Biology expert testifies. Professor: Intelligent design is creationism.

York Dispatch ^ | 9/27/05 | Christina Kauffman

[Crackingham]

Dover Area School District's federal trial began yesterday in Harrisburg with talk ranging from divine intervention and the Boston Red Sox to aliens and bacterial flagellum. After about 10 months of waiting, the court case against the district and its board opened in Middle District Judge John E. Jones III's courtroom with statements from lawyers and several hours of expert testimony from biologist and Brown University professor Kenneth Miller.

On one side of the aisle, several plaintiffs packed themselves in wooden benches behind a row of attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, Pepper Hamilton LLC and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. On the other side of the aisle, nine school board members, only three of whom were on the board when it voted 6-3 to include a statement on intelligent design in biology classes, piled in behind lawyers from the Thomas More Law Center. Assistant superintendent Michael Baksa and superintendent Richard Nilsen shared a bench with Michael Behe, a Lehigh University professor expected to take the stand in defense of intelligent design.

SNIP

Miller, whose resume is several pages long and includes a stint as a professor at Harvard University, was the first witness called for the parents. Miller co-wrote the Prentice Hall textbook "Biology" with professor Joe Levine. The book is used by 35 percent of the high school students in the United States, Miller said. His were some of the thousands of biology books in which school officials in Cobb County, Ga., ordered stickers to be placed, warning that evolution is only a theory, "not a fact." Miller also testified in a lawsuit filed by Cobb County parents, and a judge later ordered that the stickers be removed.

Yesterday, the scientist's testimony was at times dominated by scientific terminology, though he jokingly told ACLU attorney Witold Walczak he would do his best to explain things in the layman's terms he uses with his mother.

Miller said intelligent design supporters think an intelligent designer must have been involved in the creation of life because science can't yet prove how everything evolved. He said the intelligent design idea that birds were created with beaks, feathers and wings and fish were born with fins is a creationist argument.

Intelligent design supporters often cite "irreducible complexity" in their research, he said. "Irreducible complexity" means that a living thing can't be reduced by any part or it won't work at all. So those living things could not have evolved in the way Darwin suggested; they had to be created with all of their existing parts, Miller said.

Intelligent design proponents often cite the bacterial flagellum, a bacterium with a tail that propels it, Miller said. Behe and his colleagues claim bacterial flagellum had to be created with all of its parts because it couldn't function if any of them were taken away, Miller testified. But scientists have proved that the bacterial flagellum can be reduced to a smaller being, a little organism that operates in a manner similar to a syringe, Miller said.

One of the biggest problems with the scientific viability of intelligent design is there is no way to experiment with the presence of a supernatural being because science only deals with the natural world and theories that are testable, Miller said.

Some people might suspect divine intervention last year when the Boston Red Sox came back to win the World Series after losing three games in a row to the New York Yankees in the playoffs. It may have been, but that's not science, he said. And intelligent design proponents haven't named the "intelligent being" behind their supposition, Miller said. They have suggested, among other things, that it could be aliens, he said. He said there is no evidence to prove intelligent design, so its proponents just try to poke holes in the theory of evolution.

[Vive ut Vivas]

It is true that the "all-powerful supernatural entity did it" theory has been used througout history to explain things that were were able to prove had more mundane explainations once we learned more.

I agree.

Right now what we have it evolution being taught by itself as the only viable theory, which is about the same as teaching that it's a fact.

That's because evolution is the only viable theory right now. And again, stop getting caught up in terminology. What does it even mean for something in science to be a "fact"? It's not even relevant.

It's a purposful representation of it as more than a thoery because the liberals in our education system don't want to let students consider that there may be a God.

"More than a theory"? This statement is meaningless! And furthermore, science doesn't even have anything to do with God! You guys are the ones bringing religion into the ballgame. If I am simply describing how my computer functions, it doesn't matter whether or not Dell made it. All I want to do is describe how the machine works.

Do you understand what a theory is? Just because I don't know how to prove or disprove something does not mean it's not a scientific theory. The search for a way to prove or disprove such a thing is part of the scientific process.

