Intelligen Design vs Evolution

[rakuenso]

seriously there is no competition, intelligent design isn't even a theory, its propaganda.

[swansont]

No one got arrested here' date=' either. This is a CIVIL SUIT, not a criminal one. No statutes were broken. We don't arrest bad teachers, but we fire them. Because, guess what? "heavy boots" isn't part of the science standards.

 

However, what happened here is that the local government -- the school board -- decided that ID should be taught as a valid theory. Why would they do that? What's the purpose of teaching a falsified theory as a valid one? In this case it is to promote a religion.

 

Now, quoting from Quinn in discussion of the 1982 MacLean vs Arkansas case of creation science, yes, you can declare that bad science fails the Establishment Clause:

 

"a statute violates the Establishment Clause if it fails any part of the following three-pronged test:

 

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. . . ; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." ...

 

[b']Ruse's second ploy is to suggest that for legal purposes Judge Overton had to argue that creation science is not science at all because he could not have held Act 590 in violation of the Establishment Clause if he had merely shown that creation science, though testable, has been tested and massively disconfirmed, and is therefore bad or weak science.25 But this suggestion is mistaken on two counts. First, as I noted above, Judge Overton could have held Act 590 in violation of the Establishment Clause without even addressing the question of the scientific status of creationism merely by arguing, as he in fact did, that Act 590 fails part of the three-pronged test. Second, if Judge Overton had been able to show that Act 590 has as a major effect the advancement of religion, then he could at least have tried to argue from the premise that creation science is bad science to the conclusion that Act 590 has the advancement of science only as a minor effect at best. And if he had successfully done this and also shown that Act 590 has no other major effects, then he would have been entitled to conclude that Act 590 has the advancement of religion as its primary effect, which is all he needed to establish in order to show that Act 590 fails the second part of the three-pronged test[/b]."

 

I take this as meaning that whether or not it's bad science is moot. The argument centers around the establishment clause, which is what I said earlier. Your later arguments make the same point. I still think that "It was created that way" isn't science, but that's moot for the purposes of the trial.

 

 

 

The Dover board specifically excluded abiogenesis from the teaching of ID. Go to http://www.ncseweb.org and check out the written documents.

 

Why do you focus on abiogenesis? IDers don't. Neither Irreducible Complexity nor Complex Specified Information is about abiogenesis. And you must know -- because you have read Origin of the Species (right?) -- that abiogenesis is not part of evolution:

 

I think that if you had read a few related threads that I am well aware that abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

[Ophiolite]

P.S: Ophiolite, I mean't no disrespect. I just get sick and tired (and I'm not saying you did) of people who say that it is possible that some being just creates things out of nothing, just with his words! Again, please don't misunderstand me.

And I get sick and tired of apparently educated people on a science forum displaying illogic, bias and using snide debating tricks to 'win' arguments.

I believe you know perfectly well that a large body of Christians hold the view that the story of creation in Genesis is a metaphor for what occured. That is the point that was being made, as I perceive it, by lucaspa.

So you have a scientific atheist's viewpoint that says the Universe appeared, unaccountably, out of nothing; or, the mainstream scientific Christian's viewpoint that says the Universe appeared through an unaccountable act by an entity, which act is poetically described with the words "Let there be light."

To a card carrying agnostic there ain't a whole lot of difference twixt those two positions.

And if you do mean no disrespect perhaps phrases such as "spare me your bullshit", "I had enough of patronising.....", and "I don't care what you think" could be toned down.

[H W Copeland]

And I get sick and tired of apparently educated people on a science forum displaying illogic' date=' bias and using snide debating tricks to 'win' arguments.

I believe you know perfectly well that a large body of Christians hold the view that the story of creation in Genesis is a metaphor for what occured. That is the point that was being made, as I perceive it, by lucaspa.

So you have a scientific atheist's viewpoint that says the Universe appeared, unaccountably, out of nothing; or, the mainstream scientific Christian's viewpoint that says the Universe appeared through an unaccountable act by an entity, which act is poetically described with the words "Let there be light."

To a card carrying agnostic there ain't a whole lot of difference twixt those two positions.

And if you do mean no disrespect perhaps phrases such as "spare me your bullshit", "I had enough of patronising.....", and "I don't care what you think" could be toned down.[/quote']

 

Well put old man, very well put indeed.

[Mokele]

I'll take the views of the sideline commentators' date=' who have a breadth and depth of vision that is lacking in the grunts who are crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's of established paradigms, any day. [And the error is deliberate'].

Which is a reflection on your knowledge rather than on lucaspa's observations.

 

The problem is that, as sideline commentators, they don't have the understanding of how scince works on the day-to-day level, the difficulties of experiments, the peer-review process (at least as it works in science), and often are unaware of recent results.

