Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

Fox News | 12/20/05

[snarks_when_bored]

Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.

[Simo Hayha]

Creationism destroys the credibility of conservatism. Huh? We have gotten where we are because conservatism was supported by the evidence, even when the leftists argued against it. But evolution is fact, deal with it.

I am waiting for evolution to catch up with the left. Eventually, labels won't be required, as the coalition of the quivering, an expression I picked up from M. Malkin, will eventually have both eyes on one side of their face, like the Picasso paintings. Their mutual attraction will eventually lead to in-breeding on a massive scale which in turn will lead to die-off or a lemming-rush to the sea.

Don't you wish you could come back 500-1000 years from now to discover just how wrong we were about things we are so sure of now?

[narby]

My kids go to a highly acclaimed Christian Academy ( many National Merit Finalists) and they teach intelligent design in the context of how this Darwin Model of evolution continues to evolve when the "science" is shown to be false or downright lies.

When they discover they've been taught bunk, I pray they don't reject their faith entirely like I did.

People who've been lied to for years seldom take it well when they discover that fact.

[RightWingAtheist]

Happy Newton Day to you as well :-)

[xzins]

I don't think creationism destroys the credibility of conservatism. Historically, conservatism has included the religious who have generally favored the conservation of helpful moral principles and traditions. Creationists are nothing more than committed, conservative religionists.

[narby]

A fossil record does exist, but it has wide gaps.

When measured in nano-seconds, the individual images of a movie has "wide gaps" too. But it's obvious that it documents a moving reality, just like fossils document evolution.

You should read up on the links above to the ERV virus DNA sequences in primate and human genomes that are the smoking gun of common descent and prove the fact of evolution (yes, it's a theory, and a fact too)

[Road Warrior ‘04]

One theory has about 150 years of fulfilled predictions behind it.

And, the other has over 2000 years of belief.

[VadeRetro]

Pinging connectthedots... pinging connectthedots... Only you can tell us what this ruling REALLY means...

Somehow, it's the beginning of the end for Darwinism.

[unlearner]

"Interesting that you say the theory can be falsifiable instead of verifiable. That's an interesting choice of words. Where is your test data for the ID theory of the origin of life? Link?"

The lack of significant test results makes the ID proposition a hypothesis rather than an established theory. I am not sure how it could ever be possible to verify such a historical event (or group of events).

If simple (or complex) life forms can be created in a laboratory it will validate what is intuitively reasonable, that life could be assembled intelligently. If any living organism (simple or complex) is ever discovered to arise from non living matter via a yet unknown self organizing principle, it will disprove the ID hypothesis.

I will include a previous illustration from an earlier post of mine:

There are only for possible explanations for the existence of life (an observed phenomena).

One, it was created by intelligent intervention (i.e. ID).
Two, it occurs by some unknown, self-organizing principle spontaneously (i.e. abiogenesis).
Three, life has always existed and its current existence is a continuation of previous forms.
Four, life has existed within a finite time frame but is self existing via some unknown variation in the laws of causality whereby some future life form spawned past life forms.

Most people agree that the last two propositions are untenable because they defy our current understanding of causality. That leaves us with two. Both can be explored by the same tests and experiments. And they are whether intentionally or not.

At this point I must distinguish between creationism and ID. Biblical creationism is only a subset of creationism. There are many who believe in some deity or even Creator, but do not accept the Bible. Many evolutionists fit in this category. Likewise, ID overlaps Biblical creationism but is not equivalent. Some ID proponents even accept evolution and only say the universe was intelligently designed. ID does not extend into the areas of theology in describing the nature of the designer.

The existence of God cannot be falsified and is therefore outside the realm of science. In that sense, so is the existence of Abraham Lincoln. Someone might argue that there is no physical evidence of Lincoln (if that were true; and any historical figure serves for this example). To which I reply that not all knowledge is of a scientific nature.

