Judge Jones / new icon of science!
Lee Bowman
"Darwin on Trial". In a commentary by Brian Spitzer, (contributed
7/15/2002 to talkdesign.org) stated that, "Phillip E. Johnson is a
very good lawyer, but science doesn't need lawyers." Frankly, I'm not
sure they need judges, either. I reread Jude Jones' decision and have
a few issues with it.
Similar to the Cobb County decision ( CIVIL ACTION NO 1:02-CV-2325-CC)
of 1/13/05, there will be "no stickers allowed" in the books. One
difference I noted was that in the Cobbs ruling, the judge stated
that:
"...this case does not resolve the ongoing debate regarding whether
evolution is a fact or theory or whether evolution should be taught as
fact or theory."
Judge Jones, however, was a little more bold and assertive. While most
scientists state that the theory of evolution is in fact a theory, but
now we have a ruling from the bench that evolution is in fact 'fact'.
An excerpt from his decision (emphasis mine):
"Moreover, the objective student is presumed to know that encouraging
the teaching of evolution as a *theory* rather than as a *fact* is one
of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by
anti-evolutionists with religious motivations." He goes on to say:
"In summary, the disclaimer (sticker) singles out the theory of
evolution for special treatment, *misrepresents its status in the
scientific community*, causes students to doubt its validity without
scientific justification ... "
Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
"Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution", or simply admit that the
theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
processes), is now a proven fact.
A defense expert, Steven William Fuller made assertions that [it was]
"ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the
supernatural", and also admitting that "ID is a form of creationism".
IMHO, a more accurate depiction would be that 'Creationism is a subset
of Intelligent Design Theory, meaning that divine creation, as in the
Genesis account, or by any entity in any manner, is one of the
possible modalities of ID.'
Regarding the First Amendment 'Establishment Clause', the question
arose as to whether or not the clause would "harm the child (and
science)", by giving him the impression that the state was endorsing
religion, per se, rather than merely showing him an alternative theory
of origins. Well, what do you think? This is what Judge Jones
concluded:
"After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
strong official endorsement of religion."
He goes on to attack the language of the first (3) paragraphs of the
disclaimer as "undermining science", by stating that there are "gaps"
in evolutionary theory (well duh), and making mention of the fact that
it was *required* study material to pass the course (introducing a
negative aspect). He then used a 'colloquial' set of definitions of
'theory' to further emphasize its negative implications, by suggesting
that a "reasonable observer" would see evolution as a "highly
questionable 'opinion' or a 'hunch." Interesting, since here's a
definition of 'theory' I found on the first hit:
the·o·ry n., pl. the·o·ries. 1.a. "Systematically organized
knowledge, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles,
and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise
explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena."
He also pointed out that the students were directed to read, "Of
Pandas and People", which admittedly does have religious overtones
(agreed) , and that there was a statement telling the kids that "there
will be no other discussion of the issue, and your teachers will not
answer questions on the issue." The judge (and a plaintiff witness,
Dr Alter) said that "that introduced negative con nations" and that "a
reasonable student observer would conclude that ID is a kind of
'secret science' that students apparently can't discuss with their
science teacher", which he indicated is "pedagogically about as bad as
I could possibly think of." Why not simply state that to further
discuss that subject would be purely hypothetical, and could violate
the 'establishment clause'. In other words, wording of a disclaimer,
IMO, might simply state that Evolution is a theory about how we got
here, Intelligent Design another, and Creationism, i.e. the religious
view that we were created still another.
Macroevolution via Common Descent are concepts long held by science.
The belief that microevolution (adaptive responses to environmental
factors) is the same as macroevolution, but on a smaller scale, is
also held to be true. (disagree). If the disclaimer had been worded
differently, if the board members hadn't shown strong religious
leanings, if 'expert' witnesses from science were less brainwashed,
and if the judicial system wasn't bought and paid for by corporations
and money interests (universities), the outcome might have been
different. But due in large part to the 'establishment clause', and
humanists' push to liberally apply it, courts have historically kept
the mere mention of Intelligent Design far from students' ears. I'm
not talking teaching it. Just mentioning it could be cause for
termination.
Plaintiffs in this trial asserted, and the court agreed, that:
" ...courts have recognized that because students are more
impressionable than adults, they may be systematically less effective
than adults at recognizing when religious conduct is unofficial and
therefore permissible."
"To an impressionable student, even the mere appearance of secular
involvement in religious activities might indicate that the state has
placed its imprimatur (official stamp of approval) on a particular
religious creed."
"Accordingly, the objective student standard is a means to ensure that
courts exercise the particular vigilance that the Supreme Court has
mandated for protecting impressionable children from religious
messages that appear to carry official imprimatur; it is not a tool
for excluding or ignoring material evidence."
Oh my goodness, we must protect our impressionable children! And
finally, the most absurd conclusion of all:
"After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
strong official endorsement of religion."
You know the outcome. Science was saved!
My view is that the debate isn't over. In fact, it's heating up. I
see renewed discourse and impassioned discussion on origin forums and
newsgroups, while scientists continue their research. I feel that
computer modeling could prove evolution but simulating the process
over hours, rather than eons. Failure to achieve that would point in
the other direction.
If there is a creator, he/she/it/they has/have elected to stay hidden
from view, probably to require a person to possess faith to believe,
and perhaps to keep from intimidating us by 'his/their/its'
presence. Why stay hidden??
Well, duh ... If you looked up and saw a face in the clouds watching
you how would you feel?
'School Text Disclaimer' or not, the question of our true origins will
not go away, and is perhaps the most compelling question one can ask.
Belief in evolution as 'fact', without empirical evidence (computer
modeling may be the only way), is in itself, more of a religious view
than a belief in a creator, separate designer and DNA tweaker, of
alien designers, or other causes.
I will leave you with that. Now come get me!
Lee
Lee Bowman
> . . . . . The judge (and a plaintiff witness,
>Dr Alter) said that "that introduced negative con nations"
should read:
>Dr Alter) said that "that introduced negative connotations"
Hmmmm . . . . . maybe we *are* conning nations . . . . .
Dan Luke
"Lee Bowman" wrote:
[big snip]
> Belief in evolution as 'fact', without empirical evidence (computer
> modeling may be the only way), is in itself, more of a religious view
> than a belief in a creator,
Why "*more*" of a religious view?
Anyway, your handwaving does not invalidate the massive empirical evidence
for evolution, so that kind of lets all the wind out of your assertion,
doesn't it?
--
Dan
"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire
Dunc Harris
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
The rest of it goes downhill from that misunderstanding onwards.
Richard Forrest
You seem confused.
It is a fact that evolution happens.
Evolutionary theory explain how it happens.
However, in science classes the only one which can be taught is
evolution, because the others are not science.
>
> Macroevolution via Common Descent are concepts long held by science.
> The belief that microevolution (adaptive responses to environmental
> factors) is the same as macroevolution, but on a smaller scale, is
> also held to be true.
Not universally, though my personal view is that they are.
>(disagree).
If you have any scientific argument (i.e. one based on the evidence,
not mere assertion) that they are different, please present it. I
should add that I have come across no such argument from anyone in the
creationist fold.
>If the disclaimer had been worded
> differently, if the board members hadn't shown strong religious
> leanings, if 'expert' witnesses from science were less brainwashed,
As a matter of curiosity, who did this "brainwashing"? As used during
the cold war, brainwashing involved pretty drastic intervention -
sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, violence, drugs and so on. Who
did this to the expert witnesses?
Incidentally, your use of quotation marks around the word "expert"
suggests that they are not actually experts in their field. Why do you
think that this is the case?
> and if the judicial system wasn't bought and paid for by corporations
> and money interests (universities), the outcome might have been
> different.
That's a pretty damning view of the US legal system. Do you honestly
think that Universities are using their budgets to bribe lawyers into
giving the judgement they want?
>But due in large part to the 'establishment clause', and
> humanists' push to liberally apply it, courts have historically kept
> the mere mention of Intelligent Design far from students' ears. I'm
> not talking teaching it. Just mentioning it could be cause for
> termination.
And you have evidence to support this assertion, I guess. As far as I
am aware, there is no barrier to it being mentioned in classes on
comparitive religion, philosophy or even science, so long as it is made
clear that it is not a scientific theory.
>
> Plaintiffs in this trial asserted, and the court agreed, that:
>
> " ...courts have recognized that because students are more
> impressionable than adults, they may be systematically less effective
> than adults at recognizing when religious conduct is unofficial and
> therefore permissible."
>
> "To an impressionable student, even the mere appearance of secular
> involvement in religious activities might indicate that the state has
> placed its imprimatur (official stamp of approval) on a particular
> religious creed."
>
> "Accordingly, the objective student standard is a means to ensure that
> courts exercise the particular vigilance that the Supreme Court has
> mandated for protecting impressionable children from religious
> messages that appear to carry official imprimatur; it is not a tool
> for excluding or ignoring material evidence."
