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.

Well, that automatically follows from the unspecified nature of the alleged designer. As soon as we have the designer, I don't deny that we can learn about his methods and motivations and make inferences on what we should resp. shouldn't observe.

You're basically demanding proof of a designer before we could possibly hypothesize design in any given case. That's very convenient to the anti-ID cause, but it's not logically necessary for the proposal and testing of the hypothesis in a specific case.

And thus, again, I'll bring up my example of the insulin-producing bacterium. We know that ID is the correct answer for that case (and we know of no other insulin-producing bacteria), so it provides a good basis on which to test the claims being made for science in this debate.

First, is it possible for science to get the correct answer at all? I tend to think the answer is yes -- the specificity of the gene in an otherwise unremarkable bacterium would seem to be a good first indication that there is something interesting going on.

Second, addressing your comment, is it possible for science to get the right answer without having first to discover the engineer who did it? Again, I think the answer may be yes, because (based on my reading of the techniques used to create insulin-producing bacteria) there are certain things that must be done to make the gene actually express insulin -- and those modifications would be a marker for an intelligent agent.

Now, it may well be more difficult to do that if a specific "design event" were followed by long time periods in which the property was then subjected to random mutation.

Your question is self-answering and trivial. If we know the cause we can detect the phenonemenon. If not, we can't. Such a formulation adds nothing to our quiver.

If you postulate a hidden cause you must specify enough about the nature of the cause to make it predictive. Otherwise it's indistinguishable from saying the spirits did it.

You are implying that it is possible to determine the history of something from its current state or configuration -- in the absense of any knowledge of causative agents. this is impossible.

Wolf; "What kind of positive physical evidence is it that you want for the past event of the Resurrection? "

What do ya got?

Perhaps for you nothing, you are all over the place. One minute you say it is a moot point because you have not received anything, the next minute you refuse to define what that something might be for you.

But then you are the guy with these goofy Civil War and Holocaust analogies, as some sort of philosophical statement about science evidence and proof.

I mean I could show you the films and images of H-Bomb burst events, including air, water, and ground bursts events, then take you to the sites. All the physical evidence left of those events would be several large holes and craters (where it was a ground burst), some fused silicon, and some residual radiation. Those are all less than 50yrs old. With your goofy Civil War and Holocaust analogies, maybe they never happened.

Wolf

"I mean I could show you the films and images of H-Bomb burst events, including air, water, and ground bursts events, then take you to the sites. All the physical evidence left of those events would be several large holes and craters (where it was a ground burst), some fused silicon, and some residual radiation. Those are all less than 50yrs old."

Look, I already said I believe that the Civil war and the Holocaust happened. I have said it would be crazy to believe otherwise, given the preponderance of evidence for both. What I said it was not possible to prove they happened, in the way that mathematical proofs are made. That is the kind of proof that creationists want for evolution. No other scientific theory is required to have that kind of certainty. Yet when it comes to Creationist stories, they bristle when any kind of evidence is requested. That's hypocrisy.

"With your goofy Civil War and Holocaust analogies, maybe they never happened."

Since I already said I believe they DID happen, why must you make things up?

"One minute you say it is a moot point because you have not received anything,...*

I haven't. You have not presented one shred of positive physical proof the Resurrection happened. I am still waiting. I would think you would have no trouble laying your cards on the table.

Yes you already said you believe Civil War and Holocaust happened. I was not referring to that, but the analogy referenced. It was the linkage you and these others with these analogies make to evolution that is a great overreach.

Now my analogy (and maybe you think it is goofy) is about events. The evidence for events like the H-Bomb events (for argument sake take out the ground bursts), or even physical phenomena can be very ephemeral, gone in a hundred years. I could present something that seemed evidence to me of that event and you might reject it.

The evidence we have in the physical world, perhaps you see evolution, I see evidence of something much more wonderful.

You have not presented one shred of positive physical proof the Resurrection happened. I am still waiting.

Like I said about your demand for evidence of this event. One minute you said it is a moot point (to Diamond) because you have not received anything, the next minute you refuse to define what that something might be for you.

