Federal Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design 2443
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well good (Score:5, Funny)
The Dover school board need just introduce a new course "Mysticism, Superstition and Things That Go Bump in the Night". Then they could teach ID.
Re:Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:Well good (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Well good (Score:5, Informative)
Evolution is a Theory in the Scientific Sense, "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
This is why it counts as "Science"
Intelligent Design is a theory in the colloquial sense, which is what most of the definitions that include "Idle speculation" are referring to. There is no Scientific Backing for Intelligent Design, which is why, if it's taught in a classroom, it should be a theology class, not a Science Class.
Mostly agree (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Well good (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm encouraged to see some sense coming out of a US court on this topic: there's hope for the USA yet!
Be nice if you could learn to spell. The word is "DEFINITELY"!
Re:Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
When all else fails, attribute it to Oscar Wilde.
For the record, "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. It is one of several I have, actually.
Re:Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution is a fact. We're just filling in the details, and that's the theory part.
Re:Well good (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you do - with important qualifications.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote several papers that said just this. Of course, he said a lot more. (He had a column to fill, after all.
What he pointed out in several articles was that by the early 1800's, when Darwin was sailing on the Bugle, it was already widely accepted that biological evolution was a historical fact, thoroughly documented in the fossil record. What was missing was a good explanation of this fact. People examining fossils could see the general outline of the evolutionary process; they just didn't understand how it worked.
Facts are what we observe, combined with the easy inferences from the observations. To be scientific, you need not just a lot if facts, you also need explanations of those facts. Such an explanation is first called a hypothesis before it has been tested, and then a theory after it has passed sufficiently many tests.
What Darwin did was to propose an explanation for the observed fact of biological evolution over geologic time. His explanation was unusual in that the mechanism didn't require any guiding intelligence. But it did have explanatory power, and also made testable predictions. So, while the religious folks derided Darwin's heresy, the scientists set about trying to poke holes in his explanation.
In the 1860's, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was really just a hypothesis, not a theory. But now, more than a century later, it's a true theory. We've had plenty of opportunities to test it, and it has passed the tests quite handily. So now it's a true scientific theory. Biological research these days is mostly concerned with working out the details of the mechanisms. Nobody seriously expects that the basic theory will be overturned.
Not that it hasn't been modified along the way. Darwin didn't know about DNA or genes, and could only write vaguely about the mechanism of intelligence. He observed that this mechanism was imperfect, something that any plant or animal breeder would agree with. He also proposed that some variations were "random", which need not have been true, but which we now know is essentially true. He also proposed that the inherited code was not modified by an organism's environment, contrary to others such as Lysenko, and it turns out he was right in this, too. True, environmental things may alter your DNA, but not in any "directed" fashion.
But most importanly (and ignored by most creationists and ID proponents), his theory invoked a very non-random directing force, natural selection. This was difficult for him to observe, but we've since watched and tested it innumerable times, and again it turns out he was quite correct.
OTOH, he didn't guess about viral transduction. And he didn't anticipate Barbara McClintock's idea of the way that eukaryotic cells arose via merger of independent single-cell organisms. So he did miss a few important things that have since modified his theory a bit. But none of these things have significantly weakened his theory of evolution by natural selection.
Of course, we are now on the verge of implementing designer genes
Re:Well good (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Well good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well good (Score:4, Informative)
Welcome to the 18th Century and the theories of Lamarck
Also note that current evolutionary theory is missing one or two critical questions that we may not have an answer to in the near future, but your objections have largely been overruled by modern research.
Part of the problem is that any life-form larger than a bacterium is not in a position to mutate spontaneously for genetic advantage. Yes, this behavior has been experimentally studied in bacteria, but it doesn't show up in anything larger. So for larger organisms you have a different process.
Spontaneous mutations occur and affect the general viability of offspring. Many of these are disasterous and probably result in very early miscarriages, or stillborns, etc. (though spontaneous mutations aren't very common). But the rest goes into a sort of community gene pool. This genetic diversity inherent to the community is extremely important.
Now suppose we have an environmental change. Say there is a drought, you poison a population of insects with an insecticide, there is a sudden abundance or shortage of foot or water, a population explosion of predators, etc. Now, the genetic variances between the individuals in the community start to become valuable. For example, birds with a smaller beak might die first in a drought because the seeds that are available to eat might be too big. A shortage of food might favor some members more than others, poisoning might be more likely to kill those who are genetically susceptible to the poison first, etc. So these environmental changes don't cause an individual to spontaneously mutate. They cause the composition of the community gene pool to change. This is basically a summary of puntuated equalibrum theory regarding evolution.
