Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design
evil agent writes "CNN is reporting that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has ruled that Intelligent Design cannot be discussed in Dover, Pennsylvania biology classes. Dover Area School Board members had previously mandated that Intelligent Design be included in the biology curriculum. According to the judge, 'our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.'" Update: 12/20 23:40 GMT by J : eSkeptic has a look back at the trial and what led to it. And the Discovery Institute has issued a press release.
Intelligent design isn't science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science room.
Then when does the list of theories end? Teach creationism too? Hindu theories of creation? Bhudist? Aztec? Eventually the list gets too long and people learn nothing about everything.
The fossil record provides overwhelming evidence of the the great tre of life Darwin described. Pick up a science book. To say there is no evidence of Darwinism is nothing other than total willfull ignorance.
ID isn't a theory though, it's dogma. We don't teach dogma in science class for the simple reason that it is not science. It's like complaining that students aren't getting equal time for Aztek cooking in their Asian studies class.
I read the internet for the articles.
Relativity was never "proven". It is still a theory. It's just a theory that keeps on getting confirmed by experiment after experiment.
The difference is, I can SHOW you evidence of evolution. Walk into the Natural History Museum in Washington DC... there are plenty. Now show me ANYTHING other than babble that "proves" anything about intelligent design.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
You quote out of context, and you should be ashamed of yourself for being so dishonest. The judge said that he is not discouraging those people who study ID, and he says they have deep beliefs in what they are doing. But, this is the most important thing, he says that ID is *not science* and therefore *should not be taught in a science class*.
Stop spinning things by taking it out of context, and be honest for once.
Establishment and Free Exercise clauses
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Thank goodness.
And I know I'm feeding the trolls, but I'm sorry, but the comment "It's not any less scientific than evolution" is a fascinating one to me.
Let's break down the scientific method:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Results, start over at 1.
Evolution we know happens (see the changing patterns of moths around pollution, etc). However, the Theory of Evolution as originally put forth by Darwin is based on the idea of "survival of the fittest": those species who have a mutation that enables them to survive better than their competitors will breed and pass along that mutation to their descendants, who will then continue the process.
How did Darwin come up with this theory?
1. He observed the various species on the islands, and how they were all similar (birds, I believe) and how each was best fit to his environment.
2. He hypothesized that this condition arose because of his theory (see above).
3. The experiment (mainly carried out by other folks looking at fossils): See if similar species have changed over time due to environment and had mutations that allowed them to survive. Usually this "experiment" involves saying "All right, we have Fossil A which we know to be 100,000,000 years old, and we have Fossil C which is 25,000,000 years old. Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the environment, and is the same kind of creature as A except for the mutations observed. Therefore, there should be Fossil B that is like Fossil A, only it includes some of the mutations of C but not all of them as the species adapted to better fit the environment. This fossil should be between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 years old. If we find it, then we know we're right. If we don't, then either we need a better theory or need to keep looking." (For nit pickers who will say this is not a true "experiment", you are right - but these kind of "observational experiments" are perfectly valid when talking about cosmological experiments, such as testing the Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory).
4. Results: Over time, thousands of fossil records and observations of species has held up the Theory of Evolution. Adaptations have come into play (such as the "Survival of the Fittest and the Luckiest", which holds that sometimes pure chance comes into play of wiping out a dominant species, such as an asteroid, but when equilibrium is reached Survival of the Fittest is shown to work again).
This leads to a "theory": a set of rules that *currently* work in explaining a phenomena. The Theory of Relativity has been held up by experiment (such as "can we find bended light around a large gravity source. Answer: Yes.). As long as no one comes up with a better scientifically proved theory, the theory is held up.
Intelligent Design doesn't follow these rules. It goes like this:
1. Observation: There's a lot of different species out there.
2. Hypothesis: Some "intelligent designer" must of altered the species to allow them to survive in their environment.
3. Ummmm....
The "step 3" is important. With Intelligent Design, you *can't test it*. Actually, let me back up: you're not allowed to test it. The only way to prove/disprove Intelligent Design is to find a tablet between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 million years old that says "Note to self: change DNA of duck billed platypus to make it better to survive. Love, ID."
If you do bring up a changing fossil record and say "Look, we have a changing species over time", the ID'er will say "Ah, see - the designer changed the species". Again, no proof, no experiment needed.
This is why ID is not science, or even a theory: it's a belief. It's a nice belief. Do I believe some God/Goddess/Higher Being made the Universe? Sure. Do I think that They put a hand in everything?
Who cares? Until such a being gets on the Megaphone of the Cosmos and says "Hey, dudes - check out Chromosome #15 where I spelled out 'Jesus if fucking metal", I'll trust that They wrote the universe so that we could
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I am thrilled ecstatic over this decision. This judge clearly has brains and a willingness to use them. I am going to be happy.
I am not, not going to assume that the fight is over. Keep in mind that it was a loss in the Scopes Monkey Trial that galvanized scientists to fight ever harder for strong science (read no religion) in the biology classroom, and the school as a whole.
While I as a scientist am thrilled by this I also know that the people who oppose science are right now doing 2 things: 1) pasting this decision into a circular or 2 along with the choice words "activist judge" to raise more money/attention/support for their 'cause', and 2) digging in for another, longer fight.
I will celebrate this, and keep vigilant at the same time.
> Damn...what a smackdown.
