Critical analysis...of intelligent design

Moreover, (once again), as evolutionist Michael Ruse pointed out in court, a proposed hypothesis or theory is NOT unscientific just because the people doing the proposing happen to have religious motivations.

Behe is, of course, without a doubt, correct in everything he wrote in that article. ID has been maligned by a horde of intellectually dishonest academic elitists. Any of your own that dare to use common sense and empirical evaluation of evidence (or lack thereof) supporting (or falsifying) the all-powerful mechanism of mutation + natural selection are ridiculed, made into pariahs, their careers ruined. It is little wonder that so few will say with they think in this arena. Fewer than those with the first name Steve actually have a dog in the hunt so they remain silent. Glasnost came to the Soviet Union but has yet to arrive on American university campuses when it comes to the Church of Darwin.

That neo-Darwinian ideologues are in a state of discombobululation over the ID movement is quite understandable. I'd be discombobulated too, not knowing whether to first call my lawyer to sue a public school or wind my blindly made watch, if my most cherished beliefs were being systematically disemboweled in front of a cheering public.

Freud, Marx, and Darwin. The three pillars of western modernism. Two frauds down and one to go. It shan't be long now.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Freud, Marx, Darwin...

According the the DI, 300 scientists are sceptical of Darwinism. According the Dave Scott each and every single one of them has had their career ruined by some sort of shadowy and ill defined (surprise surprise) academic elite.

Care to document your claims? Or was that statement completely and utterly made up.

Feed the troll ´til it explodes! One little wafer won´t hurt...

1. Given that IDers consistently fail to present anything approaching a scientific argument, there' s not much left but ad hominem arguments.

2 I like the irony of dragging Hillary into a point about conspiracy mongering. Remember this one? "Kerry's just a Clinton front! The Democrats want him to lose so Hillary can run in 2008!"

3. That's because these guys are biology PhDs! Of course they know better than some high school student. Given what a ludicrously high proportion of Americans don't accept evolution, I think the fear is justified. History teachers would probably get somewhat upset if there were stickers on the front of textbooks saying "The idea that most Americans are descended from the pilgrims or slaves is a theory, not a fact." It obfuscates the truth. Why would you want to do that?

4. You just don't get it. Democracy has nothing to do with science. If a majority of people think the earth is flat, it doesn't make them right. And it's not just science If an elected school board wanted to teach holocaust revisionism alongside the Final Solution, would you think that was a legitimate expression of democracy?

For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")

— Behe

Behe is, of course, without a doubt, correct in everything he wrote in that article. ID has been maligned by a horde of intellectually dishonest academic elitists.

— DaveScot

The IDers have demonstrated once again (as so many times before) that their ideas are so scientifically vacuous that they must resort to the popular media to promote them.

I *hate* the comparison of prokaryotic flagella to "outboard motors". First of all, the flagellar motor is inboard, *not* outboard.

Second, the motor on a boat turns a crew that works at relatively high reynolds numbers, and consequently acts almost entirely through momentum transfer mechanisms, while bacterial "swimming" at low Reynolds numbers generates forward movement through viscous coupling with the fluid, *not* through momentum transfer.

These are not minor points, and they underscore the point that Behe et al are not only not speaking to other scientists -- they are not even trying to inform their lay readership in a serious way.

Top to bottom, the whole enterprise is a confidence game.

One possible counter to the IDer sound byte arguments is one I've used on many a born-again-Reasons to Believer: I tell them simply "Prove Darwin wrong and win a million bucks!" I then point out that major discoveries in Science often come from over turning the established theories of the time, and those people are usually awarded a Nobel prize and the cash. So...if science really is covering up the truthfulness of ID then we are all consenting not to collect the money and fame that would accompany it. Hogwash I'm as greedy as the next man and if I could overturn Darwin I would. Then I dare them to study evolution and try overturning Natural Selection themselves. The gauntlet, sadly, is never taken up.

We need sound bites too.

God or *Gods*, Andy.

Query: Can an apparently non-scientific claim be a possible defeater to an apparently scientific claim? For example, suppose scientist X argues that moral claims are entirely accountable by evolution, but suppose philosopher Y argues that moral claims cannot be accounted for by evolution because of certain conceptual problems in the account (as I have argued in my article "Why I Am Not a Relativist"). If Y is correct, then X's case is defeated, it seems to me. But if that is the case, then external conceptual challenges to apparently scientific claims are in-principle possible.

Consider another example. Suppose that scientist Z offers an account of the universe that necessitates postulating mulitiple universes. However, philosopher B counters by showing that this account requires an infinite regress of causes, which B argues is conceptually problematic. If B is correct, isn't that a defeater to Z's account, even though B's argument is non-empirical?

Okay, that last comment of mine was harsh. I get a bit frustrated.

I'm just not ready to abandon the Copernican Principle quite yet.

It demands we assume intelligent life like us is not special. We're already successfully tinkering with our own genome and those of other organisms. That demonstrates intelligent design at the genetic and epigenetic level is possible. The question then becomes are we the first kids on the block to be able to do this. Copernican Principle says we should assume not. We aren't special.

Some very fascinating science mostly sponsered by NASA trying to get a better handle on how Copernican our situation here really is. And of course there's SETI which has only scratched the surface of an exhaustive search for intelligence elsewhere in the causally connected universe. Mabye the overwhelming appearance of design is exactly what it looks like. How weird would that be? Not very. Copernicus isn't knocked down by it.

What really boogles the mind is coming to grips with the idea that intelligent agents in labcoats, some with the first name Steve, appear likely to become (if they aren't already) the primary drivers of hominid and many other organisms' evolution on this planet. Practical, productive genetic engineering is here now. Natural evolution is being displaced by directed evolution as we speak. If unnatural evolution isn't in our past it's in our present and future.

Suggesting a 9th grader read "Of Pandas and People" is SOOOO trivial in the big scheme of things. You have to realize the vast majority won't bother because it's too much like extra work that isn't being graded. I worry more about them watching "The Matrix" too many times and believing that. I worry about ME believing that! Just the admission that there might be some truth in ID is benign and not an unreasonable position.

As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering William Dembski on ISCID

Prof. Richard Colling is quoted: In his new book, "Random Designer," he writes: "It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" when they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are blatantly untrue," he argues; "evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny. [1]" Sharon Begley in Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists, Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2004; Page A15

Abstract: The assumption of design of the universe is examined from a scientific perspective. The claims of William Dembski and of Michael Behe are unscientific because they are a-theoretic. The argument from order or from utility are shown to be indeterminate, circular, to rest on psychological as opposed to factual certainty, or to be insupportable as regards humans but possibly not bacteria, respectively. The argument from the special intelligibility of the universe specifically to human science does not survive comparison with the capacities of other organisms. Finally, the argument from the unlikelihood of physical constants is vitiated by modern cosmogonic theory and recrudesces the God-of-the-gaps.

Abstract: Arguments of the following form are given against theories like psychoanalysis: Psychoanalysis implies X. Psychoanalysis also implies NOT(X). Hence, no observations of X or of NOT(X) can falsify psychoanalysis. Since an important proportion of propositions implied by psychoanalysis are similar to X in this respect, psychoanalysis is not falsifiable. Since psychoanalysis isn't falsifiable, it is not a science. In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I'll argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn't imply anything at all, i.e. it has no content. By 'content' I refer to a body of determinate principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By 'principle' I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue. By 'determinate principle' I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions of its terms are clearly defined. I'll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter 'IDT') grounds an empirical research program. Later in the paper I assess a recent trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes research. I'll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.

Behe confuses analogies, as "literary" tools for comparative purposes, with empirically based descriptive 'literal" words. No sane scientist using machine analogies to describe the workings of biological processes would ever think he was being literal. Because if Behe thinks they are, then I would argue he doesn't understand what a real machine is, what a real motor is, what a real clock is, what a real spring is.

If I took some literary license to call Behe a "puppet" of the religious right, would that make Behe a real puppet ... what a minute, maybe Behe is on to something here.

Query: Can an apparently non-scientific claim be a possible defeater to an apparently scientific claim? For example, suppose scientist X argues that moral claims are entirely accountable by evolution, but suppose philosopher Y argues that moral claims cannot be accounted for by evolution because of certain conceptual problems in the account (as I have argued in my article "Why I Am Not a Relativist"). If Y is correct, then X's case is defeated, it seems to me. But if that is the case, then external conceptual challenges to apparently scientific claims are in-principle possible.

Consider another example. Suppose that scientist Z offers an account of the universe that necessitates postulating mulitiple universes. However, philosopher B counters by showing that this account requires an infinite regress of causes, which B argues is conceptually problematic. If B is correct, isn't that a defeater to Z's account, even though B's argument is non-empirical?

What really boogles the mind is coming to grips with the idea that intelligent agents in labcoats, some with the first name Steve, appear likely to become (if they aren't already) the primary drivers of hominid and many other organisms' evolution on this planet. Practical, productive genetic engineering is here now. Natural evolution is being displaced by directed evolution as we speak. If unnatural evolution isn't in our past it's in our present and future.

