ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Intelligent redesign

Posted: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:38 PM by Alan Boyle


NOVA / PBS
U.S. District Judge John Jones III is portrayed by Jay Benedict in this courtroom
re-enactment from the documentary "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial."

Two years after a trial over the teaching of intelligent design, a public-TV documentary retells the courtroom drama in a style that the judge in the case says is "almost like a whodunit, with a science angle and a sprinkling of the law besides." But unlike "Law and Order," the story didn't end when U.S. District Judge John Jones III issued his withering 139-page ruling equating intelligent design with religion. Instead, Darwinism’s detractors are back with a vengeance.

"Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," premiering tonight, isn't your typical "Nova" science documentary: The two-hour show combines archived video, up-to-date interviews and courtroom re-enactments to flesh out the story behind Kitzmiller v. Dover. Along the way, "Judgment Day" examines the decades-old cultural roots of the conflict as well as the contemporary findings behind modern-day evolutionary theory.

The way "Nova" tells it, the tale began at Pennsylvania's Dover Area High School with the mysterious disappearance and burning of a student-painted mural tracing human origins. Soon afterward, school board members started asking questions about how evolution was being taught.

Eventually, the board required school staffers to tell their biology students about intelligent design - the claim that some characteristics of living organisms are so complex that they're best explained as the handiwork of an intelligent agent (God? aliens?). Some of the teachers bristled at this, so much so that they filed suit against the district.

"Judgment Day" traces the courtroom arguments for each side, with biologist Ken Miller as a star witness for the pro-Darwin plaintiffs and biologist Michael Behe leading the anti-Darwin witness list. (The judge and the witnesses are generally played by actors in the re-enactment.) Because scientific findings were so central to the case, we learn about some key lines of evidence such as the fusion that resulted in human chromosome 2, the transitional fossil fish known as Tiktaalik, the rise of the bacterial flagellum and other phenomena

The show also reveals how the trial divided the Dover community outside the courtroom. For example, husband-and-wife biology teachers were labeled as "godless" even though they were leaders at their local church. Another rift, between local newspaper reporter Lauri Lebo and her fundamentalist Christian father, never had a chance to heal.

After the six-week trial ended, Judge Jones (a Bush II appointee) surprised observers by issuing a strong rebuke to intelligent design's supporters. Jones wrote that the concept was "a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Because the pro-ID school board members were voted out en masse in an election the previous month, there was no appeal.


TODAY
 CLICK FOR VIDEO
 Judge John Jones III
 looks back at "Judgment
 Day" on NBC's TODAY
 show. Click on the image
 to watch the video.

"It was a case for our times," Jones told NBC's TODAY show today. But as "Judgment Day" makes clear, the case did not end the controversy. Intelligent design's backers - led by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute - are continuing the fight using fresh strategies.

One strategy is to look back in anger, branding Jones' decision as an outrageous case of distortion and "judicial activism." That's the tack taken in "Traipsing Into Evolution," a Discovery-published tract that runs to almost as many pages as the decision itself.

Another strategy is to go back to basics and focus on Darwinian theory as the root of evils such as eugenics, lobotomies, sterilizations and sexual excess. That comes through loud and clear in the advance notices for "Darwin Day in America," written by Discovery senior fellow John West. In this, West appears to hark back to the "Wedge Document," which saw attacks on scientific materialism as the first step in a cultural rollback to a more God-fearing society.

And yet another strategy is simply to keep up the pro-ID drumbeat through a proliferating succession of blogs and podcasts. As "Judgment Day" makes its premiere, intelligent design's proponents are taking aim at the show - and even at its teaching guide.

Ironically, the Discovery Institute's Robert Crowther accuses PBS of encouraging public-school teachers to violate the Constitution by telling their students that evolutionary theory isn't necessarily inconsistent with religious belief. Crowther argues that merely making such an observation would itself be a religious statement.

It all goes to show that the Jones' judgment didn't put an end to the intelligent-design debate - but of course, we all knew that two years ago.

To get the updated picture from Darwin's defenders, you can click on over to the National Center for Science Education, as well as the Pharyngula blog and Panda's Thumb. For a status report on the creationist battle for the "hearts and minds of America's teachers," check out this article from Discover magazine.   Consult our Dover trial archive to take a walk down memory lane - and feel free to add your comments below.

