Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

e. brown, I choose not to ignore gunga because there are many new posters and many kids that visit the threads. Kids can be easily inluenced by the methods used by gunga and many of the entrenched Creationists. . Gunga is also from Pa, and I know that theres a nice network of pbbs involved in the Dover case. They use those out of context quotes in waves of presentation . I follow another pbb wherein the ID group "uses" the responses to hone their case upcoming and whenevr I get the chance , I like to rub their noses in the fact that they are lying and misquoting in the "name of God". It pisses em off.
.

"The Darwinists may have made a serious strategic error in choosing to pursue a campaign of indoctrination in the public schools. Previously, the high-school text books said relatively little about evolution, except that most scientists believe in it, which is hard to dispute. Serious examination of the scientific evidence was postponed until college, and was provided mostly to biology majors and graduate students. Most persons outside the profession had little opportunity to learn how much philosophy was being taught in the name of science, and if they knew what was going on, they had no opportunity to mount an effective challenge.

"The Darwinists themselves have changed that comfortable situation by demanding that the public schools teach a great deal more "about evolution". What they mean is that the public schools should try much harder to persuade students to believe in Darwinism, not that they should present fairly the evidence which is causing Darwinists so much trouble. What goes on in the public schools is the public's business, however, and even creationists are entitled to point out errors and evasions in the textbooks and teaching materials. Invokations of authority may work for awhile, but eventually determined protesters will persuade the public to grant them a fair hearing on the evidence. As many more people outside the fundamentalist camp learn how committed Darwinists are to opposing theism of any sort, and how little support Darwinism finds in the scientific evidence, the Darwinists may wish that they had never left their sanctuary."

Ten years ago I'd not have wanted to bet money on how the evolution/creation war in America was going to go. At this point I'd bet the farm without reservation. The evolutionists are going to lose and, in the real marketplace of ideas amongst intelligent people, they've already lost.

There's a really simple way to avoid being quoted as saying something; don't say it.

From what I hear and read, it's pretty much over.

Quote:

What have you been reading? and where?

As Phillip Johnson noted in Darwin on Trial:

Quote:

Wow , Phillip Johnson, one of our great scientific minds. He writes a book , so full of half truths and outright BS showing that he neither understands, nor wants to understand, science. Why not read Michael Crichton, at least hes not a trial lawyer

I say again, what Gould, Eldredge, and a few others did bears some explanation.

Quote:

All of which youve stated is just flat wrong . Ive only been working in this field for about 30 years so I guess I have my mind debrided every so often, Gould and Eldredge had posited Puncrtuated Equilibrium as a hypothesis for periods of stasis and then followed by rapid evolution. Most of the error of their hypothesis was sampling data fropm its time. They are only guilty of not having enough brachiopod data from the Marcellus and Mahantango to state that they could see intermediate forms. A number of pubs have resampled the same units and have found that, maybe saltation (the correct term) is just a n artifact of poor sampling. Gould didnt defend his saltation stuff toward the end of his life as he did earlier. He still said it occured but . maybe, not as a rule.

In any fashion, saltation, if it did or did not occur, just provides mechanisms to explain rapid evolution (apparent) without a complete fossil record, and perhaps thats mopre of a stratigraphic , not an evolutionary problem

Evolutionists therefore found themselves in the untenable position of having to peddle a sort of a smorgasbord of bits and pieces of different theories since no one theory really measures up to any reasonable standards, and they still talk about "mutation and selection" as if there were any validity to the idea, and in their muddled minds, anybody quoting Gould's earlier statements on the subject has to be a misquoter and a liar.

Quote:

Thats what I was sorta saying there gunga. However , I didnt come out and call you a liar, your definately a man who has his religion, even though you have no feet in the reality ring. Science will get along without your monumental research and will miss how you reinterprate what other scientists say. By your posts , all you do is call attention to the fraudulent efforts that Creationists use to try to gather some credibility.
Speaking about betting farms, I will betcha the farmthat we will ultimately cream your ID crowd in Dover. Of course, if your a cReationist, then its hard to be an IDer. The ID crowd wants nothing to do with the likes of those who promote "flood geology" . Even they know better.

I guess that , in some fashion , addressing you as someone who knows of what they speak, you are, as e brown said, getting some free credibility that you dont deserve.

The idea that a scientific revolution should take place at the "bottom" is very sad. Copernicus and Einstein presented their revolutionary ideas to their peers. I would be highly suspicious of a scientist who wages his revolution at the high school level.

wandeljw wrote:

The idea that a scientific revolution should take place at the "bottom" is very sad. Copernicus and Einstein presented their revolutionary ideas to their peers. I would be highly suspicious of a scientist who wages his revolution at the high school level.

