Intelligent Design gloves are off in Pennsylvania court case

‘Uncle Roger’ has based his response on the presumption that God is restricted to our own natural limitations. God’s own revelation to us demonstrates that He is unfathomable and incomprehensible and outside our natural world, being a spirit being. As a result of the death and resurrection of Jesus, those who eyes are opened by the Spirit of God can to a limited degree know Him, and history (to this very day), testifies to this fact.

As to “who created the creator” we are told that God has existed from everlasting and will continue forever. This to our finite minds is an unfathomable mystery, but in response to this statement I would return the question to you, when did atoms come into existence, when in terms of space and time does the universe reach and come to an end, what are its origins? I would suggest to you that these questions are impossible to answer without reverting to faith either in God or in whatever theory you, care to believe.

Finally the above comments bring us back to the basic issue mentioned in my original narrative, what right of precedence does the theory of evolution have over the belief in intelligent design?

Thank goodness for the residence of Pennsylvania, who like William Penn are prepared to challenge the establishment, lets hope that right will triumph over prejudice.

Reply

If it's an "unfathomable mystery" then it's way outside the realm of science and education. Science attempts to provide us answers with how physical phenomena work - it's NOT just throwing up our hands and saying "we'll never understand it" and leaving it at that. Let's keep the science and the scientific method in the schools, and keep out religion, in whatever guise.

Reply

Nancy -- You go girl! Boom, ID is religion and thus needs to be taught (if desired) at home. Period.

John -- Actually, some of us apparently know God better than others; he has personally revealed to me that He is the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that Jesus was actually made of semi-intelligent, remote-controlled meatballs. That's how come he didn't actually die on the cross. Someday, your eyes may open enough to see the Truth.

"when did atoms come into existence, when in terms of space and time does the universe reach and come to an end, what are its origins?" Actually, the thing is, no one knows. They're trying to figure things out, and have come up with some theories (guesses based on evidence), but really, no one knows. And that is the difference between science and religion. Science says "I don't know, but I'm going to try and figure it out." Religion says "I know. Period. I don't have to prove it, I just know."

Scientists (real ones, anyway) never actually KNOW anything. They may have a pretty good idea, be pretty darn sure about things, but they're always open to being disproved (and in fact, actually try to disprove themselves.) Religionists(?) simply believe. They don't try to prove or disprove their beliefs; they don't need to. Actually, they more often than not discourage attempts to prove/disprove their beliefs. See the difference?

But, if you can believe that God has existed (and will continue to exist) forever, why would it be so hard to believe the universe has existed forever? Or, if God is outside our world and you can only know a wee little bit about him, how do you know he's not actually some alien fattening you up, spiritually, to be eaten after you die? Maybe good souls taste better than bad ones? How do you know?

Finally, you've answered your own question: "what right of precedence does the THEORY of evolution have over the BELIEF in intelligent design" (emphasis mine). Evolution is a theory. ID is a belief system. The former is acceptable; the latter is not. Period.

Unless you're willing to say that ID is only a theory and that you're not completely sure that God exists...

Reply

As a Ph.D. in philosophy I must say I am disturbed at the terminological imprecision that is just rampant on these issues. Translation: people are talking past each other because they do not understand the meaning of the critical concepts under discussion.

Intelligent design is not identical to creationism! Why can't most people understand this? Creationism is a religious doctrine that entails a faith in a Creator that creates (= brings into being) the world. Intelligent design is the branch of science that studies signs of intelligence. Using empirical methods and mathematics (probability) ID theorists examine various structures in the world and try to determine what is the most reasonable cause of their existence: either chance, necessity, or design. For example, if I tossed a 6 sided-die 3 times and got 3 sixes it is quite reasonable to hold that it happened by chance. But what about if I toss a die 1000 times and every single time I get a six? What is more probable that a thousand sixes in a row occurred by chance or that I have “weighted dice?” I think most of you would agree that the second possibility is more likely. Well intelligent design basically does the same thing with the universe itself. The science of Physics has been discovering over the last 30 years that there are many things about the universe that need to be precisely the way they are in order for life to be possible at all. For, example if the gravitational force were 5% weaker or stronger there could be no life in the universe. Currently, there are over a 150 such things that need to be precisely the way they are for life to be possible. It is highly improbable that all of these things happened by chance. Thus it is more rational to hold that the universe was intelligently designed. Given this evidence in physics why can't students simply be made aware that intelligent design is a viable *possibility*?

Charles Darwin himself said:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” The Origin of Species, Chapter, 6.