>
> Oh my goodness, we must protect our impressionable children!
The parents, and the ministers of their churches can teach the kids
anything they want outside school hours, of which there are rather more
than the few hours per week at most spent on teaching science. If they
can't persuade (and far be it from me to use the word "brainwash")
their kids that creationism is the truth, why do you think that
preventing ID being taught as science (which by the admision of Michael
Behe it isn't) should have such a profound influence?
>And
> finally, the most absurd conclusion of all:
>
> "After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
> we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
> strong official endorsement of religion."
>
Why is this absurd? It's no more than the truth. ID has no scientific
support, and as Barbara Forrest demonstrated so clearly during the
trial, their "textbook", "Pandas and People" is no more than a
creationist tract with the names changed.
> You know the outcome. Science was saved!
Far from it. Science is still under attack from organisations whose aim
is to subvert the nature of science. This was just a minor victory.
>
> My view is that the debate isn't over. In fact, it's heating up. I
> see renewed discourse and impassioned discussion on origin forums and
> newsgroups, while scientists continue their research. I feel that
> computer modeling could prove evolution but simulating the process
> over hours, rather than eons.
Yet none of the scientists who are doing that research are testing any
hypothesis of intelligent design, not even those from the Discovery
Institute.
I wonder if you can explain why that is the case?
>Failure to achieve that would point in
> the other direction.
As such computer simulations have been highly successful, I guess that
you will concede that the mechanisms of evolution are supported by that
as well as the reams of other evidence.
>
> If there is a creator, he/she/it/they has/have elected to stay hidden
> from view, probably to require a person to possess faith to believe,
> and perhaps to keep from intimidating us by 'his/their/its'
> presence. Why stay hidden??
>
> Well, duh ... If you looked up and saw a face in the clouds watching
> you how would you feel?
>
> 'School Text Disclaimer' or not, the question of our true origins will
> not go away, and is perhaps the most compelling question one can ask.
> Belief in evolution as 'fact', without empirical evidence (computer
> modeling may be the only way),
What's wrong with the evidence for evolution that scientists knew about
before computers were even a twinkle in Percy Flowers' eye? It has
satisfied the scientists who actually do the research. Why do you think
they are wrong?
Perhaps you could review all the evidence for evolution, and suggest a
different testable hypothesis which explains the evidence as thoroughly
and exhaustively as does evolutionary theory.
>is in itself, more of a religious view
> than a belief in a creator, separate designer and DNA tweaker, of
> alien designers, or other causes.
>
Could you explain to us how a theory grounded on evidence, developed
from the evidence, which can be falsified by the evidence and which is
accepted by people of many different religious persuasions as a
scientific theory can be called a religion?
And perhaps you could explain how the assertion that if we don't know
all the answers "God I mean an intelligent designer did it" is an
acceptable scientific answer rather than a statement of religious
conviction?
RF
Lee Bowman
wrote:
>For a start, you can learn what a scientific theory is:
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
>The rest of it goes downhill from that misunderstanding onwards.
>
I know what the scientific method entails. Some things aren't
testable that way. I do feel, however, that computer modeling may be
useful.
TomS
<4423d3b2...@news.west.cox.net>, Lee Bowman stated..."
[...snip...]
>Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
>"Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution", or simply admit that the
>theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
>processes), is now a proven fact.
Thank you for stating the fallacy in quite obvious terms.
I am speaking of the fallacy that an expression like "the theory
of X" means that X is a theory.
If that were true, then "the theory of flight" would mean that
flight is only a theory. "The theory of the earth" would mean that
the earth is only a theory. "The theory of antennas" would mean
that antennas are only a theory.
Of course, "the theory of X" refers to a theory which explains
the phenomenon (or reality, or fact) X.
To put it in the language of grammar, "the theory of X" is
not an appositive. It isn't like "the city of Chicago", which
is refers to the city which is Chicago. "The theory of X" uses an
objective "of". Look that up in a grammar.
Oh, just one more thing. The idea that an elephant comes from
a single cell is studied by developmental biology. The ideology
that questions that natural process is Scientific Storkism.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Robert Carnegie
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Lee Bowman wrote:
> > a disclaimer,
> > IMO, might simply state that Evolution is a theory about how we got
> > here, Intelligent Design another, and Creationism, i.e. the religious
> > view that we were created still another.
>
> However, in science classes the only one which can be taught is
> evolution, because the others are not science.
I wouldn't make school subject divisions absolute. If you can't do
some maths in a science class, for instance, things get difficult.
However, creationism has no place in a science class except as
picturesque colour, or as an description of how people can find
themselves believing something that ain't so.
CreateThis
> ... I reread Jude Jones' decision and have a few issues with it.
Liar. You 'had issues with it' before you read it.
> Similar to the Cobb County decision ( CIVIL ACTION NO 1:02-CV-2325-CC)
> of 1/13/05, there will be "no stickers allowed" in the books. One
> difference I noted was that in the Cobbs ruling, the judge stated
> that:
>
> "...this case does not resolve the ongoing debate regarding whether
> evolution is a fact or theory or whether evolution should be taught as
> fact or theory."
>
> Judge Jones, however, was a little more bold and assertive. While most
> scientists state that the theory of evolution is in fact a theory
IDiots say evolution is *just* a theory. That's two lies: (1)
Evolution is a fact. (2) The Theory of Evolution is a *scientific*
theory, but not 'just a theory'.
[...]
> Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
> "Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution", or simply admit that the
> theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
> processes), is now a proven fact.
You can do whatever you want. It will only substantiate the *fact* that
everything IDiots say and do is lies. This post is a good example.
[...]
> IMHO, a more accurate depiction would be that 'Creationism is a subset
> of Intelligent Design Theory, meaning that divine creation, as in the
> Genesis account, or by any entity in any manner, is one of the
> possible modalities of ID.'
Why would we take a lying IDiot's word for what's 'more accurate'? 'One
of the possible modalities'? LOL.
[snip remainder of lying nonsense]
CT
Sverker Johansson
[snip]
> Similar to the Cobb County decision ( CIVIL ACTION NO 1:02-CV-2325-CC)
> of 1/13/05, there will be "no stickers allowed" in the books. One
> difference I noted was that in the Cobbs ruling, the judge stated
> that:
>
> "...this case does not resolve the ongoing debate regarding whether
> evolution is a fact or theory or whether evolution should be taught as
> fact or theory."
>
> Judge Jones, however, was a little more bold and assertive. While most
> scientists state that the theory of evolution is in fact a theory, but
> now we have a ruling from the bench that evolution is in fact 'fact'.
> An excerpt from his decision (emphasis mine):
>
> "Moreover, the objective student is presumed to know that encouraging
> the teaching of evolution as a *theory* rather than as a *fact* is one
> of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by
> anti-evolutionists with religious motivations." He goes on to say:
>
> "In summary, the disclaimer (sticker) singles out the theory of
> evolution for special treatment, *misrepresents its status in the
> scientific community*, causes students to doubt its validity without
> scientific justification ... "
>
> Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
> "Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution", or simply admit that the
> theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
> processes), is now a proven fact.
The "just a theory" objection to evolution exploits the difference
between how the word "theory" is used in everyday contexts
and how it is used in scientific contexts. The theory of evolution
is a theory in the scientific sense (close enough to your definition
below), but it is very far from being a theory in the everyday
sense (unproven speculation).
Students are likely to interpret the word theory in its everyday
sense when reading such a disclaimer. Thus, as the judge
_correctly_ noted, the disclaimer leads the students down the
garden path to unreasonable doubt about the scientific
status of evolution.
Either you are totally confused yourself about the different
meanings of the word, or you, too, are intentionally exploiting its
double meaning in your post in order to confuse the issue.
> A defense expert, Steven William Fuller made assertions that [it was]
> "ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the
> supernatural", and also admitting that "ID is a form of creationism".
>
> IMHO, a more accurate depiction would be that 'Creationism is a subset
> of Intelligent Design Theory, meaning that divine creation, as in the
> Genesis account, or by any entity in any manner, is one of the
> possible modalities of ID.'
This description might have been more accurate if the IDeologists had
actually intended ID to be anything but a front for creationism.
As Judge Jones also noted, the IDeologists of Dover blatantly
attempted to conceal their religious motivations and funding.
Stealth creationism, nothing but.
> Regarding the First Amendment 'Establishment Clause', the question
> arose as to whether or not the clause would "harm the child (and
> science)", by giving him the impression that the state was endorsing
> religion, per se, rather than merely showing him an alternative theory
> of origins. Well, what do you think? This is what Judge Jones
> concluded:
>
> "After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
> we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
> strong official endorsement of religion."