Also:
"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and
proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and
again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind
the ID Policy."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It belongs in Philosophy.
What?
the reason why it was defeated - in the words of the Judge - is not because of ID itself but because the people who represented the reasons for inserting ID into the curriculum did so inappropriately.
Yes, because there simply IS no appropriate way to try to get ID taught in Science class. You said it yourself:
the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom
That, my friend, is the end all and be all of the entire ID "debate". To get Religion taught intermixed with Science. No one has of yet put forth a way to teach ID as an actual scientific theory, because it isn't. It's religion couched in pseudo-scientific terms.
Nice use of the typical "Slashdot groupthink" line, though. It alone will probably get you modded up.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
He also said it doesn't belong in science class - it's fine in comparative religion.
Oh there won't be an appeal - the parents are happy with the decision, and the NEW SCHOOL BOARD is too - the legal counsel for the school board cannot appeal without their client's consent and who their client is changed - 8 of 9 members were up for reelection last month, they all got canned and replaced with people who said ID doesn't belong in science class (but it's fine in comparative religion)
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
No, because the absolutely most important thing that is taught in a science classroom is what science is and what the scientific method is. The specific body of knowledge that you learn in school science classes isn't all going to be considered true anymore once your children are in school. The problem with Intelligent Design in a classroom is that it is not scientific or natural, nor does the support for it follow the scientific method. This distorts some of the most fundamental building blocks of science. This can be harmful, in the same way that it would be harmful if in math classes, the teacher had to tell students that pi is up for debate because, after all, we have never even seen the whole number to its end (bad example, but you get the idea).
(That ID is even being debated in this realm is testament to the fact that people in general aren't getting a solid enough grounding in science.)
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
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?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Intelligent design concentrates on things we do not fully understand or don't know about, and explains them with God. As curious creatures, people are seeking for answers and are ready to believe in something. Unaswered questions bother us to death.
True, but creationism cases are uncommon and therefore have higher-than-usual fluidity. This ruling discusses a Fifth Circuit case, for instance, because there aren't many precedential cases other than Edwards v. Aguillard. I think it's safe to say that Kitzmiller will be a serious factor in almost any future creationism case, even if it doesn't have precedential or traditionally persuasive weight.
My kingdom is not of this world; (John 18:36)
isn't clear?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
For those of you not familiar with this argument. The basis of ID comes from a book written by Micheal Behe called "Darwin's black box". In that book he argues that at a certian level an organism cannot be reduced any more and still be a functional organism. It's basically like saying 'If I take an engine out of a car. It's not a car anymore... and that means there's god'
As a side note, I must add that this decision may also mean that if I go to court for a ticket I won't be conviced of murder.
once more into the breach
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.
diegoT
Not only is the eye not irreducibly complex, but there are many different kinds of eyes in animals today and in the fossil record. The eye most definately evolved.
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.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
> Show me evidence that I evolved from a fish or a single celled animal.
Ask your librarian for a first year biology textbook.
> You can't, therefor evolution isn't science.
Maybe you should back up and tell us what definition of 'science' you're using.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You see? If you'd had a better grounding in science, you wouldn't be confused about this. EVERYTHING isn't taught in science class... SCIENCE is taught there-- natural explanations supported by evidence using the scientific method!
I sure didn't have a problem in high school learning about "what a majority of people in the USA believe"... when I took a *comparitive religions* course.
A majority of people also believe that George Washington was our nation's first president... oddly, I don't recall ever learning that in my science class.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function so how could it have evolved?
Classic mistake.... the 'I don't know how so it is impossible without devine intervention' excuse.
Science has already demonstrated that you need only a few modifications to allow normal brain tissue to become light sensitive.
And an eye with a few components still can give you an advantage over others that don't have it:
-Take out the muscles that move it around, you would have to turn your head to look at different things, but it would still be usefull.
-Take out the focussing stuff, you would only see a few things really clear, but when a large blob comes at you at high speed you might step aside while someone without this less usefull eye would get hit/eaten.
-Take out color, black and white tigers still look dangerous enough without the yellow.
-Take out the transparent stuff and place a thing layer of skin in its place, you would get even worse focusing but one could still see blobs moving around.
-Remove the fluid stuff and place the retina close to the skin, you could still detect sudden changes in the lighting.
Do them all and you are very close to the simple lightsensitive braincell.
I am not saying that is the way it happened, but I could think a possible path up in a few seconds without the need to drag some higher being into the picture.
The whole 'irreducibly complex' stuff is a joke, the being that is supposed to do that sort of stuff would need to be even more complex...
I don't disbelieve evolution but neither do I blindly believe everything the scientists tell me is fact That's rather the basis of science.
As an aside: did you consider that God could, by definition he's omnipotent afterall, have forged the fossil record? I think most Christians believe he's not like that and so didn't.
Don't try to use logic and omnipotent gods in the same sentence, its to easy to logically disprove an omnipotent god....
Besides the world was created last week including evidence, such as your memories, of the past.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Teach it in social science class, not biology.
Although, I do agree to some extent - I learned about "spontaneous regeneration" as an example of a failed theory in science class, and learned about the scientific method in general, so I could see teaching ID in that light.
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. "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. '"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. so please let's stop using the eye as an example. What next, bacterial flagella? That one is explained too. 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.
