Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action

American Society for Clinical Investigation ^ | 01 May 2006 | Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.

[b_sharp]

"Science has long believed in intelligent design, they use only names but it is the same. They have looked out into space and seen lines on mars and said, this is proof that life was on Mars, how else could these canals be built. They send radio signals into space and listen for answers from intelligent life. They do this because they believe certain events or things only happen if made are cause by someone(thing) with intelligence. It is impossible that random radio waves to produce signals we can interpret as a circle. But when others us these same logic to promote that man was made not just random chance. I is not a valid though."

It is not the quest for 'Intelligent Design' that is the problem, it is the manner in which it is being done. Aside from bypassing the normal and time tested path to the classroom, current ID is proceeding as if it were a full fledged science when in reality it is based on question begging and faulty premises.

Get Idists to fix their hypothesis and base them in science and then they'll be taken seriously.

[Elsie]

...often he is gone from a thread for a day or so, and then when he responds to a post much, much earlier in the thread, his posts seems completely out of context, often with funny and surprising results...

Ergo.

...ELSIE-thons!!

Order from chaos!

[andysandmikesmom]

Exactly...no Crevo thread may be complete, unless we have the Elsie-thons...

[andysandmikesmom]

I just find it lazy thinking, to declare that evolution is responsible for what has happened to public schools over the last few decades...its just tooo easy, to lay blame on any field of study that you do not like, and from there, use that field of study to explain away the woes of the society, or in this case specifically explain away the decline of the public schools...

Yeah, right, do away with evolution, and things will return to the good old days...

Better to search for the real reasons for the decline in the public schools...I imagine that would take hard work and hard study, much more difficult that simply blaming evolution...

[blowfish]

I just find it lazy thinking, to declare that evolution is responsible for what has happened to public schools over the last few decades.

Anyway, everyone knows it's rock-and-roll that's caused the corruption of today's youth. Or was it rap? Or the 60's? Damn, so many scapegoats to keep track of!

[trashcanbred]

Sorry you hear your conscience bothers you for being a philosopher, but that is essentially what you are arguing here. You have no empirical tests to establish or confute the idea of intelligent design. You can declare it to be "unscientific," but not on a scientific basis.

Oh my conscience... it pains me so much to be a philosopher... please stop the pain...hahaha. Oh Fester... you are too funny my friend.

You are correct about one thing, I have no scientific fact to establish or confute ID. But I disagree with the next statement though and I will say "one more time". ID is unscientific because it is not based on any evidence. There is no physical evidence, no mathematical models, not even a tag that says "inspected by #13". Why.. you even say so yourself. Soooo pleeeeaaaase don't tell me that the desire for evidence in science is philosophical. I did not make the "scientific method" nor did I make any of the models of scientific inquiry. Please, if you want to continue to argue this go grab a Ouija board and wake up Aristotle.

This Meyer guy seems to say as well it is inaccurate to describe ID as predominantly "faith-based" or religious. So he happens to agree with me, not you.

Fester just how forgetful do you think I am? I am fortunate so far not to suffer from a degenerative disease of the brain yet so don't treat me like I do. Now what was it I said Meyers disagreed with you about? Oh yeah... you said "there are no proponents of ID" and Meyer said he is a "founding father" of it (and the article was pushing it... hence he is a proponent). THAT is why I said he disagreed with you. Good golly Ms Molly what am I going to do with you?

And no, it is not a point of philosophy to ask for evidence in support of a theory. It is part and parcel of science.

YES! Ok Fester you da man! Atta boy I am glad I never ever have to say that again to you. I was sounding like a mina bird. "No evidence... not scientific.... Squawwwk!"

Organized matter performing specific functions is decent evidence for intelligent design, but not conclusive.

Quantify "decent" for me. Also... what is the "Intelligent Designer" made of? If the Big ID'er is also made of "organized matter" what does that tell US? That there was an Intelligent Designer of the Intelligent Designer... and that of course begs the same question... over and over ad infinitum. Hey it is your theory... you gotta have some idea about this right?

