(School) Board votes down evolution analysis

cnn/ap ^ | 3-10-06

[narby]

There are two choices here: you are either on God's side or you aren't.

No, there are several sides here. There are those of us who have rejected God because we were convinced that we must believe in literal Genesis or literal reality, and we chose reality.

There are those who chose the literal wording of Genesis and reject reality.

Then there are those who accept God, and have an understanding that the creation was just a wee bit more complicated than can be written in a couple of chapters in Genesis. Obviously some parts were left out. Like evolution. And a few trillion other details.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

But most new ideas are less than complete, many times outright wrong, and these ideas don't make it very far. This is why ID hasn't gotten anywhere in the past 100 years. It has major flaws. But instead trying to overcome these flaws, it just changes it name and comes back with the same old tired stuff.

For the most part IDers don't do research and have no plans to do research. They just look at the research other people have done and say "wow that is too complex for me to figure out, an intelligent designer must of have done it."

ID is new. You're conflating it with old time "creationism".

The impetus for ID is rooted in recent discoveries within molecular biology and the discovery by Watson and Crick of DNA (i.e. information) and an understanding of the incredible complexity of the living cell.

There have been many books written by scientists on the subject.

[Ichneumon]

nmh wrote: [The entire philosophy of evolution is atheism.]

This would appear to be false in light of the large number of people who accept evolution who are also theists. I find it strange that you continue to ignore this fact in spite of ample evidence for it.

It's *especially* strange in light of the fact that in the VERY SAME POST in which nmh claims that "the entire philosophy of evolution is atheism", nmh quotes Dawkins pointing out the very same thing which you point out and which nmh continues to ignore:

Q: "Is atheism the logical extension of believing in evolution?"

A: "They clearly can’t be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious."

Does nmh not even read his own material? Or is he just incapable of understanding it?

[Senator Bedfellow]

you are either on God's side or you aren't.

Good thing this is all about science, or else it might get ugly.

[stands2reason]

Well, apparently civility was already out the door.

[JamesP81]

No, there are several sides here.

Matthew 12:30

Perhaps there are many sides. But there are only two choices.

I do not know what your personal beliefs are, so this may not even apply to you. True, there are some Christians who believe evolution can reconciled with the Bible. They're wrong, but fortunately entrance into heaven is not determined by being right. If it was, no one would get in and we would all be well and truly screwed. No one's going to observe God casting people into hell because they thought evolution could be reconciled with the Bible.

What you will see, however, is God casting people into hell because they chose to believe some secular idea over Him. A number of posters here have stated their position as such. I don't know where you are with God, if anywhere, so it might be that this doesn't apply to you. This applies to those who are unable to form a relationship with God because they believe evolutionary theory precludes the idea that there is any such thing as God. There may be many 'sides' to pick from. But there are only two choices. Choose wisely.

[70times7]

The Catholics think so.

That's fine. Atheists don't think there is any God at all to control the lightning. Clearly I was approaching this from that position. Without going into much detail, I have concerns about a God that directs lightning toward soup, but provides a rather detailed description of creation. How do you know that Jesus Christ was not an extensive alegory? Also, can you describe what the rationale is for the Catholic position, or was your contention simply based on hear-say?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" ID is new"

It's been around for at least 2000 years. In it's modern form it's been around since the 1700's and culminated in Paley's 1802 book on Natural Theology. The *new* treatments of it are just extensions of Paley's arguments. The Origin of Species was a direct refutation of Paley's book.

[balrog666]

Shiva dances the dance of creation and beneath his left foot ignorance is crushed.

[stands2reason]

I have concerns about a God that directs lightning toward soup, but provides a rather detailed description of creation.

I think you are confusing God and the Bible.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

PS: I didn't know you were that old.

That old? I grew up in the 40's and 50's. Is that old?

The big bang theory overthrew the steady state theory gradually as new evidence began to accumulate. At what point was it officially overthrown? I don't think that can be answered. I do remember when I was in high school believing in Hoyle's SS theory. It was the accepted theory. Hubble's redshift was fact for about 30 years but that fact by itself was unable to unseat SS theory.

For me, and a lot of other people, the turning point was 1965 when Penzias and Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic background radiation of the BB for which they won the Nobel Prize.

As to Hoyle's motivation for opposing the BB? I believe it was philosophic in nature. Can't prove it but I do remember reading about some of his comments and quips which led me to that conclusion.