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
As all this will do is enable the religious right to galvanize their base against "radical judges legislating from the bench", as much a non-issue as gay marriage was in 2004, and this despite the Judge Jones declaration "that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."".
We live in the strangest of times, where intangibles matter more than observable facts and spin supplants truth as a means to grasp and maintain power.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Yeah, many people believe in Jesus. Lots of others believe in Mohammed. Some believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
None of that is science. It is religious belief. It should not be taught in science class.
IMAO, even if the majority of people believe something, it doesn't mean that something is right, accurate, or worthy of respect.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
You know, I don't remember the 9th Commandment saying "Thou shall not lie, save to further my faith".
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
The judge in the case wrote:
...
;-)
"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
There's no irony here at all. What these individuals were doing is properly called "perjury". In pretending to a non-religious motive, they were simply lying. This seems to have been made clear by statements they made outside the courtroom, where they were quite vocal about their religious beliefs. Unfortunately for them, the judge found them out. But he did mischaracterize their behavior as "ironic".
We will now have the usual flamewar over the meaning of the term "irony"
(Except within the jurisdiction of Judge Jones' court, where there is now a legal definition of the term.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Agreed on all points except that when the government mandates that a certain theology or theory be taught regarding science, or anything else, that is a direct rebuttal to religion, isn't the government getting in the business of religion anyway? My kid will learn that we are just animals, that we evolved from monkeys and never think a thing about himself spiritually. To me, that's the government getting ALL up in my grill on religion.
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
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.
English is easier said than done.
Non sequiturs in support of science are just as weak as the non sequiturs used to support religious doctrine.
Evolution being true (or "proven" to the extent that science can "prove" anything) is essentially separate from the truth or falsity of theology in general, though, of course, it does have some bearing on the truth or falsity of a particular creation chronology one might consider part of a religious doctrine.
Believing that finding a vague inaccuracy in the Bible invalidates all religious doctrine is a strawman argument. On the other hand, using the Bible as "evidence" for religious truth is circular reasoning, i.e. "believe in God because God wrote the Bible, and the Bible says to believe in God!"
Science is all about theories. There are no facts when it comes to how the universe was created. Why can't a teacher tell his students that many people believe God created the universe?
No, science ISN'T about theories. Its about ascertaining repeatable, provable facts of our material world. Supernatural theories (e.g. one that involves the existance of an entity, when there is no repeatable, provable existance of said entity) are not dealt with science. By definition, they are unscientific.
This is not like telling students some new theory that someone thought up 5 minutes ago. People have believed in Christ for over 2000 years. It seems like it should be mentioned in the biology class.Bhuddists believe the universe may not have a beginning. I'm not an expert in Bhuddist belief's, but I remember reading one Bhuddist's recollections of a conversation with Dali Lama. The Universe could've been created just moments ago, and created to appear to have a past. And they've been believing in ideas like this before Christ was in diapers. Yet neither idea is provable and repeatable. Science is the search for truths in a material world. Period.
Many people believe God created everything, and as people, we're doing our best to describe and measure what he created. I'm not advocating replacing science text books with the bible. But to leave out something that a majority of people in the USA believe is wrong.To every idiot that says "Evolution is JUST a theory.", I respond with, "The Bible is JUST a book." Its funny how so many people get upset when you trivialize their dogma. ID never had a leg to stand on, unless you count Creationism, which was banned from being taught in schools in 1987. Now please stop hurting science.
I was hearing a discussion about this topic on the BBC the other day, and one of the panel members made an excellent point: the same criticism ID'ers make about evolution can be made of a ton of other scientific theories (in all sciences, not just biology), so why aren't those theories criticized as well? They aren't because evolution is the typical battleground in the cultural war between religious and secular US, not Relativity or Gravity.
Of course, ID is obviously (to us, at least) a euphemistic backdoor for the religious types, but his point, I think, is still a very, very good one. I know a lot of people who still waver in their opinion about the merits of ID (even non-religious people), mainly because they buy the attacks by the ID'ers. I've found that those people, however, accept their arguments thanks to ID's secular mask. Defending against every attack on evolution one at a time is a bad way to convince people, since you mostly just get them in that state where they stop discussing because they are tired of bringing up points they heard (or they don't remember any more) but aren't entirely convinced. Bring up a point (like the one the panel member made) that makes the ID'ers look like hypocrites, and any support for what they say quickly vanishes.
Are quarks 100% of what scientists think they are. Is general relativity? Is string theory?!?
General relativity might be the best comparison here. We are unable to perform controlled experiments warping time and space. We can only measure what is already warped. Similarly, evolution is usually studied by what has already evolved. Actually, we can and have done controlled experiments on evolution, but no doubt this will bring up the whole micro- versus macro- evolution debate, which of course becomes a debate of semantics and one therefore not worth having. I'll admit that I'm not aware of any controlled experiments that have evolved new species (as opposed to sub-species) - although others might be aware of some. Additionally, I perform controlled experiments all the time using evolution to create new virtual species. Currently, I have a whole population of virtual hippocampi (CA3 region only) that are raring to cogitate.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
If your parents took you as a child, you pretty much didn't make that decision on your own. It was engrained in you as a child. If you never attended church as a child, and started going on your own as an adult, then you can make the claim that you made a choice.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, science doesn't give a rat's ass about truth. Science is about seeking out explanation, understanding, and prediction. A scientific theory can simultaneously be absolutely wrong (e.g., classical physics) but entirely usefull if it allows one to make predictions and explain behavior reproducibly.
