Theory of intelligent design making its way into Broward textbooks (Florida)

Sun-sentinel.com ^ | December 9, 2005 | Chris Kahn

[Coyoteman]

since evolution is an unproven theory that there is no right to have it taught as fact.

You have at least three mistakes in this one sentence. You really should study a little science if you are going to argue against it. Below I have included some definitions to assist you.

Your comment that evolution is an "unproven theory" is correct but not in the way you mean it. Your first error is not realizing that no theory in science is proved, ever. Your second error is that you seem to use "theory" in the layman's manner, to mean a guess, something totally unsupported. A theory is the highest goal of science, as a well-supported theory is a description and explanatio of how things work. Your third error is in your use of the term "fact" as, presumably, the ultimate goal of science: evolution is being taught not as theory but as fact. Facts, however, are just building blocks, confirmed observations, upon which theories are built. And, facts can sometimes change.

You might also check out PatrickHenry's List-O-Links. There are a lot of good articles referenced there on how science works.

Definitions (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Similarly, Intelligent Design is about a supernatural creation of all things."

Tell that to the proponents of ID.

"I would argue that since evolution is an unproven theory that there is no right to have it taught as fact."

ALL theories in science are unproven. Evolution is in good company.

"It was a "fact" for many years that the earth was flat, until it was proven wrong."

The world was shown not to be flat over two thousand years ago, by the Greeks. BTW, *facts* are not *theories*. They are very different things.

"If you have only two possibilities of how the universe came to be, natural or supernatural, unless you are an elitist snob you place both in the text book."

Not in a science textbook you don't. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Why would you put supernatural speculation in a science textbook?

"The current debate assumes that the supernatural and the natural cannot co-exist within one realm. This is a false assumption. "

How do they coexist?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Since theories by definition do not represent proof, they should be presented with qualification. Most textbooks that treat of evolution make positive statements without qualification. In doing so they misrepresent the certitudes, or lack thereof, involved.

Most science textbooks are also founded upon atheistic assumptions, namely that God is, and must remain, outside the purview of science. Science classrooms are not entitled to teach from an atheistic point of view alone. That is, of course, unless we want the government to endorse atheism.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The same way you co-exist with your flesh. We can put your flesh under a microscope and look at it, yet we will not discover your person merely by looking at your flesh. Perhaps you are empirically certain you are nothing more than a ball of particle matter. That's okay. But there happen to be some people who think you are more than that, and they may even have reasonably scientific reasons for believing as much.

[doc30]

Be honest. No one KNOWS if God exists. It's a matter of faith and faith is a belief unsupported by proof. That's why ID is not science. The inroads made by ID are to those who lack any scientific literacy.

[mlc9852]

No one knows if we descended from apes. That really takes faith.

[doc30]

You posted an excellent description of the current scientific status of I.D. A lot of very compassionate, faithful creationist/IRer's who post here with their scientific wisdom think science is like a football game where anyone can come in a arm-chair quarter-back. Sadly, most of these people simply do no have the knowledge or experience to discuss science in general or evolution in specifics. Hence, they try to do an end run around basic scientific principles and philosophy and get their stuff in public schools by pressuring boards of education who typically aren't much more scientifically lierate than the ID proponents.

[doc30]

Most science textbooks are also founded upon atheistic assumptions, namely that God is, and must remain, outside the purview of science. Science classrooms are not entitled to teach from an atheistic point of view alone. That is, of course, unless we want the government to endorse atheism.

You are mistaking the inability of science to include God as a representation of denying God. THat is incorrect. Science is founded upon the assumption that naturalistic explanations are sufficient for explaining the universe around us. It does not say there is no God, nor does it admit there may be a God. Science is completely silent on the matter and rightfully so. Just as I've written than may ID proponents are not qualified by experience or knowledge to jusdge science, likewise science is incapable of speaking to matters of faith. In other words, science is not athiestic, nor is it theistic. It literally sits on the dividing line and can't fall on either side.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The same way you co-exist with your flesh."

I AM my flesh, or at least a result of it's organization.

"But there happen to be some people who think you are more than that, and they may even have reasonably scientific reasons for believing as much."

Then they should present these reasonably scientific reasons.

[metmom]

Just don't blame the creationists for my misinformation then. Cause it wasn't them.

[doc30]

It is clear we did descend from a common ancestor of apes. The exact mechanism (i.e. why we evolved the way we did) is a subject of considerable research attention.

[Alter Kaker]

That's quite a broad generalization and having gone to school in Florida, I disagree.

You went to school?

[Alter Kaker]

The exact mechanism (i.e. why we evolved the way we did) is a subject of considerable research attention.

Actually, I think the mechanisms (natural selection, mutation, gene flow and genetic drift) are rather well understood. The specific history of evolutionary changes in the human tree is largely understood as well, but there's still lots we don't know.

[mlc9852]

My - you're very clever for an evolutionist! Are you sure you descended from an ape-like creature?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[metmom]

While SCIENCE is silent on the matter of whether or not there is a God, many SCIENTISTS are not. After telling us, as you reminded us here, that science deals with the natural, and what is testable and falsifiable and all; many on these threads then go on to refer to matters of faith as *myths* as if that were a fact, and deride those who believe in God and that He created the universe. When they refer to people as *cretards* and *IDiots* for their beliefs that is what gives the creationists fuel to charge that keeping ID out of the school is an ideologic issue and not just a scientific one.

[megatherium]

Those who don't believe in Intelligent Design largely just don't believe in God.

There are many mainstream scientists, including biologists, who believe in God. In fact, you might wish to read Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller. He's a Roman Catholic and he's a leading biologist, who explains why ID is poor science, poor theology, and why evolution is compatable with Christianity.

If anyone thinks me a fool for being a creationist and intelligent design believer that is their right.

I do not think you are a fool to believe in creationism. Mislead, perhaps; ill-informed, perhaps, but certainly not a fool. Years ago, I was very interested in ID. I have a bunch of books on creationism/ID on my shelf: Intelligent Design and Uncommon Dissent, by William Dembsky; Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, Not By Chance by Lee Spetner; and Darwin's God, by Cornelius Hunter. I was half-convinced that ID was correct. But I have also read books like the aforementioned book by Miller, and also Why Intelligent Design Fails by Young and Edis; and a variety of mainstream books on evolution (including books by prominent scientists such as E. O. Wilson, S. J. Gould, E. Mayr, and L. Margulis). So I have reached the conclusion that evolution is far and away the most accurate and complete explanation for the development of life on Earth. I should mention that I believe in God; I believe God used evolution to create life on earth. (That assertion is not scientific of course; but I don't pretend that it is.)

[mlc9852]

So all that stuff in Genesis about God creating humans is just myths, right? Is any of the Bible true?

[doc30]

Thank you. That was essence of the post I wrote. We know it happened, but the specific evolutionary pressures are being investigated. In other words, what in nature, caused humans to be naturally selected to be what we are today?

[Moonman62]

This is odd, as Broward is the most liberal county in the state.

No it's not. It is 99% Democrat, but many of those are converted Republicans who would have had no government career otherwise. In some ways it is amazingly conservative and nothing like the fruity Democrats in California or the Northeast.