the things evolutionary theorists have yet to explain. Moreover, this approach would not violate the 1st Amendment--indeed, the word &quot;God&quot; or &quot;designer&quot; would never need to be uttered. <p>

Would this placate you and others of your ilk? No. Why? Because the point of teaching ID is NOT the mere negative one of showing the weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Rather, the point is to give students a theological alternative. This is precisely why Judge Jones got it RIGHT. If the IDiots were merely concerned with pointing out some of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory, they could have accomplished this by simply bolstering students' existent scientific schooling with a more detailed analysis of the successes and failures of evolutionary theory to explain the origins of life. But that is not what they did. They were not content to teach the problems with evolutionary theory, they wanted to teach alternatives. However, so long as we follow Bacon in defining science in terms of its research methodology, there are NO competing alternative scientific theories concerning the origins of life. For now, at least, the various versions of evolutionary theory are the "only show in town." Hence, Judge Jones ruled that the school board is not allowed to use public funds to deceive children into believing that "god did it" is a legitimate scientific explanation. Ultimately, I am willing to concede that there is a perfectly legitimate secular purpose for teaching the problems with evolutionary theory. But IDiots want more than this. Luckily, Judge Jones saw through their BS.
> <p>

"It is painfully obvious that evolution (whether it be macro or micro) is falsifiable in this respect. So, what evidence would, in principle, speak against macroevolution? Discoveries of fossils that are out of place--e.g., fossils of bunny rabbits that date to the Pre-Cambrian."

That is a historical observation, not a prediction of the Darwinian theory of evolution. If this is the standard for falsifiability, then the Law Fairy's nuclear reactor theory meets it. If the standard is that a theory is scientific only if it's *predictions* are falsifiable, then neither Darwinism (at least in the case of macroevolution) nor Law Fairy's nuclear reactor theory meet the standard.

"The only real distinction between my hypo and the facts in this case is that the evidence that some people named George are dirty animals going to hell is better than the evidence that mysterious alien beings created every life form that ever lived on earth for the past 4 billion years ...."

It's even worse than that -- the equivalent to the ID claim would be that the fact that Harry rolls around in the mud and doesn't bathe is inadequate to explain why he's dirty.

Debs:

"Let's say for the sake of argument that my religion says that people named George are going to hell because they are dirty animals. I have every right to believe that. And I have every right to tell people my belief."

Ah. Because THAT'S not a straw man. Brilliantly done.

tnadelhoffer --

pseudonymous, actually. But, hey, let's not niggle over unimportant little things, right?

I'm not sure who you think my "ilk" is. It's certainly not the Fundies -- which you would know if you'd paid attention to one of my earlier posts. For me personally, I'd be happy with a responsible presentation of science. One that doesn't make it into its own religion. Yes, science works. Yes, we have derived a lot of gains in this world from the scientific method and its application. But can science tell us why we are here? Can it tell us who we are as people? No. And you can't ignore that fact that our understanding of our own origins is somehow going to affect the way we view ourselves. I personally would be happy with a lively discussion about the various flaws in evolutionary theory and the fact that we don't know for sure what happened if we couldn't witness it, and this is only our best guess. But the fact is that in most schools, the students who bring up these questions are ridiculed by the students whose parents have bought into scientific arrogance. Their beliefs are belittled and their parents have a harder time raising them to believe what they think is right. You give me government funding for schools that teach other beliefs, and fine, go ahead and mandate evolution-only education. But the fact is that, the way things stand, such a discussion is not supported in the classroom environment. If we could change things, that would make ME happy. I can't speak for others -- though you seem to be able to -- but as for ME, that's what I would like.

And calling someone an idiot just because you think they're wrong is just plain immature.

Kali wrote, regarding fossil rabbits in the precambrian: "That is a historical observation, not a prediction of the Darwinian theory of evolution."

No, it is prediction about the future. The prediction is that, on future digs, we will not find any fossil rabbits in the precambrian strata.

A future dig may falsify that prediction.

Law Fairy, you should read Judge Jones's opinion. It appears you haven't. If you don't want to read the whole opinion, there is an excellent summary of the entire case here:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-12-20.html

Fairy

"It doesn't matter whether people in Kitzmiller testified that it was unscientific: until we make a law that says courts are the arbiters of science"

So, here we have a creationist apologist who claims to be a lawyer but who doesn't seem to have heard of Daubert or Kumho Tire.

Pay attention, Albert. These are the habitual dissemblers you're getting into bed with when you spit on Judge Jones.

Here's our Fairy friend in court defending the pharmaceutical company that put cyanide in its aspirin tablets: "You see, Your Honor, these mysterious alien beings turned the aspirin into cyanide for reasons that we aren't privileged to know. And I'm going to put Father Dominic on the stand, an expert on these sorts of occurances that I flew in from Lourdes, to testify to the likelihood of this fact. I'm sure you have no objection to this use of the court's time."
> <p>

The Law Fairy: "Judge Jones ruled that the school board couldn't make a scientific determination about ID because it was religious."

No, there was no "because" in his reasoning. He found on both, that it was not science and that it was religious, independently. He decided that the board members couldn't really even explain what ID was; they only knew that it supported their religious preferences.

I wrote: "It is possible to formulate a version of ID that is purely scientific (i.e., a testable, falsifiable theory)"

Jay Byrd responded: "Actually, maurile, that isn't possible."

Sure it is. I'll propose a testable, falsifiable version of ID myself:

My scientific version of ID predicts that creatures were designed intelligently, and therefore we will find no instances of stupid design in nature.

For example, the fish that live in dark caves will not have vestigial, non-functional eyes. That would be stupid.

Also, humans will not have muscles attached to the coccyx that, in other primates, are used to flex the tail but (since the human tail bones are all fused together) would be non-functional in humans. That would be stupid as well.

I've got lots more.

That is a testable, falsifiable version of ID. It is also, of course, false. But false theories are still theories. We still refer to the aether theory, the flogiston theory, etc. They were testable and falsifiable, and therefore, scientific. So is my own version of ID.

Jagshemash

God forbid that our poor little children might lose faith in evolution...a fate worse then death I be sayin. Who do they think they are to try to stop us from proving God doesn't exist? Don't they know that we have the right to stop people from hearing criticism of evolution, a right given to us by the almighty constitution.

Why those no good lying horn swagglin no goodniks, there just awaitin to sneak in to our poor precious children the thought that atheism isn't true, how horrible, how dastardly, how wrong.

So beware my people, the times they are a changin. From now on we'll have to be vigilant and fight for our rights to um...uh...tell kids that God is a fairy tale. We cannot allow a religious voice in our schools.

The poor precious children, who will save them from God, who will bring them to our savior, who will shine the light on the highest of the high the most revered pontificalistiness...Darwin (peace be upon him)..the most righteous magnifico and most blessed of rapturous orgasimification?

Oh when will that day come when I can once again rejoice in the knowledge of my immenent eternal death? When will I find that blessed joy?

All curses are to be bestowed on the cheaters and liars who want to stop the divine message of death.

Goodbye. Chenque!

http://groups.msn.com/EarthComesAlive/

Kali: "That is a historical observation, not a prediction of the Darwinian theory of evolution."

Is it not a real prediction when scientists predicted that there must be a chromosome fusion in human DNA, because other primates have more? We did find that fusion.

All known DNA can be thought of as a survived falsification for evolution and common descent.

Law Fairy

"But can science tell us why we are here? Can it tell us who we are as people? No."

Even more devastating, science can't tell us whether bunny rabbits are cuter than kittens.

Given these shortcomings, it boggles the mind why the Constitution requires the government to promote science but forbids the government from establish religion which, among other incontrovertible achievements, has made fetus-worship, vegetable-worship, and anti-gay bigotry acceptable again.

"the fact is that in most schools, the students who bring up these questions are ridiculed by the students whose parents have bought into scientific arrogance."

That's a funny way of putting "scientifically literate", Fairy. Sort of a bigoted dishonest way, actually.

Remember the Dover pastor who lamented, "We are being attacked by the educated intelligent segment of the culture"?

That was hilarious.

"calling someone an idiot just because you think they're wrong is just plain immature."

Whatever, Fairy. I don't "think" you're wrong. I've proven that you're wrong and anyone who can't recognize that fact by now is, well, an idiot.

Too bad for them. Federal Judges, generally speaking, don't have much time for idiots. Or liars.

Dear Fairy,
> First, I assumed that the reason people choose pseudonyms is to remain anonymous--but that is neither here nor there. Second, I did not call proponents of ID &quot;IDiots&quot; (not my phrase--but an appropriate one nonetheless) because I think they're wrong. I called them &quot;IDiots&quot; because their claim that ID is science is, in fact, idiotic in the strict sense of the word (i.e., completely devoid of wisdom or good sense). Hence, their suggestion that their legal efforts are not a thinly veiled attempt to sneak creationism past the Supreme Court is equally idiotic (i.e., laughable). <p>

There are a number of people with whom I disagree and a number of beliefs and theories that I think are wrong. Indeed, my own mother believes in God--but I do not think she is an idiot. If, however, she thought that my children (her grandchildren) should be taught in a public school that "god did it" is a legitimate scientific explanation--then I would, lamentably, be forced to conclude that she, too, is idiotic after all. Luckily, she is a reasonable Christian who thinks the school board in Dover went off the deep end.

Maurile

"For example, the fish that live in dark caves will not have vestigial, non-functional eyes. That would be stupid."

Yes but that is a loss of infermation and so is diffirant from what evolutoinists say happened. The fish still has gills for lungs and can breath water so that is very inteligent in fact! You have to admit this.

Also your exampel don't explain why sharks haven't grown legs and taken over the earth.

> <p>

"My points about "supernatural" and "scientific" were made in reference to this quote from maurile, way back in the first comment"

I'll grant you that -- but saying that what maurile wrote equates "religious" and "unscientific" commits a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. There are many ways to be unscientific, and invoking the supernatural as an "explanation" is just one. That you find maurile's comment "interesting" is consistent with your lack of knowledge and understanding of science, and scientific epistemology. Science is all about causal explanation; its purpose is to allow us to make correct predictions. "supernatural" is by definition noncausal and nonexplanatory. It's a bit sad that there's any need to mention this; the point hammered home by the famous "a miracle happens here" New Yorker cartoon should be clear enough without it.

"And calling someone an idiot just because you think they're wrong is just plain immature."

Another strawman -- that's not why people say it, it's because of a demonstrated failure to reason. And making such a blanket claim about the developmental level of anyone who uses a certain word is itself somewhat immature. "Mommy, mommy, he said a bad word!"
> <p>

"No, it is prediction about the future. The prediction is that, on future digs, we will not find any fossil rabbits in the precambrian strata. A future dig may falsify that prediction."

