The issue of teaching Intelligent Design in US public schools seems destined to live on. The governor of Texas last week came out in support of teaching ID in public schools. (link)



However, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science “urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools.” (link)

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) also opposes teaching ID and calls for adminstrators to shield teachers from pressure to teach ID.(link)

The case against teaching ID as science seems to go like this: There is no real scientific controversy about Intelligent Design, and that’s why its proponents have had so little success in actual scientific venues (conferences and peer-reviewed journals). Hence, ID proponents seem to be reduced to pushing the ID “scientific controversy” primarily among influential non-scientists and non-educators (politicians, school board members, lay readers of popular science books like “Of Pandas and People”). ID proponents seem to be depending on a widespread mindset of "Gosh, a huge number of people want ID taught as science, so what the heck, let's get teachers to teach it as science."

As one geologist puts it (link):

Nevertheless, ID proponents have argued that, as a scientific theory, ID is significant enough and intellectually developed enough that science education will suffer if it (ID) is not discussed as a possible explanation for the gaps and contradictions in evolutionary theory.

Question for debate: Given the position of the AAAS, NSTA, etc, how can ID be justified as scientifically developed and accepted enough to be taught as science in public school classrooms?

QUOTE

Question for debate: Given the position of the AAAS, NSTA, etc, how can ID be justified as scientifically developed and accepted enough to be taught as science in public school classrooms?

I am not sure “scientifically developed” is the right criteria. From listening to the proponents of ID it seems that what they are looking for is the right to say that, given the complexity of reality as we know it coupled with how little we really know for certain about the true nature of reality, should we not at least consider ID as a scientific theory.

One proponent pointed out that in the 20’s Einstein was attacked for his idea that the Universe was born from essentially nothing in a titanic explosion – the Big Bang. They felt this was too much like the doctrine of some religions and therefore should not be taught!!

We really know so little about reality. Maybe we should not just rule out ID out of hand.

I would propose another theory, that has about as much validity as Intelligent Design, if not more. I will call this "scientific" theory CD (Carlsens Design). My theory is, that because there are things in the world which are irreducibly complex (I don't have to argue that they indeed are that, they just are because I say so), then I must have created these things in my former life with my latent supernatural powers. Certainly that cannot be disproved by the biased scientific community, so I demand that we teach this theory in classrooms. Sure, ID could be mentioned too, because we don't want to exclude anything that might be right. In fact, lets include every "scientific" theory that hasn't been disproved, despite what evidence there is for it, into the science curriculums for schools across the world. After all, we shouldn't rule anything out of hand. That would just be biased.


Given the position of the AAAS, NSTA, etc, how can ID be justified as scientifically developed and accepted enough to be taught as science in public school classrooms?
If the proponents of ID show us scientific evidence that even a part of what they say might be true, then maybe we should think about including it into science classes, but I don't see that day coming in the foreseeable future, if ever. Until that day arises, ID must be opposed wherever it seeks to masquerade as serious science.

Your theory is IMO covered in ID. They say they would like to consider that the universe could be the work of an intelligence of some kind – not a specific intelligence – Carlsens, GOD or whoever/whatever. This is my take on it.

QUOTE

If the proponents of ID show us scientific evidence that even a part of what they say might be true.

The same could be said about much of modern physics taught today. Some examples are “string theory”, and “Loop quantum gravity” (we still do not know what gravity is). These ideas have no more “proof” than ID and may never have. We have no clue where 96% of the Universe is. We can only see .04%. The rest is unseen and unproven (at this time) “dark energy” and “dark matter”. Today we not only have no “proof” that some of these theories have any basis in fact, but we have no way currently to validate them. Many are putting some hope in the soon to be completed LHC - http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/general/gen_info.htm

To think that we have “proof” about regarding the fundamentals of Reality is just not the case. In this sense ID as valid as some of the others.

Exactly. If my outrageous theory can be put in under ID, then how can anyone call it serious science? Of course if I had designed everything, the question is, would that really be "intelligent" design?


I didn't know string theory was taught in public schools, at least it wasn't in my school or college. But even if it is today, there is more proof that string theory may be correct, than there ever will for ID, because of the fact, that very possibly string theory can one day be falsified. How will you ever be able to falsify ID?

Looking at the wikipedia page for string theory, it is also stated that some scientists don't believe string theory deserves to be called a serious scientific theory. So this theory is criticized by some in the scientific community on the same grounds as ID is criticized. I suspect ID is opposed more vehemently because of the religious agenda of most of the proponents of that theory, while I have no reason to suspect proponents of string theory to have a hidden agenda. I also don't see school officials and politicians pushing to have string theory included in curriculums.

I was being factious. But ID could be considered along with theories like String Theory or the Multiple Universe ideas etc.

String theory is not taught in lower schools. And to my knowledge there is no “proof” that string theory ( been around since 1976) is “correct”. No proof has been found. String theory may be “falsified” one day when another theory proves to be more “right”. I don’t think it is inconceivable that ID could be proved or disproved. If we could somehow find evidence that reality was not randomly conceived this may be a step in that direction.

You are correct. Scientists hate ID because it has a clear religious basis. But some people thing that ideas like String Theory could unite science and religion http://www.web-books.com/eLibrary/PhyString.htm

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/01/evoluti...eligion_of.html

http://vacuumenergy.blogspot.com/2005/11/s...d-religion.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intel...irica.html#more

It’s true that there’s no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists. Nevertheless, the specific design arguments currently in play are empirically testable, even falsifiable,2 and involve testable predictions.

"Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book Darwin’s Black Box. There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including the bacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny flagellar motor needs all of its parts to function—is “irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. "



In fact people who study oriental philosophy have been saying this for decades. The Hindu idea of reality as a form of “vibration” comes to mind. (Remember “the sound of the Universe”)

Bottom line is that scientists are looking for a Theory of Everything http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/6R102.html - or unified field theory. If ID exists that is where it will be found. I am uncomfortable as many with teaching ID in grammar schools.

My personal opinion is that Buddha, Jesus etc. understood reality at a very deep (and unexplainable – in words- level) that will someday be uncovered by “science” at which point the distinction between religion and science would disappear.

