The attack on evolution

NEWT GINGRICH, while he was a Georgia congressman and then as speaker of the House, was known for his interest in scientific research. Some Georgians prefer a different approach. On September 26th the school board of Cobb County, in the north-western Atlanta suburbs, voted to amend existing policy to allow discussion of “disputed views of academic subjects”, specifically the idea that God created the universe in six days—Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould and the rest of them be damned.

The vote came after a month of deliberation, at a meeting crowded with concerned parents. Some 2,000 of the county's residents signed a petition last spring to have the board put stickers on biology textbooks telling students that evolution is a theory, not a fact. “What they're trying to do is appease the religious right,” says Michael Manely, the lawyer representing a local parent who wanted the stickers removed.

The war between creationists and evolutionists had recently fallen quiet. In 1999, the Kansas state board of education dropped evolution from state examinations; but by 2001 the three most prominent anti-evolutionists had been voted out of office, and the decision quietly reversed. Of late, the Christian right has focused on other topics. But the anti-evolutionists' victory in Cobb County may stimulate similar-minded people elsewhere. In Ohio, the state board of education is under pressure to include “intelligent design”—the idea that the complexity of the universe proves the existence of the divine—when it issues a new science curriculum.

Cobb County's new policy argues that providing information on “disputed views” is “necessary for a balanced education” and will help to promote “acceptance of diversity of opinion”. A poll commissioned in 2000 by People for the American Way, a liberal-minded group, shows that many Americans think this way. Nearly half of the respondents believed that the theory of evolution had not yet been proved. And of those who believe in evolution—only a fifth wanted evolution taught alone—three-quarters liberally agreed that students should be presented with “all points of view” and “make up their own minds”. In this post-modern reasoning, evolution and the Book of Genesis are equally valid.

The losers have already begun worrying aloud that this will hurt Cobb County's reputation as a place where children can get a good education. Cobb's schools consistently rank above the state average, which is not saying much. But what happens if superior schools insist that previously accepted facts have become mere theory? No comment from Mr Gingrich, who now lives in Virginia.

This is the exact same argument as "the universe exists, therefore it was designed/God created it". It answers nothing, predicts nothing, explains nothing. What is the point of such an argument?

LOL. I'd be careful, if I were you, with this line of reasoning. This is because you are making the assumption that because evolution is true, ID is bunk.

As far as answering nothing, it certainly provides a better fit than mere chance as used by evolutionists. As for predicting nothing, it predicts that chance is the wrong path. And for explaining nothing, it explains how to examine evidence.

Let me give you a real-world example. Even though fore-and-aft rigged sailing vessels have been around for at least two millenia, it wasn't until the 19th century, the last gasp of sail, that fore-and-aft rigs became quite common. You might wonder why, since square-riggers were slow and clumsy in comparison and had trouble sailing into the wind (fore-and-aft rigs do better when sailing into the wind). It was because the prevailing opinion was that while fore-and-aft rigging was fine for small ships or boats, it wouldn't work well for capitol ships. It wasn't until the French and Americans started hurting the British economically with fore-and-aft rigs that such ships became popular.

Your arguments for excluding ID from the evolution debate are strikingly similar to the British arguments for excluding fore-and-aft rigging from the shipping debate.

LOL. I'd be careful, if I were you, with this line of reasoning. This is because you are making the assumption that because evolution is true, ID is bunk.

Not at all. For the umpteenth time, I am pointing out that your argument is exactly the same as the creationist crowd and can be equally dismissed for the same reasons. It has nothing to do with any other theories about evolution.

As far as answering nothing, it certainly provides a better fit than mere chance as used by evolutionists. As for predicting nothing, it predicts that chance is the wrong path. And for explaining nothing, it explains how to examine evidence.

BWAAAAHAHAHA! Fit? It explains the entire fossil record, the ascent of the dinosaurs, the development of grass? Sure it does, just like saying "God created the universe last Thursday just the way it is" explains everything.

Your example makes no point in your argument. Try another one.

Your arguments for excluding ID from the evolution debate are strikingly similar to...

ID/IOT is excluded from evolutionary theory because it makes no arguments about evolution. If you have some handy, post them and prove me wrong.

Saying "there is no God" is the easy way out. You excuse yourself from bothering to worship, from avoiding anything others would call immoral, and wallow in your self-centered, hedonistic lifestyle like a spoiled brat who only wants "his way". Why does someone like you spend time arguing against God? At least I feel that I am trying to do good and save a soul when I expouse my views. I'm sure in some perverted way that you feel that you are saving people from wasting their time by living "right" and opening them to enjoying all life's pleasures. Is the result of your convincing someone of your views eternal and of a life or death nature? I know you don't believe mine are either as I just believe some "fairy tale" in your mind, but what is your motive? What does it matter if I believe? There is, at least in my mind, an importance to what I practice, where is the importance of your message? What is the worst that will happen to me if I am wrong? I spend my life living cleany? I don't feel I am missing anything by not partaking in perversion, illicit sex, drugs, ect. as their drawbacks are inarguably obvious. If you don't believe in God, then there is no "666" and your screen name is just a childish display for shock value. If you are right, then you'll never be able to say "I told you so", you'll never know it. If I'm right, I will know so.

