Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Creationism
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 154 (126896)
07-23-2004 4:45 AM


deleted
This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-23-2004 05:23 AM

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 122 of 154 (193543)
03-22-2005 10:11 PM


Carrying on from another thread
A chance to be a pro-science activist!
This thread started to head a bit off course to a more purely ID topic.
I've copied the last view posts into here.
Commike37 writes:
That's a very loaded analogy you're running there. The existence of an intelligent being is much more debatable than whether or not the Holocaust happened. A much more appropiate analogy is whether or not slavery was the cause of the Civil War. There are many theories as to what caused the Civil War. And there are many theories over the origins of life: evolution, intelligent design, and some others like the Gaian theory.
Discussing whether ID should be taught or not.
Then NosyNed at:
Message 7
suggests that there isn't enough evidence to warrent time on ID.
Commmike37 at
Message 8
argues for some time for ID and lists scientists supporting it as a reason.
Ned at Message 9
again suggests there is not enough evidence and is not convinced by list of scientists without seeing reasons behind their views.
Commmike at
Message 10
suggests that there is an alternative that supplies purpose.
I'll start the flow at this point in my next posts.

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by NosyNed, posted 03-22-2005 10:15 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 03-22-2005 10:21 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 125 by NosyNed, posted 03-22-2005 10:30 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 123 of 154 (193544)
03-22-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by NosyNed
03-22-2005 10:11 PM


Equal time?
It seems one argument is that there should be some balance with time apportioned between different scientific ideas.
One question might be how you would calculate the porportions of time?
If we took Commikes list of scientists supporting ID we could arrive at a porportion based on votes of biological scientists perhaps.
This would give maybe 1/100 of one percent of the time to ID and the rest to the current biological consensus. (rough calculations only).
Another way would be based on hard evidence and amount of testing done. This would, I think, make the disparity larger.
What measure would you suggest Commike?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 03-22-2005 10:11 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 124 of 154 (193545)
03-22-2005 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by NosyNed
03-22-2005 10:11 PM


Sacred dogma
I don't know how exactly you're planning to run this, but it does seem to be viewing evolution as a "sacred dogma."
This is a comment of Commikes from:
Message 10
Commike, could you comment on why you think that is?
It was in answer to:
NosyNed writes:
As another bit of context setting I presume we are agreeing that it is necessary to teach that evolution has occured and some details of that. This is, as I understand it, agreed to by the ID proponents.
Do you agree that ID proponents have agreed that evolution of life on earth has occured? But that they disagree on the mechanism for it in some cases?
Remember there is, for this discussion, the need to separate what has occured from how. I know that some if not many ID proponents are agreeing that life has evolved in the sense that it has changed over a few billion years. What they disagree with to varying degrees is how this happened to occur.
What are your views on the "what" part?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-22-2005 10:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 03-22-2005 10:11 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 125 of 154 (193547)
03-22-2005 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by NosyNed
03-22-2005 10:11 PM


Purpose?
In msg 10 of the followed thread:
NosyNed writes:
That leaves the individual cases that ID proponents are speculating about. I am not aware of the more recent cases they wish to use now that the earlier set of them have been refuted.
Commike37 writes:
Not quite. Intelligent design directly contrasts the most prevalent form of evolution, neo-Darwinism. I'll quote the Center for Science and Culture again on this one. "However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, a purposeless process that 'has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species.' (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges." Therefore, your process of eliminiation doesn't work here. And even if you want to bring up the other forms of evolution that could be compatible with intelligent design, these forms would not have nearly as much evidence behind them, thus diminishing your "evidence overload" argument. Which means that resources for school have to be allocated to one theory or the other.
Ah, I need to sort this out a bit.
I think there may be a number of different schools of thought in ID. Perhaps you can clarify which one you are talking about.
It seems to me that what is being put forward here is one which says that none (or not very much , or only part) of evolutionary change (which we have agreed has occured right?) is caused by mutations acted upon my selection.
That is all has a purpose supplied by some unnamed 'designer'.
If that is the case there are two issues to deal with:
There is a heap of evidence that mutation and selection can produce a wide range (maybe not all but we can leave that aside for the moment) of the kind of changes we see in living things over time. How is that taken into account here?
The second is "purpose". What makes anyone think there is any purpose? How would I recognize it's existance? How is this defined exactly? How is it tested?
In other words where is the evidence and science supporting "purpose"? This is what would support including it in science classes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 03-22-2005 10:11 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by commike37, posted 03-23-2005 8:51 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 126 of 154 (193605)
03-23-2005 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
05-21-2004 2:35 PM


