'Intelligent design' debate back in court

[taks]

Agreed.

 

I think Einstein said this: Science without religion is meaningless and religion without science is superstition. The two should be practiced in harmony.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

classic appeal to authority fallacy. einstein was a physics expert. his views on faith are irrelevant.

 

i also believe that this quote is false. just spread around by religious folk hoping to capitalize on the "see, even einstein believed in god" possibility.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

I was just responding to the evolutionary spider comment. You took my post completely out of its context.

[Commissar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/national...?pagewanted=all

 

HARRISBURG, Pa., Sept. 27 - Science teachers at the high school in Dover repeatedly resisted the school board's efforts to force them to teach creationism on equal footing with evolution in biology class, according to a former teacher who is among those challenging the board in a landmark trial.

 

The conflict in Dover grew so heated that in public meetings board members called opponents "atheists," threatened to fire the science teachers and invoked Jesus' crucifixion as a reason to change the curriculum, two witnesses testified on Tuesday.

 

"We would repeatedly tell them, 'We're not going to balance evolution with creationism. It's an inappropriate request,' " said Bryan Rehm, who once taught physics in Dover and is one of 11 plaintiffs in the suit.

 

The trial here is the first in the nation to test whether public schools can teach intelligent design - the notion that living organisms are so complex they must have been designed by a higher intelligence - or whether the theory is simply a fig leaf for creationism.

 

Outside the courtroom on Tuesday afternoon, Alan Bonsell, a board member who the plaintiffs said was leading the charge against evolution in the science curriculum, said the board wanted students to learn about competing theories only because it was "good education."

 

The board ultimately abandoned the equal time idea, stopped using the term "creationism," and instead required that ninth graders listen to a brief statement encouraging them to learn about intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

 

"We are not teaching intelligent design," Mr. Bonsell said. "I've said that a million times and the news media just doesn't get it. I challenge everybody to read the statement and show me what was religious in the statement."

 

But Aralene Callahan, a former board member, testified that Mr. Bonsell, the chairman of the curriculum committee, said at a school board retreat in 2003 that he did not believe in evolution and wanted "50-50" treatment in biology class for creationism and evolution.

 

The board wanted the science teachers to use a textbook that promotes intelligent design, "Of Pandas and People," but the teachers balked at that too, Mr. Rehm said.

 

For about a year, Mrs. Callahan said, the school board refused to order new biology textbooks. Mrs. Callahan said that when she protested the delay at a meeting, another board member, Bill Buckingham, responded that the biology textbook was "laced with Darwinism."

 

The textbook he was referring to was "Biology." One of the book's authors, Kenneth Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, was in court here on Monday and Tuesday as the first witness against intelligent design.

 

At a board meeting in June 2004, the plaintiffs say that Mr. Buckingham declared from the podium: "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"

 

Two newspapers in York reported the remark. But the defendants say Mr. Buckingham was misquoted.

 

The head of the school board, Sheila Harkins, said on Tuesday that Mr. Buckingham did say it, but at a meeting nine months earlier while the board considered a resolution to support the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

The plaintiffs believe the reference to the crucifixion is so crucial to establishing the board's religious motivation that they have subpoenaed the two York newspaper reporters, who have refused to testify.

[Commissar]

And this is just a short excerpt from an article in The Independent, a Brit paper:

 

"Eighty 80 years after the Scopes monkey trial in Tennessee - when a teacher, John Scopes, was convicted for teaching evolution - polls show that at least 45 per cent of Americans believe God made man in his current form. Only 26 per cent believe in the central tenet of evolution, that all life descended from a single ancestor, and 65 per cent believe schools should teach creationism as well as evolution."

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle315384.ece

 

I don't know where they get their figures from, but if that's true, I'm shocked and awed.

[Laozi]

Clearly there are evolutionary limits.

i doubt this is true. not all mutations will result in beneficial traits, but some do. it's a little random in that respect. trial and error has been mentioned, though there is no real attempt at doing trials. they happen, and there are results. some good, most bad.

 

[

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I must say agreeing with Taks is strange, but it goes to show his ideas are his own and not a predetermined role like alot of people...Kudos

 

 

I was listening to NPR the opther day and they had this cell biologist saying that the "mutations" that often result in "evolution" seem to respond more to outside stimulus then we ever thought before. Basically that mechanism that causes these changes in the way cells are made, may indeed respond more to the enviroment of the creature then we previously thought. Not an arguement for Intelligent design, mind you, but one that more so could put the success of evolution more into perspective.