If ID is indistinguishable from nature then what direct evidence do we have for ID?

Well, I'd argue that if living things were designed, then the design is anything but intelligent. There's so much waste, duplication, and inefficiency in the living world, it's inconceivable that someone who (supposedly) was clever enough to create an entity like the ribosome from whole cloth could have screwed the rest up so badly. Note: I don't capitalize 'who' here, in orservance of the ID fans insistence their theory is not religious, and the designer could have been a space alien.

Hmm, maybe I'll present an alternative, the theory of Idiotic Design. Has a nice ring to it. Quick, call up Duane Gish and get me on the lecture circuit!

Boy you really do get it wrong, don't you? If there was an ID element that is completely undetectable, unverifiable, and indistinguishable from blind chance, WHO CARES???

LOL. So speaketh another flat-earther. In my lifetime, I've met two types of engineers. The first type has the attitude that if it was good enough for my daddy, it is good enough for me. The second type is continually asking "What if?" all of the time. It is the second type which advances the state of the art. You certainly don't remind me of the second type.

But to answer your question with a question. Who cares if there is a deadly gas completely undetectable, unverifiable and indistinguishable from normal air when measured in PPM? Of course, the answer would be that we have the capability to measure PPB. But we've only had this capacity fairly recently. To dismiss ID out-of-hand because our ability to measure is not there yet is short-sighted indeed.

It is very disengenous for people to say that ID cannot be used since it not measurable. The underlying mechanisms and assumptions of the theory of evolution are extremely important - and extraordinarily far reaching. Today's dogma assumes, by default, that ultimately it all revolves around chance. If, according to you, it doesn't matter, then why do you have a hard time with people talking of ID? I mean after all, blind chance is even less valid than ID.

Your name clearly implies it. Plus the fact that you mocked my post by saying "saying God did it is the easy way out". I don't see the need to be particularly polite with someone who mocks my belief.

It *IS* the easy way out. If the answer is that "that's the way it is because that's the way God did it," then there aren't any more questions that matter. [snip] Aw, rats, I had a really funny response going but, given the complete lack of a sense humor within the ranks of the moderators, I have censored myself rather having fun with you and being banned for it (lucky you and your easily bruised belief system).

Anyway, that "wooooosh" you heard was the sound was my posts going over your head.

If you don't like my name, tough. Life's not fair, learn to live with it.

Wrong. If you can't falsify it, that means you can't even test it. I ask again, of what practical value is a theory that can't be tested?

Absolutely wrong. You can test a theory or hypothesis without having enough knowledge to falsify it. All falsification means is that basically if a given set of results is not obtained within certain parameters, the theory doesn't hold water. However, the theory itself is a result of experimentation and/or observation. During the experimentation, the scientist observes what the parameters (quite often these parameters change significantly during the course of the project) should be and at the end, offers his suggestions for falsifiability. But just because not enough data has been gathered to provide for such suggestions does not mean that the theory is not testable. Nor does it imply in any way that the research is not worthwhile.

Which is why I said "at least theoretically falsifiable" - do try to keep up. Even back then, it was possible to imagine a way in which the hypothesis about the orbits of the planets could be falsified, even if such a test were not practical. ID'ers have yet to so much as imagine a way in which their hypothesis could be tested or falsified.

Not necessarily. Although many things were theoretically falsifiable (and still are), since the advent of the computer age we've had a few surprises where what was once considered falsifiable turned out not to be and some things which they had considered non-falsifiable turned out to be falsifiable. I'm just pointing out that technology does make a huge practical difference. No, IDers haven't shown how ID theory is falsifiable. OTOH, neither have anti-IDers shown how ID has no place in evolutionary theory. This is especially disturbing in that certain aspects of ID provide for a better explanation of effects than anything from the evolution camp does.

You are arguing against a theory of evolution that no one believes. However, you are doing a masterful job of tearing it down, I must say.

You'd be amazed at how many evolutionists do believe in chance. Even those who claim otherwise. And the big problem is that chance is the predominant viewpoint taught in the public school system. You see, my point is that if it is not chance, there, by definition must be ID at work.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

What excluded middle? This is a binary argument. Either the underlying rules were created by happenstance or they were created by design. The only other option is that some rules were created by design and some by chance. However, if ID was at all involved, then the idea that chance played any part (significant or otherwise) in this drama becomes rather infinitisimal.

These are the two alternatives you have presented me with thus far - "chance" or "rules". If you have some third possibility, I am all ears. Personally, I favor the "evolution as it is understood by actual evolutionary biologists" possibility.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to give us your version of what you believe evolutionary biologists believe. Believe me, I'm all ears.

That's right - as I said, you've done a masterful job of stomping all over this imaginary version of evolution that you've created, where everything is a matter of random chance. Unfortunately, that's not the theory of evolution as understood by experts in the field, so your refutation of that version is so far non-existent.

