One side can be wrong: 'Intelligent design' in classrooms would have disastrous consequences

Guardian UK ^ | September 1, 2005 | Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne

[Right Wing Professor]

You are incorrect to say modern textbooks do not teach that. My college biology text indeed taught that. I gave my teacher some articles to refute it. Didn't hear much back about it.

Name and author, please.

[SeaLion]

the Bible creation story is in a genre by itself. The concept of a deity that pre-existed ALL matter and physical energy, rather than coexisting somehow with it at the start of all events, is unique to the bible and those works that borrow from the bible (e.g. Koran). I am not here pitching for ID, but for the bible.

Red Zone, I hesitated in posting a reply to your point here before, because I didn't want to seem like I was attacking your religious beliefs--honestly, I'm not. I have religious beliefs of my own, and also the deepest possible commitment to the freedom of worship (that is a cornerstone of our nation). But I do have strong concerns (noted in my other posts) when religion seeks to enter inappropriate realms.

I hadn't come across the claim you make above for the Bible, but I think it is a little dubious. For my part, where I find merit in the Bible, it is not through a literal reading--but that's just a personal belief of mine, I won't argue that. But your suggestion here seems to be that the Bible has superior authority to other scriptures because it has some unique aspect in its account of creation--but I think that claim is open to challenge. I'm no expert, but a simple Google on 'creation world myths' turns up all sorts of interesting stuff, more than I wish to plow through. And while it appears true that many such creation myths do start with a cosmos composed entirely of, say, water, many others do not; in fact, commence with a diety or dieties (or indeed, even 'ideas') that pre-exist matter etc. For just one example, consider the Hindu holy texts, the Upanishads, which give this account of the beginning of the cosmos:

1. There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. By death indeed was this covered, or by hunger, for hunger is death. He created the mind, thinking 'let me have a self' (mind). Then he moved about, worshiping. From him, thus worshiping, water was produced. . . . 2 . . . .. That which was the froth of the water became solidified; that became the earth. On it he [i.e., death] rested. From him thus rested and heated (from the practice of austerity) his essence of brightness came forth (as) fire. 3. He divided himself threefold (fire is one-third), the sun one-third and the air one-third. He also is life [lit., breath] divided threefold, . . . (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad, 1, 2, 1-3.)

Many other examples can be found--but I don't wish to belabour this. My real point is, neither the Bible, nor Christianity, nor any other specific religion is granted special status by our Constitution, and that, I feel passionately, is as it should be. ID is a dishonest attempt to insert religion (and ultimately, a rather specific religion) into a sphere where it neither stands up nor belongs. By all means, follow your faith and practise your religion--but not in a science classroom!

I mean this posting with respect, I hope it is not misunderstood!

[Just mythoughts]

Your usage of the moon is not relevant as we have proof of what the moon is.

To evolutionists anyone that questions that theory is suspect, there is no allowance given that the theory is questionable. Evolutionists fit the profile of survival of the fittest as they believe the wholly own the answers.

Evolutionist find, claim, and profess evidence for what they claim to be common descent all hindged upon one theme God had no part in it.

[Stultis]

all of those "transitional fossils" have been PROVEN to be hoaxes. Let's just look at the "Archaeopteryx" for example

Darn. Never can find the "Not this **** again," guy graphic when I need it!

Main TalkOrigins FAQ:
On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers, and Forgery

This one has lots of fine pics of the specimins:
Archaeopteryx a forgery? Again?

Here's one short enough to post inline (source):

Claim CC351:

The feather imprints of the London Archaeopteryx specimen were forged. Evidence for this is that

• The feather impressions appear only on the slab, not on the counterslab.
• The surface texture is different between the feathered and unfeathered areas.
• Slightly elevated "blobs" appear which are not always matched by depressions on the counterslab.
• The feathers show "double strike" impressions.
• Hairline cracks which pass through both bones and feathers could have formed by slight movements to the slab after the cement was in place.
• Under magnification, the limestone appears different in fossil and non-fossil areas of the specimen.
• Unknown material appears within the matrix in the fossil area.
• An x-ray chemical analysis showed chemical differences, including silicon, sulfur, and chlorine in the fossil area that were not present in the non-fossil area.

These points indicate that the feather impressions were made by someone impressing feathers in a cement-like matrix that was added to the stone. Without the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be identified as the dinosaur Compsognathus, not as a transitional fossil.

