There is a book I would commend to your attention, it is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. This book describes the process by which dominant scientific paradigms are enshrined and then overthrown as new information is found that does not fit in with the existing paradigm. Your evident fanaticism in defending the theory of Evolution leads me to believe you have not read it. At one time (17th century) advocates of the Phlogiston theory of combusiton were as passionate about this theory as advocates of Evolutionary theory are today.
Kuhn describes the concepts of scientific community, normal science and research programs to describe to the historic sociology of science. A scientific community is defined by Kuhn as a group of people who share a set of "recieved beliefs"; these shared beliefs are conveyed by means of formal training. In general, it is important that the scientific community adhere to a disciplined set of recieved beliefs in order function coherently. Research programs describe that activities of scientists in normal science. Experiments are conducted under the paradigm of normal science that seek to use its conceptual machinery to describe new clases of phenomena under its umbrella.
A shift away from a dominant scientific paradigm begins when an expierimental anomaly is noted that cannot be explained under the existing paradigm. In some cases these anomalies are only apparent anomalies and the paradigm can be adjusted to explain the anomaly satisfactorily. In cases where the anamoly cannot be explained a challenge to the dominant paradigm develops.
From a historic perspective, regardless how convincing the new evidence is that challenges the dominant paradigm is it is inevitably met with hostility and derision from practioners of normal science. This has proven to be true whether we examine the rise and fall of phlogiston theory, ptolemaic astronomy or classical physics; the pattern has been the same. Careers and reputations are on the line; the upsetting of a dominant paradigm is a traumatic event for the practioners of normal science.
The work of Karl Popper is also appropriate to mention here. Popper's definition science has become widely accepted. Popper defines a true science as having the following charcateristics:
a)The theory is formulated in such a
way that it can be proven to be false;
it is falsifiable,
b)The theory describes results that are
reproducible (a theory shouldn;t predict
one result on Wednesday and another on
Thursday all other factors being equal),
c)The theory should produce testable
hypotheses.
Falsifiable, reporducible, testable. Let us run some famous theories through this gauntlet and see how they fare. Freudian psychology: not falsifiable, not repoducible, does not generate testable hypotheses; Freudian psychology is something but it is not a science. Astrology: fails to satisfy a), b), and c); not a science. You get the idea.
If you have endured to this point in my post I will now get to my point. The questions we should pose about whether to teach ID or Evolution or both in schools should be based on the definition of true science. The questions the need to be addressed are as follows:
*Does ID present a coherent and
scientifically valid paradigm shift to
Evolutionary theory?
*Is Evolutionary theory, based on Popper's
criteria, even a valid scientific theory?
My answer to the questions posed above are: "yes", "no".
ID's paradigm challenge to Evolution
Dr. Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Block" box will eventually be seen as the single conceptual challenge that produced an experimental anomaly that will topple neo-Darwinism. In this book Behe develops the concept of "irreducible complexity" that inhere to any number bio-chemical systems. Dr. Behe's concept makes a mockery of existing neo-Darwinian theory. Dr. Behe demontrates the essential explanational sterility of neo-Darwinism in accounting for complex bio-chemical structures. Dr. Behe relentlessly exposes the "magical" thinking behind the thinly disguised vitalism of Richard Dawkins (elan vital, anyone?). Neo-Darwinism is a vast speculative edifice resting on a mechanism that has never proven to experimentally produce complexity in biological systems.
The responses to Dr. Behe's revolutionary work from the practioners of "normal" Evolutionary science have been pathetic. Dr. Behe's character and credentials have been impugned but noone in the Evolutionary camp has produced a testable mechanism that would explain irreducible complexity.
True to history, advocates of Evolution have reacted like all practitioners of normal science have reacted when an authentic anomaly is elicited to challenge the dominant paradigm. They throw a fit.
Is Evolutionary theory a Science
As ID theory begins to shift the dominant Evolutionary paradigm the question arises as to what extent Evolution adheres to the criteria of an authentic science.
During the course of its dominance Evolutionary theory has adhered to one of the criterion of a true science. Aspects of Evolutionary theory have generated testable hypotheses (Miller-Urey experiment, fruit fly mutations, population genetics). Evolutionary theory has not satisfied the need for reproducible results. As you may recall the "cold fusion breakthrough" was later adjudged to be fraud after other scientists were unable to reproduce the results claimed by Pons and Fleischer and rightly so. This same level of rigor is never applied to Evolutionary assertions. Critics of Evolution are told that it either happens to slowly to observe (neo-Darwinism) or too quickly (Saltationism) to observe. Quite a trick.
It is on the issue of falsifiability that Evolution fails most glaringly as a scientific theory. Evolutionary theorists posit any scientific result as "proof" of evolution and attempt to adjust their theory. The number of ad hoc accretions to neo-Darwinism make it begin to resemble Ptolemaic astronomy with its "epicycles". Any theory that is always true "by definition" is not a scientifc theory; it is an a priori dogma.
Science Education in a Democracy
A quick perusal of science textbooks from the 1950s and 1960s should disabuse anyone of the notion that the imprmatur of the National Science Foundation guarantees the knowledge that science students absorb at given point in time will remain relevant. Greater empahsis should be given for students absorbing the critical thinking processes of true science and not a mere mass of changeable theories. Learning the process of the scientific method is more important then learning a particular theory.
Given the current controversy in the field of Biology School disricts should be allowed to teach ID and Evolution as competing and potentially falsifiable theories. To teach Evolution as a "fact" is to distort the nature scientific theories and harm the students ability to form critical thinking skills in science.
*Does ID present a coherent and scientifically valid paradigm shift to Evolutionary theory? *Is Evolutionary theory, based on Popper's criteria, even a valid scientific theory?
