Intelligent Design Ruled "Not Science"

blane.bramble writes "The Register is reporting that the UK government has stated there is no place in the science curriculum for Intelligent Design and that it can not be taught as science. 'The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programs of study and should not be taught as science.'"

Comments

Hah.

[SatanicPuppy]

It's not really religion either.

God demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith. If you see something that you think is proof of God's existence, you're wrong. He's ineffable. That means you can't effing figure him out.

The arrogance of the goddamn literal read types is just astounding....Anyone else would look at evolution and go, "Damn! That God guy is hella fricking smart! Look at this crap! It's a system for self-improvement built into self-replicating creatures! It's awesome!" but a literal-read weenie will look at it and say, "Don't say nuthin about that in da bible. You must be wrong."

The worst thing that can be said about the literal read types, is that they have nothing to look up to. They know all there is to know about god and everything. So very very sad.

Re:Hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! How many times has some creationist offered criticism of some experiment I show them. The criticism is sometimes very well founded, and I agree with it. Then in the next breath, they say they believe the Bible is the only truth. Where did the useful skepticism go??

Re:Hah.

[PorkNutz]

You're confusing faith and belief. Faith is not believing that some one exists, but that they are a trustworthy and benevolent. ...And you are wrong. Faith has many definitions, one of which you have chosen to deny.

Faith

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

-----
Jon Stewart for President T-Shirt
Funny Shirts @ ProStoner.com

Re:Hah.

[plunge]

And look, you shifted the goalposts, from common descent via natural selection to complaints about the "genesis of life" which doesn't even concern evolution BY DEFINITION (since evolution is only relevant when you have self-reproduction with heredity, i.e. life already).

Your accusations are standard "pox on all houses" boilerplate. But the rub is that they are creationist boilerplate: the idea of the tactic is that one attacks the very idea that we have good evidence or can know much of anything at all... i.e. simply tries to discredit most of modern biology without actually doing any work... with the hopes that once this is done, religious assertions become more compelling in the aftermath.

Re:Hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

You find 4 to be the most ludicrous, so something had to create the universe. Which leads us to try to answer who created god.

Assuming one of the following to be true, pick the most ludicrous:
1. Man created God
2. Unicorns created God
3. Santa Clause created God
4. Nobody created God

Since we have already determined it's ludicrous to believe that something really complex can't just exist, I am going to go out on a limb and say that number 4 is the most ludicrous answer. What I don't get is how can a person who believes the universe is too complex to just exist will postulate a being so complex that he can hold the entire knowledge to create the universe in his head and cause it's creation.

Re:Hah.

[Pfhorrest]

why is it any different for a Christian believing the Bible? Time and time again, I've found what it says to be true, so I believe it is. I'm curious, what is it that the Bible has claimed which you have observed to be true? I'm assuming here that by "found" you mean something like "observed", and not just "well that sounds right to me", as intuition is clearly no basis for grounding an argument, since arguing that way, you'd only ever convince people who already agreed with you, and never anybody who didn't.

Note that there is a big difference between saying non-false things and saying true things. If what you say implies nothing at all, then you've not really said anything descriptive of the world, and that non-statement is no more false, but also no more true, than silence. So feel-good emotional language (blessed are so-and-so...), lists of commands (thou shalt not...), and so forth, are not even candidates for being true or false. Also bear in mind that "The Bible" is not one big theory, hypothesis, or proposition: it's a whole bunch of them, and as such, some of them could be right and others wrong, and so finding some true statements in there doesn't imply that all statements therein are true.

In my experience, those claims that the Bible makes which are meaningful (actually say something with observable implications), and not evidently false (such as a literal reading of Genesis), are fairly trivial and not disputed even by atheists. (Christians and non-Christians, for all their differences, still agree on a whole lot of things, like for example that 2+2=4, so there are plenty of trivial things in the Bible than even an atheist will agree are true). So if you've read something in there which is meaningful, controversial (i.e. something Christians believe and non-Christians don't), and which you've observed evidence for, I'd be rather interested in hearing what is was, and what sort of evidence you've observed.

