RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Waterloo In Dover, Kitzmiller et al. v. DASD< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4522
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,11:11   

This thread is for open commentary on the PT thread, "Waterloo In Dover".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,16:29   

Reposting mine from PT...

You know… I’ve been getting the feeling that this case is far from straightforward. I know who would win in a straight-out brawl between ID and evolution, but what I’m getting at is the simple choice of the textbook. If you look at it as “just a textbook,” then this really seems less about the establishment clause and suddently the case takes the political position that the IDers wanted.

Now, not having read Of Pandas and People, I may just be outright wrong. Is the book really THAT THAT THAT bad? I’m talking not just about being a terrible textbook (from what I’ve heard, I KNOW it’s junk); I’m saying it would have to actually dip its toe in religion. Does it do that?

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4522
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2005,04:23   

Let's have a look at oral testimony taken already in the KvD case:

Quote


21 Q Actually in this version of the book it describes
22 who creationists are, doesn't it, if you look at pages 22
23 and 23 and 24. It says there's different types of
24 creationist's literature. There are older creationists,
25 younger creationists, agnostic creationists, right?
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
BUELL - CROSS - ROTHSCHILD
98
1 A Yes. We were trying to give some articulation to
2 the breadth of what that term means.
3 Q And then if you could turn back to page 22, you
4 explain that "Creation is the theory that various forms of
5 life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already
6 intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and
7 wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands."
8 That's how you defined creation, correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q All right. And I would like to take -- you to take
11 a look at an excerpt from Pandas and People. Turn to page
12 99 in the excerpt I gave you.
13 A All right.
14 Q Says, "Intelligent design means that various forms
15 of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with
16 their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins
17 and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et
18 cetera."
19 Do you see that?
20 A I see it.
21 Q So that's pretty much the exact same sentence
22 substituting creation for intelligent design, isn't that
23 right?
24 A The reason that you find the similarity in the two
25 passages is because this obviously was at a time when we
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
BUELL - CROSS - ROTHSCHILD
99
1 were developing the manuscript. We had not chosen the term
2 "intelligent design" at that point. We were trying to --
3 this was just a place holder term until we came to grips
4 with which of the plausible two or three terms that are in
5 scientific literature we would settle on. And that was the
6 last thing we did before the book was revise -- I mean was
7 sent to the publisher.
8 Q It was creation, creation, creation until the end
9 and then it was intelligent design.

[pp.97-99]


Epperson v. Arkansas, McLean v. Arkansas, and Edwards v. Aguillard have said, unequivocally, that creationism is an establishment of religion. If you take the history of antievolution between Epperson and Edwards into account, you have the courts saying that re-labeling impermissible content does not make that content permissible, since that was what the ICR attempted in going from "creationism" to "scientific creationism" and "creation science". So, it seems to me that it would be inconsistent to allow a sham like OPAP93 to be called "permissible" when all it has done is cynically search and replace "creation" with "intelligent design" and dropped those few arguments that the antievolutionists thought were too legally problematic to keep.

The thing you have to keep in mind is the "two model" approach of evangelical Christianity in this respect, which holds that evidence against evolution IS evidence for creationism. ('There's only two possibilities, so if you know that evolution is false, then you must conclude that creation is true.') "Intelligent design" delivers the very same playlist of bad arguments against evolution as does "creationism", minus a few clinkers about global floods and measures of the age of the earth, and it doesn't have to say anything about creation being the only alternative to evolution; the creationists get that in church.

There's no secular purpose to teaching misrepresentations and falsehoods, so on that count OPAP93 doesn't move DASD forward, and OPAP93's creationist heritage should convince Judge Jones that what he is dealing with is a large-scale sham whose aim is establishment of religion.

You're welcome to disagree. What is going to matter, though, is the arguments and counter-arguments that come out in Harrisburg, PA over the next few weeks.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4522
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2005,13:30   

Some people aren't getting the message that the PT thread is only for posting pointers to KvD resources. I've deleted some messages already, but I'm going to copy the text of some messages currently up before deleting further.

Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Quote

   "Does the veracity of this statement have a bearing on the case? If so, does the court have an opportunity, or obligation, to determine if “intelligent design” is scientific; or is that a leap?"

If you read the briefs that the plaintiffs have filed, the very core of their argument is that ID is inherently religious and that the Board introduced it for purely sectarian purposes, and therefore should be thrown out.

The court will not be able to avoid the question of whether ID is religion or science. It is the very core of the case.



Posted by: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Quote

   "What I find ironic is that the Discovery Institute has for years, and continues to this day, to claim that “intelligent design” is scientific, and they’ve had decades to refine this argument, and the DI has more than enough lawyers on staff to work out the details of an argument that would hold up in court, yet when their big chance comes in Dover to settle the question of “intelligent design” once and for all, they back away like cockroaches under a 100-watt bulb."

DI dropped the “ID is an alernative scientific theory” approach after the legislators in Ohio asked them to please tell us alternative scientific theory they wanted to have taught — and the IDers were quite unable to come up with one.

Since then, DI has dropped the “ID is science” scam in favor of the “teach the controversy about evolution” scam (which itself lost crushingly in Cobb County).

That is why I keep asking Paul about the whole “intelligent design” name. There is no scientific theory of ID, there never has been, and DI was lying to us the entire time they claimed there was — only to forced to drop the whole idea when it came time for them to deliver.



Posted by: Bob Maurus

Quote

In #49429 Bill said,

“The statement read to Dover Area High School students contains the following sentence: Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.”

Does anyone know what Darwin’s view on the Origin of Life was?



Posted by: steve

Quote

Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker:

   "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."



Posted by: steve

Quote

I don’t think it’s accurate to say Dembski’s going to face his Waterloo. Napoleon actually accomplished things. What do you call an event where someone who’s an utter failure, utterly fails again?


Posted by: RBH

Quote

Steve asked

   "I don’t think it’s accurate to say Dembski’s going to face his Waterloo. Napoleon actually accomplished things. What do you call an event where someone who’s an utter failure, utterly fails again?"

Consistent.

RBH



--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4522
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2005,06:44   

More out-of-place comments from PT.
========================

Quote

Comment #49619

Posted by Flint on September 26, 2005 08:03 AM (e) (s)

The Washington Post editorial makes the following statement:

   They will make the case — plain to most scientists but poorly understood by many others — that these alternatives are not scientific theories at all.

   “What makes evolution a scientific explanation is that it makes testable predictions,” Lander said. “You only believe theories when they make non-obvious predictions that are confirmed by scientific evidence.”

Can our legal scholars clear up some confusion I have? My understanding is that the ONLY restriction about what can be taught in ANY class is that religion cannot be preached, or presented as truth. Certainly there can’t be any law against teaching error in science class, since we presume that all scientific theories are in some sense erroneous - incorrect or incomplete or both. And I didn’t think that making testable predictions was a legal requirement either. Only the effort to prevent some religious doctrine from being represented as fact by the state.