Finally, why do some many scientists act as if science has proven that there is no intelligent cause behind life on this planet? They do this when they describe evolution as purposeless. However, they do not have evidence that evolution is purposeless! Consider the following:

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.” – Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (2nd edition 1986, p.3)

“Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind” – George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (rev. ed. 1967), pp. 344-45.

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind.” –Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), p. 5.

"Humans are not the end result of predictable evolutionary progress, but rather a fortuitous cosmic afterthought, a tiny little twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life, which if replanted from seed, would almost surely not grow this twig again." -- Stephen Jay Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack, p. 327.

“[Evolution is] an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process" was the NABT’s (National Association of Biology Teachers) was the official description of evolution until 1997.

If a person is really sincere in opening his or her mind to the topic of intelligent design as a scientific enterprise, I recommend Dembski's book called "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830823751

Most people, however, seem to make up their minds without deep reflective thought. Thus many speak out of ignorance and often with vitriolic emotion. Sadly, this is often true of people on both sides of the debate. We will never progress if this does not change...

Reply

"As a Ph.D. in philosophy I must say I am disturbed..."

As a drop-out from the local community college, I am amazed that people with more education and certainly more intelligence than I could ever fall for this crap.

"Intelligent design is not identical to creationism!"

True. And Murder != Rape. But that doesn't make either one any more acceptable.

"Intelligent design is the branch of science that studies signs of intelligence. "

Actually, it's more the pseudoscience that tries to assert that since not everything is wholly understood, the universe must have been created by something intelligent (aka God).

"if I toss a die 1000 times and every single time I get a six? What is more probable that a thousand sixes in a row occurred by chance or that I have 'weighted dice?'"

If you toss a weighted die 1000 times, it will come up on the non-favored side at least some of the time. How ever, a weighted die is a possibility. In which case the die would be examined, tested, etc. If it turned out, however, that the die was not weighted, I would go with "amazing streak of luck" over "the Flying Spaghetti Monster controlled the die" any day of the week.

"The science of Physics has been discovering over the last 30 years that there are many things about the universe that need to be precisely the way they are in order for life to be possible at all."

Bullshit. Perhaps, things have to be the way they are for life to turn out just the way we are, but if gravity were different, we might end up looking more like elephants or spiders.

"It is highly improbable that all of these things happened by chance. Thus it is more rational to hold that the universe was intelligently designed."

Actually, remember that die? If you rolled it six times and got, in order, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, yeah, that'd be pretty noticeable. On the other hand, if you rolled it 10,000 times, and somewhere along the line got that sequence, it wouldn't be noticeable at all. There are a an huge number of stars out there with a huge number of planets with a huge range of conditions. You and I got lucky and ended up on a planet that developed life that can sometimes look like Lucy Liu. Get over it.

"science has proven that there is no intelligent cause behind life on this planet? "

Nope. I can speak for others, but I'm pretty darn sure there isn't, but unless the FSM makes an appearance, I don't see any way to prove it either way. The thing is, there is no more evidence to point to the existence of God than there is to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Actually less, since we do have Marinara sauce.

Gee, a whole lot of quotes taken out of context. Big whup.

"Thus many speak out of ignorance" and thus believe in ID and/or creationism.

Regardless of whether or not anyone wants to believe in ID, it has no place in a public school either along side or instead of proper biology and evolution.

Luckily, the judge in this case seems to be intelligent (even if he wasn't designed) so I think we're going to be okay. For now...

Reply

I have not fallen for any crap; since I am not a "drop-out" I have studied philosophy and science more than you have and thus am in a better position to judge than you.

You just seem to assume ID is a pseudoscience. Why not give your reasons as to why it is not a genuine branch of science.
You are wrong to assume that intelligent design mentions God. It does not. ID examines structures and tries to determine (using mathematics and probability) what is the most reasonable cause of their existence: chance, necessity, or design. ID does not tell us about the nature of the intelligence discovered.

You claim my above quotation is "bullshit" but you have obviously not studied physics enough. Here is a quote from a non-religous physicist:

"I am not a religious person, but I could say this universe is designed very well for the existence of life," said Heinz Oberhummer, astrophysicist at the University of Vienna, Austria. Mr. Oberhummer and his colleagues used computers to simulate the process by which helium burns to produce carbon and oxygen during the red-giant stage of a star's life. They found that even slight changes in either the strong or weak nuclear force would destroy nearly all the carbon or oxygen inside stars-making life impossible. "The basic forces in the universe are tailor-made for the production of ... carbon-based life," Mr. Oberhummer said.

