Posted on 11/08/2005 4:17:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry
For the past six weeks, the debate over evolution and intelligent design has played out in a Pennsylvania courtroom.
Today, Kansas gets the national spotlight back — and with it, the possibility of a federal lawsuit here.
“What’s going on in Kansas,” said Kenneth Miller, a Brown University biologist, “is much more radical and much more dangerous to science education” than the contested decision in Dover, Pa., to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” in public school science classes.
Intelligent design speculates that the world is too complex to have evolved without the help of an unknown designer — an alien, perhaps, or God. Such teachings in public schools, the ACLU says, violate constitutional restrictions on the separation of church and state.
“Absolutely, absolutely,” said T. Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, when asked if the new science standards Kansas is expected to adopt today could be vulnerable to litigation.
An official with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which helped defend the Dover school board, said Kansas should be able to avoid legal scrutiny. Casey Luskin said the standards here critique evolution, but they don’t promote intelligent design.
“It’s definitely a different issue in Kansas” than in Pennsylvania, Luskin said.
‘More radical’
It’s a different battle, perhaps, but definitely the same war. Many of the participants in the Pennsylvania trial are veterans of the Kansas evolution debates, and are keeping a close eye on today’s meeting of the Kansas Board of Education.
Miller, for example, testified in the Pennsylvania trial against intelligent design. He came to Kansas in 2000 to campaign against conservative school board members the last time the evolution debate flared up here.
The new Kansas standards literally change the definition of science, he said, so that natural explanations aren’t necessary to explain natural phenomena. That opens the door, he said, for astrology to be taught in public school classrooms.
“Is this what proponents on the Kansas Board of Education have in mind?” Miller asked.
Michael Behe, a Lehigh University scientist, wrote “Darwin’s Black Box” — a touchstone text of the intelligent design movement. He testified in Pennsylvania, and before the Kansas Board of Education when it held hearings on the science standards.
“I think having students hear criticisms of any theory is a great idea,” Behe said. “I think in one respect, it’ll mean it’s permissible to question evolution. For odd historical reasons, questioning evolution has been put off-limits. If Kansas can do it, it can be done elsewhere.”
More evolution?
Luskin agreed.
“In contrast to what everybody has said, Kansas students will hear more about evolution and not less about evolution,” he said. “This is a victory for people who want students to learn critical thinking skills in science.”
But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life. The “handful” who don’t, he said, have resorted to making their case through politics instead of through traditional scientific methods.
“Do we teach both sides of the controversy on astrology in science class? Do we teach both sides of phrenology?” Gunn said. “This is not a scientific controversy, it’s a political controversy.”
Testimony in the Pennsylvania trial wrapped up on Friday. A ruling in that case is expected in January.
Criminal and civil fraud. Child abuse (non-sexual). Misfeasance and malfeasance in office (ie grounds for impeachment). I have a suspicion that bribery is present also. Perjury (at least in Penn.)
Cherchez l'argent!
Actually, he reiterates this point on his own site:
I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."
These discussions would be a lot more interesting if we could get past the rubbish objections to the fact of evolution -- which none of the educated ID advocates deny -- and get on to the more interesting stuff, which is the various mechanisms.
But then Darwin Central would have to come up with a whole new batch of talking points, and a new dictionary to boot. I'm not sure I'm up to that.
Clarke's Third Law:The California Indians thought Portola, riding a horse, was a single being. They soon learned the difference, but, their initial explaination was probably supernatural, only to be replaced by a natural explaination shortly after.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
TV and cameras, to some aboriginal cultures, are magic--i.e., supernatural. Until they learn the tricks of the trade.
Now, explain how we can tell "the world is too complex to have evolved without the help of an unknown designer."
Include full references to the possibilities in Clarke's Third Law, and be specific in your answer.
Good night all! Thanks for the interesting discussions.
When a theory comes up that explains the data better than evolution -- then I'll take notice. ID doesn't do it.
I believe in intelligent design, and I believe in God.
As is your privilege.
... One of us will be right some day. If it's you, nothing happens. If it's me, you're all f--ked, which is what is making me laugh right now.
Ahh, Pascal's wager. How original (again)!
And that's so very Christian of you.
Me too.
And an occasional sandwich from from the "Roach Coach".
You responded:
What you seem to propose in your apparent endorsement of ID is for science to willingly succumb to the tide of complexity and end the final chapter of man's struggle to understand the world around him with a scrawled 'Goddidit - the end'.
Thanks for the dialog.
I am trying to isolate the logical pathway that would lead someone to affirm ID as a feasible conclusion. I think extreme complexity beyond any reasonable explanation is a pathway argument for those who believe in ID.
What science people do not like is for the argument to suddenly become framed outside of their ability to supply an answer to the question. When the "Goddidit" explanation is suggested as a final answer to the extreme complexity beyond any reasonable explanation, the quest for further understanding is seemingly squelched.