Suggesting a 9th grader read "Of Pandas and People" is SOOOO trivial in the big scheme of things. You have to realize the vast majority won't bother because it's too much like extra work that isn't being graded. I worry more about them watching "The Matrix" too many times and believing that. I worry about ME believing that! Just the admission that there might be some truth in ID is benign and not an unreasonable position.

BTW "boogling the mind" sounds like fun :)

the refusal to engage in meaningful debate, often by resorting to ad hominem attacks (this blog is a world leader in ad hominem tactics, I have never seen, since middle school, such frequent use of arguing by calling one's opponents "stupid, crackpots, idiots, morons, etc.")

— David Heddle

I am still waiting for someone on this blog to admit that he or she is stupid enough that, if that sticker had been on their high school biology text, they would have ended up teaching YEC at Liberty University.

— Heddle

Whether there are philosophical arguments that trump scientific ones or not, there are certainly philosophical arguments that defeat theological ones. David Hume's criticism of teleology refuted Paley before Darwin was born, for example; and Kant's demolition of much of the rest of natural theology also predates the modern theory of evolution.

1st query: No, there's a category error in there. The essence of your example is that Y says morality is not scientific and X says it is. Absent evidence that one is right and the other wrong, neither "is defeated".
To move away from the hypothetical, no reputable scientist these days would argue that "moral claims are entirely accounted for by evolution. Certainly he/she would say that they are a product of evolution, but culture has taken over and is vastly more important in the modern world.

2nd query:For a start, Z must offer a means to to test his theory, or else it isn't scientific in the first place. Second, the argument of infinite regress is scientific, because it's a basic part of logic. Empricism isn't everything.

Incidentally, you have "moral relativism" all wrong, as do most people who use the term. Most atheists are moral absolutists just as much as Christians. We just have a different basis for our morals. In that very limited sense, there is no objective morality. But that doesn't imply anything goes, as Christian moralists seem to think.You say, for example: "if it is true that no objective moral norms apply to all people at all times and in all places, then the following moral judgements must be denied: Mother Theresa was no better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, it is wrong to torture babies for fun." This is arrant nonsense. What is true is that not all people will think that those moral judgements are correct. But I would think the doubters are wrong. Without wanting to be rude, I think your morals are wrong, just as you would think my morals are wrong if you knew them. I have a fully fledged moral code, as you do, and I know right from wrong, as you do. But my right is different from your right. And I'm more than willing to say why I think my right is better than your right.

the refusal to engage in meaningful debate, often by resorting to ad hominem attacks

Just the admission that there might be some truth in ID is benign and not an unreasonable position.

— DaveScot

Consider another example. Suppose that scientist Z offers an account of the universe that necessitates postulating mulitiple universes. However, philosopher B counters by showing that this account requires an infinite regress of causes, which B argues is conceptually problematic.  If B is correct, isn't that a defeater to Z's account, even though B's argument is non-empirical?

— Francis Beckwith

No 15 year old I know (and I've raised two of my own well beyond that point) is going to be effected by anything Dover or Cobb or Kansas or wherever has done or attempted to do.

Scientists pursue objective inquiry into the natural world, and if ID wants abandon its manipulations and presuppositions to join that pursuit, no one is standing in its way. ID does not want to join the scientists in the laboratories and libraries, however; it has utterly failed to compete at that level. It is, in every respect, unreasonable to ask scientists to "admit" that there is scientific truth in a rhetorical and political argument that cannot muster evidence, or even a coherent theory, to stand upon.

Query: Can an apparently non-scientific claim be a possible defeater to an apparently scientific claim?

— Beckwith

Perhaps ID advocates believe that there can be no scientific theory of "origins", which is to say that the means by which they believe living things originated cannot be empirically investigated. I would say, with a high degree of certainty, that this is what most of them believe. I wouldn't have a problem with that if they'd just up and admit that this was their belief.

this blog is a world leader in ad hominem tactics, I have never seen, since middle school, such frequent use of arguing by calling one's opponents "stupid, crackpots, idiots, morons, etc."

— Heddle

"As quoted in Ken Miller's Pandas critique?" Hmmm. Hate to bring this up again, but is there some reason why people around here can't afford to buy the book and read it for themselves?

— FL

Russel - the science side is all academic to me

— DaveScot

"it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories."

Did Dembski really say this?

Did he *really* say that ID is something worse than "pathetic"?

Hopefully other media will follow suit and instead of just regurgitating definitions from elsewhere they will accurately describe the theory itself.

I guess you're saying Miller is misrepresenting the book.

First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.

David, you sick pathetic disgusting sack of a liar.

You need to document this claim or retract it. While I admit to being sarcastic and less than decorous at times, I do not make a habit of referring to IDists using those terms (I doubt I've ever used one) nor do the other people who post to this blog. In particular, Nick's post, that you've decided to comment on, did not use any of those terms, much less all of them, and instead addressed Behe's claims directly. What people write in the comments, however, we have only limited control over. In case you haven't noticed, we have a more or less open comment policy (unlike the DI blog, which doesn't allow comments at all) which allows people to sometimes get away with making rude comments. That would include, for exampe, the extreme rudeness of your post. This is the price we pay for an open forum. The real irony is that your post is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on those of us who work hard to maintain this blog and to keep it lively. You did not address a single one of Nick's arguments. You've accused us of elitism, fundamentalism, etc. --- charges which would be irrelevant to our claims even if true. Such hypocrisy is simply breathtaking. You should be ashamed of yourself.

But then why not use that rationale for other branches of science?

— Walker

Yeah, but The Matrix is sold as science fiction not science fact - there's a big difference. Anyone who truly believes that The Matrix is reality is rightly written off as - to put it kindly - not quite right in the head.

— Walker

David, you sick pathetic disgusting sack of a liar.

First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.

— Behe

Y'all might as well concede Behe's point there and save us all some time, no?

— FL

That's "weep". Stop laughing.

I realize Behe says nothing that has not been refuted many times before, so to offer more refutations to his piece is only to beat a dead horse. However, I can't resist.

Behe states that "the contemporary argument for intelligent design" "consists of four linked claims". I beg to differ. In addition to those he mentions, ID also necessarily entails the following claims (plus many others, undoubtedly) that need to be supported scientifically (not theologically):

That there is somewhere (location unspecified) an entity (or entities) (the nature of which is unspecified) that has intelligence (instantiated in some unspecified medium) that has interacted with the universe (or maybe just the earth, who knows?) using some mechanisitc process (unspecified) to alter biological materials in some manner (unspecified) at some time or times (unspecified) during the history of the earth. And in spite of the fact that this entity was capable of all this, it has failed to communiate to us in a direct and unambiguous way (meaning by use of language) what or who it is and how it accomplished all of this, because for some reason (unspecified) it chooses not to do so inspite of the fact that it could surely do so.

Before creationists retort that evolutionists are unable to specify exactly which changes in DNA were required to account for every step in evolution (something that is obviously impossible), you need to explain why the inferences entailed by evolutionary theory are less plausible than the (so far non-existant) explanations required to support the claims I describe above.

And in light of some comments above, I am assuming that IDers ARE interested in developing a scientific theory. I have never seen anything in my reading of ID material that suggested otherwise.

I sincerely hope that none of my theist evolutionary colleagues feel this is offensive or wrong-heaqded. If so, please let me know. As an atheist, I am greatly lacking in theological sophistication.

With respect to The Times, one wonders whether, if they were willing to publish something like this (that is so far out of the scientific mainstream) as an Op-Ed , why should they not also be willing to publish an Op-Ed by a holocaust denier?

My focus was to see if the standard research practice of checking out primary sources whenever possible, has gained any traction around ~here~. (For the most part, the answer seems to remain "Nope").

— FL

Y'all might as well concede Behe's point there and save us all some time, no?

First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.

— FL

Steve,

Perhaps your point is that such personal attacks are not made in the actual posts, only in the comments? I agree with that, and said as much when I allowed that the top of the food chain offers reasoned arguments. I understand you can't control the comments, but there they are, demonstrating what I claimed.

I was motivated to post not in response to Nicks arguments, but to the first comment to his article, which fantasized about Behe being asked "when will you publish a hypothesis of intelligent design for peer review?"

It's been extensively documented that ID was conceived for the purposes of religious apologetics. Just because it's possible to be an ID proponent without being pushing religion doesn't change the fact that this is the agenda of its leading advocates. Behe is just obfuscating. It would save us all a lot of time if he and the rest of them would just admit their religious agenda up front.

But if I have to choose between just two options I'd rather have my neighbor's kid believe there might be a bearded thunderer that will hold him accountable for his actions than one who thinks nothing really matters because life has no purpose. Leave the door for purpose open. It does no harm and it might do some good.

...we really don't have absolute knowledge of the nature of reality, is not science fiction but an ages old philosophical issue that any good agnostic will shrug off as a possibility then focus on something more practical. I find it impossible to be anything but agnostic at the end of the day.

R. Cartright writes:

"People seem to not be able to grasp that claiming absolute morality does not refute relative morality since most people do believe that their morals are absolute."

Yes, that's right. Howver, that is not my argument.