>
> He goes on to attack the language of the first (3) paragraphs of the
> disclaimer as "undermining science", by stating that there are "gaps"
> in evolutionary theory (well duh), and making mention of the fact that
> it was *required* study material to pass the course (introducing a
> negative aspect). He then used a 'colloquial' set of definitions of
> 'theory' to further emphasize its negative implications, by suggesting
> that a "reasonable observer" would see evolution as a "highly
> questionable 'opinion' or a 'hunch." Interesting, since here's a
> definition of 'theory' I found on the first hit:
>
> the·o·ry n., pl. the·o·ries. 1.a. "Systematically organized
> knowledge, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles,
> and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise
> explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena."
Here you go again, exploiting the double sense of "theory".
When you searched for a definition, it cannot have escaped
your notice that 1a isn't the only definition. Most dictionary
definitions of 'theory' also include something like:
"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
conjecture."
Both your definition and this one are found on the same page
at http://66.161.12.81/search?q=theory
How come you quoted only the one that suited your purposes?
[snip]
> IMO, might simply state that Evolution is a theory about how we got
> here, Intelligent Design another, and Creationism, i.e. the religious
> view that we were created still another.
Even you ought to see that this would be a blatant violation
of church-state separation, according religious notions the same
status as a bona fide scientific theory.
[snip]
> And
> finally, the most absurd conclusion of all:
>
> "After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
> we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
> strong official endorsement of religion."
What's absurd about it. It is eminently clear from the court
proceedings that endorsement of religion was the intent
of the school board.
> You know the outcome. Science was saved!
>
> My view is that the debate isn't over. In fact, it's heating up. I
> see renewed discourse and impassioned discussion on origin forums and
> newsgroups, while scientists continue their research.
Exactly! Scientists do research; IDeologists just talk about it.
> I feel that
> computer modeling could prove evolution but simulating the process
> over hours, rather than eons. Failure to achieve that would point in
> the other direction.
Certainly. This has been done, for the limited systems that are
computationally realistic. One example is the evolution of eye optics:
Nilsson, D-E & and Pelger, S (1994) 'A pessimistic estimate of the
time required for an eye to evolve.', Proc R Soc London, B256:55-58
Works just fine.
> If there is a creator, he/she/it/they has/have elected to stay hidden
> from view, probably to require a person to possess faith to believe,
> and perhaps to keep from intimidating us by 'his/their/its'
> presence. Why stay hidden??
>
> Well, duh ... If you looked up and saw a face in the clouds watching
> you how would you feel?
>
> 'School Text Disclaimer' or not, the question of our true origins will
> not go away, and is perhaps the most compelling question one can ask.
> Belief in evolution as 'fact', without empirical evidence (computer
> modeling may be the only way), is in itself, more of a religious view
> than a belief in a creator, separate designer and DNA tweaker, of
> alien designers, or other causes.
You didn't bother to actually check for empirical evidence, did you?
> I will leave you with that. Now come get me!
Playing not very hard to get, are you?
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Science: Truth without certainty
Creationism: Certainty without truth
Wakboth
Lee Bowman kirjoitti:
[snip most of the posting]
> Belief in evolution as 'fact', without empirical evidence (computer
> modeling may be the only way), is in itself, more of a religious view
> than a belief in a creator, separate designer and DNA tweaker, of
> alien designers, or other causes.
You're lucky, then, that we have plenty of empirical evidence of common
descent and speciation. I suggest you look here, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
-- Wakboth
Harry K
Lee Bowman wrote:
> Phillip E. Johnson had been attacked for the views put forth in
> "Darwin on Trial". In a commentary by Brian Spitzer, (contributed
> 7/15/2002 to talkdesign.org) stated that, "Phillip E. Johnson is a
> very good lawyer, but science doesn't need lawyers." Frankly, I'm not
> sure they need judges, either. I reread Jude Jones' decision and have
> a few issues with it.
>
> Similar to the Cobb County decision ( CIVIL ACTION NO 1:02-CV-2325-CC)
> of 1/13/05, there will be "no stickers allowed" in the books. One
> difference I noted was that in the Cobbs ruling, the judge stated
> that:
>
> "...this case does not resolve the ongoing debate regarding whether
> evolution is a fact or theory or whether evolution should be taught as
> fact or theory."
>
> Judge Jones, however, was a little more bold and assertive. While most
> scientists state that the theory of evolution is in fact a theory, but
> now we have a ruling from the bench that evolution is in fact 'fact'.
> An excerpt from his decision (emphasis mine):
>
> Lee
Others have also pointed out your outright lies.
There was no need to read any further than the above to know that this
gets filed in the round file.
There is no reputable scientist who has any expertise in evolution that
would claim evolution is not a fact. There are two parts of scientific
study.
What happened = FACT
How did it happen = THEORY that attempst to explain the fact.
Evolution happened, it is happening today and that is a fact. Get over
it.
Harry K
Roger Tang
> On 24 Mar 2006 04:59:27 -0800, "Dunc Harris" <dunc_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For a start, you can learn what a scientific theory is:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>>
>> The rest of it goes downhill from that misunderstanding onwards.
>>
>
> I know what the scientific method entails.
Well, perhaps you should write so that you could show that.
Far as I can tell, at best, you're being extremely sloppy and
imprecise in your words, mixing the scientific use with the colloquial.
Dave
> [...]
> If there is a creator, he/she/it/they has/have elected to stay hidden
> from view, probably to require a person to possess faith to believe,
> and perhaps to keep from intimidating us by 'his/their/its'
> presence. Why stay hidden??
No, not only stay hidden but actively deceive. The Biblical account of
creation DOES NOT AGREE with what we see. Would God actively deceive
us? Most scientists believe the evidence and presume that the Biblical
account of creation is in error. That doesn't make scientists into
atheists. A much more natural and defensible viewpoint is to presume
that God's moment of creation was the "Big Bang" and that afterward
everything has developed according to the laws which God built into the
fabric of the universe.
This does not sit well with fundamentalists who demand a "hands on"
type of God who sends plagues and famines and floods, like a vain
despot, in agreement with the portrayal in the Old Testament. Nature,
red in tooth and claw, seems to reveal an inactive and uncaring God
patiently waiting for creation to unfold, while fundamentalists prefer
an active, angry and punishing God.
Von R. Smith
Lee Bowman wrote:
<snip>
>
> Judge Jones, however, was a little more bold and assertive. While most
> scientists state that the theory of evolution is in fact a theory, but
> now we have a ruling from the bench that evolution is in fact 'fact'.
> An excerpt from his decision (emphasis mine):
>
> "Moreover, the objective student is presumed to know that encouraging
> the teaching of evolution as a *theory* rather than as a *fact* is one
> of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by
> anti-evolutionists with religious motivations." He goes on to say:
>
> "In summary, the disclaimer (sticker) singles out the theory of
> evolution for special treatment, *misrepresents its status in the
> scientific community*, causes students to doubt its validity without
> scientific justification ... "
>
> Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
> "Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution", or simply admit that the
> theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
> processes), is now a proven fact.
There is no dichotomy between saying that evolution is a well-supported
fact and that there is a theory about it, just as there is no dichotomy
between saying that gravity is a well-supported fact and that there is
a Theory of Gravity, or between saying that it is a well-supported fact
that people play games and that there is Game Theory. The only way
that there is a conflict is if we use the term "theory" in a colloquial
sense meaning something like "unsupported hunch". More on that below.
>
> A defense expert, Steven William Fuller made assertions that [it was]
> "ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the
> supernatural", and also admitting that "ID is a form of creationism".
>
> IMHO, a more accurate depiction would be that 'Creationism is a subset
> of Intelligent Design Theory, meaning that divine creation, as in the
> Genesis account, or by any entity in any manner, is one of the
> possible modalities of ID.'
When did a statement that encompasses "any entity" doing something "in
any manner" become a theory, as opposed to vacuous hand-waving?
Unless, of course, you are using theory in the colloquial sense of
"hunch".
And speaking of which...
<snip>
> He then used a 'colloquial' set of definitions of
> 'theory' to further emphasize its negative implications, by suggesting
> that a "reasonable observer" would see evolution as a "highly
> questionable 'opinion' or a 'hunch." Interesting, since here's a
> definition of 'theory' I found on the first hit:
>
> the·o·ry n., pl. the·o·ries. 1.a. "Systematically organized
> knowledge, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles,
> and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise
> explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena."
I find it telling that you would complain about Judge Jones' point
here, when as we have seen above you presented another objection that
preys on precisely this equivocation on the word "theory", namely, your
suggestion that there is some dichotomy between saying that there is a
Fact of Evolution and that there is a Theory about it.
<snip>
> In other words, wording of a disclaimer,
> IMO, might simply state that Evolution is a theory about how we got
> here, Intelligent Design another, and Creationism, i.e. the religious
> view that we were created still another.
By the definition of theory you yourself presented above, no, ID and
Creationism aren't theories, are they? Saying that "any entity" could
have designed life "in any manner" is hardly
"systematically organized knowledge, especially a system of
assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to
analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a
specified set of phenomena"
is it?