P.S.: The best thing about "Judgment Day" is that the entire two-hour documentary will be freely available for watching online later this week.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

What misses the point is that creationism and ID are just the last gasp of religion trying to make itself relevant in an increasingly liberal, materialistic, technological world.  And it's failing.  Globally religion is in decline as peoples' needs are being met by economic prosperity and better social safety nets.  

Religious geeks can fight all they want, their grandchildren will still be playing with genetically engineered pets, popping trait enhancing pills, driving cars powered by human invented organisms that synthesizes fuel with gene spliced proteins while speculating on the implications of organic and probably non-organic life that will have been detected throughout the cosmos, by big telescopes or robotic probes.  Religion can't touch that, it provides no mechanism for progress, just bronze age mythology and antiquated moralizing.

Oh, and the simplistic notion that morality comes from religion will be considered trite nonsense in the face of neuro-anatomy and brain science that already shows that empathy, altruism and consequence evaluation are all evolved, upgradeable, transplantable brain functions.

Their grandchildren will live in a world where those who understand evolutionary biology and it's influence on human behavior will have a decisive advantage in a more manipulative, over-stimulating world.  

Religion will be one of many refuges for spirituality but not a basis for educating children on cosmology or biology.
How about this angle?  Over the years, what has brought us to this point in time and space (history)? You could say that religion has been with humans and humanoids since as far back as can be detected through archeologic finds.  But through those same digs, you also find, over time, progression of the use of technology.  To a certain extent, religion predates our current society-based laws and gave (and still does) gave a simple reason for people to have hope, fear wrongdoing, among other benefits, such as holding communities together. Religion over time evolved just as technology has become more sophisticated (what happened to ritual sacrifices?).  But it seems the problem with certain religions out there have become stagnant, either for self-preservation (change, and we no longer are what we were) or because the religion forbids change due to self-imposed regulation (part of what is understood in evolution is what causes some creatures extinction).
How can the common man even begin to formulate theories of our origins when the bulk of true scientific data is deliberately withheld from us. The fact is that there are many intelligent and vastly superior civilizations existing throughout the Universe governments of this planet MUST enlighten their 'subjects' as to the true reality of our situation. Only then, will individuals be able to grasp a greater sensibility of their origins.
I agree with the judge's ruling and his sentiments: religious fanatics can't make a dogma into a theory just by putting "-ism" on the end of a word.  "Creationism," in fact, is not a theory at all (as Shawn pointed out). And "intelligent design" boils down to a teleological non-explanation: things are the way they are because God made them that way doesn't explain a damned thing. The question-begging involved in any teleology rendered the so-called "science" of meta-physics irrelevant nearly two centuries ago, regardless of how much Kant tried to gloss over that conclusion. And without metaphysics, religion cannot be "scientific."  The modern breach between faith and science is the result, as is the fact-value split.  No matter what they say, these intelligent design bozos are not scientists, they are dogmatists, believers trying to pass off their values as if they're facts and their religious beliefs as if they are legitimate theories,  Which they are not.

By the way, Terry, that bit of "sound advice" you like so much is called "Pascal's Wager," after Blaise Pascal, an Enlightenment French mathematician who turned his back on modernity and ran snivelling back into the arms of the Catholic Church.  You can find the complete "argu-ment" in his Pensees, in which Pascal attempts to use reason to defeat reason and shore up faith.  As Nietzsche and other philosophers have pointed out, though, Pascal's Wager is nothing but "bad faith"-in the same way that all these creationist idiots are engaging in "bad science."

Also: Shawn, you're wrong. Though religion cannot make any valid comments about science, science can defi-nitely make valid statements about religion, if by the term "valid" is meant a justi-fiable statement.  Of course, according to a strictly logi-cal view, religion (as an illogical activity) doesn't makes any valid statements, nor, properly speaking, are any of its metaphysical state-ments either true or false.  They're non-statements, or rather, nonsense. A scien-tific analysis of religious assertions would be a rhetor-ical analysis of metaphors and analogies, and a scien-tific analysis of religious practices would have to be either a psychoanalysis of individual neuroses and psychoses or a sociological study of the various ways in which groups tyrannize individuals and other groups, to ostracize them or to force them to conform.

A "religious" study of any science, however, would still be religious nonsense.

