Slashdot Mirror

There is no evidence to support the idea of a divine creator.

Your opinion suggests that you haven't discovered Google (Or at least didn't use it before posting this...)

Um, there is no evidence of intelligent design. There is evidence of billions of years of random mutations and natural selection. You should be able to google that, if not, delete all your cookies and try again.

There is no evidence to support the idea of a divine creator.

Your opinion suggests that you haven't discovered Google

(Or at least didn't use it before posting this...)

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

It's kind of sad how nobody seems to understand how big the universe is. If they did, we'd have a lot less anthrocentric crap, and maybe a little less bad science fiction.

The real issue is not the distraction of Moulton's trolls, but matter of Picard's signing the Anti-Evolution Petition.

Moulton works with Picard, and presumably knows what she really believes. He lept to her defense when I pointed out the undisputed facts that she voluntarily signed her name as well as the good name of MIT to the Anti Evolution Petetition sponsored by the Discovery Institute, and that Intelligent Design proponents regularly refer to that petition in support of their so-called "theory".

Moulton's accusation of "maligning" presumes that implying that somebody supports Intelligent Design (based on their own words and actions, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're sincere about the documents they sign their name to, and are smart enough to perform due dilligent research into the institutions behind the publicity campaigns they endorse) is inherently offensive.

I'm not accusing -- I'm asking! Picard made the issue of her religion a topic for public discussion, by signing the petition (and in many of the other things she writes). The New York Times writes that Intelligent Design proponents publically cite her name in association with MIT as supporting their position, so there's nothing wrong with asking her what she really believes. She won't answer, so I'm asking Moulton (who works with her, and came out of the woodwork to "defend" her from my "accusations") to ask her for me, and report back what she says.

My questions: Does Rosalind Picard believe in Creationism? Does she support the Discovery Institute's position and tactics?

Of course the answers to those questions will raise many other questions (stimulate interesting discussion). I wonder why she doesn't want to answer -- who knows?

On the oxymoronic IDEA Center web site, which lists Picard's name as a supporter of Intelligent Design, they say that if you know that any information on it is false, to contact them immediate so they can correct it. If Rosalind doesn't actually support Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, then she should certainly write in and tell them to remove her name from their web site and petition!

-Don

The real issue is not the distraction of Moulton's trolls, but matter of Picard's signing the Anti-Evolution Petition.

Moulton works with Picard, and presumably knows what she really believes. He lept to her defense when I pointed out the undisputed facts that she voluntarily signed her name as well as the good name of MIT to the Anti Evolution Petetition sponsored by the Discovery Institute, and that Intelligent Design proponents regularly refer to that petition in support of their so-called "theory".

Moulton's accusation of "maligning" presumes that implying that somebody supports Intelligent Design (based on their own words and actions, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're sincere about the documents they sign their name to, and are smart enough to perform due dilligent research into the institutions behind the publicity campaigns they endorse) is inherently offensive.

I'm not accusing -- I'm asking! Picard made the issue of her religion a topic for public discussion, by signing the petition (and in many of the other things she writes). The New York Times writes that Intelligent Design proponents publically cite her name in association with MIT as supporting their position, so there's nothing wrong with asking her what she really believes. She won't answer, so I'm asking Moulton (who works with her, and came out of the woodwork to "defend" her from my "accusations") to ask her for me, and report back what she says.

My questions: Does Rosalind Picard believe in Creationism? Does she support the Discovery Institute's position and tactics?

Of course the answers to those questions will raise many other questions (stimulate interesting discussion). I wonder why she doesn't want to answer -- who knows?

On the oxymoronic IDEA Center web site, which lists Picard's name as a supporter of Intelligent Design, they say that if you know that any information on it is false, to contact them immediate so they can correct it. If Rosalind doesn't actually support Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, then she should certainly write in and tell them to remove her name from their web site and petition!

-Don

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

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

Except that the raison d'etre of ID (and similar teachings) is to achieve immunity from separation of church and state challenges. In other words, if we concede that it's ok to teach specific religious ideas as "truth" in public school, then there's no need for ID, the school could just teach right from the Bible. If we don't concede that, then we're back we're we started. We still have to determine whether ID falls under the general rubric of a religious teaching or not. That's why discussions as to the essence of ID vs. the essense of evolution are germane, although I'll admit some of them veer very much off-topic.

ID isn't about how life operates - which is appropriately explained by evolution - but how life originated.