<snip>
> I feel that
> computer modeling could prove evolution but simulating the process
> over hours, rather than eons.
They have. The IDers still aren't happy.
<snip>
> If there is a creator, he/she/it/they has/have elected to stay hidden
> from view, probably to require a person to possess faith to believe,
> and perhaps to keep from intimidating us by 'his/their/its'
> presence. Why stay hidden??
>
> Well, duh ... If you looked up and saw a face in the clouds watching
> you how would you feel?
Note that this doesn't answer the question. Why should we suppose that
anything the designer did be motivated by how *we* would feel about it?
>
> 'School Text Disclaimer' or not, the question of our true origins will
> not go away, and is perhaps the most compelling question one can ask.
> Belief in evolution as 'fact', without empirical evidence (computer
> modeling may be the only way), is in itself, more of a religious view
> than a belief in a creator, separate designer and DNA tweaker, of
> alien designers, or other causes.
Evolution has plenty of empirical evidence to support it, to include
computer modeling. We can discuss it, if you like. I especially like
the evidence of shared transposons in human and other primate genomes.
Even if evolution didn't have evidence for it, that would merely make
it an unsupported view, not a religious one. Unless, of course, you
wish to suggest that "religious" and "baseless" ought to be used as
synonyms.
David H.
<snip>
> This does not sit well with fundamentalists who demand a "hands on"
> type of God who sends plagues and famines and floods, like a vain
> despot, in agreement with the portrayal in the Old Testament. Nature,
> red in tooth and claw, seems to reveal an inactive and uncaring God
> patiently waiting for creation to unfold, while fundamentalists prefer
> an active, angry and punishing God.
>
>
For that very reason, I have always thought we would find a
disproportionate number of fundamentalists in their boxers, blindfolded,
under the heel of a leather bikini-clad redhead with a whip.
David H.
Lee Bowman
>> Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
>> "Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution", or simply admit that the
>> theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
>> processes), is now a proven fact.
>
>The "just a theory" objection to evolution exploits the difference
>between how the word "theory" is used in everyday contexts
>and how it is used in scientific contexts. The theory of evolution
>is a theory in the scientific sense (close enough to your definition
>below), but it is very far from being a theory in the everyday
>sense (unproven speculation).
>
>Students are likely to interpret the word theory in its everyday
>sense when reading such a disclaimer. Thus, as the judge
>_correctly_ noted, the disclaimer leads the students down the
>garden path to unreasonable doubt about the scientific
>status of evolution.
>
>Either you are totally confused yourself about the different
>meanings of the word, or you, too, are intentionally exploiting its
>double meaning in your post in order to confuse the issue.
Ah, semantics. Which (if any) definition of 'theory' is proper here
aside, my point was that (1) Judge Jones stated that macroevolution
was completely established as fact, and (2) We dare not even suggest
that it might be false. The argument that due to dual meanings of the
word 'theory', we must not use that term in defining evolution before
a student. I disagree. When words are ambiguous, follow the word
with a clarification of its meaning. (the Theory of Evolution, i.e.
a verifiable assumption based on accepted principles and rules of
scientific procedure, .... ) or some such.
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
>> finally, the most absurd conclusion of all:
>>
>> "After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
>> we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
>> strong official endorsement of religion."
>
>What's absurd about it. It is eminently clear from the court
>proceedings that endorsement of religion was the intent
>of the school board.
Yes, true of *that* school board, but they do no represent the ID
community in toto; only a segment of it.
>> I feel that
>> computer modeling could prove evolution but simulating the process
>> over hours, rather than eons. Failure to achieve that would point in
>> the other direction.
>
>Certainly. This has been done, for the limited systems that are
>computationally realistic. One example is the evolution of eye optics:
>Nilsson, D-E & and Pelger, S (1994) 'A pessimistic estimate of the
>time required for an eye to evolve.', Proc R Soc London, B256:55-58
>Works just fine.
Their study, and Dawkins praising of it, falls flat. There have been
many criticisms, including (1) that it only addresses lense and
partial retina formation, (2) that it assumes a preexistent photo
recepter cell in a flat matrix, (3) that assumptions, based on a
guess, are made regarding the mutation rate, (4) that it assumed a
high percentage of favorable mutations, and other criticisms. The
study did not address other relevant mechanisms of the eye, including
blood and nerve interfacing of the retina, iris formation and
functionality, variable refractive index of the lense to minimize
aberations, data processing of first light, then images, or of
focusing, and support and aiming structures.
Interesting that a criticism of their study should appear on
talkreason.org. David Belinski, Ph.D. in philosophy with
postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics and molecular biology
debunks it on multiple points.
http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=293
As I and others have stated, macroevolution cannot be empirically
verified in the laboratory by duplicating the actual process leading
to complex structures, but it *may* be possible with computer
modeling. According to Belinski, Nilsson's work was *not* computer
modeling of the complete process. Actual modeling to duplicate the
alleged evolutionary process will be very complex and demanding of
equipment and personnel. It may take years to complete. I would like
to know of any current studies being done.
regards,
Lee Bowman
Dave
<snip>
> If there is a creator, he/she/it/they has/have elected to stay hidden
> from view, probably to require a person to possess faith to believe,
> and perhaps to keep from intimidating us by 'his/their/its'
> presence. Why stay hidden??
>
> Well, duh ... If you looked up and saw a face in the clouds watching
> you how would you feel?
Are you stupid? BTW, that's a rhetorical question.
I can only look at this stupid argument through the eyes of a human.
Since we were made in the creator's image... Who can keep their fingers
out of the batter when they make a cake? Who can sit by and let their
offspring have no interaction while they grow?
If the creator makes us question its existence by providing no/zero
evidence of its existence then the creator exists. If the creator makes
us question its existence then it exists because it made us question its
existence.
If we are intimidated into believing then we don't believe. But isn't
that what zealots do, try to intimidate 'non-believers.' Sounds like
the Chewbacca defense. If it doesn't make sense then God exists.
If I looked up and saw God in the clouds watching, I would believe in
creation and not evolution. How stupid can you be? God really doesn't
want people to believe because he won't show himself. Just think how
easy it would be for everyone to believe if God would rear his head.
There would be no question as to believing in God. But since God has
never reared his head how can you believe? I'm sure you believe in
unicorns and leprechauns and fairies and fades and El Chupacabra and
other supernatural things too. Just because no one has ever seen them
and there's no physical evidence of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Right?
Lee Bowman
>
>Are you stupid? BTW, that's a rhetorical question.
Actually, yet. I should be out working. That aside, I feel compelled
to dwell here occasionally. I welcome criticism, even ad hominem
attacks. Constructive criticism doesn't fall on blind eyes, and I
welcome it.
>I can only look at this stupid argument through the eyes of a human.
>Since we were made in the creator's image... Who can keep their fingers
>out of the batter when they make a cake? Who can sit by and let their
>offspring have no interaction while they grow?
>
>If the creator makes us question its existence by providing no/zero
>evidence of its existence then the creator exists. If the creator makes
>us question its existence then it exists because it made us question its
>existence.
It's called faith, I believe. We got here somehow, and were aparently
given free will and autonomy. There's plenty of evidence of creation
- it's up to us whether to believe it or not.
>If we are intimidated into believing then we don't believe. But isn't
>that what zealots do, try to intimidate 'non-believers.' Sounds like
>the Chewbacca defense. If it doesn't make sense then God exists.
>
>If I looked up and saw God in the clouds watching, I would believe in
>creation and not evolution. How stupid can you be? God really doesn't
>want people to believe because he won't show himself. Just think how
>easy it would be for everyone to believe if God would rear his head.
This way, choice is involved.
>There would be no question as to believing in God. But since God has
>never reared his head how can you believe? I'm sure you believe in
>unicorns and leprechauns and fairies and fades and El Chupacabra and
>other supernatural things too. Just because no one has ever seen them
>and there's no physical evidence of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
> Right?
There may well be spirit beings of all kinds 'out there'. Or maybe
not.
er...@swva.net
> Phillip E. Johnson had been attacked for the views put forth in
> "Darwin on Trial". In a commentary by Brian Spitzer, (contributed
> 7/15/2002 to talkdesign.org) stated that, "Phillip E. Johnson is a
> very good lawyer, but science doesn't need lawyers." Frankly, I'm not
> sure they need judges, either. I reread Jude Jones' decision and have
> a few issues with it.
>
> Similar to the Cobb County decision ( CIVIL ACTION NO 1:02-CV-2325-CC)
> of 1/13/05, there will be "no stickers allowed" in the books. One
> difference I noted was that in the Cobbs ruling, the judge stated
> that:
>
> "...this case does not resolve the ongoing debate regarding whether
> evolution is a fact or theory or whether evolution should be taught as
> fact or theory."
>
> Judge Jones, however, was a little more bold and assertive. While most
> scientists state that the theory of evolution is in fact a theory, but
> now we have a ruling from the bench that evolution is in fact 'fact'.
