[qam1]

Thank You Kansas

From the parents of these kids

Who in the future will be competing against your kids for dominance of the world.

[mirkwood]

[Petronius]

Kansas has schools? Things are better than I'd thought.

Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex.

For instance: schizophrenia, hemorrhoids, MS, MD, bubonic plague, cancer...And to think I've been stumbling through life thinking these (and innumerable other "features") were the result of a blind and indifferent process!

[little jeremiah]

ping to self for later pingout.

[chronic_loser]

Here is a summary of the two sides, best I can reproduce:

1) There are many problems with evolutionary theory. There are mathematical improbabilities associated with observed complexities that are not easily explained no matter how much time is provided for them to develop, there are questions about whether the fossil record truly represents changing from one phyla to another (or points to common ancestry), and there is NO evidence of abiogenesis. Since the only alternative theories out there are cosmic panspermia and intelligent design by an intelligent source (the two may be conflated, for sake of the debate), perhaps alternative theories should be discussed.
2) The other side, best I can see, holds:
a) this is an attempt to teach religion in the name of science
b) all the smart scientists believe this theory, only a few mutants believe otherwise
c) this will destroy science itself if we bring in the supernatural

As a subset to this challenge, and what is really the core issue to me, "science" -so called- has been completely co-opted by philosophical empiricism. Many modernists who work within scientific disciplines have confused methodology with philosophical assumptions and insist on a skeptical empiricism as their starting point. This starting point is not "scientific" nor scientifically justifiable, nor justified from the history of science itself, but arbitrarily chosen. The real problem is that most of them don't see it as an arbitrary dictum, but as a part of the warp and woof of science itself. That is why, when the issue is brought up, you get the ridiculous challenges to "prove" a theistic construct of the universe using the scientific method. Neither construct is scientifically verifiable; the assumption that we live in a supernatural world, nor the assumption that science properly done assumes a cosmos explainable by empirical observation alone.

For example- there are two scientists in two labs. One believes in a Creator, and believes the way to bring honor to that Creator in discovering the "patterns" in which the creator works. He believes the Creator has communicated in a variety of means that He is a Being of order, regularity, and discoverable patterns of operation in the cosmos. He believes that it is part of his job to "worship" this creator to discover these patterns of behavior in the cosmos, as the Creator displays Himself in creation for those who will open their eyes to see. He believes in a rigid use of the empirical method to determine those patterns of behavior. He believes in the use of deductions to piece together theories of behavior in the cosmos, because his God is one of order. Although he believes in the possiblity of the miraculous, he defines miracles as a suspension of the general (not natural, GENERAL) order of works. He believes that the observed "everyday" workings in the cosmos are just as much a reflection of the glory of God as the story of a crucified and risen Savior, and it is his job to expand and expound that glory through science just as much as a "preacher" is called to do the same thing through the pulpit. The history of science is replete with such men and women.

The other lab is a naturalist...., if not OUT OF THE LAB, at least while he is in the lab. He makes the assumption (entirely UNscientifically arrived at), that the study of the cosmos is best performed within the assumption of a "closed system." That is, that the practical assumption that is the basis of "true science" is to assume naturalism, exclude the supernatural, and "observe the data." Supernaturalism scares these folks. To many of them, acknowleding the supernatural is a short trip to suspended reason and invoking the miraculous over everything, resulting in praying to drive out the demons rather than seek amoxycillin. In their minds, assuming the supernatural means the death of true science. They misuse Occam, thinking they have "cleaved away" unnecessary baggage, when all they have done is start at a different place and argued in a circle.

Of course, there are gradations of both labs out there in the real world, and the differences are made louder, if not clearer, by asshats on both sides. Religious fundamentalists (some very intelligent, IQ has nothing to do with being an asshat) will at times insist that "the bible teaches......." something completely unjustifiable from the text, like Archbishop Ussher's assertion of the date of creation. On the other page, Carl Sagan will make pronouncements of profound idiocy ("The cosmos is all there is and all there ever has been," which is simply a restatement of the philosophical position of lab "b" above) in the name of "science."

The point is, that BOTH parties employ identical methodology and do "real science," capable of independent testing, peer review, and publication. They can communicate with each other on one level, because they share agreement on a methodology, but they CANNOT communicate with each other as to what the correct attitude toward science is, because they are living in diffeent philosophical universes. They can, however, lay down their swords and collaborate to get data that each of them respect. The problem is that they disagree on what "science" is.

The differences have NOTHING to do with scientific method itself. Rather, they are talking "past" each other and reciting their philosophical prejudices. One side acknowledges this. The other insists that their philosophy is science itself. This is hogwash and a better shell game than you will find in Central Park. The problem is compounded when one claims that science "teaches" a theory of origins of one type or another, and both sides demand equal time to display their philosophical prejudices masquerading as science. On this point, it is the evo crowd who is really silly. at least the ID people recognize that there are philosophical positions being argued. The evo crowd either doesn't see it, or doesn't want to see it.

[norton]

"The scientists' boycott, led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum. "I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to present their case in the shadows," said board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis. "I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner."

Sums it up for me.

On the other hand, I wonder if Gore or Kerry might have done better by standing outside of the presidential debates and being interviewed about having the rest of their lives to make their point (without debating it)?

[cogitator]

bump

[Tungenchek]

Just what we need more unemployed pastors with
their doctorates in Intelligent Design.

:o)

[DoctorMichael]

Setting a precedent for overturning Science:

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko

[Stultis]

Intelligent design advocates challenge evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes can create life, that all life on Earth had a common origin and that man and apes had a common ancestor.

Not really. ID'ers actually put forth few if any specific and concrete proposals, and at least some of them individually seem to accept the common ancestry of humans and apes, and maybe even the common ancestry of all life (e.g. Behe). Of course others are fairly strict creationists. This is the whole point of the ID movement. Through vapid and vacuous arm-waving it provides an "umbrella" under which a variety of evolution opponents can stand. It's this political function, and not scientific demands, that determine the movement's character and content.

Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex.

Just so. "Some features." They don't like to be pinned down, however, on just what features, and won't even discuss how, when or on what their nebulous "intelligent cause" acted. Read ID materials from now till Sunday and you won't find a single word addressing the actions of their "intelligent cause".

Every scientific theory must have a mechanism. ID'ers pretend to have a mechanism, but then won't talk about the mechanics of the mechanism. To have a mechanism and then refuse to address every single particular about it is just nuts from any remotely scientific perspective, but again this is what the political purpose of the "Intelligent Design" movement demands.

[Zeroisanumber]

Oh for the love of... Look at the difference between corn's wild ancestor and the corn of today. It's a different species of plant, brought about by husbandry. Look at pumpkins, grapes, apples. Look at almonds, the wild versions of which contain so much cyanide that they'll kill you dead after you eat a dozen.

Species change, species evolve. How man times do we have to go over and over this?

[RobRoy]

>>"They're trying to imply that evolution is a controversial concept in science, and that's absolutely not true."<<

Well based on the length of Crevo threads on ANY site, I would disagree with that statement.

[chronic_loser]

Off Topic?

I found this very interesting, and somewhat related. It seems that the identification of "genes" is turning out to spotlight many 3 codon units that seem to do nothing at all. Some scientists are now claiming that cells (organisms?) code for traits "wholistically" and that Mendelian genetics is only a small part of the mechanism for passing characteristics from one generation to another.

That would sure turn the debate on its head, wouldn't it?

Just ran across the story in the Independent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1477776,00.html and wondered if any of the geneticists here had comments?