Shouldn't a scientific theory be falsifiable based on a positive (what will happen) rather than a negative prediction (what will not happen)? If we use the latter standard for falsifiability, basically any theory can claim to be scientific simply by listing improbable or impossible events consistent with their theory (e.g. Maurile's examples above).

Deborah:

Wow. Who made you hate creationists so much? Were you abused as a child? I'm very sorry for whatever they did to you to make you so angry and bitter.

By the way, I'm not a creationist. I'm agnostic about the origins of life. I just think that there's a decided bias in our culture toward what "science" can tell us. I'm not saying that this bias is unreasonable. I'm saying that when it clouds our judgment to the point that anything we can't prove scientifically is regarded with a suspicious eye, this is troubling. It has nothing to do with kittens or bunnies, unless you think that's why we're here.

Maybe you don't care if there's something deeper behind life. But for some of us these kinds of issues matter. And the Constitution gives me and others the right to live my life like it matters. When publicly funded schools try to teach my children a theory that affects what they think about whether or why or how it matters, they're arguably infringing on my religious freedom.

And the idiot comment was actually in reference to tnadelhoffer's calling people IDiots. But, hey, if you want to jump on the ad hominem wagon, knock yourself out. Hopefully the reasonable people here will see your vitriol for the pathetic bitterness that it is.

tnadelhoffer: you know what happens when we assume...

Saying something is idiotic is different from calling someone an idiot, though both have elements of immaturity to them. It's far more effective to show someone what is so "idiotic" about an idea and let them come to the conclusion themselves. And you fail to show what's this rational dividing line between believing in something and thinking that it should be taught. It seems to be that some things are okay for people to believe, but they shouldn't lead other people to believe them -- but isn't that tantamount to saying they're free to believe it a little bit in their private time, but it's not okay to believe it so much that they think it's a truth others should be exposed to?

Kali wrote: "Shouldn't a scientific theory be falsifiable based on a positive (what will happen) rather than a negative prediction (what will not happen)?"

No, but any negative can be rewritten as a positive. All the fossils we find in the precambrian strata will be non-rabbits.

"If we use the latter standard for falsifiability, basically any theory can claim to be scientific simply by listing improbable or impossible events consistent with their theory (e.g. Maurile's examples above)."

Not true. For example, the traditional version of ID is still unscientific since it doesn't make any falsifiable predictions. No possible observation or experimental result is inconsistent with it.

"Sure it is. I'll propose a testable, falsifiable version of ID myself:

My scientific version of ID predicts that creatures were designed intelligently, and therefore we will find no instances of stupid design in nature."

Ahem. You have offered no scientific theory. You have offered a meaningless claim -- because its terms are undefined -- that "creatures were designed intelligently", and offered a "prediction" that is merely a value judgment which essentially restates the claim -- at most it makes one prediction, but provides no decision mechanism for determining whether the prediction is accurate; "that's stupid" is not a scientific observation.

I suggest that you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
> before offering up such silliness.<br>

Fairy

"Wow. Who made you hate creationists so much? Were you abused as a child? I'm very sorry for whatever they did to you to make you so angry and bitter."

I'm laughing my ass off, Mr. Pathetic Amateur Psychologist.

> <p>

Jay Bird, obviously I was giving the shorthand version. A more elaborate theory could be devised that specifically defines "stupd" in an objective way.

The point is that it is possible to make falsifiable predictions based on the notion that we were intelligently designed.

The IDers don't do this (because any such falsifiable predictions would be immediately falsified). But it is possible.

In the same way, I can make a scientific version of Young Earth Creationism that predicts that, the next time we date the earth using isochron dating methods, we will get a result of just 6,000 years or so.

Obviously, this prediction would be false. But the fact that it's falsifiable means that it is one step ahead (scientifically speaking) of the more traditional, non-falsifiable versions of ID and creationism.

P.S. Another reason why your "theory" is absurd, which is critical to the issue over ID, is that it begs the question. Even if "There are no instances of stupid creatures" were true, that would not entail intelligent design. By your lights, "All humans were cleverly designed to have nipples" is not only a scientific theory, but a correct one. Which is clearly ludicrous -- the fact that we have nipples is not *explained* by the handwaving assertion of "intelligent design". As I noted, ID is silent on exactly what it must be vocal about: the nature of the designer -- what is needed is a *causal* explanation that yields predictions.

"When publicly funded schools try to teach my children a theory that affects what they think about whether or why or how it matters, they're arguably infringing on my religious freedom."

Sure. And they're arguably infringing my right to own a firearm.

News flash: you lost.

Show some grace and get over it instead of lying about Judge Jones, his decision, "intelligent design", whether courts can decide what "science" is, and all the other baloney you've posted here.

"Maybe you don't care if there's something deeper behind life. But for some of us these kinds of issues matter. And the Constitution gives me and others the right to live my life like it matters."

Sorry, but the Constitution does not confer upon you the right to have your religious beliefs CODDLED whenever those beliefs are contradicted by facts.

See my hypothetical above if you still don't understand this.

The National Weather Service isn't required to say "This high pressure area may bring much-needed rain OR -- for you religious folks out there -- an intelligent weathermaker may bring much-needed rain."

Right? You agree? It's the same deal, Fairy. Where's the lawsuit against the National Weather Service for promoting "materialist" ideas about weather?

"It's far more effective to show someone what is so "idiotic" about an idea and let them come to the conclusion themselves."

I agree. That is why you're presence here is so helpful for demonstrating what a bunch of lying idiots creationists are.

Jay Bard you said:

"Science is all about causal explanation; its purpose is to allow us to make correct predictions."

I tell you what, "science" is in the eye of the beholder, education is in the mind of the beholder. "Science" is subjective, truth is objective, and our minds are stuck in between. Anytime someone wants to define science in a fascistic sense, true science is automatically the loser. True science is in the search for THE truth, fascistic science is in the search for A truth.

Science without a strong philosophical basis in freedom of choice is no science at all, it is anti science, it is science's retarded inbred cousin.

The desire to forcibly remove an avenue of investigation in the name of science is in reality a betrayal of science, a traitorous affair. If in the name of science fascism is given the freedom to reign supreme, what then of your bleating hearts? What then of your cry for intellectual honesty? All dashed on the rocks of hypocrisy's turgid mire. The bloated self delusional pride of Icarus leads surely to his own self defeat as surely as the minds of the simple tell them they know everything they need to know. But what of it? We have better things to do then worry about integrity, this is a war, a war against God. We will fight till our own God consumes us. What then of our travesties?

"No, but any negative can be rewritten as a positive. All the fossils we find in the precambrian strata will be non-rabbits."

That "non" still makes it a negative, in terms of making predictions.

"Not true. For example, the traditional version of ID is still unscientific since it doesn't make any falsifiable predictions. No possible observation or experimental result is inconsistent with it."

The traditional version of ID predicts that we will not find a gradual-step-wise explanation for the irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting system. Does that make it scientific?

The criterion "falsifiability" has been tossed around quite a bit by both sides in this debate. Evolution is not falsifiable, say ID proponents. ID is not falsifiable, say the evolutionists. Without a theory being "falsifiable", there is no way of telling whether it is false or true--at least that is the assumption.

Yet is the falsifiability criterion itself subject to falsification? Is it empirically testable? If not, then doesn't faith in the criterion constitute a pre-scientific assumption which, though the entire scientific enterprise is based upon it, is itself sub-empirical or supra-empirical i.e metaphysical? I'm not simply being paradoxical for the sake of it--I think both sides in this debate rest the bulk of their respective cases on this criterion. So far, it has not proved very useful for "proving" the rightness of evolution or ID except to those already-convinced.

Kaiser Soze

"Anytime someone wants to define science in a fascistic sense, true science is automatically the loser."

There's a couple automatic losers around here, actually.

Science isn't one of them.

"Yet is the falsifiability criterion itself subject to falsification? Is it empirically testable? If not, then doesn't faith in the criterion constitute a pre-scientific assumption which, though the entire scientific enterprise is based upon it, is itself sub-empirical or ...."

Please step away from the crack pipe.

"A more elaborate theory could be devised that specifically defines "stupd" in an objective way."

That's not at all clear. This is a lesson from the history of the theory of evolution -- fitness can only be defined in terms of propagation of traits into the population, not in absolute terms.

"The point is that it is possible to make falsifiable predictions based on the notion that we were intelligently designed."

No, it isn't, because there's no way to establish a causal relationship from "intelligently designed" to "not stupid", even if you had a measure for the latter, lacking a theory of intelligence and design. And it's the latter that is needed, but impossible, because there is in fact no evidence of intelligence or design, contra Behe and Dembski.
> <p>

"Yet is the falsifiability criterion itself subject to falsification?"

It's a tautology:

not F(p) => not(for all x, F(x))
> <p>

"because there is in fact no evidence of intelligence or design"

I mean of course that there's no evidence that biodiversity -- the phenomenon that the theory of evolution explains -- is a consequence of intelligence or design.

"And it's the latter that is needed, but impossible, because there is in fact no evidence of intelligence or design, contra Behe and Dembski."

If life didn't evolve and I had to guess, I'd say that a deity defecated all the life forms that ever lived on earth. I mean, it's pretty obvious that's the next best explanation for the most diverse group of organisms on earth, i.e., microbes. And of course Jesus and Mohammed were excreted as well.

I think kids would enjoy learning about this theory in science class. It'd be fun and generate some excitement and interest and critical thinking. The Christians would have their minds opened.

And that's what education is all about.

Right, Fairy? Right Perfesser Albert?
> <p>

"Maybe you don't care if there's something deeper behind life. But for some of us these kinds of issues matter. And the Constitution gives me and others the right to live my life like it matters. When publicly funded schools try to teach my children a theory that affects what they think about whether or why or how it matters, they're arguably infringing on my religious freedom."

Yeah, like when they teach that the earth goes around the sun or that the earth is more than a few thousand years old.

Given enough rope, folks like Law Fairy will always hang themselves. It's not about any of the real legal issues at play in this case, its about their rejection of the teaching of facts (such as the facts of evolution) that, they think, challenge their beliefs.
> <p>

"I tell you what, "science" is in the eye of the beholder"

Yeah, so is modus ponens. But people who behold it incorrectly make a lot of mistakes.

Jay Byrd wrote: "Another reason why your 'theory' is absurd, which is critical to the issue over ID, is that it begs the question. Even if 'There are no instances of stupid creatures' were true, that would not entail intelligent design."

And even if there are no rabbits in the precambrian, that does not entail evolution.

