Australian Schools To Teach Intelligent Design

An anonymous reader writes "It appears that schools within the Australian state of Queensland are going to be required to teach Intelligent Design as part of their Ancient History studies. While it is gratifying to note that it isn't being taught in science classes (since it most certainly isn't a science), one wonders what role a modern controversy can possibly serve within a subject dedicated to a period of history which occurred hundreds of years before Darwin proposed his groundbreaking theory?"

Comments

"Faith Science Basis?"

[eldavojohn]

"We talk to students from a faith science basis, but we're not biased in the delivery of curriculum," Mrs Doneley said. "We say, 'This is where we're coming from' but allow students to make up their own minds."

I really wish they had gone into detail on what exactly a 'faith science basis' is. I'm not saying they're completely walled off from each other but attempting to give your children solid foundational logic should not be approached from an angle that contains any sort of faith.

If they are indeed teaching intelligent design in much the same way as Niels Bohr's atomic model or -- perhaps more apt -- motivation for slavery then I have little problem with this. But if they spend anymore than a few hours discussing how it was flawed then I would consider this a waste of time instead of 'critical thinking.' It's great to see all the sides of a historical issue but that's all intelligent design is to me and, much more importantly, the peer reviewed journals and scientific community at large.

If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem. If you want to teach it to my kids as an outstanding theory or hypothesis, I'm going to sit down and have a lengthy discussion with them. If you do you teach it in the United States, I'm going to be there arguing that you spend just as much time on Native American origin stories or even better the original Hindu creation story followed by Swami Vivekananda's logic of compatibility with Darwinism and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness's decision to largely reject it.

Intelligent Design is an attempt to absolve the scriptures of ever being wrong in their creation story and salvage what is possible when presented with fossil evidence and short-term evolution evidence in smaller celled organisms. Other religions have similar damage control, why do the Christians only get theirs mentioned in state schools?

They are arguing that this helps critical thinking and allows the child to make their own conclusions ... but curiously this "critical thinking" that presents an opposing view is curiously the view that the localized religion adheres to. If you want to teach critical thinking, expose the child to more views than what the adults are already largely marketing to them in the home and at religious services.

This article bounces between acceptable and a BS facade to market Intelligent Design. Australia's a sovereign nation but I will speak up if this comes anywhere near my public schools.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[spammeister]

Don't forget Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. May his noodly appendages bless all! That section could be taught by a bonafied pirate, since they're running out of places to practice piracy and all.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.

It's not even a disproved theory. At its core, ID is simply "somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution". Other than a rather vague claim that some structures are too complex to have evolved naturally, ID makes virtually no positive claims at all, and I don't even that vague claim can possibly be considered positive.

It's a smoke show, just Creationism stripped of any direct references to God, designed to fool idiotic Fundy-populated school boards, but in its only test in a Federal court, it got laughed out the door. One of its most important formulators, Michael Behe, made a fool of himself, and, unforgivable for a molecular biologist, showed an extraordinary ignorance of the literature on the evolution of complex systems like bacterial flagella and the vertebrate immune system. It's other major formulator is William Dembski, who, being considerably smarter than Behe, keeps away from ever having to defend his own notions of Irreducible Complexity and the outright nonsensical Information Filter (which, if it actually worked, would represent a quantum leap in the statistical study of information and would make Dembski one of the most lauded mathematicians in history, but is, in fact, just a load of pseudo-statistical mumbo jumbo).

Who exactly ever believed in Intelligent Design? So far as I can tell, the two chief camps that promote it our Creationists and a small group of Theistic Evolutionists (mainly of Behe's mindset). The latter may even be sincere in so far as they believe that God's hand is in the mix somehow, but the former are only using ID cynically as a way around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and don't actually buy into any of it. In fact, as witnessed by the rubes in Dover, they don't even really care about ID, they just want to get Creationism in the classroom. They aren't even Theistic Evolutionists, they're out and out Creationists.

The whole thing is a scam, and one that has lost considerable force since Dover. The Discovery Institute, which is pretty much the leader in the ID charge, had already started moving to the bait-and-switch Teach the Controversy scam even before ID collapsed in court. The real problem here is that there are a lot of really stupid Creationists who themselves don't even know what ID is, and just assume that the scam artists who created it actually produced a scientific theory of Creationism.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Microlith]

I really wish they had gone into detail on what exactly a 'faith science basis' is.

They don't need to, just reading the phrase tells you all you need to know: it's a bunch of religious hokum clothed in pseudo-scientific garbage to try and sneak it into schools as if it were legitimate information.

If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.

I do, because it is not provable, disprovable, nor was it ever a theory. It should be held up as an example of anti-scientific thinking and religious quackery, ripped at and torn to pieces until nothing is left.

Other religions have similar damage control, why do the Christians only get theirs mentioned in state schools?

Because for some reason the US and Australia have strangely aggressive Christian Fundamentalist elements.

ID, if it has a role in schools, should be used for critical thinking. But it should be done properly, in the context that ID is shown for what it is: a red herring designed to mask faith as science. But that's not what they're after when they say "critical thinking."

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[interkin3tic]

If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.

I do, because intelligent design being taught in schools is little more than an attempt to allow prosthelytizing in the public school system. The goal there is to replace education with saving the children's souls from us evil secular scientists.

They don't care about science, this is all about "I have it in my little head that God wants me to spam everyone with advertising, and I'm willing to destroy education to do so."

Frankly, I'd prefer students be exposed to advertising for coca-cola or McDonalds. Even though that's generally less healthy than being a christian fundamentalist, it's far less annoying.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[TheStatsMan]

I believe, therefor I am or not; it doesn't matter anyway.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.

Bad grammar aside, that isn't a good idea either. It isn't a disproved theory - it can neither be proved nor disproved in any scientifically valid sense. That's why it isn't science in the first place.

If they are indeed teaching intelligent design in much the same way as ... motivation for slavery then I have little problem with this.

This should earn you a flamebait mod. Once again, it isn't proper to say that it is wrong or right, to condemn it or glorify it. It is apart of history - it merely needs to be acknowledged so the students can form their own judgments.

They are arguing that this helps critical thinking and allows the child to make their own conclusions ... but curiously this "critical thinking" that presents an opposing view is curiously the view that the localized religion adheres to

Of course it is. Starting with viewpoints that students are at least familiar with is the best way to get a good dialog started. College professors use this same tactic all the time. You need to engage students, and talking about ancient historical viewpoints that they have no familiarity with will not get them talking.

This article bounces between acceptable and a BS facade to market Intelligent Design. Australia's a sovereign nation but I will speak up if this comes anywhere near my public schools.

Perhaps you dislike the particular implementation of this subject matter into their curriculum. However, you have to admit that any ancient history curriculum that fails to discuss religion is profoundly flawed. They are an extremely important part of our history and even of our current world sociopolitical makeup.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. It might not look as absurd as things taught to kids in schools(madarasas) of Pakistan.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Monkeedude1212]

They are arguing that this helps critical thinking and allows the child to make their own conclusions ... but curiously this "critical thinking" that presents an opposing view is curiously the view that the localized religion adheres to. If you want to teach critical thinking, expose the child to more views than what the adults are already largely marketing to them in the home and at religious services.

Yes. Oh God Yes (pun intended).

I went to a Catholic School growing, though here in Canada that doesn't mean a whole lot. Since there is such an unbelievable mix of culture, you get kids who are Half-Christian Half-Buddhist, or Catholic Jews, or just about any combo you can think of. Even people who weren't exactly Catholic could get in, there were kids who didn't have catholic parents, but said they weren't sure what they believed in, and were able to go.

In my High school year, one of the big projects was to research a religion you had little to no knowledge about, in small groups, and then present it to the class.

I think it was one of the most educational lessons I've ever recieved from High school. Not only do you see the differences between Eastern and Western Religions, but also why certain ones spark conflict, and the histories of how they've interacted.

I think most of all, it was interesting to hear a Jewish peer's view on Catholicism and Christianity as a whole, as well as a Buddhist and Hindu. Likewise, they found our explanations of their religions also valuable. I mean its easy to look at a hasidic jew and criticize their way of life, only to have someone point out how your holidays have evolved into some corporate spend-a-thon, since Santa Claus has nothing to do with Christ.

I dunno, it was kind of like taking a step back and seeing the big picture for once, and I wish more schools did this (and I hope mine still does)

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[purplebear]

Actually if you would take time to look into it, you would find the extraordinary efforts those in control go to in order to remove any scientist that presents a solid basis for creationism or intelligent design. Our higher education system is being destroyed by keeping dissenting viewpoints out when science has the intent of examining everything.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[oldspewey]

In an academic setting, the correct place for ID is as a case study during a course on critical thinking.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

It's not even a disproved theory.

That much is right. By its nature, it would be basically impossible to prove or disprove.

The whole thing is a scam, and one that has lost considerable force since Dover.

I'm sorry to break up your rant here, but it isn't a scam. Many people sincerely believe in ID (or a variation thereof). Many of those people would acknowledge that it isn't science in any meaningful form, and nearly all of those people would willingly keep ID out of the science curriculum in public schools.

However, it seems to me ancient history is a perfectly fine place to present the fact that people have believed in ID historically. While ID in its current form is a fairly modern interpretation, the notion of an intelligent designer has been around for quite a while, and has had a profound influence on our world (for better or for worse).

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[0xdeadbeef]

it can neither be proved nor disproved in any scientifically valid sense.

It contradicts all existing evidence. To the extent any scientific theory can be disproved, it is.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design. There are lots of Creationists who will wave it around, but generally to them ID==Creationism. As was pretty clear from Dover and other attempts to teach it, the school boards in question were populated with Creationists who had been scammed by DI into believing that Creationism was going to be taught in the classroom.

As to the ID formulators, considering the amount of work they put into formulating ID as a neutered replacement of out-and-out Creationism, I think it's hard to accept any claim of sincerity. ID is a legal creation, a fabrication with but one purpose, to get Creationism past the Establishment Clause.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[couchslug]

I'd like to see School Choice legislation so we can let the Christian Taliban keep their bullshit in their own madrassas.
Any way we can let these fools fail in making their spawn competitive is fine with me. We need superior people to rise in business, science, government, etc. Let the white trash self-segregate.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[bill_kress]

Keeping people uninformed is generally bad. If you teach EXACTLY how silly ID is and how to think critically by trying to support/disprove ID in class it could be quite the inoculation for a generation of kids.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Z00L00K]

It's not even a disproved theory. ...

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11

How surreal that ended up with the signature line in a discussion about intelligent design.

I'm awaiting a painting worthy of Salvador Dalí.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

"I have it in my little head that God wants me to spam everyone with advertising

For the life of me, I can't understand why people like you are posting this crap, and I'm even more confused why you keep getting modded up. Has anybody even read TFA?

In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies".

ID (in some form or another) has been a very large part of our history, and it is most certainly controversial. Thus, this seems like the perfect place for it. If you want to pretend that people never believed anything other than evolution throughout history, you are more full of shit than the people you so flippantly criticize.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.

No, it should be taught - in Ancient History class, as they're doing - alongside Egyptian, Greek, Norse, and other mythologies, as some silly stuff that people made up in an attempt to make sense of the world before the development of reason and the scientific method.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[DrgnDancer]

I'm curious about these Theistic Evolutionists. One of the major holes I've always seen in using "Intelligent Design" as a counter to Evolutionary Theory by the Religious Right is that it's not inherently incompatible with Evolution. If the basic theory behind "Intelligent Design" is that life is to complex to have evolved randomly and therefore must have a designer, who's to say that the designer doesn't simply use Evolution as a tool to accomplish Its goals. From inside the system it would appear to us that such small tweaks and experiments were random mutation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that this is the case, just pondering how the two concepts are theoretically compatible.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Peter Trepan]

I think it's wonderful that creationists are interested in teaching the controversy. Organized religion has made great strides. It's wonderful that they've put their ideas on a level playing field with the competition. There was a time when they would have suppressed any idea that conflicted with their dogma. So. They can teach the controversy in school, and evolutionary scientists can teach the controversy at church. Is that how this will work?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[jellomizer]

"Intelligent Design is an attempt to absolve the scriptures of ever being wrong in their creation story and salvage what is possible when presented with fossil evidence and short-term evolution evidence in smaller celled organisms. Other religions have similar damage control, why do the Christians only get theirs mentioned in state schools? "

That is more creationism... Intelligent Design original point (however a lot of the Evangelical Christians groups twisted it back into Creationism) was to basically state that random elements that aided evolution were not random but controlled by a super natural force. Fossil Evidence, and Micro Evolution can still fit in that model... As you cannot predict a Random Element, Just as you cannot predict the actions of a being who is supposed to have infinite foresight.

Now does this make it science... No... We cannot prove or disprove God, nor if God does exist measure the level of evolvement God offers. So we shouldn't be using God as part of the equations. Creationism isn't science because we are bringing in variables that are unprovable or unmeasurable, we need to treat this unpredictable value as random.

This risk to bring in the "God Did it" into science is that it is an easy way to stop further investigation into the topic, which will stop the study which is harmful as there this a lot more to learn.

However the problem is if parents pull their kids out of school, as they figure they are being taught "devil talk", over all it might be better off to bite your tongue accept some of the more liberal versions of intelligent design vs. fighting it. Just so they don't pull their kids out of school and hinder themselves more. Fine they are idiots in Evolutionary Science however they still might make a good Engineer, or a Scientist in an other field.

That said your argument seems like the typical closed minded Atheists rant. First of all there are many different Religions out there and even in Christianity the difference sects have a huge interpretation on a lot of topics and often they are actually not blobbed into one value. Your topic of Linking Creationism with Slavery isn't very apt, as the Nazi who were for the most part an Atheist group used Evolution to advocate their actions. In short all groups of people can do evil things, or things to hinder real progress and will find a way to justify it in a religion a science, or philosophy.

I find life is full of tradeoffs if you try to base your life off of someone else's philosophy you will end up being hypocritical of yourself. Utopian world doesn't exist everything you do has a tradeoff. Sometimes you need to let things slide for the greater good.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

It's important to note that there's no single definition of Theistic Evolutionist, or rather, it sits in the continuum between Special Creationists and Atheists, and is itself a continuum. I would classify Michael Behe as a Theistic Evolutionist on the more Creationist side, because he does accept key ideas like Common Descent, but seems to believe specific complex systems required an independent agency to produce them. Further down the spectrum would be someone like Theodore Dobzhansky, who rejected Creationism outright, but was still a devout Christian, but refused to abuse science to try to find the hand of God.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your statement is that there is no "solid basis for creationism or intelligent design"! All the major claims of ID have been thoroughly debunked. Most of the "scientists" that support ID are working outside of their field and have no credible authority. Science education is not about presenting all dissenting viewpoints even when there is zero controversy in the mainstream of biology. ID has about as much support in genetics or biology as flat earth theory has in geology.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

It contradicts all existing evidence. To the extent any scientific theory can be disproved, it is.

There are plenty of variations of ID that really cannot be proved or disproved, just as I stated. Consider a variation of ID where an intelligent entity created a universe with properties that suggest age (carbon isotope levels, fossils, outward trajectory of planets from a single point of origin, etc). It's probably a cop-out, but the point is that you can't disprove that using any form of science we have available. Also, consider a variation of ID where an intelligent agent created what science considers to be the big bang. Again, there really isn't any way to prove or disprove this variation of ID. This is why other people have posted here stating that it doesn't really meet the criteria of a scientific theory, and why Queensland schools will not be talking about ID in science class (from TFA).

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Rantastic]

Our higher education system is being destroyed by keeping dissenting viewpoints out when science has the intent of examining everything.

Your very premise is faulty. The word "viewpoint" is just another word for opinion. Science isn't about opinions. It is about evidence, experiments, and a rigorous commitment to setting presumptions aside.

The areas where scientists tend to disagree are those where there is not yet sufficient evident to establish a widely accepted, verifiable conclusion. Evolution is not one of them.

The evidence for Evolution is vast and well defined. If you want to falsify Evolution, you need more than a dissenting viewpoint. You need to provide some clear, repeatable, and scientifically testable evidence.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the past 3 or so years, Australia has been slowly turning away from its leisure loving, fun and boisterous culture, to one of a Draconian Fascist state, hell bent on adopting the worst of the rest of the world's mistakes. From surveilence based on its UK 'mother' heritage, to Spin news that would make its ex-patriot Richard Murdoch blush, its systematically further turning the screws on its citizens. Lies in media on taxes, environment, water conservation, and having poltical parties that don't actually have a purpose other than to 'manage' the huge population of public servants representing the fastest growing sector of their own economy....

Its not surprising to see them now adopting far-right winged Christian 'training' to their people. Hell, this 'Internet Filter' thing they have been trying to force onto the locals is enough evidence that the right-winged Christian movement in Australia has successfully entangled parts of a political system hell bent in duplicating the great triumphs of 'The Dilbert Zone'.

Nothing would surprise me with this 'Intelligent Design'. Find me a politician in Australia that could stand alongside the word "Intelligent" and not look like a drunk at a wedding, and I might show some shock. But its not going to happen.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[biryokumaru]

Not really. There's no need to include more than one or two simple examples of a complete lack of critical thinking in such a course.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[digitig]

I really wish they had gone into detail on what exactly a 'faith science basis' is.

So do I!

I'm not saying they're completely walled off from each other but attempting to give your children solid foundational logic should not be approached from an angle that contains any sort of faith.

True, but science isn't just "solid foundational logic".

If they are indeed teaching intelligent design in much the same way as Niels Bohr's atomic model or -- perhaps more apt -- motivation for slavery then I have little problem with this. But if they spend anymore than a few hours discussing how it was flawed then I would consider this a waste of time instead of 'critical thinking.'

But it's a good case study in what makes for good science and what makes for bad science, and that takes more than a few hours.

If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.

I would have a problem with that, because it isn't "disproved", any more than the FSM is "disproved". If you teach them that it's "disproved" then you're lying to them about what science is and how it works, and you're leaving them open to creationists when they learn that they were lied to about it in the science class. Certainly teach them why it's bad science, why science correctly disregards it, but teach them the real, legitimate, reasons, so they understand how science works and have the necessary ammunition against creationists.

They are arguing that this helps critical thinking and allows the child to make their own conclusions ... but curiously this "critical thinking" that presents an opposing view is curiously the view that the localized religion adheres to. If you want to teach critical thinking, expose the child to more views than what the adults are already largely marketing to them in the home and at religious services.

Surely when teaching critical thinking (or anything else, come to that) it's better educational practice to address real issues and controversies that the kids are likely to have actually encountered?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[stewbacca]

ID==Creationism with the God tags removed so they can pass Constitutional muster (in the US..yes I realize this is a story about Australia...)

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design.

Then you don't really understand people very well. From the Center for Science and Culture (a pro-ID organization) here

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Even aside from religious beliefs, it is very difficult for many people to believe that the world and people as they are came about because of chance. Just look at the number of references in popular culture to fate and "the meaning of life". Going back even as far as the Greeks, it was a major theme of their literature and plays. The notion that natural selection determines that outcome of the universe is, to many people, a profoundly unsettling explanation. None of this should be taken as a challenge to natural selection or a defense of ID. However, your assertion that nobody actually believes in ID is naive.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[digitig]

Which is the context Queensland History Teachers' Association head said it was in. I think it's also valid in the context of history (although that's more precisely evolution v. creationism, not it's more recent ID formulation -- and if 19th century controversies are ancient history then I'm feeling really old).

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[TheRaven64]

I would expect that the existence of an in intelligent designer would lead to the prediction that the resulting design would indicate intelligence. Given the vast number of design flaws in the human (and other life forms), this is contradicted by the observed evidence. On the other hand, there is no evidence to disprove the Stoned Design theory.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[silanea]

In this case you should indeed and literally think of the children, specifically those Christian Taliban's kids. Allowing their parents to lock them into Christian Fundy training camps robs them of any chance to receive proper education. Society as a whole would suffer from a massive influx of brain-washed idiots.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

presents a solid basis for creationism or intelligent design

Ah, there's your problem. If anyone could manage to do that, there wouldn't be a problem. Because someone says so doesn't provide a "solid basis", though.

It's like in a court of law. Sure, anyone can sue anyone else for anything they want. Cases with no merit are thrown out via a summary judgement, however.

Wait, that's not a car analogy. How about, you have your heart set on a dark blue pickup truck. What's the point of discussing the price when the dealer offers you a fuchsia Mini Cooper?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[gtall]

You mean their papers were rejected by peer reviewed journals which eventually led to their non-advancement in their fields? Well, science is as scientists do and they made the rules.

Next, you probably wish to argue that many great scientific theories were once discounted. True, but you'd be comparing apples and oranges then. It is not known in advance which theories are lemons and which are actually good until enough evidence was presented to tip the balance. And that evidence is usually provided by scientists. A science cannot accept put-up whack-jobs (phlogiston) on the (usually) forlorn hope that sometime in the future they may pan out.

Now, about this phlogiston theory, I've personally selected to accept your monthly payments to a trust fund that will pay off when the theory is finally proven to be true. How much would you be contributing?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[gtall]

Yes, but that is not how it will be taught. A few science teachers maybe able to teach it this way, but it will instead be taught by people who are not scientists and unable to counter the theological arguments that will be brought up by ill-informed parents and school boards. Let the theory with the highest opinion ratings be the one taught.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, who knew slashdot had so many open minded scientists posting here? I mean, surely, the educations they've received must be correct because those educations came from colleges with so many open minded people teaching there.

I don't suppose any one here would actually view this film Expelled and listen to the arguments. What Stein depicts is documented, but because it doesn't agree with the /.ers secular views, well, it must be the rubes of the religious right that are making it all up.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[meerling]

Don't forget their earlier document had a massive problem, they had forgotten to wipe their editing history and you could easily review where they had done global search and replaces for god to intelligent design, etc.

Kind of blows a massive whole in their argument that Intelligent Design isn't Creationism under a different name.
Guess they're just as stupid as the government people that send out documents with redacted info that's only hidden by a black bar and recoverable with a cut and paste. (Unless they actually wanted to leak the info... Hmmm, I'll have to think about that.)

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

ID (in some form or another) has been a very large part of our history, and it is most certainly controversial. Thus, this seems like the perfect place for it. If you want to pretend that people never believed anything other than evolution throughout history, you are more full of shit than the people you so flippantly criticize.

The fact that religious groups are supporting this leads me to believe that it isn't being presented as just some belief that originated thousands of years ago and has since been supplanted by scientific theories that are actually useful to us. So suspicion is highly warranted in this case.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish they had gone into detail on what exactly a 'faith science basis' is.

All science is based on axioms, some of which are unprovable - you can't prove that anything around you exist. If nothing else a lot of current physics is based purely on mathematics.

"Faith-based science" is no different. All you have to do is explain that your axiom is that an omnipotent being exists that behaves is random, or at least little understood ways. Once you accept this axiom, then, pretty much by definition, everything else is easily explained.

There is a problem of application. If you want to predict some future event, fix a problem in electronics, etc. I'd go with the traditional science approach. Praying for your god to cure your computer virus does not seem to be as effective.

Nonetheless, both theories are valid even is one is completely useless.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[digitig]

That's not actually a hole in the use of ID. It's a reason why most Christians -- even many fundamentalist Christians -- don't need ID. But there are some Christian fundamentalists whose reading of Genesis leads them to conclude that God created all the species as they are now on whichever of the seen days it was. They believe in development within a species, so they accept that horse breeding programs can lead to faster horses, for example, but not that new species can emerge. For those fundamentalists the idea that the creator used evolution is acceptable for development within a species but not for the emergence of new species because (they believe) that doesn't happen.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

ID is as scientific as evolution.
Both are totally unprovable.

How can you 'prove' evolution?
It is impossible!

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

Intelligent Design is an attempt to absolve the scriptures of ever being wrong in their creation story and salvage what is possible when presented with fossil evidence and short-term evolution evidence in smaller celled organisms.

No, Intelligent Design is looking at our current theories and finding that they don't always answer our questions. For example, to some, evolution does not explain what ID proponents call irreducible complexity. Evolution states that those with favorable traits survive where those without them die off. Species have traits that require more than one evolutionary step to create a beneficial feature, but none of the steps required to gain that benefit are beneficial in themselves. A quick example:

The giraffe's neck is obviously a benefit to its species, but none of the steps needed to "evolve" that neck would be beneficial. The veins in their neck need to be able to restrict blood flow when the giraffe bends down to take a drink while at the same time, the heart needs to be strong enough to pump blood all the way to the brain. Without either of these features, a giraffe with its long neck would never survive, yet none of these features are beneficial without the long neck. The giraffe's neck is not just a neck, but an entire system of organs and features that are all worthless or even fatal without all of the required components being in place.

Darwinian evolution requires slight variation from generation to generation to drive evolution. White fur would help a bunny survive in snow while all the brown ones get eaten, but this is a single trait. There is nothing in evolution that explains how biological systems can evolve into being without each of the system's components having a benefit to the species on their own, before the entire system functions as a complete, working system.

Other religions have similar damage control, why do the Christians only get theirs mentioned in state schools?

It's not just Christians that believe in ID. Don't confuse ID with Creationism. Still, Creationism is not exclusively Christian. However, Christians do take offense when evolution is used to ridicule their religion. While many say that evolution has nothing to do with religion and Christians should get offensive, your post proves otherwise.

Besides, discussing a theory, ANY theory is part of the scientific process, regardless of how ridiculous a challenge to a theory may be. Don't let the title of article fool you. While the title is "Intelligent design to be taught...", if you read a bit further down, you see, "In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies"." There is a difference between "discussion" and "taught".

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[jimicus]

I'm not American, so you'll have to bear with me here.

I gave up physics, biology and chemistry at 16, so that's a few years ago now, but I don't think we were once told that the word "theory" has a slightly different meaning in science to its colloquial meaning. The colloquial understanding of the word "theory" is probably closer to "hypothesis" - and it's absolutely crucial to understand this because without it the creationist "it's just a theory, we don't know for sure" argument is much harder to refute.

At least if you know the definition of the word "theory" in a scientific context, you can understand that the statement "it's just a theory" is utterly fatuous.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

Given the vast number of design flaws in the human (and other life forms), this is contradicted by the observed evidence.

This argument is fallacious. Just because a creation has flaws doesn't mean that it lacks an intelligent creator. A few examples (not that I need to provide examples of this, but it's fun):

• There is a fairly interesting article about flaws in some of Michelangelo's sculptures. I don't know enough about sculpting to know whether his assertions here are accurate, but it all made sense to me. I for one consider Michelangelo to be intelligent, yet I accept flaws in his masterpieces without any hesitation.
• Linux kernel bugs. Possibly the flagship OSS project, written by some of the finest software architects in human history (not a long history of software development, granted), yet I still come across large and debilitating bugs on a semi-frequent basis.
• I noticed that the website you have created is down (I assume because IIS is not running?). Though this is quite a large and fundamental flaw in your creation, I still generously deem you to be an intelligent (and well written) Slashdot commenter.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[0xdeadbeef]

No, that's not "intelligent design". What the ID proponents posit is that there is an irreducible complexity in life that demonstrates manipulation by an intelligent agent with purpose in mind. It rejects natural selection as the cause of human evolution, or as the cause of life in general. Of course, they can't really define "irreducible complexity", much less measure it, while there is ample evidence for evolution by natural selection, so the theory is a bunch of "God in the gaps" hooey.

What's so funny about it is that the movie 2001 as every bit as an authoritative explanation for "intelligent design" as the Bible.

(And did you notice that you misspelled "a part" like "alot" earlier, right after you got snooty about the grammar of a colloquial expression? Yeah, good times.)

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Cyberax]

Playing devil's advocate.

Some parts of ID can be treated as real scientific theories. For example, ID makes a prediction that large irreducibly complex systems can't be created by evolution.

This prediction, of course, is not correct - it's quite possible to evolve irreducibly complex systems from reducibly complex systems.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[digitig]

Society as a whole would suffer from a massive influx of brain-washed idiots.

Yeah, at least you don't get any of them out of the state system!

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Daniel Dvorkin]

it isn't a scam. Many people sincerely believe in ID

Many people sincerely believe that someone in Nigeria wants to give them a million bucks, too. Many people sincerely believe that wearing magnets will cure everything from foot pain to cancer. Many people sincerely believe that the politicians they vote for will live up to campaign promises. Etc. Belief has nothing to do with whether or not something is a scam.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[OshMan]

I would argue that ID can not accurately/honestly be presented as a "theory" at all, at least not in the sense of the word as used by Science. Because that would connote that it had amassed a body of supporting evidence, which it has not. However, ID could honestly be presented as a hypothesis, although a nearly useless one in that it makes no predictions and is fundamentally (pun intended) un-testable. Perhaps it could be used as a good example of a poorly formed hypothesis? ID could also be useful fodder in a discussion of Occam's Razor, but it would need to be in the role of a negative example which introduces unnecessary additional assumptions.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[digitig]

No it doesn't -- that's a common blunder and one reason that the ID proponents get away with it. It doesn't contradict any existing evidence, and I confidently predict that it won't contradict any future evidence. That's because it doesn't make any predictions and so cannot contradict any evidence.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

I not quite sure what you're suspicious of. If you need evidence that ID has been around in some form or another for thousands of years, it is readily available. Have a look through Plato's Timaeus. Just because the term was invented recently doesn't mean that the idea hasn't existed for quite a while.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Even aside from religious beliefs, it is very difficult for many people to believe that the world and people as they are came about because of chance. Just look at the number of references in popular culture to fate and "the meaning of life". Going back even as far as the Greeks, it was a major theme of their literature and plays. The notion that natural selection determines that outcome of the universe is, to many people, a profoundly unsettling explanation. None of this should be taken as a challenge to natural selection or a defense of ID. However, your assertion that nobody actually believes in ID is naive.

They're welcome to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it okay to teach in a science class. That's the problem with ID; it's being pushed as legitimate science when it isn't. Nobody is denying that there are some things that science just can't currently explain, and possibly never will be able to. Some of these things, like the nature of the afterlife, are clearly within the realm of the divine. ID and Creationism are attempting to attribute to the divine that which has already been explained by science. ID's purpose is to sneak religion into science class where it doesn't belong.

I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it? Hell, if I was God, evolution and natural selection actually seems like a pretty damn good way to design an ecosystem! It's resilient and adaptive and I don't have to micromanage it. It's only a problem if you believe in an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. You know, that book that was written down by men 2000 years ago and translated and re-transcribed God only knows how many times (pun intended).

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

Even the IC claim is so heavily hedged, and the willingness of ID advocates to really back it up with anything other than a few examples such that it's hard to call those claims positive. The fact of the matter is that IC was predicted decades ago by H. J. Muller as, ironically enough for Behe and his ilk, evidence for evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

As I said in another post, Behe's position in particular is absolutely unforgivable. He's a molecular biologist. The work of guys like Muller ought to be very familiar to him. There are two explanations. One is that Behe is just a bad researcher (and there seems to be little evidence that he's that incompetent), or that Behe is a liar, and the latter seems to be the better explanation.

But yes, IC is a hypothesis, though one that was falsified long before it was ever formulated. It would be rather like me claiming "Australia doesn't exist!" Yes, I made a falsifiable claim, albeit one falsified several hundred years before I was born.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[lgw]

Over the past 3 or so years, Australia has been slowly turning away from its leisure loving, fun and boisterous culture, to one of a Draconian Fascist state, hell bent on adopting the worst of the rest of the world's mistakes.

Australia seems bound and determined to return to being a prison. I can't understand why, but the trend can't be denied.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ZaphDingbat]

From inside the system it would appear to us that such small tweaks and experiments were random mutation.

Since it's hard to really pin down "Intelligent Design," you will have some IDers who claim that that's exactly what happens. The Designer will reach in every now and then and tweak a gene for their purposes.

Then the questions naturally lean toward "How does he do it?" and "How often does it happen? Every ten years?" and more unanswerable questions, etc.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Mindcontrolled]

Actually, you don't have the full spectrum there yet. Maybe you even need another axis to accommodate people like Pierre Theilhard de Chardin, who is neither a creationist nor a fundamentalist of any kind. He is basically a catholic, though many of his works are shunned by official doctrine. For de Chardin, creation is not an act but a still ongoing process, evolution being part of it. What clashes hardest with catholic doctrine is his thinking that man is not remotely the "crown of creation", but a passing stage to something better, and that man has to work himself to further that development. Definitely a Theistic Evolutionist, but a quite unique and interesting flavour.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

The latter may even be sincere in so far as they believe that God's hand is in the mix somehow, but the former are only using ID cynically as a way around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and don't actually buy into any of it. In fact, as witnessed by the rubes in Dover, they don't even really care about ID, they just want to get Creationism in the classroom. They aren't even Theistic Evolutionists, they're out and out Creationists.

So, is your only problem with ID the idea that it's a pathway to get religion taught in schools? If that's your only concern, then the simple solution is to NOT TEACH RELIGION IN SCHOOLS. There, problem solved.

Either way, you seem to be judging the validity of an idea based on who supports it. If . The Discovery Institute started using the big bang as proof of the existence of God, or a God, would you support a ban on teaching the big bang theory? Of course not. You would continue to teach the theory as you always have and simply omit the part where DI says, "...and therefor, God exists."

There's much more to ID than simple evolution or irreducible complexity. The "fine tuned universe" is another pathway to get ID taught in schools. Should we ban the teaching of the gravitational constant because it may be used to justify the existence of a God or other "designer"? Maybe we should teach idea of a multiverse as an evolution level proven theory to explain the astronomically narrow range of the physical constants that make up the laws of physics. We wouldn't want kids to see "finely tuned universe" and ask, "Who tuned it?"

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[lgw]

This argument is fallacious. Just because a creation has flaws doesn't mean that it lacks an intelligent creator.

And that is why ID is not science - not a theory, not even a hypothesis: there is no data which can falsify the claim. An intelligent Desisgner (especially one with a sense of humor) might have done anything. To have a scientific hypothesis, you have to make a concrete prediction different from what the currently accepted theory predicts.

ID (or one branch of it) actually did this at first! The prediction was made that some biological features would show "irreducible complexty". This turned out to be wrong, but hey, that's science for you: most new hypotheses are wrong. Now ID seems carefully neutered of any predictions.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

My objection is that ID was specifically created as a Creationism lite. We know when ID was formulated, which was around 1988 after Edwards v Aguillard. We know the major formulators of the claims, and when the claims were made. We're not talking about some ancient idea of creation dating back to the Bronze Age, we're talking about a concerted effort by a relatively small number of individuals to strip Creationism of any overt religious claims with the specific intention of getting Creationism past the Establishment Clause, as well as building the Big Tent of Creationists of various strains (YECs, OECs, Theistic Evolutionists).

I suspect that you're probably invoking some other definition of Intelligent Design, which shows that its creators have had some success in muddying the waters. I stand by what I said in another post. Intelligent Design is about 22 years old. Even modern Creationism really doesn't date back much beyond the middle of the 19th century, as part of the evolution (ha ha) of Evangelical strains that also promoted Biblical Literalism (it's pretty much 19th and 20th century invocations of Sola Scriptura that gave birth to Creationism).

To some extent I suspect your talking past me. But I see no point in accepting any particular premise that ID is any older than 22 years. Prior to that, it was just Creationists.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

I not quite sure what you're suspicious of. If you need evidence that ID has been around in some form or another for thousands of years, it is readily available. Have a look through Plato's Timaeus. Just because the term was invented recently doesn't mean that the idea hasn't existed for quite a while.

I'm suspicious because they don't say specifically what they're going to teach about it. I'm guessing that the religious groups supporting this know more about it than is presented in the article. Without knowing more about what they're going to teach, I can't say whether it's a valid decision or not.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

They are certainly not the quintessential ID, but they are variations of the same idea. Each of the variations that I proposed solve the fundamental issue that ID advocates claim exists with natural selection. Namely, that undirected natural selection has a low probability of generating certain observable features of the universe and living beings.

(And did you notice that you misspelled "a part" like "alot" earlier, right after you got snooty about the grammar of a colloquial expression? Yeah, good times.)

And that's the best one you could find? I'm guessing that I've made at least 10 grammatical and spelling mistakes in the last hour or so, and I'd also bet that at least a few of them are a fair bit more embarrassing than that one. The reason I made light his mistake was because I suspected that he made that mistake willfully. It is one of several barbaric colloquialisms that I'd like to see snuffed out.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

Which is the context Queensland History Teachers' Association head said it was in. I think it's also valid in the context of history (although that's more precisely evolution v. creationism, not it's more recent ID formulation -- and if 19th century controversies are ancient history then I'm feeling really old).

That's really not what she said. I can't even tell what they're going to teach based on what she said. I wonder if they're being intentionally vague about it, or if they just didn't get asked more specific questions.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[sexconker]

People will shit on your post, but you are correct.

The active silencing and removal of scientists who present certain viewpoints is disgusting.

I don't care if it's with regards to global warming, religion, or bogus claims about cold fusion.

A scientist must provide a hypothesis, test it, and provide the data and exact test procedures.

Other scientists must then repeat the test to verify or refute the claims.

The manner in which people are shunned from academia is appalling. They are shunned based on politics, not science. You MUST waste time dealing with bullshit claims from retards if you want people to accept your system of peer review for things you claim are true.

In an ideal world, all claims would be public and open, and would be tested publicly and openly.

In the real world, we have to parcel out time and resources. We should parcel them out based on the scientific qualifications of the claim, not the politics of the claimant.

If someone claims that WiFi causes cancer, and puts together a hypothesis and experiment with data, there sure as fuck should be more tests done against that hypothesis. The test methodology and complete dataset should be made public. The results of said experiment should dictate whether or not further research is necessary and whether or not resources should be spent on similar claims from others.

In the end, though, the system is working as intended. It's just not working as claimed.

What, you thought it was about science? It's about patting your cronies and yourself on the back and getting published, getting political kickbacks, and getting research grants.

The system is bullshit. Even though it's often correct (laughing at religion and cooks who say you can get sustainable cold fusion from a potato), people will rightfully reject the system as a whole when it is exposed as being bullshit (global warming).

They created a system that caters to money first and science second. They ran the risk of people losing faith in the actual good science that resulted from said system. People learned of their cronyism, their bullshit, and their political benefactors. People then lost faith (and to an average person, science is just as faith-based as religion) in the scientific community as a whole, and rightfully so.

An average person won't know the difference between social "sciences" and an actual science. When they see:
Economists being wrong at every fucking turn
Psychologists telling them they have a hidden desire to fuck their mother
Climate scientists telling them the world was supposed to be covered in water years ago
Sociologists telling them that their kid is a racist because it wanted a white GI Joe / Barbie

People are going to distrust the "experts".
These experts claim to be scientists (despite their fields not being sciences), so actual scientists get fucked in terms of reputation.

People shit on NASA and the Giant Boner Jammer and vaccines because they see other "scientists" being dead wrong at every turn, and once in a while they'll catch those other "scientists" just plain ol' bein' corrupt.

The peer review process, as it is now, is as much of a problem as the ignorance of the public and the morans who put forth bullshit claims.

The only solution is to make the process more open (something which those entrenched in academia absolutely abhor) and to force them to test each unique, testable claim, regardless of politics (and give them the resources to do so).

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Blenster]

I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion.

It is often considered a threat to Christianity because without a literal Adam and Eve there was no "fall" and therefor we didn't inherit a "sinful nature" from them making the need for God to sacrifice himself, as a child of himself, to himself, to save us from himself, unnecessary. You are correct, though, that it is often literalists who take the most offense to the notion of evolution. I find that most Christians (people in general, really) are startlingly ignorant of the content of the bible and the actual mechanisms and theory of evolution.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[oldspewey]

I disagree. I think it's important to study examples of the kinds of smokescreens employed by special interest groups, the appeals to emotion, the use of strawmen, the false dichotomies, and all the other ways in which untenable beliefs are shielded from rational scrutiny. Simply hearing a teacher say "Intelligent Design is rubbish and we're not going to waste any time on it" is the exact opposite of critical thinking.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[lgw]

Few would argue against the proposition that life on Earth could have been the result of intelligent design, if it happened very early in the process (pre-bacteria/archaea split). The proposition that it actually was would be quite hard to establish - what kind of prediction would that proposition entail that would be different than the accepted theory?

But, of course, creationists aren't really interested in the idea that some very simple early single-celled or precellular life was created. The more interesting claim that all (or even many) actual plants and animals were intelligently designed is absurd: you have to posit that they were created exacly like the would have evolved, which is just Last-Tuesday-ism and pointless beyond late night sophmore drinking sessions.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

I'm not American, so you'll have to bear with me here.

I gave up physics, biology and chemistry at 16, so that's a few years ago now, but I don't think we were once told that the word "theory" has a slightly different meaning in science to its colloquial meaning. The colloquial understanding of the word "theory" is probably closer to "hypothesis" - and it's absolutely crucial to understand this because without it the creationist "it's just a theory, we don't know for sure" argument is much harder to refute.

At least if you know the definition of the word "theory" in a scientific context, you can understand that the statement "it's just a theory" is utterly fatuous.

This is what scares me about introducing something like ID into the curriculum. Most students aren't equipped to evaluate it properly. Introducing it before they have learned how to apply the scientific method and critical thinking to an idea is basically teaching them something that we have no reason to believe is correct, knowing that they have no way to determine this for themselves either. Seems like a very bad idea to me.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Cyberax]

Yes, I completely agree.

I can't really remember other testable predictions of ID (aside from 'bunnies in Devonian layer').

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

ID fails even as a test of intelligent agencies. Look at any science that concerns itself with the actions of intelligent beings; linguistics, archeology, anthropology, forensics. All are very concerned with the five Ws; who, what, where, when and why. ID pretty much denies all of them. It refuses to answer these critical questions, because it can't. To make explicit claims, for instance, as to the nature of the Designer(s) would tip the hand that it is fundamentally a religious claim.

Can you imagine an archaeologist picking up a pottery fragment and saying "Well, we know it's designed, but we're not going to investigate who made it, when they made it, why they made, where they came from, what methods they used."? Of course not, because that's practically the antithesis of the whole point of science. ID isn't just a non-science, it is an anti-science.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[LordLimecat]

ID is simply "somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution"

Thats not quite accurate, is it? ID simply states that there was an intelligent designer behind whatever processes led to what we have now, as far as I am aware. As has been stated many times before, its really not something that can be proven or disproven.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

But that's not an ID claim either. Behe, who is one of the main creators, accepts that Common Descent is true (though he, like the other big formulators tailor their message to the audience, of course). ID simply cannot afford to make overt claims against the general layout of evolutionary theory, it can only nibble at what guys like Behe view as weaknesses (even if, as in the case of IC, it turns out that half a century ago there were biologists who were perfectly aware that complex systems could form in such a fashion that might at first glance appear to be impossible).

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

Ahh, now I understand - I was having trouble parsing your previous comment, and my response was completely off-topic. I apologize.

I'm suspicious because they don't say specifically what they're going to teach about it.

Hey, at least it's just suspicion (a justifiable reaction). I've spent the last few hours of my life responding to the myriad of FUD here, coming from people whose mouths start to froth at the very mention of ID. I think they honestly want there to be a conspiracy so they can be angry and indignant about something. Has anybody considered the possibility that the school system is doing exactly what it ought to in this case? To ignore the roll of religion, creationism, and intelligent design in our history and philosophy is to provide a very revisionist version of our history. Given that it ought to be taught somewhere because of its significance in our culture, isn't "ancient history" the perfect place to teach it? And, if that keeps various religious groups appeased, isn't that a perfect compromise?

Even if your suspicions are well founded and there is a bias in the curriculum towards certain religious views, can that not be corrected in subsequent revisions?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[RKThoadan]

If the person "selling" whatever it is sincerely believes it, then it can't properly be called a scam. A scam does largely require the perpetrator to be making intentionally false statements to get money, or at least allegiance, from someone else. If they truly believe what they are "selling" then they are just deluded, not evil, and may otherwise be a kind and relatively normal person.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

And again we have the problem of different definitions of ID. Are we talking about ID, the Creationism Lite that was produced after Creationism was rejected by the US Supreme Court in 1987, or about vaguer ideas?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[betterunixthanunix]

Most Christians I have encountered just want a religion based on what Jesus taught his followers, according the bible, and do not particularly care about the rest of the mythology. I have certainly encountered some who cling to the rest of the philosophy, and even among them, only a very small number will flat out reject science because of what the bible says. Now, this may be because I went to a special high school, and immediately after that I went to college, and immediately after that I start grad school, and that had I taken some time in the middle to see the world beyond academia, I would have encountered the "other" Christians.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[biryokumaru]

I guess that's true for a critical thinking course, as the subject matter is more on the many ways that logical arguments can be flawed rather than just on how they ought to be properly constructed. I admit that I was a tad hasty in my judgement, and Intelligent Design should prove an excellent example of several type of subtle flaws in argumentation.

I really meant it more as a joke, though.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

They're welcome to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it okay to teach in a science class. That's the problem with ID; it's being pushed as legitimate science when it isn't. Nobody is denying that there are some things that science just can't currently explain, and possibly never will be able to. Some of these things, like the nature of the afterlife, are clearly within the realm of the divine. ID and Creationism are attempting to attribute to the divine that which has already been explained by science. ID's purpose is to sneak religion into science class where it doesn't belong.

I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it? Hell, if I was God, evolution and natural selection actually seems like a pretty damn good way to design an ecosystem! It's resilient and adaptive and I don't have to micromanage it. It's only a problem if you believe in an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. You know, that book that was written down by men 2000 years ago and translated and re-transcribed God only knows how many times (pun intended).

This is my feeling as well, I personally feel that God the creator created the universe. I have too hard a time with any 'spontaneous creation' scenario (the Big Bang seems to fly in the face of the second law of thermodynamics IMO) to give them credence. However, it is obvious that natural selection and evolution do affect the biosphere, and trying to explain anything with a creationist viewpoint is wrongheaded. Evolution can explain phenomena, and whether you feel that evolution is guided or unguided is unimportant to the discussion. I have always felt that religious texts should be subjected to the tenants of logic because all of it was written by men, and men have agendas. Believing in divine conception takes faith, believing that dozens of men would write laws that didn't somehow reflect their own agenda and then be propagated through centuries without prejudice invading those laws, that's just gullibility.