"it must be pointed out that the reason why it was defeated - in the words of the Judge - is not because of ID itself but because the people who represented the reasons for inserting ID into the curriculum did so inappropriately."
No, I don't think so.
I've read the 139-page judgement. I'm not a lawyer, but it is pretty clear to me that, independent of the details of the questionable actions of the board members in the case, ID would be on very shakey legal grounds even if the people involved were lily-white and acting with appropriate intentions. As the judgement makes very, very plain: A) ID in its current form is not science, and B) its introduction into science curriculum in schools is inappopriate for that reason. The implementation details (which were severely botched by this board if they wanted to try to defend their actions down the line) only made the situation more obvious.
At the place where the judge made clear that he was not saying the intelligent design concept should not be studied and discussed, he was talking about *generally* -- i.e. in the broader realm of scholarly study (as in, maybe someday the ID movement will get its act together and become scientific, but the judgement implies pretty strongly that the basic philosophy/approach adopted may already bar that possibility). Public school classrooms? I don't think he was talking about that context when he makes the comment from which I think that paraphrase was derived, on p.137:
"With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
So, basically, I think you are quite wrong that it was the people behind the message that was the main problem. The message *itself* is out of scope in the public school classroom, according to the judge's opinion.
You're probably right about the appeals, but given that the board itself has been almost entirely replaced in the interim, I can't see how that could easily happen.
Says who? It would just take new evidence that the genetic coincidence between humans and apes is meaningless, or that we didn't all come from the sea, and evolution would go out of the window. If each species was found not to evolve in any way, then evolution would be proven wrong.
It is certainly disprovable.
diegoT
If it fits anywhere is in a class of religious studies. When I was at school I had class by this name, and it taught about all religions and did not try proving that one religion was better than another. It was more about trying to provide intellectual insight into the basis and beliefs of each religion.
The other places that would be suitable for teaching this is bible school, church or even private Christian schools.
BTW Don't forget that even the Catholic Church recently came out and declared their support for evolution.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
You'd rather have the Church decide? When they effectively stagnated science and astronomy for hundreds of years as they insisted the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe, and threatened scientists like Copernicus and Galileo and their supporters with death? (the church position was that since God created the earth and the universe for man, then earth HAD to be at the centre and not some speck of insignificant dust orbiting a star)
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
In truth, the ID'ers raise some interesting questions for science. How do complex and allegedly "irreducible" organs and systems come about? How is information preserved across generations? What are the thermodynamics of open systems?
Although biologists already had some answers to these questions, the ID'ers have forced biologists to study them more intensely.
The ID'ers have advanced science in spite of themselves. Their conclusions are mistaken, their motives are transparent, but some of the questions are interesting.
The notion of ID, that some things may be created by an intelligent agent, isn't invalid. An example I've seen mentioned is the notion of the roundup ready corn. Evolution does not explain roundup ready corn because it was made in a lab through, what one might describe as, intelligent design.
If one was to find a kernel of roundup ready and tried to figure out how regular corn had evolved into roundup ready you'd hit a brick wall because it didn't evolve. Does that mean evolution doesn't exist? No. Does that mean a deity made roundup ready? No. I think it's worth discussing in the context of a science classroom because it illustrates the practical limits of science, that no scientist would refute. There are some things that will forver beyond the ability of science to explain, and that's okay.
To be clear, I recognize that 99.8% of the people promoting ID are trying to find a breach through which to ram christian theological explanations for creation. These people are fools though because every time this has happened throughout history. Science has eventually expanded to understand the things that were supposedly only the realm of God before.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I am a christian and therefore I beleive that god created the universe and man in his own image. However I also beleive that evolution is a perfect explination of HOW god did that.
Science in general only provides the how, it NEVER provides the why. You need philosophy and religion to do that.
But I am off track. We were talking about whether god forged the fossil record. I submit that is doesn't matter one way or another, we will still act the same way.
Possibility 1 (the fossil record is all a lie and was placed there by god):
To answer this we should look to the bible. There are litterally dozens of passages that instruct man and belivers in particular to explorer gods creation. The world was created for us and we are instructed to appreciate it's glory. Science is simply a structured way of exploring the universe. Even if god DID create false fossil records we should still explorer them and science is the best way we know of to explore things.
Possibility 2 (the fossil record is an accurate measure of history):
Not only does the prior paragraph still apply but now we have an added incentive. We can now begin to understand god himself through his method of creation. By studying how he did things we can begin to guess why and therby come to a better understanding of the almighty and our place in it. If the record is false than we can't derive any info like that.
Since god is all powerfull and we have no way of directly observing his power we can't PROVE he did or didn't do anything. FOr instance say the fossil record is fake....when did he actually create it? 10,000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 200 years ago or 10 seconds ago? The truth is, if you refuse to trust what you observe than nothing you observe will have any meaning.
"because I lack the ability to understand an evolutionary system of a grand scale, I have therefore conclusive proof that God must have created the world... After all, everything too complicated for me to understand is just God's miracles"
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Not awesome. But realistic.
