Federal Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

evil agent writes "CNN is reporting that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has ruled that Intelligent Design cannot be discussed in Dover, Pennsylvania biology classes. Dover Area School Board members had previously mandated that Intelligent Design be included in the biology curriculum. According to the judge, 'our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.'" Update: 12/20 23:40 GMT by J : eSkeptic has a look back at the trial and what led to it. And the Discovery Institute has issued a press release.

Well good

[butters the odd]

Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.

Re:Teach all

[Mifflesticks]

Then when does the list of theories end? Teach creationism too? Hindu theories of creation? Bhudist? Aztec? Eventually the list gets too long and people learn nothing about everything.

Re:And evolution is?

[miketkrw]

The fossil record provides overwhelming evidence of the the great tre of life Darwin described. Pick up a science book. To say there is no evidence of Darwinism is nothing other than total willfull ignorance.

Re:Teach all

[jandrese]

ID isn't a theory though, it's dogma. We don't teach dogma in science class for the simple reason that it is not science. It's like complaining that students aren't getting equal time for Aztek cooking in their Asian studies class.

Re:And evolution is?

[TheRealMindChild]

Relativity was never "proven". It is still a theory. It's just a theory that keeps on getting confirmed by experiment after experiment.

The difference is, I can SHOW you evidence of evolution. Walk into the Natural History Museum in Washington DC... there are plenty. Now show me ANYTHING other than babble that "proves" anything about intelligent design.

Re:Well good

[Cstryon]

I agree. I am Christian, and there are many ways I can tie ID to Science. But that's not what ID is. Forget proving it's real, that's what faith is for. Science is what we know, and what theorys we have. ID is for YOU, to learn and study on your own accord. Take your children to church to show them what you believe, and than let them discover their own faith. Send them to school to learn what is KNOWN and what other Possibilties there are.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[cytoman]

You quote out of context, and you should be ashamed of yourself for being so dishonest. The judge said that he is not discouraging those people who study ID, and he says they have deep beliefs in what they are doing. But, this is the most important thing, he says that ID is *not science* and therefore *should not be taught in a science class*.

Stop spinning things by taking it out of context, and be honest for once.

Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona

[LordKazan]

Establishment and Free Exercise clauses

Re:Well good

[Kelson]

If high schools had philosophy classes, though, it would be a perfect subject there.

Re:Well good

[jandrese]

If Evolution isn't science (a body of observations backed up by theories that have not been disproven), then nothing is a science. While I'm sure plenty of the ID folks would be happy if science was dropped entirely from schools (it keeps contradicting them, they hate that!), that is plainly not in the best interests of society as a whole.

Just a theory?

[Dark Paladin]

Thank goodness.

And I know I'm feeding the trolls, but I'm sorry, but the comment "It's not any less scientific than evolution" is a fascinating one to me.

Let's break down the scientific method:

1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Results, start over at 1.

Evolution we know happens (see the changing patterns of moths around pollution, etc). However, the Theory of Evolution as originally put forth by Darwin is based on the idea of "survival of the fittest": those species who have a mutation that enables them to survive better than their competitors will breed and pass along that mutation to their descendants, who will then continue the process.

How did Darwin come up with this theory?

1. He observed the various species on the islands, and how they were all similar (birds, I believe) and how each was best fit to his environment.
2. He hypothesized that this condition arose because of his theory (see above).
3. The experiment (mainly carried out by other folks looking at fossils): See if similar species have changed over time due to environment and had mutations that allowed them to survive. Usually this "experiment" involves saying "All right, we have Fossil A which we know to be 100,000,000 years old, and we have Fossil C which is 25,000,000 years old. Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the environment, and is the same kind of creature as A except for the mutations observed. Therefore, there should be Fossil B that is like Fossil A, only it includes some of the mutations of C but not all of them as the species adapted to better fit the environment. This fossil should be between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 years old. If we find it, then we know we're right. If we don't, then either we need a better theory or need to keep looking." (For nit pickers who will say this is not a true "experiment", you are right - but these kind of "observational experiments" are perfectly valid when talking about cosmological experiments, such as testing the Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory).
4. Results: Over time, thousands of fossil records and observations of species has held up the Theory of Evolution. Adaptations have come into play (such as the "Survival of the Fittest and the Luckiest", which holds that sometimes pure chance comes into play of wiping out a dominant species, such as an asteroid, but when equilibrium is reached Survival of the Fittest is shown to work again).

This leads to a "theory": a set of rules that *currently* work in explaining a phenomena. The Theory of Relativity has been held up by experiment (such as "can we find bended light around a large gravity source. Answer: Yes.). As long as no one comes up with a better scientifically proved theory, the theory is held up.

Intelligent Design doesn't follow these rules. It goes like this:

1. Observation: There's a lot of different species out there.
2. Hypothesis: Some "intelligent designer" must of altered the species to allow them to survive in their environment.
3. Ummmm....

The "step 3" is important. With Intelligent Design, you *can't test it*. Actually, let me back up: you're not allowed to test it. The only way to prove/disprove Intelligent Design is to find a tablet between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 million years old that says "Note to self: change DNA of duck billed platypus to make it better to survive. Love, ID."

If you do bring up a changing fossil record and say "Look, we have a changing species over time", the ID'er will say "Ah, see - the designer changed the species". Again, no proof, no experiment needed.

This is why ID is not science, or even a theory: it's a belief. It's a nice belief. Do I believe some God/Goddess/Higher Being made the Universe? Sure. Do I think that They put a hand in everything?

Who cares? Until such a being gets on the Megaphone of the Cosmos and says "Hey, dudes - check out Chromosome #15 where I spelled out 'Jesus if fucking metal", I'll trust that They wrote the universe so that we could

Let the games begin!

[Irvu]

I am thrilled ecstatic over this decision. This judge clearly has brains and a willingness to use them. I am going to be happy.

I am not, not going to assume that the fight is over. Keep in mind that it was a loss in the Scopes Monkey Trial that galvanized scientists to fight ever harder for strong science (read no religion) in the biology classroom, and the school as a whole.

While I as a scientist am thrilled by this I also know that the people who oppose science are right now doing 2 things: 1) pasting this decision into a circular or 2 along with the choice words "activist judge" to raise more money/attention/support for their 'cause', and 2) digging in for another, longer fight.

I will celebrate this, and keep vigilant at the same time.

Re:Links to more information:

[Black Parrot]

> Damn...what a smackdown.

Also:

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and
proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and
again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind
the ID Policy."

Intelligent Design Does Not Belong In Biology

[aquatone282]

It belongs in Philosophy.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[freeweed]

the reason why it was defeated - in the words of the Judge - is not because of ID itself but because the people who represented the reasons for inserting ID into the curriculum did so inappropriately.

Yes, because there simply IS no appropriate way to try to get ID taught in Science class. You said it yourself:

the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom

That, my friend, is the end all and be all of the entire ID "debate". To get Religion taught intermixed with Science. No one has of yet put forth a way to teach ID as an actual scientific theory, because it isn't. It's religion couched in pseudo-scientific terms.

Nice use of the typical "Slashdot groupthink" line, though. It alone will probably get you modded up.

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[LordKazan]

He also said it doesn't belong in science class - it's fine in comparative religion.

Oh there won't be an appeal - the parents are happy with the decision, and the NEW SCHOOL BOARD is too - the legal counsel for the school board cannot appeal without their client's consent and who their client is changed - 8 of 9 members were up for reelection last month, they all got canned and replaced with people who said ID doesn't belong in science class (but it's fine in comparative religion)

Re:Teach all

[Dephex Twin]

No, because the absolutely most important thing that is taught in a science classroom is what science is and what the scientific method is. The specific body of knowledge that you learn in school science classes isn't all going to be considered true anymore once your children are in school. The problem with Intelligent Design in a classroom is that it is not scientific or natural, nor does the support for it follow the scientific method. This distorts some of the most fundamental building blocks of science. This can be harmful, in the same way that it would be harmful if in math classes, the teacher had to tell students that pi is up for debate because, after all, we have never even seen the whole number to its end (bad example, but you get the idea).

(That ID is even being debated in this realm is testament to the fact that people in general aren't getting a solid enough grounding in science.)

Re:Well good

[Cstryon]

That's not true. That's a Generalization. I love Science. And I think over and over it helps ID.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Intelligent design makes claims that are extremely sloppy in logic, if not utterly fallacious. Feel free to be stupid on your own time, or to teach your children to be stupid, but realize that is what you are doing.

Generally, it boils down to finding examples of complicated structures or systems in biology, and saying "see, this is complex enough that I don't think it could arise by evolution." It is a strawman---no biologist says that evolution has to result in structures that obviously arose from simpler precursors.

It is one step above young Earth creationists, who seek "geological evidence" to "support" their preconceived interpretation of the Genesis chronology. ID proponents are almost all seeking "flaws" in evolution to avoid threatening their preconceived notion that God played a crucial role in biological development.

Pardon me if I don't have much sympathy or respect for people who choose to support such stupidity.

Re: Well good

[Black Parrot]

> If high schools had philosophy classes, though, it would be a perfect subject there.

I don't think ID has enough substance to rate being treated as a philosophy.

Better would be a class on critical thinking vs. pseudoscience.

Re:And evolution is?

[CodeShark]

--buzz--

Wrong. Darwin's theory essentially predicts that the leaves on a given branch of the "tree of life" (your analogy, not mine, but anyway...) will change in response to outside influences such as survival of the fittest, et al. and these influences seem to account for micro-evolution 100%.

What it does not account for is macro-evolution, that is, the changing of one species into another at the chromosomal level by purely natural selection. Having not followed this very closely in the last 10 or so years, I may be out of date, but this is the missing link that would confirm all of the Origin of Species theory, and to my knowledge this link has never been found. In fact, the closest approximations to this have only occurred in laboratory settings where very intelligent designers have preset up the conditions for it, and manipulated a whole lot of variables to keep the randomness of nature from interfering and ruining the experiment(s). Which I think would constitute an "intelligent design" of a sort, though I am not embracing the whole ID philosophy by saying so.

Let me (and the rest of the /. universe) in on the secret if you have reference to any verified scientific publication that purports otherwise, would you?

Power struggle

[tvaananen]

Put religion in hands of people and they see it as a tool for power and control over others. Religious groups are afraid of science and scientific thinking eroding 'faith'. Faith after all is about believing in something that people do not understand and can't explain. More you learn, less is left for faith.

Intelligent design concentrates on things we do not fully understand or don't know about, and explains them with God. As curious creatures, people are seeking for answers and are ready to believe in something. Unaswered questions bother us to death.

Re:Intelligent Design Does Not Belong In Biology

[exa]

Actually, it should not belong in Philosophy.

Philosophy is not some bag that collects every foolish idea that does not belong in science.

In fact, it is not supposed to contain foolish ideas.

We have had enough of ignorant philosophy. Dump that to the wastebin, please.

Re:Affect In Kansas?

[kmcrober]

True, but creationism cases are uncommon and therefore have higher-than-usual fluidity. This ruling discusses a Fifth Circuit case, for instance, because there aren't many precedential cases other than Edwards v. Aguillard. I think it's safe to say that Kitzmiller will be a serious factor in almost any future creationism case, even if it doesn't have precedential or traditionally persuasive weight.

Question to religious freaks

[HangingChad]

The ones trying to drag their small-minded dogma into the nations classrooms. Which part of...

My kingdom is not of this world; (John 18:36)

isn't clear?

ID breakdown

[deathguppie]

For those of you not familiar with this argument. The basis of ID comes from a book written by Micheal Behe called "Darwin's black box". In that book he argues that at a certian level an organism cannot be reduced any more and still be a functional organism. It's basically like saying 'If I take an engine out of a car. It's not a car anymore... and that means there's god'

As a side note, I must add that this decision may also mean that if I go to court for a ticket I won't be conviced of murder.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Decameron81]

"Damn it, what's wrong with the Intelligent Design theory?"

Nothing as long as you don't try to disguise it as science. Scientific theories can be tested. Intelligent design can't.

I might as well tell you that elephants can fly. The fact you can't prove me wrong doesn't make my "theory" science.

Remember, "science" is not a synonim of "truth". In fact, no-one is saying ID can't be true. Simply that it's not science.

Re:Well good

[nick_davison]

The notion that:

"By definition, most theories cannot be proved, they can only be disproved. The validity of a theory is perceived to increase the longer it goes without being disproved." ...is a part of science - and a pretty important one. Blindly accepting theories without questioning them, if anything, is even closer to religion.

Granted, singling out one alternative to be taught, despite minimal to no proof of it, is poor science. You can inform students as to what makes a theory and what gives it validity and strength without citing alternatives - or, if you want to teach alternatives in a science classroom, explain the alternatives in terms of their scientific validity - which, sadly, places Christian creationism (which, let's face it, is the real purpose of this) on a par with his noodly appendages, Narnia, Middle Earth and giants that fall asleep to form mountains.

