Evolution vs. Intelligent Design : Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on theories of life.

How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through evolution, creationism or something in between?

It's a heavy topic that's generated debate for years. That discourse landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.

At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.

Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that theory in the school system's science curriculum so students can consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent design or creationism.

In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks, but issued a formal statement saying, "It is the School Board's belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics."

(To read the School Board's complete statement, visit www.chesterfieldobserver. com and click on the link for "special" in the menu on the left.)

Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must remain neutral on the topic.

But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything but neutral.

"Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated," said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."

Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.

"Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom," he said.

On a personal level, some School Board members appeared to agree that discussions on the beginning of life should encompass more theories than just evolution. Dale District representative David Wyman said limiting discussions to evolution is "counterscientific" and said religious topics are already frequently touched on in classrooms. He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.

School Board Chairman Tom Doland stressed that students are not discouraged from discussing alternatives to evolution or any religious topic. "They do not leave their First Amendment rights at the door," he said.

"As individuals, as parents, we have the right to instruct our children, and we should never turn that over to someone else," he added.

Clover Hill District representative Dianne Pettitt reminded everyone that "teachers are agents of the government…Students are free to initiate discussions…but we do have to stay within the limits of the law. We cannot just do what we personally want to do."

Midlothian District representative Jim Schroeder said he didn't want those who attended the meeting to "walk out of here thinking, 'There goes the public schools kicking God out of the schools again.'"

"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that," he added.

Bermuda District representative Marshall Trammell Jr. was more cautious, saying he was afraid to have teachers deal with such issues in the classroom because they might infringe on students' personal religious beliefs.

"I don't want that in a public school," he said. "That is a matter for church and home."

Reason as we see reasoning? Right and wrong? We can't even nail down the definition of that within our species. And you're off by several orders of magnitude on the timeline.

I was responding to the statement :

micro-evolution + 3,500,000,000. I was using THAT timeline presented to me to show that it can't be possibly done.

It's a statement of probabilities.

Sure, and based on the belief that given the astronomical probability within the impossibly short timespan that it can be done without intelligent input, I call it FAITH.

A priori probabilities of a specific outcome often look improbably large. Yet, somehow, some outcome always occurs.

This sounds like the tautology --- They survived because because they are the fittest, and they are the fittest because they survived.

Shuffle a deck of cards, chances of your specific card order is 1 in 8x1067, but guess what, a valid card order happens every time you shuffle -- just not the one you were looking for.

Your card analogy is not the most apt one to use.

Here is a better one ---

“From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer). To put this fantastic number in perspective imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny ‘X’, somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny ‘X’. Suspicious, you give the grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded into the desert, bend down, and the grain you pick up again has an ‘X’. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the same as finding one new functional protein structure (from chance transmutation of an existing functional protein structure). Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, most people would be certain that the game had been fixed.” Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999 (Professor Department of Biological Science Lehigh University)

“Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed – along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)

Darwinist postulate that it happens by blind chance yet the hard evidence says it can’t be done. Until they say exactly how it is done they are no better than the writers of children’s books.

I was using THAT timeline presented to me to show that it can't be possibly done.

The billions timeline or the millions timeline?

This sounds like the tautology --- They survived because because they are the fittest

You're having a hard time with probabilities. Because we are here, and because the Bible tells you so, you seem to think that we are the end desired result. With that thinking, a priori probabilities calculations are valid in theory, it is almost impossible.

But you still try to argue science (now statistics) with your theological view. The scientific view does not require us as the intended outcome, and with no intended outcome all a priori probabilities calculations of us existing go completely out the window.

IOW, I care that the cards are shuffled, not that are shuffled in a particular order.

Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999 (Professor Department of Biological Science Lehigh University)

This is the guy whose definition of a scientific theory includes astrology, right?

quote:

But, since it’s so “obvious” to you that this is proof of “intelligent design,” why don’t you write a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal?

my reply:

I don’t need to do that. All I need to do is to note that no paper has ever been published that even remotely explains how the ear could have evolved *without* ID. That doesn’t “prove” ID for the ear, but it sure suggests it rather strongly.

I urge you to open up a physiology text some day and study the ear so you have a vivid idea of the level of complexity we are talking about here. (I have a funny feeling you don’t even *care* about the actual complexity of the ear. I’ll bet your mind is made up, and you don’t want to be confused with the facts.)

But if the ear doesn’t impress you, how about the first living cell. I sincerely hope you are not so ignorant as to believe that modern science has explained the formation of the first cell by purely naturalistic mechanisms. It hasn’t even come close — and that is an understatement.

So what is it that you believe? Do you believe that ID *must* be ruled out for evolution *after* the first cell — even though it *cannot* be ruled out in explaining the first cell? If so, that’s some funny kind of science — where the rules change dramatically at some apparently arbitrary point in time.