Now, perhaps they might be referring to teachers violating a state-recommended curriculum, but this seems more an administrative, disciplinary matter. I doubt one could make a case that varying from an approved curriculum per se is a Constitutional issue.

So this is NOT about whether ID is science at all. It’s about whether ID is religion.



Quote

Comment #49623

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on September 26, 2005 08:57 AM (e) (s)

The defense is going to argue that having their “intelligent design” policy fulfills a secular purpose, and they are basing that on their contention that “intelligent design” is a legitimate scientific endeavor. The plaintiffs have to convince the judge of two things: that there is no secular purpose in teaching creationism, whatever you call it at the moment, and that the purpose or effect of what the DASD has done is an establishment of religion. If the plaintiffs allow the defense to make their secular purpose claims and don’t provide a response, the judge could very well rule against the plaintiffs, even if they convince the judge that one or more prongs of the Lemon test are violated. Look at the defense’s brief supporting their motion for summary judgment at page 11, where they claim that there are many valid secular purposes for what they are doing.



Quote

Comment #49628

Posted by Ralph Jones on September 26, 2005 10:09 AM (e) (s)

Will the inaccuracy of the statement “Evolution is a theory, not a fact…” come up in the trial?



Quote

Comment #49641

Posted by anti-darwinist on September 26, 2005 11:17 AM (e) (s)

Intelligent design might lose the case out in Dover. However, it will win the overall war. As a former darwinist, I’m confident to say, at least to my knowledge, that darwinism will be rejected universally at least some time in the near future, if not later. Although I don’t advocate ID, I feel like Panspermia can be reconciled with it quite beautifully. In other words, I believe the designer(s) are aliens from outer space. They may not exist anymore, but the specified complexity surely begs the question.



Quote

Comment #49644

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on September 26, 2005 11:38 AM (e) (s)

“They may not exist anymore, but the specified complexity surely begs the question.”

That does it, for me. anti-darwinist is a parody.



Quote

Comment #49645

Posted by steve on September 26, 2005 11:39 AM (e) (s)

Specified Complexity certainly does beg the question.

Find out what beg the question means.



Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 29 2005,06:58

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4522
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2005,05:04   

All the expert witness reports are online at the NCSE KvD Resource page under this page.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2005,08:10   

Was this written specifically to describe the phlogiston brothers herein.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts....%20News

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4522
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,05:52   

Quote

Comment #49866

Posted by Uriel Wittenberg on September 27, 2005 03:33 PM (e) (s)

Dogmatic Scientists Fight Rational Christians discusses mainstream science’s surprisingly faith-based opposition to the Intelligent Design theory (as represented in New York Times accounts).



Quote

Comment #49869

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on September 27, 2005 04:04 PM (e) (s)

Uriel’s piece takes issue with the linking of “intelligent design” to creationism. This topic can be a bit difficult to grasp for those unfamiliar with the USA’s legal system and what it means for opposing antievolution in the courts. Simply put, that something is “bad science” isn’t legal grounds for a complaint (there may be some local exceptions to this), but “establishment of religion” is legal grounds for such action anywhere in the USA. The arguments of creationism, which are re-labeled as “intelligent design” or “evidence against evolution”, represent an intrusion of religion into the science class, and it is on that basis that the plaintiffs are proceeding. Dinging them for this reveals a lack of knowledge of what the legal background is in this case. Uriel also has a problem with argument that concerns the motives of the DASD in this case, saying that it is an “unsound argument against intelligent design”. Again, Uriel reveals ignorance of the way the law plays out here. One of the tests for establishment of religion in the USA is the “purpose prong” of the Lemon test. The motives of the DASD in adopting their “intelligent design policy” is not intended as an argument against “intelligent design” per se, but rather it is an argument that the defendants have violated the Constitution. The plaintiffs must do two things here: show that what the DASD has done is an establishment of religion (easy), and also show that “intelligent design” has no scientific merit, and thus its instruction cannot count as having a “secular purpose”. They must argue both of these in order to win the case. If they only take up the latter part, as Uriel argues they should, they would lose the case, guaranteed. It is rational for the plaintiffs to proceed as they have so far, commentary from people who don’t know what the score is notwithstanding.



Quote

Comment #49870

Posted by Flint on September 27, 2005 04:04 PM (e) (s)

Wittenberg seems to have at best an extremely limited understanding of the underlying issues here. He seems to think there is an “intelligent design theory” when there is not. He seems to think intelligent design has some testable *content* when it does not. He seems to think that there is a distinction between the motives of the defense (sheer religious fanaticism) and the substance of intelligent design (which consists of sheer religious fanaticism). The two can’t be distinguished. He seems to think there might actually be something scientific in ID, when there is not. He says they can “legitimately take the position that they have found scientific evidence in support of their religious faith” when in fact they have done no such thing and any such claim is not legitimate. He thinks ID is “‘based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic,’ as Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael J. Behe explains.” But it is not, in any way. Wittenberg doesn’t seem to understand the most important thing about creationists: everything they say is a lie. And until he understands this, he will frame the debate incorrectly and draw false conclusions.



Quote

Comment #49887

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 27, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)

DI is whining about Dover already:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACC…

An excerpt:

   “Most of Dr. Miller’s testimony today against intelligent design
   was
   simply based upon a misrepresentation of the scientific theory of
   intelligent
   design,” said scientist Casey Luskin, program officer for public
   policy and
   legal affairs with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science &
   Culture.

Wow, you mean Discovery Institute NOW has a scientific theory of intelligent design, after telling us for years that it DOESN’T ????? Can I see it, please?

Or, is Luskin just lying to us. Again.

   “Dr. Miller’s testimony is disturbing because it demands that the
   Court
   rule on the nature of science and the validity of scientific
   theories — matters which should be left to scientific experts and
   not be
   decided by courts,” added Luskin.

That’s pretty funny, since (1) it is the IDers who are currently trying to change the definition of ‘science’, in Kansas, (2) the “validity of the scientific theory of ID” has ALREADY been decided by “scientific experts” —- they think it’s full of crap, and (3) it is the ID/creationists, and ONLY the ID/creationists, who are attempting to pass laws forcing their religious opinions into public school classrooms and textbooks.



Quote

Comment #49888

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 27, 2005 06:05 PM (e) (s)

From the “Dogmatic Scientists” piece:

   But arguing about the defendants’ motives is also an unsound argument against Intelligent Design.

Au contraire, it is the very heart of the case. It’s illegal to teach religious opinions in public schools. Period. ID is nothing but religious opinions. As the board members themselves were kind enough to make very clear.

   Even if proponents of Intelligent Design are unmasked as creatonists and devout believers, they can legitimately take the position that they have found scientific evidence in support of their religious faith — and that they are only advocating that this scientific evidence be taught in science classrooms.

Alas for the nutters, that fight has already been fought, and they lost.

