Last month, Mark Ferrante, a science teacher at Modesto California's Roosevelt Junior High School, announced at a back-to-school night that he would teach the theory of intelligent design (ID) alongside evolution. School district officials said this would not be allowed to happen but this sparked a debate that many others have joined. According to the Modesto Bee, some of the other science teachers and school trustees agree with Ferrante and want to teach ID as science.
"The current curriculum states that the evolution of man, Darwinism, must be taught as a theory. I feel we do our students a disservice by not helping them become critical thinkers when we forbid the teaching of competing scientific theories, such as intelligent design," trustee Nancy Cline said in an e-mail to the Bee.
Intelligent design is the theory that living things are too complex to have happened randomly in nature. Proponents say science proves there was a master designer. (from the Bee)
But it's not a competing scientific theory or even science at all according to critics like Central Catholic High School science teacher Chris Wilde:
"The problem is that intelligent design is trying to somehow wed science to faith and it can't because in intelligent design you start with an assumption and it's unquestionable," said Wilde.
The overwhelming majority of scientists agree with her but, more importantly from the school district's point of view, so do the courts.
In 2005, proponents of ID got their day in federal court. The case was Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. They had money, they had legal talent and they had expert witnesses but in the end, the judge, a conservative Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote that "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (from page 43. You can read the entire 139 page decision here)
As a religious view, teaching ID violates the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution and any public school system that tried it would open itself up to litigation which, as other cases in California have demonstrated, they would most likely lose (with expensive consequences).
Therefore, quite sensibly, the district won't let Ferrante have his way.
"He will not be teaching intelligent design. He has been instructed to teach the state standards and intelligent design is not in the state standards," Modesto City Schools spokeswoman Emily Lawrence said last week. (in the Modesto Bee)
However, that may not be the end of it. As retired science teacher Mike Kennedy of Oakdale told the Bee in an e-mail, "I agree that some science and other teachers (teach intelligent design), yes, and it is unethical when they do so."
Unethical or not, approved or not, some teachers still act on their faith in intelligent design.
And how will Mark Ferrante, the Roosevelt Junior High School teacher whose declaration sparked this debate, react to the school district's instruction? He won't say. As the Modesto Bee explains, he's not answering emails asking for comment.
If you like my articles, you can click on "subscribe" at the top of the page and you'll receive notice when new ones are published.
Comments
Fire him first; let him sue.
Kitzmiller makes clear he has ZERO defense: ID is religion, not science - so sayeth the judge.
What a combination; gullible and hateful. The theory of evolution, despite its majority expert opinion, remains that ... expert opinion. The argument is so incredibly weak in light of the scientific method that you must notice the absence of scientific discussion. It will fail under scientific discussion so a ploy in argument is to move away from the arena of science and just talk law, religion and condescending language. Everyone is too afraid to talk science. ha ha ha. They just quote generalizations.
Here is YOUR belief in a nutshell: "While we observe superior engineering in nature that exceeds man's ability it CAN ONLY BE the result of no intelligence."
Can't back that up with experiments, but I understand, that doesn't really matter to you.
You're an idiot. Evolution can be and has been demonstrated beyond any rational doubt through multiple scientific disciplines.
The THEORY of evolution is the scientific effort to explain it; said theory is modified and corrected as new evidence arises - but the underlying principle of Descent through Modification has more than withstood the tests of time.
Stating, especially without even attempting to support said statement, that there is an "absence of scientific discussion" indicates you're simply a liar - no one could possibly be THAT stupid and still be able to turn on a computer.
You're an idiot. Evolution can be and has been demonstrated beyond any rational doubt through multiple scientific disciplines.
The THEORY of evolution is the scientific effort to explain it; said theory is modified and corrected as new evidence arises - but the underlying principle of Descent through Modification has more than withstood the tests of time... and has been demonstrated through observation, accurate predictions AND experiment.
Stating, especially without even attempting to support said statement, that there is an "absence of scientific discussion" indicates you're simply a liar - no one could possibly be THAT stupid and still be able to turn on a computer.
