Court Case Threatens to 'Drag Science into the Supernatural'

LiveScience.com ^ | 9/22/05 | Ker Than

[Crackingham]

A court case that begins Monday in Pennsylvania will be the first to determine whether it is legal to teach a controversial idea called intelligent design in public schools. Intelligent design, often referred to as ID, has been touted in recent years by a small group of proponents as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. ID proponents say evolution is flawed. ID asserts that a supernatural being intervened at some point in the creation of life on Earth.

Scientists counter that evolution is a well-supported theory and that ID is not a verifiable theory at all and therefore has no place in a science curriculum. The case is called Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Prominent scientists Thursday called a teleconference with reporters to say that intelligent design distorts science and would bring religion into science classrooms.

"The reason this trial is so important is the Dover disclaimer brings religion straight into science classrooms," said Alan Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and executive publisher of the journal Science. "It distorts scientific standards and teaching objectives established by not only state of Pennsylvania but also leading scientific organizations of the United States."

"This will be first legal challenge to intelligent design and we'll see if they've been able to mask the creationist underpinnings of intelligent design well enough so that the courts might allow this into public school," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which co-hosted the teleconference.

AAAS is the world's largest general science society and the NCSE is a nonprofit organization committed to helping ensure that evolution remains a part of public school curriculums.

The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of concerned parents after Dover school board officials voted 6-3 last October to require that 9th graders be read a short statement about intelligent design before biology lessons on evolution. Students were also referred to an intelligent design textbook to learn more information about the controversial idea. The Dover school district earlier this month attempted to prevent the lawsuit from going forward, but a federal judge ruled last week that the trial would proceed as scheduled. The lawsuit argues that intelligent design is an inherently religious argument and a violation of the First Amendment that forbids state-sponsored schools from funding religious activities.

"Although it may not require a literal reading of Genesis, [ID] is creationism because it requires that an intelligent designer started or created and intervened in a natural process," Leshner said. "ID is trying to drag science into the supernatural and redefine what science is and isn't."

[orionblamblam]

> Many are Naval Academy science graduates chosen by Hyman Rickover.

... who has been dead for, what, twenty years?

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 3, states that experience for an instant Senior Reactor Operator is three years of responsible nuclear-plant experience, of which a maximum of two years can be achieved via training. In addition, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, requires four years of power-plant experience of which a maximum of two years can be achieved via training.

Also, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation (INPO) document ACAD 00-03 Revision 1 requires three years of responsible nuclear plant experience of which a maximum of two years can be achieved via training.

And nary a word in there about science training. Just plant operations. One does not need to understand the physics behind a machine to know how to run it. Do the guys flying B-2's *necessarily* understand complex aerodynamics, nuclear physics, the internal ballistics of solid propellant rocket motors, the quantum mechanics of electromagentic phenomena, solid-state laser physics?

[orionblamblam]

> the faith of the non believers in id...they cannot find it in themselves to be able to believe in an eternal god who required no maker

Thank you for confirming, yet again, that ID is not about science, but is merely the latest zombie-like resurection of the intellectual evil that is Creationism.

[orionblamblam]

> And miracles never explain how something works, but it can explain why somethings happened.

Why did Chernobyl happen? It was a MIRACLE!!!!!

Prove me wrong.

[Dustbunny]

Court Case Threatens to 'Drag Science into the Supernatural'

Why is 'Intelligent Design' being called 'Supernatural'? When you look at the complexity of the anatomy of humans there is no way we were evolved from the sludge/slime what ever you want to call it.

[orionblamblam]

> My friends are going to be laughing for HOURS.

You keep bringing up your "friends." Why do I keep hearing "They agree with me on e-mail!" every time you post that?

[orionblamblam]

> When you look at the complexity of the anatomy of humans there is no way we were evolved from the sludge/slime what ever you want to call it.

Yes, and there's no way that humans could have invented the transistor or the laser or stealth technology without help from the Aliens. They're just too complex.

[Dimensio]

When you look at the complexity of the anatomy of humans there is no way we were evolved from the sludge/slime what ever you want to call it.

Argument from incredulity.

[js1138]

#3 What happens when you restrict your information sources to creationist sources rather than science sources?

You get nothing but spin?

[Dark Knight]

Science invented and perfected a method of gaining knowledge that is truly independent of formal logic. That does not mean that scientists are illogical or that they do not use formal logic in their work, but it does mean they have added a new and effective technique.<<

And they used Epistemology to do it.

I'm sorry if you are out of arguments, but quite frankly, you have not a clue what you know, or what you don't know. Without using epistemology, in whatever form that might be, scientific method, logic, reason, you will never know what it is that is true (or adequate knowledge).

Without it, there is just mush in your brain.

Sorry.

DK

[Doctor Stochastic]

So why do you take cheap shots?

Because you don't deserve the very best.

[js1138]

Why is 'Intelligent Design' being called 'Supernatural'? When you look at the complexity of the anatomy of humans there is no way we were evolved from the sludge/slime what ever you want to call it.

Sometimes people answer their own questions.

[RunningWolf]

When you look at the complexity of the anatomy of humans there is no way we were evolved from the sludge/slime what ever you want to call it.

orionblamblam: Yes, and there's no way that humans could have invented the transistor or the laser or stealth technology without help from the Aliens. They're just too complex.

Non Sequitur

1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

Wolf

[Dustbunny]

Yes, and there's no way that humans could have invented the transistor or the laser or stealth technology without help from the Aliens. They're just too complex.

Aw, yes, I keep forgetting about those 'Twilight Zone' episodes.

[js1138]

Epistemology is a formal system, and the formal system is not necessary in science.

Sports are full of applied physics, and great coaches sometimes ask for help from scientists to optimize performance. But you are conflating the application of principles with the application of a formal system. they are not the same activity. There is a difference between speaking a language and studying a language. There is a difference between writing and editing. A difference between the production of ideas and the judgment of ideas.


Science can continue in the absence of formal philosophy, just as athletes can continue without physics.

[Dark Knight]

So why do you take cheap shots? DK

Because you don't deserve the very best. Doctor Stochastic<<

And I got you!

LOL

DK

It is a technique for shutting down discourse, free thinking, ideas, etc. The antithesis of scientific progress of course.

[Dark Knight]

Epistemology is a formal system, and the formal system is not necessary in science.<<

That will come as a surprise to Epistemologists. ALL modern science is about how to convince other scientists you are right. How do you know something is CENTRAL to that cause. If you choose to say, believe me, I'm right, you will get little traction. If you say, here is my PROOF (and it stems from both logic and reason even if it does use the scientific method) you may get some traction.

Arguments and defense of theses are in order. A robust theory will survive. One that has not even thought through "how do I know it is true", will be laughed out of committee appropriately.

The scientific method is a philosophy (rooted in Epistemology).

DK

[Alamo-Girl]

Why not use Bayesian Probability to determine the likelyhood that it is truly random.

For Lurkers: Bayesian Probability historically results in a subjective assessment of likelihood.

You could of course stipulate your assessment (opinion) about the likelihood that randomness actually exists in space/time. But opinions are not dispositive.

My statement, OTOH, could be subjected to proof: "because we as yet do not have a full explanation for space/time and energy/matter – it is impossible to say that what we presume is randomness (for instance at the quantum level) is actually random in the system. Until the “system” is known, randomness is a misleading and false presumption."

[Alamo-Girl]

A "gut feeling" is not a scientific observation...

So very true!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping to your great post!

While most religions accept the premise that God created the universe, some do not.

Indeed. That distinction is lost most of time around here...

[Dark Knight]

Randomness on the fringe:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

DK