home

UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design

by TChris

Update: The NY Times explores the Discovery Institute's impact on the Intelligent Design debate:

Pushing a "teach-the-controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.

*****

Original post:

Pandering once again to religious extremists (perhaps to make up for his flip-flopping position on stem cell research), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist echoed the president today by arguing that "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools. Frist thinks students need to be exposed to "different ideas." Of course, some ideas (like "people are born with a particular sexual orientation") haven't made the list of ideas to which Frist thinks students should be exposed.

"I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith," Frist said.

Students do have access to “a broad range of … faith.” They can choose to obtain religious instruction from a variety of religions. They can expose themselves to as many religious ideas as their heads can hold, or as many as they choose to explore. But Frist isn’t talking about a course in comparative religion, which would objectively explore the differences between (for instance) Christian and Islamic faiths. Frist only wants public school students to be exposed to religious ideas that comport with his own narrow views (or, more accurately, the views of the extremist voters he’s trying to court).

There’s no question that the origins of “intelligent design” are found in religion, not science.

Nearly all scientists dismiss it as a scientific theory, and critics say it's nothing more than religion masquerading as science.

Frist’s conflation of “faith” with “fact” and “science” ignores the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits government (including government-run schools) from endorsing any particular religious belief. Intelligent design is bottomed in religious belief, despite the efforts of its proponents to dress it up as science. If parents wants their children to be exposed to “intelligent design,” they should send their kids to a program of religious instruction.

< Friday Open Thread | Immunity v. Foreign Aid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#1)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    This guy's a doctor!? WTF!? This is the 4th reason to suspend his medical license.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#2)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Scopes. Garbage still stinks, no matter how fresh it is.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#3)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    What if the Intelligent Designer was Clint Howard...

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#4)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    No.No sailor and glantion, you just don't get what is happening inside the empire. the fact is for 40 years, millions of the third worlds people have come into our great empire! and now we have "millions" inside gangs who need "Faith", and how do you get faith? in the great god? of the empire? hey inside the insane school system this way you can setup the rules of engagement!... and we all know about the learning curve right? urgo its called control over the minds of the young. check out control of bin laden over fools who want death for a happy after-life..what a joke. but remember people are all fools and will go for the great lie.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#5)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Sorry Fred I like a lot of what you write but this is Scopes all over again, just dressed up in contemporary fashion. Bigotry, small-mindedness, and knuckle-dragging American style. Can't blame Bin Laden for these American nutballs, these despisers of the Declaration of Independence. Let alone can you blame the Mexicans.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    dswine - Ron's brother? You funny!

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Perhaps Dr Frist should visit this site. Maybe then he would realise that you can belive in God and still believe the theory of evolution.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jack on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    I'm all for it. As long as we don't play favorites. As long as the Flying Spaghetti Monster gets equal billing as a creation theory. "One of the hardest things to do as a scientist is to put my personal beliefs aside when discussing matters of science. So as a professional, I have to say that both forms of Intelligent Design - ID and ID-FSM are equally valid and if intelligent design is taught in schools, equal time should be given to the FSM theory and the non-FSM theory. But, speaking personally now, it seems to me the FSM theory is MUCH more plausable than the non-FSM ID theory, because it is the only one of the two that takes into account all the discrepancies between ID and measureable objective reality." -- Professor Douglas Shaw, Ph.D