---"The argument is so incredibly weak in light of the scientific method that you must notice the absence of scientific discussion."
Oh, that must be why there are literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed published scientific papers on evolution, and NONE on ID. And no, their own "work" outside of the scientific arena does not count.
---"Can't back that up with experiments, but I understand, that doesn't really matter to you."
Actually we've been waiting for 20 years (or 2000 depending on how you look at it) for YOU to back up YOUR claims that ID is responsible for biodiversity on Earth. Evolution does have the advantage on you at the moment with around 150 years or so of scientific research backing it up. Feel free to discuss the science of either ID or evolution if you like. I would also point out that evolution does NOT in any way imply whether or not an "intelligence" was involved. That is a false dichotomy you brought up. I merely point out that to invoke such an entity, it is up to YOU to back up your claims. Have at it.
this is ridiculous, in faith you also start with an assumption and it is unquestionable
This is what makes faith so dangerous. It doesn't question. In fact, it insists on its point of view regardless of the facts. Many on the ID side feel frustrated that they can't get their view across, but that's because they're trying to take something that is not and present it as if it is.
I think we need to redefine "blind faith" as "blind stupidity."
---"I feel we do our students a disservice by not helping them become critical thinkers when we forbid the teaching of competing scientific theories, such as intelligent design"
The ironic thing that this is TEACHERS saying this. What does it say about the education system when it's the teachers themselves demanding critical thinking be taught when they have no understanding of it themselves?
For those lurkers who have yet grasped my point, there IS no "scientific theory" of Intelligent Design. That's why it can't be taught in school science classes. What's more, it is religious apologetics with big "sciencey-sounding" words, and religion is illegal to teach. The ONLY way it could be taught would be in a comparative RELIGIOUS class, and as long as ALL OTHER religions were taught EQUALLY.
Although it wouldn't be good for the school involved, in the long run another Dover case would be a good thing. The fundies would lose (just like they've lost every single court case since 1925) and perhaps two total smackdowns might get through their thick heads that ID is not scientific and not legal to teach. And it never has been.
Teach ID as part of a comparative religions class - I like that.
Include ALL the creation myths and watch the fundies turn apoplectic.
I can't tell you how many times I get yelled at for pointing out that there are TWO creation stories, not one, and they closely parallel the Babylonian myth - which would make sense since they were in captivity in Babylon when Genesis was written.
They want to teach ID as a fact when they're not even clear how their own creation myth came to be in the first place.
Neither ID nor Creationism is science, this is not a church/state issue, but rather an appropriateness issue. see... http://mainereason.blogspot.com/2010/09/teaching-creationism-in-schools....
I would have no problem with teaching about intelligent design in science class if it were taught from a scientific perspective: namely, that students be shown precisely why that school of thought is unscientific & doesn't meet the standards of a true scientific theory. The teachers could then go on to show exactly why all the "evidence" in favor of ID is anything but. It would be like teaching children about Lemarckian evolution, and why it is rejected by the scientific community.
My only grievance with teaching ID comes up when it is taught as though it has any scientific backing whatsoever.
Hugh Kramer cites science teacher Chris Wilde:
"The problem is that intelligent design is trying to somehow wed science to faith and it can't because in intelligent design you start with an assumption and it's unquestionable."
This is a common misinterpretation of ID, since faith is not an operative of ID proper. ID seeks to validate or falsify design inferences. Its premise of intervention within evolutionary processes is an alternate hypothesis to natural selection. It predicts that either ID, natural selection, or both are causative in phylogenetic progressions, and are determinants in the formation of varied and distinct life forms. Further, it does not deny common descent, but predicts that lineage divergence is in toto, or in part, the result of intelligent input.
Hugh further states that "The overwhelming majority of scientists agree with her but, more importantly from the school district's point of view, so do the courts."