Re: Will the real Intelligent Design please stand up?
I even go so far as to think that God foreknew that there would be disagreements among humans so that we would have the opportunity to solve our discords through reasoning, humility, and acknowledgement of His behind the scenes presence.
Hambre has a reasonable topic, here.
Science by definition never stops to assume anything or ANYONE.
Forgive them, Father for they know what they do...they just do not know why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 05-21-2004 2:35 PM jar has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 127 of 154 (193786)
03-23-2005 8:34 PM


bump
After this evening I will only be able to get on a very little bit until very late saturday. (And I should be packing up now).
And was it a good days skiing today at Whistler.

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 154 (193789)
03-23-2005 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by NosyNed
03-22-2005 10:30 PM


Re: Purpose?
It's been hard to follow the flow from one topic to another, but I'll try with an all-purpose response.
On the proportion of evidence available for both theories:
1. Measuring it by the amount of scientists or evidence available to each side would be very fuzzy numbers. It's hard to make a somewhat accurate estimate on that area.
2. If only evolution is taught even with its criticisms, then its evolution vs. itself, which would inevitably grant a "sacred dogma" position to evolution.
3. Having competing theories creates an overall benefit. If each theory has to adapt itself to the challenges of the other theory, then both theories are improved as a result. Whereas if you run a monopoly, very bad things can start to happen (ie: Microsoft).
On different forms of evolution and ID:
1. The form of ID that the Center for Science and Culture advocates directly contrasts neo-Darwinism, the prominent form of evolution. The scientists I quoted were specifically supporting this type of intelligent design (unless you want to argue that the web page from the Center for Science and Culture is internally inconsistent).
2. Arguing that ID and evolution are compatible doesn't make much sense. There may be a little bit of compatibility, but overall, this is as bad as trying to argue that economy and environment are compatible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by NosyNed, posted 03-22-2005 10:30 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by NosyNed, posted 03-23-2005 9:24 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2005 9:37 AM commike37 has not replied
 Message 133 by NosyNed, posted 03-26-2005 11:57 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 136 by NosyNed, posted 04-06-2005 12:39 AM commike37 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 129 of 154 (193793)
03-23-2005 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by commike37
03-23-2005 8:51 PM


Questions?
I won't be around much for a few hours.
I did ask a number of what I thought were specific questions in the series of posts. Could you answer each post individually and be clear as to which question you are answering. It would help to quote the question.
It doesn't appear to me that you have explictly answered any (or at least only a few) of the individual questions. If you think you have could you clarify a bit? Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by commike37, posted 03-23-2005 8:51 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by commike37, posted 03-23-2005 10:21 PM NosyNed has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 154 (193818)
03-23-2005 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by NosyNed
03-23-2005 9:24 PM


Re: Questions?
Like I said before, it is hard to track this from one topic to the next, especially when it happens in multiple posts. I'll try my best here, but there's no guarantees. I'll also mentioned what I've already covered in Message 128.
Message 123:
"On the proportion of evidence available for both theories" covers the idea of proportional time.
Message 124:
"On different forms of evolution and ID" covers this, but I'll add some more.
In general Intelligent Design, in whatever form it is, should clash with Evolution (or neo-Darwinism, as it is prevalent today). Nitpicking about similarities between the two is like nitpicking about the similarities between economic growth and environmental growth. The major clash is purpose vs. no purpose.
Message 125:
When you talk about evidence again, it comes back to teaching time being based on available evidence, so cross-apply "On the proportion of evidence available for both theories"
The whole point of bringing in some of those quotes from the Center for Science and Culture is to show how evolution isn't as dominant as you think. Give me some time and I'll work on a more comprehensive summary of evidence for ID, but for now I'll basically say this: intelligent design works a lot like sciences like forensics and archaeology. Are those arrowheads a random geologic formation or trinkets made by an ancient time? Are there signs in the crime scene of the criminal at work? So, in that respect, intelligent design is nothing new. Of course, that has very little breadth and is too basic, but it'll have to work for now.
edit: If I'm going ahead and composing a comprehensive list of evidence, I might as well start a new topic. That will work well since you won't be available much for a while. Stay tuned until then. I have a lot else to do, so it's going to take a while.
This message has been edited by commike37, 03-23-2005 10:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by NosyNed, posted 03-23-2005 9:24 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by NosyNed, posted 03-24-2005 1:31 AM commike37 has not replied
 Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 04-15-2005 7:42 PM commike37 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 131 of 154 (193876)
03-24-2005 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by commike37
03-23-2005 10:21 PM