Then if it's not random chance and it's not directed intelligence, what is it? You've implied heavily that it is not a binary question. I'm eagerly awaiting for your explanation.

Absolutely wrong. You can test a theory or hypothesis without having enough knowledge to falsify it.

What does it mean to "test" a theory under such circumstances? If you don't know when your theory is wrong, how can you know when it's right?

No, IDers haven't shown how ID theory is falsifiable. OTOH, neither have anti-IDers shown how ID has no place in evolutionary theory.

What are the testable predictions that ID makes? None at all, as far as I can see - it's a purely negative proposition, not an affirmative one. ID theory essentially consists of the proposition that "evolution can't do X", for whatever X happens to be. How do you test such a thing?

This is especially disturbing in that certain aspects of ID provide for a better explanation of effects than anything from the evolution camp does.

A "better explanation" is meaningless unless there's some way to test that explanation. Until you can test it, there's simply no way to judge whether it's a better explanation or not.

And the big problem is that chance is the predominant viewpoint taught in the public school system.

The schools do a miserable job of teaching science in general. Why should this be any different?

What excluded middle? This is a binary argument. Either the underlying rules were created by happenstance or they were created by design.

Ahhhhhhhh. I think I follow you now - are you shooting for a one-off here? I.e., the underlying rules of the universe were intelligently designed, not necessarily the organisms and such that we see around us? Am I on the right track?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to give us your version of what you believe evolutionary biologists believe. Believe me, I'm all ears.
...
Then if it's not random chance and it's not directed intelligence, what is it? You've implied heavily that it is not a binary question. I'm eagerly awaiting for your explanation.

The phrase you're searching for is "natural selection". It's not random.

What does it mean to "test" a theory under such circumstances? If you don't know when your theory is wrong, how can you know when it's right?

LOL. Ever hear of data points? It is not unusual to have no idea if a theory is right or wrong - at least in the formative stages. As more data becomes available, it becomes easier to support or refute a theory.

The schools do a miserable job of teaching science in general. Why should this be any different?

You are right of course. In fact, such a lousy job is done, that several leading evolutionists have publicly stated that evolution should not be taught until college.

What are the testable predictions that ID makes? None at all, as far as I can see - it's a purely negative proposition, not an affirmative one. ID theory essentially consists of the proposition that "evolution can't do X", for whatever X happens to be. How do you test such a thing?

You are making a common error evolutionists make regarding ID. Namely that there is one overarching theory behind it. That simply is not the case. While the field does attract literal creationists, it also plays host to rules-based design. ID doesn't necessarily displace evolution (there are evolutionists who are also IDers). What it does do is question the premise behind evolution. Was evolution a series of related and unrelated chance events, or was directed intelligence involved?

A "better explanation" is meaningless unless there's some way to test that explanation. Until you can test it, there's simply no way to judge whether it's a better explanation or not.

The current assumption that chance is behind it all makes no sense at all. At least ID offers some explanations for observed and experimental data that chance does not. If you can't test ID, you most assuredly cannot test for chance either.

Ahhhhhhhh. I think I follow you now - are you shooting for a one-off here? I.e., the underlying rules of the universe were intelligently designed, not necessarily the organisms and such that we see around us? Am I on the right track?

Sort of. While I am talking basically of the underlying rules of the universe, it also follows if the basic rules are ID, then all results from them must also be, at the very least, ID influenced.

The phrase you're searching for is "natural selection". It's not random.

Not so. Natural selection is an effect. Chance and ID are causes. If natural selection is not random, it must be ID.

LOL. Ever hear of data points? It is not unusual to have no idea if a theory is right or wrong - at least in the formative stages. As more data becomes available, it becomes easier to support or refute a theory.

Even if I grant that to be true, it still doesn't belong. When it moves beyond the data-gathering stage to the point where there's a theoretical framework for prediction, then we can discuss where ID belongs in evolutionary theory.

In fact, such a lousy job is done, that several leading evolutionists have publicly stated that evolution should not be taught until college.

If we pushed off everything that the public schools did a crappy job of teaching onto the colleges, kids would spend their entire school lives from kindergarten to high school doing nothing but playing with blocks ;)

What it does do is question the premise behind evolution. Was evolution a series of related and unrelated chance events, or was directed intelligence involved?

And when there is a way to examine and test the proposition that directed intelligence was involved, we can call ID scientific.

At least ID offers some explanations for observed and experimental data that chance does not. If you can't test ID, you most assuredly cannot test for chance either.

No prediction = no science. Current evolutionary theory makes testable predictions. Call me when ID does.

While I am talking basically of the underlying rules of the universe, it also follows if the basic rules are ID, then all results from them must also be, at the very least, ID influenced.

Okay, fair enough. Might even be true. But that's beyond the scope of evolutionary theory, and science in general. It lies within the field of theology unless and until the proposition that the rules were created by some intelligent agent can be tested.

Not so. Natural selection is an effect. Chance and ID are causes. If natural selection is not random, it must be ID.

Not so. Natural selection is an effect of some things, and a cause of others, such as the diversity of life on earth. Which is what evolutionary theory seeks to explain.

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.