It's in this way that the ID argument undermined itself. If they just wanted the notion of theories and validity of theories discussed - that would be science but it would also question creationism even more than it does Darwinism. Instead, they took a reasonable scientific concept and then tried using that to weaken only one perspective and then promote a specific alternative for religious gain - and that's what the judge rightly identified as a failure of separation of church and state.

Had they stopped with "Theories should be questioned" though, whether it's uncomfortable for firm believers in Darwin or not, it was still science at that point and had a place in science classrooms.

Re:And evolution is?

[rw2]

Not only is the eye not irreducibly complex, but there are many different kinds of eyes in animals today and in the fossil record. The eye most definately evolved.

Re:And evolution is?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Oh please. There are examples of intermediary steps in eye development throughout the animal kingdom, from simple eye spots all the way to mammalian eyes. Each step is fully functional and does what the organism possessing it requires it to do.

Here's a couple of questions for you:

If the eye is in fact designed, why does it suffer from the imperfection of the blind spot? Nerves in the mammalian eye actually lie on top of the retina, and where they gather together and plunge through the back of the eye to form the optic nerve, no light can be sensed. This is a design flaw any fallible human engineer would catch and correct...so what does this say about the superhuman Designer of ID fame? (And before you maintain that the eye needs to be designed in this manner, consider the eye of the octopus and squid, which is actually designed correctly (nerves lie under the retina, avoiding the problem of the blind spot).

Cats have eyes that can see clearly in what we perceive to be total darkness. Some squid have twelve different types of color sensing cells (as opposed to our three). Eagles have acuity of vision undreamt of by man. Bees and some birds can see into the ultraviolet. Pit vipers can see into the infrared by virtue of their pits (infrared-sensitive eye pits). Before you ask 'what good is half an eye, consider what good your eyes are to you, deficient as they are.

Re:And evolution is?

[Black Parrot]

> Show me evidence that I evolved from a fish or a single celled animal.

Ask your librarian for a first year biology textbook.

> You can't, therefor evolution isn't science.

Maybe you should back up and tell us what definition of 'science' you're using.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Dephex Twin]

You see? If you'd had a better grounding in science, you wouldn't be confused about this. EVERYTHING isn't taught in science class... SCIENCE is taught there-- natural explanations supported by evidence using the scientific method!

I sure didn't have a problem in high school learning about "what a majority of people in the USA believe"... when I took a *comparitive religions* course.

A majority of people also believe that George Washington was our nation's first president... oddly, I don't recall ever learning that in my science class.

Re:And evolution is?

[pe1rxq]

Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?

Classic mistake.... the 'I don't know how so it is impossible without devine intervention' excuse.
Science has already demonstrated that you need only a few modifications to allow normal brain tissue to become light sensitive.

And an eye with a few components still can give you an advantage over others that don't have it:
-Take out the muscles that move it around, you would have to turn your head to look at different things, but it would still be usefull.
-Take out the focussing stuff, you would only see a few things really clear, but when a large blob comes at you at high speed you might step aside while someone without this less usefull eye would get hit/eaten.
-Take out color, black and white tigers still look dangerous enough without the yellow.
-Take out the transparent stuff and place a thing layer of skin in its place, you would get even worse focusing but one could still see blobs moving around.
-Remove the fluid stuff and place the retina close to the skin, you could still detect sudden changes in the lighting.

Do them all and you are very close to the simple lightsensitive braincell.

I am not saying that is the way it happened, but I could think a possible path up in a few seconds without the need to drag some higher being into the picture.

The whole 'irreducibly complex' stuff is a joke, the being that is supposed to do that sort of stuff would need to be even more complex...



I don't disbelieve evolution but neither do I blindly believe everything the scientists tell me is fact That's rather the basis of science.

As an aside: did you consider that God could, by definition he's omnipotent afterall, have forged the fossil record? I think most Christians believe he's not like that and so didn't.

Don't try to use logic and omnipotent gods in the same sentence, its to easy to logically disprove an omnipotent god....
Besides the world was created last week including evidence, such as your memories, of the past.

Jeroen

Re:I am an evolutionist, but this ruling sucks

[What is a number]

Teach it in social science class, not biology.

Although, I do agree to some extent - I learned about "spontaneous regeneration" as an example of a failed theory in science class, and learned about the scientific method in general, so I could see teaching ID in that light.

Of course there are intermediate forms of the eye!

[hpulley]

By the eye, what do you mean? A device to detect light? Or a device with an iris, cornea and retina? Light-sensitive cells exist in many simple forms and have evolved to more and more efficient versions of vision. There exist forms of life with simple and complex vision today. See this article about a PBS show on the subject [pbs.org]. "The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."

Here is more at this press release about the evolution of the human eye [embl.org]. '"It is not surprising that cells of human eyes come from the brain. We still have light-sensitive cells in our brains today which detect light and influence our daily rhythms of activity," explains Wittbrodt. "Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision."'

And lots more links here [austarnet.com.au]. so please let's stop using the eye as an example. What next, bacterial flagella? That one is explained too [ku.edu]. Next question?

Is it all figured out? No, but in science when we don't know it all we say that we are still looking, we don't say things we don't know must be explained by supernatural means, which is what ID does. It cops out with, "it must be something intelligent that designed it" instead of trying to understand the real reasons. Science may never find all the answers, it doesn't promise that it will but at least it doesn't have the answers BEFORE it has the QUESTIONS.

No victory

[oDDmON oUT]

As all this will do is enable the religious right to galvanize their base against "radical judges legislating from the bench", as much a non-issue as gay marriage was in 2004, and this despite the Judge Jones declaration "that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."".

We live in the strangest of times, where intangibles matter more than observable facts and spin supplants truth as a means to grasp and maintain power.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Kierthos]

Yeah, many people believe in Jesus. Lots of others believe in Mohammed. Some believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

None of that is science. It is religious belief. It should not be taught in science class.

IMAO, even if the majority of people believe something, it doesn't mean that something is right, accurate, or worthy of respect.

Kierthos

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[smooth wombat]

Why can't a teacher tell his students that many people believe God created the universe?

Why should someones belief in a supernatural being be included in a science class? If they mention God (a Christion god) why not mention Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, etc? Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testing the natural world.

People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years.

And the Earth has been in existence for what, 4.5 billion years? Besides, what does Christ have to do with it? Christ isn't God (at least not from what I remember of my catechism classes).

Many people believe God created everything, and as people, we're doing our best to describe and measure what he created.

Whoa! Hold on thar pardner. You just made a huge leap of false logic. First you say that many people believe that God created everything yet provide no evidence for this belief. Then you suggest that we are trying to measure what he created. If you haven't provided any evidence to further the claim that God exists how can you say that God created everything?

Also, who says God is a he? Why not a she? Why not an it? A supernatural being able to create matter from nothing most likely doesn't have a gender.

Many people believe in lots of things. Some people even believe they are Jesus. That doesn't mean they are correct.

Re:Well good

[TeaQuaffer]

"Well good"?

I'm not a big fan of ID. But I don't have a problem with someone pointing out flaws in a model.

I think students should be told that our model of reality is not perfect. I think they should be told that Evolution has problems, that F does not really equal MA, and that we don't know what dark matter is.

I am not about to argue ID. But I am ready to say that when the government starts setting a "Federal List Of Theories Approved For Discussion" we are in serious trouble.

Re:Well good

[numbski]

Just so we're clear here....

The desktop computer I have today has evolved over the last 30+ years. Heck, we could go back decades or even centuries beyond that depending upon what you call a "computer". What one might consider a computer 100 years ago most certainly bears no resembelence to what we have today. This process of evolving was more or less self-contained.

Now, I could go either way in the argument from here that Charles Babbage didn't create the computer knowing that things would evolve and change and grow, and didn't write a big elaborate story explaining how things would change and grow, but at the same time those evolutions required intelligent design.

I believe the point that the gp was trying to make was that we're teaching science, or rather the fact that things HAVE changed, discuss why they have changed, and perhaps even what dictated those changes. When we tech computer science, we may go into a brief history lesson, but we generally wouldn't dwell on the life and times of Charles Babbage. We also wouldn't start rambling on about how Mr. Babbage is still watching today and shaping the computer industry. A seperation of church and state here is appropriate. That still doesn't mean that intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive, but rather it's the wrong material in the wrong classroom.

Oh, and Mr. Troll, indoctrination is not so. Once you hit 18, you should begin to think for yourself. Long before that in fact. The fact that society as a whole tends to be one large flock of sheep that is herded around as such does not mean that your or I should be so. Sure, I was raised christian. I strayed away. I learned to think for myself, had the very foundations of what I believed torn apart due to the fact that science contradicts the story-book biblical teaching of my childhood.

I came back to it as a personal choice and a matter of faith. If you are insinuating that we as adults are not capable of making choices beyond what we have force-fed to us as children, well I would suggest you're posting on the wrong boards.

Or maybe not, this IS slashdot after all. :\

Gonna be a warm afterlife

[RatBastard]

You know, I don't remember the 9th Commandment saying "Thou shall not lie, save to further my faith".

Judge doesn't understand "irony"

[jc42]

The judge in the case wrote:

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

There's no irony here at all. What these individuals were doing is properly called "perjury". In pretending to a non-religious motive, they were simply lying. This seems to have been made clear by statements they made outside the courtroom, where they were quite vocal about their religious beliefs. Unfortunately for them, the judge found them out. But he did mischaracterize their behavior as "ironic".

We will now have the usual flamewar over the meaning of the term "irony" ...

(Except within the jurisdiction of Judge Jones' court, where there is now a legal definition of the term. ;-)

Re:And evolution is?

[NotoriousGOD]

Agreed on all points except that when the government mandates that a certain theology or theory be taught regarding science, or anything else, that is a direct rebuttal to religion, isn't the government getting in the business of religion anyway? My kid will learn that we are just animals, that we evolved from monkeys and never think a thing about himself spiritually. To me, that's the government getting ALL up in my grill on religion.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[hunterx11]

Science is all about theories.
Indeed it is.

There are no facts when it comes to how the universe was created.
Well, we're talking about evolution here, not cosmology; even if that weren't the case, while we obviously don't know how the universe started, empirical observations which can give us insight into the beginning of the universe, such as the cosmic background radiation, are facts.

Why can't a teacher tell his students that many people believe God created the universe?
Because it isn't a scientific belief. This isn't a matter of teaching about how people believed in geocentrism, or phlogiston, or the ether; it is a non-falsifiable claim.

This is not like telling students some new theory that someone thought up 5 minutes ago. People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years. It seems like it should be mentioned in the biology class.
You're right; it isn't some new theory. It isn't even a theory at all; it's an untestable model.

Many people believe God created everything, and as people, we're doing our best to describe and measure what he created. I'm not advocating replacing science text books with the bible. But to leave out something that a majority of people in the USA believe is wrong.
What people believe is a subject for an anthropology class, not a science class.

Re:evolution VS. God

[sickofthisshit]

Non sequiturs in support of science are just as weak as the non sequiturs used to support religious doctrine.

Evolution being true (or "proven" to the extent that science can "prove" anything) is essentially separate from the truth or falsity of theology in general, though, of course, it does have some bearing on the truth or falsity of a particular creation chronology one might consider part of a religious doctrine.

Believing that finding a vague inaccuracy in the Bible invalidates all religious doctrine is a strawman argument. On the other hand, using the Bible as "evidence" for religious truth is circular reasoning, i.e. "believe in God because God wrote the Bible, and the Bible says to believe in God!"

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Pray_4_Mojo]

Science is all about theories. There are no facts when it comes to how the universe was created. Why can't a teacher tell his students that many people believe God created the universe?

No, science ISN'T about theories. Its about ascertaining repeatable, provable facts of our material world. Supernatural theories (e.g. one that involves the existance of an entity, when there is no repeatable, provable existance of said entity) are not dealt with science. By definition, they are unscientific.

This is not like telling students some new theory that someone thought up 5 minutes ago. People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years. It seems like it should be mentioned in the biology class.

Bhuddists believe the universe may not have a beginning. I'm not an expert in Bhuddist belief's, but I remember reading one Bhuddist's recollections of a conversation with Dali Lama. The Universe could've been created just moments ago, and created to appear to have a past. And they've been believing in ideas like this before Christ was in diapers. Yet neither idea is provable and repeatable. Science is the search for truths in a material world. Period.

Many people believe God created everything, and as people, we're doing our best to describe and measure what he created. I'm not advocating replacing science text books with the bible. But to leave out something that a majority of people in the USA believe is wrong.

To every idiot that says "Evolution is JUST a theory.", I respond with, "The Bible is JUST a book." Its funny how so many people get upset when you trivialize their dogma. ID never had a leg to stand on, unless you count Creationism, which was banned from being taught in schools in 1987. Now please stop hurting science.

Re:Well good

[supabeast!]

"The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will"

Opponents of intelligent design oppose it because intelligent design is nothing but a bunch of Christian extremists posing as scientists trying to slowly bring the book of Genesis into science classrooms, and throw out the entire idea of evolution in the process. Right now there's not a single shred of evidence that the world was designed, only fairy tales about invisible men who live in the sky and speak things into existence. A true science class about the possibilities of world building would probably welcomed on many college campuses - but it's definately too advanced for middle or high school students.