Now, if you have a sudden and long-term increase in food, you will see animals specialize according to their talents. So within a given population of a species of finches, those with bigger beaks might decide to eat different seeds than those with smaller beaks. This specialization is generally temporary because the resource availability is cyclic, but after a mass extinction this may be different. This leads to the communities partially separating and becoming subspecies. Now the missing piece is the question of what causes species to separate to the point of becomming genetically incompatible under these circumstances? Is migration and physical separation required? Or are other factors more likely to cause this? This is a big unknown and we don't have enough data to answer it. However, at the current rate of extinctions, maybe in a few hundred years, we can start watching
That is not honest, quote it in full (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I disagree. Using myself as an example, I can say that not everyone needs a religion. I have no faith -- only assumptions.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 (Score:5, Informative)
The phenomenon of evolution is well established and as solid a fact as gravity, electromagnetism or heat transfer. The theory describing it is, in some ways, better off than the theory of gravity or electromagnetism. We know those two are inconsistent and at least one is due for a revision. There are no such open questions on the theory of evolution.
Evolution does not require faith. That's the thing about science, it works even if you don't believe in it. Disbelieving in the quantum nature of electrons won't make a lick of difference in how your computer operates. Likewise, disbelieving in evolution does not mean that advanced antibiotics suddenly stop having any effect. (Now, current diary practices, that's another story.)
Given your statements, it is clear you have not bothered even the most cursory attempt at understanding science. You seem so enmeshed in your dogma, you refuse to understand anyone else's position, casting well reasoned positions as mere articles of faith. Science is not a religion, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
Really, just because you insist on wielding a hammer, do not treat us screws and bolts as nails.
Re:Well good (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And evolution is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And evolution is? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:And evolution is? (Score:5, Informative)
This has been observed, e.g. several new mosquito species have evolved in the London subway.
see here [talkorigins.org] for more info.
How's this? (Score:4, Informative)
Link 1: Observed Evidence of Speciation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.ht
Link 2: 29 evidences for macroevolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ [talkorigins.org] This is the one I was looking for. If you read and understand this and fail to accept that evolution is occuring and can account for the diversity of species on earth then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Acy
Re: And evolution is? (Score:4, Informative)
No modern biologist thinks evolution is purely a matter of natural selection. If you knew the subject matter at the freshman level you'd know that lots of other stuff, such as sexual selection, genetic drift, and the founder effect, also have influence on what evolution produces.
Re:And evolution is? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_0 11_01.html [pbs.org]
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage (Score:5, Insightful)
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:And evolution is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And evolution is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And evolution is? (Score:4, Informative)
Well lets consider glaciers. It is "thought" that the sun evaporated water from the ocean. And it is "thought" that that water fell as snow at the poles. And that snow "could have" built up over thousands of years into very deep glaciers.
And there are layers of dust and pollen and volcanic ash that are "thought" to have settled out of the atmosphere and that the layered of such particles "could have" arisen from seasonal snowfall cycles over tens of thousands of years.
And it is "thought" that the pattern and composition of volcanic dust in the glacier happens to exactly match up with the historical and prehistorical records of major volcanic eruptions becuase that dust *did* come from those volcanoes and laid down over tens of thousands of years. And it is "thought" that the patterns of pollen match up with other global records over tens of thousands of years because that pollen *did* accumulate during the steady buildup of that glacier over tends of thousands of years.
And it is thought that the presence and levels of LEAD and other trace minerals in the upper layers of glacial dust "could have" been caused by the historical and prehistorical development of human mining releasing such contaminants into the the air.
And as you say, THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THIS IS HOW GLACIERS ACTUALLY FORMED.
If anyone is a real thinking person then prove that you cant throw a pile of sticks and some glue up in the air and it will come down as a glued together, perfect box.
If anyone is a real thinking person then prove that you cant throw a bunch of water vapor up in the air and it will come down as a glued together, complex perfect snowflake.
The argument you were attempting to make (badly) is the stupid old argument that "the second law of thermodynamics says disorder must increase and therefore proves evolution impossible".
Of course the second law of thermodynamics only apples to average disorder increasing, and it does not apply at all when there is an energy flow through a system.
As I pointed with with snowflakes, it is actually quite normal and common for nature to spontaneously greate complex order and structure out of total chaos when there is an energy flow - in particular the sun provides an energy flow through the earth to drive both snowflake formation and biology and biological evolution.
The nature of life, the structure of life, and the existance of life can only be explained as an engineering miracle that was created. PERIOD.
Statint your ignorance and your lack of understanding is not a disproof of anything.