You are making a big mistake, apparently as part of your
misunderstanding the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact." The
theory of evolution is, just like the name says, a theory. Evolution
itself, the thing that the Theory of Evolution is a theory _of_, is
evidently (i.e., what the evidence shows) a fact. It is hard to give
you the benefit of the doubt when you make such a big and already
oft-mentioned error.
> An excerpt from his decision (emphasis mine):
>
> "Moreover, the objective student is presumed to know that encouraging
> the teaching of evolution as a *theory* rather than as a *fact* is one
> of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by
> anti-evolutionists with religious motivations."
What? You think Judge Jones is not telling the truth here? Just read
the trial transcripts.
> He goes on to say:
>
> "In summary, the disclaimer (sticker) singles out the theory of
> evolution for special treatment, *misrepresents its status in the
> scientific community*, causes students to doubt its validity without
> scientific justification ... "
>
And what is your problem with that? That's exactly what the trial
revealed. He would not have been honest to have found for the
defendants.
> Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
> "Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution",
Dishonest baloney on your part. Theories and facts are different kinds
of things, and your statement is a snide and dishonest attempt to trick
people about it. Heaven forbid that cretionists and IDers read the
report and be chastened for their low behavior.
> or simply admit that the
> theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
> processes), is now a proven fact.
More baloney. Science is not about proven facts, it's about the best
explanation for the evidence. It's a fact that evolution happened, and
the theory is all about trying to account for it.
>
> A defense expert, Steven William Fuller made assertions that [it was]
> "ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the
> supernatural", and also admitting that "ID is a form of creationism".
>
> IMHO, a more accurate depiction would be that 'Creationism is a subset
> of Intelligent Design Theory, meaning that divine creation, as in the
> Genesis account, or by any entity in any manner, is one of the
> possible modalities of ID.'
>
> Regarding the First Amendment 'Establishment Clause', the question
> arose as to whether or not the clause would "harm the child (and
> science)", by giving him the impression that the state was endorsing
> religion, per se, rather than merely showing him an alternative theory
> of origins. Well, what do you think?
Sure it would, otherwise why pick _one_ supernatural explanation over
any of the other explanations for which there is no evidence?
> This is what Judge Jones
> concluded:
>
> "After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
> we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
> strong official endorsement of religion."
>
> He goes on to attack the language of the first (3) paragraphs of the
> disclaimer as "undermining science", by stating that there are "gaps"
> in evolutionary theory (well duh), and
Right. If it wasn't a dishonest religious ploy, the disclaimer would
just as likely have mentioned some other area of science, maybe one
that actually has big gaps insted of minor quibbles. The fact that it
is an attempt to "separate evolution from the herd of science" is a
smoking gun that the whole thing is backed by and serving the purposes
of fundamentalist religion, and has no real benefit to science or
education.
> making mention of the fact that
> it was *required* study material to pass the course (introducing a
> negative aspect). He then used a 'colloquial' set of definitions of
> 'theory' to further emphasize its negative implications, by suggesting
> that a "reasonable observer" would see evolution as a "highly
> questionable 'opinion' or a 'hunch." Interesting, since here's a
> definition of 'theory' I found on the first hit:
Instead of quibbling with dictionary quotes, why don't try to tell us
with a straight face that you don't think the disclaimer about the
theory of evolution would sow doubts about evolution, which is exactly
what the quote of Judge Jones says.
>
> the·o·ry n., pl. the·o·ries. 1.a. "Systematically organized
> knowledge, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles,
> and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise
> explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena."
>
> He also pointed out that the students were directed to read, "Of
> Pandas and People", which admittedly does have religious overtones
> (agreed) , and that there was a statement telling the kids that "there
> will be no other discussion of the issue, and your teachers will not
> answer questions on the issue." The judge (and a plaintiff witness,
> Dr Alter) said that "that introduced negative con nations" and that "a
> reasonable student observer would conclude that ID is a kind of
> 'secret science' that students apparently can't discuss with their
> science teacher", which he indicated is "pedagogically about as bad as
> I could possibly think of." Why not simply state that to further
> discuss that subject would be purely hypothetical, and could violate
> the 'establishment clause'. In other words, wording of a disclaimer,
> IMO, might simply state that Evolution is a theory about how we got
> here, Intelligent Design another,
> and Creationism, i.e. the religious
> view that we were created still another.
>
That would be a lie, since it would imply that in science it is OK for
theories to have no basis in fact, which is the case with ID and
creationism. In other words, they have no coherent theory to them,
they are just a bunch of complaints about evolution.
> Macroevolution via Common Descent are concepts long held by science.
> The belief that microevolution (adaptive responses to environmental
> factors) is the same as macroevolution, but on a smaller scale, is
> also held to be true. (disagree). If the disclaimer had been worded
> differently, if the board members hadn't shown strong religious
> leanings, if 'expert' witnesses from science were less brainwashed,
> and if the judicial system wasn't bought and paid for by corporations
> and money interests (universities), the outcome might have been
> different. But due in large part to the 'establishment clause', and
> humanists' push to liberally apply it, courts have historically kept
> the mere mention of Intelligent Design far from students' ears. I'm
> not talking teaching it. Just mentioning it could be cause for
> termination.
Do you want ID mentioned honestly? The teacher would be honor-bound to
mention that it had no more evidence to back it than astrology or
pyramid power.
>
> Plaintiffs in this trial asserted, and the court agreed, that:
>
> " ...courts have recognized that because students are more
> impressionable than adults, they may be systematically less effective
> than adults at recognizing when religious conduct is unofficial and
> therefore permissible."
>
> "To an impressionable student, even the mere appearance of secular
> involvement in religious activities might indicate that the state has
> placed its imprimatur (official stamp of approval) on a particular
> religious creed."
>
> "Accordingly, the objective student standard is a means to ensure that
> courts exercise the particular vigilance that the Supreme Court has
> mandated for protecting impressionable children from religious
> messages that appear to carry official imprimatur; it is not a tool
> for excluding or ignoring material evidence."
>
> Oh my goodness, we must protect our impressionable children!
So, you believe protecting children is bad. That would be very bad for
children if many people thought like you.
> And
> finally, the most absurd conclusion of all:
>
So far, the only absurd conclusion would be that the original,
anti-science school board was anything other than a pack of scoundrels.
> "After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
> we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
> strong official endorsement of religion."
>
> You know the outcome. Science was saved!
>
> My view is that the debate isn't over. In fact, it's heating up. I
> see renewed discourse and impassioned discussion on origin forums and
> newsgroups, while scientists continue their research. I feel that
> computer modeling could prove evolution but simulating the process
> over hours, rather than eons. Failure to achieve that would point in
> the other direction.
>
No. That's the "contrived dualism" that the judge pointed out.
Failure to "prove" evolution by any method does nothing to point in any
specific other direction. Other ideas about origins have to have their
own evidence, and neither ID nor creationism have come up with any.
> If there is a creator, he/she/it/they has/have elected to stay hidden
> from view, probably to require a person to possess faith to believe,
> and perhaps to keep from intimidating us by 'his/their/its'
> presence. Why stay hidden??
>
> Well, duh ... If you looked up and saw a face in the clouds watching
> you how would you feel?
>
> 'School Text Disclaimer' or not, the question of our true origins will
> not go away, and is perhaps the most compelling question one can ask.
> Belief in evolution as 'fact', without empirical evidence (computer
> modeling may be the only way),
Wouldn't work, hard-core anti-science types would just move the bar
again and keep complaining that there isn't enough "proof."
> is in itself, more of a religious view
> than a belief in a creator, separate designer and DNA tweaker, of
> alien designers, or other causes.
>
only for some whacked-out definition of "religious."
> I will leave you with that. Now come get me!
>
> Lee
How about you just straighten out and fly right all on your own?
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
Also true of every other attempt to get ID in the school, or what they
are doing now, since there _is_ no actual, teachable theory of ID,
which is to sow unjustifiable doubts about the theory of evolution.
>
> >> I feel that
> >> computer modeling could prove evolution but simulating the process
> >> over hours, rather than eons. Failure to achieve that would point in
> >> the other direction.
> >
> >Certainly. This has been done, for the limited systems that are
> >computationally realistic. One example is the evolution of eye optics:
> >Nilsson, D-E & and Pelger, S (1994) 'A pessimistic estimate of the
> >time required for an eye to evolve.', Proc R Soc London, B256:55-58
> >Works just fine.
>
> Their study, and Dawkins praising of it, falls flat. There have been
> many criticisms, including (1) that it only addresses lense and
> partial retina formation, (2) that it assumes a preexistent photo
> recepter cell in a flat matrix, (3) that assumptions, based on a
> guess, are made regarding the mutation rate, (4) that it assumed a
> high percentage of favorable mutations, and other criticisms. The
> study did not address other relevant mechanisms of the eye, including
> blood and nerve interfacing of the retina, iris formation and
> functionality, variable refractive index of the lense to minimize
> aberations, data processing of first light, then images, or of
> focusing, and support and aiming structures.