Re: Well good

[Black Parrot]

> The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will

Uh, no. We're rabidly against Intelligent Design (notice the capitals) because it's a blatant political attempt to wedge pseudoscience into the public school classrooms to provide cover for creationist voters who don't want their children to learn about evolution.

Re:Well good

[Jayjay75]

"Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught."

And if the majority of people in the district are illiterate peasants who only want their children to learn to grow crops, what then?

Schools should teach what best practices dictate that they should teach, and also what colleges and universities expect that incoming students should know. If educators merely pander to the masses, the level of education will never rise. Any parents that don't like the curriculum can, as you say, home-school their kids.

Re:Links to more information:

[Gauchito]

I was hearing a discussion about this topic on the BBC the other day, and one of the panel members made an excellent point: the same criticism ID'ers make about evolution can be made of a ton of other scientific theories (in all sciences, not just biology), so why aren't those theories criticized as well? They aren't because evolution is the typical battleground in the cultural war between religious and secular US, not Relativity or Gravity.

Of course, ID is obviously (to us, at least) a euphemistic backdoor for the religious types, but his point, I think, is still a very, very good one. I know a lot of people who still waver in their opinion about the merits of ID (even non-religious people), mainly because they buy the attacks by the ID'ers. I've found that those people, however, accept their arguments thanks to ID's secular mask. Defending against every attack on evolution one at a time is a bad way to convince people, since you mostly just get them in that state where they stop discussing because they are tired of bringing up points they heard (or they don't remember any more) but aren't entirely convinced. Bring up a point (like the one the panel member made) that makes the ID'ers look like hypocrites, and any support for what they say quickly vanishes.

Re:Just a theory?

[dmonder]

The problem I see here is the reason why so many people are confused. You are using the word evolution in two different ways in the same argument. Changes within a species are observable and testable within our world today. Speciation, or evolution of one species into another, is not observable and has never been found in the fossil record.

Here is what happens: people start with the assumption that the world has progressed and developed without God's intervention (Athiestic foundation). A Creationist believes the world progressed and developed as described in the 1st book of the Bible, the Book of Genesis. An Intelligent Design supporter believes God created the world but used evolution to do it, with some interventions here and there. It is possible to explain the creation of the world scientifically from a Creationist point of view. It is all about the initial assumptions.

If one knows the world was created by God a few thousand years ago, they would be able to correctly interpret the scientific findings. If the dating methods yeild dates out of range, then there must be an error in the dating method.

In order to be successful scientists, one must believe in the Creator of the world. If not, you will only be making incorrect assumptions and theories.

David Onder

But quarks are?

[benhocking]

Are quarks 100% of what scientists think they are. Is general relativity? Is string theory?!?

General relativity might be the best comparison here. We are unable to perform controlled experiments warping time and space. We can only measure what is already warped. Similarly, evolution is usually studied by what has already evolved. Actually, we can and have done controlled experiments on evolution, but no doubt this will bring up the whole micro- versus macro- evolution debate, which of course becomes a debate of semantics and one therefore not worth having. I'll admit that I'm not aware of any controlled experiments that have evolved new species (as opposed to sub-species) - although others might be aware of some. Additionally, I perform controlled experiments all the time using evolution to create new virtual species. Currently, I have a whole population of virtual hippocampi (CA3 region only) that are raring to cogitate.

When did you start attending church?

[jocknerd]

If your parents took you as a child, you pretty much didn't make that decision on your own. It was engrained in you as a child. If you never attended church as a child, and started going on your own as an adult, then you can make the claim that you made a choice.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[DrFrob]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, science doesn't give a rat's ass about truth. Science is about seeking out explanation, understanding, and prediction. A scientific theory can simultaneously be absolutely wrong (e.g., classical physics) but entirely usefull if it allows one to make predictions and explain behavior reproducibly.

Re:Well good

[alnjmshntr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're saying - "Gee I can't understand how evolution could possibly work, therefore evolution can't be the answer... but I can understand how some all-powerful entity could do this, so therefore that must be the answer"

Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet

[Anonymous Coward]

"it must be pointed out that the reason why it was defeated - in the words of the Judge - is not because of ID itself but because the people who represented the reasons for inserting ID into the curriculum did so inappropriately."

No, I don't think so.

I've read the 139-page judgement. I'm not a lawyer, but it is pretty clear to me that, independent of the details of the questionable actions of the board members in the case, ID would be on very shakey legal grounds even if the people involved were lily-white and acting with appropriate intentions. As the judgement makes very, very plain: A) ID in its current form is not science, and B) its introduction into science curriculum in schools is inappopriate for that reason. The implementation details (which were severely botched by this board if they wanted to try to defend their actions down the line) only made the situation more obvious.

At the place where the judge made clear that he was not saying the intelligent design concept should not be studied and discussed, he was talking about *generally* -- i.e. in the broader realm of scholarly study (as in, maybe someday the ID movement will get its act together and become scientific, but the judgement implies pretty strongly that the basic philosophy/approach adopted may already bar that possibility). Public school classrooms? I don't think he was talking about that context when he makes the comment from which I think that paraphrase was derived, on p.137:

"With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

So, basically, I think you are quite wrong that it was the people behind the message that was the main problem. The message *itself* is out of scope in the public school classroom, according to the judge's opinion.

You're probably right about the appeals, but given that the board itself has been almost entirely replaced in the interim, I can't see how that could easily happen.

Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus

[Decameron81]

"It should be pointed out that natural evolution is also a nondisprovable theory."

Says who? It would just take new evidence that the genetic coincidence between humans and apes is meaningless, or that we didn't all come from the sea, and evolution would go out of the window. If each species was found not to evolve in any way, then evolution would be proven wrong.

It is certainly disprovable.

Re:Well good

[jtdubs]

And you are under the impression that that is what ID is?

Here's how this sounds to me:

OP: ID as commonly discussed and presented at trial is not science and shouldn't be taught in schools.
You: But if you make ID mean this entirely different thing, then you are wrong.
Me: And your point is?

Religious studies

[Midnight Thunder]

If it fits anywhere is in a class of religious studies. When I was at school I had class by this name, and it taught about all religions and did not try proving that one religion was better than another. It was more about trying to provide intellectual insight into the basis and beliefs of each religion.

The other places that would be suitable for teaching this is bible school, church or even private Christian schools.

BTW Don't forget that even the Catholic Church recently came out and declared their support for evolution.

Re:Well good

[Ithika]

You post is the rantings of a bigot who hates Christians.

Come back and say that when Christianity has a monopoly on absurd creation stories.

Schools should teach what the majority of people in the district want taught.

No, schools should teach reality, that same reality which is the case in America, China and Mars. The phenomena of genetic mutation and speciation don't cease to exist because you stick your fingers in your ears and burble loudly.

There should be freedom to discuss anything in the classroom. I find it absurd that liberal groups want to give academic freedom to ideas they believe in, but will deprive others of the right to speak their mind.

"Liberal groups"? Who are these anonymous, ever-present, conspiratorial "liberal groups" that are hell-bent on destroying your fun^W^W^Wteaching science in science classrooms?

Prove to me there is no God.

I don't have to, any more than I have to prove to you there is no tooth fairy, no Grim Reaper, that Buffy isn't real and that Cthulhu isn't really dead but dreaming deep under the ocean. You assert that something exists, you come up with the proof.

People have believed in God since the start of time. What makes scientists today so much more certain than scientists of 100 years ago?

Cos, you know, science progresses. That's what it does; that's what it's meant to do. I'd be extremely troubled if scientists today knew less than 100 years ago.

Re:Are quarks science?

[pnewhook]

Since when did lawyers get that priveledge?

You'd rather have the Church decide? When they effectively stagnated science and astronomy for hundreds of years as they insisted the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe, and threatened scientists like Copernicus and Galileo and their supporters with death? (the church position was that since God created the earth and the universe for man, then earth HAD to be at the centre and not some speck of insignificant dust orbiting a star)

Advancing science in spite of themselves

[rumblin'rabbit]

I doubt the court decision had anything to do with how stupid ID is. The only real question for the courts is whether ID is religion.

In truth, the ID'ers raise some interesting questions for science. How do complex and allegedly "irreducible" organs and systems come about? How is information preserved across generations? What are the thermodynamics of open systems?

Although biologists already had some answers to these questions, the ID'ers have forced biologists to study them more intensely.

The ID'ers have advanced science in spite of themselves. Their conclusions are mistaken, their motives are transparent, but some of the questions are interesting.

It's not science, however...

[sterno]

The notion of ID, that some things may be created by an intelligent agent, isn't invalid. An example I've seen mentioned is the notion of the roundup ready corn. Evolution does not explain roundup ready corn because it was made in a lab through, what one might describe as, intelligent design.

If one was to find a kernel of roundup ready and tried to figure out how regular corn had evolved into roundup ready you'd hit a brick wall because it didn't evolve. Does that mean evolution doesn't exist? No. Does that mean a deity made roundup ready? No. I think it's worth discussing in the context of a science classroom because it illustrates the practical limits of science, that no scientist would refute. There are some things that will forver beyond the ability of science to explain, and that's okay.

To be clear, I recognize that 99.8% of the people promoting ID are trying to find a breach through which to ram christian theological explanations for creation. These people are fools though because every time this has happened throughout history. Science has eventually expanded to understand the things that were supposedly only the realm of God before.

Re:Well good

[SpryGuy]

Why is the parent a troll? It's the truth. That's about the only place ID could or should be taught. I have no problems with ID being mentioned in mythology courses or even comparative religion classes. But it's not science (and in many ways is the opposite of science), and doesn't belong in ANY science classes.

Did God forge the fossil record and does it matter

[clonan]

I am a christian and therefore I beleive that god created the universe and man in his own image. However I also beleive that evolution is a perfect explination of HOW god did that.

Science in general only provides the how, it NEVER provides the why. You need philosophy and religion to do that.

But I am off track. We were talking about whether god forged the fossil record. I submit that is doesn't matter one way or another, we will still act the same way.

Possibility 1 (the fossil record is all a lie and was placed there by god):

To answer this we should look to the bible. There are litterally dozens of passages that instruct man and belivers in particular to explorer gods creation. The world was created for us and we are instructed to appreciate it's glory. Science is simply a structured way of exploring the universe. Even if god DID create false fossil records we should still explorer them and science is the best way we know of to explore things.

Possibility 2 (the fossil record is an accurate measure of history):

Not only does the prior paragraph still apply but now we have an added incentive. We can now begin to understand god himself through his method of creation. By studying how he did things we can begin to guess why and therby come to a better understanding of the almighty and our place in it. If the record is false than we can't derive any info like that.

Since god is all powerfull and we have no way of directly observing his power we can't PROVE he did or didn't do anything. FOr instance say the fossil record is fake....when did he actually create it? 10,000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 200 years ago or 10 seconds ago? The truth is, if you refuse to trust what you observe than nothing you observe will have any meaning.

Re:And evolution is?

[Fareq]

"because I lack the ability to understand an evolutionary system of a grand scale, I have therefore conclusive proof that God must have created the world... After all, everything too complicated for me to understand is just God's miracles"

Deciding what is science

[benhocking]

To further back up my comments about who was and who was not performing due diligence:

Witold Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the families, noted in his cross-examination of Geesey that the policy was adopted over the objections of Dover High School's science teachers.

"The only people in the school district with a scientific background were opposed to intelligent design ... and you ignored them?" he asked.

"Yes," Geesey said.

From MSNBC [msn.com].

It *poses* no questions, more to the point

[ianscot]

It's an interesting interpretation of the state of the universe, but it answers exactly zero questions about it.

The gist of the problem is, ID is unscientific more because it *poses* no questions than because it answers none.

The M.O. of Intelligent Design's advocates forever now has been to go to the edges of what science knows and identify something out there that hasn't been fully explained yet. They then claim the as-yet-unexplained area is evidence of things being so complicated there can be no explanation except a godlike "designer." When science figures out the supposedly irreducible complexity of whatever the example was, the IDers just move the goalposts to whatever's on the edge now.

Michael Behe -- author of "Darwin's Black Box" -- for example, started out talking about fossil whales. Why weren't there intermediary whale forms between mesonychids and true whales? Oops -- over the next 20 years many, many steps in between turned up. "Black Box" is the same watch-watchmaker argument, only about subcellular structures like cilia. The logic's flawed in the same way, and his book is out-of-date in several of its claims. Don't worry, ID types will move the terms of the debate out somewhere else. We're never going to be omniscient, so they'll always have something to seize on.

The trick is, if the ID vision of the universe being so complex it can't be explained by anything but a God was accepted, nobody would ever have asked *any* questions about how things work. In these people's minds, every- every- everything is so infinitely complex that the only possible response to the world is to worship its creator. They've been making this argument since well before Darwin was around, it's not specific to evolution.

It's not just that their idea doesn't answer any questions. No questions would even get asked , if these people ran the world, or your school system.

(And of course that would suit them just fine, because their religious views are about preserving their authority, not about explaining the world or helping anyone lead a moral life.)