A theory can never be proven, only disproven. The fact that it can be disproven -- i.e., that there are possible observations that would be inconsistent with it -- is what makes it a theory.

"By your lights, 'All humans were cleverly designed to have nipples' is not only a scientific theory, but a correct one."

Now you are acting like the Law Fairy. You are putting words in my mouth that don't follow from any of my actual statements.

"Which is clearly ludicrous -- the fact that we have nipples is not *explained* by the handwaving assertion of 'intelligent design'."

Right. I didn't say it was.

"As I noted, ID is silent on exactly what it must be vocal about: the nature of the designer -- what is needed is a *causal* explanation that yields predictions."

A proposed mechanism is always nice, but it isn't essential. There's no proposed mechanism for how QM works, but the theory still makes a lot of falsifiable predictions.

"The desire to forcibly remove an avenue of investigation in the name of science is in reality a betrayal of science, a traitorous affair."

It's quite predictable that those who oppose the Kitzmiller ruling will make numerous false and foolish statements. People are free to do scientific investigation and get it published and debated in scientific journals. That has nothing to do with misleading schoolchildren as to the status of scientific consensus or telling them that a metaphysical claim is a scientific theory.

For those hewing the "ID is not falsifiable" line, do you think the argument from irreducible complexity has been falsified? Ken Miller, the darling of the district court, does: This is what Ken Miller, one of the plaintiff's expert witnesses, the trial judge's darling, and probably the leading anti-ID publicizer, says about the evidence for an evolutionary pathway to the bacterial flagellum: "What this means, in scientific terms, is that the hypothesis of irreducible complexity is falsified." See Miller, Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design, available at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html. If falsifiability is the criterion, Miller effectively admits that ID is science, at least when he's trying to refute it on the merits. So which is it? Is it not "science," or has it been falsified? Or -- better answer -- is falsifiability a criterion that has largely outlived its usefulness?

dopderbeck wrote: "If falsifiability is the criterion, Miller effectively admits that ID is science, at least when he's trying to refute it on the merits."

No. I linked to Nick Matzke's post at Panda's Thumb earlier. Here's a single paragraph from it, which addresses your point directly (towards the middle of it):

I’m pretty convinced that if another court case were held tomorrow, the ID side would try all of the same arguments over again. Behe would get up there and brazenly assert that scientists were baffled at the evolutionary origin of irreducibly complex systems, and again we would stack up the articles and books on the evolution of the immune system on his podium in front of him. Again, they would repeat the quarter-baked argument that evolution can’t produce new genetic information, and again we would show the judge the peer-reviewed research articles showing how new genes come about. Again they would assert gaps in the fossil record, and again a paleontologist would show the judge — show the judge, right there in court — a bunch of transitional fossils that have been discovered in the last decade or so. They would claim that evolutionists say that ID is both unfalsifiable and unfalsified, and again we would point out that evolution is testable, and the ID movement’s claims against evolution have been tested and failed — but that the only positive argument they’ve got, “purposeful arrangement of parts”, is untestable without some model of the purposeful agent and his purposes. Again, they would recite their fake history of their movement, ignoring the fact that all of the ID arguments were originally “creation science” arguments, and again we would show the judge the real history, the transitional forms (this time we’d make sure “cdesign proponentsists” made it onto the judge’s computer screen during the trial), and the identity in tactics and argumentation between the two movements. And again, the judge would learn that the ID claims are simply thin soundbites that fall apart upon detailed examination, whereas the plaintiffs case is based on sound fundamentals — peer-reviewed science, well-documented history, coherant philosophy, and above all pragmatic considerations for what constitutes good science and good science education — and again, we would get an overwhelming ruling.

"And even if there are no rabbits in the precambrian, that does not entail evolution."

Non sequitur irrelevancy.

"Now you are acting like the Law Fairy. You are putting words in my mouth that don't follow from any of my actual statements."

Uh, no, I didn't. Sorry for mistaking you for someone who could follow a logical argument.

""Which is clearly ludicrous -- the fact that we have nipples is not *explained* by the handwaving assertion of 'intelligent design'."

Right. I didn't say it was."

But you said something of the same sort -- that instances of stupidity in nature would be explained by intelligent design; that's what it *means* to say that ID is a scientific theory that predicts such instances. But "intelligent design" doesn't explain it at all, it's just a way of rephrasing it, like Moliere's virtus dormativus.

"A proposed mechanism is always nice, but it isn't essential. There's no proposed mechanism for how QM works, but the theory still makes a lot of falsifiable predictions."

Another strawman. QM is not a theory of intelligently designed physics, it's a theory of physics. If you want to propose a theory of objectively defined biological "stupidity", that's fine, but as I noted, throwing the words "intelligent design" into it begs the question. And that goes back to your erronous claim that this silly exchange is about -- that a scientific theory of intelligent design is possible. It isn't possible because "intelligently designed" is not causally explanatory, any more than "a result of supernatural forces".

I meant to correct Nick's typo above -- it's in the precise sentence that addresses dopderbeck's argument.

Where it says "They would claim that evolutionists say that ID is both unfalsifiable and unfalsified," he means "both unfalsifiable and falsified."

Jay Byrd, you obviously didn't understand my point, and it's not worth arguing about here. Maybe it's my fault if I didn't express it clearly enough, or maybe it's your fault if your reading comprehension sucks. ("But you said something of the same sort -- that instances of stupidity in nature would be explained by intelligent design"? I can't even imagine where you got something like that.)

But either way, this isn't the right forum for such a hijack.

dopderbeck

"For those hewing the "ID is not falsifiable" line, do you think the argument from irreducible complexity has been falsified?"

dopderbeck is a creationist troll and I would bet 100:1 odds that he made this "Argument" already at the Panda's Thumb or elsewhere and his butt handed back to him.

But such is the nature of the creationist: repeat, repeat, recite, whine, repeat, whine, whine, repeat, repeat.

Like all devoted propagandists on the creationist side, dopderbeck knows that they key to "winning" is simply to create confusion.

Whether Behe's bogus "irreducible complexity" argument has been falsified does not affect the fact that "God caused it to happen" is not a falsifiable explanation (it's not an explanation at all; it's a devotional prayer).

dopderbeck has surely been told this before. But he doesn't care. He is a religious fanatic. Reality is beside the point. The point is to please God. And dopderbeck's preachers have given him the instructions: this is your script. Go out and recite it and expect to be "persecuted."

"If falsifiability is the criterion, Miller effectively admits that ID is science"

You're mistaken. That Behe's specific claims of irreducible complexity are refutable does not mean that ID is falsifiable. Not only can Behe or other IDists simply switch to some other specific case or some other basis for arguing for ID when one is trashed but, as Judge Jones noted, Behe demands an unreasonable level of refutation -- nothing short of a videotape of a flagellum or blood clotting system evolving from scratch to its present state would satisfy him.

The simple fact is that irreducible complexity is proven moronic crap -- not only is it not inconsistent with the theory of evolution (IC systems can result from the removal of redundancy or the changing of a system's function), but the theory of evolution *predicts* irreducibly complex systems, since they are resistant to further change. Yet, ID lives on.

It took a few seconds on Google to prove my point about dopderdbeck.

Judge Jones explained it well in his opinion:

"As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock))."

And this explanation was provided to dopderbeck at his religious (suprise!) and ID-promoting (surprise!) website

http://www.davidopderbeck.com/archives/2005/12/augusting_and_i.html

But dopderbeck pretends that never happened.

Why?

He's a dishonest stooge like all dedicated "intelligent design" peddlers.

Pay attention, Perfesser Albert. You'll eventually begin to smell exactly what Judge Jones smelled.

Get your gas mask.

"Jay Byrd, you obviously didn't understand my point"

Ah yes, those who disagree must not understand. A familiar claim, maurile.

""But you said something of the same sort -- that instances of stupidity in nature would be explained by intelligent design"? I can't even imagine where you got something like that.)"

I got it by leaving out a negative -- are you really that thick? I meant that *lack* of instances of stupidity in nature -- the prediction you claimed -- would be explained by intelligent design. That's what it would mean for intelligent design to be a theory that makes that explanation -- a causal model. Just as QM is a causal model of the phenomena it predicts.

"But either way, this isn't the right forum for such a hijack."

Indeed, your ridiculous claim that a scientific theory of intelligence is possible amounts to a hijacking. Let's all just pretend that you ever said anything so foolish -- because, as I noted, "intelligently designed" is no more a causal explanation than "a result of supernatural forces".

Jay Bard: Respek, your argument, ain't dat a bit racialist?

Fo real, yer saying that ID cards is misleading the children and that teaching evolution as absolute truth is be leadin the children down that primrose path, but innit right for them to get the ID cards for getting some fun now and then? Kids need to chill out to some grooves and what kind of groove can you get wit without an ID card? Ya know what I mean J dog, c'mon, Big up yo'self!

Increase da peace!

Oh yeah, Debby, When you went to da moon, was da moon people friendly, or did they scare you?

BTW Who died and put some geeks in lab coats in charge of public schools? Last time I checked it is the people who have the right to vote in other people to school boards. If the courts want to make a mockery of education by barring any type of education that doesn't end with the caveat "No God here folks, move along, nothin to see", then they can do that.

But...sorry charlie, contrary to the delusions of ill motivated charlatans posing as defenders of truth and righteouness...the beat goes on. The dogs may bark at the moon but the caravan moves on.

You may think that "those IDiots" just don't "get it", but guess what? We don't care what you think, and there's a lot more of us then you. So what if some piddlin brain dead geezer in Podunk mouths off about how ID is the incarnation of evil? This trains a rollin and aint nobody gonna stop it, I've got it covered aiight?

"Ah yes, those who disagree must not understand. A familiar claim, maurile."

Yeah, but this time it's really true.

Amen Maurile, Deborah & tnadelhoffer. Prof, you should be ashamed of yourself - I give you an F. Even though I'm Christian, I didn't mark you down for disservice to God on top of your disservice to science and law.

To fellow Christians:

1. Evolutionary biology says nothing either way about God. That follows from science's essential modesty, its self-confinement to that which can be tested, to that which behaves predictably, i.e. to the natural - not the supernatural. Do not confuse this methodological naturalism which all real scientists share with the philosophical naturalism (i.e. atheism) of some scientists and non-scientists. When you understand this distinction, you can understand how Christians can accept evolutionary science as readily as atheists.

2. Dover's constitutional protection from promotion of ID (i.e. of God the Creator) in the name of the state is your constitutional protection from promotion of Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Wicca etc in the name of the state. Give me free enterprise religion over state religion every time (I think your founding fathers sorta said that). If there were not a concerted movement to impose state religion, ID would not have needed to have been invented. Absence of religion from state schools is not irreligion in state schools.