You are the arrogant one that needs to "get over it", not me.

The quotes from Futuyma, Simpson, Dawkins, Gould and the NABT were not taken out of context.
I dare you to prove that they are. But I understand why you hope they were taken out of context--because
they are shameful since these scientists have NO evidence to support the view that evolution is "purposeless" and "unsupervised"...

I wonder why someone with so little education is so obbessed with defending evolution? Wish fulfilment, perhaps? I on the other hand came to my view after many years of thinking about these issues...

You post is so indicative of people bursting with emotion but lacking in evidence and logic argument.

Go ahead spew your anger if you wish -- it is so irrelevant to this debate...

Reply

Speaking of probabilities for things that have already happened is meaningless.

The statistical probability of things that have already happened is ONE.

Reply

RD -- You say you have a Ph.D in Philosophy. Unless it is specifically in the Philosophy of Science, it is as relevant to the discussion at hand as having performed with a famous opera company. Philosophy is not a science. My studies and, perhaps more importantly, my work experience have been in a field that is about has hard a science as you can get. And I've been doing it a very long time.

Let me offer a far better explanation than I could put together: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html?gusrc=rss

An excerpt: "If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals." ... "Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific public".

You said "ID examines structures and tries to determine (using mathematics and probability) what is the most reasonable cause of their existence: chance, necessity, or design."

So let's go back to your 1000 rolls of a die. If it came up with a 6 every time, sure, you might think it was a loaded die. What would you do then? If you were a drunken gambler, you might beat the crap of the guy whose die it was. If you were a scientist, however, you would call that a theory and do experiments to try to find evidence that either supports or disproves your theory.

Quotes are not evidence. Got any evidence of a creator? Just because something is probable or even the most reasonable, it's not necessarily true. Sure, it might be reasonable to theorize that the die is loaded, but isn't it also possible that the person rolling it was so skilled that he could intentionally roll a six every time? If a bowler bowls a perfect game, do you assume it's fixed?

From the above mentioned article: "any God capable of creating a bacterial flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity than the bacterial flagellum (or universe) itself - even more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created." If you think a flagellum is tough to explain, try explaining an all-powerful, intelligent batch of pasta.

I will gladly stipulate that things pretty much need to be the way they are for life to be the way it is (around here, anyway), but what I won't do is say that if things were different, life couldn't exist at all. It might be as different as the conditions it existed in, but I'd be willing to bet that, in a universe of this size, it would still exist. So, yes, that quote was bullshit.

Hmmm... Interesting that you assume that because I dropped out of a community college, I have "so little education" and thus are "obbsessed" [sic] with this topic... Perhaps because of my situation, I value education and science so highly that I am willing to argue it with people who need to put letters after their name to prove their worth?

"You post is so indicative of people bursting with emotion but lacking in evidence and logic argument." Actually, it's ID that is lacking in evidence and logic. I'm still waiting to see any evidence whatsoever.

By the way, have you been following the trial? (http://aclupa.blogspot.com/) The judge is off to make up his mind (as if the incompetence of the school board members hadn't done that for him already). If you're into probability and chance, I'll give you 5 to 1 odds that ID is booted out on it's ear.

Reply

While I am not an authority on the subject I feel the need to contribute the following:

Is ID science:
At least in principle yes. Although based on a religious source, in principle ID is an attempt to abstract theories from a Christian world view and show that religious "truths" are supports by scientific evidence. It has a valid argument that science implicitly will not accept the hypothesis of a supernatural creator. While by definition a supernatural force cannot be explained by science (it would be automatically be reclassified as natural if it could), I believe it is possible to imply the existence of such a force so long as we do not seek to deny or cease attempts to explain it by more naturalistic means.

What science does ID have:
ID actually has some reasonable science involved. "Irreducible Complexity" although it has not been formally peer reviewed does have some merit. We can theorize that the difficulty in providing a statically viable model for a given evolutionary change infers that an as yet unknown external force may have influenced that change. Expanding on this we can imply that if we can provide a sufficient base of statistically improbable evolutionary steps the existence of this force becomes more of a probability than simply a possibility. Continuing along these lines we can argue that if such a force exists then it can be implied from the addition of complexity which takes place during these evolutionary steps that this force has an intelligent agent behind it.