That is not the same as falsification, and thats an important point in a discussion about something being "scientific" or not.


I don't think scientists hate ID, I just think they consider it to be unsupported random ideas - another way to describe philosophy if you will, and this particular philosophy is a religious one. Religion, wheter you subscribe to it or not, has no connection to reason, and reason is the foundation of science. Like others have said in the other thread concerning this issue, I would have no problem teaching about ID in other classes more appropiately suited for it - but since it cannot be considered science, it simply shouldn't be taught as such.


Id have to say, that I think the distinction between religion and science works in the favour of religion. If one day the two are blurred together, I would presume that means we understand why we are here, how we came to be and all that - actually knowing and not just having faith I mean. I would think that would lessen the attraction of religion, because the mysticism would be gone. When we fully understand something that we previously wondered about, it usually gets less interesting and exiciting.

I think they are “blurred together” today (see my references above. And I would assume that any teaching of ID would include the scientific idea of a search for verifiable facts. I agree that taking everything on “faith” is not useful in a scientific sense weather you call it ID or the search for a TOE

Given the position of the AAAS, NSTA, etc, how can ID be justified as scientifically developed and accepted enough to be taught as science in public school classrooms?

For any theory to be considered a scientific theory, it must be: testable, reproducible, predictive and falsifiable. If ID were to ever meet those criteria, then it could be considered to fall under the rubric of science.

For any theory to be considered a conventional scientific theory, there are a secondary set of criteria it should meet to be considered "mainstream": wide acceptance, comprehensive empirical verification, extensive peer-reviewed publication and highly successful explanations of relevant phenomena. Until a theory meets these criteria, it cannot be considered "conventional" or "mainstream".

Let's not confuse the primary criteria for a scientific theory with the secondary criteria for a theory to be considered "conventional".

I'll state one other thing: public schools don't just teach any and all scientific theories; they teach conventional scientific theories. This is because public schools provide the fundamentals based on our knowledge of what "fundamental" is at the time a student is being taught.

But, getting back to ID. If and only if ID meets the primary criteria should it be considered science AND if and only if ID meets the secondary criteria should it be considered conventional science and thus taught in public schools. Here's the kicker: ID neither meets the primary nor the secondary criteria. It is neither science nor is it conventional science.

Given the position of the AAAS, NSTA, etc, how can ID be justified as scientifically developed and accepted enough to be taught as science in public school classrooms?

I, as many others, propose that not only ID should be taught in American schools, but also the FSM-theory. More information about this stunning theory at http://www.venganza.org/.

As for the answer to the stated question:
The "theory of ID" as it is now called, needs to hold up to the same standards that are use to verify or falsify other theories as well. If it can do so and a certain number of scientists have found this theory to be of conclusive and accurate clues, and if it can explain future events (such as the development of a new species in our lifetime) then it has earned its place in the school books.
Not because it would be nice to have a theory that supports a certain religion, but because it is as close to "the explainable truth" as possible.
But, to be honest, I hope there will never be enough justification to incorporate religion-sponsored theories that have been created to fill the gaps that modern science has opened in the stories of the Old Testament.

Then I guess you don’t think most of the current “mainstream” science in Physics to be “science” including String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and a few others. (see my links above).

The grim reality is we actually have very little conclusive data dealing with the ultimate basis of reality that meets your criteria.

For example the “strings” of String Theory are described as 11 dimensional vibrating rolled up Space Time”. Feel free to show me where and how this has been “verified” or is “testable” etc.

Ted, the comparison is faulty. First, none of those things are taught in high school. Second, they are all theories that have been arrived at from some limited means of testing. Can you demonstrate a single test done in support of intelligent design?

Question for debate: Given the position of the AAAS, NSTA, etc, how can ID be justified as scientifically developed and accepted enough to be taught as science in public school classrooms?

Simple answer - it cannot under any sensible definition of science, which will require reproducibility of the observations (if it isn't experimentally demonstrable, like how life came to be as is); empirical - it has to derive from some real-world phenomenon accesible to anyone with the right equipment (as opposed to something someone imagined, which is the proper realm of philosophy); falsifiability - the originators of the idea have to be able to envisage the evidence that will be required to disprove their theory; peer review in reputable scientific journals - which ID hasn't yet been able to do; etc.

ID as currently put forward could concievably be reproducible (and would have to be peer reviewed for that to happen).

The big problem with ID is that it's empirical credentials rest on their being an Intelligent Designer, which leads to no end of circular arguments, since most of the arguments for a deity rely on derivations from empirical observations (The world exists, so someone must have created it. Therefore there is a creator. There is a creator, therefore ID is an appropriately scientific theory for high schools.)

And ID's falsifiability is impossible - you'd have to disprove the existence of a creator, which is (in all major religions) essentially unproveable in the first place. This is because even Darwinian evolution does not deny the possibility of a creator, it merely does not require there to be one.

This is, to my mind, the chink in the armour of those who claim ID is not a Creationist Trojan Horse. The main objective is to plant doubt about and ultimately reject evolution, not to advance any debate on the subject. ID is only necessary at all as a concept because the door has to be left open by it's proponents for the Old Testament (and Koran, and Aboriginal Australian Dreamtime, and the rest) creation accounts to be literally true - because Darwinian evolution itself does not preclude a deity.

Indeed, the omnipotent and omniscient God claimed by the Abrahamic faiths could quite concievably have created the entire universe and all life on earth with a big bang from nothing followed by uncounted billions of years of evolution. He would have known what would have come to pass, after all, wouldn't He?

I find it a great deal more credible that a creator dictating the creation story to whichever prophet your faith approves of explained it in terms that the prophet's pre-scientific mind could understand, rather than talking about universal singularities and punctuated equlibria while the prophet's mind wandered.

Modern-day atheists such as Richard Dawkins might make a great deal of evolution as part of their evidence (as indeed did Darwin use it, along with the unepxected death of his son, for his own loss of faith), but by insisting that evolution HAS to be wrong to permit the existence of a creator, ID proponents are simply demonstrating that they do not understand evolution. It does not deny a creator. It DOES deny the literal truth of most religious creation accounts, but then everyone's relgion denies all the others except their own, doesn't it?