3. Evolutionary biology is no more suspect than any other scientific field. It is no more or less open-ended, incomplete and only provisionally believed by scientists than any other scientific field. And the people most validly suspicious of it are the scientists who keep testing it for holes, as opposed to the pseudo-scientific IDers who opine that all its holes, real and imagined, are the exclusive domain of the God they deny way more than thrice.

"a scientific theory of intelligence"

Oops, make that "of intelligent design" -- I must correct this, else poor maurile won't be able to imagine where I got it from.

"Yeah, but this time it's really true."

Go ahead, play the fool.
> <p>

"This trains a rollin and aint nobody gonna stop it"

The Kitzmiller ruling stopped it, moron.

"Judge Jones explained it well in his opinion:

"As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable,..."

Indeed, Judge Jones covered all the bases -- every counterargument that people have served up, even that he's an "activist judge", has already been refuted in his ruling.

"Go ahead, play the fool."

I really intended to drop this, but you keep dragging it out.

Do you take issue with falsifiability as the criterion for whether a theory is scientific -- that its predictions are subject to being empirically falsified?

The idea that all biological features will lack stupidity (sufficiently and objectively defined) is clearly falsifiable. For most reasonable definitions of stupidity, it is also false.

Do you agree with all that but take issue with something else? Or do you disagree with what I've just written. (If 'stupidity' is too vague for you, try this: The idea that all biological organisms will lack vestigial, non-functional organs is falsifiable.)

"And this explanation was provided to dopderbeck at his religious (suprise!) and ID-promoting (surprise!) website"

Not only provided, but dopderbeck acknowledged it! And yet, he asks the same question here the next day. You can't be any more of a slimeball than that.

"I really intended to drop this, but you keep dragging it out."

Stop playing the fool. I repeat: "intelligently designed" is no more a causal explanation than "a result of supernatural forces". End of story.

maurile, just give it up.

Humans can make a good guess that something is intelligently designed by an animal as long as the thing in question is younger than the intelligent animal and within the animal's capacity to design and create that thing.

That's about it as far as the "science" of intelligent design goes.

When you have zilcho evidence for any designer with the "tool set" required to design all the life forms that ever lived on earth, you are screwed, scientifically speaking.

That's why it's precisely as "scientific" (i.e., not at all) to say that my deity pooped out every species that ever lived on earth as it is to say that those species were "intelligently designed" by the Christian deity. Have you ever seen a deity poop before? I haven't. It might be boring to watch. Or it could be the most fantastic mind-blowing thing you've ever seen.

So let's end the silly kvetching with what Jay Byrd understands about your argument and what he doesnt.

> <p>

So you believe that, in addition to falsifiability, a causal mechanism is also required for a theory to be scientific?

If so, great, we've identified our difference. But I have to say that your view is rather too restrictive. In Newton's day, there was no understood causal mechanism for gravity. (Saying that objects are attracted to each other "because of gravity" is not a causal mechanism.) So were theories about planetary motion therefore unscientific?

"Do you agree with all that but take issue with something else?"

Gee, maybe I take issue with exactly what I have said I take issue with. I repeat: If you want to propose a theory of objectively defined biological "stupidity", THAT'S FINE,
> but THROWING THE WORDS &quot;intelligent design&quot; INTO IT BEGS THE QUESTION. Are you really this stupid?? Again, QM is a theory of physics, not of intelligently designed physics. Throwing those words in would not make QM a theory of intelligent design; they don't make ANY theory a theory of intelligent design.<br>

"So you believe that, in addition to falsifiability, a causal mechanism is also required for a theory to be scientific?"

What I believe is that you are incredibly dense. QM is a causal *model* -- it allows predictions of the sort "if A happens, B will happen". It doesn't require a "causal mechanism", whatever that is.

"If so, great, we've identified our difference."

The difference is that I'm not playing the fool.

Jay Byrd

"Not only provided, but dopderbeck acknowledged it! And yet, he asks the same question here the next day. You can't be any more of a slimeball than that."

Agreed. But like the sickos as the Discovery Institute, he couldn't imagine that he'd get "caught" or that anyone could possibly care.

After all, he's just "arguing" for what he "knows" is true: Jesus Christ is the Messiah and God created the earth and humans, too -- POOF! -- just like that.

How could anyone possibly be offended by dopderbeck's attempt to "defend" his religious beliefs from "attacks" by "materialists"?

If dopderbeck and his boys at the Discovery Institute don't take "necessary steps" to peddle their garbage, then who knows what's liable to happen next?

Perhaps schools will be prevented from teaching kids that gay people are diseased psychotics who can be "cured" with a combination of drugs and counseling.

And before you know it, the white race will be diluted and the great Southern traditions will be forgotten.

Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo!!!!!!

"That's why it's precisely as "scientific" (i.e., not at all) to say that my deity pooped out every species that ever lived on earth as it is to say that those species were "intelligently designed" by the Christian deity."

Does your poop theory have any testable consequences?

ID traditionally doesn't, but only because IDers aren't really interested in doing science.

Young Earth Creationism presents a clearer example than ID, so let's stick to that.

YEC states that the earth is only 6,000 years old. It reconciles its position with contrary evidence by supposing that God made the earth with a false appearance of old age -- starlight already on its way here, isotopes already in decay, dinosaur bones (of dinosaurs that never existed) planted in the earth's surface just to make the earth look old.

That's all unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific. Scientifically, it's cheating to use "God made it that way" as an explanation for any observation that appears to contradict the initial theory.

So the way YEC is normally formulated, it is unfalsifiable.

But it is possible to come up with versions of YEC that don't use these tricks, and thus really are falsifiable.

An honest YEC theory would not use the "starlight already on its way here" crutch, and would thus predict that, if the universe were only 6,000 years old, then we wouldn't observe any stars that are more than 6,000 light-years away. And so on.

This version of YEC would thus make falsifiable predictions. (The predictions, of course, would be false.)

Do you agree so far?

From there it's not a big jump to see that the same thing could be done with ID. It is possible to come up with a version of ID that doesn't use any crutches, and that makes honest-to-god-er-I-mean-the-unnamed-designer falsifiable predictions.

None of the IDers have actually done this. Not Behe, not Dembski, not Meyer . . .

But it is not logically impossible.

"In Newton's day, there was no understood causal mechanism for gravity."

Newton's theory provides a causal model -- if the twig holding the apple breaks, the apple will fall. If you kick a rock you'll hurt your foot more than kicking a pile of feathers. "intelligently designed" does not provide a causal model, unless you want to play the fool and say "It predicts that, if you find a creature, it won't be stupidly designed".

Maurile, what you've posted doesn't address my argument in the least. Do you agree with Ken Miller or not? You haven't addressed this at all. Moreover,the point I was making wasn't specifically about the merits of ID, it was about the merits of the falsifiability criterion and how that criterion is misused in discussions like these. Have you read Lakatos' critique of falsifiability, or any other serious philosophy of science, or do you get your stuff mostly from advocacy sites like Panda's Thumb?

Deborah -- yes, I am religious; worse yet, I am a Christian; worse yet, I do believe in a creator. Never hid that in my life. If you think that gives you the right to call me all sorts of silly little names, go for it. And if you think calling me all sorts of silly little names strengthens your credibility or your arguments, go for it all the more. I doubt you could even pronounce Lakatos.

"Does your poop theory have any testable consequences?

ID traditionally doesn't, but only because IDers aren't really interested in doing science."

No, that's not why. Sheesh, whatanass.
> <p>

"Yeah, like when they teach that the earth goes around the sun or that the earth is more than a few thousand years old.

Given enough rope, folks like Law Fairy will always hang themselves. It's not about any of the real legal issues at play in this case, its about their rejection of the teaching of facts (such as the facts of evolution) that, they think, challenge their beliefs."

Jay, have you checked out Debster's defecation theory? She seems really sold on it, since she keeps bringing it up. I'm not sure if that would challenge evolution, though, since it's possible we evolved from the alien poop.

I'm also interested how you defined "facts." See, I was under the impression that responsible scientists didn't dogmatically hold to what they think are "facts," since new evidence can always unearth something we didn't account for before. That's why we invest money in things like research for cancer. Though I guess we could just accept the "fact" that it's incurable and stop wasting our time. But if we have to unquestioningly accept the current spate of "facts" -- gosh, that sounds an awful lot like a religious belief.

"Maurile, what you've posted doesn't address my argument in the least."

Your argument has been addressed directly and repeatedly.

"worse yet"

Worse yet, you're guilty of bearing false witness.

Also -- I'm not sure what the person who said I "acknowledged" some argument on my site. The arguments I've made here are entirely consistent with those I made on my site. But please, don't visit my site if all you can do is sling stuff like "slimeball" around. Grow up.

"Maurile, what you've posted doesn't address my argument in the least. Do you agree with Ken Miller or not?"

Yes, I agree with Ken Miller. Behe's statments about irriducible complexity are false, but ID is not falsifiable.

There's no contradiction there.

Maurile, read Ken Miller again: he says "What this means, in scientific terms, is that the hypothesis of irreducible complexity is falsified." See Miller, Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design, available at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html. Does it get any more clear than that? He's not saying "false but not falsified." Please don't accuse me of dissembling if you either haven't read, or can't accurately represent, the underlying data.

dopderbeck

"I doubt you could even pronounce Lakatos."

Sure I can.

It rhymes with "My name is David Opderbeck and I just got my ass handed to me but instead of admitting my mistake and apologizing I'm just going to play the persecuted Christian card and pretend that I'm a better person because I didn't call anyone names."

You're pathetic, David. And it's people like you that made your fellow Chrisitan, Judge Jones, write the opinion that he did.

He couldn't ignore the facts and live with himself. Creationist peddlers are lying sacks of garbage.

Yes Deborah, you really nailed me there -- no one's called me names like that since, well, the third grade. You're obviously a genious.

"She seems really sold on it"

You either believe that, in which case you're stupid, or you don't, in which case you're dishonest.

"I was under the impression that responsible scientists didn't dogmatically hold to what they think are "facts,""

Indeed, they hold to what they think are facts without being dogmatic about it. Virtually every scientist holds to the factuality of evolution because it's one of the best established facts we have, not because of dogma.

"But if we have to unquestioningly accept the current spate of "facts" -- gosh, that sounds an awful lot like a religious belief."

There's no reason to accept anything unquestioningly; if you have questions, you can go read up on it. But maintaining your ignorance and rejecting facts just because you don't like them is an awful lot like intellectual dishonesty.

"He's not saying 'false but not falsified.'"

Uh, to falsify is to render false.