Hey, it's a start. The first airplane looked like a cross between a
box kite and a lawn mower.
>
> Interesting that a criticism of their study should appear on
> talkreason.org. David Belinski, Ph.D. in philosophy with
> postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics and molecular biology
> debunks it on multiple points.
> http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=293
>
> As I and others have stated, macroevolution cannot be empirically
> verified in the laboratory by duplicating the actual process leading
> to complex structures, but it *may* be possible with computer
> modeling. According to Belinski, Nilsson's work was *not* computer
> modeling of the complete process. Actual modeling to duplicate the
> alleged evolutionary process will be very complex and demanding of
> equipment and personnel. It may take years to complete. I would like
> to know of any current studies being done.
>
> regards,
> Lee Bowman
Somebody will do it eventually.
Eric Root
Roger Tang
>
>>> Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
>>> "Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution", or simply admit that the
>>> theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
>>> processes), is now a proven fact.
>>
>> The "just a theory" objection to evolution exploits the difference
>> between how the word "theory" is used in everyday contexts
>> and how it is used in scientific contexts. The theory of evolution
>> is a theory in the scientific sense (close enough to your definition
>> below), but it is very far from being a theory in the everyday
>> sense (unproven speculation).
>>
>> Students are likely to interpret the word theory in its everyday
>> sense when reading such a disclaimer. Thus, as the judge
>> _correctly_ noted, the disclaimer leads the students down the
>> garden path to unreasonable doubt about the scientific
>> status of evolution.
>>
>> Either you are totally confused yourself about the different
>> meanings of the word, or you, too, are intentionally exploiting its
>> double meaning in your post in order to confuse the issue.
>
> Ah, semantics. Which (if any) definition of 'theory' is proper here
> aside, my point was that (1) Judge Jones stated that macroevolution
> was completely established as fact, and (2) We dare not even suggest
> that it might be false.
Given that macroevolution IS an established fact, it would kinda
stupid to suggest it's false.
What part of field observed and laboratory replicated do you have a
problem with, my sloppy friend?
Dave
>> Are you stupid? BTW, that's a rhetorical question.
>
> Actually, yet. I should be out working. That aside, I feel compelled
> to dwell here occasionally. I welcome criticism, even ad hominem
> attacks. Constructive criticism doesn't fall on blind eyes, and I
> welcome it.
Ad hominem attacks are fun. That's why we do them.
> It's called faith, I believe. We got here somehow, and were aparently
> given free will and autonomy. There's plenty of evidence of creation
> - it's up to us whether to believe it or not.
And I'm all for you having faith. I just draw the line at me having to
have your faith or anyone else's for that matter.
I want a rigorous, scientific examination of the existence of these ID
creators. You weren't there when my children were conceived, though
through a rigorous, scientific examination of the existence of my
children, I can prove to you that my children are my children and that I
do, in fact, exist. You and I have never met, but because I'm writing
this shows that my intellect is somewhere.
In reality, I have no evidence, other then what other humans have
written or spoken, of the existence of this ID creator. My existence
does not give evidence of the existence of any creator except my mother
and father. Their existence, the same, and so on and so forth. The end
of that line does not give evidence to a ID creator either.
> This way, choice is involved.
Why is there choice involved? This is one schism that has confounded me
since I first read about it in philosophy many years ago. The belief
that I have a choice to believe or not sounds like an excuse. "Well,
you can't have any evidence of the existence of God, so you have a
choice. You can either believe in factual reality or you can believe
that an non-visible, non-corporeal, non-this-dimensional,
non-whatever-excuse being is in charge. If you choose wrong, you'll burn
in Hell." (Sounds a bit like coercion.)
It takes no effort to believe in factual reality whereas believing in an
invisible being takes effort. The effort part simply put, I don't have
to read the Bible, I don't have to go to church, I don't have to tithe
and I don't have to worry about dying and where I'll end up because when
I'm dead, factually, I will be dead and all functions of my existence
will have ceased. Beyond that, it's faith.
> There may well be spirit beings of all kinds 'out there'. Or maybe
> not.
How would a spirit being maintain cohesion? Physical forces would
prevent the 'spirit' from staying together. I could give more credence
to there being non-corporeal beings then I could the Biblical God,
though. Because they are non-corporeal, though, they couldn't do
anything to change the physical world.
I'm not opposed to believing in God if there were evidence to support
God. The Bible isn't evidence. ID isn't evidence. Existence isn't
evidence.
Anecdotally, on the Discovery Channel last night (Thursday, 3/23/06),
they had a show on about El Chupacabra. El Chupacabra first appeared in
Puerto Rico in 1995 (IIRC). Within 1 year, there sighting throughout
all of Central and South America and Florida. Prior to 1995, there were
no sightings. Many people had 'seen' it and passed that story through
the media. The only scientific evidence they had of El Chupacabra
turned out to be a dog. Should I still believe that El Chupacabra
exists because some people say they saw it, even though the evidence
shows it's a dog? Replace 'El Chupacabra' with 'ID Creator' and what
should I do?
Frank J
Macroevolution is an established fact, as in observed directly. But Lee
is talking about "macroevolution," which is undefined, but conveniently
inferred to be what can't be observed directly. You know, like the Iraq
War is a "microwar" but the Civil War is a "macrowar" (as in "Were you
there?").
Not only does he recite the standard pseudoscientific line that leaves
"macroevolution" undefined, more importantly he offers no clue as to
what he thinks happens instead. So as usual, we're back to evolution -
the fact and the theory.
(snip)
Victor Eijkhout
> (1) Judge Jones stated that macroevolution
> was completely established as fact, and (2) We dare not even suggest
> that it might be false.
You can suggest all you want, until you come of with evidence to the
contrary no one will take you seriously.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
ph: 512 471 5809
CreateThis
> attacks. Constructive criticism doesn't fall on blind eyes, and I
> welcome it.
Liar.
CT
skyeyes
> No, not only stay hidden but actively deceive. The Biblical account of
> creation DOES NOT AGREE with what we see. Would God actively deceive
> us? Most scientists believe the evidence and presume that the Biblical
> account of creation is in error. That doesn't make scientists into
> atheists. A much more natural and defensible viewpoint is to presume
> that God's moment of creation was the "Big Bang" and that afterward
> everything has developed according to the laws which God built into the
> fabric of the universe.
>
> This does not sit well with fundamentalists who demand a "hands on"
> type of God who sends plagues and famines and floods, like a vain
> despot, in agreement with the portrayal in the Old Testament. Nature,
> red in tooth and claw, seems to reveal an inactive and uncaring God
> patiently waiting for creation to unfold, while fundamentalists prefer
> an active, angry and punishing God.
What fundamentalists prefer is that the Bible be literally true in
every particular. It's not that they *love* the idea of an angry and
punishing God so much, it's simply that they believe that he exists,
and that the Bible contains a recipe for salvation from his wrath. If
the Bible cannot be seen as literally true, then the recipe for
salvation is thrown into doubt, and therefore, they may not get to die
and go to heaven.
Seriously. I don't know how many times when I was Growing Up Fundie
that ministers and missionaries quite plainly endorsed this as being
the main argument against evolution. They don't believe that they are
going to merely cease to be when they die, they believe in judgement,
and they need a way to get out of it. Therefore, evolution is the Work
of the Devil.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Von R. Smith
Lee Bowman wrote:
> >> Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
> >> "Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution", or simply admit that the
> >> theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
> >> processes), is now a proven fact.
> >
> >The "just a theory" objection to evolution exploits the difference
> >between how the word "theory" is used in everyday contexts
> >and how it is used in scientific contexts. The theory of evolution
> >is a theory in the scientific sense (close enough to your definition
> >below), but it is very far from being a theory in the everyday
> >sense (unproven speculation).
> >
> >Students are likely to interpret the word theory in its everyday
> >sense when reading such a disclaimer. Thus, as the judge
> >_correctly_ noted, the disclaimer leads the students down the
> >garden path to unreasonable doubt about the scientific
> >status of evolution.
> >
> >Either you are totally confused yourself about the different
> >meanings of the word, or you, too, are intentionally exploiting its
> >double meaning in your post in order to confuse the issue.
>
> Ah, semantics. Which (if any) definition of 'theory' is proper here
> aside, my point was that (1) Judge Jones stated that macroevolution
> was completely established as fact, and (2) We dare not even suggest
> that it might be false.
Did he really state that, especially (2)? Or did he rather state that
characterizing evolution as a "theory" as *opposed* to a fact
equivocated on the term "theory", and seemed calculated to give the
student an impression that the evidentiary support for evolution was
weaker than it actually was?
> The argument that due to dual meanings of the
> word 'theory', we must not use that term in defining evolution before
> a student. I disagree.
Nor is that what Judge Jones or anybody else said.