I mean, think about it: it's okay to believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy and Unicorns when you're a kid, because that's the age of Magical Thinking. But if you still believe in those things as an adult, you're looked at as some sort of weirdo, and justifiably so. So why is it any different if you believe in a magical, mystical, invisible sky-fairy who watches everything you do, can read your mind, and can control everyone's fate? I mean *come on*. I believing in that stuff as an adult isn't a sign of some sort of intellectual defect or brainwashing, then what IS?
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.
I am trolling
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 :)
Its simple really, if I want my kid to learn religion in school then I will send him to a religious school, catholic or otherwise. Faith is based on a belief, not facts, and that is not science. Since this was tought in a science class it is a just decision and our kids will be better for it.
For those that believe ID is anything but a dressed up creationist view masquerading as a science of any kind, think again. Most people capable of critical thinking aren't fooled and thankfully neither was the judge.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
Sigh. Public schools are governed by the Establishment Clause. What's more, wouldn't you rather have your child learn a little about science, and leave the religious indoctrination to you and your preacher?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
> Some ID proponents advised against the former Dover school board pressing this case, as they felt it didn't have a good chance. Other school boards, however, will now simply become more careful about how they attempt to introduce ID into the classroom.
The problem for ID is, it was designed to give political cover to religious zealots, but it requires those same zealots to keep their mouths shut about their religious beliefs.
That's why it failed in Dover, and that's why it's ultimately going to fail anywhere else. The kind of people who want it in the classroom are precisely the kind of people who feel compelled to insist on having their way with their religious views. The cool intellectuals at the Discovery Institute forgot to consider the nature of their customers, and it blew up in their faces.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The debate should really be: "What constitutes violation of the separation of church and state clause?"
The Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Okay, then, what does "respecting an establishment of religion" mean? This is the timeless debate of constitutional lawyers everywhere. The flip side of this, though, is not considered: what about laws that expressly restrict establishment of religion? Put it this way: I believe a law that says "you must teach ID" would violate this amendment. However, I also believe that a law which says "you must not teach ID" is equally in violation of the amendment. Similarly, I believe laws that require the display of the Ten Commandments are unconstiutional but also that laws prohibiting their display are also unconstitutional. The same for prayer in schools, etc.
The reason for this is simple: the authors of the Amendment wanted to prevent the government from abusing religious power. However, in prohibiting certain religious things in the public arena, this religious power is abused. The religion being promoted here is atheism, or agnosticism, or any of a multitude of others. You see, "science" is a religion in the broadest sense (and lawyers like the broad sense).
What many people forget is that by expressly denying something, you are actively asserting the opposite philosophy (in this case, "religion X" versus "everything which is not religion X". In the case of certain religions, all belief systems which exclude that religion are themselves a form of religion. That is, "no religion" is itself a religion (contrary to popular belief).
So, talk about the technical issues between ID and evolution all you want. The issue is much larger than that one, and it is really about active oppresion of religious views under the guise of "tolerance". The only constitutionally valid stance is to make no laws at all regarding religious practices (exception: a law against murder is not usurped by "expression of religion" where said religion has human sacrifice as part of its practices.)
(Incidentally, ID vs Evolution is always looked at incorrectly. ID isn't about how life operates - which is appropriately explained by evolution - but how life originated. The nature of ID still has the logical possibility of the laws of physics being "created" to allow random molecules to join and form self-replicating systems. The discussion can never be finished, because it is unknowable if the universe was created or was always present; it is also foolishness to claim something false if it is unprovable. That is why, as the religious put it, it is a matter of faith. The debate is childishness if it does not serve anything, and the practical implications of ID vs Evolution are quite limited, and it's not really worth the effort to form public policy about somthing which, I believe, is orthogonal to how one interacts with their environment. For that, after all, is the true focus of Religion.)
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
why-is-it wrote:
sigh
Nonexistence proofs are trivial. Perhaps the most famous is Euclid's that ``the largest prime number'' doesn't exist.
As for a proof against omnipotence, here's one:
Omnipotence must necessarily include omniscience; an omnipotent being could just ``use its omnipotence'' to give itself omniscience. So, if we can disprove omniscience, we've also oh-by-the-way disproved omnipotence. And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem. Don't believe me? Then try this on for size:
(And do keep in mind that ``Will this program ever halt?'' can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'')
You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.
The modern theological god is essentially dependent on so many logically-impossible traits it's not even funny. First cause? Well, if everything needs a creator, then what created the creator? Omnibenevolent? Then, whence comes evil?
You might as well define ``God'' as a married bachelor and be done with it.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Intelligent design supporters comment God could have created the fossil record, and the carbon 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14) and the telltale carbon dating it shows along with it. A fallacy in this arguement is that God could have easily, under that notion, created the world five minutes ago, with the sights, the sounds, the smells, the textures, the tastes you remember all planted inside your memories to fool you into thinking the world is older than it is. I would hold that arguement just as credible as the one they argue.
I think it's a differense between saying "Treat others as you want others to treat you." and "2000 years ago the son of God walked the earth as a hippie carpenter, therefore you should think/do/believe so and so."
My other comment is funny
Just because something is explainable or natural does not remove it from being a miracle.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Because the fossil record does not show "bigger and bigger life forms" in the upper layers - it shows newer ones!. In fact, your theory would require large dinosaur bones to be on the top layer of everything instead of in the middle layer - as they are.
Of course, I'd be wary of the anti-ID classes being corrupted to actually present ID or other crackpot theories, but... it's something to consider.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Patient: "Why to I have cancer?"