 

I feel that this difference is strongly shown by the way in which "testable" was expanded to the point of meaninglessness previously in the thread. Now, part of this *is* a vocabulary mix-up; we just use 'testable' rather than 'testable in a practical, realistic manner' or somesuch because, well, it's shorter, much like we'll sometimes say group A was "evolving towards" some ends, when we know evolution isn't goal directed. It's just errors or assumptions in communication.

 

The philosophers of science in this instance took 'testable' and generalized it (which, given their background in searching for things like 'truth' and 'reality', isn't surprising) to a level that is not appropriate. To claim someting as "testable" because it's conceivable that we could trip over some bit of evidence someday is just plain ridiculous. That's not testing, it's waiting for evidence to all into your lap, and answering every question of "where's your evience?" with "We're still waiting".

 

I really don't have anything against philosophers of science; I'm friends with two of them, one being the head of the UC philosophy dept. But both are very fast to acknowledge the limitations of their field, and both actually have a reputation for crushing the arguements of others in the field who overreach by ignoring these limitations.

 

Mokele

[JPQuiceno]

Did you realize that you did not distinguish about how God created the universe? Creartionism is a particular method God is supposed to have used. Most Christians believe that God used the methods discovered by science to create the universe. IOW' date=' God created the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution.

 

Now, [b']some[/b] scientists who believe(d) that Yahweh (Christian god) created the universe:

Charles Darwin at the time he wrote Origin of the Species

Charles Lyell (the man who falsified the last version of Flood Geology and solidified uniformitarianism in geology)

Asa Gray (America's premier botanist in the late 1800s and one of Darwin's earliest supporters)

Theodosius Dobzhansky

Francisco Ayala (the most prominent living evolutionary biologist)

Kenneth Miller -- the most effective opponent of ID.

 

Now, if Carl Sagan thought these men were "idiots", or you think so, then I can tell you who the real idiots are.

 

 

First of all, I would like you to provide me with statistics showing how you substantiate that most christians belive that "God" used "the methods that science discovered to create the universe".

 

Second,

 

Creartionism is a particular method God is supposed to have used.

 

That's whats funny about creationism. It gives no explanation on how "God" created the universe. It just says he did, through "Super Natural" ways. Supposedly, "He said let there be light" and it was. It doesn't say that he used some method or something to create, it just came out of nothing with his words.

 

Now, in Ophiolite's previous post he/she said that some Christians think that the first chapter of the Genesis is a metaphor. Well, lets take a look at the following passage, Genesis 1:1-13:

 

 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty' date=' darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

 

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

 

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. [/quote']

 

If you take a look at verses 6-7 you can clearly see that this "creation" passage is not a metaphor. It specificly says what he is doing, and how it happned.

 

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so..

 

Clearly one can see that it says "Let there be an expanse between the waters....". He directely was talking to the water, then IMMEDIATLEY after he said that, "It was so". It specificly says that he said it to exapnse, and that it was. So from reading it, I have gathered that it literaly means that god created it with his words. AFAIK , I doubt any creationist would disagree with me.

 

 

Third, Charles Darwin is an exception from this. He said "the creator". He never said Yaweh, or the christian God. So don't make assuptions, because that is ludicrous, and a usual tactic of creationist.

 

The rest of them, I don't know much of them, except some short reading. If they honestly believe that the Christian God created the Universe out of nothing with his words, than yes, THEY ARE IDIOTS. Yes you heard me right. Them being popular and contributing to science does not make them invulerable to illogic and wishful thinking.

 

To Ophiolite:

 

I am educated, unbiased and I am not using cheap tactics to win some "argument".

 

Second, I would like to see the link to a statistcal article showing that a large body of christians belive that the first chapter of the bible is a metaphor. Because if we are going to make up things, AFAIK, most of them think it was literal. But that is irrelavent. It doesn't matter what any christian thinks, what matters is what is said in the bible, the only true source of christianity, and foundation of creationism.

 

So you have a scientific atheist's viewpoint that says the Universe appeared, unaccountably, out of nothing

 

Assumptions are not health habits. I never said that. I am an Atheist, A scientist.

 

No, I don't know how the universe was created, but I don't go around making fairy tale characters saying that they were the ones who made it. That is wishful thinking. I will, like any intellectually honest scientist, wait until we find a scientific explantion for the universe coming about. I will not succumb to "ohh some god made it out of nothing with his words". That I will not do.