Re:Hah.

[Hatta]

Basically, once you stop striving for something higher than yourself, you become no better than an animal.

We are no better than animals because we are animals. If that conflicts with your ideals, you should get some more realistic ideals.

Re:Hah.

[pnewhook]

I had religion (required) in public school. It was great. But they didn't preach any one religion. They showed how all the religions of the world came about, their origins and similarities and differences in their belief systems. Then we had guest speakers, one each from the major local religions that came in to talk about and answer questions of their beliefs and customs.

I firmly believe that type of religion in schools should be mandatory. It would certainly remove a lot of the predjudices and stereotyping that goes on simply due to fear and lack of understanding.

Re:Hah.

[BakaHoushi]

To quote George Carlin, "Give me ONE reason why a human being is better than a chicken. Just ONE. ...See? Nobody can do it! Why? Because chickens are honest, living creatures!"

Let's look at the chicken/human comparison a little more:
We both require and search for nourishment, often in a group.
We take in that nourishment, where a complex series of systems provide energy to all the necessary cells of the body.
We both have an innate desire after a certain period of time to combine our genetic material with another in hopes of keeping some portion of ourselves "alive".
After a set amount of time, natural causes will end our lives, leaving room for the next generation to take our places.

Where exactly do we differ enough that we are so different? Because we use tools? Sorry, but so do other animals. Plenty of simians, and even some birds. Because we create communities where we work together and raise each other? Again, so do plenty of animals. Because we have "free will" and can act in good or evil ways, such as murdering our own? It's been shown that chimps can, in fact, commit murder.

Human beings are intelligent (...well, some of us, anyway...) because that's how we survived long enough to fuck. A frog is not as intelligent because... he doesn't need to be that smart and reasoning to survive. His mechanism is having 10,000 little eggs and, with any luck, a handful will survive to reproduce. Those whose mechanisms didn't work... well, they not here anymore. Ours? It worked. A vulture's design lets him eat rotting meat with little risk of getting sick. If a human ate that meat, he'd vomit. So, using intelligence, we created cooking. Lower risk of getting sick from food. A rhino has thick hide and a powerful horn to fend off predators. We can creates weaponry. Different means to the same end.

So, where's the difference?

Re:Hah.

[aldo.gs]

I do agree that we are not better than animals (although it seems to me that the notion of "betterness" is quite subjective).

But I can think of a difference between us and the rest of the animals: knowledge passed along generations.

I have never seen another species use (or create) some tool and improve it over time. Or keep historical records. Of course, for them there is no need to do it, but we managed to survive without writing and with very primitive weapons too. Maybe it can be summed up as 'civilization', but that term can be ambiguous sometimes.

Perhaps I got your comment the wrong way (and sorry for my english).

Re:Hah.

[SatanicPuppy]

A dog just wants to be a dog. A chicken just wants to be a chicken. A pig a pig. A frog a frog.

But a man wants to be more than a man. For the whole existence of our species we have striven to be more than just what we are. In everything where we have ever fallen short, we have built tools to extend our reach. Every comparison is upward. We have no final goals; when we achieve, we immediately try to take the next step.

We have ideals. People live in pursuit of dreams...We give up sex for them sometimes! We die for them when we must.

We have it in us to be truly animals. Hardly any doubt of that; we see it everywhere. Dogs, chickens, and pigs, as far as the eye can see.

But I'll set my sights a little higher, so that one day, perhaps, we can be something more.

Re:Hah.

[snowgirl]

So, where's the difference?

I'll throw this out here, and all the linguists will nod, and all the non-linguists are going to try and debate me about this.

We have a method that relies upon complex syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in order to generate reasonably effective communication between our species. In one word: Language.

