Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design 1634
An anonymous reader writes "The National Academies' National Research Council and the National Science Teachers Association are using the power of copyright to ensure that students in Kansas receive a robust education. They're backed by the AAS: The American Association for the Advancement of Science." From the release: "[they] have decided they cannot grant the Kansas State School Board permission to use substantial sections of text from two standards-related documents: the research council's 'National Science Education Standards' and 'Pathways to Science Standards', published by NSTA. The organizations sent letters to Kansas school authorities on Wednesday, Oct. 26 requesting that their copyrighted material not be used ... Leshner said AAAS backs the decision on copyright permission. 'We need to protect the integrity of science education if we expect the young people of Kansas to be fully productive members of an increasingly competitive world economy that is driven by science and technology ... We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds.'"
Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:4, Insightful)
So that's exactly what we're going to do! Instead of getting mostly science with a bit of creationism thrown it, now it's no science at all. Good job denying the young people a science education and punishing the people not responsible.
The heart of the problem. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The heart of the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly I'd rather those kids were taught no science at all, than to be taught crap science. If we allow politicians the right to decide what is true in science, we are well and truly screwed.
nope, you are misunderstanding the idea (Score:5, Insightful)
They are making a point.
Do you think the parents of Kansas will allow their children to go to schools who do not have the materials to teach science? The idea is to make a ruckus, raise the profile of the idiocy of the Kansas Board of Education, who are basically quietly destroying science education as Dorothy knows it in Kansas.
Now, if Kansas parents collectively shrug their shoulders and say,"Well, no science is Ok.", then they deserve to have their children shut out of every known college/university/whatever-you-name-it in the world (not just the US). Of course, in this case, the children become the victims. But, chances are the KBE will be voted out post-haste before they have a chance to reach this level of idiocy.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:5, Insightful)
why settle for "mostly science with a bit of creationism thrown in" if the bit of creationism undermines the entire scientific method?
Re:Its time for the daily 2 minutes hate of IDers (Score:2, Insightful)
ID is not a theory. It is a fantasy. Behe's defense of ID amounts to the Chewbacca defense.
Anybody who attempts to position ID as scientific theory is a liar.
Crazy. (Score:4, Insightful)
How also can they deny Kansas fair use quotation of parts of their standards documents?
Oh wait, it gets worse! [nsta.org]
Therefore, despite much outstanding material contained in the standards, we have no choice but to ask the KSBE to refrain from referencing or quoting from NSTA Pathways in the KSES.
Refrain from REFERENCING them? That's nuts, out of control.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:1, Insightful)
What do you think this whole thing is about? BOTH SIDES want political control over your kids. The Federal Government telling Kansas what they can or cannot teach is political. The State of Kansas telling its school boards what they can or cannot teach is political. Local school boards comprised of elected politicians deciding what children shall be taught is political. As long as peoples' lives and the lives of their children are being run by governments, the issue is *political*.
Re:Intellegent Design == Ayleens! (Score:4, Insightful)
IDers believe that we were put here by an "unspecified intelligence", which should coincide perfectly with the Raelian belief that were were put here by aliens... yet, put the two in a room fast enough, and the IDer can't back away fast enough.
I guess you can have any "unspecified intelligence" you like so long as it's the Judeo-Christian God.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:2, Insightful)
This is mis-use of Copyright if I've ever seen it.
The ability to use a book for the teaching of a course while using other materials as well is inherently required to teach any well-balanced course besides perhaps the pure maths at the highschool level.
I've never had a course based entirely on one text, nor have I had a teacher stupid enough to think that one author/book/perspective was enough for any subject.
(disclaimer: I'm a Christian, and I have no problem with creationism as science, if you do, you probably don't understand the term "science")
That said, how can you believe a science education is well-balanced when you want to pick and choose on the hot-button issues? Does anyone care that plenty of highschools use the book of Job (see christian/judaic/muslim bible) for language studies (for many reasons), or that we teach kids about pagan rituals in grade-school or that we discuss and teach ancient myths of Egypt, Greece and Rome? Is there something inherently harmful about teaching people truth? Should we honestly censor it?
And yes, I said it, truth. There's nothing untrue about "the greeks believed in Aphrodite" any more or less than "some scientists believe the world was created by intelligent design". Do we, the "slashdot" crowd have that much of a hang-up against christianity? Try thinking about it before making knee-jerk statements.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember that "Satan" would have needed to be "Intelligently Designed" by "God".
Dummy.
What Happened to "Fair Use"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I happen to think that Intelligent Design is stupid (albeit considerably less stupid than the "scientific creatonism" it replaced). But I fail to see it as so incredibly heinous that it requires Slashdot to abandon its previous principled stance on the abuse of copyright and the right of fair use. How can you wail loud and long about Microsoft, The Church of Scientology, etc. to abuse their copyrights, but when The National Academies' National Research Council and the National Science Teachers Association do the same thing, then the ends justify the means? Fair use for me, but not for thee?
Evidently any principle can be compromised if you hate your enemies enough.
Remember folks... (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, I know this is
Re:The obligatory argument against ID (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that ID is a "weak" theory/conjecture, but it is as "scientific" as other speculative hard-to-test concepts considered scientific ideas such as String Theory, Multiple Universes (Anthropic Principle), time travel, etc. The latter are often considered "scientific ideas", and ID should be included in these.
And ID is potentially true-ifiable and false-ifiable. for example, it could be boosted by finding hidden messages in ancient DNA such as "Kilroy was here", and it could drop in rank by showing an observable example of natural selection turning something simple into something complex before the eyes and cameras of many observers. And there may be ways that we have not thought of yet. I agree that a truly supernatural creator is a much more difficult problem, but ID does not insist the creator(s) is supernatural, at least not the most testable versions.
I think ID should be placed in science books dispite being weak because books should anticipate common questions. Then describe ID as the flimsey concept it is. It is science, just weak science.
And the attitude of promoters should not be a factor. The laws of the universe don't count the number of supporters or sample their other opinions before they decide whether to activate themselves.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose you can dismiss the whole thing as "just political". I suppose you can dismiss almost anything, even plain questions of fact, as "just political." I can't see where it achieves much though.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:3, Insightful)
Creationism along side science? Sure. Creationism _as_ science? Well, someone here doesn't know what science means, but unless the science you're talking about is anthropology, it's you. Science relies on testable, falsifiable predictions. Creationism does not provide these.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. One side is saying 'Scientific ideas should be taught in science class.' The other side is saying 'Christian ideas should be taught in science class.' These two statements are NOT equivalent. The first follows from the definition of 'science class;' the second follows from a christian political viewpoint.
In some debates, one side is RIGHT, and one side is WRONG. The truth is not political - it's just the truth. And that's what pisses off these intelligent design wackos so much.
"Theoretically speaking" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad that piddling language parsing, legalese, even copyright are what the American Thinkers have to trot out to "win" the debate with the American Believers. How did the intellectuals lose this one --> we had the religious sitting in public classrooms for decades, being taught science and certainly being taught evolution, with blind religious belief kept strictly separate from the curriculum.
Now, less than half of the U.S. "believes in evolution?" [cbsnews.com]
Even I grew up in conservative Catholic schools, but I was taught evolution. It's not as if the majority of Americans were taught creationism in school. We've lost this battle on two fronts: in the classroom, obviously, where we're in complete control and we've no excuses, and then in the churches and temples across this country.
This is a massive, historic failure by American intellectuals and American education. Scientific methodology, philosophy, nay critical thinking have not been adequately communicated to the tens of millions of people who now also believe they, their country and their president "lead the world," "police the world," and are the world's "only Super Power." We have a Believer for what they call "the leader of the free world."
Here's a thought: 99% of us reading and writing here loved science and math class, we couldn't get enough of it. I still see some sigs here and there with "Jesus saved me and he can save you, too" appending an otherwise critically considered opinion. Generally speaking though, we're not blind Believers.
So I'm preaching to the choir, in some respects, except that rather than preaching I'm really saying: we've failed, failed the American people and in some regard the world, for at least one entire generation. What are we going to do about it?
It could be as simple as communication. Maybe the thinkers should learn to play organs and guitars, write some melodramatic music and stories about the origins of the universe, life and humankind. While marching around with candles and holding up portraits of Great Scientists, we can explain the afterlife (worm pudding), but in a comforting way ( maybe some of Thanatopsis? [bartleby.com]). We can discuss modding, karmatic /., and maybe Newton's third law of motion (action, reaction) so the congregation understands justice in a critically considered and organized nature.
If we dress science up a bit, teach it as Truth (not as right or wrong, but as critically considered and open minded). We could strongly recommend that all people, for all their life, attend a science class every Sunday morning.
I'm willing to propose that if families regularly attended science class together, we would all enjoy a more reasonable, and more peaceful world.
As much as we intellectuals have failed to "save" the believers, we can take a hard look at where this country has been since 2000 and say undoubtedly, that even moreso the believers have failed us all. Are not the biggest sinners walking this earth today also those most loudly denouncing sin?
BG
Re:ID Continually Wrongly Portrayed (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason this is in the courts is because religious zealots are trying to inject their I.D. doctrine into the public school system under the aegis of "science" -- which it ain't. It's an end run against the seperation of church and state.
I don't know the origins of the Intelligent Design theory, but in it's current manifestation the raison d'etre is to get camel's nose under the tent.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:4, Insightful)
One side is fine with having religious classes, just not having an unholy union of them and science. This is a view endorsed by nearly every reputable scientist on the planet, and since they actually know what science is about, and since it is science class, I see no problem with this, the same way I have no problem with historians deciding what's in history class, and mathematicians deciding what is in math class, and religious scholars deciding what's in religious class.
The other side cannot tolerate anyone learning anything that falls outside of their narrow worldview, and so tries to inject its view into every class. History class where history starts in the garden of eden. Math class where everything is measured in cubits and two by two, with obsessive repetitions of the number 7. Science class, where a completely unproven theory with zero supporting evidence is given credibility alongside rigorously proven theories.
