Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

[TedHOhio]

Dog wrote:

For those who don't know, the basis of the intelligent design argument is that there are biological features/characteristics whose development seemingly cannot be explained through small, incremental evolutionary steps.
It goes like this: Your house can 'evolve' by being added onto or being redecorated. But if it were to evolve into a hospital, it would take such drastic rework that it would cease to be livable during that time. For a biological creature, that evolutionary step is problematic, since it means that it should not happen naturally. This viewpoint and realm of study is perfectly valid as it addresses a system complexity/entropy issue. It is likely that studying these problematic spots will lead to a better understanding of the mechanics and driving forces behind biological adaptation & diversity.
The fact that the driving force is attributed to God is just an easy excuse to ignore the idea.

What you are describing is an idea called Irreducible complexity, postulated by Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box. Each and every example he has put forth as irreducibly complex has been debunked by evolutionary science -- ALL of them.

Behe was restating an argument by William Paley, the watchmaker argument, so while he was applying it to biochemical mechanisms like blood clotting factor and bacterial flagellum, it's not a new argument. Even Behe admitted that in order for his idea to be accepted as science, you would have to change the definition of science to include supernatural causes -- which would make Astrology, Alchemy, and Numerology also scientific disciplines.

Even Darwin agreed that if a mechanism could be found that could not have evolved through smaller, incremental steps, then his theory would be null and void. He thought the eye would be such a mechanism. However science doesn't stand still and the evolution of the eye, and bacterial flagellum, and blood clotting is much better understood today. So far NO ONE has identified an biological mechanism that is irreducibly complex.

Behe, in a letter called "A Response to my Critics" recognized that even if his idea were true, it would not be an argument against evolution (specifically natural selection). He also supports common ancestry. Behe sees complexity and assumes design, but so far hasn't done the scientific legwork to support his assumption.

What Behe is using is called "The God of the Gaps" argument. In which you take an area of sicnece where something isn't fully known and claim that the reason science doesn't know is because God did it. The problem with this argument is just because science doesn't know it today, they may know it tomorrow (Darwin's eye example). And once science knows it, you have to find a new 'gap' to make your argument. So far the "God of the Gaps" argument has been nothing more than a temporary argument.

"If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings!" "God did not design man to move more than 30 miles per hour (the speed of a running horse)" These are also God of the Gap arguments. The Wright Brothers and others didn't pay much attention to them and filled more gaps. We fly today and just this morning I drove to work at over 50 MPH.

Most scientists aren't afraid of God, in fact many are believers in God. Some have stated that the more they learn, the stronger they believe! They are unraveling mysteries that you want to keep hidden because you think they threaten God and your belief system. Get educated and start here:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_...
A letter signed by over 11,000 Christian Clergy here in the US that supports the Theory of Evolution and the teaching of that theory to your young!

[Bud]

You people act like our legal system isn't based on stare decisis.

Well it is. The Constitution has to be interpreted in the context of the current times to have any relevance or worth. Strict Constructionism is a failed legal philosophy.

Example: you won't find the word "privacy" in the Constitution either. Would anyone argue that we have no right of privacy? Did Katz v. United States establish such a right, or just illustrate the one already there, lurking in the "penumbra of rights" guaranteed by the Constitution?

The religious right's literalist interpretation of the Constitution illogical and hypocrtical: do they apply the same standards to other issues as well? How about the Second Amendment? How about the Free Exercise clause?

Hypocrticial dullards...

[Blogman]

Louis wrote:

Intelligent design does not advocate the necessity of religion, most, if notall religions are "man made" to create tyrants who use God as the excuse for their trepidational purposes. All it does is to verify certain facts, that there are "laws" that are beyond the power of human beings to contradict, and every one of these "laws" fits logically into other "laws". There is a regularity to the structure of an atom, there is regularity to the force of gravity, and that all of the universe has certain "laws" that could not have a damn thing to do with "evolution". Hence, the theory of "intelligent design"..a theory that goes beyond conjecture. The worst thing brought to the human species is "organized religion", a concept that creates anxiety and wars, all brought about by the ignorance of the masses and their futile beliefs that adhering to a particular religion will bring them to "paradise". God exists, or at least trhere is beyond any logical doubt that there is a purpose to the universe, and that purpose dictates a form of intelligence that has the power to create such an entity. Call it what you will, God, etc. but there it is, like it or not. I seriouysly doubt that any supreme being such as God would advocate the self destruction of mankind. If we are destroyed it'll be because we brought it on by following some goofy religious concept.