Now, to deal with the issues that people will likely raise:

"What about parrots, they can talk", Parrots are indeed capable of a surprising amount of phonology, that allows them to mimic human speech patterns. It has also been shown that they are able to associate words and phrases with ideas, concepts and behaviors. However, they only satisfy "semantics" in the above, and a relatively small subset of semantics.

"What about those apes that I heard learned to use sign language!" Well, first off, I'm happy to see that you recogize that sign language is actually language, and not just some form of gestural gumbo. However, the sign language learned by these Apes is equivalent to that gestural gumbo. They have associated one sign to an idea, and then they throw those signs out until someone actually does what they're hoping to get. "YOU ME TICKLE TICKLE ME ME TICKLE YOU ME TICKLE ME YOU" is a pretty good example of their communicative skill.

"I heard Dolphins can talk!" Dolphins do have a complex communication system that allows them to transmit fairly detailed notions back and forth to each other. However, they still lack the "complex syntax" given above.

"What about white mice, huh?" ok, you got me there.

Re:Hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know, the eyeball isn't all that great. First, we only have two of them. And because of their positioning, the majority of our surroundings are rendered into a huge blind spot. Squids got it right. Does god love squids more than us? And why can we only see a small portion of the light spectrum? Or Infrared rays? Gamma? Ultraviolet? General radiation?

While we're at it, why do I drink, breath, talk and eat out of the same hole? Dolphins have more options than we do. Great move God. Are you TRYING to make me choke and die on my Hot Pocket?.

And what the hell is up with our genitals? That's like putting a theme park in the middle of sewage treatment plant.

Re:Hah.

[SatanicPuppy]

In what way? Do you think frogs dream of greatness, or that men don't?

Our whole history is one of envy. We envy the tiger its claws, so we learn to make our own out of stone. We envy the deer its speed, so we domesticate the horse. We envy the fish their abilities with the sea, so we invent boats, and then submarines. We envy the birds the sky, so we invent the airplane.

Was all that enough? No. We launch our crazy asses into outer fucking space.

We are not a complacent species. There is never going to be a point where we say, "Enough." Do you know where that's going to lead...I mean, clearly you think you do, but do you know?

Re:Hah.

[Rallion]

In my book, that makes us "better" than animals. I know that I, for one, would be bored out of my mind picking bugs off of others in my "group" and throwing poo.

I'm going to quote Douglas Adams now.

"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."

As a species, we value the things that we have. We value self-improvement, because we can do it. We value culture, because we have it.

However, monkeys probably think out inability to properly groom each other is somewhat silly.

It's a problem of bias to an incredible degree. You must admit that it's a bit suspicious that every single way in which some animal is clearly superior to humans is viewed by humanity as utterly unimportant.

Re:Hah.

[Tatarize]

So what if a hawk can see much better than I can. I shoot the hawk.
So what if a cheetah can run must faster than I can. I shoot the cheetah.
So what if a bird's cardiopulmonary system is better than mine. I can shoot the bird.
So what if a dolphin can swim faster than I can. I shoot the dolphin.
So what if most animals can fly and I can't. I shoot them.
So what if I am restricted to land covering a tiny 25% of the Earth's surface. I shoot those water things.
So what if bees can see ultraviolet colors. I crush them.
So what if pit vipers can see infrared light. I will back away slowly.
So what if owls can see 100 times better in the dark. I will shoot them.
So what if dragonflies can see completely around themselves. I will crush them.
So what if plants convert light into energy. I will eat them.

I rule over them all. I have tools. Better than otter tools. Better than chimp tools. Better than all other tool-users around... so only tool use matters. Suck it world of organisms with powers I obviously lack. I can't spit venom at you, or spin a web... but I can hit you with a shovel, and that's what really matters.

How about in the US?

[oskay]

Will someone in the US government please do the same?

Re:How about in the US?