Twice.



Quote

Comment #49904

Posted by RBH on September 27, 2005 07:51 PM (e) (s)

From Lenny’s quotation: “scientist Casey Luskin”?? Luskin is now a scientist? When did he get his promotion? When he went to work for the DI? Talk about a diploma mill!

RBH



Quote

Comment #49905

Posted by RBH on September 27, 2005 07:53 PM (e) (s)

I just realized that’s a press release from the Discovery Institute. That makes it Luskin’s work, or very close to it. The DI is lying about Luskin’s qualifications in their damned press releases! That’s truly scummy.

RBH



Quote

Comment #49906

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 27, 2005 07:57 PM (e) (s)

More whining from DI:

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/86982/

Excerpt:

   Luskin said Miller inaccurately characterized intelligent design as a concept that focuses on what evolution doesn’t explain. Luskin said intelligent design stands on its own as an explanation of life and the origins of species.

Hey, everyone, lookie!!!!! Luskin says he has a scientific theory of ID, one that explains life and the origin of species!!!!!!

Can one of the DI luminaries here explain to us all, please, what this scientific theory of ID is, and how it explains life and the origin of species?

(sound of crickets chirping)

What, according to this scientific theory of ID, did the designer do, specifically?

What mechanisms did the designer use to do whatever the heck this scientific theory of ID postulates that it did?

Where can we see any of the mechanisms postulated by this scientific theory of ID in action doing … well … anything?

And how can we test any of this using the scientific method?

Hello? Paul? Sal? Bill? Davey?

Anyone?

Hello?

(sound of more crickets chirping)

Yep, that’s what I thought. DI is just lying to us. Again.



Quote

Comment #49908

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 27, 2005 08:07 PM (e) (s)

   News also:
   Over 400 Scientists Convinced by New Scientific Evidence That Darwinian Evolution is Deficient
   Is dated Oct 6 2005

They should have waited a little longer:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12755…

   To buttress its case, the Discovery Institute has collected about 400 signatures on a statement labeled “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” About 80 of the signers are biologists; the rest are mostly philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, computer scientists, historians and lawyers.

   The statement of dissent, however, doesn’t even mention intelligent design. Instead, it simply raises doubts about the present state of evolutionary theory. In its entirety, the statement reads:

   “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

   “That statement is one that most scientists can or should be able to sign,” said Martin Poenie, a cell biologist at the University of Texas in Austin, one of the signers.

   Some who signed the statement of dissent said that doesn’t mean they support intelligent design.

   One signer, Stanley Salthe, a zoologist at the State University of New York in Binghamton, replied “absolutely not” when he was asked if he agrees that there must have been a supernatural designer.

   David Berlinski, a mathematician and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and a sharp critic of neo-Darwinism, also signed the statement of dissent. But in an e-mail message, Berlinski declared, “I have never endorsed intelligent design.”




Quote

Comment #49911

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 27, 2005 08:42 PM (e) (s)

   David Berlinski, a mathematician and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and a sharp critic of neo-Darwinism, also signed the statement of dissent. But in an e-mail message, Berlinski declared, “I have never endorsed intelligent design.”

Has Berlinski ever said just what the #### he DOES endorse? Von Daniken’s space aliens?



Quote

Comment #49923

Posted by kudra on September 27, 2005 10:47 PM (e) (s)

Does anyone have a link to the full disclaimer that the school board proposed? The links that google found are all stale. I was trying to see how warped the paraphrasing in the WSJ was today.

   Suzanne Sataline in the WSJ wrote:

   The Dover school board requires that at the beginning of the 9th grade unit on evolution, teachers are supposed to read a statement to a biology class: “Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered…Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.”




Quote

Comment #49928

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on September 27, 2005 11:38 PM (e) (s)

Dover biology disclaimer.



Quote

Comment #49944

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on September 28, 2005 03:40 AM (e) (s)

   RBH wrote:

   From Lenny’s quotation: “scientist Casey Luskin”?? Luskin is now a scientist? When did he get his promotion? When he went to work for the DI? Talk about a diploma mill!

Casey Luskin wrote me to say that he has an MS degree in earth sciences from UCSD, and a published paper:

Lisa Tauxe, Casey Luskin, Peter Selkin, Phillip Gans, and Andy
Calvert, “Paleomagnetic results from the Snake River Plain: Contribution to
the time-averaged field global database,” Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems
(G3), 5(8) (August, 2004)

I’m baffled as to why he chose not to post this information here himself.



Quote

Comment #49945

Posted by John on September 28, 2005 04:09 AM (e) (s)

“Intelligent Design” and “Evolution” are compatible as follows:

“Intelligent Design” is what God did (invented a universe full of molecules)

“Evolution” is how God did it (gave molecules the rules needed for interacting to build the God’s children according to God’s design)

God invented evolution: Evolution is the beauty of God’s way!

To challenge evolution is to challenge GOD!

Cosmologists are still trying to figure out how the universe was created:

How the universe started (creationism? or whatever?) should be taught in a cosmology or philosophy or religion class and evolution should be taught in a biology class.



Quote

Comment #49949

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 28, 2005 07:20 AM (e) (s)

   Casey Luskin wrote me to say that he has an MS degree in earth sciences from UCSD, and a published paper:

Did he mention anything about this “scientific theory of ID” that he has, that “stands on its own”, doesn’t focus on “what evolution doesn’t explain” and explains “life and the origins of species”?

Why not?

Casey, I think you are flat-out lying to everyone about that.

Prove me wrong, right here in front of the whole world. Show me youtr scientific theory of ID. Tell me hoe it explains life and the origins of species. What is this theory of ID. What, according to it, did the designer do to produce life and species. What mechanisms did it use to do whatever it did. Where can we see it using these mechanisms today to do … well . . anything.

(sound of crickets chirping)

Yep, that’s what I thought.



Quote

Comment #49956

Posted by Gerard Harbison on September 28, 2005 09:29 AM (e) (s)

Lenny asked what Berlinski does endorse. The answer is that, since he’s a Gemini, he has difficulty making up his mind between alternatives. :-)



Quote

Comment #49958

Posted by Uriel Wittenberg on September 28, 2005 09:42 AM (e) (s)

   Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:

   The plaintiffs must do two things here: show that what the DASD has done is an establishment of religion (easy), and also show that “intelligent design” has no scientific merit, and thus its instruction cannot count as having a “secular purpose”. They must argue both of these in order to win the case. If they only take up the latter part, as Uriel argues they should, they would lose the case, guaranteed.

I had commented on the way in which the plaintiffs are “show[ing] that what the DASD has done is an establishment of religion.” The way they’re doing it is by arguing about the internal thinking of a group of people. As the Times reports:

   New York Times wrote:

   Mr. Rothschild said that the board’s own documents would show that the board members had initially discussed teaching “creationism” - one former member said he wanted the class time evenly split between creationism and evolution - and that they substituted the words “intelligent design” only when they were made aware by lawyers of the constitutional problems involved.