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#9)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Jack: I'd love to see someone try to present a reasoned argument as to why your link is immaterial to the "controversy" surrounding "ID theory." But I'll bet no trolls on this site, let alone the Kansas School Board, possess the courage to even try it. Thanks for the laugh, though.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#10)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#11)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Dag. Should have used preview. This theory.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#12)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Extort hard earned money from hard working folks to pay for schools where only your narrow ‘truth’ can be taught; it’s hardly just.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#13)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Glanton, remember i am, and always will be the great Cro-magnon and will always have fun saying it the way it is..stop penal instiution rape! but remember faith is what you make it, and is not bin laden right in his thinking for his ideals and his culture?..stop government slaves from crossing the borders, both ways. but bush needs a lot! of faith inside a prison cell.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    The narrow gate of science is what you are typing on, pigwiggle. Turns out the plastics chemistry can't vary by much, or else it won't vacuum form without bubbles. Got any bubbles in your keyboard? How narrow the standards of those damn chemists, eh? Thermodynamics is equally narrow. So is gravity. So is the level of environmental toxins that cause cancer. You live in a narrow world, where destroying wolves, for instance, led to the destruction of nearly all the willows in Yellowstone. Why? Because God was angry at Yellowstone? Because God had designed Yellowstone to have wolves? Because God had designed willows to need wolves? No, because after scientists studied the issue narrowly, they determined that the wolves ate the deer down, so the deer couldn't overpopulate and eat the young willows. Since neither wolves nor willows were around when God made the universe, only intelligent design can predict such a relationship. Well, no, ID certainly could not predict it, since ID is an a posteriori hypothesis. It can only fill in gaps in knowledge after they are found. It has ZERO predictive capacity. Scientists failed to predict it too -- they had to DO SCIENCE to find it out. But science was able to convince the gov't that the finding was accurate, and the wolves were reintroduced, and the willows were saved. All in the House that Jack Built. Or God. Or Tom Thumb. But only through science do we know how to keep bubbles out of keyboards, and willows in Yellowstone. There are MILLIONS of such instructive cases of the superior value of science and science instruction, over the a-posteriori ramblings of the broad, so broad, pulpit.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Um, PIL, the willows are non-native species and only proliferated because we put out every forest fire in Yellowstone for decades.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Ok, Ok, I made that up from whole cloth. It was uncalled for, but did briefly give me some cheap pleasure. Sorry PIL.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    ...and to add to PW's comments, PIL, as a scientist I can vouch for how much time we spend trying to fill in gaps once we become aware of them. And for the record, evolution isn't all that predictive either (and doesn't fill in any of the large gaps). Anyone here up to laying bets that TChris has no clue what ID is? It answers a lot of the real stumpers in macro-evolutionary theory, but judging from the posters on this site, very few here know anything about it beyond the one-line description presented in news broadcasts. Why? Probably because you were never exposed to it in school... Hell, I think it would be an improvement if even just evolution were taught thoroughly in schools. The holes are obvious enough that a good course would have most people seeing the problems. Right now neither are taught very thoroughly, and consequently we have a mass of people (like TChris) who labor under the ignorant delusion that evolution is rock-solid science. Read "The Origin of Species" and spend at least 30 minutes thinking it over. There are real paradoxes in applying that theory to the empirical evidence without taking ID theory into account. When I was in high school I was taught (in science class) that evolution was fact, that God does not exist, that the sun stands stationary while the earth orbits around it, and that electrons are little particles that fly around a nucleus. It wasn't until several years later that I became aware that all of these are in all likelihood false...and I had been living in ignorance because I had been given a roster of assertions without actually being exposed to the complexities surrounding each one. There's no substitute for being informed on both sides of every debate rather than being spoon-fed one side without regard for the questions surrounding it.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    "It answers a lot of the real stumpers in macro-evolutionary theory," Name ONE. "Why? Probably because you were never exposed to it in school..." Not surprising, unless you think that you are talking with someone who was in high school in 1989, when the term was first put in print. There aren't any two sides to the debate. There is you, with your religious propositions in tatters after a century of having your claims disproven in spades. All you have left is the gaps. And those are being closed, so the claim that God is found hiding in the gaps is just another attempt to wiggle some gov't funding for rightwing causes -- nothing more. Medievalism lives on in the minds of the greedy. We need to overcome our problems, many of them VIA TECHNOLOGY, not return to the worthless speculations of medievalists with their false predictions and gap hypotheses. But that won't matter to you, 'grad,' because you probably believe in Apocalypse anyhow.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Hey, let's teach both sides of everything in school! Some say that black people are inferior. Let's discuss that. Yes, let's discuss it in science class! It's only fair to give time to both sides. Some say that all this nonsense about eating junk food being bad for you is crap. Let's eat M&Ms during P.E.! Why P.E.? To give equal time to the pro-exercise and pro-high-fructose-corn-syrup folks. I'm sorry, but there's times when one side is really, really off base. There's a place to discuss I.D., and it's in sociology class or perhaps history, not biology. A friend of mine's father is a physicist. He's also deeply religious. She asked him once if all the things he was studying made him believe less in G*d, and he told her that the opposite was true, and that his work just filled him with a greater sense of wonder. If scientists like him aren't hostile to religion, the opposite doesn't seem to be true, sadly. Heard of the Discovery Institute, one of the big proponents of I.D.? One of their position papers leaked out a few years back...
    The most eloquent documentation of ID’s religious inspiration comes in the form of a Discovery Institute strategic memo that made its way onto the Web in 1999: the “Wedge Document.” A broad attack on “scientific materialism,” the paper asserts that modern science has had “devastating” cultural consequences, such as the denial of objective moral standards and the undermining of religious belief. In contrast, the document states that ID “promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” In order to achieve this objective, the ID movement will “function as a ‘wedge’” that will “split the trunk [of scientific materialism] … at its weakest points.”
    Jon Carroll hit the nail on the head today:
    Scientists have been studying the origin and nature of life on earth for at least 4,000 years. In that time, they have come up with a number of hypotheses. Then new evidence has been turned up, and the old hypotheses have been discarded, often reluctantly. Scientists, like all humans, really hate to discard ideas that they have defended for years. The history of science is a history of unhappy people reluctantly changing their minds... The intelligent design people have never suffered such a crisis. They have never changed their minds based on new evidence. That's because they started with the desired results and worked backward... Science has been wrong before -- the intelligent design people will stress that. Science cannot explain this bit or that bit. And it is true, science has been wrong, and science does not have all the answers. But here's the thing: In all the instances when science has been wrong and has had to change its mind to accommodate new data, never once has it done so because it failed to account for the intervention of a supernatural entity. Not once.