If you were talking about a rational scientific theory you'd be closer to being right. In the case of an entrenched ideological doctrine like evolution, you're wrong. The revolution has begun from the bottom and it will succeed.

The revolution has begun from the bottom and it will succeed.

e brown,

Setanta is pissed at me for this and I regret it, because I so enjoyed disagreeing with him and valued the interesting arguments and information he offered in response.

Evolution consists 99% of the simple and obviously true ideas that:

1. Genes which confer a survival advantage come to dominate the gene pool over long periods of time. Genes which confer a disadvantage tend to die out.
2. New traits are introduced from time to time by the mechanism of mutation.

That's it, folks. Not very sinister. Someone tell me how that is not true. You can see it right in your face with any creature that has very short generations, e.g. bacterial adaptation to medicines.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Evolution consists 99% of the simple and obviously true ideas that:

1. Genes which confer a survival advantage come to dominate the gene pool over long periods of time. Genes which confer a disadvantage tend to die out.
2. New traits are introduced from time to time by the mechanism of mutation.

That's it, folks. Not very sinister. Someone tell me how that is not true. You can see it right in your face with any creature that has very short generations, e.g. bacterial adaptation to medicines.

You'll get no argument from me on those points Brandon....

Some science teachers say they're encountering fresh resistance to the topic of evolution - and it's coming from their students.

Nearly 30 years of teaching evolution in Kansas has taught Brad Williamson to expect resistance, but even this veteran of the trenches now has his work cut out for him when students raise their hands.

That's because critics of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection are equipping families with books, DVDs, and a list of "10 questions to ask your biology teacher."

The intent is to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of students as to the veracity of Darwin's theory of evolution.

The result is a climate that makes biology class tougher to teach. Some teachers say class time is now wasted on questions that are not science-based. Others say the increasingly charged atmosphere has simply forced them to work harder to find ways to skirt controversy.

On Thursday, the Science Hearings Committee of the Kansas State Board of Education begins hearings to reopen questions on the teaching of evolution in state schools.

The Kansas board has a famously zigzag record with respect to evolution. In 1999, it acted to remove most references to evolution from the state's science standards. The next year, a new - and less conservative - board reaffirmed evolution as a key concept that Kansas students must learn.

Now, however, conservatives are in the majority on the board again and have raised the question of whether science classes in Kansas schools need to include more information about alternatives to Darwin's theory.

But those alternatives, some science teachers report, are already making their way into the classroom - by way of their students.

In a certain sense, stiff resistance on the part of some US students to the theory of evolution should come as no surprise.

Even after decades of debate, Americans remain deeply ambivalent about the notion that the theory of natural selection can explain creation and its genesis.

A Gallup poll late last year showed that only 28 percent of Americans accept the theory of evolution, while 48 percent adhere to creationism - the belief that an intelligent being is responsible for the creation of the earth and its inhabitants.

But if reluctance to accept evolution is not new, the ways in which students are resisting its teachings are changing.

"The argument was always in the past the monkey-ancestor deal," says Mr. Williamson, who teaches at Olathe East High School. "Today there are many more arguments that kids bring to class, a whole fleet of arguments, and they're all drawn out of the efforts by different groups, like the intelligent design [proponents]."

It creates an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom, Williamson says - one that he doesn't like. "I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher."

Williamson and his Kansas colleagues aren't alone. An informal survey released in April from the National Science Teachers Association found that 31 percent of the 1,050 respondents said they feel pressure to include "creationism, intelligent design, or other nonscientific alternatives to evolution in their science classroom."

These findings confirm the experience of Gerry Wheeler, the group's executive director, who says that about half the teachers he talks to tell him they feel ideological pressure when they teach evolution.

And according to the survey, while 20 percent of the teachers say the pressure comes from parents, 22 percent say it comes primarily from students.

In this climate, science teachers say they must find new methods to defuse what has become a politically and emotionally charged atmosphere in the classroom. But in some cases doing so also means learning to handle well-organized efforts to raise doubts about Darwin's theory.

Darwin's detractors say their goal is more science, not less, in evolution discussions.

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute distributes a DVD, "Icons of Evolution," that encourages viewers to doubt Darwinian theory.

One example from related promotional literature: "Why don't textbooks discuss the 'Cambrian explosion,' in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?"

Such questions too often get routinely dismissed from the classroom, says senior fellow John West, adding that teachers who advance such questions can be rebuked - or worse.

"Teachers should not be pressured or intimidated," says Mr. West, "but what about all the teachers who are being intimidated and in some cases losing their jobs because they simply want to present a few scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory?"

But Mr. Wheeler says the criticisms West raises lack empirical evidence and don't belong in the science classroom.