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, and most people with your (correct) mindset fail to take into account one thing. The ID proponents for the most part believe the earth to be 6,000 years old. They believe this because their interpretation of the bible says so. If evolution is correct then their belief is flawed. If their belief is flawed then there is no God. Using circular logic, since they know there is a God their belief is not flawed. Therefore evolution has to be wrong.

This is a basic synopsis of their argument. What it boils down to is that evolution challenges their core beliefs and in some cases their very reason to live. You will not be able to change their minds with any facts, scientific evidence, or logic.

Re:It's awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not awesome. But realistic.

I mean, think about it: it's okay to believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy and Unicorns when you're a kid, because that's the age of Magical Thinking. But if you still believe in those things as an adult, you're looked at as some sort of weirdo, and justifiably so. So why is it any different if you believe in a magical, mystical, invisible sky-fairy who watches everything you do, can read your mind, and can control everyone's fate? I mean *come on*. I believing in that stuff as an adult isn't a sign of some sort of intellectual defect or brainwashing, then what IS?

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[m50d]

We made sure our kids were capable of critical thought, judgement and self-determination in the area of beliefs.

Which mitigates it enormously. Many people don't.

They have their own (for the record, two have ended up Catholic, one agnostic, one athiest - the jury's still out on the youngest two, but they're leaning toward agnostic and Jewish).

Yes, but can you honestly say you think they had an equal choice between all possibilities? I doubt it given you have two catholics but noone going for another religion that neither of you have.

If I believe a thing to be true, wouldn't not sharing that with my children be abuse?

No. We believe that freedom of thought and belief is a fundamental human right. Beliefs are a matter for the individual, like, say, sexual preference. Regardless of what you believe, it's not your place to tell anyone else what they should, but especially someone who isn't old enough to make their own decision.

Re:Just a theory?

[iyntsiannaistnyi]

If I'm not mistaken, the example of the moths in England has since been proven to be false, in that it didn't actually happen and that bad scientific method was involved in collecting data. I cannot currently offer citations for this, but I can offer a suggestion that your (one) example of observable Survival Of The Fittest may need to be further investigated before being used in debates such as this.

One of the most important precepts in a debate is that you accurately present the point of view of your opponents. In this case, since supporters of ID are demographically -and- ideologically quite diverse, then you should probably at least acknowledge the different approaches. For instance, acknowledge that not all ID supporters believe "Look, we have a changing species over time" is proof. In fact, many IDers don't (and shouldn't) present ID as science, because it's not. In fact, ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. If I accurately recall my university readings, Asa Gray, a staunch evolutionist and correspondent with Darwin, was the one who proposed the first version of ID. What is ID really? A theory concerning the 'first cause', or the impetus behind evolution. This side of ID should be mentioned in your comments if you refer only to your opponents as "ID supporters". If you wish to specify your comments to a more narrow group, perhaps one deserving of the comments, please acknowledge that it is a narrower group and that not all IDers fit into the category. Accuracy, please, won't someone think of the children?!</gratuitous Simpsons ref>

In my mind, as someone who has objectively read some (not a lot) on both positions, the proof you're alleging is singularly unavailable in both cases. Just like we can't go back however many millions of years and see a giant finger come down and poke the platypus, we also can't observe the evolution from species to species over the same time period. In your list of the scientific method, hypothesis and proof, as they are used in laboratories, take a bit of a different shape. A scientist hypothesizes something, and then tries to recreate the scenario and achieve the same results in order to be able to call it proof. Again, this is pretty much impossible on both sides of this debate.

I do not deny the observations of the fossil record. There are definitely differences such as the ones to which you referred. However, the existence of fossil B is as much speculation as the message in a chromosome. Neither can be proven until they are found, and neither can be disproven ever. I'm sure all of us are aware that scientific cannot prove the nonexistence of something, even something as far-fetched as a message in a chromosome.

It surprised me that you said "I like my belief better. Until something better comes along..." There is as little "science" to be found there as in many of the ID arguments. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against the blurring of the science vs. philosophy/religion boundaries. All human pursuits are mutually relevant, because everything is connected. I just wanted to point out that part of what you said.

I love science. I think it is a tremendously worthwhile pursuit, and a critically important set of knowledge for humans to possess. What I wish is that more scientists would admit where faith enters our world view. It's there, but usually we successfully ignore it. Perhaps as an experiment, look for faith jumps in your procedures and understandings, with as much skepticism as you look for faith jumps in the procedure of your opponents. Skepticism is, after all, what science requires.

I think what I'm saying is basically this: don't be any less charitable to IDers than you are to yourself, because all that demonstrates is that you are biased. Bias is dangerous to the scientific method. Acknowledge that a little faith here and there isn't a bad thing.

Re:Well good

[Ryan Amos]

ID is not even necessarily incompatible with evolution. The only part that many ID proponents (well, not the hardcore evangelicals who believe the bible as the literal truth) really disagree with is the "life sprang from a random soup of amino acids and evolved into what it is today." If you change that to "God created microorganisms which, through his grand design, evolved into life today." The biological processes can be exactly the same, as God would have created them as well.

Most Christians who believe in ID are willing to accept that God did not *poof* humans and animals as they are today into existance. Only a few hardcore nutballs argue otherwise (mainstream Christianity considers most of Genesis to be a metaphor.) Once you get down to this level of theory, I'm about as willing to accept modern science's explanation as I am religion's, because they're guessing either way. Neither can be proven and they're just theories. IMO schools would be better off saying "We don't actually know how life started. We do know quite a lot about what happened afterward though."

Re:Well good

[adrenaline_junky]

Holy freaking smokes are you ever wrong.

And we're glad that someone came along and pointed it out! You must be right because you speak with such fervor. And we all know that truth is determined by the intensity with which an idea is believed.

Intelligent design is exactly what belongs in a classroom. But it has nothing to do with religion.

Which classroom are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that this is a topic that gradeschool through highschool kids should be studying? What classes should be dropped so that this particular pet subject of yours can be studied?

There isn't a biological engineer on the planet who wouldn't love to create life from raw elements and watch them evolve into something more complex.

Even if this is true... so? Why does this suddenly become a topic that MUST BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL?

If you want to have a real education then it should be along the lines of:

        Let's say you wanted to create a world as complicated as earth - what knowledge and technology would this require?

I always suspected that I never had a real education. You know, actually, this sounds vaguely like some of the stuff that was discussed in a science-fiction literature course I once took. So maybe I did have a real education. I agree, science-fiction literature should be a required course for ALL students. No graduation until you can recite Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics from memory!! Moo-haha!!

Can an intelligence construct a world? Absolutely.

Oh? Really? Have you met these aliens? I've read plenty of science-fiction that makes the same assertion, but I never knew it was an established fact. But you speak with such authority that it MUST be.

Can we? No. Why not? That's what physicists and geological engineers and biologists and a whole bunch of other people are trying to answer.

Honestly, this is an interesting question. But this is hardly what physicists and geological engineers and biologists are spending their time studying. Their studies may tengentially relate to this subject, but I suspect that the number of scientists that are specifically working on this goal could fit in a small room.

The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will

Sorry, but you sir, are the arrogant freak. We are not necessarily against discussion of this "intelligent design" concept. Indeed, it has been the subject of many science-fiction books that a whole lot of us here on Slashdot have certainly read. What we are against is teaching ID in a classroom in a way to undermine the extremely solid theory of evolution.

It doesn't matter if ID is real or, if it is, who did the design. It really doesn't matter. What does matter is the question of "how could it be done".

Sure. Its an interesting question. There are lots of other interesting questions that people can ask as well. This is just one of many. Take your self-righteous frothy mouthed zealotry and find a more useful outlet for your overly abundant enthusiasm for this particular concept.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Cstryon]

You are wrong. One of the things learned as a child was that I had the choice, and I make the choice. Infact, one of the things taught in Christianity is Freewill. How could I be accountable if I was never making a choice.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage

[Trinition]

Every change had to confer a survival advantage

Why?

All that needs to happen is for a change not to cause the organism to die before it can pass its genes on. If there is a mutation, even a harmless or slightly detrimental one, so long as the organism still successfully reproduces, then it passed its genes on. Its unmutated counterparts may still reproduce at a better rate, causing its own numbers to diminish relatively.

But if that disadvantage then mutates again to something that is then a great advantage, then this organism can regain its losses and procreate even faster than its nonmutated counterparts.

Sometimes to reach a gloablly optimal path, you have to take a locally suboptimal path. So long as one mutation doesn't completely destroy an organism, the mutation, even if immediately unhelpful, can serve as a stepping stone to future, more helpful mutations or advantages in changing environments.

Imagine it like this. Suppose a mutation makes a human very nerdy looking. Girls don't like that. Their chances of reproduction drop sharply. The occasional nerd of the opposite sex may come along allowing this breed to trickle on. Then computers are invented and these nerds have anew environment in which to flourish. Their nerdy traits make them very successful, which in turns attracts a large number of mates, allowing what was a negative mutation to carry on in greater numbers!

OK, that one was a stretch :)

Re:Well good

[ekwhite]

It seems that your prejudices are showing, sir. I am NOT a Christian, but I am uncomfortable with all the Christian bashing that goes on in these boards. To me, this is as bad as Christians bashing other religions.

My kid, my decision

[BobSutan]

Its simple really, if I want my kid to learn religion in school then I will send him to a religious school, catholic or otherwise. Faith is based on a belief, not facts, and that is not science. Since this was tought in a science class it is a just decision and our kids will be better for it.

For those that believe ID is anything but a dressed up creationist view masquerading as a science of any kind, think again. Most people capable of critical thinking aren't fooled and thankfully neither was the judge.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[MightyMartian]

Sigh. Public schools are governed by the Establishment Clause. What's more, wouldn't you rather have your child learn a little about science, and leave the religious indoctrination to you and your preacher?

Re:Well good

[Cstryon]

maybe they are 200 million years old. Maybe the Bible was misinterpreted\incomplete. Maybe it all boils down to NIETHER Side having the answers. Whether one side is more logical than the other or not, there is going to be opposition to everything. We can keep proving each other wrong, but you could never convince a Christian if the Christian doesn't want to try to understand. And I could never convince an Athiest if he doesn't want to believe. Either Side needs faith in their own Believes.

Re: Some Points to Consider

[Black Parrot]

> Some ID proponents advised against the former Dover school board pressing this case, as they felt it didn't have a good chance. Other school boards, however, will now simply become more careful about how they attempt to introduce ID into the classroom.

The problem for ID is, it was designed to give political cover to religious zealots, but it requires those same zealots to keep their mouths shut about their religious beliefs.

That's why it failed in Dover, and that's why it's ultimately going to fail anywhere else. The kind of people who want it in the classroom are precisely the kind of people who feel compelled to insist on having their way with their religious views. The cool intellectuals at the Discovery Institute forgot to consider the nature of their customers, and it blew up in their faces.

Re:Well good

[vertinox]

Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse.

I'm still bitter about the whole Santa Claus thing...

Re:When did you start attending church?

[EvilSS]

If a person is raised as an atheist, they cannot chose to be an atheist as an adult but they can chose to believe in religion? That is essentially what you are implying, that a person can only make a choice to go against their upbringing and cannot make a conscience choice to continue the beliefs of their parents. This simply is not true.

ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[ThosLives]

Hrm. The discussion here always degenerates into "is ID provable" and "there is scientific evidence for evolution" debates.

The debate should really be: "What constitutes violation of the separation of church and state clause?"

The Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Okay, then, what does "respecting an establishment of religion" mean? This is the timeless debate of constitutional lawyers everywhere. The flip side of this, though, is not considered: what about laws that expressly restrict establishment of religion? Put it this way: I believe a law that says "you must teach ID" would violate this amendment. However, I also believe that a law which says "you must not teach ID" is equally in violation of the amendment. Similarly, I believe laws that require the display of the Ten Commandments are unconstiutional but also that laws prohibiting their display are also unconstitutional. The same for prayer in schools, etc.

The reason for this is simple: the authors of the Amendment wanted to prevent the government from abusing religious power. However, in prohibiting certain religious things in the public arena, this religious power is abused. The religion being promoted here is atheism, or agnosticism, or any of a multitude of others. You see, "science" is a religion in the broadest sense (and lawyers like the broad sense).

What many people forget is that by expressly denying something, you are actively asserting the opposite philosophy (in this case, "religion X" versus "everything which is not religion X". In the case of certain religions, all belief systems which exclude that religion are themselves a form of religion. That is, "no religion" is itself a religion (contrary to popular belief).

So, talk about the technical issues between ID and evolution all you want. The issue is much larger than that one, and it is really about active oppresion of religious views under the guise of "tolerance". The only constitutionally valid stance is to make no laws at all regarding religious practices (exception: a law against murder is not usurped by "expression of religion" where said religion has human sacrifice as part of its practices.)