In a nutshell: All attempts to apply logic to religion, and all attempts to apply faith to science, end the same way. The two should remain utterly seperate, and we should all get along with our lives.
ID is a conspiracy theory (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter 'who' or what created the universe or life, science is about discovering as much as we can about it. 60+ billion year old bones doesn't jive with ID or Christianity. There are thousands of ways to argue, but my point is that who cares... they are BOTH theories, and arguing that one is better or more right than the other is simply making yourself a zealot, and worthy of dispise, or worse, belittlement.
Its just sad that with so much information at our collective disposal, that we still have this kind of zealotry involved in simple things like presenting THEORIES...
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:3, Insightful)
What scientists believe has no place in a science classroom.
What we should be teaching in a science classroom is what scientists have demonstrated to be most likely accurate using the tools and methods of science.
It is true that at least two persons who incidentally happen to be molecular biologists believe speciation is caused by direct interference in the natural order of things by God. However, the fact these opinions are held by scientists does not make the opinions science; that's just simple appeal to authority. It isn't like there's some kind of rule where, okay, you get a PH.D and you know what a "polypeptide" is, therefore now you have an inalienable right to be quoted in science textbooks. Science textbooks should contain, well, science, i.e., conclusions about the natural world arrived at through the scientific process.
It would not be a true statement to say that any of those persons who believe speciation is the result of interference by God has managed to express or justify this belief as actual science. All "creation science" or "intelligent design" literature takes on trappings and appearance which mimic that of science, but this does not mean it gets to pretend it's science beneath the surface. It's written by a "scientist", it uses the word "polypeptide" at least once, therefore it's science, right? Well, hell no, these are just superficial details. Distinguishing what is and is not valid as science requires more thought and analysis than that, and if anyone must be capable of performing this distinction correctly it must be the public schools.
There are scientists who believe space aliens have visited the earth in the last century, scientists who believe no god exists or has ever existed, and scientsts who believe in the truth of the works of Aliester Crowley. Some of these people can present their beliefs in a way that from a superficial perspective resembles science just as well as the works of Michael Behe. This does not mean any of these beliefs deserve mention in a science classroom. The followers of Phillip Johnson do not deserve the special treatment by public schools that the followers of Anton LaVey are denied.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Christian, I find the backlash against ID vaguely amusing. What needs to be understood is the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.
I disagree with you entirely. Macro-evolution is, as you point out, a theroy, but it is a testable and falsifiable theory, and as such it conforms to the standard for a scientifi theory. ID on the other hand is neither testable nor falsifiable, and therefore a lovely theory, but not a scientific theory. Whether ID should be taught in schools or not is not the discussion point, but whether ID should be taught along side scientific theories in science class.
By all means, Kansas, teach ID as much as you wish. In some social-study class or other where it can be taught along side of Astrology, Divination, tea-leaf reading and the theory of the Abominable Snowman. Just not in science class.
Irreducible Complexity (Score:2, Insightful)
The basic premise of the theory is "Here is an example of a simple organ that detects light, here is the human eye. The structures in the human eye are somuch more complex and intermingled with each other that it is impossible for it to have evolved on its own SO STOP TRYING"
Basic science looks at the two organs and wonder "How did one become the other, especially with one subsystem being so dependant on the other?" the difference is that the scientist keeps failing and keeps trying again. If he continues to fail he does not throw up his hands and say "it must have been designed that way". He continues his research.
Forgive my childishness but people that support Irreducible Complexity simply do not have the fortitude for proper research and have constructed a quick fix.
Re:Its time for the daily 2 minutes hate of IDers (Score:3, Insightful)
Because people who believe in God don't believe that ID should be taught as a science. Not all of them. Not even a majority.
If they called it "People who believe that ID is real science is stupid", then allowed all religious and non-religious people to poke fun at these idiots, then it'd be a bit better.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:1, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, how would you design an experiment that would demonstrate that macro-evolution was false? You said: "Macro-evolution is, as you point out, a theory, but it is a testable and falsifiable theory...". I'm just wondering how you would go about doing that. Any suggestions?
I'm not aware of any fossil evidence showing half-way mutated species. If someone knows of some, could they provide a link to a reputable website detailing this evidence?
Re:ID Continually Wrongly Portrayed (Score:2, Insightful)
One Reason Why Standards Should Be Public Domain (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I am not a "fundamentalist". In fact, I am an atheist who knows damn well that "intelligent design" -> "creationism" -> religion -> bunk. Nontheless I find this method of opposing the establishment of religion unacceptable.
It's censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact the whole copyright debate is about nothing but lies. They call it protecting children, when it's really censorship. They call illegal copying piracy, when that actually means boarding a ship and murdering people. They call copying "stealing", even though noone has lost anything. They call a government imposed restriction on copying "protection" for artists, when it really is a monopoly for the media industry. And they call it "intellectual property", even though any real free market property right with natural limits in supply and demand would put it to shame. The straight outright lies are so in our face, it is shocking that people could be so stupid.
In all fairness, I can take measures to educate my duaghter myself if the school system tries to teach her something stupid, but how would I protect her from a government that censors things?
On one side there are stupid people reguarding intelligent design, on the other there are stupid people reguarding copyrights. I feel overwhelmed. The cynical reality is that the media industry and christian industry are probably duking it out over some third party revenue issues.
Re:The obligatory argument against ID (Score:3, Insightful)
Finding "Gawd waz here" microengraved onto DNA, RNA, or Buckyballs would certainly put some weight into the Intelligent Design hoax. Why aren't they out looking for that to test your hypothesis?
"and it could drop in rank by showing an observable example of natural selection turning something simple into something complex before the eyes and cameras of many observers."
Something simple:
creationism: God Did It!
Intelligent Design: God Did It, with SCIENCE!
If you're looking for observable evolution within a human lifespan, man do you not understand evolution. Evolution by definition takes generations, and although many animals have generations that don't last as long as a human life, it still is pushing things time wise for any human-observable change to show up.
If you aren't a flat earther and recognize that the earth is about 4 Billion years old, let me demonstrate how long a million years is. A year is a long time to you right? Well 100 is about your lifetime, and so seems about as infinitely long as a human can experience first hand. Imagine 10 lifetimes, that's 1,000 years. Then since you're metricly inclined, you'll realize right away that one thousand, 10-lifetimes is 1 Million years. Think of the changes in biology in the past 10 lifetimes, and judging by the fossil record from 10 million years ago, why are there no fossils of humans that old, and where did the animals that were around 10 million years ago, go? Evolution presents a plausible explanation for changes in biology that we can see in the fossil record, and even today with changes to microbes and fauna that have died out.
ID might seem plausible to some, but it still relies on an unprovable Christian God to make it all work. Then of course there's the problem that God himself needs a creator to have made him, etc. To break problems down into managable chunks, humans often omit extra data that doesn't affect the outcome of their project. There's no benefit from including God in calculations in science class, since he's not a defined constant even. If he were a defined value, we could cancel him out in our equations, but since we don't really need him in science, why is there a push to complicate science?
Something like:
God + E = MC^2 + God
It's an agenda to put Christian fundamentalism into school, plain and simple. Please don't support it, or you're supporting the radicalization of our youth, for use in future religious wars.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
Sophistry, again. How do you prove a given fossil is not half-way mutated? Oh, and if you'd like a living beastie, how about the duck-billed platypus?
The overall problem with your reasoning is that you're saying essentially: Since evolutionary theory can't be completely verified due to the absense of a working time machine (bidrectional), therefore any other theory that is not completely verifiable is also acceptable. Never mind that ID is 100% non-verifiable and is useless for precition, whereas evolutionary theory does have predictive value.
Re:The obligatory argument against ID (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole argument against ID is that is cannot be proven incorrect.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont recall Clinton ever trying to push school prayer and promising to pick judges based on ideology to satisfy some prolife groups.
People who are running for the board of education have an agenda funded by the religious right and will do everything they can to fullfill it. In otherwords dont vote for them! That simple
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Greeks believed in Aphrodite" is fine to teach in a social studies class, as are the effects of Christianity on the US, Islam on the Middle East, Judaism on Israel, and so on.
But here, we're talking about a biology class. Aphrodite has no place in that class, and neither does any other "intelligent designer". And I understand science perfectly well, thank you. Religion cannot, by definition, be scientific, because it requires an act of faith, not empirical testing. That does not mean the two are incompatible, it simply means that any "god" or "gods" are outside the scope of scientific endeavor.
As to the rest of your examples (book of Job for language studies, pagan rituals, myths) I have no problem with comparative religion being taught in a secular manner, and I don't think very many scientists would disagree. But I've sure never heard of the Egyptian creation myth finding its way into a biology class. Why should the Christian one be in there?
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:1, Insightful)
"We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that mutation ever caused inter-species changes, just the assumption that it could occur, given that intra-species changes occur."
I'm sure the homo sapiens would be very displeased to hear your belief that they never existed, as it is quite apparent from the fossil record that they did and that they predate our modern homo sapiens sapien species. There is actually extensive evidence that macro-evolution can and does occur by the fossil record, which implies that those who question this concept are only reading selective parts of certain scientific papers or are only reading the papers of people who are already biased in favor of ID and are therefor exaggerating their claims in favor of their religious beliefs. All things considered, the people who are purporting Intelligent Design to be a legitimate and valid scientific hypothesis generally do not read (or instead make great efforts to ignore or forget) the parts of material which runs contrary to their religious beliefs. Those who favor ID typically have negative views of homosexuality, sexual liberation, the equality of women, among other things, when indeed the same book (the Bible) that is cited for these beliefs is cited in such a fashion that the citation is inconsistent with context.
Is it possible those proposing ID be an acceptable way of thinking are just ignoring the details of the text they are reading in favor of particular sentences or phrases which seem to agree with them? It would certainly seem likely to me that this is the case, as it is done all so typically with regards to religious canon by the very same people.
"This is the 'flaw' in evolution that IDers seek to have pointed out - macro-evolution _isn't consistent with the scientific method_."
