Intelligent Design Advocates Face Uphill Fight

Like many evolutionary mistakes, intelligent design may be on the road to extinction, put there Tuesday by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III.

When Jones ruled that the Dover Area School District's intelligent design policy violates the First Amendment and barred the district from mentioning intelligent design in biology classes or "from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution," he wasn't just applying a pinprick to the trial balloon intelligent design supporters had chosen to float in this case.

He aimed a cannon at it. And fired. Several times. Odds are, other courts will find it hard to argue that he missed his target.

In one of the most closely watched cases in recent memory -- not just in Pennsylvania but across the nation -- Jones took the opportunity in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District to frame the case in the much larger context many, including supporters of intelligent design, had seen it in.

The impact of his ruling can't be overstated. Not only did Jones find the policy unconstitutional but he also ruled that intelligent design is not science.

"[M]oreover ... ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," he said in the 139-page opinion.

Jones didn't pull any punches in making his ruling, criticizing the school board for its policy, as well as those who saw the case as an opportunity to make law that would pave the way for greater acceptance of intelligent design.

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge," he said. "If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy.

"The breathtaking inanity of the board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Not surprisingly, several groups that endorse the teaching of intelligent design, or "ID" as Jones referred to it throughout his opinion, lashed out and accused him, as he anticipated, of being an "activist federal judge."

Who knew that Republican judges appointed by Republican presidents could be such hacks for the left?

Well, if activism is changing the norm and imposing one's will from behind the safe confines of the bench onto the helpless masses, then Jones' decision in Kitzmiller hardly fits the bill, since the opinion follows closely the reasoning of other federal courts on the issue, including the U.S. Supreme Court. If anything, Jones was critical of the changes the Dover Area School Board made for an entire community and potentially a whole generation of school children.

But organizations like the Discovery Institute, the Thomas More Law Center and the Cato Institute Center for Educational Freedom should be angry with Jones. Because what he did in his opinion, systematically and ruthlessly, was expose intelligent design as creationism, minus the biblical fig leaf, and advanced by those with a clear, unscientific agenda: to get God (more specifically, a Christian one) back into the sciences.

Jones goes into an exhaustive examination on the intelligent design movement, and what he found will make it difficult for future pro-ID litigants to argue that the whole thing isn't religion masked in neo-scientific terms.

According to Jones, the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture developed a "Wedge Document" in which it said the goal of the intelligent design movement is to "replace science as currently practiced with 'theistic and Christian science.'"

He said that one of the professors, an ID proponent, who testified for the school board "remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

Jones also points out that the ID textbook the Dover policy encouraged students to check out, "Of Pandas and People," is not only published by an organization identified in IRS filings as a "religious, Christian organization," but that the book was meticulously changed following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in 1987 that the U.S. Constitution forbids the teaching of creationism as science.

By comparing the early drafts to the later ones, he said, it was clear that the definition for creation science was identical to the definition of intelligent design and that the word creation and its variants were replaced with the phrase ID and that it all happened shortly after the Supreme Court decision.

As Jones points out throughout his opinion, ID's supporters couldn't shake two problematic facts -- its close association with creationism and its inability to divorce itself from the supernatural.

"ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in the world," he said. "While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory."

All of which lead Jones to conclude that "ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

There's plenty of other things worth noting in Jones' opinion, including how school board members talked at meetings about creationism and complained of "liberals in black robes" taking away "the rights of Christians," or how the Discovery Institute was in contact with board members prior to the policy change, and a number of other machinations that might leave one feeling less than secure about the separation of church and state in Pennsylvania, but those are facts specific to this case.

The real impact of the opinion is what Jones lays out with regard to intelligent design's roots, its proponents, its agenda and the tactics (and there's really no other way to describe them) being used to advance it. It reads like a cautionary tale, one that we should all be reading.

And while it's unlikely that the country has seen the last of this issue, one can hope that Jones' decision might save future judges a little bit of time, if not discourage groups with a religious ax to grind from using residents of small communities as pawns in the name of a dishonest, fruitless agenda.