[MightyMartian]

Nothing more perverts the issue than those that try to make the battle against pseudoscience into a "rights" issue. I don't hear too many people complaining because high school history classes don't teach the "controversy" of whether the Holocaust happened or not, and yet all the Creationists and IDers bemoan the supposed censorship of their pseudoscientific claptrap not being taught in science classrooms, despite the fact that neither Creationism or ID (and ID is, after all, nothing more then Creationism with the word "God" removed in an attempt to fool Supreme Court justices) are recognized as science by the overwhelming majority of scientists inside and outside the US.

People are perfectly free to talk about ID, publish letters in the newspaper, buy spots on TV, stand on the proverbial soapbox and preach it. There is no infringement of freedom, save that all those Evangelicals and the like would like special dispensation so that they could teach their own religious beliefs openly or in a pathetically thinly-veiled form like ID.

Re:How about in the US?

[an.echte.trilingue]

"only 14 percent believe humans evolved without divine involvement."

You do of course realize that one can both believe that the theory of evolution is 100% correct and also believe that God created this process? I am not saying that we should teach that God/god/goddess/gods/goddesses directed evolution, just that the numbers you present are framed. After all, only atheists believe that humans evolved with no divine involvement at any juncture. I would really like to know which opinion polls the article refers to and how they were conducted, because I don't believe that these statistics reflect what Americans actually think.

Re:How about in the US?

[SCHecklerX]

You can believe that all you want. It's still not *SCIENCE*. You can have ID in the classroom. But it's a religious studies or philosophy subject. It is not science any more than creative writing is mathematics.

Re:How about in the US?

[PopeRatzo]

our country is governed by zealots and money-hungry folk, whom are guided by the fundamentalists.

The kind of fundamentalists that are currently running our government are to Faith what a ten-dollar hooker is to romantic love.

Re:How about in the US?

[fiannaFailMan]

only atheists believe that humans evolved with no divine involvement at any juncture

"Believe?" I would say "think is the most likely explanation after having considered the evidence" would be more appropriate.

That's good.

[cromar]

I can't believe it is such an issue in the USA. People don't seem to even understand the definition of science. While I won't diminish the importance of religion or spirituality in life, science is based on reason and logic and is therefore a very practical and useful way to understand the natural world.

Personally, I don't see any conflict between the world being created by some God, even in 7 days, and its being formed over billions of years by natural processes. One is a faith based way of experiencing the world, the other is a sensory based, practical, and logical way. They are both useful.

What isn't useful is to deny children understanding of what, very practically and falsifiably, is the way our reality works.

Re:That's good.

[clickety6]

Would you rather live in a magical world full of fairies or dry reality?

Dry reality? You obviously don't live in the same world as me because there are more incredible and amazing things in this universe than I could ever fully explore in a single lifetime. I don't need to add imaginary fairies and hobgoblins to the mix. Just read a book about cosmology, or quantum physics or the human mind or zoology or... you don't need to start inventing fairies and easter bunnies to live in a magical world -we're already in one!

Re:When they can explain...

[MightyMartian]

Even worse, you enter a logic trap when you insist that things require a Prime Mover. If the universe requires a Prime Mover, then the logical extension to that is that the Prime Mover also does, and you enter an infinite regression of Prime Movers. The standard answer by those who insist on causality all the way down is that their Prime Mover is exempt. At that point, an application of Occam's Razor states that unnecessary entities should be removed, and so if the alleged Prime Mover requires no lower-level Prime Mover, then why can't the universe exist without the need of a Prime Mover.

Re:As a Christian...

[CaptainCaustic]

Claiming that you have an opinion regarding Evolution is like saying you have an opinion on Gravity.
Doesn't matter if you don't like the idea or not, you can't get away from the fact they exist.

Re:As a Christian...

[DogDude]

The schools don't force an opinion. Science, by and large, isn't an "opinion". Get your head out of your ass. To put science and faith on the same level is insulting to scientists everywhere.

People talking to invisible men who live in the sky is an opinion... a wrong one.

