It was not merely Judge John E. Jones who ruled against teaching “intelligent design” (ID), a thinly veiled surrogate for “creation science,” in public schools. The citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania, exercised the power of the ballot to ensure that their city did not appeal Kitzmiller. If the case had reached the Supreme Court of the United States, the justices possibly would have split 5-4 in favor of allowing public schools to teach ID.
Today ID lost its prospect of winning in the Supreme Court: Justice Antonin Scalia, Known For Biting Dissents, Dies At 79. As noted in the Wikipedia article on Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), in which the court nailed shut the coffin of creation science,
Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dissented, accepting the Act’s stated purpose of “protecting academic freedom” as a sincere and legitimate secular purpose. They construed the term “academic freedom” to refer to “students’ freedom from indoctrination”, in this case their freedom “to decide for themselves how life began, based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence”.
Has quite a familiar ring, doesn’t it? The rhetoric of the ID movement was designed by a law professor, Phillip Johnson, to suit a creationism-friendly judge of the Law of the Land. This is indeed a sad day for ID, which already had acquired a moribund pallor.
You keep saying that and then going on to not provide either those explanations or a link to them.
What does inference to best explanation tell us Frankie?
Support that with an example, then. What explanation regarding life’s diversity on Earth does ID offer?
ETA missing words
Alan Fox,
Unfortunately that has nothing to do with stochastic processes. And if that is all the alleged ToE says then it says nothing worthy of a theory
So, you admit there is no theory of ID!
Good work Lou!
And yet you think this non-existent theory is capable of replacing, well, what exactly Frankie?
Alan Fox,
ATP synthase is the example at hand Alan. And your “theory” doesn’t have anything to say about it
I see you keep trying to change the subject. It is as if you don’t actually have an ID explanation to offer. 🙂
So who eats and who does not is decided by the designer in real time?
Bit of a tedious job I’d suggest, for the creator of the universe…
Your “theory” cannot explain the diversity of life on Earth- not a scientific explanation anyway- you know an explanation that can be scientifically tested.
Yes it does. I posted a link.
You can put “theory” in quotes if you like, but you just admitted ID does not even have that.
And likewise, unless you provide a way that ID can be tested it’s not science either.
And given ‘evolutionism’ is currently winning the battle, if it’s a draw on this one, well you still lose.
That is the subject, Alan. I see that you bare unable to follow along. It is as if you don’t actually have an evolutionary explanation to offer. 😛
Your “theory” says the same about ATP synthase as it does about buttons and bin bags. That never prompt you to stop pointing out what other theory’s lack and do something about the lack of actual support for the one you promote?
Alan Fox,
Starting with Darwin’s “Origins”, stochastic processes have been the mechanism posited. You would have known that if you had actually read evolutionary literature
There is one. I posted a link. Or does your net-nanny software prevent you from visiting non-whitelisted sites?
The designer both decides who will eat and what happens at the molecular level. Makes you wonder why it bothered at all in the first place.
I guess it must satisfy a deep seated void within some people. That there is someone out there, one ‘person’ who gives a shit about them.
So you don’t actually disagree with “Origins” I take it, other than to dispute there was a random component to it all?
By all means, take that and walk away with it with your head held high. I’d suggest doing that rather then doubling your money on the next round, as that’s the evidence round! And I don’t think you’ll be doing so well there.
So Frankie, like Dembski and Behe don’t actually dispute that evolution works or has an origin in “Origins”, it’s just that they believe that somehow, somewhere god had a hand in it.
Which is just fucking bizarre to me, frankly, as presumably they worship the same god that created the universe. So who gives a crap about what happens in that universe, it’s all designed anyway!
And so the point is Frankie, that it seems your god did not want the evidence that evolution was designed to be accessible to you. As so far you’d not been able to demonstrate that, have you? Let’s be honest….
But it must be so frustrating for you to know biology is designed but be unable to summon an actual argument to that end! I’d suggest you take it up with your god!
OK, let’s accept for the sake of argument that ToE is not an explanation for the observed diversity of life we see. I say, there is not another scientific explanation. You claim there is an ID theory – or at least explanations. Well, what are they?