Intelligent Design Doctor: "You are designed to have cancer."
Patient: "Okay. Thank you. I will go away and die, now."
ID promotes fatalism. Not only is not science, it is anti-scientific.
Real science provides real value.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
Should we also mention Catastrophism? How about the Norse Tree of Life?
The problem with including a survey of alternatives and a discussion of their merits (or lack thereof) is that we would quickly become bogged down, wasting already precious class time on things that don't further a child's science education. Learning critical thinking and the scientific method is more than adequately served by covering the evolution of various scientific theories, like geocentrism to heliocentrism, or the triumph of germ theory over humours.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The big question we think this debate is about is "Is there a God, or isn't there?" I think many Christians think that evolution is anti-God, when it's not. It wouldn't be the first time large numbers of Christians didn't accept new scientific ideas. Think about Copernicus, Galileo, and others. They turned out to be right, and it wasn't the end of Christianity, though by and large it condemned their theories and behaved rather badly about it.
You can't use science to prove God exists, but you can't disprove it with science either. The universe could have been created to look and behave like it does, or it could have ended up this way all on it's own. Scientists has tried for all of history to either prove or disprove God, and no one has been able to do either. It will always come down to a personal choice of belief: Either God is damned smart or we are damned lucky.
I do think that in many if not most ways "ID" as a movement is more about fighting a perceived hidden agenda in the theory of evolution rather than true science. True science is about finding fact, regardless of what that fact might imply. Christians of all people should know that God is a big boy, He can take care of Himself. Christians should focus on following Christ and spreading the gospel, and not on picking worldly battles.
I like evolution. Personally, I think God would have designed creation as a riddle no man could solve, where His followers would have to live by faith, and not by science. I happen to like that God is smarter than us, and I think that when we die and we find out He really DID create everything, we'll be all the more amazed at what He's done (though some of us might feel pretty stupid for not seeing Him in it). If we die and He's not around, I guess none of us will feel anything at all.
First post, Flame on!
The obnoxious sticker said: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered".
Now you can read it in two ways:
a) The word "theory" here means exactly what it means in Science. In this case, all textbooks should have hundreds of similar stickers as in "This textbook contains material on inertia. Inertia is a theory, not a fact, regarding the way bodies upon which no external force is acting behave. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered".
b) The word "theory" here is being used with its layman meaning, as in the song "I have a theory" in Buffy's Musical Episode. "I have theory, it could be bunnies". In this case the sentence is not only wrong, it is a blatant religious statement. That was found to be the case, and then the judge nixed it.
Reading this thread on Slashdot is actually more revealing than the news itself. The issue is not about the validity of intelligent design. Personally I find intelligent design wrong and evolution right.
However I would prefer to leave my chilren's education to a teacher and not a judge.
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.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
Well put. Intelligent design might be summed up as the idea that "natural processes alone cannot explain the complexity of higher life forms." I do object to it being taught but for reasons other than what most people say here.
The problem with intelligent design is that it is not testable. I think the scientific term might be "interpretation" rather than "theory." In other words, it has little predictive value and is a bit more of a "here is what I think this information means" rather than "here is a theory we can use to predict such and such."
Other "interpretations" in Science include, notably, the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of Quantum Physics. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the idea that "for the purposes of quantum experiments, observation can be thought of as the force that defines a quantum event to a specific manifestation, i.e. the collapse of a specific wave." Like Intelligent Design it is probably untestable. After all, how do you test the effect of observation on quantum phenomina? Certainly not by comparing it in an observed vs. a non-observed state.... In essence the Copenhagen Interpretation really is a "useful way of thinking about" the experimental data in quantum physics. But the fact is, it has no more predictive value than other interpretations, and when you compare the writings of Schroedinger and Heisenberg, one hardly even sees a common interpretation there. I.e. Schroedinger seems to think that the state really is undefined, while Heisenberg thinks it is defined yet unknowable for the non-omnicient. I.e. to Heisenberg, it is not that the velocity and position of an electron are mutually undefined on a physical level, but rather than measuring one prevents measuring the other accurately without simultaniously measuring every other quantum event in the universe. In this view the electron has a distinct position and a distinct velocity, but we can't measure them simultaniously. In this view, these properties exist *indepentant* of observation, while to Schroedinger, they don't.
The problem of interpretations of theory and in fact scientific theory itself is well summed up by Heisenberg in "Physics and Philosophy" where he discusses the fact that data does not imply theory, and that interpreting any set of data (in order to create a theory) necessarily requires bringing in additional assumptions, and that these assumptions may or may not be testible. While Heisenberg doesn't discuss Occam's Razor, it is noteworthy that when you have competing theories, the less complex one is usually assumed to be the most useful. Hence we use a heliocentric rather than geocentric model of the solar system because it is easier to get the motions accurate with less work even though one can mathematically transpose one system into the other with a bit of work.
The apparent problem with Intelligent Design as an interpretation of evolutionary theory is that it appears to most of us to be conclusion ("There is a Creator God") in search of a proof. For this reason, it doesn't seem to fit well with the scientific Principle of Parsimony, a.k.a. Occam's Razor ("One Should Not Needlessly Multiply Entites"). In essence ID requires more work to get the same result as evolutionary biology would. So from a rigid scientific view, ID is a bit like arguing that Saturn moves around the Earth. Yes, you can make it work, but there really is no reason to do so when you have a simpler heliocentric model to work with.