I tend to think most people would take the inductive approach because most people sense there is a God.

Scientists reason inductively to develop theory, but evidence for a theory must be a deduction. At least that is how I understand it.

What else can reasonably account for the fact we have data that retains its consitency to the extent human intellect is able to observe and comment upon it?

I think it is better, in the absense of real evidence, to simply say "I don't know." The God-of-the-gaps approach, which is what you're advocating for this particular gap, is not a good one. People are so darn smart, they have time and again come up with good naturalistic explanations that eliminate the gaps. The danger for people of faith is that God seems to disappear as well. Better I think to build faith on a lasting foundation well out of Science's path.

As to your particular question, let me offer a speculation. Let's say that the universe is truly an infinite multiverse and that all possibilities are realized in it. I think that easily accounts for a situation such as ours. How shall we choose between your speculation and mine (or the many others that might be made)?

"Necessity" is an absolute concept. Science is speculative.

Speculation is certainly part of science, but scientific theories are not speculative. Scientific theories are absolute and make absolure claims. Don't mistake the possibility (or IMO probability) that these claims are erroneous with speculativeness, they are two different things.

the most convincing evidence of intelligent design is the fact that particle matter does not disintegrate but retains its properties and consistencies from age to age. The best evidence to falsify intelligent design would be the disintegration of particle matter.

Are you familiar with radioactive decay or annihilation processes? One mode of radioactivity is beta decay in which a neutral neutron is converted to a positively charged proton, a negatively charged electron and a neitrino. That is a big change in properties. In an annihilation process matter is completely converted to electromagnetic energy. That is about as much disintegration as is possible.

How do you reconcile these facts with your claim of evidence for ID?

ID is stuck on one conclusion, period. Are you willing to discard that conclusion in the face of strong evidence for evolution, or even some third hypothesis?

It is not as if evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive notions. In fact it would be an indication of intelligent design for an assembly to have the capacity to adapt to its environment, at least within limits. I'll take any evidence I can get, but there is no such thing as evidence that is not tailored to be apprehendible by reason and senses.

As I've indicated previously, the best evidence to falsify the theory of intelligent design would be the presence of particle matter that behaves unpredictably. So far oxygen has always been oxygen as far as we know. It is designed to correlate with other elements in a manner that brings about purposeful assemblies which in turn carry out purposeful functions. All of these are inherent in intelligent design.

It is quite possible that instances of unorganized matter that does not behave according to predictable laws exist, but not enough of them on this planet to cause the theory of intelligent design to be untenable or unteachable as science. I would infer as well, since organic nature particularly demonstrates design and function, that this planet when compared with the known universe, is evidence that the intelligent designer takes a particular interest in the same.

. . . Euclidean space . . .

Is this a hypothetical example, i.e. an "idea", or an actual, physical, observable entity?

I challenge you to show me where I said [faith and science] were mutually exclusive.

It's in post #213 where you said "That alone puts [ID] into the category of faith rather than science." To make a categorical separation between faith and science is to ignore the fact the almost all of science is faith based, beginning with indirect observation. Maybe you meant something different.

I think it is better, in the absense of real evidence, to simply say "I don't know."

Organized matter is real evidence. From it we can safely say, "I infer." That is a proper expression for science, and it holds true for every observer. Unless you mean something more tangible as "real evidence."

Do you observe a play under the assumption you simply don't know if there is a director? Do you expect the director to step onto the stage at every moment to assure you he has a hand in the play? It is certainly possible there is no director. The actors may be ad libbing their lines and have no theme or purpose. But it is hardly unreasonable to assert inductively, or infer deductively, that the director is there yet remaining in the background precisely because that is his role by nature.

One mode of radioactivity is beta decay in which a neutral neutron is converted to a positively charged proton, a negatively charged electron and a neutrino. That is a big change in properties.

I am not familiar with the process you describe. I assume it occurs at a quantum level, it occurs within a certain range of elemental substance, and it serves a purpose without which life on this planet may be very different, if present at all. Perhaps you could explain how we know for certain whether this process occurs erratically in every case, and whether it does not behave accordingto predictable laws.