You are completely wrong. The inability to disprove ID is what makes it non-scientific. There is no explanation that cannot be said to have not been designed. I am typing this post on FreeRepublic, but maybe "God" is "guiding" me. It's not falsiable and therefore pointless. Maybe everything was designed. So what? That doesn't help us. Evolution isn't attempting to describe a "motivation", just the physical actions.

The law of gravity started as a theory that was then proven to a resaonable standard through experimentation.

Please stop putting your ignorance of the scientific method on display for all to see. The "law of gravity" didn't "starts as a theory". Laws don't start as theories. Theories don't graduate to laws. They are two different concepts.

Typically things that cannot be proven or disproven end up being considered supernatural.

Sure.

So what makes it so that the theory of evolution isn't considered to pertain to something supernatural?

The fact that it can be disproved.

The stars at one point in time were considered supernatural.

And in a few hundred years from now, we'll be saying that the origin of life was once considered supernatural.

Many things that we have come to understand through the scientific process were once thought to be supernatural.

Which is why we got smart and stopped assuming things were supernatural.

These barriers between science and religion are merely mental constructs that are barriers to learning because they limitations on what you are willing to consider possible regardless of you're ability to disprove it.

No. You can't test for "supernatural status", so it's not scientific. You're free to incorporate scientific and religious principles in your worldview. Science isn't claiming to be the basis of how you form your sense of morality or see the world. All science is is a search for naturalistic explanations.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Its up to you, but I say there is no need to waste any time defining "goodness" and "righteousness" to some flying spaghetti monster goofball that thinks its okay to call TonyRo76 a deranged sociopath in the name of intelligent argument.

I suggest you re-read the thread and see who has been instulting who.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Claptrap probably said it best, when he likened engaging in these crevo threads to "casting pearls before swine"

We're called swine, and yet we're the insulting ones. Got it.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Human beings have souls; animals do not. Humans are made in the image of our Creator; other creatures—beautiful and majestic as they may be—are not.

I'm sure you have evidence to support these statements.

[Vive ut Vivas]

I can't be the only one who was bludgeoned by this absurdly ironic post.

Not at all. I'm feeling very confused right now. We are the ones insulting, and also, left is right and up is down. We are swine, have no sense of morality, have depressing lives, and think it's okay to rape and pillage, but somehow, we've been dishing out the insults.

[Vive ut Vivas]

We aren't just bodies that have souls; we are souls that own & inhabit bodies.

What is a soul?

[Vive ut Vivas]

You've read my words—and surely the words of numerous other believers. You've heard our testimony. You can read God's own Word and discover the truth for yourself.

Believe me, I've read it. I've spent many summers in Bible school. Many years of Sunday morning church going. Don't think I haven't heard it all before. You guys aren't unique. (For the record, I've also heard Allah's word, five times a day, every day for two years. It was in Arabic, but still. Allah achbar, Allah achbar...and I've since forgotten the rest.)

Or...you can persist in this petty little "prove it to me" attitude of secularists, cynics, skeptics, scientists bent on exclusive naturalism, and Pharisees.

Why do you think it's petty to demand evidence?

[Vive ut Vivas]

Please...to not believe life has any purpose or meaning at all, and to not acknowledge any being or power greater than oneself? To think we just kinda hang out here 70-80 years, then croak? Dude, that is profoundly depressing!

Not at all. I think it would be depressing to believe that you have to spend eternity serving some deity, but that's just me.

[Vive ut Vivas]

That it has maintained viability for this many years without the programmer making purposeful corrections is a testament to His genius.

Lack of intelligent design is evidence for intelligent design. Now I've truly heard it all.

[RunningWolf]

Who knows? Maybe each side thinks they are speaking sincerely, and the other guys are insulting them. but it don’t look like that to me. At the end of this I will paste how quickly Dimi got to his blade, a circular, crescent shaped thing.