You wrote:
"Science does indeed have limitations, and readily admits to them. One of these is that things beyond natural law, the supernatural, are beyond its realm. Such phenomena cannot be observed, tested, quantified, or otherwise measured. ID, in its quest to be granted scientific standing, must first abolish this limitation or it will never fit the definition of science. As a philosophy, ID has merit. As a science, it is a fraud."
I'm sorry, I cannot follow exactly what "limitation" you want ID to abolish: "ID...must first abolish this limitation".
Thanks for hanging in there with me.
You responded:
Clarke's Third Law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
The California Indians thought Portola, riding a horse, was a single being. They soon learned the difference, but, their initial explanation was probably supernatural, only to be replaced by a natural explanation shortly after.
Silly Indians!
But I see your point. When is magic an appropriate scientific explanation? never.
I guess the answer to your question is: if "advanced technology" is present, we want to know, how did it get there?
A Darwinian explanation would say that a trail of successive incremental innocuous steps was capable of leading to a complexity beyond possible demonstration, explanation or recognition.
Is that right?
This may very well be a pathway for some believers of ID, but it won't do for me. First, I don't accept negative assertions as a scientific premise. By that I mean ID surmises that in the absence of another explanation, it wins by default. I don't buy that.
Instead, it needs to support its assertions by showing actual evidence of an intelligent designer, and not merely the lack of evidence saying there isn't one.
Second, I don't see how complexity beyond our current understanding can be quantified as gradients of extremity. Either we understand it, in which case we can judge its complexity, or we can't, in which case we simply know it is currently beyond us. But by continuing to study such an object, we can begin to realize its intricacies a little at a time. Eventually, we might know enough to start making predictions about its function, or maybe discover that there is even more to it than we first imagined and be even further away from figuring it out than when we started. In either case, as we keep studying and learning, it inevitably will become understood by man. Or not, but that shouldn't keep us from trying.
I guess what I am trying to say is there is no level of extreme complexity at which I am willing to abandon the scientific attempt to master its knowledge. What is beyond our reasonable explanation today, as long as we strive to increase our understanding, will be common knowledge tomorrow.
I'm sorry, I cannot follow exactly what "limitation" you want ID to abolish
For ID to be considered scientific, it must abolish the limitation of science to the natural world, and increase its scope to include the supernatural.
Your argument is utterly moronic at every level, and shows you in your true nasty colours. Whenever creationists wheel out the fallacy known as Pascal's Wager (and they do an awful lot) it is an admission that that they have lost the evidence-based argument. What surprises me is the evident pleasure you people frequently take in the idea that you are going to heaven while others are not, just because they don't happen to have been born into a culture that uncritically accepts your particular religious text. What kind of God are you worshipping? The answer is an infinitely evil one, who ordains infinite punishment for finite sin; the act of an infinitely evil monster.
Ah right, trial by combat. So maybe Sir Bedivere would have something to say on the matter.
Given Islam's general military performance over the last few centuries I doubt that trial by combat could be said to have endorsed Islam. On an on-topic note I guess that the practice of castrating the brightest and best was unlikely to lead to an improvement in the gene-pool of believers.
Not more interesting. The scope of discussion is very narrow after "GodDidit".
Well, when you "read" that copy of Darwin's Black Box that you own, evidently you didn't actually struggle as far as PAGE SEVEN. I'm not surprised:
"Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. " ~ Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 7
Note that his words make all of your attempted Clintonian weaseling about the possible difference between "universal" common descent and common descent irrelevant. Lets just have the relevant sentence again on its own to make it easy for everyone (added emphasis mine),
"Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it."
So what conclusion are we all forced to draw about connectthedots' honesty? What conclusion are we forced to draw about his reading comprehension? What conclusions are we forced to draw about his memory? How can anyone ever take anything that connectthedots says seriously again? Why does connectthedots squander his credibility so lightly, over a matter that is so easily checked? This isn't the first time I've posted this passage to connectthedots so he had no need to be caught in this lie again but he is God's warrior and not to be troubled by details like honesty and facts.
This is something my son used to do when he was about ten. If accused of something he'd weasel and worm, and claim that it was nothing to do with him when undoubtedly it was his fault. I asked him why he would squander his credibility so lightly, because there might come a time when it was important for me to believe him. He had no answer, but he stopped doing it, and now readily owns up to things. This is a key difference between an adult and a child but many creationists on these threads appear to be still trapped in their childhood, where they aren't responsible for their own statements and actions. Perhaps this is what worshipping the God of the Old Testament does for you. ConnectTheDots and Clinton evidently have not learned the simple life-lesson of valuing your own credibility that I learned from my father and passed on to my son.
Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal Cell: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?
See post 357
It's rare to see the Grand Master actually laugh when he reads a post, but he did upon reading yours. Well done.
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.