Oh, and please don’t give me the usual crap about how we just don’t “yet” understand the formation of the first cell, but it is just a matter of time. If you think you can “predict” what science will find, that is nothing more than a bias in favor of a certain result.

Based on what you’ve written, you come off as a guy who thinks our nation’s kids are getting gypped from an inconvenient truth – the science that guys like me cherish so much is a fraud because we refuse to see the “obvious.”

So, yeah, you don’t need to write a paper explaining how design is so patently obvious that only guys with “half a brain,” like me, can’t see it. It just so happens that your refusal to do so doesn’t advance your cause by one inch. You can type away all day long about how I’m not as smart as Mssrs. Kelvin and Newton, but you’re not helping those high school kids who you believe are being deluded by their teachers that there is no peer-reviewed paper that confirms intelligent design ideology, despite its “obviousness.”

My mind is not made up. Although I believe you are trying to pass off creationism as science in the guise of “intelligent design,” you can convince me if you become the first to have a paper supporting creationism in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, you might be able to convince high school students that a wizard is behind it all. Can you imagine the repercussions of such an event? You’d be in the history books as the man who single-handedly changed the face of biology forever. I can see it - Russ Paielli, an aerospace engineer by training, demonstrated the importance of education when he wrote a paper that convincingly showed the role of an intelligent designer in guiding life. By strictly adhering to the scientific method and eschewing any reference to the supernatural in his paper, Paielli opened up new fields in biology.

I urge you to write that paper. You have a good grasp of the ideology, and as long as you refrain from the acerbic sarcasm and hostility that characterized your first few posts, you have a good chance of helping our kids gain a better appreciation of the “truth.”

Do your part to help our country. Spread your “truth” through the channels of the oppressor – peer-reviewed journals.

The billions timeline or the millions timeline?

Regardless, 3.5 M or 3.5 B there JUST ISN'T ENOUGH TIME GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY INVOLVED.

You're having a hard time with probabilities.

No. YOU have a hard time with probabilities. Mathematicians like David Berlinski, Granville Sewell ( not to mention William Dembski ) and even Astrophycisists like Sir Fred Hoyle have expressed their doubts about all of these happening by chance. You want to call these men probability-challenged too ?

Because we are here, and because the Bible tells you so, you seem to think that we are the end desired result.

Hmmm... why did you mention the Bible ? I never even brought it up.

With that thinking, a priori probabilities calculations are valid in theory

Yep, they are valid in YOUR MIND. No wonder the vast majority of Americans aren't buying it.

it is almost impossible.

If by that you mean Random mutation alone producing what we have today without intelligent input, ABSOLUTELY.

But you still try to argue science (now statistics) with your theological view.

Which theological view ? I never even mentioned God at all. You seem to think that only theists doubt Darwinism. David Berlinski and Michael Denton aren't even believers, yet they have openly expressed their doubts.

The scientific view does not require us as the intended outcome,

But since we are the outcome, and since by everyday observation ( a basic tenet of science ), we do not see complex things happen without intelligent input, I don't see why postulating intelligent agents as the better explanation to what we have is invalid.

and with no intended outcome all a priori probabilities calculations of us existing go completely out the window.

As I said, this is not based on observation but an ASSERTION. You have faith that it happened that way, good for you. I don't have that much faith.

IOW, I care that the cards are shuffled,

Shuffled is a verb. WHO DID THE SHUFFLING ?

not that are shuffled in a particular order.

Sure, and you got the card that you want. The question I have is this --- does the card have sentience ? Can It reason ?

This is the guy whose definition of a scientific theory includes astrology, right?

Ahh yes, the same canard that keeps circulating.

See here :

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3157

And here :

http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/2006/11/michael-behe-and-astrology-what-did-he_8368.html

For those who are interested in what Michael Behe actually meant.

After the discussion resulting from the previous post on this subject I thought I would ask him....

Q1. At the deposition for the Dover trial when you were asked the question about astrology where you answered "It could be...Yes" were you thinking of "astrology" as it is practiced in terms of the present day...horoscopes etc or were you thinking in terms of astrology related to astronomy in the history of science... or something else?

(deposition statement)

17 Q. Using your definition of theory, is Creationism -- using

18 your definition of scientific theory, is Creationism a

19 scientific theory?

20 Behe. No.

21 Q. What about creation science?

22 Behe. No.

23 Q. Is astrology a theory under that definition?

24 Behe. Is astrology? It could be, yes.

Michael Behe:

I was not thinking of the modern superstition of astrology, but of the idea of astrology in the middle ages, when people were trying to discern what forces actually were in play in nature. After all, if planetary bodies such as the moon and sun could affect the tides on earth, perhaps they could affect other things as well, such as people's behavior. We now know that to be wrong, but at the time it was a reasonable idea, based on physical evidence. I am told by some historians of science that the educated classes of Europe thought astrology to be quite scientific.