He asks a clarification of a question that TonyRo did not make(why would Dimi want to do a thing), then makes a hypothetical conclusion from this that TonyRo says everyone is that way, and then declares TonyRo a deranged sociopath

And this Dimi character is one of your esteemed prognosticators.. Whatever these guys paid for their school it was too much.. LMAO HA HA HA.

Watching the debate is interesting ,and it has very little to do about any absolute truths(especially the evo cult), but reveals much about psyches.

Wolf

To: Dimensio » Why would I want to do any such thing?
Because if there were no absolute moral truth, as Darwinism presupposes, then you wouldn't be subject to any ultimate judgment or consequences.
Woo-Hoo! Party on! 165 posted on 09/27/2005 12:11:39 PM PDT by TonyRo76

To: TonyRo76 Because if there were no absolute moral truth, as Darwinism presupposes, then you wouldn't be subject to any ultimate judgment or consequences.
Lacking of "ultimate" consequences doesn't mean that there won't be consequences at all. And you still haven't explained why I would actually want to do such a thing. Are you saying that you would want to do such things if you didn't believe in "ultimate judgement"? If so, then you're projecting to suggest that everyone is that way. Not all of us are deranged sociopaths like you. 554 posted on 09/28/2005 9:01:57 AM PDT by Dimensio

[RunningWolf]

Vive ut Vivas,

Unfortunately some evidence will have to come from inside of you. If you do not find it there first you will not find it anywhere else. Certainly not on these boards

Wolf

[PatrickHenry]

Truth is a statement which corresponds completely with reality.

That's very close to my definition, although "completely" is a bit unnecessary. True statements, like scientific theories, are always subject to verification, and possible falsification. It's possible to be mistaken about what we think is true.

Also, there is another kind of truth. There are those who say that some incorporeal, perfect "truth" is floating above us, and all we can do is try to attain it. That abstract, Platonic truth is an intellectual ideal, and isn't the same thing we're talking about when we say that a statement is true.

I usually define it as: A statement which is an accurate description of reality. Thus, without statements, and rational beings to utter them, there is no truth.

[Junior]

I don't need you to prove your motivations. I understand them quite well. It's your claim that this is the only way, though, is what you need to document. I've already offered counter examples.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Evolution and the Big Bang are really admissions that life and the universe are immaculate conceptions...

[untrained skeptic]

" Find Precambrian rabbit fossils. Find a transposon that occurs in whales and cows but not hippos."

But that doesn't disprove it, because evolution is random, and it may have taken different paths along previous branches and we just don't have enough fossil records to show it yet.

If you're requirement of a "falsification criteria" is what makes something a scientific theory, then evolution isn't a theory either.

Evolution says things evolved due to random chance and natural selection. However, because it is based on random chance rather than predefined design, the possibility exists of evolution taking multiple paths over time, and what might look like a falsification at a micro level, is really multiple separate paths of evolution at a macro level. It's simply impossible to prove otherwise with the knowledge we have available.

By that criteria, I guess we should teach neither in schools.


" Find a situation where time dilation does not occur when two objects are travelling at markedly different speeds."

You got me on that one.

"That's not my job. The burden falls to those caliming that Intelligent Design is a theory to demonstrate that a falsification criteria exists."

No, if you want to exclude it you need to prove that there is no falsification criteria, and that is logically impossible to prove. Theories don't need to be provable, but rules you use to define things cannot rely on things that are not provable.

You cannot prove that something does not have a falsification criteria. The set of ideas that you can prove don't have falsification criteria is the empty set. That can be proven logically.

" Wrong. A theory must have defined falsification criteria. If you can't define falsification criteria, then it isn't a theory. Saying "you can't prove that none exist!" doesn't work. You have to show that at least one does exist."

Then you cannot prove that anything is not a theory, and your definition is useless.

The designation of a Theory as opposed to a Hypotheses or Law relies in a great part of the subjective as well as the objective.

Evolution is considered a Theory because there's enough examined evidence that it is plausible. It is considered to be possible by a great many people. However, I would bet there are more people who believe that the universe and life were created by the design of some intelligent entity than there are people that can even explain what evolution is.