Source:

Watkins, R. S., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L. M. Spetner, 1985a. Archaeopteryx -- a photographic study. British Journal of Photography 132: 264-266.
Watkins, R. S. et al., 1985b. Archaeopteryx -- a further comment. British Journal of Photography 132: 358-359,367.
Watkins, R. S. et al., 1985c. Archaeopteryx -- further evidence. British Journal of Photography 132: 468-470.
Hoyle, Fred, N. C. Wickramasinghe and R. S. Watkins, 1985. Archaeopteryx: Problems arise -- and a motive. British Journal of Photography 132(6516): 693-695,703.
Hoyle, Fred and C. Wickramasinghe, 1986. Archaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird, Christopher Davis, London.
Spetner, L. M., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe and M. Magaritz, 1988. Archaeopteryx -- more evidence for a forgery. British Journal of Photography 135: 14-17.

Response:

1. There are six other Archaeopteryx fossils discovered at different times and places under well documented conditions. Five of these also have unequivocal feathers [Charig 1986; Wellnhofer 1993]. On the Maxburg specimen, the feathers continue under the bones and are overlain with dendrites that sometimes form within bedding planes, precluding the possibility of forgery [Charig 1986]. In addition, several other feathered dinosaurs have been discovered.
   
   
2. Tiny fractures, infilled with calcite, extend through both feathers and bones, showing that they have the same source. They also match perfectly from slab to counterslab, proving that the two fit together [Charig 1986]. These fractures are invisible to normal vision; a nineteenth-century forger would not even know they existed, much less be able to replicate them.
   
   
3. The "double struck effect" on the counterslab is due to the fossilization method. Feather-degrading bacteria grew under the feathers, causing the sediments beneath to lithify, and so preserving a hardened feather impression. When the feathers decayed away, the sediments above pressed down to create a cast of the surface below [Davis and Briggs 1995]. Evidence of this process, including lithified bacteria, is visible under high magnification and could not plausibly be forged.
   
   Other lack of detailed impressions results from the Archaeopteryx body resting on a flat surface without sinking into it much. The bulk of the fossil projected above the sea floor into the sediments that settled around and over it. When the shale split along the original seafloor surface, the upper part contained the bulk of the fossil, while the lower part showed only the impression which the body made on the sea floor. This pattern is typical of Solnhofen fossils. [Swinburne 1988]
   
   
4. The difference in surface texture in the area of the fossils is due to the impression of the animal body [Charig 1986].
   
   
5. The elevated "blobs" are natural irregularities. There are none which don't have corresponding depressions on the counterslab. The two halves fit together well except where one surface has been destroyed by subsequent preparation. [Charig 1986]
   
   
6. The double-strike impressions are not imprints; they are underlying feathers. A double-strike impression would be harder to forge than a single impression.
   
   
7. The hairline cracks are infilled with calcite both in the original slab and in the area Spetner claims was cement. Plus, the cracks match between the slab and counterslab [Charig et al. 1986]. None of this would be possible if the cracks formed after a cement layer were applied.
   
   
8. Differences in appearance are due to different resolutions used in the SEM photography [Nedin 1997].
   
   
9. The unknown materials are clearly not within the limestone matrix [Spetner et al. 1988, Figs. 4b-f]. The carbonate grains on top of them are simply dust.
   
   
10. The chemical differences between the fossil and non-fossil areas are likely due to residues of preservatives applied to the fossil areas. [Nedin 1997]

Links:

Nedin, Chris, 1997. On Archaeopteryx, astronomers, and forgery. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html

References:

1. Charig, Alan J. et al., 1986. Archaeopteryx is not a forgery. Science 232: 622-626.
2. Davis, Paul G. and Derek E. G. Briggs, 1995. Fossilization of feathers. Geology 23(9): 783-786.
3. Nedin, Chris, 1997. (see above)
4. Spetner, L. M., F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe and M. Magaritz, 1988. Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery. British Journal of Photography 135: 14-17.
5. Swinburne, N. H. M., 1988. The Solnhofen Limestone and the preservation of Archaeopteryx. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 3(10): 274-277.
6. Wellnhofer, P., 1993. The seventh specimen of Archaeopteryx from the Solnhofen Limestone. Archaeopteryx 11: 1-47.

Further Reading:

Majka, Christopher, 1992. Archaeopteryx - is this bird a fraud? New Brunswick Naturalist http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html

[gobucks]

I'm taking a risk here, but would you please do me a favor? Would you please define for me 'rationalism'? And under what circumstances, if any, would you say rationalism, as a way of coming to intellectual conclusions, is untrustworthy or inadequate?