    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#20)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Oh what is wrong with some big ancient greece or rome guy making it all? and the earth is not round. the fact is bin laden would love people like "greek guy/god made it all people". stop it the people like that are making me look good.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    grad student, while you might be a grad student (probably from a non-accredited religious school) you are not a scientist. You were never taught in science class that god does not exist. That is just a lie. Name the school who taught you this or know your minimal credibility is reduced to zero.
    Extort hard earned money from hard working folks to pay for schools where only your narrow ‘truth’ can be taught; it’s hardly just.
    I assumed PW was referrring to the tax $$ being spent on religious education al la bushco.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    It's all about the multiplicity of theories. There are many alternate theories of evolution. Dr. Frist is only asking for schools to teach ONE alternate! Just one? Why that's a dereliction of his scientific duty! I say teach them all! For instance, what about the theory that we were brought here from another planet or planets? Maybe it's literally true that men are from Mars and women are from Venus! just imagine...

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Grad Student is a fictional character half-baked in the oven of a troll's rectum.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Web, that's a fair objection and I'll address it. I'm not advocating that 'both sides of everything' be taught in school (or science class). But I do advocate teaching things in full, warts and all. When a model is contradicted by significant evidence then people ought to be taught about it. It's just part of knowing the whole story. In the case of (macro)evolution there are numerous problems. For example: (1) Evolution postulates gradual changes over a period of millenia. So for man-apes, there should be millions of fossils from the 'intermediate' species. There are no such fossils. Contradiction. (2) Evolution postulates that mutants thrive and dominate if their mutation is advantageous, but die out otherwise because they have a useless feature. Yet many bodily systems are useless until fully constructed, and therefore would be eliminated rather than selected by nature at each mutative step. Contradiction. (3) Generally when something mutates in any non-cosmetic way, the first big change is a loss of reproductive capability. This is one of the major challenges with genetically engineered food...reproducing it after it loses that capability for itself. But evolution depends on mutations being carried forward in offspring. Difficulty. These are the most obvious. There are others, some quite serious. For example a simple calculation of the odds of a bacterial strand of RNA forming by random chance in an organic soup yields a time estimate longer than our guess at the age of the universe... People should be taught these issues. It's part of the story. In fact, there is so little evidence for macro-evolution that it shouldn't really be considered science at all. It should be taught in philosophy class (with ID). There's a political push to rush to evolution as the answer to all fundamental questions because it makes atheism sound sane. People will make up their own minds, but they deserve to know the whole story. Aside: To Sailor, I have many faults...dishonesty is not one of them. Let me know when you want to discuss something. To PIL....the level of confusion is so high one hardly knows where to start. How 'bout this. I graduated from high school well after 1989. It's really not that unlikely in this 21st century we're now in.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Are our teachers now supposed to teach Theology? This should make taking the ACT interesting. Here's a math question: If Jesus leaves Chicago at 6 AM traveling at 60 miles per hour...