This is a great point! Intellegent design isn't an argument for any particular religious belief. It is another way to view the scientific information.

[Gary]

Watch the movie "Expelled".

[wyojake]

How about we don't teach either then. Grade school, middle school, high school. Make science an elective you can take before you go to college. If you don't take it - you won't have the required courses for college. If you don't go to college you won't further your education. If you can't further your education or get a degree, then by natural selection you won't be able to get a job affecting public policy. Problem takes care of itself. You creationists won't have to worry about your children becomes vets, ranchers, doctors, nurses, any of the health and science occupations, ministers also - saves a bit of time there - anyone can teach from the pulpit who is uneducated as a lay minister - just no real ministers who are educated in the sciences. Damn what an idea eliminate science from basic curricula. Next we move on to geology and geography - or does it matter if the world looks flat? Have a great day

[Disgusted]

Cash wrote:

I confess the confusion is lost on me and the controversy is pointless but teaching all alternatives because biology cannot explain everything today is just plain bad science.

I thought science was originated out of the quest to understand things?!?! If science has become a subject to learn just for the sake of learning it the way the dogma MUST be sent down from on high, I think science has become the religion that they were originally trying to become "enlightened" from!

Science doesn't have all the answers... nor does Intelligent Design, or any other perceived ways of trying to understand things. Perhaps the TOTAL answer(s) is found in a conglomeration... not just a dogma that MUST be strictly adhered to and be forced down everyone's throat via government fiat!

But then again, that's just my little rational mind working. I'd hate for the scientific community to feel so threatened by something they feel is not true, but if it REALLY is not true then it will fall flat on it's face. Oh, wait! Maybe not, after all the scientific community has managed to keep the truth in a LOT of areas from the masses via the "public education system" for decades!!!!!

[Bud]

Gary wrote:

Watch the movie "Expelled".

Why? It is nothing more than Creationist propaganda.

http://www.expelledexposed.com

It's a big ole' pile of horse----

[FLOWER]

Obviously, no one here has ever read the bible. The evidence is there, HELLO!

[Disgusted]

If Behe has been debunked, it hasn't been in the area of the truth. Maybe a concept here or there, but not the overall truth of what he's been saying. When EITHER side gets to totally formulate the questions, frame the argument, state the rules by which the arguments can be made against them, etc. it's kinda easy to see why science has been "debunking" all the Behe arguments (and those with like-minded interests). I'm NOT a supporter of Behe, but I am a critic of public education system mandated version of science... which has really become a religion and NOT science!!! A LOT of stuff MUST be believed in order for modern "science" to work, and when anyone questions it - especially someone of faith - the scientific community uses ANY MEANS POSSIBLE to try and discredit their work. This isn't about science... this is about trying to keep one's beliefs perpetuating through via government fiat (the public education system, etc.). If science is so sure of itself, it REALLY wouldn't mind the criticism it is now facing. Either what science says is true... or it is not true (aka: a lie). Truth will ALWAYS come through eventually; it can be pushed down for a time, but it will ALWAYS come to the surface eventually!!!!

As for any number of clergy acknowledging evolution as the truth... I don't care if you get the entirety of the globe (save me) to agree with the ideas evolution puts out as the truth (which it doesn't put out as the truth, they put it out as fact - which is something completely different). I don't care about 11,000 clergy that may or may not acknowledge anything science has to say about anything. The truth stands alone - withOUT popular or majority rule! The truth is what it is... and most don't like the truth... that's why people lie everyday with "white lies". Enron had facts, too; that's why I rely on the truth - not fact(s)!!!! Again, I am NOT a Behe fan, but I am a severe critic of modern day "science"!