That is one reason I like the Gospels, they are second hand accounts of God, and there are at least 4 multiple sources to cross-reference. The letters of Paul I have the most issue accepting as they are mostly the ramblings of one man supposedly 'inspired' by God.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[jayme0227]

I'm not exactly sure where the doctrine lies, but I believe that the Catholic church believes something along those lines. The information I'm using comes from a pamphlet from 5-10 years ago, but basically it states this: If evolution is real, it is merely the process through which god created men and animals. This same pamphlet also stated that aliens may or may not exist, but if they do, then they were created by the same God that created humanity. The pamphlet argued that science is a tool given to man by God to be used to better ourselves and, outside of certain ethical issues, nothing about it is inherently at odds with the Catholic religion.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it? Hell, if I was God, evolution and natural selection actually seems like a pretty damn good way to design an ecosystem! It's resilient and adaptive and I don't have to micromanage it. It's only a problem if you believe in an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. You know, that book that was written down by men 2000 years ago and translated and re-transcribed God only knows how many times (pun intended).

It really has nothing to do with religion or belief in such, although many will believe otherwise. There are those that think the theory of evolution is proof of no God. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about those that see no conflicts between their faith and science.

Scroll up and look at the way people who believe that "God created the universe" are described. I am relatively religious and see absolutely no conflict between anything I've learned in science class and personal research and what I've learned in church. God is a mathematician. The threat that some see is from those that use evolution as a club to bash anyone who believes in any form of creationism whatsoever, even if that person believes that God created my via evolution. Here are some examples:

Not really. There's no need to include more than one or two simple examples of a complete lack of critical thinking in such a course.

I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design.

ID isn't just a non-science, it is an anti-science.

One is that Behe is just a bad researcher (and there seems to be little evidence that he's that incompetent), or that Behe is a liar, and the latter seems to be the better explanation.

... and so on.

My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory. Yes, I understand that such criticism could lead to the discussion of religion in the classroom*, but if you are going to ban discussion based on the possibility of that discussion moving to a discussion about religion, then all discussion should banned and anything can have a religion underpinning.

* There is nothing wrong or Unconstitutional about discussing or even teaching religious doctrine in a classroom. I learned about the Greek religions in History class years ago and never had the urge to bow to Zeus.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[careysub]

I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design.

Then you don't really understand people very well. From the Center for Science and Culture (a pro-ID organization) here

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Right. Every statement from an advocacy group's website is an honest statement belief, and not disingenuous in the slightest.

Are you acquainted with the evidence that was introduced in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District?

It was discovered that the ID text that Dover sought to introduce was originally written as an advocacy tract for creationism, which called it by that very name. Then, to try to do an end-run around a Supreme Court prohibition on teaching creationism in public schools, they simply did a mechanical search-and-replace to change "creationism" into "intelligent design", and "creationist" with "intelligent design proponent".

"Intelligent Design" is a transparent construct invented in the 1980s by people who self-identify as "creationists".

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

Where are you people coming from and how are you getting modded up?

Nor does it make it okay to teach in a science class.

RTFA - they aren't going to teach it in science class, they're going to teach it in ancient history where it unequivocally belongs.

That's the problem with ID; it's being pushed as legitimate science when it isn't.

RTFA - they aren't pushing as legitimate science, they are pushing it as "controversy".

ID's purpose is to sneak religion into science class where it doesn't belong.

RTFA - quite possibly true, but they aren't doing that here!

They're welcome to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true.

It makes it true that they believe it. And they've been believing it by the masses for thousands of years, which is why it is appropriate information for ancient history (FTFA).

the Bible. You know, that book that was written down by men 2000 years ago

Some of the books were written around 2000 years ago, but Genesis (the biblical account of creationism) is likely not among them. Actually, it was probably written between 2500 and 3500 years ago. Heck, we have manuscripts today that are around 2150 years old (so that's the absolute lower bound). Not that this is important information to your post, just another instance of you getting your facts wrong.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[digitig]

What she actually said (as reported) was " Classroom debate about issues encouraged critical thinking – an important tool".

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ultranova]

If they are indeed teaching intelligent design in much the same way as Niels Bohr's atomic model or -- perhaps more apt -- motivation for slavery then I have little problem with this. But if they spend anymore than a few hours discussing how it was flawed then I would consider this a waste of time instead of 'critical thinking.' It's great to see all the sides of a historical issue but that's all intelligent design is to me and, much more importantly, the peer reviewed journals and scientific community at large.

Intelligent Design is not "historical". It's an entirely modern invention. It's roots are in the counter-reaction to militant atheism that tried to use Darwin's Theory of Evolution to disprove Christianity (which it doesn't, of course, but that hasn't stopped the battle this far), and is - to put it bluntly - a deception meant to dislodge ToE from being taught at school. It's just the latest broadside in a completely pointless pissing match between two groups of people who can't stand the idea that someone might not agree with them. And, as usual, the weak and the defendless - children, in this case - make for a great target to show the superiority of your side.

But I digress. Intelligent Design is not a theory (it doesn't predict anything testable), it hasn't been around for more than a few years, and it should be used as a case study in psychology class, not taken seriously as science since it isn't.

Heck, ID is less scientific than Young-Earth Creationism, since the latter at least made some kind of claims you could conceivably find evidence for or against (namely, that the Earth is around 10,000 years old, and that the Biblical Flood happened at some point during that time). That's saying something...

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory. Yes, I understand that such criticism could lead to the discussion of religion in the classroom*, but if you are going to ban discussion based on the possibility of that discussion moving to a discussion about religion, then all discussion should banned and anything can have a religion underpinning.

If you're in a science class, you ought to be teaching science. Since the number of biologists who reject evolution is exceedingly small, teaching criticisms of the validity of the theory is essentially taking up a Creationist line.

There are actual controversies (ie. the relative importance of genetic drift via mutation, theories of abiogenesis, punctuated equilibrium etc.), but none of these controversies deny evolution happened, they are debates over very technical aspects of the theory. It's no different than the kinds of scientific debate one will see among linguists, archaeologists, physicists and so forth. I mean, because there is wide disagreement over implications of quantum mechanics, do you think QM is being criticized?

This is the problem with guys like you. You conflate debates within the scientific community as far as aspects of biological evolution with the idea that the theory itself is being seriously debated.

For the vast majority of the scientific community for the better part of a century, that debate has been closed. As much as any theory can be proven, evolution has been proven. There may be considerable debate along the lines of specific mechanics, or within very specific areas of evolution (ie. hominid evolution), but the scientific community long ago abandoned its objections, large portions of it in the decades after Origins was published, and the vast bulk certainly after the Modern Synthesis.

In short, there is no controversy over whether evolution happened or not, not in science. If you want to count all the various strains of Creationists trying to get their brand of Biblical literalism taught in science classes, well yes, that's a controversy, but a social and political one that has no bearing on the science itself. By that logic, one might call the Holocaust controversial, first of all because scholars can't agree on precisely how many Jews were killed, or more ominously, because a band of racist cranks and charlatans claim it never happened.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Urban Garlic]

> I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it?

You'd do well to research the cultural origins of creationism, as well as fundamentalism, as it's practiced in the United States. For the former, I recommend the introductory chaper of Laurie R. Godfrey's "Scientists Confront Creationism".

The short version is, it's at least partially a reaction against the *social* Darwinism of American uber-Capitalists in the late 19th century, people who ran factory towns and controlled almost every aspect of their workers' social lives, instructing them that the bosses were rich because they out-competed the workers in the capitalist system, and that the workers were valuable only insofar as they were cogs in the great capitalist machine, and that Science proved that this was so, and there was nothing the workers could do about it. The only institution the bosses did not control was the church, and in church, the workers learned that each and every single one of them was individually loved by God himself, and that their lives had intrinsic value insofar as they obeyed the scriptures. Unsurprisingly, the worker culture tended to value the church more highly than science.

There was a similar renaissance of new-age and occult thinking in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Soviet pretensions to "scientific socialism", and scientifically-rationalized oppression, left people distrustful of anything that came with a "science" label, especially things that were both un-intuitive and morally offensive.

It's vital in exploring these issues to remember that scientific rhetoric has often been a tool of oppression, and that when people react against it, they don't always separate the actual science from the oppressive rhetoric.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Okay, we deviated from the actual discussion of the article a bit there. If you read the post I was replying to, you would see we're talking about who believes in ID and what purpose it serves. The quote from the Center for Science and Culture advocates ID as an alternative to evolution, i.e. science. As for 2000 years, that was just a rough number clearly pulled from my ass. I wasn't being authoritative there; the important part was the point about it being written by men as opposed to handed down from on high.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[interkin3tic]

ID (in some form or another) has been a very large part of our history, and it is most certainly controversial. Thus, this seems like the perfect place for it. If you want to pretend that people never believed anything other than evolution throughout history, you are more full of shit than the people you so flippantly criticize.

There are many failed scientific theories that were widely held throughout history, why teach this particular idiotic one? No one is saying students should be well versed in the theory of spontaneous generation, that's much more historically important than ID, was much more widely accepted in it's time, and is just as wrong.

ID can be mentioned in schools. Teaching students that "A valid scientific theory is that science is completely wrong, God created us, don't question it" on the other hand is a thoroughly stupid idea, regardless of how one tries to spin it.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[digitalderbs]

Theistic evolution is a term that Howard Van Till came up with. There are basically three types of "creationists." There are the young-Earth Creationists (YEC), and these believe in the literal intepretation of the book of Genenis. There are the progressive or old-Earth creationists (PEC), and these believe the book of Genesis to be figuratively true, but not literally true--i.e. the 'days' are really astronomical periods of billions of years. The Intelligent Designers fall under this category.

Then there are the Evolutionary Theists (ET), which believe in (1) God, (2) the Big Bang, and (3) all of evolutionary theory--macro and microevolution, as some IDers like to split hairs. Basically, ETs are like Deists (who believe that a God started the universe and took off from it; Paul Davies is a famous example), but they also believe in a personal and providential God that you can pray to.

Van Till's writings are quite interesting. Writings by Dennis Lamoureux * are quite interesting as well. He discusses the different points of view, and decomposes quite rigorously the book of Genesis to show its hermeneutic constructions and context. Lamoureux calls himself an Evolutionary Creationist, but this is basically the same position as ET--not PC.

* Disclaimer : I am a friend of Lamoureux's, and he is an active and prolific player in the Creationism scholarship. I'd recommend reading his textbook title 'Evolutionary Creationism'. His debate with Phil Johnson (head of DI) is quite entertaining too.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Dorkmaster Flek]

That actually makes a lot of sense and is quite interesting. It seems we've gone from science being perverted for greed to science being perverted for religion.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ultranova]

I'm sorry to break up your rant here, but it isn't a scam. Many people sincerely believe in ID (or a variation thereof).

Many people sincerely believed in the original Ponzi scheme, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a scam.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

Ahh, now I understand - I was having trouble parsing your previous comment, and my response was completely off-topic. I apologize.

I'm suspicious because they don't say specifically what they're going to teach about it.

Hey, at least it's just suspicion (a justifiable reaction). I've spent the last few hours of my life responding to the myriad of FUD here, coming from people whose mouths start to froth at the very mention of ID. I think they honestly want there to be a conspiracy so they can be angry and indignant about something. Has anybody considered the possibility that the school system is doing exactly what it ought to in this case? To ignore the roll of religion, creationism, and intelligent design in our history and philosophy is to provide a very revisionist version of our history. Given that it ought to be taught somewhere because of its significance in our culture, isn't "ancient history" the perfect place to teach it? And, if that keeps various religious groups appeased, isn't that a perfect compromise?

Even if your suspicions are well founded and there is a bias in the curriculum towards certain religious views, can that not be corrected in subsequent revisions?

I think the anger comes from the fact that religious groups (especially in the USA) have tried repeatedly to sneak ID into science and social studies courses as a way to get public schools to teach creationism as a competing theory to evolution. This leads to the distrust of anyone trying to include ID, because of all the bad faith attempts to do so.

Even if your suspicions are well founded and there is a bias in the curriculum towards certain religious views, can that not be corrected in subsequent revisions?

That won't help the students that will be subjected to it before it can be corrected. We should be vigilant against introducing religious indoctrination into the classrooms. The thinking is that it's better to have no mention at all than the form of proselytizing that has been the goal in past attempts to introduce it. I can't disagree with that.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[interkin3tic]

Actually if you would take time to look into it, you would find the extraordinary efforts those in control go to in order to remove any scientist that presents a solid basis for creationism or intelligent design.

Other people have pointed out the major flaw with that statement, but moreover, even if there were a conspiracy to keep creationism and ID down, what does that show? That there is an establishment among scientists who is not completely open-minded?

A conspiracy dedicated to opposing a scientific theory would not validate that scientific theory.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[RicktheBrick]

If God created every creature than one must say God created all the bacteria, germs, and virus that exist too. Was God thinking that humans would not have enough problems on their hands without them? Where is the intelligence in designing man but also designing creatures that are very effective in killing man? I can not find any love in such a God. Maybe with evolution one could make an argument that they were necessary in the evolution of man and thus get God partially off the hook.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

What she actually said (as reported) was " Classroom debate about issues encouraged critical thinking – an important tool".

The problem is that we've heard similar claims before, but with the goal of teaching that ID is a competing scientific theory with evolution, and that we should "teach the controversy" so that the students can decide for themselves. That almost sounds reasonable to some people, but it's based on a fundamental lie, which is that ID is a scientific theory at all.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

"That much is right. By its nature, it would be basically impossible to prove or disprove."

BY any definition _any_ science is impossible to prove or disprove, we don't like to think about it but ALL science has a master conceptualization underpinning it's "theory of truth".

i.e. science compares environmental structure to environmental structure, which is a tautology even though we don't like to think it is.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[blahplusplus]

"I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion."

Omniscient god cannot make mistakes, science undermines all the errors those "inspired" writers made.

Roman 5:12

i.e. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--"

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."

The problem with that is _Death_ always existed from the beginning, that's a huge falsification of religion right their. Sin doesn't exist since death and bloodshed is natural part of evolution, no matter how much "liberal christians" want to compartmentalize bastardize the plain meaning of these words. Christ existence serves _no purpose_ in christian religion. Since sin and death was their before any human beings were around.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Mr. Underbridge]

(the Big Bang seems to fly in the face of the second law of thermodynamics IMO)

Huh? What could generate more entropy than creating a bunch of chaos and heat occupying a huge volume (ie, the known universe) out of a completely symmetric singularity of enormous mass? The big bang is definitely a downhill entropic process and most certainly obeys the 2nd law.

Seriously, this is my problem with your usual creationist (well, one among many). If you want to attack the science, you need to understand it better.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Perhaps I should have phrased that a bit different. I understand why it's a threat to institutionalized religion. I was referring more to people's personal beliefs.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

You missed the point by a mile. The great-grandparent made the following claim:

I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design.

My claim is that many people do believe in intelligent design. The Discovery Institute (comprised of the people who likely coined the term) define ID for us. If they are right about its definition, my original argument stands. If you are right about its definition, namely that it means exactly "creationism", my original claim still stands since many people believe in creationism.

they simply did a mechanical search-and-replace to change "creationism" into "intelligent design"

I understand that the term was originally used as an end run around a supreme court decision, as you say. However, it has taken on its own meaning since, a term for a notion that has existed for thousands of years quite separately from creationism. Claiming that it is still only a drop-in replacement for creationism is as silly as claiming that Volkswagen still exists to serve as the common man's car for fascist regimes. Though it was created for that purpose originally, it has since served different purposes.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is often considered a threat to Christianity because without a literal Adam and Eve there was no "fall" and therefor we didn't inherit a "sinful nature" from them

The Catholic Church says that's wrong.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

> Santa Claus has nothing to do with Christ

Santa Claus is a classic example of deification of a real person: Saint Nicholas, the
Bishop of Myra. He certainly was a christian.

Santa is now a minor god with his continuing existence, his ability to know all children are good or bad, his flying sled and his infinite performance in visiting every home in one night.

Many men are made into gods: Ras Tafari (my grandfather was presented with a lion skin cape by Ras Tafari) became the god of the Rastafarians. Obama may become, or already has become, a god to many. Alexander the Great was a god as were many other men in Greek and Roman mythology.

It is only a small step to see how a man, a warlord, Jehovah, became a god to his followers. Later much the same happened to another man in much the same area.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[lyml]

The answer is simple, the neck didn't just pop into existence nor did the heart of that magnitude.

Clearly as the proto-giraffes got longer necks the optimal heart size increased. Proto-giraffe A with a slightly longer neck and no increased heart strength was slightly better than Proto-giraffe B with no longer neck and no increased heart strength. Proto-giraffe C however, a descendent of A had a slightly increased heart strength and since the longer neck had moved the optimal heart strength size Proto-giraffe C became the most successful, repeat a couple of thousand iterations and you would have giraffes.

A little bit later random slashdotter ArcherB comes by and says: "Hey the giraffe couldn't have first evolved longer necks and later larger hearts because that would be bad so would larger hearts and then longer necks, ipso facto god^h^h^h an intelligent designer did it!".

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[lgw]

"Intelligent design" is deliberately ambiguous. Few would claim that it's impossible for an intelligence to design life, and such a claim is unrelated to the theory of evolution.

If you want to claim that some specific life on Earth has been intelligently designed you'll need quite a hypothesis, however. How can you tell? What about that specific life is sufficiently different from other life that makes you think that?

If you want to claim that all life on Earth was created as-is, that's just sophmoric Last-Tuesday-ism, but if you want to claim that some ancient single-cell precursor to all current life was created, there's nothing obviously wring with that. However, to be a scientific hypothesis you'll need to predict somehting different than the current theory as a result of that claim - why does it matter?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[mcfedr]

if i could, id be modding you up

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

If you read the post I was replying to

Even better, I wrote it.

you would see we're talking about who believes in ID and what purpose it serves

Read my original post more carefully. I was making the case that ID is a notion worthy of being taught in an ancient history class because it is an important historical philosophy. I have made basically that same point in each of my 12 posts today (this will be my 13th), and the best challenge that I have had to it is that "they might do it badly" (to summarize).

that was just a rough number clearly pulled from my ass

Then, it's a good thing I washed thoroughly after handling it.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[mcfedr]

The beliefs of about a third of the worlds populations is hardly ancient history.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[mosb1000]

The Bible in it's original language(s) of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ancient Greek is still around today. When they dug up the dead-sea scrolls, they compared the accepted modern Hebrew books of the old testament to the manuscripts they found and they were virtually (although not completely) identical. That means they remained essentially unchanged for at least the last 2000 years (of course, the books themselves are much older than that). Scholars possess manuscripts of the new testament which were transcribed between 100 and 400 AD. Modern translations of the Bible have been made from the earliest available Greek manuscripts.

No serious scholar, knowledgeable in such matters, would say "that book that was . . . translated and re-transcribed God only knows how many times (pun intended)." because a lot is known about it. The text is available in its original language(s) today and is subject to constant scrutiny.

It bothers me that so many people think what you do about how the text of the Bible has been maintained. There is a lot of historical evidence that the modern Bible is a faithful representation of the original works contained in it. And with certainty we know it hasn't changed in the last 1600 years (the old testament certainly hasn't changed in the last 2000 years). As far as historical documents go, there's no other text so well preserved and so heavily scrutinized. If you don't believe me, you should look into it for yourself. If you don't believe the Bible is accurate on account of it's age, you shouldn't hold faith in other historical texts for that same reason.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[mcfedr]

But then as someone who believes in science, you can see how actually all those bacteria and virus have worked together to create the world we live in, yes, some cause illness but many just make nature work, which illness is a part of. I see it as all fitting together, really quite neatly, something that the suposed randomness of evolution doesnt really explain

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[mcfedr]

true, its a shame the word theory is put with 'of evolution' often enough...

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

It is if those beliefs originated sometime between the beginning of recorded human history and the early middle ages (the definition of "ancient history").

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[grep_rocks]

"I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion" I think that opposing evolution is the most rational thing religious fundamentalists do - once you start deeply thinking about evolution the whole idea of a benevolent creator goes out the window - Darwin knew this and that is why he sat on publishing the origin of species for so long, he didn't publish until he was forced to because Huxley was coming to the same conclusion as Darwin - Darwin originally wanted to publish the book after his death. Specifically, evolution sheds light on the key mysteries that religion attempts to explain - death and sex (sin) - most disturbingly the mechanism of natural selection is not something a benevolent creator would come up with, evolution is fueled by the death of untold millions of creatures and is a mindless and directionless process - anyone who believes the creator invented natural selection is also forced to believe God is a sadist or compeletely unsympathetic to suffering at best.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people believe in man made global warming... many people believe in Obama... many people believe in government to solve everything.... but that does not make it true? right?

You are using false logic here. The point is that ID has as much rights to be there as evolution theory - any serious biologist will tell you that there so many holes in the Darwin theory and so many assumptions - that it's really very hard to call it a science at all. So then they invented neo-Darwinism that makes even more assumptions. Any sane person realizes that the world as we know it now - can't be based on random acts from the beginning. If you do - you either under 30 years old or need a girlfriend.

Read this from the discovery link:
  Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
"It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas. "

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[StrategicIrony]

My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory. Yes, I understand that such criticism could lead to the discussion of religion in the classroom*, but if you are going to ban discussion based on the possibility of that discussion moving to a discussion about religion, then all discussion should banned and anything can have a religion underpinning.

* There is nothing wrong or Unconstitutional about discussing or even teaching religious doctrine in a classroom. I learned about the Greek religions in History class years ago and never had the urge to bow to Zeus.

There IS a problem with addressing a specific theory as if it is truth, or controversy. One may teach Greek creation stories of Atlas holding the world on his shoulders in the "people once believed that.." category.

The category of "perhaps this is an alternative to scientific evolution theories" is entirely different and almost completely unjustifiable, in my opinion.

Almost thirty percent of the world are Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and other traditional Asian religions. Almost 10% fit in a smattering of others (traditional tribal, Sikhism, Jainism, etc).

I'm not sure, but perhaps that dictates the teaching (in the same light) of the Vishnu, Brahma creation story. It might be worth referencing the Buddhist doctrine that pondering the creation of Universe is a bit contrary to Buddhist ideals. Or perhaps the giant Tortoise creation myth that is very common in geographically diverse tribal religions.

To be fair, 20 years ago, I learned about many of these in Social Studies class. I don't think there's any controversy teaching that.

It's the migration of these theories into science class, when there is relatively no scientific merit to them, that is vexing.

We have just as much scientific evidence of Noah's flood or Adam and Eve's garden as we do of Vishnu growing a giant flower from his navel, from which a many-headed deity was hatched.

*shrug*

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Evtim]

But they don't believe sincerely. It's a scam. Why do people do not see this, even without any compromising leaks, is beyond me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

At least allegiance, you say? At least? I say, it's much more valuable than money.

In the only interview I have seen with one of the originators of ID (the lawyer, forgot his name) he explained in plain English what it is all about and yet it impressed no one!

He said something like "To teach the future generations of what is a fact about our origins and what is not is great power. And I do not see why one particular group of people (scientist) should have it" So he went out to find Dembski and the others. There is the profit of the scam - he said it - the minds of the next generations.

Do you think this price is worth the effort?

"Indeed, it is a great power", I wanted to reply. "But scientists as a whole are no conspirators pushing agenda and therefore cannot use this power. What are you going to do with it when you get it? ??? -profit?"

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ultranova]

Seriously, this is my problem with your usual creationist (well, one among many). If you want to attack the science, you need to understand it better.

More generally, this is the bane of various religion-related debates in general. Neither common theists or atheists have any real comprehension of advanced scientific or theological concepts, yet both are constantly referring to them in an attempt to "prove" their claims. The whole thing would be quite comical if it wasn't so sad.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[tlhIngan]

I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design. There are lots of Creationists who will wave it around, but generally to them ID==Creationism. As was pretty clear from Dover and other attempts to teach it, the school boards in question were populated with Creationists who had been scammed by DI into believing that Creationism was going to be taught in the classroom.

As to the ID formulators, considering the amount of work they put into formulating ID as a neutered replacement of out-and-out Creationism, I think it's hard to accept any claim of sincerity. ID is a legal creation, a fabrication with but one purpose, to get Creationism past the Establishment Clause.

Actually, Creationism and ID are linked - the Discovery Institute left behind transitional fossils (evolution, natch) when they searched-and-replaced "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design" in one version of their books. As in, something like "crintelligent designism" or something like that.

Though, I think at lot of the reason Creationists left was because the sole purpose of getting Creationism/ID in schools was under the banner that "good religious" kids (i.e., Christians - they're not advocating Islam or other religion) makes for moral kids. Moral kids aren't the ones who go shooting up schools, doing drugs, being bullies, disrespecting authority, etc. etc. etc. As in, Christianity in schools would solve all our social ills.

There was that great PBS show on ID that really tore through the DI for their real purpose at trying to cloud the issue. It really wasn't evolution they're against, it's just that evolution is controversial enough that they could use it as a means to get more Christian teachings in class.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

And that is why ID is not science ... there is no data which can falsify the claim.

This was my claim all along, there isn't any need to reiterate. Said the OP:

If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.

Said I to the OP:

It isn't a disproved theory - it can neither be proved nor disproved in any scientifically valid sense. That's why it isn't science in the first place.

I was merely collapsing the great-grandparent's feeble attempt to contradict ID through observed science.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

Actually, you don't have the full spectrum there yet. Maybe you even need another axis to accommodate people like Pierre Theilhard de Chardin, who is neither a creationist nor a fundamentalist of any kind. He is basically a catholic, though many of his works are shunned by official doctrine. For de Chardin, creation is not an act but a still ongoing process, evolution being part of it. What clashes hardest with catholic doctrine is his thinking that man is not remotely the "crown of creation", but a passing stage to something better, and that man has to work himself to further that development. Definitely a Theistic Evolutionist, but a quite unique and interesting flavour.

This is what gets me about religious folks. All of those beliefs might make for some interesting fiction, but they carry no more weight than any other Catholic belief, all of which are unsubstantiated. So honestly, who cares what anyone thinks about creation? If you don't have evidence, then you're just engaging in the spinning of yarns. Yet people base their entire worldview on this stuff.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

we're talking about a concerted effort by a relatively small number of individuals to strip Creationism of any overt religious claims with the specific intention of getting Creationism past the Establishment Clause, as well as building the Big Tent of Creationists of various strains (YECs, OECs, Theistic Evolutionists).

OK, then what's the problem? If you strip all religious from ID, what's the problem with it? As long as the principals stand up, there is no reason that some form of ID should be banned from discussion or curriculum. It's not necessarily a religious thing. Cosmologists are beating their heads against their desks trying to figure out why our universe exists at all. The more they learn about the laws of physics and the constants that define them, they realize the fact that anything exists at all happened with such narrow odds that to assume it happened by pure chance unreasonable, at best. The odds are narrow enough that the probability of a universal designer are actually greater than the evidence supporting pure chance. It has even been dubbed "The Fine Tuned Universe". Saying that something is tuned implies a "tuner".
I understand that your fear is that it will be used as a wedge to get religion taught in the classroom, but anything could be used as that wedge. The Big Bang could easily be used as for that purpose, yet no one is suggesting that the Big Bang should be banned from discussion. If your main problem with ID is that it may lead to a religious discussion, then simply ban the religious discussion. Problem solved.

I suspect that you're probably invoking some other definition of Intelligent Design, which shows that its creators have had some success in muddying the waters.

Yes, ID is much more than just evolution or "God did it". It is a thought that some things could not have happened purely by chance. And ID exists. My car is a product of ID. I speak of the purest, and broadest since of something, or anything being "designed" by "intelligence". Nothing more. Certainly I believe in a Creator (capital C) but like you, I don't want that taught in school. A school that can teach the Judeo/Christian explanation of creation can just as easily teach the Scientologist explanation. I don't believe that and don't want my kids forced to learn it, just as you don't want your kids learning my beliefs. However, I have no problem with a school acknowledging the facts that evolution does not explain everything concerning the origin of species and that some brilliant minds believe the universe was not created by pure chance based on the evidence. This can be done without religion.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[jvkjvk]

If the person "selling" whatever it is sincerely believes it, then it can't properly be called a scam.

I believe you are incorrect.

You appear to be saying that innocent persons cannot be involved in a scam. So, if I'm great friends with a guy like Madoff (but who is still 'operating'), it's not a scam if I tell my friends to invest as well?

Hmm. Don't think so. It is still a scam. I may be innocent, but the scam is still there.

In fact, most really great scams have a few front facing layers of starry eyed innocents to give that aura of truthiness necessary to rope in more victims.

Regards.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[blahplusplus]

"I was referring more to people's personal beliefs."

But those beliefs have consequences. If I believe I'm going to heaven after I die and see my family again, and someone tells me science disproves it, that is going to upset my emotional stability or the ability to face the challenges and hardships of life as a human being.

So what people believe and how much they believe it matters a lot, since it ties into whether or not their personal beliefs will spill ou to effect others. So knowing what is the source of these peoples personal beliefs matters.

Most people don't think too hard about their beliefs they are mostly backwards rationalionizations of feelings, instincts or longings within that person.

So you have a few options:

1) The person made up their own beliefs (whether they are aware of it or not)
2) It's speculation (philosophy,etc, think deism)
3) From past or ancient sources.
4) From institutions (religion, education, where one was born in history)
parents, etc

A lot of people also can't stand uncertainty, so they cling to whatever is closest / feels good to them. Most religions/cultural beliefs act as a attractive force to hold a large body of people together.

Think of how varied different groups of people have lived and behaved, RITUAL and trying to make sense of the world is part of human society. Many beliefs are just models trying to make sense of the world, since the human mind is limited. This means short and easy ideas to understand usually take hold. Over time all sorts of rules develop are are included in what is called morality.

But when it comes down to it peoples personal beliefs effect what they consider right and wrong and that's what's mainly so upsetting to people. What society formerly considered taboo becoming normal upsets many people i.e. gays, ethnic groups, inter racial marriage, etc, etc.

It's ultimately about human sensibilities about what people are attracted to and disgusted by. Their way of life is usually built around those strong biological/sociological underpinnings.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Mindcontrolled]

Well, I for one am an atheist, just mentioning Teilhard, because he is quite far out in that spectrum. However, the most interesting thing about Teilhards philosophy is that it is totally congruent with the transhumanist/singularity crowd, who are not even aware that they basically hold the same beliefs that a Jesuit wrote down in the 30s. Teilhard's "Omega Point" is the Singularity - with a deeper humanistic undercurrent and a deeper philosophic fundament. I am holding neither of these beliefs, I am just amused...

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Damnit having burnt karma sucks when a great discussion ensues!

I did a little more reading into the subject and it seems that most pro-ID sources suggest that if it was ID'd, it did not also evolve. So that answers my own question.

I would still say good science is open-minded and skeptical. I would still say that humans are on the verge of being Intelligent Designers. And I would still say that IMHO something could be both intelligently designed, and evolve.

I would say that my current thoughts on the subject fall more inline with the latter of your post.

Finally I think the only reason it matters is because we are actually doing ID. I mention the Drake Equation because it allows one to entertain some interesting thought experiments. Especially in regards to human technological ability.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[drsmithy]

Then the questions naturally lean toward "How does he do it?" and "How often does it happen? Every ten years?" and more unanswerable questions, etc.

I think a better question would be "why is he still so bad at it after millions of years of practice".

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

we're talking about a concerted effort by a relatively small number of individuals to strip Creationism of any overt religious claims with the specific intention of getting Creationism past the Establishment Clause, as well as building the Big Tent of Creationists of various strains (YECs, OECs, Theistic Evolutionists).

OK, then what's the problem? If you strip all religious from ID, what's the problem with it? As long as the principals stand up, there is no reason that some form of ID should be banned from discussion or curriculum. It's not necessarily a religious thing. Cosmologists are beating their heads against their desks trying to figure out why our universe exists at all. The more they learn about the laws of physics and the constants that define them, they realize the fact that anything exists at all happened with such narrow odds that to assume it happened by pure chance unreasonable, at best. The odds are narrow enough that the probability of a universal designer are actually greater than the evidence supporting pure chance. It has even been dubbed "The Fine Tuned Universe". Saying that something is tuned implies a "tuner".

Umm... got any evidence to back up any of that? That whole bit about the odds seems completely made up, as without an understanding of what existed before TBB, we have no idea what the odds are, so that bit about a designer having greater odds is complete bullshit. The problem with teaching ID is not just that it's religion in disguise, but that it's utterly unscientific. It's not a competing theory at all. It's just religious belief dressed up to look kind of scientific. There's no substance there. Attempting to poke holes in evolution is fine and all, but it's not a theory.

I understand that your fear is that it will be used as a wedge to get religion taught in the classroom, but anything could be used as that wedge. The Big Bang could easily be used as for that purpose, yet no one is suggesting that the Big Bang should be banned from discussion. If your main problem with ID is that it may lead to a religious discussion, then simply ban the religious discussion. Problem solved.

No, the issue is not that it's a wedge to introducing religious discussion, it's that it IS religious discussion. They just replaced "God" with "designer", so that when students ask who the designer was, they have an answer all ready for them, complete with mountains of dogma to go along with it.

I suspect that you're probably invoking some other definition of Intelligent Design, which shows that its creators have had some success in muddying the waters.

Yes, ID is much more than just evolution or "God did it". It is a thought that some things could not have happened purely by chance. And ID exists. My car is a product of ID. I speak of the purest, and broadest since of something, or anything being "designed" by "intelligence". Nothing more. Certainly I believe in a Creator (capital C) but like you, I don't want that taught in school. A school that can teach the Judeo/Christian explanation of creation can just as easily teach the Scientologist explanation. I don't believe that and don't want my kids forced to learn it, just as you don't want your kids learning my beliefs. However, I have no problem with a school acknowledging the facts that evolution does not explain everything concerning the origin of species and that some brilliant minds believe the universe was not created by pure chance based on the evidence. This can be done without religion.

Except that ID doesn't support any of those claims scientifically, therefore it doesn't pass even the first test of being included in the curriculum. When IDers can create an actual scientific theory that explains the evidence, is falsifiable, and has predictive power on par with the theory of evolution, then I'll advocate including it. That's so ridicu

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[interkin3tic]

You MUST waste time dealing with bullshit claims from retards if you want people to accept your system of peer review for things you claim are true.

1. Evolutionary biologists HAVE for over a hundred and fifty years, since before "On the Origin of Species" was published.

2. There is nothing that says "Scientists must take all contrary claims, regardless of credibility or evidence, seriously." The creationist scientists saying they were discriminated against generally seem to be making excuses for their failures, or were otherwise unconvincing.

3. You're calling bullshit on the wrong side. Creationists/IDers are the ones trying to bypass the scientific debate (since they've lost for the last hundred years) to go directly into textbooks.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

If you're in a science class, you ought to be teaching science. Since the number of biologists who reject evolution is exceedingly small, teaching criticisms of the validity of the theory is essentially taking up a Creationist line.

Unless the theory of evolution is 100% correct, inconclusive and conclusive, we SHOULD be teaching the criticisms of it. You can't ban teachings because of a group you don't like supports those teachings. That's how theories get better.

There are actual controversies (ie. the relative importance of genetic drift via mutation, theories of abiogenesis, punctuated equilibrium etc.), but none of these controversies deny evolution happened, they are debates over very technical aspects of the theory

Exactly. Should these points be banned from classroom discussion or curriculum?

This is the problem with guys like you. You conflate debates within the scientific community as far as aspects of biological evolution with the idea that the theory itself is being seriously debated.

And the problem with guys like you is that you are willing to stifle discussion based on your fear that someone may say "God" in a classroom, causing otherwise critically thinking students join a cult.

For the vast majority of the scientific community for the better part of a century, that debate has been closed. As much as any theory can be proven, evolution has been proven.

And every day, new data is added to the "closed" debate. The omission of any new data that may contradict what we thought we already knew is just as closed minded as those that would burn books they don't agree with.

Ideas should NEVER be off the discussion table when it comes to science. Nor should any theory or even law be above challenge. There is nothing wrong or religious with a teacher or textbook showing where the theory of evolution falls short. It has gotten to the point where even new discoveries that fall counter to Darwin's conclusion are being challenged because someone, somewhere might bring a Bible to class and say, "see, told ya so." Saying that Darwinian evolution can not fully explain the Cambrian explosion should not be a forbidden subject. We need to ask questions in order to get answers. If you ban the question, you are no better than the Catholic Priests that jailed scientists for saying that the sun was the center of our solar system.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Spackler]

As you quoted: "but allow students to make up their own minds."

I made up my mind, I deserve an A. And for graduation, I made up my mind that you should pay me one MILLION dollars (and not those lousy AUS dollars, but the real thing).

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

Umm... got any evidence to back up any of that?

This appears to be as good of source as any:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/universe2.htm

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[bigbigbison]

name one

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[firefly4f4]

The giraffe's neck is obviously a benefit to its species, but none of the steps needed to "evolve" that neck would be beneficial. The veins in their neck need to be able to restrict blood flow when the giraffe bends down to take a drink while at the same time, the heart needs to be strong enough to pump blood all the way to the brain. Without either of these features, a giraffe with its long neck would never survive, yet none of these features are beneficial without the long neck. The giraffe's neck is not just a neck, but an entire system of organs and features that are all worthless or even fatal without all of the required components being in place.

This is just a way your way of saying that, "I can't think of how this could have happened via the theory, therefore the theory is wrong." In this particular case it's easy to show it can occur.

Start with a creature with a short neck that eats leaves. One gets a slightly longer neck, allowing it to eat from branches that are slightly higher on the tree/bush. This may or may not be beneficial, but nor is it a detriment. Repeat over many, many generations, while similarly selecting in the other traits as necessary since, by necessity, the creature still needs to drink water.

Macroevolution is even accepted on most ID/creationist fronts -- as proof, the Creation Museum even has a display on it/i>, even if they don't call it that because that would, well, make them look even more foolish.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

Sorry, that source was biased. Let's try another:

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm (yes, it's a site about 2001. The article was revised by a MIT scientist)

Wiki stand by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/finetuning.pdf (pdf warning)

That should get you started. If nothing else, you can glean some search terms somewhere in there.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[drsmithy]

No, Intelligent Design is looking at our current theories and finding that they don't always answer our questions. For example, to some, evolution does not explain what ID proponents call irreducible complexity.

Yes, it does. More accurately, no-one has yet come up with a genuine example of "Irreducible Complexity".

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

OK, then what's the problem? If you strip all religious from ID, what's the problem with it? As long as the principals stand up, there is no reason that some form of ID should be banned from discussion or curriculum. It's not necessarily a religious thing.

Two things:

1. The intent has always been by the Creationists who created ID to use it as a backdoor means of getting Creationism into the science class to at least conflate it with evolution (and other theories they don't like), or preferably to replace the teaching of those theories. It's purposes are inherently religious, it's non-religious nature simply facade. It isn't stripped of religion so much as the religious aspects are cleverly hidden. This was pretty much what Judge Jones said in the Dover ruling. I think you need to review it.

2. ID, even if it were completely a-religious in nature, still isn't science. It isn't used by scientists, it isn't any area of scientific research, it in no way resembles a scientific theory. If you're going to teach ID in a science class, why not teach astrology as science too?

Cosmologists are beating their heads against their desks trying to figure out why our universe exists at all.

You know, I've probably read about thirty books by cosmologists and physicists, and I don't ever recall anything like that being posed. The universe exists, which is the rational starting point. From there you attempt to explain. What you've posed is essentially a metaphysical question, and one that certainly isn't anything that a scientific theory is going to deal with. I suspect you mean cosmologists can't figure out how it started, which is true enough, but that's a gap in the knowledge, and invoking god-of-the-gaps arguments is as sure a way to watch your god shrink into irrelevance as the gaps get filled.

The more they learn about the laws of physics and the constants that define them, they realize the fact that anything exists at all happened with such narrow odds that to assume it happened by pure chance unreasonable, at best. The odds are narrow enough that the probability of a universal designer are actually greater than the evidence supporting pure chance. It has even been dubbed "The Fine Tuned Universe". Saying that something is tuned implies a "tuner".

To adequately calculate the statistics of any event happening, one has to have a reasonable sample size. So far as we know there is but one universe, so it's quite impossible to calculate any probabilities. I suspect you're probably referring to is the BS calculations that Creationists and IDers have pulled out of their asses to try to make a pseudo-mathematical justification for God, but as I said, anyone who thinks they can make statistical arguments based on just one entity is either a liar or a fool.

I understand that your fear is that it will be used as a wedge to get religion taught in the classroom, but anything could be used as that wedge. The Big Bang could easily be used as for that purpose, yet no one is suggesting that the Big Bang should be banned from discussion. If your main problem with ID is that it may lead to a religious discussion, then simply ban the religious discussion. Problem solved.

The Big Bang is the best, in fact, the only theory that explains three core observations; the redshift of distant galaxies, nucleosynthesis (ie. the quantity of hydrogen, helium and lithium in the observable universe which cannot be explained by stellar sources) and the CMBR (the blackbody radiation sitting at about 3 degrees kelvin that is found no matter where you look in the universe). I'm sorry, but attempting to equate Big Bang cosmology with ID is so misguided, its not even wrong.

However, I have no problem with a school acknowledging the facts that evolution does not explain everything concerning the origin of species and that some brilliant min

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Black Parrot]

My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory.

Anyone learning about evolution in a classroom doesn't know enough about it to offer anything but the shallowest, most easily refuted criticism.

Same for physics, chemistry, and computer science.

Sorry, but that's just the way reality works. Don't confuse movies with reality.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[labnet]

I think Dawinistic Evolution is the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on mankind, only gaining traction because of mans general inclination to reject any notion of being accountable to a God.
Evolution doesn't even pass the first level of critical thinking. To believe that beneficial mutations have far outnumbered non-beneficial mutations is complete nonsense.
Evolution of DNA (analagous to object code and partial execution machine) is like saying; lets get the a linux distribution and randomaly mutate a byte here and there, and presto theres a new video codec, without acknowledging such a process actually causes faster functional degredation whos rate far outweighs the beneficial creation of functionality.

Evolution is not science, its a pseudo religion by those wishing to reject any notion of a creator.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

I can't believe it. Someone actually thinks the Cambrian explosion argument is a meaningful attack on evolution. Pal, grab a book. That hasn't been a useful attack on common descent for fifty years.

You creationists, you're stuck in a time warp somewhere around 1930-1940. I mean, where do you get this crap, from Answers in Genesis?

I've got to ask you, can you give me a bibliography of say, a dozen books written by biologists, that you've ever actually read?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If the person "selling" whatever it is sincerely believes it, then it can't properly be called a scam.

I don't think that's entirely right. As another poster pointed out, many scams rely on several layers of believers between the scammer and the victim. And for that matter, there are some cases of delusion that most people would call scams, but where everyone involved believes. I didn't set it up this way, but the examples I cited actually illustrate the continuum nicely.

Phishing spam: nobody believes in this except the victims.

Politics: politicians themselves may be cynical and manipulative, and their staffs as well, but the actual "selling" involved in getting a politician elected or re-elected -- the mailings, the fundraisers, the rallies, the get-out-the-vote knocking on doors -- is done by hordes of low-level campaign workers or unpaid volunteers, and these people tend to believe very sincerely in their cause. I know; I used to be one of them, back in my younger and more innocent days.

Fringe medicine: I don't know about "magnetotherapy," but I've known a lot of people involved in homeopathy -- not just using the products, but manufacturing and selling them as well. And let me tell you, these folks believe, with nigh-religious intensity. You can present medical and statistical evidence that it doesn't work, and make sound biochemical arguments about why it can't work, and they'll just blow you off, because to them it's capital-t Truth. And yet I have no trouble labeling the field of homeopathy as a whole as "a scam," and neither does anyone else who's looked at it with a critical eye.

FWIW, I think ID is more like politics than like either of the others. Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski et al. aren't ID believers. They're creationists who see ID as a useful workaround. But many of the people pushing ID at school board meetings and the like really buy into it.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

"I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it? Hell, if I was God, evolution and natural selection actually seems like a pretty damn good way to design an ecosystem! It's resilient and adaptive and I don't have to micromanage it. It's only a problem if you believe in an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. You know, that book that was written down by men 2000 years ago and translated and re-transcribed God only knows how many times (pun intended)."

Blasphemy! How dare you question the divinely inspired men that wrote things down 2000 years ago. They received God's word! It's then been translated, re-translated, cobbled together into a Bible somewhat later, and then interpreted by the faithful humans of today. It is THE WORD DIRECT FROM GOD! Those who interpret it are INFALLIBLE! Why? Because it's GODS WORD. It CAN'T be misinterpreted by faithful humans.

By contrast it doesn't matter if you're talking about gravity or biological evolution: all that scientific evidence stuff comes from interpretation by fallible humans of a universe that is, um ... directly created by ... God's... own ... hand ... ... oh, wait a second, now I get it.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

Could you explain for me in what way the Big Bang violates any of the Laws of Thermodynamics? I can't wait to hear this one.

(On a side note, you think physicists would have noted by now if the major cosmological theory of origins was falsified by thermodynamics, being that thermodynamics is such an important aspect of cosmology.)

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[FrankieBaby1986]

How do those people explain mules? Or any of the other creatures listed here: http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-equines.htm

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

If you're in a science class, you ought to be teaching science.

The problem with this line of thinking is that science doesn't happen in a vacuum. Science is merely a collection of the observations of how the world works. There's no need to place it upon a sacred altar and worship it. Hundreds of years of modern history have proven that it gets by just fine by being the truth.

If you absolutely insist on teaching only science in science classes, then we'd need to get rid of science classes and replace the topic with something more useful. Science without any context whatsoever has devolved to mere data, and is basically useless.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[AtomicJake]

Perhaps I should have phrased that a bit different. I understand why it's a threat to institutionalized religion. I was referring more to people's personal beliefs.