[taks]

i am a scientist sir (er, madam?). i evaluate everything in my life based on scientific, mathematical and logical terms. it annoys the hell out of a lot of people (even my wife). but, i suppose, logic dictates that i should not care.

 

added:

 

I was listening to NPR the opther day and they had this cell biologist saying that the "mutations" that often result in "evolution" seem to respond more to outside stimulus then we ever thought before.

this does not surprise me. rather, the role of environment is apparent in a lot of things. of course, it's chicken and egg, IMO. for example, things that grow fins for transportation aren't likely to evolve on land. but, the question becomes, is environment the cause of the evolution, or a result of what got selected?

 

taks

Edited September 28, 2005 by taks

[taks]

i must point out that this is one of the rare opportunities for commissar and i to agree as well.

 

taks

[Reveilled]

i am a scientist sir (er, madam?).  i evaluate everything in my life based on scientific, mathematical and logical terms.  it annoys the hell out of a lot of people (even my wife).  but, i suppose, logic dictates that i should not care.

 

added:

 

I was listening to NPR the opther day and they had this cell biologist saying that the "mutations" that often result in "evolution" seem to respond more to outside stimulus then we ever thought before.

this does not surprise me. rather, the role of environment is apparent in a lot of things. of course, it's chicken and egg, IMO. for example, things that grow fins for transportation aren't likely to evolve on land. but, the question becomes, is environment the cause of the evolution, or a result of what got selected?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would suggest somewhere in between. It does not seem implausible to me that the environment would have a sufficiently significant effect on physiology such that mutations are geared in a certain way. Of course, they are still random to a degree, but I think it highly possible that mutations that increase resistance to heat would be more common in warm areas.

 

I say this, of course, having not so much as a day of even High School Biology, so I am speculating at best and talking out of my arse at worst.

[Commissar]

i must point out that this is one of the rare opportunities for commissar and i to agree as well.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fear not, I have little doubt we'll be crossing swords again soon.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Im just wondering what they mean by "teaching creationism"? I mean, the whole "and on the 6th day god mae man and all the animals and vegetables" would only take like 15min to explain :D

 

 

OMG! Maybe THATS what theyre after! Theyre just lazy bastards!

[Commissar]

Im just wondering what they mean by "teaching creationism"? I mean, the whole "and on the 6th day god mae man and all the animals and vegetables" would only take like 15min to explain :D

 

 

OMG! Maybe THATS what theyre after! Theyre just lazy bastards!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Best guess? Pointing out current items of debate in evolution theory and filling them in with Go- er, I mean, "a higher intelligence."

 

You're right about one thing, though, it is supremely lazy. Religion has always been used to explain what we don't understand in the natural world; I see this as little different from maintaining that lightning is really just Zeus showing us his anger.

[taks]

I would suggest somewhere in between.

i don't think we could really prove anything more than a relative "this is more of an impact over this"... nor have i ever seen anything indicating more or less one way or another. you are probably correct, but we'd both be hard pressed to show it quantitatively.

 

It does not seem implausible to me that the environment would have a sufficiently significant effect on physiology such that mutations are geared in a certain way.  Of course, they are still random to a degree, but I think it highly possible that mutations that increase resistance to heat would be more common in warm areas.

that makes sense, but there's a lot of things about science that don't always make sense until you truly study them. gravity is the one that always pops into my mind (heck, study it and it makes even less sense, hehe.)

 

I say this, of course, having not so much as a day of even High School Biology, so I am speculating at best and talking out of my arse at worst.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i have had high school biology, but that really isn't sufficient to be debating the nuances with any degree of certainty. i'm guessing a bit, too.

 

taks

[taks]

i must point out that this is one of the rare opportunities for commissar and i to agree as well.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fear not, I have little doubt we'll be crossing swords again soon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh sure. you and about 90% of the other... er, folks on the board.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

Teaching creationism and teaching the bible are two very different things to me. I'm not a science teacher, but since I teach the history of religion I feel I can comment here. Most students enter the classroom with an open mind. They understand that the bible is not meant to be taken strictly literally. I try to get them to look at all sides of Judeaism, Christianity, and Islam.