   [”Evolution Lawsuit Opens in Pennsylvania,” September 27.]

What if the plaintiffs had no such documents available? Would you argue that they couldn’t win the case? If so, then the next school board can prevail simply by being more careful about its minutes and its public comments.

It seems to me sufficient to show that I.D. is bad science. From there, it’s pretty easy to infer that the “intelligent designer” is God in disguise.

I’m generally dubious about attempts to prove motives, especially of a group of people.

   Flint wrote:

   Wittenberg … seems to think intelligent design has some testable *content* when it does not.

I wrote: “The argument for Intelligent Design is indeed ‘negative’ and untestable.”

Further:

   Flint wrote:

   Wittenberg doesn’t seem to understand the most important thing about creationists: everything they say is a lie. And until he understands this, he will frame the debate incorrectly and draw false conclusions.

If it’s lies then the way I’ve framed it seems quite appropriate: Argue on the scientific merits.

Let me stress again: the scientists are being strangely dogmatic and irrational. Not just in the courtroom but in the opinion pages of the New York Times, as I argued in an earlier piece, Issue Ratatouille:

   Uriel wrote:

   The irrationality of [National Academy of Sciences President Bruce] Alberts’s position would be self-evident if some unmistakable example of intelligent design were to present itself. Suppose the stars aligned themselves tomorrow to spell out the message, “Believe it!” — in English letters that everyone could see? If “science” rejected such irrefutable evidence of an intelligent designer’s handiwork, it would no longer have anything to do with the plain evidence of our senses.




Quote

Comment #49962

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on September 28, 2005 10:37 AM (e) (s)

   Uriel Wittenberg wrote:

   What if the plaintiffs had no such documents available? Would you argue that they couldn’t win the case?

I’d say it would be much more difficult to demonstrate a violation of the “purpose” prong of the Lemon test, which still leaves the “effect” and “entanglement” prongs to be argued.

   Uriel Wittenberg wrote:

   It seems to me sufficient to show that I.D. is bad science. From there, it’s pretty easy to infer that the “intelligent designer” is God in disguise.

This would then be an argument toward the “effect” prong. It would mean ignoring the evidence that is available in this case that does indicate the purpose of the DASD was to establish religion. What is it, I would ask, that would be considered rational about throwing away a perfectly valid legal argument in a case that one is pursuing?



Quote

Comment #49963

Posted by Flint on September 28, 2005 10:37 AM (e) (s)

Uriel Wittenberg:

   It seems to me sufficient to show that I.D. is bad science. From there, it’s pretty easy to infer that the “intelligent designer” is God in disguise.

This isn’t the way the law works, though. There is absolutely nothing illegal or unconstitutional about presenting bad science in science classes, from whatever motivation. Even if it can be established beyond the slightest doubt that the school board *thinks* they are inserting religion into science class, if there is any genuine scientific content, then their motivations alone are not sufficient. Conversely, if ID has no scientific content, it’s still perfectly allowable provided the school board *thinks* it’s genuine science and have no religious motivations; they simply don’t understand science.

And so the plaintiffs must legally establish BOTH: That there is NO secular value (by itself not sufficient) and that it’s being inserted for purely religious motivations (by itself not sufficient). Why is this so hard to understand?

Let me stress again: Bad (or content-free, or useless, or perversely wrongheaded) “science” is LEGAL, provided it’s not being promoted for religious reasons. Let me stress once again: EVEN IF it can be established that ID is religious doctrine pure and simple, it is STILL permissible in science class if it has any scientific content. (For example, should we NOT teach a heliocentric solar system simply because some religion’s doctrines make this claim?)

   Suppose the stars aligned themselves tomorrow to spell out the message, “Believe it!” — in English letters that everyone could see? If “science” rejected such irrefutable evidence of an intelligent designer’s handiwork, it would no longer have anything to do with the plain evidence of our senses.

Your understanding of science is as weak as your understanding of the law. If this event should happen, science would seek to discover the mechanism which caused it. If the mechanism can be determined by testing, then it’s science regardless of the event (and regardless of how strongly YOU believe it’s magic). What science rejects is what cannot in principle be tested. Science does NOT reject what CAN be tested in principle, no matter how extraordinary it strikes you. You are actually parroting Dembski here: you are saying “I can’t conceive of how this could have happened naturally, therefore it didn’t happen naturally, therefore we have ‘proof’ of the designer.” Sorry, it doesn’t work for you any better than it does for Dembski.



Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 29 2005,06:56

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4522
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,15:59   

Quote

Comment #49968

Posted by Ken Willis on September 28, 2005 10:59 AM (e) (s)

   Uriel Wittenberg wrote:

   It seems to me sufficient to show that I.D. is bad science. From there, it’s pretty easy to infer that the “intelligent designer” is God in disguise.

A Federal judge would likely decline to draw the inference. Especially since there in no Federal cause of action that I know of for suing to keep bad science out of the classroom.

I doubt very many scientists would want that sort of decision to be made by a non-scientist lawyer in a black robe.



Quote

Comment #49970

Posted by Ken Willis on September 28, 2005 11:05 AM (e) (s)

   Ken Willis wrote:

   I doubt very many scientists would want that sort of decision to be made by a non-scientist lawyer in a black robe.

I could have said that better. Try this:

I doubt very many scientists would want a precedent to be set for having a non-scientist lawyer in a black robe deciding between good and bad science.



Quote

Comment #49971

Posted by bill on September 28, 2005 11:17 AM (e) (s)

Here you go, Lenny. Luskin explains “intelligent design” in this DI press release:

Monsters from the ID



Quote

Comment #49994

Posted by Richard Sharpe on September 28, 2005 01:22 PM (e) (s)

I recently came across the Meyer paper on Intelligent design
Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.

My first comments on it were on the GNXP Forum:


Well, the article starts well, and spends quite a bit of time telling
us how few functional proteins are coded for by long random sequences
of DNA, and concludes that there simply was not enough time during the
crutial time in the Cambrian when a large number of body plans
evolved, so:

>What natural selection lacks, intelligent selection—purposive or
>goal-directed design—provides. Rational agents can arrange both
>matter and symbols with distant goals in mind.

So, he suggests an intelligent designer, let’s call it G.O.D (Grand
Old Designer), who short-circuited all that time needed to explore
DNA-space for the small number of functional proteins and system
designs that would have worked.

Of course, there are several problems here:

1. He has introduced an even more improbable event (the spontaneous
generation of G.O.D to help out).

2. We are back to the “God of the gaps.” He has no sense of history.
Let’s see. Back when Lord Kelvin came up with an age for the solar
system of around 100M years because Science was not aware of
radioactivity or fusion. I guess back then, Evolution was clearly
wrong because there just wasn’t time for all those complex organs like
eyes, brains, livers, kidneys, and so on to evolve.