Are you here in Oklahoma?
I was thinking about this all wrong. I am not a politician, praise dog.
The Republicans are facing a huge problem with turnout. Their standard approach is to push people’s buttons. But this year, the best button-pushing candidates push the wrong buttons of much of the base. The GOP just got an opportunity to turn the presidential election into a referendum on abortion and guns. Abortion is particularly important, because it’s an issue that might make Republicans out of Hispanics. (It stands a chance of working this year, because the xenophobia is directed at Muslims for a change.)
I have not read the news today, but just Googled “Donald Trump abortion” and found that Cruz already has an ad: Cruz Hits Trump On SCOTUS And Abortion In One 30 Second Ad.
The essential workhorse in evolutionary theory is selection. Differential reproduction is the modelling tool used by the environmental designer. You can reject the idea but there it is.
On the other hand, you seem unable to give us any idea how ID works as an explanation of anything relating to life’s diversity.
Sorry, Tom, for allowing the derail.
Enough now, Frankie. Take it to sandbox, noyau or put up an OP.
P.S.–This gives Obama all the more reason to nominate a Hispanic American.
I should be sticking closer to the OP. Apologies to all for drifting off-topic.
Frankie,
When you say ONLY in the above statement that is eliminating all other alternatives and makes this a negative argument. If you restate as ” we have not yet observed complex specified patterns in nature produced by non intelligent beings theirfor IC is an inference to intelligent cause” then IMHO you have moved to a positive argument.
I think the extent to which huge amounts of money thrown at campaigns and special interests produces less utility for the citizenry is an empirical question. My own suspicion is that that sort of spending is terribly harmful and destructive to democracy, but–unlike the Scalians and other originalists, I don’t think the question has an a priori answer. All that is axiomatic, on my view, are: The more good for the more people, the better. And the way to find out what’s good for individuals is to ask them. I also think our system, which allows 50% (and sometimes less!) of the voters to get 100% of the representation is awful. Consider an at-large election of Councillors in a typical big U.S. city. One cohort of 50% of the voters doesn’t get half the Councillors as they ought to–if they vote as a block, they get ALL of them.
Frankie says that European systems are bad, but that’s only because he connects them with “lefty” (and so anti-religious) sentiments. But, of course, that’s all completely off the point. It is, however, a typical, “exceptionalist’ red-herring having nothing to do with anything real.
walto,
All good points. The only thing I wonder is that the executive position needs to focus on the task and not worry as much about votes and campaigning . If the senate and congress are elected and have power over spending and critical policy then that represents the peoples interests.
Yeah, I think you’re right about that. And it’s also the case that elected officials don’t need to have any expertise in things like environmental science, probability theory, economics, etc. and all that stuff is important to effective administration. The (vague) solution to that, I think, is to have people (or, if necessary, their elected representatives) decide only on general principles and have administrators (who are not elected) figure out how to bring them into fruition–and nothing else.
America–at both the Federal and State levels–currently has an unholy mix of bureaucrats encroaching on general territory (e.g., by writing regulations, which are really little laws) and elected officials directing fine points of administration, as if they had some clue what they were doing. Both of those seem wrong to me: the first is undemocratic, and the second is simply stupid–like letting football fans decide what adjustments should be made to a team’s offense.
Admittedly, though, it’s much easier to sermonize about this stuff–as I’m now doing–than it is to parse things correctly. (The old TV show “Yes, Minister” delved into those themes.)
The point is to not be afraid to try, and “strict Constitutionalists” are so afraid of King George and Stalin, that they will not allow any change in what is obviously a fucked up system that is getting worse each generation.
Natural selection is an eliminative process and as such is impotent with respect to creating the diversity of life. OTOH artificial selection is a known creative process, And it also includes differential reproduction.
Also NS requires all change to be happenstance whereas ID does not. Evolution by intelligent design is exemplified by genetic algorithms.
But we have been over and over this already and all you do is ignore it every time
colewd,
No, it makes it a positive argument
Bananas taste better. Usually.