 

Unfortunately that might be considered heresy in certain religious circles, but my kids cover a very broad range of backgrounds.

Edited September 28, 2005 by Hurlshot

[Colrom]

It was in a Junion High biology class.  We watched a 2-hour video about these scientists who went down to South America and watched insects progress from generation to generation over 3 years.  Since many insects only live a few days, said generations are frequent and thusly insects are great for studying evolution.

 

However, since we had insects millions of years ago, and they have considerably more frequent generations than us, and haven't evolved into a super race in a larger span of time since humans supposedly evolved, I find it hard to assume that there are huge jumps in species evolution, such as the phylogenic tree would suggest.

 

I did not come from pond scum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

In truth I think we did come from pond scum. :D

 

It may be that the really big step in evolution is the step from simple chemicals to single cells.

 

The complexity of most simple cells is amazing.

 

Even a simple creature like a planaria is already a wondrous evolution. (w00t)

[Commissar]

Teaching creationism and teaching the bible are two very different things to me.  I'm not a science teacher, but since I teach the history of religion I feel I can comment here.  Most students enter the classroom with an open mind.  They understand that the bible is not meant to be taken strictly literally.  I try to get them to look at all sides of Judeaism, Christianity, and Islam.

 

Unfortunately that might be considered heresy in certain religious circles, but my kids cover a very broad range of backgrounds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fundamental problem is that intelligent design, quite simply, is not science. Science never, ever provides answers without proof; intelligent design provides answers without proof. That automatically rules it out of ever being considered science. A lot of people like to claim that evolution provides answers without proof; there's no proof that a common ancestor is responsible for all life on the planet, and that's true. Which is precisely why it's the theory, and not the law, of evolution. Based on all the evidence we have, it's the very best explanation thus far.

 

Intelligent design, by its very principles, is religion in that it requires faith to be accepted. It shouldn't be anywhere near public schools, much less included in a science class.

[Dark Moth]

The fundamental problem is that intelligent design, quite simply, is not science.  Science never, ever provides answers without proof; intelligent design provides answers without proof.  That automatically rules it out of ever being considered science.  A lot of people like to claim that evolution provides answers without proof; there's no proof that a common ancestor is responsible for all life on the planet, and that's true.  Which is precisely why it's the theory, and not the law, of evolution.  Based on all the evidence we have, it's the very best explanation thus far. 

 

Intelligent design, by its very principles, is religion in that it requires faith to be accepted.  It shouldn't be anywhere near public schools, much less included in a science class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really? Ever hear of the "big bang theory"? That has never been proved either. Intelligent design is being taught as a theory, not fact, which is what you seem to be thinking.

 

I think a lot of people here seem to be missing a big point here. Some think intelligent design is being taught as an attempt to instill religion in schools. Possibly, but I think the biggest reason lies soley in trying to avoid offending anyone of religious background. Don't forget, more than just Christians believe in earth/man being created by a higher being. If you teach evolution in schools, then your essentially telling all these students that their faith or beliefs are wrong. I think the big purpose here is to avoid offending those who do believe in creationism.

Edited September 28, 2005 by Mothman

[Commissar]

The fundamental problem is that intelligent design, quite simply, is not science.  Science never, ever provides answers without proof; intelligent design provides answers without proof.  That automatically rules it out of ever being considered science.  A lot of people like to claim that evolution provides answers without proof; there's no proof that a common ancestor is responsible for all life on the planet, and that's true.  Which is precisely why it's the theory, and not the law, of evolution.  Based on all the evidence we have, it's the very best explanation thus far. 

 

Intelligent design, by its very principles, is religion in that it requires faith to be accepted.  It shouldn't be anywhere near public schools, much less included in a science class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really? Ever hear of the "big bang theory"? That has never been proved either. Intelligent design is being taught as a theory, not fact, which is what you seem to be thinking.

 

I think a lot of people here seem to be missing a big point here. Some think intelligent design is being taught as an attempt to instill religion in schools. Possibly, but I think the biggest reason lies soley in trying to avoid offending anyone of religious background. Don't forget, more than just Christians believe in earth/man being created by a higher being. If you teach evolution in schools, then your essentially telling all these students that their faith or beliefs are wrong. I think the big purpose here is to avoid offending those who do believe in creationism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, no, intelligent design is not a theory. Its claims cannot be proven by experiment, and it proposes no new hypothesis of its own; therefore, not a theory. Not science.