True to a degree. Consider however, scientists are constrained to accept naturalistic origins and progressions, at least if they want to graduate and work in the field. Organizations like AAAS, NAS, NSF and NIH have all stated emphatically, that ID precepts are off the table [lab bench], and are not to be even considered as scientifically investigative.
District Federal Court decisions like Kitzmiller v. Dover can rule on the actions of a school board that violates the secular requirements laid out by the Constitutional Establishment Clause and Lemon v. Kurtzman, but is in no way qualified to rule on the validity of science per se. The second part of judge Jones' ruling will be challenged.
Interesting that Hugh and others mention that Jones was a "conservative Republican appointed by Bush." That supposedly makes his decision even more valid, since he would have had to overcome his own religious bias. Are all Republicans religious bigots? For that matter, is Jones truly conservative? Bush certainly was not in many areas. Again I caution all of you to not view ID as religious, simply because 1) some religionists have adopted it as a tool to make their agenda appear more scientific, and 2) secularist promoters like Barbara Forrest, author and NCSE publicist have worked to promote the ID - Creationism conflation.
That said, I'm not in favor of 'teaching' intelligent design as 'theory', since it is an 'emergent and ongoing' investigative hypothesis, essentially an adjunct to neo-Darwinian theory. Presenting it as such falls well within basic scientific inquiry.
---"ID seeks to validate or falsify design inferences."
How exactly?
---"Further, it does not deny common descent"
With the exception of perhaps Behe, the majority of ID/Creationists do in fact deny common descent.
---"Consider however, scientists are constrained to accept naturalistic origins and progressions, at least if they want to graduate and work in the field. Organizations like AAAS, NAS, NSF and NIH have all stated emphatically, that ID precepts are off the table [lab bench], and are not to be even considered as scientifically investigative."
Problem? If natural explanations are not adequate for ID this implies "SUPER"-natural explanations are needed (and indeed they are what the majority of IDers invoke). Do let us know when "super"-natural causes become scientifically viable now, won't you?
---"District Federal Court decisions like Kitzmiller v. Dover can rule on the actions of a school board that violates the secular requirements laid out by the Constitutional Establishment Clause and Lemon v. Kurtzman, but is in no way qualified to rule on the validity of science per se."
No, SCIENTISTS are however. And the scientific community requires that scientific concepts be objectively demonstrable. Which ID isn't.
---"The second part of judge Jones' ruling will be challenged."
I sincerely hope so. I love the smell of fried creationists in the morning.
---"Again I caution all of you to not view ID as religious, simply because 1) some religionists have adopted it as a tool to make their agenda appear more scientific, and 2) secularist promoters like Barbara Forrest, author and NCSE publicist have worked to promote the ID - Creationism conflation."
It's more than mere conflation, the evidence was demonstrated in court. Hence why the Creationist 'textbook' was EXACTLY the same as the ID 'textbook'. With um, one or two minor changes. Ahem.
---"That said, I'm not in favor of 'teaching' intelligent design as 'theory', since it is an 'emergent and ongoing' investigative hypothesis, essentially an adjunct to neo-Darwinian theory. Presenting it as such falls well within basic scientific inquiry."
Thanks for your opinion, however it is based on lies. And you are well aware of this.
Some questions needed to be addressed by the ID proponent(sists) -
What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of ID? Who or what is the designer and how can we tell? What mechanism did it use to do whatever it is you think it did and how can we tell? How is "design" quantified? When and where did it do it? What observations can be made in regards to ID? What limits does said designer have and how were these limits determined scientifically? What useful scientific predictions does ID make? How can it be tested? How can it be falsified?
Thanks in advance.
Questions asked by me, Niick, by the way. (rather annoying the way the new software defaults to "anonymous" during posting)
--- "ID seeks to validate or falsify design inferences." --- "How exactly?"
Statistical probabilities, and algorithmic modeling via computer simulations. These will verify or falsify naturalistic causalities. If shown to be unevolvable via natural functions, ID will have a more open corridor. Actual empirical testing is virtually impossible for both ID and radical (macro-) speciation events. It's been tried with drosophila, and has failed in that attempt.
