Witness: 'Design' Replaced 'Creation'

HARRISBURG, Pa. - References to creationism in drafts of a student biology book were replaced with the term "intelligent design" by the time it was published, a witness testified Wednesday in a landmark trial over a school board's decision to include the concept in its curriculum.

Drafts of the textbook, "Of Pandas and People," written in 1987 were revised after the Supreme Court ruled in June of that year that states could not require schools to balance evolution with creationism in the classroom, said Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University.

Forrest reviewed drafts of the textbook as a witness for eight families who are trying to have the intelligent design concept removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum.

The families contend that teaching intelligent design effectively promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the separation of church and state.

Intelligent design holds that life on Earth is so complex that it must have been the product of some higher force. Opponents of the concept say intelligent design is simply creationism stripped of overt religious references.

Forrest outlined a chart of how many times the term "creation" was mentioned in the early drafts versus how many times the term "design" was mentioned in the published edition.

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. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps."

Forrest also said that intelligent-design proponents have freely acknowledged that their cause is a religious one. She cited a document from the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents intelligent-design scholars, that says one of its goals is "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Under cross-examination by school board lawyer Richard Thompson, Forrest acknowledged that she had no evidence that board members who voted for the curriculum change had either seen or heard of the Discovery Institute document.

You do have to worry about coming up with a falsifiable test that can affirm that it was a designer that caused the bacterium to produce human insulin.

Granted. But the creation of such a test does not require me to trace things back to the beginning of the universe, which was the assertion to which I was originally responding.

I'd really like to see such a test, especially one doesn't define the parameters of the designer.

An interesting comment, given that you're responding to an example where we already know that "design" is the correct answer. Suppose it is impossible to design a scientific test that can produce the correct answer. In that case "science" has nothing whatsoever to say about this debate except "I have no idea whether it's true or not." (Which is definitely not what "science" is saying now.)

However, I think it probably is possible in some cases to design a test that would detect evidence of design. I don't believe that it's always impossible to detect the presence of design, because I know that we can recognize all manner of things that humans design.

Given that, you're reduced to an metaphysical and epistemological argument about whether a non-human would approach design problems the same way humans do. A scientific test would simply dispense with that uncertainty by assuming that non-human design would be recognizeable. It would be bad science to avoid the hypothesis altogether because you a priori assumed that there'd be no point.

Note that failing to find an alternate cause is not proof of a designer in and of itself.

True. But then again, that's not where we'd be with the real-world example of intelligent design I provided. Instead, we'd have two possible causes, and the scientific task would be to choose the better one.

let's take a different example, of a designer deliberately inserting a gene sequence into a bacterium

Why do you keep pretending that the question is "can species be designed", rather than "is intelligence required before species can exist"?

I think any fair minded lurker can conclude that you dare not acknowledge the real definition of ID because you would be forced to claim that your "designer" is God.

" Sorry, but the hypothesis says precisely that."(hypothesize a causitive agent)

It doesn't hypothesize a causative agent that can be tested. That's the difference.

"In the same spirit, though, let's take a different example, of a designer deliberately inserting a gene sequence into a bacterium or yeast in order to produce human insulin. (And, indeed, this is a real-world example of intelligent design.) What was the designer's motive? Would you really need to know it? No."

Yes, you would have to know something about the designer(Man) and their abilities. Without that knowledge there would be no way to provide positive evidence that the bacterium was designed. Saying we don't know what natural causes would be capable of making a bacterium that produced insulin is only an admission of ignorance. Before we can make that supposition into a scientific theory we need some POSITIVE evidence about the designer (Man). Otherwise there is no way to distinguish natural and *designed* structures.

antiRepublicrat: Yes you do, or you run into the "who designed the designer" problem. The only way you can stop the chain is to define a god as timeless and infinite, therefore requiring no designer.

No you don't.
For example, if I hypothesize that "a designer caused this bacterium to produce human insulin," I need not worry about where that designer came from in order to make my hypothesis, nor do I need to worry about where that designer came from in order to attempt to prove my hypothesis.
124r9etb

______________________________________

You should worry about logic..

Would you agree - that to date the only verifiable 'intelligent designers' capable of causing a bacterium to produce human insulin are human?

Sure, you can speculate than another intelligent designer, a God, made the bacterium produce insulin, but as antiRepublicrat pointed out, your hypothesis then runs into the "who designed the designer" question. You cannot verify the existance of that other designer.

Humans are the only designers [with this type of capablity] we can verify . [To date]

Why do you keep pretending that the question is "can species be designed", rather than "is intelligence required before species can exist"?

I'm not "pretending" anything, and you're clearly missing or avoiding the point. I'm using the "insulin-producing bacterium" as a real-world example of intelligent design. Ask any diabetic: it's most likely how their insulin is produced.

The utility of the example is obvious: is "science" up to the task of recognizing the presence of a designer in a case where we already know the correct answer? An answer either way has some fairly broad implications, which I've been addressing on this thread. That's not "pretending," narb -- that's just plain old rational thinking.

I think any fair minded lurker can conclude that you dare not acknowledge the real definition of ID because you would be forced to claim that your "designer" is God.

LOL! How very ad hominem of you. A "fair minded lurker" would not come to any such conclusion, unless they weren't really fair minded after all.