[AL]

Lucasspa, you still haven't explained how ID is scientific. William Dembski makes the dubious argument all the time on his Uncommon Descent blog that ID is scientific because it claims certain levels of complexity cannot be produced by evolutionary processes, and that this is falsifiable if one can show these levels of complexity can arise by evolution. That is not building a positive scientific case for ID -- that is assuming a false dichotomy that if evolution is falsified, ID is defaulted to. If ID can be regarded as science for this reason, we may as well regard the existence of rain gods to be a scientific theory -- they can be falsified by meteorology, else regarded as a default position without ever building a positive case.

 

Also, you mentioned Behe's Darwin's Black Box as the evidence for ID. Have you read the book? No positive case for ID is made. It is a negative case against evolution, that there exists certain things Behe feels evolution will never be able to explain for philosophical reasons, and by the magic of false dichotomy, ID triumphs.

 

If you want to regard ID as "scientific" as part of a political/judicial strategy to get it thrown out, that's another thing, but clearly it is not science qua science.

[wild_wind]

It seems that the of the reference to Darwin's Black Box was made for that reason exactly. The point is that ID proponents are putting it forward as evidence, not that it necessarily is. So, it must be confronted by the scientific community just as you say.

[Kedas]

I just want to add the reason why it's called 'Intelligent design' and not 'The creation of God' or something like that.

 

They would have trouble with the First Amendment

"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion."

 

So the name ID is just a new package of the same thing to avoid conflict with the First Amendment.

[GUNITTHEORY]

Evolution was heresy in Darwin's times as it is today. It makes the theory no less valid. Since god is based only on faith but science is based on physical observation and hard data, evolution still wins every time. They should not allow "Intelligent Design" within 100 feet of a school, and it probably does violate the separation of church and state.

[wild_wind]

I think its a little hazy whether or not it violates the seperation of church and state but it most definitely should not be taught in a science class.

[bascule]

Remember folks, it's "The Establishment Clause," not "seperation of Church and state." The latter will have the IDiots ^Fing through the Constitution going "Can you point out where the words 'seperation of church and state' appear in the Constitution?" They also like to pretend that the Constitution doesn't have provisions for this thing called "The Judicial Branch" and therefore the Constitution does not evolve with Supreme Court precedent, so don't bother quoting them Everson v. Ewing...

 

Well crap, can't help myself...

 

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

[zyncod]

Science is a meme which has dramatically increased our standard of living and given rise to the "modern world," so most feel they owe science a debt of gratitude.

 

Has it really? As a scientist, I would have to disagree with that statement. All that science has ever done is provide a systematic way of looking at the world, for better or worse. "Science" didn't create the polio vaccine (good) or nuclear weapons (bad) - people did.

[bascule]

Has it really? As a scientist, I would have to disagree with that statement. All that science has ever done is provide a systematic way of looking at the world, for better or worse. "Science" didn't create the polio vaccine (good) or nuclear weapons (bad) - people did.

 

But without the meme of science the people would've lead dramatically different, unscientific lives (or developed the meme of the scientific method for themselves)

[Mokele]

"Science does not have a moral dimension. It is like a knife. If you give it to a surgeon or a murderer, each will use it differently."

--Werner von Braun, creator of the Saturn V moonrocket

[Epicman]

Wow this is a scarey group - but I'll give it a shot.

 

I am a scientist, an author, and a Christian. After many years of study and research I have released "The Scientific Theory of Intentional and Intelligent Design" and "The Theory of Human Evolution." I renamed the standard ID to set my science-based theories apart from it. These theories support the majority of evolution theory and present new ideas that are supported by the statement: "These are reasonable explanations based upon the current body of scientific knowledge."

 

My concept surrounds the idea that the division in this debate exists because of misconceptions that come from the mistranslation of the work of scientists by the media. People have shut their ears to any evolution theory because they cannot get past the "man from apes" idea that is incorrecty attributed to Darwin.

 

The nature of the title of my work: "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined" dictates that I address the issues from both Biblical and scientific perspectives. The book is merely an introduction to my theories and an attempt to gain the broadest support base possible. The statement of my theories from a solely scientific perspective that will be appropriate as a science text supplement in public schools is now in the editing stage.

 

A small example shows - in scientific terms - how the current variety of races could have been descended from a single breeding pair of humans. I also apply the Use and Disuse Theory to humans as well to show the origin of differences in the physical features of the races.

 

Since it is directed at the masses it is written in the language of the masses without the use of the difficult scientific jargon that only scientists and scientifically minded people are capable of understanding. It is not an attack on evolution or Creation but a way for Creationists to tie in evolution with their faith and become more informed about what evolution theory really is.

 

Your thoughts?

[bascule]

A small example shows - in scientific terms - how the current variety of races could have been descended from a single breeding pair of humans.