Un-institutionalized religion does not exist.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

The men who wrote the parts of the Bible that include Genesis never believed that God loved mankind in the way that you're suggesting they should have. Their version of God is a bloodthirsty killer. Surely you're aware of the story of Exodus, at the very least?

What you're saying is more a reflection of the teachings of Christ than of the Hebrews that first recorded Creationism.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

Institutionalized religion makes a good deal of coin and wields a great deal of power by getting people's thoughts in line with their teachings. They'd like to keep this power, rather than hand it off to the secularists. Ergo, controversy.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[cappp]

If you read the entirety of the article you’ll get a much better overview of the thing. The summary misses what is probably the most important point – Intelligent Design is being taught as part of the Historical Controversies section of the course. The entire point of that part of the syllabus is to encourage the development of investigative skills, critical thinking, and the ability to analyse historical narratives and cultural forces in action.

Just a few lines into the posted article it notes:

Queensland History Teachers' Association head Kay Bishop said the curriculum asked students to develop their historical skills in an "investigation of a controversial issue" such as "human origins (eg, Darwin's theory of evolution and its critics"). "It's opening up opportunities for debate and discussion, not to push a particular view," Ms Bishop said. Classroom debate about issues encouraged critical thinking – an important tool, she said.”

. Further, Intelligent Design as a controversy is in great company – it’s being taught alongside the Shroud of Turin and Noah’s Ark under the section on Forgeries, the problem of the ownership of the Elgin Marbles, Nazi archaeology, and evolution.

You can read the entire syllabus on their website: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Documents/SeniorYears/History/Ancient%20History.pdf [australian...lum.edu.au] The relevant section is on Page 8 and reads:

Controversies Students develop their historical skills in an investigation of TWO of the following controversial issues: a) human origins (e.g. Darwin’s theory of evolution and its critics)
b) dating the past (e.g. radio-carbon dating, tracing human migrations using DNA)
c) fakes and forgeries (e.g. Piltdown Man, the Treasure of Priam, Noah’s Ark, the Turin Shroud)
d) the use and display of human remains (e.g. repatriation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human remains, The Iceman, Egyptian mummies, Lady Dai)
e) imperialistic attitudes towards archaeological property (e.g. Indigenous cultural artefacts from around the world) f) the ownership of cultural property (e.g. the return of Parthenon sculptures)
g) the impact of war and terrorism on antiquities (e.g. the Buddhas of Bamyan, the looting of Iraqi museums)
h) political and ideological uses of archaeology (e.g. archaeology under the Nazis and Fascists)
i) a school-developed study of a controversial issue.

Students examine the nature and context of the controversy, including: the historical background
the extent of the controversy (media coverage, nationalistic feeling, government involvement) and significant developments relating to the controversy
different perspectives and their bases
an assessment of the different perspectives.

While there’s certaintly a risk in the style of presentation, isn’t this exactly what we want to be taught to our kids? The ability to examine, consider, and weigh.

Ps. This was posted on the same story as it appeared in the firehose section (http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=12901414) – why aren’t comments shipped over to the main page when the story shifts over as well?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[digitig]

I don't know -- ask them! Are any of those hybrids actually distinct species, in the sense of being fertile with each other and not with either parent species, for instance?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

These seem to be using the anthropic principle, but that really doesn't make any sense. Yes, if the laws of physics were different, then life as we know it may not exist. So what? Maybe silicon-based life-forms would be debating this stuff. I don't see that as any sort of evidence for design. Seems practically tautological really.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

Bad analogies... check.
Equating evolution with atheism... check.
Misunderstanding of mutations... check.

So tell me, are you a YEC or an OEC? Just how ignorant and incapable of measuring reality are you?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[mlgeek]

I actually created an account to reply to this, because this is routinely overlooked and I feel this is an extremely important issue:

it is very difficult for many people to believe that the world and people as they are came about because of chance.

This is a fallacy that is all too often believed, even by people who "believe" in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not, and I repeat this for enough emphasis cannot be added: it does not state that current life forms came about by chance. The best analogy I can come up with is the following: imagine that you'd create a sequence of "heads" and "tails" by repeatedly throwing a fair coin, but then manually removed all the tails. The resulting sequence is not random, it's deterministic, for christ's sake: it consists of only heads. Even though the underlying generating process was random.

Evolution also works like that: mutations may be random, but natural selection is almost fully deterministic (and the higher the concentration of individuals, the closer it gets to being fully deterministic). The results are very much optimized, and have nothing to do with chance. They might even (fancy that!) look designed to the uninformed or uncritical eye.

But please, please, don't spread this inane fallacy of equating evolution with a random process. As long as you don't understand that natural selection counteracts the randomness of mutation, you have no valid reason to prefer the theory of evolution over any fairy tale and then, yes, you may "believe" in evolution, but you really shouldn't.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

I can't believe it. Someone actually thinks the Cambrian explosion argument is a meaningful attack on evolution. Pal, grab a book. That hasn't been a useful attack on common descent for fifty years.

You creationists, you're stuck in a time warp somewhere around 1930-1940. I mean, where do you get this crap, from Answers in Genesis?

I've got to ask you, can you give me a bibliography of say, a dozen books written by biologists, that you've ever actually read?

Relax Sparky, it was an example.

As for my credentials? I won't even try to defend them. Instead, I'll find others that agree with my point. Go ahead and feel free to imply these guys are dumbasses.

Try these:
"[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming."
Paul Davies, (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)

“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron . The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
Stephen Hawking

“On Earth, a long sequence of improbable events transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row. Contrary to the prevailing belief, maybe we are special . It seems prudent to conclude that we are alone in a vast cosmic ocean, that in one important sense, we ourselves are special in that we go against the Copernican grain.”
Robert Naeye

"We can't understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural."
Allan R. Sandage

“The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.”
and
"If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of..."
and
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
Fred Hoyle

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

This is what scares me about introducing something like ID into the curriculum. Most students aren't equipped to evaluate it properly. Introducing it before they have learned how to apply the scientific method and critical thinking to an idea is basically teaching them something that we have no reason to believe is correct, knowing that they have no way to determine this for themselves either. Seems like a very bad idea to me.

I may have missed it, but where was it mentioned when this would occur? Or are you taking the position that it shouldn't ever be taught by schools, and should only be available to adults with access to special texts?

And fundamentally, should a too-young student fail to evaluate it properly, what's the harm? Can they never go back and re-evaluate it at a later date? Is none of the science they are likewise being taught going to change and/or be re-understood in their lifetimes?

This whole position seems quite spurious to me. Please elaborate.

And finally, isn't the purpose of an education to help craft humans who are able to function in the real world? And doesn't the real world have religious people in it? And wouldn't it be useful for such a child to have at least considered the possibility that a large-ish group of people believe something different?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

Quote mining and Hoyle. It gets better. Have you ever tried critiquing your own argument without fallacious, and in some cases outright dishonest appeals to authority?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

Science is not merely a collection of observations, any more than a song is merely a collection of musical notes. Science is a epistemological methodology for producing testable explanations.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

I may have missed it, but where was it mentioned when this would occur? Or are you taking the position that it shouldn't ever be taught by schools, and should only be available to adults with access to special texts?

I made this point in another post. The article doesn't say what grade level this would be introduced at. But, as I said there, unless the schools in Australia are quite a bit better than those in the USA (which I'm not ruling out), most high-school students aren't equipped to evaluated such assertions and separate fact from fallacy. Most students here probably couldn't even explain what a fallacy is.

And fundamentally, should a too-young student fail to evaluate it properly, what's the harm? Can they never go back and re-evaluate it at a later date? Is none of the science they are likewise being taught going to change and/or be re-understood in their lifetimes?

The function of schools is to educate the students. Teaching something like ID, which has no scientific or historical basis for its claims, is a waste of time at best, and a way to insert religious indoctrination into the schools at worst. The actual effect would depend very much on how it was taught, which the article was extremely vague about.

And finally, isn't the purpose of an education to help craft humans who are able to function in the real world? And doesn't the real world have religious people in it? And wouldn't it be useful for such a child to have at least considered the possibility that a large-ish group of people believe something different?

That a large-ish group of people believe it? If that's your criteria for teaching something, where do you draw the line? How many people have to believe it before you think it should be taught? Do you require any factual basis at all?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[natedubbya]

Great website addressing just your question at BioLogos. On a base level, they are Christians who believe exactly as you say about evolution. On a detailed level, well, there are lots of details. My understanding is a lot of "real" scientists eventually developed this resource. People like Francis Collins, the guy who decoded the human genome ... currently appointed by Obama to head the NIH, are involved.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

No, that's called 'scientific method' which can be applied to all sorts of non-scientific things.

Science is presently and more commonly used to refer to the litany of what we agree upon is currently correct. At least until college where you're actually allowed to question the texts and are encouraged to experiment for your education. But we're certainly talking about the former, dogmatic version, and not the latter, because we're having a debate about education.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

That a large-ish group of people believe it? If that's your criteria for teaching something, where do you draw the line? How many people have to believe it before you think it should be taught? Do you require any factual basis at all?

You draw the line when the bell rings and they have to go home.

Is there any factual basis for morality lessons during 'character week'? Or for Hamlet? Or for abstinence classes?

Schools, or good ones anyway, are a lot more than just dissertation of facts.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Alsee]

Ah yes, the old argument from infallibility.

The argument of human infallibility, attempting to masquerade as an argument from the infallibility of God.

Step 1. God is infallible.
Ok so far!
Step 2. A human mind has an infallible capability to even remotely comprehend how God actually did things.
Oops!
Step 3. Even assuming a human mind can comprehend, that comprehension can be infallibly rendered into any inherently imperfect human language.
Oops!
Step 4. Even assuming it is possible to infallibly utter it in human language, the initial scribes were infallible in writing it.
Oops!
Step 5. Even assuming it was originally written infallibly, those initial versions were infallibly copied.
You know what? I'll be generous and allow this one :)
Step 6. Those assumed infallible copies in the long-dead language Aramaic were infallibly translated by humans into the long-dead language Latin, and repeatedly infallibly retranslated by humans all the way to English.
Oops!

Just as side note I'm going to take a wild guess here and guess that blahplusplus believes the King James Version to be the one and only infallible translation into English. All the other English translation are obviously erroneous where they do not precisely match the King James Version.

But the biggest one is Step 7 where blahplusplus presumes HIMSELF to have a perfect and infallible comprehension of the bible, an authority on the meaning and interpretation of the bible, an infallible authority on which sections are literal and which are figurative or symbolic or allegorical. And best of all where blahplusplus proclaims himself infallible despite the fact that the MAJORITY of Christians reject his interpretation.

You know, the exact same thing many in the Church did when they imprisoned Galileo and presumed themselves infallible in declaring certain passages of the Bible to be literal and presuming they had an infallible understanding of them, and used the infallibility argument quoting passages of the Bible to declare "God's infallible Truth" that the Earth does not move.

The biggest difference between then and now is that back then they were actually arguing from a majority mainstream interpretation of the Bible. Today blahplusplus is arguing from a minority discredited interpretation of the Bible. But that doesn't really matter because blahplusplus has achieved a perfect complete and infallible understanding of God, and a perfect complete and infallible understanding of the Bible.

The infallibility argument:
blahplusplus is infallible, therefore Evolution Is False.

-

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Alsee]

Oops. I think I may have misread your post. If so please just enjoy my ripdown on the position I thought you had without taking it personally :D

-

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

Posting quote mines and questionable claims by people who aren't even biologists isn't science, it's dishonest rhetoric. I've posted elsewhere the famous 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Care to deal with actual theory, or do you just want to keep cribbing crapola from Creationist websites you've trolled.

For the record, scientists don't do out of context quoting and biologists don't give a crap what Fred Hoyle thought about evolution. They certainly don't think Hawking has a problem with it, because he's supported evolution many times over, but is, after all, a physicist, and any comments he makes are not as an expert in that field (any more than Richard Dawkins talking about black holes should be seen as definitive).

The overwhelming majority of scientists whose research deals in areas related to biological evolution accept that it is 1. a scientific theory, 2. that it best explains the life we see around us and 3. the twin-nested hierarchy of life.

Do you really want to get in a game of dueling experts? I mean, you're not so stupid as to think that for every legitimate and questionable quote you can come up with, dozens of citations and references can be provided in opposition, are you?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Falconhell]

Ah Queensland, it is Australias version of Texas.

Religious nuts and crass rednecks a specialty.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine-tuned universe? Seriously? That's just about the worst possible argument you could come up with! I mean, just look at it: average temperature is ~3 K (-270 C or -454 F). The average pressure of the universe is somewhere in the vicinity of 10^-20 Pa, compared to Earth atmospheric pressure of 10^6 Pa. That's the conditions of the...vast, vast, vast majority of the universe to put it mildly, so already we have proven that the bulk of the universe is entirely hostile to life. Let's ignore that (inconvenient for you) fact. Lets look at the stars, those minor, trivial impurities in the near absolute zero, near-perfect vacuum that makes up our home the universe. The first thing we know about stars, is that they're really, really hot. Far too hot for any sort of life form to ever exist in them or on them. They also make up the vast majority of all (non-dark) matter in space. So even ignoring that the universe is mostly a near absolute zero near perfect vacuum, the universe is still clearly hostile to life since most matter is a plasma under enough temperature and pressure to produce fusion. Ok, let's ignore that (inconvenient for you) fact too. Around at least some of these stars are planets. Possibly a great many planets. The vast majority of total planetary mass is in the form of gas giants. No life there. The remainder of the mass is in tiny balls of rock. Sometimes, on the biggest balls of rock, there's life. In our little corner of the incredibly hostile-to-life universe, in the incredibly hostile-to-life galaxy, in our incredibly hostile-to-life solar system, we've got life for sure on one planet. There is speculation of life, present or past, on another planet (Mars), and on one moon (Europa). As a percent of the planetary mass, this is less than 0.1%. Oh, but we're cheating and ignoring another (inconvenient for you) fact: Most of the mass and volume of a life-bearing planet is incredibly hostile to life! The planet (Earth) is a core of incredibly hostile-to-life molten iron, with ~5% nickel and ~5% sulfur impurities. Around that is a layer of crud--think the slag covering molten iron at the foundry--composed of ~60% silicon dioxide with ~20% aluminum oxide, and a whole bunch of other oxides. But it too, is mostly inhospitable to life, being too hot, with too much pressure, and with too little carbon, and other problems. Life is a thin, razor thin, layer of scum on top of the slag on top of the molten iron core, of a tiny percentage of rocky planets that are a tiny percentage of all planets that are a tiny percentage of total mass in the universe in orbit around stars which make up a teeny, tiny, itsy-bitsy insignificant portion of the total universal volume. That's it. Life also doesn't do that great of a job staying alive there either, with the stars inevitably burning their nuclear fuel, and depending on planetary position and the sun type alternatively burn or freeze everything to death. Plus life is always killing and eating the other life; death is constant, death is omnipresent.

If the universe is "finely tuned" it sure isn't finely tuned for life. It's finely tuned to prevent life and should it ever start, finely tuned to kill.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[bckrispi]

This is my feeling as well, I personally feel that God the creator created the universe. I have too hard a time with any 'spontaneous creation' scenario (the Big Bang seems to fly in the face of the second law of thermodynamics IMO) to give them credence.

If you have a problem with "spontaneous creation", you're probably arguing against the First Law of Thermodynamics, not the Second. This article from Talkorigins should clear things up for you...

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[vertinox]

My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory.

But um... Evolution really isn't a theory. It is proven as fact as most genetics experts can show you this happening with fruit flies.

That said, might be talking about the Abiogenesis theory coupled with macro-evolution from that. That is still pretty much a theory other than some guesses and non-conclusive experiments on trying to get life to form from nothing.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

That a large-ish group of people believe it? If that's your criteria for teaching something, where do you draw the line? How many people have to believe it before you think it should be taught? Do you require any factual basis at all?

You draw the line when the bell rings and they have to go home.

Is there any factual basis for morality lessons during 'character week'? Or for Hamlet? Or for abstinence classes?

Schools, or good ones anyway, are a lot more than just dissertation of facts.

That a large-ish group of people believe it? If that's your criteria for teaching something, where do you draw the line? How many people have to believe it before you think it should be taught? Do you require any factual basis at all?

You draw the line when the bell rings and they have to go home.

Is there any factual basis for morality lessons during 'character week'? Or for Hamlet? Or for abstinence classes?

Schools, or good ones anyway, are a lot more than just dissertation of facts.

Things that have value, sure (although having an entire class for abstinence seems a bit counter-productive (ok, pun intended)). Where's the value in teaching them about something that is of no use scientifically, is factually unfounded, and has no artistic or moral value either? I'm really not seeing any good reason for including this. What do you think the benefit is, other than a lot of other people believe some variation of it for some reason?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[orient]

[...] but it isn't a scam. Many people sincerely believe in ID (or a variation thereof).

You mean a scam is no longer a scam if enough people believe in it? This would certainly please the Nigerians.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Alsee]

There are two explanations. One is that Behe is just a bad researcher (and there seems to be little evidence that he's that incompetent), or that Behe is a liar, and the latter seems to be the better explanation.

You're overlooking a third option, one I consider vastly more probable.

The human mind is disturbingly capable of selectively filtering information and creatively interpreting things and redefining things and rationalizing things when one is sufficiently dedicated to a predetermined "known truth".

In short, self-deluded.

As best as I can tell Behe seems to be sincerely trying to do real science to prove his theory. He just seems to be particularly skilled at not-understanding things that he doesn't want to understand.

-

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

> they believe that God's hand is in the mix somehow...

LOL it is so simple: if one defines "god(s)" as creator of the universe, god's hand is the whole mix. Even if the universe were an unpredictable chaotic darwinist mess, a thing that is outside space and time could create it and have it end in exactly the way it chooses: the concept of "unpredictability" is based on the direction of time, while the act of creation is outside time.
From our limited perspective we could say that a hypothetical creation may occur during the entire interval of what we perceive as time.

Disproving darwinism doesn't prove god. Proving Darwinism doesn't disprove god.
All the attention given to ID is suspect. Powerful people, controlling the media and passing laws, are not stupid, so somebody has something to gain from pushing ID. My fave hypothesis are: they want to make us even more dumb, or they want to make us think religion is for fools. It is not an exclusive or.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoting the post above you:

"They believe in development within a species, so they accept that horse breeding programs can lead to faster horses, for example, but not that new species can emerge. For those fundamentalists the idea that the creator used evolution is acceptable for development within a species but not for the emergence of new species because (they believe) that doesn't happen."

I would say that the post above you doesn't quite make their level of understanding clear, and that isn't me spouting some passive aggressive attitude, he did a way better job than the vast majority of the people I have seen at explaining it, he probably just didn't want to go overboard in detail when it wasn't required--- so I will try to explain as best as I know how (being neither a convinced creationist nor a convinced evolutionist, myself, after much study) why creationists think what they think:

As perhaps an important and very overlooked sidenote: typically creationist thought would require one to really explain what he means in every case in which he uses the word evolution- this is just my opinion based on the various dialogues I have had in the past with people, and this is what I mean. Typically, both laymen and trained educated people in varying related fields use the word 'evolution' not simply to mean a change within a species, but rather, the entire overwhelming process of change which also encompasses one type of animal "changing" into a completely different animal (through reproducing, of course) either through some form of gradualism or punctuated equillibria. I have also heard devout evolutionists use the word evolution in a sense that also encompasses abiogenesis (In other words, I am saying that it isn't only creationists that do that...), it can readily be seen in any debate of 'Evolution' vs. 'Creation'-- what the word 'evolution' includes in that context implies and includes is far more than just micro or even macro evolution, it also encompasses the worldview that embraces organic, chemical, stellar, and cosmic evolution. In that context (Evolution vs Creation), 'evolution' implies 'Totally naturalistic processes are responsible for everything we know of and we do not require nor accept that it was the intention of any 'supernatural' intervention to cause it to be.' (Because in evolutionists logic, even the big bang is not a 'supernatural' event).

(Just think about how much chaos this is responsible for on a daily basis, when someone hears that another person denies "evolution" and walks away thinking that the person denies that anything changes.)

Quoting you:

How do those people explain mules?

Creationists would consider it like this. Initially a 'horse-like' creature or creatures came into existence (intentionally). The(se) initial horse-like creature(s) had a ton of genetic data (genotype). (Through breeding, mutations, and other things that happen over time, this initial genetic data is believed to have been lost, rather than gained). It is possible that not all of that genetic data was observably present (phenotype) in that one single 'horse-like' creature, but it was basically present in all of them. Over time, through reproducing, we have some very interesting combinations of that original genetic data that can be seen in varying horse like creatures, but, wither it is a black calm horse, or a white wild horse, or a horse with long hair, or short hair, or a donkey or a mule or a zebra, it is still the same basic kind of animal (which in their eyes does not conflict with the Bible since it only states that animals would bring forth, "after their kind" (Genesis 1:21,24)). So then the question becomes, 'What is a kind?'. Well, the basic answer is (with some exceptions) 'Can it bring forth?'- any child could tell you that a cat and a lynx are the same basic 'kind' of animal when compared to, say, a dog and a dingo. But not all dogs and dingos can bring forth, only some. What that suggests (to creationists) is that over time the genetic data has be

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

If something is too complex that is must have had a designer, I wonder, who or what created the designer?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

Quote mining and Hoyle. It gets better. Have you ever tried critiquing your own argument without fallacious, and in some cases outright dishonest appeals to authority?

So tell me, what is my argument? I don't think you understand. You certainly have not made any type of counter argument. Which part of my "argument" do you disagree with?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[careysub]

I understand that the term was originally used as an end run around a supreme court decision, as you say. However, it has taken on its own meaning since, a term for a notion that has existed for thousands of years quite separately from creationism. Claiming that it is still only a drop-in replacement for creationism is as silly as claiming that Volkswagen still exists to serve as the common man's car for fascist regimes. Though it was created for that purpose originally, it has since served different purposes.

Nice try.

A problem for your thesis (Now ID is really, really unrelated to promoting creationism! Honest!) is that many of the leading proponents of the ID program have in the past self-identified as being creationists and asserted that the ID program is based on the Christian religion, and the leading organization pushing it (the Center for Science and Culture) was founded in 1995 explicitly as a Christian-doctrine based organization.

The voluntary self-identification of ID with Fundamentalist Christian theology was filed off when it became clear that this was a serious handicap in getting it inserted into secular schooling.

When the very same people and organizations that not so long ago were out openly promoting this as a Christian-doctrine based program are still its leading lights, claiming it's all ancient history and that there has been a complete transformation of the movement just doesn't cut it.

I could recast your spurious "Nazi car" analogy to illustrate the true situation (i.e. what if the regime and principals were still in charge) , but this is treading a bit close to Godwin's Law to my taste.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

That almost sounds reasonable to some people, but it's based on a fundamental lie, which is that ID is a scientific theory at all.

Psst... what part of "in a history lesson" and "not in a science lesson" didn't you understand? You can shout and scream about how much you don't like religion and you're a pure mechanical materialist to the core, but all the lessons that aren't Science (shock, horror) aren't science. And it's pretty tough to argue that religion isn't relevant to history...

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

These seem to be using the anthropic principle, but that really doesn't make any sense. Yes, if the laws of physics were different, then life as we know it may not exist. So what? Maybe silicon-based life-forms would be debating this stuff. I don't see that as any sort of evidence for design. Seems practically tautological really.

Sort of. I stop at the point where the argument start talking about the odds for life forming. I believe that the fact that stars wouldn't form or the universe would collapse or expand too rapidly for matter to form if gravity were a touch stronger or weaker is enough to blow my mind. Multiply that by the narrow margin for the other weak and strong forces to be set in such a way that matter can even form, much less create all that we see around us, and you realize that we shouldn't be here at all. I read a quote that the odds are equivalent of winning the lottery a million times in a row. I figure that once you make it this far with billions galaxies, life, silicon based or otherwise, is a pretty much sure thing and there is not need to calculate further.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Obfuscant]

The theory of evolution does not, and I repeat this for enough emphasis cannot be added: it does not state that current life forms came about by chance. The best analogy I can come up with is the following: imagine that you'd create a sequence of "heads" and "tails" by repeatedly throwing a fair coin, but then manually removed all the tails. The resulting sequence is not random, it's deterministic, for christ's sake: it consists of only heads. Even though the underlying generating process was random.

Without that random chance, the heads you've manually selected would not exist. Your analogy is poor, because the chance of random molecules forming something that natural selection would select are much much much less than 1 in 2. Try 1 in millions. Further, the reason there are so many heads in your result is not due to a high probability of the random event, but that one random event created a result that was more probable. It's as if the first heads that appeared would result in a two-headed coin. The fact that the random event is maintained through natural selection does not remove the random part of the process. It still took that first random event of heads appearing for the head-colony to form.

As long as you don't understand that natural selection counteracts the randomness of mutation,

Natural selection counteracts nothing. Without that random event, natural selection has nothing to work with. That random event is a necessary step in the natural selection process; without it, evolution is impossible. To discount the random nature of the mutations is to discount evolution itself.

In fact, I'd say that claiming there is no random process in evolution is equivalent to saying there is an intelligent design -- a well-determined formal process that results in evolution.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is that its misplaced. There was no ancient controversy about Intelligent design. It was simply believed. The controversy took place in the 19th and 20th century. so if you want to study it as a controversy Ancient history is not the right context.

The problem arises however in that having it in the curriculum at all is doing what the Fundamentalists want. It is pretty much step one in their plan.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[pwnies]

As a theistic evolutionist myself, I can hopefully answer this for you. The problem doesn't lie in the compatibility of the two theories at all - each of them can easily co-exist. The problem is the clash of the culture that each carries. Many fundamentalists (and less extreme sects of Christianity [and possibly other religions, but I only have an authority to give an opinion here]) were brought up with a culture that ostracized evolution and the science behind it. They blindly accept that it's a theory that combats their theory of origins, without ever actually looking at the theory itself. I know from my personal experience, it was a good twelve years from the time I was introduced to the concept of evolution to the time I finally asked myself if it was compatible with Christian doctrine. Myself and those around me took it as a mathematician would take a axiom - without introspection because in the given paradigm it would "make sense". Granted, this was false logic in our case because of the propaganda of Christian culture. Note that I don't use the term propaganda here in a negative context - it has its place in the religion and would be worse off without it (but that's a discussion for another time).
TL;DR - the logic in each is compatible, but the cultures aren't.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry to break up your rant here, but it isn't a scam. Many people sincerely believe in ID (or a variation thereof).

Just because you believe in something doesn't mean it can't be a scam. Thousands of people believed in Bernie Madoff's ability to make money for them, does that mean it wasn't a scam?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[thogard]

Which story in Genenis? There are two different stories in the 1st two chapters.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps that's why the Aussies aren't talking about teaching it as science, but as history. History is absolutely about opinions.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[dcmoebius]

Ideas should NEVER be off the discussion table when it comes to science. Nor should any theory or even law be above challenge.

No one is say that evolution shouldn't be held up to the full rigor of scientific scrutiny. But there's a huge difference between criticizing hypothesized evolutionary mechanisms and criticizing the underlying theory.

In the scientific community, the fundamental principles of evolution have held up for a LONG time. This is what should be taught to school children. The extreme emphasis by certain groups on the "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory are meant to sow doubt in an otherwise uneducated audience (which kids are).

Should kids know that the specific details of evolution haven't been 100% sorted out yet? Yes. Should we go out of our way to spend time discussing these open questions? Sure. In an advanced setting. Not grade school. Not high school.

Frankly, we don't have a perfect understanding of how gravity works either. Yet somehow, I can't hear anyone screaming that our children must be educated on the "weaknesses" of that particular subject. I wonder why?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[williamhb]

Even aside from religious beliefs, it is very difficult for many people to believe that the world and people as they are came about because of chance. Just look at the number of references in popular culture to fate and "the meaning of life". Going back even as far as the Greeks, it was a major theme of their literature and plays. The notion that natural selection determines that outcome of the universe is, to many people, a profoundly unsettling explanation.

For most religions, as I understand it, the issue is actually much more fundamental than that. (Trying to describe this here is going to be a little like trying to describe the socialist rationale to George W Bush, but here goes:)

For a moment, set aside the pure materialist assumption that everything is mechanical and repeatable (historically that was viewed as a sweeping and unproven claim to make) and consider the world from a perspective more akin to mathematics or philosophy.

Here is a mathematical description of the empty set: {}. That empty set does not contain time for there to be an opportunity for anything to appear within it, even by chance. Pure materialists talk about the outcome of the universe as "why is the universe the way it is" (that is what science [actually, my job] can address) whereas more fundamental/basic philosophies, actually including religions, are more concerned with "why is there any universe at all" and "what makes this universe qualitatively different than any other mathematical set I could write on paper". (That we can only ask the question because we exist isn't a sufficient answer, because it is the meaning of "exist" that is questioned.) This is true, for instance, in old testament philosophy, in which God's word is true not merely because God is trustworthy but because God's word defines the universe. (God creates the rules.) To use a trite but famous example, it is not "And God said 'Let there be light' and then an army of angels went and created bits of light" but "And God said 'Let there be light' and there was light". In old testament philosophy, it is a definition not an order. In short the most fundamental claim is that it is God's declaration of this universe that gives it the special quality of actually existing in a way that the set of all fictional universes I could dream up does not. That is a very long way out of the scope of things I can address in my job as a scientist. ID, for its proponents, comes later as a speculation about progressive definition of creatures in a declared universe. If you've already deduced/decided that God exists then it seems like a fairly simple thing to speculate; if you've already deduced/decided that God does not exist then it seems "obviously" ridiculous and unlikely. And thus, as we've seen its proponents and opponents go at each other hammer and tongs each thinking the other is a bit daft. And personally I reckon that's because they are arguing about step 2 in their reasoning when their basic disagreement is about step 1.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is denying that there are some things that science just can't currently explain, and possibly never will be able to. Some of these things, like the nature of the afterlife, are clearly within the realm of the divine.

There is a simple scientific explanation for the afterlife, or anything else divine for that matter:

It does not exist.

How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it?

Evolution means that the existence of God, the Creator is no longer a prerequisite for our existence. Which means that the existence of God can be denied without circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

Hell, if I was God, evolution and natural selection actually seems like a pretty damn good way to design an ecosystem! It's resilient and adaptive and I don't have to micromanage it.

I confess that I think your whole comment is pure awesomeness...

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[melikamp]

Some of these things, like the nature of the afterlife, are clearly within the realm of the groundless speculation.

Here, fixed. One does not need to be a theologian to make up stuff, one just has to make up stuff and make it stick to other people's minds. A fiction writer (Hubbard), a poet (Muhammad), or a stand-up comedian (Jesus) will almost certainly do a much better job.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

That almost sounds reasonable to some people, but it's based on a fundamental lie, which is that ID is a scientific theory at all.

Psst... what part of "in a history lesson" and "not in a science lesson" didn't you understand? You can shout and scream about how much you don't like religion and you're a pure mechanical materialist to the core, but all the lessons that aren't Science (shock, horror) aren't science. And it's pretty tough to argue that religion isn't relevant to history...

But, IDers say it's not religion! ID has no historical merit either. It's simply a little scam they cooked up some 20 years ago to try to sneak creationism into schools. Why should it be included in a history class?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

I think this reply was meant for me.

My point was not to have a quote pissing contest. I'm also aware that many of the quotes I posted dealt with biology. My point was twofold.

First was to show that it is not beyond the realm of scientific minds to consider that maybe there is a creator of the universe (lower case 'C' in creator). It doesn't make you less of a scientist to have an open mind to theology. Many minds greater than both of ours combined have whole heartedly believed that everything was created by a God (uppercase 'G')

My second point, and I wasn't clear on it, is to show that great scientists have placed theology into creation on their own. Should these quotes be banned from the science classroom?

Do you honestly believe that textbooks and discussions should be censored to remove any mention of creation having the possibility of a creator because it may have the possibility of leading someone to religion?

For the record, scientists don't do out of context quoting and biologists don't give a crap what Fred Hoyle thought about evolution.

You are correct. I got a bit off topic, or should I say, I expanded the topic to include cosmology. I personally have little interest in biology and have no problem with evolution. My passion is the universe itself and rules that govern it. IMHO, ID doesn't just include biology, the universe as a whole. There is just as much evidence for a creator as there is for multiverses, for example, yet no one has a problem with the theory of multiverses being taught in the classroom.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[yndrd1984]

Unless the theory of evolution is 100% correct, inconclusive and conclusive, we SHOULD be teaching the criticisms of it.
I can't think of anyone who'd disagree.

the relative importance of genetic drift via mutation, theories of abiogenesis, punctuated equilibrium etc. > Exactly. Should these points be banned from classroom discussion or curriculum?
No. Just keep in mind that you can't understand the real controversies until after you understand the theory. So don't be surprised if this type of thing doesn't happen until high school.

And the problem with guys like you is that you are willing to stifle discussion based on your fear that someone may say "God" in a classroom, causing otherwise critically thinking students join a cult.

Sometimes people may overreact, but keep in mind that there's a large-scale, well-funded religious movement that has the stated goal of redefining science to accommodate their non-scientific beliefs. This isn't really about evolution vs creation, or even whether or not God can play a part in scientific explanations, but rather whether or not science will be about the rational study of the universe, or a branch of one particular type of Christian theology.

Answers in Genesis is rather frank about this in their Statement of Faith [4-6]: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." There simply isn't any way to accommodate that without completely obliterating the basic philosophical foundations of science.

It has gotten to the point where even new discoveries that fall counter to Darwin's conclusion are being challenged because someone, somewhere might bring a Bible to class and say, "see, told ya so."
Citation, please.

Saying that Darwinian evolution can not fully explain the Cambrian explosion should not be a forbidden subject.
It isn't forbidden, it's just completely wrong. Sorry.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[digitalderbs]

Both--J and E.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Jesus has some very immoral teachings such as preaching eternal torture as a punishment, and the idea that it's pious to take no thought for tomorrow. There are other reasons why Jesus is an immoral teacher.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

I agree completely, with a couple of exceptions:

Should kids know that the specific details of evolution haven't been 100% sorted out yet? Yes. Should we go out of our way to spend time discussing these open questions? Sure. In an advanced setting. Not grade school. Not high school

Unfortunately, high school is the highest education the majority receive.

Frankly, we don't have a perfect understanding of how gravity works either. Yet somehow, I can't hear anyone screaming that our children must be educated on the "weaknesses" of that particular subject. I wonder why?

Right, but I don't hear anyone complaining when teachers say that we don't have a complete understanding of it either. Unfortunately, if a teacher were to say that there are things we don't understand about evolution, everyone gets in a tizzy and accuses the teacher of proselytizing impressionable young minds.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[melikamp]

I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion.

It is difficult to get a straight answer out of anyone, because a church won't tell you, and people outside of a church simply don't care.

But it's pretty clear (to me, at least) what is going on. First of all, the threat is perceived by particular churches first and by religious people later, and only because their church teaches them so. The perception of the threat is most acute in the most powerful organizations, such as major sects in the Abrahamic tradition. This is because they derive their authority to determine ethics mainly from the authority of their Scriptures, and this creates a huge problem: the Scriptures are total trash, as far as ethical standards go, and have been for hundreds of years. For example, using OT or NT as a basis for your moral teaching is almost as retarded as using them for predicting solar eclipses. The books were written 2000 ago in a society we now barely understand, in dialects that were dead for nearly as long now, addressed to specific communities spread all over the ancient world, penned by people of greatly varying skill and learning [*] (who were writing in different places and at different times), and then copied over and over and over again by hand, all the time introducing modifications and meaning-changing errors. This makes for an absolutely tremendous historical source, and some of the books, when translated well, are jewels of mythological fiction, but man, does it SUCK as a manual for life in the modern society.

Evolution is a poster child of the scientific approach and the critical thinking. Evolutionary theory allows us to understand our place on this Earth in a way that is just as awesome and mind-boggling as any creation myth, and also useful for making accurate predictions. Set next to the Darwin's Origin, the Bible is exposed, just by virtue of the stark contrast, as a loose collection of somewhat related fictional stories and records of the ancient law. Seeing it that way, who in the right mind would trust it to teach them anything but history?

And without their precious text to tell them what is good and what is bad, who are they going to cite? The pope? No, the big players, the one who make the most money and have the most power, stand and fall together with their texts. If the Bible judged irrelevant, it will be instantly replaced by a more recent and almost certainly more sensible tradition. But then anyone can teach it, and their authority will be an appeal to the common sense and the facts of life. And so the power hierarchy will crumble. This is how Jesus was able to create a wave: by denouncing [**] a religious law that became increasingly incompatible with basic facts of life in Jewish and Hellenic societies.

[*] I don't want to hear any "true because inspired by God" crap. Says who? Oh, the text itself? ...

[**] No, he did not come "to fulfill" it. He just said that. Trust me. If a guy is breaking the law left and right, just to spite the observers, then he didn't actually come "to fulfill" it. It's a joke, laugh.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[jonwil]

Teaching the viewpoint that evolution is wrong (which is what a lot of these fundamentalist Christian nut-jobs seem to want to do) is like teaching that the earth is flat.

In both cases there are volumes of scientific evidences supporting the theories (evolution and round earth)

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then I say you're wrong and we're... equal? In other words, cite your sources. You can't just say the catholics disagree.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[dcmoebius]

Unfortunately, high school is the highest education the majority receive.

Sorry, but that doesn't mean that high school is the appropriate venue for that sort of discussion. In a high school science course, the aim of the curriculum is to provide a foundational education. Unfortunately, this does not include advanced evolutionary theory.

Right, but I don't hear anyone complaining when teachers say that we don't have a complete understanding of it either. Unfortunately, if a teacher were to say that there are things we don't understand about evolution, everyone gets in a tizzy and accuses the teacher of proselytizing impressionable young minds.

If this was all that teachers were required to say, then I'm perfectly comfortable with this. I am not comfortable, however, with the undue focus on evolution theory as flawed. It inaccurately characterizes evolution as a theory that is fundamentally contested, when in reality it is supported by a wealth of evidence from a variety of fields.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[holloway]

I see it as all fitting together, really quite neatly, something that the suposed randomness of evolution doesnt really explain

Evolution isn't (just) random, it's also natural selection. It's a myth that Evolution is random. This means that when there's a niche (Eg, a food that no one else is eating) then a creature whose DNA/RNA mutates and is able to use that niche will thrive and have more children than one that doesn't. Evolution is perfectly compatible with everything fitting together.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ajlisows]

I have no problem mentioning it as an introduction to evolution....but in a science class I think it has to end there. Science deals with things that can be proven or disproven. Matters of faith do not fall into that arena. Creationism is not something that can not be tested, peer reviewed, and verified. Maybe it "Feels right" to you and many others, but if we let everything that everyone thought "Felt right" to seep into our science classes we would be in a LOT of trouble.

After all, there are people out there who still think the world is flat! There are the "Vaccines cause autism" and other anti-vax crowds. Should those ideas also be taught in science class simply because some people happen to believe those ideas are correct? Where do you draw the line?

Teaching things that are not science in a science class is pretty dangerous due to the fact that the average person's understanding of the scientific method is pretty dubious. I don't know how to fix that, but I am pretty certain that adding things that aren't science to the science cirriculum isn't going to help the situation.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Cassius Corodes]

But its hard to argue ID is - given that its less than a decade old, only really disbanded a few years ago, and never really went anywhere. So its difficult to justify teaching it in history class when there are so many other important events and movements that actually did have an important impact on the world.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[dlanod]

Wow there's a lot of knee-jerk reactions, especially those saying it shouldn't be taught as science as well as those from Australians saying "of course it's in Queensland".

However if you've actually read the article you'd know creationism is going to be "offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies"." The History Teachers' Association say the curriculum asked students to develop their historical skills in an "investigation of a controversial issue" such as "human origins (eg, Darwin's theory of evolution and its critics").

So in other words, it's not going to be taught as science. It's going to be covered as a controversy, under history (which is the closest thing to general social studies these days). IMO this would be the correct way to cover this kind of discussion and the kneejerk reactions based off the title and the summary are just that.

Of course I'm posting this too late and at too low a mod-level for anyone to actually see this explanation unfortunately.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[blahplusplus]

You really need to grow up. Think about this for a minute.

You're omniscient, you cannot fail any task you do, even the fallible human being _you_ created. But the bible claims _god cannot lie_. Therefore those charged with "Spreading the truth" made a whole bunch of mistakes (i.e. errors) therefore those writers were not inspired of god.

Most religious people have terribly low standards for their gods, i.e. their god is fallible.

Religious people always like to say "it's ok the inspired people were fallible!" that's just a liberal religious nutter cop-out.

Truth is simple, i.e. the earth exists. Truth is simple, ireffutable and boring. It's a mundane everyday kind of thing.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ekhben]

The beliefs of about a third of the world's population is hardly science.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Pfhorrest]

I imagine he is referring to the whole everything-from-nothing bit being a little counter to the first law of thermodynamics saying that energy cannot be created.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Dracophile]

However, it seems to me ancient history is a perfectly fine place to present the fact that people have believed in ID historically. While ID in its current form is a fairly modern interpretation, the notion of an intelligent designer has been around for quite a while, and has had a profound influence on our world (for better or for worse).

Yeah, but they want to teach it as a "controversy" in "Ancient History", which is clearly bullshit.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Archades54]

Lets for instance think of god as super duper smart, powerful, knowing everything. Location of ever single atom in the cosmos, how they interact, etc. Lets think that he can line every one up in order, and his/her/it's brain is so good that they can visualize what will happen for billions of years thus knowing the future.

Now he's lined it all up and presses play, the big bang happens, life goes throught it's paces and eventually his pride n joy humans have evolved perfectly to what he created. Thus Creation via Evolution, all sides are happy.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[qortra]

A problem for your thesis (Now ID is really, really unrelated to promoting creationism! Honest!) is that many of the leading proponents of the ID program have in the past self-identified as being creationists and asserted that the ID program is based on the Christian religion, and the leading organization pushing it (the Center for Science and Culture) was founded in 1995 explicitly as a Christian-doctrine based organization.

A problem for your refutation of my thesis is that it's the longest run-on sentence ever. Also, just because the doctrine is serving the interests of creationists currently doesn't mean that that the idea isn't thousands of years old as I say it is. All you have to do to see that I'm right is to read. Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and William Paley all wrote about intelligent design long before the term was coined. Consider this an opportunity to be educated.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

These seem to be using the anthropic principle, but that really doesn't make any sense. Yes, if the laws of physics were different, then life as we know it may not exist. So what? Maybe silicon-based life-forms would be debating this stuff. I don't see that as any sort of evidence for design. Seems practically tautological really.

Sort of. I stop at the point where the argument start talking about the odds for life forming. I believe that the fact that stars wouldn't form or the universe would collapse or expand too rapidly for matter to form if gravity were a touch stronger or weaker is enough to blow my mind. Multiply that by the narrow margin for the other weak and strong forces to be set in such a way that matter can even form, much less create all that we see around us, and you realize that we shouldn't be here at all. I read a quote that the odds are equivalent of winning the lottery a million times in a row. I figure that once you make it this far with billions galaxies, life, silicon based or otherwise, is a pretty much sure thing and there is not need to calculate further.

Ok, and if the laws were different, maybe we wouldn't be here. What does that prove? Nothing except that this is what the universe is like, so the life that formed in it is the type of life that could survive in it. At least in a infinitesimally small part of it anyway. Life as we know it wouldn't have evolved anywhere else but a place like this. You're putting the cart before the horse and trying to say that the universe was designed so that life would form on one little rock around one nondescript star. There may be life elsewhere as well, but, like us, it formed in a way that is compatible with its environment. If the environment were different, then it wouldn't have formed that way.

Who's to say this is the only universe either? Maybe there are a million others that have no life at all? Maybe others formed and collapsed only to form again until it was sustainable. Ultimately it is all just conjecture and not based on any substantial evidence. If there are extra-universal laws governing whatever exists outside of or before the universe, then we don't know what they are, and possibly couldn't comprehend them anyway. Call that God if you want, but it certainly has nothing to do with the religions invented by humans.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[dkleinsc]

It's a smoke show, just Creationism stripped of any direct references to God, designed to fool idiotic Fundy-populated school boards, but in its only test in a Federal court, it got laughed out the door.

No, it wasn't designed to fool Fundy-populated school boards. It was designed to give Fundy federal judges the cover to say "no, this isn't establishing religion" with a nod and a wink, while knowing full well that what they're actually doing is establishing religion.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[the_womble]

I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion.

It is not a threat to religions per se. The vast majority of Christians have no problem with evolution. The largest Christian church has never opposed the theory, has commented on it as proven, and regards ID as "not science".

The people who have a problem with evolution are biblical literalists - i.e. nutters. The US seems to produce a lot of them.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Mr. Underbridge]

Neither common theists or atheists have any real comprehension of advanced scientific or theological concepts, yet both are constantly referring to them in an attempt to "prove" their claims

"Prove" is an interesting word choice there. "Prove" seems a very science-oriented word, evokes the whole scientific method and all that. I think bad things happen when religion tries to compete with science on the basis of proof, because it's simply not evidentiary. This is where intelligent design goes wrong, for instance. On the other hand, trying to hold faith up to standards of evidence is pretty stoopid too.

My opinion is that proof is the domain of science, and faith the domain of religion. Whichever camp strays outside those boundaries in an argument is the idjit. In the case of ID folks trying to interject faith into science class, that's their bad. It would be like a scientist disrupting a church service to try to tell them they're all wrong. Everybody stay in your lane, we'll all get along fine.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[the_womble]

However, it seems to me ancient history is a perfectly fine place to present the fact that people have believed in ID historically. While ID in its current form is a fairly modern interpretation, the notion of an intelligent designer has been around for quite a while, and has had a profound influence on our world (for better or for worse).

They are teaching it in a history class.