Oh, so something which is observable, testable and scientifically verifiable is not consistent with the scientific method, but assuming that an unseen deity whose existence cannot be proven by any scientific means whatsoever is responsible for the creation of the universe and the development of all life on earth is?
I'm not an atheist by any stretch of the imagination, but your position simply isn't tenable.
This is not a matter of faith or lack of faith in God. I believe in God. But I have difficulty believing that scientifically testable and verifiable fact can be false when compared with a hypothesis for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever and the only thing which may imply that it is true is a single piece of religious canon whose Absolute validity cannot be determined. Until God comes down and says that everything in the Bible is true, it cannot be proven. And since the only evidence that that ever actually happened is stories which are in the Bible and oral legends, there is no evidence and therefor, any supposition that it is true is simply religious rhetoric.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the third call for some "ubiquitous evidence" I've seen in the comments attaches to this article, and none has been provided.
It seems to me that, as it takes too much effort to find some "ubiquitous evidence", you're resorting to calling my request "bullshit".
Ashton
Re:The obligatory argument against ID (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it help us anticipate the changes around us? No.
Does it help us develop new technologies, medicines, etc? No.
How does it help us, then? How does it equip humans with a better grasp of their surroundings? If it does, it does so in a spiritual way. And guess what, we already have spiritual institutions; church. If ID is to be taught in class, then science should be taught in Church, because the theory of ID does not actually help us in a practical sense to wield more power over our environment, over matter. What ID proponants fail to understand is that evotion, as a theory, doesn't give a blind fuck who is at the wheel; we theorize that it happens this way, and that allows us to make predictions or alter our behaviour by way of observing how things have changed in the past. You want God to be at the wheel, fine? But tell me something other than God invented shit. Tell me what he invented, how, when he makes changes, why he makes changes, and how we can alter our beviour in order to make a better world. Once you start talking about those things, guess what, thats church.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
"Sophistry, again. How do you prove a given fossil is not half-way mutated?"
All that needs to be shown is several fossils demonstrating gradual change from 1 species to another.
You don't need to prove that "a given fossil is not half-way mutated". One only needs to show that there are fossils either side of it mutation-wise.
Thanks for taking the time to think through your argument, as well. Many of the replies in this discussion have been by ACs who don't present any logic, just insults; yours is a breath of fresh air.
Ashton
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to advocate that type of philosophy class, great. Go for it. Just keep your (and everyone else's) religion out of the science classroom. Religion is not science. The two can coexist, but they cannot overlap. Teach about religion in a social studies, sociology, comparative religion, or philosophy class all you like. But do not put them forth as scientific theories. They are not, and by definition, cannot be.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:3, Insightful)
I call Troll. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fact: Slashdot readers love copyright. The GNU General Public License is a document that depends on copyright. It is a license that documents the terms under which the software developer grants a license to use, copy, and modify the copyrighted work. Fail to comply with the terms and the license is revoked, at which point the customary laws regarding copyright infringement apply.
I don't hear too many people "wailing long and loud" about Microsoft's copyrights. I hear them wailing about Microsoft's crappy software and anti-competitive business practices, but that's not the same thing.
I don't hear anybody "wailing" about the Church of Scientology's copyrights, either. I hear them wailing about what a crackpot so-called religion Scientology is and how it bilks emotionally vulnerable people out of their money.
No principle is being compromised here. I see lots of debate about the National Science Teachers' Association's decision in this thread, in fact, which is a sign of a healthy, engaged public. Please crawl back under whatever dogmatic bridge you came from.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:1, Insightful)
The important point to note is that by your (and other evolutionists') reasoning, evolution isn't a _scientific_ theory, either. How would you, personally, design an experiment to falsify (or otherwise) evolution? If it can't be done, then evolution cannot be disproved, making it the same as ID. Neither are _scientific_ theories. Either mention both or mention neither - it's unfair to students to claim that evolution is a scientific theory (or worse, fact) when it doesn't meet your own standards for falsifiability.
Ashton
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:4, Insightful)
Irrelevant, just like most received wisdom about the definition of science.
Suppose an Event A occurs, and a scientist predicts on that basis that an Event B is soon to follow. Event B does follow, so his prediction receives support. His explanation makes no other unambiguous predictions.
Now suppose a different scientist, knowing nothing about the first, arrives at the same explanation. The only difference is, he thinks of his explanation only after observing both events.
Is the explanation of the second scientist not science simply because it fails to make predictions, but only explains data?
Prediction CAN be a useful aspect of science (say, for engineering purposes), but it is not a necessary one.
Re:The obligatory argument against ID (Score:3, Insightful)
What I want to know is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What Happened to "Fair Use"? (Score:4, Insightful)
You appear to have adopted the fallicious opinion that Slashdot is a single entity with a single mind.
In reality lots of people think lots of different ways.
I suspect you'll also find many Slashdot readers are very much in favour of copyrights. After all, the GPL and 'Free' software rely heavily on them.
The inclusion of the standards from the National Science Teachers Association would be far beyond fair use - it is a derivative work. Worse than that, it (rightly or wrongly) implies support from that body for the derivative work.
Preventing derivative works that detract greatly from someone (other than satire) is not generally something people rail against here on Slashdot.
Re:11th amendment? (Score:1, Insightful)
Why you're RIGHT! That's a brilliant bit of lawyering.
Of course:
The 11th amendment does not prevent private parties from suing the states in state court for money damages.
and
The 11th amendment does not prevent private parties from suing the states in federal court for equitable remedies, including injunctions preventing the states from, say, using textbooks that are in violation of copyright.
It's too bad that the Kansas State Board of Education has a guaranteed ally in the Kansas state courts, such that they are certain to lose a suit filed in state court. It's also too bad that the textbook publishers are only after money, and not operating on principle, such that an injunction is worthless for their purposes.
If Kansas consults its lawyers, they may as well go right on ahead until ordered to desist by a federal judge, and maybe not even then.
Ignoring a federal court order, even if you are a state, is an almost guaranteed way to deliver yourself into a world full of hurt. Feel free to cite how the states were able to "go right on ahead... even then" with their segregated school systems and their policies on abortion.
Thank you for playing lawyer, but call us back after you've passed a state bar exam.
Re:Its time for the daily 2 minutes hate of IDers (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly what is with the strong feelings of hatrid towards ID? How objective are people when there are such strong emotions?
There are lots of "wrong" scientific theories out there no matter how you define "wrong". Peak oil, pyramids, bigfoot, what makes the stock market move, the composition of the earth's core. Take your pick but I don't see the same level of emotions.
From what I can tell people hate ID because of ID's backers personalities, not because of the scientific theory.
And the scary thing is that these are the same people who claim the ID backers are not being "objective".
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahhh...the classic gaps-in-the-fossil-record complaint. The funny thing is, whenever scientists find a new fossil that fits into one of these gaps, the Creationists don't see that as evidence for evolution. On the contrary, now there are two gaps, instead of one.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. I think it is most telling that science is accused of attacking religeon, but the scientists involved in the issue have never tried to sue a church to demand a disclaimer in Sunday School that they are being taught without evidence. The people who demand they want "balanced" education seem to believe that they and their beliefs are being attacked. This irrational fear should be, in itself, enough to dismiss their ideas. I only wish that they, themselves, could be so easily dismissed.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:2, Insightful)
FSM vs. Jehovah (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSM was invented for a purpose. The people pushing intelligent design claim to want to show that both facts and logic require us to conclude some supernatural force is necessary to bring about evolution.
Which force is usually left unsaid, for that would clearly expose the motivations behind ID. But we all know which force ID proponents have in mind - namely Jehovah, the god of Moses.
With the introduction of the inflammatory FSM, ID proponents are forced to show themselves for what they are - that is, supporters of a Christian, not a scientific, agenda. In other words, cards on the table.
Re:Only if Christian ideas are unscientific (Score:5, Insightful)
That is true. Christian ideas are based on dogma and lore. Dogma and lore are not scientific.
No it isn't. If your scientific observation is guided by something other than a scientific process, then by definition it isn't a scientific observation.
Sure. Explore it all you want. It has been explored for thousands of years. You can explore the idea that the earth is flat too if you want. Just because some people are exploring it doesn't mean we need to start teaching that to children in science class. Teach that myth the same place we teach the other myths - in religion or humanities classes or the like.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:2, Insightful)
Newton also observed something too, and after many years of testing, the scientific theory of Gravity has been generally accepted as a law. Granted law and theory mean relatively the same thing in the science realm, it was and still is a theory. Can the law of gravity be falsified? Sure, just find a test that makes the tests invalid! (By the way, it is really damn hard to make a test that proves gravity is false.)
Same thing applies with evolution. We have collected evidence for a very long time, and, although incomplete, the evidence we have collected so far says that the observation recorded and explained by Darwin is correct. However, that does not mean that Evolution is guarenteed to be the explaination for the rest of eternity, it just means that: We have data, we're following his procedures, and according to his tests, his hypothesis is true. We're following scientific theory to the tick, so what if we haven't found a way to falsify it? Be a scientist and actually TRY to falsify it, rather than just claiming it is false.
Now the problem with ID is, it basically says "God did this, and this is why it is so", yet it provides absolutely no way of testing, nor anyway of falsifying it. According to almost every religion, god is always right, so if you say "god made it so", how can you falsify it? Also how can you test it? Where's the observation of when god decided it was going to be that way? Why did god do it that way? What was god thinking when the decision was made? For what purpose does this creation exist for? There are too many questions that cannot be answered, and absolutely no way of following scientific theory. Therefore: ID can't be considered scientific and cannot be taught in a science class.
No I am not religious, but I do believe in at least one god because there is no conclusive explaination to why the universe exists and why I am here.
Re:ID Continually Wrongly Portrayed (Score:1, Insightful)
Alternative points of view, expressed clearly and politely such as yours, are not "trolls".