So what are the problems with ID:
The ID movement has focused on convincing non-scientists, while avoiding any form of scientific review. Complaints about being locked out of debates by a prejudiced scientific community are fabrications. Where are all the rejection notices from the peer reviewed journals? There aren't any as far as I know.
Also ID has proposed some rather questionable statements such as the inability for evolution to explain the creation of any new species, or the idea that no transitional fossils exist. These ideas trace back to the creationist roots of ID. If you simply start with the idea of an intelligent force/designer, there is no inherent need to discredit evidence of a change of species.
This brings me to the reason why I believe many consider ID to be a non-science. ID predictions often conflict with the evidence provided by scientific study. For example ID still claims that no transitional fossils exist. Countless fossils which support the idea of transitions between species have been found and authenticated. When ID is faced with this difficult evidence which it cannot fully discredit instead of trying to revise their assumptions and predictions inline with the evidence like any good science, they insist on ignoring it.

Reply

"science implicitly will not accept the hypothesis of a supernatural creator." Science will happily accept any hypothesis -- and proceed to test it. So far, all tests for a supernatural creator seem to have failed miserably.

"possible to imply the existence of such a force so long as we do not seek to deny or cease attempts to explain it by more naturalistic means."

So what you're saying is that as long as we let people try to disprove the existence of a supernatural creator, we can go on believing in it despite a complete lack of positive evidence and despite other, competing theories that do have supporting evidence? And that makes it science? "Even if you come up with a better explanation, I'll keep believing in ID."

"We can theorize that ... an as yet unknown external force may have influenced that change." Sure, we can theorize that. "... we can imply that ... the existence of this force becomes more of a probability than simply a possibility." Um, no. Just because evolution doesn't have *all* the answers, it doesn't mean that ID is automatically right.

By that logic, you could have Tiger Woods hit 1000 golf balls and if any of them missed the hole, declare yourself to be the better golfer.

"... implied from the addition of complexity ... that this force has an intelligent agent behind it." Why? Show me some proof that complexity cannot be created without intelligent design.

"The ID movement has focused on convincing non-scientists" -- while not damning in and of itself, it is pretty suspect. Being able to convince Aunt Hattie in Ogallala doesn't say much.

"... instead of trying to revise their assumptions and predictions inline with the evidence like any good science, they insist on ignoring it." Bingo. Science means that theories are tested and backed up by evidence and facts -- if not, you change your theory. Religion means believing without proof (faith) or even believing in the face of contrary evidence.

ID is religion.

Reply

In response to Uncle Roger, I feel the need to clarify my statements:

First I should be clear that I disapprove of the ID movement. While I believe that a small portion of ID has made a legitimate attempt to make a scientific point, most of ID is nothing more than a religious crusade. In its current state, which includes such erroneous ideas as a lack of transitional fossils, any public school which includes this even implicitly in their biology curriculum in showing religious favoritism (to Christianity the main supporter of ID), in violation of the first amendment. I also believe that if ID cleans itself up and takes a more respectable approach (peer reviewed work, trying to convince scientists instead of laymen, etc.), it could one day become a reasonable science.

My personal beliefs are closer to theistic evolution. I personally believe in God; however I think the human race is nothing special in the scale of the universe. God may have given us a helping hand from time to time, but its immensely arrogant to think the universe does exists solely for our benefit. I also think that belief in God is morally inconsequential in the eyes of God in comparison to ones actions. I think many secular humanists with their atheist views, are leading more moral lives than some Christian fundamentalist. God loves atheists, he has a good sense of irony.

I feel my argument that science, or at least many scientists unduly disregard any conjecture about a supernatural creator, is valid. I have heard several arguments that since science is based in naturalistic materialism (there is nothing wrong with that), any hypothesis about the supernatural is unscientific, or in other words that by definition alone ID is non-science. I believe that science should be free to conjecture about the unprovable (supernatural), so long as it presents a way to support this with some form of material evidence (irreducible complexity is a reasonable start, but ID is still very short in the supporting evidence column). Also I have never heard of a test for God, God by definition (whether you believe in Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism) cannot be absolutely proven or disproven since such a being exists outside of the normal restrictions of the material world.

In response to "So what you're saying is that as long as we let people try to disprove the existence of a supernatural creator, we can go on believing in it despite a complete lack of positive evidence and despite other, competing theories that do have supporting evidence?" that is not what I meant. What I tried express is to say that hypothesizing that something may be impossible to prove through the existing mechanism is acceptable, so long as you don't use this as an excuse to stop trying to prove it. Ignoring a competing theory with better evidence, in the same way parts of ID try to argue that major evolutionary changes simply don't happen, is just plain silly. Trying to incorporate ideas like special creation into ID, given any one of several contradicting pieces of evidence (like the fact human DNA is a 96% match to monkeys), is one of the major flaws in the current state of ID. In principle intelligent design can be science, it does need to clean out a lot of religious baggage first.