The problem with intelligent design, as it is defined in this context is that it confuses several ideas:

1) The universe has a designer
2) The universe bears evidence of a designer
3) The above two somehow disprove evolution

I believe 1). I think 2) is sort of true (but not in the way the ID people mean), and 3) simply does not follow. Evolution is the instrument of an intelligent designer.

People may sincerely believe it, but there is, at the least, a lot of dishonesty in how it is presented.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

I hate it to see a comment that's only moderation is "overrated". Seriously, if you disagree, post a reply. Mod points are not intended as a weapon or for you to show your opinion.

As for your comment, it was insightful even though I disagree with the HS part. Consider this a virtual mod up. It's all I got for ya.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[kandela]

Phlogiston fit the evidence at the time. It was disproved by experimental evidence. Thanks for playing.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing that's as ridiculous as thinking that a scientific theory is basically just a guess is thinking that the so-called "Theory of Evolution" has adequately reached the classification of a theory.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[the_womble]

That is interesting, especially as it offers an explanation of why creationism is still so widespread in the US - the US seems far more inclined to social Darwinism than anywhere else.

One thing that makes me doubt it is that it is a cause taken up by the right. If it is a reaction to "uber-capitalism", then surely to would have appealed to to the left and be opposed by the right?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

You're putting the cart before the horse and trying to say that the universe was designed so that life would form on one little rock around one nondescript star.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that this little rock around this nondescript star shouldn't exist at all. The odds are so small that either would exist, the elements that form would have ever been created, or even that the universe would not have already run its course and ceased to exist that scientists are having to break out theories that are unbelievable in the worst sci-fi in order to try to explain it. Fact is that there is absolutely no evidence to support some of these theories like multiverses, yet no one has any problem with them being discussed in a classroom setting. No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.

You are wasting your time trying to finish my argument. If the universe can be created even remotely close to as we see it, there is no reason that life shouldn't be in it. The hard part was getting here. Adding the odds of life existing in a universe with stars and planets is like adding the odds that Tuesday would be called "Tuesday" and not "Bartlesday". There are literally an infinite number of methods used to describe the third day of the week, that means that the odds of it being called Tuesday are 1/infinity. However, any other method of describing that day face the exact same odds.

No, my argument is that the elements that make up the universe shouldn't exist because the odds of the processes being exactly how they are to create them is beyond astronomically small. And unlike Tuesday, which has to be called something, the universe does not have to exist. Yet, there it is, against exra-astronomical odds.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Chris Gunn]

When I went to school, we were taught some of the earlier theories of evolution. Such as the work of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. So, yes, the only alternate theories to the modern theory were mentioned. I don't know what you are talking about RE:

My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory.

I don't recall being invited to discuss or criticise any basic maths, science or art class topic. Certainly we were discouraged to chat in class, and encouraged to work. There were a few team projects.

I've always thought it strange when a religious person wants to debate against science. It seems pretty clear the various theories have no bearing on their fideism. For example, some are adamant the world is 6000 yrs old and will rant about it endlessly. Should you actually convince them this is wrong (or they study geology and they work it out for themselves) they remain religious. So why argue if it is irrelevant to them?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[the_womble]

you get kids who are Half-Christian Half-Buddhist

Which suggests a certain confusion as there are contradictions between the beliefs of the two religions (try reconciling redemption through Jesus, reincarnation, and karma).

I think the exercise you suggest is brilliant, but it is unlikely to be done widely because it is too challenging. Once you encourage people to apply critical thinking to religion you are going to get a lot of them changing their minds about their beliefs, which upsets things too much. In the case of kids, parents will not like it, but it is not liked in wider society either - why do you think politicians like to treat religion as a matter of affiliation rather than belief?

I am not picking on religious parents either. How would most atheist parents react if their kids announced that they were becoming a Christian or a Muslim?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

My post addresses all that, but you neglected to reply to anything but the first paragraph. You still haven't provided any substantial evidence to back up the claim that the odds of it existing this way are astronomical, or that there aren't an astronomical number of universes, only one of which contains us, or that the universe has formed and collapsed or dissipated an astronomical number of times before achieving a stable state. Like I said, it's all just conjecture.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[sjames]

It is a scam. It is simply Christian creationism stripped of references to God so it isn't as obviously inappropriate to teach in school.

If you really believe that the identity of the intelligence that did the designing is at all open to question to the believers, go tell a group of ID supporters how happy you are not to be the only person who believes the Pliedians came here in their flying saucers and deliberately cultivated life on Earth. Just see how warmly you are received.

The equivalent on the other side of the argument would be "random design", the idea that life CAN evolve based on random change where fitness guides the process. In other words the theory of evolution but being less specific as to where you believe this process might have occurred. Not because you have no theory as to where, but simply to make it less obviously unacceptable to teach in Sunday school.

On the other hand, the idea that God created all life has ACTUALLY been around for a very long time and has actually had a profound influence on our world.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ormondotvos]

"Sovereign nation" is as dumb a concept as intelligent design. Sovereignty is when you get to beat up your wife and kids and the neighbors agree not to intervene.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your main criticism with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to ban criticism of it? Part of the fundamentalist Christian strategy is to sow the belief that there are major criticisms of the modern synthesis. No one credible is criticizing evolution. I can't think of anyone who does without an obvious religious bias.

What are your other problems with the teaching of evolution if your perceived attempt to ban criticism of it is your "main" problem?

If evolution had serious criticism leveled at it this would not inevitably lead to discussion of religion because even if evolution had serious problems ID still needs to make its own case.

The whole strategy of calling it ID rather than creationism is a rather cynical attempt to slip it in there. Fundamentalists are mistakenly thinking that if they can just under mine evolution enough everyone will think ID must be right. However ID as an attempt to be a scientific alternative to evolution is absolutely woeful. Its nonsense, not science. If it had scientific merit there might be a case for teaching it but there is no merit to it.
ID is not science and is not even a compelling critique of evolution.

I agree that all religions should be taught in school. Dan Dennet thinks we should teach the history of religions at school because there is nothing more likely to destroy belief in religion than knowledge of just how common and copied the special events and beliefs each religion has inevitably plagiarized from earlier religions.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[fractoid]

Other religions have similar damage control, why do the Christians only get theirs mentioned in state schools?

Because culturally we come from a predominantly Christian background. And as it goes, Christianity is pretty good at keeping out of peoples' faces and staying separate from government. Especially compared with, say, Islam, with its direct mandate to impose Sharia law on as much of the world as it can get its hands on.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be considered a weak shoe horning of God into a situation already adequately explained.
Theoretically compatible but logically weaker than there being no God at all.
They call that sort of thing "Tricky God Hypothesis."
Basically the universe only looks like it is explained by natural forces but a supernatural being set everything up to look that way. Cos he's tricky and has a weird sense of humor I guess.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[kasimbaba]

Even without bacteria, germs, and viruses, human population is still growing at an exponential rate. Imagine if there aren't any diseases and all humans live until 150 years old. The earth would not be big enough for all of us. It's all about balance.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[hkmwbz]

I'm sorry to break up your rant here, but it isn't a scam.

I beg to differ. While a lot of people certainly believe that life was created by God, the concept of "Intelligent Design" is that Creationism was too obviously religious, so they rebranded it and tried to make it sound all scientific.

So ID is indeed a scam. It's a movement created specifically to sneak religion into science class. To replace science with religion. Read the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Nazlfrag]

Well, the real problem is that TFA talks about discussing it in a historical context, not a scientific one. Creation myths should be discussed in an ancient history class, and I have no problem with that as such.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[hkmwbz]

Abiogenesis has got nothing to do with Evolution. And "macroevolution" is as "proven" as any other scientific theory. In fact, scientific theories are not and never will be facts. Facts are the observations that are used to support (or invalidate) scientific theories.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Chris Gunn]

I really wish they had gone into detail on what exactly a 'faith science basis' is.

Well, logically I suppose it means you start off with faith in science? No need to question the Scientific Method!

I can only assume that when they teach the Ancient History of ID, they amuse the students by scrutinising it with the rigours of Science.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[hkmwbz]

Many people believe in man made global warming... many people believe in Obama... many people believe in government to solve everything.... but that does not make it true? right?

Correct. What makes things like Evolution and Global Warming correct is that they are scientific theories backed by massive amounts of data (facts).

The point is that ID has as much rights to be there as evolution theory - any serious biologist will tell you that there so many holes in the Darwin theory and so many assumptions - that it's really very hard to call it a science at all.

They will tell you no such thing. Evolution has withstood 150 years of intense scrutiny, and has become one of the strongest and most solid scientific theories there is. Quoting a liar like Meyer does not change that.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ShakaUVM]

>>It's not even a disproved theory. At its core, ID is simply "somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution". Other than a rather vague claim that some structures are too complex to have evolved naturally, ID makes virtually no positive claims at all, and I don't even that vague claim can possibly be considered positive.

It is a theory. Or it can be, depending on how you formulate it. For example:
"Evolution is true, but something interfered with the natural process" is a positive claim that can be tested.

In fact, we'll need tests like that in the future if we're to tell if the West Nile 2100 virus was man-made or natural. We could easily apply such tests to any DNA historical archives we can put together.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ShakaUVM]

>>It is often considered a threat to Christianity because without a literal Adam and Eve there was no "fall" and therefor we didn't inherit a "sinful nature"

Nope, sorry. St. Augustine and Origen both considered Genesis to be allegorical, and they wrote long before the Darwin debate came up.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[wavedeform]

They should also teach about Tarvu. I mean... it's so easy to join.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[sumdumass]

So you are saying that something that has cooked up so much controversy and cause so much uproar over the last 20 some years isn't history? How long do we have to wait until Bill Clinton getting a blowjob in office or Obama being the first Black president of the US gets to be called history?

I think the impact on society or the conflict that is caused along with how it has shaped society makes it history worthy regardless of how long ago it is/was.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Um...news flash!!!

From a purely scientific perspective, evolution takes faith to believe in too . . . so complain about "Faith Science" all you want there really is no difference between the two "religions" other than the interpretation of the data.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry to break up your rant here, but it isn't a scam. Many people sincerely believe in ID (or a variation thereof)

That does NOT make it any less of a scam. If anything, it simply indicates it is a successful scam.

However, it seems to me ancient history is a perfectly fine place to present the fact that people have believed in ID historically. While ID in its current form is a fairly modern interpretation, the notion of an intelligent designer has been around for quite a while, and has had a profound influence on our world (for better or for worse).

That's not true at all. ID is a modern theory which was only developed within the very recent past. Hell, it's not even properly defined yet. Historically speaking, the only people who promoted any idea of an "Intelligent Designer" promoted it under a specific religious belief structure. This belongs in a Modern Theology class, or possibly even a class on Government or Sociology, but it is most certainly NOT Ancient History.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

What's Identity got to do with it?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[KeensMustard]

It is often considered a threat to Christianity because without a literal Adam and Eve there was no "fall" and therefor we didn't inherit a "sinful nature" from them making the need for God to sacrifice himself, as a child of himself, to himself, to save us from himself, unnecessary.

I'd say that evolution doesn't exclude the possibility of a physical Adam and Eve, and also that a physical Adam and Eve isn't strictly necessary to support the doctrine of a 'fall', although some actual physical event - the orignal sin, would have had to occur, otherwise the relevant New Testament passages that refer to it become problematic.

I find that most Christians (people in general, really) are startlingly ignorant of the content of the bible and the actual mechanisms and theory of evolution.

Which is, in itself, not that suprising given that most Christians do not have the text in their own language, or are not afforded a sufficient education to be able to read, or are prevented from meeting together and discussing such matters by hostile authorities, or a combination of those factors.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory.

That's pure pigshit.

The point of science classes in high school is to teach the scientific method. Criticism of a theory is fine for a starting point, but you can't just say "I don't like X about your theory, so therefore I want my own pet theory taught along side it". The proper method is to take the criticism and develop a test which will prove your criticism to be accurate or not. Often this involves formulating an alternate theory as well. But the criticism is completely meaningless without any evidence to back it up, or any way to test the bits you are claiming is wrong. And at this point, ID is not even a theory, it's still just a philosophical debate, and as such has no business being in any kind of a science course at a high school level.

* There is nothing wrong or Unconstitutional about discussing or even teaching religious doctrine in a classroom. I learned about the Greek religions in History class years ago and never had the urge to bow to Zeus.

They don't teach religious doctrine in History class, they teach you about the culture and a little bit about the religion. And that's Ancient History anyhow. The idea of ID as it is being put forth is a modern invention, and should go under Social Studies or Modern Theology, not Science or History.

And to the parent who said

I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God?

Because Genesis says that Man was put over all other beings, and is different and special. If man evolved from apes then obviously this is not true, and not only are we not unique and special, but were the sons of monkeys and that idea is just about the absolute worst horror a Christian can imagine.
The best part- evolution never said we came from monkeys or even apes.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[sumdumass]

attribute to the divine that which has already been explained by science.

I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion

I think you hit the nail without knowing it here. Before science explained anything, religions did. And science, just like religion, doesn't always get it right. Having an explanation for something doesn't mean it happened that way either, even if it is possible that is could of.

This wouldn't be a problem if science was presented as science and religion is presented as religion- even when they overlap and come into conflict. But sadly that isn't the case and you have people saying one is right over the other. The reason it gets pushed into schools is because children are compelled by law to attend and end up having some half trained science teacher who holds a degree that doesn't even specialize in science, state that evolution or the big bang or abiogenesis is right and creation is wrong. Of course science doesn't say that creation is wrong, it only says that the evidence shows us something different. You sort of even tread on the same steps with the insinuation that because science has an explanation, religions shouldn't.

if I was God, evolution and natural selection actually seems like a pretty damn good way to design an ecosystem! It's resilient and adaptive and I don't have to micromanage it. It's only a problem if you believe in an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible.

Well here is the question that IDer's tend to raise. Suppose you were God and wanted the earth to look like it does and adapt the way it does. Would you start by creating a single part of life and letting it find it's way together and hopefully diverse itself into the marvels of nature we know and love today? Or would you set the ball rolling, get the complicated things out of the way, and let the evolution and natural selection maintain the system? Or better yet, lets take this from a more scientific approach, suppose you wanted to do an experiment with bacteria and how it interacts with genetically modified foods. Do you just throw an ear of GM corn in a petri dish and hope for the best, or do you prepare samples, introduce the bacteria in controlled environment and use devices to maintain that control?

The answer to these is really unimportant because either approach will not rule out the possibility of the other approach achieving similar results. But one way will be more likely to succeed in desired results over the other. The big difference is in how much manipulation you put into it to achieve the complex system you are after (whether acting as a god or scientists). IDer want to think that chance is too random to achieve what we have today. They can look around and ask why did it stop if it was all by chance. The answer to why it stopped are just as magical as god did it with a something is different now but we don't know what or whatever. And the explanations or examples to why it hasn't stopped is more of a twist on defined terms or semantics then real visualizations of it. At least to anyone capable of critically thinking. So the bottom line with IDer seems to be someone or something had to help us to where we are today which is basically the same thing as god did it.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Eivind]

But "by chance" isn't true. It's chance coupled with selection. And repeated very many times.

If you toss a die, sure it's chance to get "5", you could've gotten anything.

If, on the other hand, you do it a million times, and add up the results, it's essentially guaranteed that you'll end up with a sum of 3.5 million (plus or minus a small margin).

Yes, in principle you -could- do that and get 1 million, or 6 million. The odds for either are ridicolous though.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually if you would take time to look into it, you would find the extraordinary efforts those in control go to in order to remove any scientist that presents a solid basis for creationism or intelligent design.

I call bullshit, pure & utter. Show me ONE single scientist who hast presented a solid basis for creationsim or intelligent design. (there isn't one)

Our higher education system is being destroyed by keeping dissenting viewpoints out when science has the intent of examining everything.

That's another pile of pigshit. First of all, we're not talking about Higher Education (i.e. Collegiate studies) we're talking about Secondary Education (i.e. High School). Second, if you have a "dissenting viewpoint" that's great- put together a hypothesis, come up with an experiment which can be used to test your hypothesis, and if you can find enough convincing evidence then it just might make it into the curriculum eventually. But this really isn't the type of thing to be doing in high school courses. We're supposed to be teaching kids about the scientific method, not just drilling a bunch of so-called facts into their skulls. And start off with stuff that's less controversial and more relevant, such as an experiment in acceleration to demonstrate the 'falling formula' and Newtonian physics.

ID belongs, at a high school level, in the Debate, Theology, or Social Studies classes, not History (of any kind) or Science. If you're that worried, there's nothing stopping you from teaching ID to your kids at home- but be prepared for them to ask you hard, critical questions such as "OK Dad, how can we form an experiment to test the existence of ID" and if you can't... then it's not science it's pure belief... aka "faith" aka "opinion". And that's not science, OR history.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[imakemusic]

My kingdom for a mod point!

Everyone seems to be getting angry over nothing.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[imakemusic]

or a stand-up comedian (Jesus)

I thought he was more of a stage magician.

"Here we have a fish an a loaf of bread. Nothing up my sleeves.... BAM! Who's hungry?"

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Blenster]

I didn't say they were "right" to consider it such; I've been told this personally on several occasions *by* Christians as the reason *why* they reject evolution and will not accept it. I live near the AIG Creation "Museum" and have had the opportunity to interact with many of these people. They are startlingly ignorant of their own theology, much less history.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Blenster]

I'd say that evolution doesn't exclude the possibility of a physical Adam and Eve, and also that a physical Adam and Eve isn't strictly necessary to support the doctrine of a 'fall', although some actual physical event - the orignal sin, would have had to occur, otherwise the relevant New Testament passages that refer to it become problematic.

I'm glad you feel that way. Not everyone agrees with you.

I find that most Christians (people in general, really) are startlingly ignorant of the content of the bible and the actual mechanisms and theory of evolution.

Which is, in itself, not that suprising given that most Christians do not have the text in their own language, or are not afforded a sufficient education to be able to read, or are prevented from meeting together and discussing such matters by hostile authorities, or a combination of those factors.

Given that I am discussing American Creationists and given the large number of translations into English this statement is nonsensical. They choose not to bother with it. There are more fun ways to spend their time. The number of Christians I've met who cannot read a bible due to lack of education is very, very low. It's simply not an excuse the vast majority of them can call upon when admitting their ignorance of the book.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BlackCreek]

Many minds greater than both of ours combined have whole heartedly believed that everything was created by a God (uppercase 'G')

I believe you are falling in this "false authority" fallacy.

I mean, how can this be pertinent? If Fermi didn't brush his teeth, would that by itself be a valid argument for not brushing teeth?

There is just as much evidence for a creator as there is for multiverses, for example, yet no one has a problem with the theory of multiverses being taught in the classroom.

Do you _really_ believe this comparison to be valid?

The reason (most) people don't have problem with some forms of "abstract non-sense" being taught in universities is that:
1. it normally comes without a political agenda of its own.
2. students at that level are well trained to understand abstract non sense as such, and are well trained to understand how the scientific method works.

Now, you are trying to make that somehow equivalent to teaching some specific form of abstract non-sense:

1. at lower education classes (where students are not trained in the scientific method yet, and barely know how to refute false claims);
2. with the specific political agenda of _denying_ well established science.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[TapeCutter]

To most Ausies, ID == Creationisim. The creationist brand died in the 60's here in Oz and the ID brand never really took off. It seems to me the only place left where creationists are not an endagered species is the southern US.

OTOH I'm a fan of the idea that the history of a concept is best taught at the same time as the concept. Australia is not Texas, we don't have a problem with rabid creationists. I'd have no problem with an Aussie school teaching why evolution is accepted over Adam and Eve in a science class, it would make a good case study.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

I think I did. Please allow me to quote myself:

The odds are so small that either would exist, the elements that form would have ever been created, or even that the universe would not have already run its course and ceased to exist that scientists are having to break out theories that are unbelievable in the worst sci-fi in order to try to explain it. Fact is that there is absolutely no evidence to support some of these theories like multiverses, yet no one has any problem with them being discussed in a classroom setting. No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[metacell]

You make it sound like these strategies are typical of pseudoscience... appeals to emotion, the use of strawmen, false dichotomies, and so on, are frequently used to argue correct and/or scientific viewpoints. The argument tactics have nothing to do with the theory itself.

Using well-known pseudoscience as examples may even detract from the point the teacher is trying to make. The student will know from the start what conclusion he/she is expected to arrive at, and doesn't have to look very hard at the actual arguments to determine their validity.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Unipuma]

My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory. Yes, I understand that such criticism could lead to the discussion of religion in the classroom*, but if you are going to ban discussion based on the possibility of that discussion moving to a discussion about religion, then all discussion should banned and anything can have a religion underpinning.

The problem with a classroom is that it was not meant as a forum for theoretical discussion, but as a way to imbue knowledge into our children. Schools prepare our children by pumping them full of knowledge. The first class of math that children follow in school tells them how to add numbers, how to substract. It does not challenge them to discuss why 1 is not equal to 0, or what the relative value is of imaginary numbers. During the age till 18 (and sometimes thereafter), schools just basically pump facts and common understood theories into our children.
Only at a relatively late age do they actually ask students to challenge worldviews and things taken for granted.

If you want discussion in the classroom, you should allow it everywhere. If you teach about the bible, also teach about the koran, creation stories of native americans, and the origin stories of Africa.
When you talk about geology, teach them about flat earth and hollow earth.
If you talk about physics, teach them about perpetuum mobile.

However, if you do that, you will find that untill a certain age, children will not be critical, and instead accept most of what is being told to them by an elder as blind fact. The same way that children are not allowed to drive because of mental instead of physical limitations (there is an age limit, not a length limit), so should we teach children facts during their formative years, AND always encourage them to challenge ideas.

However, I do not see why biology would have to be the exception to the rule, where to teach facts, and where to challenge children with different ideas.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[KeensMustard]

I'm glad you feel that way. Not everyone agrees with you.

True, but then I wasn't aiming to have concordance.

Given that I am discussing American Creationists and given the large number of translations into English this statement is nonsensical.

Nonsensical?

Don't you think your use of the phrase 'most Christians' would suggest that you were, in fact, referring to most Christians?

The number of Christians I've met who cannot read a bible due to lack of education is very, very low.

That suggests that your sample "Christians you've met" is not representative of the whole. There are a huge number of Christians who have been prevented by poverty, war, or lack of infrastructure from receiving and education - especially in South East Asia, India, Africa. And then there are the other issues.

It's simply not an excuse the vast majority of them can call upon when admitting their ignorance of the book.

The vast majority?

What do you imagine is the makeup of the Christian population?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[TheDeRanger]

I think it's more than that, though. Intelligent Design is a study in dishonesty, liberally slatherd with a coating of "lying for Jesus is OK". If it has to come up, it needs to be shown for the con job it is, not given a pass as a minor indiscretion. Putting Intelligent Design in schools is simply a chance to wedge in an opportunity to try yet again to undermine logical and scientific thought and training and replace it with magical, Christian theology. Pretending otherwise is disingenious. It allows a free pass to liars.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[TheDeRanger]

Sorry. Just because the most proximate person "selling" a product believes in it, doesn't mean the process isn't a scam. It just means it's being propagated at the lower(est?) level by the gullible.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Blenster]

What do you imagine is the makeup of the Christian population?

People ignorant of science, logic, reason, and philosophy who've either been browbeaten or brainwashed into believing some incarnation of mythology based on bronze-age nomadic Jewish traditions that have evolved over time to incorporate aspects of Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, various Greek and pagan influences, and other cultural artifacts.

That being said the bible is available in over 4,000 languages (http://worldbibles.org/index). I am more familiar with the international spread of Christianity than perhaps you imagine. Various Christian ministry groups heavily emphasize translating and distributing their version of divine "truth" in the native languages of the places where they are proselytizing. Even internationally there are translated bibles, both written and electronic spoken versions, available but rarely used for serious theological study. Indeed I wish it were not true; the more people read that book the fewer people will claim to follow it.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[KeensMustard]

People ignorant of science, logic, reason, and philosophy who've either been browbeaten or brainwashed into believing some incarnation of mythology based on bronze-age nomadic Jewish traditions that have evolved over time to incorporate aspects of Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, various Greek and pagan influences, and other cultural artifacts.

Wonderful. Religiously inspired diatribes. But then, you knew what I meant and chose not to answer the question, that speaks volumes.

I am more familiar with the international spread of Christianity than perhaps you imagine.

Surprising then, that you used the phrase 'most Christians' when what you meant is 4 blokes from Podunk, Nebraska.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

I think I did. Please allow me to quote myself:

The odds are so small that either would exist, the elements that form would have ever been created, or even that the universe would not have already run its course and ceased to exist that scientists are having to break out theories that are unbelievable in the worst sci-fi in order to try to explain it. Fact is that there is absolutely no evidence to support some of these theories like multiverses, yet no one has any problem with them being discussed in a classroom setting. No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.

That's kind of the point, there's really no evidence for any of it! It's all speculation. We don't know what forces were acting on the pre-universe, so we can't know what the odds of it forming this way really are. And really, ancient texts are evidence of the supernatural now? Eyewitness accounts? Could there possibly be anything less reliable than what some superstitious ancient people think they might have seen? We've learned not to trust eyewitness testimony even today, yet we should accept crap that was written down decades after the supposed events by people who weren't there, and stories that are cribbed from other sources and earlier myths, and that aren't even consistent then? Sorry, but that doesn't pass for evidence anywhere, anytime.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Blenster]

That's rich coming from a person that's consistently ignored the context of my remarks.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[melikamp]

Yup. A funny man with crowd-pleasing magic tricks. It was a popular occupation at the time: Acts mention the others going around and casting out demons, and Jesus himself is heard asking "And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?" He is competing directly what Pharisees' sons :)

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[DrXym]

It's a threat because it is an example of cognitive dissonance at its finest. Some people cannot accept that the bible could be wrong about anything so therefore they rationalize away any evidence to the contrary.

Evolution is a threat because it cannot co-exist in someone's mind with firmly held beliefs about creation. So believers pretend evolution doesn't matter ("it's only a theory"), they nitpick minutiae to avoid looking at the overwhelming evidence, they quotemine from their critics, they build up an arsenal of strawmen arguments that are used in rotation, and generally do everything to pretend that no evidence for evolution exists at all.

Funnily enough exactly the same tactics are used by holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers. It seems some people can become so entrenched in a particular viewpoint that they can ignore any amount of evidence that proves beyond a doubt that they are wrong.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

So you are saying that something that has cooked up so much controversy and cause so much uproar over the last 20 some years isn't history? How long do we have to wait until Bill Clinton getting a blowjob in office or Obama being the first Black president of the US gets to be called history?

I think the impact on society or the conflict that is caused along with how it has shaped society makes it history worthy regardless of how long ago it is/was.

Religious things cause uproar all the time throughout history. It's just how they roll. What should we teach about ID? Some creationists edited their texts to try to make them look non-religious so that they could get the government to teach their religion to children and got caught doing it? They kept lying about it, despite writings that detail the scam they were trying to pull? Well, ok, I guess, but I still don't see it being historically important. It's just yet another attempt by religious people to indoctrinate others, which we've seen countless times throughout history.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

Where's the value in teaching them about something that is of no use scientifically, is factually unfounded, and has no artistic or moral value either? I'm really not seeing any good reason for including this. What do you think the benefit is, other than a lot of other people believe some variation of it for some reason?

It has cultural value. Imagine someone completely unaware of the belief were to stumble upon this slashdot thread. Would they have any idea what we were discussing? Also it helps to understand a person's belief system when you know things like where they believe they originated.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Nefarious Wheel]

(sigh) It seems some people just never outgrow baby talk. They prefer their fears, their cowering in the dark to opening up a book in a library. It's really tremendously sad.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Blenster]

Sad but true!

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.

I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero. In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes. Yet, I hear people all the time dismiss Creation (Capital 'C') as there is no evidence, but have no issues with multiverses being discussed as science when it has even less evidence.

Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible. Teachers have no business trying to convert their students either to or away form religion. I'm just saying that the idea is not so far out that those who choose to believe it, or even consider, are not stupid or not crazy. Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[KeensMustard]

That is, your remarks on an international website, about the curriculum in Queensland.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

Where's the value in teaching them about something that is of no use scientifically, is factually unfounded, and has no artistic or moral value either? I'm really not seeing any good reason for including this. What do you think the benefit is, other than a lot of other people believe some variation of it for some reason?

It has cultural value. Imagine someone completely unaware of the belief were to stumble upon this slashdot thread. Would they have any idea what we were discussing? Also it helps to understand a person's belief system when you know things like where they believe they originated.

We talk about a thousand things a day here that the average person hasn't heard of. But lucky us, we're on the internet, so you can find out damn near anything you want in ten minutes of searching. That doesn't make everything worthy of being included in school curriculum. What exactly would we teach them about ID anyway? Teach them how they came up with the wedge strategy and then lied about it when they were called on trying to get religious teaching into the schools? At least Johnson admits that that's what they're trying to do now. This was nothing more than a scam, and I don't see how it has anymore value in a classroom than any other scam. There's already a lot of history to cover and a lot of more important things that don't get included in the curriculum. This is a waste of time.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

This was nothing more than a scam, and I don't see how it has anymore value in a classroom than any other scam.

You're against it, I get it. But you're coming from an emotional place, rather than a logical one. You're equating Plato to Ponzi and expecting it to make sense.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

The term "faith-science" is not a good term at all to describe ID. What that implies is that faith is used to cover the logical/factual/observational gap from a persons perspective to a theory. This "faith" is used to believe in a theory that has little to back it up, which usually occurs when the scientist is more interesting in supporting a theory, rather than forming a theory that fits the facts.

Scientists believing in evolution are forced to employ more of this faith than an ID scientist has to, because of a lack of facts/evidence required to prove Evolution as having actually required. There are SOOO many things wrong with the Evolutionary theory that scientists believing in the theory have to skim over the rough spots by adding "faith." Whereas the ID theory much better explains the facts and doesn't need as much.

As for ID not being a science, here is something that I take a lot of interest in. The problem is that in a science classroom, tons of philosophical concepts are at use that cannot be measured, or tested and are not a part of the natural world. When students are told not to cheat on their projects, and to do their own work, is this a natural thing that can be measured and tested and observed, or is it something else? It is not in fact "science" but rather something else. It is imperative that it belong in the classroom though, as most rational people would agree.

On a slightly different note, Evolution is a theory, not a science. It is an possible explanation of data meant to explain the why of what we see. Such a theory innately is not something that can be measured. We cannot see or touch or taste or even observe Evolution. Instead we consider it, consider what the implications of Evolution being true would mean, and then explore those scientific paths.

ID presents us with the exact same opportunity. It is a theory meant to explain the why of what we see. In a science classroom it would do the exact same job as Evolution, provide a viable explanation to the facts given us, and direct us to further research.

Also, ID is not simply "somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution," more like evolution is "crap, we can't let creation be true because then I'm responsible for my actions. Lets create a theory and prevent anyone from opposing it in the scientific community."

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.

That's because it's not science.

I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero.

It's not evidence, it's hearsay. If anyone said they saw some guy jump off a bridge and fly away, nobody would believe them without additional solid evidence. But because the claimed events happened a couple thousand years ago, they get a pass? That's just insane. It's not even like these supposed eye-witnesses are the ones that wrote down the accounts. That didn't happen until decades later and they were written by people who weren't even there. So it's not even an eyewitness account, it's a retelling, however many times removed, of an alleged eyewitness account. The old Chinese whisper. The different versions of the story aren't even consistent. I can't really imagine anything less credible.

In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes. Yet, I hear people all the time dismiss Creation (Capital 'C') as there is no evidence, but have no issues with multiverses being discussed as science when it has even less evidence.

What scientists are claiming the existence of multiverses? It's discussed in a hypothetical way in conjunction with other purely hypothetical things like the fine-tuned universe. It's not considered science because there's really no falsifiable claims made, and even if there were, we probably couldn't test them.

Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible. Teachers have no business trying to convert their students either to or away form religion. I'm just saying that the idea is not so far out that those who choose to believe it, or even consider, are not stupid or not crazy. Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."

The idea of a creator is nothing more than pure speculation. There's nothing to teach there. When you start trying to use ancient hearsay about supernatural occurrences as evidence, you've gone off the deep end. We wouldn't accept evidence a lot stronger than that even today, so why would any sane person accept those texts as evidence of the supernatural? It makes no sense.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

This was nothing more than a scam, and I don't see how it has anymore value in a classroom than any other scam.

You're against it, I get it. But you're coming from an emotional place, rather than a logical one. You're equating Plato to Ponzi and expecting it to make sense.

If they weren't trying to pull a fast one, why did they deny the Wedge document was theirs? Why lie if you're not trying to deceive? The document lays out their strategy. Johnson has since admitted it. How am I distorting that? I'm against it because it's simply the introduction of religious teaching into public school, which is plainly unconstitutional and they know it. That's the entire reason they had to disguise creationism as ID. They admit this too!

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

You're distorting it by pinning it to Johnson. Others believe it as well, without even being aware of the plot.

And I actually disagree that discussing religion is unconstitutional. The First requires a freedom to worship as one sees fit, rather than a world where everyone is required to be an atheist. "In God We Trust" is on the damn coinage, for crying out loud. If you genuinely believe the intent of the Constitution was to make us all mute in terms of religious matters... well you can't possibly believe that, now can you?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Monkeedude1212]

Which suggests a certain confusion as there are contradictions between the beliefs of the two religions (try reconciling redemption through Jesus, reincarnation, and karma).

Which was actually interesting in that the kids whose parents were members of different religions had different out-takes on both religions than someone who may have been raised strictly on one their entire life.

I remember the whole "Afterlife" discussion coming up with our Christian-Buddhist classmate. His opinion was this: Christ asks you to be Christ like. Buddhism asks you to follow a similar lifestyle. So rather than put all his eggs in one basket, he seperates the conflicting parts from his activities. Basically, if you live a good life, what should it matter what you believe? If Christ was going to condemn you based on just your faith, and not your actions, than that is not the kind of Christ he wants to worship. Likewise, whether or not he should be striving to achieve enlightenment, there are lessons to be learned through Christianity that might help him get there.

Some might disagree and say that faith should be the basis of religion, but I suppose we all choose our own paths right?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Jason Levine]

Unless the theory of evolution is 100% correct, inconclusive and conclusive, we SHOULD be teaching the criticisms of it. You can't ban teachings because of a group you don't like supports those teachings. That's how theories get better.

So because some scientists disagree on the precise details of evolution, we should teach ID in science class? This isn't banning a perfectly legitimate scientific theory. This is not teaching a non-science theory in science class. Should we also teach the Hindu creation story or some Native American ones or some Aboriginal Australia creation stories? After all, there are groups that support those teachings so, by your reasoning, we obviously should be teaching those as well.

Theories don't get better by playing up tiny differences of opinion as huge theory-shaking controversies. Theories get better by testing them against available data, finding new data, figuring out where the theories don't match and adjusting them accordingly. In the case of evolution, the tiny differences of opinion are likely too complex/obscure to address in a high school classroom. The general theory of evolution, though, could be taught in a way that 99.999% of biologists would agree with. ID, on the other hand, can not be falsified by any evidence. Anything you find would just be answered with "God - I mean, The Designer - did that!" (Heck, even a booming voice from the heavens saying "I didn't do this, it was evolution" would likely be interpreted by some as a test of their faith, not as proof for evolution.)

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Ltap]

Trust me, you don't want to. If you really insist on it, just read FSTDT, don't try to deal with them in person or they might infect you with Fundy-ism.

It's true that most Christians are ignorant of the Bible and are only token religious. This is (generally) a good thing, because it's the first step for it to be phased out naturally - relegated to the role of a traditional social custom, then gradually be followed less and less. For every reasoning person who rejects religion, there are ten who can't bear to deviate so much from the way they were raised as a child, and who will want the semblance of being religious, if nothing else.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

You're distorting it by pinning it to Johnson. Others believe it as well, without even being aware of the plot.

Johnson was primarily responsible for the wedge strategy though, so he's the most relevant one to this discussion.

And I actually disagree that discussing religion is unconstitutional. The First requires a freedom to worship as one sees fit, rather than a world where everyone is required to be an atheist.

Wow, non sequitur much? Who's requiring anyone to be an atheist?

"In God We Trust" is on the damn coinage, for crying out loud.

Which I also disagree with. Just another fine thing to come from the McCarthy era.

If you genuinely believe the intent of the Constitution was to make us all mute in terms of religious matters... well you can't possibly believe that, now can you?

No, I don't believe that. I believe that you and I can say whatever we like about religion. What I don't believe is that you get to have government employees teach your religion to school children. I really don't see why that's a problem for you.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

No, I don't believe that. I believe that you and I can say whatever we like about religion. What I don't believe is that you get to have government employees teach your religion to school children. I really don't see why that's a problem for you.

But your religion, or any other religion is kosher, I take it. That would be my problem. I'd prefer that any culturally relevant religion be teachable even in a public school. Again the Constitution is about freedom from oppression which is an inclusive, rather than exclusive, position. This point is subtle, I guess, but not at all a "does not follow" if you can try and overlook the nits and get to the meaning behind it.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[sexconker]

You're an idiot.
This is science.

You cannot reject a claim without testing it.
This is science.

I don't care what the claim is or who it comes from.
This is science.

If someone makes the same claim repeatedly, you can reject it once.
This is science.

This is science.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

First was to show that it is not beyond the realm of scientific minds to consider that maybe there is a creator of the universe (lower case 'C' in creator). It doesn't make you less of a scientist to have an open mind to theology. Many minds greater than both of ours combined have whole heartedly believed that everything was created by a God (uppercase 'G')

There are scientists who believe in big-G God. But here's something to ponder. You won't find mention of God in their published articles and works. You're confusing scientists' private religious views with their scientific work.

...the universe as a whole. There is just as much evidence for a creator as there is for multiverses, for example, yet no one has a problem with the theory of multiverses being taught in the classroom.

Teaching multiverses is done in public school science classes? I think you're full of crap.

At any rate, to the cosmological community, ideas like branes, multiverses, strings and so forth are interesting mathematical models that may or may not have anything to do with reality. You're substantially overstating the notion that multiverses, for instance, are considered science. It simply isn't so. And I cannot envision any normal science class in public school actually even talking about them. The last time I looked at a high school curriculum on science, the Big Bang only gets cursory coverage, and multiverses and branes get no mention at all.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[JustABlitheringIdiot]

I learned about the Greek religions in History class years ago and never had the urge to bow to Zeus.

The main difference there is that you learned about a basically defunct religion that is no longer practiced in the mainstream. This is a huge differentiation since the peer pressure is drastically different. Imagine if little Suzy Q next to you says "why don't you come over to my house and we can sacrifice some virgins to appease Zeus"? Add to that most of your friends going to the temple to worship him too. I think it would be a very different situation.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MightyMartian]

Abiogenesis is a gap in knowledge to be sure, but macro-evolution (speciation level and above) has in fact been observed. While the question as to how life started is still open, the fact that life evolved, and that we all evolved from a common ancestor (though horizontal gene transfer makes the common ancestor more of a bush than a single organism in the distant past) is as much fact as anything in science can be.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

But your religion, or any other religion is kosher, I take it. That would be my problem.

I don't have a religion, and the state shouldn't be discussing any religions with students. That's a personal issue that the government should not be involved in. Don't even start on the "atheism is a religion" crap either. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in theism. It's not an affirmative claim that there is no God of any kind, as that would be a ridiculous claim as well. Sure, there are some nutters that make that claim, but they can't support it with anything.

I'd prefer that any culturally relevant religion be teachable even in a public school. Again the Constitution is about freedom from oppression which is an inclusive, rather than exclusive, position. This point is subtle, I guess, but not at all a "does not follow" if you can try and overlook the nits and get to the meaning behind it.

I'm sure you would prefer that, but that would be the government giving preferential treatment to "culturally relevant" religions. Of course the religion that actually gets taught will be determined by whoever gets a majority on the school board, as we've seen in Texas lately, so it won't just be "culturally relevant" religions anyway. The only way to prevent one religion from getting preferential treatment over others is to not allow the government to get involved. Religion is a personal issue and keeping the government out of it is why we are still able to practice whatever religion we like today, as opposed to most other countries that are less free than we are to do that.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[RadioElectric]

Your very premise is faulty. The word "viewpoint" is just another word for opinion. Science isn't about opinions. It is about evidence, experiments, and a rigorous commitment to setting presumptions aside.

"Viewpoint" could also be another word for interpretation. The "evidence" we get in science (i.e. data) only has any meaning if it is interpreted somehow. Some sort of evidence to back up these competing interpretations (and hopefully allow us to state some confidence in one of them) is what we're looking to get out of science.

I haven't read the parent, but your post stuck out to me as being misleading (maybe because you're understanding is incomplete, but more likely due to a hasty response).

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

If I cannot even discuss "atheism is a religion", then we're deeper in dogma than we realize.

And my preference isn't towards the promotion of any religion over any other. In point of fact I absolutely detest the abhorrence dealt out by the church-powers. However I do realize that these organizations exist and that interacting with their followers will be an important part of my life. I would expect my children to understand that the Buddha at the Chinese restaurant is not simply a "brown Shrek", for example. It would seem that any basic introduction to that culture would cover its religions as well as its traditions.

Perhaps if we had more tolerance like this taught in schools it would be a friendlier world. Instead you're leaving it up to the already-indoctrinated to include and/or omit whatever they individually please. Which is acceptable, but definitely not better.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

If I cannot even discuss "atheism is a religion", then we're deeper in dogma than we realize.

You can discuss it if you like, but I must insist that you define religion before we go there. Otherwise it's pointless.

And my preference isn't towards the promotion of any religion over any other. In point of fact I absolutely detest the abhorrence dealt out by the church-powers. However I do realize that these organizations exist and that interacting with their followers will be an important part of my life. I would expect my children to understand that the Buddha at the Chinese restaurant is not simply a "brown Shrek", for example. It would seem that any basic introduction to that culture would cover its religions as well as its traditions.

So teach your kids that. You're completely free to do so. It's just not the government's place to explain religion to kids, especially since even adherents of the religions often can't agree on a lot of things. Why? Because it all amounts to what you, personally, believe. Involving the state in that is just asking for trouble.

Perhaps if we had more tolerance like this taught in schools it would be a friendlier world. Instead you're leaving it up to the already-indoctrinated to include and/or omit whatever they individually please. Which is acceptable, but definitely not better.

Who do you think would be writing the curriculum if we go that route? The already indoctrinated, of course! Whatever religious group gets a majority on the board ends up calling the shots. Why do you think we're having such a tough time keeping religion out of the science classes here in Texas?

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

When you start trying to use ancient hearsay about supernatural occurrences as evidence, you've gone off the deep end. We wouldn't accept evidence a lot stronger than that even today, so why would any sane person accept those texts as evidence of the supernatural? It makes no sense.

OK, I'm going to try this again. If you don't understand, please report to your local elementary school to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Here we go, are you ready. One more time for the slow kid:

I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero. In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes.

Remember, that "ancient hearsay", no matter how close to zero you think it is, is still greater than zero. Again, I did not say the evidence was strong, but it is evidence, no matter low of a value you place on it, it is still more than nothing. If you think ancient evidence is completely worhtless, please review this slashdot story from earlier today.
Understand now? If not, please ask someone who has passed the second grade with anything above a 'D' average.
Oh, and brush up on your basic math while you are at it. I'm pretty sure that it was in preschool that I learned that something > nothing.

The idea of a creator is nothing more than pure speculation.

And this is different than the "theory" of multiverses, how?

There's nothing to teach there.

Again, go back and ask someone what I meant when I said:

Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible... Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."

Really, it's not that hard to understand.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[sac13]

It is often considered a threat to Christianity because without a literal Adam and Eve there was no "fall" and therefor we didn't inherit a "sinful nature" from them making the need for God to sacrifice himself, as a child of himself, to himself, to save us from himself, unnecessary. You are correct, though, that it is often literalists who take the most offense to the notion of evolution. I find that most Christians (people in general, really) are startlingly ignorant of the content of the bible and the actual mechanisms and theory of evolution.

Being someone from the deep south, I can definitely understand the threat. And, you're exactly right, it's a huge threat to the literalists that insist on treating the Bible like it's some legal document (Biblical law not withstanding). It's not so much the Adam and Eve thing that I have heard. It's usually those saying that the Bible says it was 7 days, so it was 7 days.

I usually try to show them that evolution is perfectly compatible with creation if you don't insist on the literal interpretation. First off, what is a "day" to God (I usually don't bother bringing relativity or God's mass into it, though that usually is quite entertaining). Second, Genesis 1 says that life was created first in the oceans. Then, the next day, God created the land animals and FINALLY man. The timelines and "details" match perfectly if the single week interpretation isn't insisted upon.

Of course, many still insist on being literalists. Then, I ask them to explain to me why Ecclesiastes chapter 9 doesn't say there's no heaven or hell if "the words mean what the words mean." They start losing their preference for literal interpretation at that point.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

I would expect the curriculum to be written by a group of individual experts, one for each topical area. I wouldn't expect Christians to write chapters on Buddhism any more than I expect Biologists to explain Psychology.

And I pay my taxes so my children will be educated. Standing in line at the restaurant isn't the time nor place to educate on religions of the world. There's an entire system for this type of information delivery, and if we could just get past the last vestiges of pro-religion AND anti-religion bigotry then we'd live in a better world.

Tell me you're not understanding what I'm saying.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[sac13]

Many people sincerely believe that someone in Nigeria wants to give them a million bucks, too. Many people sincerely believe that wearing magnets will cure everything from foot pain to cancer. Many people sincerely believe that the politicians they vote for will live up to campaign promises. Etc. Belief has nothing to do with whether or not something is a scam.

I think you have just disproven evolution... now we just need some explanation for this unintelligent design...

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[imnotanumber]

If you're in a science class, you ought to be teaching science.

If you absolutely insist on teaching only science in science classes, then we'd need to get rid of science classes and replace the topic with something more useful. Science without any context whatsoever has devolved to mere data, and is basically useless.