Our current evolutionary theory is fairly incomplete and is still being actively developed. Indeed evolutionary theory is as flawed as the ID people say it is but that is largely because there are missing pieces which are still being worked out. For example, there isn't really a solid understanding as to why populations diverge so quickly when the biodiversity is low,* but the answers to these questions will, I think, better answer the shortcomings of evolutionary theory than ID does today.
* I would say we are about 80% there but this is a very complicated pr
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You spelled "Religion" wrong, which is funny, considering you seem to be all about it.
Secondly, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that the federal (and due to the 14th Amendment, the state) government can't establish a state religion, give preferential treatment to an established religion, or stop people from exercising their religion, as long as doing so doesn't violate religiously neutral laws. What I'm trying to get at, is... if the government can't force a particular religoin on me, then why should they force any religion on anybody?
Don't forget, in the end, that's what this debate is about - if it's supported by public money, it's not supposed to include religion. And if ID isn't religion, well, then, I'm the Pope.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Note that I'm not referring evolution in single-celled organisms because it is so different
You can't accept evolution for one organism and reject it for another, on a whim. That's just not Science.
The scientific theory of evolution has been subject to dozens of thousands if not millions of scientific tests over many decades. The testing is not complete of course, it never can be, but that doesn't in any way make it non-scientific. It holds together extremely well as a scientific theory, so far. Huge numbers of questions remain of course, and they always will, but no test has disproved the validity of evolution as yet.
You should note that just because something is a theory in Science doesn't mean that it is suspected to be false. Quantum Mechanics is a theory too, yet all those quantum mechanical devices in your TV and cellphone and computer seem to work just fine. Yet, QM still is no more than a scientific theory, despite that.
The same is true for the astronomical sciences for example, since we cannot directly examine objects billions of lightyears away. And likewise for the key theories of fundamental physics, since we cannot directly examine any of the objects discussed in string theory, for example. But we can always extrapolate hypotheses from these theories and try testing them. That's what makes it Science.
Nothing in ID can be subject to testing by the scientific method, so it's not Science, and hence ID doesn't belong in a classroom of Science, it's that simple. It has nothing to do with truth or falsehood, but merely with whether the matter is subject to the scientific method or not. And ID is not.
I.e. Atheism is a belief that there is no god. Certainly some branches of Buddhism are atheistic. In other words, Atheism is about as much "a religion" as Monotheism, Polytheism, or Pantheism is. Yet we would hardly say that there is Monotheism is a religion and by that lump all Jews, Christains, Muslims, Bahai'i, etc. together.
Indeed there are religions that are atheistic just as there are religions that are pantheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic.
Agnosticism might be the only one that might not be characterized as the belief that forms the foundation of a religion. Science is agnostic in the sense that it doesn't say anything about the existance or lack thereof regarding any specific divine entity or entities.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
That evolution happens is pretty indisputible, since anyone can reproduce it in populations of microbes, drosophila, or even canis familiaris. But the idea that evolution is the mechanism by which people came to exist is much less well tested. Although the evidence seems to be pretty overwhelming, it is not currently possible to repeat the whole experiment within our lifetimes, so Occam's Razor is the main justification for evolution-as-creation-story. Although the evidence is amazingly consistent and rich, Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony) is a pretty weak philosophical tool compared to realism or positivism (the ideas that scientific theory is actually describing something real that can be reproduced), and it's not surprising that many folks find it hard to swallow.
That doesn't make the short-Earth creationists right -- it just makes them more understandable. They're at least attacking the edifice of scientific study at a weak point, rather than at a bastion.
In fact, that was what Judge Jones observed, that evolution was singled out for this treatment. No other topic in biology, or any other part of the science curriculum was given this treatment.
Beyond that, why should non-science be taught in a science class? ID isn't science, and even its proponents admitted in court that the very meaning of science would have to be altered to permit ID in as a scientific assertion. Is there any other alternatives you would think kids should know about? Perhaps we should bring up demon possession as an alternative to mental illness, or perhaps we ought to find some nice alternatives to the germ theory of disease.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As for a proof against omnipotence,
Let me guess: first, you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything, even a contradiction. Then, you show that this leads to a contradiction. However, if you believe that contradicitons are possible, you cannot use proof by negation.
All but God can prove this sentence true.
That statement is false. And I am correct, I said so myself.
Omnipotence must necessarily include omniscience; an omnipotent being could just ``use its omnipotence'' to give itself omniscience.
If it wanted to...
Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?
An omniscient being would know that question has no "yes" or "no" answer?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Actually, god gave humans sub-perfect eyes to specifically piss you off on this very message forum - and no other reason, except to test you and your faith in the almighty himself!
I'm sorry, these arguments are so pointless due to their self-referential nature, that you can go nowhere with them!
Science shouldn't even go down this path - we argue what we see in the universe, and what we can measure. Since we can't measure God - by definition, it is something that must be taken as faith - science shouldn't touch it. That's what philosophers are for - proving the unprovable.
I find it "interesting" that so many supposedly devoutly religious people are so willing to tell any big fat lie it takes to cram their religion down everyone's throat. Surely such a thing cheapens what should be sacred.
You make no sense. You say that ideas that are not science should be taught in science classes?
"Why, if the majority of the Bible has repeatably been proven as a reliable historical record, can people so easily discard it's (SIC!!!!) accounts of the creation of the world by a Supreme Being?"