Humans are the only designers [with this type of capablity] we can verify . [To date]

And how would you suggest that we would ever be able to find a non-human designer -- of anything, not just biological entities -- if you don't first permit the introduction of a design hypothesis?

I don't think I'm the one who needs to worry about his logic, FRiend....

I can't provide a link, but a fellow FReeper once showed me a definition of ID--as written by a (genuine?) ID-er--that (in my reading of it anyway) specifically rejected any notion of One Creator God, as per Genesis.

Intrigued by this, I then tried to find out from Christian FReepers who support ID how it is they claim to believe in both Creation *and* ID, since by definition ID refuses to recognize the God of the Bible. I did not and have not received any coherent answer.

Yes, you would have to know something about the designer(Man) and their abilities. Without that knowledge there would be no way to provide positive evidence that the bacterium was designed. Saying we don't know what natural causes would be capable of making a bacterium that produced insulin is only an admission of ignorance.

And to say that we don't know that designers are also capable of causing the phenomenon would be worse than ignorance. That's why I think this is such a useful example: it places us in the position of having to choose between two valid hypotheses.

You might test your design hypothesis against known human techniques -- it's an obvious place to start. But note that if we can find suitable evidence that those techniques were in fact involved, we are done. The design hypothesis is verified, and there's no need to identify who employed those techniques.

Now, the follow-on question of who did the designing would certainly be interesting and important. But it's not the question we were originally trying to answer: we've already answered that one, and are now headed down a different trail!!!

Before we can make that supposition into a scientific theory we need some POSITIVE evidence about the designer (Man). Otherwise there is no way to distinguish natural and *designed* structures.

And before you can provide that postive evidence, you've got to allow the introduction of a design hypothesis. You'll NEVER get your positive evidence if you don't allow the design hypothesis in the first place.

Intrigued by this, I then tried to find out from Christian FReepers who support ID how it is they claim to believe in both Creation *and* ID, since by definition ID refuses to recognize the God of the Bible.

This statement is absolute nonsense.

I did not and have not received any coherent answer.

GIGO.

What kind of twisted psychopath, human or alien, would design Leishmaniasis?

The same type of twisted psycopath who would create weaponized smallpox, anthrax, or a host of other bioweapons. Why must you assume that a designer has your best interests in mind?

When you find out, I want his address.

I think you can reach Iraq's "Dr. Death" through the Red Crescent Society.

antiRepublicrat: Yes you do, or you run into the "who designed the designer" problem. The only way you can stop the chain is to define a god as timeless and infinite, therefore requiring no designer.

______________________________________

You should worry about logic..

Would you agree - that to date the only verifiable 'intelligent designers' capable of causing a bacterium to produce human insulin are human?

Humans are the only designers [with this type of capability] we can verify . [To date]

And how would you suggest that we would ever be able to find a non-human designer -- of anything, not just biological entities -- if you don't first permit the introduction of a design hypothesis?

No one is 'preventing' your supposition, FRiend. We are simply rejecting it's logic based on the the fact that your hypothesis then runs into the "who designed the designer" question.
You cannot verify the existence of that other designer.

I don't think I'm the one who needs to worry about his logic, FRiend....

That's because your logic is flawed.

Does belief THAT a creator/designer/G(g)od exists equate to religion? This is a question I had not contemplated before. (Full disclosure: I am a Christian. I do not support government-endorsed religion. It hurts both religion and govt in my opinion.) But is the mere suggestion that a supreme being of some sort must have created the universe may not be the same as religion. Submitted for your thoughts.

" And to say that we don't know that designers are also capable of causing the phenomenon would be worse than ignorance."

The question isn't *Could this be design?* but *What would design look like?*.

"But note that if we can find suitable evidence that those techniques were in fact involved, we are done."

We have found no evidence about the methods used by the *Intelligent Designer*.

"Now, the follow-on question of who did the designing would certainly be interesting and important. But it's not the question we were originally trying to answer: we've already answered that one, and are now headed down a different trail!!!"

We have not answered that question; it is unanswerable without knowledge of what the designer is and what it's capabilities are. The only intelligent designer we have knowledge of is humans; they certainly were NOT the *designer* of the universe and the evolution of life in said universe.

"And before you can provide that postive evidence, you've got to allow the introduction of a design hypothesis. You'll NEVER get your positive evidence if you don't allow the design hypothesis in the first place."

In the case of a man designing a bacterium to produce insulin, we have physical evidence of both the designer and his capabilities. We have no info at all on the *designer* of ID. So, if you start with the proposition that there was a designer of the universe and of the diversity of life, there is still is no way to now test that proposition. It's an empty hypothesis. There is no way to distinguish between natural caused and *designed* features.

This is my bottom line “beef” with this whole intelligent design/creationism/evolution argument.

I am incensed by the notion that ideas should be band because they do not fit the agenda or beliefs of a group. Surly in a FREE society we should all be able to discus evolving thoughts and ideas. As illustrated by intelligent design, even creationism evolves. As for evolution, it is (pardon the pun) an evolving concept as well.

We, as a society, need to place more faith and confidence in our children’s ability to learn, reason, and develop there own perceptions of the world around them. Not one of us can say with whole hearted certainty that he/she knows exactly how all this came to be. With this I say we should embrace both intelligent design and evolution, while properly explaining to the students how the theories are derived and why they stand up to scrutiny.

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.