No, Science isn't about data, it's about algorithms. The data is only to check the most correct ones.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Blenster]

Good point, you are correct, but (as I'm guessing you're aware) evolution doesn't speak to creation, that's a different theory. I know that it's usually confused, though (I've been in the South myself a few times and currently live in Kentucky), so I generally start by explaining that evolution doesn't say anything about the creation of the universe, Earth, or even the first replicator. Those are covered in alternate theories... I do find the confusion you mention is prevalent.

It's actually harder than that to compare Genesis to our scientific understanding of the universe given that light is created before the sun, and so are plants. There are two creation stories in Genesis and they contradict each other on a number of points. Still if the person you're talking to isn't going to get into the details that strategy can be useful for educating them enough to not want to "fight" against reality.

I like to use Song of Solomon on bible literalists; Chapter 4 uses the phrase "my sister my spouse" on several verses. Interestingly this phrase is also useful in dating the poem as it refers to a late Sumerian tradition. Their Gods marred brother to sister though this was forbidden among humans and as a result of their Gods practice (later adopted by the Pharaohs as they became "living gods") it became romantic to call your spouse "my sister" or "my brother" as the case may be.

You should check out the Sumerian creation myths, though I'll warn you it isn't exactly safe for work... :-D

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[sac13]

Good point, you are correct, but (as I'm guessing you're aware) evolution doesn't speak to creation, that's a different theory. I know that it's usually confused, though (I've been in the South myself a few times and currently live in Kentucky), so I generally start by explaining that evolution doesn't say anything about the creation of the universe, Earth, or even the first replicator. Those are covered in alternate theories... I do find the confusion you mention is prevalent.

It's actually harder than that to compare Genesis to our scientific understanding of the universe given that light is created before the sun, and so are plants. There are two creation stories in Genesis and they contradict each other on a number of points. Still if the person you're talking to isn't going to get into the details that strategy can be useful for educating them enough to not want to "fight" against reality.

You're absolutely right, for the most part. Evolution is only how things changed after it started. Creation touches on it a little, but is much more about the cause. It's a philosophical perspective. I like to say that evolution is the how, creation is the why. Of course, that usually pisses people off on both sides... lol

I like to use Song of Solomon on bible literalists; Chapter 4 uses the phrase "my sister my spouse" on several verses. Interestingly this phrase is also useful in dating the poem as it refers to a late Sumerian tradition. Their Gods marred brother to sister though this was forbidden among humans and as a result of their Gods practice (later adopted by the Pharaohs as they became "living gods") it became romantic to call your spouse "my sister" or "my brother" as the case may be.

You should check out the Sumerian creation myths, though I'll warn you it isn't exactly safe for work... :-D

Solomon, supposedly, was also the author of Ecclesiastes. I've always found it interesting that he is considered the wisest of all Biblical authors, but his works are some the best to refute much of the dogma. It's funny to watch the fundies try to pick apart their smart man... lol

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

When you start trying to use ancient hearsay about supernatural occurrences as evidence, you've gone off the deep end. We wouldn't accept evidence a lot stronger than that even today, so why would any sane person accept those texts as evidence of the supernatural? It makes no sense.

OK, I'm going to try this again. If you don't understand, please report to your local elementary school to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Here we go, are you ready. One more time for the slow kid:

I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero. In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes.

Remember, that "ancient hearsay", no matter how close to zero you think it is, is still greater than zero. Again, I did not say the evidence was strong, but it is evidence, no matter low of a value you place on it, it is still more than nothing.

Ok, fine, let's assume it's greater than zero. If that's your standard for accepting something as truthful enough to be taught or even believed, then you've set the bar so unimaginably low that we should believe in aliens, fairies, the loch ness monster, sasquatch, vampires, ghosts, etc. Because there are a hell of a lot more people who claim to have seen these things than any of the miracles in the Bible. My point is that your definition of evidence is utterly useless for any reason whatsoever.

If you think ancient evidence is completely worhtless, please review this slashdot story from earlier today. Understand now? If not, please ask someone who has passed the second grade with anything above a 'D' average.

First, that's hardly ancient. Second, there were over 300 eyewitness accounts documented for it. They even said, "this may be the most observed, and most documented, single meteor event in history." Third, maybe you should look up the term "corroborating evidence". And finally, it was certainly not an example of the supernatural, for which we should have an even higher bar for proof. We already know that meteors happen quite frequently.

The idea of a creator is nothing more than pure speculation.

And this is different than the "theory" of multiverses, how?

It's not. I already told you that multiverses are considered hypothetical because we really don't have any evidence for them. They are simply "what ifs" that get brought up with a lot of other hypotheticals dealing with the origins of the universe.

There's nothing to teach there.

Again, go back and ask someone what I meant when I said:

Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible... Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."

Really, it's not that hard to understand.

Nice red herring. Who's advocating firing teachers for quoting Einstein? If that's the best you've got, you might as well give up.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

I would expect the curriculum to be written by a group of individual experts, one for each topical area. I wouldn't expect Christians to write chapters on Buddhism any more than I expect Biologists to explain Psychology.

And I pay my taxes so my children will be educated. Standing in line at the restaurant isn't the time nor place to educate on religions of the world. There's an entire system for this type of information delivery, and if we could just get past the last vestiges of pro-religion AND anti-religion bigotry then we'd live in a better world.

Tell me you're not understanding what I'm saying.

First of all, you do bear some responsibility for your kids education. I'm sorry if that's a burden, but schools aren't responsible for teaching kids everything about the world. Second, the group of experts thing sounds nice and all, but that's now how the curriculum gets done in the real world. Texas is a good example of this now. You've got a bunch of people with no training in these subjects making the decisions. A dentist is chair of the board and is pushing for the teaching of intelligent design, but he's made quite a few statements that show that he has absolutely no idea what evolution is. These are the people deciding what our kids will be learning!

When it comes to religion, it's not like there is a lot of agreement about it to begin with, even among experts. There are hundreds of different variations of Christianity, and even more variation in individual beliefs within them. I was just talking yesterday with a guy who says he's Catholic, but that he doesn't agree with them on a lot of issues. He just felt more comfortable being a Catholic than finding some other group to join or not claiming a religion at all. This is not uncommon at all. So, how do you propose that we teach about religion when even the adherents can't agree on their beliefs? What's the point of it? It's completely personal and the government would just make a mess of it. This is exactly the kind of thing that should be taught by parents.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[MrResistor]

Yes, multiverses are taught in public school science classes. It's a fairly well known model that's easy to explain to kids with a very basic understanding of probability. All that's required for it to show up is a high school physics teacher who finds it interesting, and those aren't too hard to find since it is interesting.

How valid or useful it might be scientifically is another topic entirely, and one that too many public school teachers are ill-equipped to participate in

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

Parents aren't going to be qualified to touch on religions they don't personally practice.

And the board in Texas isn't deciding what is in the books, per se, they're dictating which books the schools are willing to purchase. These will still be printed by companies that hire authors to write the content. It isn't as if the dentist himself will be dusting off a typewriter to get it done.

I think we understand each other well. You feel that a world where there is no formal education on huge portions of human culture is a better one, and I do not.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

Parents aren't going to be qualified to touch on religions they don't personally practice.

Go to the library, buy a book, or use the Internet. We've got more information available to us today than at any point in our history. Use it. Get kids interested in learning by showing them how they can find out more about virtually any subject they want. And if you really want to go crazy, you could even talk to people of those religions.

And the board in Texas isn't deciding what is in the books, per se, they're dictating which books the schools are willing to purchase. These will still be printed by companies that hire authors to write the content. It isn't as if the dentist himself will be dusting off a typewriter to get it done.

You're completely wrong about that. The Texas SBOE has a lot of say about what the publishers put into the books. You should read up on what they've been trying to do.

I think we understand each other well. You feel that a world where there is no formal education on huge portions of human culture is a better one, and I do not.

I feel that trying to create standards for religious education is futile, because there are too many variations and no objective definitions of each religion. It's all interpretation and personal beliefs. It's not the government's place to be "standardizing" religion so that it can be taught in some objective manner.

If you really want tolerance, then teach your kids that. Buy them books, encourage them to learn about other cultures and religions, and teach them what you want them to understand about your own beliefs. Don't abdicate that responsibility to the state so that they can teach some inane, politically correct version of religious culture that will probably do more to mis-inform than it would to create understanding.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[BobMcD]

Your futility claims only serve to support your anti-religious goals. The exact same claims could be made about all manner of topics, including but not limited to the proper way to fold laundry in HomeEc, teaching non-talented kids to play baseball, or school dances in general. It is natural that people only get involved in their particular agendas, but you'd do the conversation some service if you'd just be open and honest about it. You're not worried about futility or else you'd be worried about all the various limitations of this type in education. You're only focusing on the religious as if it would be the only effort to have efficiency issues.

I have read up on the textbook situation and understand the full extent of the mole-hill that it truly is.

As for my kids, well, kindly attend to your own business. I'll continue to want their schools to do what I pay them to do, thank you very much.

It doesn't seem so much that you're interested in discussing the points, but are seeking pinholes in them. I think we're done here, unless you have something you'd like to contribute.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

If a + b has a c as its lowest upper bound, would it be necessary to introduce a C as a new lowest upper bound by adding G to the a + b while still holding the c as the apparent and logically deduced lowest upper bound? Now, the logical conclusion is that the c = C and the G = 0, which means that either Muslims, Hindus or Atheists are right about the nature and existence of God, since the zero is unique, the empty set, that is the 0, belongs to every other set and the zero is also void of influence. The forementioned describes the Occam's Razor in a natural way, as well.
  I'm a Buddhist so to me any notion of God or Gods or non-existence of them is irrelevant.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ArcherB]

Ok, fine, let's assume it's greater than zero. If that's your standard for accepting something as truthful enough to be taught or even believed, then you've set the bar so unimaginably low that we should believe in aliens, fairies, the loch ness monster, sasquatch, vampires, ghosts, etc. Because there are a hell of a lot more people who claim to have seen these things than any of the miracles in the Bible. My point is that your definition of evidence is utterly useless for any reason whatsoever.

Fair enough. However, I've never seen a teacher get fired for mentioning the possibility of extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise.

Nice red herring. Who's advocating firing teachers for quoting Einstein? If that's the best you've got, you might as well give up.

Here is one.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/03/the_classroom_wall_of_separation.html
And another
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23671

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

Your futility claims only serve to support your anti-religious goals. The exact same claims could be made about all manner of topics, including but not limited to the proper way to fold laundry in HomeEc, teaching non-talented kids to play baseball, or school dances in general.

It is natural that people only get involved in their particular agendas, but you'd do the conversation some service if you'd just be open and honest about it. You're not worried about futility or else you'd be worried about all the various limitations of this type in education. You're only focusing on the religious as if it would be the only effort to have efficiency issues.

I could say the same about your desire to have religion taught to kids by the government. Comparing it to folding laundry is just beyond the pale. Your dismissal of the inevitable conflicts this would create, just in determining what should even be said about the various religions shows that you haven't thought this through in the slightest and are just assuming that what you want to have taught is what would be taught.

I have read up on the textbook situation and understand the full extent of the mole-hill that it truly is.

Yes, trying to introduce religion as science is no big deal at all.

As for my kids, well, kindly attend to your own business. I'll continue to want their schools to do what I pay them to do, thank you very much.

Schools aren't paid to teach religion. That's the domain of the family and church/synagogue/mosque/coven/etc. I have no idea what you would even teach them about all the various religions out there, and how you would decide which of the innumerable faiths to exclude. I suspect you don't either.

It doesn't seem so much that you're interested in discussing the points, but are seeking pinholes in them. I think we're done here, unless you have something you'd like to contribute.

I am, but you just hand-wave away the issues and make accusations. You act as if there isn't a history of religious disagreements and conflict within and among every religion for as long as they've existed, and that creating a curriculum for it would be straight-forward. I find this naive in the extreme.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[sumdumass]

So exactly what is wrong with Intelligent design outside of it's connections to religion? I mean you spend a lot of time making the connection, claiming that everyone is lying about not having one, so outside of that, what is wrong with it?

Most of ID says that some things need a push in order to get to where we are today. Id doesn't really challenge observer scientific facts, just the inferences made from those facts. So what exactly is wrong with ID.

I still don't see it being historically important.

You just spent a good deal of effort lumping all ID intercourse with some religion and connecting everyone who wants to explore it with some massive wedge conspiracy designed to thwart scientific knowledge and you do not see that as being historically important? I mean common, if it really is a religion in disguise that revolves around a massive conspiracy, then it is pretty significant.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[ShakaUVM]

Well, fair enough. I have a lot of bones to pick with fundies, and not knowing theology, while professing to be "Bible Christians" is one of them.

The real problem is that because they're the loudest, atheists here often assume that "Christian" implies "mouth breathing fundie", and tar all theists with the same wide paintbrush.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

Ok, fine, let's assume it's greater than zero. If that's your standard for accepting something as truthful enough to be taught or even believed, then you've set the bar so unimaginably low that we should believe in aliens, fairies, the loch ness monster, sasquatch, vampires, ghosts, etc. Because there are a hell of a lot more people who claim to have seen these things than any of the miracles in the Bible. My point is that your definition of evidence is utterly useless for any reason whatsoever.

Fair enough. However, I've never seen a teacher get fired for mentioning the possibility of extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise.

Nice red herring. Who's advocating firing teachers for quoting Einstein? If that's the best you've got, you might as well give up.

Here is one. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/03/the_classroom_wall_of_separation.html And another http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23671

The first link sounds like the courts did their job and the wall was restored. Like I said, I'm not advocating the removal of any reference whatsoever. Just that the school doesn't involve itself in the teaching of religious belief or the promotion of any religion over any others or none at all. As long as the wall displays are open to images and text regardless of what faith position they might represent or imply, and they don't cross into proselytizing, I don't have a problem with it.

The second link was just ridiculous. Devoid of information about what was actually said by the atheist teacher, or what occurred in the incident, but chock full of unsubstantiated allegations made against him by the writer of what I assume is some kind of opinion piece. It goes on to make some utterly moronic claims about both atheism and Christianity. Worthless article. The writer is more interested in preaching than reporting facts.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[RockDoctor]

That section could be taught by a bonafied pirate, since they're running out of places to practice piracy and all.

I believe that Israel is getting into the piracy business (again). They could try getting work there.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

Actually if you would take time to look into it, you would find the extraordinary efforts those in control go to in order to remove any scientist that presents a solid basis for creationism or intelligent design. Our higher education system is being destroyed by keeping dissenting viewpoints out when science has the intent of examining everything.

First you have demonstrate that there actually is a scientist that has presented a solid basis for creationism or intelligent design. Then we can discuss the treatment that theory gets.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.

No, it should be taught - in Ancient History class, as they're doing - alongside Egyptian, Greek, Norse, and other mythologies, as some silly stuff that people made up in an attempt to make sense of the world before the development of reason and the scientific method.

History classes tend to focus on things that we know, at some reasonable level of certainty, actually happened. More likely to cover mythologies in a literature class, or a course that specializes in such mythologies. If you're talking about the history of those civilizations, then yes, it will probably mention their religion, but won't go into any real detail about it because it isn't the focus of that type of course. We see plenty of that in our history books now. They explain certain religious ideas or concepts when they're relevant to historic events, such as the religious conflicts of Europe, immigrants coming to America to escape religious persecution, etc. I remember reading quite a bit about the various religious groups in America in my US history classes. Teaching intelligent design serves no real purpose in this context. It's just a religious myth that some fundamentalists are trying to pass off as science. Most major Christian faiths accept evolution, so it's not even as controversial a subject as the fundamentalists try to make it into.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

However the problem is if parents pull their kids out of school, as they figure they are being taught "devil talk", over all it might be better off to bite your tongue accept some of the more liberal versions of intelligent design vs. fighting it. Just so they don't pull their kids out of school and hinder themselves more. Fine they are idiots in Evolutionary Science however they still might make a good Engineer, or a Scientist in an other field.

Teaching things that aren't based in fact is just ridiculous, and the domain of religion, not science. If they want to believe that a deity set these processes in motion, fine, whatever. That makes no difference to evolution. But to say that we now have to teach that in schools is just nuts. Religion is a personal thing, not something to be taught to everyone. If you're going to teach that, why not throw in the beliefs of a bunch of other religions as well?

That said your argument seems like the typical closed minded Atheists rant. First of all there are many different Religions out there and even in Christianity the difference sects have a huge interpretation on a lot of topics and often they are actually not blobbed into one value. Your topic of Linking Creationism with Slavery isn't very apt, as the Nazi who were for the most part an Atheist group used Evolution to advocate their actions. In short all groups of people can do evil things, or things to hinder real progress and will find a way to justify it in a religion a science, or philosophy.

Garbage.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[labnet]

Typical Ad hominem response I would expect.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Danse]

ID is as scientific as evolution. Both are totally unprovable.

How can you 'prove' evolution? It is impossible!

Science doesn't 'prove' anything in the sense you're using here, that of absolute proof. It merely describes what is most evidently correct. Evolution is most evidently correct, as the mountains of evidence supporting it show. ID is not scientific at all, as it makes no scientific claims or predictions.

Re:"Faith Science Basis?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a quick question. You referenced, and I quote, "should not be approached from an angle that contains any sort of faith." So help me out here. Putting so called "evidence" aside, Evolution is just as much a faith based system as, Intelligent Design. The first step in the scientific method, which ironically was developed by a Creationist, is "systematic observation" and since the only type of evolution that has been observed is micro-evolution (evolution of a species, within its species, which the Creation model agrees with) how can Evolution be classified as a science? Continuing from my approach earlier, Evolution is just as much a faith-based system as Intelligent Design (Creation) and it cannot be presented as anything else.

Faith (according to the New Oxford American Dictionary) -- complete trust or confidence in someone or something
Faith (according to Webster's 1828 Dictionary) -- Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth.

Teach it?

[Kenoli]

What, exactly, is there to teach about intelligent deign?

Re:Teach it?

[captain_dope_pants]

Just show them this video - sums it up really Robin Ince on ID

Re:Teach it?

[Danse]

What, exactly, is there to teach about intelligent deign?

Well, I suppose you could use it as an example of what happens when you fail at science.

Re:Teach it?

[Austerity Empowers]

The duckbilled platypus.

There ought to be very little doubt about the integrity of Intelligent Design after that.

Re:Teach it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, the same sorts of things as teaching about phologiston, except that it's an example you can't prove wrong. It's a good example of a scientifically untestable idea, because it's always possible to envision a "designer" that could be used to account for any evidence for any reason a designer wishes.

Re:Teach it?

[Anonymous Coward]

honestly the duckbilled platypus doesn't reflect so highly on natural selection either.

Re:Teach it?

[Merls the Sneaky]

http://www.youtube.com/user/thunderf00t?blend=1&ob=4

That guy debunks it fairly well also. Great series of videos. Check out his why do people laugh at creationist series of videos.

Re:Teach it?

[jopsen]

I agree...
From the article:

In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies".

And this is exactly where creationism belongs! It's a part of our culture and religion, and should be taught as such...

Creationism is a great example when discussion scientific methods, history and how new controversial discoveries was acknowledged...
Offtopic: I was just about to state that I couldn't see how this is new worthy... Then I realized, that it is news, just not bad news... It's sad to realize that I come to a point where happy stories are no longer news worthy.

Re:Teach it?

[imakemusic]

Now, now. there's nothing unnatural about a duck sleeping with a beaver.

Re:Teach it?

[sac13]

What, exactly, is there to teach about intelligent deign?

Kids, things in life are really complicated, so don't bother trying to understand anything.

RECESS!

Know your enemies?

[t0rb3n]

So if there's like an hour of discussion about it, nobody would get hurt. Anyone knows how much effort they'll put into this kind of lecture?

What they should teach

[Anonymous Coward]

is that due to mans intelligent design, australia started out as a prison colony several hundred years ago.. :p

Being vs Becoming

[Anonymous Coward]

People like being right far more than they like becoming right.

Becoming right means you have to keep an open mind to the possible rejection of beliefs that bring you comfort or justification. It also means you must perpetually expend effort in the acquiring of new knowledge.

That is WAY too much trouble for most people. So, instead, they insist that they were lucky enough to have learned all the important truths when they were children, and that these things are still true today, and should be treated as such.

I really don't fit in well with my species.

Re:Being vs Becoming

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't fit in well with my species.

you're right, you don't. most of us aren't such arrogant, condescending assholes.

You must be new here...

Re:Being vs Becoming

[rcuhljr]

On the topic of being a condescending asshole, can I just say I was immensely relieved to at least see this wasn't the U.S. this time when it came to teaching idiocy. /glances at Texas.

Flying spaghetti monsters

[weicco]

Could Australian schools teach about flying spaghetti monsters too?

Re:Flying spaghetti monsters

[JDmetro]

And the FSM has been around for thousands of years too?
Or is the FSM just a stab at Christianity?

Re:Flying spaghetti monsters

[weicco]

Who are you to question Flying Spaghetti Monster, you, you, HERETIC?!

If we measure religions by age then perhaps Australian schools could start to teach about ancient Sumerian gods like Hephilim, Elohim and Annunaki or even older Mesopotamian gods like Ea, Enki and Anu. Who's there to say that Marduk didn't create the earth from the body of Tiamat?!

And no, this is not a stab specially at Christianity.

Re:Flying spaghetti monsters

[JDmetro]

Elohim is used as the Hebrew name (one of the names) for God.

Re:Flying spaghetti monsters

[mooncrow]

Oh yeah -- Australian Pastafarians will be insisting that they teach about the FSM. Ramen.

Faith

[MrEricSir]

The fact that people who think we should teach ID in schools is what made me realize there's no god.

Re:Faith

[MrEricSir]

And that poor grammar is what made me realize there's a preview button.

Re:Faith

[Bobfrankly1]

The fact that there are people who think we should teach ID in schools is what made me realize there's no god.

I'm assuming that that's what you meant. Regardless of the choice or ID or not, it's the fervent debate from parents of both sides that bring about this realization: Parents expect schools to teach their children everything, so parents won't have to teach them anything.

Re:Faith

[DriedClexler]

But isn't the preview button still pretty much just a thoery?

Re:Faith

[MrEricSir]

Exactly! And I don't recall any mention of a "preview button" in the Bible.

Lots of textbooks!

[StefanJ]

There are many textbooks available on Intelligent Design, and it is really easy to make more.

First, you get one of the wishy-washy creationist textbooks written in the 1980s, before the Discovery Institute decided that actually calling creationism creationism wasn't going to fly.

Then you do a search and replace, substituting "intelligent design" for "creationism."

Then you add a chapter at the end with the nuggets of sophistry that ID supporters came up with, and add some references to other ID textbooks and tracts in the bibiliography.

Voila! ID textbook!

Re:Lots of textbooks!

[MightyMartian]

You're talking about Of Pandas and People, the infamous Creationist textbook which was rewritten via search and replace after Edwards v Aguillard banned the teaching of Creationism in public schools. The phrase was cdesign proponentsists, from an imperfect search and replace of "Creationists" to "design proponents" in one of the post-Ewards v Aguillard drafts.

It was that, coupled with the fact that the Dover Schoolboard were a bunch of incredibly inept liars (one even claiming an Oxycontin addiction to explain his clearly deceptive behavior) who perjured themselves multiple times during the Dover trial, that pretty much tossed it out of the water. The best bits were Michael Behe's time on the stand (William Dembski was too smart a fox to get involved), where his claims of irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum were wiped out by article after article in the literature showing precisely how such a system could in fact evolve without intervention.

This comment

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment was written by no one and evolved from a series of random pixels. Those pixels spontaneously came to being from a void of nothingness. It just makes sense.

Re:This comment

[purplebear]

Wish I had mod points so I could mod this up, even though anonymous, as informative. Must be the most well thought out response I have ever seen on Slashdot.

Re:This comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I don't know if it was purely random, but I can tell you that there was no intelligent design involved.

Re:This comment

[nyctopterus]

It's a stupid old creationist argument based on the erroneous notion that evolution is random. The only significant part of the evolutionary mechanism that could be said to be random is the relation of mutation to fitness. Mutations aren't random, and selection certainly isn't.

Re:This comment

[betterunixthanunix]

Why to creationists insist upon warping science? The big bang theory is not a theory of biology, the way the theory of evolution is, and neither theory states that anything came from "nothing." The big bang theory simply states that all the matter and energy in the universe was once concentrated at a single point, and for reasons unknown, an expansion occurred, leading to the universe in its current form, where matter and energy are not concentrated at a single point. The theory of evolution proposes a model that explains why different species exist, not why life exists or how the universe came into being.

Seriously, even if you do not accept the theory of evolution, you could at least refrain from confounding it with other theories.

Re:This comment

[Eponymous Coward]

Why do you say mutations aren't random? Are you talking about all mutations or successful mutations?

Re:This comment

[betterunixthanunix]

Mutations are random, natural selection is not. Plenty of mutations occur in every generation, but some will be selected against. A mutation that causes a baby gazelle not to run as fast is not likely to survive for more than a generation or two, because slower gazelles are more likely to be killed by predators before getting a chance to reproduce.

Creationists frequently point to the random nature of mutations, and then claim that evolution itself is random. There is certainly an element of randomness, but that is true of many other natural processes. Chemical reactions have an element of randomness, but we are pretty comfortable with the idea that at a high enough temperature, hydrogen and oxygen will react to form water (even though some hydrogen and some oxygen will not react). Likewise with evolution: positive mutations are vastly more likely to survive than negative mutations, and thus over the course of many generations, those positive mutations accumulate (of course, in the modern view, there is a lot that has been left out of this simplistic summary, but this is the basic idea of natural selection, which remains a key tenet).

Re:This comment

[nyctopterus]

Mutations are random with respect to fitness, but they are in themselves constrained by the laws and processes of organic chemistry, so cannot be said to be entirely random. Some base pairs are more fragile than others, for example.

Re:This comment

[dzfoo]

That's like saying that the combination you get by throwing a couple of dice is not truly random because the outcome is constrained by the values depicted in the faces.

        -dZ.

Re:This comment

[nyctopterus]

You're not quite right, I think.

You can predict (in principle at least) what mutations are more likely than others, based on the chemistry of genetic material. Ergo, they are not random. They are probably random with respect to fitness, but even here there may be evolutionary mechanisms which could minimise the likelihood of harmful mutations (I don't know, I'm not a geneticist).

The creationist argument is like saying, "you got a 7? the chance if you rolling a 7 with dice, as opposed to everything else that could of happened is minuscule." They fail to recognise the system is both constrained and controlled. We are playing with dice, not pumpkins or tables, and natural selection is picking the loaded ones.

NOOOOOO!

[Merls the Sneaky]

WTF! Seriously. I'm glad I don't live in Queensland. I hope intelligent people are working to put a stop to this absolute fucking garbage! Christian "values" are taking Australia straight to a Authoritarian Theocracy. Americans we have uranium I promise to let you have some if you bring us democracy.

Totally blown away by this article!

Re:NOOOOOO!

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans we have uranium I promise to let you have some if you bring us democracy.

You are aware that the Americans are the ones who started this whole creationism/ID bullshit in the first place, are you?

Re:NOOOOOO!

[Merls the Sneaky]

Were they successful in their indoctrination of fables?

Re:NOOOOOO!

[starfliz]

unfortunately most Americans are busy giving their freedoms away over hereh, and you've seen what happens when we 'help' other places. I am sure if we want some uranium we will just find a way to take it anyway. Good luck over there :) hehe

Re:NOOOOOO!

[mcfedr]

you realise that democracy is about the views of the people being heard? and not just those of the atheists, but of the 1/3 of the worlds population who are christian as well

Re:NOOOOOO!

[IrquiM]

WTF! Seriously. I'm glad I don't live in Queensland. I hope intelligent people are working to put a stop to this absolute fucking garbage! Christian "values" are taking Australia straight to a Authoritarian Theocracy. Americans we have uranium I promise to let you have some if you bring us democracy.

You are joking? Right? Asking Americans for help in this subject?

Re:NOOOOOO!

[Platinumrat]

Hey,

As an Australian, I'm seriously glad I don't live in Queensland as well. It's the equivalent of the Deep South for us.

As the old saying goes...

"If someone moves to Queensland, from Victoria, they raise the average IQ of both states."

Re:NOOOOOO!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am guessing your not one of those intelligent people

Re:NOOOOOO!

[DarkEmpath]

You're asking the US to bring you democracy? That went well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What are you gonna do for an encore? Ask Satan to save you from hell?

Re:NOOOOOO!

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is about the new NATIONAL curriculum.
It's saying that for the first time this will be in schools in Queensland. I don't know about the other states.

At least it is in the Ancient History Curriculum, which is fine. It is a major aspect from the past.

Re:NOOOOOO!

[pipedwho]

Maybe the US could just lend us their Constitution. They don't seem be using it anymore.

Double-you tee eff, mate

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

Australia's legislature seems to be riding some kind of runaway jesus train lately, with all the anti-porn initiatives and net-filtering. I can't imagine the majority of Aussies are behind this stuff. How is this happening? What is the election cycle like there?

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[Farmer Tim]

What is the election cycle like there?

It's a unicycle: ridden by clowns.

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[interval1066]

Q: What is the election cycle like there? A: It's a unicycle: ridden by clowns.

Hey! Stop copying the American system!!

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[Merls the Sneaky]

Three years between elections. I hold out hope as both major parties (liberal and labor) who are run by religious whackjobs and control freaks are losing ground to the greens. Hopefully we will get a Hung parliment like they had recently in the UK.

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[Kjella]

*Please* patent it.

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask your mother, your daughter, your wife, your silly girlfriend should we damn all the anti-porn initiatives?

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[Sasayaki]

Australian here- I'll explain. It's pretty simple really.

We have a political system where, instead of directly voting for a prime minister, we instead vote for our local representative; the party with the most seats gets to elect the prime minister. Essentially.

The problem comes when the two main political parties own almost equal seats, but many seats are "safe" seats. Think Texas. Is a Democrat ever going to be elected in a landslide in Texas? Nah. Is a Republican ever going to take San Fransisco in a landslide? Nah.

So, politicians focus on the marginal seats. This is Florida, which could go either way.

It just so happens a number of those seats are, currently, in and around Adelaide; a highly religious, conservative city known as "The City of Churches". So, politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are metaphorically sucking the bible thumper's dicks in order to get those precious one or two seats, which means they can keep/gain government respectively.

Which means, in turn, our current administration is pushing through knee-jerk think-of-the-children legislation while the opposition is basically screaming "US TOO BUT BIGGER, BETTER, MORE KNEE-JERKY."

It's pure horseshit and doesn't represent the will of the Australian people at all.

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[websters]

Funny isn't the right mod here. I live in Queensland and it's easy to see that we're headed the same places the US goes, just 10 or 15 years later. We even have white guys dressed up as black rappers with bad accents. On the plus side, this is only being considered as part of a history subject under the heading of controversies.

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[DarkEmpath]

What is the election cycle like there?

We have a federal election every 3 years, and state/territory elections every 3 or 4 (depending on where you are). The best analogy for Queensland is that it's the Australian version of Texas. It's hot and full of rednecks. They're the ones that say things like "There'll be blood in the streets before you take our guns away!" and whenever a parliamentarian wants to stop immigration from non-white countries, you can put money on them being Queenslanders.

It's embarrassing enough that our federal government wants to emulate the US and be the toady butt-monkey Washington needs in our part of the world, now we can add "magic being taught in school" to our behaviour. I haven't been this ashamed of my country since the Cronulla riots.

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[the_womble]

They are not copying the Americans: the British had that system before the US existed.

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[AussieNeil]

A Federal election is likely to be called any time between August and November this year. Both the main party leaders claim their Christian faith is very important to them. (Note however that espousing Christian ideals in Australian politics is far less important to the success of political parties than it is in the USA.)

Queensland is the third largest state by population and has a independent election cycle from the federal elections. The last state election was last year and the next can be called any time - but must be called by 2012.

In Australia, minor parties are becoming increasingly important for the governing parties to get their legislation through the review house where it exists (Queensland doesn't have one). Christian and Green parties are significant minor parties federally and in most states.

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[sac13]

Australia's legislature seems to be riding some kind of runaway jesus train lately, with all the anti-porn initiatives and net-filtering. I can't imagine the majority of Aussies are behind this stuff. How is this happening? What is the election cycle like there?

No kidding. And, to think, just a couple of years ago I was thinking about leaving the US to move there.

That's no longer in the plans...

Re:Double-you tee eff, mate

[rdnetto]

I think the last article similar to this one was also about Qld. And Conroy is in Vic. So it looks like it's just a handful nutjob ministers, though most of us in Vic are more worried about the current govt's spend like there's no tomorrow then tax the bejeezus out of us approach.
The next election will be either this year or next, though it's unlikely that we'll be able to kick out the govt so soon despite their utter incompetence.

They must have unlimited funds for education

[Creedo]

I mean, "educators" can not possibly be so stupid as to waste tax dollars on such ignorance, can they? The sad part is, even with this, they still aren't as bad as some parts of the USA.

Re:They must have unlimited funds for education

[dbIII]

They effectively do have unlimited funds in comparison to the US schools you are comparing this to.
These schools charge fees to parents and also get a contribution from the taxpayer which is more per child than the government schools get. The education the children get is not necessarily better but a profit is made.

In good company

[lymond01]

Intelligent Design fits well between all the other failed theories: Earth-centric universe; immovable stars; bleeding patients; Froot Loops over Frosted Flakes....all famous in their time, all horribly misguided. In 2000 years, people will look back at our history, now ancient to them, and be amused just like we are.

Re:In good company

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

Intelligent Design fits well between all the other failed theories: Earth-centric universe; immovable stars; bleeding patients;

And my favorite: Phlogiston

Re:In good company

[Anonymous Coward]

Froot Loops over Frosted Flakes....all famous in their time, all horribly misguided.

Something about this phrase makes it seem like a somewhat fitting description of the governments involved in this discussion. Crazy people leading a group of coldly belligerent and unreliable people, maybe?

Re:In good company

[lymond01]

There must be a term for that. Like "He had a poetry moment" or something. Ascribing insight where the author had none. I love your analogy and, like many a great author, it could have been assumed to be my superior subconscious willing those precise words into existence, but the reality is I just like Frosted Flakes a lot.

Re:In good company

[dzfoo]

Except that, no matter what you say, I do believe in Froot Loops.

        -dZ.

speak up

[thoughtsatthemoment]

This is why science people should to take a more active role in speaking their mind. Even fools know that children are the easiest to dupe. Don't let them get their way.

Re:speak up

[Itninja]

The tricky part that, as a earlier Slashdot article covered, many in the scientific community are in the God closet (e.g. they are religious, but keep it a secret).

Re:speak up

[thoughtsatthemoment]

I am not sure about this closet thing. I do know some religious people will do anything to make it look like there are more religious people than you might think. Instead of being in the closet, I think most scientists avoid the topic to not offend others, or even pay lip service to religious people.

Re:speak up

[Anonymous Coward]

No they aren't. Now it's up to you to prove that they are, which you can't. That's the bonus of being on the anti-side of a ridiculous postulation.

Re:speak up

[e2d2]

It's hard to speak on being a Christian when some here are against religion in general and very outspoken about it, so I avoid conflict when I can. They want you to rationalize something irrational. To them human emotions are nothing more than chemicals, life nothing more than chance in the dice game of life. I believe different. Some can't accept this and want to change me. You might as well fight the Sun from coming up. My devotion to God is never ending. In my mind science is just proof of a creator, with each piece of evidence adding to the cornerstone of my faith. How can I look at this wonderful universe and assume it comes from chance? I cannot. I still haven't figured out why that bothers people so much. They just love to be right at any cost I guess.

Re:speak up

[digitig]

Good for you for standing up to the crowd, but I think you do yourself a disservice describing your position as "irrational". Irrational means contrary to reason, and (despite the modern secular mythology about religion) religion has usually had a very high regard for reason and has been anxious to ensure that it is a reasonable position. The disputes with materialism are generally over the premises of their arguments, not with the application of reason to those premises (although you will find plenty of duff arguments on both sides, both sides are usually willing to admit that those arguments are duff and to move on). I think you mean that religion contains a non-rational element, which indeed it does, just like every other worldview. It's to religion's credit that it's generally willing to admit that non-rational element whereas adherents of some other worldviews are less so.

Re:speak up

[e2d2]

Yeah probably a misuse of the phrase irrational. I do have a rationale behind my decisions, they just aren't rooted in traditional scientific logic in the sense I can't prove it in an experiment. Not one that would leave humans alive that is. There is no scientific basis for a belief in God and I'm ready to admit that. I could go off on a tangent about scientific "hints" pointing to a deity but they are nothing concrete. I'm okay with that. I take it as a philosophical belief and not a scientific belief. The idea of a creator is not dangerous so I'm not sure why people are so against it. It's hard to fight the modern image of the interfering Christian so I think the best way is to simply practice my faith and remain. Anything else is meddling and I could care less what others think in their heads.

Re:speak up

[Opyros]

Yeah probably a misuse of the phrase irrational.

Perhaps "nonrational" is the word you want?

Re:speak up

[thoughtsatthemoment]

so I think the best way is to simply practice my faith and remain

Do you try to influence in any way the way your children think?

The idea of a creator is not dangerous

Yes sometimes. But the idea is not well defined. If you are a programmer you'd want everything well defined.

Perhaps the most harmful thing about your thinking is that you are willing to accept so many logical holes in believing an imaginary creator. The human mind is an integrated software system and an willingness to accepting many logical holes is a sure sign of a flawed mind.

Re:speak up

[Elky Elk]

All I can say is you're not alone.

Re:speak up

[e2d2]

You touch on a good point that relates to a valid criticism of religion in my opinion - indoctrination. Although my one daughter is well aware of my faith, she herself is a state atheist. When she told me I simply said "okay, that's your choice" because it is. I can't sway her through force, only through example. Frankly I don't see a problem with her beliefs, I teach her how to be a good person without having religious faith and that's what counts.

As for the flawed thinking, I'll readily admit that. I'm far from perfect but my own mind, and processes I create, are capable of handling this failure. I've dwelt in computer science for 15 years and have done quite well with my flawed mind. Turns out my personal philosophy, and that's what this is, doesn't really effect my production of "logical" software.

One of the greatest thinkers in comp. sci is a believer - Donald Knuth (see his talks on God and computing, they closely align with my own views). Could you honestly say his works are flawed because of an erroneous brain? He is a pillar of computing.

Re:speak up

[thoughtsatthemoment]

Earth has many flaws but it doesn't have earthquakes every moment. The same is true for the human mind. Donald Knuth does very well with algorithms but I would think he might have problem with distributed systems.

In a distributed system, including human society, knowledge has to travel from mind to mind. And with communication the whole system evolves. If you believe in a creator, you'd assume there is a single consciousness that always knows everything instantly. You might not assume this all the time, but this thinking would impede you from understanding how things really are. In the worse case, refusing to believe that a self evolving system could produce a wonderful result that a single mind can appreciate might even prevent you from understanding it at all.

I think you will benefit from reading this article:

The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-2,00.html

"controversy"

[bcrowell]

The use of the word "controversy" here is taken directly from the creationist playbook. There is "controversy" about whether a big earthquake could cause California to fall off into the Pacific Ocean, but it's only a controversy between two guys sitting in a bar, it's not a controversy among geologists. When creationists say "teach the controversy," they're really asking teachers to present something that's not scientifically controversial as if it were.

Re:"controversy"

[UnknowingFool]

Well, if taught as part of history, I don't have any objections about it if ID is not presented as being the state of current science but as religion. As part of history, there have been many controversies over religion: the Crusades, the Protestant Reformation, the Inquisition, etc and those are just ones involving Christianity. I would expect students to learn about other religions as part of history especially how some ancient cultures were polytheistic like the Greeks and Romans.

Re:"controversy"

[Monkeedude1212]

Wouldn't that be good though?

We had a special class offered to IB (international baccalaureate) students called "Theory of Knowledge" where they were essentially taught to critically analyze everything. I remember one of the students saying the first lesson went as follows:

"Has anyone here ever been to Mongolia"
"No"
"So how do you know it is there?"
"Well..."
"But they could be lieing. You could have been lied to your entire life. Fact is, you have no empirical evidence that Mongolia exists. Perhaps China engulfs the entire region, and used it to inspire sympathy in the past. If China even exists, that is."

So some of you might think of that as a stupid course (and a lot of students did. Basically admit to knowing nothing and you pass!). But it obviously spurs more critical thinking of everything you see and hear, which we severely lack in todays day and age. I mean, am I to believe that some Australian Schools teach Intelligent Design, simply because /. told me so? I guess If I believe everything I read online, I'm easily manipulated.

Re:"controversy"

[Anonymous Coward]

It might not be "scientifically controversial", however Intelligent Design is undeniably a controversy in political, educational and theistic circles; and a fascinating one at that. I can see tremendous value in analyzing how ID became a prominent issue - a populace who understands the cause and effect and recognizes patterns of behavior is less likely to be duped by the next round of bullshit propaganda.

It seems churlish to reject the idea out of hand for fear of giving ID free press - is our view of humankind so jaded that we cannot trust others having been well-equipped with the facts surrounding the to come to their own view? This IMO is the only way to finally kill ID, at any rate sweeping it under the rug hasn't worked so far.

Re:"controversy"

[Anonymous Coward]

(Disclaimer, so one or two people might actually read this: I am not a creationist.)

not scientifically controversial as if it were.

That seems like a cop out argument to me though, it in many ways is essentially like saying:

"I have through my personal studies become so thoroughly knowledgeable in this issue that I can completely derail and resolve any possible misunderstandings and thoroughly prove that I am right on this issue, therefore, you should take accept what I believe as true because if you don't, you are simply delaying the process of me explaining to you how you are wrong. You should take my word on faith that I have thoroughly laid all questions in this field to rest." - and to boot, "If you do not take my word on faith, what you are essentially doing is prolonging the problem because people will see your disbelief and still think that some people find this controversial- which, it is not."

That is a tongue in cheek contradiction, saying, there is no controversy here, so please stop being controversial.

"it's not a controversy among geologists."
"not scientifically controversial as if it were."

I am so saddened by this hivemind principle in which all scientists are in agreement about the various questions that so many before them have wrestled with. It simply is not so. This idea that all scientists are spock like creatures totally impartial unbiased with no wants, aims, prerogatives, agendas of their own, etc. But I do realize that the entire point to your analogy there was to point out that things which are not obvious to the layman are obvious to those who have made it literally their life to know as much as they can about a particular subject. And I agree.

I think what saddens me more than anything else is this: Teachers of our modern era do not teach per say, they simply follow the protocol and the literature which they themselves are provided with from on high-- to boot, these are the required resources for the students-- thus, any real actual discussion that doesn't have already prepared arguments and counterpoints is virtually nonexistent. Musing on these things aloud between peers in a classroom is not only typically disliked by those in authority (understandably), but rather, it is typically prohibited (unfortunately).

I can assure you this, as someone who has been involved within varying eschelons of the modern public education system: there are very few public school teachers that even know a small fraction of what they are teaching from the books they are provided with- a common exception to this is a teacher who has been using the same materials for 5+ years to teach from and is familiar with the book, and yet it can be seen over and over again, if that science book says that light travels at roughly 186,000 miles per second, that teacher may be able to parrot it to students, but if you ask them 'Is that only in the vacuum of space or is it an absolute constant throughout the universe even from the rays of the Sun hitting you and me from right here?', more than likely they are going to say its an absolute constant.

So why am I saying all of this? For the simple point that the actual arguments which are presented between the 'molecules-to-man' evolution crowd and the 'intelligent design' crowd are often extremely technical (atomic mass spectroscopy / helium diffusion rates in various substances / c14 cross contamination in diamonds, etc) and totally beyond the scope of what your average or even above average science teacher is capable of presenting. To make matters worse it is an extremely volatile subject and there are very few people that are as close to truly impartial as they can possibly be (and thus, evidence presented will always be either presented with a tarnish of disgust or a subtle flare of acceptance in zealotry).

So last night I was reading Neil DeGrasse Tyson & Goldsmiths 'Origins' before I went to sleep. You know what it sits next to it on my shelf? Morris' 'The Genesis Flood'. Why? How ma

Re:"controversy"

[Eponymous Coward]

Has anyone here ever been to Mongolia

Ha! The person who said that has been watching WKRP reruns. I think it was Venus Flytrap who used that argument.

Re:"controversy"

[AK Marc]

But it's not even religion. It's an argument by a subset of a subset of a religion. The term was invented 22 years ago to counter evolution. It has been discussed for thousands of years, but never adopted. The official stances have been more along the strict creationist lines, and only in response to recent activities have the religious leaders determined that they needed to take more effort to subvert scientific gains.

And it looks more like a philosophical attack against evolution, rather than a religious belief. It doesn't even warrant historical attention, as it was a minor thought exercise, never really adopted by anyone until after evolution was seen as an attack, at which time it was adjusted retroactively.

The funny parts...

[BrokenHalo]

...are to be found in the comments at the end of the article, where the morons tell us what scientific theories are, why you can "prove they are true", and that the universe exists because it just must have been created by [$sphagetti_monster_of_your choice].

The sad part is that this rubbish is taken seriously at all in Australia (though if anywhere, it would have to be Queensland).

I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[Anonymous Coward]

First, intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.

On the other hand, Niels Bohr's aromic model IS a scientic theory.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

Here is why this is the case,
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Essential_criteria

Therefore it is incorrect to teach I.D. as a "disproved theory". It never was one in the first place. Where it can be mentioned is as a difference between theory and dogma, where I.D. is clearly an example of the latter,
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

PS: Freaking slashdot reads my mind everything. CATPCHA: instruct

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[silanea]

[...] synthetic life forms created by human beings are by all accounts intelligent design.

I'd rather disagree. Intelligent Design basically means "too complex to have evolved on its own". Synthetic life form means "some person made it in a lab". That is not the same by a long margin. I concur with the AC: ID is a dogma.