I can see now that there is a much better refutation up here from last year.

Why wont the IDers just admit that they are really rooting for the Grand Old Designer?



Quote

Comment #50002

Posted by sjs on September 28, 2005 03:01 PM (e) (s)

————————————————————————————————————————
You folks certainly take yourselves seriously. I must say that I have really enjoyed the intelligent volleys back and forth… quite entertaining and intellectually stimulating.

You will probably argue that I am off point here. But… I believe that our classrooms must not ignore those things that are at the root of all science and religion.

I must tell you at the outset that I don’t know what the proposed texts on Intelligent Design postulate, or promulgate.

You guys are bright I can sense it… my doctorate is in healthcare and my under grad was in biology with a minor in physics, but there is so much that I still just don’t understand. Can you help me with a few thoughts and questions?

I am going to propose the idea (and you may disagree) that the ultimate goal of science is to understand the world in which we live, and from that platform leap towards some tiny understanding of the vast cosmos in which we exist. Of course we are instantly confounded when we begin to think in terms of infinity, unless of course you attempt to wrap your mind around the concept of the space-time continuum. (Is that real science or science fiction or is that spiritual?)
Do we as human beings really have the capacity to understand our actual origins and what was here before there was not “Something”… was there nothing? (can there really ever be nothing?) Or did the nothing come first? So where did whatever it is or is not come from? And just what is this space that we are floating around in? When did evolution begin anyway?

These are scientific questions… or are they spiritual? Who really knows? The point is that infinity is the point where science seems to meet the spiritual.
Religion has tried to explain those things which are not explained by science but often is subverted by men who try to turn religion into science. They expand it to suit their own needs or lack of understanding… Religion then becomes so complex that it goes beyond the divinely inspired and of course it cannot evolve due to the egos of those who have invested themselves in it. (The evolution of a religion would seem to be a regression towards one ultimate and infinitely simple idea. Pretty elegant huh?) Science however was created by man and it does evolve and may one day evolve to a level that explains the ultimate questions, but of course then it risks becoming a religion.

My question is: What are you all arguing about? Why are you all so anal and petty? Can you see that to miss the larger reality and to get lost in the minutia is to miss the entire point. There must be a place in every classroom to discuss the divine… those things that science may never explain but that are the defining particles of all that we are and all that is.

Since “it” is beyond science, defies mathematical calculation, is indescribable in any language, and predates known history. “It” must be discussed in all of these forums as the outer boundary of all that we can ever teach or think.



Quote

Comment #50009

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on September 28, 2005 03:30 PM (e) (s)

   Why wont the IDers just admit that they are really rooting for the Grand Old Designer?

Because of Edwards v. Aguillard. It is already illegal to teach “creation science” in a public school.



Quote

Comment #50012

Posted by spencer on September 28, 2005 03:53 PM (e) (s)

sjs -

Before the mod deletes this comment as being off-topic, I wanted to tell you this one thing:

To my knowledge, nobody here has said that science has all the answers to LIfe, The Universe and Everything. However, it’s pretty #### obvious that ID is not science, and has no place in a science classroom, and certainly has no business being held up as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory.

To treat ID as if it were science is to do a grave disservice to the schoolchildren who are forced to learn it. That’s why we’re being so “anal and petty” about this.



Quote

Comment #50020

Posted by Tim Broderick on September 28, 2005 05:02 PM (e) (s)

That “big tent theory” mentioned today (9/28) in the trial may refer back to this from a 2001 National Post article:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3Ce7qDHkrXc…

“That this theory could be immensely appealing to many people, there can be no doubt. Which is why, given the Bush presidency, and the fact that members of the Bush team were, last spring, extensively briefed on intelligent design, the battle has been joined in the popular press. Make no mistake, despite that East coast sheep’s clothing, Bush is a big middle, red-state robust Methodist with evangelical leanings, who knows that any group with authority to tell a culture’s creation story functions as a kind of priesthood. Intelligent design, because it travels light, is a big tent theory, which has begun to collect around itself such disparate groups as young earth creationists, Hare Krishna, Muslims and Jewish intellectual editors who write for Commentary.

Just how big tent, is not hidden by Dr. Meyer and his colleagues at the Discovery Institute. Intelligent design is nestled in that branch of the Discovery Institute called the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, which claims that the materialism of the last 100 years has denied objective moral standards, claiming that right and wrong evolved to suit societal needs and personal preferences, that materialism undermined belief in personal responsibility, devised utopian political schemes, and advocated coercive government programs that promised heaven on earth, but produced oppression and genocide.”

So they’re going to try and show ID is a big tent theory that everyone can compromise around?



Quote

Comment #50029

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 28, 2005 05:50 PM (e) (s)

   Here you go, Lenny. Luskin explains “intelligent design” in this DI press release:

   Monsters from the ID

Well. OI’ve read it throughs everal times, and, alas, still have no answers to the simple questions: (1) what is the scientific theory of ID, (2) what, according to this scientific theory of ID, did the designer do, specifically, (3) what mechanisms does this scientific theory of ID propose the designer used to do whatever the heck they think it did, and (4) where can we see the designer using any of these mechanisms to do … well . . anything.

I wonder why Luskin (or any of the IDers here on this blog) won’t just answer those simple quesitons for me. After all, ID is an alternative scientific explanation for life and new species, right? One that is science and not religion, right? One that is not based totally and completely on supposed “gaps in evolution”, right?

So please please please, pretty please with sugar on it, won’t some IDer out there tell me what this “alternatvie scientific theory” is?

(sound of crickets chirping)

Yep, that’s what I thought.



Quote

Comment #50030

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 28, 2005 05:51 PM (e) (s)

   “It” must be discussed in all of these forums as the outer boundary of all that we can ever teach or think.

Can you propose any way to use the scientific method to investigate “it”?

No?

Then it ain’t science, and doesn’t belong in a sciecne classroom or textbook.

See how easy that was?



Quote

Comment #50031

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 28, 2005 05:53 PM (e) (s)

   It seems to me sufficient to show that I.D. is bad science.

Won’t help. It’s not illegal to teach bad science, or even WRONG science.

It *is*, however, illegal to teach religious opinions by pretending they *are* science.

And that’s all ID is.



Quote

Comment #50039

Posted by RBH on September 28, 2005 06:47 PM (e) (s)

Tim Broderick wrote

   That “big tent theory” mentioned today (9/28) in the trial may refer back to this from a 2001 National Post article:

The “big tent” approach specifically applied to ID Creationism was articulated by Philip Johnson. See this review by Nancy Pearcey, a Discovery Institute hanger-on.

RBH



Quote

Comment #50041

Posted by Uriel Wittenberg on September 28, 2005 06:58 PM (e) (s)

Incredible. Some anti-intellectual fool deleted my 2 comments (while leaving references to them by others).