Cartwright asserts:
"You argue that there is no justification to 'obey' morals unless there is a (higher) mind behind them."

What I argue is that the nature of a moral law--its abstract, immaterial, communicative and, and incumbent nature--is best accounted for in a theistic worldview. It is an argument to the best explanation.

Cartwright asserts:
"I'm curious then how use justify following our nation's laws which are derived from the people and not some higher authority. Humans are social animals, and, as such, it is our nature to develop and follow rules that maintain societies. We help the less fortunate because they are or will be family and/or help us back in some way or another."

That's not why I help the less fortunate. I help them because they are intrinsically valuable beings. To help them because of what you can get is to implicitly deny their intrinsic value and to treat them merely as means to an end, yourself. This is why, for example, you expect from me an answer to your query. You believe, rightfully, that you are a rational moral agent entitled to reasons by nature. If I were to dismiss your query without taking the time to respond, you would, rightfully, think of me as a cad who does not respect you, and you would be correct. But that moral assumption--one that is implied by this dialogue--speaks to an understanding of ourselves and our world that cannot be reduced to biology, chemistry, or physics. Keep me in mind that if the observer himself is no more than a product of the very laws he is observing--that his rationality and agency are not irreducible properties of his being--then he vanishes in the process. "Nothing but" arguments issued from "nothing but" beings cannot be the deliverances of reason, something that must be more than the "nothing but" it seeks to account for.

{quote=David Heddle]I was motivated to post not in response to Nicks arguments, but to the first comment to his article, which fantasized about Behe being asked "when will you publish a hypothesis of intelligent design for peer review?"

It may indeed remain a phantasy since there seems to be no such thing as a hypothesis of ID to be reviewed.

X did it just does not make for any good explanation beyond 'Poof'.

Most atheists are moral absolutists just as much as Christians. We just have a different basis for our morals.

— Ginger

Perhaps your point is that such personal attacks are not made in the actual posts, only in the comments? . . . I was motivated to post not in response to Nicks arguments, but to the first comment to his article, which fantasized about Behe being asked "when will you publish a hypothesis of intelligent design for peer review?"

— Heddle

A good point is a comment which stated that Behe seems to be arguing that ID is not religious, thus it is scientific. I would like to address such a possibility, even accepting the possible strawman nature of it.

My statement would be that even if we were to accept that ID is not religious, it is scientifically vacuous. Two separate authors have addressed this issue in quite some detail.

Patrick Frank is the author of "On the Assumption of Design", Theology and Science, Volume 2, Number 1 / April 2004, pp. 109 - 130.

Ryan Nichols is the author of Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly , 2003 , vol. 77 , no 4 , pp. 591 - 611,

Wow. I've noted the existence of this site in passing, but never have browsed over to it before today. This article was my first foray into this maelstrom, and I'll be back.

You guys have the BEST trolls ever!

Standing on principle is noble but compromise is practical.

Freud, Marx, and Darwin.

I'm curious then how use justify following our nation's laws which are derived from the people and not some higher authority.

— Reed

Which brings us the next issue which is whether such beliefs need to be coddled in public schools by teaching lies and misleading stories about "scientific" controversies so that believers who are parents can allegedly indoctrinate their children free of any "secular humanist interference".

— Great White Wonder

Evolution, or at least what of it is taught to high school students by fiat, is not leaving room for doubt. The Cobb sticker and/or the Dover 1-minute schpiel are very reasonable ways to bridge the ideological divide. Standing on principle is noble but compromise is practical.

— DaveScot

What God giveth let no man take away. It's an important concept in our constitutionally limited republic.

What I argue is that the nature of a moral law---its abstract, immaterial, communicative and, and incumbent nature---is best accounted for in a theistic worldview. It is an argument to the best explanation.

when will you publish a hypothesis of intelligent design for peer review?

you are fundamentalists... Seeing their various opponents as mere manifestations of a larger, evil conspiracy. You guys are more adept than Hillary at this. ...willingness to sacrifice one's own principles for a "greater good." Those on top of the food chain ... step aside while their attack-jackals crank up the personal attacks... ...legion of slavish minions willing to do the unsavory work for him.

But U.S. laws ARE derived from a higher authority.  I went to the trouble of reading every preamble to every state constition and they all call out a higher authority of some sort as the wellspring of basic human rights. 

— DaveScot

In return I will direct you to the preambles of all 50 state constitutions of the United States which explicitely claim that a supernatural agent of some sort is the ultimate source of basic human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that gov'ts created by men exist solely to protect these rights.

We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawaii State motto, "Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono." -- http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conpream.htmlHawaii Constitution Preamble

Russel

Agreed that the level of civility on PT comments is suprisingly high given the evident lack of moderation. This in itself is proof that miracles are real.

"Can you direct to me to the authority which establishes these moral absolutes?"

My brain.

Even as some of their [Freud, Marx, and Darwin] conclusions or examples were wrong, as were a few of Darwin's, the inherent core of their respective arguments remain valid.

But U.S. laws ARE derived from a higher authority. I went to the trouble of reading every preamble to every state constition and they all call out a higher authority of some sort as the wellspring of basic human rights. The Declaration of Independence identifies the violation of those same rights as the just cause for the 13 colonies to rebel against English rule. What God giveth let no man take away. It's an important concept in our constitutionally limited republic.

— DaveScot

When you're old enough to be a parent of a 9th grader maybe you'll feel differently.

But U.S. laws ARE derived from a higher authority. I went to the trouble of reading every preamble to every state constition and they all call out a higher authority of some sort as the wellspring of basic human rights.

— DaveScot

Joe Shelby

Did you find ANY state constitution that doesn't mention a supernatural entity of some sort? I'll grant there's niggling ambiguity in a few about the role of the supernatural but in the majority there's none.

If there's not at least an implicit appeal to higher authority why mention a supernatural entity at all?

DaveScot, but the point is that the various preambles cited do not attribute the laws to the higher entity; they simply ask for the higher entity to bless human-developed laws - a considerable difference from your initial claim.

i was not questioning the MENTION of a diety -- only your assertion that the diety is the *source* of the rights being asserted. a source of "freedom", most of the time, but rarely the source of "rights". they are not, nor have they ever, been the same thing.

there are plenty of reasons for mentioning a deity, ranging from the strictly ceremonial to your core "source of all rights" attitude. however, you specifically asserted that every constitution asserts that god is the source and authority of all rights, and that is blatantly incorrect.

People, when speaking of the whole "divine" origins of our right to freedom, forget the whole "we hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT" part.

"God-given" and "divine" in these instances are simply a way of stating "that which is the case."

Steve, Perhaps your point is that such personal attacks are not made in the actual posts, only in the comments? I agree with that, and said as much when I allowed that the top of the food chain offers reasoned arguments. I understand you can't control the comments, but there they are, demonstrating what I claimed.

— David Heddle

GWW

Agnostics acknowledge the possibility of a bearded thunderer. There's no inconsistency in my position. If the bearded thunderer is confined to a box where all that flows out of it is natural human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness I don't find that at all threatening. It's an ideology that will cause no harm and make more people happy than it makes unhappy. Why stifle it? Materialist principles? Spare me. Only a tiny minority cling for dear life to dogmatic materialist principles and I don't intend to pander to it. I care more about democratic principles.

The only authority upon which governance is justified is we the people. Kind of makes your claim hard to maintain, no?

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

— The Founders

DaveScot claims to honor democracy?

As Prof. Miller pointed out somewhere in the past month or so, intelligent design, having failed completely in the marketplace of science ideas, now asks government intervention to frustrate the more democratic processes.

Should we expect DaveScot to speak out against ID?

You're in a dilemma, Dave -- I suggest you just tone down your rants against science and see if you can find any researcher anywhere who actually works with an ID paradigm. If you had arguments to sell, you'd not need to ask the government to support your cause.

Howver, that is not my argument.

— Beckwith

That's not why I help the less fortunate. I help them because they are intrinsically valuable beings.

This is why, for example, you expect from me an answer to your query. You believe, rightfully, that you are a rational moral agent entitled to reasons by nature.

But that moral assumption---one that is implied by this dialogue---speaks to an understanding of ourselves and our world that cannot be reduced to biology, chemistry, or physics. Keep me in mind that if the observer himself is no more than a product of the very laws he is observing---that his rationality and agency are not irreducible properties of his being---then he vanishes in the process.

Dave, "creator" is quite ambiguous. You'll note that Jefferson was careful to avoid saying the creator was the God of Abraham, or any other deity. One can read into the phrasing what one wishes to, it is so ambiguous. Did Congrefs mean to say the creator was the God of Abraham? In the form of Allah? Shiva? Water Woman? Zeus? Thor? The Cosmic Muffin? One's mother?

You should read the entire document, Dave. Jefferson also wrote that "just governments" derive their authority "from the consent of the governed." That is exactly the philosophy and policy declared in that sentence that says "We the People . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . ." The rights inherent in each person by their fact of creation are best defended by a government that is a compact between the people, the founders said, often and eloquently.

Some of us think it's important to stick to the facts in both science and history.

That book does nothing to refute my claim. I said that Marx's criticism of capitalism was correct at its core, if not certain details.