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    grad, answer the question; what science class in what school taught you that "God does not exist"!? And for EXTRA credit, can you remember the school where you were allowed to graduate, much less continue your education? There is absolutely no political pressure for evolution. It doesn't fit anyone's agenda. I can't believe in the 21st century we are still having the scopes trial. What's next!? Flat earth, earth the center of 'creation', we didn't go to the moon!? Sheesh, the only thing I hate worse than bad science is religion masked as science.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    The best answer to the troglodyte idiocy of a "grad student" I have seen recently can be found here on this excellent website. ...it is easy to say that one can imagine creation, but can you picture in your mind the actual creation of a new species? What would one see, if one saw Adam (or australopiths) being formed from the dust of the earth? Do dolphins just materialize in water as though "beamed down," or in what way do they form? One can readily picture a breeding population giving birth to a host of variant offspring, with some being a bit better adapted to their environment than others, and small changes gradually being added one to another. One can also better imagine ways to test this account of origins against the evidence, than ways to test special creation when one has no idea how special creation would even work in practice.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    That's what I thought, grad -- you don't have anything to add. You said that "It answers a lot of the real stumpers in macro-evolutionary theory," But it doesn't. All it does is suggest a deux ex machina in place of a hypothesis. And we are VERY familiar with this, since all down the line the theologists have tried to press their creationism into the nacent science, in whatever cracks they could find. You didn't offer ONE stumper that it answers. All it does is close the issue. And it does that by mistating the views of evolution. Your first statement: "(1) Evolution postulates gradual changes over a period of millenia." is untrue. Current evolution theory does not postulate gradualism. It did in the 19th century, but now we recognize that the mutations are not gradual but sudden. Survivor mutations breed, and form new lines. This is clearly what happened in the Galapagos. So by mistatement, and the occult practice of using anomalies and statistical hobgoblins and still-unknowns (such as the famous, "Science can't explain how moths fly") ID pretends to answers, when indeed it has none to offer. How to moths fly? God made them that way. Then finally some scientist discovered through strobe light photography that moths and other insects slap their wings at the top of the up stroke, and the resilience of the wing provides some of the lift -- the missing lift that might previously have been ascribed to divine design. The difference is obvious. In the ID case, no new knowledge. In the case of science, the revelation of an entirely new aerodynamic principle and method of flight. From science we get Teflon™. From ID, we get the Old Black Book, and bupkis for new technology.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#29)
    by bad Jim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Well done, Paul. A word to the wise: "Darwinism" and "macroevolution" are creationist keywords. When you see them you know what you're dealing with. I love the insistence that there ought to be an endless supply of transitional fossils. It really would be nice to have them. Unfortunately, the conditions under which fossils form aren't all that common, they degrade over time, and they're not at all easy to find. We're lucky to have the ones we do. We know next to nothing about William Shakespeare, who lived only 400 years ago. We don't have his original manuscripts, even though paper can survive for hundreds of years. Our collection his works is fairly complete, but we have only a fraction of the works of the classical Greek dramatists from a scant two thousand years earlier. We are never going to have a complete collection of fossils covering hundreds of millions of years of life on this planet. There will always be gaps. It's instructive to note that the fossil record overwhelmingly supports the evolutionary explanation, although the recent uncovering of eight-track tapes from the Silurian has experts at odds.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#30)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    I recommend the book "A Short History Of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. Truly an eye opener.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    I wonder if here isn't a class aspect involved. Rich people like Bill Frist can send their children to private schools where they get an excellent education, among other things in the natural sciences. Meanwhile, ordinary people's children are dumbed down in the public school system, wasting their time with a pseudo discussion about the merits of ID and such crap.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    ...ordinary people's children are dumbed down...
    You might be on to something. Keeping the peasants dumb is how people like Frist keep power. Beer and religion...the opiates of the red state masses.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#33)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Ernesto, Right on.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Scopes, dressed up in shiny clothing. Why now? Simple:
    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."-Seneca