Quote

Comment #50044

Posted by roger Tang on September 28, 2005 07:42 PM (e) (s)

Did I hear it right? A parent objecting to the school board’s decision to teach ID wrote a letter detailing what she heard. When the parent read the letter to the court, the defense objected….saying it was hearsay evidence.

“Honor, I object! It’s hearsay evidence!”
“What?”
“Hearsay evidence, I say! She’s only reporting what she heard my clients said!”



Quote

Comment #50046

Posted by Michael Hopkins on September 28, 2005 08:14 PM (e) (s)

Reporters avoid contempt charges



Quote

Comment #50048

Posted by Brad Hoot on September 28, 2005 08:20 PM (e) (s)

Showing that teaching Intelligent Design in science classes violates the First Amendment of the Constitution is certainly the primary approach to winning the Kitzmiller v Dover battle. However wouldn’t it also be good to compare the inadvisability of allowing supernatural explanations in science with the inadvisability of allowing supernatural explanations in a courtroom. What judge or jury would ever entertain an argument that says, “The evidence was tampered with by the devil!” Or “The witness did not see my client at the crime scene. It was a demon who took my client’s shape.” I guess the same thing goes for car repair. How would you like your mechanic to charge you $300 to fix a transmission problem and then tell you “I did all I could but a witch has put a curse on your car.” I think you can see the danger here. We must do all we can to exclude supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.



Quote

Comment #50051

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on September 28, 2005 08:44 PM (e) (s)

   Uriel Wittenberg
   Incredible. Some anti-intellectual fool deleted my 2 comments (while leaving references to them by others).

Of course, fools who cannot, or can’t be bothered to read the second comment on this thread, won’t realize that comments that Wesley finds are not related to Kitzmiller resources (like the one quoted above, and this one) will be progressively moved - not deleted - to a specific thread on the Antievolution board.

These fools, however, may still be able to find their comments, intact, here, as soon as they are finished complaining about non-existent censorship.



Quote

Comment #50052

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on September 28, 2005 08:49 PM (e) (s)

I meant this Antievolution thread.


Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 29 2005,06:55

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4522
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,01:53   

Quote

Comment #50078

Posted by shafiq on September 29, 2005 06:26 AM (e) (s)

Understanding intelligent design - basic facts!
1) Something called the perception - space - time tunnel!

1a) Perception Window: we have to understand it as the limits of human perceptions, like vision, hearing etc. Just to think that our visual range is limited to the wavelengths between red light to violet is not enough, but we also have to think that infrared and ultraviolet energies are capable of destroying the physical constitution of a human being, starting from our genome!
just like this, the energies of sound, pressure, temperature all provide us a definite range, only within which we can exist and beyond which, we disintegrate! I would request you to consider this range of perception, within which we can exist, as the two vertical frames of a window, through which we are looking at the world around us! And also compare the nano-status of this range to the mega-status of the energies which are outside our perception window! Eg the wavelength of visible light ranges around 450 to 750 nanometers ( 1 nanometer is 1/1000th of a millimeter )

And coming to space, I would like you to observe the world, imagining yourself self as big as the galactic cluster, which contains our milky way, besides billions of other galaxies, (this is the farthermost picture of the universe, that our most advanced telescopes have shown us! ), Just for one reason! because sitting there YOU can see the powerful Giga atoms called galaxies which have their own rotation and revolution cycles; galaxies which are made up of powerful mega-protons which burn up hydrogen and other fuels, which we had been calling stars!!
From there YOU can see that ‘ those mega-electrons ‘ which revolve around those ‘ mega protons ‘ are what we refer to as planets!And these mega-protons and mega-electrons are made up of micro-protons and micro-electrons which we have studied in detail. And these are constituted of Quarks and Gluons.
Our living space lies in the middle of these 4 layers of molecular array that we have discovered so far, and our living space is limited to a few kilometers on, above and below a Mega-electron, that we had been calling Earth!The limits of this living space, I would like you to consider as the horizontal frames of the window through which we are looking at the world! At the same time we have to remember the molecular array above the upper frame of the window and that below the lower frame, so that we can compare, so that we don’t forget the narrowness of our 1b) space window!

1c) Time! Through the above mentioned window, the so-called perception-space window, we are traveling through time since our birth! But what is time? Our time exists just because the earth is revolving and going around the sun. That gives us 24 hours and 365days. The time is different when we go out from this solar system. When I am as big as the milky way, my one year is earth’s 2,25,000 years!! Now you know the minute fraction of the time that we are allotted! More importantly, that time, as we know it, only exists on this mega-electron, just because it is going around that mega-proton in that particular speed and orbit! And most importantly, the limits of the Perception-Space-Time tunnel,that is our own, as an individual,as a human-being is very meager!
If I was living on an electron in a sodium atom, will the sky look the same ?
forget it! What’s important is the fact that How these facts are relevant to the Human race?!
Let’s come to that.When we are traveling through the perception-space-time (PST) tunnel from our birth, we spend about 30 years learning how to live and accommodate us in this tunnel, along with 500millions of co-exist ant tunnels of the people who are living around us ! This learning process is taking place in a complex biological structure called ‘ the Brain’.Whatever we are learning from the PST tunnel and by interacting with other PST tunnels, is stored in a Nero-chemical structural form in the memory area of the cerebrum of the brain.

whatever we have learned, whether it is Hinduism or Christianity or Islam or Humanity, It is stored in there like a program, a soft-ware that guides us through the different situations that we come across. This program and the rules laid down by it determines how we should behave at home, or with the community or the society. May be we have manipulated this basic program a little so as it is convenient for us !True! But how is this relevant?
It becomes relevant when this program becomes corrupt! With MENTAL VIRUSES! Those DEADLY UNSEEN VIRUSES WHICH make a humane being psychotic enough to KILL other HUMAN BEINGS !!



Quote

Comment #50079

Posted by shafiq on September 29, 2005 06:30 AM (e) (s)

Mental Viruses:Infect us like the MAD-DOG virus, to sit in our head and command us to “GO! BITE, BECAUSE “I” WANT TO SPREAD!!”
The earliest one was the St.Jude virus which still roams as e-mails which tempt us to send the mail to 20 friends. If we get infected, we send it. If we are immune, we just press delete.
They are called mental viruses because they infect our mind and spread the way viruses do!There are so many forms.
Eg.1Soldiers made psychotic to kill other human beings : No normal sane human being can kill another except when he is in a rage of revenge or intoxicated or mad! So how do soldiers kill? duty? No, its the head of state programming them to do so to protect their nation!! And this is the duty that is stored in the form of neuronal and neuro-chemical frame work in their brain. The same leads them throughout their line of duty and they are made to forget that what they are killing and raping is innocent human beings! No, everything is not fair in war! Because the same everything has an equal and opposite reaction!
Eg.2Terrorists/suicide bombers made psychotic enough to kill other human beings: Somebody programs them to kill to maintain the status and integrity of the ideology/race/religion/politics etc. When we see even highly educated professionals going in as volunteers for madness, we have to recognize the existence of an unseen-virus! It is beyond our perception ranges, but the effects of its infectivity only is within our sight!Eg.3Money psychosis, power psychosis: does it need any explanation?!!