Again, I agree with Miller. Behe's ideas about irreducible complexity are false -- or falsified if you want, same thing -- but ID is not falsifiable.

ID doesn't encompass Behe's ideas about irriducible complexity. ID can be true whether or not there are any irreducibly complex biological features.

"Yes Deborah, you really nailed me there"

You nailed yourself -- what she said is true, but wouldn't be without your making it so.

AlanDownunder --

I generally agree with your points, except the problem is that you often don't find the kind of "essential scientific modesty" in these sorts of debates, on either side. One of the problems is the issue I've brought up, that the origins of life, the universe, and everything suggest something philosophical to us. Some people want to boil the import of this down to bunnies and kittens -- they're free to ridicule all they want, but this doesn't solve the constitutional issue this presents when this pseudo-philosphical side of science is given taxpayer funding and put in a classroom in which children are required to attend and listen. Evolution isn't exactly a "fact" as some people here have claimed -- it's a theory. Granted, it's a good theory. But it's just a theory, and if science is so "modest" it doesn't call for this kind of dogmatism. My primary concern is and always has been that there is something MORE out there in reality, and when people try to point out that evolution doesn't explain it all they're berated and called IDiots or creationists or Fundamentalists and Judge Jones has now ruled that this somehow means they have less of a right to express their views in a classroom than others. This is troubling. This is immoral.

I don't say this because I believe in creation. For I believe the THIRD time, I'll state that I don't one hundred percent subscribe to any particular belief system about the origins of life. I do believe in God and my personal beliefs wouldn't be shaken one way or the other -- but many people's would. And as a constitutionally-minded and freedom-minded American, I think they have the right to be heard and not mocked for thinking something different from the scientific community.

Okay, you guys can start calling me names again now.

dopderbeck at 7:30

"If falsifiability is the criterion, Miller effectively admits that ID is science, at least when he's trying to refute it on the merits."

dopderbeck a few minutes later

"the point I was making wasn't specifically about the merits of ID, it was about the merits of the falsifiability criterion"

Does everyone see what David Opderbeck's problem is, folks? David believes that reality is something that can be bent into whatever shape he pleases. When David says "I didn't say that," he thinks his statement actually MEANS that the past has changed.

But thanks to technology, we only need to scroll up a little bit and see that, in REALITY, on planet EARTH, David Opderbeck is a liar.

ID isn't creationist garbage? So we were told. But the people who told us this first published ID as a scientific theory in a kids textbook by substituting the term "ID" for "creation science"!

Liars.

Maurile -- ok, I partly agree with you here. You may be right that some assertions ID theorists have tried to make aren't really falsifiable. And you are right that ID is more than IC. Yet, IC is one of the central arguments in current ID theory. If IC is falsifiable, by the current commonly accepted definition of what constitutes scientific reasoning, IC is a scientific claim. Therefore, at least this one claim of ID theory is falsifiable. It is not true, then, that ID is entirely non-scientific. We could then have an interesting discussion about whether the foundational assumptions of any metatheory are truly falsifiable, including the assumption of naturalism.

"Please don't accuse me of dissembling if you either haven't read, or can't accurately represent, the underlying data."

The "underlying data" is the point made both here and at your site that

"As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID .... Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID."

So are you blind? Stupid? Dishonest? All three?

dopderbeck

"Yes Deborah, you really nailed me there -- no one's called me names like that since, well, the third grade."

Oh yeah -- when the teacher caught you in the circle jerk. That was funny.

"If IC is falsifiable, by the current commonly accepted definition of what constitutes scientific reasoning, IC is a scientific claim. Therefore, at least this one claim of ID theory is falsifiable. It is not true, then, that ID is entirely non-scientific."

This patently dishonest. No one claims that "ID is entirely non-scientific" in this pathetic sense; after all, Michael Behe is a biochemist and argues in scientific terms. The claim in dispute is whether ID is a scientific theory -- it is not, and all your blathering about IC won't make it so.

"If IC is falsifiable, by the current commonly accepted definition of what constitutes scientific reasoning, IC is a scientific claim."

Just like flogiston theory.

Jay,

I don't agree that IC properly understood is only a negative argument against evolution. IC suggests that a low probability that an IC system could have arisen randomly supports an affirmative inference of design. I don't view that as merely a negative argument against evolution.

It's worth reiterating this point by Judge Jones:

"As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable"

ID has two prongs: that the theory of evolution is inadequate to explain biodiversity, and that therefore there must be an intelligent designer. In order to support the first prong, IDists, like their creationist brethren, marshall a number of empirical claims against evolution; these are scientifically refutable claims. But that is not enough to make ID a scientific theory. If it were, then the creationist claim that men and dinosaurs coexisted would make creationism a scientific theory.
> <p>

" IC suggests that a low probability that an IC system could have arisen randomly supports an affirmative inference of design."

Or equally an inference that it was pooped out by an IC-pooping deity.

Right, dopderbeck?

I'm right but dopderbeck will never admit it.

Why?

Because that would admitting that his "inference" is nothing more than deity poop.

And dopderbeck can't do that. His preachers would be terribly disappointed if he did such a thing.

dopderbeck

"I don't agree that IC properly understood is only a negative argument against evolution."

Fyi, it doesn't matter what david opderbeck disagrees with or not because, as has been demonstrated in this comment, david opderbeck makes up his garbage as he goes along and lies about it later.

It's sort of pathetic and a little bit psychotic, but then again all fundamentalist fanatic types tend to behave this way.

Of course, only the Islamic types get their phones tapped. Wacky Christian fanatics like David Opderbeck get a free pass. They're "harmless", or so we're told.

"I don't agree that IC properly understood is only a negative argument against evolution."

a) The claim of affirmative inference of design is pure argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> b) IC systems are, as I have already noted, not only not inconsistent with evolution, but *predicted* by evolution.<br> c) The claim about the low probability that an IC system will evolve is like the claim that there's a low probability that anyone will win the lottery because there's a low probability that I will. This issue was treated during Behe's testimony about his research -- given enough time and organisms, events of a sort that individually have low probability will occur frequently -- it's a simple multiplication.
> <p>

""If IC is falsifiable, by the current commonly accepted definition of what constitutes scientific reasoning, IC is a scientific claim."

Just like flogiston theory."

Do you have a point, maurile? pooperdreck is arguing (fallaciously) that, if some claim that ID proponents make is falsifiable, then ID is falsifiable. There's nothing like that related to flogiston.
> <p>

"From there it's not a big jump to see that the same thing could be done with ID."

The only way to make YEC scientific is to remove the C part -- to argue that the earth is young, without making any claims as to how it was created. If we try to do the same with ID, we have to remove the I and the D. It is possible to have a scientific theory of a young earth; it is possible to have a scientific theory of efficiently functional organisms. But it is not possible to have a scientific theory of intelligent design. Young earth, efficiently functional organisms, and evolution are all *outcomes*, the sort of thing that scientific theories explain. But "intelligent design" is not an outcome, and calling something a "theory of intelligent design" doesn't make it one.

Forgive me for not understanding what dopderbeck's point was.

I figured that he was arguing that if IC is falsifiable, it should be accepted by the science community and taught in science classes.

I was pointing out that it takes more than falsifiability for a theory to be accepted. Like being, you know, non-false.

"You may be right that some assertions ID theorists have tried to make aren't really falsifiable. "

*may* be right? How about "life was intelligently designed"?

Are you eve going to retract your lie, "If falsifiability is the criterion, Miller effectively admits that ID is science"?
> <p>

"Forgive me for not understanding what dopderbeck's point was."

No, since he made it in the same paragraph you quoted.

"I figured"

Yeah, well, that explains a lot.

law fairy comments: "Here's the problem with the talk about radiation and other such things that could "falsify" the Big Bang theory -- they're based on what is essentially a guess about how the universe started."

That sentence probably explains why he doesn't call himself the "physics fairy". My gosh, take a hypothesis, determine whether the idea can be used to differentiate a number of possible outcomes and determine whether the physical observations match the outcomes predicted -- That's sounds exactly like good science to me. Here's another one: Take the current state of the universe, gather information about past conditions (made easier because the speed of light is finite and pictures of things that are farther away are images of past conditions). Extrapolate and compare to the outcome of possible hypotheses about how conditions would appear in the early universe. What you get is a real hot, tiny speck at the beginning.

So yes, one could say the Big Bang theory started with a guess but there's been a whole sh*tload of work done in physics and astronomy since then to confirm or reject the theory.

further..."But I honestly don't see how postulating a Big Bang is any more scientific than postulating an other natural First Cause. The Big Bang is just a way to explain the origins of the universe without having to appeal to God or something we can't fit into a laboratory..."

I'd suggest learning a little more about the subject before making bold claims about how physicists do science. A brush up course on theology and religious apologetics would not be a bad idea either. Many Christians see the Big Bang as something quite compatible with the Genesis account of creation. So no, it also wasn't a bunch of scientists just trying to squeeze out God. It is just trying to figure out how things go together.

Seriously, consider adding something like John Polkinghorne's "Faith of a Physicist" or something from George Murphy and Howard VanTill to your holiday reading list.

Jay Byrd wrote: "The only way to make YEC scientific is to remove the C part -- to argue that the earth is young, without making any claims as to how it was created. If we try to do the same with ID, we have to remove the I and the D. It is possible to have a scientific theory of a young earth; it is possible to have a scientific theory of efficiently functional organisms. But it is not possible to have a scientific theory of intelligent design. Young earth, efficiently functional organisms, and evolution are all *outcomes*, the sort of thing that scientific theories explain. But "intelligent design" is not an outcome, and calling something a "theory of intelligent design" doesn't make it one."

Cool. That's a good way to explain it, and I agree.

If the idea is that God designed everything intelligently, the "everything intelligently" part is falsifiable, while the "God designed" part isn't (unless someone can come up with a way to empricially distinguish between God-designed things and non-God-designed things). The "God designed" part would be superfluous to the theory.

I agree with that, and always have.

But I was focusing on the potential falsifiability of the "everything intelligently" part. That part isn't falsifiable under Behe et al's version of ID, but it can be made falsifiable by defining "intelligently" sufficiently.

"So yes, one could say the Big Bang theory started with a guess"

And it was pretty much ignored and even ridiculed until there was evidence to support it. The very phrase "Big Bang" was originated by astronomer and atheist Fred Hoyle as a form of ridicule.

"Many Christians see the Big Bang as something quite compatible with the Genesis account of creation."

In fact that's one of the reasons scientists tended to look askance at it -- the same scientists who embraced it when the evidence for it became overwhelming.