The intelligible universe is replete with examples of the same, so it is not necessarily a supernatural, supersitious, or religious point of view to generally understand an intelligible universe to be a product of intelligent design; no more so than generally assuming each book or play has an author.

At best my friend, it is an assumption right? And by your own words there is no proof for it, just an assumption. YOUR problem is there are many other interpretations we can make and say are equally valid because... we have no evidence for them either. Does that mean we teach all of those other wonderful ideas as well and put them on par with Evolution?

On a very serious note my friend, do you know how many different beliefs are out there that are just "hoping" that the door is open for them to proselytize in the public school? I don't mean any that are Christian based either... I am talking about well funded "cults".

The one that really comes to mind my friend is Scientology. You know, the cult with members such as Tom Cruise, Greta Van Susteren, John Travolta, the voice of Bart Simpson. Now many people on FR think that Scientology is "nothing to be concerned about" but I have had first hand experience with them and let me tell you, they are more aggressive than anything you can imagine. I worked as a volunteer for the Red Cross during Katrina and Rita and they were exceptionally active in converting the people in the shelter (both victims and volunteers). Now Red Cross shelters don't allow that kind of behavior, unless of course the facility the shelter is located at is ran by the Mayor of a certain Louisiana city (no not Nagin).

So if you want to push ID into public schools and get it accepted as science you should know that there are other groups just foaming at the mouth for you to succeed because if you get your foot in the door, they can get theirs in as well. It is a Pandora's box my friend ... and I really hope we don't open it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What good is a claim you can't test?

Yeah. What good is the claim that the bioshpere is essentially the result of an evolutionary history from molecules to organisisms to arrangements of organisms to self-awareness as experienced by the only biological entities known to practice science and write it down?

[andysandmikesmom]

Thats it...you found out my secret...when I was a little girl, Bill Haley and the Comets were just the newest sensation...my girlfriend and I had bought the record, 'Rock Around the Clock'....we saved up our allowances, and went in together and bought the record(away from our parents ever prying eyes)..

Then I went over to my girlfriends house(because her house had a finished basement, where we could hide to do our fiendish deeds), and we got out her little record player, and played that record over and over...we thought we were just the most devilish little girls that ever did exist...

Now, dang that Bill Haley, he led me down the wrong path...

[Elsie]

Damn, so many scapegoats to keep track of!

There's only one...

Sin

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yeah. What good is the claim that the bioshpere is essentially the result of an evolutionary history from molecules to organisisms to arrangements of organisms to self-awareness as experienced by the only biological entities known to practice science and write it down?"

It's testable. ID isn't; you even admitted as much. You said,

""You have no empirical tests to establish or confute the idea of intelligent design."

That is true. That's why it isn't a scientific claim; science demands testability.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Then I went over to my girlfriends house(because her house had a finished basement, where we could hide to do our fiendish deeds), and we got out her little record player, and played that record over and over...we thought we were just the most devilish little girls that ever did exist..."

You Jezebel!!

[JCEccles]

Even the title of this atheist-inspired panic attack is profoundly dishonest. This isn't about "science education" and ID. It is about Darwinism and ID. Darwinism is a wild conjecture-gibbering, basement dwelling, sissy subset of science education. Darwinism is in a blind panic, pleading for the mob to protect it from honest criticism of its faith claims.

The fact that the title is dishonestly cast is evidence of the weakness of Darwinism. Fearing that it can no longer simply bully and intimidate its critics who now have a clear view of it, Darwinism puffs itself up and cloaks itself with the dark magisterial robes of "SCIENCE EDUCATION."

Darwinism will continue to have problems until it steps down from its throne as the official keeper of the atheist creation myth that has been foisted on this country as the "one true state religion" by the ACLU.

[JCEccles]

You Jezebel!!