[Just mythoughts]

"I think I understand your point, Just mythoughts, and if you are saying there is a lot of liberal pigswill swashing around in public schools--well, I'm with you on that, you are preaching to the choir on that one. But if you are arguing that the teaching of TOE is part of some over-arching liberal conspiracy to corrupt our youth--sorry, I just don't see it. TOE is taught and ID is not because TOE is solid science and ID isn't science at all. I have never understood why TOE excites emotions, particularly among Christians, in a way that, say, quantum mechanics does not; maybe because everyone thinks they understand TOE, and you don't need all the maths : ). But quantum mechanics is every bit as 'threatening' (if that's how you choose to regard it) to religious beliefs as is TOE--or as irrelevant to religious beliefs as TOE, if that is how you choose (as I do) to view it. And yes, there is a lot of really poor science practised by some 'environmentalists'--but we will never carry the day against them if we lower our standards to the nonsense of ID"


Creationists did not corrupt what is called science in the K-12 classrooms. Now evolutionists may well seek to separate themselves from the liberal swill, but I have found no such effort exists.

All I keep hearing out of the evolutionists is a paralyzing fear of ID/creationists having a say about the human biology. There is no allowance for a Heavenly Creator creating a fully grown adult males and females. Evidence is demanded and what is ignored is that one human cannot give to another evidence, when it requires the individual to seek the evidence and knowledge.

Evolution is a religion and I have found few religionists more loyal to their faith than evolutionists. Now I know making that statement will get me called every printable name and scientific method of denigration. What I believe is not secondary to evolution, and evolutionists have no power to force me to do otherwise no matter what they call me.

[Quark2005]

[sarcasm] You realize that all the sources mentioned in your references are in on the conspiracy behind the forgery, you know.[/sarcasm]

I'm sure it took you a lot more time to find those accurate references than it took to say "Archaeopteryx is a hoax". I'm sure you'll have another accusation of hoax thrown at you again as a result, which you'll have to put more work into to debunk. These kind of "scatter-shot" attacks, which take little effort on the part of those who initiate them, are the reason I usually don't like to talk science with creationists.

I usually like to know what someone thinks about the age of the earth before I start talking evolution with them, anyway. Anyone who thinks scientific evidence points to a 6000 year-old earth has even deeper problems with scientific literacy & isn't even ready for Evolution 101 yet.

[bethtopaz]

I grew up being taught Creation (or intelligent design) and there ain't nothin' wrong with me!

[Just mythoughts]

"I usually like to know what someone thinks about the age of the earth before I start talking evolution with them, anyway. Anyone who thinks scientific evidence points to a 6000 year-old earth has even deeper problems with scientific literacy & isn't even ready for Evolution 101 yet."


I haven't come across anyone who can state with certainty the age of this earth. Estimation is the closest I seen produced. By the way for the anti-Creator bunch the Bible does NOT say the age of this earth, I know cause I read it.

[SeaLion]

Evolutionist find, claim, and profess evidence for what they claim to be common descent all hindged upon one theme God had no part in it.

With respect, I don't think that is an accurate characterisation of 'evolutionists.' Darwin himself is as good an example as any: born on precisely the same day as Abraham Lincoln, he grew up in Shropshire (a beautful part of the world, btw) and developed a keen interest in the natural world, and considered for a time entering the priesthood. As ship's naturalist aboard the Beagle for nearly five years, he made careful observations and measurements of many natural phenomena (biological and geological)--throughout this time, he professed a basic Christian belief. He spent two decades evaluating the evidence he had gathered, from which he assembled the (incomplete) theory published in 'Origin of Species.' He was reluctant to publish for fear of the inevitable challenge TOE presents a literal reading of Genesis, and the possible upset to his wife Emma, who was particularly devout.

It is true that Darwin 'lost' his Christian faith, though probably as much through the emotional crisis of the death of his daughter as anything else, but it is simply wrong to claim that Darwin, or indeed any of the multitude of serious scientists who have built on his work and insights, have set out with an agenda to banish God (or Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) from the universe. Evolutionists do not have a religious agenda.

But it is the case--and I think some of the postings in this thread demonstrate the fact--that proponents of Creationism/ID (and let's be honest, they come to the same thing) are pursuing a specific religious agenda, and in the inappropriate venue of the science classroom. I am as alarmed by that as I would be if an Iranian ayatollah were put in charge of the science curriculum, and I think you would be too!