The stunning scientific illiteracy of folks like Law Fairy indicates how poorly our educational system does in this area -- the last thing we need is a mandate to teach pseudoscience. The notion that "The Big Bang is just a way to explain the origins of the universe without having to appeal to God or something we can't fit into a laboratory..." is akin to claiming that a round earth is just a way of explaining earthly topology without having to appeal to God or something we can't fit into the laboratory. If LF were less ignorant and foolish, he could craft a clever (though fallacious) argument that the early rejection of the Bug Bang Theory parallels the treatment of ID.
> <p>

"Cool. That's a good way to explain it, and I agree."

Well, thank God for that. :-)

"If the idea is that God designed everything intelligently, the "everything intelligently" part is falsifiable"

Ah, but it isn't really, because God works in mysterious ways and how we may measure intelligent design doesn't necessarily reflect what God has in mind. I'm not making this up -- this is a real argument, put forth in numerous forums, in response to the claim that "incompetent design" is a better characterization that intelligent design. In fact, there are even opponents to ID among those that argue that evident incompetence or "stupidity", as you put it, is not a good counterargument to ID. See, e.g., http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/8/141418/264
> <p>

Yes, I'm aware of the Mysterious Ways defense. Whether the "everything intelligently" part is falsifiable depends on how precisely and objectively we define "intelligently." That's what I've been trying to say all along. If we allow the Mysterious Ways defense or similar crutches, there's no way to empricially distinguish between stupid designs and clever designs. But if we define non-functional vestigial organs, for example, as being stupid, then the claim that no stupid designs exist would be falsifiable. (By "designs" I don't mean to imply the necessity of a designer.)

Sigh...

It's amazing how worked up the purportedly undogmatic folks get over a little criticism. I'm not trying to prove any scientific points here, and I've never claimed to be a scientific genius. My point about the Big Bang was that any other postulated cause could be taken to explain things the way it is -- you could easily come up with numerous explanations that fit what we find evidence for.

You're correct that the Big Bang is compatible with belief in God, as is evolutionary theory. However, other explanations that fit with the evidence we see that invoke God are ridiculed. I'm attrtibuting this to human arrogance. You're free to disagree, but my assessment of the motives of evolutionary scientists is no less fair than your deriding me as a foolish, ignorant idiot -- or for that matter, Judge Jones' deciding that the religious beliefs of some hick Pennsylvania residents make their educational desires unconstitutional. But I suppose that's for a debate on snobbery.

And believing the earth is round is one hundred percent different. This is something we can PRESENTLY observe. We've seen it from space. It's not something we have to postulate happened billions of years ago. If you're going to analogize, at least do it responsibly.

Oh, and please stop referring to me as "he." I don't have a Y chromosome.

Fairy:

Thanks for the partial meeting of minds. I think I can fairly boil down your beef to this:

"but this doesn't solve the constitutional issue this presents when this pseudo-philosphical side of science is given taxpayer funding and put in a classroom in which children are required to attend and listen ... And as a constitutionally-minded and freedom-minded American, I think they have the right to be heard and not mocked for thinking something different from the scientific community"

So your argument about what can be taught in schools is purely against philospohical naturalism (atheism) not methodological naturalism (science - which includes evolution) and you don't confuse the two.

If a public school board took measures to mandate the preference of philosophical materialism over methodolical materialism in science class, I'd be as against it as you are and I'd be as against as I am against the teaching of ID as science.

Maybe the Prof can tell us whether atheism qualifies as religion the way ID does and whether it is subject to constitutional challenge for being religion - not that this would be any use to the crackpots who equate science (or at least evolution) with atheism.

One thing I must add. Your people "who had a right to be heard and not mocked" got their hearing. As a result they are not surprisingly being mocked. Crackpot religion no more deserves a pass than any other variety of crackpottery. No way can I defend those deluded fools in Dover who shelved the 9th Commandment in order to throw their weight around.

"No way can I defend those deluded fools in Dover who shelved the 9th Commandment in order to throw their weight around."

And you shouldn't even try.

But Law Fairy's behavior here amounts to much of the same: the voice of ignorance demanding to be taken seriously, inarticulate claims mouthed as if they were compelling arguments that must be treated seriously, endless retreating into incomprehensible alleys of thought accompanied by whines of persecution ...

... it's par for the course.

Fyi, evidently the infamous Liar for Jesus named Bill Dembski is now saying that God himself might not have done the designing or creating -- He may have acted through "agents" of some sort.

I've always wonder if some imps or hobgoblins or fairies didn't give some deities an enema so the deity could excrete more species of living things. Eventually Big Bill will come around to Enterocraftic Theory.

He has to.

Go to www.pandasthumb.org to read more about it.

"That's what I've been trying to say all along."

maurile, You've been saying it over and over while ignoring my counterpoint -- that to use terms like "intelligent" or "design" to describe something like universal functional efficiency (not that there is any such universality) *begs the question*. That's why your original claim, *the one I disputed*, that it's possible to have a scientific theory of intelligent design is *false*. You can propose a scientific theory of universal functional efficiency, but that *isn't* a scientific theory of intelligent design.

Sheesh.
> <p>

"It's amazing how worked up the purportedly undogmatic folks get over a little criticism."

It's not at all amazing how intellectually dishonest folks indulge in such transparently ad hominem arguments. Whether people are worked up or not, your "criticism" is wrong on the facts and logic.

"And believing the earth is round is one hundred percent different. This is something we can PRESENTLY observe. We've seen it from space."

Oh, so it was just "postulation" before we sent cameras into space? This demonstrates either that you lack even a rudimentary grasp of everyday epistemlogy, or that you and good faith have never shared company. Your comments on science are grossly uninformed, so your comments on what is "responsible" are irrelevant.
> <p>

Hi

My name is Timmy. I'm 9 years old.

I have read three books on evolution including one by Stephen J. Gold.

Evolution just isn't very convincing. I'm sorry. I think God probably did it.

Please don't make students pretend God didn't do it just because some scientists have a different theory.

That's all.
> <p>

Dear brothers and sisters,

This is Timmy's mother.

I have I have read five books on evolution including one by Stephen J. Gold and one by Darrel Dawkins.

Like Timmy, I just think evolution isn't very convincing. If we evolved from a bacteria, why don't bacteria fly spaceships? That is just one of many questions that scientists don't answer.

Timmy has a right to form his own opinion about what God did and he knows that he will suffer eternal torment in hellfire if he doesn't do that.

Why do scientists hate children?

Thank you for your patience. God bless you.

I am going to say this just once.

Jay Byrd and Deborah Spaeth, if I was an atheist like you two I would blow your brains out in two seconds.

May God have mercy on your souls.

Brothers and sisters.

My name is Pastor Land of Our Rovian Savior Neo-Baptist Megachurch.

I must rebuke the words uttered by Timmy's father, a member of my flock. Atheists deserve our pity, not our vengeance.

Our righteous anger should be directed at those who, in black robes and hoods, deem to make the laws which promulgate the secular reign of terror into which this Christian nation has been plunged.

Timmy, if you are still reading this thread, let me give you some advice. If you find yourself in a classroom where the idol of secular materialism is being burnished, simply reach into your pocket and find yourself a shiny American coin. On one side of that coin you will find four words that have been put there to comfort you.

Brothers and sisters, peace be unto you all.

Mr. Bird and Ms. Spaeth, I pray that you will discover the spiritual Vicodin you are seeking.

> I can type! I can communicate!<p>

It's a miracle!

Uh-oh, someone's comi

Prof.Alschuler:
> &gt;<p>

The Court:
> &gt;<p>

Seems that the Court thought better about its contemplated order and that Prof.Alschuler can't have read to the end of the decision before writing about it.

Under the order actually made, ID is not verboten in public schools across the USA, or even in Dover PA. It can be studied politically and sociologically and it can even enter science class as an instructive counter-example when methodological naturalism is being explained (and hopefully uncoupled from philosophical naturalism).

This quote from the Prof above also troubles me deeply:
> &gt;<p>

Since when did crediting witnesses involve psychoanalysis? Since when did courtesy preclude old fashioned fact and reason? Facts found on evidence adduced were that science warranted face value acceptance while religion had resorted to an ID mask and unconvincingly denied that it had done so.
> <p>

Looks like my quotes disappeared. Here's a repost as should have been:

Prof.Alschuler:
> &quot;In Dover, moreover, the board may not direct teachers even to mention intelligent design. I quoted part of the relevant language in the first sentence of my post: &quot;we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from . . . requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.&quot;&quot;<p>

The Court:
> &quot;2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined<br> from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area
> School District.&quot;<p>

Seems that the Court thought better about its contemplated order and that Prof.Alschuler can't have read to the end of the decision before writing about it.

Under the order actually made, ID is not verboten in public schools across the USA, or even in Dover PA. It can be studied politically and sociologically and it can even enter science class as an instructive counter-example when methodological naturalism is being explained (and hopefully uncoupled from philosophical naturalism).

This quote from the Prof above also troubles me deeply:
> &quot;Many evolutionary biologists undoubtedly regard religion as akin to sorcery and believe that the world would be a better place without it, but that&rsquo;s not the argument most of them make publicly against teaching intelligent design. The argument they do make deserves to be taken at face value, and the proponents of intelligent design deserve the same respect. Freedom from psychoanalysis is a basic courtesy.&quot;<p>

Since when did crediting witnesses involve psychoanalysis? Since when did courtesy preclude old fashioned fact and reason? Facts found on evidence adduced were that science warranted face value acceptance while religion had resorted to an ID mask and unconvincingly denied that it had done so.

Alan, a commenter at PandasThumb got it right, IMO:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/leiter_on_alber.html#comment-64182

"Yet one more illustration of the seductively corrosive power of religious faith. Presumably Alschuler is a competent, intelligent, knowledgeable individual until his religious convictions are perceived as threatened. At which point his eyes glaze over, his mind engages the instinct engines, and he starts lying for Jesus without skipping a beat.

What’s impressive is that a legal expert, an acknowledged authority on what he’s lying about, with a sterling reputation to uphold, can and will discard every bit of this. Like watching a famous mathematician unable to do basic arithmetic if he suspects Jesus disapproves."

Too true, Jay, but don't tar all religionists with the Alschuler brush. Most of us can distinguish between science and atheism.

The tragedy is that science, though utterly unequipped to study the supernatural, is the way people of all faiths can agree about the natural. Literalist extremists of all faiths just add to the sum total of world conflict. They are walking counter-evangelical advertisements for atheism.

Joe: thanks for your questions.

First, you begin with a conclusion - that ID is religion, pure and simple. If teaching ID were precisely the same as what is taught in Sunday school, that would be correct. But whether ID is a scientific or religious doctrine is precisely what it at issue. What the court concluded is hardly a given.