 

This idea seems to clash tremendously with the idea of the biological evolution of humans through a (possibly divinely inspired) natural selection process. Are you directly challenging the notion that mankind be taxonomically classified as a descendant of the apes? Are we not Homo sapiens?

 

I would see no scientific evidence contradicting (or supporting) the notion that a deity could leverage a degree of control of natural events in order to shape the course of evolution, which is how I always understood "Intelligent Design" was being advocated. But I don't see how you can throw away such a major part of the scientific theory and still expect it to be taken seriously (excuse me if I'm misinterpreting your theory) I don't think you can begin to reconcile the scientific model with a Biblical one unless you're willing to accept that the creation story in Genesis is at least allegorical...

 

And that would seem a prudent thing to do, considering it's of unknown authorship and likely descended as an oral tradition for generations before being written down. Whatever divine influence there may have been would've been diluted through continuous retelling.

[Epicman]

Deities have no place in a scientifically supported theory since a Deity cannot be proven in scientific terms. Again I have renamed my theory to set it aside from what people currently think of ID. I support the vast majority of evolution theory and find Biblical support for it too. I maintain only that "a force" of some sort may have had a hand in creation but that is outside the actual statement of my theories as it is not scientifically based.

 

Ponder this:

 

If it were possible to bring the one side of this debate into a position of agreeing with 90% of evolution theory AND have them approaching from an informed position how far will we scientists have progressed?

 

This is my intent with "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined."

[bascule]

You conveniently glossed over my question:

 

Are you directly challenging the notion that mankind be taxonomically classified as a descendant of the apes? Are we not Homo sapiens?

 

If your answer is yes you will find your theory rejected by the overwhelming majority of the world's biologists.

 

My answer to your question is dependent upon your answer to mine.

[wild_wind]

I was under the impression that the use and disuse theory was not scientifically accepted for a number of reasons. Also, if I understand correctly, you do not make a statement in your theory about the existance of a creator or designer, or at least not from a scientific standpoint. So what exactly is your theory then?

[Epicman]

Use and disuse has been accepted and it is confirmed scientifically in my Theory of Human Evolution.

 

Homo Sapien meaning thinking or judicious man then yes I agree that we are such.

 

Mankind being taxonomically listed as a descendant of apes is something that my research has shown to be a theory that is no longer supported by the vast body of current scientific knowledge. I present a theory - scientifically supported - that provides an alternate origin of mankind that is the most reasonable and plausable explanation based upon the current body of scientific knowledge.

 

What is my theory then?

 

Firstly, content has no meaning without context which is all provided in "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined."

 

Secondly, my new concept of presenting scientific findings in layperson terminology with the background of formulation included to avoid mistranslation, misconception, and controversy would be compromised by simply tossing out my theories without the necessary context.

 

Thirdly, I am an author and while I wish I was in a position to provide what has taken many years to formulate freely that is not conducive to earning a living. You have your job and I know you expect to be paid for your work - I am no different.

 

I am not simply advertising a book - I only asked for your opinion on what results you may think such an approach may have.

[wild_wind]

I hesitantly retract my statement. I was not aware of epigenetic inheritance and such, though I still don't really know much about it.

[bascule]

Mankind being taxonomically listed as a descendant of apes is something that my research has shown to be a theory that is no longer supported by the vast body of current scientific knowledge.

 

Incorrect. Please see this thread for starters...

[swansont]

Use and disuse has been accepted and it is confirmed scientifically in my Theory of Human Evolution.

 

Homo Sapien meaning thinking or judicious man then yes I agree that we are such.

 

Mankind being taxonomically listed as a descendant of apes is something that my research has shown to be a theory that is no longer supported by the vast body of current scientific knowledge. I present a theory - scientifically supported - that provides an alternate origin of mankind that is the most reasonable and plausable explanation based upon the current body of scientific knowledge.

 

What is my theory then?

 

Firstly' date=' content has no meaning without context which is all provided in "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined."

 

Secondly, my new concept of presenting scientific findings in layperson terminology with the background of formulation included to avoid mistranslation, misconception, and controversy would be compromised by simply tossing out my theories without the necessary context.

 

Thirdly, I am an author and while I wish I was in a position to provide what has taken many years to formulate freely that is not conducive to earning a living. You have your job and I know you expect to be paid for your work - I am no different.

 

I am not simply advertising a book - I only asked for your opinion on what results you may think such an approach may have.[/quote']

 

 

You can't ask for a review of your work and try and sell it at the same time. Advertising will probably get you kicked out, and without context there can be no discussion.

 

Your move.

[Epicman]

Firstly I am not advertising my book - I never stated a price or where to order it.

 

Secondly I have not asked for a review of my work.

 

What I did do is ask for opinions about the approach I used in my book which I did provide along with enough context to accomplish that.