(Incidentally, ID vs Evolution is always looked at incorrectly. ID isn't about how life operates - which is appropriately explained by evolution - but how life originated. The nature of ID still has the logical possibility of the laws of physics being "created" to allow random molecules to join and form self-replicating systems. The discussion can never be finished, because it is unknowable if the universe was created or was always present; it is also foolishness to claim something false if it is unprovable. That is why, as the religious put it, it is a matter of faith. The debate is childishness if it does not serve anything, and the practical implications of ID vs Evolution are quite limited, and it's not really worth the effort to form public policy about somthing which, I believe, is orthogonal to how one interacts with their environment. For that, after all, is the true focus of Religion.)

Re:Well good

[mozumder]

Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse.
--
In the same vein, forcing kids to recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" is ALSO child abuse. What a HORRIBLE thing to do to a kid, to force them to swear loyalty to a capitalist politcal organization originally founded by racist slaveowners!

Loyalty should be earned, not assumed. Let's not assume that I, as an American, have anything in common with some red-state racist bible-thumper, or would do anything to support their aspirations through support of this militant sytem. Like I want to invade Iraq to establish Christianity and open up their oil fields for ExxonMobil to profit from.

We need to make government weaker, and not stronger. A strong government is dangerous, and is more likely to be controlled by special interests, instead of supporting public interests.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Anonymous Coward]

The logic is fine.

Being an atheist is positively believing that there is no God. Quite different from not having an opinion.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Darth]

my family took me to church when i was a child. Now that i'm an adult, i don't go to church. How is my choice to not go to church as an adult always demonstrative of free will while another person's choice to continue going to church always demonstrative of brainwashing?

I played baseball and soccer as a child. I dont play either now. Are the people i know who still play those games brainwashed?

Maybe they just found something enjoyable or valuable in it and have chosen to continue to participate while i didnt find anything valuable and chose to spend my time in other ways.

I had a friend in college who was in her 30s and converted from being an atheist to being catholic. Is she free thinking?
A guy i used to study martial arts with converted from christianity to islam. Is he free thinking?

If you raise your children to not beleive in a god, are you brainwashing them?

The difference betweeen "brainwashed by your parents" and "made your own choice" cannot be determined by the choice you made. It is determined by the reason you made the choice.
If you continue to go to church because you enjoy it, it's a choice.
If you continue to go to church because it's what you've always done, you can call it brainwashing.

Re:Well good

[sardiskan]

Why is it that all /.ers will fill up a thousand comments on something concerning ID or Evolution (which most have a vague concept of anyway). But they have nothing to say when a new discovery is made in robotics, or the new PERL 6, or hydrogen powered vehicles. People don't care about it unless there is flame behind it. People love conflict. If you didn't have conflict over one thing it would be another. People that make the assumption that ID or Evolution are mindless, moronic concepts are in grave error. Chritian ID advocates BELIEVE that evolution is a dumb and mindless concept. It is not so. Alot of thought went into it. Evolutionist BELIEVE that ID is a dumb and mindless concept. Again, it isn't dumb and mindless. Alot of thought went into it. Both of these extreams have very intellegent (more so than us /.ers) people that believe in them. And both concepts are a BELIEF. If you look at the whole picture, evolution is unprovable and ID is unprovable, which means that to whichever wing you choose, you choose so on a BELIEF. ID vs Evolution is not about proving the origin of man anyway, its about TRYING to prove that there is or is not a God. And that battle rages on, just as it always has in the past, and just as it will continue to in the future. For those that think that ID is a dumb idea, why not do a little research instead of being so left winged. http://www.drdino.com/ [drdino.com] But again, this whole battle is about a belief so there will never be a resolution. Flame On!

Re:Well good

[bnenning]

But it's not science (and in many ways is the opposite of science), and doesn't belong in ANY science classes.

Actually I think it should be mentioned in science class, as an example of what science is *not*.

Re:And evolution is?

[TrumpetPower!]

why-is-it wrote:

It is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist.

sigh

Nonexistence proofs are trivial. Perhaps the most famous is Euclid's that ``the largest prime number [wikipedia.org]'' doesn't exist.

As for a proof against omnipotence, here's one:

All but God can prove this sentence true.

Omnipotence must necessarily include omniscience; an omnipotent being could just ``use its omnipotence'' to give itself omniscience. So, if we can disprove omniscience, we've also oh-by-the-way disproved omnipotence. And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem [wikipedia.org]. Don't believe me? Then try this on for size:

Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?

(And do keep in mind that ``Will this program ever halt?'' can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'')

You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.

The modern theological god is essentially dependent on so many logically-impossible traits it's not even funny. First cause? Well, if everything needs a creator, then what created the creator? Omnibenevolent? Then, whence comes evil?

You might as well define ``God'' as a married bachelor and be done with it.

Cheers,

b&

Re:Well good

[zootm]

Prove to me there is no God. Prove to me that everything science measures and describes was not created by God.

Science can't do that, so far as we know. Which is just part of the reason that God is not taught about in Science class!

People have believed in God since the start of time. What makes scientists today so much more certain than scientists of 100 years ago?

More knowledge. The science of today is built upon the science of the past. We're more sure, but science doesn't strive for a "full" understanding, just a better and better one as time goes on.

Scientists are not sure that there is no God, which seems to be your assertion. They simply see no evidence to suggest strongly that there is a God, so it's not a part of scientific theory. Science is about interpreting the evidence, and to build up a better understanding through this process. Science will not give up on this approach and squeeze the beliefs of a single group into the parts it has not yet fully explained just because extremist members of that group thinks that's how science works.

I do agree, however, that your parent's post was overly harsh. Beliefs are acceptable. I do not agree that the majority of the district wanted ID to be taught, however, the immediate voting out of those who mandated its teaching and voting in of a board hostile to the movement is testament to that.

The false fossil record arguement

[Brushen]

Intelligent design supporters comment God could have created the fossil record, and the carbon 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 [wikipedia.org]) and the telltale carbon dating it shows along with it. A fallacy in this arguement is that God could have easily, under that notion, created the world five minutes ago, with the sights, the sounds, the smells, the textures, the tastes you remember all planted inside your memories to fool you into thinking the world is older than it is. I would hold that arguement just as credible as the one they argue.

Re:Well good

[demachina]

"Generally, it boils down to finding examples of complicated structures or systems in biology, and saying "see, this is complex enough that I don't think it could arise by evolution.""

Their is a conundrum here when ID proponents say these supposedly "enormously" complex structures couldn't possibly have spontaneously sprung in to existence on their own.

The entire framework of their philosophy is that God, the most complex entity imaginable, somehow spontaneously sprang in to existence from nothingness.

Randomly throwing together organic molecules over the course of billions of years to produce the basic building blocks and mechanics of life seems trivial by comparison to spontaneous creation of an all powerful, omnipotent being.

My inclination is that if it was impossible to for a bacteria to spring in to existence from pools of organic molecules over the course of billions of years, its even more unlikely that an omnipotent being could likewise spring in to existence from nothing.

Re:Well good

[Yewbert]

"Ok, so now they teach the " Fact of Evolution" not the " Theory of Evolution" hmmm.... you know that humanism, atheism, and being agnostic are all religions too,... "

I wish I knew whom to give credit to for this quotation:

"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Re:Well good

[Izmir Stinger]

It's more like a bunch of philsophers looked at the world and thought it was way to complicated to have occurred by chance.

I wonder if these same philosophers look down at their Bridge hand (13 cards) and conclude that the odds of them being dealt that particular hand are less than 1 in 6 billion, so they couldn't possibly have been dealt that hand by chance. The dealer must have given them a seemingly random crappy hand on purpose.

Re:No, it's PARENTING!

[drstock]

I think it's a differense between saying "Treat others as you want others to treat you." and "2000 years ago the son of God walked the earth as a hippie carpenter, therefore you should think/do/believe so and so."

Re:Well good

[orcrist]

Maybe not, but grades shouldn't suffer because I choose to answer the assignment how I believe.

And if you believe 2+2=5? Should you get straight A's in math and go on to become an engineer?

-chris

Re:Well good

[Alioth]

You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is, nor what science is. You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!" because it isn't. The theory of evolution doesn't say "There is no supreme being". Teaching evolution theory does not say "A supreme being cannot exist". The theory of evolution doesn't even mention supreme beings.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory by any definition and therefore should not be taught in a science class because it simply isn't science. Whether you're Christian, Muslim or an atheist, it makes no difference - ID is *not* a scientific theory. If intelligent design is to be taught, then it should be taught either in a philosophy class or a religious studies class. It has no place in a science class because it simply is not science.

Scientific theories are NOT about faith - in fact, part of the scientific method is to *disprove* theories, wheras faith is exactly the opposite - simply believing it's true and not challenging it. Scientists are always looking at probing the theory of evolution, trying to find its weaknesses and trying to disprove evolution theory as it stands because *this is what science is about*. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it does not set out anything that's falsifiable. Things that must be taken on faith are by definition not falsifiable.

Finally, saying "Evolution is only a theory" also grossly misses the point about what a scientific theory is. People who don't know what a scientific theory is often equate it with a "hunch" (sort of like how detectives have theories in TV shows, which are actually hunches). This is not what a scientific theory is.

For a broader understanding of what a scientific theory is and is not (it is NOT 'fact' as you state, and no scientist worth their salt would claim theory to be a fact), start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory [wikipedia.org]

Re:And evolution is?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Just because something is explainable or natural does not remove it from being a miracle.

Re:When did you start attending church?

[Peter La Casse]

Do the people who reject their parents' beliefs also not have free will? How do you differentiate between people who embrace and people who reject their parents' beliefs? How can one have free will while the other doesn't?

Re:Just a theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is what happens: people start with the assumption that the world has progressed and developed without God's intervention (Athiestic foundation). A Creationist believes the world progressed and developed as described in the 1st book of the Bible, the Book of Genesis. An Intelligent Design supporter believes God created the world but used evolution to do it, with some interventions here and there. It is possible to explain the creation of the world scientifically from a Creationist point of view. It is all about the initial assumptions.

I strongly disagree with several things here.

First, believing that the world developed without God's intervention is not atheism. Atheism is believing that God does not exist at all.

Let's pretend I peg God's last intervention as the Big Bang. That would not make me an atheist any more than believing that God doesn't intervene to actively aid me in the act of farting.

Secondly, AFAIK ID folks do not believe that God "used evolution". At any rate, almost none of the ones pushing the philosophy.

Lastly, "explaining" the world "scientifically" from a creationist POV seems to be a contradiction. Creationism uses assumptions which science explicitly cannot operate upon.

Re:And evolution is?

[varith]

Because the fossil record does not show "bigger and bigger life forms" in the upper layers - it shows newer ones!. In fact, your theory would require large dinosaur bones to be on the top layer of everything instead of in the middle layer - as they are.

Re:ID should be covered

[Dirtside]

Is it really going to hurt anyone if they do say 2 classes on ID showing it's negative sides and what ID supporters call evidence?

If it's framed as an example of what is not science, then yes, it could be very useful. I think part of the problem in basic science education is that kids aren't really taught what science is -- they're just taught a lot of random basic scientific facts (our solar system has nine planets! woo!), and maybe given the usual rundown on observe-predict-experiment-repeat, without really coming to understand the large-scale implications of science. Maybe that stuff is too complicated for kids, but high school students should definitely be able to understand it.

Of course, I'd be wary of the anti-ID classes being corrupted to actually present ID or other crackpot theories, but... it's something to consider.

ID provides no value

[chmilar]

Patient: "Why to I have cancer?"

Intelligent Design Doctor: "You are designed to have cancer."

Patient: "Okay. Thank you. I will go away and die, now."

ID promotes fatalism. Not only is not science, it is anti-scientific.

Real science provides real value.

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

Modded up by other ignorant Slashdotters. How sad.

Are you new to this debate, or have you just not listened to anyone that you disagree with? Perhaps you've already stopped reading this -- that would explain your profound misunderstanding. Please, bear with me for just a minute, and in the future you'll be able to enter this debate a little bit better armed.

Science is not about belief. Science has nothing to do with belief. Honestly. The fact that ID requires belief is what makes it nonscientific. ID requires belief because it is untestable. You have to accept it as fact if you want to use it. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, requires no faith. It is *NOT* accepted as fact, because in science there are no absolute truths. The theory of evolution is a good explanation that we came up with, and we use it because we can't come up with a better one. It's not sacred, it's not "fact", and nobody takes it on faith.

"Every man, woman, and child on the planet is a religious zealot. The only difference is what their religion is."

I disagree. Using myself as an example, I can say that not everyone needs a religion. I have no faith -- only assumptions.

the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief.

Science makes no claim about anyone's beliefs. The very idea of whether there is or isn't a creator is completely out of bounds. It would be like proposing that there's an invisible elephant in another, completely inaccessible dimension. Science can neither tell us that the proposition is true nor that it is false. It's not something that can be analyzed by science one way or the other. God is out of bounds for the same reason, as are all beliefs in the supernatural. We're not talking about teaching that God is not real, we're talking about not teaching that God is real. See the difference?

Re:Well good

[smellsofbikes]

I'm not precisely disagreeing with what you've said. But a lot of scientists do indeed say that evolution is a fact, seeing as they watch it happen on a daily basis in microbiology laboratories and drug/chemical testing facilities all across the world. The theory of evolution posits HOW it happens. In a similar way, gravity is a fact. There is a theory of gravity that posits how IT happens, and that is, in my opinion, a much weaker theory than evolutionary theory. But it doesn't mean gravity's just a theory. It means our explanation for it is just a theory.