So there is a dichotomy in evidence, and what CarolinaGuitarman accepts as evidence for this event. If somehow I brought an image burned in stone you would insist an enterprising roman learned how to chemical etch or such ;)

So the issue of whether RunningWolf has positive physical proof that the Resurrection happened (that CarolinaGuitarman accepts) is contained within the threads this forum.

Wolf

"Yes you already said you believe Civil War and Holocaust happened. I was not referring to that, but the analogy referenced. "

No, you said I didn't know if it happened. Stop running from what you said.

"Like I said about your demand for evidence of this event. One minute you said it is a moot point (to Diamond) because you have not received anything,..."

It was a moot point only because nobody had even attempted to provide any physical evidence. The kind of evidence I would accept doesn't matter when no evidence at all is given.

"If somehow I brought an image burned in stone you would insist an enterprising roman learned how to chemical etch or such ;)"

There is no such image though. And an image would be evidence of what? Certainly not the Resurrection.

"So the issue of whether RunningWolf has positive physical proof that the Resurrection happened (that CarolinaGuitarman accepts) is contained within the threads this forum."

I didn't ask for proof (not a very subtle distortion of what I said, BTW. I have already stated that logical proof is only for mathematical theorems)), I asked for any physical evidence. So we see, the answer is no, Running Wolf has no physical evidence whatsoever. Or else he would have provided said evidence.

Well CarolinaGuitarman I don't think I am running away from anything. Your whole Civil War and Holocaust analogy was so absurd to me maybe I did get caught up in it a little bit. And I am not attempting to distort what you say here, you however might perceive it that way.

It was a moot point only because nobody had even attempted to provide any physical evidence. The kind of evidence I would accept doesn't matter when no evidence at all is given.

Well why should I go to all ends of the world before I find out what it is you want? The Queen would never do that to Columbus.

There is no such image though. And an image would be evidence of what? Certainly not the Resurrection.

See you have made at least several points for me here, do you see them?

I asked for any physical evidence. So we see, the answer is no, Running Wolf has no physical evidence whatsoever. Or else he would have provided said evidence.

And that proves what to CarolinaGuitarman?

Wolf

Yes, although I wouldn't call it proof. We need evidence that this designer with the required capabilities exists (or existed when the object under scrutiny originated) before we can hypothesize design in a meaningful way.

Yes, in this case we know that humans inserted that particular gene but only because the work of those scientists is well documented.

Again, only if we have enough evidence of the existence of this designer. Otherwise, simply from the mere existence of such a bacterium we cannot conclude that it was designed.

No, it's not. If someone discovered such an insulin producing bacterium back in the 1950's when we didn't have the capabilities to directly manipulate the genetic makeup of an organism, he could not discount the possibility that this bacterium acquired this trait solely by natural means. Additionally, insulin is only specific wrt humans.
If it were some other unremarkable bacterium that produced some other organic substance (i.e. one that is not required by the human organism) would you simply conclude that it was made by an extraterrestrial species that visited earth some time ago and who needed this substance just as we need insulin?

Further, the correct answer isn't worth a thing if there is no way to verify its correctness. I can propose all kinds of wild hypotheses and maybe one of them is the correct answer to some question (i.e. our universe was created as it is just five minutes ago) but without a method of verification it is worthless even if it happens to be correct.
So science isn't about finding the correct answer to everything but to show how observed phenomena could have happened naturally. Now, while science may not be able to show that an unspecified agent wasn't involved, it can at least demonstrate that it wasn't needed.
Also, even if ID produced the correct answer in your scenario I can think of other scenarios where it gives the wrong answer. Thus the problem of ID (the one that postulates unspecified designers, i.e. relies on mere design) is the false positives and the difficulty to indentify them as such.

"Well CarolinaGuitarman I don't think I am running away from anything. "

You are.

"Your whole Civil War and Holocaust analogy was so absurd to me maybe I did get caught up in it a little bit."

I wasn't the one who brought that up. And it is not absurd. I said that they happened, but we can't prove it in the same way you can prove a mathematical theorem. Do you deny this? I also said that in the same way that we can gather evidence for an historical event we did not witness (The Civil War), we can gather evidence for a natural process we did not witness first-hand (evolution). Creationists deny this; they say that evolution, unlike any other science, unlike any other historical investigation, must be PROVED like we prove a mathematical theorem. This is wrong. Just as it's impossible to prove the Civil War happened but it would be unreasonable to doubt it happened, so we can't prove Evolution (or any other science), but it would be unreasonable to doubt it too happened.