I did not that his alternative solution had any merit (it doesn't, and its based on a flawed idealistic human model that would give up both freedom and personal ambition), nor would I deny the impact on the world throughout the 20th century of those who tried to build his system (and failed to do so).

The negatives of communism/socialism and the evils done by those who tried to implement it, does not in any way refute his legitimate claims that unfettered capitalism has (extremely) negative consequences.

note: no country in the world today has unfettered capitalism, so trying to draw examples from successful markets of today does not apply. All have adapted to what he wrote, either as a direct result or indirectly in that they saw a problem (that coincendently marx wrote about) and legistlated regulation or a "socialist"-like program to resolve it (i.e., American monopolies broken by the Sherman anti-trust act, or helping senior poverty by social security).

But U.S. laws ARE derived from a higher authority. I went to the trouble of reading every preamble to every state constition and they all call out a higher authority of some sort as the wellspring of basic human rights.

— DaveScot

everyone recognizes that it's just a sort of "ceremonial deism",

— Russel

To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

— Georgia in its Preamble

DaveScot,

You do realize that preambles are naturally considered ceremonial and not legal. A preable has far less weight than the body of the document itself. The GA constitution's phrase "All government, of right, originates with the people" is very damaging to theocrats, because it means that all governemnts that do not originate from the people are not rightful governments.

Just as it is okay for evolutionists that their "science" be consonant with atheism, materialism and agnosticism, (see the writings of Richard Dawkins or SJ Gould if you need some clear examples), so it is equally okay for an alternative "science" to be offered that is consonant with theism and Christianity.

Agnostics acknowledge the possibility of a bearded thunderer.... If the bearded thunderer is confined to a box where all that flows out of it is natural human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness I don't find that at all threatening.

The whole state of Ohio was polled on that and it was 100% (everyone) recognizes it's ceremonial? Sounds like Saddam's last election results. You'll forgive me if I reject your 100% consensus out of hand I hope.

I personally do not like it when ID critics make rude or abrasive comments

— Steve Reuland

Georgia in its Preamble wrote: To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution. I wonder why they need to rely on the protection and guidance of Almighty God? Oh yeah, that's right. It's ceremonial. Probably everyone in Georgia agreed it was ceremonial. I surrender. LOL

What part of "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" does anyone think ambiguous?

— Dave Scot

Roadtripper you crack me up.

Yet another reason to pity creationist apologists: they stink at comedy!!

I suppose that is because there is so little for them to laugh about while they crawl on the mat looking for their teeth. Maybe next century, if Christian fundamentalism is still viable as a political force, they'll come up with some better arguments.

For example, when the DI says, “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions,” please note that they said “replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

I appreciate the discussion about civility. What about the matter of relevance? I would guess that well over half the comments on this issue (which, in case you have forgotten, relate to the Behe piece in the NYTimes) are irrelevant. As interesting and cogent as they may be, I do not like having to wade through a lot of off-topic material to find relevant comments. Steve, what do you have to say (if anything) about this concern? Is there an explicit statement anywhere on PT that provides guidelines for posts?

— Tim Tesar

Georgia in its Preamble wrote: To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution. I wonder why they need to rely on the protection and guidance of Almighty God? Oh yeah, that's right. It's ceremonial. Probably everyone in Georgia agreed it was ceremonial. I surrender. LOL

FL: Moreover, (once again), as evolutionist Michael Ruse pointed out in court, a proposed hypothesis or theory is NOT unscientific just because the people doing the proposing happen to have religious motivations.

FL: people like Dembski are offering a breath of fresh air by helping establish a positive, fruitful alternative-the “mutual support model”-to the ages-old question of the relationship between science and theology.

FL: Evolutionists have simply, honestly failed (and continue to fail) to show that ID is “religion” instead of science.

This designer, we are told, is unknowable. We merely know there is design if there is some measure of "specified complexity". We know nothing about the design itself, about how it was implemented and when or where, nor anything about the nature of the designer.... The design is utterly unlike human design. It does not involve trial and error or learning. It does not result in simple task-directed machines. It does not involve simplicity...Human designs are fragile - they work only in the conditions for which they are designed, if they work at all. Rarified design is robust - it works in many conditions. Ordinary design requires tinkering to keep it working - you have to repair human designed machines after a while, or replace them. Rarified design is self-correcting, self-repairing, and self-producing.

The inference from a "design" to a design goal, and hence to a designer, is rather attenuated. If we have no criteria for identifying design goals other than them being what keeps the organism alive, we end up with many designers, many goals, many design criteria, and ultimately it is simply a restatement of the evolutionary notion of fitness.

As the claim is the aspects of living things now are designed, we might legitimately ask how a Designer at the beginning could have foreseen in detail what the functions of, say, a biochemical pathway, could have been three and a half billion years later...In order to "front load", the Designer had to foresee not only all possible combinations of molecules in organisms, but also in their environments, select the "functional" ones that met the Designer's design goals... Then it had to do this not only for a small volume of chemicals in solution, but over the surface of the earth for 3.5 billion years.

FL: Thus I conclude that Behe’s quotation, “And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator,” is quite true

The US Constitution does not.  It mentions neither God nor a "higher authority".  The only authority upon which governance is justified is we the people.  Kind of makes your claim hard to maintain, no?

Not at all. The Founders wrote: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America...

Agnostics acknowledge the impossibility of disproving a bearded thunderer. There's an important semantic difference.

Joe: I think the Darwin, Freud, Marx phobia is to do with the way all of them suggested that humans and human culture are the products of processes, rather than some divine (or otherwise unique and unfathomable) spark. Dennett describes the real "danger" of Darwin's "dangerous idea" as being the idea that mind is no longer the prime cause, but rather an effect. Previously, the only explanation for complexity, for purpose, for meaning or for design was an intelligent mind. Darwin showed that the "intelligence" could be reduced to an algorithmic process, from which the human mind must necessarily have been created. You can see why the IDers don't like him.

Two frauds down and one to go.

Well, and I'm obviously guessing here, I would imagine these people consider the lesson of communism to be that Marx was a) a fraud and b) wrong. As for Freud, I presume they mean that because much of what he thought was universal turned out to be his own neuroses, he was a) a fraud and b) wrong. Neither conclusion follows, of course, but then logic was never a forte of that sort of theist.

Perhaps part of it is this idea that the religious right has that scientists/intellectuals have a "materialist agenda". Since both claim to be pursuing the truth, but "in fact" are pushing their evil agenda, they are frauds. I don't know. Ask DaveScot.

Behe states that "the contemporary argument for intelligent design" "consists of four linked claims". I beg to differ. In addition to those he mentions, ID also necessarily entails the following claims (plus many others, undoubtedly) that need to be supported scientifically (not theologically): That there is somewhere (location unspecified) an entity (or entities) (the nature of which is unspecified) that has intelligence (instantiated in some unspecified medium) that has interacted with the universe (or maybe just the earth, who knows?) using some mechanisitc process (unspecified) to alter biological materials in some manner (unspecified) at some time or times (unspecified) during the history of the earth.

— Tim Tesar

> Dave's Heddle and Scot argue that

> No 15 year old I know (and I've raised two of my own well beyond that point) is
> going to be effected by anything Dover or Cobb or Kansas or wherever has done or
>attempted to do.

If that's the case, then why are they willing to spend excessive amounts of time and money to do these things. And why does the religious right so rabidly support their efforts?

> Dave's Heddle and Scot argue that

> No 15 year old I know (and I've raised two of my own well beyond that point) is
> going to be effected by anything Dover or Cobb or Kansas or wherever has done or
>attempted to do.

If that's the case, then why are they willing to spend excessive amounts of time and money to do these things. And why does the religious right so rabidly support their efforts?

http://toyblog.741.com/archearlyfeb05.html#arch0207051

I haven't even begun to address the individual flaws to this op/ed. However, I have read the book and found it unsettling and not consistant with scientific inquiry...t has not stood up to the scrutiny of peer review, therefore, the Times has appropriately placed the IDspeculation exactly where it belongs...in the opinion editorial page. NOT THE SCIENCE PAGE

I hope that we get some rebuttal Op-Eds at length. And most of all, I hope that the man that writes them is Kenneth Miller. Behe deserves a smackdown not simply on the science, which many people just will never accept, but also on the bad theological implications of ID.

This whole discussion reminds me of my college biology course at the University of Washington 14 years ago.
Biology 201 was cellular biology, lab involved extracting DNA, running gels, etc.
Biology 202 was animal physiology, lab involved testing the response of frog muscles to various drugs,etc.
The first half of biology 203 involved plant physiology, again we ran experiments, tested hypothesis, etc.
The second half of biology 203 was on evolution.
1. Suddenly the scientific methods for testing a hypothesis were irrelevent because it took "millions of years".
2. Most lectures involved "refuting" people who didn't agree with evolution and labelling them as religious fanatics.
3. Lab no longer consisted of doing experiments. Instead we cut out cartoons of fictional creatures and were told to put them in an order that would be consistent with evolution. When asked if we could use pictures of real fossils instead, I was told that couldn't be done because of "punctuated equilibrium"

What I learned in college about biology was that almost anything was open game to challenge except evolution. Evolution is a fact because it is and it's the basis for biology. Furthermore if you don't believe it you are a religious fanatic.