Intelligent design isn't even really in opposition to Evolution, except when people start insisting that there was no design that set things in motion, or when people argue that nothing is random.

Both are strongly held theories. Both should be taught. Why they are theories and why they we haven't been able to prove them should also be taught.

I'm not suggesting that either evolution or intelligent design should be taught as settled fact. One of the most important things students can learn from the lesson is how little we really know.

That's something that really seems to make teachers nervous in primary and secondary education. The education system we have now wants to indoctrinate students rather than to teach them how to learn and challenge them to think critically and logically.

The problem with our education system is that it does not teach people to think. It teaches that the questions that will be on the test will have one correct answer, and it's the answer that you learned in class.

Evolution is being taught as the only credible theory as to how life came to exist as it does not. It's being taught as a kind of fact that everyone knows, but can't really be scientifically proven.

The reason that intelligent design is being excluded isn't scientific. The philosophical argument about falsification criteria and is it science or not are pointless distractions from the real issue of our children are being taught not to think, but to regurgitate things taught to them as facts.

It's an argument between indoctrination and education, because if you teach people how to learn and how to think critically, they can balance the merits of different theories on their own. If you instead teach them single answers to every question, you teach them to rely on others for answers.

[Diamond]

Evolution didn't come up as a theory until Darwin

That is simply not true.

Atheism is not dependent on any knowledge of science whatsoever, just a lack of belief in gods.

I don't believe in gods either and I'm not an atheist. But ontologically speaking, either the universe is eternal or it isn't. It is either the result of Intelligent purpose or it isn't. If it is not eternal then it had a beginning and then the question is, what is the sufficient cause of it? There are only a few possiblities. What choice other than some materialist explantion does a good atheist have to try to account for the existence of the universe?

Someone might be a practical atheist and may never have given the issue a thought, but I'm referring to the problem itself, not anyone's lack of thought about it.

Cordially,

[untrained skeptic]

"You just admitted that the fossil record is evidence. That's one sort of test. There is also the manifest evidence -- and more of it every day -- from genetics. All this evidence points in exactly the same direction, and none of it contradicts the theory of evolution. Again, evolution is not a theory about origins, so your question about where the primordial sludge came from, fascinating as it is (really), doesn't apply."

Sure, there's evidence that supports the theory of evolution. The problem is that any evidence that contradicts evolution can be explained away by the theory of evolution.

Find a critter that didn't seem to evolve? Well, then there must have been two seperat evolutionary paths that branched farther back in history. One branch may have evolved faster than the other. I mean, after all, this is all just random chance. You can't expect an orderly progression without a design.

If there is an orderly progression is would be evidence of a possible design.

Evolution doesn't preclude a design. An inteligent design may very well include evolution. Neither can explain away the other completely no mater how much evidence you gather. That's one of the reasons why they are theories.

"Further, evolution is not a "leap of faith." It is the best explanation we have that takes in all the known facts. When a better explanation comes along, that new explanation will become the operative theory. There is no faith involved."

Any time you choose to believe in an unproven theory you are making a leap of faith. If you accept it as a theory, rather than fact, it does not require a leap of faith. This is true if we're talking about evolution or ID.

"Again, evolution isn't about origins and it doesn't pretend to be."

I would have to argue that people try to make it explain everything, but the origins are where the theory breaks down.

When you refuse to consider the origins, you're refusing to look at one of the main problems with the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't explain how things got started. Nothing really does explain the origins, buecause even if you say God created the universe, where did God come from?

However it's a valid theory to question if some intillegent being may have created the universe, and then it brings into question how much of what we see as evolution is random chance and natural selection as opposed to a design that includes a degree of random chance and natrual selection.

These are theories. There aren't hard and fast answers. We need to teach students theories, and we need to teach them as theories.

The teachers unions and groups like the ACLU are trying to keep the theory of ID out of schools and only teach one possible theory. When you only teach one possible theory and exclude all other theories and not being credible, you're in effect teaching that theory as fact, and not teaching students to think for themselves.