Some argue that proving creation (ID) occurred, must also prove a creator existed, and therefore also outside the realm of science. That is a logical fallacy. This wrongly assumes that the "creator" is of any particular nature.

Who the creator is or might be is not the subject of science. That is theology, if the creator is supernatural.

ID is scientific because it meets the minimum qualifications. I don't think I have ever called ID a theory. If I have I retract the statement. It is the horse which stalled at the gate and is just sticking its nose out. ID opponents are demanding the horse be disqualified because it really isn't a horse.

There either needs to be some experimental evidence or a better application of mathematical models to cross that threshold in my mind. I am unaware of any data which justifies calling ID a theory. It is an untested hypothesis. Yet that is part of science.

ID is similar (albeit superior) to abiogenesis in terms of scientific merit. Why not explore both at once?

Scientists do want to know whether any life can occur spontaneously. You hear about this every time the possibility of water on some remote heavenly body is speculated.

Scientists also want to know how to create life. They may care little for the debate over ID or abiogenesis. They might want to find a cure for cancer or improve crop yields. Regardless, their discoveries will have a bearing on these two viewpoints.

ID is testable and falsifiable in the very limited way I have already described. Abiogenesis is testable but not falsifiable. Therefore, ID is a preferable explanation of the origins of life from a scientific viewpoint.

Let's evaluate three statements for scientific merit:
1. Life can only originate from nonliving matter through intelligent intervention. (ID)
2. Life can originate spontaneously via self organization in a naturally occurring environment. (abiogenesis)
3. Life can originate by either of the above methods.

(I have disregarded the conversion of food to living matter via assimilation. For our purpose here it is treated similar to reproduction rather than origination. Also, I am not exploring the nature of intelligence beyond its common usage. How intelligent is irrelevant for the point of discussion. Intelligence in the sense of thought and intent.)

Only statement 1 is scientific. It could be false. Either 2 or 3 could be true. But only 1 is scientific.

One instance of abiogenesis would falsify ID (#1). No number of instances of intelligently assembled life in a laboratory would disprove abiogenesis (#2).

If I attempt to reverse the logic then I must claim abiogenesis is the ONLY way life can be derived from nonliving matter. (This would be a fourth proposition.) True, such a hypothesis can be tested and falsified. But one instance of life being formed in a laboratory would disprove it. Do you intuitively think that if life can self organize, that we will not figure out a way to assemble life intelligently?

Likewise, I can assert that life can form by BOTH means (#3). But this statement is also not falsifiable.

Therefore, the possibility of abiogenesis cannot be falsified and is outside the realm of science. This does not prove that life did not actually occur via abiogenesis. It does however, demonstrate that ID is the most scientific direction to explore in seeking to understand the origins of life.

[lonestar67]

I think what I meant was:

"But the results of a new study call that figure into question, with a finding that there are actually large chunks of the human and chimp genomes that are vastly different.

Researchers at a company called Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, used a powerful biological computer chip that can scan the entire genetic makeup of an organism, that is, its whole genome. The results, published in Monday's issue of Genome Research, show that chimps and humans are much more different than scientists previously thought. "


This means that 99% figure you cite is incorrect.

There are considerable genetic differences between primates and humans according to this study.

[Ceewrighter]

"When measured in nano-seconds, the individual images of a movie has "wide gaps" too. But it's obvious that it documents a moving reality, just like fossils document evolution."

A movie can also be cut and spliced to form a reality, but it is never reality. Just a doctored form of reality: a copy. As is Darwin's theory. What a weak analogy.

What the hell is a moving reality anyhow? You must have been very moved by your own words to try that load.

[js1138]

Don't worry-- I am sure this is total fundamentalist nonsense.

It doesn't appear to be fundamentalist anything. It appears to be a more detailed view of the genomes. A road that looks straight on a map can be crooked when you are driving it. The map is not wrong, just less detailed.

[TheGhostOfTomPaine]

I'm curious about a point of law. If an appeals court in another district makes a ruling opposite to or incompatible with the Dover ruling, what happens to the Dover ruling?