> When words are ambiguous, follow the word
> with a clarification of its meaning. (the Theory of Evolution, i.e.
> a verifiable assumption based on accepted principles and rules of
> scientific procedure, .... ) or some such.
Or, you could simply avoid the ambiguity by not making statements that
intimate that there is some sort of dichotomy between scientific theory
and fact.
>
> <snip>
> <snip>
> <snip>
>
> >> finally, the most absurd conclusion of all:
> >>
> >> "After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
> >> we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
> >> strong official endorsement of religion."
> >
> >What's absurd about it. It is eminently clear from the court
> >proceedings that endorsement of religion was the intent
> >of the school board.
>
> Yes, true of *that* school board, but they do no represent the ID
> community in toto; only a segment of it.
What segments of the ID community does it leave out?
>
> >> I feel that
> >> computer modeling could prove evolution but simulating the process
> >> over hours, rather than eons. Failure to achieve that would point in
> >> the other direction.
> >
> >Certainly. This has been done, for the limited systems that are
> >computationally realistic. One example is the evolution of eye optics:
> >Nilsson, D-E & and Pelger, S (1994) 'A pessimistic estimate of the
> >time required for an eye to evolve.', Proc R Soc London, B256:55-58
> >Works just fine.
>
> Their study, and Dawkins praising of it, falls flat. There have been
> many criticisms, including (1) that it only addresses lense and
> partial retina formation, (2) that it assumes a preexistent photo
> recepter cell in a flat matrix, (3) that assumptions, based on a
> guess, are made regarding the mutation rate, (4) that it assumed a
> high percentage of favorable mutations, and other criticisms.
Those are hardly devastating criticisms. Any computer simulation (or
any experiment, for that matter) necessarily draws on assumptions about
the phenomena it is to simulate, and will be limited in scope to a
manageably-sized slice of the problem at hand. What were Nilsson and
Pilger supposed to do, reconstruct every event in the billions of years
from the first replicators to a fully-developed vertebrate eye?
> The
> study did not address other relevant mechanisms of the eye, including
> blood and nerve interfacing of the retina, iris formation and
> functionality, variable refractive index of the lense to minimize
> aberations, data processing of first light, then images, or of
> focusing, and support and aiming structures.
Which one of these do you think poses a huge problem for evolution?
>
> Interesting that a criticism of their study should appear on
> talkreason.org. David Belinski, Ph.D. in philosophy with
> postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics and molecular biology
> debunks it on multiple points.
> http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=293
>
If the points you listed above are the substance of his critique, then
I'm afraid I don't find it very interesting at all, except as a way of
pointing out what other work has yet to be done.
> As I and others have stated, macroevolution cannot be empirically
> verified in the laboratory by duplicating the actual process leading
> to complex structures, but it *may* be possible with computer
> modeling.
Nah; you'd just bitch that the simulations made a lot of assumptions,
and/or that it was all just a computer simulation anyway, not
biological reality, and/or that if anything it just proves design,
since the computer simulation was intelligently designed. Or, if you
wouldn't bitch about these things, then you are very different from
just about every ID supporter I've read or talked to before.
Ray
<c17...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Lee Bowman" wrote:
>[big snip]
>
>> Belief in evolution as 'fact', without empirical evidence (computer
>> modeling may be the only way), is in itself, more of a religious view
>> than a belief in a creator,
>
>Why "*more*" of a religious view?
>
>Anyway, your handwaving does not invalidate the massive empirical evidence
>for evolution, so that kind of lets all the wind out of your assertion,
>doesn't it?
Maybe for those who believe in this evidence (which in reality is just
a certain interpretation of certain observations)
Mike Ruskai
(Lee Bowman) dribble thusly:
[snip]
>Judge Jones, however, was a little more bold and assertive. While most
>scientists state that the theory of evolution is in fact a theory, but
>now we have a ruling from the bench that evolution is in fact 'fact'.
>An excerpt from his decision (emphasis mine):
>
>"Moreover, the objective student is presumed to know that encouraging
>the teaching of evolution as a *theory* rather than as a *fact* is one
>of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by
>anti-evolutionists with religious motivations." He goes on to say:
[snip]
I'm sure others will say this, but perhaps more diplomatically.
Here's the blunt take:
That evolution (the common descent of all living creatures from a
single common ancestor) has occurred is an observed fact. It is not a
theory. Evolution is similar to gravity, in that respect. The
existence of gravity is an observed fact.
The "theories" of gravity and evolution are explanations and/or
quantifications, not the phenomena themselves.
Evolution, like gravity, is a fact in every meaningful sense of the
word.
It would be no more improper of Judge Jones to refer to gravity as a
fact than to evolution as a fact.
So spare us your ridiculous indignation at what amounts to calling the
sky blue.
--
- Mike
Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
Sverker Johansson
Lee Bowman wrote:
> >> Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
> >> "Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution", or simply admit that the
> >> theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
> >> processes), is now a proven fact.
> >
> >The "just a theory" objection to evolution exploits the difference
> >between how the word "theory" is used in everyday contexts
> >and how it is used in scientific contexts. The theory of evolution
> >is a theory in the scientific sense (close enough to your definition
> >below), but it is very far from being a theory in the everyday
> >sense (unproven speculation).
> >
> >Students are likely to interpret the word theory in its everyday
> >sense when reading such a disclaimer. Thus, as the judge
> >_correctly_ noted, the disclaimer leads the students down the
> >garden path to unreasonable doubt about the scientific
> >status of evolution.
> >
> >Either you are totally confused yourself about the different
> >meanings of the word, or you, too, are intentionally exploiting its
> >double meaning in your post in order to confuse the issue.
>
> Ah, semantics. Which (if any) definition of 'theory' is proper here
> aside,
No, that issue can't be brushed aside as "mere semantics",
as deliberate abuse of semantic ambiguity is central
to the "just a theory" argument.
> my point was that (1) Judge Jones stated that macroevolution
> was completely established as fact,
What he stated was that singling it out and calling it "just a theory"
is misleading as to its scientific status. Adding the adjective "just"
to "theory" leads to the everyday pejorative sense of the word.
In that context, the judge is correct; the status of evolution is
much closer to the everyday meaning of "fact" (close enough to true
for everyday use) than to the everyday meaning of "theory"
(unfounded speculation). What he addresses below is not whether
evolution is fact or theory; what he states is instead that
students likely know that calling it a theory is a well-known
evolution-denier stratagem, and will lead students to think that
the government, by calling it "just a theory" endorses the religious
evolution-denier position.
"Moreover, the objective student is presumed to know that encouraging
the teaching of evolution as a *theory* rather than as a *fact* is one
of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by
anti-evolutionists with religious motivations."
> and (2) We dare not even suggest
> that it might be false.
Could you please clarify exactly where the judge says this.
What he does say is that the disclaimer casts doubt on its
status in a way that endorses religion. He nowhere says
as far as I can find that one may not suggest that it is false
in a way that does not endorse religion.
> The argument that due to dual meanings of the
> word 'theory', we must not use that term in defining evolution before
> a student. I disagree.
Of course you do. You prefer to be able to keep on exploiting
semantic ambiguities for your own anti-scientific purposes.
> When words are ambiguous, follow the word
> with a clarification of its meaning. (the Theory of Evolution, i.e.
> a verifiable assumption based on accepted principles and rules of
> scientific procedure, .... ) or some such.
When a word is likely to lead to misunderstandings among students,
a good teacher either avoids the word, or is very explicit about what
he means. "Theory" is far from the only word with built-in pitfalls.
Force, power, energy, acceleration as just a few examples of other
words that I as a physics teacher use with great care, because I know
that their everyday meaning is not the same as their scientific
meaning.
What we have in the disclaimer is not just the innocent use of an
ambiguous word. What we have here is instead the deliberate
abuse of such ambiguity. The word is used for the purpose of
misleading students. Adding a semantic disclaimer to the disclaimer,
as you are proposing, is not nearly enough here -- better to
delete the word.
> <snip>
> <snip>
> <snip>
>
> >> finally, the most absurd conclusion of all:
> >>
> >> "After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
> >> we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
> >> strong official endorsement of religion."
> >
> >What's absurd about it. It is eminently clear from the court
> >proceedings that endorsement of religion was the intent
> >of the school board.
>
> Yes, true of *that* school board,
The disclaimer was issued by *that* school board.
And the judge's conclusion quoted above pertains specifically
to the disclaimer.
> but they do no represent the ID
> community in toto; only a segment of it.
It is eminently clear from e.g. the Wedge strategy that
endorsement of religion is the intent of the ID movement.
The only thing absurd here is the contortions that the
IDeologists go through in order to hide their religious
intent.
> >> I feel that
> >> computer modeling could prove evolution but simulating the process
> >> over hours, rather than eons. Failure to achieve that would point in
> >> the other direction.