And they probably do this because their parents and grandparents did what they could to undermine its teaching in their local schools, just like ID proponents and others do now.

Of course, you can just cheat, and just redefine what constitutes "science" (like in Kansas)

Actually, I am familiar with both of these theories and there are means of falsifying aspects of them. A good friend of mine has done extensive work in both of these fields (one of three physicists in the world who knows both actually). There are elements of philosophy in both of these theories: physicists would agree. Of course, physicists are not required to work strictly within the domain of science; they can also work in the mathematical and philosophical hinterland contained within these theories.

Still, last I heard, neither String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity were being taught in public schools.


I have no idea what this statement means. Perhaps, you would care to elucidate?

Just for fun, here's are two documented experiments or studies into string theory:

"Predictions for orientifold field theories from type 0′ string theory," Physics Letters B, Volume 631, Issue 4, 29 December 2005, Pages 192-198 [I]
Adi Armoni and Emiliano Imeroni

"Gauge-string duality for (non)supersymmetric deformations of N=4 super-Yang–Mills theory" [I]Nuclear Physics B, Volume 731, Issues 1-2, 19 December 2005, Pages 1-44
S.A. Frolov, R. Roiban and A.A. Tseytlin

It took me 45 seconds to find them. I have no idea what they mean or what they are saying, but they are tests nonetheless.

So, Ted, can you name a single scientific study of ID?

See this link as I had posed above.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intel...irica.html#more


We cannot see and have no way yet of finding 96% of the Universe. We really don’t know what gravity is (we know a lot about how it works). We are looking for the theorized “graviton” - so far with little success. Same for Dark Matter and Energy. We have no Unified Field Theory or TOE. Einstein spent his life looking for it without success. To say that “some aspects of a theory” are falsifiable does not meet your criteria – Testable, verifiable….. etc.

So ID could be looked at as a theory worthy of effort. I agree that teaching this in High School is a little too much.




May be early for that I will look. But the link above says it is very possible ....

Cool. If "irreducible complexity" is testable, then I'm sure that the advocates of ID will proceed to do so, right? Merely asserting that something is testable is insufficient; one must actually do so. However, I contend that the most important criterion is falsifiability. Are there any experiments proposed that, if proven false, will deny ID or at least "irreducible complexity"? Furthermore, does ID make predictions that evolution doesn't make and can those predictions be tested?


Just because we don't have a complete theory (or set of theories) about the how the universe works doesn't mean the theories we do have are invalid. It just means those theories are incomplete. Incomplete != invalid. You are asserting a criterion for science that doesn't exist.


We are not so far apart in this. If ID meets the criteria for science, then I am perfectly willing to accept it as such.

If you read the link and followed it maintains that this is possible. If you disagree – Why?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/derby...lagellum_1.html




I never said that and I don’t believe that. I was just pointing out that these theories no more meet your “criteria” than ID does. It is a problem with the logic of your argument sir.

YOU said –“ For any theory to be considered a scientific theory, it must be: testable, reproducible, predictive and falsifiable”

And ALL I am saying is most of the leading theories in physics don’t meet some or all of your criteria. Clear?

I did read the link. I neither agree nor disagree. I would like to see the proposed experiment proving this testable claim. I would like to see this published in a peer-reviewed journal. I would like to see independent experimenters try to confirm or deny the claim. In short, I would like to see active scientific research in this domain and not blog entries.


Which leading theories don't meet these criteria again? You mean String Theory? Or Loop Quantum Gravity? Physicists will freely admit that there are mathematical/philosophical elements to these theories that are beyond our ability to test (here's one for you: how come the behavior of the universe is mathematical?). However, this doesn't mean that there are not testable and predictive and falsifiable elements to these theories; any of which can "break" the theory. In particular, both theories make predictions about the CMB; these predictions, if they are not found, can falsify either of these theories. The Planck satellite should do just that once it launches.

But, let's ignore controversial theories and look at Newtonian Mechanics. Newtonian Mechanics describes the behavior of everyday objects. However, the question was rightfully asked during the 19th century: how come we don't see any object moving faster than the speed of light? Afterall, there's nothing in Newtonian Mechanics which excludes this, right? Along came Einstein to show that, yes, the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit. Still, does this mean that Newtonian Mechanics is invalid? And the answer is: no. The theory is just constrained.

This link consists of a man asserting that certain elements of a biological organism are irriductibly complex. It is a blanket assertion and he makes no attempt to justify that assertion, he just states it.

He does however give criteria whereby his assertion can be disproven. He asks for a clear line of development between the bacterial flagellum and a common ancestor.

Perhaps the criteria for science should have ben made clearer to this person. It does not require failure criteria, it required realistic and reasonable failure criteria. Since fossils of single celled organisms from 2 billion years ago are impossible, it pretty easy for him to demand this as' proof it is not so'.

Allow me to do the same thing. Hypothesis: ID is pure fantasy mixed with mythology. Here are my criteria for falsification: prove the existence of a god. See? I have criteria for falsification too, if you cannot meet those criteria, I suppose thats your fault, right?




That is not the case. There are mountains of mutually self-supporting evidence for evolution, just as there is ample positive evidence for the theories you describe. You are correct, they are not certainties (partly because they have been discovered in the last decade) but this is the WONDER of science. Science never claims to know everything, it simply employs a methodology for advancement of knowledge. If you have a theory better than the current theory, all you need to do is demonstrate using positive evidence and demonstrable support, that it is MORE valid than the existing theory.

It seems to be a common tactic to point out concepts in science which are not yet certainties (of which there are many) and equate that to ID. But that is not at all the case. Scientific theories were arrived at by scientific method and ca be supported with positive evidence, and will be proven or disproven by the same way. ID is a faith-based concept, arrived at by people struggling to adapt the now-understood-as-impossible strict creationist religious theories of old to the new world. It has no basis in science.

A true scientist will do his utmost to disprove his own theory, while a proponent of ID seems quite unwilling to look at the huge logical holes in their theory, let alone aknowledge that there is no positive evidence for it. Thats why no secular major university on the planet teaches anything but evolutionary biology in the classroom. Thats why there is no department of Religious design in the biology departments of Harvard, Oxford, Cornell, Yale, Cambridge, Heidelberg, and so on.


