Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

When a theory is not just a theory
(Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen, September 08, 2007)

It is election time in Ontario and, as every journalist knows, what people want to learn more about during elections is not the substance of public policy but the tactics, games and gaffes of the campaign. And so, naturally, when John Tory blurted out that religious schools should be allowed to teach creationism because "it's still called the theory of evolution," pundits descended like vultures.

He sounds like a Kansas senator! What a gaffe! He's dead! Feast on his flesh!

The vultures were right -- if a touch hyperbolic -- about the political significance of Tory's comment, as Tory himself confirmed by issuing a humiliating retraction almost immediately. But for those of us who think some things are more important than which of three nearly indistinguishable parties wins a relatively inconsequential election, there's a very different -- and far more troubling -- reason to look closely at Tory's comment.

It comes down to a single word: theory.

In ordinary English, "theory" is an empty bag that can hold almost anything. A physician's diagnosis may be called a theory, but so is a guess about how the Leafs will do this year or a hunch that the world will end in 2012. Even the blogger who insists Freemasons were behind 9/11 is pushing a theory, although most people would attach the mocking adjective "conspiracy."

But in science, a theory is something very different. A hunch does not qualify. Speculation does not cut it. At best, something on that level is called a "hypothesis."

An idea only rises to the level of "theory" if it is based on a body of observed facts. The theory should explain the facts. And it should predict what future observations will turn up. If facts arise that cannot be explained by the theory, it starts to wobble. If the theory cannot be adjusted to account for the new facts, it crumbles.

Obviously, the strength of a theory depends on the observed facts it rests on. A theory that successfully explains great masses of facts produced by decades or centuries of observation is a very strong theory -- so strong that scientists will consider it a scientific truth. It's still open to challenge -- all knowledge is tentative in science -- but it effectively becomes a proven fact unless and until there is a successful challenge.

The "germ theory" of disease is one such fact. So is the theory of gravity. Atomic theory. Cell theory. Acoustic theory.

And the theory of evolution. The body of observed facts which evolution successfully explains is almost indescribably massive. Evolution is no hypothesis. It is a scientific fact central to the entire field of biology, and much else besides.

So, yes, it was creepy to hear John Tory say creationism should be taught in publicly funded schools. But that's not what was truly appalling about his comment. Far worse is that Tory revealed he doesn't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory -- and if he doesn't know that, he doesn't have a clue how science works.

John Tory is an intelligent, educated, accomplished man. Apparently, he is also scientifically illiterate. How is that possible? How can a leading citizen not know what every Grade 9 student should? Science is so essential to modern life that a scientific illiterate is as clueless as a medieval peasant living in a skyscraper. When our best and brightest can be counted among the uncomprehending, we have a problem.

And John Tory is not only a leading citizen. He is a man with a good shot at becoming premier and taking control of the government of this province. One of the essential tasks of that government -- as of any modern government -- is supporting, teaching and regulating science. How on earth can a man who doesn't understand the fundamentals of science craft wise policies for science?

Now, please don't misunderstand and think this is only about John Tory. I'm quite sure that Tory's confusion about scientific theories is something he shares with most other political leaders. The it's-only-a-theory line can be heard almost anywhere, even among liberals of the sort who were appalled by Tory's comment. Scientific illiteracy is widespread.

And that includes newsrooms, where Lisas are far outnumbered by Barts -- like the columnist who complained about children being exposed to a "measurable quantity" of carbon dioxide on downtown playgrounds, apparently unaware that the only way to eliminate such exposure is to strangle the children until they stop breathing.

Some time ago, a reporter caused a stir when he asked a series of high-level American politicians to name the two main branches of Islam and similarly, whether al-Qaeda was Sunni or Shia, and so on. Most were stumped. The implications for a nation immersed in the Muslim world were obvious.

We are a nation immersed in the scientific world. I wonder what a similar line of questions might reveal about our leaders.

Not that we're likely to find out. Everyone's too busy analyzing the tactics, games and gaffes of the election to get sidetracked by such minor stuff.

Not that we're likely to find out. Everyone's too busy analyzing the tactics, games and gaffes of the election to get sidetracked by such minor stuff.

And that includes newsrooms, where Lisas are far outnumbered by Barts -- like the columnist who complained about children being exposed to a "measurable quantity" of carbon dioxide on downtown playgrounds, apparently unaware that the only way to eliminate such exposure is to strangle the children until they stop breathing.

