Science and Scripture - 'Intelligent design' theory definitely belongs in biology class

LAT ^ | September 28, 2005 | Crispin Sartwell

[Tailgunner Joe]

I DON'T BELIEVE that the universe was intelligently designed. I don't think that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory: It appeals to the supernatural and cannot be empirically tested. I think its proponents have religious motivations for trying to insert it into the curriculum.

But I also believe it should be taught in high school biology classes.

The federal court case that began this week originated in York County, Pa., where my kids go to the public schools. The school board of the Dover district mandated that a four-paragraph statement be read in high school biology classes, setting out intelligent design as an alternative to evolution for explaining the current configuration of organisms. Several Dover parents brought suit to prevent that statement from being read.

The issue is symptomatic of the continuing divisions in American culture, as severe now as when the Scopes Monkey Trial was raging in 1925. It tracks fairly closely the conflict between red states and blue states, the religious and the secular, Republicans and Democrats, and so on.

And though Pennsylvania is nominally blue, this county in the middle-south of the state is rock-ribbed red and Christian to the hilt.

To understand what the Dover school board was trying to accomplish, consider how you would feel if your children, in the course of a compulsory education, were taught doctrines that contradicted your most cherished beliefs — that blandly invalidated your worldview without discussion. Think about being heavily taxed to destroy your own belief system. That's how the people in this community feel.

[Mylo]

Ridiculous.

There is less than a 1% difference in protein sequence between humans and chimps. The fact that only 20% of proteins are exactly identical is interesting, but is mathematically predicted by Molecular Evolution.

These differences in protein are obviously not enough to account for the phenotypic differences because there is also the DNA sequence that precedes the gene that codes for the protein and controls when it will be turned on or off. There is also the DNA that goes into the leading end and tail end of the messenger RNA, and it controls how long the message will last, where it goes in the cell, and under what conditions it will be translated to protein.

A small difference in a gene that makes a protein that turns on or off other genes is going to make a much larger difference than a structural protein. Thats all your saying with the last part.

Grok?

[A. Pole]

I don't think that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory: It appeals to the supernatural and cannot be empirically tested.

The concept of human rights or the moral concepts are not scientific theories either. They cannot be empirically tested.

Gee, the MOST IMPORTANT THINGS in life cannot be empirically tested or scientifically proven. Mankind existed without science for many thousands of years. But without spiritual and moral foundations will not last couple of generations.

[Mylo]

If you think that theory is an insult you don't know anything about science.

Only 400? I'm not impressed. I know at least 400 scientists myself; good god-fearing people mostly. They all accept that God works in mysterious ways, but that doesn't mean we can't figure out how HIS creation functions.

[Mylo]

But you thought there "was no Science in the Constitution."

Maybe if you actually KNEW the Constitution.

Do you even know the Bible? Or are you one of those who think it is God's message to man, but have never read it?

[Tailgunner Joe]

In fact Intelligent design does not appeal to the supernatural. It is entirely scientific and has nothing to do with "creationism." It can be tested by showing whether or not "irreducible complexity" exists in nature, that systems exist which could not have come into being randomly.

[Tailgunner Joe]

The Constitution does not authorize congress to provide for the scientific education of the people.

[A. Pole]

The Commies liked Lamarkian evolution and rejected Darwin and Mendel.

Lamarkian theory was not less scientific than Darwin. Darwin theory (after it got modified later) was superior but not more scientific. And some Lamarkian concepts might be returning (inheritance of acquired properties). Scientific does not mean correct. You can have non-scintific theories which are true, and you can scientific theories which are false.

The Nazi's looked to a man for their authority, not Science.

And what is science if not human invention? While Marxists valued history and economy, Nazis liked biology and evolution.

[Mylo]

I don't talk to you "Hitlerizer".

But you are correct.

"I see no authorization for this spending in the Constitution" are my favorite Presidential words when explaining a veto; too bad there were only two of them who said it.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Hey don't act like Hitler and I won't call you Hitler.

Are you Pro-life?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Here's a question for you, "scientist." Does life begin at the moment of conception?

[Mylo]

Wrong again. Lamarkian evolution wasn't ever a viable theory, it was only valid as a hypothesis in Science because it was falsifiable. Guess what. It was falsified.

The hypothesis never postulated a mechanism, and nothing we know about DNA and genetic inheritance can translate desire and effort into phenotypic differences in successive generations.

There are no Lamarkian concepts that "might" be returning.

[Mylo]

Oh, you are scaring me with the scare quotes around Scientist.

I don't talk to you.

[Tailgunner Joe]

If science must be falsifiable, then how can the theory of evolution be falsified, other than showing that irreducible complexity exists in nature?

[A. Pole]

And now returning to the Constitution: as some wise judge has once noted, it is not a national suicide pact. [Re:"If they want ID, so be it! If they do not want schools so be it!"]. Just like last ca. 50 years could be called "electronics era", so now we might be entering into "biology/biochemistry era" - and we better have sufficient knowledge base to pursue it. In a technological race there are no silver medals, and the winner takes all. Thus I see an overriding national survival [not even security - survival!] interest in clamping down on ID/creationism in education and producing effective workforce for the tomorrow applications.

First I do not think that allowing some creationism or ID in some school districts would weaken the nation. Opposite, it would make it more free, self-governing and stronger. Same way as permitting to voice or teach mistaken views. Hey, I even want views like yours to be freely presented, even in the schools.

As someone said: "If you shut your door to all errors, truth will be shut out"

And it is curious that you put so much stress on ruthless struggle for survival, it reminds me some scientistic ideology from the first half of XX century. Wink, wink.

[Mylo]

I don't talk to you Tailgummer; because you are a Hitlerizer.

[Tailgunner Joe]

I knew it. You're a pro-abort. You survival of the fittest types all are.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Are you for pulling feeding tubes from crippled ladies too? I think probably so.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Just another nazi clown.