Now let’s check how the virus in the above examples spreads!
Think yourself as a human who has been manipulated by a close friend to kill one of your fellow beings in the name of religion! Ok you go ahead and did it.
There is no law to catch you and you can roam free after the incident.
But the close circle of human beings in the community that was interacting with the victim has got the virus. They are waiting for the next chance, and you are out of this world! Does it end? No, you have your own close beings who are going to ask for this!!!
Thus he is spreading from victims to victims !!
For man against man
For nation against nation,
For war against war,
This terror against terror;
For wealth against wealth,
for faith against faith,
for hate against hate
He’s making us fight!!!

Can awareness compete this worst viral infective episode that the human race is going through?!!

Is this Evolution of human race in the right direction !!!



Quote

Comment #50082

Posted by shafiq on September 29, 2005 06:33 AM (e) (s)

Evolution: Science has clearly traced evolution, within the PST tunnel!
When we discuss evolution, we have to keep in mind the restrictions and limitations of our perception - space - time tunnel. We have to look at it from beyond the limits set by this tunnel.
Since the largest observed structure of the universe is the Galactic Cluster, which contains our milky way which in turn contains our solar system, imagine yourself as big as the galactic cluster. From there you focus on the minute electron called Earth.
Out of the available elements on earth, you have to create something called a ‘human being’. Easy task uh?! You don’t have hands small enough to sculpt it, you don’t have physical tools small enough to shape it….. Hmmm..Seems tough.!!
But don’t forget. When you are as big as a galactic cluster, what do you consist of? Not the micro-atoms but the powerful Giga-atoms called galaxies which consist of the mega-atoms that we call stars and planets which consist of…….!! What I mean to say is that you have an innate power that your powerful molecular structure imparts to you!!
If the present human being that you are, consists of sodium and potassium and a multitude of atoms and the proteins and other compounds derived from them, and still you have so much intelligence, talents, power and the will to do so many things, What would your capacity and power be, if you consist of the multitude of galaxies which are formed by the powerful nuclei called stars!!!If you can imagine that, then we can start creation!!!
Since you cannot go on earth yourself and do it , because of your size, you have to create a ‘program’ ! Task:You have to arrange these 118 available elements so that they sustain themselves and propagate!
Nowadays it is easy to understand these programs since that’s how you do it on computers!! Olden times, it was really tough!!
Okay! There lies the first genome, the first biological chip!! prion or RNA virus whatever, its good for a beginning!
How did you create this program??
Because you have control over all the energies that you consist of! That’s innate to you. A little welding there with a UV ray, some IR, some gamma and X-rays, everything is available within you and is under your control!
And the genomes you make, eat up the earthly elements and project the coded programs as the physical organs which function according to the installed drivers!!The rest is all there in the books so far written.
IF our 600 million (60 crores) years is your one day, you can mutate these genomes to form retina and optic nerve and the visual cortex to perceive it and then say ‘Let there be Light’ , within your “one day” !
You can cover up this mega-electron with an ozone layer so that we are not burnt up or harmfully mutated to cripples by the “radiations”!!
If during these mutatory evolutions and during your childhood, the toy-like creatures that you created, whom we now call dinosaurs, were not evolving intelligently, but were rather becoming a carnivorous lot which cared only about fighting and killing each other, then you can force one of your mini-electrons on them so that they become extinct and are buried underground as fossils so that we can learn a lesson!
And if on your sixth day(3.6 billion = 3600million = 400crores of earth years ), you have succeeded in mutating the first genome, to another genome, with may be a 20-30amino acid sequence difference, but which projected the earthly elements to something that we now call a primitive human-being, then you deserve to be congratulated, admired and worshiped, and you deserve to take rest on the seventh day!
Because now we know that we are living inside your molecular array, what ever we see and perceive around us, is your energy, filtered through our PST tunnel….
And still more………….

Now we have technologically evolved so much so that we can scientifically prove that You exist!!!
I know, the story I have told you so far, you might have heard the mythical version of it many times.. I too have!
But the story that is yet to come, is OF the medical intensivists and the cryonic life extension forums !
It is about a judiciary which will verdict the maximum punishment of “ Non-anoxic medical brain death and complete resuscitation back to life” instead of ‘hanging till death’ , gas chambers, electrical chairs and cutting the head off !

Its about a group of people tracing the aura of a human being which is formed by the multitude of electrical activity taking place in the neurons in the human brain, It is about tracing out what happens to this electromagnetic field, after death!!



Quote

Comment #50083

Posted by Grey Wolf on September 29, 2005 06:36 AM (e) (s)

I got so far as to read that ultraviolet light can destroy us, and the explanation of what a nanometre is. This blatant stupidity is completely out of place, and I recommend the posts to be deleted (this one too, of course) or at least moved somewhere else.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf


Quote

Comment #50086

Posted by shafiq on September 29, 2005 07:06 AM (e) (s)

take your time, it’s the truth!
http://sqsme.blogspot.com


Quote

Comment #50108

Posted by shafiq on September 29, 2005 12:01 PM (e) (s)

Understanding intelligent design - basic facts!

Inviting you into this different image of space, I would like you to observe the world, imagining yourself self, as big as the galactic cluster (this is the farthermost picture of the universe, that our most advanced telescopes have shown us! ) , which contains our milky way, besides billions of other galaxies, Just for one reason! because sitting there YOU can see the powerful Giga atoms called galaxies which have their own rotation and revolution cycles; galaxies which are made up of powerful mega-protons which burn up hydrogen and other fuels, which we had been calling stars!!
From there YOU can see that ‘ those mega-electrons ‘ which revolve around those ‘ mega protons ‘ are what we refer to as planets! And these mega-protons and mega-electrons are made up of micro-protons and micro-electrons which we have studied in detail. And these are constituted of Quarks and Gluons.
Our living space lies in the middle of these 4 layers of molecular array that we have discovered so far, and our living space is limited to a few kilometers on, above and below a Mega-electron, that we had been calling Earth!The limits of this living space, I would like you to consider as the horizontal frames of the window through which we are looking at the world! At the same time we have to remember the molecular array above the upper frame of the window and that below the lower frame, so that we can compare, so that we don’t forget the narrowness of our space window!
Everything is there around us. May be we have to look into it to see to believe!
Please comment on the ideas at http://sqsme.blogspot.com



Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 29 2005,12:10

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Bob O'H



Posts: 1994
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2005,02:16   

Having nothing better to do, I've just been reading the opening statements.  During his statement for the defendents, Gillen says this:

Quote

He will also testify that efforts to disqualify IDT from science based upon causation ortestability or other so-called demarcation criteria, including so-called methodological naturalism, are inherently flawed. Dr. Fuller will explain that intelligent design theory is not creationism. It is not inherently religious. He will also explain, for that matter, that any number of phenomena we now understand, whether it's gravity or the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics, were once thought to be supernatural.
(p25, l24 - p36, l9)


Why is the defence (sorry, defense) calling a witness who will argue that "God of the Gaps" doesn't work?