My answer to the questions posed above are: "yes", "no".
"No" and "yes".
Why does Dembski, et. al. refuse to discuss the nature of the Intelligent Designers? Why do they declare that question, a.k.a. "designer-centric ID theories" off limits, and limit the discussion to "design-centric ID theories"?
Is there one Designer or multiple Designers? Shouldn't we be able to tell? For instance, so many organisms seem to have evolved complex traits because of arms races between competing interests. If they didn't evolve, but were instead designed that way, does that really make sense if there was only one Designer? What was He thinking when He designed the wasp to lay its eggs inside a paralyzed caterpillar (an irreducibly complex system if ever I saw one)? And why do all the designs that show up in Australia look so, amateurish & just plain weird, compared to the designs evident on all the other continents? Was Australia the training ground for some supernatural Design school grad students?
You think ID is a real science? Even William Dembski admits it's not ready for prime time yet! Look at what he says in his "Becoming a Disciplined Science" speech under "Building a Design Curriculum":
A problem we now face with intelligent design is that even if the educational mainstream opened its arms to us (don't hold your breath), we have no sustained course of study to give them. A curriculum provides that, and much more. ... Are we at this time in the position to build a design curriculum? Certainly intelligent design as a scientific program needs to develop and mature. Nevertheless, I believe we are in a position to start building such a curriculum. At the very top of the list we need a introductory basal biology textbook ... Actually, we'll need two basal biology texts, one geared toward college students and then a simplified version geared toward high school students. [emphasis mine]
*Does ID present a coherent and scientifically valid paradigm shift to Evolutionary theory? *Is Evolutionary theory, based on Popper's criteria, even a valid scientific theory? My answer to the questions posed above are: "yes", "no". How exciting for you. My answers are "no", "yes". Now the ball's back in your court -- explain your answers in detail and support them. Then maybe we'll have something worth talking about. And yes, I have read Kuhn.
Dr. Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Block" box will eventually be seen as the single conceptual challenge that produced an experimental anomaly that will topple neo-Darwinism.
Behe's a self-important crank. See my post earlier in this thread concerning Behe.
The responses to Dr. Behe's revolutionary work from the practioners of "normal" Evolutionary science have been pathetic.
Horse manure. There have been many excellent responses to Behe's errors. Again, see my earlier post for just a sampling.
Dr. Behe's character and credentials have been impugned but noone in the Evolutionary camp has produced a testable mechanism that would explain irreducible complexity.
Wow, that misses the point *entirely*. The "Evolutionary camp" doesn't have to "explain irreducible complexity", because they agree with the core of the idea (although not with all of Behe's baroque elaborations). It was understood long before Behe that one way that evolution could be falsified (hey, I thought you said evolution *wasn't* falsifiable?) would be the potential discovery of structures which could not have been formed by any type of stepwise evolution.
The "Evolution camp" has no argument with that point.
The problem with Behe, however, is that he has listed a few structures which he *believes* qualify as such, but (and here's the kicker) he hasn't actually *demonstrated* them to be. In fact, in several cases (again, check the links I provided earlier), Behe *misrepresents* the alleged irreducibility of the structure, and/or fails to see a "reducibility" of it THAT WAS ALREADY WELL KNOWN IN THE SCIENCE FIELD.
In short, Behe is (trivially) right in his core point, but has yet to make an actual case that any of his examples *are*, indeed, indisputably irredicible. Several, in fact, are already known to *be* reducible.
If Behe wants to claim to have driven a stake into the heart of evolution, he's going to have to do the difficult work required to *prove* something irreducible, instead of simply listing some examples he personally *thinks* might be.
True to history, advocates of Evolution have reacted like all practitioners of normal science have reacted when an authentic anomaly is elicited to challenge the dominant paradigm. They throw a fit.
A fit of laughter, yes.
Nor is it in any way wrong to be outraged by sophomoric attacks by people who have very little idea what they're talking about, but think that they can tear down 150 years of research with just an idea or two and an arrogant smugness.
It is on the issue of falsifiability that Evolution fails most glaringly as a scientific theory. Evolutionary theorists posit any scientific result as "proof" of evolution and attempt to adjust their theory. The number of ad hoc accretions to neo-Darwinism make it begin to resemble Ptolemaic astronomy with its "epicycles". Any theory that is always true "by definition" is not a scientifc theory; it is an a priori dogma.
Who wrote this nonsense? From the formatting it's hard to tell -- is this your writing, or cut-and-paste from somewhere else?
First, evolution sure as hell is falsiable. See this and work through the pages. It lists several dozen *specific* types of falsifiability for evolution. Then read this, this, and this.
Second, no one claims anything as a "proof" of evolution. Scientists know that the nature of science does not deal in "proofs".
Third, what you disingenuously denigrate as "ad hoc accretions" are honest adjustments of the theory to incorporate new observations. It would be dishonest *not* to, and any scientific theory is strengthened by such adjustments. Biology and the history of life are "messy" enough fields that any complete description of how things work is going to be necessarily complex. It's unfair to deride this as if it were some sort of failing.
Finally, it's just a disgusting and false slur to call evolution -- or any other scientific theory -- "true by definition". It most certainly is not, and I resent the slanderous implication.
Given the current controversy in the field of Biology School disricts should be allowed to teach ID and Evolution as competing and potentially falsifiable theories.
As soon as someone (anyone) manages to come up with an actual "scientific theory of ID", do let us know. Until then, it's not fit to be taught in science classrooms.
To teach Evolution as a "fact" is to distort the nature scientific theories and harm the students ability to form critical thinking skills in science.
Evolution *is* a fact. The only dispute is over what mechanisms contributed how much and in what ways to its occurrence.