Well, as I think I made clear, I don't consider the fact that some matter is organized as evidence of ID because it is not a theorem. So yes, I guess I need something more tangible - a deduced prediction that we can practically test.

You can read about beta decay here and about many other radioactive decay modes from the links there. From that page I also learned that there are other kinds of decay called beta decay different from the one I cited (although I think that one is the earliest figured out).

I don't think beta decay per se is essential or influential for life. The main effect is to transmute an atom of one element to the one with a different atomic number. That is, it changes the chemical properties of the atom. If you scroll down in that article you'll see that beta decay turns an isotope of Cesium to an isotope of Barium.

Some radioactive decays are important to us. Fission of uranium is harnessed in nuclear reactors and bombs. Neither may have been important for the devolpment of life but certainly are important to us now. Fission transmutes an atom of uranium into two or more much smaller atoms and some spare neutrons and EM radiation.

Our best explanation for this and other quantum processes is that a system in a given quantum state has a propensity to change in certain ways. An individual system in that state is unpredictable but en masses you can make statistical predictions. For example, in a significant mass of radium 228, half will have beta decayed to actinium in a little less than seven years.

However, I don't think you addressed the implications of these facts for your statement that

The best evidence to falsify intelligent design would be the disintegration of particle matter.

It is apparent that your definitions of "theory" and "science" are more narrow than common convention and logic should allow. The definition of "theory" by no means necessitates or entails absolute certainty (as you assert in post #261 when you wrote, "Scientific theories are absolute and make absolute claims"), but only reasonable certainty. Furthermore, if science is limited only to that which is physical, quantifiable, and provable, then it is cutting its nose off to spite its face; throttling itself from genuine inquiry.

The theory of intelligent design is an overarching fundamental assumption about the universe. Because there is a preponderance of organized matter (by that I mean particle matter that retains its consistency and behaves predictably) we can reasonably infer it is intelligently designed and proceed from there.

The theory fits well from both and inductive and deductive standpoint. The more science is able to reveal about the universe, the more apparent it becomes that it is organized and behaves according to predictable laws. Or, to state it inductively, science may be comfortable beginning with the assertion that "God did it" (with the understanding that God is defined as a generic intelligent agent with the capacity to create visible and invisible matter, set its laws in motion, and sustain them both).

The only way such an approach would be wholly falsifiable would be for the universe to disintegrate altogether into nothing.

Your examples of radioactive decay are but further examples of matter that is designed to behave just as it does. As science further investigates the details I predict it will discover that there is quantifiable process and purpose involved and that it is limited to a range of elements, not coextant with the universe. This, too, is in accord with the overarching theory of intelligent design.

At any rate, radioactive decay does not constitute disintegration of matter, but only a reformation of particles.

One prerequisite for anything that is intelligently designed is that it must be available for reason and senses to apprehend. I submit this extends even beyond human emotions (which are also a proper object for science) to senses human science has yet to discover.

Most likely the best evidence to date that could falsify intelligent design is the black hole. If the universe should become a single black hole, then perhaps we could eliminate intelligent design as a scientifically viable notion.

Let's say that the universe is truly an infinite multiverse and that all possibilities are realized in it. . . . How shall we choose between your speculation and mine (or the many others that might be made)?

Science tends to limit itself to the physical universe that IS. Hence when I posit the theory of intelligent design it extends only to the universe humans know and experience. That universe contains organized matter behaving according to predictable laws, both of which are features of intelligent design.

The evidence for evolution continues to strengthen.

Evolution is but a small segment of science, yet it has a broad range of meaning. What overarching theory or fundamental assumption undergirds it? That matter is constantly in a state of change?

There are certainly many people who find a progession from simple to complex (i.e. amoeba to man) to be explanatory of biological history. It seems to me most biology and paeleontology books present history in this way. This is a reasonable way to view things, to be sure. It is also somewhat reasonable for one to assume that an infinite combination of matter over an indefinite period of time could, weithout the direction of any intelligent agent, produce the same universe we know and experience.