Have you ever noticed how fundamentalist atheists seem compelled by some inner demon to employ biblical imagaery and phrases in many of their posts?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Even the title of this atheist-inspired panic attack is profoundly dishonest."

Lying from the first sentence. That's pretty talented.

"This isn't about "science education" and ID. It is about Darwinism and ID."

No, it's about science and the attacks by the mystics (ID'ers/creationists).

"Darwinism is in a blind panic, pleading for the mob to protect it from honest criticism of its faith claims."

That's hilarious! You're too funny!

"Darwinism will continue to have problems until it steps down from its throne as the official keeper of the atheist creation myth that has been foisted on this country as the "one true state religion" by the ACLU."

With opponents with your reasoning ability, evolution and other scientific theories will have no problems.

BTW, evolution isn't atheistic, any more than every other scientific theory is (none of which mention God).

Thanks for the chuckle! :)

[DBeers]

Just an incidental observation implying nothing regarding those posting here.

I note that many arguments employed in defending science education against intelligent design would also apply to defending science education against homosexual design...

It is odd that many leftists opposed to intelligent design support homosexual design and seek to teach all things faithful to the religion of homosexuality YET oppose any religious expression contrary to the homosexual world view...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Have you ever noticed how fundamentalist atheists seem compelled by some inner demon to employ biblical imagaery and phrases in many of their posts?"

1) I am not an atheist.
2) I spent 13 years (k-12) in Catholic schools, and had Biblical imagery taught me.
3) Biblical imagery is commonly used in our culture by people who do not accept the Bible simply because it has often lost all of it's original religious meaning. Jezebel is one such image.
4) All you have are hyperventilating rants and screeds against a scientific theory you lack the ability to understand.

Not that you don't amuse us. :)

[Fester Chugabrew]

You are correct about one thing, I have no scientific fact to establish or confute ID . . .

That is precisely why I said your arguments against ID are not scientific but philosophical.

But ID is based upon evidence, namely the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions. If it is only "evidence" that constitutes scientific thought, then ID is scientific to the core. Or perhaps you are another one of those folks who conflates or equates "evidence" with "proof."

I did not make the "scientific method" . . .

Neither did I cause the particle elements to retain their consistency so as to produce cause and effect or the various specific functions they exhibit. And as for this Meyer guy, he does not seem to put these processes into the realm of "supernatural" like you do.

. . .If the Big ID'er is also made of "organized matter". . .

So what? One could expect as much. But you cannot resist waxing philosophical, can you? Good on you for breaking out of your cold, hard science shell.

At best my friend, it is an assumption right?

That's right. And at bottom that is all you have to start with, too. My assumption is that the universe is intelligently designed because it is intelligible. As a result I am capable of observing, quantifying, and in a small way, explaining how this intelligently designed universe works. What is your assumption?

[Fester Chugabrew]

It's testable.

You're delusional. Such a history can only be reasonably inferred. It cannot be empirically tested.

[andysandmikesmom]

Jezebel...sure enough in the Bible...

Yet, when you mentioned Jezebel, my mind went to the movie "Jezebel', made around 1938, starring Bette Davis, and Henry Fonda...this was Bette Davis, more or less trying to give a 'screen test', in a full length movie, trying to get the coveted role of Scarlett Ohara in 'Gone With The Wind'...Bette never got the role, but if you ever have the chance, see the movie...its a fine movie, all on its own...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You're delusional. Such a history can only be reasonably inferred. It cannot be empirically tested."

Not only can it been it has been tested. You created a huge mishmash claim that is really the work of many different scientific disciplines, many of which have little if anything to do with evolution. But the Big Bang can and has been tested; different hypothesis about he origins of life on Earth have been tested and continue to be tested, evolution (common descent, descent with modification) has been tested time and time again.

ID? Not so much. As you have admitted, it can't be tested empirically. It is therefore, by definition and by the practice of science over the last 400 years, it is not a scientific claim.