Evolution is a fact. We're just filling in the details, and that's the theory part.

Re:Well good

[sickofthisshit]

Sure, you hear scientists all the time saying evolution is a "fact."

Of course, if you press them, they will qualify it and say something like "the apparent descent of organisms with modification is observed in the fossil record so often in so many cases, that it strains credulity to worry that genetically similar organisms did NOT arise from common ancestors; furthermore, as a totally separate question, the adaptedness of organisms for their particular mode of existence does NOT require that they were 'designed' for that purpose, or arose from some mystical teleological drive, but rather is a forseeable consequence of the process of natural selection."

And if you continue to press them, they will admit that the particular facts of how natural selection led to a particular feature might be debatable or unclear, so that any particular piece of evidence in isolation is hardly ironclad "fact."

The point is, there are a huge number of practicing biologists who get up every day and go to work as honest scientists WITHOUT seriously doubting Darwin. They treat evolution and the theory of natural selection as facts, in the same way they treat the multiplication table as fact; not because they go out of their way to prove it, but because it is what they learned, it makes a huge amount of sense, and it is almost guaranteed to be fruitless to question it.

You might as well argue that "atoms" and "nuclei" and "protons" and "neutrons" are just a model put forth as part of "atomic theory." Nobody serious doubts anymore that they exist. Yes, in principle, the whole thing could be overturned by some immense revolution in particle physics, but almost nobody believes its going to happen.

The difference between ID and "evolution" (to use a vague general term to represent a huge amount of biology) is that evolution actually DOES have a tremendous amount of persuasive evidence on its side, while ID just has a bunch of "betcha can't explain to my satisfaction the evolution of the flagellum, HUH!"

Re:ID should be covered

[jjohnson]

Should we also mention Catastrophism? How about the Norse Tree of Life?

The problem with including a survey of alternatives and a discussion of their merits (or lack thereof) is that we would quickly become bogged down, wasting already precious class time on things that don't further a child's science education. Learning critical thinking and the scientific method is more than adequately served by covering the evolution of various scientific theories, like geocentrism to heliocentrism, or the triumph of germ theory over humours.

Re:Well good

[jedidiah]

Teaching "what biologists believe" is no more an imposition of relgion as would be teaching "what muslims belive". The key here is to realize that what is really going on is an attempt by one group of intolerant people to shout down everyone they might disagree with.

            PA fundies don't get to shout down biologists any more than they would muslims.

            Now as far as your "everything is a religion" nonsense goes...

            Evolution requires no faith. It only requires the acceptance of a few key axioms that are common to science in general. They are all very testable. You can choose to be an artillery target sometime and prove them wrong.

            Any particular conclusion can be accepted or not. You might even convince everyone else they are wrong. Except for Judiasm, you generally don't find this sort of attitude in religions. There is "the one true way, take it or leave it".

          This "you are with or against us" mentality is infact why this conflict exists at all. The relgious zealots can't tolerate any form of heresy. The biologists gladly will.

Re:Well good

[misleb]

Actually, ID (before it was hijacked by Creationism) technically belongs in a philosophy course. Creationism belongs in a sociology course. And the book of Genesis belongs in a mythology course.

-matthew

Re:Well good

[|/|/|||]

Yes, it's a stupid attitude, and I'll tell you why.

Starting with a belief and then trying to justify it through evidence is a sure way to fool yourself. If you're already sure that something is true, then you're going to subconsciously ignore evidence and arguments to the contrary. Look at all these slashdotters posting about ID that have no idea what constitutes a scientific theory. They've been told over and over, but they don't listen, because their minds are not open to alternatives. Science, on the other hand, thrives on alternatives. Turning over old ideas is what drives science forward. In science, you have to work on the assumptions (theories) that you've already established, but you always have to keep checking those assumptions because eventually you will find out that they are not completely correct.

The "Young Earth Creationists" are not keeping open the possibility that their underlying assumption is wrong. Their goal is not to get closer to the truth, it is to find support for the assumptions that they started with. Very bad way to find out anything about reality, IMO.

As for the idea about God faking the age of the Earth, you're falling into the trap of thinking that because something is possible then it must be true. There are an infinite number of complex explanations for how all of the particles in the universe got to where they are now. The only way to proceed is to eliminate the ones that we can't test -- such as the "God made it to fool us" idea. Sure, it could still be true, but when it's 1 among an infinite number of possibilities, it's infinitely unlikely to be true. Anyway, even if you decided that it *is* true, you have to admit that it has to be taken on faith. It has nothing to do with science.

How I Learned to Stop Whining and Love Evolution

[cj7wilson]

The big question we think this debate is about is "Is there a God, or isn't there?" I think many Christians think that evolution is anti-God, when it's not. It wouldn't be the first time large numbers of Christians didn't accept new scientific ideas. Think about Copernicus, Galileo, and others. They turned out to be right, and it wasn't the end of Christianity, though by and large it condemned their theories and behaved rather badly about it.
You can't use science to prove God exists, but you can't disprove it with science either. The universe could have been created to look and behave like it does, or it could have ended up this way all on it's own. Scientists has tried for all of history to either prove or disprove God, and no one has been able to do either. It will always come down to a personal choice of belief: Either God is damned smart or we are damned lucky.
I do think that in many if not most ways "ID" as a movement is more about fighting a perceived hidden agenda in the theory of evolution rather than true science. True science is about finding fact, regardless of what that fact might imply. Christians of all people should know that God is a big boy, He can take care of Himself. Christians should focus on following Christ and spreading the gospel, and not on picking worldly battles.
I like evolution. Personally, I think God would have designed creation as a riddle no man could solve, where His followers would have to live by faith, and not by science. I happen to like that God is smarter than us, and I think that when we die and we find out He really DID create everything, we'll be all the more amazed at what He's done (though some of us might feel pretty stupid for not seeing Him in it). If we die and He's not around, I guess none of us will feel anything at all.

First post, Flame on!

Re:Well good

[agallagh42]

"with the particular hypothesis that the Earth was created exactly 10000 years ago"

Science can't even prove that statement wrong. Let's say that, for argument's sake, the earth was created by a supreme being 10,000 years ago. It would of course have to be created with the dinosaur bones already buried underground, the Grand Canyon already formed in all it's grandness, the mountains already built, etc. Basically, all the evidence that currently points to a multi-billion year old universe was put in place on purpose during the course of 7 days, 10,000 years ago. Okay, fine. There's no way science can disprove that statement.

The question you should ask yourself is, why would your God put all those things in place specifically to fool you?

That is not honest, quote it in full

[Pac]

The obnoxious sticker said: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered".

Now you can read it in two ways:

a) The word "theory" here means exactly what it means in Science. In this case, all textbooks should have hundreds of similar stickers as in "This textbook contains material on inertia. Inertia is a theory, not a fact, regarding the way bodies upon which no external force is acting behave. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered".

b) The word "theory" here is being used with its layman meaning, as in the song "I have a theory" in Buffy's Musical Episode. "I have theory, it could be bunnies". In this case the sentence is not only wrong, it is a blatant religious statement. That was found to be the case, and then the judge nixed it.

Re:Well good

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but the policy being promulgated by the former (they were all sacked) Dover school board was to teach ID as though it were science. That was what the judge says was impermissible (the ID policy they attempted, to teach religion as science, not at all what you are suggesting). Even so, should a school board be directing a teacher to have to mention a particular counter-example to science in a science class? Or, should such a decision of what counter-example(s) to use, if the teacher would be so inclined, be chosen by the teacher from among the easily thousands upon thousands of examples of what is not science? I would say a science teacher can make up their own mind on what counter-example to use, if a discussion of that nature is even necessary. Heaven knows there's not enough time in a science curriculum to speak about what is science, much less what isn't.

a judge has no place in a school

[Antiocheian]

Reading this thread on Slashdot is actually more revealing than the news itself. The issue is not about the validity of intelligent design. Personally I find intelligent design wrong and evolution right.

However I would prefer to leave my chilren's education to a teacher and not a judge.

Re:Well good

[ClamIAm]

The entire framework of their philosophy is that God, the most complex entity imaginable, somehow spontaneously sprang in to existence from nothingness.

BZZT, wrong. The framework of "supreme being" philosophy that Jews, Christians, and Muslims share (I'm pretty sure they're similar on this) is that there is one being that created all and has always existed. And the reason we can't understand this because it's outside the scope of our existence. Some believe you will be "enlightened" in heaven or something. While ID is a flawed concepti, your misrepresentation of easily researchable doctrine is worse, as it is data easy to find and understand.

Re:ID vs Evolution is the Wrong Discussion

[Creechur]

So, talk about the technical issues between ID and evolution all you want. The issue is much larger than that one, and it is really about active oppresion of religious views under the guise of "tolerance". The only constitutionally valid stance is to make no laws at all regarding religious practices...

A very good point, and I happen to agree with your examples such as the Ten Commandments (although calling atheism a "religion" is misleading at best). However, I fail to see how that applies to this case. If ID is necessarily based in religion, then it should be taught in religion/theology class rather than science class. That's not a violation of the establishment clause - if it were, I could propose any wild conjecture I wanted, base it in religion, then cry foul because it doesn't get taught in science classes. If ID can stand on its own as a scientific theory, however, then the issues you state don't apply anyway. The judge ruled that the former applied rather than the latter.

Re:the failures of public education

[idsofmarch]

So much for the idea of presenting our young minds with a number of schools of thought, and giving them the ability to examine the evidence and choose between them responsibly.

But, that's not what is happening. Evolution, because it threatens fundamentalists, has been singled out as an idea worthy of questioning separating the theory from other scientific theories. Not all ideas are equal and it's been 'polite tyranny' that forces us to consider the laughable science of ID as equal to the well-tested, falsifiable, predictable ideas that make up evolutionary theory.

Re:Well good

[Kazoo the Clown]

Based on Einstein's spacetime universe, any God that might exist would presumably be outside spacetime where the concepts of "before" and "after" and "infinite" time and/or space are meaningless-- and that's pretty hard to get your brain around, independent from any existance or nonexistance of God. I suppose such a God wouldn't experience events serially as we do, and petty emotions like "anger" and "jealousy" of such an entity are merely egotistical anthropomorphising.

Re:Well good

[Rary]

"Simply put, any sort of belief related to supernatural beings, for or against, is religious."

I do not believe in God.
I do not believe in Santa Claus.
I do not believe in the Easter Bunny.
I do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I do not believe in ghosts.
I do not believe in leprachauns.
I do not believe in (etc etc etc)...

How many freaking religions can one person have at a time?

The GP's quote, in addition to being humourous, was quite accurate. I do not have faith in the lack of a god, I lack a faith in a god. I believe there is no god in the same way that I believe there is no tooth fairy, and in the same way that I believe that aliens were not involved in JFK's assassination. I simply don't buy it. To me, it's a ridiculous idea. This does not make a religion.

Re:Well good

[tbannist]

No, it just that many of the fundamentally religious slashdotters make it so easy to mock them. I mean really, when someone posts in public that everything in the Bible is true, that it's easier to believe that God used quantum folding and cryogenic hybernation to pack all the animals in the world onto Noah's Ark than it is to believe that story is allegorical, what do you expect to happen?

And yes, Athiesm is more scientifically sound than fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist religion says things happen because invisible hands makes them happen, atheism says invisible hands don't exist. It usually means the atheist believes in basic principles of science, which fundamentalists frequently deny. However, that comparison doesn't always hold true when you compare rational athiests versus rational believers. There is room to believe in the existence of a God without falling into the trap of believing in superstitions and mysticism.

Some people can't see the difference between those points, but it's simple. In the first world view, the hands have a will and can choose whether or not consequences can occur. Thus the world is inherently unreliable and unpredictable, while second believes that events and reactions can be predicted with sufficient understanding.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a strawman argument and isn't an appeal to ridicule either. They aren't claiming the ID people believe in the Spaghetti Monster. Instead they created an example that shows that the "impartial" people who are supposedly allowing the theologically neutral viewpoint into the classroom are lying and simply looking for a way to force their religion on children. There is exactly as much proof to back up the Flying Sphaghetti monster as there is for Intelligent Design, in other words, none. Both are designed to be impossible to disprove.

Of course, the current battle over Intelligent Design in schools isn't even really over religion, though many of the footsoldiers are lead to believe it is. There are people who are afraid that they (and their successors) will loose their current power if American Children are well educated on scientific topics. They want children to be raised ignorant of scientific knowledge so they will always have a supply of pawns to mobilize against anything they dislike.

It's the new way to win elections, some people are just planning to ensure their group maitains power well down the road.

Mostly agree

[einhverfr]

Well put. Intelligent design might be summed up as the idea that "natural processes alone cannot explain the complexity of higher life forms." I do object to it being taught but for reasons other than what most people say here.