Now as a physician I have started a career in epidemiological research. I enjoy developing hypotheses and testing them. When other investigators disagree we can have a civil discourse. Darwinian fundamentalist do not want to allow a civil discourse on opposing views, because they are unwilling to consider other theories such as intelligent design that could also explain the data. Their real agenda is atheism not science.

I admire men like Behe. Just as Galileo's work was remembered despite the persecution of the Catholic Church, I suspect Behe's work will be remembered and appreciated long after the persecution of Darwinian fundamentalists.

Now as a physician I have started a career in epidemiological research. I enjoy developing hypotheses and testing them.

I suspect Behe's work will be remembered and appreciated long after the persecution of Darwinian fundamentalists.

Evolution is a fact because it is and it's the basis for biology.

Andrew Rule, M.D.,

I suspect that you are unlikely to find someone more consistently critical of "intelligent design" concepts than I am, and my "real agenda" is certainly not atheism. I don't know who sold you that bill of goods, that evolution and belief in God are incompatible, but it is a damned and damnable lie. Repeating a falsehood is not compatible with Christian ethics, so I won't be seeing that from you again, will I?

It sounds like you got ripped on your evolution course. I got better value out of mine. We did have a lab with lots and lots of D. melanogaster. The instructors were Jane Brockmann and Bruce MacFadden. We used Futuyma's text. There was plenty of rigor, and no branding of "religious fanatics" that I recall. Just because somebody messed up with you doesn't invalidate the field of study.

There's a book I contributed to that examines "intelligent design" claims "on their merits" -- and finds them wanting. Matt Young and Taner Edis, eds., 2004, Why Intelligent Design Fails, Rutgers University Press.

As has been mentioned before, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that one be persecuted -- one must also be right. We obviously disagree as to whether "intelligent design" will meet that requirement. Lots of new ideas in biology have been advanced. A few really big ideas, like endosymbiosis, have withstood the scrutiny and criticism of the scientific community, matching the empirical evidence. Most ideas are just wrong. We hang onto the ideas that work, that have earned their place in a science curriculum. "Intelligent design" has not earned its place in science curricula. It has barely been broached as an argument addressing biologists. And the initial "intelligent design" "work" is simply dreadful. Perhaps "intelligent design" will attract a new group of people who are willing to work and do science to develop a positive scientific research program, but as it stands the ID advocates are people pushing a socio-political agenda, with very little effort being expended toward science.

Comment by Andrew Rule Darwinian fundamentalist do not want to allow a civil discourse on opposing views, because they are unwilling to consider other theories such as intelligent design that could also explain the data. Their real agenda is atheism not science.

This whole discussion reminds me of my college biology course at the University of Washington 14 years ago. Biology 201 was cellular biology, lab involved extracting DNA, running gels, etc. Biology 202 was animal physiology, lab involved testing the response of frog muscles to various drugs,etc. The first half of biology 203 involved plant physiology, again we ran experiments, tested hypothesis, etc. The second half of biology 203 was on evolution. 1. Suddenly the scientific methods for testing a hypothesis were irrelevent because it took "millions of years". 

2. Most lectures involved "refuting" people who didn't agree with evolution and labelling them as religious fanatics.

3. Lab no longer consisted of doing experiments.  Instead we cut out cartoons of fictional creatures and were told to put them in an order that would be consistent with evolution. When asked if we could use pictures of real fossils instead, I was told that couldn't be done because of "punctuated equilibrium"

What I learned in college about biology was that almost anything was open game to challenge except evolution. 

Evolution is a fact because it is

and it's the basis for biology.  Furthermore if you don't believe it you are a religious fanatic.

Now as a physician I have started a career in epidemiological research. I enjoy developing hypotheses and testing them.  When other investigators disagree we can have a civil discourse.  Darwinian fundamentalist do not want to allow a civil discourse on opposing views,

Please explain all of the people who are devoutly religious and yet have come to the conclusion that common descent occurred and that natural selection was an important mechanism that guided the evolution of biological lineages. I admire men like Behe.  Just as Galileo's work was remembered despite the persecution of the Catholic Church, I suspect Behe's work will be remembered and appreciated long after the persecution of Darwinian fundamentalists.

because they are unwilling to consider other theories such as intelligent design that could also explain the data.  Their real agenda is atheism not science. 

I admire men like Behe.  Just as Galileo's work was remembered despite the persecution of the Catholic Church, I suspect Behe's work will be remembered and appreciated long after the persecution of Darwinian fundamentalists.

Andrew Rule, M.D.,

From your description of your biology course on evolution, it sounds to me like you got gyped. That curriculum sounds eerily like a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution proffered in Cobb County GA. I think since you failed to learn any of the science of evolution in your biology course, you will now agree that it was a bad idea. Teach evolution, and a knowledge of evolution results; teach "the controversy" and no such knowledge of evolution results!

Andrew Rule, M.D.,

It seems like you got gyped. If your lectures on evolution consisted of "Most lectures involved "refuting" people who didn't agree with evolution " instead of the science of evolution, you truly missed out. But from the sounds of this, I think you now know, first hand, the REAL dangers of spending valuable class time "teaching the controversy" instead of the science.

So you learned that teaching the science of evolution gains one knowledge of science; whereas teaching "the controversy" gains one none of the science.

So can I count you as one among those who would rather teach the science and NOT the controversy??

sorry for the double post, I thought I lost the first one into the internet ether....

How often we are moved to admit the intelligence exhibited in both the designing and the execution of some of His works. Take the fly, for instance. The planning of the fly was an application of pure intelligence, morals not being concerned. Not one of us could have planned the fly, not one of us could have constructed him; and no one would have considered it wise to try, except under an assumed name. It is believed by some that the fly was introduced to meet a long-felt want. In the course of ages, for some reason or other, there have been millions of these persons, but out of this vast multitude there has not been one who has been willing to explain what the want was. At least satisfactorily. A few have explained that there was need of a creature to remove disease-breeding garbage; but these being then asked to explain what long-felt want the disease-breeding garbage was introduced to supply, they have not been willing to undertake the contract. [...]When we reflect that the fly was as not invented for pastime, but in the way of business; that he was not flung off in a heedless moment and with no object in view but to pass the time, but was the fruit of long and pains-taking labor and calculation, and with a definite and far-reaching, purpose in view; that his character and conduct were planned out with cold deliberation, that his career was foreseen and fore-ordered, and that there was no want which he could supply, we are hopelessly puzzled, we cannot understand the moral lapse that was able to render possible the conceiving and the consummation of this squalid and malevolent creature. Let us try to think the unthinkable: let us try to imagine a Man of a sort willing to invent the fly; that is to say, a man destitute of feeling; a man willing to wantonly torture and harass and persecute myriads of creatures who had never done him any harm and could not if they wanted to, and -- the majority of them -- poor dumb things not even aware of his existence. In a word, let us try to imagine a man with so singular and so lumbering a code of morals as this: that it is fair and right to send afflictions upon the just -- upon the unoffending as well as upon the offending, without discrimination. If we can imagine such a man, that is the man that could invent the fly, and send him out on his mission and furnish him his orders: "Depart into the uttermost corners of the earth, and diligently do your appointed work. Persecute the sick child; settle upon its eyes, its face, its hands, and gnaw and pester and sting; worry and fret and madden the worn and tired mother who watches by the child, and who humbly prays for mercy and relief with the pathetic faith of the deceived and the unteachable. Settle upon the soldier's festering wounds in field and hospital and drive him frantic while he also prays, and betweentimes curses, with none to listen but you, Fly, who get all the petting and all the protection, without even praying for it. Harry and persecute the forlorn and forsaken wretch who is perishing of the plague, and in his terror and despair praying; bite, sting, feed upon his ulcers, dabble your feet in his rotten blood, gum them thick with plague-germs -- feet cunningly designed and perfected for this function ages ago in the beginning -- carry this freight to a hundred tables, among the just and the unjust. the high and the low, and walk over the food and gaum it with filth and death. Visit all; allow no man peace till he get it in the grave; visit and afflict the hard-worked and unoffending horse, mule, ox, ass, pester the patient cow, and all the kindly animals that labor without fair reward here and perish without hope of it hereafter; spare no creature, wild or tame; but wheresoever you find one, make his life a misery, treat him as the innocent deserve; and so please Me and increase My glory Who made the fly.

Source for the above quotation: Mark Twain, Thoughts on God

Mark Twain does have a way with words...

Posted by Hiero5ant on February 7, 2005 12:33 PM "it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories." Did Dembski really say this?

Rafe, I wrote, "Please show me in Michael Behe's writings or my own where we deny that IC systems can be made up of subsystems that can be functional in their own right." Both Behe and I have always defined IC with reference to the basic function of the system in question (if we've not said it explicitly -- and I have in NFL -- then a charitable reading would have granted that -- neither Behe nor I are that stupid). We therefore left open the possibility of subsystems having function in their own right. You and Yersinia charge us with a denial. The quotes you give indicate no such thing. As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

Apparantly my college education on evolution was subpar. Perhaps the evidence is overwhelming that evolution is true? Perhaps you can help me?