Amazed that this is still for discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
To my mind, it's a pity that basic history of science and history of religion is not taught in schools. It might come as a shock to a lot of Americans to discover that a lot of the people who discovered that Creationism was bunk were mostly ordained clergy in the Church of England (==Episcopalians), working in Cambridge in the 19th century. As they gradually understood the geological history of the Earth and the fossil record, as they took on the ideas of evolution, the sheer weight of evidence caused a lot of them to re-think the basics of their faith. In other words, it was the people with the theological background - men who could easily read the Bible in the original, which is more than I imagine the Kansas Board of Education can do - who accumulated and accepted the evidence that the Bible could not be literally true, and had to think out their theology based on the new discoveries. The -I choose the word with care- garbage that is Intelligent Design is part of a trend of thought that any well educated student of theology will know is fatally flawed. So why is this discussion still going on?
The problem, of course, is that a lot of religion in the US grew in a cultural vacuum. It took place on the frontiers, well away from the academic world in Europe (and the East Coast.) That's how ludicrous religions like Mormonism were able to evolve: uneducated people with limited vocabularies didn't realise that prophets with names like Moron and Ether were either the result of ignorance or exploitation. It hurts me to say this, because I have relatives descended from a family member who was on the first of the Mormon treks to Utah and they are fine people. But they have also not had the educational opportunities of the English side of the family, who in recent history got their educations at Cambridge, Oxford and London and as a result regard both Mormons and Southern Baptists in much the same light as Wahabis or Hassidim. It's extraordinary that George Bush senior, for whom I have a lot of time, is an educated man who knows that Christian fundamentalism is deeply flawed, while his son claims to embrace it. But it's just like an educated Pakistani or Iranian struggling to understand why his son is picking up aggressive (and regressive) ideas down the madrissah.
Until I found that people were still taking this stuff seriously, I used to think that Richard Dawkins and Jay Gould protested too much. But now I realise that there is a huge tide of reaction in the US, and that it needs to be stopped and reversed or it will ultimately lead to new wars of religion. It's absurd to watch American politicians attacking reactionary Islam and claiming to spread democracy while being prepared, in support of reactionary Christianity, to reduce women's rights. Theologically, I suspect all fundamentalists are much the same at bottom, and they are never happier than when they are either fighting fundamentalists of different religions, or fighting non-fundamentalists of their own religion.
Not thowing up hands, but a different direction (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"Theoretically speaking" (Score:2, Insightful)
> How did the intellectuals lose this one --> we had the religious
> sitting in public classrooms for decades, being taught science
> and certainly being taught evolution, with blind religious belief
> kept strictly separate from the curriculum.
By pissing everyone off, that's how. Look, I don't back creationism, but you have to accept that the people who run the schools have squandered every bit of goodwill they may ever have had. Since the creation of the Federal Department of Education 25 years ago, educational standards have fallen through the floor (not saying it's their fault; but they haven't helped).
Schools spend record amounts of money on "diversity education", while ignoring the assaults and robberies in the halls. Schools buy millions of dollars worth of computer equipment that half the teachers aren't even trained to turn on in the morning.
They hire overpriced consultants and give them sweetheart contracts so they still get two years additional salary after they are let go. Parochial schools teach their students more by the 8th grade (for 1/3 the money) than most public school students learn by their sophomore year of college.
> Now, less than half of the U.S. "believes in evolution?"
Welcome to the systemic ignorance that comes with "peer group promotion" and other sick experiments of the educators.
> Even I grew up in conservative Catholic schools, but I was taught evolution.
Don't really follow your point, as the Catholic church has no problem with evolution. I'm a conservative Catholic who grew up in liberal public schools. I was taught well, for the most part (pre-Dept of Education), but I was also force-fed a lot of self-serving pseudointellecual crap by mediocre teachers in required courses.
I also learned that many public school teachers couldn't poor piss out of a boot if you told them the instructions were on the heel.
> This is a massive, historic failure by American intellectuals
> and American education. Scientific methodology, philosophy,
> nay critical thinking have not been adequately communicated
> to the [American public]
Snipped the rant. But yes; critical thinking is not taught. Not to the impoverished classes in public schools, not in the expensive private schools, not in the colleges and universities.
A LOUD VOICE, a sarcastic, pseudo-intellectual delivery and a posture of authority are all it takes to be an expert today.
> Maybe the thinkers should learn to play organs and guitars,
> write some melodramatic music and stories about the origins
> of the universe, life and humankind.
Maybe the thinkers should get their asses back in the classrooms and teach the students instead of pursuing the idiotic goal of more published research.
Look, we don't we teach logic anymore. We don't teach the scientific method anymore, we teach the rote memorization of snippets of scientific truths. We don't teach students how to think anymore, we teach them how to pass placement tests.
> While marching around with candles and holding up portraits
> of Great Scientists...
Sorry, one of the problems with how science is taught in schools is that it is ALREADY taught as religious dogma. The one and only good thing about people trying to get intelligent design into schools is that it is finally forcing some of the pompous bastards who set the poor excuse for science curricula in this country's schools to get off their lazy rumps and TEACH.
If the lazy so-and-sos had actually TAUGHT for the last 25 years, the voting public wouldn't need the intelligentsia to try yet another half-assed attempt to con the ignorant public into doing things their way; the public wouldn't be ignorant in the first place.
> I'm willing to propose that if families regularly attended
> science class together, we would all enjoy a more reasonable,
> and more peaceful world.
I feel th
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:1, Insightful)
You, on ID: "According to almost every religion, god is always right, so if you say "god made it so", how can you falsify it?"
Why should ID be pressed to meet challenges (e.g., falsifiability) that evolution does not? This, to me, smacks of bias. You want ID advocates to show how ID is falsifiable, but of evolution, you say, "so what if we haven't found a way to falsify it?"
Different requirements for two models before you'll accept them == bias, in my mind.
Ashton
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, humans and gorrillas branched off from a common ancestor which is now extinct, so Gorrillas are not our ancestors. The common ancestor was apparently very close to a modern gorrilla though so it's barely a correction. Besides, your argument is still correct regardless.
What is Intelligence? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm claiming that neither should be taught as fact. Both (or neither) can be given as possible explanations for the origin of life.
You also include a straw-man, "the origin of life". Evolutionary theory does not explain the existence of the universe either. So what? It is not directed towards origin of life or existence of the universe. That does not diminish its utility in explaining and predicting how species change over time. Once again, sophistry: Look, evolution doesn't explain X! Therefore it is just as faith-based as ID! (or you could call this Chewbacca science)
As one (evolutionist) poster said earlier, ID and evolution are both MODELS.
I did not write that quote, but since you cite it I will take it that you claim ID provides a "model". Ok, what does it model--what can I use it to model and make a prediction of when an event will occur?
Finally, would you please explain what you mean by "macro-evolution"? I don't want the goal-posts moved on me if I try to respond to anything you say about "macro-evolution". Is it speciation?
Re:Only if Christian ideas are unscientific (Score:3, Insightful)
No. That's the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity, and even that's a force-fit because the supernatural entities of various religions are often vastly different.
Ideas aren't necessarily with merit simply because a lot of people throughout history believed them.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
For a creationist: micro-evolution means whatever evolution has been shown to occur and macro-evolution everything that has not been shown yet. In that sense the distinction is completely self-consistent and it is tautological that evolution has not shown macro-evolution to occur. But of course it's a logical scam. Try to give a rigorous definition of species, I dare you.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
A theory being scientific does -not- mean that it has been proven true or false. It means that it can be proven true or false, and that it is based on empirical observations of the natural world. Evolution meets these criterion, it can be tested using the scientific method. That doesn't necessarily mean that such testing will be "easy"-the existence of very many things must be proven indirectly, human beings haven't visited Mars, but we know it exists. No human or their equipment has ever been anywhere near a black hole, but we can be pretty certain that they exist. We haven't quite gotten a thermometer to the sun yet, but we can make a pretty accurate extrapolation of its surface temperature from what we know of heat, mass, and gravity. The fact that something has not been directly observed does not by any means that evidence cannot exist for it.
Same thing here. For one, the main point (speciation) which would make macroevolution possible is observable and provable. This is evidenced by everything from Darwin's visits to the Galapagos, to the unique Australian species, to yeast cultures in laboratories. That is observational evidence, and that is the definition of science. Granted, the theory can't be said to be "proven", but no scientist worth a crap ever considers a theory proven beyond any improvement anyway-just evidenced well enough to use as a working model. Evolution is to that stage.
On the other hand, ID could at -best- be said to be based on "negative" evidence-I don't believe the theories as to how this occurred naturally so it must have been designed. It offers no testable predictions (as evolution offers speciation and that the fossil record will grow increasingly more complex, both of which are testable and have been proven). It offers no evidence, other then some old books which have been in the hands of some very corrupt organizations known to have manipulated the public through religious propaganda. That hardly qualifies as a counter-argument to the fossil record in my book.
Last but not least, intelligent design -requires- creationism. Why do I say this? Well, let's look at it logically.
Anything which can come into being through the application of conscious thought by utilizing natural processes can by definition occur naturally and by chance. Therefore, any proponent of ID who acknowledges that evolution occurred but claims it was "set in motion" tacitly acknowledges that evolution could've occurred naturally. That doesn't mean that such a thing is likely (a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters would take a very long time to make a meaningful sentence, let alone the complete works of Shakespeare), but if that "meaningful sentence" can take things from there and reproduce and evolve on its own, it's a lot more likely. Therefore, to state that ID negates even the possibility of evolution, one -must- argue that the "intelligent designer" possessed and used abilities -outside- of the normal laws of nature.
Now, here is why that is not, and cannot be, science-there is no EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for the existence of such a designer. Absent empirical evidence, such "theories" aren't scientific theories at all. They are conjecture, or religion, or philosophy. Not that those things don't have their place. But that place is not in a science classroom.
In closing, here are the four essential steps of the scientific method, and why evolution passes where ID fails:
ID does pass this, it observes and describes the existence of life, as does evolution.
Evolution hypothesizes that life came from extremely simple forms of life which evolved through the processes of micro and macroevolution to more complex forms. This process is testable, falsifiable, and empirical.