The problem with intelligent design is that it is not testable. I think the scientific term might be "interpretation" rather than "theory." In other words, it has little predictive value and is a bit more of a "here is what I think this information means" rather than "here is a theory we can use to predict such and such."

Other "interpretations" in Science include, notably, the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of Quantum Physics. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the idea that "for the purposes of quantum experiments, observation can be thought of as the force that defines a quantum event to a specific manifestation, i.e. the collapse of a specific wave." Like Intelligent Design it is probably untestable. After all, how do you test the effect of observation on quantum phenomina? Certainly not by comparing it in an observed vs. a non-observed state.... In essence the Copenhagen Interpretation really is a "useful way of thinking about" the experimental data in quantum physics. But the fact is, it has no more predictive value than other interpretations, and when you compare the writings of Schroedinger and Heisenberg, one hardly even sees a common interpretation there. I.e. Schroedinger seems to think that the state really is undefined, while Heisenberg thinks it is defined yet unknowable for the non-omnicient. I.e. to Heisenberg, it is not that the velocity and position of an electron are mutually undefined on a physical level, but rather than measuring one prevents measuring the other accurately without simultaniously measuring every other quantum event in the universe. In this view the electron has a distinct position and a distinct velocity, but we can't measure them simultaniously. In this view, these properties exist *indepentant* of observation, while to Schroedinger, they don't.

The problem of interpretations of theory and in fact scientific theory itself is well summed up by Heisenberg in "Physics and Philosophy" where he discusses the fact that data does not imply theory, and that interpreting any set of data (in order to create a theory) necessarily requires bringing in additional assumptions, and that these assumptions may or may not be testible. While Heisenberg doesn't discuss Occam's Razor, it is noteworthy that when you have competing theories, the less complex one is usually assumed to be the most useful. Hence we use a heliocentric rather than geocentric model of the solar system because it is easier to get the motions accurate with less work even though one can mathematically transpose one system into the other with a bit of work.

The apparent problem with Intelligent Design as an interpretation of evolutionary theory is that it appears to most of us to be conclusion ("There is a Creator God") in search of a proof. For this reason, it doesn't seem to fit well with the scientific Principle of Parsimony, a.k.a. Occam's Razor ("One Should Not Needlessly Multiply Entites"). In essence ID requires more work to get the same result as evolutionary biology would. So from a rigid scientific view, ID is a bit like arguing that Saturn moves around the Earth. Yes, you can make it work, but there really is no reason to do so when you have a simpler heliocentric model to work with.

Our current evolutionary theory is fairly incomplete and is still being actively developed. Indeed evolutionary theory is as flawed as the ID people say it is but that is largely because there are missing pieces which are still being worked out. For example, there isn't really a solid understanding as to why populations diverge so quickly when the biodiversity is low,* but the answers to these questions will, I think, better answer the shortcomings of evolutionary theory than ID does today.

* I would say we are about 80% there but this is a very complicated pr

Umm.... Yeah, actually, it does

[Chmcginn]

Freedom of Religeion != Freedom from Religeion

You spelled "Religion" wrong, which is funny, considering you seem to be all about it.

Secondly, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that the federal (and due to the 14th Amendment, the state) government can't establish a state religion, give preferential treatment to an established religion, or stop people from exercising their religion, as long as doing so doesn't violate religiously neutral laws. What I'm trying to get at, is... if the government can't force a particular religoin on me, then why should they force any religion on anybody?

Don't forget, in the end, that's what this debate is about - if it's supported by public money, it's not supposed to include religion. And if ID isn't religion, well, then, I'm the Pope.

Wrong. Scientific Method cannot be applied to ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that I'm not referring evolution in single-celled organisms because it is so different

You can't accept evolution for one organism and reject it for another, on a whim. That's just not Science.

The scientific theory of evolution has been subject to dozens of thousands if not millions of scientific tests over many decades. The testing is not complete of course, it never can be, but that doesn't in any way make it non-scientific. It holds together extremely well as a scientific theory, so far. Huge numbers of questions remain of course, and they always will, but no test has disproved the validity of evolution as yet.

You should note that just because something is a theory in Science doesn't mean that it is suspected to be false. Quantum Mechanics is a theory too, yet all those quantum mechanical devices in your TV and cellphone and computer seem to work just fine. Yet, QM still is no more than a scientific theory, despite that.

The same is true for the astronomical sciences for example, since we cannot directly examine objects billions of lightyears away. And likewise for the key theories of fundamental physics, since we cannot directly examine any of the objects discussed in string theory, for example. But we can always extrapolate hypotheses from these theories and try testing them. That's what makes it Science.

Nothing in ID can be subject to testing by the scientific method, so it's not Science, and hence ID doesn't belong in a classroom of Science, it's that simple. It has nothing to do with truth or falsehood, but merely with whether the matter is subject to the scientific method or not. And ID is not.

Atheism and monotheism are not religions

[einhverfr]

I.e. Atheism is a belief that there is no god. Certainly some branches of Buddhism are atheistic. In other words, Atheism is about as much "a religion" as Monotheism, Polytheism, or Pantheism is. Yet we would hardly say that there is Monotheism is a religion and by that lump all Jews, Christains, Muslims, Bahai'i, etc. together.

Indeed there are religions that are atheistic just as there are religions that are pantheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic.

Agnosticism might be the only one that might not be characterized as the belief that forms the foundation of a religion. Science is agnostic in the sense that it doesn't say anything about the existance or lack thereof regarding any specific divine entity or entities.

Re:Well good

[caitsith01]

In a simplistic sense you are right about agnosticism. However, take for instance gravity. No matter how many times it is observed in action, it can never be conclusively proven to work the way we think it does. We can make a million, a trillion, observations confirming our theory of gravity and yet this can never preclude the possibility that one day we might make an observation that directly contradicts it.

Nevertheless, instinct and logic tell us that in the end we might as well take the chance and rely on our observations to treat the theory of gravity as a law.

Atheism is the equivalent of this last step. Once we do that we can go on, like the Wright brothers, and build an aeroplane that works, for example. Agnosticism is the equivalent of refusing to get into a plane because gravity cannot be conclusively proven to work the way we think it does.

I guess religion would be sitting on the tarmac praising the gods for the magical metal birds we ride around in and blaming the devil if they crash.

You're confusing two aspects of evolution...

[Dr. Zowie]

That evolution happens is pretty indisputible, since anyone can reproduce it in populations of microbes, drosophila, or even canis familiaris. But the idea that evolution is the mechanism by which people came to exist is much less well tested. Although the evidence seems to be pretty overwhelming, it is not currently possible to repeat the whole experiment within our lifetimes, so Occam's Razor is the main justification for evolution-as-creation-story. Although the evidence is amazingly consistent and rich, Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony) is a pretty weak philosophical tool compared to realism or positivism (the ideas that scientific theory is actually describing something real that can be reproduced), and it's not surprising that many folks find it hard to swallow.

That doesn't make the short-Earth creationists right -- it just makes them more understandable. They're at least attacking the edifice of scientific study at a weak point, rather than at a bastion.

Re:Did anyone actually read the article?

[MightyMartian]

I dunno. Do you think that history classes ought to be taught there is an alternative view on the Holocaust, even though virtually every historian out there will state unequivocally that the Holocaust was a fact?

In fact, that was what Judge Jones observed, that evolution was singled out for this treatment. No other topic in biology, or any other part of the science curriculum was given this treatment.

Beyond that, why should non-science be taught in a science class? ID isn't science, and even its proponents admitted in court that the very meaning of science would have to be altered to permit ID in as a scientific assertion. Is there any other alternatives you would think kids should know about? Perhaps we should bring up demon possession as an alternative to mental illness, or perhaps we ought to find some nice alternatives to the germ theory of disease.

Re:Co-equal

[Programmer2Lawyer]

but one thing I can "see" is the bacteria that have grown resistant to antibiotics

Well now, you've managed to say nothing at all. No serious person doubts natural selection, nor does ID. But you can't exactly get from amoeba (a few genes) to man (a lot more genes) by selecting among the gene pool. To get there you need to introduce lots of completely unproven, unverified, completely speculative and theoretical concepts, such as speciation by mutating genes being passed on (which they never are) to subsequent generations. Then, you've got to explain where the additional genes come from. Then, you've got to explain how things like eyes, wings, and lungs "evolve." Then ... well, there are lots of theories to fill to try to fill in such gaping holes. But wait, those aren't "theories;" they're facts! Right, I forgot.

Re:And evolution is?

[penguinoid]

As for a proof against omnipotence,

Let me guess: first, you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything, even a contradiction. Then, you show that this leads to a contradiction. However, if you believe that contradicitons are possible, you cannot use proof by negation.

All but God can prove this sentence true.

That statement is false. And I am correct, I said so myself.

Omnipotence must necessarily include omniscience; an omnipotent being could just ``use its omnipotence'' to give itself omniscience.

If it wanted to...

Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?

An omniscient being would know that question has no "yes" or "no" answer?

Re:Well good

[einhverfr]

Gould was also responsible for the Punctuated Equilibrium theory. This theory holds that you have long periods of relative stagnation punctuated by short periods of rapid changes (forced by environmental changes).

BTW, one can experimentally verify most of the effects of changing environments on natural selection of fruit flies. Fruit flies make good subjects here because you can deal with a large number of generations in a short time frame.

But the obvious example in recent times is the development of DDT resistance among insects. Indeed it is possible within a *very* short timeframe (evolutionarily speaking) to make a population of insects quite resistant to any given insecticide or other environmental hazard. For example heat-resistant fruit flies have been successfully bred using the same process (as an odd byproduct of this research, these fruitflies also lived twice as long ans their ancestors too). Perhaps if HIV is unchecked, we will see the human population develop resistance to it too (untreated HIV has an 90-95% mortality rate, perhaps 1-2% less).

If metabolic processes can be changed so easily, and if physical features can be changed as we have observed in birds during times of drought, why is it not likely that everything else can be seen to change as well?

Re:And evolution is?

[Zilfondel2]

Actually, god gave humans sub-perfect eyes to specifically piss you off on this very message forum - and no other reason, except to test you and your faith in the almighty himself!

I'm sorry, these arguments are so pointless due to their self-referential nature, that you can go nowhere with them!

Science shouldn't even go down this path - we argue what we see in the universe, and what we can measure. Since we can't measure God - by definition, it is something that must be taken as faith - science shouldn't touch it. That's what philosophers are for - proving the unprovable.

Devoutly ironic

[sjames]

I find it "interesting" that so many supposedly devoutly religious people are so willing to tell any big fat lie it takes to cram their religion down everyone's throat. Surely such a thing cheapens what should be sacred.

Re:Not Science, but Alternative.

[Bassman59]

"Most people don't want intelligent design to be taught in science classes as a part of that science. The argument is that ID is a prominent alternative to the evolution theory, and so when an unprovable theory (such as macro-evolution) is taught the majorly accepted alternative theories (such as intelligent design) should also at least be presented, regardless of whether they are 'scientific' in their basic idea."

You make no sense. You say that ideas that are not science should be taught in science classes?

"Why, if the majority of the Bible has repeatably been proven as a reliable historical record, can people so easily discard it's (SIC!!!!) accounts of the creation of the world by a Supreme Being?"

Now you've veered off into Looney Land. The Bible has not been proven to be a reliable historical record. It was written by men (don't give me this "divinely-inspired" shit) many years after the events supposedly took place. And the writers had their own agendas. Oh yeah, what about the Apocrypha? You know, the stuff that was edited out much later because certain kings and popes felt that those writings contradicted their rule?

"In my opinion, the reliability of the latter historical parts of the Bible is enough to justify consideration of it's (APOSTROPHE LOSSAGE, GODDAMMIT!) account of creation."

In my opinion, the reliability of anything you say is suspect.

Re:That is not honest, quote it in full

[Pac]

First, I haven't modded down you, so don't blame me. I am here.

Second, you show some lacking in your knowledge of body of data - the "gaps" you speak of are being closed every minute around the world, by dedicated fossil hunter, lab analists and theorists (more or less in this order). And the theory is evolving and being re-worked as the body of data grows and new eveidence for this or that hyphotesis emerge.

Third, what I said bears no relation to what some people think or fail to think. The logic is clear: either they were using the word theory in the technical sense and then there was no reason to single out evolution for a warning or they were using the word to mean, as you say, hunch, and refering specifically to one scientific theory they don't like. The later implies there were non-educational, non-scientific reasons leading to the inclusion of the sticker. And the judge found the reason for the sticker was that one particular religious group do not like evolution. Hence, no sticker.

Amd by the way, the difference between "there's a higher being that developed mankind" and "there's an unknown event for which we have no evidence that must have exacted force on the evolutionary timeline." is the difference between science and religion. The first statement can not be proven false. The second can, by showing no event was necessary or showing the gap was caused by our failure in finding the missing links or showing another event happened. But science, specially science dealing with geological and evolutionary timescales, is always a search for the best explanation for the data we see. Always remember, in the end there is a body of data supporting the theory, and the theory is what the scientists consider the best explanation for that data. Show me the body of data supporting the existence of the higher being and we can discuss this as a scientific theory.