It is quite well understood how the evolution process creates structure and complexity and information. In fact I have personally witnessed exactly how this process operates and exactly how powerful it is at creating order and complexity and information.
The information is created/added during the secotion step of the evolution process.
If you have a replication (with mutation) and then selection in a repeating cycle, the mutation step creates a bit of random noise, and the selection step converts that noise into ordered/directed information by filtering out any portion that is contrary to the selection direction.
Roll a hundred dice. Do a slection step to "kill" the half with the lowest number showing, replicate the remaining 50 back to a hudred... you will have a hundred dice showing 4's, 5's, and 6's. "Kill" the half with the lowest number showing again, replicate the remaining 50 back to a hudred again... and you have a hundred dice showing 5's, and 6's. Repeat a third time and now you "magically" have 100 dices all showing perfect sixes.
We started with perfect chaos rolled dice, and
Re:And evolution is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And evolution is? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And evolution is? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:And evolution is? (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it much easier to believe in evolution than to believe that God went through this elaborate lie to trick us. I mean faking a fossil record is one thing but creating the universe with light already in transit so the stars would look like they're been there for billions of years?? Or creating the image of a supernova such that we would think that it exploded billions of years ago but didn't really?
Come on. Get a grip. I believe in God but I cant believe he's a coniving trickster that the fundamentalists seem to think he must be.
Of course there are intermediate forms of the eye! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:And evolution is? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:And evolution is? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Well good (Score:3, Insightful)
Deciding what is science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Religious studies (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Religious studies (Score:5, Informative)
This is because any sensible religious person realises that there is no contradiction between evolution and ID. Evolution explains a mechanism, nothing more. It doesn't tell you why things happen, just how. Whether evolution is driven by random actions, or the FSM is the realm of philosophy, not science. Assuming the existence of an intelligent designer[1], science can tell us whether it's more likely that they said 'let there be stuff,' or if they created a simple system containing all of the necessary components to develop into a more complex one. Proponents of Intelligent-Design-as-an-alternative-to-evolution are worried that there is a God, and her final objective might not actually be them.
[1] A philosophical postulate, not a scientific one.
No, it's PARENTING! (Score:5, Interesting)
We both permit and support the education our children receive in our area's public school system. IMHO, they're doing a pretty fair job.
We both teach our children what we believe. Our children know that we're speaking about our beliefs, even when we speak of them as facts.
We made sure our kids were capable of critical thought, judgement and self-determination in the area of beliefs. 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).
If I believe a thing to be true, wouldn't not sharing that with my children be abuse?
Re:No, it's PARENTING! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well good (Score:5, Interesting)
The desktop computer I have today has evolved over the last 30+ years.
You mean designed, right? Or did you really mean that some pdp-11s had sex and gave birth to a pdp-12?
What one might consider a computer 100 years ago most certainly bears no resembelence to what we have today.
That's right. 100 years ago, computer was a job title.
Re:Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still bitter about the whole Santa Claus thing...
Religion and Theism (Score:5, Interesting)
What makes someone religious is their blind acceptance of some dogma. Faith defines religion - belief without or even contrary to evidence or reason. Many Buddhists are atheists and yet still religious people because they follow the doctrine of their religion without question.
What makes someone atheist is not believing in God(s). As it happens this is the default position of someone who is not religious, as without observed evidence of logical proof, it is irrational to believe in God(s). I myself held this position for the majority of my life. But it's possible to be a non-religious theist, if you've got a sound argument for the existence of God.
Myself, I find that speaking of God makes perfect sense if you see it as speaking of the universe anthropomorphically. My beliefs are not fundamentally different from an atheist's, but suddenly I can understand theists statements about God in a way which not only means something, but quite often produces true statements on the theists parts. Seen in this way, a proof of God's existence is just a proof of the universe's existence, which is trivial as the universe is "all that which exists".
Re:When did you start attending church? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
Come back and say that when Christianity has a monopoly on absurd creation stories.
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.
"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?
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.
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: Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This is an attack on Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
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:This is an attack on Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This is an attack on Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This is an attack on Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Well good (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It *poses* no questions, more to the point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Well (Score:5, Funny)
Touched by his noodly appendage... (Score:3, Funny)
Not only has He used divine intervention in Dover but He has shown me the way! I await his presence in pirate heaven with the stripper factory and beer volcano.
Believe.
Re:Touched by his noodly appendage... (Score:5, Funny)
From the book of Noodle Ch. 3 verse 17-19 So said FSM, so it shall be DONE.