 

As for the big bang...well, see my defense of evolution above. It does not explicitly state that the big bang happened; it's (as far as I know, I haven't done a lot of looking into the big bang since reading Hawking) the best guess at the moment.

[Calax]

Creationism brings a whole new aspect to the debate, If we believe creationism then we have to wonder how the heck did we survive with Incest running rampant. Wouldn't we all be just a tad bit slow in the head if that were to happen because of genetics?

[Dark Moth]

Actually, no, intelligent design is not a theory.  Its claims cannot be proven by experiment, and it proposes no new hypothesis of its own; therefore, not a theory.  Not science.

 

As for the big bang...well, see my defense of evolution above.  It does not explicitly state that the big bang happened; it's (as far as I know, I haven't done a lot of looking into the big bang since reading Hawking) the best guess at the moment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, regardless of what you say, it's not being taught as fact, and that alone can classify it as a theory.

 

Besides, scientists are even starting to doubt the big bang theory as well. One of the prime evidences used for the big bang was the observation that galactic bodies seemed to be drifting apart. A new theory out there that's gaining more acceptance is what I call the "breathing" theory, which states that every billions of years the universe expands and contracts, hence the bodies sometimes drift apart.

[Commissar]

Well, regardless of what you say, it's not being taught as fact, and that alone can classify it as a theory.

 

Besides, scientists are even starting to doubt the big bang theory as well.  One of the prime evidences used for the big bang was the observation that galactic bodies seemed to be drifting apart.  A new theory out there that's gaining more acceptance is what I call the "breathing" theory, which states that every billions of years the universe expands and contracts, hence the bodies sometimes drift apart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's great for the big bang theory and all, but it doesn't have much to do with evolution vs. intelligent design. A lot of people try and link them, and I guess I can kind of see why, since it's all about origins, but evolution is wholly separate from the big bang.

 

And it's fine if intelligent design isn't being taught as fact; just don't teach it in a science class, because it simply is not science. If you don't teach the Bible as fact, can you still teach it? How 'bout the Koran? Intelligent design operates on the basis of faith, not proof, and therefore it can only be classified as religion.

[Reveilled]

What about the background radiation Penzias and Wilson found? Wasn't that one of the indicators that the people who originally advanced the big bang theory predicted, which turned out to exist? For that matter, isn't that the prime evidence cosmologists use?

 

Also, what about the entire discipline of Cosmology? Scientists seem pretty confident about what happened in the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

 

What, exactly, is your source on this? This "breathing theory" is entirely new to me.

[Commissar]

What about the background radiation Penzias and Wilson found?  Wasn't that one of the indicators that the people who originally advanced the big bang theory predicted, which turned out to exist?  For that matter, isn't that the prime evidence cosmologists use?

 

Also, what about the entire discipline of Cosmology?  Scientists seem pretty confident about what happened in the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

 

What, exactly, is your source on this? This "breathing theory" is entirely new to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've actually heard the theory about the universe expanding and contracting over billions and billions of years in a couple of places. Don't remember much about it.

[Commissar]

On Taks' advice, I just read up on Wedge strategy, and from there on to the Santorum amendment.

 

Jesus.

 

And I really don't mean this in a sarcastic or even an antagonistic way, but how can you guys (who are on the science side of this issue) keep voting Republican with things like this flying around?

 

For those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[Hurlshort]

Creationism brings a whole new aspect to the debate, If we believe creationism then we have to wonder how the heck did we survive with Incest running rampant. Wouldn't we all be just a tad bit slow in the head if that were to happen because of genetics?

 

Where is the connection between creationism (or Intelligent design, because they are very much the same) and incest?

 

There is no experiment that proves or disproves the existence of a higher power, but both are very popular beliefs. I agree that creationism does not belong in science, but I don't think evolution should be used as a weapon against religion. Evolution does nothing to disprove the idea of a higher power. It means you can't take the bible literally, but honestly, it's a work of literature by multiple authors that has changed with the centuries.

 

I believe all these theories belong in Social Studies, because then we study where they came from and how they evolved over time. Students can make up their own minds, you don't have to exclude anything.