Battle For Intelligent Design

[Akheia]

The Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, whose transcripts and final statement are both available freely online, carefully examined whether or not the Christian belief in creationism (which is simply the earlier name for intelligent design, as the trial also dramatically discovered) is science. Creationists were very gung-ho for this trial, which was one they claimed they'd been craving and pushing for for many years so once and for all the matter would be settled. It was, you could say, their Rubicon.
 
Not only was creationism found to not be science in a single sense of the word (meaning: it makes no meaningful predictions, cannot be tested or falsified, and doesn't provide a meaningful explanation for anything observed in the natural world beyond "it's just magic", and not only does creationism not have an actual theory of its own to present for testing and verification, but its entire thrust is "evolution is wrong and evil and nasty and can't be right because JESUS!"), but the people pushing creationism into Dover area schools were liars and deceivers of a scope the federal judge (a Bush appointee no less) called "breathtaking" and "astonishing." During the trial, various board members were discovered to have lied to all sorts of folks, up to and including the judge himself; one of creationism's biggest names was forced to admit that his definition of "science" could also include astrology as well as his own creationism belief; and it was discovered that creationism absolutely, positively was intelligent design, sporting a new name but sharing the exact same definitions and wording as creationism--you could say, with a sly smile, that it had, well, evolved. Various creationist-leaning scientists came forward to try to cherry-pick a case together for their idea (it is not a "theory" nor even a "hypothesis"), and were effortlessly torn to shreds by reputable biologists. The judge also had the unpleasant experience of seeing a demonstration in Dover regarding creationism, to see Dover-area resident after resident preaching, testifying, and pontificating about creationism and equating "intelligent design" to belief in the Christian god, while evolution and other scientific facts were equated with disbelief in the same and a threat to religious belief.
 
With all of these things in mind, the Dover judge ruled, correctly, that creationism--cough*intelligent design*cough--was a religious belief, not a scientific idea, and that it had no place whatsoever in a taxpayer-funded science classroom.
 
The judge's final statement is very long, but worth reading for anybody who needs a basic education in the subject. He was aware that he needed to be thorough so nobody had to do it all over again, so any Christian who desires to know exactly why creationism/ID is not actually science in any way would benefit from checking it out. In short, there might be a little bit of quibbling here and there on the edges of the theory, but it's no exaggeration to say that the ToE and its concepts are the best-supported ideas in science at this point; dismantling it would require destroying about 20 different disciplines from embryology to astronomy. Could it be done? Yes, absolutely, and most biologists would be quick to tell you how. And if someone did it, they'd welcome the information and scramble to fit that new information into their paradigms. Creationists, however, are not going to be the ones to do it.
 
Kitzmiller Trial Final Statement

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

[snip]

 

But many universities in countries where the culture is extremely secular, who don't deal with the same issues of constitutionality as we do, are already teaching Intelligent Design.  So I find myself on the fence about it to be quite honest.

FC:

Can you please provide some reference for this claim. Please provide some source where it can be verified that universities in extremely secular countries teach ID in courses outside those dealing with religious or philosophical subjects. Thanks.

 

I was going to post this very question - thanks, older. I second the request. What universities, what departments, what are the courses called? Are they surveys of theories offered in a religion course, or are they full-bore biology courses offered by a science department, or what? And when you say "universities," do you mean one prof at a university, or that the university as an institution has authorized the teaching of ID as a scientific theory in one or more science courses?

[creative]

So, it appears that a university in my home state is currently in the midst of a battle to determine if it will allow ID to be taught at Ball State University. In this article, a professor is apparently advocating ideas that ID is legitimate. The school apparently had a hearing to determine if he should be allowed to continue this class. This apparently is such a big deal that our state legislators are looking at it to determine if they want to allow ID to be taught in our schools. Some organization called The Discovery Institute is pushing to see that ID gets into our state school curriculum. I sure hope that they fail. I don't want my daughter to have deal with that when she gets into school. Anyone else have anything like this going on in their state or country?

Well it is unconstitutional to teach ID in a school. There are a few organizations that you can contact that will help you fight this.

 

Heres a few links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

http://ffrf.org/

[Ravenstar]

"On the one hand I, obviously, do think ID does make a very compelling case"

 

​There is no 'compelling case'. It's NOT science. There are NO papers, no evidence, no credible scientists which have written anything to back it up… no workable theories. It does not belong in a science classroom… ever.

 

​There no more to say about it unless they can propose an alternate theory to evolution.. they can't and haven't so far. All they do is try to refute (badly I might add - though some of the questions do give the REAL scientists more angles to test their own hypotheses, so there is that) evolutionary theory.

 

Until there is an alternate theory that actually qualifies as a scientific theory they need to shut the fuck up, go back to the lab and actually do some work, write some papers and get peer-reviewed. Until then they are just annoying quacks to real science.

[older]

 

 

[snip]

 

But many universities in countries where the culture is extremely secular, who don't deal with the same issues of constitutionality as we do, are already teaching Intelligent Design.  So I find myself on the fence about it to be quite honest.

FC:

Can you please provide some reference for this claim. Please provide some source where it can be verified that universities in extremely secular countries teach ID in courses outside those dealing with religious or philosophical subjects. Thanks.

 

I was going to post this very question - thanks, older. I second the request. What universities, what departments, what are the courses called? Are they surveys of theories offered in a religion course, or are they full-bore biology courses offered by a science department, or what? And when you say "universities," do you mean one prof at a university, or that the university as an institution has authorized the teaching of ID as a scientific theory in one or more science courses?

 

Hey there FC: Are you out there? Still waiting for some references. Please let us know. Thanks.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

[snip]

 

But many universities in countries where the culture is extremely secular, who don't deal with the same issues of constitutionality as we do, are already teaching Intelligent Design.  So I find myself on the fence about it to be quite honest.

FC:

Can you please provide some reference for this claim. Please provide some source where it can be verified that universities in extremely secular countries teach ID in courses outside those dealing with religious or philosophical subjects. Thanks.

 

I was going to post this very question - thanks, older. I second the request. What universities, what departments, what are the courses called? Are they surveys of theories offered in a religion course, or are they full-bore biology courses offered by a science department, or what? And when you say "universities," do you mean one prof at a university, or that the university as an institution has authorized the teaching of ID as a scientific theory in one or more science courses?

 

Hey there FC: Are you out there? Still waiting for some references. Please let us know. Thanks.

 

 

I don't think FC is allowed to post anymore. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

[snip]

 

But many universities in countries where the culture is extremely secular, who don't deal with the same issues of constitutionality as we do, are already teaching Intelligent Design.  So I find myself on the fence about it to be quite honest.

FC:

Can you please provide some reference for this claim. Please provide some source where it can be verified that universities in extremely secular countries teach ID in courses outside those dealing with religious or philosophical subjects. Thanks.

 

I was going to post this very question - thanks, older. I second the request. What universities, what departments, what are the courses called? Are they surveys of theories offered in a religion course, or are they full-bore biology courses offered by a science department, or what? And when you say "universities," do you mean one prof at a university, or that the university as an institution has authorized the teaching of ID as a scientific theory in one or more science courses?

 

Hey there FC: Are you out there? Still waiting for some references. Please let us know. Thanks.

 

 

I don't think FC is allowed to post anymore. 

 

Just give it some time.  I don't think we've seen the last of stevebennett yet.