"The questions scientists are wrestling with are not the same ones these people are claiming to be wrestling with," Wheeler says. "It's an effort to sabotage quality science education. There is a well-funded effort to get religion into the science classroom [through strategic questioning], and that's not fair to our students."

A troubled history Teaching that humans evolved by a process of natural selection has long stirred passionate debate, captured most famously in the Tennessee v. John Scopes trial of 1925.

Today, even as Kansas braces for another review of the question, parents in Dover, Pa., are suing their local school board for requiring last year that evolution be taught alongside the theory that humankind owes its origins to an "intelligent designer."

In this charged atmosphere, teachers who have experienced pressure are sometimes hesitant to discuss it for fear of stirring a local hornets' nest. One Oklahoma teacher, for instance, canceled his plans to be interviewed for this story, saying, "The school would like to avoid any media, good or bad, on such an emotionally charged subject."

Others believe they've learned how to successfully navigate units on evolution.

In the mountain town of Bancroft, Idaho (pop. 460), Ralph Peterson teaches all the science classes at North Gem High School. Most of his students are Mormons, as is he.

When teaching evolution at school, he says, he sticks to a clear but simple divide between religion and science. "I teach the limits of science," Mr. Peterson says. "Science does not discuss the existence of God because that's outside the realm of science." He says he gets virtually no resistance from his students when he approaches the topic this way.

In Skokie, Ill., Lisa Nimz faces a more religiously diverse classroom and a different kind of challenge. A teaching colleague, whom she respects and doesn't want to offend, is an evolution critic and is often in her classroom when the subject is taught.

In deference to her colleague's beliefs, she says she now introduces the topic of evolution with a disclaimer.

"I preface it with this idea, that I am not a spiritual provider and would never try to be," Ms. Nimz says. "And so I am trying not ... to feel any disrespect for their religion. And I think she feels that she can live with that."

A job that gets harder The path has been a rougher one for John Wachholz, a biology teacher at Salina (Kansas) High School Central. When evolution comes up, students tune out: "They'll put their heads on their desks and pretend they don't hear a word you say."

To show he's not an enemy of faith, he sometimes tells them he's a choir member and the son of a Lutheran pastor. But resistance is nevertheless getting stronger as he prepares to retire this spring.

"I see the same thing I saw five years ago, except now students think they're informed without having ever really read anything" on evolution or intelligent design, Mr. Wachholz says. "Because it's been discussed in the home and other places, they think they know, [and] they're more outspoken.... They'll say, 'I don't believe a word you're saying.' "

As teachers struggle to fend off strategic questions - which some believe are intended to cloak evolution in a cloud of doubt - critics of Darwin's theory sense an irony of history. In their view, those who once championed teacher John Scopes's right to question religious dogma are now unwilling to let a new set of established ideas be challenged.

"What you have is the Scopes trial turned on its head because you have school boards saying you can't say anything critical about Darwin," says Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman on the "Icons of Evolution" DVD.

But to many teachers, "teaching the controversy" means letting ideologues manufacture controversy where there is none. And that, they say, could set a disastrous precedent in education.

"In some ways I think civilization is at stake because it's about how we view our world," Nimz says. The Salem Witch Trials of 1692, for example, were possible, she says, because evidence wasn't necessary to guide a course of action.

"When there's no empirical evidence, some very serious things can happen," she says. "If we can't look around at what is really there and try to put something logical and intelligent together from that without our fears getting in the way, then I think that we're doomed."

What some students are asking their biology teachers Critics of evolution are supplying students with prepared questions on such topics as:

• The origins of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

• Darwin's tree of life. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

• Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry - even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

• The archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds - even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

• Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection - when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

• Darwin's finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

• Mutant fruit flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

• Human origins. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

• Evolution as a fact. Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

Source: Discovery Institute

This new one is all about Intelligent Design, and intelligent design proponents mostly agree that evolution is THE mechanism of change among species.

No, as a matter of fact, gunga, most mutations are benign, conferring neither advantage nor disadvantage. Of course, there is no need to classify the insignificant missense mutations that are constantly being introduced into genomes because they have no effect. Over time, though, the accumulation of such practically insignificant mutations generates diversity in a population. Perhaps developmental events get timed slightly differently, some individuals end up with different length limbs or different body size than others. If unexploited niches become available, some individuals may be better suited than others to exploit them, individuals who at one time were a small part of the population gain a competitive advantage by being suited for the new niche.

Cichlids (fish) in Lake Victoria and Lake Malawi appear to have undergone spectacular diversification in a geological blink of an eye in just such a manner.

3. It (sic Evolution) is utterly incompatible with Christianity or any other meaningful religion.