"There are still simply questions that are better answered by divine intervention than by evolution.

Not in science."

Why? Because you define science to exclude the supernatural? That's funny since science evolved from the study of things though to be supernatural.

"Intelligent design isn't a theory because we can't test for it. That's not the same as "prove" it. It also predicts nothing ... like I say in the next sentence you quoted."

You can't come up with a test for evolution that can't be explained away by different paths of evolution that branched at an earlier point in time that may have evolved at different rates. That's the nature of explaining something through random chance over a nearly infinite period of time.

It's no more disprovable than ID. It's just more accepted by those who CHOOSE not to consider as a valid theory.

"We disagree on whether the people in question understand science, and we further disagree on whether the people who are touting id do."

Too much of a generalization about the people touting ID. I don't question that there are some people pushing ID for blind religious reasons. There are also people pushing evolution because of their opposition to religion.

That neither supports or diminishes the viability of either theory.

"I suspect that scientists have a much better grasp of what we don't understand than most of us do."

My father has a PHD in Physics and I grew up in an environment very supportive of education and learning to think critically. I've got a BS and a MS degree. Those degrees mean I've got more background information and know more rules to apply to subjects than some other people.

I've taught classes while getting my masters degree.

Here's what I learned. Facts are nice, but they don't really amount to knowledge until you're able to question them and understand how they all fit together. You can't do that by excluding ideas because preconceived notions such as calling things not science because they involve something you don't understand.

It's just as important to realize what you don't know as what you do know.

Despite the education I've attained, I've often found people who are able to figure out things that elude me and explain them to me that have very little formal education. Sometimes what we think we know can be a barrier to learning. Excluding theories such as ID because they aren't considered Science is a barrier to learning that serves no useful purpose.

Teaching ID as a theory merely exposes students to the fact that we don't know all the facts and that there are different theories out there that might explain things. The possibility that there may be some intelligent entity that has had a hand in our world becomming what it is isn't some new concept that no one considers a possibility. So why exclude it and teach only one theory?

[Diamond]

I might add my mild bemusement at the fact that Stalinist propaganda is being treated as an authoritative source, but I'll check it out regardless.

Well, if challenging the authenticity of the source didn't work I was going to suggest either this tack on my use of a Bolshevik source, or the "out-of-context" maneuver. And you might still have the "out-of-date" (1940) riposte at your disposal, too:^). Nevertheless, sometimes a statement or admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable because the source cannot be accused of bias in my favor.

But neither have anything to do with Darwin.

I know! But I said evolutionists, not, "Darwinists". Darwin and evolution are not exactly synonymous. Darwin popularized and shaped in his own way prior evolutionary theories.

Cordially,

[Dimensio]

But that doesn't disprove it, because evolution is random, and it may have taken different paths along previous branches and we just don't have enough fossil records to show it yet.

Actually, it kills all established lines of descent regarding mammals. It would throw out the entirety of what we call the theory of evolution today. It is a falsification criteria.

If you're requirement of a "falsification criteria" is what makes something a scientific theory, then evolution isn't a theory either.

No, because unlike you, scientists do not play semantic games.

Evolution says things evolved due to random chance and natural selection.

It says nothing about "random chance"

However, because it is based on random chance rather than predefined design, the possibility exists of evolution taking multiple paths over time, and what might look like a falsification at a micro level, is really multiple separate paths of evolution at a macro level.

Except that it's not "random chance", so your conclusion is meaningless.

No, if you want to exclude it you need to prove that there is no falsification criteria, and that is logically impossible to prove.

Wrong. You claim it's a theory, therefore the onus is upon you to validate the claim by presenting the information that makes it a theory. Amongst this information is a hypothetical falsification criteria. If you cannot do this, then you cannot claim that Intelligent Design is a theory, and it is fundamentally dishonest to do so. It isn't my job to evaluate every crackpot explanation that comes along to see if there is a potential falsification criteria. If an explanation is a theory, then the person who presents this explanation as a theory should be able to provide a falsification criteria.