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2005,03:41   

Beautiful and Devastating to the Evos


I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own discipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety.

Watch what happens when this is admitted,

Evopeach

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2005,08:21   

Discovery Institute News
1511 3rd Ave Suite 808 - Seattle, WA 98101 - (206) 292-0401 x107  


85 Scientists Join Together in Urging Court to Protect Academic Freedom and Not Limit Research into Intelligent Design Theory  

By: Staff
Discovery Institute
October 4, 2005  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harrisburg, PA – Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Not all the signers are proponents of intelligent design, but they do agree “that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.”

The signers of the brief, identified as “Amici curiae” include such notable scientists as Dr. Philip Skell of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Lyle H. Jensen a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Dr. Russell W. Carlson Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Executive Technical Director, Complex Carbohydrate Research Center at the University of Georgia

Prediction:  These people will be attacked personally in every venue imaginable by the evolutionist pitbulls for the next 20 years as pseudo-cientists, crackpots, fundies, etc.  Intellectual honesty, ethical, moral and logical thought when expressed by an evo scientist is grounds for the death penalty... no grants, no tenure and no publications and probably no job.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2005,09:04   

peach: It was admitted IN THE BRIEF that ID makes no predictions and has no scientific validity. See here.

As for the Scopes quote... I don't get it. Please enlighten me. Spell it out in detail.

    
Zotster



Posts: 1
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,04:17   

Evopeach = troll. The one defining characteristic of fanatics everywhere is their ability to completely ignore all input that doesn't fit whatever belief system their brains have ossified into.

AFAIK, the creationist/IDers strongest pretense at a science-based refutation of evolution is to point to the eye. How could a structure as complex as the eye have evolved, when removing or changing even one component renders it useless?

What I always wonder is why I never see anyone counter with the example of HDTV or a similarly complex yet familiar device. Here you have a complex system that no longer functions if you remove any one of a multitude of components. By the C/IDers’ arguments, this points toward a divine creator for this device. Yet HDTV has a very clearly defined and logically organized ancestry of hundreds of predecessor devices. These devices diverge more and more, becoming simpler and simpler, as you trace back along HDTV’s evolutionary tree, yet every single one of these devices was not only fully functional but considered top-of-the-line for its time.

So there’s a clear and familiar example of how a very complex system can develop from much simpler origins yet be fully functional along each step of its (human-directed) evolution.

To be consistent, evopeach must now proclaim that HDTV was created, fully formed, by a divine being. How could it be otherwise? I hope God got a patent on that device, as I hear it might be the Next Big Thing (and God could use the royalties, as most of the cash the evangelical charlatans scam out of their sheep nowadays goes into the charlatans' pockets).

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,05:01   

Zotster = Moron

Please tell me how the design by a team of intelligent engineers and scientists acting from outside of all the matter involved which of itself could never make anything resembling a TV set of any kind, hybridizing their conscious, planned, directed and organized thoughts, talents and experiences with the aid  of a host of tools and devices similarly produced by others bears any remote resemblance to the unplanned, uncaring, undesigned, random process of "random mutation" and natural selection.

Why is it that dunderheads like you can't see that the idea of a designer acting exactly like the above TV designers is entirely consistent with human experience, the only way things are designed and manufactured and never by the evolutionary method which is completely at odds with our own observations and practice is precisely what ID predicts ... as in Man thinks God's thoughts after Him being designed in His image.

How so called intelligent people can propose explanations that are totally at odds with observation, practice, common sense and even their own methods in doing science is purely illogical and irrational.

If concepts and devices and methods  were developed by evolutionary processes fire wouldn't even have been harnessed for cooking and such.

Your head is so far up your ---- you are starving for air.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,08:06   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 06 2005,08:48)
Many many of the major advances in science preceded Darwin and were accomplished when ID  and Creationism were teh majority view.

ID deals with original design not the assertion that the designer is still directly involved. The idea is that microevolution and designed in adaptive capacity is sufficient to explain variation and darwinism is not.

Thus more and better science will result from using an information and systems viewpoint than from assuming random ,chaotic processes and such.

Quote
Many many of the major advances in science preceded Darwin and were accomplished when ID  and Creationism were teh majority view.


I fail to see why you think this is relevant.  Many, many more major advances in science occured AFTER Darwin had taken over Creationism as the majority view.  In fact, I'd say the rate of new scientific breakthroughs have accelerated after Darwin's paradigm shift.

Quote
ID deals with original design not the assertion that the designer is still directly involved. The idea is that microevolution and designed in adaptive capacity is sufficient to explain variation and darwinism is not.


Perhaps you can describe how these things can be faslified and/or tested.  The problem here is that there is nothing an omnipotent designer cannnot do.  In fact, he could make things appear as though they took billions of years of slight variations to form (which seems to be the case).  Or, he could've even made the entire universe just as it is one second ago, and planted memories in everyone's brains.  Is there a way to test/falsify that idea?  The answer is "no" and because of this, it is not science.  The same goes for seeing evidence of a designer.  Anything could be a result of his actions, and hence anything he does is unfalsifiable and untestable.  And as a result, cannot be science.  Science can only deal with theories that have the potential to be falsified.

Quote
Thus more and better science will result from using an information and systems viewpoint than from assuming random ,chaotic processes and such.


What is "an informations and systems" viewpoint?  And how would it differ from the viewpoint you think scientists are using now?  Do you believe that random, chaotic processes don't occur, or just that they aren't valid?  Please go into detail how "more and better" science will occur using your viewpoint.  Do you think scientists are at a standstill now?  What else should/could they be doing?

I would like to re-issue the challenge for you to produce a paper on Intelligent Design that explains how it can be falsified and tested.  I will then read and pick apart what exactly the content of the paper is.  Because that is what scientists do.

-Dan

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,03:17   

Dan,

If you were to go to DI and read their books and papers I believe they have laid out falsifiable statements in their tenets.

Anyway I gave you one which you chose to attack and bluster about not being evolution and all that illogical crap about orgins not being part of evolution. blah blah blah.

Wonder why the old and revered post evo forum was named by its proponents ORIGINS and talk.origins Hmmmmmmmm????

If you can't read the literature or follow crystal clear examples.. Writing in two syllable word won't help. Systems, IT and such are making enormous contributions since the genome project first started and biologists sure as he-- didn't start that path.. they went out and found the talent when iot became apparent they were dealing with a real coding, decoding and highly integrated system in the cellular  operations.

  
  43 replies since Sep. 23 2005,11:11 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]