Intelligent Design ruling

[Buckeyefan 1]

Just released this afternoon:

A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday that teaching "intelligent design" to public school science classes is unconstitutional, calling the concept that parts of the universe are the result of an intelligent designer "a religious view." -Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

Full story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-20-intel-design_x.htm

 

[furrycute]

I'm glad that sanity still exists in the good old U.S. of A. For a while I really thought we have lost it with all those religious/political conservatives.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

I agree.

Its not Science. Its belief. You can't teach beliefs.

SheepStar

Religious (and some private) schools do it daily.

Did you see this towards the bottom of the article?

"Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a school system's biology textbooks were unconstitutional. A federal judge in January ordered Cobb County school officials to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact."

So if evolution is a theory, is it really science? We need a DBT on this one.

 

[furrycute]

You see evolution happening all around you. If you really want to speed up the process so you can actually observe in your life time, you apply aritificial selection instead of natural selection.

We have applied artificial selection to domesticated animals for over thousands of years. Dogs, pigs, cattles, etc. We have done the same thing with our crops.

And just take a look at the increasingly prevalent multi-drug resistant bacteria, that's the bacteria's response to our vampant use of antibiotics.

 

[agarwalro]

I agree.

Its not Science. Its belief. You can't teach beliefs.

SheepStar

I am in complete agreement.

 

[Audioholics]

You see evolution happening all around you. If you really want to speed up the process so you can actually observe in your life time, you apply aritificial selection instead of natural selection.

That's micro-evolution and it's easily observed... turning a lizard into a bird, however is quite a different thing and lacks any proof. There isn't a lack of fossil evidence, mind you - in fact we have millions of fossils... It's just that none of them are transitional forms.

While it may seem to "make sense" to people that macroevolution occurred - lack of evidence, and a revelation in the study of molecular biology have made evolution a statistical impossibility. There are too many interdependent things involved (i.e. one thing needs another simultaneous process in order to occur - it cannot happen gradually over time).

The truth is that there is more science behind the study of intelligent design than evlution simply because eveolutionist scientists are very often taking what few observable facts they have and bending them to fit their theory instead of following the scientific method and studying the wealth available data "as is".

Note - this has nothing to do with "age of the earth" discussions.

I consider myself welel studied in the subject (both sides) and it is amazing how many people take it at face value because the schools have been pushing it now for over 20 years - even though the latest science now clearly says evolution is impossible. The problem is that "intelligent design" is automatically ruled out as a "religious" study and so kids are left with misleading and bad information.

 

[miklorsmith]

So, the current state of the world is the product of "intelligent" design? That's as much a statement of its impossibility as anything.

The fossils show animals that no longer exist. Current animal-fossils are not found in the same strata. It would be nice to have the whole path neatly laid out, alas millions of years of erosion and upheaval have partnered to leave a less-than-complete set of footprints to follow.

And, saying "the latest science clearly says evolution is impossible" cannot be a thorough statement of the science. Says who? The Christian Science Monitor?

 

[Tomorrow]

That's micro-evolution and it's easily observed... turning a lizard into a bird, however is quite a different thing and lacks any proof. There isn't a lack of fossil evidence, mind you - in fact we have millions of fossils... It's just that none of them are transitional forms.

While it may seem to "make sense" to people that macroevolution occurred - lack of evidence, and a revelation in the study of molecular biology have made evolution a statistical impossibility. There are too many interdependent things involved (i.e. one thing needs another simultaneous process in order to occur - it cannot happen gradually over time).

The truth is that there is more science behind the study of intelligent design than evlution simply because eveolutionist scientists are very often taking what few observable facts they have and bending them to fit their theory instead of following the scientific method and studying the wealth available data "as is".

Note - this has nothing to do with "age of the earth" discussions.

I consider myself welel studied in the subject (both sides) and it is amazing how many people take it at face value because the schools have been pushing it now for over 20 years - even though the latest science now clearly says evolution is impossible. The problem is that "intelligent design" is automatically ruled out as a "religious" study and so kids are left with misleading and bad information.

I think a little clarification might be in order.

First, it is thought that lizards turned into birds, not vice versa. There is some fossil evidence, found in China in the last decade, that indicates an evolutionary relationship...using microbiology.

Second, use of electrophoresis and other techniques to analyze molecular structure has for many years found statistical relationships amongst living diverse organisms, both floral and faunal. Evolutionary (including use of micro-) biology is nothing more than proving that two species are more closely related to each other than to some third thing.

