Why must intelligent design be stopped

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/ryuei/archives/000690.html

The best bit these nutters came up with was that people used to ride dinosaurs like cowboys ride horses.

They claim the bible is the literal truth and there are no errors or contradictions in it, claim it is the literal truth that Noah built an ship to carry all the animals of the Earth... Then say the dinosaurs died in Noah's great flood.

If he, as the bible says, all the animals were saved then why weren't the dinosaurs (not to mention innumerable other extinct species) not saved? Are they not animals?

That article is brilliantly dead-on. I though this bit worth quoting at length as a summation of the whole problem, here and at large:

And in Dover, Pennsylvania, during one of these many controversies, a pastor named Ray Mummert delivers the line that both ends our tour and, in every real sense, sums it up:

"We've been attacked," he says, "by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

And there it is.

Idiot America is not the place where people say silly things. It's not the place where people believe in silly things. It is not the place where people go to profit from the fact that people believe in silly things. Idiot America is not even those people who believe that Adam named the dinosaurs. Those people pay attention. They take notes. They take the time and the considerable mental effort to construct a worldview that is round and complete.

The rise of Idiot America is essentially a war on expertise. It's not so much antimodernism or the distrust of intellectual elites that Richard Hofstadter deftly teased out of the national DNA forty years ago. Both of those things are part of it. However, the rise of Idiot America today represents—for profit mainly, but also, and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power—the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a preacher, or a scientist, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.

And to the article for giving props to Richard Hofstadter.

[Deity Dude]

I am not a religous person by any means, but I respect the right of others to believe what they want.

I was brought up to believe in evolution as a fact. I was taught this in Catholic Schools in America. Even in those Catholic Schools, science was taught in Science Class and religion in Religion Class.

Recently, I read a book by a PhD in biochemistry (sorry I don't remember the title or author but for the point I am about to make it really doesn't matter) who does not believe in evolution per se. He believes in micro evolution but not macro evolution. At the same time, he freely admits he doesn't have a better theory. He just doesn't believe the current one in totality and he uses the "scientific method" to back up his findings. He never proposes creationism or even intelligent design as an alternative theory. He just points out flaws and holes in evolution.

I agree that there isn't really any evedence for "ID" per se or creationism. But, contrary to what some people say here, there is at least one (and probably more) scientists in relevant fields that legitmately question the theory of evolution.

I just don't understand why this has to be a Religion vs. Science debate all the time. Would those of you who seem so afraid that a child might hear that some people believe in ID or creationism also be against an honest, open, scientific debate about theory of evolution being taught.

I don't think to question evolution means a person necessarily must use "God" or an "Intelligent Designer" as the answer to whatever shortcomings he finds in evolution.

I think it is fine to attempt point out shortcomings in theories without proposing an alternate theory. In short, I think its OK to say "I don't know the answer but here is why this doesn't seem to work."

I also think that the science classroom is the perfect place for that kind of discussion, as long as the discussion is in good-faith and isn't used to put forth an agenda other than the discussiion at hand.

Let's face it, "Scientific Theories" have constantly changed or been proven wrong to varying degrees throughout time. It is usually an individual or minority that questions the majority position that leads to the new discovery or breakthrough.

I would think everyone would be in favor of this.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Let's face it, "Scientific Theories" have constantly changed or been proven wrong to varying degrees throughout time. It is usually an individual or minority that questions the majority postion that leads to the new discovery or breakthrough.

I would think everyone would be in favor of this.

Yes, provided we acknowledge that the disproving of older scientific theories has always happened through an even-more-rigorous application of the scientific method itself, and not through pie-eyed speculation about the hand of God, the power of faerie dust, or anything of that sort.

[Deity Dude]

I clearly stated, I didn't support the teaching of "God" or "ID" as an alternate theory unless there is some evidence for it. Then the line between Science and "belief" is crossed.

For example, its perfectly valid to point out gaps in the fossil record. It is perfectly valid to say that this is one reason to question evolution. It is not valid to then TEACH in a science class, that god or ID or aliens are responsible for the sudden emergence of varying species. (unless of course someone has some sort of legitmate evidence, in which case I think everyone should listen.)

Again I think it is perfectly legitimate "science" to question an accepted theory thru observations of weaknesses in the theory. I don't think it is legitmate science to propose an explanation as a theory that has no evidence. It's OK to say "I don't know the answer, but here's some reasons why the current one doesn't seem to work"

[Dinner]

http://www.bestadsontv.com/ad_details.php?id=634

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I clearly stated, I didn't support the teaching of "God" or "ID" as an alternate theory unless there is some evidence for it. Then the line between Science and "belief" is crossed.

I know. I was just underscoring.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You haven't answered the trailer park analogy.

There is no "trailer park analogy," because that is not how evolution works.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The current biological theories with evolution aren't working very well.