> >
> >Certainly. This has been done, for the limited systems that are
> >computationally realistic. One example is the evolution of eye optics:
> >Nilsson, D-E & and Pelger, S (1994) 'A pessimistic estimate of the
> >time required for an eye to evolve.', Proc R Soc London, B256:55-58
> >Works just fine.
>
> Their study, and Dawkins praising of it, falls flat. There have been
> many criticisms, including (1) that it only addresses lense and
> partial retina formation, (2) that it assumes a preexistent photo
> recepter cell in a flat matrix, (3) that assumptions, based on a
> guess, are made regarding the mutation rate, (4) that it assumed a
> high percentage of favorable mutations, and other criticisms. The
> study did not address other relevant mechanisms of the eye, including
> blood and nerve interfacing of the retina, iris formation and
> functionality, variable refractive index of the lense to minimize
> aberations, data processing of first light, then images, or of
> focusing, and support and aiming structures.
As I said, it simulates the evolution of eye *optics*, and makes no
claims concerning anything else. The criticisms you refer to complain
that Nilsson & Pelger haven't done things they never claimed
to have done.
Realistic evolution simulations take a lot of computer power.
Nilsson & Pelger did a simulation of just one aspect of eye
evolution, with some simplifying assumptions, because that's
what was computationally tractable at the time.
> Interesting that a criticism of their study should appear on
> talkreason.org. David Belinski, Ph.D. in philosophy with
> postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics and molecular biology
> debunks it on multiple points.
> http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=293
Interesting that a site on the side of reason is open to postings
by anti-reason supporters. The opposite is rarely the case.
> As I and others have stated, macroevolution cannot be empirically
> verified in the laboratory by duplicating the actual process leading
> to complex structures, but it *may* be possible with computer
> modeling. According to Belinski, Nilsson's work was *not* computer
> modeling of the complete process. Actual modeling to duplicate the
> alleged evolutionary process will be very complex and demanding of
> equipment and personnel. It may take years to complete. I would like
> to know of any current studies being done.
Here are a couple of references I have read on the topic:
# Berry & Kiel & Elliott (2002) 'Adaptive agents, intelligence, and
emergent human organization: capturing complexity through agent-based
modelling', Proc Nat Acad Sci 99:7187-7188
# Butterfield et al (2004) 'PyEvolve: a toolkit for statistical
modelling of molecular evolution', BMC Bioinformatics 5:1
# Gerrish, Philip (2002) 'Evolution plays dice', Nature 420:756-757
# Harvey, Inman (1999) 'Creatures from another world', Nature
400:618-619
# Huberman, B A & Glance, N S (1993) 'Evolutionary games and computer
simulations', Proc Nat Acad Sci 90:7716-7718
# Killingback, T & Doebeli, M (1998) 'Self-organized criticality in
spatial evolutionary game theory', J Theor Bio 191:335-340
# Langdon, W B (2000) 'Genetic programming and evolvable machines:
books and other resources', Gen Prog & Evolvable Machines 1:165-169
# Lenski et al (1999) 'Genome complexity, robustness and genetic
interactions in digital organisms', Nature 400:661-665
# Lenski et al (2003) 'The evolutionary origin of complex features',
Nature 423:139-144
# Lipson & Pollack & Suh (2002) 'On the origin of modular variation',
Evolution 56:1549-1556
# Nowak, M & Sigmund, K (1993) 'Chaos and the evolution of
cooperation', Proc Nat Acad Sci 90:5091-5094
# Ofria, C & Adami, C(1999) 'Evolution of genetic organization in
digital organisms', http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/adap-org/9903003
# Pennock, Robert T (2000) 'Can Darwinian mechanisms make novel
discoveries? Learning from discoveries made by evolving neural
networks', Foundations of science 5:225-238
# Pfeiffer, T & Bonhoeffer, S (2003) 'An evolutionary scenario for the
transition to undifferentiated multicellularity', Proc Nat Acad Sci
100:1095-1098
# Prügel-Bennett, Adam (1997) 'Modelling evolving populations', J
Theor Bio 185:81-95
# Schneider, Thomas D (2000) 'Evolution of biological information',
Nucleic Acids Res 28:2794-2799
# Sims, Karl (1994) 'Evolving 3d morphology and behavior by
competition', in Brooks & Maes (ed) Artificial Life IV Proceedings, MIT
Press
# Spector, L & Robinson, A (2002) 'Genetic programming and
autoconstructive evolution with the Push programming language', Gen
Prog & Evolvable Machines 3:7-40
# Storch, D & Frynta, D (1999) 'Evolution of habitat selection:
stochastic acquisition of cognitive clues?', Evolutionary Ecology
13:591-600
# Swenson & Wilson & Elias (2000) 'Artificial ecosystem selection',
Proc Nat Acad Sci 97:9110-9114
# Szabo et al (2002) 'In silico simulations reveal that replicators
with limited dispersal evolve towards higher efficiency and fidelity',
Nature 420:340-343
# Taube, Gary (1997) 'Computer design meets Darwin', Science
277:1931-1932
# Wilke et al (2001) 'Evolution of digital organisms at high mutation
rates leads to survival of the flattest', Nature 412:331-333
# Wilke, Claus O(2003) 'Does the Red Queen reign in the kingdom of
digital organisms', http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0302046
# Yedid, G & Bell, G (2002) 'Macroevolution simulated with autonomously
replicating computer programs', Nature 420:810-812
Robert Carnegie
Von R. Smith wrote:
> Lee Bowman wrote:
> > Ah, semantics. Which (if any) definition of 'theory' is proper here
> > aside, my point was that (1) Judge Jones stated that macroevolution
> > was completely established as fact, and (2) We dare not even suggest
> > that it might be false.
>
>
> Did he really state that, especially (2)? Or did he rather state that
> characterizing evolution as a "theory" as *opposed* to a fact
> equivocated on the term "theory", and seemed calculated to give the
> student an impression that the evidentiary support for evolution was
> weaker than it actually was?
"Theory" is the scientific term for a fact. It's the highest rank.
The judge found specifically that you are committing an abuse if you
take tax money off me in order to employ people to teach your
creationism or anything like it in a science class, whether labelled
intelligend design or not. Evolution is science and antievolution is
antiscience.
Tim Norfolk
I don't know about fundamentalists, but it did seem to be a favourite
pastime of Tory politicians and civil servants when I was growing up. I
always thought it had something to do with the abuse under the
"fagging" system in the public (U.S. : read "private") schools.
AC
Lee Bowman <IDadv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Thanks to Judge Jones' ruling, we can now change the wording of
>>> "Theory of Evolution" to "Fact of Evolution", or simply admit that the
>>> theory (we're talking single cell to an elephant through natural
>>> processes), is now a proven fact.
>>
>>The "just a theory" objection to evolution exploits the difference
>>between how the word "theory" is used in everyday contexts
>>and how it is used in scientific contexts. The theory of evolution
>>is a theory in the scientific sense (close enough to your definition
>>below), but it is very far from being a theory in the everyday
>>sense (unproven speculation).
>>
>>Students are likely to interpret the word theory in its everyday
>>sense when reading such a disclaimer. Thus, as the judge
>>_correctly_ noted, the disclaimer leads the students down the
>>garden path to unreasonable doubt about the scientific
>>status of evolution.
>>
>>Either you are totally confused yourself about the different
>>meanings of the word, or you, too, are intentionally exploiting its
>>double meaning in your post in order to confuse the issue.
>
> Ah, semantics.
More specifically propaganda.
> Which (if any) definition of 'theory' is proper here
> aside, my point was that (1) Judge Jones stated that macroevolution
> was completely established as fact,
It is as much a fact as the existence of the electron.
> and (2) We dare not even suggest
> that it might be false.
Why would we suggest that it's false, when it isn't?
>The argument that due to dual meanings of the
> word 'theory', we must not use that term in defining evolution before
> a student. I disagree. When words are ambiguous, follow the word
> with a clarification of its meaning. (the Theory of Evolution, i.e.
> a verifiable assumption based on accepted principles and rules of
> scientific procedure, .... ) or some such.
Then it must be made very clear what is meant by a *scientific theory*, and
these disclaimers specifically intend to confuse the student. Thus they are
dishonest propaganda tools.
How odd that it's religious folks that are trying to perpetrate what amounts
to a lie.
>
><snip>
> <snip>
> <snip>
>
>>> finally, the most absurd conclusion of all:
>>>
>>> "After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow,
>>> we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a
>>> strong official endorsement of religion."
>>
>>What's absurd about it. It is eminently clear from the court
>>proceedings that endorsement of religion was the intent
>>of the school board.
>
> Yes, true of *that* school board, but they do no represent the ID
> community in toto; only a segment of it.
Yes, that's what we're all supposed to believe, but you know what, no one
hear actually believes that claim. As I said in another thread where some
young fellow tried to pull the wool over eyes, and I'm going to blunt, do
you think we're goddamn idiots? Because right now you are essentially
insulting our intelligence.
Nothing in science requires emperical demonstrations in a laboratory.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com