Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Dec 20, 2005.
Mnay proponents of ID are evolutionists. They espouse the theory of the Big Bang as well as Macroevolution. This is very different from Creation Science, which holds that the universe was formed exactly as outlined in Genesis.
From today's New York Times. Note that the judge who ruled against I.D. as science is a Republican, and was appointed by President Bush.
December 21, 2005
Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
HARRISBURG, Pa., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."
In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum.
Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
Eleven parents in Dover, a growing suburb about 20 miles south of Harrisburg, sued their school board a year ago after it voted to have teachers read students a brief statement introducing intelligent design in ninth-grade biology class.
The statement said that there were "gaps in the theory" of evolution and that intelligent design was another explanation they should examine.
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.
Judge Jones said that teaching intelligent design as science in public school violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits public officials from using their positions to impose or establish a particular religion.
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."
The six-week trial in Federal District Court in Harrisburg gave intelligent design the most thorough academic and legal airing since the movement's inception about 15 years ago, and was often likened to the momentous Scopes case that put evolution on trial 80 years earlier.
Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.
But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled."
The Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, cannot be taught as science in a public school.
* * *
3rd one on topic, merged.
you posted this what is your point other than just posting it?
backwards. I.D. proponents accept so-called "microevolution."
The obvious scientific evidence forces them to accept that all species are constantly changing. They don't accept so-called "macro-evolution," i.e. the emergence of new species via this process of drift.
The problem for them is that their distinction between micro and macro evolution is meaningless. Take some microevolution, add some more microevolution to it, and pretty soon you have macroevolution.
A good analogy is languages. If two populations speaking the same language are separated for long enough, the constant processes of language drift will eventually create two distinct new languages, whose users can't understand one another fully. This process is clear in the evolutionary trees of all the world's languages. At what point did micro-language-evolution become macro? There's no clear dividing line, so the distinction means nothing.
The reason why I.D. isn't science, though, is that their reason for rejecting macroevolution is patently obvious--they don't want humans to have evolved as the other animals did. And their reason for that is patently obvious (and was clearly stated in a leaked document from the Discovery Institute earlier this year): the Christian Bible says that God made man in his image. That's why the judge concluded that I.D. is simply creationism dressed up a bit.
The major Christian denominations accepted evolution long, long ago--like a century ago. It is the revived fundamentalism in America that created I.D.
Personally, I think it is a majestic conception, that we extraordinarily ordered, self-replicating beings arose over 3 billion years along with millions of other equally extraordinary creatures on our planet. It makes me more awed by creation to accept evolution than to reject it. Importantly, the evolutionary perspective also makes our fragility far more obvious than the Christian one, which seems to suggest people will be around forever. Thus it encourages better stewardship of the earth, rather than the "dominion" proposed by the Bible.
By the way, what does it mean for us to be created in "God's image," if every one of us is different due to recombining the parental genes, and also due to the approximately 300 mutations that every baby is born with? Ther is no single human "image"--there's just a large and constantly drifting gene pool.
My personal reason for posting the story was the hope that some the I.D. defenders here would now accept the opinion of a Bush-appointed Republican judge, and stop calling I.D. science.
No problem---as long as they impress upon children that evolution is only a theory that cannot be fully proven.
in public education. Sure evolution has as many holes in it as swiss cheese but it's still the held scientific "theory". I think if most people were aware that the "proof" of higher forms directly evolving from lower forms is almost non-existent they would be shocked. Evolution has been taught as "law" even though it is "theory". It seems through the geologic record that lower forms "evolve" into higher forms but this is on the macrobiotic level only. In terms of specie specific changes that can be demonstrated by the fossil record there is very little evidence to support "evolution" in speciation. While ID is "belief only" evolution is still only a "theory".
evidence for speciation, but it is mostly indirect, because speciation takes a long time. If we waited a million years, we'd see direct evidence of speciation.
So the evidence is inferential, but that is a normal part of science. At the moment, for example, we infer that most of the mass of the universe is "dark matter." We don't have the slightest idea what dark matter is, but its existence is required by the discrepancy between the observed gravitational field and the distribution and motions of visible galaxies.
Similarly, physicists infer the existence of exotic particles--and then go find them.
Evolutionary scientists are busy working out the details of the speciation history of every creature on earth now, as well as all that are in the fossil record. While they debate whether a certain species divergence occured 250 million versus 260 million years ago--working out the fine details--so many lay people are believing the whole thing they're doing is crazy. It's strange.
The biological classification system (kingdoms, phyla... genera, species) is the single greatest piece of evidence for speciation, when combined with knowledge of the distribution of different animals, and genetic science. Darwin's finches make a perfect example, as do the highly evolved marsupials of Australia. There are thousands of such examples, where individual creatures share varying degrees of genetic similarity in precise correlation with the idea that they spread geographically over time and speciated due to varying evolutionary pressures. This type of understanding explains for us why there are no penguins on the North Pole (they speciated around 100 million years ago and never had a cold pathway north during that time), why there are no kangaroos, koalas, or platypuses in America (an ancient Marsupial ancestor speciated into all of the Australian marsupials, etc. When you have fossil evidence fitting with genetic evidence, fitting with the enormous classification system of taxonomy, it is an easy inference that evolution makes sense. So easy that Darwin made it 150 years ago. Strange we're still arguing about it now, when his work itself convinced that vast majority of scientists at the time (almost all of whom, in the West, were Christian). These are three completely different types of evidence, applied to hundreds of thousands of examples, and fit together perfectly.
Calling evolution a "law" is just like calling gravity a "law." They're both officially theories, as is everything in science. But once well enough established, it's fair to call something a law, recognizing always that it can be overturned by new evidence.
How is this health related?
Separate names with a comma.