All scientific theory is is a methodology. It is a means, not an end, and it is a means that pulled humanity out of a thousand years or primarily religion-caused ignorance. If ID is such a good theory, then present it using this method, present positive evidence for it, address the gaping logical holes in the theory. Show a secular institution on the planet that will give it the time of day.

Thats all you have to do. Until that is done, then it has no place in the science classroom of any school. That in NO WAY prevents people from teaching it in Philosophy class, or where it deserves to be taught, Comparative religion.

Well, my theory on gravity is its just a cumulative effect of matter, like you know, billions of atoms (electrons, protons, etc...), thus, things with more mass seem to have more weight to them, or basically the various things that chemistry and physics seem to study in tandem, particles and waves or what not, but its not even a theory at this point going along with the definition of theory its just a guess. The word theory is suffers horrible misuse by the public at large as another word for an assumption or guess.

My whole point is that things that make it to the theory level in science have fact, but are incomplete, can this be said of intelligent design, can that "theory" even be worked with currently by science?

Science curriculum does not include philosophy at large of everything that currently can be dissolved into a perception of some individual, nor does it teach every possible hypothesis that some person has generated in respects to some question they may have about something.

So my point is really this, ID is more of a guess, not a theory in reality to being and light. Physical fact cannot at this time be reduced to in relation to ID, as it can for some other theories, like evolution not wanting to morph this debate to bad, just using an example. Regardless if science is not complete, other explanations that are to be taken as scientific theories would have to at the least then be more physical in relation to fact then just philosophy, for accepting just philosophy as science would then pretty much destroy science, simply because physical proof, or fact would then no longer become a requirement in any discipline of the field.

Is ID true or not, well hey, can we get scientific with that question? If not should ID then be a theory, or something more akin to philosophy currently. Ignorance in any form should not be an excuse to just follow whatever, it should only be a pointer to wanting to know more about things, not making up things, this is a prime confliction I guess with science and philosophy.

Lets look at psychology, and its history for a brief moment. It only as of late via advances in science really been able to apply itself as a scientific discipline. Its history is mostly a collection of people being philosophical with the logos of psyche or whatever, it really has never produced anything truly solid, or for if it did, its all that would be required to explain human behavior, which I am sorry it currently is not fit for that job. As psychology has become more orientated towards science, we no longer see people like Jung with his telepathic powers to read an elephants though being the prime force being psychology, or studies under the arcane Freud philosophy telling people that infants have to make choices between the good and bad breasts while they soil themselves helplessly. Now, we have pills that make you not hate your job thanks to becoming scientific with it, we slowly learn more is all.

Sorry to generalize, but if you cannot obtain a scientific status with something, anything, should it then be considered a theory or even scientific, if it can’t, well then should it be taught as science, I would say no, but I am sure the psychology of animal behavior would dictate otherwise within other individuals perceptions.

logphage:

I trust that you've written to your local school board, requesting that the theory of the big bang as well as the theories concerning the origin of life on earth not be taught in any science class, and because the same are not reproducible [I prefer, repeatable] [the theories in question concern non-repeatable events].

And by the way, Behe is correct. Either the theory of intelligent design is falsifiable or it is not. If it is not, then we don't want to hear that there is evidence showing that the systems alleged to be "irreducibly complex" are not truly so [since such evidence, if correct, would falsify the theory and would thus mean that the theory can in fact be falsified]. One does not otherwise normally get to have one's cake and to eat it too. So it's either falsifiable or it's not, and again, if not, then please spare us any claim of contrary evidence or proof [unless, of course, you wish to change your mind and admit that the theory is falsifiable].

And by the way, how do you falsify the "random" part of random mutation? Isn't that an a priori assumption that rules out what Julian claims has not been denied? So Julian is wrong, as the use of "random" does in fact deny a designer, since no matter whether you thought that the mutation was directed at that instant or was instead a case of 1 in 1,000 but the designer programmed for 1,000,000,000 tries, both cases would still be cases of, directed by the designer and thus not random.

And by the way, you can otherwise falsify the theory by taking bacteria without a flagellum [by simply splicing out those genes] and subjecting the same to repeated selective pressure[s] and, over the next milennia or so, we'll see if our bacteria friends develop a flagellum.

And by the way, what happens if we actually did that, and not just in one lab, but in thousands? And say we did it for one million years. Do you truly think that Dawkins would then concede that evolution via random mutation via natural selection was wrong? Or would he be saying [or would his ghost be saying] that we didn't apply the right selective pressure, we didn't choose the right bacteria, etc.? Recalling again, my example on that other thread about symbiogenesis simply being a case of, it MUST be so. Again, that's not science, that's an article of faith. And if it were falsifiable, I'd be expecting some, many, in the lab trying to get our two friends to link up and then become one, just as they claim was the past scenario [I know, we're still waiting for the "spontaneous" formation of so much as a single protein, so we're more than a little behind schedule][and if Lynn Margulis is correct, we owe our existence to an act of kidnapping, i.e., that protozoan that "captured" a cyanobacteria].

Behe himself put it best:

"Of complex biochemical systems Coyne himself writes “we may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways. It is not valid, however, to assume that, because one man cannot imagine such pathways, they could not have existed.” (Coyne 1996) If a person accepts Darwinian paths which are not only unseen, but which we may be forever unable to envisage, then it is effectively impossible to make him think he is wrong [my note, and so we also have the, it MUST be so]."

Please see:

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe06.asp

And speaking of switching concepts, that is a hallmark of much of the defense of evolution via random mutation via natural selection. Go to talkorgins. And read about antibiotic resistant bacteria. Proof of change in allele frequency over time. But not proof of the origin of species by common descent, given that the resistant bacteria are still bacteria. So once again it's a case of moving the goalposts, or more correctly, switching definitions in mid-argument [in this case, our definition of the word "evolution"].