Creationists want an impossibly high evidenciary standard for Evolution, but when it comes to THEIR beliefs, as long as it says so in their Book, there can be no discussion. If you question something from the Bible, you are considered illogical and laughed at. "I mean, it says so right HERE and HERE, what is there to discuss?" Ask for some real, positive, physical evidence that can be studied by unbiased observers to evaluate the Bible's many claims, then they go ballistic. Or pretend they don't know what you are asking for...

"Well why should I go to all ends of the world before I find out what it is you want?"

I told you what I was asking for.

"And that proves what to CarolinaGuitarman?"

That you know of no positive physical evidence that the Resurrection happened. That you don't have the same evidenciary standards for Evolution you do for the Bible; you'll believe the latter with an amount of physical evidence you would laugh at were it presented for Evolution. Or for any other religion for that matter.

I seriously doubt that. For example, suppose we took the 2001 route and found an obelisk (or an advanced spacecraft) on the moon. Would you really need to know all about the designer before concluding that it was a designed object? Not a chance. The object stands on its own as a "designed thing."

Yes, in this case we know that humans inserted that particular gene but only because the work of those scientists is well documented.

We can go two directions with this complaint. First, we could insist on it being a blind test in some sense. Second, we can simply notice that a "design" hypothesis work regardless of whether the putative "gene inserter" was human or otherwise. The fact that humans can do such stuff merely lends credence to the more general hypothesis, not to mention providing a great set of techniques to test against.

Again, only if we have enough evidence of the existence of this designer. Otherwise, simply from the mere existence of such a bacterium we cannot conclude that it was designed.

But for some reason you would have enough evidence to get the wrong answer that it wasn't designed? Sounds like a biased conclusion.

And, indeed, our scientist today couldn't discount the possibility that the bacterium acquired the trait naturally. But our scientist today is simply better informed about the alternative hypotheses. The problem with your comment is that it's an "argument from current technology," which is not about valid hypotheses so much as it is an argument about the ability to test hypotheses.

If it were some other unremarkable bacterium that produced some other organic substance (i.e. one that is not required by the human organism) would you simply conclude that it was made by an extraterrestrial species that visited earth some time ago and who needed this substance just as we need insulin?

A fair question. The starting point for this scenario would be that somebody discovered this bacterium and began wondering why/how it was producing that stuff. A gene sequencing seems like an obvious test, and one presumes that genetic differences would show up. To explain the difference one must address the "how" and "why" of this organic oozing: how did the genetic (and supporting) changes occur, and why would a bacterium continue to produce it? Could you find a naturalistic explanation?

So science isn't about finding the correct answer to everything but to show how observed phenomena could have happened naturally.

How convenient. One wonders how technology could possibly advance if that were a true statement.

Also, even if ID produced the correct answer in your scenario I can think of other scenarios where it gives the wrong answer.

IOW, because you can tell that ID is wrong in some cases, you're saying that ID is a falsifiable hypothesis. Which is precisely the property that many on this thread say ID cannot provide.

Civil War and Holocaust analogy...but we can't prove it in the same way you can prove a mathematical theorem.

It is absurd, the linkage that is

I also said that in the same way that we can gather evidence for an historical event we did not witness (The Civil War)

This is a poor analogy. When I up to approx 10 years old I still had great great family members who had first and second hand accounts for the Civil War.

I was trying to show you that events might not leave physical evidence that is lasting & not ephemeral. evo insists that evidence in the world is evidence of what its prognosticators 'see'

Why should I go to all ends of the world before I find out what it is you want?"

I told you what I was asking for.

You have not presented one shred of positive physical proof the Resurrection happened. I am still waiting.

Like I said about your demand for proof-evidence (you interchange the words) of this event.

One minute you said it is a moot point because you have not received anything, the next minute you refuse to define what that something might be for you other than it is 'physical'.

This is circular, you demand physical proof-evidence for an event (when I have shown that physical evidence for events might not last very long) and then refused to say what you would accept for physical evidence, I doubt you will move from that dichotomy.

Events do not necessarily leave any lasting evidence. Also you seem to have no problem accepting theoretical events as long as they came from Gamow or Darwin or whoever.