Without ATP synthase we wouldn’t be around and neither would bananas.
OK, from the OP:
1- No one was trying to have ID taught in Dover
2- Only people who know the least about ID and Creation think that ID is a thinly veiled surrogate for creation science. Creation is merely a subset of ID.
Frankie,
What do you mean by artificial selection?
Still having difficulty with already known and accepted terms, eh
Frankie,
I see your point that it is a positive argument but the way you state it denies that a new scientific law can be discovered that solves the problem vs. making the case that it is the best inference given the facts we have. If you could repeatably test ATP Synthase for design causality then I would agree with you but then you could claim that you have a scientifically tested hypothesis which IMHO is a much stronger statement.
Frankie,
I am simply asking you to define a term you are using so I can understand your argument.
Yes and I also deny that there will be some new scientific law that can explain Stonehenge
It has already been defined. BUT, you are correct in that it can also be used in place of NS where the genetic change is directed by the organism due to its internal programming in response to environmental cues.
Frankie,
I think you are being a little flip with the Stonehenge comment but ok. So if selective breeding is artificial selection then are humans reproducing by artificial selection? If this is a creative process then are the mutations from this process say 130 per generation either neutral or positive?
colewd,
It was in Nazi Germany
It just creates more humans. Something that NS cannot do- create a human
Frankie,
Ok. This brings up an interesting discussion. What typical genetic changes are we seeing from human generation to generation? Very interested if anyone has the answer to this. How many of the typical 130 mutations are changing a protein sequence, in a non coding area either intron or other. Could these changes be non random?
Democracy only works when the electorate is educated, interested, and involved. As long as we regularly get less than 30% participation in elections, direct democracy will not be an improvement.
I really wish Frankie would stop trying to hijack the topic.
I suspect a bot.
Yes, I agree that educating and involving the electorate is essential. But I can’t see them/us ever becoming interested so long as their/our votes are basically meaningless. I know *I’m* never wildly interested, anyhow. I think all the changes need to be made together, you know, synergistically, to actually produce more democracy.
I put him (and a few others) on “Ignore Commenter” as soon as that feature was introduced. I highly recommend it.
More democracy would presumably change policies?
As far as I can see, regardless of the percentage, turnout generally tracks polling numbers pretty well.
And one vote doesn’t mean much, regardless of how you argue it.
I haven’t been following the thread closely, but I tend to agree with Larry Moran’s position on teaching creationism.
I think kids should be taught the history of science before the facts of science. They should learn about how important discoveries were made, and should learn about how astrology evolved into astronomy, how alchemy evolved into chemistry, and how Paleyism evolved into evolution. This should really begin in the early grades.
Yes — though let’s notice that this would require at least two major reforms in the US. It would require interdisciplinary training of teachers in schools of education, which would mean that education professors would have to concede some of their authority over how their teachers are trained, and it would require much smaller classes, much more teacher autonomy, and a massive reduction in the amount of bureaucratic assessment and quasi-paternalistic hand-holding that is demanded of K-12 teachers.
We would, in other words, need to allow teachers to actually teach. And we don’t. Which is why students come to college basically not knowing anything, which is what I see all the time in my first-year courses.
And while we’re at it, we should recognize that the position of high school science teacher is regarded by creationists as an appropriate missionary calling, and an estimated 20% of high school science teachers are creationists. Some of them worse than preachers. And THESE are the folks you are suggesting should be given more autonomy and less oversight.
As Gould explained, Scalia mentioned evolution multiple times in his Edwards dissent, and every mention without exception defined evolution as the study of the origin of life. Nowhere did Scalia even hint that he understood evolution to be a study of change over time. Purely origin. Now, Scalia wasn’t malicious or ignorant, he was simply buying into the simple creationist definition, and his educational path never exposed him to anything else. His dissent rested on equating creationism (we don’t know how life started) with evolutionism (we don’t know how life started), and he couldn’t see any legal difference.
I don’t know how this level of ignorance is best overcome, but granting creationist science teachers more autonomy probably isn’t the best solution.
All the more reason to put “the controversy” in the textbooks. As part of the history of science.