There seems to be an irresistable temptation to see millions of kids as brains we can stuff with prejudices. Why not tell the kids we don't know, and then let them be the generation that finds out what we don't know? Teach the kids HOW TO LEARN...what isn't known. Let them read forums such as this to get an idea of what is known and unknown....present to the kids the arguments. Teach them about probabilities, assumptions, theories...and other tools for learning. Teach them what tools are for non-learning, ie. faith. There is also an irresistable temptation to think in terms of duality and polarity, ie. theist vs athiest. This is the furthest thing from honest scholastics, and is more of a popularity contest than anything else. There are so many other possibilities not even on the table because of these prejudices. Personally, imo, the probabilities in favor of ID are high. But we will lose if the term 'intelligent design' becomes a code word for "God"...since it has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God, as patented and trademarked by Christianity is NOT intelligent. JohnnyK
Your "proclaiming" that ID is measurable, is not the same as proposing a test by which ID can be measured. Unless and until you propose a test, ID is not science. Richard Lenski currently conducts actual tests of evolutionary processes by growing strains of e-Coli under laboratory conditions, and then examining the DNA for mutational change. Michael Behe, by contrast, conducts no tests of the proposition that life appears from a "puff of smoke." Similarly, William Dembski writes complex mathematical equations and then claims that these equations prove that evolution cannot operate as hypothesized, because his equations rule out evolutionary change. However, Dembski (unlike Einstein, who used his math to correctly predict natural events, and which was verified by experimental research), proposes no test by which his mathematics can actually be verified. There are loads of mathematical theories for which there is no physical test yet available, and for which no test may ever be available. The mathematical logic is frequently the subject of debate in a mathematics setting, because that's what mathematicians do, i.e., they test each other's proofs to find holes and extrapolate new proofs. And, in such a setting Dembski's theorems are absolutely appropriate and I believe that any mathematician would enjoy arguing and discussing the issues involved. However, that is not the same thing as proposing that the theorems are a realistic model of anything physical. Biology texts do not contain proofs of "superstring theory," because there's no corollary to any biological issue, and superstring theory is pure math. Dembski's ID math may be a completely rational discussion in a Cosmology class, because his proposition of a "universal probability bound" is a theory, which if proven by a scientific experiment, would have profound Cosmological implications. But, in a biology setting, Dembski's equations are just a mathematical postulate, without any supporting evidence. Dembski has been challenged to show how his math might be used to actually distinguish design from other artifacts in the universe, and Dembski has no answer as of yet. The point is that mathematicians can write equations to prove all sorts of complex things, but those equations don't necessarily or automatically model any part of physical reality, until someone proposes and conducts a scientific test to prove the relationship between the mathematical symbolism and the reality of existence. In the words of Neils Bohr, "Nothing exists until it is measured."
The effect of the Big Bang can be methodically tracked back to a central location within the known universe. Biological design cannot be tracked back to Breakfast this morning. As for what you personally believe about God, that is precisely the issue. Your personal beliefs don't belong in a public school biology classroom. And, I'm still waiting for you to propose your scientific test for design.
tests for mutations in e coli? hardly indicative of intra species macro evolution, no ? is this science or postulation? surfer
Define species and we can talk. Until you do, there's no way to discuss whether Lenski's tests prove what you describe as macro evolution. There is no demonstrated biological threshold to how far, or in what direction, mutation of DNA can carry an original germ line. The concept of intra species evolution is contrived in order to permit ID proponents to acknowledge evolutionary processes while maintaining the supremacy of humans as "special" creations of an all powerful deity. This is one of the big issues of ID. ID proponent, Dembski, proposes that information gain is mathematically impossible, yet, neither he nor any of his followers/colleagues can successfully demonstrate why Thomas Schneider's little "EV" program creates information gain by modeling evolutionary processes. Until a biologist can demonstrate that macro evolution, as you refer to it, is inherently different than micro evolution, the concepts are fundamentally indistinguishable -- in other words, they are the same thing, separated only by sufficient time and environmental stress.
Track down the central location of the big bang? ROTFLMAO.... We haven't even found the end of the universe, and you think you can find a central location? From what possible vantage point do you place your compass? Oh yea, you apparently think you are the center of the univers. LOL..... Earth to kent, earth to kent..... What I personally believe about God is not the issue, and I am not suggesting to teach my personal beliefs, I am suggesting an alternative theory to random change ignorant existence be offered in the school system. Design theory is not my belief, it is a conclusion of logical process of induction. Many aspects of design theory are counter to my personal beliefs, as design theory would include aliens or other designers, not God. This theory of design doesn't require my personal belief in God to be involved at all. If you are suggesting that because I am a theist, this disqualifies me to voice and promote a theory of design, then we should exclude any and all atheists from any theory they promote. After all, the Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is a religion, and we can't have a particular religion (atheism) taking a role in the public school system. The focus on my personal beliefs by you is ad hominem, and of course a logical fallacy. p.s Oh, and there is no precise test for big bang theory, no way to falsify it.
