Posted on 10/05/2005 3:53:39 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A philosophy professor and two science teachers were expected to testify Wednesday in a landmark trial over a school board's decision to include a reference to "intelligent design" in its biology curriculum.
Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, is being called as an expert witness on behalf of eight families who are trying to have intelligent design removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum. The families contend that it effectively promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.
Forrest's testimony was expected to address what opponents allege is the religious nature of intelligent design, as well as the history and development of the concept, according to court papers filed by the plaintiffs before the trial.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III was also expected to hear testimony from Bertha Spahr, chairman of Dover High School's science department, and biology teacher Jennifer Miller.
Under the policy approved by Dover's school board in October 2004, students must hear a brief statement about intelligent design before classes on evolution. It says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
Intelligent-design supporters argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.
The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is being defended by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.
The trial began Sept. 26 and is expected to last as long as five weeks.
Then perhaps you could tell us what the ID position is. From everything I've seen the ID position boils down to three statements.
1. There exists complexity of type X in biological systems.
2. Complexity of type X could not have formed via evolution.
3. Statements 1 and 2 imply that there must have been some intelligence that designed those biological systems containing complexity of type X.
Using the example of this argument that I am most familiar with, namely Behe's irreducible complexity argument, it can be shown that this argument is weak and unscientific. If you are unfamiliar, Behe defines a system as IC if removal of one part of the system results in the system being unable to perform its function.
I won't argue statement 1, namely that there exists irreducible complexity in biological systems. Statement 2, however, is demonstrably false. It is most certainly possible for IC systems to form via evolution. One must simply understand that evolution is not a direct process leading from one state to another, but rather a process that proceeds in fits and starts, sometimes leading to the loss of structures and systems, and sometimes resulting in the coopting of a part of a given system for the performance of a completely unrelated function.
For instance, given a system containing parts C, D and E, the system is IC if removal of C, D, or E results in loss of system function. However, it's possible that C, D and E all evolved separately performing functions completely unrelated to the function of system CDE. If that's the case, then there's no reason to believe that if C, D, and E all separately give a survival advantage to an organism that these couldn't have evolved separately. Furthermore, it's possible that a system evolved sequentially starting with part A, and adding parts B, C, D, and E in subsequent generations, to form system ABCDE. Once this system is in place, parts A and B prove to be redundant and are eliminated by further evolution, yielding our IC system CDE. Therefore, the claim that IC systems could not possibly have evolved is demonstrably false.
As for statement 3, this is where ID leaves the realm of science. Statement 3 is not falsifiable and furthermore does not follow from statements 1 and 2. Eliminating the possibility of evolution does not lead to the conclusion of a designer. Perhaps some other natural process is involved.
It is not falsifiable because it's impossible to conclusively determine that a system wasn't designed. For example, suppose you see 10000 coins scattered about on the floor, seemingly at random. How would you falsify the statement that some person intentionally put the coins in that exact position? We would normally conclude that someone probably spilled the coins from a container and they landed in their current position under only the influence of gravity and friction, but we cannot falsify the notion that someone laid each individual coin in place intentionally.
Similarly, in biological systems there's no test that can determine that a particular system is not designed. If one is willing to put constraints on what a particular hypothesized designer could or would design, then maybe there would be a testable hypothesis. For example, if a claim were made that the designer would never have included lethal alleles in an organisms genome were made, then we would have a testable hypothesis. If lethal alleles are found (which they are), then this claim is falsified, and this version of ID is falsified as well. However, ID proponents are very careful to specify absolutely NOTHING about the characteristics of a designer, so there is no scientific hypothesis of ID.
This is my best understanding of the ID position. It is cerainly and unconvincing and weak argument, and one that is unscientific. If there's somewhere where I have misunderstood or mischaracterized the argument, I am sure you can correct me.
Then perhaps you could tell us what the ID position is. From everything I've seen the ID position boils down to three statements.
1. There exists complexity of type X in biological systems.
2. Complexity of type X could not have formed via evolution.
3. Statements 1 and 2 imply that there must have been some intelligence that designed those biological systems containing complexity of type X.
Using the example of this argument that I am most familiar with, namely Behe's irreducible complexity argument, it can be shown that this argument is weak and unscientific. If you are unfamiliar, Behe defines a system as IC if removal of one part of the system results in the system being unable to perform its function.
I won't argue statement 1, namely that there exists irreducible complexity in biological systems. Statement 2, however, is demonstrably false. It is most certainly possible for IC systems to form via evolution. One must simply understand that evolution is not a direct process leading from one state to another, but rather a process that proceeds in fits and starts, sometimes leading to the loss of structures and systems, and sometimes resulting in the coopting of a part of a given system for the performance of a completely unrelated function.
For instance, given a system containing parts C, D and E, the system is IC if removal of C, D, or E results in loss of system function. However, it's possible that C, D and E all evolved separately performing functions completely unrelated to the function of system CDE. If that's the case, then there's no reason to believe that if C, D, and E all separately give a survival advantage to an organism that these couldn't have evolved separately. Furthermore, it's possible that a system evolved sequentially starting with part A, and adding parts B, C, D, and E in subsequent generations, to form system ABCDE. Once this system is in place, parts A and B prove to be redundant and are eliminated by further evolution, yielding our IC system CDE. Therefore, the claim that IC systems could not possibly have evolved is demonstrably false.
As for statement 3, this is where ID leaves the realm of science. Statement 3 is not falsifiable and furthermore does not follow from statements 1 and 2. Eliminating the possibility of evolution does not lead to the conclusion of a designer. Perhaps some other natural process is involved.