Re:government defined science

[wizardforce]

Many of the advancements to science can be considered outside of what is considered "science" at the time. An attempt to limit scholarly inquiry by excluding it from scientific discussion will only discourage diversity in the scientific community.

that is dead wrong, the great leaps forward were strictly through the scientific method which is about as far away from being outside science as you can get. Intelligent design is as you say "excluded" because it explains nothing, predicts nothing and does not adhere to any logical methodology. If ID wants to be scientific they need to provide real evidence, not just what the Bible says. We want concrete testible predictions and an actual theory that extends what is known not just a God of the gaps ideology.

ID is unique (I'm not talking about young earth crap) because it really is not straight philosophy as it has too many ties to empirical data, it shouldn't be religion because (at least the reasonable arguments) don't actually argue for a "God,"

Intelligent design is nothing more than a philosophy, it makes no predictions and explains nothing outside of a purposefully un-named designer [after Dover it was well understood that God was the implied designer] It isn't based on solid empirical evidence but mere misunderstandings and ideology.

I don't think it is fair to any argument to preclude it being reasonable based on the fact that it doesn't really fit into current frameworks that have been set up.

if you are referring to fairness in the context of giving equal time to each side it is entirely irrelevant. The side that has the most well estabolished evidence and predictive power wins. The scientific community is not interested in being dragged into an ancient ideological pissing contest. I don't mean to start a flame or anything here, I am just sick of religion pretending to be science when it is nothing of the sort.

Re:The cardinal sin of "I don't know."

[bill_mcgonigle]

The creator of the Universe caring about what happens to us is like us caring about what happens to some Ant hill somewhere.

Without detracting from the rest of your argument, this part needs work. We're limited beings, complex machines made of crude matter. The Yahoweh mythology is about an infinite being.

Do you have absolutely no interest in what the ants are doing inside their ant hill? I think it might be neat to watch them. But I certainly don't have the resources to do so frequently, widely, or intently, so I elect not to care about them.

Those constraints don't apply to the supreme being worshiped by the tribes of Abraham, ergo it would be surprising if he didn't pay attention to everything. And play Ski-ball at the same time.

Re:Yeah, but ...

[Goth Biker Babe]

Intelligent Design is not a theory, it's a conjecture. So not only do you not know science you also don't know English.

Theory - "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Conjecture - "The formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof."

Note that a theory explains facts and is repeatable and/or can be used to make predictions. A conjecture is just a guess...

Re:Meh... alert me when...

[DragonWriter]

The problem I find, however, is that when we try to extrapolate what many would claim to be absolute truth based only on what we know how to observe so far, we can easily come to the wrong conclusion.

"Absolute truth" isn't what science is about, and "extrapolation" isn't as important as you would make it; inasmuch as it is relevant at all, it is just in coming up with hypotheses. Once you have a proper scientific hypothesis you then, by definition, have empirically falsifiable predictions you can test to validate the hypothesis. If those predictions fail, your hypothesis is wrong. If they do not, your hypothesis is a viable theory. That doesn't mean it is right: a more parsimonious or powerful theory may displace it because of the greater utility it provides, or additional predictions may be later derived from your hypothesis enabling new tests that may fail. No proper scientific theory (though some things popularly labelled theories are untested hypotheses) rests on extrapolation alone: if it is properly called a theory (as evolution is) it has testable predictions with have withstood testing.

Science isn't about giving answers that are some kind of Ultimate Absolute Truth. It is about refining models that have explanatory and, more importantly, predictive power.

Darwinism = scientific method applied by nature

[victorvodka]

The problem with attacks on Darwinian science is that they are done from the perspective of someone who accepts an ancient text as flawless received wisdom. Such a person assumes that we in the scientific community also accept our received wisdom (The Origin of Species, for example) as flawless. But no, we realize that Darwin didn't have all the facts or all that many fossils, that science builds upon the shoulders of giants instead of believing that all of reality was revealed at some point in the distant past. Darwinism looks at nature and sees it performing the scientific method (experiments, paradigm abandonment, etc.) to achieve its ends, even as it itself undergoes these forces. I wrote about this at length here:

the Authoritarian Model of Information Value