    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Teaching theology should certainly help with this problem. Expecialy the fact that only 1 in 4 of our graduates is prepared for science classes in college. Why? They must not have got enough of that Ole Tyme Superstition.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#36)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    grad student:
    For example a simple calculation of the odds of a bacterial strand of RNA forming by random chance in an organic soup yields a time estimate longer than our guess at the age of the universe...
    Our guess? You have objections to the measurement methods? I would love to hear them.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#37)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    The nice thing about Theology (and the students will like this part) is that you never have to show how you got your answers.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    The grad student seems to have disappeared. But here are replies to his other two examples: "(2) Evolution postulates that mutants thrive and dominate if their mutation is advantageous, but die out otherwise because they have a useless feature." They may (and do) die out for any number of reasons. "Yet many bodily systems are useless until fully constructed," So I've heard, but 'many' is not one specific example. It's a mythologizing word. "and therefore would be eliminated rather than selected by nature at each mutative step." Showing a total misunderstanding of the genetic basis of mutation. Mutations function not within the environment, but within the GENE. Changes to a gene may cause a whole range of otherwise unrelated changes. Portions changed which did not have immediate survival value would accompany those which did. "(3) Generally when something mutates in any non-cosmetic way, the first big change is a loss of reproductive capability." That's factually untrue. Whole hosts of nonsexual reproducers have evolved and the changes to their tissues was not merely cosmetic. " This is one of the major challenges with genetically engineered food...reproducing it after it loses that capability for itself." No, the problem of GM foods is that the MODIFIED CHARACTERISTICS tend to be lost in the reproductive process. Farmers are barred by immoral contracts from collecting their new GM seed -- not because it isn't fertile. "But evolution depends on mutations being carried forward in offspring." Life depends on reproduction. A great many mutations have no effect on reproduction, probably for that very reason. "People should be taught these issues. It's part of the story." It's part of the misconceptions of science. People should be taught these so-called exceptions in order to clarify their understanding of evolution. To understand how FALSE these ID claims truly are. " In fact, there is so little evidence for macro-evolution that it shouldn't really be considered science at all." That's HILARIOUS. You believe that the basis of all modern biological science is unscientific. Seems to work just fine, otherwise. "It should be taught in philosophy class (with ID)." Philosophy is not the same as theology. Indeed, they are opposites. IF you KNOW what the theological truth is, there is no basis for philosophy. Philosophy takes its ground in the uncertainty of 'truth'. If you already know the answers, there is no philosophical search, and no need for it, either. You are young. Try getting some whiskers on (and some actual study, not just copying from the web) before you dare to attack the bearded Darwin and his followers. The science has proven out, in spades.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Now that his Stem cell research blunder has been forgotten by the opiated masses he can start up with this new pop talking point: ID. If science and its implied relation to progress is bogus (I tend to agree) who gets to choose which of the thousand creationist myths gets on the education slate. Is the Christian view the correct one? How can you make an honest argument against evolution while at the same time proselytize the christian view over all the other equally valid myths?