Motives are tricky. They are hidden for the most part. How could a good scientist ever admit to being motivated by anything other then the search for the truth? But they are, or at least they fervently hope their version of the truth wins out. That is why scientists are not immune from the temptation to "cherry pick" data.

You should Google Hoyle's writings and comments and form your own opinion on his motives.

[Oztrich Boy]

You see, as long as we brainwash kids into thinking they came from animals, then they will act like animals.

I don't see how that follows.

To see it you have to lack a moral compass. It's a Creationist thing.

[nmh]

A: "They clearly can’t be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious."

He's living in a dream world. The TWO are LINKED!

yes, he is right that the Catholic church and the Anglican church is on board with him. Being "religious" by NO MEANS makes one a Christian. I point to the Catholic church and Anglicans which also ENDORSE evolution. Evolution and genuine Christianity have NOTHING IN COMMON.

I know ... common sense is in short supply ... when one starts believing in evolution they automatically start disbelieving God since He states something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than what godless evolutionists state as their "theory". Evolution totally contradicts what God has stated. This is logic 101 properly applied.

Stated differently, two OPPOSING theories cannot be true at the SAME time. Either God has it right, or godless evolutionists have it right. It's a choice on who you believe. The evidence supports God; not evolution. Again, you can't have it both ways. Those that claim belief are only fooling themselves if they also claim to believe in the religion of evolution. Either you believe what God states or you believe what the godless state.
I don't suppose I will get through to you. Being spiritually discerned is a burden ... that is taken on by choice.

[JamesP81]

In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution.

I don't ordinarily comment on other denominations, but this is extraordinary enough that it warrants it. The American Anglican church (Episcopalian) hardly counts as sensible. They confirmed a man living in a homosexual relationship as a priest. You clearly can't be following the Bible and do that. Any pronouncement from American Anglican theologians is automatically suspect, as they don't have a good track record. Not after that incident, and more than one incident of priests being involved in druidism, paganism, and sexual hedonism. That's why PH's 10,000 signatures don't really mean a whole lot.

I think RCC is doing it more for PR purposes than anyting.

[Ichneumon]

[For the most part IDers don't do research and have no plans to do research. They just look at the research other people have done and say "wow that is too complex for me to figure out, an intelligent designer must of have done it."]

ID is new.

Complete horse manure. "ID" is one of the oldest hypotheses in the world.

Here's something I wrote in response to an editorial that begged for "ID" to have a little more "time" to establish itself, since it was a "new" idea...:

Because the scientific community is a monolith, impenetrable and often hostile to new theories, intelligent design proponents have to turn to the public schools to recruit support, a witness said Monday. [...] Fuller talked of intelligent design as being a possible scientific-revolution in waiting in which it challenges the "dominant paradigm" of evolutionary theory. [...] But during cross-examination, he said intelligent design — the idea that the complexity of life requires a designer — is "too young" to have developed rigorous testable formulas and sits on the fringe of science. He suggested that perhaps scientists should have an "affirmative action" plan to help emerging ideas compete against the "dominant paradigms" of mainstream science. [...] As a philosopher, Fuller testified he remains open to all new views, even though he maintains that at the moment, evolutionary theory is a better explanation of the biological world.

What the heck is this "new views" propaganda? "ID" isn't a "new" view, it's a very, very *old* view. It existed for thousands of years before science as we know it today began around 1650, or evolutionary biology in 1859.

"The idea that the complexity of life requires a designer" is hardly "too young" to have "developed rigorous testable formulas", it has BEEN AROUND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and *still* hasn't managed to come up with anything that holds water in a testable, falsifiable manner.

"ID" has been the world's oldest dead-end hypothesis.

Science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, arose after thousands of years of ID's *failure* to advance human knowledge or produce workable theories or techniques. *Science* is the "newcomer" here, and has managed to gain enormous widespread acceptance and produce *incredible* results (which a couple of centuries ago would have been considered utter sorcery), precisely because it proved vastly more insightful than the age-old presumption of "ID".

And during centuries of stunning scientific progress in every field imaginable, ID has still produced... nothing but further excuses of how they "just need a few more years, then you'll *really* see results!"

Perhaps Fuller should get a clue.

"I want to see where intelligent design is going to go," Fuller said.

Fuller should brush up on history. I've seen where ID has gone. Absolutely nowhere in over 10,000 years. What are the odds it'll finally produce some results *now*?