My question is: how should we get to that conclusion? An elected school board made the decision to teach it. The board was (probably correctly) removed at the next possible moment by the voters. It was a democratic victory against ID, and one that ID supporters cannot claim was rigged. A victory in court (needless at this point) does not have the same moral legitimacy as victory at the polls, which the anti-ID crowd had already secured. The judge's intemperate comments can also only fuel speculation that he was biased in the first place.

Many thanks to Prof Alschuler for such a though provoking post and the many commenters.

law fairy: "My point about the Big Bang was that any other postulated cause could be taken to explain things the way it is -- you could easily come up with numerous explanations that fit what we find evidence for."

Radical skepticism is a consistent philosophy, but most of us choose to move beyond "I think, therefore I am" (Rene Descartes knew from the start that his now famous phrase couldn't do much 'heavy lifting' in any practical sense). To actually accomplish anything besides sitting in a corner like a severe autistic, we need to assume that some explanations are better than others and that maybe there is some pattern to what our senses report to us. Otherwise we'll just spin our wheels forever.

Let's hit this from another direction: Let us propose that one additional reason why OJ should have gotten off was because a stampede of invisible pink unicorns *might* have killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman (note: Some invisible pink unicorns *might* have knife-like hooves). Is that good or bad reasoning? Why?

> further: &quot;And believing the earth is round is one hundred percent different. This is something we can PRESENTLY observe. We've seen it from space. It's not something we have to postulate happened billions of years ago. If you're going to analogize, at least do it responsibly.&quot;<p>

How does one know we've actually seen it? How does one know that they don't exist as a disembodied brain in a virtual reality experience? Why do we translate the clearly 'round' image of the Earth into a sphere? One can image any number of possible, alternate explanations that fit the 'evidence'. Why do we pick one over the other?

We presently observe photons from galaxies that are billions of light years away. Observation reveals that the universe was smaller and hotter long ago. Certainly there is a chain of inductive and deductive reasoning that assists us in reaching such a conclusion. However, most scientists will tell you our ideas that the Earth is round and that the universe originated from a small, hot, dense region billions of years ago are not "one hundered percent different". The relative certainty of each prospect may be not be the same but the scientific reasoning and they way by which we reach these conclusions are not qualitatively different.

ADR: "A victory in court (needless at this point) does not have the same moral legitimacy as victory at the polls, which the anti-ID crowd had already secured."

Moral legitimacy is not something that is decided in the polls. Morality not something that is determined by vote. I'd go so far as to suggest that the only moral issue involved in this case is related to the board members who lied on the stand and in their pre-trial testimony.

The case had more *impact* than the vote because the trial and verdict spent a great deal of time deliberating about the arguments of Intelligent Design. In contrast, the elections mixed issues of religious opinion, fiscal responsibility, anger over deceit, science, responsibility of educators, and affiliation to political parties (just to name a few). The election of public officials is seldom a clear-cut referendum about "moral legitimacy".

"While professing to offer no opinion concerning the truth of intelligent design, the court consistently reveals its contempt for this theory."

Sorry, but there's no such thing as an ID theory. Theories start as hypotheses, and they have withstood many, many tests that have the potential to falsify them before being labeled as theories.

ID isn't even a hypothesis, because it doesn't explain the known data. That's why you'll never see IDers discussing the sequence data supporting the evolution of protein families across phyla, for example.

If you don't know what phyla are, keep in mind that I'm talking about macro-macroevolution in that context.
> <p>

Dopderbeck said:

"You may be right that some assertions ID theorists have tried to make aren't really falsifiable."

Can you tell us about the “theory” that the “ID theorists “ are “theorizing” about ?

Dembksi’s Explanatory Filter? Behe’s Irreducible Complexity? These notions have been shown to be pure cods wallop over and over again, but they still keep spouting them. This is a prime trait of creationists/IDists and other religiously driven people. Ignore the truth no matter how many times you hear it, and keep telling the same old distortions. Check Ken Hovid, “Dr” Dino, sometime. Or Answers in Genesis or any of the other religious fantasy sites that deny the real world.

Law Fairy

Can you please tell me how you got to be so smart about the intricacies of science at the tender age of 24 - going to law school. You methods could save science student hours and hours of needless study and working scientists years of boring research.

You said:
> &ldquo;I think they have the right to be heard and not mocked for thinking something different from the scientific community.&rdquo;<p>

The way to be heard and not mocked by the scientific community is to talk about things that are actually science. Basically the creationist/ID thrust is attacking science itself and the integrity of scientists themselves. After having the work you have spent years accomplishing attacked over and over again with the same ridiculous lies tends to make scientists a little cranky.

The judges decision was completely correct. ID is nothing but religion trying to wear a scientific mask. It is not, and undoubtedly will never be, science. The judge clearly stated that the place to discuss ID is in a social studies environment.

How many people here have actually read "Origin of the Species"? How many have even read its introduction? Not too many, I imagine--that would actually involve work rather than the pleasant diversion of repeating inherited arguments. It's worth one's time. Darwin himself does not spend much time talking about "falsifiability". In fact, he never uses bad language and horrible manners to address those who disagree with him, and he admits that there are great evidentiary difficulties with his theory. There were plenty of naturalists before, during, and after Darwin's time that disagreed with his basic conclusions: many of them were evolutionists of one type or another who simply did not accept his prioritzing of natural selection over other factors causing species to modify.

The vulgarity and hatefulness expressed by those here who claim allegiance to Darwinianism would have been unequivocally condemned by him. The current spirit of dogmatism surrounding the acceptance or rejection of his ideas is one he abhorred.

Here is a quote from the introduction to Origin of the Species. I think all sides here should read it:

"This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."

The humility and fair-mindedness expressed by Darwin in this last statement is hardly to be seen in these posts. (My last post, on the empirical basis of the falsifiability criterion, was met with a suggestion that I quit smoking crack. After seeing that response, I almost did out of despair.)

Darwin did not look upon criticism of his interpretations of the biological evidence as a sign of the idiocy of his opponents, but rather as a tool to correct any mistakes of his own and also to arrive at the truth of the matter. He took the idea that species were independently created seriously. He even devoted five chapters of his book just dealing with serious objections to his theory. I didn't see any name-calling in them.

I would argue that Darwin's theory became the dominant one because he addressed his opponents so ably that later scientists felt they no longer had to re-visit the issue in any fundamental sense. However, Darwin would have been the last person to tell us that we should just take his, or any other scientist's, word for it. Whether the ID theorists have disproven Darwinianism or whether they're just crackpot fundamentalists, their objections should be taken seriously--if only to follow Darwin's example.

I am a religious person (possibly even confused with a "Fundamentalist" at times, which I am not), but I have also studied science in general and biology in particular. There is flat out no way that the ID theory belongs in a science class of any kind. Religious people everywhere need to accept that faith is not demonstrable in fact and if facts demonstrable as true under-cut your faith, it must not have been strong in the first place. Conversely, science is not based on a absence of information, but on the facts currently available and tested. Whether or not anyone likes it, the fundamental process of natural selection and evolution is real and clearly demonstrated. There may be some aspects of this enormous field of study that are not fully explained and offer conflicting information at this point, but there is no doubt it is true generally and with time, particular issues will be more fully explored. This is what should be taught in Science classes in our public schools - not alternative theories based on the premis that "our feeble minds cannot understand how our world could have happened without a plan so there must be a designer somewhere." Otherwise we might as well start teaching science classes on Nessie and Bigfoot, since we cannot prove they do not exist and many people believe in them - just like ID.

Kali

“I would argue that Darwin's theory became the dominant one because he addressed his opponents so ably that later scientists felt they no longer had to re-visit the issue in any fundamental sense”

Hardly, Darwin’s theory and the further understanding of evolution in the 150 years became dominant because it is the best explanation of the observable evidence. Scientific acceptance isn’t predicated on being “nice”, it‘s predicated on evidence, testing and predicting. Scientific debates can become quite heated, complete with name calling.

Try to remember that it is the religiously driven that do most of the attacking and name calling, who do virtually all of the distorting and outright lying. If certain segments of the religious community would spend less time attacking science and trying to force their particular beliefs into all aspects of everybody’s lives, then scientists would have to waste time defending themselves and could do more science and courts wouldn’t have to waste their time on such nonsense.
> <p>

Oops:
> ...then scientists would'nt have... <p>

"The relative certainty of each prospect ..."

this concept seems to elude many who criticize the scientific community and J jones's opinion. comments like "evolution is only a theory, not a fact", "scientists are as dogmatic about their scientific beliefs as are religious believers", etc. suggest an inability to understand - or accept - that "knowledge" is probabilistic rather than absolute. as noted in unsymp r's comment, most of us don't really "know" the earth is "round", we just think available evidence from credible sources (including personal experience) overwhelming suggests that conclusion.

similarly, J jones doesn't "know" that "ID=religion", "ID /= science", and "the board had no secular purpose", but in his "opinion", the evidence overwhelmingly suggests these conclusions. the obvious motivation for J jones's "intemperate" remarks were the attempt by various witnesses to thwart, by lying, his gathering the evidence necessary to reach conclusions about the issues he was obliged to resolve. to ascribe his hostility to anger at the witnesses for their religious positions per se is disingenuous, as is most of prof alschuler's post, as noted by many above.
> <p>

One cannot know that Darwin's explanation for the "observable evidence" is the best one if one has never read Darwin's explanation itself. Have you? Do you even know what Darwin specifically says in his books? Darwin relies upon hundreds of reports of naturalists currently accepted in his day--have all of these reports since been verified (through the major scientific journals, for instance) in all of their fundamental holdings for the last 150 years as well? That would be quite a feat for Darwin, considering he died before the fields of biochemistry, molecular genetics, and microbiology were even founded. As Darwin admits himself, paleontology in his day was a very nascent science. I don't know of any other major figure in physics, chemistry, mathematics, or biology who is credited with the level of theoretical infallibility attributed to Darwin. Even Newton has been refuted on the sub-atomic level. Here's a challenge: see if any scientist in 21st century swallows his "Descent of Man" as a whole. Or better yet, why don't read it and then tell me about how eternally true its conclusions are, and why.