Q2. At the time of your deposition statement did you believe that astrology (as it is understood and practiced today) was included within your broader definition of "scientific theory?"

Michael Behe:

No, not modern astrology, as practiced by card readers with bandanas on their heads and such. I had in mind astrology of centuries ago, when educated people thought it might really have explanatory power.

Q3. Do you currently believe that astrology (as it is understood and practiced today) is included now within your broader definition of "scientific theory?"

Michael Behe:

No, of course not. Best wishes. Mike Behe

This was what I had surmised from reading the transcript of Behe from the trial. It is good to know that I had understood his position correctly.

Evidence also points to zero peer-reviewed papers supporting creationism and its descendant, intelligent design.

Ahh yes, the same peer review canard that keeps circulating ( see the other canard that keeps circulating -- RE: Michael Behe believes in superstitious astrology ).

Notice how William Dembski observes how the peer review system works :

"Robert Pennock’s Nature article with Richard Lenski on the evolutionary program AVIDA does not mention Michael Behe, irreducible complexity, or intelligent design (for a critique of that article, go here). And yet, when Pennock criticizes ID, the first thing he does is point to that article as a refutation of ID and, in particular, Michael Behe’s claim that irreducible complexity poses an obstacle to conventional evolutionary mechanisms. So, peer-reviewed articles that do not cite ID or its literature nonetheless constitute refutations of it, and yet peer-reviewed articles by ID proponents that do not explicitly mention ID (to avoid censorship) may not count as confirmations of it. The double-standard here is palpable."

Look... no one can claim with a straight face that peer review is dependent on the peers themselves and what they allow in…and we have scores of examples of ID proponents being refused even a hearing… with many of them have actually being attacked with campaigns to get them removed from their positions. If Darwinists are out on a witch hunt to destroy anyone who dissents, then of course IDers have little chance of getting peer reviewed papers published or getting their ideas out on journals.

These arent conspiracy theories- they're clear fact. ask Richard Sternberg ( Evolutionary Biologist and Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington ) and look at his plight here :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

Ask Guillermo Gonzalez, who is being attacked for his views and many are trying to stifle his right to speak on the issue…ask those who participated in the Smithsonian viewing of The Priveleged Planet when the Smithsonian suddenly attacked them and demanded they pay for the showing and cancelled other things related to it.

BTW, with respect to Guillermo Gonzalez, the man wrote 68 peer reviewed papers, most of them cited by his peers ( 300% more than required by the university tenure guidelines). When his tenure review at Iowa State came, there was a campaign mounted by atheistic professor Hector Avalos to derail his tenure. It succeeded.

Just goes to show how "easy" /sarc it is to get your views published if you even exhibit a smattering of doubt about Darwinism.

It could be true that mutation and natural selection are not the only two mechanisms. Since you believe that they aren't, write a paper arguing that a higher being is involved and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If you could do it, you would benefit creationism immensely.

Please do not confuse creationism with Intelligent Design. Just because they have something in common does not mean that their views are the same. I advise you to read up on the wide swath ID literature so that you do not confuse the two.

Regardless, 3.5 M or 3.5 B there JUST ISN'T ENOUGH TIME GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY INVOLVED.

In your opinion. Given the state of the universe, maybe life tends to appear and evolve just as the orderly crystals in ice form.

No. YOU have a hard time with probabilities.

You keep missing the point. If there is one possible form of life, the odds that life as we know it happening are still low. But the odds of some form of life, especially when the test is made possibly trillions of times (or more) under different conditions, are good.

I'll make it really simple, something you've probably done before: You have a coin. Bet on heads. Flip it. You have about a .5 probability of achieving heads. It is only your desire for heads that gives you a .5 probability. Tails was desirable to another person, and he also has a .5 probability.

But looking from the outside there was a probability of 1 that someone would win.

Also, you flipping the coin a few hundred times also gives you a probability of heads approaching 1.

Mathematicians like David Berlinski, Granville Sewell ( not to mention William Dembski )

BTW, you would do well to not mention Dembski. His "Law of Conservation of Information" has been repeatedly shot down, even on a purely mathematical basis. He's a moving target to scientists, as he always changes the argument when his math gets blown out of the water.

I do have to hand it to you, you've gotten better. You used to trot out a very ignorant, warped interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to say essentially the same thing, but even the DI has abandoned it, asked people not to use it, because it made ID proponents look stupid.

Yep, they are valid in YOUR MIND. No wonder the vast majority of Americans aren't buying it.

Valid in your mind. I was talking about the supposed low probability of life evolving.

You seem to think that only theists doubt Darwinism. David Berlinski and Michael Denton aren't even believers, yet they have openly expressed their doubts.