 
Shawn of Seattle you said what I would wish to say and you said it well. I am in complete agreement. I live very well with myself accepting that I do not have all the answers as to how, what, or why about the Creation or big bang - but I am definately not happy when someone tells me they have all the answers because they read an old fairy tale (bible) based on bits and pieces of writings made by several people over many years and later badly translated. And those same people also seem to forget that there are others in the world who are also armed with their old bits of paper with different fairy stories about yet other gods. Perhaps students don't want to learn religion but are they given a choice? No, the religion of their country is pushed down their throats one way or another whether they like it or not. Call it ID if you like, but its still religion making claims that are mind bogglingly stupid - 6,000 year old planet? - Pearly Gates? Heaven, hell? A designer? He, she or it is a dreadful designer and definately not too intelligent...

Why can't people just say "I don't know" (the truth) rather than claiming "they know" (the lie) and sprouting all this nonsense about gods to justify themselves.

How can anyone claim (and expect to be believed) that they know all the answers pertaining to life the universe and creation and eveything just because they read some "not quite so old bits of paper" saying so?? Such people are either incredibly arrogant or incredibly stupid - and the proof is that their lives are no better than my life even though they are supposedly superior beings and have all the answers - and I know nothing. Yet if something is shown with reasonable supporting evidence I will think about it a while, and most probably agree with it. Science has done that time and time again - religion has not done that, not even once in its entire history. We should not be wasting our time debating such absurdities as ID and much less messing up our childrens education with fantasies. Teach the children what is, and what they can become and stop confusing them with bearded old designer men in the sky who will make their lives hell if they don't believe.

Put that silly book down on the table and then show me how that book contains the sum of human knowledge that goes way beyond our best scientific minds and you ID believers will fail - leaving me just one more answer - I'll tell you where to stick it.
Science becomes religion when one attributes a phenomenon they don't understand to the supernatural. Science is a way of asking questions to gain knowledge; religion suppresses thought.
Human beings are story tellers. God is a story, not a truth.
If there is intelligent design the only thing one must see is a car.
How many man hours does it take to design a common car? How many different materials? And this is just a machine used to transport people. It cannot do anything else. And it will deteriorate until it is useless for the purpose it was created.