I don't know where you came from, but here are some examples that counters your assertion. Here's one:

Evolutionary biology also helps guide medical research at Scripps. Some researchers study how resistance to drugs evolves in HIV and bacteria. Last year scientists made some important progress in the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria by discovering how to prevent the microbes from evolving.

Not only does evolution works, but spectacularly well.

The charge that has been lain against the ID folks for making the theory first, and then trying to see if it explains things better, isn't really a good critique, is it?

Yes it is. No theory, no science.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Recently, I read a book by a PhD in biochemistry (sorry I don't remember the title or author but for the point I am about to make it really doesn't matter) who does not believe in evolution per se.

The name of the book is probably important, because chances are it has been refuted.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
He just points out flaws and holes in evolution.

Yes, the name of the book is important.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I agree that there isn't really any evedence for "ID" per se or creationism. But, contrary to what some people say here, there is at least one (and probably more) scientists in relevant fields that legitmately question the theory of evolution.

Remember, science does not work by consensus. It is not unusual that certain parts of a theory are challenged. But that doesn't mean that there is something wrong with that theory.

There are legitimate debates on evolution, but they are about the details.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I think it is fine to attempt point out shortcomings in theories without proposing an alternate theory. In short, I think its OK to say "I don't know the answer but here is why this doesn't seem to work."

Nobody is against this. What people have bones with ID, specifically with Behe's "irreducible complexity," is Behe's flat out assertion that certain mechanisms cannot be evolved.

Of course, there are many other legit criticisms of Behe as well. For example, he didn't appear to consult scientific literature in the relevant fields before writing his book.

Furthermore, most of these "shortcomings" of evolution aren't real. They are either caused by an insufficient understanding of the current theory, or manufactured by Creationists.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Let's face it, "Scientific Theories" have constantly changed or been proven wrong to varying degrees throughout time. It is usually an individual or minority that questions the majority position that leads to the new discovery or breakthrough.

First, you are comparing ID'ers to, say, Einstein. Rational people are going to at that.

Second, there is no theory to ID. No theory, no science. No theory, no replacement.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
For example, its perfectly valid to point out gaps in the fossil record. It is perfectly valid to say that this is one reason to question evolution.

That's not valid at all. Given the difficulties of fossil formation, it is quite possible that certain species weren't preserved in rock, particularly those short-lived transitional forms.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Recently, I read a book by a PhD in biochemistry (sorry I don't remember the title or author but for the point I am about to make it really doesn't matter) who does not believe in evolution per se. He believes in micro evolution but not macro evolution. At the same time, he freely admits he doesn't have a better theory. He just doesn't believe the current one in totality and he uses the "scientific method" to back up his findings. He never proposes creationism or even intelligent design as an alternative theory. He just points out flaws and holes in evolution.

Sounds like Behe, as UR assumes. I would suggest reading some critiques of Behe before asserting his claims are valid. He's not a biologist, as you note, and that's important--he is speaking well outside his field of expertise, and he's very wrong:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/textbooks.html

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

Behe's "theory," which he has been forced to admit has no factual basis, rests on the notion of irreducible complexity in biology. There is not a shred of evidence for this, and every system he has posited as an example as such has been shown by real biologists to have quite plausible evolutionary pathways. He has made basic, embarrassing errors in his work that have biologists rolling their eyes. In short, his work has no credibility in the scientific community other than with a very small group of like-minded folks who are trying to shoehorn science into their religious beliefs.

[molly bloom]

The current biological theories with evolution aren't working very well.

Obi Gyn


Really ? In what respect ?


Because I think most people would agree that multi-drug resistant staphylococcus aureus, salmonella, bubonic plague, tuberculosis and malaria indicates evolutionary theories are alive and kicking.


Unless of course you imagine that the Almighty Bujobu 'made' those critters resistant to relatively recently created drugs to punish modern humanity.


But then that's not a refutation of evolutionary theories, it's just evidence of an inexplicable fondness for non-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Oh, I wasn't arguing with that statement. I was just pointing out its glaring error for the audience.

Can nonsense have an 'error' per se?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Obi Gyn


Really ? In what respect ?


Because I think most people would agree that multi-drug resistant staphylococcus aureus, salmonella, bubonic plague, tuberculosis and malaria indicates evolutionary theories are alive and kicking.


Unless of course you imagine that the Almighty Bujobu 'made' those critters resistant to relatively recently created drugs to punish modern humanity.


But then that's not a refutation of evolutionary theories, it's just evidence of an inexplicable fondness for non-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

They also have found bacteria that feed exclusively on nylon polymers and such...

How they survived in the 19th century is beyond me.

they must have finally found the god in the gap of the fossil record and started existing!!!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


They also have found bacteria that feed exclusively on nylon polymers and such...

How they survived in the 19th century is beyond me.

They built tiny, tiny time travel machines with nano-technology.


Damn clever, those bugs.