Doubts are fine. Darwin himself had doubts. The Theory of Evolution couldn't have advanced as far as it did without doubts. But generally to displace a scientific theory you have to provide a better one. Until then we go with the one we have, flaws and all, and keep working on the flaws.

But since we are the outcome, and since by everyday observation ( a basic tenet of science ), we do not see complex things happen without intelligent input

Weather is an extremely complex, interconnected system.

Shuffled is a verb. WHO DID THE SHUFFLING ?

When a metaphor refutes a person's point, he often tries to take it literally as a distraction.

Ahh yes, the same canard that keeps circulating.

And for good reason. Astrology had as part of it components of astronomy. He could have said astrology wasn't science, but the astronomy component was (you know, the part that was actually based on observation, not "The alignment of Mars will cause your baby to be a boy.").

The state of science back then also was not rigorous, yet he would allow that lax standard to be used today. "God of the gaps" isn't acceptable today, especially with the central tenet of the hypothesis being one big gap.

Newton knew this was right, as contrary to popular belief he refused to assign holes in his gravitational theory to God. Of course, he didn't think anybody could figure it out scientifically either, but Einstein did.

Please do not confuse creationism with Intelligent Design. Just because they have something in common does not mean that their views are the same. I advise you to read up on the wide swath ID literature so that you do not confuse the two.

I take it you mean the revisionist literature that seeks to distance ID from its father, Creation Science, and its grandfather, Creationism.

Just as the literature tries to make it sound scientific and on the level, hoping people forget about the Wedge Document that showed the theological, and not scientific, basis of ID.

Just as the creation textbook Of Pandas and People (initial title: Creation Biology) was edited in the late 80s after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, replacing the word "Creation" with "Intelligent Design" and "Creator" with "Intelligent Designer."

There are too many examples of blatant lies, perjury, conspiracy and deception in the ID movement to believe it when they try to say they're being scientific or don't already have the Christian God in mind as the "Designer."

Ok, I said I was finished with this, but one more post.

quote:

my reply:

I suggest you apply the same standard to the theory of evolution. I suggest you pound your fist on the table and *demand* that evolutionists publish a peer-reviewed paper explaining how the ear evolved by purely naturalistic mechanisms.

And if you think such a paper has been published already, I suggest you track it down, because I’ll bet dollars to dimes it hasn’t. What biology and biochemistry papers usually do is to simply *assume* evolution as the default and don’t even *try* to corroborate it in any specific terms.

OK, I’m done wasting my time with you. Let me know when you find that paper.

Your reasoning is similar to that of gender and ethnic studies professors.

Dr. Shelby Steele recounts how he was approached by a gender studies professor following one of his speeches. The professor asked him why he was not a supporter of gender studies. If I recall correctly, Steele asked if the professor was studying anything that cannot already be studied in existing departments. The professor responded that what she studied could very well be studied in other departments, but “institutional bias” made it oh-so-difficult. Steele then asked why she didn’t choose to publish in an existing department just to fight the good fight. The professor scoffed and left.

Doesn’t that “institutional bias” the professor blamed mirror the “witch hunt” you speak of?

That’s the key. You think that science wrongly brands creationism as a false science, even though creationism, creation science, and intelligent design all invoke the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. So, why not fight the good fight and show that current science is wrong in its judgment? Use the weapon of the status quo, peer-reviewed journals, to create a new status quo, one that places creationism in its rightful place as a science.

Unless, of course, you’re afraid of being ridiculed for attempting to revert science back to pre-Renaissance standards.

Paielli, my paisan, I’m disappointed that you’ve chosen the easy way out, namely, sulking over my refusal to be “enlightened.” I know that in your heart, you want our nation’s youths to be aware that they are being spoon-fed lies courtesy of their friendly local science instructors. So, take up President Kennedy’s exhortation and do something positive for our country. Write that paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal!

You say that it’s not impossible for our ear to have developed through mutation and natural selection. You say that there’s no evidence. You challenge me to find a paper that addresses this issue. I admit that I can neither think of a paper that answers your question nor come up with an experiment on my own. The discussion is ripe for a coup de grace - your contribution to science through the publication of the first peer-reviewed paper that supports creationism without resorting to supernatural explanations. You’ve already won your challenge. If you publish that paper, you can win the war.

Based on how entrenched your beliefs are that creationism has a rightful role in the public science classroom, a thousand scientists could laugh at you in an auditorium and you’d still be the same old preternaturally intelligent Russ Paielli.

But who cares about these thousand un-“enlightened” scientists? Your successful publication will result in an automatic senior fellowship at the Discovery Institute. It’s win-win for you as you get in the history books and a comfortable salary. Heck, you might even get a Nobel Prize.

Do it. Challenge science. Enlighten the unenlightened.

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.