Third, there is general scientific agreement that 'evolution' is not a gradual changing of 'things'. The evolution of a species, or any organized system is eventually caused by punctuated, dramatic, sometimes cataclysmic events, both genetic and environmental. (And multiple events can and do occur simultaneously to mark genetic shifts.) I offer the K Boundary layed down during the Cretaceous Period, a period that doomed poor T-Rex and his cousins. Successful (!) genetic shifts were cause for survival in worldwide populations (macro) as a result of a cometary impact.

Lastly, there certainly is not more science behind the 'intelligent design' principle than there is evolution. Of course, the definition of "science" can be whatever you make it...but you may not get consensus.

So, even with all that said....I agree. Evolution is a theory. The theory of evolution is just that.

But the preponderance of evidence and correct application of science says that the theory of evolution is the...gospel. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.) It may end up being a conundrum in history when science reveals more about the process. But at least it doesn't presuppose 'intent' forced upon a happenstance, quantum world.

My .02. Good cheer.

 

[gnagel]

I don't see why both viewpoints aren't presented to students--along with some of the strengths and weaknesses of each position. IMO, neither the evolution nor the intelligent design stance has been proven.

Personally, I believe that God used the process of evolution to create the life forms that exist today. Why can't religion and science live in harmony?

 

[Tomorrow]

I don't see why both viewpoints aren't presented to students--along with some of the strengths and weaknesses of each position. IMO, neither the evolution nor the intelligent design stance has been proven.

Personally, I believe that God used the process of evolution to create the life forms that exist today. Why can't religion and science live in harmony?

I agree that there is no dialog that is dangerous or should be avoided...and that it makes sense to offer both of these 'theories' for open discussion. But there is that little matter left to us by our forefathers...namely, the separation of church and state. It's in the constitution.

I believe this matter will make it to the Supreme Court for final definition of what is 'religious' and what is not.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

If theres anything that needs 'faith' its science.

Sheep,

I only hope to God Mtry doesn't see that.

 

[furrycute]

This brings back fond memories of all those undergrad evolutionary biology classes.

Anyway, to settle the dispute, I propose that highly intelligent aliens messed with our primordial soup and interfered with earth's life forms throughout earth's history. As for what purpose, who knows. Maybe we are some alien school kid's ant farm, after school science project. Or it is just as likely that earth is some alien species' cattle farm.

 

[goodman]

I don't see why both viewpoints aren't presented to students--along with some of the strengths and weaknesses of each position. IMO, neither the evolution nor the intelligent design stance has been proven.
Personally, I believe that God used the process of evolution to create the life forms that exist today. Why can't religion and science live in harmony?

Evolution and intelligent design can both be taught, but not in science class. Evolution is a theory based upon scientific evidence. Intelligent Design is religion masquerading as science.

 

[Audioholics]

But there is that little matter left to us by our forefathers...namely, the separation of church and state. It's in the constitution.

You must have gone to public school.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

The entire intent of that letter being to keep government out of religion - not the other way around as it has been so twisted.

I agree there should be open discussion. Unfortunately this is not typically the case as almost no criticism of evolutional theory or its difficulties are taught in schools - hence the desire of many to include a discussion of intelligent design. Including Intelligent Design is seemingly the only way to get any sort of criticism of evolution and alternative theory - it simply isn't taught or discussed otherwise. And it more closely matches the latest evidence at hand, as revealed by microbiology and paleontology. I have met hundreds of people in my time that believe evolution is simply fact - and that's what they learned in school.

If you step back, what you will see is a very deliberate attempt to silence any criticism of evolution - since evolutionists will not self-critique themselves - at least not in public school texts (I have spoken with several evolutionists who admit to the incredible amount of missing information and dubious assumptions, but this is usually not taught in schools as no one wants to admit that the theory has such significant flaws - especially if they have no "designer-free" options to put in its place).

rjbudz: I appreciate your discussion here - thanks for jumping in. What you are talking about is Punctuatued Equilibrium - essentially the theory of "hopeful monsters". The problem with Punctuated Equilibrium is that there is very little evidence for it (to the contrary there is a wealth of information on how mutations - dramatic or not - are almost always detrimental, not beneficial to a species or organism.

Punctuated Equilibrium takes much more faith than does religion as you have to believe in millions and millions of spontaneous, dramatic mutations to achieve the ends needed by evolutionists to maintain the current theory.

And just for everyone's clarity - just as there are different flavors of Christianity and beliefs, there are also differeing views and flavors of evolution.

This is a cool discussion and in an appropriate place... As long as there are no personal attacks I dont' see any reason to limit it...