My explanation about probability and an external force is kind of abstract so let me try it this way:
A compass almost always points north, but sometimes points in a seemingly random direction. Even if we lacked an understanding of how the compass worked we could hypothesize that there is a reason why the compass does not always point north, that there may be an external force acting on the compass. In reality this turns out to be the case, a local magnetic field can apply a greater influence than the earths magnetic field.
Or going back to an earlier analogy about the six sided dice. If the die rolls a six several times in a row, it is irrational to hypothesize that our presumption that the die was purely random was false? If we do not have the die to subject to further testing, is it wrong to say that someone had probably loaded the dice even if we can never prove it?
Arguing that an as yet unexplained component to the evolution mechanism exists, because existing components like natural selection and random mutation may be insufficient in some cases, is a valid form of science.

Sorry for rambling on, I just think its important to examine why ID is flawed without simply writing it off as purely religious dogma, or creationism with a new coat of paint. How else can you hope to influence someone who you think is being mislead by the ID movement?

Reply

In response to Uncle Roger, I feel the need to clarify my statements:

First I should be clear that I disapprove of the ID movement. While I believe that a small portion of ID has made a legitimate attempt to make a scientific point, most of ID is nothing more than a religious crusade. In its current state, which includes such erroneous ideas as a lack of transitional fossils, any public school which includes this even implicitly in their biology curriculum in showing religious favoritism (to Christianity the main supporter of ID), in violation of the first amendment. I also believe that if ID cleans itself up and takes a more respectable approach (peer reviewed work, trying to convince scientists instead of laymen, etc.), it could one day become a reasonable science.

My personal beliefs are closer to theistic evolution. I personally believe in God; however I think the human race is nothing special in the scale of the universe. God may have given us a helping hand from time to time, but its immensely arrogant to think the universe does exists solely for our benefit. I also think that belief in God is morally inconsequential in the eyes of God in comparison to ones actions. I think many secular humanists with their atheist views, are leading more moral lives than some Christian fundamentalist. God loves atheists, he has a good sense of irony.

I feel my argument that science, or at least many scientists unduly disregard any conjecture about a supernatural creator, is valid. I have heard several arguments that since science is based in naturalistic materialism (there is nothing wrong with that), any hypothesis about the supernatural is unscientific, or in other words that by definition alone ID is non-science. I believe that science should be free to conjecture about the unprovable (supernatural), so long as it presents a way to support this with some form of material evidence (irreducible complexity is a reasonable start, but ID is still very short in the supporting evidence column). Also I have never heard of a test for God, God by definition (whether you believe in Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism) cannot be absolutely proven or disproven since such a being exists outside of the normal restrictions of the material world.

In response to "So what you're saying is that as long as we let people try to disprove the existence of a supernatural creator, we can go on believing in it despite a complete lack of positive evidence and despite other, competing theories that do have supporting evidence?" that is not what I meant. What I tried express is to say that hypothesizing that something may be impossible to prove through the existing mechanism is acceptable, so long as you don't use this as an excuse to stop trying to prove it. Ignoring a competing theory with better evidence, in the same way parts of ID try to argue that major evolutionary changes simply don't happen, is just plain silly. Trying to incorporate ideas like special creation into ID, given any one of several contradicting pieces of evidence (like the fact human DNA is a 96% match to monkeys), is one of the major flaws in the current state of ID. In principle intelligent design can be science, it does need to clean out a lot of religious baggage first.

My explanation about probability and an external force is kind of abstract so let me try it this way:
A compass almost always points north, but sometimes points in a seemingly random direction. Even if we lacked an understanding of how the compass worked we could hypothesize that there is a reason why the compass does not always point north, that there may be an external force acting on the compass. In reality this turns out to be the case, a local magnetic field can apply a greater influence than the earths magnetic field.
Or going back to an earlier analogy about the six sided dice. If the die rolls a six several times in a row, it is irrational to hypothesize that our presumption that the die was purely random was false? If we do not have the die to subject to further testing, is it wrong to say that someone had probably loaded the dice even if we can never prove it?
Arguing that an as yet unexplained component to the evolution mechanism exists, because existing components like natural selection and random mutation may be insufficient in some cases, is a valid form of science.

Sorry for rambling on, I just think its important to examine why ID is flawed without simply writing it off as purely religious dogma, or creationism with a new coat of paint. How else can you hope to influence someone who you think is being mislead by the ID movement?

Reply