ID doesn't really put forth a hypothesis, in the sense that such a hypothesis would have to be testable, falsifiable, and be
Re:Only if Christian ideas are unscientific (Score:3, Insightful)
Science almost always STARTS with a wild hypothesis for which there isn't much available evidence. (I.e., there's not much evidence that it's better than the current choice...which might even be no explanation at all. It's got to be consistent with known facts.) Once you have the hypothesis, you start looking for facts to verify it. Once you've verified it a few times, it graduates to a theory...but it started with a wild guess.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, you're trying to change the discussion to avoid the truth. Bill Clinton said he would only nominate judges who were pro-abortion. That is an ideological position, not a legal position.
Well it would be if they were pro-abortion. But as I understand it, that actually just means pro-choice. Pro-abortion judges are not running out and telling women to have abortions, yes? So appointing a judge that will respect someone's legal rights is justified, isn't it?
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
Most apes have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46 chromosomes. Wholesale removal of a pair of chromosomes by mutation would almost certainly result in a nonviable organism. However, there is another possibility - that a mutation caused two chromosomes to fuse together into one (remember that the 46 human chromosomes are actually in 23 pairs). But this possibility presents the prediction that the characteristics of two chromosomes would be found sandwiched together in the human genome as one chromosome.
Since we now have the data from the Human Genome Project available, this prediction - stemming from the hypothesis that humans and modern apes have a common ancestor - can be tested. The ends of chromosomes consist of "telomeres", which are specialized and easily recognizable segments of DNA. By sequencing each chromosome, these telomeres can be detected. If two chromosomes were fused together end-to-end, there should be telomere sequences in the middle of a human chromosome.
Lo and behold, such a prediction was shown to be true - chromosome 2 contains the expected telomere sequences roughly in its center.
Now, this doesn't prove that humans and modern apes had a common ancestor. It does, however, lend additional evidence to that hypothesis. But that's how the scientific method works. You come up with a hypothesis, generate testable predictions based on that hypothesis, and then conduct experiments to test those predictions. The hypothesis is proven false when the testable predictions prove false. The more of these tests that the hypothesis survives, the more important it becomes as a theory worthy of acceptance into mainstream science - not as fact, but as our best current understanding of how something works.
On the other hand, ID produces no testable predictions of its own. Its survival is based on the false dichotomy between evolution and ID perpetuated by ID advocates - the claim that if evolution is tested to be false, then ID (nee creationism) must be true. This violates both basic logic and the scientific method - evolution and ID are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and in order for ID to be accepted as a scientific theory, it must produce testable predictions which, if proven false, would prove ID to be false as well. ID advocates raise no such testable predictions - all of their claims are actually tests of evolution, not of ID. Until ID can produce such predictions and can survive tests of those predictions, it cannot be regarded as a truly scientific theory.
Note that this isn't a matter of a lacking in the state of the art. Other scientific theories such as string theory can't currently be tested given today's technology, but they do produce predictions that, given sufficient advances in the state of the art, could be tested. ID doesn't even go that far.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The obligatory argument for ID (Score:2, Insightful)
The first is that the creator may not be perfect. Only "extreme" versions of ID assume a perfect creator. The better versions of ID don't define the creator beyond intelligence.
Second, in some religions life is not supposed to be perfect. In such religions, life is a test. God gives us hardship and monitors how we react. The help with the "hardship" part of the test, things are often sloppy or faulty.
Thus, faulty products does not by itself rule out ID. (Hmmmm, would a reciept be evidence of ID?
Whatever. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is understandable because you're getting your info from his page, even if you refuse to cite it correctly (and just copy it, word for word, including bolded text).I'm not asking you to correct his error.
I'm telling you that the source your source is correctly citing is incorrect because Darwin never said that.
Nor does the theory of evolution say anything about how any specific individual will behave. YOU can take that up with HIM.
It is possible for him to be wrong, yet for Darwin to be right. Even if he supports what he believes to be Darwin's theory.If you present it as support, it is your fault.
I've shown how the statement was in error because it did not correctly state what Darwin had written.
You can argue all you want about whether some guy who wrote something that wasn't peer reviewed is right when he doesn't quote Darwin correctly.
But the fact is that he did not quote Darwin correctly and Darwin's statement is supported by all the findings of the science known as Biology.
Species, not individuals.
Biology, not choices.
Re:Scientists are often blind (Score:3, Insightful)
in science, a "theory" must be supported by evidence. there is not a single piece of evidence for ID and even if it were true there still would never be any evidence. it isn't bad science or strange science or controversial science, because it isn't science at all.
Re:Cutting off nose to spite face (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't target all of them of course. Just the ones that are host to people who want to teach ID and other religious ideas as science.
Re:The obligatory argument for ID (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, in some religions life is not supposed to be perfect. In such religions, life is a test. God gives us hardship and monitors how we react. The help with the "hardship" part of the test, things are often sloppy or faulty.
Here's the refutation for that piece: Tests are intended to prove worthiness in the eyes of God, right? And only things with souls can pass that test, right? So why would He inflict the same tests on soulless beasts?
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
God created everything by snapping his fingers and saying "abracadabra", and you must take that literally. It is not a metaphor for anything, nor a simplification for easy consumption by your currently simple understanding, even though in about 2000 years folks will start to understand in more detail how God did it. This paragraph is being presented to you in 263 languages, including some that don't exist yet, so that nothing can be lost in translation for thousands of years yet...
Why can't God use effective tools such as evolution? Is it necessary for God to imagine stuff and it suddenly, immediately (even on OUR time scale) pops into existance?
I find people on both major sides of this argument to have their minds so very closed.
However, as far as teaching it in school...it is a religion, just like every other religion, and should be taught in a class where other religions are taught. To teach it elsewhere would be teaching a specific religion as more or less important than others, which is a Very Bad Idea.
Science classes are where one is taught what mainstream scientists are doing, which includes evolution, the observational approach to determining the mechanics involved in creation.
That book was written 2000 years ago, by people from that time (people, BTW, who were not JC himself but his friends and friends' friends), for people who weren't even literate, let alone able to understand advanced concepts such as hygiene or evolution.
With the advancement of science, as well as the advancement of the intelligence and cognizance (sic?) of the general population, we are in a position to understand stuff better. Why must religion remain in the same state it was 2000 years ago, and not advance with the rest of society? And why must people (on both sides) believe that accepting science means rejecting religion?
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, species have been created in the lab (a type of californian seaworm and many new fruitfly species) and others have speciated in the wild under historical observation - flowers, rats, mice, others. Check out the talk.origins link below, they have plenty of cited examples of speciation. Natural Selection allows both accurate prediction and domestication - we wouldn't have dogs, brocolli or corn if "evolution" didn't work.
>All that needs to be shown is several fossils demonstrating gradual change from 1 species to another.
Very well. Please observe the change from Australopithecus to the various species of Homo, currently represented by H. Sapiens. The shades of variation are so slight through the fossil record, yet obviously showing a several million year span of evolution and change. Paleontologists will fight over whether a skull is Homo Ergaster or just a big-brained Habilis, but they will all agree that the fossils show structured, reasonable, natural changes that can be predicted by applying Natural Selection. There, fossils showing gradual, species-changing modification. Somewhere (probably at change to Homo?) the human lines lost chromosomes among other radical shifts. A modern H. sapiens could not breed with an Australopith, or no moreso than with a chimp. Unless you deny the actual existence of our ancestors, this shows both micro and macro evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.
The link has an example of what I'm describing, I also recommend the excellent "Extinct Humans" for further reading.
Akgoatley, I'm not sure where you fit on the opinion section, this is not personal: I don't understand where the controversy is, honestly. Anyone that passed high school biology should understand the basic processes of life, including Natural Selection and modern evolutionary concepts. "It's only a theory" is a bullshit argument, that people buy this shows the dire lack of scientific literacy in this country. This is people trying to deny reality and using fairy tales to placate themselves. If you need God to get through the day, I don't hold it against you. Don't turn this country into a 3rd-world theocracy because you're scared to know things. "Evolution" is only the first thing these American Taliban are after- they also question plate tectonics, the physics light and I'm sure plenty of other scientific concepts. I know this, because as a child I thrived at a 7th-Day Adventist school, but what they claimed was science, was not.
Science and technology drive this world. We are roadkill if we try to deny this - shame on Kansas for trying to shackle their children with theocratic garbage. I definitely support the AAAS in putting the copyright screws to them - this is effective political conflict.
Josh
We need a first generation of pioneers.
Re:Predictive value? (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't worry about just being some hick. It doesn't mean that you can't contribute meaningfully some day. Now, like a lot of people who are confused about evolution, you fail to grasp that evolution typically happens on the fringe, where specific traits that are being evolved mean life or death (or mating or not mating) in a specific environment. Most vestigial organs just aren't a big enough deal to be phased out quickly. Then there's the fact that most of them, even if they aren't used for much can still have some uses, like helping to compensate for the loss of other organs, or possibly conferring partial immunity to some diseases or lack of certain nutrients in diet, etc. It should be obvious of course that people without appendixes, for example, are neither significantly impaired or improved in terms of the general functioning of their body.
Your argument is a little stupid really. As far as I can tell, it goes something like: "If evolution is real, why aren't animals perfect by now?" This quite misses the point that evolution is a process which is all about fitting into your environment as largely random changes occur, including the evolution of other species. Things don't get thrown out unless they're really, really hurting, and new traits don't get selected for unless they really help in some way, such as allowing a move into a new niche. The argument is doubly stupid, because you might as well ask why the Intelligent Designer would make animals with vestigial organs. The answer is that either the Designer isn't that Intelligent, or there's a reason for them to be there. With evolution, the answer is still that there's a reason for them to be there. With evolution, it could be that they're there because they're still in the process of being removed, but that's still a reason.