I would like to know one experiment that supports the hypothesis that life spontaneously formed out of a "premordial soup" (a few amino acids in a test tube didn't cut it for me)

I would also like to know one experiment that supports the hypothesis that humans evolved from the same ancestor as monkeys. (Looking at fossils isn't an experiment, its collecting data for those of you who do not know the difference)

In epidemiology, we recognize that experiments (i.e. clinical trials) can only be done in certain situations mainly due to ethical considerations (i.e. no one is going to randomize people to cigarette smoking or placebo). In observational studies our findings may be due to confounding or bias, but at least with multivariable analysis we can test a hypothesis while recognizing our limitations.

In macroevolution you have no methodology to test your hypothesis (how can you test a hypothesis that requires millions of years). Instead you back it up with rhetoric, just as the ID does. Why is recognizing the methodologic limitation in you field so difficult? Have some intellectual honesty?

Geez, Dr. Andrew... where to start?

Did your evolution course really get into the mechanisms of life spontaneously forming in a "premordial soup"? And is that how they taught you to spell it? While obviously related, evolution deals with the development of life forms over time, not the origin.

Now let me get this straight. You are an epidemiologist, and you know of no credible evidence that humans evolved from the same ancestor as monkeys. That is... spectacular. Do you think shigella shares an ancestor with E. coli? How do you explain the fact that the DNA sequences align perfectly with the geneologies?

And I guess you feel the same way about plate tectonics - no way to test that either, so we should be just as open to "God did it 6000 years ago" I guess.

And, by the way, what was the college that ripped you off so badly? I'd want my money back.

In macroevolution you have no methodology to test your hypothesis That you think this indicates that you are totally ignorant of entire fields (note plural) of study. That you would venture strong opinions in a state of total ignorance suggests that you are stupid (possible) or dishonest (probable). (how can you test a hypothesis that requires millions of years).

In macroevolution you have no methodology to test your hypothesis

(how can you test a hypothesis that requires millions of years).

Actually, unlike macroevolution and the origin of life, the movement of plate tectonics can be measured. We can then extrapolate our data to the position of continents in prior periods, but it remains an extrapolation.

In epidemiology, we test hypothesis by comparing the measurents between groups. We attempt to falsify the null hypothesis (no difference) by showing that it is highly unlikely to have occured by chance (p-value) with in the construct of our study design.

My point is that if you cannot measure phenomena, regardless of the reason, then it cannot be scientifically scrutinized. It remains more in the realm of philosophy than science.

Where I did get my moneys worth at the U-dub was learning about the second law of thermodynamics in my physical chemistry course. That was enough to convince me that simple systems evolving into more complex organized systems by chance was not very plausible.

Russell:
Andre Rule, M.D. claims to be an alumnus of the University of Washington, where I am on faculty.
He also seems to think people will take him more seriously if he appends "M.D." to his name when he posts to the internets. But fools routinely graduate from goods schools, and as the olds saw goes: what do you call the stupidest person in a medical school's class? (The answer is, unfortunately, "Doctor".)

Apparantly[sic] my college education on evolution was subpar. Perhaps the evidence is overwhelming that evolution is true? Perhaps you can help me? I would like to know one experiment that supports the hypothesis that life spontaneously formed out of a "premordial[sic] soup" (a few amino acids in a test tube didn't cut it for me)

I would also like to know one experiment that supports the hypothesis that humans evolved from the same ancestor as monkeys. (Looking at fossils isn't an experiment, its collecting data for those of you who do not know the difference)

In macroevolution you have no methodology to test your hypothesis (how can you test a hypothesis that requires millions of years). Instead you back it up with rhetoric, just as the ID does. Why is recognizing the methodologic limitation in you field so difficult? Have some intellectual honesty?

Where I did get my moneys worth at the U-dub was learning about the second law of thermodynamics in my physical chemistry course.  That was enough to convince me that simple systems evolving into more complex organized systems by chance was not very plausible.

Actually, unlike macroevolution and the origin of life, the movement of plate tectonics can be measured. We can then extrapolate our data to the position of continents in prior periods, but it remains an extrapolation.

In epidemiology, we test hypothesis by comparing the measurents between groups. We attempt to falsify the null hypothesis (no difference) by showing that it is highly unlikely to have occured by chance (p-value) with in the construct of our study design.

My point is that if you cannot measure phenomena, regardless of the reason, then it cannot be scientifically scrutinized. It remains more in the realm of philosophy than science.

Where I did get my moneys worth at the U-dub was learning about the second law of thermodynamics in my physical chemistry course. That was enough to convince me that simple systems evolving into more complex organized systems by chance was not very plausible.

Where I did get my moneys worth at the U-dub was learning about the second law of thermodynamics in my physical chemistry course. That was enough to convince me that simple systems evolving into more complex organized systems by chance was not very plausible.

Actually, unlike macroevolution and the origin of life, the movement of plate tectonics can be measured. We can then extrapolate our data to the position of continents in prior periods, but it remains an extrapolation.

My point is that if you cannot measure phenomena, regardless of the reason, then it cannot be scientifically scrutinized. It remains more in the realm of philosophy than science.

Where I did get my moneys worth at the U-dub was learning about the second law of thermodynamics in my physical chemistry course. That was enough to convince me that simple systems evolving into more complex organized systems by chance was not very plausible.

DaveScot wrote:
"In return I will direct you to the preambles of all 50 state constitutions of the United States which explicitely claim that a supernatural agent of some sort is the ultimate source of basic human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that gov'ts created by men exist solely to protect these rights."

Really? Where is this explicitly claimed in the Montana Constitution?

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca_toc/Constitution.htm

Phenotype, genotype. Who cares. We could make a list of all the phenotypic differences between primates and humans and conclude that except for 1% they are similar. The hypothesis that primates and humans diverged 6 million years ago still cannot be tested. Extrapolating from rates of gene mutations is not testing a hypothesis its extrapolating.

I think we should do an epidemiological study on the risk factors of people who dogmatically believe and teach that macroevolution is a proven fact and are intolerent of other views. We could do a case-control study and use scientists in other fields that require experimental design as controls. Hey lets make it a genetic study and do linkage analysis with sibships. We can look for the "Darwinian fundamentalist" gene.

I want to apologize for being a physician scientist, I realize that this hurts your paradigm that people who disagree with macroevolution are ignorant and uneducated.

Phenotype, genotype. Who cares.

I want to apologize for being a physician scientist,

Andrew Rule, MD, you have pulled out the "Second Law of Thermodynamics". Anyone that does that as an attack of evolution is ignorant and uneducated. Admit that you know not of what you're speaking, please. That will put you miles above the rest of the trolls in this forum. If you want to not be ignorant and uneducated, go to talkorigins.org and read. Until then, you're wasting bandwith, bringing nothing new to this forum.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

My point is that if you cannot measure phenomena, regardless of the reason, then it cannot be scientifically scrutinized. It remains more in the realm of philosophy than science.

I realize that this hurts your paradigm that people who disagree with macroevolution are ignorant and uneducated.

To paraphrase an old joke:

What do you call a mediocre med student after he graduates?

Answer: Dr. Rule

For the record, Dr. Rule, who was your instructor for the evolutionary biology portion of Biology 203?

The hypothesis that primates and humans diverged 6 million years ago still cannot be tested.

The hypothesis that primates and humans diverged 6 million years ago still cannot be tested.

I think we should do an epidemiological study on the risk factors of people who dogmatically believe and teach that macroevolution [...blah blah blah]

I don't remember the instructor, nor did I save any of my notes from college. I think I would have taken the course in 1993 or 1994. When I took it, you had to apply to get into pre-med biology because there were not enough open slots. I wished I had saved the cartoon creatures drawings we had to paste in order of how they evolved.

I still believe that the second law of thermodyamics is a valid mechanistic criticism. Sunlight alone does not provide a plausible mechanism for life to defy entropy, spontaneously form, and progress to more complex and ordered states.

However, we can speculate all we want, I'm interested in testing hypotheses that can be falsified.

No you're not. You're looking for any reason to keep believing that your interpretation of the bible is correct. Keep reaching for that rainbow.

Is there really any reason to read any more of what this guy writes?

Andrew Rule, MD, you just stated that you believe that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) is valid. The rest of us don't rely on belief - we know the facts. I've called your bluff. Go read the articles in talkorigins on the second law of thermodynamics and then come back with a well written response, or admit that you don't know what you're talking about. Succinctly put, the huge amount of energy we receive from the sun every second is more than enough to support all kinds of breakings of the 2LoT - like the heating of the air.

A person - particularly one that claims to be educated and non-ignorant - would do well to talk only about those topics he is fluent in. Particularly, in this forum that implies having at least read through the relevant topics on both sides. You're not even up to date on creationist nonesense (I think even answers in genesis has discarded 2LoT arguments), and you're certainly dreadfully ignoranr on evolution and its arguments. Instead of trying to save face by relying on belief, why don't you go to http://www.talkorigins.org and read on 2LoT, evolution, etc? I advise you - and this is a friendly advice - if you stay here and continue to fight that pathetic rearguard action (pathetic in the original sense of "inspires pity") you will only continue to show your lack of education in the subject.