 

[HookedOnSound]

If theres anything that needs 'faith' its science.

Isn't that an oxymoron? LOL

Don't worry, I'm laughing with you Sheep!

 

[Takeereasy]

Here's an interesting evolutionary fact. The thumbs of gen Xers and younger are more dexterous than that of the older generations. The use of cell phones and video game consols are the given reason. Just figures I'd throw that one in. I'm still waiting for the deterioration of this thread. Come on steam vent, lol. By the way I don't have an opinion on actual evolution vs. intervention or intelligent design, I just know that I don't know. If I were to lean one way or the other it would be towards evolution, but again, that is what I learned in school (Catholic School by the way).

 

[droeses58]

I consider myself well studied in the subject (both sides) and it is amazing how many people take it at face value because the schools have been pushing it now for over 20 years - even though the latest science now clearly says evolution is impossible. The problem is that "intelligent design" is automatically ruled out as a "religious" study and so kids are left with misleading and bad information.

Very well put!

 

[BMXTRIX]

Intelligent design is a fancy way of saying "The Bible has all the answers."

Creationism - it has been pushed down people's throats for 2,000 years!

Science, for 1,900+ of the last 2,000 years was called sorcery, people were killed for having views that differentiated from the ways of the Bible - from the Truth. Yet, some of these have proven to be the actual Truth after all.

Any scientist that comes up with a theory is supposed to work to disprove that theory and in so doing should change their theory to fit the facts that are made available to them. Evolution theory is not a whimsical guess, it has a lot of supporting evidence, but lacks a fair bit of the tough parts. Those swift changes that occur in one location. We don't have much fossil evidence, in fact, compared to the history of this planet, we have almost NO fossil evidence.

Imagine if you will, that a genetic mutation occurs - one of a hundred that occur every day. Only this time it results in a positive change for a species - a stronger bug. This bug looks very different than the surrounding bugs. But, it finds a mate and the offspring support the mutation. Instead of a long, slow transitional state, it is a short change and within a few years either both exist, or the new version has wiped out the old version. What are the odds of finding any proof of this change 10,000 or 100,000 years later?

This is one of the primary arguements creationists use, and it is a falacy. There has been at least one intermediary fossil found within the last few years (heard that one on the news) which supports evolution. There may very well be some more over time. But, here is the kicker - ask again in 2,000 years when evolutionists have had the same amount of time to work on their theory openly as those of 'faith' have had to work on their version of things. Not 100 years - but some serious time.

Have no doubt - I DO NOT KNOW! I am not a biologist or a historian, or a priest. I don't have the Answers. I just have my opinion of things. But, I am perfectly happy to let my opinion change and I absolutely am NOT saying that God did not nudge things along in certain directions.

That would require proof that I simply do not have.

 

[Tomorrow]

You must have gone to public school.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

The entire intent of that letter being to keep government out of religion - not the other way around as it has been so twisted.

I agree there should be open discussion. Unfortunately this is not typically the case as almost no criticism of evolutional theory or its difficulties are taught in schools - hence the desire of many to include a discussion of intelligent design. Including Intelligent Design is seemingly the only way to get any sort of criticism of evolution and alternative theory - it simply isn't taught or discussed otherwise. And it more closely matches the latest evidence at hand, as revealed by microbiology and paleontology. I have met hundreds of people in my time that believe evolution is simply fact - and that's what they learned in school.

If you step back, what you will see is a very deliberate attempt to silence any criticism of evolution - since evolutionists will not self-critique themselves - at least not in public school texts (I have spoken with several evolutionists who admit to the incredible amount of missing information and dubious assumptions, but this is usually not taught in schools as no one wants to admit that the theory has such significant flaws - especially if they have no "designer-free" options to put in its place).

rjbudz: I appreciate your discussion here - thanks for jumping in. What you are talking about is Punctuatued Equilibrium - essentially the theory of "hopeful monsters". The problem with Punctuated Equilibrium is that there is very little evidence for it (to the contrary there is a wealth of information on how mutations - dramatic or not - are almost always detrimental, not beneficial to a species or organism.

Punctuated Equilibrium takes much more faith than does religion as you have to believe in millions and millions of spontaneous, dramatic mutations to achieve the ends needed by evolutionists to maintain the current theory.

And just for everyone's clarity - just as there are different flavors of Christianity and beliefs, there are also differeing views and flavors of evolution.

This is a cool discussion and in an appropriate place... As long as there are no personal attacks I dont' see any reason to limit it...