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[stewbacca]

+1 for best use of Wikipedia. Nicely done. If only more posts used Wikipedia as effectively and with as much thought as your post...

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[gtall]

Not really, Venter is only aping what he's seen of real life. For it to be intelligent design (of life) and not intelligent copying, he'd have to generate entirely new *kinds* of organisms, i.e., those not built on DNA, cells, etc.

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[Danse]

You're trying to disprove ID as a scientific theory by quoting Wikipedia?

Oh no... we have already lost...

As long as the necessary sources are cited, it's fine to use Wikipedia to make a point. Especially when the point is requires no real deep explanation. If you have specific reasons to reject its use in this case, I'd like to hear them.

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[digitig]

I.D. is a valid scientific theory. Case and point: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5981/958

That makes it a historical fact, not a scientific theory. It's important not to confuse the two.

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[Dare nMc]

I.D. by "GOD" may be dogma, but synthetic life forms created by human beings are by all accounts intelligent design.

Yours is a entertaining post, as I am sure that is how it was intended. Basically what your saying is the words "intelligent design" could be applied to a concept with something slightly similar to a small portion of what I.D. is trying to claim. Then and only then could it be a scientific theory. In reality it appears your just trying to change the subject (or be humorous, or both...)

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to make a small note here and laugh at you for quoting Wikipedia to make an absolute claim about anything at all

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[Mindcontrolled]

That's not even the point. ID does not state that it is possible to create designed life, like Venter is trying to do. It states that all life is a result of design. Building a bacterium in the lab, on the other hand, is not the slightest bit in conflict with evolution. The theory of evolution nowhere states that it is *impossible* to design life - just that it is not a necessary mechanism to explain biodiversity.

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[Chris Burke]

I.D. by "GOD" may be dogma, but synthetic life forms created by human beings are by all accounts intelligent design.

Dude, that's not what capital-I-D Intelligent Design is about!

Nobody sane on the planet earth doubts that there exists things which are Designed by an Intelligence, specifically ours. Dogs and agricultural plants are examples of human-originated "intelligently designed" organisms that long predate that article.

I.D. is not the claim that it is possible for human intelligence to create things up to and including artificial life.

I.D. is the claim that natural processes alone cannot be the source of the diversity of life including humans themselves.

The whole purpose of ID is to be an alternative to Evolution, in a thin ruse to push Creationism in schools without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment. There is no other kind of ID than "ID by GOD" because stated or not that is the premise. Well okay, there's ID by sincere idiots who don't seem to realize that if you contend that intelligent life cannot have arisen without an intelligence to create it, then where did that intelligence come from? At some point the "designer" must be either purely natural in origin (contradicting the whole premise), or super-natural.

But that's besides the fact that what you're talking about isn't ID, and actual ID is actually not science in any way.

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[irenaeous]

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is at best a set of arguments that attempt to show that intelligent agency rather than unguided matter better accounts for the development of life on earth.

Only some of these arguments are opposed to evolution. There are many arguments of this type that are completely consistent with evolution which is why a great many Christians such as myself except evolution even though we are not strict naturalists.

The main arguments used against evolution are Michael Behe's irreducible complexity idea and William Dembski's specified complexity idea. Ultimately, I don't think they hold water. Behe's argument reduces to a version of a "God of the Gaps" type argument, and he has not met the burden of proof to show that there exist any genuinely irreducibly complex structures in nature. Dembski's idea says that chance is ruled out when a highly improbable event conforms to a discernible pattern which is given independently of the event itself. He call's this a specified complexity. Such co-joined probabilities are so low that they do not occur by chance. I regard it as an interesting idea, but I cannot see how is could be used to question evolution, because in no case is the evolutionary pattern of an event in natural history given independently, so you do not have a co-joined probability to evaluate. This defers from other cases where we might detect intelligence such as finding ancient tools (which confirms human evolution) or detecting ET signals from space, because in these cases we can specify the pattern independently.

Regardless, none of this is substantial enough to constitute anything close to a scientific theory or alternative to evolution. Venter's accomplishment is irrelevant.

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[Danse]

I.D. is a valid scientific theory. Case and point: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5981/958

That makes it a historical fact, not a scientific theory. It's important not to confuse the two.

It means that it is likely possible to create life. It doesn't mean that life on earth was created that way. Nobody disputes that life could be designed, just that that's not what the evidence shows to be the case for life on earth. There is no competing scientific theory for evolution. If IDers would like to create one, they are welcome to do the research, but so far they haven't.

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[digitig]

It means that it is likely possible to create life. It doesn't mean that life on earth was created that way.

That was my point, and I think that it was nobodylocalhost's point (but that those with mod points missed his joke).

Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma

[BobMcD]

From the link on essential criteria:

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.
In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:
It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

Talk to me about global warming. We can't test it scientifically as we have no sufficient model for the planet in either scale or complexity. We can't observe it because it simply isn't happening along the predicted schedule. We're also discovering, on a regular basis, that we don't really know half of what we thought we did about our own planet. Please elaborate.

It seems that ID and 'AGW' both fit the dogma label rather well, but perhaps one is simply more popular than the other.

The reason it's going to be in Ancient History...

[Delusion_]

Studies is that that field is less likely to be taught by people with a scientific background. If I wanted to peddle pro-religion non-science, I'd rather take my chances with history teachers than biology or physics teachers.

Not being familiar with Australian education, I don't know what sort of qualifications high school teachers have with regard to the field they teach, but even if in-field qualifications are much better than in the US, a lot more people study history seriously as a result of their religious indoctrination than study biology or physics, either of which would be much more relevant to debunking the anti-science that intelligent design peddles.

The battle is over in the sciences. They're just trying to push it through the back door they perceive to be available to them in the humanities. None of this is a slight against the humanities, which I consider very important.

Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

There are at LEAST 6 different versions of this:
1. Biblical Creationism- the world is 6000 years old (maybe 7000 now) and was created in 7 days.
2. Darwinian evolution- life was created in stages by natural selection.
3. Intelligent Design Engineer/Scientist- Life was created in stages by an engineer-diety using natural selection as an engineering process to an intended end.
4. Intelligent Design Parenthood- God gave birth to the first DNA as an offspring and only interferes as a kindly parent guiding, but not influencing, the end result. God doesn't know the future in this version.
5. Quantum Mechanical Atheistic Evolution- Natural selection is entirely unguided and random- the only thing limiting evolution is death of bad mutations.
6. Intelligent Design Creationism- a bad quasi-scientific cover for Biblical Creationism.

And that's not even going into NON-CHRISTIAN myths, I'd expect in Australia they should at least be teaching the myths of the natives in an ancient history class!

Re:Which VERSION?

[Itninja]

Don't forget the Christian minority that promote the idea of 'creative days' being possibly millions of years long (each), and that organisms do indeed adapt and change over time.

Re:Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

My fault for not being more descriptive- that's #3 above, and is virtually indistinguishable from #1, #4 and #5 (at least from any scientific standpoint- the only difference between #1,3,4, and 5 is theology, not science).

Re:Which VERSION?

[Dynedain]

Actually the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) assume an omniscient creator, which rules out #4. #4 is akin to deism, but in that philosophy, there is a predetermined outcome to the universe set by the creator.

Re:Which VERSION?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's not even going into NON-CHRISTIAN myths, I'd expect in Australia they should at least be teaching the myths of the natives in an ancient history class!

They can't because they'd have to admit that the natives have been in Austrailia seven or eight times longer than the universe has existed. Also they would need to state that these natives had a more advanced culture that what Queensland has today.

Re:Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"seven or eight times longer than the universe has existed"

How can they tell that without a written history? Or does the oral history have so many stories that they couldn't have happened in less time?

"Also they would need to state that these natives had a more advanced culture that what Queensland has today."

"Advanced" is most certainly a subjective term.

Re:Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Which is why Fr. Coyne was fired by the Pope in 2006 when he tied his best to contradict the Vatican while preaching #4.

A predetermined outcome for the universe, though, I'd point out does not necessarily include a predetermined outcome for our species; just as in science itself the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't prevent apparent local suspensions of entropy.

Re:Which VERSION?

[kevinNCSU]

Wouldn't what you describe be the majority? The other option if that passage in Genesis is not a parable or metaphor to get the main point across is that it literally was 7 days (young earth) and I thought that people who believed in that were in the decided minority? The Catholic church doesn't support a literal interpretation of days there does it?

Re:Which VERSION?

[Anonymous Coward]

In response to #1, Bishop Ussher put it at October, 4004 B.C., so we're almost to 6014 by the Young Earth Cosmology.

Re:Which VERSION?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't let option 3 be called Intelligent Design Engineer, because I think that's what I believe and I desperately want not to call myself a proponent of ID.

Re:Which VERSION?

[spinkham]

The interesting thing is that "Intelligent Design Engineer/Scientist" was the most common Christian response to Darwin's theories soon after they were presented.

It wasn't until the 1920s when "liberal" or "modernist" theology started to cause large amounts of controversy that the fundamentalist movement started to gravitate to a very literal reading of the bible, including Genesis.

The whole "science vs religion" thing is just an unfortunate side effect of fundamentalists becoming overzealous in their defenses against liberal theology.

The whole thing is rather fascinating really. As a practicing Christian in fundamentalist circles, I hate that fundamentalism has moved from its beginnings (Focus on Christ) to over-claiming on lots of things they don't really understand and aren't qualified to speak on.

For more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy or for some dead tree reading: http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Firmament-Understanding-Theology-Creation/dp/0978718615

Re:Which VERSION?

[wgaryhas]

Or it could simply be that "day" is a bad translation of "yowm" in the context used in Genesis.

Re:Which VERSION?

[IndustrialComplex]

Actually the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) assume an omniscient creator, which rules out #4. #4 is akin to deism, but in that philosophy, there is a predetermined outcome to the universe set by the creator

Or a diety that behaves as if he were not omniscient. The "Has already seen the movie before you, might guide you to, or away from one, but doesn't give spoilers" kind of diety.

BTW, Tron Legacy missed(s) the mark, just thought you should know.

Re:Which VERSION?

[Itninja]

I don't know. I presumed it was the majority. My brother is a pastor for some (seemingly) mainstream church and he is hard-core Young Earth.

Re:Which VERSION?

[jeti]

Can you help me understand the distinction between 2 and 5? Is Darwinian evolution supposed to be guided in any way or to have any kind of goal (like complex or intelligent life)?

Re:Which VERSION?

[Anonymous Coward]

> 2. Darwinian evolution- life was created in stages by natural selection

Darwin never addressed the 'creation' of life, he only addressed the issue of gradual change and isolation causing new species to arise. He also never claimed that it was the only mechanism. In particular, sexual selection is also involved.

As it happens the building blocks for life can also be created by natural processes.

Re:Which VERSION?

[PooseCat]

There are at LEAST 6 different versions of this:
1. Biblical Creationism- the world is 6000 years old (maybe 7000 now) and was created in 7 days.

You mean 6 days. ^_^

Re:Which VERSION?

[MortimerGraves]

#3 may also be called Theistic Evolution.

Although exact definitions of Theistic Evolution do vary the basic idea is that the scientifically identifiable and verifiable process of evolution through mutation and natural selection is the mechanism by which god has caused the current state of life... and leaving abiogenesis aside is completely compatible with #5 (and possibly #4 depending of how much, or how little "guiding" goes on).

While personally agnostic, if I were religious I'd find the idea of a god who created all of the scientific systems we observe at the very beginning of the universe and then let things run to reach this point a far more awe inspiring concept than a young-earth creationist deity who made mud-people 6000 years ago.

Re:Which VERSION?

[martin-boundary]

The last day was when the system went live and god was just monitoring it for showstopper bugs, but it's still listed on the final bill -> 7 days.

Re:Which VERSION?

[DarkEmpath]

Two things:

5. Quantum Mechanical Atheistic Evolution- Natural selection is entirely unguided and random - the only thing limiting evolution is death of bad mutations.

There is NOTHING random about natural selection. NOTHING. Genetic variations are SELECTED. That's the point. Nobody that know anything about evolution believes it's random, and only those trying to discredit evolution say it is. This version as you present it is believed by no one, it's merely a strawman that creationist like to point at and discredit.

I'd expect in Australia they should at least be teaching the myths of the natives in an ancient history class!

Yes, we do. All throughout primary school we're taught the aboriginal myths about the rainbow serpent creating the countryside, the quinkins, how the kangaroo got it's tail, how the rosella got it's colours, etc. But we are a predominantly christian country, so besides the normal curriculum we get "scripture" - usually half an hour per week where the classes split up into catholic, protestant, and "neither".

Re:Which VERSION?

[Anonymous Coward]

7. Big Bang - from nothing became everything......

Re:Which VERSION?

[the_womble]

All those, and you still missed out the mainstream Christian one:

God created the entire universe, including space and time, and therefore intended evolution to happen as it did.

Incidentally, God is outside time, and therefore knows the future, but does not experience it as the future, anymore than you would by looking at a sequence of video frames.

Re:Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Thank you. I had forgotten the date- since I'm not a Young Earth Creationist- and had wondered if the change in millenia had changed the estimate.

Re:Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The distinction is between scientific arrogance and scientific humility.

#2, Darwinian evolution, proposes no cause for the mutations *at all*, and any discussion of such a cause is outside of the theories of #2. Likewise, talk of a goal (or lack thereof) is outside of what Darwin considered; it simply isn't in his data set at all.

#5 adds physics and quantum mechanics to *actively deny* a goal of any sort, and in fact, slightly changes Darwinian evolution to include a cause that *MUST* be so (because without a goal, one needs a truly random distribution of mutations, both beneficial and destructive, to explain complex or intelligent life).

Re:Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"can also be created by natural processes."

But what created the natural processes?

Re:Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

There is NOTHING random about natural selection. NOTHING. Genetic variations are SELECTED. That's the point. Nobody that know anything about evolution believes it's random, and only those trying to discredit evolution say it is. This version as you present it is believed by no one, it's merely a strawman that creationist like to point at and discredit.
 
Try telling that to Paul Lutus, or even this article on About.com:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismscienceevolution/a/RandomUniverse.htm. However, I did mistype slightly- it is the MUTATIONS that are by necessity random, not the SELECTION of those mutations, and in that you're correct.

Re:Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The problem with the big bang is an unexplained localized (but the universe itself was localized at this point, and that's the problem with it) universal expansion that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics- AND it has nothing to do with life on THIS planet specifically, which is what creationism and evolution are limited to.

Re:Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Nope, that's #3. Sorry I didn't explain it well enough for you.

And the difference between #3 and #4, as has already been explained by another responder, is Christianity vs Deism.

Re:Which VERSION?

[MightyMartian]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw

The claim that the Big Bang violates thermodynamics is bullcrap.

Re:Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's the FIRST law of thermodynamics, not the SECOND law.

Re:Which VERSION?

[MightyMartian]

You didn't read the next section. The Big Bang does not violate thermodynamics, except possibly if you go to more extreme (and thus far purely hypothetical) versions of the theory, at which point, if you're dealing with pre-Big Bang events, how could anyone justify trying to limit what happened by any laws of physics which only apply to the universe post-Big Bang. In these hypothetical arrangements (and again, I stress, these are hypothetical, and not even properly theoretical) there are likely different physical laws in place (in fact, in metaverse theories there may be an infinity of universes each with their own different laws and formulations of universal constants).

At any rate, if you had scrolled down one section you would have found this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#secondlaw

Re:Which VERSION?

[mattpalmer1086]

Nice breakdown of the possibilities, but like many people you mix up evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, only about how it changes and adapts to its environment over time. Theories of the creation of life from inanimate matter are called abiogenesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Re:Which VERSION?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Still fails to deal with the problem of the explosion (and space time with it) expanding faster than light in the first 6.0221415 × 10^23 microseconds.

history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[revlayle]

As far as we all know, ALL of the beliefs on how our species came to be as they are today is simply theory or speculation. Evolution seems like a good logical choice for all of us. Some people really do think the universe was created just 6000 years ago (does that take into account time-dilation relative to God?) and some are trying out this theory of ID. Just because we don;t buy it doesn't mean it's wrong. Hell, we may be all wrong, it might be that the world was breathed into life by drunken colossal space monkeys (not related to humans) who had some sort of dare that one gave to another a hojillion years ago.

I think the evolution theory is the best we have right now, and the big band sounds plausible considering the expansion rate of the universe. Is that how it happened ultimately? No freaking clue and I think we fight and evangelize about it too much (myself included at times).

Maybe teach creationism, ID AND evolution in school... teach them as the three most widely-accepted ideas on how the world started and push them forward as all *theories* and there is no scientific proof (there is evidence for some, but that is not conclusive proof) for any of it yet?

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[MightyMartian]

Maybe teach creationism, ID AND evolution in school... teach them as the three most widely-accepted ideas on how the world started and push them forward as all *theories* and there is no scientific proof (there is evidence for some, but that is not conclusive proof) for any of it yet?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

The number of scientists, and more importantly biologists, who think there is any question about the factuality of evolution is so exceedingly remote as to pretty much be considered universal consensus.

As to how the world started, um, that's cosmology, stellar formation, planet formation and geology. Evolution is the study of genetic change in populations, not in how the world came about.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[revlayle]

Also I did misspoke here: "Maybe teach creationism, ID AND evolution in school... teach them as the three most widely-accepted ideas on how the world started..." - using "on how the *world* started" was a very poor choice of words, in that instance I should have put "on how our species became what they are today" or something like that.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Danse]

I think the evolution theory is the best we have right now, and the big band sounds plausible considering the expansion rate of the universe. Is that how it happened ultimately? No freaking clue and I think we fight and evangelize about it too much (myself included at times).

The problem with letting them believe that is that it validates all the other crazy crap they believe and that they try to get turned into law that the rest of us have to abide by.

Maybe teach creationism, ID AND evolution in school... teach them as the three most widely-accepted ideas on how the world started and push them forward as all *theories* and there is no scientific proof (there is evidence for some, but that is not conclusive proof) for any of it yet?

No. Evolution is a scientific theory based on the evidence. No scientific theory is ever proven absolutely true, but evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories out there. ID and creationism are not scientific theories. They aren't based on evidence, they don't make falsifiable claims, and they don't have any predictive power. They are simply myths that some religions have adopted as an explanation for that which they don't understand. To teach them as anything but that would be a lie.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[MightyMartian]

Yet, we still call it a "Theory" for some reason.

Yes, it's a scientific theory, which is something considerably different than the colloquial definition. Why you guys keep trotting out this faulty and fallacious argument is quite beyond me. In formal definition, what you've committed is the etymological fallacy. Because a word or phrase may have multiple meanings doesn't mean that every application of the word invokes the same meaning. In science, a theory is a considerably more rigorously formulated claim or set of claims than just "wild ass guess", which is where you appear to be going. But it's a standard Creationist and ID stunt to try to diminish the rigorous nature of scientific theories to give a sort of rhetorical bump to claims that aren't even remotely scientific (and ID/Creationism is not science by any useful definition of the word).

And yes, I know about most of the evidence,

I'm doubting that very highly.

and yes I buy that (more than anything else right now). I also understand that we might possibly be all wrong at any moment. As for the cosmology comment, I knew that was a veering off track a bit... but creationism and ID is a bit more broad reaching than evolution as they both tend to go over the concept on how "everything began" while evolution is more "the origin of species" - so I threw that in there.

And now you're inventing definitions for ID and Creationism to bolster your argument. Creationism may certainly be more expansive, but ID, as formulated by Behe and Dembski, is not about how planets form, but as a direct challenge to features of biological evolution.

I have a pretty good suspicion that you are not at all familiar with biological evolution and Intelligent Design. You certainly know nothing about science judging by the statement Yet, we still call it a "Theory" for some reason.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Rantastic]

Yet, we still call it a "Theory" for some reason. And yes, I know about most of the evidence, and yes I buy that (more than anything else right now). I also understand that we might possibly be all wrong at any moment.

We still call gravity a "Theory" as well. You are making the common mistake about the scientific use of the word.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences: Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[MightyMartian]

I think we should teach science in science classes, and leave religious education to churches. ID and Creationism are not scientific theories. At the very most they belong in religious studies or philosophy classes.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[purplebear]

I would ask for the addition to define evolution. Evolution is tossed about to mean both micro- and macro-evolution as if they are one thing. Evolutionists would do themselves a tremendous favor to make a distinction between the two. Micro-evolution to a degree can be seen. Macro-evolution has no evidence of existence at all.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[MightyMartian]

I would ask for the addition to define evolution. Evolution is tossed about to mean both micro- and macro-evolution as if they are one thing. Evolutionists would do themselves a tremendous favor to make a distinction between the two. Micro-evolution to a degree can be seen. Macro-evolution has no evidence of existence at all.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Care to retract, or will you just keep repeating a 25 year old Creationist lie. It's one thing to be a fool, it's something far worse to be a fool who repeats another fool's lies.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[ColdWetDog]

Maybe teach creationism, ID AND evolution in school... teach them as the three most widely-accepted ideas on how the world started and push them forward as all *theories* and there is no scientific proof (there is evidence for some, but that is not conclusive proof) for any of it yet?

You're missing the point. Creationism and ID aren't 'theories' in any sort of formal way (homework assignment - try to formulate a way to test for tenets of ID / creationism - pulling quotes out of badly translated ancient tomes does not count as evidence). Once you elevate them to the level of evolution, you've lost the battle. They should be relegated to Sunday school or YouTube.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[purplebear]

Nope. No need to retract. That is quite the well crafted propaganda I expected in reply.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Decameron81]

Yet, we still call it a "Theory" for some reason. And yes, I know about most of the evidence, and yes I buy that (more than anything else right now). I also understand that we might possibly be all wrong at any moment.

We still call gravity a "Theory" as well. You are making the common mistake about the scientific use of the word.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences: Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.

As a side note: scientifical theories must be testable through experiment (this means there should be a way to look for some evidence to prove the theory wrong). This is enough to filter ID and Creationism out.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[revlayle]

I'll give you the ID argument, as, that is true, I know little about it. I understand scientific theory (the simplest way to explain a phenomenon based on observations from the past - generally the most plausible way to explain something - i am no expert, obviously). However, it is still theory and not law. Also, I do think these beliefs would be interesting to teach from a historical or philosophical standpoint, but the only one you could possible teach from a scientific standpoint would be evolution (at least right now)... even though, it still might (a minuscule chance) be wrong (still could be those fucking colossal space monkeys).

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[MightyMartian]

Propaganda? Interesting, could you please provide two items on the list that you consider propaganda, and what's more explain why the cited sources are propaganda.

In fact I'll openly challenge you right now. I don't think you've read the page. I don't think you know anything about evolution.

But prove it to me. Give me two evidences (whether you believe it or not) for evolution.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Decameron81]

I'll give you the ID argument, as, that is true, I know little about it. I understand scientific theory (the simplest way to explain a phenomenon based on observations from the past - generally the most plausible way to explain something - i am no expert, obviously). However, it is still theory and not law. Also, I do think these beliefs would be interesting to teach from a historical or philosophical standpoint, but the only one you could possible teach from a scientific standpoint would be evolution (at least right now)... even though, it still might (a minuscule chance) be wrong (still could be those fucking colossal space monkeys).

There's nothing wrong with teaching ID from a phylosophical point of view. The problem is when people want's to teach it as if it was science. As I mentioned in another post: scientifical theories must be testable through experiment (this means there should be a way to look for some evidence to prove the theory wrong). This is enough to filter ID and Creationism out as scientific theories. They can still be taught as other kind of theories though and that would be fine.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[MightyMartian]

Boy, you sure know how to throw out the etymological fallacies. "Law" is an outmoded term that hasn't really been used in science since the beginning of the 20th century. There is fundamentally no difference between the old 18th and 19th century notion of a "scientific law" and the 20th and 21st century notion of a "scientific theory". It's just a change of usage.

You're floundering. Your lack of knowledge is such that your just aping very bad Creationist arguments.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[revlayle]

Well if it kept to history (even though it is pretty recent history and I am not so sure of the historical significance except as the most recent challenge to evolution - that is somewhat generally known) with an explanation that ID is NOT a scientific point of view or even a scientific study, then, yeah, teach the crap out of that crap. I think, that this stuff is more suited for college or high-school at least. Some of this is pretty heavy for younger kids. Even evolution is a pretty heavy subject - easier to grasp as science is more logical process that you can step anyone through, while philosophical thoughts are considerably more abstract and often requires just "belief" to have any "truth" in them.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[NeutronCowboy]

Nope. No need to retract. That is quite the well crafted propaganda I expected in reply.

And yet, you have nothing to refute it. Talk is cheap. Go prove something.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[purplebear]

Ok, I'll play along.

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Mosquito resistance to DDT.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[schon]

Yet, we still call it a "Theory" for some reason.

Followed by

I understand scientific theory

Shows that you do not understand the meaning of the word "theory". Because if you did, you wouldn't implicitly wonder why evolution is called a theory.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Do yourself (and everyone else here) a favour and read that - once you understand it, you'll be able to understand why evolution is "still" referred to as a theory.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[MightyMartian]

That's not really macroevolution, now is it, though it does prove rather well the basic tenets of evolutionary theory; change in genetic populations over time and the fitter tend to be selected.

But I'm referring to specifically what you railed against, which was macroevolution. Come on, I gave you damned link with a few dozen evidences, and all you can come up with are examples that don't even really broach the major lines of evidence?

You're not playing along at all.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[purplebear]

You asked for two evidences of evolution. That's what I gave. Might want to re-read the request.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Anonymous Coward]

That nonsense wouldn't last two minutes in a philosophy class.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[MightyMartian]

The context of it was your claim that macroevolution never happened. It strikes me now that you can't actually back up your claim and are trying to weasel out. Typical Creationist, big talk, but nothing below the surface.

I'll wager you've never even read an actual book by a biologist. You certainly seem incapable of defending your position. You certainly never bothered looking at the page, which comes with full references and citations. Calling that propaganda is itself little more than dishonest hyperbole.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach the controversy of "Intelligent Falling"! What, do you have something you hide?

Heck, you silly "scientists" can't even find a Graviton.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[revlayle]

After reading about this a bit more, I have to say that you are right. Why the change of usage and why the deprecation of the word "law"? I am certainly a layman in these respects (painfully obvious by now), using the word "theory" to the rest of the world seems to indicate something that isn't totally proven. I even think that the distinction is incorrectly taught to this day. I mean I was taught that in my junior-high school days in the mid 80s - and no indication was given, of course, that "law" is not used much anymore. Going into college my studies didn't really center around those distinctions either (ok, I am sure my Physics courses did, but I didn't care about them so much then - I was Computer "Science" - where not a lot of science is really taught in regards to software development).

when I'm wrong, I'm wrong... and usually, for all to see on /.

Being on topic and echoing in another post I made, I still think creationism and ID would make good philosophical studies (and maybe history, even thought for ID not sure of the significance except as the "counter" to evolution), not sure it would be appropriate for grade schools.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[DragonWriter]

As a side note: scientifical theories must be testable through experiment (this means there should be a way to look for some evidence to prove the theory wrong).

Perhaps pedantic, but its an important point in this context:

A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable through experiment (that is, it must make some prediction[s] about how things will work in specific circumstances that can be tested and which, if the test fails, will demonstrate that the hypothesis is incorrect.)

A scientific theory is not merely a testable hypothesis, but a hypothesis which has been subjected to testing and not yet been falsified.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we please stop calling it "Macroevolution"?
It's a word made up by creationists and it cheapens evolution.

Macroevolution is a product of "microevolution" (also made up by creationists) over a longer timeframe.

It's _all_ just evolution.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Anonymous Coward]

This recent history of religion is way too specific for a high school history course, although teaching it in such a biased environment might make sense considering the effects on society and politics.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[UnknowingFool]

However, it is still theory and not law. Also, I do think these beliefs would be interesting to teach from a historical or philosophical standpoint, but the only one you could possible teach from a scientific standpoint would be evolution (at least right now)... even though, it still might (a minuscule chance) be wrong (still could be those fucking colossal space monkeys).

In science there is no such thing as "laws" anymore. This is an outdated concept. Everything is really a theory. Although Newton's "Law of Gravitation" is still named "Law", it is really a theory. Incidentally Einstein proved that Newton's "Law" was essentially incomplete in that Newton's equations are true only for situations where there is relatively low mass and low speed. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity fills this gap; however, Einstein knew that this was incomplete as General Relativity is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Jason Levine]

Let's put it this way, could Evolution be proven wrong? Perhaps, but it would take an insane level of evidence to do that. Something like finding a rabbit fossil where only single cell organisms should be. Absent from that level of insane evidence, challenges to Evolution are in the "tweak not toss" category. Maybe hominids developed a little earlier. Maybe dinosaurs were a little different. A tweak here and a tweak there and Evolution survives as a changed theory. (You still won't get cavemen riding dinosaurs, though.)

So while it is true that Evolution could be proven wrong, the chances are minuscule. You have better odds of buying a single lotto ticket and hitting the $300 million jackpot than you have of Evolution being proven completely and totally wrong.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Kjella]

Pointing to the scientific definition may help, but maybe it's better to point out why scientists use it that way. Everyone who takes a prism out in the sunlight can see that the light is split in different colors. That is the practical, the observation without any theory as to how and why. What they don't get from that is the background of why they're seeing those colors in that order, why different materials will bend light differently and so on. That is what scientists call theory, it is the explanation, the theoretical foundation, the underlying principles and not simply a hunch.

Unfortunately, scientists occasionally use the casual meaning of the word themselves, because in the scientific world there's no confusion. "Hmm, that doesn't look right." "Yeah well, I have a theory about that. It might be that..." is hardly that unheard of words. It's just that no one of them has a problem separating "pet theory" from the "generally acknowledged scientific truth" variety. Well at least as close as you get truth, principally gravity could stop working right now. And there's the philosophers who'll argue that potentially we couldn't know "truth" from the Matrix and so on. But if you accept living in a real universe with other people, evolution looks pretty damn solid.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[maxwell demon]

Maybe teach creationism, ID AND evolution in school... teach them as the three most widely-accepted ideas on how the world started

Except that evolution isn't about how the world started. It isn't even about how life started. It's about how life, once it existed, evolved.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Mab_Mass]

Don't forget to teach Intelligent Falling while we're at it!

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[UnknowingFool]

After reading about this a bit more, I have to say that you are right. Why the change of usage and why the deprecation of the word "law"?

Because "law" implies that it is absolute, unchanging, and untouchable. Everything in science is up to repudiation because scientists concede that we don't know everything. The revision was made because "laws" like gravitation were modified showing that they are not absolute.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think the evolution theory is the best we have right now

Evolution is not a theory, it is observable, it is measurable, it is even demonstrable (in such areas as dog breeding).

The Theory is 'Darwin's Natural Selection' which is an explanation of how evolution occurs in the natural world and how new species form and old ones disappear.

In a similar way 'The Theory of Gravity' does not speculate that gravity may exist, but it explains the ways that calculations can be done to predict movements due to gravity. Proving that this theory is 'wrong' will not make us float off into space.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[bcrowell]

Maybe teach creationism, ID AND evolution in school... teach them as the three most widely-accepted ideas on how the world started and push them forward as all *theories* and there is no scientific proof (there is evidence for some, but that is not conclusive proof) for any of it yet?

"Theory" in science doesn't mean the same thing as "theory" in common speech. In everyday speech, "theory" means "what someone thinks." In science, it means something that is capable of making testable predictions, and that has made correct predictions in all the cases where the theory is applicable. For example, Newton's law of gravity is a scientific theory. Although we know it's not true in any absolute sense (because it's only an approximation to general relativity), we know that it is accurate to within certain bounds, under certain conditions.

Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories in this sense. They don't testable predictions.

One of the favorite lines of creationists is "it's only a theory." If they mean that evolution is only a (scientific) theory, then they're saying that evolution is totally solid. If they're saying that creationism is only an (alternative) (scientific) theory, then they don't understand what a scientific theory is.

...and the big [bang] sounds plausible considering the expansion rate of the universe. Is that how it happened ultimately? No freaking clue and I think we fight and evangelize about it too much (myself included at times).

Here it sounds like you just don't have enough scientific knowledge to evaluate the evidence correctly. The current rate of expansion of the universe is not the only evidence for the big bang theory. Within the last 15 years, cosmology has become an exact science. There are extremely tight observational constraints. In addition, one of the things Stephen Hawking built his early career on was proving certain singularity theorems. One of those singularity theorems says that given what we currently observe about the universe, general relativity predicts that there *has* to have been a big bang.

One of the most common things that laypeople misundertand about science is that they think scientists know about things they don't know about, and don't know about things that they do know about. The big bang falls in the latter category. Just because you don't know enough about the evidence to be sure, that doesn't mean there's any doubt remaining among scientists.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Tim C]

We still call gravity a "Theory" as well.

Ah now, what we call the "theory of gravity" is the mathematical and physical explanation for the effect that we see - namely, that massive bodies experience mutual attraction.

Gravity is an observational fact; the mechanism by which it operates and the equations that describe it are the theory.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your argument in the least of course, but as long as we're being semantically rigorous...

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] and push them forward as all *theories* and there is no scientific proof (there is evidence for some, but that is not conclusive proof)

The demand for "conclusive proof" (in the way you mean it here) is also only used by people who have no clue of how science works. Conclusive proof can only be found in mathematics. There is no such thing conclusive proof in scientific theories since we can only verify the phenomena that the scienctific theory predicts. To paraphrase Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; yet a single experiment can prove me wrong."

When scientists says they have conclusive proof they really mean: "This theory has been thoroughly tested and has not been proven wrong."

Frankly, this whole discussion and constant lecturing on what science is is starting to make my blood boil. Basically, I feel the concept of falsifiability should be understood by everyone; if so, all this pseudo-scientific bullshit would end.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot of nasty comments made here about people who believe in ID and ID itself that are not helpful.

Religious intolerance is the root of most of the evil in the world. Having data and a theory (and I'm a big fan of Darwin myself, don't get me wrong) to back up one's intolerance doesn't make that intolerance any less evil.

You can believe the universe was created by God or by Pure Random Chance, or that we all sprouted like mushrooms from a cosmic cowpie, it makes absolutely no difference to me, as long as you treat other people with respect.

Name calling doesn't make either side right.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Kidbro]

Maybe teach creationism, ID AND evolution in school... teach them as the three most widely-accepted ideas on how the world started

Indeed. And while we're at it, let's, maybe, teach that the earth is a more or less spheric rock among balls of burning gas, also that it is flat, and then that it rests on the backs of giant elephants, all the way down... teach them as the three most widely-accepted ideas on earth's relation to the cosmos...

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[MightyMartian]

Being on topic and echoing in another post I made, I still think creationism and ID would make good philosophical studies (and maybe history, even thought for ID not sure of the significance except as the "counter" to evolution), not sure it would be appropriate for grade schools.

In philosophical studies, one would review Hume, and find out he debunked the core argument of ID; Paley's Watchmaker argument, nearly three centuries ago. Intelligent design is as bad a philosophy as it is a science.

If you add in St. Augustine, one can even posit that ID is bad theology, too.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Simplistic. I like it.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Alsee]

I have a radical proposal. How about we teach an accurate overview of science, as actually understood and practiced by professional scientists in each field.

And what about "scientific controversies"? Well, if one PhD astronomer gets schizophrenia and claims the moon is made of cheese we're obviously not going to mention that in any class. So how about this, if actual physicists are equally split on something we spend equal time on both. That's perfectly logical, right? And if actual chemists are split 90% vs 10% about 10% on something, we teach the 90% view as mainstream accepted science, and lets be generous and say maybe it is worth while spending 10% of the time discussing "the controversy" and the contrary view. That's more than fair and reasonable, right? Spending 10% time on a 10% view? And if there is a 99% vs 1% split between actual astronomers on something, we absolutely teach the 99% version as accepted science and we spend, MAYBE, AT MOST, 1% time pointing out that sometimes a few scientists disagree with accepted science and briefly mentioning what the 1% view is. I think it is grossly generous to spend 1% time teaching a 1% "controversy". And how about we use that 1% level as a cutoff. How about we agree that anything below a 1% level pretty much represents the random crackpots that exist in every field. How about we agree that anything rejected by more than 99% of professionals in a field has no place in a science classroom.

Is that reasonable? Is that agreeable?

Oh, by the way, if we rounded off to the nearest full percentage point, 100% of professional biologists accept evolution. If you want to start getting into decimals, more than 99.8% of professional biologists accept evolution. Seriously. Intelligent Design isn't science. It's a public relations campaign trying to pass itself off as science to claw it's way into science classes. The ID materials are plausible enough to confuse and mislead school children, but it's all flawed or misleading or just plain false. All of the supposed science in ID has been refuted by actual biologists.

-

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Decameron81]

As a side note: scientifical theories must be testable through experiment (this means there should be a way to look for some evidence to prove the theory wrong).

Perhaps pedantic, but its an important point in this context:

A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable through experiment (that is, it must make some prediction[s] about how things will work in specific circumstances that can be tested and which, if the test fails, will demonstrate that the hypothesis is incorrect.)

A scientific theory is not merely a testable hypothesis, but a hypothesis which has been subjected to testing and not yet been falsified.

Never pedantic if it clears out misconceptions. Thanks for the correction, I found it insightful. :)

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Alsee]

Why the change of usage and why the deprecation of the word "law"?

Once upon a time we had the Law Of Conservation Of Mass, and the Law Of Conservation Of Energy. And then Relativity came along and subatomic physics, and we found that both are false. Mass can become energy, and energy can become mass. Calling them "laws" in the first place was wrong, or at best misleading.

We inherited the usage of "law" from hundreds of years ago when the methods and philosophy of modern science were first being born. Whenever some apparent rule of nature was discovered they slapped the name "law" on it. They were discovering the Laws Of Nature. Newton discovered an equation describing gravity, so they slapped the name Law Of Gravity on it.

As modern science progressed it became clear that that understanding progresses in layers. Things that were "true" and "facts" yesterday can always be superseded by new and better understanding tomorrow, and things that were "true" and "facts" yesterday can always be refuted by new experiments and new evidence tomorrow.

In the modern philosophy of science everything is open to question. Everything is open to new and better understanding, new and better evidence. The highest status anything can have in modern science is theory, a theory supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. The existence of atoms? That is atom theory, supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. The existence of atoms is inherently open to question, but anyone would be an idiot to waste their time on it unless you can present some damn good new evidence and a new theory that explains known chemistry better than the current atom theory.

Between Evolution, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, Evolution almost indisputably holds the strongest scientific status of the three. All three are supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. Allow me to split Evolution into two parts. One, evolution as a process, and two, evolution as an explanation of history.

Evolution-as-a-process is a mathematically proven fact. Given a few minimal conditions, given essentially any system involving selective replication of information with mutation, it is mathematically proven that the process of evolution will occur and that it can and will create new "useful" information. (Where "useful" means useful for being selected and reproducing.)

Evolution-as-an-explanation-of-history is supported beyond any reasonable doubt by all available evidence. New evidence will help fill in new details, but barring a massive fraud of false evidence planted by God or intelligent aliens there is no reason to expect some new level of understanding and some new underlying truth fundamentally overturning the evolution-as-history. It's like we're a jury in a murder case and we have fingerprints and DNA evidence and we have lousy quality video of the suspect committing the murder. The video is very noisy and it is mostly gaps. But barring a massive deliberate fabrication of evidence to frame the suspect, there is no reason to imagine that new evidence is going to fundamentally alter the prosecution's theory of historical events. New evidence from cleaning up the video and filling in the gaps is not going to fundamentally change the story.

In comparison, we know for a fact that at least one of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics must be wrong. There are spots where they directly contradict each other. The available evidence supports each one to the best of our ability to test, but the available evidence also says that neither one is fundamentally sufficient. Physicists do expect a fundamentally new layer of understanding to explain (and potentially overturn) both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

The science side in this conflict merely wants to treat all fields of science the same. Evolution and chemistry are both "theories". They are supported by all available evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. For all practical purposes they are "true" in the same sense t

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[barelynerd]

Evolution is as scientific a theory as ID is, in fact, it takes more faith to believe it than ID. Why? A theory attempts to explain the "why" of what you observe around you. In order for evolutionists to arrive at their theory, they have to jump across a gap of missing logical/data/observational fact. ID don't have this missing gap in truth, and thus don't need as much faith to believe it Both are theories explaining the scientific nature around us. To teach that there is only one explanation would be worse than lying.

Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should teach science in science classes, and leave religious education to churches. ID and Creationism are not scientific theories. At the very most they belong in religious studies or philosophy classes.

I agree with this statement.The question for Creationists is were the Dinosaur fossils included in the "6 day Creation".ID suggests that there were a multitude of Designers, Ad Infinitum,because D#1 must have been designed by D#2 in order to do the ID.

God helps those who help themselves....

[ibsteve2u]

So feel free to ignore the paleontological, cosmological, geological, and archeological record, 'cuz God wants you to be ignorant all by yourself.

Re:God helps those who help themselves....

[cjonslashdot]

Well said!

And if aliens started life on earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are we going to determine that? Why can't we apply archeological principles to biology? Thats exactly what ID is.

Make up their own minds?

[Danse]

From TFA:

"We talk to students from a faith science basis, but we're not biased in the delivery of curriculum," Mrs Doneley said. "We say, 'This is where we're coming from' but allow students to make up their own minds."

Without a solid foundation in scientific methodology and critical thinking, students aren't equipped to determine what is evidently correct and what is not. I can't tell from the article what grade they're including this topic for, but unless their schools are a lot better than US schools, I doubt that any high school student is equipped well enough to determine the validity of an assertion such as Intelligent Design.

Re:Make up their own minds?

[NeutronCowboy]

I can't tell from the article what grade they're including this topic for, but unless their schools are a lot better than US schools, I doubt that any high school student is equipped well enough to determine the validity of an assertion such as Intelligent Design.

WTF? Scientific theory is something that can be taught at the 8th grade. A 6-year old can understand the difference between"magic" and "here's how you test it".

Start expecting more from kids, and you will get more from them. Expect less, and you will get exactly that.

Well, it pretty much is copied

[Jabrwock]

word for word from creationism. So while it is "updated" with more modern ideas, the core concept is still pretty old. So no different than studying Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.

What "Intelligent Design" is...

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

"Intelligent Design" in the U.S. was nothing more than Creationism repackaged in an attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. In other words, it is unconstitutional to teach Creationism or "Intelligent Design" in U.S. public schools. To all the bible-thumpering conservatives in the U.S. who don't like that, now I can say "Send your kids to a parochial school or go live in Australia".

Re:What "Intelligent Design" is...

[UnknowingFool]

Technically the Supreme Court has never said that teaching creationism is illegal. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism as science was illegal as it promoted religion and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause. In Kitzmiller v Dover , ID was conclusively banned from being taught as science. The Kitzmiller decision went further than Edwards in that Judge Jones ruled:

• ID was religious in nature.
• ID was the progeny of creationism and was creationism merely re-labeled.
• ID was not science and failed to meet basic criteria of scientific principles.
• ID was introduced for secular purposes not academic ones.

The totality of the decision means that it would be very difficult for ID to ever be accepted as it would have to overcome all the points that Judge Jones noted.

Re:What "Intelligent Design" is...

[purplebear]

Odd that the bible, including creation, was taught in public education until approx 1948.

Re:What "Intelligent Design" is...

[Danse]

Odd that the bible, including creation, was taught in public education until approx 1948.

Why is that odd? Lots of unconstitutional things have been done throughout our history, and continued until they were successfully challenged in court. Creation is obviously a religious belief, and public school teachers are obviously employees of the state, so it's quite evident that teaching creationism is the advancement of specific religious belief by the government. This is quite plainly unconstitutional. Unless we are going to teach all of the other religious creation myths alongside it, it has no place in public schools. Even if it were to be taught alongside other religious beliefs, it should not be in a science or history class, as it has no evidence to support it as either science or history.

Re:What "Intelligent Design" is...

[buddyglass]

teaching creationism is the advancement of specific religious belief by the government. This is quite plainly unconstitutional.

This wasn't unconstitutional, generally speaking, until after Everson vs. Board of Education (1947), in which the establishment clause of the 1st amendment was incorporated against the states. Even given that, I can envision scenarios where "teaching creationism" would not be considered unconstitutional. For example, if creation theory were examined critically and compared to evolutionary theory, with the former clearly described as a fringe view (among scientists) and the latter clearly described as the consensus view.

Re:What "Intelligent Design" is...

[bckrispi]

And just think: 80 years before that, you could legally own another human being as property.

Re:What "Intelligent Design" is...

[Alsee]

Odd that the bible, including creation, was taught in public education until approx 1948.

No odder than the fact that there were laws prohibiting blacks and whites from marrying until 1967.

Hell, congress has been hiring priests to preform offical prayer sessions from the very first session of congress right up to today despite the fact that in approximately 1817 James Madison, primary author of the Bill of Rights, stated that was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. Madison didn't pursue it because he had bigger issues to deal with.

The government, and Congress in particular, do unconstitutional stuff all the time. Just because the Supreme Court hasn't yet smacked down some of those things does not alter the fact that they are unconstitutional.

-

Re:What "Intelligent Design" is...

[Alsee]

* ID was religious in nature.
* ID was the progeny of creationism and was creationism merely re-labeled.
* ID was not science and failed to meet basic criteria of scientific principles.
* ID was introduced for secular purposes not academic ones.

You made a mental typo on the last one.
The judge ruled ruled ID was introduced for religious purposes, and that the claim of secular(academic) purposes was a sham.

-

Re:What "Intelligent Design" is...

[NoOneInParticular]

Nope, it still would give creationism way too much credit. Creation 'theory' is not theory. It's a pre-scientific belief. There is also not a single creationism that you can pinpoint: every culture has their own creation myths, and religious people usually pick and choose from the set of beliefs to form their own creation theory. Yes, God created the earth and all in it, but since then evolution took over. No, God created the universe, and let physics and evolution do the hard work. No, God created earth and all in it, and all species have been 'largely' unchanged since then. No God created earth last thursday, including our belief in evolution, and there's not time for actual evolution since last thursday. No it was Vishnu, Jaweh, A big turtle, an elephant, two rinos, the sun, the moon, ..., ..., ...