Links to more information: (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of additional coverage on this decision is available at The National Center for Science Education [ncseweb.org] and The Panda's Thumb [pandasthumb.org], and the full text of the decision can be found here [uscourts.gov] (PDF warning).
From the decision: Damn...what a smackdown.
Re:Links to more information: (Score:5, Funny)
Seems Pat wanted to see a smackdown of a different sort.
Re:Links to more information: (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:Links to more information: (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Links to more information: (Score:5, Informative)
More:And the coup-de-gras against the evolution equals atheism cranks:And for some in-your-face irony for anyone who attempts to attack the judge as some sort of leftwing atheist liberal pinko commie demonic-Democrat, the official US Court system website has Judge John E. Jones' biography [uscourts.gov] which begins:For once George Dubbya actually appointed someone competent to the job! Three cheers for President Bush! Hip-hip-Hooray!
Ummm... well ok... only one cheer for Bush
-
An important part of the ruling (Score:5, Informative)
From a Bloomberg article: [bloomberg.com] In his opinion, Jones said the key issue is ``whether Intelligent Design is science,'' and said, ``we have concluded that it is not.''
Re:An important part of the ruling (Score:5, Funny)
Intelligent Design is as scientific an explanation for the evolution of man, as Angels Bowling is as an explanation for thunder. Both are possible, but neither is science.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Affect In Kansas? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Affect In Kansas? (Score:5, Informative)
Not legally, since it's in a different federal district.
If Kansas goes to court the judge may or may not look to the Dover case for precedent. Fairly often we get conflicting rulings on an issue in different districts, and no one knows where things stand until the supreme court takes a side on it.
OTOH, I'm sure this will "affect" Kansas to the extent of having the creationists on the state board of education call a strategy meeting...
This is a defeat for pasta (Score:5, Funny)
Just a theory? (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Bogus - My Attemp to Explain (Score:4, Interesting)
Physical property X can vary from Y to Z but it doesn't. Slightest variation in X would preclude life.
Ex: Boiling point of water, melting point of ice, enzymatic reactions, patterns of moulcules and crystals, etc....
2. Hypothesis
Possibly, some external stimulus is arranging the observed phenomena to ensure a suitable environment to enable life to exist.
3. Experiment
Like gravity, we are still looking for answers on how it works at the physical level and how to verify.
4. Results
...see 3.
Re:Bogus - My Attemp to Explain (Score:4, Interesting)
What you are outlining is the Anthropic Principle, which is a tautology.
Certainly, the odds are against such a confluence of good fortune, but if physical property X did vary from what we observe, we would not be around to observe it. Thus, the odds of such a confluence of good fortune rise from infinitesimal to 1:1.
Let the games begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Intelligent Design Does Not Belong In Biology (Score:4, Insightful)
if intelligent design is true ..... (Score:3, Funny)
Question to religious freaks (Score:4, Insightful)
My kingdom is not of this world; (John 18:36)
isn't clear?
Some Points to Consider (Score:5, Informative)
2. It's unlikely that the current Dover school board will appeal the decision, making it unlikely that this particular case will ever get to the Supreme Court.
3. That leaves the "sticker" case in Georgia, with it's more narrowly expressed disapproval of evolution as the case most likely to get to the Supremes. At last report, it appeared the appeals court might be inclined to overturn the Federal court decision against the stickers (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/16/evolutio
4. 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.
While Dover was a slam dunk for science, this particular fight is far from over.
My kid, my decision (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Teach all (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Teach all (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Teach all (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop spinning things by taking it out of context, and be honest for once.
Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet (Score:5, Informative)
(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.
Re:Don't go jumping up and down just yet (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Article didn't mention HOW it's unconstitutiona (Score:5, Informative)
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.
The link [nytimes.com] to the NY Times article
Re:So what will happen if it reaches SCOTUS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nor, for that matter, would the main ID advocates want this case appealed. The Discovery Institute pulled its support early on, for instance. Sophisticated ID advocacy requires that the public face of the movement be very quiet about its religious motivations, for fear of exactly what happened in Kitzmiller. The old Dover school board was unsophisticated, and much too blatant about its purely religious motivations.
ID advocates have seen Kitzmiller as a disastrous airing of their dirty laundry from fairly early on; the only thing surprising about this ruling is its refreshing breadth, depth, and clarity.
Re:one down, a zillion to go (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Intelligent Design is not Hocus Pocus (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Riddle me this Batman (Score:4, Informative)
Evolution is provable/disprovable. ID is not.
ID doesn't meet the rigorous scientific standards to be called a "theory".
Re:the failures of public education (Score:4, Insightful)
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.