> Let's face it: this debate has nothing to do with the rightness of Darwin's theory, but with both sides'laziness and unwillingess to confront, scientifically, their scientific or quasi-scientific assumptions. The real test of scientific objectivity is your willingness to play the devil's advocate with your own beliefs and assumptions. Can you make your opponent's argument as strong as possible in your own mind, asking yourself why he might be right, and only then seeing if your refutation of him holds up? I grew up thinking that evolution was scientifically impossible, that evolutionary biology was about as empirically sound as phrenology, as rhetorically dishonest as astrology, and as intellectually respectable as eugenics. But that, in the end, is not good enough. Darwin's books must be read directly, his theories confronted in his own words, not what others say he said. Darwin, despite what I assumed about him, may be right. He may be wrong. How are we to know for ourselves one way or another if we are constantly taking Michael Behe's or Kenneth Miller's word for things? Can any of us honestly say that we do not bring a lot of prejudices, political concerns, and even career self-interest to the table of this debate? <br>
> I again go to what Darwin said, that both sides must be presented in order to judge between them fairly. Who is willing to say Darwin is wrong here?<br>

"A victory in court ... does not have the same moral legitimacy as victory at the polls ..."

this exemplifies a pervasive confusion between what is and is not subject to majoritarianism. a constitutional challenge is not decided by referendum. neither "moral" nor popular legitimacy are at issue.

"victory in court (needless at this point) ..."

the election occurred several days after testimony concluded, probably a bit late to say "hey, we won at the polls so forget the trial".

posting with such fundamental and easily avoided factual and logical errors makes one appear both lazy and disingenuous which in turn motivates "intemperate" responses. if the effect is so upsetting, avoid the cause or get used to being upset.
> <p>

Kali

Several of Darwin's claims have been disproved. This is not a secret in the biology community; rather, it's extremely well-known, especially among evolutionary biologists.

You will get no denials from them.

And in the time since his first publication, the theory of evolution has been modified and greatly extended, most importantly taking on board genetics. But the most important thing is that the evidence for evolution itself has only become stronger.

Kali: "One cannot know that Darwin's explanation for the "observable evidence" is the best one if one has never read Darwin's explanation itself. Have you? Do you even know what Darwin specifically says in his books?"

Umm, yes. I've also followed what has happened in the field since the publication of Darwin's "Origins of Species" book. Things like the Modern Synthesis, Game theory, Neutral theory, EvoDevo (evolutionary developmental biology) come to mind. Note that no one is claiming infallibility for Darwin. Still, one cannot escape the fact that many people like to claim what Darwin did and didn't say without having a clue about the actual contents of his writings. Debate the fine points of evolutionary theory all you want; That's what scientists who study evolution do. But don't expect 'affirmative action'* or a free pass for ID, which at this point is nothing more than a hopeful notion. As I've said elsewhere, there is sometimes a real difference between sound science and something that "sounds scientific".

The philosopher of science, David Hull wrote: "Evolutionary theory seems so easy that almost anyone can misunderstand it." (Nature 377:494).

* Actually requested! Read the transcripts for Steve Fuller's testimony.

Hi

My name is Timmy. I'm 9 years old.

I have read three books on evolution including one by Stephen J. Gold.

Evolution just isn't very convincing. I'm sorry. I think God probably did it.

Please don't make students pretend God didn't do it just because some scientists have a different theory.

That's all.
> <p>

Dear brothers and sisters,

This is Timmy's mother.

I have I have read five books on evolution including one by Stephen J. Gold and one by Darrel Dawkins.

Like Timmy, I just think evolution isn't very convincing. If we evolved from a bacteria, why don't bacteria fly spaceships? That is just one of many questions that scientists don't answer.

Timmy has a right to form his own opinion about what God did and he knows that he will suffer eternal torment in hellfire if he doesn't do that.

Why do scientists hate children?

Thank you for your patience. God bless you.
> <p>

I am going to say this just once.

Jay Byrd and Deborah Spaeth, if I was an atheist like you two I would blow your brains out in two seconds.

May God have mercy on your souls.
> <p>

Brothers and sisters.

My name is Pastor Land of Our Rovian Savior Neo-Baptist Megachurch.

I must rebuke the words uttered by Timmy's father, a member of my flock. Atheists deserve our pity, not our vengeance.

Our righteous anger should be directed at those who, in black robes and hoods, deem to make the laws which promulgate the secular reign of terror into which this Christian nation has been plunged.

Timmy, if you are still reading this thread, let me give you some advice. If you find yourself in a classroom where the idol of secular materialism is being burnished, simply reach into your pocket and find yourself a shiny American coin. On one side of that coin you will find four words that have been put there to comfort you.

Brothers and sisters, peace be unto you all.

Mr. Bird and Ms. Spaeth, I pray that you will discover the spiritual Vicodin you are seeking.
> <p>

Hi Timmy and Timmy's pastor. I am Timmy's Uncle and I am a monkey. Please deal with it.

CTW: Which of Darwin's claims have been disproved, exactly? When I read the "Origin", Darwin sounds pretty convincing to me, and is making quite subtle distinctions between his and competing explanations of species deviation. I've also heard that "several" of his claims have been disproved and that the fact is well known to scientists. I haven't actually seen too many people willing to say exactly what has been disproved. I suppose one could say things like Darwin was wrong in some particulars, but in the main right. But after a certain point, doesn't a theory that has to be constantly "modified" start to look at least a little obsolete? And by the way, how does one tell the difference between the "minor" parts of Darwin's theory that have been disproved and the "major" parts that remain valid? Which chapters in Darwin should I just skip over, and which really count for us today?

Of course, I'm not sure how anybody knows that--at least on this forum. I have to admit; it's a good thing Darwin himself did not think like his current supporters, for the scientific establishment in his time was far from thinking that species naturally evolved into one another under natural selection pressure. The same could be said of Copernicus, who defied Ptolemaic orthodoxy among the astronomers of his day to set forth his heliocentric model. If he, or Darwin, had taken the scientific authorities' word for it, then what we call the modern scientific consensus would look very different.

Amos, quite frankly, why should I believe you've read Darwin? You offer no evidence, empirical or otherwise, of any acquaintance with his works. Darwin certainly did not make distinctions between scientific and scientific-sounding arguments ("scientific- sounding" to whom?) He addressed the objections to the theory as best he could. Maybe throw us a bone here--a quote from Origin (that's easy, and a sign one has at least skimmed the most important theorist of life in modern thought, but hey, if you're too "busy" blogging to do that, I'll understand).

For my part, I've read the historical sketch and the introduction. I've also read the conclusion, and I'm almost through with chapter one. Obviously I'm not an authority, but I plan to get through this work or die trying. Who's with me?

Kali

I have read Darwin, quite a while ago. I agree that he was very kind to his opponents and was *extremely* self-critical. (I also agree that everyone should be a little more like him in these respects.) Only, I don't fully understand why it's important to you that anyone reads his work. But since you care:

One example of a mistake of his is that he was wrong about his mechanism for heredity. He proposed a theory called pangenesis in "The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication" and wrote more on it in "The Descent of Man".

According to this theory, cells would shed "gemmules" that collect in the reproductive organs. By this mechanism, the collection of cells of a parent--rather than a common blueprint like DNA--determines the features of offspring. This has since been replaced by genetics.

Kali: "Darwin certainly did not make distinctions between scientific and scientific-sounding arguments ("scientific- sounding" to whom?) He addressed the objections to the theory as best he could."

From your post it looks like that was directed at me. I can't imagine why. Perhaps you've mixed my name up with someone else's post?

Kali: "I suppose one could say things like Darwin was wrong in some particulars, but in the main right. But after a certain point, doesn't a theory that has to be constantly "modified" start to look at least a little obsolete?"

It can appear that way if done ad hoc. That is what effectively killed Natural Theology and continues to plague ID today -- No ability to delimit or guess what is possible under a theory (See Elliott Sober: "Philosophy of Biology" for further discussion). This is not the case for Darwin. What follows post-Darwin is the further elucidation of the core mechanisms behind evolution (e.g. the nature of genetic inheritance matters and influences how selection diversification operate). These continue to be discovered and fleshed out. Note that Darwin drew together several core concepts. Ernst Mayer cites: evolution (i.e. that species change), common descent with modification, gradualism, and natural selection. These are broad topics that Darwin tried to pull together and reason how they would interact. The particulars where Darwin tends to error relate to specific mechanisms (e.g. he could only speculate about the exact nature of inheritance) and things like embryology, which was very poorly understood in his time.

Note that Darwinian theory was not the only evolutionary theory being considered at the time. Concepts like Saltationism, Neo-Lamarkism, and Orthogenetic theories were championed by others.

> Kali: &quot;And by the way, how does one tell the difference between the &quot;minor&quot; parts of Darwin's theory that have been disproved and the &quot;major&quot; parts that remain valid?&quot;<p>

Study.

> Kali: &quot;For my part, I've read the historical sketch and the introduction. I've also read the conclusion, and I'm almost through with chapter one.&quot;<p>

Unfortunately, that will only tell you the "state of the art" at the formational period of Darwinian theory about 150 years ago. Although I've read "Origin of Species" and I think it is a good thing in general for people to consider reading, I'm not sure it is exactly necessary to understand the scientific status of evolutionary theory today (It is absolutely necessary if one wants to comment about what Darwin did or didn't mean).

Consider putting Ernst Mayr's "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance" on your reading list to get a picture of things about 100-130 years post-"Origins". That book provides a historical perspective of pre- and post-Darwinian thought and will take you through the early discoveries of genetics, the "Modern Synthesis" of the 1930's, some post-synthesis developments and a smidgen of early molecular biology (the book is from the early 1980's).

Having read the 139 page decision, and can say that it sounds excellent and to the point. It seems pretty easy to agree with. What I disagree with is the shallowness of the Creationist's attacks on the decision & Judge Jones. Therefore, I would like to challenge literalist with the following food for thought.

From p.41 District Judge Jones' Dover decision: "(Intelligent Design) is an extension of Fundamentalists’ view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution. The two model approach of creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose...." -----------------------

> Why the contempt for evolution? The insistence on a literal six-day creation runs counter to every lesson God has ever given me. <p>

Evolution is a magnificent drama of cumulative poetry in motion. God is Creation. Why rob God of God's Creation by slamming our origin story into a static two-dimensional model? To me, evolution is an exquisite pageant revealing God's intricate, dynamic majesty. I glory in it indescribably more than some notion of God saying "poof" and there it was.

I challenge Creationist to present any of God's natural phenomena that reflect a static creation. Does a person not evolve from a single cell to a functioning human who passes through countless life-stages, then ultimately disappears back into the beyond, while leaving something behind for others?

Look at civilization and our history. Who can deny human social evolution? What about our dynamic Earth? There are millions of examples of geological and biological evolution going on right now. Why confine humanity to the limits of ancient understanding?

Why not look within the words. Try to imagine our universe and Earth as having a life story, conceived by God and born of a single cell, evolving through countless life stages, just as everything else in God's Creation does.

Why not?

sincerely, pm