[GrandEagle]

not on strawman silliness

Hello again my FRiend!
Have I missed something? Has science discovered where the original matter came from?
Has there been "discoveries" that reduce the probabilities that multiple, interdependent characteristics necessary for life developed at all, much less simultaneously?
Is it incorrect that this "primordial soup" of dubious origin formed itself into life?
It is possible that I have misunderstood, but I certainly don't see the "strawman" that I supposedly created.

Cordially,
GE

[Quark2005]

I haven't come across anyone who can state with certainty the age of this earth. Estimation is the closest I seen produced. By the way for the anti-Creator bunch the Bible does NOT say the age of this earth, I know cause I read it.

4.55 billion years +/- ~1-2%; not exact, but pretty certain. Radiometric dating gives us our most accurate determination, but is certainly not the only evidence along those lines. Link Here

The Bible doesn't explicitly state the earth is 6000 years old, but if every word is taken exactly to be literal, it does say that the age of the earth up till the creation of man is 6 days, and lists a complete lineage from Adam through Christ (actually 2 lineages that differ, curiously enough). If this is taken to be literal fact, it would mean an upper limit on the age of the earth somewhere in the thousands of years (maybe not 6000 exactly, but certainly not millions or billions).

[Psycho_Bunny]

You are putting words in the authors mouths. At no point do they either state nor attempt to prove that.

[Quark2005]

Has science discovered where the original matter came from?

Last I checked there was no complete theory of abiogenesis. Any evolutionary biologist will admit that to you. The presence of gaps in our knowledge, however, is not sufficient evidence of supernatural intervention, nor is it evidence that the evolutionary theories we do have are incorrect.

[SeaLion]

Evolution is a religion and I have found few religionists more loyal to their faith than evolutionists. Now I know making that statement will get me called every printable name and scientific method of denigration. What I believe is not secondary to evolution, and evolutionists have no power to force me to do otherwise no matter what they call me.

Your statement won't get you called any kind of name by me, at least, and I hope you can accept that I absolutely defend your right to profess your beliefs without intimidation! It is not only possible but necessary in this area to respect the freedom to hold beliefs which we ourselves do not believe, otherwise we might as well all give up and surrender to communism.

But I still maintain the issue here isn't the truth or otherwise of religion--it is the place of religion that is at issue. If it were true that TOE were taught in the science classroom as 'religious belief' rather than as a line of scientific enquiry--that would be wrong. But I honestly do not see that happening. What I do see happening is that holders of religious beliefs (and I am myself one, though perhaps not everyone would agree--but no matter) see an incompatibility between 'truths' that can be demonstrated by science and 'truths' available through religious revelation. But the problem arises from the fact that all the various 'truths' of all the various religions are incompatible with one another; choosing between them is what we do in our churches, or temples, or private meditations, any other arena is simply inappropriate. And claiming, as ID does, that religious 'truths' are on a par with scientific 'truths' is a huge category error: they are derived by different means, by different and wholly incompatible standards. That is why each must be kept to their own spheres.

Many who have posted here would clearly favour 'equal time' in the science classroom for Jesus; would they also like to see 'equal time' in the science classroom for Allah, or Shiva, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster? I don't think so. I don't wish to "force" (your own word) you or anyone else to believe TOE, or make it secondary to your own religious beliefs--but I also do not wish anyone to "force" their religion on me. And I am grateful our Founding Fathers took such pains to protect us all from such force!

[Doctor Stochastic]

I think Bush's understanding of science is basically that of Marvin Olasky.

[Antonello]

Your usage of the moon is not relevant as we have proof of what the moon is.

You claim to know what the moon is, but proponents of the Cheese Moon Theory^tm (CMT) say otherwise! This controversy can only be addressed by teaching both beliefs! What are you afraid of? If you are so sure you are right, then what's the harm in teaching CMT as well? Let the people have the information to make up their own minds!

By dismissing CMT without even considering it you show yourself to be nothing more than a rock moon worshiping, religious zealot! You hate anything that dares to question your precious rock moon god!

May His Cheesiness Who Art In Luna (second cousin twice removed of the all-seeing FSM), who's cheddary glow bathes the night, have mercy on your wicked, arrogant soul.

[atlaw]

Rock vs. Cheese Moon Theory -- Taste the Controversy!

[The Red Zone]

ok, we have a story of a god popping himself into being.

[PatrickHenry]

100