Thousands upon thousands of different and mutually exclusive creation 'theories'. What method would you propose to construct a single creation 'theory' that you could pit against neo-Darwinism?

Re:What "Intelligent Design" is...

[buddyglass]

I was mostly referring to ID, which specifies design but not a designer. Could be God, gods, aliens, you name it.

Design filed in Ancient History, not Engineering?

[noidentity]

I find it odd they'd file (intelligent) design of things under Ancient History, rather than Engineering. It's true that people designed things long ago, but they still do, at least at some companies. Anyway, it's good they're specifically teaching an important skill like intelligent design, as this is often neglected in engineering.

Just as bad in history as it is in science class

[hellfire]

I don't know about you, but ancient history classes for me included discussions of the paleolithic. You know, things that happened more than 6000 years ago?

Intelligent design is creationism in a cloak of pseudoscience bullshit. Intelligent design attempts to pass itself off as a scientific theory when you can't prove it, therefore it's not a theory, it's a random hypothesis with no supporting evidence. And yet because proponents of ID keep trying to do this annoying tap dance around scientific principles when it's not science.

I refuse to allow ID in any school in any way because it's a lie. Creationism as a philosophy isn't a lie, it shows itself exactly for what it is, it's a philosophy of how people think the universe was created, but there's no science behind it. Fine, so it belongs in a philosophy class that discusses multiple philosophies and ideas and critical thinking and that's it. ID is an attempt to get creationism outside of philosophy and into any other class, and that's because when you allow people to think about and question an idea, critical thinking will expose the truths and flaws. By getting it into another class, it suddenly becomes something that gets more legitimacy. The average person in a history/science/math class simply accepts what they are taught as so. People who are vested in teaching creationism don't want you to think about this or have a real critical thinking discussion, they are just hoping for more sheep.

Design Theories

[geoffrobinson]

Design theories go all the way back to ancient Greece. There is plenty to teach about.

Darwin's argument is many ways theological/philosophical and is trying to falsify design theories. So I guess if design arguments of any type isn't worth teaching and isn't science, Darwin shouldn't be taught either. How can a negative answer to design be considered science but a positive answer (even if you think it is false) is science? It just doesn't work unless you simply want to say any argument we find wrong or fault "isn't science", which opens its own can of worms.

Re:Design Theories

[Danse]

Design theories go all the way back to ancient Greece. There is plenty to teach about.

Darwin's argument is many ways theological/philosophical and is trying to falsify design theories. So I guess if design arguments of any type isn't worth teaching and isn't science, Darwin shouldn't be taught either. How can a negative answer to design be considered science but a positive answer (even if you think it is false) is science? It just doesn't work unless you simply want to say any argument we find wrong or fault "isn't science", which opens its own can of worms.

You apparently have no idea what the theory of evolution actually is, or of the evidence for it. Please educate yourself on it before making further ridiculous statements.

Re:Design Theories

[Chowderbags]

Bzzt. It's not things that are proven wrong that aren't science (well, they won't count as current scientific theories, but they could have been scientific in their time), it's things that can't possibly be proven wrong ever.

It is theoretically possible to disprove the theory of Evolution (or, much more likely, have it modified, as has been the case with genetics, retroviruses, the discovery of mitochondria having their own DNA and being able to trace that back). You can never, ever disprove the notion that a wizard did it. You could have fossils of every generation of every species and someone could still say "well, the wizard made it that way". If you try to ask how the wizard did it, the response will be a not very enlightening "magic". If you want to try and poke and prod at this wizard, you'll be told that he's invisible, and lives in the ether anyway so you can't touch him. This wizard is not falsifiable, so not matter how much Magical Design proponents might want him to be, he's not science (and never will be).

Re:Design Theories

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwin in no way tried to falsify design MYTH. Darwin explained how one species could evolve from another in order to become more fit for their environment. He in no way touched on your creation beliefs. Contrary to popular belief, Origin of Species and Evolution do not try to explain the origin of life or creation of the Earth.

Re:Design Theories

[hkmwbz]

Design theories go all the way back to ancient Greece. There is plenty to teach about.

It's too bad that ID has got nothing to do with those. If you want to teach actual design theories, why mention ID at all? It brings nothing whatsoever to the table. It's pure religion.

Darwin's argument is many ways theological/philosophical and is trying to falsify design theories.

No, Darwin formulated a theory to explain observations he made. He did not attempt to falsify religion as such, he merely did science.

this.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the US and Australia share a common esteem for one another above even that of the mother country. Not so much rugged individualists tackling a new frontier, rather broken-headed rejects overrunning a continent when left unsupervised by adults. In one case, convicts and whores, and the other, religious zealots that couldn't get along with their countrymen.

Re:this.

[Anonymous Coward]

wait... quite a bit of our "religious zealot" "forefathers" in the US weren't religious at all. In fact, some of them only supported the revolution, because they saw an opportunity to monopolize on a market. And several of them were people who ran to the New World in order to escape being convicted of crimes. Don't give the dumbass Christians fuel to burn their lies (and I am a Christian by definition of my beliefs, but some people take shit too far and try to rewrite history to align with their beliefs--and those people are worse than anyone wanting to take a damn cross off a hill or words off of our money).

Re:this.

[DrgnDancer]

The "Founding Fathers" were born generations after the initial settlers of the original colonies. As a very large generalization, the settlers were religious zealots who could not get along with their countrymen. There were exceptions: Georgia was an early experiment in the sort of penal colony that Australia would later become and Virgina was largely settled because of delusions of easy money, but in general the colonies were settled by religious zealots. It's a misnomer to say that these colonies were founded for "religious freedom" too. The colonists were generally free to practice their religions back in England, but felt terribly constrained by their inability to force their beliefs upon their countrymen. Again, there are exceptions: Pennsylvania was founded for religious reasons, but with a goal of true religious freedom.

This has little to do with the events of two hundred years later when the decedents of these original settlers decided to break ties with the mother country. The men who founded the United States were chronologically separated from the original European settlers of the land that would eventually become the United States by nearly as much time as we are separated from those founders now.

Re:this.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem I have here is that I'm not sure which country got the "convicts and whores," and which one got the "religious zealots that couldn't get along with their countrymen." Those terms could have applied to either one.

They taught ID in my school....

[phantomfive]

They taught intelligent design in my school. A lot. In social studies class, or current affairs. Along with evolution. In fact they did it much more in those classes than they did in an actual science class. The actual science class discussion, when it came around, was like one day. It is amazing to me the amount of political effort that goes in to a single day of class. Especially when the kids all have their mind made up about the topic by that point anyway.

Seriously, why is this still an issue 150 years later? Why do people feel that evolution needs to conflict with religion, and not say, geology?

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[Danse]

Seriously, why is this still an issue 150 years later? Why do people feel that evolution needs to conflict with religion, and not say, geology?

Religion is resistant to change by its very nature. A lot of the change happens by groups breaking away and forming new sects with somewhat different beliefs because its very difficult to change beliefs from within the group. When the changes do occur within the group, then you still often get a part of the group that wants to stick to the old beliefs, so they break off anyway.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[phantomfive]

That's interesting, but it still doesn't explain why people care about evolution (which really, as far as scientific evidence is concerned, doesn't conflict with religion. There is no part in the bible that says species can't change) and not geology, since geology states that the earth is quite old, and has a lot of evidence to back it up.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[PPH]

They taught intelligent design in my school. A lot. In social studies class, or current affairs.

Which is legitimate. Because the study of culture or politics involves the beliefs and mythology of their populations. It doesn't mean there's any reason behind those beliefs. If you want to understand why the natives throw virgins into the volcano, you've got to understand their fire gods.

The actual science class discussion, when it came around, was like one day. It is amazing to me the amount of political effort that goes in to a single day of class.

That makes me thing that some activist on a school board got an ID requirement passed. One day and that gets checked off the "to do" list. Done. Now we can get back to teaching actual science.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[Danse]

That's interesting, but it still doesn't explain why people care about evolution (which really, as far as scientific evidence is concerned, doesn't conflict with religion. There is no part in the bible that says species can't change) and not geology, since geology states that the earth is quite old, and has a lot of evidence to back it up.

A lot of religions don't dispute evolution. It's typically the more fundamentalist religions that take a more literal view of their respective holy texts that have the problem with it. These are the groups that tend to push for ID to be taught in schools.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[Creedo]

They do. They also try to undermine nuclear physics. It's quite sad, really.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[swillden]

That makes me thing that some activist on a school board got an ID requirement passed. One day and that gets checked off the "to do" list. Done. Now we can get back to teaching actual science.

If your guess is accurate, that's actually not a bad way to address the issue. Not only does it make the activist happy, it gives the science teacher an opportunity to briefly introduce the notion of "irreducible complexity", explain mechanisms by which such complexity arose (including Intelligent Design) and address the question of falsifiability and how ID isn't falsifiable. In other words, address the "sciency" part of ID head-on, in a neutral, scientific manner.

Science purists might be offended at this sort of political sop to religious sensibilities, but honestly it's probably a really good idea to formally introduce students to these ideas in a fact-based discussion *before* they come across them somewhere else in an emotionally-charged screed. In a sense, science teachers could take the opportunity to inoculate students against ID, by teaching it to them.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[bugs2squash]

It's important to attack something that people generally understand but find wondrous in some way. If they had chosen something that most people think they understand and is within most people's direct experience (like Gravity) the attack would be dismissed as lunatic too easily. Likewise if they had chosen something more incredible, but of which many people have not heard (like Quantum Electro-Dynamics) the attack would be seen as irrelevant, and besides; usually Children are not usually taught QED at an impressionable age. Hence they simply attack Darwinian evolution because it is a good fit in many people's world-view, not too geeky, not too well understood and part of the curriculum taught to children. It's our children they want, most of all.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[maxwell demon]

That's bvecause geology is just about the earth. Evolution also tells us about our place in the world. You will also find that the Copernican world view has generated much more heat than anything in geology. That's because, again, Copernicus told us something about our place in the universe. Copernicus told us that we are not living in the center of the universe, and Darwin told us that we are actually animals. Geology doesn't tell us anything about what is our place in the universe. Therefore it's not as controversial.

Basically there are four fundamental claims about our place in the world:

• The earth is not the center of the universe.
• Life is just organized matter.
• Humans are just highly evolved animals.
• The mind is just a function of the brain.

Point 1 has so much evidence that it now is generally accepted even by religious fundamentalists (or maybe I just don't know real fundamentalists). Point 2 and 3 have ample scientific evidence, but are still disputed by religious fundamentalists. Point 4 is still disputed even outside of religion.

Actually, there's a fifth claim which comes from modern physics, but that one isn't mainstream even in physics:

• Our universe is just one of many parallel ones.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[Tim C]

The actual science class discussion, when it came around, was like one day.

ID is not a scientific theory. As such, it should not be taught in science classes at all. At most, I would expect it to be mentioned as an example of what a scientific theory is not.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[bckrispi]

Young-earthers do dispute geology, just as blindly as they dispute evolution. And you need to read your bible more closely, as the very first two chapters of it contradict everything we know about evolution, biology, geology and cosmology.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[phantomfive]

Anyone who takes the entire bible literally doesn't understand literature.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[bckrispi]

I agree. But we're talking about 35% of the United States population here. Mass ignorance with a frightening amount of political clout.

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[swarsron]

Seriously, why is this still an issue 150 years later?

wow, you're old

Re:They taught ID in my school....

[billius]

This was my experience as well. I spent lots of time in humanities classes having to learn about different creation myths, etc. My exposure to evolution was limited to one *after school* session, which was prefaced by my teacher saying that evolution was "just a theory" and that people could believe whatever they wanted. I took AP (Advanced Placement) Biology. If that was they told the kids in the AP class, who knows if evolution even got more than a cursory mention in the regular class. I wonder what makes the school board think that it's a good idea for students to have a firm grip of life originating from the primordial, watery abyss of the Nu (as in the ancient Egyptian creation story), but basically no idea about the fundamental principal upon which basically all modern biology is based.

Wrong wording.

[Hurricane78]

“teach” is for actual information about reality.
The word for bullshit and brainwashing is “indoctrination”.
You know, like people in North Korea are brainwashed into thinking touching something with the US flag on it, would make their hands rot of. (According to a guy who helps people get out of there.)
Same thing here. Exactly the same thing.
Only that the churches are the power-hungry dictators.

Re:Wrong wording.

[ProteusQ]

The definition of "overreaction" now includes the above post as an example.

The Big Problem With ID....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that it *isn't* a sience in any way. ID uses what can be called the reverse scientific method, you start out with an assumption that you believe to be true, then you ignore or slander any information or ideas contrary to what you believe, then you declare it as fact.

The sad thing is that most people don't have a problem with ID, people are free to believe whatever they want. But it is not science.

Re:The reason it's going to be in Ancient History.

[purplebear]

The battle is over in science not because there is no founding for it. The battle is over because the leaders in the scientific go out of their way to seek out those with any dissenting opinion to popular theory and throw them out. Do a bit of research yourself and you will find many valid, well-informed professors thrown out of universities for presenting or even researching on the side aspects that did not agree with the status quo.
People, particularly on this forum, put Christians down as ignorant. I believe it is much more ignorant to just flat out silence opposing views rather than actually investigate them for real merit.

Who gives a shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it need to make the /. front page every time a school mentions God?

Actually, that's kind of the whole problem

[Moraelin]

Well, yes, there are a lot of books but basically they all boil down to going at length into some (logically invalid and/or based on strawmen) way in which Darwinism is all wrong.

Just ask anyone to explain ID to you without mentioning Darwin and evolution. No seriously. All that is left is basically "god did it!" No more, no less, no falsifiable claim of its own.

It's not even a theory or even hypothesis in its own right. It can't even tell you if God made the Platypus on day 5 of Genesis 1 together with the the birds and the fish, or on day 6 together with the animals and the humans. Or was it what happens when god wakes up at midnight between the two days with a bright new idea and just has to try it? Was it made later by the devil to test you faith? Or what? You won't find that kind of stuff on ID because it doesn't actually have any theory that would go into those details, or for that matter into anything else than "Darwin was wrong!!!!111eleventeen"

Heck, for that matter you won't even find in ID if it was the abrahamic God, or the Chinese goddess Nuwa, or what?

The whole thing is pretty much based on the implied stupidly false dichotomy that if Darwin was wrong, then specifically _their_ fairy tale is right. Which is like saying that if I found a coin in my bed in high school and I'm fairly sure it my parents probably didn't come into my room at night, then it _must_ be a late payment from the Tooth Fairy. In reality, there are a lot of other possibilities, such as that it fell out of my pocket. But they're not even at that point in ID.

But at any rate, there is nothing to teach in ID if you try to actually teach ID and not "but Darwin was wrong!!!!" All that's left is "umm, so God must have done it." You don't even need more than 1 minute in class for that: "Some people believe Darwin was wrong and God made them, because it makes them feel more special. The name for those people is 'stupid.'" Done.

load your headlines much?

[Surt]

ID is certainly a science:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I'm afraid it would be hard to define something that better fit the dictionary definition of 'science'.

Re:load your headlines much?

[MightyMartian]

Ah yes, argumentum ad dictionarum. Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, and are meant only for cursory definitions.

ID is not science. It makes virtually no testable claims at all, beyond overly expansive ones, and the two cases where it has been attempted to use it; bacterial flagellum and the vertebrate immune system, there were decades worth the literature already in place demonstrating how those systems evolved.

Re:load your headlines much?

[Surt]

So you admit that it made testable claims that were proved false, making it a science. Or maybe Newton wasn't a scientist because in the end he was proven wrong?

Re:load your headlines much?

[MightyMartian]

First of all, Newton wasn't proven wrong so much as Newtonian physics were engulfed by General Relativity, and GR and Quantum Mechanics aren't wrong so much as they will themselves become part of a larger theory.

And testable claims? They're very sparse in ID. A theory makes explicit testable claims, not nebulous and generalized ones. Of course, you'd probably know that, if you didn't get your definition of science from a dictionary. Testable claims alone don't make something a science, otherwise Greek mythology would be a science because it claims the gods live on top of Mount Olympus and we can pretty much prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they don't.

Re:load your headlines much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you need to learn a little more science. Newton wasn't wrong. It just isn't the complete answer. Just as special relativity wasn't the complete answer, nor general relativity, nor quantum mechanics. We learn more as we go, and it added to the picture. Newtons laws still work fine today. They just have limits, and when it comes to extremes in gravity or velocity, you need something more. 3.14 isn't right or wrong. It's just a matter of precision.

Re:load your headlines much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll???? Where are the supermods when you need them?

Re:load your headlines much?

[Surt]

Thank you, I can't believe that got modded troll.

Re:load your headlines much?

[smitty777]

Yeah, that was definitely a case of Mod abuse. There was absolutely nothing resembling trolling in that post. I guess someone had an axe to grind.

Re:load your headlines much?

[lgw]

The was a branch of ID tha made testable claims that were proven wrong - kudos for them for attempting science. Sadly, most ID supporters did not in any way accept this as a disproof of ID and continue to argue for teaching it in schools - the ID those folks are pushing is not science, as they simply excised those incorrect claims and kept going.

Re:load your headlines much?

[bckrispi]

So you admit that it made testable claims that were proved false, making it a science.

Sadly, no. If it were "science", once the testable claims were proven false, ID would be thrown into the dustbin of history; like heliocentrism, steady-state cosmology, and Lamarckian Evolution. Proving ID false will, just again, cause its proponents to ignore the results.

Re:load your headlines much?

[hkmwbz]

You post two random links and conclude that "ID is certainly a science". How exactly is ID a science? Please be specific. But you can't explain that, can you?

Re:load your headlines much?

[Surt]

Random links? I posted a link to the definition of science, and the wikipedia definition for ID. I'd hardly call that 'random'.

Definition 2 (the definition for 'a science' as opposed to 'science':
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study

Note also that this precedes the definition 3, though one might conclude that definition 3 is what slashdotters would prefer to argue about:

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

I'd then encourage you to read the ID article and weigh honestly whether or not it meets the definition. I think the evidence that it is a failed scientific theory is ironclad.

Re:load your headlines much?

[hkmwbz]

Random links? I posted a link to the definition of science, and the wikipedia definition for ID. I'd hardly call that 'random'.

They are random because they do nothing to support your assertion. If I tell you that "flat earth" is science, and link to the definition of science and the Wikipedia on flat earth beliefs, that doesn't make it science.

I'd then encourage you to read the ID article and weigh honestly whether or not it meets the definition.

It clearly does not. ID is denial. It's "you are wrong, we are right, but we can't explain how or why." It has no explanatory models, no research, no nothing. Even the ID leadership admit this. They insist that it is science, though, despite not meeting even the lowest criteria for being even remotely similar to science.

Even a conservative creationist judge appointed by George W. Bush on recommendation from creationist senator Rick Santorum had to rule that ID was religion and therefore had no place in science class.

ID is relabeled creationism, as the Pandas book and its "cdesign proponentist". Actually, this is just one small piece of evidence showing the true face of ID, but it is perhaps the most amusing.

Not history class

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be taught in a class based around religion.

Back when i was in school, it was brought up in that class with respect to the related religions in the Religious, Moral and Philosophical studies class. (or whatever other names other educational boards have labelled the course)

Putting it in history isn't correct due to it still being active at the current time. ID is still a contemporary movement, gaining even more support with people now.
Sure, you can mention some stuff about ID, such as it possibly causing conflict, or causing certain laws to be paused, or whatever else, nothing wrong with those parts.
But it is best left to the religious studies class since that is the main topic it falls under.

It *is* ancient history.

[Jabrwock]

It's a smoke show, just Creationism stripped of any direct references to God

So therefore, since it's at it's core an ancient belief, it fits in perfectly in Ancient History. Alongside Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Babylonian, Chinese, African, etc creation myths.

Re:It *is* ancient history.

[MightyMartian]

So therefore, since it's at it's core an ancient belief, it fits in perfectly in Ancient History. Alongside Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Babylonian, Chinese, African, etc creation myths.

No, it's not an ancient belief. It's roughly 22 years old.

Re:It *is* ancient history.

[maxwell demon]

22 years? That means it's older that Linux. Thus it's ancient. :-)

Re:It *is* ancient history.

[qortra]

No, it's not an ancient belief. It's roughly 22 years old.

Yes, it is an ancient belief. It's roughly 2360 years old. Read Plato's Timaeus. Perhaps you're thinking of the term "intelligent design" which is roughly 21 years old. The concept is far older.

Re:It *is* ancient history.

[Phrogman]

So therefore, since it's at it's core an ancient belief, it fits in perfectly in Ancient History. Alongside Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Babylonian, Chinese, African, etc creation myths.

No, it's not an ancient belief. It's roughly 22 years old.

But ID is based on ignorance that is thousands of years old, its just that some people are too fucking stupid/ignorant to accept the fact that a literal interpretation of the creation myth in the Bible is complete idiocy. Only a fucking moron or someone who is self-deluded believes in ID IMHO

Re:It *is* ancient history.

[kandela]

The name Intelligent Design is roughly 22 years old. Really, it all depends what the Queensland School Board means when it says ID. It may just be that ID is a convenient catch all phrase in their minds for many god based religions.

Evolution no longer a "theory"

[Minion of Eris]

as per: http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php - evolution has been seen to occur, and we even have every-500th-generation snapshots. This made a wava about a year ago, then went kinda quiet. In brief, a bateria was exposed to a mild poison (a citrate), and over 44,000 generations, mutated into a form able to metabolize it. Evolution in action.

Re:Evolution no longer a "theory"

[thoughtsatthemoment]

The problem is, religious people could only see what they wanted to see.

Re:Evolution no longer a "theory"

[91degrees]

Well, it's still a theory. The results could be explained by magic or amazingly improbable events happening. They're just stupidly implausible. Evolution is the best explanation we have and it's a pretty good one but like atomic theory, the theory of gravity, and various other chunks of science, it will always be a theory.

Re:Evolution no longer a "theory"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mixing concepts. Evolution never was a theory. It is an observable effect, like gravity. The Theory of Evolution IS a theory, and attempts to explain evolution, just as The Theory of Gravity attempts to explain gravity. The effect and the theory are not the same thing.

Re:Evolution no longer a "theory"

[Anomalyx]

What you gave is an example of microevolution, which does happen. This has been proven over and over, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. However, I must draw the line when saying that this proves macroevolution. Macroevolution is the change from one "kind" of organism to another. Macroevolution has never been proven, observed, or demonstrated, which is what science is supposed to mandate. As an example, what did this study start with? A bacteria. What did they end with? A whole new strain/species! Of what? ...Bacteria. Until they find actual evidence of MACROevolution, I'll never be convinced.
And I'm sure the evolution researchers will never see that, as they don't do studies to find out... they do studies to try to prove evolution

On a more atricle-related topic, I think schools should teach both ID and Evolution, and talk about the strong points of both, and the weak points of both, and lets the students make an educated decision, rather than indoctrinating them with one.

And you're right, evolution is no longer a theory. It has been immortalized by its followers, and has evolved into a metaphysical research program. It cannot be disproven, because there will always be something they come up with to circumvent any problems and issues they find.

And no, -1 Disagree is not an option.

Re:Evolution no longer a "theory"

[MightyMartian]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You're either an ignoramus or a liar. There really are no other choices.

And just to put it in your pipe and smoke it, macroevolution (speciation) has even been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Re:Evolution no longer a "theory"

[betterunixthanunix]

Except that "kinds" and "forms" are difficult to define. Are dogs and cats different "kinds?" What about dogs and humans? What about dogs and fish? Dogs and sponges?

Where you really want to look, if you are interested in quantitative evidence, is gene sequencing and genetic studies, which is the modern basis for taxonomy and the most active field of research in evolution. Genetic studies have also demonstrated that over long periods of time, the Darwinian model is not the complete story -- genes are transferred between species ("horizontal" transfer), genes are sometimes "inserted" by viruses (there are stretches of the human genome that came from retroviruses), and so forth.

Really, if you are interested in the theory of evolution, the best thing you can do is read some journal articles and see what the people who actually do the research have to say. The media frequently distills the research down until it is only a shadow of what the researchers actually discovered, and these distilled soundbites are easy targets for people who want to discredit the theory. Scientific journals are the ultimate repository of human knowledge, and you should really turn to them if you want to know about a particular field of research.

Re:Evolution no longer a "theory"

[hkmwbz]

On a more atricle-related topic, I think schools should teach both ID and Evolution, and talk about the strong points of both, and the weak points of both, and lets the students make an educated decision, rather than indoctrinating them with one.

The problem here is that ID is not science. It doesn't have anything, except "Evolution is false, so there."

Do you also want kids to be taught alchemy, flat earth and wizardry to avoid indoctrinating them with actual science?

Re:Evolution no longer a "theory"

[NoOneInParticular]

Macroevolution is not a technical term. Please describe this in a technical way with particular emphasis to the actual genetic mechanisms that have been found that show that an accumulation of arbitrary amounts of micro-changes stays within certain well-defined boundaries.

give a man a fish

[fermion]

I see this as teaching a man to fish, rather than giving the man a fish. If we teach intelligent design, then we have an adult that preach on the street for change, or manipulate facts so they can otherwise con people out of money. Generally speaking, an unproductive member of society that will forever be asking for the handout a fish.

However if we teach science, that fact patterns do not have to fit what is already known, that new things can be created, then we have a person who can create real product, not only catch the fix, but add value, so that we may all benefit with new big flat screen TVs and fancy cars.

Of course I know religious folks have no need for fancy cars or big TVs, as their lord given them all the comfort they need, so they have no need for science.

ID is "modern"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for everyone's consideration, Intelligent Design is hardly a "modern controversy" or even a modern idea. People kind of believed in it before Darwin was ever born, and just because an idea is old doesn't automatically mean it is wrong. I mean Thomas Jefferson was alive before Darwin, and a lot of people kind of think he had a few things right. ;)

Re:rename it to UN-intelligent design

[conspirator57]

but ID is clearly correct in every way. this time. /troll

(ofc the whole story is one giant invitation to trolls of all stripes.)

Good!

[mcfedr]

Surely this is a step closer to honest teaching on theorys of creation, shame its in a history class. Evolution is far from a 'proved' theory, its a theory, and there is some evidence that helps people support it, but there is also plenty of evidence to tear it apart. It has the advantage of having been taught as science in schools around the world for years, and now anybody seen to discredit it is seen as a some mad religious person. The best option to schools is to teach what theories people have, show what real evidence there is for each, and do so without letting radical atheism get in their way. After all, looking around, I see more evidence for God than for no God. Although I guess me saying that ruins the rest of my post for most of you...

Re:Good!

[lgw]

The theory of evolution has as much evidence and support as the theory of gravity. The story of "intelligent design" has as much evidence and support as the story of "intelligent falling". In America, the constitution protects us from religious stories being told in class (though discussing the effect such stories have had on man is fine), but apparantly not in Australia.

BTW, what would you accept as "evidence of no god"? There seems to be only Occam's razor (why introduce a God when the universe seems quite explicable without one), and the Problem of Evil, both of which are evidence only against certain kinds of gods (such as the Christian god as commonly understood).

Re:Good!

[mcfedr]

A few scraps of fossil doesn't really count as evidence for the complex systems of the human body being some fluke. Even less so for the complex emotional side of humans. Don't get me wrong, Im not a big fan of intelligent design either, but I dont like hearing darwin being preached as if its as proven as 2+2=4. Science has been proved wrong before, and I've no doubt it will be again. I've not heard of Occam's razor before, but really, the universe is far from explained, big bang theory still has that gaping whole of what caused it to happen, and where did that energy come from. If your constitution really does stop the 'stories' of religions being taught thats seems kinda sad, not that you should approach them all as fact, but there are more religious than non-religious people on this earth, a little respect for them might do you good. Trying to show atheism as the only way is as much of a lie.

Re:Good!

[lgw]

As far as the complexity of the human body, there's good evidence of how each and every system evolved, with a solid basis in evidence for the history of each, with the exception of self-awareness. The "complex emotional side" of humans isn't particularly unique among animals - many show complex emotional states. Self-awareness is quite interesting, however.

Nothing in science is "proven" as 2+2=4. That's not the point of science - science seeks the model that best describes the universe quantitatively, and accurately predcicts things we haven't measured yet. New hypotheses must make some predictions that are different from the established theory - mere descriptivism isn't science. It's quite rare for science to be "proved wrong" - rather, limits of accuracy are found for specific models (Newton is quite accurate most of the time, but sometimes you need Einstein to get the right answer).

Occam's razor simply says: when evaluating competing theories, choose the one that postulates the fewest entities that aren't part of the measured data. It's a great rule of thumb.

The US constitution forbids government preference of or endorsement of any specific religion. A public school teacher teaching e.g. a Bible story clearly violates that. Teaching that many people believe in religion, and discussing that in a Social Studies class is fine.

Re:Good!

[buddyglass]

The theory of gravity is trivially reproducible. The grand theory of evolution...not so much. Sure, we can observe things happening on a more limited scale, but you can't exactly reproduce "the totality of life on earth has its origins in the primordial soup". Its the difference between theorizing about "this is the way things work" (e.g. gravity) vs. "this is what happened a long time ago" (e.g. evolution, cosmology, etc.)

Re:Good!

[lgw]

"the totality of life on earth has its origins in the primordial soup".

This is not a claim of the theory of evolution. Abiotic genesis is interesting, but a different hypothesis. The theory of evolution primarily claims that the distribution of alleles in a population changes over time, and secondarily explores the consequences of this. Evolution explains how the variety of life observed on this planet may have from a common ancestor, and in doing so made millions of predictions (about relationships between species) that turned out to be accurate - but that common ancestor could have come from anywhere.

Everything living has the same chemical basis for RNA, which argues strongly for a common ancestor somewhere along the line, on this planet or another.

A competing theory that explained the observed relationships between species without common ancestry would be as amazing a thing as a theory that explained the orbits of planets and galaxies without gravitational attraction - there would be a heck of a lot of explaining to do.

Re:Good!

[buddyglass]

A competing theory that explained the observed relationships between species without common ancestry would be as amazing a thing as a theory that explained the orbits of planets and galaxies without gravitational attraction - there would be a heck of a lot of explaining to do.

What about "common designer" instead of "common ancestry"? I mean, if I were some super-intelligent race of space aliens and was going to design life on earth, I'd probably establish the basic mechanisms as a platform, then diversify on top of that. Tweak it here, tweak it there.

Re:Good!

[lgw]

If you postulate a designer for some primordial common ancestor, then, sure, why not? It doesn't really change or explain anything, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.

If you postulate a designer who designed every living creature with all of the millions of tiny details in exactly the way they would have turned out thanks to common ancestry (which isn't the straightforward way to design things - you can't model e.g. automobiles this way), that's just Last-Tuesday-ism, which is pointless in the extreme.

Re:Good!

[bckrispi]

...there is also plenty of evidence to tear it apart.

You forgot to provide citations for your "evidence"...

Re:Good!

[barelynerd]

Evolution has as much evidence as gravity? That's laughable. You know that you can test the theory gravity right?Something that you can't do with the theory of Evolution... The constitution does protects us from religious stories being told in class as fact, but it also protects us from keeping viable theories (different from religious stories) outside of the classroom. The universe demands the existence of a God, and cannot be explained without one. That's one of the greatest arguments for a God. And the "Problem of Evil" isn't a problem at all.

ID in Social Studies

[ProteusQ]

That I can see, but not Ancient History. Even speculative ancient history (e.g., why is there water erosion on the Sphinx?) is not a part of most Ancient History curricula.

Re:ID in Social Studies

[brokeninside]

Aristotle discussed it. Is that ancient enough?

Re:ID in Social Studies

[ProteusQ]

Will the ID theories under discussion be those of Aristotle's? Will modern theories be introduced as well as Aristotle's?

Intelligent design *and* intelligent firewalls

[lostsoulz]

Ladies and Gentlemen

You thought we'd lost our minds with our crazy continental firewalling...but we're not done yet! Begone Darwin and all that reactionary claptrap. Come to Australia where the earth is flat (ignoring Uluru, hell...we've ignored the rights of Aboriginal folks, so we can ignore their rock!)

Best wishes

Conroy et al.
x

Faith, not Science!

[Anonymous Coward]

All around the world, we should only hear the Word of God in schools. We shouldn't hear about Darwin's stupid theories anyway. He was definitely misguided. We were created by intelligent design...yes. Our heavenly Father has done this. And He sent His only Son to us in our image to die so that sin may be forgiven. This is why we must give thanks to the Lord, our God. He created us and also created heaven and earth. He forgives us and has unconditional love for us. This "intelligent designer" shall be glorified and we shall not forget that He (and He alone) is the most high.

Re:Faith, not Science!

[Anonymous Coward]

"We shouldn't hear about Darwin's stupid theories anyway."

Darwin's theory of evolution, in fact science in general, can only answer the questions of "how" or maybe on occasion "when" things might have happened. Science cannot address the question of "why" there is a universe in the first place. "Why" questions can only be answered by a person, and then only if that person chooses to answer them. The first chapter of the Bible is a poem explaining who created the universe, namely God and why he did is explained here as well as in other parts of the Bible. If he had not chosen to tell us about why he created the universe and man in it, we could never know, only maybe guess this or that.

In real everyday life, the questions of "when" and "how" are not nearly as important to us personally, than getting answers to the "why" and "what" of things. When someone gives you an interesting looking gadget or appliance, you don't first inquire "how" it was made or how long it took to make, but you want to know "why" the device was given to you and what it does that might be useful to you. Unless the device comes with an instruction manual, that informs you by revelation, what the gadget does and why you are the recipient thereof, it is likely useless and can even be dangerous.

Scientists have been trying to figure out how the universe works. They have been reasonably successful in that endeavor. They have also been trying to determine when or how long ago the universe came into being. They have not been nearly as successful there. Evidence for this relative lack of success is in fact that there is even a debate about whether it was made millions of years ago billions or only thousands of years ago. The truth is, we don't really know for sure.

The creation account found in the Bible, in the first three chapters, tells us mainly WHO did the creating and why. Why is there a Universe? Why are we here? Do we have a purpose, or is the whole universe, everything in it, including our lives, a meaningless happenstance? Unfortunately, because science is limited mostly to the "how" of things, it cannot answer the most important questions, that most thinking human beings ask at one time or another in their lives. The only place to receive answers to these questions, is from the one, the who, the God of the Bible who made everything.

As part of "Ancient History Studies"?

[stewbacca]

They are teaching this in Ancient History Studies...hmmm, it can't be soon enough that Intelligent Design can be bundled in with the rest of the crazy mythologies of ancient history!

can we get a troll tag

[nimbius]

on this article? seriously?

"one wonders what role a modern controversy can possibly serve within a subject dedicated to a period of history which occurred hundreds of years before Darwin proposed his groundbreaking theory?"

this is not a controversy, there is nothing controversial about something that is undeniably not science. This is the same religious pseudoscience that Thomas Aquinas, Averroes, and Avicenna spent their whole life shoveling unto the masses in a last ditch attempt to salvage the churches stranglehold on mankind as we started discovering cool things about planetary rotation, and human biology. sending a kid to biology class to learn about mitochondria and cellular function only to watch him wander into another class afterwards that demands "science and life are hard but god is the real plain answer!" is an affront to the entire purpose of education.

ID tried that line already

[Jabrwock]

Right. ID proponents tried arguing that. ID is Creationism with whiteout over "God" and "Designer" written in. It's still at it's core, Creationism. Therefore is as old as the idea of all the land rising up out of "Nu"...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I endorse teaching ID

[DrXym]

I think schools should be teaching critical thinking as a mandatory part of the curriculum and ID would make an excellent case study for that course.

Re:rename it to UN-intelligent design

[stewbacca]

YOUR JUST WRONG

Your just wrong what? You need another word, or you need to learn how to use possessives.

Logic, Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting how logic is considered paramount in the teaching of children, when I have found that most things in life are completely illogical...

Re:The reason it's going to be in Ancient History.

[stewbacca]

that field is less likely to be taught by people with a scientific background.

The fact that there are teachers out there without a scientific background scares me.

Ripped another one! :(

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what? I've been farting a whole hell of a lot at work lately and people are hearing it. Is there a way to like grease my ass or something so that the gas will escape without causing ass-cheek vibrations? I need a way of "silencing them", if you will.

I'm thinking the grease will just make the farts sound wet and bubbly instead, which would be worse.

DANG IT! Another problem I don't have a solution for.

Re:Ripped another one! :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Insert straw in your ass. Should work.

Re:Ripped another one! :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Great! I'm already used to inserting many different things in my ass so a little straw should be no problem!

For fucks sake...

[warrax_666]

At least learn a little about evolution before trying to "debate" it.

But Is There Intelligence Within the Design?

[oakwine]

Intelligent design or not. How many signs of human intelligence have you seen lately? Perhaps there is an intelligent alien species somewhere. I get very tired of the ID people trying to convince me that vicious parasites were carefully and intentionally designed by The Designer. I get even more tired of the fanatical preachers of Holy Evolution, most of whom have never even bothered to read Darwin, nor anything else for that matter. They "know" that evolution is a fact in much the same way that Medieval Europeans "knew" that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was a "fact." Both sides of the controversy wildly cackle trash in the belief they are communicating something useful. A plague on both your houses.

It's probably the whole

[warrax_666]

"humans are God's special creation" thing.

Re:The reason it's going to be in Ancient History.

[smitty777]

Best post I've seen on /. yet. I'm actually surprised you got a mod point for this ;^)

Today we are talking recent history

[Anonymous Coward]

In recent history several humans actually believed that Intelligent Design was a scientific theory.
In comparison to early scientific claims such as the world is flat, and things fall towards the earth ad different speeds from weight alone, this proves that as recent as a few weeks ago people are still daft.
For your assignment today look into recent history for similar false beliefs and we will discuss them in class.

ID must be a pretty short course

[thewils]

I mean, what's there to teach? You start off with "God done it!" - where can you go from there?

Ancient history?

[DaveV1.0]

If they are going to teach it in that class, shouldn't they use the ancient name for it, creationism.

Need a statistician here...

[Nickodeemus]

What are the odds of life evolving on its own from within an environment devoid of life?
What are the odds of such evolved life would mutate?
What are the odds of such mutated life to mutate into a form that would allow it to continue to live?
What are the odds of such survivable life to further mutate into a higher order of life?
What are the odds of such evolved life to further mutate into different domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and finally, species?
What are the odds of such enourmous variance occurring naturally?
What span of years would it take for such evolution to arise, given the proper environment?
Please account for all of this while explaining the further likelihood of the variance in species color, gender, etc. while also considering that the evolutionary train would have to be unbroken at any point for a speoies to evolve to its current state. This means, over and over and over and over this genetic mutation would have to occur without a species dying off over hundreds of millions, if not billions of years.

Now, statistically, can you explain the odds in all of this occurring over the course of the earth's existance?

And finally, how do we know these statistics are 100% accurate without having other worlds where we have life that arose in a similar manner that we can look at and test to be certain our theory is correct? I am not saying evolution is untrue, nor am i saying that ID is untrue. I am saying that we have no method of verifying our "scientific" finding that life evolved and there was never any ID involved at all. To me, that means the science that is frequently put forward as truth is actually just a theory and not really a fact. This belief of mine is furhter solidified in my mind by the fact that we still cannot create life from lifelessness. We can create synthetic life using building blocks from existing life, but no one, to my knowledge has taking a bunch of inorganic material and make it a living and procreating life-form. Statistically, i believe that such life from lifelessness is very very improbable without some form of ID, somewhere along the line. I also believe evolution occurs without needing ID. That is, once life exists, it evolves to suit its environment, or it dies.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[dave420]

You should go back to school. This is embarrassing.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[Nickodeemus]

maybe you should take a minute to explain it to me then, mr. smartypants. your comment is useless otherwise.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[ricosalomar]

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
around 4.5 billion
Likelihood (Probability) = 1
100%
Open your eyes.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[Nickodeemus]

Let me review your data for this. If it is accurate my eyes will be opened and i will believe whole-heartedly.

Smart people are so dismissive of people who do not see or believe the way they do. Instead of being able to fully explain thier facts they demean those that question. It is a very small, sad, "smart" person who behaves this way. Try being a little more open minded and try to consider why you believe the way you do, and be able to explain it to those who question instead of demeaning them. You may find that you are able to sway them to your view. Demeaning them will almost certainly not do so.

Open your eyes, indeed.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[agbinfo]

Take a deck of cards. Shuffle as long as you want. Draw 52 cards in any order from that deck. What are the odds that it came up in that order? Before you drew the cards, the odds were 52! Once they are drawn the odds are 100%

Re:Need a statistician here...

[ricosalomar]

I didn't dismiss your questions, I answered them with the facts available.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[Anonymous Coward]

6/10
Would have rated troll higher, but was too adversarial in wording of questions. Subsequent responses make troll obvious rather than effectively stringing along marks. Please improve and resubmit for further evalution.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[Nickodeemus]

The problem with your response is that you assume that all of these things occured without ID, therefore they are proof in themselves. [This is clearly not the way to prove anything. Its the chicken and the egg scenario all over again.] Your assesment may be entirely accurrate but what are your facts to backup the statement? Run down your list of proof the same way a mathemetician can prove his equations.

I am completly open to being shown the error of my beliefs. But statistically, it seems exceptionally improbable that these things could have occured 100% without intervention by some force or intelligence. I am thinking in terms of the something like the lottery - 180,000,000 to 1 odds of winning... and then winning twice? and then three times? what about 50 times in a row? These are the statistics i am talking of. On a cellular level I can see how you can get into billions and trillions of cells mutating into more and more advanced life, and all of this occurring in the span of the earth's existance...but where is the spark that starts it all? How does that spark occur? and in what conditions. Clearly, once we figure this out and are able to replicate it then this will no longer be theory. Until we do then it IS all just theory, cannot be proven, and we should neither condemn nor demean those who believe otherwise. I respect the beliefs of others. I don't judge them for those beliefs. But don't judge me for questioning those beliefs. There is nothing wrong with asking Why.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the odds that YOU will win the lottery?
What are the odds that SOMEONE will win the lottery?
What are the odds that a lottery winner has won the lottery?

Re:Need a statistician here...

[Danse]

----Ridiculous questions snipped---

I am not saying evolution is untrue, nor am i saying that ID is untrue. I am saying that we have no method of verifying our "scientific" finding that life evolved and there was never any ID involved at all. To me, that means the science that is frequently put forward as truth is actually just a theory and not really a fact. This belief of mine is furhter solidified in my mind by the fact that we still cannot create life from lifelessness. We can create synthetic life using building blocks from existing life, but no one, to my knowledge has taking a bunch of inorganic material and make it a living and procreating life-form. Statistically, i believe that such life from lifelessness is very very improbable without some form of ID, somewhere along the line. I also believe evolution occurs without needing ID. That is, once life exists, it evolves to suit its environment, or it dies.

You understand that people are giving angry responses because it's obvious that you haven't done the first bit of research before throwing out those inane questions, right?

Please educate yourself about the theory and then come back and ask some sensible questions. Preferably some that aren't already answered here.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[ricosalomar]

The problem you outline is pretty elementary, really. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it's exasperating.

1. The odds that Complex life, speciation, etc. occurred is 100%.
2. There are mountains of evidence supporting the theory that it occurs by means of natural selection.
3. There is no evidence that it occurs by means of supernatural power.
Therefore, the odds that the explanation is due to supernatural power is infinitely small, as compared to an explanation based on available facts.

Now this doesn't prove anything, but there is also no proof that gravity makes things fall, or that germs cause illness.

I don't need proof that an illness isn't caused by a curse, I assume it's caused by a pathogen, because there is overwhelming evidence.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that is just a variation on the anthropic principle which even Richard Dawkin finds unsetteling. Essentially you are saying the chances of life evolving in this universe is 100% because it did.

But imagine the following you had a "universe" like ours where life had yet to evolve which you are observing.
Before life evolved what chance would you give life evolving through darwanian means in this "universe"

Re:Need a statistician here...

[Anonymous Coward]

The odds of an event occuring (your 52-card deal) don't change as a result of that event occuring.
Only 1 deal in 52! will yield that sequence, assuming independance. Just because an unlikely event occured doesn't make that event any more likely.

If you have many people (52!, say) dealing sequences of 52 cards, the odds that any partcular sequence is delt by someone are almost certain. The odds that any one specific person deals it? 1 in 52!.

Take a more mundane example: The lottery - the odds of winning that are slim. Yet it is won on a regular basis. These are actually two different vents.
    Event 1: YOU win the lottery.
    Event 2: SOMEONE wins the lottery.
Event 2 is almost certain to happen.. Event 1 is almost certain to not happen.

Or car registration plates - the odds YOU see my car rego? Slim. The odds SOMEONE sees it? Almost certain. (This last example doesn't demonstrate independance, however, and arguably neither does the lottery case, though to a much lesser extend).

Re:Need a statistician here...

[imakemusic]

Statistics can be massively misleading. For example 6 out of 7 dwarves aren't Happy. Also 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang-rape.

Statistically, i believe that such life from lifelessness is very very improbable without some form of ID

This is true. Unfortunately there was no designer so we had to wait several billion years for a planet with the right conditions to appear. Once that was in place the rest didn't take too long (cosmologically speaking), just a few million years.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[Just Some Guy]

Now, statistically, can you explain the odds in all of this occurring over the course of the earth's existance?

I think you're looking for the Anthropic Principle. In summary, all of those things had to be just so, or we wouldn't be here to notice that they were different. It's really just a form of selection bias.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[Jason Levine]

Actually the odds would be 1 in (52*51*50*49*48*...*5*4*3*2*1) or 1 in 8.06581752 × 10^67.

Think of it this way. You've shuffled the deck and laid it down. The first card could be any of 52 possible cards. The next card will be any of 51 possible cards. And so on through the deck.