What does who brought it up matter? It was relevant to this debate because it was NOT (sheesh) an incident. It is hard to imagine the cops not raiding a public wank-in even just 30 years ago. Something changed and anti-ID is doing it. That's the point. Not who brought it up. There have been Ken Lays for a long time. I can understand those in favour of public wank-ins being on your side. That stunt was a demo. A challenge. It was not an incident unless we are on a universal time-scale. I don't know how you can imagine that viewers will take their eye of the ball just because you get fussing over an irrelevance. Others introduce all sorts of stuff they have read in the papers and seen on TV or in mags. I saw that item on these threads somewhere. I know snow when I see it. I can make snowmen out of it.

And what's this "us" when you skulked off 6 months ago for obvious reasons. fm's always skulking off. blatham did the same on Politics and advised other threaders not to play with that horrible little naughty boy known as spendy to his friends. Same reason.

Quote:

why Christian values would be any better than Buddhist values, Islamic values or even Hindu values.

Are you kidding Wolf. We had to show them how to fit a light bulb. They were using torches when it went dark and I daresay they were a luxury confined to those classes Hollywood makes movies about and thus bends your head right off its shoulders concerning history.

The concept of "morally bankrupt" is non-existent to a materialist atheist.

Any morals an anti-IDer has, or thinks he has, derive from a Christian cultural background which, like all backgrounds, is only noticed by those who look at it and then it's the foreground.[/qutoe]

Once again, pure rubbish. Being against ID does not mean being atheist, unless we refer to your blatantly delusional definition of the term that has no bearing on what intelligent design is really about.

The point is Wolf that public wank-ins are a function of a decline in religious values. The atheist materialist has nothing to say about them either for or against.

I consider anti-IDers trolls by that definition. They are the controversial ones as opinion polls show. I defend the status quo. I have no intention of baiting you to argumentative response. I expect submission to my superior arguments.

Nom the atheist materialist does have something to say about them. i.e. It's a bloody waste of time, don't do it. Or they could say, hm, that offends people of a religious persuasion, so it's wrong. Or they could say, ew, that's disgusting, don't do it.

Opinion polls in the US show a belief in "something" in over 90% of respondents. One can argue that ID covers all that "something"

I know I said I was gonna just depart this thread, but its getting to be a train wreck, and Im curious enough to see what hes gonna say next.

Mr Mailer has a scene in Ancient Evenings where Rameses (I think) appears before the multitude displaying his erect phallus to mighty cheers.

Had Christianity not come along our leaders might still be engaging in such magical rites and party political broadcasts would be even funnier than they are now.

Jonathan Leake and Elizabeth Gibney
?'The mighty Zeta: limitless fuel for millions of years" trumpeted the newspapers. It was January 25, 1958 and Britain's media were alive with the news that the nation's scientists had created the world's first controlled fusion reaction. It was, they promised, the dawn of a new era, when power would be both limitless and free.

Alongside the stories were photographs of a giant machine, codenamed Zeta, whose existence had been one of the nation's most closely guarded secrets, alongside the triumphant young scientists who had built it. The fanfare followed a news conference called the day before by Sir John Cockcroft, the Nobel prize-winning director of the government's Harwell research laboratories and one of our most respected scientists.

His machine, he told the assembled media, had achieved temperatures of 5,000,000C - generating the world's first controlled nuclear fusion reaction. "To Britain this discovery is greater than the Russian sput-nik," he declared, promising a commercial fusion reactor within 20 years.

That was 49 years ago. Just a few months later Cockcroft quietly issued a press release. His researchers had, it seemed, been mistaken. Zeta had never achieved fusion. It had not even achieved temperatures of 5mC. The machine was a dud.

Cockcroft's blunder was, however, far from the last. Over the years, fusion's lure of limitless energy has tempted many more scientists and politicians into the same trap of wishful thinking. In 2002 one set of researchers announced that they had achieved bubble fusion, while in 1989 another group announced that they had achieved cold fusion. All have ended in retractions, recrimination and humiliation.

What, then, are we to make of a new announcement last week, again from Harwell, that Britain could once more be on the road to achieving nuclear fusion?

It jumped out in the funeral service yesterday in Liverpool Cathedral for that kid. How would anti-IDers have conducted that job.

hell our churches spend more on wine cruets.