Lets look at one cell. It has many "parts" that work and it is alive as well. In addtion it can reproduce itself without outside intervention. Each organel within the cell performs a necessary function and each cell has its own fuction as well. This cell will be used in many animal and vegetable designs and will ultimately fit in a larger organ that will have a series of functions itself in a larger living being. And this larger being will have its own part to play in nature and nature provides itself all that is needed to mantain these subparts, parts and systems plus it recycles all the materials used.
Can you imagine how many design hours it takes to create this?
An this is only considering living things. How about the beautiful simphony that space and celestial bodies play in the vast universe?
If there is no ID how come everything in nature fits so well macroscopicaly and microscopicaly wise?
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in intelligent design and to me the latter makes more sense.
What would the response be if I tried to teach Evolution in Sunday School?  
isn't it a fact that outside of a few sketchy bacterial studies scientist have not been able to view evolution in action?...isnt it a fact that fossil evidence only proves an animal existed..not its genetics?...if you cant observe it happening then concluding that things actually are evolving is just that a conclusion not a scientific fact...and given the rate at which the evolutionary theory changes its clearly not settled science...as a matter of fact no science is settled and all things that we know, we know because what was previously thought as settled science wasn't so settled after all...is it smart to tell children in school that science is settled and we know all that there is to know and no other theories or explanation can apply?...wouldnt they grow up thinking inside the box instead of outside the box...arnt all discoveries scientific or not because people think out side the box?...intelligent design is has some legitimate basis...though clearly limited...but to refuse even a mention of it in class seems illogical and oppressive to me and against the purpose of education..and that its to get kids to think about things...not to get them to take things for granted
Something to think about! It is a well established idea that the dating methods that science uses today are scientific and relatively accurate. But, what if they are not? This is basically what is used to propagate the evolutionary theory. If the world was only thousands of years old and not millions or billions of years old then the evolutionary theory would be redundant or nothing but a joke along with those who support it. Before the debate over creation or evolution continues, maybe these dating methods should be investigated and scrutinized in the same way as these ideas of our existance are. Contrary to popular belief, there is a myriad of evidence to support the fact that the world is not anywhere near as old as science claims it to be. For an example, there are actual unfossilized dinosaur bones that are supposed to be millions of years old! Anyone with any form of intelligence and not having to be a scientist, would know that a hollow porous bone could not exist in that state for millions of years. There is evidence than man walked with the dinosaurs and actually made carvings, pottery and statues in their likeness and on and on it goes. It's amazing how much of the evidence that tells the real story is ignored. The world is not 6,000 years old as many creationists would like us to believe either because it is contrary to our science and our history. This foolish idea gives the evolutionists the ammunition they need to refute the idea of creation. Common sense and some very serious research will show you what the truth really is and let's not forget, many will not accept the truth because their pride will not allow them to. The day is coming when the debate over evolution and intelligent design will be settled once and for all and you had better hope you are not on the wrong side of the issue. A few thousand years ago a very wise person once wrote; MAKE SURE OF ALL THINGS AND HOLD ONTO WHAT IS TRUTH.
Oh, right.  The old, tired second law of thermodynamics argument, which assumes the lack of outside input to keep the whole thing going.  Unfortunately for them, there IS a source of outside energy, it's called THE SUN.
The first question on my 3rd graders science test last week was "On what day did god create the sun?" I answered for her - "Which god?". Haven't heard back yet.
The religious nuts won't be happy till they force feed that crap down all our throats. And they want to start with your child. There is no god in this universe or any other and all the 'faithing' won't make it true.
Here is an interesting thought (at least I think so).  In the US we are required to attend schools.  Most don't have the money to both pay enough taxes to fund the public schools and pay for a private school, so almost everyone attends a public school.  So, we are required to attend a public school 5 days a week for 8 hours a day, and told we cannot pray, cannot discuss God (in most cases) cannot learn about intelligent design, etc.  What happened to the separation of church and state?  Since when does the state get to decide that church must be absent from such a large portion of our lives?
If public schools by definition prohibit the free exercise of religion, shouldn't we have the option of not funding them?  Shouldn't we have the option of sending our money to schools that support our own religious beliefs?  How does forcing people to pay for a system that blocks religious beliefs coincide with the first ammendment?
Lets say you have a philosophy that you live your life by. And that philosophy is based on things unseen that you have no facts to back up. We could call that religion right. A faith in things unseen.
That describes Evolution. All the evidence used in the theory (small t) exists now not millions of years ago. We don't see evolution happening anywhere.
You can infer it from observation or imagine how something got the way it is but it's never been seen happening. And don't even try the moth story. My kids
get the religion of evolution shoved down their throat everyday but people like Shawn don't seem to have a problem with that. Can anyone give me one fact of evolution?
I wonder what the Taliban and Al Kida think about ID...I bet they believe it also??? That's what 'blind' obedience to a dogma brings about.
It's religon boys...not science.

Anybody got any wine?
Do you really want to trust science on issues of such importance? Scientists taught us the world was flat, until one day they changed their mind and told us it was round. Scientists told us the solar system revolved around the Earth , until one day they changed their minds and told us it revolves around the Sun. Scietists told us ulcers are caused by stress until one day they changed their minds and told us it was caused by a bacteria. Despite an abundance of evidence to support their various THEORIES, further research often proves them to be wrong. They could be very wrong about this issue, and their dogmatic insistence that any differing opinion is based on ignorance, is arrogant at best and borders on dangerous. I too have children, and I want them taught the TRUTH. The truth is, scientists do not know how we got here. They should state this clearly and concisely and creationism should be presented as aviable possibility.
To: Terry from Irving Texas, who stated “For evolution to begin or continue without outside input violates the second law of thermodynamics…”

As any high school student who managed to stay awake in physics class knows, the second law (also known as the law of entropy) deals with the fact that the universe is “winding down”, or getting more disordered.  Creationist and ID proponents such as yourself like to point to the fact that since evolution directs life to actually become more “ordered” or complex would seem to violate the law of entropy.  The fallacy of your argument however, is that earth is not a closed system.  If I clean my room, it certainly becomes more ordered, but I do so at the expense of energy that I extract from the food I eat, which in turn has gained energy from the sun, which IS “winding down”.  