An ID proponent would say that, since the odds are so tiny that the deck would come out that way, The Intelligent Designer (*cough*God*cough*) must have done it.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[Alsee]

First, I don't think the parent post deserved to be modded troll. He asked questions, and not particularly unreasonable questions if they never learned about evolution in school.

What are the odds of life evolving on its own from within an environment devoid of life?

I'll come back to this at the end.

What are the odds of such evolved life would mutate?

If we flip the question backwards, if you have reproducing life they would multiply to over a thousand in ten generations, over a million in twenty generations, over a billion in thirty generations. You're basically asking what is the probability that none of them would ever be imperfect, none of them would ever get hit my a stray chemical reaction, none of them would ever get hit by radioactivity or a cosmic ray or anything else. They probability that there would never be a mutation is obviously zero. That means the probability some copies will eventually mutate would be 100%.

What are the odds of such mutated life to mutate into a form that would allow it to continue to live?

If you mean the probability that any given mutation would live, that is irrelevant. Any fatal mutations simply die and it has no effect. We have a multiplying population that keeps going. We can completely ignore fatal mutations.

So what we're really looking at is whether any mutation would ever live. Well, in experiments we've proven and studied single molecule that replicate and evolve. There were a huge number of places the molecule could (and did) mutate and continue to replicate. So it is experimentally proven that a single molecule replicator can mutate and continue to reproducing. We simply throw away fatal mutations and simply wait for any non-fatal mutations, this is again 100%. Some mutations are non fatal and that's all that matters.

What are the odds of such survivable life to further mutate into a higher order of life?

To really understand evolution you need to abandon the concept of "higher". That's not how evolution works. There is a population of individuals, individuals have children, and those children are sometimes are sometimes slightly imperfect copies of the parents. Obviously over time additional new variations appear, and over time some of those variations will themselves be imperfectly copied into a variation of a variation. Viewed strictly within evolution process there is no concept of "higher" here. The closest thing to "higher" is that later generations are more evolved. The bacteria in your ear and the squirrel in your back yard are equally evolved, they are both the product of the same 4 billion years of evolution. The bacteria in your ear is highly evolved and highly successful at living and reproducing in your ear, and the squirrel is highly evolved and highly successful at living and reproducing in the tree in your backyard. Heck, many plants have vastly more DNA than you do and could by some definitions be considered more complex. Animals aren't "higher" than plants, plants and animals are more like brother and sister. Plants came up with photosynthesis and animals came up with muscles. Modern plants and animals are both the same "age", equally evolved, just evolved in different directions.

The anthrax bacteria is able to defeat your immune system and kill you because it is just as evolved as you are.

Anyway, you have an unlimited replicating population. Some of them mutate and die, we can completely ignore them. And sooner or later some offspring have helpful mutations, something different that makes them better able to survive and reproduce. The best stuff sticks around and the worst stuff dies. And over time new beneficial variations pile up on top of old beneficial variations on top of older beneficial variations.

Consider lottery tickets. There are millions of individuals each with a lottery ticket. And as you know, virtually every week someone wins the lottery. If you are a secretary in the lottery office, every week you see someone walk throu

Re:Need a statistician here...

[agbinfo]

Before life evolved what chance would you give life evolving through darwanian means in this "universe"

I don't think that the Theory of Evolution says anything about evolution before there is life.

I think a better question would be:

What are the odds that life appears where there is none given an infinite amount of time.

I don't know the answer to that question either but it makes the question more manageable. If the odds are any finite value then the chances are 100%. If the chances are infinitely small then we have 0 x infinity which is undefined without further knowledge.

Re:Need a statistician here...

[agbinfo]

Actually the odds would be 1 in (52*51*50*49*48*...*5*4*3*2*1).

Sorry, I meant to write 1/(52 factorial).

After I hit the submit button, I realized that the "1/" was missing and that the "!" might be interpreted as an exclamation mark rather than the factorial symbol.

Queensland

[benjfowler]

None of this stuff surprises me. There's lots of crazy religious whackjobs and woo-peddlers from Queensland, and besides wheat, coal and bauxite, Christian, right-wing and New Age crap is one of our biggest exports.

Having grown up in regional Queensland, I can testify first hand that this place is, as some wag once said, like Alambama with better beaches.

The place has a deep right-wing authoritarian streak going way back, and it periodically resurfaces in the form of the "Liberal National Party", a rabble of right-wing redneck farmers who occasionally scrape together enough votes to get into power and screw everything up. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen (USians, think Huey Long), was the closest thing to a dictator this country has ever seen, and presided over a thuggish and thoroughly corrupt ostensibly-Christian police state which followed around and harassed its enemies. I have friends who had Special Branch files a foot thick... which the Joh government conveniently had shredded Stasi-style when they were kicked out for being outrageously corrupt.

That kind of parochialism and petty right-wing nastiness breeds a xenophobic and superstitious outlook that hasn't changed a bit as long as I've been alive. Rural south east Queensland is a hotbed of cult activity, and our Christian fundamentalists are reknowned the world over; several of the world's biggest IDers and Creationists come fresh from beautiful and sunny Queensland to spread their vile ideas around the world. We also have export-grade racists and idiots like Pauline Hanson, who left Australia recently for London (without even a hint of irony) because there are "too many Asians" in Australia. We also have a lot of New Age silliness, and it tends to cluster in places like the New South Wales border. They're mostly harmless, apart from their embrace of dangerous silliness like the anti-vaccination movement, which has caused communities to lose herd immunity, and children to die from diseases thought eradicated 50 years ago.

Outside of the fairly vibrant and fast-growing south east corner, Queensland is a Mecca for all sorts of stupid, vile and ugly people, many who purport to call themselves Christian.

Re:Queensland

[Zouden]

If you read the article, you'll see that this is part of the new National Curriculum, ie, all states will be required to teach ID in ancient history class. Blame the federal government, not the Queensland government (or the people there).

Re:Queensland

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron, this is part of implementing the *nation curriculum*. The whole country is doing it. Being a local newspaper, they were just reporting on the local QLD angle. Take your hate-mongering elsewhere. BTW I'm from NSW, not Qld.

Re:Queensland

[dbIII]

The above is still all true and most likely sums up whatever weasel managed to get ID into the draft National Curriculum.
He left out the bit that many of the earlier corrupt "Godless Christian" government (they pretended to be devoutly Christian but forbid the Catholic and Anglican Archbishops in the state from stepping onto school property due to supposed "Communist" sympathies) ended up in jail for stealing from the public purse.
It was and still is to a degree redneck central, but that doesn't mean we all are just as in Alabama.

Re:Queensland

[dropbearsrus]

I also grew up in Queensland, and am back living here now. Sadly there is a lot of truth in the comment above.

Queensland used to be very progressive... in the 19th century. We had the world's first Labour government in 1899. And until 1910 the Queensland Education Act guaranteed a free and secular education for every child. Then it was amended, to remove the 'secular' references and include provisions for bible classes in government schools. It's been that way since.

It's depressing to think we've been going backwards for 100 years.

Re:Queensland

[benjfowler]

Fred Nile, is that you?

cdesign proponentsists?

[circletimessquare]

what is that? some sort of missing evolutionary link between different textbook phenotypes?

Re:cdesign proponentsists?

[MightyMartian]

Pretty much. ID demonstrates that survival of the fittest rules even in the Creationist world. Creationism wasn't fit enough to survive SCOTUS, so the population needed to evolve a blander strain with a fictitious motive. That hasn't got to SCOTUS, but it certainly didn't survive a Federal Court, meaning its long-term survival is in question. Of course, since then, an even more vapid organism, Teach the Controversy, has been formulated, which is pretty much entirely without positive claim.

Re:cdesign proponentsists?

[ultranova]

Pretty much. ID demonstrates that survival of the fittest rules even in the Creationist world. Creationism wasn't fit enough to survive SCOTUS, so the population needed to evolve a blander strain with a fictitious motive.

Except that, since that blander strain was purposely developed, this would actually be an example of Intelligent Design :). Yes, that's the true irony here: ID actually models the current phase of human evolution, since humans are able to purposefully direct the way their societies develop. Of course the intelligent designer is the very thing being designed, so would this make it Intelligent Pantheism ?-)

Of course, since then, an even more vapid organism, Teach the Controversy, has been formulated, which is pretty much entirely without positive claim.

But more than makes up for it with fat. This beast won't be starved for a long, long time...

Good for you guys...

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

Well said "nimbius"... who cares what Australia teaches.

Re:The reason it's going to be in Ancient History.

[FuckingNickName]

The religious faithful are to self-appointed scientists(*) as paedophiles are to tabloids or Muslim terrorists to western governments.

Here's a definition for ID: the intelligent creation of the laws of physics and the beginning of the universe such that, by chance, everything would end up evolving pretty much as it has. Potentially provable? To a degree. Potentially disprovable? Certainly not. Scientific hypothesis? No. Believed by many, before and now? Yes. Relevant to history? Yes. Relevant to religion? Yes. Relevant to science, as the most obvious illustration of what cannot be disproven by science? Yes.

Exercise: try stating any scientific theory and asking, "why?" repeatedly to it until you can go no further. No matter how far you go, you will always stop after a finite number of "why"s. Science is an activity performed by humans, who are mortal. It involves making an observation, writing a specific hypothesis, and providing evidence which supports (or refutes) that hypothesis. That is all. It won't reveal the secrets of the whole universe. It will never reveal the absolute origin of everything (even if some God appears, where did he come from? and so on).

ID vs evolution, Christians vs Muslims, commies vs capitalists, and any number of idealistic debates tend to depend on some assumption you have made that the opposite party has not made. Meanwhile, the pragmatists continue not caring, getting rich and increasing their control of today's world.

(*) It's rarely the practicing scientists... often those who have sipped from the Pierian spring and believe they're experts on philosophy of science.

Re:The reason it's going to be in Ancient History.

[Delusion_]

Presumably my "bit of research" should pretty much begin and end with Ben Stein's intellectually dishonest documentary he came out a few years ago?

Re:The reason it's going to be in Ancient History.

[Dan Ost]

Do a bit of research yourself and you will find many valid, well-informed professors thrown out of universities for presenting or even researching on the side aspects that did not agree with the status quo.

Can you point out some examples?

I believe it is much more ignorant to just flat out silence opposing views rather than actually investigate them for real merit.

Seriously, these "opposing views" aren't silenced or ignored so much as they are disqualified because they fail to pass simple theoretical tests. Why would we want to spend time and resources to "investigate the merits" of something that fails even casual theoretical examination?

No problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

If you advocate government as the solution (to education in this case), then you have to accept that your viewpoint -- no matter how logical or practical -- will be outweighed in some cases by what you consider inferior viewpoints. At the end of the day, they pay taxes too. Why shouldn't they be entitled to an "inferior" education, if that's what they want? Consider that in their minds, this solution is not inferior, but in fact superior.

The fact is that government is a one-size-fits-all solution. Always. Choice is routinely thrown out the window in favor of the lowest common denominator. Rarely does government represent what is moral, logical, or practical, but merely what is the best compromise between everyone who wants a piece of the pie.

So you want a piece of that pie. Great, we're glad you're concerned. But guess what? The "inferiors" also want a piece of that pie, and they are every bit as entitled as you to get it.

In conclusion, I suggest that you (and all the other complainers) eat your own dog food. Suck it up and come to peace with the fact that you will pay to educate others on "intelligent design".

Re:No problem here

[interkin3tic]

Yes, democratically run education systems will sometimes disagree with what I think is right. Scientific fact however is not democratic. Intelligent design is just plain wrong, no matter how many people like it. As a scientific theory, it's failed completely.

That's my rationale for arguing, to a democratic society, that ID should not be taught in schools. "sucking it up" and letting ignorance prevail is not something we do in working democratic societies.

That isn't why ID isn't science

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't why ID isn't science. The reason why ID isn't science is that it has NO EXPLICATIVE POWER.

"Someone made it" doesn't explain ANYTHING, it's a way of stopping people asking "why is it that way?" which is why it's being pushed into science: the God Of The Gaps needs gaps, but science keeps looking at the gaps and explaining them, removing the hiding place of God. ID stops science looking at the gaps, since "Someone did it" then closes off any investigation: it's irreducibly complex, so you can't go looking, so don't.

Re: Platypus

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if the Intelligent Designer were drunk at the time.

Make that the UNIVERSE's existence.

[EWAdams]

If you're looking for odds, check out the Drake equation. No doubt every advanced creature in all the billions of galaxies is asking "what are the odds that I came into being." But they did, so clearly they beat the odds.

You are a unique individual with a unique combination of genes (unless you're an identical twin). What are the odds of you having your exact genetic identity? Zillions to one. Yet here you are, so why fret about it?

Re:Make that the UNIVERSE's existence.

[Nickodeemus]

This is an intelligent and insightful response. I would mod it so if i could.

Thanks for the additional information. Looking at the drake equation now. ;)
br Its good to see an intelligent response instead of "Because I said so!"

The History of Intelligent Design

[brokeninside]

The argument from design (prior to the modern era, the term `intelligent design' would have been considered to be a pleonasm) certainly predates the Christian era.

I can't recall off the top of my head if any of the pre-Socratic philosophers discussed it. But a form of it was certainly addressed by Aristotle. The definitive development is widely thought to be that of Saint John of Damascus (d. 8th century AD) in Book I of his "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith." It was also brought up by a number of Arabic philosophers and by Thomas Aquinas.

So it seems to me that Ancient History is one of the places where studying the argument fits best.

Ridiculous

[JustNiz]

Scientists don't agree with Intelligent Design. There's no scientific evidence to support it.
Most Christians don't agree with ID. Nowhere in the bible is ID mentioned.
No other religions propose ID.
Most surveys indicate hardly anyone asked believes ID. (most either believe full religious creationism or evolution, not ID).

Why then is it being taught in schools?

Re: Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Because ID isn't quite as fucktarded as creationism, so it is a good way to start brainwashing children early. Religions simply cannot continue to exist if they do not start introducing their preposterous concepts at a young age so that they will be accepted.

Re: Ridiculous

[JDmetro]

It's a bad cover for creationism. Used because of all the completly intolerant people ready to stone anyone who believes in God. It like the Dark ages in reverse.

Expelled Debunked

[spun]

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

Re:Just as bad in history as it is in science clas

[brokeninside]

The paleolithic era is pre-history, not ancient history. In most of academia, ancient history means pretty much everything from the invention of writing up to the beginning of the middle ages. This varies a bit as some people groups didn't get history until relatively late in the game. For example, in most (not all) of North America, everything prior to the arrival of the Europeans was pre-history.

Intelligent design certainly fits into "ancient history" as it was discussed by Aristotle.

I'm doubtful that it has much value being taught in most schools but that's mostly because I think the time better spent studying how to form logically sound arguments. But if that is taught first, then the argument from design could certainly be used as an example of how to work out which premises of the argument would have to be true in order for the argument to be sound. I think most students would be better able to do this at the collegiate level rather than at the high school level.

Do yo have faith in chance?

[mosb1000]

The theoretical underpinnings of "chance" are shaky. All scientific theories assume that things happen in a predictable way (theories must make testable predictions). Due to complexities of small-scale phenomena, chance has been presented as an alternative partial assumption (quantum mechanics).

Some think that the randomness in quantum mechanics is actually brought on by unmeasurable or unknown variables. Others think that things are actually happening in a partially unpredictable way. Since the truth about chance isn't known, we shouldn't be teaching children that the universe, and all life in it, arose through random chance. It is only appropriate to present that as an idea.

Re:Do yo have faith in chance?

[Danse]

The theoretical underpinnings of "chance" are shaky. All scientific theories assume that things happen in a predictable way (theories must make testable predictions). Due to complexities of small-scale phenomena, chance has been presented as an alternative partial assumption (quantum mechanics).

Some think that the randomness in quantum mechanics is actually brought on by unmeasurable or unknown variables. Others think that things are actually happening in a partially unpredictable way. Since the truth about chance isn't known, we shouldn't be teaching children that the universe, and all life in it, arose through random chance. It is only appropriate to present that as an idea.

Who is advocating teaching them that all life arose through random chance? Chance is only one element of evolution. One that we're all quite familiar with. If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.

Re:Do yo have faith in chance?

[Obfuscant]

Who is advocating teaching them that all life arose through random chance?

Exactly this statement is why I wish evolutionists would find a different word to refer to the origin of life.

To answer your question: every evolutionist, when he switches from speaking about the records that support the theory of natural selection and starts using those records to support Evolution as the way life began.

In fact, since ID deals with how life began, every person here who is claiming that evolution disproves ID is making the claim that life arose out of random chance. The random combination of just the right molecules that gave that collection of molecules an advantage over others, and thus subject to natural selection. Then the random connection of those into something with a bigger advantage. Just like the random mutations that gave preference to one offspring over another...

Evolution -- change in existing systems. ID -- creation of new systems. Two different concepts, routinely conflated. There is no reason evolution cannot coexist with ID, other than a common goal of evolutionists is to prove there is no God. Otherwise, there is no reason evolutionists would be so rabidly anti-ID.

If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.

Evolution as the "origin of life" is not a scientific theory, since it is patently untestable and completely undisprovable. So no, not "another" scientific theory. "The origin of life" is a question we will NEVER be able to prove (or disprove) the answer to. It's outside the scope of our knowledge, and will remain so forever. To pretend that one has a "scientific theory" that disproves everything else regarding the origin of life is completely absurd and shows a lack of understanding of what the scientific method is.

Re:Do yo have faith in chance?

[mosb1000]

Many textbooks put forth theories for the origin of life, claiming that it arose out of random chance. They claim this is a "scientific" explanation, but it is not a testable scientific hypothesis so there really is nothing scientific about it. Just read the other guy's explanation, it makes sense.

Re:Do yo have faith in chance?

[Danse]

Who is advocating teaching them that all life arose through random chance?

Exactly this statement is why I wish evolutionists would find a different word to refer to the origin of life.

To answer your question: every evolutionist, when he switches from speaking about the records that support the theory of natural selection and starts using those records to support Evolution as the way life began.

Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life. They are completely separate theories. Evolution only covers how life evolved to the current state of biodiversity that we see throughout the fossil record until today. It's about the mechanisms that enabled this to happen.

In fact, since ID deals with how life began, every person here who is claiming that evolution disproves ID is making the claim that life arose out of random chance. The random combination of just the right molecules that gave that collection of molecules an advantage over others, and thus subject to natural selection. Then the random connection of those into something with a bigger advantage. Just like the random mutations that gave preference to one offspring over another...

Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.

Evolution -- change in existing systems. ID -- creation of new systems. Two different concepts, routinely conflated. There is no reason evolution cannot coexist with ID, other than a common goal of evolutionists is to prove there is no God. Otherwise, there is no reason evolutionists would be so rabidly anti-ID.

No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.

If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.

Evolution as the "origin of life" is not a scientific theory, since it is patently untestable and completely undisprovable. So no, not "another" scientific theory. "The origin of life" is a question we will NEVER be able to prove (or disprove) the answer to. It's outside the scope of our knowledge, and will remain so forever. To pretend that one has a "scientific theory" that disproves everything else regarding the origin of life is completely absurd and shows a lack of understanding of what the scientific method is.

Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known? Why not just say it's unknown? That's what science does. They come up with theories, of which there are several, but they acknowledge that we really don't know if any of them are correct. IDers don't do that, and they have even less evidence to back up their claims.

That's all really beside the point anyway. As I said before, evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. The theories that do cover it will never be proven in the absolute sense, as no scientific theory is ever proven in the absolute sense. They may eventually be able to prove that life could have originated in one way or another, or possible in multiple ways. We may not be able to know for sure, so we'll just have to accept that we only know of possible ways that it originated. Whatever the scientific outcome, ID is still a load of garbage, and nothing more than ancient myths updated to sound pseudo-scientific.

Re:Do yo have faith in chance?

[Danse]

Many textbooks put forth theories for the origin of life, claiming that it arose out of random chance. They claim this is a "scientific" explanation, but it is not a testable scientific hypothesis so there really is nothing scientific about it. Just read the other guy's explanation, it makes sense.

Bah. Meant that last response to go to the other guy. Whatever. It applies to you as well since you agree with him.

Re:Do yo have faith in chance?

[Danse]

Who is advocating teaching them that all life arose through random chance?

Exactly this statement is why I wish evolutionists would find a different word to refer to the origin of life.

To answer your question: every evolutionist, when he switches from speaking about the records that support the theory of natural selection and starts using those records to support Evolution as the way life began.

Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life. They are completely separate theories. Evolution only covers how life evolved to the current state of biodiversity that we see throughout the fossil record until today. It's about the mechanisms that enabled this to happen.

In fact, since ID deals with how life began, every person here who is claiming that evolution disproves ID is making the claim that life arose out of random chance. The random combination of just the right molecules that gave that collection of molecules an advantage over others, and thus subject to natural selection. Then the random connection of those into something with a bigger advantage. Just like the random mutations that gave preference to one offspring over another...

Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.

Evolution -- change in existing systems. ID -- creation of new systems. Two different concepts, routinely conflated. There is no reason evolution cannot coexist with ID, other than a common goal of evolutionists is to prove there is no God. Otherwise, there is no reason evolutionists would be so rabidly anti-ID.

No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.

If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.

Evolution as the "origin of life" is not a scientific theory, since it is patently untestable and completely undisprovable. So no, not "another" scientific theory. "The origin of life" is a question we will NEVER be able to prove (or disprove) the answer to. It's outside the scope of our knowledge, and will remain so forever. To pretend that one has a "scientific theory" that disproves everything else regarding the origin of life is completely absurd and shows a lack of understanding of what the scientific method is.

Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known? Why not just say it's unknown? That's what science does. They come up with theories, of which there are several, but they acknowledge that we really don't know if any of them are correct. IDers don't do that, and they have even less evidence to back up their claims.

That's all really beside the point anyway. As I said before, evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. The theories that do cover it will never be proven in the absolute sense, as no scientific theory is ever proven in the absolute sense. They may eventually be able to prove that life could have originated in one way or another, or possible in multiple ways. We may not be able to know for sure, so we'll just have to accept that we only know of possible ways that it originated. Whatever the scientific outcome, ID is still a load of garbage, and nothing more than ancient myths updated to sound pseudo-scientific.

Re:Do yo have faith in chance?

[Obfuscant]

Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life.

Well, you know that, and I know that, but just today, in the "5.5 million species" thread, people are posting about evolution being the way life began. They call it "evolution", just like the "change" kind. THAT'S why I said I wished that people used a different word for it.

Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.

There has to be an advantage for natural selection to have something to select. Otherwise everyone is a winner, everyone moves on in the evolutionary process -- which means there IS no evolutionary process. And that advantage arises through pure chance. Chance is not just "a component", it is a necessary and required precursor.

No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.

There are two cases. 1) evolutionist believing that evolution covers "how life began". This person is using a theory that is JUST AS NON-SCIENTIFIC, just as unfalsifiable, just as non-predictive as ID, and yet he uses those criteria to deny ID. 2) Evolutionist who knows that ID covers a completely different concept and topic, yet he uses evolution as a bully pulpit to denounce something that he has no evidence against and cannot have evidence against. Both groups must be doing this for a reason. There is no reason other than to try to disprove God. Group 1 is painting themselves with the same paint, and group 2 is stepping outside science to try to apply science to something they want badly to not exist.

Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known?

Why not? Man has a burning desire to explain things. The "big bang" is another example. Why belief in the big bang if we can never know how the universe started?

They come up with theories, of which there are several, but they acknowledge that we really don't know if any of them are correct.

Oh, please. Most people who believe a theory believe that it is correct, and pull no punches saying so. "Evolution is a fact." "AGW is a fact, there is no room for discussion." Do not flame the ID'rs for doing the same things many scientists do.

...and they have even less evidence to back up their claims.

They have exactly as much evidence for ID as the evolutionists have for their theory of how life began. Yes, I know, you said those evolutionists are wrong. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

The theories that do cover it will never be proven in the absolute sense, as no scientific theory is ever proven in the absolute sense.

You missed the point completely. You keep calling the "theories" of how life began scientific when they are not. No theory of "how life began" is testable or disprovable, and that is an absolute requirement for the scientific method. If you say "my theory is X", for it to be scientific there must be an experiment I can perform to test your theory. That experiment might be technically impossible with current technology, but there has to be one.

There is NO possible experiment that can test the hypothesis that life began through evolution. The only possible experiments that could be performed are ones similar to the Miller (IIRC) style "pump a bottle full of primordial gases and electricity and see what heppens". Those don't prove "how life began", only "life MIGHT have begun...". Very different.

Whatever the scientific outcome, ID is still a load of garbage,

If you cannot refute through logic, refute through insult and invective. That is also not the scientific method.

Re:Do yo have faith in chance?

[Danse]

Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life.

Well, you know that, and I know that, but just today, in the "5.5 million species" thread, people are posting about evolution being the way life began. They call it "evolution", just like the "change" kind. THAT'S why I said I wished that people used a different word for it.

The fact that people misuse words doesn't change the definition of evolution.

Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.

There has to be an advantage for natural selection to have something to select. Otherwise everyone is a winner, everyone moves on in the evolutionary process -- which means there IS no evolutionary process. And that advantage arises through pure chance. Chance is not just "a component", it is a necessary and required precursor.

My point was that the process operates regardless of whether any given individual has an advantage or not. Even those with no advantage, or even a disadvantage can survive to procreate. Chance is a component, but the process isn't not random, as it is continually refining the population towards fitness for its environment.

No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.

There are two cases. 1) evolutionist believing that evolution covers "how life began". This person is using a theory that is JUST AS NON-SCIENTIFIC, just as unfalsifiable, just as non-predictive as ID, and yet he uses those criteria to deny ID. 2) Evolutionist who knows that ID covers a completely different concept and topic, yet he uses evolution as a bully pulpit to denounce something that he has no evidence against and cannot have evidence against. Both groups must be doing this for a reason. There is no reason other than to try to disprove God. Group 1 is painting themselves with the same paint, and group 2 is stepping outside science to try to apply science to something they want badly to not exist.

Case one is an ignorant person who doesn't understand the theory of evolution. Case two depends on what version of ID you're talking about. Plenty of creationists define it as a replacement for evolution. If they use it that way, they're completely ignorant and there's likely not much you can do but point out that fact and move on. We see this a lot with those folks that want to "teach the controversy" between ID and evolution.

If they use the definition that you seem to be talking about, referring to the origin of life, then there's a different argument. ID is still not a scientific theory, so it contributes nothing to science. As an explanation for the origin of life, it doesn't actually explain anything. It's simply an assertion backed by nothing, so what's the point? At least the scientific theories around the origin of life base themselves on what we know about the basic structures of life and how they form. We haven't figured out all the details that go into creating life, but we're getting a lot closer to figuring out how it can be built "from scratch", so to speak. The scientific theories have at least got something to support them. They may never know with any high level of certainty how life actually formed, but we'll likely know of at least one possible way that it could have formed. That's more useful than anything that will ever be learned from ID, because ID is just unsupported speculation.

Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known?

The fallacy of Gravity.

[Anonymous Coward]

We do call gravity a theory, and we have shown Gravitational Theory to be incorrect (it cannot account for the orbit of Mercury). It was replaced with General Relativity.

People are now showing where GR has its wholes and are working on a theory to replace it.

I also understand that we might possibly be all wrong at any moment.

More like we must accept the fact that we are actually wrong about everything, but that our current theories work well enough for us to make use of them. The scientific method is based on observations. Since all observations are limited by the Uncertainty Principle, we must accept that science is never going to fully explain everything, just get incrementally closer. This is both its greatest strength and greatest weakness.

Good, next up we will demand

[AlgorithMan]

Good, next up we will demand that the kids are taught that rain is gods tears, lightning is gods anger, the earth is flat, dinosaurs never existed (god only put the bones there to test our faith)

and once we got all that, we will demand teaching the fairy godmother, santa clause and the bogeyman.

Queensland not listening to the father of ID

[Anonymous Coward]

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to proveNo product is ready for competition in the educational world." Phillip Johnson

question for the peanut gallery

[buddyglass]

So, generally speaking, I don't find the ID arguments very convincing. That said, I find part of this article's summary, and a common refrain from the anti-ID crowd (i.e. most everyone) to be troubling. Namely that ID "isn't science".

It seems pretty obvious to me that one could "scientifically" go about determining whether something was "designed" or not. Suppose a meteor lands on earth with some "interesting" properties. Maybe it has a particularly regular stucture. Maybe its engraved with the prime numbers expressed in binary. Etc. Are we going to say its impossible to scientifically approach the problem of determining whether this object was "intelligently designed" or "naturally occurring"?

It may well be that ID arrives at wrong conclusions for ideological reasons, but it also seems like the scientific establishment is overstating its case when it dismisses the entire problem of "design detection" (for lack of a better word) as "not science".

Re:question for the peanut gallery

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded insightful? It isn't science because it doesn't produce any testable hypothesis. If it can't do that, it can't be used to, you know, follow the scientific method. Therefore, it isn't science.

Re:question for the peanut gallery

[Anonymous Coward]

One could attempt to do a scientific job of design detection. It would be very hard, but one could attempt it.

However, ID isn't doing that. As a direct outgrowth of the creationism movement, ID instead starts with the premise that things are created, and tries to find holes in the theory of evolution (of which they've so far proposed many but never had any that held up to a inspection.)

Re:question for the peanut gallery

[Aceticon]

ID isn't sciency because it makes no statements that can be tested.

Here's a simple short example of that sort of thing:
"The world and everything in it, including this article and your memory of having read it came to be 1 second ago"

Now try and disprove it.

This kind of thing is in the realm of philosophy, not science.

Re:question for the peanut gallery

[Alsee]

Allow me to break things down into three categories.

(1) Valid scientific work on Intelligent Design that in theory could be done, but which hasn't been done.
(2) Actual scientific work on Intelligent Design that has been done.
(3) Nonscientific creationist stuff trying to use Intelligent Design like a Halloween mask, pretending to be scientific.

You are largely arguing from number 1. Just because I could in theory come up with a cure for cancer some day does not make it OK for me to run around injecting people with a mud solution today. If and when I do come up with a proposed cure for cancer, that proposed cure needs to be properly evaluated by standard medical protocols to verify that it actually works and doesn't contain any fatal components. If and when work from category 1 does get done, that should be scientific research and it needs to go through the standard scientific peer review process to ensure it does not contain any fatal flaws and that it actually does yields valid useful new results. Highschool science class needs to teach an accurate overview of each scientific field as it is understood and practiced by professionals in that field. Highschool science class is not a place to be pushing reviewed research which is potentially fatally flawed, and which is does not accurately reflect the current state of science as accepted and practiced by actual scientists in that field. As new results and knowledge become an established part of a field as practiced by professional scientists, only then is it appropriate for highschool science education to adjust to accurately reflect that. Highschool science education must follow science as understood and practiced by professionals. It is completely inappropriate when some people attempt to hijack highschool students to attempt to lead science where they would like it to go for nonscientific ideological reasons.

Then there's (2) actual scientific work on Intelligent Design that has been done. There is very little in this category. To the extent sincere science work has been done in Intelligent Design, all of that work has either turned up negative results, or yielded apparently positive results that on peer review were found to contain fatal flaws. We don't generally waste time teaching research that came up empty, and we generally don't teach work containing math errors or other fatal flaws.

And then there's the largest category, (3) nonscientific crap trying to pretend to be science. Which I hope we can all agree has no place in a science classroom :)

In theory could there be some sort of Intelligent Design stuff that could and should be taught? Sure. And in theory there could be a race of little green men living in caverns on Mars. If and when they turn up, if and when and are accepted by professional peer reviewed science, then and only then do science classes follow. Then and only then do science classes adapt to accurately reflect the new state of science as understood and practiced by professional scientists.

Oh, I'd like to add an important follow up on category (1), real science that could be done but which hasn't been done. There is a foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, which gives about $70 million per year in grants. The mission statement says in part "We encourage civil, informed dialogue among scientists, philosophers, and theologians", and it has a particular interest in funding research and conferences connecting science and theology. The Intelligent Design advocates came knocking at the Templeton Foundation doors talking all their usual talk, and many at the Templeton foundation started getting exited about it. Of all the work on science and religion the foundation had funded, obviously nothing could compare to the idea of science actually examining and proving the work of God in designing life. That is obviously huge, the idea of science proving God and God's work. So yeah, ma

WTF is wrong with Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking like Nazis I say. Like Nazis!!

What would Sun Tzu do?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm not that familiar with his work, but couldn't we get the Scientologists and the Creationists to go after each other for a while? Seriously, we've already tested the "we'll teach them about science and logic" hypothesis, and it isn't working. What, if you were being attacked by zombies you'd try and appeal to there sense of compassion? Come on people, let's get this nonsense eliminated already!

slightly O/T

[FrankieBaby1986]

The notion that natural selection determines that outcome of the universe is, to many people, a profoundly unsettling explanation.

(just speculating) Could this perhaps be due to a tendency for people to shirk responsibility for what happens to them, e.g. blame luck or fate for lack of preparation or ability?

Such as saying "it wasn't meant to be" for failed relationships instead of analyzing what went wrong or was incompatible and learning from it.

Or perhaps to be able to have hope that despite what they do, if it was "meant to be", then they would have gotten that house/job/child.

Just makes me wonder how much religion and faith stems from personal failings and the human need for hope.

queensland is not part of oz

[justhatched]

Queensland is NOT part of Australia, and any sort of intelligence fled during the Joh Bjelke-Petersen years when he kept telling everyone "d d d dont you worry bout that now!" in response to any questions from the media. Intelligent design is just the usual Queensland double speak dialect for being told to do and believe what you are told or face the consequences of just what happens with that there banjo.

Talking About vs Teaching as Truth.

[Databass]

This topic gets so overheated that I think we can miss a subtler point- having a short unit on the the fact that some people believed Intelligent Design in history, and then discussing how to analyze claims like that scientifically. You can approach the topic as an observer rather than necessarily as an authority.

For example:

"In 1997, 39 people committed suicide via drinking poisoned Kool Aid, because they believed that would free their souls from their bodies to teleport to a hidden alien spacecraft hidden in the tail of Comet Hale-Bopp. Let's use this example to discuss social psychology, peer pressure, and cult-like thinking in human behavior..." This could prove to be an interesting topic that makes kids think about just how far people can go. Teaching it does NOT mean teaching the children that alien comet-craft are real or that poisoned Kool Aid is a good, although hysterical claims to that effect could be made.

Similarly, at least rationally discussing the historical fact that some people believed in Intelligent Design and concepts like scientific provability, experiment replication, hypothesis and how to support them with evidence could be a fine topic, worth discussing. I know this sounds a little like capitulating to the whole "Teach the Controversy" approach, but I think there is potential in valuing how people came to believe "controversies" that absolutely no longer are. Examples: Sun revolves around earth, earth is flat, etc etc.

What the?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in the US, and now Queensland?!! As in, Queensland, *Australia*?!! What the...?

Even if you wanted to believe in such a thing - which I do NOT - what sort of *all knowing*, *all powerful* Judaeo-Christian god would limit themselves to such a facile, kindergarten-level, tutu-wearing, fluffy-white-cloud, magic-wand-waving authorship of the universe?

Wouldn't such a fantastic being be a bit more subtle, sophisticated and intelligent than some bedtime stories told by inbred, backwards, fundamentalist, happy-clappy red-necks from the US and Queensland?

Wouldn't such a fantastically powerful and knowledgeable being be the author of the laws of physics INCLUDING EVOLUTION?

I say if we want to believe in such primitive, shamanistic, mediæval hokum, then we must bring back ALL such primitive, shamanistic, mediæval hokum, including:
      * Plenary Indulgences
      * declare the earth to be flat
      * declare that the earth is the centre of the universe
      * reinstate the one church, i.e.: Roman Catholic
      * the Inquisition for any who disagree

Science? The *same* science that created the technology behind the computer you used to look at this comment? "Don't you worry about that!"

Education ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And when will science be taught in religious classes?

Ian Plimer

[highways]

Maybe we can get that good 'ol aussie Ian Plimer to do good instead of evil like he used to.

Laws are still taught as laws.

[HornWumpus]

Everybody knows that although 'laws' are useful they are _all_ wrong/incomplete.

In other words you still learn Newtons laws and how to apply them. You then go on to learn where they don't apply.

Newtons laws hold now water as theories. That is not what they have become. Laws now have scope. (e.g. V much less then C for Newtons laws of motion)

Just because something isn't universal doesn't make it useless.

But the core point remains, theories don't often grow up to be laws. When they do it isn't because they are proven, just very useful.

Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I grew up in Queensland. You can teach Queenslanders what you want about inteligent design. They'll just ignore it, smoke pot, drink piss and bang constantly.

This is probably the only place that needs religion jammed into school.

Science undermines the need for mythology

[Pfhorrest]

I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it?

Others have already given their thoughts on why they directly conflict, but my take on it has always been something a little more subtle. The advance of scientific explanations of the world makes God, or any other mythological explanation, an increasingly unnecessary hypothesis (as Laplace once told Napoleon when asked why his book on astronomy made no mention of God). Without a concept like evolution, atheism is susceptible to a rather plausible appeal to absurdity: "so, what, all this order in nature, including human intelligence itself, just happened to pop into existence for no reason?"

Creationists often like to portray the claims of evolution as being like this, like claiming that everything just happened by chance, but really evolution is an *alternate explanation* for the existence of order, not the assertion that there is no explanation. Evolutionary theory provides an explanation for how a chaotic system can develop into an ordered one by natural, impersonal processes, thus dissolving the dichotomy of "a person (God) made this order... or, lol, everything just happened by coincidence, right". Without the only alternative to God being that improbable coincidence, one of the major arguments for the existence of God (called the teleological argument, or argument from design) loses its foundation, and failing another, better argument, people might just think "well, if this evolution thing explains all that, then where exactly does God fit in this picture?"

And the theists don't like that idea, so they either come up with some other role for God to play, the typical ones being pushing it back further ("God created the first single-celled organisms and then let evolution take over", or even "God created the Big Bang and then let physics take over") or the "morality is the domain of religion, reality is the domain of science" angle (which I just wrote a rant against elsewhere on Slashdot)... or they argue against evolution to preserve a place for God.

You can't blame a government for this one

[dbIII]

Instead it's some idiots with an agenda and they are going to take it out on the kids they have under the control of the schools they own.
What do they really think they are going to achieve apart from confusion by teaching Genesis without God in it? It's a weasel tactic that sets a very bad example and is really in opposition to Christian values anyway. If they can't be up front about what they are teaching they shouldn't be getting taxpayers money to assist their schools.

In the begining...

[JDmetro]

there was nothing and then one day nothing exploded and then there was everything.
Seems as far fetched as creationism.

It's the national curriculum, not just Queensland.

[Anonymous Coward]

What I find interesting is people picking on Queenslanders.

The article comes from a newspaper in the Courier-Mail - the division of News Ltd that publishes newspapers to Queensland. However, the article is complaining about the proposed National Curriculum, which is some mishmash compromise with previous state curricula, and therefore new to Queensland. The national curriculum is a political hot topic at the moment.

This stuff is going to be taught all over Australia. How they're going to integrate it into Ancient History I'd have no idea ... but I'm surprised the rest of us Australians haven't noticed.

It's the heat

[Anonymous Coward]

It is well established that the north of Australia is much like the south of the US. I blame the heat from equatorial proximity.

Life, The Universe and Information Theory

[AussieNeil]

The Anthropomorphic Principle and Information Theory with respect to live haven't had much mention here. The sheer complexity of cellular life is such that we still don't understand how it could have come into existence via evolution. Probability is so much against it that some scientists have proposed life arose elsewhere than Earth and we got infected (doesn't solve the problem, just shifts it outside where we can easily study it). Other scientists have suggested cells arose from another platform such as clay.

Then there is the problem of natural selection which selects for a reduced level of information - it doesn't add information. That has to come from mutations from radiation or stealing genes from other life (which again shifts the problem without solving it).

Slashdot readers have a far better appreciation than most of what it takes to create something that performs a useful function. Given the majority here belief in Evolution, I'm surprised no developers have suggested that they just write one program that will naturally select what the customer wants and let it run on a supercomputer for a while to spit out the solution. Oh, perhaps that's because it requires Intelligent Design to write that program...

Re:Life, The Universe and Information Theory

[AussieNeil]

Sorry that should read "Anthropic Principle"

I hate to burst your bubble, but...

[EWAdams]

... computer scientists ARE using simulated natural selection processes to generate useful things. And in some cases it's more efficient than doing the work yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing

God exists, He's just lazy. Create a universe full of elementary particles and let it go. Ta-da! Life evolves.

Re:Design filed in Ancient History, not Engineerin

[dzfoo]

I think they mean Intelligent Design of the universe, not of the iPad.

        -dZ.

To be fair

[tarlss]

Back in grade school we did spend a good amount of time on Greek and Native American Creation myths...discussing Christian creation myths would only be fair.

ID should be placed in the backseat of history as far as education is concerned, along with Aztec Sun Gods, Zeus and Osirus. Knowledge of that stuff is definitely important in analyzing multiple perspectives from multiple cultures, and in the long run it means ID will be considered a fanciful, romantic, and dead religion that a bunch of people got riled up about.

Bad argument

[Benfea]

No one is presenting the Greek religion as a scientific fact in a science class. I dare say that if someone did, our friendly neighborhood creationists and you would stand up and scream about violation of the Establishment Clause.

We do not "teach the controversy" of opposing views of evolution for the same reason we don't "teach the controversy" about geocentrism in opposition to heliocentrism, or about belief in a flat Earth as opposed to a spherical Earth. Children have enough to do in science class without having to be burdened with learning about things that are demonstrably false, much less presenting those demonstrably false things as some kind of legitimate scientific viewpoint.

Flat earth and hole in the middle

[niftymitch]

I recall being "taught" about the flat earth theory and that some folk believe/ believed that there was a world inside the world.

My head did not explode.

Re:The reason it's going to be in Ancient History.

[Alsee]

People, particularly on this forum, put Christians down as ignorant.

Lets see if I can help correct that.

You are ignorant. The majority of Christians however, do accept evolution.

And just in case you were unaware of the fact that the majority of Christians accept evolution you can take a look at this article and the image in it. The United States is almost completely Christian and is evenly split on accepting evolution. Then you merely note the fact that other overwhelmingly Christian countries accept evolution by large margins. Even if try you stack the figures as far as possible by assuming every non-Christian in each country accepts evolution in order to maximize the percentage of Christians rejecting evolution, it still works out impossible for there to be less than 50% of Christians on the evolution side.

Turkey is the only developed nation that has a lower acceptance of evolution than the US.

-

Random mutations

[bar-agent]

Actually, I would bet that mutations are not all that random. Sure, cosmic rays and quantum fluctuations are random, but I would expect an organism's genome to employ more or less error protection in different areas so that critical areas are less likely to mutate while areas that have needed to adapt fast in the past are more likely to mutate and may even be "intentionally" more susceptible to carcinogenic chemicals.

Re:Random mutations

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Interesting- I wonder how that affects Paul Lutus' argument:
"But randomness is the point, it's not a side effect (and it is definitely random). Because of the random nature of the process, all possible biological forms get an equal chance. Without randomness, evolution wouldn't create what we see around us." (http://www.arachnoid.com/reader_exchanges/mental_health_and_evolution.html#MHE_I)

What's really funny about creationists is...

[Benfea]

...that they keep insisting that hundreds of millions of years was not enough time for the species we see today to evolve, but that the small number of animals in Noah's ark was able to evolve into a much larger number of species over the course of the last 4,000 years. They never seem to pick up on the incongruity of those two sets of ideas.

Re:What's really funny about creationists is...

[digitig]

...that they keep insisting that hundreds of millions of years was not enough time for the species we see today to evolve, but that the small number of animals in Noah's ark was able to evolve into a much larger number of species over the course of the last 4,000 years. They never seem to pick up on the incongruity of those two sets of ideas.

I'm not aware of any who do argue that all the species we have now evolved from those in the Ark -- certainly those who don't believe that new species can emerge through evolution. Young-earth creationist explanations of species diversity following the deluge range from a second divine act of creation to arguments that the flood was only local to the relatively small region populated by humans before the Tower of Babel incident, so species living outside that region were unaffected.

Stupid ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Google decided to put an ad on this page: Darwinism Falls 2013 (www.cosmicfingerprints.com, please don't click if you don't want to vomit)... Ha! The irony.

Long (LONG) story short, a digital communications engineer tells you what no trained evolutionary biologist knows... The _real_ origin of species. Wanna guess?

Don't be a puppet

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the responsibility of everyone to inform themselves, and think justly. There is a wealth of information out there. Look into it yourselves and make up your own minds.

Recommend those with open minds start with the following:
* Signature in the Cell, by Stephen C. Meyer
* Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson

Is Science Worthy of ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the scientific establishment so dogmatic about their modern slant on good old spontaneous generation, aka "neo-darwinism" and it's mythical mutants engineered by some magical wizard called, "natural selection" ....and the every handy magic wand of "eons of time" so skillfully fashioning the most complex and integrated systems imaginable, I really think that ID and creationism need to be studied as "superscience" or something.

Modern science is so full of evohooey that its running out of usefullness.

Wayne,
www.scifaith.com/blog

Re:Is Science Worthy of ID?

[UnknowingFool]

With the scientific establishment so dogmatic about their modern slant on good old spontaneous generation, aka "neo-darwinism" and it's mythical mutants engineered by some magical wizard called, "natural selection" ....and the every handy magic wand of "eons of time" so skillfully fashioning the most complex and integrated systems imaginable, I really think that ID and creationism need to be studied as "superscience" or something.

One thing that the scientific establishment insists is that anything taught as science must adhere to the principles of science. It must have observable, repeatable evidence and must be falsifiable. ID has no testable evidence and it cannot be falsified so it cannot be considered science. Science does not have an opinion of whether ID is true, only that it is not science. Rather ID is considered dogma more than anything else.

As for the rest of your post, it shows a complete lack of any understanding of what science is and is not.