Strictly speaking, the Dover ruling applies only in the federal 3rd Circuit (which is the federal circuit PA is in). Courts in other circuits don't overrule it even if they decide differently, because they don't have jurisdiction in the 3rd Circuit.

In practice, other jurisdictions will probably look to the 3rd Circuit decision for nonbinding guidance. If another circuit decides a similar case differently, that won't create an actual conflict but it could reduce the practical amount of "reliance" that other courts put on the Dover decision.

Can the Dover ruling be overturned by another court, and if so, can this then be appealed?

The Dover ruling can be overturned only by a higher federal court (an appellate court, which would hear the case only if there were grounds for an appeal). The appellate ruling could itself be further appealed to the Supreme Court, which would decide whether to "grant cert" (agree to hear the case by issuing a writ of certiorari).

[No Blue States]

" When they discover they've been taught bunk, I pray they don't reject their faith entirely like I did."

If you rejected your faith entirely then who are you praying to? Maybe if you are praying you realized God cant be blamed for "church peoples" mistakes.

[Grig]

"Can there be Intelligent design without a divine being to design it?"

Science fiction sometimes portrays mankind of being capable of doing this in the far future, so theoretically, yes.

"so are you saying there is an intelligent being but not a divine intelligent being?"

I'm saying the theory of Intelligent Design is not about defining or describing the creator, it's about looking at the complexity of the ecosystem and looking for evidence that it was designed rather than the result of chance. SETI kind of did the same thing, they would scan the heavens for radio signals and try to identify ones that could have been deliberate communications from intelligent beings.

Even if someday ID was taken as a proven fact, it would not prove the existence of God or the account in Genesis or any other religions creation teachings. It would establish a scientific basis for claiming those things are possible, but they would still be unproven theories and someone could just as easily claim the designer(s) were just a superior non-divine race of aliens.

Ironically, if you accept evolution, you can't dismiss the possibility of a race evolving that would be capable of becoming designers.

[narby]

I'd think you'd have to have copies of the same bacteria

It's not the same bacteria, it digests nylon now. It's evolved.

[Jo Nuvark]

[...I hate to think of anyone spending eternity separated from God...]

My Aunt was about to die, knowing she was not a believer I
asked her where she thought she was going when she died.
She said she believed she would turn into dust. I opened
the Bible she gave to me (it was not hers, but was a
family heir loom, she thought appropriate for me to have),
and read John 14:6 "Jesus said, I am the way, the truth
and the life and no one comes to the Father but by Me".

Unfortunately, her daughter felt I was being insensitive
and became very angry with me. We made up later. But how
could I not try? I love my aunt and hope she made a
decision for Christ before she died.

[VadeRetro]

What ID has done is demonstrated that the ToE has significant problems...it was a criticism of weaknesses in ToE.

What real theory in science has ever been about another theory being wrong? So much so that it is little more than a grab-bag of screeches against that other theory?

A real theory has something to say directly about how the world works. It's not just about what doesn't happen but what does. But, somehow, ID has to beg off on being "that kind of a theory." It refuses to be held to such a standard and asks for a change in the rules.

[Ceewrighter]

"but there are also enough "filled gaps" to give overwhelming evidence of evolutionary change and common ancestry.

Your science requires the type of faith that I won't place in a mere theory.

[Ichneumon]

Find an endogenous retrovirus identically positioned in the human and gorilla genome, and not present in the chimp genome in order to do tremendous damage to the theory of evolution.

That's a valid method of potential falsification in general, but in the particular example you chose, it would be a bit problematic. The reason is that the points of divergence of the gorilla/chimp/human lineages are close enough together in time that the divergence was more like a three-way split than a sequence of clean successive forks. As a result, it wouldn't be out of the question to find genetic "markers" that are common to different pairs of these lineages, in "contradictory" ways.

[Ceewrighter]

ID is more a wedge, less a theory.