If your argument held true, then for a seed to grow into a giant oak tree would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

You may want to frame your arguments using religious dogma rather than scientific laws, something you obviously know little about.
What's with you Americans ?   Was the 17th Century really so nice you want to go back there, like back to the womb ? Why is the 'country of rugged individualism' in fact so desperately conformist (salute the flag or be branded a traitor, Joe McCarthy's finest hour), and so desperate to force everyone else to conform to a collection of 4000 year old folk tales and mythology and 2000 year old totally distorted versions of what a good man may have said ?  It's true the US was founded in religious bigotry (the Puritans' first move was to persecute all none Puritans), but, 'for Heaven's Sake', grow up !
Shawn if you cannot observe evolution in action then you cannot prove it to be a scientific fact...you can draw conclusions but they cannot add up to the observations...much like what you accuse the ID people of doing...fossil evidence only proves animals existed not their genetics there is only a single sketchy bacterial study that might have the strongest evidence of evolution that I'm aware of...and thats still doesn't prove that ID is wrong...terry made the strongest point tho when it comes to god...if Shawn is right and dies and there is no god...nothing lost...if he is wrong then i would hate to be Shawn...and shawn has more to lose if he is wrong than if he is right...he can dance and sing all he wants about how there is no god...but at the end of the day hes at the losing end of the argument...because if I'm wrong i haven't lost a thing

The theory of evolution says we evolved eventually from apes which were evolved from another lower animal etc.  The Bible says humans were created in God's image.  Evolution means change over time.  If you read Genesis and believe it to be true then evolution is true, not the theory but change over time.  Once Adam and Eve sinned, everything changed from the original design of God.  We, as well as plants, animals, have changed over time.  The 'primative' human skulls that have been found may have been what man looked like 6,000 years ago, for example.  ID should not be taught in public schools as written, creationism should as a theory.  Is it scientific?  Well, read Genesis, one of the most scientific books of the Bible.  We don't have to put science in the Bible, it is there!  Why are believers calling it ID which is causing division?  Call it what it is!
I watched the show last night, I thought it was very good and not biased. In the end the ID pproponents were caught in a lie, they changed creationism to ID to hide the fact that it was religiouly based. They lost when they were found out, now like most fundamentalists they blame the judge when he did not rule in their favor, standard practice for people that wish to force their views on the larger populace.
There are many good people who belive in both god and the evolution process, they are called godless by the fundamentalists, basically saying we are true christians you are not. It is funny that these 'true christians' also sent death threats out to the people in Dover and to the judge, I quess breaking a commandment is OK if you are supporting your brand of christianity. Scientists like Newton and Darwin never were out to disprove religion, in fact they were trying to support further evidence of a higher authority. It is a small sect within the christian community that wants its interpretation of the bible to be supreme. They are the new 'flat earthers' and pretend that medieval society was so much better because there was more 'belief' back then. I quess they would ignore history also. Best solution for these people is to pull their kids from school and home school them, no one is stopping them from believing what they want, what this trial did was stop them from pushing their views of creation onto everyone else. I wonder if they hate democracy too.
It is funny that we are still fighting over this issue
and it is funny that this group is part of the reformation, they pulled away from a church that said it was the only one that can connect you with god, and now they act just like the group they protested against. This is the same mindset that brought us the inquisition, the childrens crusade and the witch trials. Heaven help us from closed minds, they would destroy modernity in support of the first book of the old testament.
Having watched this PBS Nova program, I am impressed by two behaviors of design/creationist proponents.

1. The ability to repeat the same false claims about natural history.

2. The willingness to physically threaten those they see as opponents to their cause.

As the Nova producers pointed out, there is an agenda beyond an opposition to Darwin's theory.
 