Theories don't need to be provable,

You're not paying attention. Theories cannot be provable. Nothing in science is ever "proven".

but rules you use to define things cannot rely on things that are not provable.

It's not my job to prove that an explanation is unfalsifiable. Shifting the burden of demonstrating non-falisifiability and saying "it's a theory if you can't do it!" is a dishonest cop-out. If you don't have a defined falsification criteria, then your explanation is not well-defined enough to be termed "theory".

You cannot prove that something does not have a falsification criteria.

That's not my job. A theory must have a defined falsification criteria. You are trying to redefine the standards for scientific inquiry because you don't like the existing set. I'm not falling for it. Then you cannot prove that anything is not a theory, and your definition is useless.

Wrong. If it does not have a defined falsification criteria, then it isn't a theory. If someone comes up with a falsification criteria for "intelligent design", then that obstacle will be overcome and it will simply need to meet the other standards required for an explanation to be considered a scientific theory. The designation of a Theory as opposed to a Hypotheses or Law relies in a great part of the subjective as well as the objective.

The designation between hypothesis and theory is based upon the quantity and quality of successful predictions made by the explanation. The designation between theory and law is based upon the type of statement it is. I've already explained the difference between "theory" and "law" with respect to science, and how one does not ever become the other. Could you stop pretending that theories and laws are differentiated only by levels of certainty since you should know better by now?

Evolution is considered a Theory because there's enough examined evidence that it is plausible.

Moreover, there is the number of successful predictions from the theory. That's also an important factor to consider.

It is considered to be possible by a great many people.

Which is fine, but truth isn't determined by the number of people who believe a statement. Evolution's validity is a result of successful predictions and validated evidence, not the number of people who think that it is true.

However, I would bet there are more people who believe that the universe and life were created by the design of some intelligent entity than there are people that can even explain what evolution is.

Which is irrelevant. Popularity has no bearing on truth value. Intelligent design isn't even really in opposition to Evolution, except when people start insisting that there was no design that set things in motion, or when people argue that nothing is random.

That's not my point. Intelligent Design may well be true. My point is that Intelligent Design is NOT science, and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as such.

Both are strongly held theories.

Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is not. Ignoring everything that I have said regarding the standards for defining an explanation as a theory does not change this fact.

Both should be taught.

No, it is fundamentally dishonest to present ID as a "theory". Anyone who does is either woefully misinformed or an outright liar.

Why they are theories and why they we haven't been able to prove them should also be taught.

Intelligent Design is not a theory. You haven't even provided a defined falsification criteria. Theories must, by definition have a DEFINED falsification criteria. If an explanation does not have this, then it is not a theory, and it is dishonest to present it as such. I know that you're deliberately ignoring the criteria required for an explanation to be termed "theory". This does not make you right, it only makes you look stubbornly dishonest. If ID is a theory, then you must be able to state a hypothetical observation that would prove it false.

and why they we haven't been able to prove them should also be taught.

Theories in science cannot be proven. ABSOLUTELY NO THEORY IN SCIENCE EVER HAS OR WILL BE PROVEN. That is why we cannot "prove" evolution. Why are you ignoring this fact and pretending that somehow some theories can be proven despite having been told otherwise by multiple people on multiple occasions?

You have made it abundantly clear here that you're not interested in discussing reality. You're here to make up a defition of "theory" not used by the scientific community, and you insist that it is the real one no matter how often you are told otherwise. You want to use a lie as your initial premise, and as a result all conclusions that you draw from it are fundamentally flawed. If you not only clearly lack understanding of the scientific method but also make it abundantly clear that you don't want to use the definitions of the scientific method and would rather use your own, why should anything you say be taken seriously?

[King Prout]

typical of a creationist, you resorted to selectively inaccurate quote mining in order to address a strawman in what you believe was a clever move.

My parameters included the limiting definig qualities of "the demonstrable physical characteristics"

souls are neither physical nor demonstrable.

care to try to answer the question as stated?

I doubt that you do, but if you do, please try to answer the actual question I posed.