Now, once you've read both sides, maybe you can come up with some kind of evidence for your stated position, instead of relying on faith, as you've just done. As a scientist, you should know that facts are what is required.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Andrew wrote:
"Phenotype, genotype.  Who cares."

I do.

"We could make a list of all the phenotypic differences between primates and humans and conclude that except for 1% they are similar."

Sorry, but you're ignoring the evidence. If you look at something like the proportion of mRNAs in the brain that are spliced differently, you'll conclude that they are 10-15% different.

Of course, you'll never do that, as creationists don't have anything to say about alternative splicing--a huge engine for variablility that Behe ignores, pretending that amino acid substitutions have to account for observed variability.

"The hypothesis  that primates and humans diverged 6 million years ago still cannot be tested."

This is simply a lie. The hypothesis is falsifiable and has been tested repeatedly. You're just ignoring the evidence from those tests.

"Extrapolating from rates of gene mutations is not testing a hypothesis its extrapolating."

The hypothesis predicts how often mutations will be found (and mutations are not limited to changing single amino acids, as Behe wishes they were).

"...Hey lets make it a genetic study and do linkage analysis with sibships.  We can look for the "Darwinian fundamentalist" gene."

Your ignorance of genetics is apparent, since you don't know the difference between a gene and an allele.

"I want to apologize for being a physician scientist,..."

You're clearly not a scientist, so no apology is necessary. As someone who has taught first-year "basic science" courses in medical school, I know that they rarely involve the scientific method.

"I still believe that the second law of thermodyamics is a valid mechanistic criticism."

That alone reveals the incredible extent of your ignorance.

"Sunlight alone does not provide a plausible mechanism for life to defy entropy, spontaneously form, and progress to more complex and ordered states."

You think that the sun only emits light?

OK, following my own counsel, I went and checked the list of arguments that answers in genesis thinks creationists shouldn't use. There is indeed a mention of 2LoT, but only in the context of it (not) having started after the fall. 2LoT is not, however, discarded. I do see that they've stopped using it directly, but rather use it in the "2nd law of thermodynamics of information" (2LoToI) form. That one makes even less sense, but whatever rocks their boat.

Anyway, I withdraw my comment above about answers in genesis. Apart from that, my argument stands - "Dr" Andrew Rule should read on the topics he wishes to talk about before talking about them if he doesn't wish to look uneducated and ignorant - or at least face the facts of his ignorance and admit he was wrong, wrong, wrong when he spoke.

Andrew, seriously, read talkorigins.org before further embarrasing yourself. You don't seem to be a compulsive liar like DaveScot (first "agnostic" ever to use the concept of "kinds" - only present in the Bible - first "Computer Scientists" which doesn't know what genetical algorithms are or how they develop and first "retired man" I've seen using "LOL" and "ROFLOL" in every other post. He sounds like a 14 year old fundamentalist christian hacker wannabe). Don't follow his steps and first get the education, then try to argue evolution.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Dr. Rule:

I remember the name of every college and grad school instructor that I have had. In some cases those names are indelibly imprinted on me -- the teachers that I liked the least are often the ones that I remember best.

You, on the other hand, cannot even remember the the name of your Biology 203 instructor; I think that your recollection of the contents of the lectures and labs is suspect. This conclusion is supported by your own demonstration that you do not understand fundamental concepts that you should have learned in p-chem, another course that you claim to remember well.

It's too bad you didn't save your notes. If you had, you would have something to show for the time and money that you spent at the UW. Without the notes, you don't seem to have even (accurate) memories. Pity.

One can read into the phrasing what one wishes to, it is so ambiguous. Did Congrefs mean to say the creator was the God of Abraham? In the form of Allah? Shiva? Water Woman? Zeus? Thor? The Cosmic Muffin? One's mother?

— Ed Darrell

I should have said "how we deal with the intersection between the religious and the secular in our public life", since I don't like to perpetuate the notion that the intersection automatically entails division or conflict.

Andrew Rule Opined: Actually, unlike macroevolution and the origin of life, the movement of plate tectonics can be measured. We can then extrapolate our data to the position of continents in prior periods, but it remains an extrapolation.

Andrew Rule Opined: Extrapolating from rates of gene mutations is not testing a hypothesis its extrapolating.

Tonyl,

I am glad you mentioned "valid scientific theory". Validity is much more complex than non-epidemiologist like to think it is.

Are we talking about construct validity? concurrent validity? predictive validity? or is it all just "face validity"

Not all methods are as "valid" as others.

We can discuss what we believe about the age of the universe, where the continents used to be, the origin of life, macroevolution, how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, etc.

or

we can study hypotheses that can be tested and potentially falsified with experimental designs.

You guys are missing out. The latter is much more exciting. Lets move beyond rhetoric (lawyers, like the guy who wrote Darwin on Trial are much better at rhetoric anyways)

Stop replying people, he has to be a troll. No one is this dumb.

Indeed, Andrew Rule, MD, let's move beyond rhetoric. In fact, lets hear what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says from you. Remember, the one you "believe" stops evolution? I have formally acused you of being a troll. So have several others. One of the key points is that all you have provided so far to defend your position is rhetoric. But you can change that by providing back-up to your claims. I made the mistake with DaveScot to let him wriggle out from defending his baseless claims. I am not doing so again. State what the 2LoT says, and how that stops evolution, or admit you're a troll and then shut up.

Alternatively, you could, as I have suggested above, visit talkorigins.org and read the easily available data and come back with refutation. Understand that this is light work - in good consciense, I should expect no less than a full review of the relevant literature before even willing to listen to your opinions (because only then will they be informed opinions). But I am willing to admit that reviewing 100+ years of literature in favour of evolution might take a while, so I'll go with expecting to at least have read the compacted info in talkorigins. When you get right down to it, it isn't that much.

Please prove that you're not just another troll, Andrew Rule, MD.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

Lets move beyond rhetoric (lawyers, like the guy who wrote Darwin on Trial are much better at rhetoric anyways)

— Rule

Well I am not sure what a "troll" is in the context you are using it. I really don't spend this much time usually in these type of forums. It sounds derogatory. yikes.

They way I see it, you need to back up your baseless claims that ID does not have equal footing with macroevolution. I'm not the zealot persecuting and slandering people for having differing beliefs. What is the point in reading literature that presupposes a worldview that only allows evolution and cannot be experimentally validated. Every criticism I have heard of ID can also be applied to macroevolution.

What I offer you should thank me for if you are true scientists. An alternative perspective that takes into consideration methodological limitations in validating certain hypotheses.

I never said that the 2LoT stops macroevolution, but that it is evidence against a philosophy that can't be experimentally tested. I freely admit I can't falsify a philosophy. Does that work for you?

I have waited for just for one experiment to support the claim that apes and humans have common ancestors. If an experiment can't be done to validate that claim admit it. Do you just believe apes and humans look similar genetically and phenotypically and that's the extent of it.

"I don't have to read it because I know it's wrong."

Wow.

Where I did get my moneys worth at the U-dub was learning about the second law of thermodynamics in my physical chemistry course. That was enough to convince me that simple systems evolving into more complex organized systems by chance was not very plausible.

I never said that the 2LoT stops macroevolution, but that it is evidence against a philosophy that can't be experimentally tested. I freely admit I can't falsify a philosophy. Does that work for you?

That was enough to convince me that simple systems evolving into more complex organized systems by chance was not very plausible.

Where I did get my moneys worth at the U-dub was learning about the second law of thermodynamics in my physical chemistry course.  That was enough to convince me that simple systems evolving into more complex organized systems by chance was not very plausible.

Every criticism I have heard of ID can also be applied to macroevolution.

Andrew David Rule - first enrolled fall 1991 BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING, Cum Laude, earned June 9, 1995 DOCTOR OF MEDICINE, earned June 11, 1999

In fairness, I should of course point out that the person posting a "Andrew Rule, M.D." may only be posing as Dr. Rule in an attempt to smear a good man's reputation.

I have waited for just for one experiment to support the claim that apes and humans have common ancestors. If an experiment can’t be done to validate that claim admit it.

Thanks for the background check. Do they still have a bioengineering program at UW? It was nice cause they allowed you to take grad courses while you were an undergrad.

Jari, thanks for the excellent example. I have brothers and we can easily do a genetic test for paternity. We can compare markers in our DNA samples with markers in our parents DNA samples. We can validate the method by doing similar assays between two unrelated individuals. We can validate the method by interviewing my parents and brothers. There are many ways to independently validate the methodolgy.

There is no way to independently validate the lineage of a fossil marker (whatever you want to use) with humans and apes.

By the way what experiment would satisfy you that humans and apes do not have a common ancestor?

I, like many others here, thought that your style of argumentation so closely resembled that of a Prototypical Internet Troll that I thought I should see if there was even a remote chance that you were who you claimed to be. Shockingly, there is is a chance of this.