Why is there always someone from one group holding another accountable to standards they haven't met themselves? Even as a parent, do as I say not as I do,didn't work for very long for me. Since Darwin gave up his theory in the end, and embraced "The Theos," I an at least recommend you all do the same.
I'm sorry Terry, but how does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? Perpetual motion, and evolution are two separate ideas.
Had to respond to Martin M. Please Read
Dr. Richard Eby's books. It seems you have a wonderful
view on God, just not up close and personal.
                          God Bless
In the end its all about "eat or be eaten", evolution has no plan for living things but is simply an ongoing sorting and shifting of the primary genetic elements. Somtimes, but most often not, the slight changes in the organisms gene code give that organism an enhanced chance "not to be eaten" and to live on to convey its slightly modified genes to the next generation, this is simply what evolution is all about. Evolution (random the shifting of genes) and thus nature is simply a massive and ongoing experiment in change and sometimes sucessful adaption to enviromental changes. These changes can happen quickly due to the organisms multi-generational genetic responce to greater stress but mostly slowly over great periods of time and over hundreds - thousands of living (surviving) generations of an organisms family tree. The accumulated sequence of "sucessful" or even neutral genetic changes (which might become useful for the species survival later on) - what we call evolution is simply this ongoing  experiment, with no need for a master plan nor planner.
Such overt planners "controllers" simply are not needed and would in my opinion get in the way of how this remarkable random process works and has worked for 4 billion years on this planet.
ID DOES NOT BELONG IN OUR SCHOOLS. HOWEVER, JUST TO PLAY THE DEVILS ADVOCATE, CONSIDER THAT FOR THE HUMAN
BRAIN TO GATHER SOUND FROM THE OUTTER EAR AND PROCESS THE PROPER RESPONSE, MORE THAN 450 INTRICATE PROCESSES MUST OCCUR IN A FRACTION OF A SECOND.  
DO SOME RESEARCH AND YOU WILL BE AMAZED AT JUST HOW INCREDIBLE OUR ABILITY TO HEAR IS. SO I ASK YOU, SOMETHING THAT COMPLEX HAPPEND ACCIDENTLY?
JUST SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
There is no need for a conflict between science and religion so long as fuzzy-thinking nut-cases stop trying to use the tools of one to tinker with the other. Science can no more prove or disprove the existence of God with scientific methodology than theology can prove or disprove the existence or absence of the pi meson by means of faith. Why can't people quit trying to make AC motors run on DC current or vice versa? Won't happen in this lifetime.
Just think, if the bible, quran(sp), torrah or spiritual deities were never invented, then there wouldn't be any church, religion or intelligent design. However, I'm sure ID can be plausable if it doesn't have a religious overtone and it is PROVED by science.  If science proves that Captain Crunch created the universe, then I will believe it.  For now, keep all of this garbage in a church.
Let me get this straight.  I’m supposed to believe that:

1)The universe, finely tuned for advanced life, exploded into existence out of nothing without direction or design.

2)Given enough time, chemicals randomly assembled into amino acids, proteins, and long, data-rich strands of DNA that give instructions for the cell’s vital functions and duplication.

3)As a result of only the force of survival of the fittest, the “fittest” mutate into millions of different kinds of creatures of extraordinary variety, uniqueness, and complexity.

4)Somehow, in the jungles of Africa, while chasing game, the most complex of these creatures developed the ability to think abstractly, to create and enjoy music and art, to discern right from wrong, and to consider the greatest questions of all:  Where did I come from and where am I going?  These extraordinary minds came about only through monkeys plus random mutations.

Only a religious fanatic (of the materialist variety) really believes that these things happened by blind chance.  Make up your stories about multi-verses or flying spaghetti monsters and fire anyone who disagrees.  I choose to think for myself, thank you.
Most ID proponents say this, "We don't know how such and so came to be, THEREFORE, it MUST be a designer/god." This is a classic logical fallacy, and is most often referred to as the "god of the gaps." The logic doesn't follow. Just because you don't understand how A came to be, doesn't lead you to a logical conclusion of, "It must be because of B." B in this case is a hypothesis...not a theory. It's up to science to test that theory. So far, science has not been able to confirm the hypothesis of B (i.e., god) and categorize it as a Theory. The ID-ologues (did I just coined a phrase?) have no interest in following up on their hypothesis, and this is why ID/Creationism is not science.

By the way, the ID-ologues often misstate the position of atheists by saying that they KNOW their is no god. This is not quite right. A true atheist would not take this position. The true atheist position is that there in fact might be a god, but there is not a single shred of observable evidence for it. Additionally, the observations that we do have about the known universe suggests that a god is incredibly unlikely.
Mainstream Christianity is not the anti-intellectual overly dogmatic religion these vociferous ID proponents seem to want everyone to believe. These people are hung up on THEIR specific interpretation of the first few chapters of genesis, which Christian scholars throughout the ages have rejected. Genesis was never intended to be a scientific explanation for the origin of the world, it's not about the HOW it's about the who and why. Evolution is a theory, which in science means it's on par with the THEORY of gravity.

As both a Christian and scientist I would not want my children taught intelligent design as science, since it is not science and explains nothing. It's simply a negative construct: "we don't know how therefore, god/something must have done it". I believe both evolutionary theory AND the Bible are true. How about these "fundamentalists" actually stick to the fundamentals, say the person and work of Christ . . . and stop trying to put THEIR specific interpretation of Christianity into public schools.
Evolution is not a refuting of the presence of god.  The fear of the theists, whenever faced with science, is far better evidence that god does not exist.

