Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Teaching Evolution

Fox News & Associated Press ^ | 07 January 2002 | AP Staff

[PatrickHenry]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court declined Monday to be drawn into a debate over the teaching of evolution in America's public schools.

The refusal is a victory for schools that require teachers to instruct on the subject even if the teacher disagrees with the scientific theory.

[PatrickHenry]

Again, I ask you- specifically what in ID theory is "unscientific", and please if you would, supply me with references to support your claims.

The conclusion of ID "theory" is unscientific, because it is: (a) unsupported by evidence; and (b) not falsifiable. If you can prove that there's an "intelligent designer" out there, do so. That is your burden. I'm not going to waste time dis-proving a wild conjecture.

[ThinkPlease]

Quick, someone tell me that Intelligent Design theory "isn't science"!!

I'll bite on this one. ID theory isn't science. Why? While Dembski et al have embroiled themselves in various debates on various college campuses, I've been surprised at the lack of detail in the ID theory. While information theory has undergone peer review, and is becoming an accepted method of mathematically looking at a problem, the method of its application to mutation as an information generation has not been firmly established. When that happens, then perhaps ID will have reached some sort of scientific status.

Until then, Dembski et al seem to be more interested in getting approval in political circles instead of scientific circles. That disturbs me, as he doesn't seem to be particularly interested in convincing peers, but politicians.

Your turn.

[Exnihilo]

Go away Vade. I don't have time for you. At least Henry attempts to have an intelligent discussion.

[RadioAstronomer]

Why? And please, be specific. Cite ID papers, give me quotes, references, anything. It shouldn't be hard since I'm sure you've read the literature, right? :) I'll be waiting.

I think you have that backwards. I do not see ID papers in mainstream journals. You cite them in peer reviewed mainstream journals and I will be glad to read them.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Again, I ask you- specifically what in ID theory is "unscientific", and please if you would, supply me with references to support your claims.

May I jump in?

Every scientific theory could be disproved if specific discoveries were made (if a ship landed on the moon and found it was really made of green cheese many scientific theories would be instantly disproved, for example).

As I read various descriptions of ID, I don't see any evidence the authors would accept that would disprove their theory. Therefore it is not scientific.

[DrewsDad]

I have absolutly no problem with the Intelligent Design theory being taught in school, as long as they teach the details of how it works.

The same can be said about evolution. Once you get past a certain degree of variation, what's being preached as science in our governments schools takes on a religious flavor itself.

[ThinkPlease]

I think you have that backwards. I do not see ID papers in mainstream journals. You cite them in peer reviewed mainstream journals and I will be glad to read them.

Dang, you beat me to it. ;-)

[Exnihilo]

mutation as an information generation..

Mutation & natural selection themselves have not been firmly or even loosely established as an information creating mechanism. So either both ID and Darwinian evolution aren't "scientific" or they are, at least according to your criterion.

[RadioAstronomer]

I find it odd that people view SETI as an acceptable attempt at discerning intelligence,

Except SETI is looking for a known type of signal that is only generated by artificial means. (Does not require the "God in the gaps" idea).

[Exnihilo]

You're wrong again Patrick. I do wish you'd study a little bit before you say some of these things. It is in fact, Darwinian evolution which is unfalsifiable. To quote Dr. Dembski:

FALSIFIABILITY: Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe's work shortly after _Darwin's Black Box_ appeared remarked, "We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway." What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, "But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution."

[RadioAstronomer]

Dang, you beat me to it. ;-)

Had to be quick on the keyboard! ROFL! :)

[Exnihilo]

Very nice non-answer. Thank you.

[Exnihilo]

that is only generated by artificial means

Has this claim been empirically verified? No? Gosh, that's not 'scientific'.

[VadeRetro]

Go away Vade. I don't have time for you. At least Henry attempts to have an intelligent discussion.

If I can take the time to deal with yet another so called "scientific evolution skeptic" you can tell me what's so scientific in trying to pretend that phenomenon X cannot be explained ever by the kind of ordinary natural causes routinely advanced by non-spooky science.

ID is the science of surrendering to ignorance.

[Exnihilo]

You haven't read much then. Dembski has written extensively on how to falsify ID.

[Rain-maker]

Keyword is clue. That is an implied "clue" based on present context rather than any actual experience.

Since when is science infallible...LOL (i.e Hiezenburg principle)

[Exnihilo]

Vade, I'm done responding to you. Please note that I have and will continue to dialogue with others because they aren't rude, arrogant, or insulting like you are. You're also apparently ignorant of my repeated statements in the past that some form of evolution has indeed taken place! I simply do not concede to the conclusion that said evolution is purely "natural". Deal with it. And stop responding to me. I'm done responding to you.

[RadioAstronomer]

Very nice non-answer. Thank you.

It is very much an answer. The onus is on you to present ID to the scientific community, not the other way around.

[PatrickHenry]

On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible.

Nope. Simplest thing in the world. Just find me a mammal fossil from a rock stratum formed long before the mammals existed.

[Exnihilo]

I see! So the definition of 'scientific' is "anything that has been submitted to peer reviewed journals, and published", right? Gee. Has any explaination of mutations and natural selection as original information creating mechanisms been submitted to a peer reviewed journal? No? Gosh, not scientific!! For shame! And what of naturalism? Science itself presupposes naturalism (as it well should). Has any paper been submitted to a peer reviewed journal attempting to empirically verify said naturalism as it applies to the origin of biological information? No? Gosh, again, unscientific! Naughty boy!