[JudeB]

Bohemian wrote:

Hardly surprising that this is again an issue in America. It merely vindicates the opinion the rest of the word has of many Americans.

And that opinion is?

[Bud]

FLOWER wrote:

Obviously, no one here has ever read the bible. The evidence is there, HELLO!

Read the whole thing, and you are wrong.

[Zeke]

Disgusted wrote:

... the scientific community has managed to keep the truth in a LOT of areas from the masses via the "public education system" for decades!!!!!

How about engaging your "little rational mind" and providing some examples of this?

[Kevin]

Kirlak wrote:

US Constitution still guarantees separation of Church and State.

US Constitution does not contain the phrase "separation of Church and State." The Establishment clause was put in to keep the Federal Govt from requiring everyone to be a certian religion. States could require it, but the Feds couldn't. The Establishment clause was not meant to kick God out of the public square. The phrase is from a letter from Thomas Jefferson. Thems the facts ...

[IgotTheMeat]

evolution is a funny thing. See infront of evolution is supposed be the word "theory". The theory of evolution. Same with creationism. The theory of creationism. While there is evidence to support mirco-evolution there is no evidence to support macro-evolution. The difference between micro and macro is huge. An example of micro-evolution would be types of island horses who get seperated by a mountain range that is very hard to cross. Over thousands of years the highland horses will develop thicker hair and somewhat shorter legs. Where as the low land horses leg length stays the same. However both would still be able to mate. This has been proven by science that species adapt to their environment albiet slowly. Macro evolution however has not been proven. If all species had the same origin there would be "key" links in the fossil record. Every now and again a skeleton is claimed to be "the missing link". The problem is rarely is it a whole skeleton. Usually it consists of one small bone. Most of these get proven to be regular animal bones (such as a swine jaw) or human skeletons with explainations such as a skeleton of a human with pigmisim(spelling?) So really both evolution and creationism are theories. While most people accept micro-evolution as fact, macro-evolution isn't set in stone. I once went to an evolution debate where the creationist insisted that the odds of the proper components and ingrediants needed to form life combining accientally combining were astronomically low. Not being a math buff however(heck i'm not an intellectual buff at anything really) i quickly got lost in the proof.

[Ellen]

"... merely a theory ..." <sigh> Here we go again. For some obscure reason, there is a wide-spread misunderstandong about the definition of the word "theory." Yes, evolution is a theory. It is not, however, "merely" a theory and therefore not a fact. In my dictionary, the first definition of "theory" is "Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances; especially, a system of assumptions, principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena." In other words, a collection of knowledge, based on tested facts, used to create a pattern of information that allows us to predict future actions. That's all that science is: a method of determining patterns in the world around us. Only in the *third* definition is "theory" defined as "hypothesis or supposition." So: evolution is, in fact, a theory. For that matter, so is gravity. Gravity is "only" a theory. Oh, yes; there is a *law* of gravity -- but the Law of Gravity is a mathematical formula, and all that it will tell you is how hard you'll hit if you fall off a cliff of x height. What nobody -- and I do mean nobody; ask any physicist -- knows is why you'll fall. There is *no* one who knows just why gravity works. Not a clue. It's a mystery. Does that mean that we should start taking the balcony instead of the stairs, because gravity is "only" a theory? Think I'll stick with the stairs, thank you! It's true that there's an vast amount about how evolution works that we don't know. I couldn't begin to tell you just why my car runs, either, but that doesn't keep me from using it -- and that lack of understanding on my part doesn't bother me a bit. I do not grasp why people are so terrified of the twinned concepts of evolution and geologic time, nor why they feel such an overwhelming need to place limits on their notion of deity. If God is indeed omnipotent, then why is vast time and space impossible? Or is this argument, at its base, not in fact an argument about fact and faith (which are *not*, in my view, mutually exclusive), but actually about the power to dictate how others think? It seems to me (and I'm sure that this will grievously offend a large number of people) that holders of fundamentalist views -- all sorts, not just fundamentalist Christians -- are primarily interested in telling other people what they are allowed to believe.