Thanks for the response.  Justin, you say evolutionary biologists aren't out to prove or disprove God.  Fleming wasn't out to discover penecillin, but he did.  Evolution contradicts the Bible.  Plain and simple.  We can't have it both ways.  If evolution is true, sin and death come before the curse of Adam.  If the Bible is true, there was no death until about 6,000 years ago.  There is no way for there to be one or the other.Even if you try the day age theory thing, it contradicts Romans 5:12.
I know most evolutionists are not hardcore athiests, but the theory DOES contradict the Bible.
Again, most of the implications of the evolutionary theory in practical science agree with the theistic design.  That is why the 'evolutionary' advances in medicine, genetics, etc.. are possible.  It is the philosphical implications of evolution that CANNOT be swept under the rug that we are worried about.  Scientists, either knowingly or unknowingly, are pushing a philosophy that does speak against the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  
evolution debates make me laugh.  if you want to really have a debate, something materialistic science has no firm ground to stand on (and evolution in general IS on very firm ground by the way); take a look at BIOGENESIS.

neither side has the nerve to bring that topic to court.
Question: Did God create man or did man create God. I think it's the latter that happened which is why Shawn from Seattle keeps talking about believing in the Big Spaghetti Monster. Who ever you want to believe go ahead and enjoy. The atoms that made DNA weren't even made on earth. The Oxygen we breath, the calcium in our bones, the iron in our blood, nitrogen..all the elements needed for life were actually created inside a star. If you don't or can't believe in evolution, then study something beyond that. The creation of everything, not just life. Open up a book of modern physics and you'll see. Life is certainly not just existing in our planet. Microbes have been found in Mars!
Terry, you said, " For evolution to begin or continue without outside input violates the second law of thermodynamics.  That is the one that doesn't allow perpetual motion machines and other fun stuff that people imagine." As has been said so many times, but creationists keep ignoring, evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics are statements about the dynamics of energy, specifically heat (thermo), as all forms of energy ultimately covert to heat. The second law specifically states that there can be no net increase in available energy in an isolated system. Another way of stating it is that any process occurring in an isolated system will result in a reduction of available energy. That is why perpetual motion machines violate the second law. Order can increase in a system, even an isolated system, as long as there is energy available.  
If there is no intelligent design; no creator, then where did matter come from? Everything that is created is dependent upon something else to be created. From where then did matter originate, if not from an independent creator?  
It seems to me that the 2 questions beg different answers. The “could” or the “did”.

The unstudied answer of could a supreme being be behind evolution? Not a piece of evolution, but Darwinian evolution as it is understood in its scientific entirety… maybe. Empirical data cannot prove or disprove this question. I could subscribe to this line of thinking and I hold a BS in Molecular Biology from Southern Methodist University and a MS in Geoarchaeology from Eastern New Mexico. I have studied the science of the question in some depth and to this day can not rule out that some greater force was not behind it all.

As to the question of did a God create the earth 6000 years ago and populate it with 2 people? No, all of the empirical scientific data suggests other wise. The ID group seems to attack evolution on its fringes to try and disprove the theory that has held strong proof to the majority of the collected data. They also attack the very word “Theory” as to imply it is just an idea. There is a great article in the Nov. 2004 issue of National Geographic that helps explain in laymen’s terms the difference of theory, a scientific theory, and a scientific theory that holds proofs to observed data.