That Evolution you see in the physical phenomena of the world reveals more about the mindset preordained conclusion of the ('scientists here?) than the evidence.
You keep calling me a creationist. I tell you that you do not have to be anything at all to see all the holes in your evo, what a flimsy house of cards it is.

You mention being laughed at by scientists. Based upon the performance of the scientists?, here I have little concern about how many scientists laugh at me.

Wolf

>>> Civil War and Holocaust analogy...but we can't prove it in the same way you can prove a mathematical theorem.<<< (spliced quote)

"It is absurd, the linkage that is"

First of all, it's creationists who bring up the Civil War and Holocaust in an attempt to say we only know things about the past out of faith, so evolution is faith. Secondly, nice splicing of YOUR quote with MINE. Thirdly, you CAN'T prove the Civil War happened in the same way you prove a mathematical theorem. But you would be a fool to ignore the mountains of PHYSICAL evidence that it happened.

"When I up to approx 10 years old I still had great great family members who had first and second hand accounts for the Civil War.

I was trying to show you that events might not leave physical evidence that is lasting & not ephemeral.

Nonsense. First and second hand accounts would mean nothing without the existing physical evidence we have of the Civil War. You speak as if your family member's recollections are all the evidence that exists. So now that they are dead, is there no more evidence that the Civil War happened? I never met anybody who lived then; does that mean I have no reason to believe it happened? Personal recollections and testimony are notoriously unreliable sources of evidence anyway.

"evo insists that evidence in the world is evidence of what its prognosticators 'see'""

No, it doesn't. It says that evidence in the world today can be evidence for the past. Unlike Creationists, evolutionists demand that physical evidence be present before making conclusions.

" Like I said about your demand for proof-evidence (you interchange the words) of this event."

I asked for physical evidence, not proof. Can't you read?

" One minute you said it is a moot point because you have not received anything,..."

I haven't. What are you waiting for?

"the next minute you refuse to define what that something might be for you other than it is 'physical'."

It is your burden to give the nature of the physical evidence, not mine. I know of no physical evidence for the Resurrection; I assumed you knew of some. If you know of none, such say so.

"This is circular, you demand physical proof-evidence for an event (when I have shown that physical evidence for events might not last very long) and then refused to say what you would accept for physical evidence, I doubt you will move from that dichotomy."

I asked for physical evidence, not *proof-evidence*; that's your dishonest creation. It's not circular, nobody has shown ANY physical evidence is all. What IS circular is your evasion of the question; what physical evidence is there for the Resurrection?

"Events do not necessarily leave any lasting evidence."

True. A great many events do though. Such as the evolutionary record. Or the Civil War. Or the Big Bang.

"Also you seem to have no problem accepting theoretical events as long as they came from Gamow or Darwin or whoever."

Because they pointed to real physical evidence, evidence that has only grown since the Origin of Species and the formulation of the Big Bang Theory a hundred years later.

"That Evolution you see in the physical phenomena of the world reveals more about the mindset preordained conclusion of the ('scientists here?) than the evidence."

So YOU say.

"You keep calling me a creationist."

You are.

"I tell you that you do not have to be anything at all to see all the holes in your evo, what a flimsy house of cards it is."

Deep analysis. That all you got?

"You mention being laughed at by scientists. Based upon the performance of the scientists?, here I have little concern about how many scientists laugh at me."

We already knew you were insulated from reality. We do this for the lurkers who may actually take the time to think about these things.

>>> Civil War and Holocaust analogy...but we can't prove it in the same way you can prove a mathematical theorem.<<< (spliced quote)

That was not intended as a spliced quote, but the absurdity of the connection you make with these things is still there and actually you have used it if you go back to the start

You speak as if your family member's recollections are all the evidence that exists

You misinterpret what I spoke

I asked for physical evidence, not proof. Can't you read? #370 You have not presented one shred of positive physical proof the Resurrection happened

If you go back and read what you wrote, you will see that you have made this interchange.

You are so far all over the place. Again and finally, You say many things, most of them about as absurd as these declarations from you. I said am not a creationist, and I don't deride science. But if you are representing scientists in the case for evolution, you are making a very poor showing for them.

Wolf

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.