And in reply to an attempted rebuttal:

What is in fact young and absurdly underdeveloped [...] is the notion that a generalized test for the products of an intelligent actor might be feasible.

*Everything* about ID is "absurdly undeveloped", and my point is that they have no excuse, since the ID postulate is hardly a "new" one, it has been around for millennia.

And yet, throughout all of human history, and throughout the entire rise of science, and despite millions of "true believers" across all that time who desperately desired to produce some evidence of ID to shut up those uppity "naturalists" (think of all the brilliant minds who were devout "IDers" and adept at science, like Newton), they've still come up empty after all this time.

Old religious views (the only such views around for 'thousands of years') don't propose such a test (or care about one, since they take a supernatural 'designer' literally on faith.)

See above. There have always been countless of the devout who also sought in vain for "evidence of ID" within philosophy, within science, etc.

Is it really so clear that one can't come up with an information theoretic test [...] ?

What *is* clear is that the IDers have so little evidence or established body of work that even after all this time, they admit that their "science" is in its "infancy" with regards to results. And yet, for some reason, they're absurdly confident that they'll have a breakthrough "any day now", if only those cranky scientists will lower their standards enough to let the IDers catch up...

"ID" is one of the world's oldest failed hypotheses. Thousands of years of investigation, and the results to date have been a big fat zero.

The impetus for ID is rooted in recent discoveries within molecular biology and the discovery by Watson and Crick of DNA (i.e. information) and an understanding of the incredible complexity of the living cell.

No, those fields are just the latest areas where the die-hard ID fans have been desperately searching for any shred of evidentiary support for the ID hypothesis. And they've still come up empty, still cry, "just give us a little more time!", while the evidence supporting evolutionary biology has just exploded in volume through investigation into molecular biology and DNA.

There have been hundreds of thousands of papers on the evolutionary findings in molecular biology and DNA since those fields became possible -- what's your excuse for why "ID" hasn't similarly experienced a surge in positive findings? DNA research has been around half a century now. Molecular biology even longer than that. Where are the findings producing positive evidence for "ID" which have been uncovered during those decades? Oh, right -- there aren't any. Meanwhile, here are 4000+ papers on evolutionary findings in DNA. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. A PubMed search on the same keywords returns 47,000+ papers, but they don't provide an easy way to link to search results. Meanwhile, a similar PubMed search for "Intelligent Design" in conjunction with "DNA" returns one (1) paper, and that's not even about "ID", it's just a paper that happens to mention the phrase "intelligent design" in the context of careful crafting of gene therapy treatments. So the score is evolution: 47000+, ID: zero. What's taking you guys so long to start producing results? You've been at this far longer than we have.

There have been many books written by scientists on the subject.

Sure, if by "many" you mean about a dozen mass-market books for the public, containing special-pleading for why they think "ID" *might* produce real research results someday if we just wait long enough, and meanwhile let's teach it in science class under the pretense that it's a valid field of science despite zero results to date...

All the "ID" folks have is hand-waving and various kinds of fallacious arguments.

[Michael Denton: "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis"]

Um, exsqueeze me, son, but that's not an "ID" book. That's an anti-evolution book. Try to learn the difference. Alleged evidence against evolution is not positive evidence for "ID". Epistemology doesn't work that way.

[stands2reason]

Another way to look at it is that "acting like an animal" does not equal "anything goes". Any higher order pack animal has to follow the pack's rules of society, or it is punished with death or exile.

Atheists don't want to live in a community filled with amoral people any more than believers do.

BTW, are you part Vulcan? ;-)

[stands2reason]

I don't care whether Dawkins worships his own left foot.

It doesn't affect the ToE in the slightest.

In fact, the only thing your post convinces me of is you have a shaky grasp of logic.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

You're confusing ID with Teleology. Teleology

1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.

2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.

3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.

ID.. The science of recognizing design in objects.

Teleology assumes design.

ID makes no such assumption. It seeks to identify it.

[PatrickHenry]

"ID" is one of the world's oldest failed hypotheses. Thousands of years of investigation, and the results to date have been a big fat zero.

ID/creation "science" hasn't changed since this: The Predicament of Evolution. Published 1925, the same year as the Scopes trial.

[curiosity]

What about the Orthodox? Are you going to say they aren't Christians too?

What about the folks at Wheaton college? They seem to share you view about Catholics not being Christians, but they have no problem with evolution.