I also love the salt crystal analogy [used to show how order can arise "spontaneously" and how evolution via random mutation via natural selection does not conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics]. Of course, what the evolutionary biologists always fail to relate is that such owes nothing at all to anything random nor does it involve any selection. Instead, electrostatic forces explain why the sodium chloride is forced into becoming crystalline [as it were].

And by the way, the law, well, it does not require proof to a certainty. Some legal determinations are made based on a mere preponderance of the evidence, others on clear and convincing evidence, and others on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the odds are 1 x 10 to the 40,000 power, that would seem to imply that it is more probable than not that the answer is, no, that there is no clear and convincing evidence, and that we surely have a reasonable doubt. So, when some ask for proof of intelligent design, please remember that in the law, negative evidence can in fact be legally sufficient proof.

Now, going back to what I said above, how can we falsify evolutionary theory? It's not possible. We would need to recreate the exact circumstance, in every respect, to falsify the theory [as I said, otherwise, you and some others would simply point out that we can't be sure that we had the correct conditions (as it were)]. And since we can't recreate, we cannot falsify. Evolution via random mutation via random mutation is, accordingly, a description or interpretation of limited known data. Nothing more, nothing less.

And with that being so, I cannot see why some other mechanism cannot be posited and our children made aware of the possibility.

Oh, and peer-review? Right, the raging anti-theists such as Dawkins are just so open to publishing material that would conflict with their philosophy.

And, lastly, the debate over whether either theory is falsifiable may very well be a debate over nothing, as it is not anywhere near uniformly accepted that a theory must be Popper-falsifiable to qualify as a scientific theory. And as for why we ought to be teaching the theory to our children, please see:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan150.html

"Despite the fact I suspect that ID is an intrinsically flawed approach, I still endorse the efforts to have it presented in schools as an alternative to the standard theory. If ID is included in a biology course, the enrollees should certainly be informed that Neo-Darwinism is currently the orthodox view, embraced by the vast majority of working biologists. But it is precisely such firmly entrenched orthodoxies that most cry out for challenges. Even if the dominant theory succeeds in repelling all rivals, they still can serve to rescue the mainstream from the danger of self-satisfied complacency. Furthermore, many of yesterday’s orthodoxies are now regarded as quaint curiosities, because some lonely dissenters refused to accept the prevailing wisdom. To me, teaching students that all scientific ideas should be open to criticism and that broad acceptance of a theory is no guarantee of its truth seems even more valuable than conveying the details of any particular theory.

Opponents of teaching ID in schools may acknowledge my above contentions in principle, yet still protest that ID is not a genuinely scientific alternative to Neo-Darwinism. They often castigate it as "agenda-driven science," an irredeemably biased venture unworthy of serious consideration. I think this complaint rests on unsustainable picture of "real science" as an entirely objective enterprise, pristinely untouched by scientists’ personal beliefs about the nature of reality. An honest appraisal of how major scientific advances were arrived at in the past will reveal the mythical character of that image. Copernicus developed heliocentrism because he wanted to place the great light of the sun at the center of the universe, where his Neoplatonism demanded it ought to be. Kepler was dissatisfied with the Ptolemaic and Copernican models of the solar system, involving planetary orbits with their centers offset from the central body (the Earth or the Sun, respectively), because he believed that the angelic intelligences guiding the planets through the heavens could not steer them around an empty point in space. Galileo was notorious, and in the end suffered, for his propensity towards propaganda and his tendency to defend his positions with impressive rhetoric instead of solid evidence. Newton sought an alternative to the popular Cartesian physics of his time because it seemed to leave no place for an active God after His initial act of creation. Einstein famously rejected the "Copenhagen" interpretation of quantum mechanics because he thought that "God does not play dice" with the physical universe. Most great scientists and most great scientific advances have been inspired by a passionately held vision of the fundamental character of the world we inhabit. That is true of the defenders of Neo-Darwinism no less than it is of the proponents of Intelligent Design, despite the gulf separating their respective visions: the Neo-Darwinists take such umbrage at their critics because of their pre-scientific commitment to a mechanistic worldview."

You can read the rest, and note that the very next paragraph repeats what I said above re Popper and falsifiable.

Well, you certainly do ardently defend a lot of points, mostly things that nobody has ever mentioned or brought up at any point in this thread, but whatever. Sadly, most of your arguments are simply and factually wrong on the face of them.




Sorry, it does not work that way. I already made this point, something being 'falsifiable' is not enough, it has to be 'reasonably falsifiable'. Otherwise, according to your logic, we have solid proof that there is no God. After all, if you want to falsify my argument, all you need to do is prove the existence of God. Easy right?

Asserting that something is irreducibly complex is a lot of nothing. It is making a bold and unsupported statement in the face of overwhelming evidence of the status quo. If that argument is to hold any weight, we need EVIDENCE that it is so, assertions based on nothing but faith, long the staple of religious theory, have no value.



In the case of random mutation, we do not need to worry, it has been reproduced, in fact it has ben reproduced daily all over the planet for about 20 years. For two decades the basis of agricultural research was to force random mutation of the DNA of strains of crops, usually wheat through radiation, chemical or other means, and then harvesting and testing the few beneficial mutations. Again, this was STANDARD worldwide practice for decades. GM foods was developed as a more efficient means of achieving similar ends. The random part of random mutation has been proven many hundreds of millions of times.



.

This is fascinating, because in fact the exact OPPOSITE of what you said is true. In the example of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, we have proof of beneficial random mutation. That is in response to the staple and STANDARD argument of the Church for HUNDREDS OF YEARS that species were 'immutable', and never changed or altered. In fact it is religion that keep moving the goalposts, when eventually FORCED by science to admit they were wrong, they just change the debate. For hundreds of years it was: 'species are immutable'. Following Darwin, it became 'well, OK, species CAN mutate, but they cannot ever alter their basic type'. Now, forced to backpedal again, the stance of religion has become: "OK, species CAN mutate and change out of type, but Gopd must have helped them do so".

One side has been consistently 'shifting the goalposts', and always shifting them backwards as their older theories are disproven by science and they struggle to adapt their faith to reality.




Interesting. And spectacularly irrelevant. Science is not law. Proving a negative in science does one thing, prove a negative, it does not then automatically prove another theory, one with no support or evidence at all, a positive. In science if you want to propose another theory, you need positive evidence.

