Univ. of Kansas Takes Up Creation Debate

I actually think the ID folks in the sciences (there are a few of them) have barely begun to do anything outside of the political arena. If their theory has any validity, it will start to gain ground. If its something that science can ascertain, it will eventually become mainstream.

I heard one on a radio talk show who said he didn't think ID should be taught in schools until it passed muster, which surprised me. The host was obviously pro-ID (Michael Medved), and so was the guest, but the guest maintained that the reason papers were not published from an ID point of view is that none have been submitted that were sufficiently scholarly. I was driving, and then got a phone call when he was giving out his website's name, so I missed exactly who it was.

 

In case you missed the link earlier in this thread, here's the Wiki article on ID. It's rather long, but it breaks it all down (origins, the movement, the debate, the criticism). Section 4.1 discusses scientific peer review of ID (or lack of), and makes this statement:

"The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse, and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny, is regarded by the critics of Intelligent Design as a strong argument against Intelligent Design being considered as "science" at all."

 

I completely disagree. The term "ID scientists" is a misnomer, because essentially by definition they are not following the scientific method. The label "ID scientists" implies they have already reached the conclusion that ID is behind what they are studying. ID is not a "problem", it is an "answer". A cancer scientist is studying the "problem" of cancer. An ID scientist, is by defintion looking for the "answer" to be ID, and this is not the proper scientific method.

The second problem is, you can't find evidence if ID. ID only evidiences itself as the absence of other evidence to the contrary. And the absence of other evidence doesn't prove ID. Just because you "can't imagine" something happening without divine intervention, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The third problem is, the concept of ID is a "science killler". It presumes an answer which hasn't been scientifically found. To accept ID kills the scientific method, because it offers an unprovable answer that creates a potenenially false endpoint to the scientific search.

ID is not science, it is a belief.

 

Yeah, I would agree with that. I didn't read the Wiki article, but will when I get time.

I discovered when I was a young creationist that the movement was really morally bankrupt. I started checking the references in the books by Gish and Morris, and found horrendous examples of "lies by omission" after a critic pointed me in that direction. In some cases, a clarifying phrase was cut out of the quote they provided with the use of ellipses to make the sentence appear to mean something entirely different. You not only had to read their book, but then find the original source to read the context of the quote, and it was often so clearly evident that the meaning had been twisted that I came to the conclusion they were simply lying, and not merely mistaken.

I have higher hopes for the ID crowd, but doubt that they will get anywhere in science. Politics? That's another matter!

 

I agree. This was precisely my point when I mentioned the misnomer point to begin with.

 

Here is an interesting study from a privately endowed group (arstechnica thinks mentions that they probably have a conservative slant to them) of state science standards...

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051208-5714.html

This is relevant because michael mentioned the Discovery Institute. From Ars's coverage:

Just as a FYI, Kansas recieved a failing grade for their standards.
http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/05sci_KS.pdf.pdf

 

Just to give you the context of where their quote came from, it was in a FAQ about does Discovery advocate for the mandatory teaching of ID in science class. I am assuming that they single out evolution, because the debate is whether to teach evolution, ID or both, and that they do advocate for the teaching the whole story of a theory. If this response was to the question of how should scientific theories are taught and they only say we should focus on evolution, then I would definitely agree that you have a point.

 

Those who are examining the scientific evidence of ID aren't calling themselves ID scientists, that is how they were referred to in this thread and I was using this term so that it would be clear in what I was referring to in the posts. What appeared to be the intent of the posts I was replying to was "those who are studying ID are not scientists." Other posters are making the assumption that scientists who are discussing ID came to the table with the assumption that it is the conclusion and are trying to find evidence to support it. If this is the case, then I agree that they are not scientists because that is not the scientific method.

 

Let me clarify what I meant. I wasn't saying that you were saying that it was too simple for a designer, only about how it had become a Catch-22 of sorts. One hand you have the person saying that some parts of the body aren't engineered efficiently enough (i.e. it is overly complex to get the job done) and then when one talks about something else that is very complex, it is really not that complex at all and very simple.) My argument was that from what I have had studied of DNA and it's various process, it seems unlikely that it was found through evolutionary process. Not that it couldn't have been.