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    "If science and its implied relation to progress is bogus (I tend to agree)" Oh, maybe in some ways the idea that progress=technology is overstated. Nonetheless, just look at what television has done to change the word, or computers, or cellphones. These changes may not equal 'progress,' just as having a fine sailboat built of exquisite laminates made with high-tech saws and processes doesn't arrive in Tahiti until the compass and maps are properly arranged, and the ship properly sailed. Blaming technology, nature's potentialities sussed out and given form, for the failures of 'progress' is not fair, and actually quite bogus. It is up to US to make technology fit our hands, and serve our LEGITIMATE purposes. Just like I don't blame America for vote-fraud Bush, I don't blame technology and science for our failure to achieve our goals. Tools are tools.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#41)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    I don’t need a lecture about science, especially from the likes of Paul in LA. It is how I make my living and has occupied the largest portion of my life. In fact, it is a safe bet I know more, have given more thought to, and have a better understanding of the more subtle nuances of science, both method and philosophy, than most posters here; perhaps all. I’m agnostic, and think intelligent design is intellectually lazy and most certainly wrong. However, all you folks that think you have some handle on the truth are most likely just as wrong. Science requires no less faith in the scientific method than religion requires faith in some form of deity. Sure, science is able to do some great stuff, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. And it certainly can’t answer the most compelling questions. So how about we let parents decide the manner in which they educate their children; secular with the scientific method, faith based pseudo science, or straight up bible thumping.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#42)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Science requires no less faith in the scientific method than religion requires faith in some form of deity
    This is complete nonsense and is the argument used by many to promote the idea that all are equal, i.e. ID. evolution etc. The scientific method requires no faith since its application requires that phenonenom are repeatable, and therefore the underlying mechanisms, laws etc can be deduced over time by experimentation. The problem I have seen in science is not the method itself but that some scientists get personnaly involved and stake their egos on certain positions. The scientific method arrives at understanding of the world around us. That fact that the understanding is yet incomplete or changes with new discoveries in no way impugnes the scientific method. Speaking of egos, if you knew half as much as you say you do you would be pretty smart but your agenda gets in the way. Next time stay awake in your science classes. People can teach their kids anything they want, just don't teach the ID crap in public schools.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#43)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    “The scientific method requires no faith since its application requires that phenonenom are repeatable, and therefore the underlying mechanisms,” This is exactly why the scientific method requires faith. It assumes that given reproducible conditions the outcome (event) is also reproducible. The only way you can know this for certain is if you can witness every event, past and future; which of course is impossible. This is not a new idea, but is rather well worn material in the philosophy of science. “Speaking of egos, if you knew half as much as you say you do you would be pretty smart but your agenda gets in the way. Next time stay awake in your science classes.” As much as I would enjoy a lecture from someone with such an intimate knowledge of ego as you, I take exception at the accusation. I stand by my claim and would gladly pit my credentials (education and publication record) against yours. I assure you I do know what I am talking about.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Pigwiggle, your use of the term 'faith' to describe the rigor of scientific research is quite the canard. It is not faith, it is diligence. You can be diligent as a Christian because of your faith, but the diligence of science is good praxis, not good 'faith.' And while you claim to a better understanding of science than we others, you fail to post a SINGLE scientific fact or theory, but rather generalities that can be happily misconstrued. Perhaps because you are politically aligned to the ID LIARS, you offer a false armor to the adherents of ignorance (using the religious word 'faith'), rather than progress the thread toward a more accurate understanding of the FACTS.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#45)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    This is exactly why the scientific method requires faith. It assumes that given reproducible conditions the outcome (event) is also reproducible. The only way you can know this for certain is if you can witness every event, past and future;
    \ More nonsense. You really don't understand do you. And I have had scientific discussions with you before and no you dont always know what you are talking about. Any day you want to match creditials I m game. I've been through this before, TL has seen a post with my creditials which she removed.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Paul- Tools certainly are tools as you succinctly put it. Progress is a myth, especially when you measure it by the cycle of grand promises and dashed hopes technology offers. Tools are limited by the users of those tools. ID is useless in the hands of murderous bigots. The only thing the children will learn is that the Christian god is better than all the others who either must convert or burn in hell-everlasting. An alternative would be to question the idea of progress as regards science and religion. If pan religious principals and the ideals of scientific inquiry were examined in schools, perhaps our children would develop the wisdom and spirituality necessary to steady the hand holding these tools, as opposed to the dangerously shaky hand that embraces Armageddon and the ensuing salvation for a select few.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    How can you make an honest argument against evolution while at the same time proselytize the christian view over all the other equally valid myths?
    Uh, folks, this may come as a surprise to you but ID and Creationism are two entirely different things... Again, if only both sides of the evolution debate were taught in schools... PIL - some quick responses to your arguments (3 cheers for PIL, he refrained from ad hominems long enough to make some genuine arguments!) :) (1) "many bodily systems". This is pretty simple, friend. Example: the vision system only works if it has photosensitive cells, a nerve connection to the CNS, and useful reflexes built into the CNS. Any one without the rest is utterly useless. So having, say, a mutation that produces photosensitive cells would be useless without lots of other mutations. So the change would die out rather than being naturally selected. Ok? Doesn't matter a damn whether the change is a phenotype or a genotype. (2) "factually untrue". First of all, you've assumed your conclusion by pointing to reproducers that have 'evolved'. That would be a circular argument. Regarding the tendency for mutations to be deleterious to fecundity, check this (cough) course on evolution. See points 5 and 8 especially, and note I'm not saying this is always the case, merely that it is usually the case and therefore adds to the low probabilities that characterize any kind of evolutionary success. (In the end, the problems all go back to the miniscule probabilities involved) (3) Microevolution, admirable and well-established though it is, is not "the basis for all modern biological science". And macroevolution isn't the basis for any modern biology. (4) "grow whiskers" yada yada. I figured when I squashed your previous assumption about how I couldn't have been in high school as late as 1989, you'd respond by attributing my arguments to youth. Perhaps I'm an eighty-year old who just went back to school in the last 15 years. You'd be a lot better at the art of debate if you addressed the issues instead of the opponent's personal characteristics, and also if you refrained from groundless assumptions. Of course, then you'd be a conservative...

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Grad-Frist is a totally dishonest hack and evidently so are you if you think that ID is not a codeword for getting christianity (creationism) into the school curriculum.
    This is complete nonsense and is the argument used by many to promote the idea that all are equal, i.e. ID. evolution etc.
    Stephen Meyer and John West join Dr. Dobson in a discussion about Intelligent Design and world origins from a scientific point of view.


    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#49)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    You'd be a lot better at the art of debate if you addressed the issues instead of the opponent's personal characteristics, and also if you refrained from groundless assumptions. Of course, then you'd be a conservative...
    Thanks I needed a real good laugh. Funniest thing I've read in a while.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#50)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    "More nonsense. You really don't understand do you."
    It is a simple argument. And if it were truly nonsense as you claim it should be trivial to refute; instead you dismiss it out of hand. Once again; the scientific method requires reproducibility, and although all our experience tells us identical circumstances give identical results, this is not demonstrable. You would need to know every instance of a given phenomenon, past and future, to know for certain. So, scientists either take reproducibility on faith or, like me, enjoy the scientific method for its utility and leave the grandiose claims of truth for the ignorant.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    Psychologist Dobson, supporter of ID, will provide screening tests before our pre-pubescent children are allowed to enter ID classes. God's 'mistakes' will receive remedial therapy before entering the ID program so that they understand how man and God work hand in hand to unravel the mysteries of creation through ID. The wedge, as they call it will, put to rest all the silly nonsense about ID being nothing more than baseless hocus pocus.
    ID creationists contend that the work of an intelligent designer can be empirically detected in nature, but they evade questions about the designer’s identity and the mechanisms through which it works by insisting that detecting its activity does not require knowing its identity. They argue that ID is based on cutting-edge science. Yet even ID proponents with legitimate science credentials have never produced one iota of original scientific data to support these claims.