Follow up Questions
On the proportion of evidence available for both theories" covers the idea of proportional time.
You have not given what method you would use to arrive at a division of time.
The number of supporters amoung biological scientists may not be able to be tracked to the last individual but since we would not divide the classroom time down to the last 5 minutes anyway wouldn't a count within 5% be reasonable? We can, you know, come to such an estimate.
How about evidence volume? I've asked more than once for some of the evidence for the ID side.
In general Intelligent Design, in whatever form it is, should clash with Evolution (or neo-Darwinism, as it is prevalent today). Nitpicking about similarities between the two is like nitpicking about the similarities between economic growth and environmental growth. The major clash is purpose vs. no purpose.
The 'nitpicking' is simply part of understanding what theory is being put forward and what basic facts are being agreed with or not. I would still like to get that clear.
As noted I think that the consensus ID view is that:
1) Earth is old
2) Life has changed over time (evolved in a general and not a Darwinian sense).
3) The underlying mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are there.
4) There are many, some? cases where these mechanisms can produce the changes seen.
5) There are things for which neoDarwinian theory can not account for.
Do I have the consensus view? Do you agree or disagree with any part of it. If it is not the consensus view what is? Which famous ID'ers agree and disagree with which bits?
I would like to know just what is being discussed in the science class before carrying on with setting up this "balanced" curriculum.
Now aside from all that:
Is all you are asking for the inclusion of a line saying:
"There is a purpose behind all this."
As noted in Message 125 I asked why we should claim there is a purpose. Wouldn't a reasonably bright student ask for this right off the bat? S/he might also ask "What is the purpose?" and "How do I know that is the purpose?"
Since you now say the major difference is purpose or not does that mean you agree with all the rest of the description of evolution of life on earth including the mechanisms behind it but add a purpose to it?
If you disagree with what happend then we don't have to worry about ID yet. We can just discuss the input data that tells us about the changes in life on earth.
If you agree with the what but disagree on the mechanisms we couldn't give equal time in the class room untill those mechanisms are elucidated. Has any of that been done yet?
If we agree on the what and the how but you want to add "purpose" would you please offer a few paragraphs that would describe the purpose and offer the reasons why that particular purpose is the one arrived at?
ABE
There is, as far as I am concerned, no rush in answering these (that's true any time actually). Others might be interested.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-24-2005 01:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by commike37, posted 03-23-2005 10:21 PM commike37 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 132 of 154 (194642)
03-26-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by commike37
03-23-2005 8:51 PM


numbers game
Several comments on several posts (seperated by a line):
commike37 in msg#8 on {A chance to be a pro-science activist!} thread writes:
The Center for Science and Culture reports that "Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world.
creationist love to play the numbers games, and now this "form" of "evidence" appears to be moving into the IDist conceptual arena.
For numbers compare you list to "The Steve List"
http://www.ncseweb.org/...ticles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
This lists all the scientists who have endorsed the following statement:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
Note that they include id with creationism as a pseudo-science. This means that the {idea\concept} is either badly formulated or incomplete from a scientific point of view or that it cannot be tested and invalidated.
Note also that the list is restricted to scientists whos name is steve or a derivative of steve (this is to honor the memory of Steven Jay Gould), and that it is even still much more extensive than your listing.
What this does is show the ridiculousness of citing a number of "authorities" as justification for any point of view -- it is the logical fallacy of the argument from authority, and is invalid no matter how you cut it.
Forbidden
commike37, ibid, writes:
Even if intelligent design does not have as much evidence, would that be enough to justify outright exclusion?
Zero qualifies as "not much"? Even the concept of IC has been invalidated as a marker of intelligent design: it has been observed evolving in at least one instance (and one instance is enough to invalidate this concept). Every other scrap of argument reduces to the argument from incredulity and is not supported by any factual evidence. There is more evidence for neo-Lamarkism than there is for ID.
If we are truly going to open up the store to "all points of view" then we have to add in every fringe {science\pseudo-science} (even including "creationism") that can stand up longer than 10 minutes and systematically review the validity of each one as it relates to the science of biology and the change in species over time (evolution).
Then, once the invalid concepts, the untestable concepts, the concepts with no supporting evidence, and the concepts that are lacking any predictive test of validity are eliminated, we can proceed with the science involved. While this may indeed be instructive to students (and could probably be covered in a one hour lecture), it would hardly produce the results you seem to anticipate (imho of course).
commike37, ibid, writes:
If you cover evolution more, you reduce the breadth covered on a different theory.
We should also be able to argue that the course itself needs to be expanded considerably within the schools to better allow {all the different scientific views} to be adequately presented and discussed, a move I would applaud as it would increase the amount of time spent on evolutionary biology aspects. As it sits now this kind of science is being pushed more and more into AP ("advanced placement") courses where only those planning on going on to college or exhibiting true scientific curiousity will take the courses.
Of course many students could profit more from a basic course in logical thinking, whether they are scientifically inclined or not, and perhaps this would be a better place to expend increased curriculum time.