Biology is about how life operates. Evolution is about the origin of species. ID claims the ground held by biogenesis and by evolution. It says that not only was life created primordially, but that variations in species can only be explained by supernatural causes. If ID were just about biogenesis, there wouldn't be the huge controversy that exists. The main webpage for ID states, "ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory." You can't get much more oppositional than that.

I also believe that a law which says "you must not teach ID" is equally in violation of the amendment.

You'd be right, but there is no law which says, "you must not teach ID." There is now a ruling which says, "You must not promote ID in (certain) public schools." The whole point being that a religious practice which is promulgated by THE GOVERNMENT is in violation of separation of Church and State. The same holds for the display of the 10 Commandments. Any private citizen do it. What has been opposed is for it to attain the color of public policy by being done by the Government.

The point made by his poster is valid. No real scientist would ever expect his unfinished theory to be placed on an equal footing with an established theory, yet the proponents of ID expect this kind of treatement. I think this picture demonstrates their claim the best.

You are right, there is no exclusiveness claim. In fact, their statement could claim anything or nothing at all. What makes one explaination "better" than another? Maybe all they claim is that ID is easier to say than evolution, making their explanation "best". But the real question is exactly what about this "scientific theory" is predictive or testable?

How about the simple fact that the theory of evolution is taught as fact in many, many schools from elementary to the university level (this is certainly true in the schools in my neck of the woods). In fact it appears that in every post regarding evolution that appears here in /., many people are constantly posting about just how factual evolution is.

That's because the overwhelming scientific evidence is in favor of evolution. Judging solely from this post, you appear to be an anti-science theist. Whenever I see people say "it's a theory not a fact" (such as the Dover, PA school district) it drives me nuts because of the error of the statement. Facts are measurable events or states (the ball took 1 second to fall to the ground). Theories are coherent models whose predictions agree with facts (t = sqrt(2h/g)).

The theory of evolution has predicted irrefutable facts. For instance, when searching in areas where the rocks are very old (millions of years) humanoid skeletons were found which were between ancient apes and modern humans. The older the rocks, the more ape-like the features. Which pretty solidly backs up an evolutionary history of man.

Give some logical, scientific explanation as to why a theory is taught as fact, and it is rare that any opposing theory is taught in parallel. In addition, explain why it is that when someone just mentions "intelligent design", they are immediately labeled as a radical, or anti-science, or with some other derogatory label.

There is no scientific alternative to evolution. ID claims to be such, but after reading a 30-page essay on the topic by ID luminaries (found here as the essay written by Calvert and Harris) and about 1/3 of "Of Pandas and People" (I haven't stopped reading it, I just haven't finished), I'm confident that ID is simply a screed against evolution. It basically says, "thus and such doesn't makes sense so God (well, an Intelligent Agent, nudge, nudge) did it". It makes no predictions, it makes no attempt to explain anything.

Ah, but abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. Evolution is the evolving of species to form new species (macroevolution).

I know this. That's my point. Arguments that we don't know how the first life began are completely irrelevant to the subject of evolution.

You say ID and Creation do not offer an explanation; ID accepts evolution, but figures that some non-natural force created life in the first place. You correctly say this is falsifiable.

ID does not accept evolution. ID states that life cannot evolve. According to the proponents of Intelligent Design, ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. Not that this is the core claim of evolutionary theory, but understanding evolution isn't one of ID proponents' strong points. And I do not claim that ID is falsifiable; it most definitely is NOT falsifiable, and therefore not science.

Yet the next thing you say is point out abiogenesis, which, is not only unfalsifiable (we can't repro this in a lab!) but also unnatural (life coming from non-life).

Scientists will not be able to prove that abiogenesis is the cause of life on Earth. What they are trying to show is that it could be the cause of life on Earth. They haven't demonstrated it in a lab yet but they've made a great deal of progress. We'd all be living in caves if we rejected all science that wasn't demonstrated instantly.

I can falsify abiogenesis easily: it is observable in nature that 100% of all life living today comes from other life.

I'm not sure why you would think this falsifies abiogenesis. Observing that something isn't happening now doesn't mean it never happened. Incidentally, since you're claiming that all life has to come from other life that would mean that your creator has to come from other life. Where did the creator come from?

See what you're saying? "God did it" is not natural and is not falsifiable. Here's abiogenesis, which is not natural, and is not falsifiable.

I never said anything about "natural"; don't put words in my mouth. As for falsifiable, "God did it" is definitely not falsifiable. It is possible to prove that abiogenesis is not responsible for life on Earth.