Niels Bohr is the scientist who indignantly criticized Einstein's statement, "God does not play dice". Bohr is reported to have said: "who is he (Einstein) to say what God thinks". Clearly, both Einstein and Bohr believed that God showed divine intelligence through physical laws. But all this drivel is irrelevent to this thread. This thread is about a federal court decision; it is not about the existence of God. Also, thanks to vhehn for making my case.
The federal court decision concerns two issues, regarding the proposition of Intelligent Design: 1. ID is a religious doctrine, because it rests on the premise that species arise in nature as a consequence of a non-natural creator. 2. ID violates the establishment of religion clause of the U.S. Constitution. The evidence in support of #1, above is overwhelming. No objective review of the text of the decision and the transcripts of the testimony, could reasonably find that ID "theory" operates within the realm of the scientific method. The evidence in support of #2 is completely open to debate. I don't doubt for a second that the present USSC might rule that ID, even if completely absurd as a scientific theory, is nevertheless not prohibited from being taught as an equivalent theory in a public school classroom. Regardless, a High Court ruling in favor of ID wouldn't make it science. It would just make ID legal -- which actually wouldn't bother me, although it would certainly be worth a chuckle.
The point is that ID is just fraud insofar as it is sophistry wrapped up as science to hide a religious subversion of the 1st Amendment. It is backdoor and grubby and should be an embarrassment to any religious minded person. By all means teach creation but in religious studies or whatever you have over there or churches and stand up and be counted. To try and pretend that there is a scientific theory but all the while trying deperately hard not to mention the G*d word or the C******n word is ridiculous. Is it just a coincidence that all ID'ers believe in God? Or do they believe that the "intelligence" in ID is attributable to anyone/thing other than God? ................ hmmmmm, I didn't think so ..................
The Big Bang theory has an enormous amount of supporting scientific physical observations, including background radiation and expansion measurments that help to solidify the theory. All of the tests generally support each other -- consequently OTHER competing theories of the universe (e.g., steady state theory), are falisified. The corrollary is that, evolutionary is supported by scientific physical observations, including direct observation of mutational change that creates new functionality in an existing species, and demonstrations of physical reproductive isolation causing the isolated subgroups to no longer be capable of interbreeding. Consequently, other competing theories of the development of life are falisfied. ID proposes no natural mechanism by which its results may be obtained. It requires the application of supernatural force to fill gaps in the theory. Neither evolution, nor Big Bang theory requires such divine intervention. What happened prior to the Big Bang is irrelevant to whether or not the physical universe is the product of the Big Bang. And, what happened prior to evolution is irrelevant to whether or not the biological universe is the product of evolution. I have never said that God isn't absolutely possible. I only say that God is not measurable scientifically. Cosmologists do not introduce God into the equation at any point AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The entire Big Bang concept, as a theory, stands or falls on the basis of scientific experimentation intended to verify or discredit the Big Bang. Biologists do not introduce God into the equation at any point AFTER the moment that abiogenises occured. The entire evolutionary theory, stands or falls on the basis of scientific eperimentation intended to verify or discredit evolution. BY CONTRAST, Intelligent design, INTRODUCES a SUPERNATURAL actor of unknown identity into the equation AFTER the moment that abiogenesis occured. And, the Federal Court found, that despite the ID proponent's claims to the opposite, that no ID theory seriously contends that a natural actor is influencing the course of the development life on Earth. But, more importantly, I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that evolution may be the product of a designer. My problem is that the proponents of ID, as evidenced by you, Z, seek to replace evolution entirely, with a theory that life didn't develop over time, but rather that it sprung full force from nothing, and that it continues to do so, whenever the designer wishes it to occur. That is the application of magic -- nothing less -- and it is ridiculous. Now, if you want to change your position such that you want merely to tell public school biology students that when a random gamma ray strike mutates a gene in a DNA molecule, that the strike could actually be the product of the influence of God, then I have no problem with that, and I seriously doubt that any scientist would, either. But, you have never ever suggested that position. Your position, at least the position that any reasonable person would read from your posts, is that evolution is a fraud and that life appears in a puff of smoke from the mind of an all powerful designer. So, which is it, Z? Directed evolution or instantaneous creation?