In terms of the brain, yes it is very complex. To think that we are learning about how all of the neurotransmitters, receptor sites, drugs and all of this works, yet we are only scratching the surface about what is really going on up there. The complexity of the brain and the mutlifacted effects of psychotropic medication on it is why I don't plan to pursure perscription priviliges and let MD's handle prescribing.

Resistant bacteria would not be a problem for ID in my opinion. It is concerned with the origins of life (or interspecies evolution, not intraspecies evolution). Even the Dissent from Darwin list doesn't say that they reject evolutionary theory completely, just they have concerns about its ability to explain the origin of species. Determining the motivation of whatever the intelligent designer is not a question that ID is trying to answer. ID and assuming that God is controlling ever change in the natural world are two completely different ideas. (Yes, I know it was sarcasm, I just couldn't help myself).

 

Haven't you heard? AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuals, that is his plan! (Note: I am being facetious here, so please don't think I am condoning this viewpoint).

In all serious, (and we get off topic here), but one line of reasoning is that AIDS, ebola, what not, are simply the results of a fallen, sinful world. Read, it is just a byproduct of sin entering the world, not a direct result of any individual person's sin. Then there are others who preach that if you are righteous and in tune with God, you can be disease free.

 

Right on, check the references listed in support of evolution, ID or any theory to see what they really said. Then make your judgments accordingly.

 

The issue at stake in ID vs evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, of course. Somewhere back in this thread someone asked why aren't the theories of thermodynamics, relativity, etc. also being challenged. They are, not to overthrow them, but to reconcile their gaps. The ID gang seeks to overthow evolution, not reconcile its gaps. Why? Were evolution confined to explaining life's processes EXCEPT for human beings, the ID gang would be oblivious to it, wouldn't care a fig about it.

But what they care very much about is where human beings came from and our "meaning" in the universe. They can't stomach the fact that human beings are simply one more life form on a planet absolutely saturated with life, and they especially can't stomach the fact that all life shares a common single celled ancestor. They want "man" to be special, "above" nature, not just one more messy muddy branch in a dense jungle of unregulated biochemical fizz.

Discoveries having to do with human nature, human origins and human purpose are always going to be touchy and difficult, because every new discovery holds the potential of toppling a pillar of who we think we are. The ID gang is simply hanging on for dear life to their pillars, terrified that their toppling renders "man" meaningless.

They're clinging to pillars of sand. The solid pillars of accomplished science confer deeper, more profound meaning to human existence than the loftiest piety. But it requires an unchildlike perspective to see that. A child might blanch at the thought that an early ancestor was an anonymous germ in a pond; an adult regards the fact with awe.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

The problem, of course, is that such inquiry takes an inordinate amount of time.

Theories in science are self correcting, unlike the "alternatives" or "criticisms" that play out in the media. The scientific journals are full of critiques examining every aspect of theory ... and a lay person can get a taste of it by reading publications for mass consumption like Nature or Scientific American. If you are truly an ID enthusiast, you won't recommend people read the "primary sources" in journals or even the science magazines because you will lose them to the "other side" in the debate.

The problem is, because there is an interlocking theology that includes the idea that "If God is true, evolution must be false", a fair number of them leave the faith when they discover the truth. It happens to thousands of college students every year as they find out that the case against evolution was made with half-truths, inaccuracies, and straw man arguments that have no basis in science. What is the opposite of the idea that "for God to be true, evolution is false" ... is it "If evolution is true, than God must be false"?

It is not the folks in the sciences saying that. It is the folks in the pulpit, and ultimately the ID crowd, and the Creationists before them, have to bear whatever responsibility there is for turning people away from the faith. As a (somewhat modified) Calvinist, I don't think it matters all that much, but I do see an irony that in trying to "save" grade school and high schoolers from the theory, they are actually driving them toward it a few years hence when they encounter the real evidence.

 

You know, I have never seen this kind of language in any of the science materials I have read. In the opinion pages, yes. But not in science articles.

Can you point me to a scholarly article that says humans are "simply one more life form" from a "messy muddy branch in a dense jungle of unregulated biochemical fizz", complete with the implication you are obviously trying to make?