Thats an interesting question. One definition of ID:
"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."

(this is from http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ )

That doesn't quite imply a creator, just an abandonment of Occam's Razor. Some alternative possibilities consistent with that description:

- we're living in a simulation, as in the Matrix. We're thus unable to formulate theories about the 'real world', in which Xena and the Gods may well still be about, or evolution may be at play.

- those features which look designed were just put there by something inside our universe and subject to physical laws, eg, a grey, bug-eyed, spindly alien. The alien may be subject to evolution, but he's designed bits of what we see. Like, say, fjords.

and for an example of what it's NOT:
- the solipsist approach: its not a simulation, just an illusion. Reality is a figment of your imagination. Worse, reality may be subjective and while we live in a rational world, the advocates of ID may well live in a mythic universe. (the only difference between this and the other two is the absence of a designer)

While these are somewhat ludicrous theories, the fact is they might be true, and scientists wouldn't deny this. But they are really philosophical positions, and effectively anti-science, since it amounts to a claim that we cannot determine causal relationships between observed phenomena, ie all empirical science is rubbish...

To help frame some more discussion here is an excerpt from the following article about Intelligent Design giving some definitions.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3Har risCalvert.pdf

Intelligent Design
ID is a scientific theory that intelligent causes may have played a crucial role in the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity. It holds that design is empirically detectable in nature, and particularly in living systems. ID is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins that currently drive science education and research.

The theory of intelligent design has been described by ID theorist Professor William Dembski of Baylor University as follows:

Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent causes can do things that undirected natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can place scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot arrange the pieces as meaningful words and sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause. This intuition, that there is a fundamental distinction between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other, has underlain the design arguments of past centuries.

To the unbiased eye, the design hypothesis veritably leaps from the study of nature. It is an instinctive mental reaction to the observed data. Even the most ardent evolutionary biologist acknowledges that living systems look designed for a purpose.22 Currently ID scientists are developing ways to empirically and objectively test and confirm the hypothesis that life and certain aspects of its diversity may be the product of an intelligent cause. They do this not only by showing positive evidence of design that "rules in" the hypothesis (e.g., the existence of cellular message-bearing systems), but also by seeking evidence that "rules out" the competing naturalistic hypotheses of chemical evolution, Darwinian evolution, and a variety of new "self organization" theories.

Creation Science
Creation science seeks to validate a literal interpretation of creation as contained in the book of Genesis in the Bible. Creation science was defined in a statute that was litigated in a 1982 Arkansas case. In that case, the district court found that, as defined, the teaching of "creation science" was unconstitutional because it was, in effect, a restatement of the Genesis account of origins, and that teaching this material would have the effect of promoting that particular religious view. A similar "creation science" statute was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard where the holding was based on the same reason--that the statute had the effect of promoting a particular religious view.

Relationship between Intelligent Design and Creation Science
Intelligent Design is not creation science. ID is simply an hypothesis about the direct cause of certain past events based on an observation and analysis of data. ID does not arise from any religious text, nor does it seek to validate any scriptural account of origins. An ID proponent recognizes that ID theory may be disproved by new evidence.

They're still doing that.

In summary, if a highly improbable pattern of events or object exhibits purpose, structure or function and can not be reasonably and rationally explained by the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry or some other regularity or law, then it is reasonable to infer that the pattern was designed. - the product of a mind. Based on the above it is reasonable to conclude that design is the best explanation for the complexity of the postulated ancestral cell.
(see for yourself)

As William Saletan over at Slate.com has observed, this argument is absolutely idiotic - "It offers no predictions, scope modifiers, or experimental methods of its own. It's a default answer, a shrug, consisting entirely of problems in Darwinism. Those problems should be taught in school, but there's no reason to call them intelligent design. Intelligent design, as defined by its advocates, means nothing. "

Also, ID fails to account that human knowledge is constantly expanding. It may be true that we cannot presently describe some things by "the operation of the laws of physics or chemistry or some other regularity or law," but that does not mean that someday we will not be able to do so... but until then (and perhaps for some time thereafter) people will insist on calling it "intelligent design."

Of course, appealing to the public's ability to engage in rational thought is another issue altogether.

..."It Just Evolved".

There are many, many physical situations in which Intelligent Design is easily the top Ockham's Razor candidate.

But thanks for yet another example of argument from ridicule. <sarcasm>We really, really needed another one of those</sarcasm>