    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky: "Progress is a myth" That's flatly untrue. The cellphone alone is changing the human race in ways that cannot be predicted. People casually talk across the earth, while walking down the street. The effect of that technological accomplishment won't be known for quite awhile, but it is MASSIVE. And it is certainly progress, no doubt about it.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    "(1) "many bodily systems". This is pretty simple, friend." I am not your friend. "Example: the vision system only works if it has photosensitive cells, a nerve connection to the CNS, and useful reflexes built into the CNS. Any one without the rest is utterly useless." Photosensitive cells existed before eyes existed. The largest migration on earth, daily, involves salps, or jellies, which rise in the ocean during darkness, when their predators can't see them, sinking again as light appears in the depths. " So having, say, a mutation that produces photosensitive cells would be useless without lots of other mutations. So the change would die out rather than being naturally selected." You don't seem to understand the GENETIC basis of evolution. Changes don't 'die out' because are unused. They occur mostly at random, and remain as long as they don't become deadly -- not because of 'need.' "(2) "factually untrue". First of all, you've assumed your conclusion by pointing to reproducers that have 'evolved'." Moot. Evolution theory is not in doubt; certainly not by the cretinous ID. "Regarding the tendency for mutations to be deleterious to fecundity," The point is that evolution is not dependent on the bipolar sexuality of most animals. It occurs just fine in asexual reproducers. "(3) Microevolution, admirable and well-established though it is, is not "the basis for all modern biological science". And macroevolution isn't the basis for any modern biology." Flatly untrue. Evolution theory, not micro or macro, is the accepted basis of all modern biology. The attempt to develop a theory with NO profer of evidence other than the gaps in current knowledge is otherwise known as 'occult.' You and the other Christian IDers are occultists. The truth will set you free, and the truth of modern science is abundantly proven, even in the agency of this blog.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    pigwiggle: "You would need to know every instance of a given phenomenon, past and future, to know for certain." Yeah, that's why it's called a THEORY. But as with all major theories, the search is not for EVERY CASE, but for ANY EXCEPTION. It is up to YOU to find the exceptions, and they aren't found in 'gaps.' They are found in actual, REPRODUCIBLE exceptions. The demand to examine all instances before accepting any knowledge is called agnosticism. It is an extreme form of scepticism, not much more. You may certainly be an agnostic, but ID is not. It claims to know something that has NEVER been demonstrated in reproducible evidence.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    Paul-Progress implies something greater than a new toy. Progress is a term bandied about by visonary corporations like GE who "brings good things to life". The worlds fairs have been big promoters of progress; check out who funded those fairs. The junkyards holding today's ruins generated from yesterday's fashionable promises of 'progress', dwarfs any promise progress ever held. The implication of progress has always movement toward Utopia. A brief scan of world events does not look like progress is making headway. That 'technology will free the world from suffering' with the next (expensive) gizmo is basically a ever repeating TV commercial.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#56)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    No Paul, the validity of a theory is quite separate from the problem of reproducibility. When a theory fails it is thought to be incorrect or simply lacking by extension; classical mechanics is a good example. The problem of reproducibility is different. Given complete understanding of a phenomenon it should be reproducible, that is, reproduce the exact circumstances and reproduce the result. It is an essential prerequisite for the scientific method, the experiment portion of hypothesis and experiment. A theory is simply the hypothesis portion and is expected to fail, while the problem of reproducibility fundamentally undermines the authority of experiment. Practically speaking, if an experiment fails to be reproducible a scientists assumes a lack of understanding of the experiment, not a crisis of reproducibility. We shouldn’t expect anything else; this is the paradigm of science. But in a less abstract and perhaps more disturbing sense, with the advent of quantum theory early last century, science lost any claim to subjective reality. The first part of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, developed mostly by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, states that there is no ‘deep’ reality. That is, it is nonsense to ask about the attributes (momentum, position, energy, etc.) of things, as they do not definitely exist before or after measurement. So, absent the problem of reproducibility science has hit an infinitely more perceptible obstacle in its claim on Truth or reality. And when discussing this very topic Richard Feynman opined a favorite quote of mine, “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.” And if Bohr and Heisenberg are right, no one will know.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    PIL - "I'm not your friend." Sorry chum, my bad. I'll be careful not to address you in any colloquial terms of comradeship from now on buddy. 'moot'. Yes, well, if you think the issue is moot then I suppose we're wasting our time debating it, aren't we? Anyone besides PIL interested in discussing the ID/evolution debate with at least the admission that it is not "moot"? Pigwiggle - I'm curious. Are you a physicist?