--- "Further, it does not deny common descent"
"With the exception of perhaps Behe, the majority of ID/Creationists do in fact deny common descent."
This is fast becoming the prevailing position of design theorists. Remember, ID is 'science' based, rather than 'poof scenario' based.
--- "Problem [the constrained view of implicit naturalism]? If natural explanations are not adequate for ID this implies "SUPER"-natural explanations are needed (and indeed they are what the majority of IDers invoke). Do let us know when "super"-natural causes become scientifically viable now, won't you?"
Whether you define supernatural as outside this dimension, or a power with magical ability, ID entertains neither.
"[Courts are] in no way qualified to rule on the validity of science per se"
--- "No, SCIENTISTS are however. And the scientific community requires that scientific concepts be objectively demonstrable. Which ID isn't."
ID was not properly represented at Kitzmiller v. Dover, and was NOT behind the school board's actions. Their defense was of ID as valid investigative science, and they relied mostly on Behe to defend it. Their defense was lacking, but so was the Court's interpretation of the evidence presented. The decision only applies to the Dover Federal District, although it has had an effect in other jurisdictions. In short, part two of the decision was dead wrong, and at some point, it WILL be challenged. Evidence presented will include both evidence for teleology within biology, as well as rebuttals of key parts of Miller's testimony.
--- "The second part of judge Jones' ruling will be challenged."
"I sincerely hope so. I love the smell of fried creationists in the morning."
There is NO WAY that ID will be shown to be religious in its seminal concept.
--- "It's more than mere conflation, the evidence was demonstrated in court. Hence why the Creationist 'textbook' was EXACTLY the same as the ID 'textbook'. With um, one or two minor changes. Ahem."
Pandas and People had some religious underpinnings, but it was not, and IS not, representative of design theory.
"Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." is obviously a religious concept. Remember, it was the school board's actions that were challenged. The scientific perusal of design inferences is totally unrelated. And even if it was presented as ID authoritative, that was merely those particular authors'/editors' views.
--- "Thanks for your opinion, however it is based on lies. And you are well aware of this."
And thanks for your rebuttal, which is based in part on lies as well, propagated by others, but bought carte blanch by you, it would seem. By the way, I am open to new data, no matter which way it points (by rational analysis, of course). Same for you?
---"Statistical probabilities, and algorithmic modeling via computer simulations. These will verify or falsify naturalistic causalities."
Deliberately vague claim. Don't give me humans make computers or birds build nests, I want a specific example of something created by this enigmatic "designer", I want to know how it did it and how all this was determined scientifically.
---"If shown to be unevolvable via natural functions, ID will have a more open corridor."
False. Irreducible Complexity is nothing more than an anti-evolution argument, not a positive argument for "design". What's more, as Behe has pointed out, there is no-one doing research to support it. And he hasn't done it either. In fact, there isn't an ID research program at all.
---"This is fast becoming the prevailing position of design theorists. Remember, ID is 'science' based, rather than 'poof scenario' based."
Baseless claim.
---"Whether you define supernatural as outside this dimension, or a power with magical ability, ID entertains neither."
Tell that to most of the IDer's. If it doesn't, then what exactly DOES it entertain? Tell me about this "designer".
---"ID was not properly represented at Kitzmiller v. Dover, and was NOT behind the school board's actions."
Well the Creationists had their chance. They blew it. Only Behe was brave enough to take the stand. He did a fantastic job. Oh, and the DI "unofficially" told the school board ID was legal to teach. It was only when the TMLC told the board that may have been a *little* premature, the DI changed their tune and put the blame on the creo's on the school board.
---"Their defense was lacking, but so was the Court's interpretation of the evidence presented."
So you say.
---"The decision only applies to the Dover Federal District, although it has had an effect in other jurisdictions. In short, part two of the decision was dead wrong, and at some point, it WILL be challenged."
No, the decision effects the entire country. ID is Creationism. Creationism is illegal to teach in public schools, PERIOD. You may contest the idea that ID and Creationism are one and the same. I look forward to it. You will lose just as you lost every other time evolution v creationism went to court.