[Zeke]

Disgusted wrote:

If Behe has been debunked, it hasn't been in the area of the truth. Maybe a concept here or there, but not the overall truth of what he's been saying.

You are misinformed. Every example of Behe's most important contribution, "irreducible complexity" (which along with Dembski's "specified complexity" forms the core of intelligent design), has been thoroughly debunked.

Read the transcript of the Dover trial, starting at Day 10.

[Larry]

Let's talk facts not emotion:
1) Teaching "Intelligent Design" is not teaching religion. Separate the concept of God from the equation for the time being and look at it objectively. Something or someone had to set the ball in motion. Evolution does not start from nothing or there is nothing to EVOLVE FROM. The "big bang" is still only a theory and it proves nothing about life, only planets and stars.
2) Even many Creationists believe that some "intelligent design" started everything; many think our planet was "seeded" by a species from another planet or galaxy. However, they get stymied for an expanation about who created those who seeded us. The concept of cells and genetics are way too complicated and sophisticated for an easy explanation - such as "evolution".
3) Those who ask Crandall to prove Intelligent Design or provide an experiment should beware of the same question being posed to them. We in science can not "prove" the concept of evolution "creating" the start of anything nor can they provide an experiment to duplicate it.
4) This issue has nothing to do with Church and State. It is not a religious question; it is a scientific question. And science demands that all alternatives be considered unless and until one is "proved" correct or one is "proved" incorrect. To exclude the concept of "intelligent design" (again put aside the issue of God in this equation)is to limit science to only a portion of the alternative answers. Only an insecure or small minded person would do that.
5) It is difficult to explain this in more detail in this limited space, but I might suggest that everyone attempt to see the current movie "Expelled" by Ben Stein which attempts to "intelligently" and objectively explore both sides of this question interviewing the brightest minds in science. To not take the time to do this further limits your knowledge and encourages statements based on emotion rather than facts.

Larry (a biomechanical and genetic scientist)

[Zeke]

JudeB wrote:

And that opinion is?

That you've allowed your government to be taken over by anti-intellectual religious fundamentalists who are systematically dismantling the rule of law (habeas corpus anyone?), reversing America's proud tradition as defender civil rights and generally attempting to lead the populace back into the Dark Ages.

Even among your closest allies--including those who were sympathetic to the need to act in Iraq--it has become impossible to reconcile things like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo with the America we respected and once defended.

[A scientist who loves God]

I am a scientist--trained as a pharmacist. All of my university training involved scientific hypothesis and proof. I see nothing that contradicts these values with my belief in God. I am neither dumb, nor received an inferior education because of my education with God as my source. People who don't want to believe in God have that right, but not the right to impose that belief (or lack of belief) on others as they suggest "religious" people of doing. God created science in the first place--He is the supreme physicist. When we think that our minds are the origin of existence, we are self-absorbed. Being narrow minded is not the person who desires to know the seen and unseen information of our universe--but the person who resists acknowledging that there is more to life than our 5 senses. Where has our humbleness disappeared to? My scientific experiences have enhanced my relationship with God and vice-versa. We don't have to prove that He exists. Try proving that He doesn't exist. He loves you any way you are--this is not a religion, but a personal relationship with our Creator who will still be around after our bodies/minds die. All we have to do is ask from our heart for Him to reveal Himself, not out of curiousity but out of love from the heart.....He will show Himself to you.

[Realist]

Tacky wrote:

"So let's see the evidence that supports your hypothesis, Crandall. Or how about an experiment to test it? No?"
This is the exact problem with either intelligent design or with evolution. The evidence is very questionable and there is no experiment to put the theory to the test. If evolution is as well documented as some believe, why are these supporters so opposed to any criticism of the theory? It is indeed a theory, not established fact.

...no one who believes in science is afraid to put their science to the test, however ID proponents simply have done no scientific testing and resist peer review (a key tenant of scientific study).

Science for science class, theology for theology class...so simple.