Re:Well good

[Dimensio]

That's a terrible analogy. More like 20 Bridge players (each with the name "Amino Acid") look down and each finds that he has Ace through King of the same suit, thus allowing them to link all of their hands together in a chain we'll call "Protein." Your analogy presupposes that any hand will do, and so the probability of getting it doesn't matter. My (correct) analogy posits that only one hand will do and so the probability of getting it and getting it repeatedly is improbable to the point of absurdity.

But your analogy falls apart when you consider that playing cards don't have the same properties as amino acids, wherein the molecular properties cause the viable links to hold together while the nonviable links tend to fall apart. With that in mind, the statistics game becomes meaningless.

Re:Well good

[mdwh2]

although I have no clue what was trollish about my post

Probably any of:

- Referring to humanism, atheism and agnosticism as religions.
    - Humanism could be, though it's more accurately considered a philosophy - but that's irrelevant as no one's advocating teaching humanism in science lessons.
    - Atheism as a religion? Well evidently I'm not going to convince you, but calling atheists religious without any good argument is bound to get you labelled as a troll. And again, irrelevant - even if you characterise atheism as a dogmatic belief that God doesn't exist, no one is arguing that atheism should be taught in science lessons either.
    - I've never heard agnosticism referred to as a religion - that's someone saying "I don't know if there's a God". It's not surprising that people may have thought you were just trolling here. And yet again, no one's advocating teaching agnosticism (if that were possible).
- Not understanding what a theory is. If you really don't, then please go to learn what a scientific theory is. This comes up so many times on Slashdot, it's hard to believe people still don't get it.
- No one's forcing religious belief - even if you define "lack of religion" as a belief, people are still free to believe and learn about ID, including in schools. Just not in science lessons.
- Claiming that "We don't have 100% proof that this is true" is on an equal level to "We don't have any evidence for this whatsoever". Honestly, I'd hope you were trolling here ;p do you really consider them to be comparable?

I'll believe you when you say you were sincere in your posting, but with some many outrageous claims, on many cliched points that have been made time and time again, and aren't even relevant to the issue of teaching evolution in science lessons, it's not surprising that people mistook you for just trolling.

ID needs a place in the science cirriculum

[123beer]

This debate has put the general public's ignorance of the scientific method on display. It shows that, at the highschool level, there is a need for a general "introduction to science" requirement. ID would fit perfectly into the section on the differences between pseudo sciences and real science. This would serve our students far better than sort of sweeping it under the rug in biology class, and equip the next generation of decision makers to quickly recognize future attacks on science.

The real problem now is that ID proponents can spew "scientific" sounding ridiculousness and the majority of people do not immediately recognize it as such. All it takes is the most basic understanding of the scientific method.

Re:Well good

[Dimensio]

I'm afraid you've only dug your own grave here. Actually, amino acids have the curious property of preferring not to link as such. So, the case worsens. Now, you've got 20 players each getting these hands, but in addition, 3 of Hearts doesn't like 4 of Hearts, and so on.

I'm sure you can reference documentation showing that amino acids normally don't link the way they are observed together in living organisms.

Then, should you somehow get these contentious chums to link up, you've got the second law of thermodynamics

Okay, you've clearly cribbed everything from creationist websites.

THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM! THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ONLY APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS.

Not a bad suggestion...

[Atario]

...considering this is already done with things like phrenology and homeopathy. Steeling students against the onslaught of pseudoscience is a worthy part of the teaching of real science.

Re:this is amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

And I don't know that if I stop working, stop eating, and finally stop "living" that I won't just wake up in some other life. Yet I'm going to keep on working, keep on living, and keep on trying to better myself and my situation regardless.

Just because we don't fully understand things is no reason for us to stop trying to find explanations.

I mean, you certainly can, but I think I'll fully exploit (as in live my full lifetime) my time in this state of existence.

I could decide to do nothing, or I could decide to do terrible things believing all that exists is simply my personal invention and that it really doesn't matter. However, the possibility that my perception is reality precludes me from acting out either of those scenarios. We could go on pretending that we're talking about deep, meaningful things, but I'm pretty sure everyone that's interested in this sort of thing has already thought all of this, which means we'd just end up doing what you suggested in the first place which is really nothing at all.

Re:This is an attack on Free Speech

[Tab is on Slashdot]

With the assumption being that after enough trial and error, eventually we arrive at a point where all explanations fully predict observations. At this point, if we have not arrived at "truth", then we have at least arrived at something so practical as to make "truth" irrelevant.

Religious Development and a Software Analogy

[Pfhorrest]

Then you might know that, at least for Catholics, it is expected that they use their reason fully in the investigation and acceptance of their faith.

Half of my extended family are devout Catholics. If I didn't know them so well I would never have guessed them to be religious people, as all of them (the adults at least) are college educated and work either in the medical profession or as educators, and almost never do anything invoking the supernatural whatsoever. Even the few religious events I've attended with them have a friendly, welcoming feeling to them, and don't at all make me feel alienated or like I'm somehow violating my own naturalist beliefs by being there.

I'm rather quite fond of Catholics (ones like them, at least) for this reason - they don't let their faith get in the way of their reason. If there is an apparent of conflict between them, they don't discard their reason, but rather modify their understanding of the articles of their faith to remain compatible with reality.

For this reason I see the entire Catholic faith, in a sense, similar to a huge software project struggling to maintain reverse compatibility. A long time ago, someone hacked together a workable program for how to run a human life, which had some pretty huge feature gaps and some serious bugs but for the most part worked pretty darn well, and a lot of people adopted it. In the intervening millennia, newer and more efficient programs have been created for running this or that bit of life, and the developers of the Catholic faith program - which are just its advanced users, since it's open source you know - have incorporated hooks for those algorithms and modified their own code base to maintain reverse compatibility with the old program. Slowly, over the ages, their own code is becoming deprecated, but it's still there with extra layers to translate between the new code and the old, since there's some bits of old code that don't have newer replacements yet, and so people want to keep using this old program since there's no fully suitable replacement for it yet.

It's really a marvelous piece of social engineering and now that I think about it, quite a sensible approach. Some of us may be 1337 hax0rs who can code up our own life-programs from scratch, taking the best of what we've seen and inventing our own and tying it all together into one elegant system, thus rejecting anyone else's system as weak and broken and in many ways quite Evil (to use a technical term). But not all the lusers out there can code up their own stuff, and they've got to use something in the meanwhile, so they use whatever hack job best suits their needs. Catholicism seems something like Mac OS X - lots of free and open source stuff in there, highly compatible with open and non-proprietary systems, but with layers that make it all reverse compatible with the older Mac code, and a slick face on top of it all that most everybody feels comfortable using.

My biggest pet project is, by this analogy, writing a whole new Life OS from scratch, all open source with clean and elegant code, no ugly hacks, and a full feature set that's mostly compatible with all the major brands out there, only breaking compatibility in places where the other brands had really ugly hacks that shouldn't be propagated - thus allowing anyone who wants to switch completely over to this new and improved system in a very easy transition, and leave their old junkware behind. I know put in those terms it sounds like a major project that will never be finished - and I guess, like any great open source project, it never will be - but I hope that at the very least I'll wind up with a usable product that other systems can incorporate bits of into their own code. I'll be happy if it just helps programs like Catholicism, who seem eager to incorporate newer cleaner code, to develop into a better product in the end, thus migrating all their millions of users off the crapware that they're currently using.

No offense to Catholics or anyone else is intended by this post. I think you're being stupid if you blindly follow anything, but chances are you and I would agree on a good majority of topics, once we got the semantics straightened out.

Re:Well good

[Walkiry]

>but in addition, 3 of Hearts doesn't like 4 of Hearts, and so on.

If you bother to look for data, you'll find that almost every position in an aminoacid chain can be mutated without affecting the catalysis. It's an easy to do experiment: grab a popular sequence, load it up in a BLAST server against, say, the NCBI non-redundant data, and start comparing the thousands of different sequences that perform the exact same function in different organism, not even taking into account intra-specific variations. Except for the couple of key catalytic residues, the rest of the protein is typically structure, and structure is cheap. Suddenly the odds aren't so bad, are they?

Re:Mostly agree

[Listen Up]

To answer your question "I have begun to wonder if we haven't taken Occam's Razor to the extreme and come up with the "easier" solutions instead of the right solutions"...No.

Your questions rings of popular junk science and junk philosophy. The scientific method finds the correct answer, not the simplest, because it is easily shown that the simplest explanation is not always the correct explanation. But, if the correct explanation is also simple (or used in place of the completely correct complex model for the sake of simplicity of explanation if no more accuracy is needed) then that is perfectly fine. Although, unfortunately, in most cases people's understanding of a subject ends with the simplified explanation.

If you did not take Calculus based Physics or Astro Physics courses in college, then NASA has some pretty good 'dumbed down' explanations about everything you are questioning. The 'dumbing down' also leads to the problem of people misunderstanding that there are better and sometimes complete understandings and explanations of problems. If you are able to understand the actual Physics and Mathematics involved, then there are plenty of resources available at your local university to help you out.

In another post, I mentioned the following information:

"Occam/Ockham's Razor only applies to equal explanations. It does not apply to two completely different explanations, even if one of them happens to be simpler. Occam/Ockham's Razor also does not prove that the simpler explanation is always the better explanation, it has been proven in many cases to be the opposite, and it does not differentiate between two equally good explanations. For example, using Newtonian Physics instead of Einsteinian Physics to explain simple physical motion is an example of Occam/Ockham's Razor (Einsteinian Physics is an extension of Newtonian Physics), but it does not apply to Evolution versus Intelligent Design. Evolution versus Intelligent Design is not an example of Occam/Ockham's Razor."

Re:Well good

[RespekMyAthorati]

YES, there are events in evolutionary biology that are hard to explain probabilistically.
NO, trying to explain them with superstition is not science, and doesn't belong in science class.

Re:Mostly agree

[einhverfr]

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle only applies to subatomic matter. It does not apply to macroscopic systems. To use Heisenberg's principle to make grand sweeping statements about the Universe or Physics understanding of the Universe as a whole is incorrect. This is a very common mistake made by non-Physicists.

Hmmm... Planck's constant is certainly small enough to erase the distinction between subatomic particles and, say, baseballs. I.e. even if the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applied to baseballs, the level of uncertainty is small enough to make it largely moot. In other words, one could easily argue that just because energy exists in atomic units (quanta), these units are small enough to make energy essentially a continuous function on a macro-level. Note that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the product of the uncertainty of position and velocity is approximately equal to Planck's Constant (h). And h is sufficiently small to render the equation practically moot for macroscopic systems. My point, however, is that there is an ongoing disagreement over whether the particle component of an electron actually *has* a definite position in the absence of observation, but this is entirely untestable because any test requires, you guessed it, observation...

Let me explain to you what I mean. Planck's Constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s. This means that the product of the precision of the velocity and the position are approximately equal to this very small number. Unless we are measuring the position to such a degree that we are looking at the outermost boundaries of the electron suborbitals, we are probably not going to run into any reasonable uncertainty in this measurement. I.e. if I am measuring the position of a baseball to the nearest mm, I don't have much uncertainty wrt its velocity. This doesn't tell us whether measuring the speed and position of a baseball really does fall within the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but it does tell us that it has *no practical effect.*

As a side point, just like quantum physics, E=mc^2 only practically applies to a very small subset of systems, such as nuclear reations and matter-antimatter reactions. If you burn, say, a ton of coal, the effect on the total mass of reactants vs. the products of the reaction will be small enough to be negligeable. However, this does not mean that it doesn't apply here too, just that the math largely renders this moot.

Secondly, I haven't even *read* the Wikipedia information. My main source on this was a book by Werner Heisenberg called "Physics and Philosophy." I suggest you read it. I have also read some shorter works by Schroedinger. I do believe that I am accurately representing both Heisenberg and Shroedinger in this case. I think my favorite paragraph in Heisenberg's book is where he states that E=mc^2 is largely a quantified version of Heraclitus's statement "Fire, i.e. that which moves is the prima materia."

If you can devise a test to prove that an unobserved subatomic really does manifest all possible quantum states, I am sure you will get the Nobel Prize. But it is fundamentally impossible to test the unobserved state of anything. Therefore the CI is largely beyond testing (but again it is presented as "a way to think about" the data rather than a description of quantum reality.

Thirdly, Occam's Eazor does apply to the issue of ID vs. the modern theory of evolution at the moment because it is simpler to fill in the gaps in evolution simply by saying "there is probably a natural process here that we don't fully understand" than it is by invoking a divine intelligence. This is because it is simpler to acknowledge ignorance of a predictable scientific process than to acknowledge a process beyond our ability to comprehend it.

Also Occam's Razor doesn't tell you which theory is most likely to accurately represent the fundamental nature of things, but it does tell you which theory is most likely to be *useful* and *efficient.* For this r

Re:Well good

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Not only didn't Darwin recant, but it wouldn't matter even if he had. People like the grandparent can't understand that evolution doesn't hang on Darwin's say-so. Evolution is true because of the evidence supporting it, not because Darwin said it is.