As for Bioengineering, yes -- it's a terrific department, and they have a beautiful new building is going up at the west end of the HSC strip next door to J-wing, where I work. And although we've exchanged harsh words here, please understand that this is a pretty rough-and-tumble forum -- we take science and ideas seriously -- and if you're in town I'd be delighted to meet you. I'm in HSB J-507.

By the way what experiment would satisfy you that humans and apes do not have a common ancestor?

I have brothers and we can easily do a genetic test for paternity. We can compare markers in our DNA samples with markers in our parents DNA samples.

We can validate the method by doing similar assays between two unrelated individuals.

We can validate the method by interviewing my parents and brothers. There are many ways to independently validate the methodolgy.

There is no way to independently validate the lineage of a fossil marker (whatever you want to use) with humans and apes.

By the way what experiment would satisfy you that humans and apes do not have a common ancestor?

By the way what experiment would satisfy you that humans and apes do not have a common ancestor?

Query: Can an apparently non-scientific claim be a possible defeater to an apparently scientific claim? For example, suppose scientist X argues that moral claims are entirely accountable by evolution,

But if that is the case, then external conceptual challenges to apparently scientific claims are in-principle possible.

Consider another example. Suppose that scientist Z offers an account of the universe that necessitates postulating mulitiple universes.

However, philosopher B counters by showing that this account requires an infinite regress of causes, which B argues is conceptually problematic.

If B is correct, isn?t that a defeater to Z?s account, even though B?s argument is non-empirical?

I have taught my fair share of creationist M.D.'s. They exist, as do creationist engineers and chemists. Even some creationist biologists. Oh well. Their existence doesn't prove them right, any more than my now-retired oncologist colleague's assertion that he didn't believe in oncogenes meant that oncogenes don't cause cancer.

We should remember that a medical education is much closer to an engineering one than a scientific one. It's the nature of the beast.

But, Dr. Rule, let us do some science here, that is, hypothesis testing. There are two alternative models for the observed close relationship of humans and apes: first, that each species was specially created. Secondly, that they had a common ancestor. Which model accounts most parsimoniously for the fact that human and ape globin pseudogenes are identical? And if you say that Creation does it, how to explain the similarity of the ribosomal RNA species? Or the common morphology? Special creation quickly becomes Ad Hoc Creation. And we are rightly suspicious of ad hoc explanations in science, because they don't lead anywhere.

Now, what does that have to do with the issue of scientific education of our young people, which was the point of this thread? If all you want from science is a collection of disconnected facts, relatively little. However, I would assert that the goal of scientific education (for citizens as well as scientists) is to understand how process works to give us new knowledge. By new knowledge, I mean general principles and mechanisms which have predictive value. Think about the difference between Tycho Brahe (a superb observational astronomer) and Newton. We rightly regard the latter as the greater scientist. So here's the objection: we fail students by misrepresenting a nonpredictive set of ad hoc, untestable assertions such as IDC to be science.

On behalf of my fellow educators, I apologize for the fact that your mind is so untrained. I hope it doesn't interfere too strongly with your contributions to Medicine, and I will pray for your faith to be strengthened so you can accept the wonders of evolution as part of divine creation.

Few if any accounts of the universe beyond the Big Bang, multi- or not, are "scientific", regardless of who offers them.

For those of you who are concerned that my standards of scientific inquiry will interfere in my line of research, let my attempt to alieviate your concerns.

First when studying the epidemiology, I follow the standards of my field, report the details of my methods, and report findings in peer-reviewed journals. I have no problem with transparency with my data and follow all the ethical guidelines as they are very much needed when studying humans.

So far I have yet to have a reviewer ask me to explain the evolutionary implications of my findings. It's irrelavent and of little interest to those of us who mainly want to better care for patients.

Jari, I think I'm going to hold out for that time machine instead of lowering my methodologic standards to the view that since apes and humans look similar (by morphology, DNA, etc.) then they must have a common ancestor. Causality is poorly arrived at in cross-sectional studies. I want some longitudinal studies.

Alex, I am well aware that people take this topic very personally. It is easy to want to belittle people who disagree with your core beliefs. It's a beautiful campus you work at. I don't envy your commute (if you have one).

?if it is true that no objective moral norms apply to all people at all times and in all places, then the following moral judgements must be denied: Mother Theresa was no better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, it is wrong to torture babies for fun.? This is arrant nonsense.

I don?t have a problem with the notion that an obstensibly scientific theory can be defeated non-empirically. That is to say, a scientific theory can fail not because the evidence is against it, but because it is illogical, unparsimonious, incoherent, inconsistent with other well-accepted theories, etc. There is more than just testability when it comes to science. However, a critique of a scientific theory does not itself make a theory, no matter how correct it may be. Showing that a given theory of multiple universes is wrong does not tell us what?s right. My biggest problem with ID isn?t that its crticisms of evolution are mostly wrong, it?s that criticisms are all it has to offer. There is no positive account of how living things came to be that we can empirically investigate. So ID should not be called a scientific theory, at least not as it stands now.

Nick,

I am fairly sure that Norman Geisler is not a young-earth creationist. I have personally spoken with Norm about this subject and I went to school at UC Davis while his son, David, worked as a CCC staff worker. David told me that his father thinks the earth is old and Norm said just as much in our conversations together. Granted, he did testify in the McLean trial for the defense in favor of Act509, but he told me that he testified because he thought Act 509 was flawed, but not unconstitutional.

If you have better indications that he is a YEC, could you please alert me to them.

Cheers,

MB

Recent Supreme Court cases relating to the Pledge of Allegiance suggest that the parents in these sorts of cases do not have a compelling case and will need to simply remove their child from the ?offensive? class.

First when studying the epidemiology, I follow the standards of my field, report the details of my methods, and report findings in peer-reviewed journals. I have no problem with transparency with my data and follow all the ethical guidelines as they are very much needed when studying humans.

It is easy to want to belittle people who disagree with your core beliefs.

Jari, thanks for the excellent example.  I have brothers and we can easily do a genetic test for paternity.  We can compare markers in our DNA samples with markers in our parents DNA samples. We can validate the method by doing similar assays between two unrelated individuals.  We can validate the method by interviewing my parents and brothers.  There are many ways to independently validate the methodolgy.

Michael B.:

I attended a lecture by Norman Geisler in 1987 at the University of Texas at Arlington. As I recall it, he gave the standard sort of young-earth creationist lecture. It was all the more ironic, since the private Texas Women's College had Stephen Jay Gould come give a lecture the following week. I think I have my notes from the Geisler lecture packed up here. If I run across them, I'll let you know.

That?s not why I help the less fortunate. I help them because they are intrinsically valuable beings.

Few if any accounts of the universe beyond the Big Bang, multi- or not, are ?scientific?, regardless of who offers them. That?s kind of silly. And many cosmologists, including Hawking, would certainly disagree.

Uh, which Supreme Court case was that? The SC found that Michael Newdow didn't have standing because he didn't have custody of his daughter (a ridiculous argument, but the one they made). They never ruled on the merits of the case. That is correct. I appreciate the effort to keep me honest! We all make mistakes and the trolls are out like flies these last two days. I used the term "suggest" for the very reason you allude to. Justice Stevens went to great -- I would say absurd -- lengths to find no standing in the Newdow case. And I am going to wager that he did that because he suspected that the current crop of Justices was going to give the thumbs up to the sickening Pledge. And maybe there's a good reason for them to do that. But it's not the reason that the extraordinarily uncreative Justice Rehnquist gave in his concurrence: To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Lies and misinformation aren't any better when offered by proponents of evolution than by opponents.

Uh, which Supreme Court case was that? The SC found that Michael Newdow didn't have standing because he didn't have custody of his daughter (a ridiculous argument, but the one they made). They never ruled on the merits of the case.

To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Lies and misinformation aren't any better when offered by proponents of evolution than by opponents.

Floyd sez:

... people like Dembski are offering a breath of fresh air by helping establish a positive, fruitful alternative---the "mutual support model"---to the ages-old question of the relationship between science and theology.

Yeah, science does have a lot that informs various theologies (though the theologies are often less than appreciative). But I'm at a loss as to what theology has to offer science (other than a bad example). . . .

Cheers,

By the way what experiment would satisfy you that humans and apes do not have a common ancestor?

To Great White Wonder:

It would have been more accurate to say something like "Arguments made by Supreme Court justices in response to recent cases relating to the Pledge of Allegiance suggest ...", but my reaction was over-the-top and uncharitable. Thanks for the detailed clarification, and a good example of the methodological difference between the "two sides" here.

Dave Scott sez:

But U.S. laws ARE derived from a higher authority. I went to the trouble of reading every preamble to every state constition and they all call out a higher authority of some sort as the wellspring of basic human rights. . . .

But they all call for police departments ... and legislators.

Clue for you, BTW: Preambles are not subtantive law.

. . . The Declaration of Independence identifies the violation of those same rights as the just cause for the 13 colonies to rebel against English rule. What God giveth let no man take away.

Oh, so you say that what Gawd "giveth", man can take away? Pretty pathetic Gawd, I'd say. Probably couldn't design an eye if he was given the blueprints.

Cheers,