As for us needing to get our stories straight. No we don't. First, you've missed the scientific theory part again. The mechanisms and details of evolution are still very much under scientific scrutiny. Not everyone holds the same ideas, but there are some basics that just about everyone can agree on. "Evolutionists" as you would probably call them, know that Darwin had the basics down, but just didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle. For example, the actual method by which genetic traits are passed down was unknown to him. We know we're still learning, that doesn't mean we have to veer off into unproven tangents with flimsy "evidence", which mostly consists of clumsy attacks on evolution. We don't need to agree on every detail of evolution to agree that ID is mostly quackery. Second, evolution is not some magic force. It's just an emergent behaviour from the patterns and happenings of the world. It's statistics, there are no gaurantees. There's no reason you couldn't have a species with traits that help out another species and not itself. You don't have to believe in evolution to know that such a species, if the trait is wasteful enough, and if it has competition for its resources, won't last long. If you do believe in evolution, however, you will remember that other species and their evolution are part of the environment and, if the species that benefits from the trait of the first species manages to evolve to provide a benefit to that species, they can develop a symbiotic relationship and both benefit.
Interestingly, intelligence was brought up above as a survival trait. It is a survival trait, and it's also a trump card over evolution. Behavioural traits are actually part of genetics as well, take animals that learn how to eat poisonous creatures by killing them and letting them sit until the poison decomposes thereby eliminating the need to
Re:A Kansan's Two Cents (Score:2, Insightful)
Biology tries to teach you genetics [to a sort of limited mendel sorta way] among other things where the ID "theory" doesn't apply.
I mean why does this spliced plant have offspring that look different? Genetics? NO! it's gods will!!!! hahahahamauahahahah
Seriously. How can the ID folk sit there and think that's a rational course of thought when the experiments are REPRODUCIBLE!
Tom
Why is there no mathematical theory of evolution? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not aware of any fossil evidence showing half-way mutated species. If someone knows of some, could they provide a link to a reputable website detailing this evidence?
Transitional forms [berkeley.edu] abound in the fossil record. I think that is what you mean by half mutated species.Transitional forms are consistent with the idea of evolution. But I hesitate to call it a theory. It doesn't deserve to be. Evolution is a hypothesis that is consistent with lots (tons!) of observations. I say this because evolution still has no mathematical formulation. It has no predictive power. Compare it to well formulated physical theories like Classical Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics, or even softer theories like Marshall's Supply and Demand. They are not easily assailed by muzzy thinking. But Biologists have been easy on themselves for over 150 years! They have not developed deep mathematical understanding of the forces control evolution. They are still waving their arms. What is their response when attacked? The attackers are simpletons, visigoths, fanatics. No further discussion required! Not an impressive defense of a profound idea. When biologists develop the the rich mathematical foundations of evolution, which surely exist, the debate with creationists will end.
Re:FSM vs. Jehovah (Score:2, Insightful)
"The point of intelligent design is that absolutely nothing, no evidence or experiment ever found or conducted, demonstrates that the diversity of life could have come about thorough evolution alone"
and they all appear to get this information from other IDers. There happens to be a large boatload of evidence that demonstrates exactly this. It's all out there (try talkorigins.org to get started) if you want to read about it for yourself. The only difference between adaptation and speciation is a vast amount of time.Re:constitution (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a fatal flaw in your logic--you are trying to define a term using 20th century definitions for terms written in the 18th century.
If you look at the essays concerning the 1st Amendment, you will find that it is *generally* agreed that this does not mean anything other than the government (federal, state or local) will not make any law that favors any ONE religion (or religious denomination) over another--and further that it will keep from making laws that aid any religion or denomination over another.
The so-called 'wall of separation' that was derived in the 1940's from a Supreme Court decision. The problem with this is that it comes from a LETTER written by then President Jefferson to a baptist group in CT when they wrote him to ask for intervention by the government in a religious matter. Basing a court decision on the constitutionality of a religious matter has caused the greatest rift in the US between believers and non-belivers that has ever been seen.
It cannot be said that our Founding Fathers were NOT religious--in fact they were. Jefferson was accosted on his way to church after being elected president and told that he should NOT be going . His response to the person was "No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir." Jefferson himself wrote many essays on his beliefs---as did Franklin, Madison, and many of the others who framed the Constitution. It is often argued that they weren't Christians, but they were Deists--acknowledging God in many differing ways. That may be true--in the sense of being Christian as we see it today--that is, one who acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the instrument of our Salvation---the Final Sacrifice demanded by God. I won't argue that point.
I live in Pennsylvania, near the town of Dover. They are currently embroiled in a bitter court case over Intelligent Design. In their case, it is a mere 4 line addendum read by the teacher telling students that evolution is only ONE theory of the origins of life; that there is documentable proof that it may be a flawed theory, and that another is explored in a textbook (Of Pandas and People) that may be found in the school library. That's it..they're not *teaching* creationism, nor advocating relgion. They're not even *forcing* anyone to read the other theory, merely pointing out the fact that it exists and pointing out that evolution may be a flawed theory. Intelligent Design is a valid theory---as valid as Evolution, because the Evolutionary Origin of Man requires as much of a 'leap of faith' to believe that we came from single-celled organisms.
Yes, I'm a Christian..but I also believe the evolution has a *place* in our creation. We certainly have 'evolved' to live longer, be taller, and other things than even our RECENT ancestors. In that respect, evolution is a truth to me. Also, as a Christian, I don't want a teacher in the public school indoctrinating my child into a particular belief system. That's my job. BUT...I do want them to present *all* of the evidence and let my child decide.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:2, Insightful)
But if you want to see some examples of fossils that have turned up over the years, ones that share a great number of features of groups that are normally considered distinct, look up: _Acanthostega_, _Panderichthys_ and its fishy relatives, _Microraptor_, or _Ambulocetus_, none of which were well known until the last couple of decades -- i.e. they have turned up in places where there were formerly "gaps". I'm not providing any specific sites for them -- look them up yourself. The names are distinctive enough. You'll find creationist critiques of the conventional interpretation too. That'll provide balance.
So, if you ask for the "1/4" and "3/4" ones after you look at these, wait a couple of decades, and some of those may turn up too, as they always have. People critiquing evolutionary theory have been moving the goal posts like this ever since the 1850s. First it was "find me a transition between birds and reptiles", then _Archaeopteryx_ turned up. Then _Microraptor_ and a bunch of other feathered dinosaurs. Now, it is find me a transition between _Microraptor_ and other dinosaurs. Or make ever-more-stretched claims that these fossils are clearly one or the other "kind" of creature, eventhough you have to resort to minutae to distinguish them, and half the time the critics can't consistently decide which side a given fossil is on (e.g., in the case of _Archaeopteryx_ some anti-evolutionary creationists claim it is a dinosaur skeleton with feathers forged onto it, others as categorically claim it is a bird -- most scientists regard it as a bird, but a distinctly weird and transitional one by modern standards (teeth, long bony tail, claws on its wings, and other oddities) -- all relicts of its earlier ancestry).
Or find me a transition between fish and land vertebrates, then _Ichthyostega_ and _Acanthostega_ turn up, and people ask for still smaller increments of change between those (some of which do exist). Sheesh, these four-legged vertebrates were probably aquatic and couldn't even walk on land, and their skulls amazingly closely match the anatomy of slightly earlier fish like _Panderichthys_. Look only at the skull, and non-experts would have a very tough time telling which one was the "fish" and which was the "amphibian".
Yes, ultimately finding every single increment of change is predicted by evolutionary theory, IF the record is good enough, so the fossils might be expected to turn up someday; but it's a pity nobody notices that each time something IS found, the goal posts are moved by anti-evolutionary creationists to span ever tinier gaps. Ironically, that pattern of "shrinking gaps" matches what would be predicted as sampling improves. That's the test: that as we sample the fossil record, species regarded as distinct will get blurred together. Differences get smaller. And they do.
And, no, to forestall a common misunderstanding, even if species are changing with a punctuated equilibrium-type pattern, sometimes the tiny increments of change between those species do turn up too (but the record has to be exceptionally detailed).
The whole thing is like plotting a graph with just a few data points, and adding more and more points until a trend appears -- someone could always point to the space between two of the dots as an unbridgable "gap", all the while ignoring the ever more obvious trend as it builds up. Either that, or they could deny that the data points exist at all, or that the points are all mixed up, or some even more dubious claim (this is the situation where anti-evolutionary creationists start critiquing geology too).
Re:I call Troll. (Score:3, Insightful)
"we have no choice but to ask the KSBE to refrain from referencing or quoting from NSTA Pathways in the KSES."
The National Science Teachers Association is asking the Kansas State Department of Education not to reference or quote from a public document.
This is exactly a fair use issue. The "good guys" have decided that the "bad guys" are not allowed to reference or quote them. As you have pointed out, all the comments are in favor of the "good guys" because they are good. One person stands up for "fair use," and you call it a troll.
Sheesh!
Re:Flat earth flame ... but I'm hooked! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahh. This is the sort of misinformation fluff that drives me nuts. This whole "theory vs fact" misinformation is the root of the problem. Those of us who studied, for instance, gas turbine theory wonder if someone out there actually thinks that gas turbines are just an unproven concept. Facts are not theories that were proven to be true. Why people think that I don't know. Perhaps they had bad science teachers. Perhaps poor media explanation, though that might be a chicken and egg thing.
There is really no such thing as a fact in science. Science is a methodology. It develops models of naturally occuring behaviour through testing hypotheses and their derived predictions against obseved phenomena. All scientific knowledge consists of models that are the most consistent with observed phenomena. That a model does not meet all observed phenomena does not make it invalid and to be thrown away. It means some areas of details of the model still require further understanding and development. "Theory" is a description of the principles behind the model, which is why, for instance, "gas turbine theory" doesn't refer to some people's crazy idea that gas turbines might exist. This whole "fact vs theory" is a hoax. It's made up. It doesn't exist.
"One only needs to show that there are fossils either side of it mutation-wise."