I assume you believe that science has confirmed that man does not have a soul, is not made in the spiritual image of God, is not tainted by Original Sin, does not need restoration through Substitutionary Atonement, and does not have an after-life. I haven't read that yet in any of the scientific journals I've browsed through, or in any of the magazines intended for lay people that report on scientific issues. I'm sure if science had disproved that, it would have been on the cover.

I haven't seen language like that anywhere ... except in debate, or in skeptic literature, etc. I have also seen it recounted in Creationist literature "proving" that people who believe in science are hostile to faith.

 

Saying it would take an inordinate amount of time is just a copout. Is it possible to read every reference listed or every article published about evolution? Yes, likely, no. If one is going to hold one theory or the other, and are going to do so because of the evidence, then they need to read the evidence, not someone else's opinion of the evidence. I am not bashing Nature or SA, but are their articles held t o the same standard as peer reviewed journal articles? Even with all of the standards for peer reviewed articles, you still have bad articles published. How many laypeople read Nature or SA for that matter? I don't think anyone I have known have subscribed to this. More likely is something like Time, or even more likely, the news stories on TV or their local newspaper.

Let's face it, the majority of the American public have probably never read any of the original references of evolutionary theory, and believe it based on "the massive evidence" mentioned in the one biology class they had in high school. (I put massive evidence in quotes because of them taking someone else's word for it.)

I don't think that there is a huge number of people, leaving the faith as you would call it. The Gallup polls still say that over 90% of Americans say they believe in God. Robert Altemeyer (from U of Manitoba) has done lots of interesting research in how individuals faith changes in college and found that the overwhelming majority (around 97-98%) don't change their religious affiliation in college. I tried to access his page to get some quick references, but it didn't work. I am headed for bed for the night, but can get some tommorrow if you would like.

 

okay. you DO realize that nature is not just A peer reviewed journal, but THE peer reviewed journal, right? has the highest impact factor of all peer-reviewed journals? the most difficult publication you can possibly get into because of the scrutiny your article will face? just had to throw that out there.

Time and newspapers are no places to get real scientific information. you think these writers know much about science themselves? anyone who cites these articles has no credibility. you just countered your own point there about reading up on all the facts before making a decision.

taking someone else's word for it? we all have to at some point. i take someone's word that they did a western blot and saw higher expression of protein X with drug Z because they put a figure of it in their paper. i take someone's word that they did the research in the first place. i subject it to my own scrutiny and make a decision as to whether it's valid or not, but we can't all experience everything firsthand. for that matter, you've gone and taken someone else's word that there is a higher being up there at all. how do you know for yourself? would it have occurred to you unless someone pointed it out? the faithful are proud to believe without seeing or understanding. not sufficient for a scientific argument.

so, does the poll ask how many of them practice a faith? go to church? and even which god they believe in? you know there are a ton of different views of god out there in the first place. and just because someone believes in god doesn't mean they do anything about it. agnostics acknowledge a god but do not worship it. that poll lacks too many attributes to use it in an id argument.

 

Agnostics do not acknowledge a god or gods.
Agnostic

 

oops, must have been thinking of something else.

still fulfilling the caffeine requirement for the morning...

 

Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum
"Said the judge: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

At least this case is over.
Let's hope it's not repeated elsewhere.

*2006-12-20 2:58pm EST - Revised the broken link.

 

Yes, but science does not yield to public opinion. Science is NOT democratic. It does not matter what the majority of the American public think, nor should it.

Which is why so many of us were PISSED when a legislative body ( a school board ) tried to determine by democratic vote what science should or shouldn't be.

Democracy is meant to serve communities, and reflect what the prevailing opinions of a community is... but science is about describing reality, not serving the public.

A school board voting that ID is science just as evolution is science is Owellian... 1984-type stuff. And that's scary.

From 1984... if you and I were the only two people in a room, and I convinced you that you were levitating off the ground, and I believed it too, does that make it so?

If democracy can override science, that's tantamount to saying yes.

GREAT news that the federal judge reversed this blatant overstepping of bounds by the Dover county school board. He is right on.