But the evidence for that "rival theory" has not been accumulating by my observation. (I do not live in Washington D.C.) What appear to be morphological similarities in the biosphere can just as easily be explained by an intelligent designer as by some arbitrary processes such as natural selection and mutations, both of which tend to be explanatory only after they have taken place.

I don't have an axe to grind with atheists and evolutionists, and if it take one up or behave as such, then I shouldn't. They make legitimate observations, especially from a deductive standpoint. But I do not know of any branch of science that is entitled to make statements "ex-cathedra" while enjoying the support of the federal government in going unchallenged.

"...no one wishes to imagine the sheer mathematical improbability that random mutations can evolve into highly ordered (engineered) life forms,"

Scientists are certainly now recognizing that the improbabilities themselves are so large that they cannot be adequately accounted for by current science which simply supposes random processes.

Thus, they are creating theories such as the "multiverse" which states that there are an inifinite number of universes, each with a random set of physical parameters, and our universe just happens to be THE one universe with all the correct numbers.

They come up with this theory, which is more improbable than intelligent design, and are immediately accepted as worthy of inclusion in the scientific millieu, yet ID must be rejected simply because it is consistent with Biblical teachings.

This is a clear demonstration of the pro-atheist bias in academia and in the media, which has a great influence in science by influencing those who fund science.

This occurs even while most Western scientists themselves believe in God personally. They are fearful however of attributing their scientific work to God because of the systemic bigotry.

really the problem is the modern passivity of Christians in society who have been brow-beaten to accept that peace is prefearable to confrontation when it comes to faith.

Yet, Christ specifically argued against peace when it comes to these matters. Christ expects us to be persecuted because He expects that we will be open about faith and not let family or others "shut-us up".

Christians must arise again. Catholics, in particular, are guilty of subordinating their faith to the whims of the State but I wish they, and all Christians, would pay closer heed to the words of Jesus Christ.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
"For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’
"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
"He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it." -- Matthew 10:34-39

Those who lose their life for Christ will find eternal salvation. Yet, so many of us are not even willing to stand firm in the face of mere public pressure.

"Your comparison of Big Bang cosmology and ID is faulty. BBC won out over the Steady State theory because the SST couldn't explain the microwave background radiation. IE the theory fits the data better than other theories and it accounts for the observations."

Actually SST could not explain the expansion of the universe. It could not explain galaxies spreading outward from some origin. Microwave background radiation was discovered later in 1965 after the Big Bang theories had already been postulated.

The MBR supports a big bang. It supports the Biblical idea that there was a "beginning".

Since the atheists didn't like that concept of a singular Divine event they postulated that the universe continuously experienced big bangs as part of a cycle of expansion-contraction-bang-expansion-contraction-bang...etc etc

The bad news occurred in 1998. The galaxies were not slowing down, as required for contraction to someday occur. They were accelerating away with no possibility of contraction ever occuring by current theories. bummer.

They couldn't explain it. The new theories now require the presence of dark matter (undetected) to be pulling the galaxies away at ever increasing speeds. It requires that approximately 98% of all matter in the universe be dark matter. Our known observable universe would comprise only 2% of all matter.

I think the answers will be found when we better begin understanding the effects of the other 6 dimensions upon our current 4 observable dimensions.

"And even more damningly, it cannot be falsified; there is no possible observation that is inconsistent with "that's how the designer did it", unless you can somehow put limitations on the designer's abilities or desires or whatever. This hasn't been done; if the designer is God, it can't be done."

God does not compete with science. Science explains God's universe in ways that we humans can comprehend. Simply saying God was behind the creation does not mean that we shut down science and say "nevermind". Quite the reverse is true.

God tells us to pursue science. He tells us, in scripture, to pursue knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

God has already proven His existence. Those who deny God exists are simply blind and willfully in denial. They are fearful. It is frightening to think that we will be judged for our actions. But God forgives those who love Him and offer a contrite heart.

The proof of God is available to everyone. They need only accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour and they will soon experience the gift of the Holy Spirit within their soul.