---"There is NO WAY that ID will be shown to be religious in its seminal concept."
News flash, it already was. Wedge Document. Of Pandas And People. And the fact that none of the IDers can help themselves from shouting "Praise the Lord, Hallelujah!" and shooting themselves in the foot.
---"Pandas and People had some religious underpinnings, but it was not, and IS not, representative of design theory."
The word "Creationism" was changed to "design" throughout the book. The arguments were the same. I'm still waiting to hear what the "scientific theory" is. That may take a while as prominent ID members have already admitted to not having a theory or a research program as of yet.
---"And thanks for your rebuttal, which is based in part on lies as well, propagated by others, but bought carte blanch by you, it would seem. By the way, I am open to new data, no matter which way it points (by rational analysis, of course). Same for you?"
No lies on my part. Certainly not that you have demonstrated.
"Some questions needed to be addressed by the ID proponent[s]"
"What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of ID?
DI states it this way:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
I disagree with the reference to the Universe, since its causation may be totally unrelated to the origin and progression of biologic life forms. I predict that THAT prediction (Cosmic creation) will be removed from the consensus definition.
"Who or what is the designer and how can we tell?"
ID does not make that prediction. Design inferences verified first, then attempts to define the actual source(s) of design, motive, method(s). etc.
"Wat mechanism did it use to do whatever it is you think it did and how can we tell?"
The earliest molecular constructs via some kind of molecular manipulation. There is no actual prediction that I know of regarding at this time. Gene tweaking further down the road.
"How is "design" quantified? When and where did it do it?"
Again, these will be works in progress. Remember, I stated that ID is not a complete theory at this time, but begins with verification (or falsification) of 'desigh inferences' in various modalities.
"What observations can be made in regards to ID?
As stated earlier, falsification of macro- events (non-evolvable complexities) leads to a design (interventionary) inference. If musculature and ligament placements can be show to follow geometric and mathematical alghorithms, for example, that would substantiate design, rather than chance occurence. The DNA/RNA coding is alread a design inference, wheter PZMyers and other die hards want to admit it.
In addition, co-dependent systems that would have no independent functions when existing independently are another design inference. And finally, symetries (human hairline placement, ape and human fingernail and finger print designs, and other symetries which I won't go into now are essentially 'non-evolvable', since they would offer no reproductive or survival advantages. This is the same postulate that shoots down most if not all incremental alterations required for complex organ and system formations.
"What limits does said designer have and how were these limits determined scientifically? What useful scientific predictions does ID make? How can it be tested? How can it be falsified?"
These are ongoing pursuits. Care to become a researcher in this field? There are break-throughs on the horizon leading to Nobel Laureates, I predict!
"Thanks in advance."
Thank you.
What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of ID?
---"DI states it this way: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." I disagree with the reference to the Universe, since its causation may be totally unrelated to the origin and progression of biologic life forms. I predict that THAT prediction (Cosmic creation) will be removed from the consensus definition."
So forget the formation of the universe, you are contesting that aliens created life on Earth. (I doubt the DI would humour that on its own for too long)
---"ID does not make that prediction. Design inferences verified first, then attempts to define the actual source(s) of design, motive, method(s). etc.
How?
Who or what is the designer and how can we tell?
---"ID does not make that prediction. Design inferences verified first, then attempts to define the actual source(s) of design, motive, method(s). etc."
How?
What mechanism did it use to do whatever it is you think it did and how can we tell?
---"The earliest molecular constructs via some kind of molecular manipulation. There is no actual prediction that I know of regarding at this time. Gene tweaking further down the road."
So you have no mechanism as yet.
How is "design" quantified? When and where did it do it?
---"Again, these will be works in progress. Remember, I stated that ID is not a complete theory at this time, but begins with verification (or falsification) of design inferences' in various modalities."
Modes which you won't expand upon. But at least we agree that there is no theory of ID as of yet. Therefore there is no reason for ID to be pushed into public school science classes. If scientists want to work on the subject, no problem.