You yourself mentioned 'preponderance of evidence'. Well, there are vast, enormous mountains of self-supporting, verified, independently discovered evidence for evolution. Please provide ANY positive evidence at ALL for ID.

How is your 'preponderance of evidence' here?




I have no problem with that. Science has no problem with that. In fact, thats how science works, advance another theory based on scientific principle, using positive evidence and verifiable scientific arguments. Science has worked that way for 250 years, older theories being discarded for new ones in the face of verifiable and solid evidence.

ID is nowhere near that, it is a religious fairy tale with nothing to back it up, proposed not by evidence, scientific research or rigorous analysis, but by political pressure from religious groups. THAT is not science.



That is not even worthy of a response. There are TENS of THOUSANDS of secular academic and research institutions with no affiliation to each other working in the field, most if not all publish scientific journals, and as with ALL academics, researchers are ENCOURAGED to challenge the status quo, provided of course they do this within scientific method, with evidence and fact, not faith based religious pressure. Peer-review has worked to advance science ever since the development of scientific method dragged humanity out of the religious-caused era of ignorance, progress has been meteoric because of this method, with new theories being discarded as soon as something better is presented, evidenced and proven. You need to do more than cast pointless insults at the planet's entire secular academic community to justify why ID gets no play in serious academia.

Could it be because it is not a serious academic theory, because it is based on religious faith-based pressure as opposed to ANY actual evidence? Or because there is a planet-wide vast evil conspiracy of secular academic in a hundred countries speaking 50 different languages most of whom have no connection whatsoever with each other to keep the theory down?

Which do YOU think is more likely?

Intelligent Design is a counter to what has been called philosophical or methodological naturalism -- the philosophy upon which the scientific method is based. Under philosophical naturalism... any avenue that might lead to the supernatural is ignored in favor of naturalistic avenues. As such, ID is a philosophy and not a science. It should be treated as such. I can accept ID as a philosophy and that it should be taught as such at this point. I believe that, at this point, it is premature to teach ID as a science.

I would dispute even that. Scientific method does not automatically dismiss anything that leads to 'supernatural' answers, it does not 'automatically' dismiss anything.

What scientific method does do is explore all avenues and choose the ones most evidenced and demonstrated by verifyable, tangible evidence. In the process, it tends to move quickly past any theories which have no tangible evidence whatsoever, or are based only in faith, not observable reality.

One of the principles of scientific method is that a good scientist, upon developing a hypothesis, will do his utmost to DISPROVE his own hypothesis. No proponent of ID seems willing to even examine or even admit the obvious glaring logical flaws in the theory. They believe blindly based on faith, rather than trying to challenge themselves based on observation, evidence and experimentation.

It has been repeatedly stated that ID is not science because it doesn't follow the scientific method. When challenged, supporters have offered no rebuttal of this which holds any water.

I ran across an interesting story today which underscores this point. One of the main ideas behind ID is that life is "irreducibly complex" which is inherently an anti-scientific position. A scientist would seek to break down life and explain things, proponents of ID are content to basically imply that some things are mysterious and only our designer knows how they came to be.

ID proponents have frequently claimed that scientists can't even explain things like how bees fly, now they have finally learned how they do it.


Now of course this one finding doesn't completely destroy ID, but put side by side with real science it shows that ID clearly isn't science.

ID's Answer: Life is complex, an intelligent designer made it that way and science can't explain it.

Scientist: I'm going to figure out how to explain this through observation and experimentation.

The difference couldn't be more clear.

The strongest arguments so far for teaching ID as science in public schools seem to run like this:

1) Double standard for "scientificity": Criteria for falsifiability and testabilty are not as cut-and-dried as ID opponents pretend they are. These standards are arbitrarily invoked to discredit ID, but not applied to all (potentially scientific) theories. Thus, ID is unfairly held to a different standard of scientific legitimacy.


2) Double standard for admittance into public school curricula: There are concepts as nebulous and lacking in scientific credentials as ID (e. g. string theory, dark-matter theories) which are taught in some high schools. Why should these hypotheses be taught as science when ID cannot be?

3) Need to teach competing concepts "on principle": Even if ID doesn't meet the same criteria as other concepts taught in high school (eg acceptance by mainstream scientific community, ample appearance in peer-reviewed journals), we should teach it to high schoolers because students should be taught that scientific ideas are open to criticism; it is by the challenging of widely accepted ideas that science progresses.

Challenges:

1) Double standard for "scientificity": I apparently don't know enough about the standards for what counts as science and what doesn't. What Alexender George, a philosophy prof at Amherst wrote in the Christian Science Monitor (link) might have a reasonable approach:


One potential problem with this might be that if all these concepts (parapsychology, ID, astrology, etc) count as "science", then teachers might find themselves under constant political/administrative pressure to teach them as legitimate alternatives to more fully accepted theories. "What the heck, it's science, right? You're a science teacher, so teach it!"

Will we have high schoolers in Utah taught some bizarre theory of planet formation because it corresponds to Mormon teachings, or some county in Oregon teaching all its kids about "auditing" and the folly of psychiatry because its school board includes a couple of very insistent Scientologists?

It seems wrong on the face of it that school administrators and politicians should dictate that a topic be taught in a science classroom over the strong and specific objections of groups like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association. This regardless of the which definition of "science" is being used.

2) Double standard for admittance into public school curricula: My point above pertains to this double standard argument too.

3) Need to teach competing concepts "on principle": So, even if ID is "bad science", why not teach it to high schoolers so they learn that all scientific theories are open to challenge?

My problem with this is that the challenge posed by ID is, at this point, mostly political and social rather than scientific. ID has been discussed almost exclusively in venues not subject to formal review by actual scientists: books for the lay reader, newspaper editorials, weblogs, school board meeting rooms, courtrooms and so on. ID does not seem to have the theoretical development necessary to qualify it as a genuine scientific challenge to evolutionary biology just yet.

Challenging the existing paradigm is a great idea. But using a high school science classroom to pit a concept that most scientists and teachers don't even accept as worthy of mention in a science class against a very well established foundational theory just to prove a point about the importance of scientific dissent - that seems like the wrong way to approach it.