So the answer is clear… let science be taught in the public schools where Christmas is no longer even a holiday and ID in the church and if that does not satisfy you then there are plenty of religious private schools that shun evolution they would be happy to take any ID’r out there. Trust me I know… in looking for a private school for my daughter my first questions were “how old do you believe the earth is and how do you teach evolution?” ----   run!
All I can say is if the court approves intelligent design to be taught in schools as a science, I am leaving this country.  You all can continue to be the laughing stocks of the world by yourself.  This event will be so saddening to me that I will have lost all faith in humanity as intelligent beings.
Interestingly, the pro-Darwin "witness" Ken Miller is a Christian. He has written a book, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. I found that an excerpt of it is available online.
Strangely i get the feeling the creationist oops i mean the ID folks have the impression that evolution is a cognitive self-aware force directing the changes in life - a sort of anti-christ battling the ID folks view of the  christian - oops i mean ID driven universe. How amazing that a word has such power to challenge! Evolution is simply a word used to recognise the vast and random process of genetic change over time - usually a great deal of time! The mechanisim of sucessful evolutional genetic change relates to an individual organisim surviving and conveying to its decendents thoes sucessful genetic changes over thousands of generations. Thus evolution can only be viewed and described in the light of great spans of time, not from the prespective of the individual organism and its life span. Conversley from bibical records it seems God driven miracles are fast changing events that are intentionally directed too and have great effect on individuals and or masses of individuals. On the other hand, in evolution fast changing events  (like big floods) usually tend to kill off organisms and their local gene pool, thus reducing the individuals chance to survive and reproduce, and further limiting the diversity of the species gene pool - not a good thing! Thus the effect of evolutionary change can only be seen in the light of sucessful and sequencial increasing change to the surviving organisms who have managed to survive enviromental challenges, preditation and to sexually reproduced and transfer their inherited and changing genetic differences to sucessive generations of organism. Thus evolution is simply a word, a word describing an emense and ongoing biological mechanism effecting the long duration change to a specie, and simply cannot be compared to god induced (rapid) changes prescribed by miracles over the last 6000 years! But there again evolution is simply a fact of life.  
The simple fact that the earth is merely a microscopic speck of space dust in an unfathomably immense universe is solid proof that humans know squat about it.  So any arguments, pro or con, about origins, life or afterlife is a waste of time.
What the ID'ers are doing is trying to push their religion into the schools and say that theirs is the only faith that matters.  They just don't want you to know that.  If it were any other faith, they'd be saying that it's "anti-Christian" especially, IMHO, Judaism.  However, they need to get over their cognitive dissonance and move on.  You want to teach ID?  Fine.  Do it in the home or your house of worship.  DO NOT do it in the school, where all you want is to foist your beliefs on others.
What came first the chicken or the egg?  ID came first and set everything into motion.  On the first day God created the heavens and the earth (everything above and below.)  Man created science to understand all that God (ID) had created. Science is the evidence of ID. I believe in ID and I believe in evolution, but I don't believe that modern man evolved from apes.
Robert Reppy and Shawn, Seattle...  Well said.  I couldn't agree more.  Personally I am an atheist.  However, I have no issues with those that believe in god, or homosexuality, or any other controversial topic.  I do have issues with people trying to make me believe their perception of reality.  Keep personal beliefs, such as religion out of schools.  Let the children decide for themselves what they believe in.  Teach them science, math, English and grammar, Social Studies, etc...  

Just a side note, evolution doesn't always take a long time.  There were several studies done in the Canary Islands, on canaries of course, where they demonstrated changes can occur in the span of a single generation.  It's a matter of survival of the fittest.  Those that are unfit die, and therefore don't propagate their genetics.  Those that are strong, generally survive to reproduce and ensure the legacy of their genes.
I believe God created the first beings and designed the process of possible changes over time.  Evolution studies the process and trys to explain it.  I see no basic disagreement other than when did it all start.
Many great comments supporting the science of evolution, and the rejection of religion in the classroom.

Two more points:

The scientific method that has lead to the advances in evolution theory is the same scientific method that has lead to advances in material science, biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc.  It seems hypocritical to reject the science of evolution out of convenience, while accepting the advances and resulting gains in every other branch of science.  These gains are the driving force behind your car, microwave, medicines, and the computer you are reading this on.  If you are going to reject the science of evolution, then I challenge you to reject these other branches of science, and give up the advantages that they provide you.  You won’t have much left to work with.

Also, please consider why we practice separation of church and state in this country.  This practice guarantees your freedom to practice your religion as you wish, while also protecting my freedom to practice my religion as I wish, even though they be a little, or a lot, different from each other.  If you begin to teach even just a little religion in the schools, then you will be forced to determine exactly which religion(s) will be taught in the schools.  It doesn’t take too much imagination to see that this will be a much bigger problem than not teaching any religion at all in our schools.
Similar to the advocates of ID, the International Flat Earth Society,known as "Flat Earth Society", used both scripture and selective notions of logic to proclaim science a cult.

Do we not hear most every decade a religious proclamation of the apocalypse with given dates of the event. And thus so will the notion of ID rise and recede with the tides religious politics.

Bob Dobes


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=465175

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google