Science cannot prove love exists either. Imagine that. The most powerful, positive force in human society cannot be proven by science. Yet we know love exists because of our personal experience and because we witness the loving actions of those in love.

The same is true with God and Jesus Christ. We know they exist because of our personal experience and because we witness the loving actions and self-sacrifice of those who are truly righteous (and don't simply use the power of Christ for their own aggrandizement).

After 25 years as a deist in R&D I discovered that my worldview and philosophy of life became complete only after I discovered the truth of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. As incredible as it seems Christ was proven to me without any shadow of doubt. All my senses and sensibilites affirmed His truth more completely than any scientifi proof I have ever read.

There are no scientific sensors to measure the spirit, except our own senses designed by God to be able to connect with God.

I refer you again to the evolution list o' links, where you can learn more.

I am mildly acquainted with the list-o-links to which you refer. No surpise that you find a body of data support your fundamental beliefs about the universe. There is no phenomena that cannot be explained as occuring apart from any intelligent agent. So what?

If the federal government is going to support the teaching of science, than it has an obligation to do a good job, and ensure that students are taught good science.

Good science does not discount intelligent design a priori. The federal government has no business endorsing only atheistic science. Science functions just as well under the assumption that a generic God is explanatory of a universe that demonstrates ample evidence of intelligent design, beginning with organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.

"The problem with ID that I was addressing is its vacuity. It does not, in any except the trivial "that's how the designer did it" way, explain the distribution of genetic markers across different species, like the example I frequently use of cows, hippos, and whales. In fact it explains nothing."

Jesus states that "God is a spirit". The Bible states that God made man in His image. That does not mean that God made man to look like God but that man did not exist until God imparted His spirit within a natural, "earthy" being.

I believe that only recently (last 10,000 years) did God select a species to make in His image, to impart His spirit within it. I believe He chose a hominid and gave him a soul and an ability to become a vessel for the Holy Spirit. At that time that hominid became a true, modern, spiritual "man".

No human civilization existed before that. Only the most primitive societies existed prior to that with no more social, intellectual, spiritual sophistication than any group of modern primates.

At that time man became spiritual and began to grow.

It explains why one particular primate very suddenly began a new fantastic, spiritual and intellectual development. It explains why only 1 species of millions became as advanced as men.

It explains much. It is also the way an Intelligent Designer may have chosen the best of a number of species to impart such unique abilities and make that 1 species the shephard over all others.

"The body ... is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam (Jesus) became a life-giving spirit.
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord (Jesus) from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear[d] the image of the heavenly Man." -- 1 corinthians 15:42-49

Without spirituality men would be mere apes. Mere dust, fleshly products of the earth.

The atheists who deny the spirtuality of men are mere fools and have shut down their own spiritual senses.

" But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." -- 1 cor 2:14

Evolution has major limitations. It does not explain the creation of life, nor does it explain how when all species have so much in common yet only one species became man, with such overwhelming power and unique capabilities, intellect and spirituality.

Since evolution favors the strong there should be dozens, perhaps hundreds of species very close in capabilities to that of men. Dolphins should be building underwater hospitals, gorillas should be building temples and worshipping primitive gods, cows should be planting crops, and all these creatures should be building tools to overcome their own physical limitations.

Yet men, are singular. They have broken away from the limits of natural evolution because God has endowed them with His spirit. Evolution cannot explain the uniqueness of the success of man.

" No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him." -- 1 John 4:12-16

If you can't test it, you can't falsify it, and you aren't willing to discard it, it's not science.

You've adopted a definition of science that is narrower than human convention assigns to the term. You've also adopted a definition would exclude the fundamental assertions of evolutionists from science. We haven't "gone through this," as you say. You simply keep making an assertion that cannot be backed up, namely that "ID is not good science." You have not advanced the slightest theory explaining the presence of organized matter that behaves accordingto predictable laws, both of which concepts are part and parcel of intelligent design, both of which concepts have a basis in science.

Furthermore, I told you I am willing to discard the theory of intelligent design when all particle matter enters into a state that cannot be apprehended by human reason and senses.

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.