The argument could be made that ID is not developed or reviewed enough because it's so "cutting edge", like the Theory(s) of Relativity when it was first published by Einstein. But AFAIK relativity was not taught in public schools until it had been reviewed and confirmed by real live scientists. As geologist Joseph Meert pointed out in the article I linked to in my initial post:



So: if groups like the AAAS and the NSTA are wrong to treat ID as "not worthy of mention in a public school science class", why aren't ID theorists working on changing their minds rather than coercively imposing ID on public school science classes?

There is one problem with I.D. that hardly anybody has mentioned:

If Life is "irreducibly complex" and the origins of life can only be explained by influence of a "creator", we are faced with an unanswerable question: Who created this "irreducibly complex" Creator?

Please, I am waiting for an explaination.

Such a conundrum does seem to work against ID's validity. But what I'd really like is an answer to the broader question: If we can't trust groups like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association to establish the content of public school science classes, why should we trust un(scientifically)trained politicians or school board members? What justification is there for teaching ID as science over the strong and specific objections of the AAAS and NSTA?

I'm sorry, Kivrot, but Behe is completely wrong on this, since he has already admitted, more than once, that he considers the "intelligent designer" to be God. Intelligent Design, then at least by Behe's definition, cannot be falsifiable, unless you can tell me what is being used to test for God?

Not at all. In fact it's the creationists and IDers who keep moving the goalposts. Evolution is shown through the fossil record. Oh, yes, there are still some missing pieces, but you would be amazed at how complete the record really is. We can trace all of the bones in the modern human skull, for instance, back through the other primates, through the smaller mammals, through the reptiles, and right back to the very first fishes. Will we ever be able to reproduce the very first spark of life? Who knows for sure. But we have been at it for such a very short period of time, relatively speaking, that to say at this point we'll never be able to prove it, and therefor a higher power must be involved, is foolish in the extreme.

Yes, peer review. It's the standard for relating new discoveries and evidence so that it can be studied and tested by others in the field of interest. Your slamming of Dawkins notwithstanding, can you please show me any of the positive ID "evidence" that has been submitted to a peer reviewed journal? Any of Behe's work that proves (not concludes) a supreme designer that's been submitted to a nationally or internationally recognized biochemistry group, or any of the other ID scientists whom have submitted such in their fields?

I think you're going to be looking long and hard. There is a reason they (Behe, et.al.) rush right out to publish their works in books for general publication, rather than in scientific journals. Because it's a lot easier to put something over on the lay public, who is usually a lot less well versed, and to present your "conclusions" as an an "expert", than to have to back up your assertion with people who work in the field every day.

And as I have stated many times here before, I have no problem with this approach at the university level, or out in the research laboratories. However, muddying the waters with "theories" that cannot even really be called a scientific hypothosis, because of lack of testable evidence, in a primary school or high school classroom where students are studying the basics is just insanity. At that level, you want to be teaching the mainstream orthodoxies, because they are what have been tested and (so far) proven. When you have a new, testable theory that upends the current orthodoxy, then you can present it.

There is no "conundrum " at all.

The premise of 'Who created this "irreducibly complex" Creator' is completely flawed. The idea of time starting and stopping is a man-made reference. The idea that distance starts and stops is another man-made reference. In the scope of the universe, these ideals mean very little. The idea that time started somewhere is an example of our limited capacity to understand our universe. The idea that the universe ends somewhere is another example of our limited capacity to understand our universe.

Knowing these limitations, we reject plausible theories because we have no proof and quite frankly, don't understand it. The "conundrum " is actually someone believing what we are taught in schools is all we need to know about our universe.

It's not a conundrum for you because you 'believe'. But science does not. Science does not 'believe' anything without positive evidence, that is what differentiates science and faith. That is also why initiatives and concepts based on 'faith' have no place in a science classroom.


To me, saying things started with an undefined supreme being, with no explainable origin, with no evidence at all, is somehow MORE likely than... well... anything, is crazy.

That one would base teaching science to our children based on that crazyness is even crazier.



It seems no matter how many times this is repeated, it needs to be stated again and again for those who would stand in defence of ID.

Science NEVER, EVER claims to know everything, not even close. Faith does, but science is based around the concept of not knowing everything, and trying to find out answers to unanswered questions through Scientific method, observation, and evidence. Faith assumes it knows everything and sees no reason to support 'belief' with evidence or fact.

What we are taught in schools is NOT all we need to know about the universe, nor would ANY scientist ever claim it is. But it is a methodology of exploration. It is also a methodology that ID seems singularily unable to use...

Thanks for your reply, DaytonRocker.



DaytonRocker, please explain why it should be otherwise. Some theories are indeed considered too implausible (or not yet developed or robust or peer-reviewed enough) and thus have (so far) been rejected by the mainstream science community. Others have been found plausible, robust, reviewed etc enough to be accepted.

The first kind gets written about in books for the lay reader, religious websites, newspaper editorials, weblogs, etc. The second kind gets communicated in peer-reviewed journals, forms the basis of university research, and (once developed and explicated enough) gets taught to children as actual science in public schools.

AFAIK, it this system of publish-review-duplicate-accept-explicate that prevents concepts like Intelligent Design - as well as my hypothetical Mormon cosmology and Scientologist behavior science theories- from being taught to public school kids as valid scientific alternatives to mainstream theories.

If you know of a better system, please share it, DR.



What exactly are public schools not teaching our kids that they need to know about the universe? That ID is a valid scientific alternative to evolution by natural selection? If so, please provide your argument for this.

They both should be taught as both are simply theory, and, to many both theories are valid.

Independent thought is what is valuable. Evolution COULD have been the method that a Superior being chose as the path to Human existence, and maybe it didn't. Truth is, neither is provable.

The value of teaching both, as opposed to teaching one over the other, is that it provokes Independent thought, and that is what both sides of this issue fear the most.

So this is your answer to my question? So what you say is that we should not ask simple and critical questions about the philosophical and theoretic principles of the I.D. theory?

One simple question I asked, following the logics of I.D., one simple philosophical question and you seem to be reluctant to even trying to answer it in a good way.