It is not falsifiable because it's impossible to conclusively determine that a system wasn't designed. For example, suppose you see 10000 coins scattered about on the floor, seemingly at random. How would you falsify the statement that some person intentionally put the coins in that exact position? We would normally conclude that someone probably spilled the coins from a container and they landed in their current position under only the influence of gravity and friction, but we cannot falsify the notion that someone laid each individual coin in place intentionally.
Similarly, in biological systems there's no test that can determine that a particular system is not designed. If one is willing to put constraints on what a particular hypothesized designer could or would design, then maybe there would be a testable hypothesis. For example, if a claim were made that the designer would never have included lethal alleles in an organisms genome were made, then we would have a testable hypothesis. If lethal alleles are found (which they are), then this claim is falsified, and this version of ID is falsified as well. However, ID proponents are very careful to specify absolutely NOTHING about the characteristics of a designer, so there is no scientific hypothesis of ID.
This is my best understanding of the ID position. It is cerainly and unconvincing and weak argument, and one that is unscientific. If there's somewhere where I have misunderstood or mischaracterized the argument, I am sure you can correct me.
Apologies for the echo...echo...echo...echo
This question reveals a truly massive ignorance of punctuated equilibrium. Knowing that you have been on these threads something like as long as I have, it's hard to believe you are still innocently pig-ignorant.
Punk-eek is geologically/paleontologically faster than gradualism. It doesn't hypothesize massive changes in one generation.
Might I suggest a Braille computer or getting someone to help you with the ordinary-sized print?
I love it and hate it when they go after the harmless, respectable, long-dead Victorian gentleman, Charles Darwin. Beyond the illogic of attacking a scientific theory by ad hominem on the discoverer, there's a venom there which looks smaller than petty, meaner than mean. If these are really Christians, Christianity isn't what it cracks itself up to be.
Tag-line material! Nice.
Based on years of observation (here and other places), I don't find it hard to believe.
If these are the tactics, then what would be the big deal about being descended from a monkey, if the monkeys don't mind?
Then I apologize. I also get cranky once in a while.
God creates hurricanes "from nothing". God makes the rain fall "from nothing". God makes the water magically "flow down to the ocean".
Of course we also have scientific explanations for those things, but did not God "create" them?
All this is a matter of semantics. The evidence God left us in His creation gives ample evidence that a tool scientists call "evolution" created the various species. You call the tool "creation". There's really no difference, except the unfortunate "days" text in Genesis that has confused you.
If you believe that God gave you the Bible, and also created the world around us, then by definition the two cannot conflict. The evidence God left, a lot of evidence by the way, tells us that the universe and the earth is many billions of years old. Since Gods creation and Gods word cannot conflict, then your interpretation of Genesis must be the problem.
Seeing is believing placemarker.
Your witty wordplay has been noted by the GrandMaster himself, and I am authorized to report a notation of same has been appended to your permanent record at DarwinCentral.
Morbid curiosity made me look at the intro to this "textbook" on amazon.com.
It is a mess from the very beginning. It actually cites Pasteur's experiment as evidence against abiogenesis.
If this is being used to teach science anywhere, this country is in worse shape than I thought.
Punk-eek is geologically/paleontologically faster than gradualism. It doesn't hypothesize massive changes in one generation.
I know punk-eek claims that that there are periods of time where evolution occurs at a faster pace than gradualism.
I am also aware that punk-eek is an unfounded claim in an attempt to explain away the lack of a fossil record of 'transitional forms.
I am further aware that some evolutionists believe that new species evolve through divergence and yet other claim that interbreeding leads to new species.
The problem for the evolutionist is that at some point in this process, the parents of one species have to give birth to offspring that is a different species. Certainly you can agree that an animal canot change from one species to another after it is born, can't you? Not only that, but there has to be both a male and a female of this new species born at the same relative time, survive to adulthood, find each other and then successfully mate.
Based on the current usage of punk-eek by evolutionists, it is hardly distinguishable from gradualism, is it?
So, do you believe in gradualism, punk-eek; or both? If both, what triggers the punk-eek periods?
With so little evidence of speciation, how does the evolutionists go even further explain transitions from one classification/family of animals to another? Every example the evolutionists trots out as a possible example of speciation are among very small animals and only very minor differences, that even if they were real, fall within natural selection.
This one paragraph includes three 'possibles'. One for each premise and one for the conclusion. this is nothing more than wild speculation, with no evidence to support any of it. On top of that, you fail to identify even one example where this has actually happened. You call that science; I call it fantasy.
Unsupported assertion.
I am further aware that some evolutionists believe that new species evolve through divergence and yet other claim that interbreeding leads to new species.
Both are true, but only one is the cornerstone of Darwinian theory. Do you even know which one it is?
The problem for the evolutionist is that at some point in this process, the parents of one species have to give birth to offspring that is a different species.
This is you dumb-bleeping along on your own. Populations evolve. At no point does a parent have to have offspring remarkably different from itself. If you don't know any more than this by now, you should banish yourself from these threads as the slowest of slow learners.
Not only that, but there has to be both a male and a female of this new species born at the same relative time, survive to adulthood, find each other and then successfully mate.
IOW, we have the old Duane-Gishism "If we are to believe that one day a snake gave birth to a bird, where O where was there another little bird for it to mate with?" Terminally dumb strawman. Stooooopid. Other than that, great argument! Populations evolve. Over time, the whole population drifts.
If you don't know what evolution says, how do you know it's wrong? And can you possibly not know what evolution says by now? Are you being honest about what you understand and can remember?
Based on the current usage of punk-eek by evolutionists, it is hardly distinguishable from gradualism, is it?
If you knew this, what has all that nonsense been from you up to now?
With so little evidence of speciation, how does the evolutionists go even further explain transitions from one classification/family of animals to another?
There's plenty of evidence for speciation and that higher-level differences arose from the same kind of divergence that produced speciation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.