Now you've veered off into Looney Land. The Bible has not been proven to be a reliable historical record. It was written by men (don't give me this "divinely-inspired" shit) many years after the events supposedly took place. And the writers had their own agendas. Oh yeah, what about the Apocrypha? You know, the stuff that was edited out much later because certain kings and popes felt that those writings contradicted their rule?
"In my opinion, the reliability of the latter historical parts of the Bible is enough to justify consideration of it's (APOSTROPHE LOSSAGE, GODDAMMIT!) account of creation."
In my opinion, the reliability of anything you say is suspect.
This debate has put the general public's ignorance of the scientific method on display. It shows that, at the highschool level, there is a need for a general "introduction to science" requirement. ID would fit perfectly into the section on the differences between pseudo sciences and real science. This would serve our students far better than sort of sweeping it under the rug in biology class, and equip the next generation of decision makers to quickly recognize future attacks on science.
The real problem now is that ID proponents can spew "scientific" sounding ridiculousness and the majority of people do not immediately recognize it as such. All it takes is the most basic understanding of the scientific method.
...considering this is already done with things like phrenology and homeopathy. Steeling students against the onslaught of pseudoscience is a worthy part of the teaching of real science.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
And I don't know that if I stop working, stop eating, and finally stop "living" that I won't just wake up in some other life. Yet I'm going to keep on working, keep on living, and keep on trying to better myself and my situation regardless.
Just because we don't fully understand things is no reason for us to stop trying to find explanations.
I mean, you certainly can, but I think I'll fully exploit (as in live my full lifetime) my time in this state of existence.
I could decide to do nothing, or I could decide to do terrible things believing all that exists is simply my personal invention and that it really doesn't matter. However, the possibility that my perception is reality precludes me from acting out either of those scenarios. We could go on pretending that we're talking about deep, meaningful things, but I'm pretty sure everyone that's interested in this sort of thing has already thought all of this, which means we'd just end up doing what you suggested in the first place which is really nothing at all.
With the assumption being that after enough trial and error, eventually we arrive at a point where all explanations fully predict observations. At this point, if we have not arrived at "truth", then we have at least arrived at something so practical as to make "truth" irrelevant.
Then you might know that, at least for Catholics, it is expected that they use their reason fully in the investigation and acceptance of their faith.
Half of my extended family are devout Catholics. If I didn't know them so well I would never have guessed them to be religious people, as all of them (the adults at least) are college educated and work either in the medical profession or as educators, and almost never do anything invoking the supernatural whatsoever. Even the few religious events I've attended with them have a friendly, welcoming feeling to them, and don't at all make me feel alienated or like I'm somehow violating my own naturalist beliefs by being there.
I'm rather quite fond of Catholics (ones like them, at least) for this reason - they don't let their faith get in the way of their reason. If there is an apparent of conflict between them, they don't discard their reason, but rather modify their understanding of the articles of their faith to remain compatible with reality.
For this reason I see the entire Catholic faith, in a sense, similar to a huge software project struggling to maintain reverse compatibility. A long time ago, someone hacked together a workable program for how to run a human life, which had some pretty huge feature gaps and some serious bugs but for the most part worked pretty darn well, and a lot of people adopted it. In the intervening millennia, newer and more efficient programs have been created for running this or that bit of life, and the developers of the Catholic faith program - which are just its advanced users, since it's open source you know - have incorporated hooks for those algorithms and modified their own code base to maintain reverse compatibility with the old program. Slowly, over the ages, their own code is becoming deprecated, but it's still there with extra layers to translate between the new code and the old, since there's some bits of old code that don't have newer replacements yet, and so people want to keep using this old program since there's no fully suitable replacement for it yet.
It's really a marvelous piece of social engineering and now that I think about it, quite a sensible approach. Some of us may be 1337 hax0rs who can code up our own life-programs from scratch, taking the best of what we've seen and inventing our own and tying it all together into one elegant system, thus rejecting anyone else's system as weak and broken and in many ways quite Evil (to use a technical term). But not all the lusers out there can code up their own stuff, and they've got to use something in the meanwhile, so they use whatever hack job best suits their needs. Catholicism seems something like Mac OS X - lots of free and open source stuff in there, highly compatible with open and non-proprietary systems, but with layers that make it all reverse compatible with the older Mac code, and a slick face on top of it all that most everybody feels comfortable using.
My biggest pet project is, by this analogy, writing a whole new Life OS from scratch, all open source with clean and elegant code, no ugly hacks, and a full feature set that's mostly compatible with all the major brands out there, only breaking compatibility in places where the other brands had really ugly hacks that shouldn't be propagated - thus allowing anyone who wants to switch completely over to this new and improved system in a very easy transition, and leave their old junkware behind. I know put in those terms it sounds like a major project that will never be finished - and I guess, like any great open source project, it never will be - but I hope that at the very least I'll wind up with a usable product that other systems can incorporate bits of into their own code. I'll be happy if it just helps programs like Catholicism, who seem eager to incorporate newer cleaner code, to develop into a better product in the end, thus migrating all their millions of users off the crapware that they're currently using.
No offense to Catholics or anyone else is intended by this post. I think you're being stupid if you blindly follow anything, but chances are you and I would agree on a good majority of topics, once we got the semantics straightened out.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."