Unfortunately, this is not a very good platform for describing one's positions and reasoning about these very complex issues. Lengthy texts are required to clarify, explain, counterpoint, and etc. And about our views of science and evolution, let us say we disagree. Einstein was befuddled by the very science he helped spawn...quantum physics. He was a believer in a god, and thus his famous quote, "I don't believe God plays dice". By this he meant that he couldn't believe the very demonstrative nature of quantum mechanics, essentially that the universe is a huge random event. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, e.g.) It made him a quite unhappy man, who died unable to resolve the dilemma provided by the conflict of modern physics and his religious beliefs.

Concerning the Constitutional issue, I appreciated the link, Clint. I had not seen that before. I had two thoughts about it. One, it remains unclear what the intent of the letter was. (See below.) Two, even if its SOLE intent might have been to keep the govenment out of religion, you need to remember that no bias or religious preference is tolerated under that letter or the Constitution. That is the sole reason why a variety of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have ruled the way they have. It is not because of this letter (which may or may not have been Jefferson's real personal agenda or his political intention). Yes, the Court interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting an "official" denomination or religion, it requires the government to avoid involvement in religion! This is another way of saying that those in charge of the Constitution, the Supreme Court Justices, far more disciplined than we in the laws of our land, made a decision different than yours. And it seems so stated, even in Jefferson's letter.

Below is the salient exerpt from that letter. I have highlighted [***] two points that I consider to be a standard or benchmark that has guided the application of the First Amendment in the manner prescribed by the Supreme Court.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that [***the legitimate powers of government reach actions only***], and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [***[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion***], and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.

Thus, as an example, you can't say the Pledge of Allegiance in school when it attibutes the nation as being under the sway of "God" ("One nation, under God"). That would preference Christianity over Hinduism and the many other religions that don't necessarily evoke one deity (or Christian God). And after all, isn't that the way it should be? Look at Iran as a perfect example of a theistic state. I don't think we want to go that way...even as a "Christian State".

 

[gene]

Personally, I believe that God used the process of evolution to create the life forms that exist today. Why can't religion and science live in harmony?

Amen to that and agreed 100%. There is no reason to not believe in a higher power that created/caused life and evolution. And to flat out say there is no proof of evolution is like saying we have no proof of the jewish holocost. For the life of me I don't understand why so many people take issue with accepting a combination of both.

Oddly enough most religion based schools won't touch evolution with a 10ft pole, yet public schools do teach religion from an historical aspect. There should be a common ground.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intelligent design is a fancy way of saying "The Bible has all the answers."

Creationism - it has been pushed down people's throats for 2,000 years!

Science, for 1,900+ of the last 2,000 years was called sorcery, people were killed for having views that differentiated from the ways of the Bible - from the Truth. Yet, some of these have proven to be the actual Truth after all.

Any scientist that comes up with a theory is supposed to work to disprove that theory and in so doing should change their theory to fit the facts that are made available to them. Evolution theory is not a whimsical guess, it has a lot of supporting evidence, but lacks a fair bit of the tough parts. Those swift changes that occur in one location. We don't have much fossil evidence, in fact, compared to the history of this planet, we have almost NO fossil evidence.

Imagine if you will, that a genetic mutation occurs - one of a hundred that occur every day. Only this time it results in a positive change for a species - a stronger bug. This bug looks very different than the surrounding bugs. But, it finds a mate and the offspring support the mutation. Instead of a long, slow transitional state, it is a short change and within a few years either both exist, or the new version has wiped out the old version. What are the odds of finding any proof of this change 10,000 or 100,000 years later?

This is one of the primary arguements creationists use, and it is a falacy. There has been at least one intermediary fossil found within the last few years (heard that one on the news) which supports evolution. There may very well be some more over time. But, here is the kicker - ask again in 2,000 years when evolutionists have had the same amount of time to work on their theory openly as those of 'faith' have had to work on their version of things. Not 100 years - but some serious time.

Have no doubt - I DO NOT KNOW! I am not a biologist or a historian, or a priest. I don't have the Answers. I just have my opinion of things. But, I am perfectly happy to let my opinion change and I absolutely am NOT saying that God did not nudge things along in certain directions.

That would require proof that I simply do not have.

Great Post and agreed 100% !

Two, even if its SOLE intent might have been to keep the govenment out of religion, you need to remember that no bias or religious preference is tolerated under that letter or the Constitution.

Someone should tell our current president this since he seems to love to espouse his faith and beliefs, by his labeling of countries as "evil" and which he has claimed his faith, in more than one instance, guides his politcal decisions.