Again, poor understanding of the situation. All living beings, now or in the past, are in mutation. There seems to be this idea in some people's minds that evolution consists of a bunch of static species with well-defined boundaries that suddenly mutate into a different species (or something else). First, the exact differentiation of species is a product of man in an attempt to classify. While there are some clear differentiators, others are vague. Not everyone agrees where to draw boundaries. Second, the point of evolution is that no species is ever static. There is no before and after. There is no "half-mutated". There is just constantly changing. If changes in the environment happen more drastically over a short time, the evolutionary changes this envokes mike change faster, but is still isn't a sudden flip from one thing to another.
What I find the most humorous, and yet most annoying, is this picking on evolution as "controversial". It is only "controversial" to those who want something else to be used to describe how life got here the way it is. If they were truly being objective and picking on scientific theories (meaning princples behind a model, not meaning "guess"), why not pick on basic physic. Hell, we know Newtonian physics is wrong and yet keep teaching it in science class. Why? Because the model works for most practical applications the students will use it for. And it is simpler than relativity which has been shown to be a better model. However, we know relativity and quantum physics are incompatable, so both can't be right but both are the best working models for their respective applications. If indeed this isn't a religious driven objective, why is teaching evolution controversial and not basic physics?
The fact of the matter is, this is entirely driven by religious beliefs and by people who don't fully understand the reasoning or importance behind the separation of Church and State. You can dress it up in sheeps clothing, but it's still a wolf. I don't mean to come of as insulting, which I'm sure this does somewhat, but these principles have been understood for a long time and it is frustrating that people don't do their homework before opening their mouths. (I'm talking about Kansas and those behind ID, for instance, not anyone here. Everyonerequire a designer. The fact ID also fails to meet other basic requirements to fit the scientific method (testable, fals
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
You should say "as a Creationist". I know plenty of Christians who reject ID as pseudo-science, so I'm afraid trying to co-opt the word "Christian" to push a non-theory is just plain dishonest.
As to speciation, it has been observed. Now that you are aware that your world view is horse shit, I do hope you'll have the intellectual honesty to admit that you bought into lies by the likes of Michael Behe, who is at this time being made a fool of in court.
Re:Only if Christian ideas are unscientific (Score:2, Insightful)
Answer: it's not science because it's not measurable, and only quantifiable at best through surveys and whatever. If so, it is no more and no less of science than psychology, philosophy, or any other soft science. There is a weakness to "science," and as long as it is taught like its own religion, these debates will always come up.
Still, I have nothing against a disclaimer in an evolution unit saying "this is called the Theory of Evolution. It is not a law because it has not been proven, and other theories exist." A simple disclaimer shouldn't offend anyone, except the legions of scientists who don't believe in being questioned (thus by definition invalidating their license.)
Re:Predictive value? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure. Although I have no idea why you'd saying that us having the same basic building blocks is non-falsifiable. That would be trivial to falsify if true.
Anyway: Humans and other apes evolved from the same common ancestor.
This could be falsified by, for example, discovering that humans existed before the other apes did, or discovering common genes between us, and, for example, dogs, that other apes do not share.
In fact, the mere existance of any animal on the genetic 'tree' that did not fit 'correctly' would be a rather large indication the theory of evolution was not true, like discovering a tree that fits into genetic tree quite well in the plant kingdom, except for the troublesome fact it manages to grown hair like mammals.
There as some 'cross-pollination' routes known where people get genes from bacteria and whatnot, but trees with hair would simply not be reasonable under any theory of evolution.
However, there are none of these falsifiably things. Often there is parallel evolution, like the eyes of the giant squid, but the genes that create that behavior don't match up at all.
If there was an intelligence designer, he operated exactly as evolution says various species came about. He took one thing and modified it and saved it under a new file name, went back and edited the old one, copy that, edited it some more, etc, etc.
He didn't copy and paste between files any, except for a few mishapen genes that do not actually work, and we've fairly certain bacteria did that. If there was copy and paste between species not able to mate, then that would be a fairly obvious falsification of evolution.
Re:FSM vs. Jehovah (Score:2, Insightful)
The nature of scientific discovery dictates that this generations "vast majority of reputable scientists" are no better then blind baboons a few generations from now.
Nuclear fission? Impossible!
Communication without wires? Unthinkable!
Heavier then air flight? You're mad!
Heart Transplants? Surely you jest!
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
That isn't true. "Life is too complex to have evolved" is a theory; ID research (primarily using information theory) is to try to show that this is the case. If they succeed in showing that the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection doesn't have the power to generate the complex information found in living things, then the search will be on for a mechanism that can do this.
ID has no proof to support it, evolution has.
And if ID can show what it is attempting to show, then Darwinian evolution will have to be scrapped in favor of something else.
Even if the theory of evolution isn't perfect (yet), that doesn't prove that ID is correct.
I don't know of anyone who claims that the imperfections in the theory of evolution prove the correctness of ID. The claim is that the problems with evolution should mean that a search for other answers should be allowed to take place. The flaws in evolution should be taught, and it should be legal to mention that there is a branch of science that is attempting to apply information theory to living things.
Re:Only if Christian ideas are unscientific (Score:5, Insightful)
I do, because this implies fundamentally incorrect things about scientific laws and theories. Theories are never proven. Suggesting that a theory could somehow become proven and be law is dishonest. Laws are also not proven; they are simply a different type of statement in a science. Theories do not become Laws because Laws and Theories serve different purposes.
There's also the fact that no one is pushing for a disclaimer sticker for any other scientific theory, such as relativity theory, germ theory or atomic theory. Makes me question the motives of those pushing for evolution disclaimers.
Re:constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
You make it sound like this interpretation is based on a single letter. It's actually based on numerous documents and precedents. Most importantly, the writings of Madison, who was co-chair of the committee that wrote the first amendment. It was his wording that was chosen. Jefferson really only inspired it.
Interestingly, though, both Jefferson and Madison actively looked for cases for SCOTUS that would be precedents on these issues. They hoped to enshrine a wall of seperation by example.
The obligatory long list of quotes:
Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
The civil government
-- James Madison, 1819, Writings
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
-- James Madison
The general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion
-- James Madison, 1790, Papers, 13:16
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative.
-- James Madison, "Essay on Monopolies"
And it goes on and on... There are simply volumes of opinions by many founders on the meaning of the first amendment. And it's consistantly stressed that religion (not just church, as the oft-quoted phrase says) and government should never have anything to do with one another, even in minor matters.
As far as the rift... first, it's not just between believers and nonbelievers. It's mostly between those who want to stay true to the intent and wording of the constitution (who are mostly Christians) and the group of Christians that aren't happy with their values being abstracted into laws and that want their beliefs officially and explicitly reflected in government institutions. I can only say that the latter group are playing a game that endangers all parties.
Second, I see your point. This has been such as source of conflict. But the founders wanted to avoid the bloodshed of European wars of religion. I think modern Europe is only free of so much conflict because there are so many atheists that nobody really cares enough about these things to start a fight. In comparison, we are so much more religious in the US. Perhaps we inherited the least violent and most religion friendly system. Perhaps, it could have been much worse? I'd be interested in your opinion.
Re:FSM vs. Jehovah (Score:3, Insightful)
The talkorigins.org website is openly anti-creationist. They have no problem with Christian denominations such as the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Catholic Churches (and others) - who do not have a problem with the theory of evolution.
Of course, your creationist websites are usually anti-religious - they are strongly against any non Christian religion, and often are against many Christian denominations that differ from them in their views.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you misunderstood GP post. He wasn't "telling you what you must do." He was saying the bible does not have to be taken literally.
Yes, you've demonstrated that quite well by automatically assuming what I'm like.
Again, I think you are reading something into GP's comment. All he is saying is that there seem to be extremists on both sides of the issue, and they are very close-minded about the opposing viewpoint. A pretty fair assesment, I might add.
There are some truths that are eternal.
I agree that "some truths are eternal", but I don't agree with how you have used that statement to respond to GP's original comment of "Why must religion remain in the same state it was 2000 years ago, and not advance with the rest of society?". It makes you sound like a religious zealot, and quite frankly, makes everything you say suspect, no matter how well you articulate yourself.
Depends on how you define science, doesn't it? If by science you mean "the scientific method", then this doesn't mean rejecting religion. If by science you mean "the philosophy of naturalism", then the two will always be mortal enemies.
I think it's clear the GP was referring to the former.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
What does god add to that argument? If evolution is an effective tool that does the job without God's intervention then why does it need god to make use of it or invent it.
In my opinion, that's why god can't use evolution. If he used evolution, and the big bang, and whatever else science offers us, then it won't be long before bright young kids are asking, "so what does god do?".
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. For the lazy, a link to the word's definition http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory [reference.com]. For the stupid, what this means is that the Theory of Evolution is the best scientific explaination that we as humans have devised based upon the evidence available to us.
Your claim of the "obvious lack" of "millions" of fossil records is ignorant at best (I call it disingenious). It is based on the supposition that all mutations beget viable forms of life, which is provably false.
Having a training in science, and having therefore worked and studied with scientists, I feel safe to say that informed, rational debate concerning the "origin of life" is what most of us want of our public schools. Sure there are holes in our current explainations or maybe even they are way off, but science, in the end, will rectify that. The arguments put forward by Creationists concerning Intelligent Design are akin to sprinkling faery dust over the Theory of Evolution and saying that fills in the gaps. This is patently unacceptable to a mind that wishes to know how we, as organisms, came about and operate. This is why "Evolutionists" reject the teaching of Intelligent Design along-side of Evolution--because it is not science, it is some mysticism piggy-backing on science to explain the deficiences in said scientific reasoning.
As to the Thomas Kuhn quotation; human nature being what it is, can you not fathom how an individual responisble for one or more lives may make the mistake of ignoring pure scientific reason and allow concerns for reputation, or one's livelyhood to cloud one's judgement? When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.