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#58)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    Grad, I repeat " answer the question; what science class in what school taught you that "God does not exist"!? And for EXTRA credit, can you remember the school where you were allowed to graduate, much less continue your education?" Creationism and ID are the same. Just ask the Kansas school board who invited the input of ID supporters.
    You would need to know every instance of a given phenomenon, past and future, to know for certain.
    PW, I've read your posts. I know that you know that this isn't true. You have a much better grasp of statistics than to believe this. BTW, PW, do you really believe the ID should be taught in schools as science!? Or do you just think public schools should be done away with because the don't fit your idea of libertarian ideals? (Please don't take the last question as an insult, I truly want to know.)

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#59)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    Pig you know its nonsense. I dismissed out of hand because its such a lame distortion nad I believe you know better The scientific method requires no such proof as you well know. Results must be reproducible. That in no way means you have to go back in history or to the future. You do an experiment controling for those conditions you think are important. You repeat the experiment anumber of times apply statistics and determine if the statistical significance of the results. One of the basic issues is that you can never completely control the extra conditions as well as you would like and there may be some condition either you didn't think was important or didn't know about. Having produced statistically significant results the next thing that has to occur is that the experiment must be repeated by others. If it can't be confirmed then factors which might explain the discrepency are proposed and tested. Your argument that you have to know that it occure everytime in the history of the world is pure nonsense and is presented byyou simply to support your erroneous position.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#60)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    second of all not everyone agrees about the Copenhagen interpretation and third the heisenberg uncertainty theory does not apply with the same importance to all of science. Putting a thermometer outside does not change the temperature of the outside and finaly, problems with understanding particle physics does not invalidate all of science or even physics for that matter. So in essence you are over interpreting and thereby creating a straw man argument.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#61)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    Grad-
    “Pigwiggle - I'm curious. Are you a physicist?”
    Sort of; I’m a physical chemist, not the kind that does experiment, but rather a theoretician. I simulate complicated chemical systems on the big national (NIH, NSF, DOD, DOE, etc.) supercomputers. Sailor-
    “PW, I've read your posts. I know that you know that this isn't true. You have a much better grasp of statistics than to believe this.”
    I don’t believe it is very likely, but it is possible. Math is a great tool and its coincidence with our every day (and not so every day) experience suggests that it can describe everything. But maybe it can’t.
    “BTW, PW, do you really believe the ID should be taught in schools as science!?”
    No, I think public schools should be done away with. Certainly the folks that like the way they work can keep up with the same model; call it a community school or a co-op school. But they aren’t satisfied with this. Folks like Soccer Dad want to use the government to take money from other people, ostensibly for their children’s education, and dictate the form and content (secular). If some parents would rather educate their kid in a different fashion (non-secular) they become condescending and hard hearted. In essence, if you want to teach your kid that garbage you will have to pay twice. Most folks can’t afford to pay for both the unused public education and a private one as well. The argument seems to be that since science is truth or fact it has a place in public schools. All of my above discussion was to show that no one knows what the world is really like. Anyway, even if they did I wouldn’t support state coerced funding of education.

    Re: UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design (none / 0) (#62)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    SD-
    “The scientific method requires no such proof as you well know. Results must be reproducible.”
    Right, reproducibility is assumed, it is requisite but indemonstrable.
    “second of all not everyone agrees about the Copenhagen interpretation”
    Fine, find me one that isn’t equally absurd (here’s a fun one). I’m fond of the CI because the folks that initially ‘wrote down’ QM dreamed it up, and smart folks like Feynman have ascribed to it. My experience with the practitioners of quantum mechanics, having discussed this with more than a dozen and being one myself, is that most folks either fall back on the CI or take the pragmatic approach, that is, QM is just a mathematical construct, simply a tool, and does not need an interpretation. But what does it say when the most successful theory ever cannot be sensibly interpreted?
    “Putting a thermometer outside does not change the temperature of the outside”
    Well, that may depend on the temperature of the thermometer. But in relation to the uncertainty principle it will change how you can measure the position of the outside air. Tell me the accuracy with which you measure the temperature and I’ll tell you how much you can’t know about its position. Why can’t you know? Because, things don’t have dynamical properties outside of measurement.