---"As stated earlier, falsification of macro- events (non-evolvable complexities) leads to a design (interventionary) inference."
False. That's merely a negative argument against evolution. The fallacy of "If not A therefore B must be true!" If ID is to stand as a viable scientific concept, it needs to stand on its own two feet using POSITIVE evidence.
---"If musculature and ligament placements can be show to follow geometric and mathematical alghorithms, for example, that would substantiate design, rather than chance occurence."
Ludicrous. By simply existing in a 3 dimensional universe everything follows geometric and mathematical algorithms. You also bring up the usual straw-man of "chance". Does gravity work via "chance"? No. Therefore it 'must' be designed? Well, not necessarily no. Math is an abstract concept invented by humans in order to help them describe the universe. But it can also have its own internal self-consistent logic but still conflict with reality. Hence, math is not a science.
---"The DNA/RNA coding is alread a design inference, wheter PZMyers and other die hards want to admit it."
Baseless claim. Again, the "code" (abstract) was invented by humans, to help us describe the biochemistry involved.
---"In addition, co-dependent systems that would have no independent functions when existing independently are another design inference."
I have addressed Irreducible Complexity.
---"And finally, symetries (human hairline placement, ape and human fingernail and finger print designs, and other symetries which I won't go into now are essentially 'non-evolvable', since they would offer no reproductive or survival advantages."
Again, only a negative argument against evolution combined with argument from incredulity. Obviously you have not heard of bilateral symmetry in evolution. Are you really saying an organism with two arms and legs has no survival advantages than one that only has one arm and leg? Are you really?
---"This is the same postulate that shoots down most if not all incremental alterations required for complex organ and system formations."
So you agree ID depends on anti-evolution arguments. Never anything positive, always negative arguments against another concept. If not A therefore B. No wonder ID can't even get off the starting block.
---"These are ongoing pursuits. Care to become a researcher in this field? There are break-throughs on the horizon leading to Nobel Laureates, I predict!"
Oh, I'm sure. I'm not surprised you asked me to sign up, you guys need all the help you can get. I predict ID/Creationism will be in the same place as it was 100 or even 2000 years ago in another hundred years. And more.
Another point regarding the Kitz v Dov trial. Both the defendants, and the judge, were totally unaware of ID as a concept. The defendants used it as a guise; the judge listened to the testimony. Both were totally uninformed.
Here's one interesting piece regarding trial:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/judge_joness_misguided_ncsescr03189...
Granted it's by DI, but very much on-key it its assessment.
By the way, Judge Jones in a PLoS interview admitted his scientific ignorance (and of ID, " ... I could not remember hearing about ID before, so I really didn't know what it was.")
Read it all here:
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen....
Hey, he did the best he could, and yes, the defense was somewhat skant of a proper defense. Also, Miller's args against IC are total false.
First, he stated that the TTSS protein set was a subset (10 out of 50 proteins) of the flagellum, and therefore a precursor. Most later assessments are that it came later, AFTER motility was in place.
And secondly, even if the flagellum could be shown to have self-evolved, that would not verify ALL complex organelles had so evolved.
Millers args regarding the clotting cascade do NOT disprove Behe's conclusions, since Miller misconstrued Behe's wording from his published works. His logic centered on insisting that none of the intrinsic factors could be missing, where it's the genes 'below' the fork that are irreducible for proper clotting.
I have links to Behe's rebuttals if you can't locate them. In short, the trial (second part) was a total sham. The NCSE members, its legal team, and their witnesses and science consultants partied hardy after the decision was handed down. John Jones has received paid speaking engagements, several honorary degrees, and awarded one of Time Magazines 100 most influentials the following year.
But tell me, do political hoop-las make you happy? Do they instill confidence?
A parting thot. You can embrace atheism or agnosticism, and still accept the possibility of other life forms than those in your face. For all you know, your 'actual' essence may meet with them someday ...