For all you ID'ers out there I pose this question (based upon my understanding of ID): if ID were proved to be true, not by the existence of a God or somesuch, but by the fact that all forms of life on this planet were seeded with genetic material from some extra-terrestrial agent (presumably intelligent life forms), would that be vindication of your "theory" or would it cause some religious indigestion and encourage some evangelicals to leap off of tall structures (we can hope!) ? And before you say "thats ridiculous, we aren't the spawn of aliens!" I would point you back to your own "theory". That the core genetic matieral of all life on this planet was seeded by aliens is as belivable and provable as if it were done by a "God".
Re:Its time for the daily 2 minutes hate of IDers (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of the religion you find the most offensive or repulsive, and then imagine that the state is using your tax dollars to indoctrinate your children with it. For a lot of people that is enough reason to leave a country en masse and found a colony where everyone else shares their core beliefs or start burning effigies in the streets or whatever form of rebellion you fancy. So, instead here we have maybe something that is 1/100th as repulsive to some people but still smacks just a little of the government forcing a religion you don't believe in down your throat, and therefore you see angry posts on slashdot to that effect, rather than massive social upheaval or entire cities of people that believe in one version Christianity being slaughtered by one with a slightly different version and so on for hundreds of years until you're out of the dark ages.
It's a sensitive issue in other words.
critical thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
critical thinking
If we had a populous that was capable of critical thinking it would be the end of commerce as we know it.
If we had a population capable of critical thinking then 90% of all advertising would not be effective. A lot of companies on top right now would not be on top. I am sure there are powerfull business interests that do not want a population capable fo critical thinking.
People would not buy a brand of toothpaste thinking it will help them get laid.
People would not buy humongous automobiles styled to look like war equipment just to feel more secure.
Political ads would no longer work. People would see them and just wonder where the money came from to pay for them.
But as this all plays out and the country becomes anti-science we will lose our competative edge in the world marketplace. Those business interests who wanted a population incapable of critical thinking will lose out.
You are the religious intolerant here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the search won't "be on." They already have their answer, and it's right in the name of the freaking theory -- it was an Intelligence that did the Designing. No "mechanism," no investigation into what created the Intelligence or what it is. That's the answer they've presupposed and that's the only place that ID theory is willing to go.
Investigating whether information theory is compatible with the current state of evolutionary theory is a valid one, but the IDers aren't doing that. They're just trying to find some magical weak point that will cause all of evolution and secular science to fall apart and stop bothering them.
I'd be willing to bet that they're are some real scientists looking into the information theory aspect of genetic evolution right now -- and they probably think that ID is hogwash, as well.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
However, this argument is a red herring to begin with, because whether evolution or Intelligent Design is falsifiable isn't the issue: the problem is that Intelligent Design doesn't offer an explanation for the origin of life. All it does is provide an explanation for human (and other Earthly) life, by attributing its origins, or at least evolutionary progress, to some outside agent. By not explaining the origin of this outside agent as well, it presents a chicken-and-egg problem. If some sort of 'intelligence' was required in order to 'design' the mammalian eye, than certainly this superior intelligence could not have arisen through evolution, as it must certainly be more complex even than we are; therefore it must have been designed by a yet superior intelligence, and so on and so forth.
This circularity problem is only solved -- rather conveniently in my mind, given the proponents of Intelligent Design: mostly Christians -- by a "god hypothesis," the invocation of some sort of ultimate, superior being for which there is no other evidence besides I.D. theory itself. Of course the I.D. theory which is currently being pushed stops just short of this declaration, but it is rather self-evident to any bright student, once you start going down the creationist path.
Intelligent Design isn't a bad theory because of falsifibility, it's a bad theory because it involves the creation of an outside agent to explain processes for which there are simpler, non-externally-dependent explanations, and then does nothing to explain the outside agent which it invokes. In general, where other theories have an internally and logically consistent process, Intelligent Design simply draws a question mark, shrugs, and with a wink and a nudge, points to the Bible.
You fail to understand the fundamentalist case (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ID vs Darwin - Great Motivator (Score:3, Insightful)
ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:2, Insightful)
A great post.
Why must religion remain in the same state it was 2000 years ago, and not advance with the rest of society?
I can fill that. There's absolutely no point to advance the religion. There is nothing wrong with Christianity, or Buddhism, or Daoism, or [world religion of your choice], except that they have never been tried.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:2, Insightful)
According to the book of Genesis, when good created the world it was good. Before the first sin there was no death and therefore could not have been evolution before Adam and Eve. That is why you can't believe Genesis to be the word of God and believe in evolution at the same time.
Re:Flat earth flame ... but I'm hooked! (Score:4, Insightful)
The big-bang is entirely testable. The background microwave radiation is one test. The velocity vs distance of galaxies is another test. The COBE satellite was launched to test the big-bang theory (and the theory passed that test).
The singularity is an untestable event. The big-bang itself, entirely testable. In your own words you admit it's testable:
If there are observations that could disprove the big-bang theory then the theory is testable. That's what testable means. But be careful: the theory is not the same thing as a model.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is how the Incompetent Design nitwits are winning this argument. They've managed to convince the general public that (1) there are two major sides (in reality, there is one major side and one very small but incredibly vocal side) and (2) that the Evilutionists(tm) have closed minds. A scientist's mind should be open but not so open that their brain falls out. Allowing Intervention Divine into science class falls into the "brain falling out" category.
There is no debate here. There is a propaaganda war being waged against science by a bunch of ignorant Christian fundamentalists, who are essentially no better and no worse than the Islamic fundamentalists. They are winning the propaganda war because they have too much money, because of the $300 billion charity given annually in America, $280 billion goes to domestic Christian charities.
And I'm not picking on you. I see from the rest of your comment that you don't support Inconvenient Dribble in the science class. What I'm commenting on is that the propaganda war has been so successful that even you are saying that "both sides" have "closed minds". There are not two sides. The scientists do not have closed minds for rejecting debunked non-science. But even rational people are starting to repeat the mantra of "both sides" have "closed minds". What did that German dude say about "repeat a lie often enough"?
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
ID was invented by creationists for creationists. It is creationism dressed up in fancy words. The same logical flaws in creationism apply to ID. There's really nothing new in ID other than a well-financed campaign to legitimize it in the eyes of the less educated.
If ID were not creationism then the proponents of ID would first and foremost try to become established in the scientific community. They would concentrate on developing and refining their theory. If they made enough progress then it would naturally make its way into the classroom.
Unfortunately for everyone, ID is creationism. Proponents of ID are simply trying to push it into the classroom as quickly as possible, with as little scrutiny as possible. Why would any real scientist do this?
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A quick ad-hominum from me: (Score:3, Insightful)
Religious fundamentlists of every flavour share a lot of common traits. Basically they have the same mindset (even if their methods may vary a bit) no matter what the name of their religion is.
They all want to force their absolute and eternal truth on other people, whatever it takes.
The fact that you think there is a great difference between christian and muslim fundies speaks volumes about you.
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
As a Christian, I don't find the fact that other Christians continue to support creationism or "ID" at all amusing. It makes those who have not yet come to Christ think that all Christians are soft in the head, and obscures the intrinsic truth of Christianity.
> What needs to be understood is the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.
The line between the two is an arbitrary one defined for human convenience.
> Nearly no reasonable person would claim that selective pressure over a long period of
> time can cause gradual changes to a species' DNA.
I think that the scientific community at large contains many reasonable people, so that seems to contradict what you said. Of course, science isn't politics and numbers alone don't make the truth. However, the scientific community comes to its conclusions based on solid evidence.
> This is called micro-evolution, and in fact the large majority of Christians have no
> problem with it.
You are contradicting what you just said, but anyway, "long periods of time" on an evolutionary scale are the time frames for macroevolution. Microevolution takes a shorter amount of time.
> Also, it's the only process Darwin demonstrated did actually occur. He then generalised
> this - changes between species - to species changing into completely different species, by
> assuming a very long period of time for micro-evolution to occur.
Biological species are defined arbitrarily as distinct groups of individuals which can interbreed. This is a single, quite arbitrary trait. However, you are right that it takes a long time for complete speciation to occur(far too long for experiments to be readily done) and so this cannot be easily tested in vivo.
> ID argues that this wouldn't be enough.
Unfortunately for that hypothesis, this is an additional complication which is not required to explain the evidence, and contradicts DNA evidence. The simpler hypothesis, applying evolution at all levels, performs just as well as the far more complex one.
> The Young Universe concept is completely separate from ID and the two shouldn't be confused.
> The only point of difference between evolutionists and ID (different from creationism) is
> macro-evolution. We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that
> mutation ever caused inter-species changes, just the assumption that it could occur, given
> that intra-species changes occur.
This is completely untrue in the post-genomic era. The genomes of numerous species have been sequenced, and the relationships between the sequences can be studied. There is a high degree of synteny(conservation of genes and gene order) between the human and the mouse genomes. Since "there is more than one way to do it"(sorry for stealing your slogan, Larry), i.e. multiple ways to code for the same function, if each species was created individually, we would expect that they would have no more than 5% similarity of protein sequences, and very little synteny.
> This is the 'flaw' in evolution that IDers seek to have pointed out - macro-evolution
> _isn't consistent with the scientific method_.
This is utterly untrue. See above. ID is not consistent with the scientific method.
> With all the public backlash and misrepresentation of what the ID movement really stands
> for, I thought it important to add a bit of reason into the mix, to give the majority of
> people speaking out against ID (who don't really understand what it stands for and just
> see it as a Bible-pushing fundamental Christian movement) some idea of what ID is really
> all about.
I would, however, agree with you that ID and creationism are not fundamentalist Christian concepts. Fundamentalism means interpreting the scriptures and ignoring the traditions.
However, the only reason that a subset of all Christians believe in creationism/ID is b
Re:What ID is actually about (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear this argument all the time and I have yet to hear it make logical sense.
P1. God used evolution to create divergent species.
C. God is not necessary.
Not only is the middle undistributed, it doesn't even exist?!
In any rational person's mind, there is much more to the question of the existence of God (e.g. the origin of ethics and morality, purposefulness in the universe, the nature of the soul) than supplying a mechanism for transforming biological mass from one form to the next.