I am not talking about space, time and distance. I am focussing on the flaws in the hypothesis of I.D.. The principle statement, "life is so complex that there must have been a Creator" is a never ending story. It does not explain anything, it leads to nowhere. As I said before it is a lazy way of thinking and explaining, constantly moving the goalposts or hiding behind metaphysical concepts.

The more I hear about I.D. the more I am convinced that it is indeed only a pseudo-scientific theory. It sounds alot like one of Erich von Daniker's theories. It is just a nice idea. Nothing more nothing less.

But maybe you want to explain yourself better. I will be eagerly waiting your reply.

There is a theory that our world is not really a world at all but someone is dreaming it. You are the person dreaming it.

This theory is just as plausible as intelligent design. It is also equally scientific.

If they are not the same level of science, can any explain why not? Neither has any details or means to test it. The only reason they might be brought up in science is in the same vein as the Lamarckian Theory.

Pardon my usual cynicism, but I don’t think ID can be taught as science.

Texas Governor RICK Perry and other politicians are grandstanding to the lowest common denominator among voters.

As with other things, I like the way Molly Ivins put it:

Give ‘em hell Molly.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists...ns/13608377.htm

Link may require registration

I am sorry, but given the long stream of arguments put back and forth in this thread and others like it, simply repeating bland unsupported assertions does not advance a side at all.

As has been stated ad nausium here, there is NO EVIDENCE for ID at all, the fact that a portion of the population believes in a religious article based on faith is not even CLOSE to an argument as to why that article of faith should be taught in secular science classes.

While it is technically true that one cannot utterly DISPROVE the existence of God, thats irrelevant. There are mountains of mutually supporting evidence for evolution, if you wish to override all that, then you need to provide equally powerful and massive and voluminous evidence for any alternative theory. Seeing as how ID has NO positive evidence for it whatsoever, it obviously falls FAR short of consideration. Perhaps that is why it has singularily failed to make any progress in the scientific world, and needs to be put forward, not by scientific observation and research, but by religious political pressure groups.


Besides, as I have stated before, the basic principle of scientific theory is attempting to disprove your own theory through hard examination and exprimentation. ID proponents need to be at least WILLING to look at the vast gaping logical flaws in their theory, rather than gloss over them, ignore them or pretend they do not exist in their political crusade to turn religious fairy tales into basic science without a shred of scientific evidence.

This is true. ID is considered valid by many religious activists, politicians, lay readers, and a few scientists - few (if any) of whom have written a scientifically-reviewed paper on the concept. Meanwhile, scientific groups like the AAAS and the NSTA regard ID as something that is NOT valid enough to teach to public school students as science.

This seems to be an example of the mindset I mentioned in the initial post of this thread, upon which ID proponents depend ("Gosh, a huge number of people want ID taught as science, so what the heck, let's get teachers to teach it as science.")

redliner 1989, can you explain why ID should be taught as science over the objections of the AAAS and NSTA? Surely you're not arguing that merely because both ID and evolution are sometimes labeled as "theory" we should overrule their strong and specific objections?



True. In fact, independent thought is vital to scientific progress (whereas in religion, independent thought is often called "heresy"). However, educating children about science depends on things like teaching them the difference between what's scientifically supported and what's just really popular.



How does asserting an unprovable hypotheses about evolution somehow elevate ID to scientific validity? You're going to have to connect some dots in this argument if you want to show that ID should be taught as science over the objections of the mainstream science/educational community.



In that case, maybe we should allow any subject to be taught as science - or as any other subject. After all, if requiring scientific acceptance before teaching a concept as science inhibits "independent thought", maybe we shouldn't have any standards at all. That would be a great way to a world-class educational system!

Seriously though (and this is my main question for you, redliner1989): Why, in the name of provoking "independent thought" in a public school science class, should teaching any concept labeled as a "theory" occur at the expense of leaving kids confused about basic scientific principles?

This question reminds me of a favorite Zen koan.

All things return to the One
Where does the One return

http://zenart.shambhala.com/Product.jmdx;j...ayDetail&id=216



Yes you are correct String Theory (now M-Theory) has the advantage of being able to fit in with the mathematics of much of the “Standard Model” and this makes it stronger than ID. This is not to say ID could not be used to do the same thing if Scientists spent the requisite time to do this. That said many ideas such as the theory of “branes” http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010922/bob9.asp are so exotic that the experiments that would verify them are difficlut to concieve and may be many years away.

Question for debate: Given the position of the AAAS, NSTA, etc, how can ID be justified as scientifically developed and accepted enough to be taught as science in public school classrooms?
The Theory of Evolution is scientifically developed enough for the classroom.

Can we test it? Simply observe, in the short term, a characteristic that changed in a species, and is passed onto the offspring. As mentioned before, like anti-biotic-resistant bacteria. Through a simple progression of ideas, we can conclude that if we can go from characteristic A to characteristic A+1, we should also be able to get to A+2, unless there is a fundamental difference between A and A+1 that makes them incomparable. Thus, in the long term, we can get to a state drastically different from the original.

Is it falsifiable? Certainly. Find a fossil of a species that can be dated back to a time significantly earlier than its position on the evolutionary ladder would require. Such anomalies would have to be reconciled before the theory can regain its credibility.

The Theory of Intelligent Design is reasonable. We observe a sequence of events, which we call cause and effect. In other situations, given a sequence of events, we normally assume that there was some cause that initiated the events, like falling dominos. Also, when we, for example, read something that is profound, we typically assume that the author is at least reasonably intelligent. Given this precedent, when we see something as profound as the Universe, it is not unreasonable to assume that there is some kind of intelligence behind it.

Is it testable? Sure. Observe a creator. Show that it can create. Show that there was some thought put into the creation.

Is it falsifiable? Sure. Observe all creators. Show that they are all idiots. (If someone can prove that, without a doubt, there is no creator, this would work, too. However, I feel that this is inherently impossible.)

So, if you want to teach this in Science class, you know what you have to do: show us a creator, and continue your proof from there.

If you really want to teach this in schools, it is best in a Philosophy class. As reference material, you can use the Matrix trilogy.