Cheers
---"Granted it's by DI, but very much on-key it its assessment."
Luskin? Heh. He didn't even (attempt to) debunk it. But then he is a liar, um, I mean lawyer, not a scientist.
---"And secondly, even if the flagellum could be shown to have self-evolved, that would not verify ALL complex organelles had so evolved."
Irrelevant. Fact is that organisms that share "parts" with the flagellum, but having less of them, regardless of when in the timeline the organisms or their "parts" developed, demonstrates the claim that the flagellum is "Irreducibly Complex" is false. What's more NO-ONE has done ANY research to back up Behe's claims, not even Behe himself. Rather than try, he's gone into the world of writing books on apologetics instead. And so far no-one has taken up his mantle. And as I've pointed out, IC is moot in regards to ID. Negative arguments against one theory doth not an argument make. You have yet to identify the "designer" or its attributes, postulate a mechanism, provide any observations, or a way to test or falsify ID.
---"But tell me, do political hoop-las make you happy? Do they instill confidence?"
I'm sorry, I think you're talking to the wrong person. Remember, it's the DI who use PR campaigns and political lobbying to attempt to push ID/Creationism/anti-evolution apologetics into public schools despite even admitting they don't have a theory or research program yet. So inform them of your concerns.
---"A parting thot. You can embrace atheism or agnosticism, and still accept the possibility of other life forms than those in your face. For all you know, your 'actual' essence may meet with them someday"
I do accept the possibility of other life-forms. I'm not sure what an "essence" is. Perhaps you could discuss it more with the Raellians and then provide us with some more scientific insight?
Rael dot com.
Bowman is entirely unconvincing in his ID apologetics.
Indeed. He is somewhat infamous on the interwebz in the IDC/evolution circles, much like say, Larry Fafarman. But then his posts are not meant for us, but those who hate evolution and science and want their religion to be taught in public schools.
Hence why despite all my questions, all we've managed to learn from Lee Bowman about ID and the "designer" is that SOME thing did it, SOME where, SOME how, at SOME time.
I can't imagine for the life of me why no-one would want to teach this incredibly amazing, helpful and informative "scientific theory"...
Still a paid employee of Discovery Institute, Bowman?
Still spewing the same old bull, I see. And still trying to claim "science" is really 'politics.'
"Still a paid employee of Discovery Institute, Bowman?"
When I used to hang out at the Horshoe and Fremont Casinos in downtown Vegas where single deck dealing was employed, I would count cards and wait for a 'ten rich' situation in which I would increase my bet, split and re-split tens/facecards, and double down on even 7 or 8 up when the dealer shows a 6 or 7 as his up card.
But to know a ten rich situation, it helped imensely to see the cards of those on my right and left, or play head to head with the dealer. But alas, they'd have shills sitting at the table, hiding their cards, and making counting difficult.
At that time, shills were given free drinks and meals, and maybe a few chips now and then. But they essentially worked for the casinos for little compensation. If I 'truly' work for DI, I get even less. Actually nothing, nada.
Like many others out there, my blogging, along with an occasional op ed piece, is totally un-paid and off the cuff, as well as non-grata in some places, here perhaps.
But I do do research, and I have done some double blind studies years back, to verify or falsify so-called mind/body dualism. I confirmed it, but decided not to publish the data. Nonetheless, with what I have garnered over 40+ years, I know I'm on track. But design inferences do not require dualism as a reality, altho they do go together explicitly.
The validity of ID has nothing to do with DI. The evidence stands on its own.
---"The validity of ID has nothing to do with DI. The evidence stands on its own."
Hm, and just like you, no-one's decided to publish the data. *shrug*
All they can offer us is: "Evolution can't explain 'X' therefore GOD - uh, I mean the unknown unobservable undetectable invisible Intelligent Designer did it! (nudge nudge wink wink) - Possibly aliens."
Vorlons, Nick.
All part of their war against the Shadows.
ID is like a cargo cult - "I don't understand it, so it must be god."
Nick, you have way more patience than I do - nice takedown.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!