commike37 msg#10 on {A chance to be a pro-science activist!} thread writes:
I'll quote the Center for Science and Culture ... "However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, a purposeless process that 'has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species.' (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges."
The fact that there is "no specific direction or goal" in any science should be a clue that science is not about finding purpose or possible directions or goals of the universe no matter what the cause ultima of such would be. This statement also employs a mis-statement of evolution (strawman) to further it's pointless purpose: evolution is not "driven by natural selection" it just happens. Thus for ID to "challenge" a false concept is hardly a challenge to the science itself in reality.
Flatly: ID is not a theory in the scientific sense: it isn't based on evidence, it doesn't have an explanation that provides a better answer to the evidence for evolution, it doesn't have a testable prediction that would validate or invalidate it differentially from evolution. Until it can provide those scientific benchmarks -- demanded of any theory in any science -- then it doesn't belong in an education curriculum, at any level, and it certainly doesn't belong in an early introduction course that barely has time to cover the broad basics of the scientific material available.
If it doesn't belong in a university course, why on earth would anyone think it belongs in a high school course?

commike37 msg#128 this thread writes:
On the proportion of evidence available for both theories:
1. Measuring it by the amount of scientists or evidence available to each side would be very fuzzy numbers. It's hard to make a somewhat accurate estimate on that area.
2. If only evolution is taught even with its criticisms, then its evolution vs. itself, which would inevitably grant a "sacred dogma" position to evolution.
3. Having competing theories creates an overall benefit. If each theory has to adapt itself to the challenges of the other theory, then both theories are improved as a result. Whereas if you run a monopoly, very bad things can start to happen (ie: Microsoft).
Science is not a majority, or dependant on majority view to be correct. Comparing it to business is invalid.
There are a number of theories within the science of evolution on exactly how things occur in different areas and at different times. There is little enough time to cover even the basics of these actual competing theories within an introductory course without introducing fringe concepts into the mix.
ID is not a scientific theory, it is just an (as yet) untestable concept: it is untestable because as yet it has not done the scientific homework to develop a validation test that would differentiate it from the results of evolutionary theories.
qs=commike37, ibid, writes:
Arguing that ID and evolution are compatible doesn't make much sense.
Therefore ID needs to develop a validation test to differentiate it from the results of evolutionary theories or it is a pointless exercise.
qs=commike37, ibid, writes:
unless you want to argue that the web page from the Center for Science and Culture is internally inconsistent
internally inconsistent or inconsistent with real science? any mythology can be internally consistent, that doesn't make it a valid view of {"life, the universe and everything"}.
And it is inconsistent with real science. All one needs to do is search the site for "Irreducible Complexity" and you will find a number of articles like
Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions | Discovery Institute
The concept of IC has been invalidated as a marker for ID, thus real science would have dropped this concept, or note in passing that it is no longer valid. Instead it is still played as a valid concept: that is not science, that is not truth, that is not something to put into science classes.
That hardly took 5 minutes.


enough for now
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by commike37, posted 03-23-2005 8:51 PM commike37 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 133 of 154 (194759)
03-26-2005 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by commike37
03-23-2005 8:51 PM


Back with a Bump For Commike
Of course, some of the questions might take a bit of time but it seems to me that there is one which you should be able to rattle off a few paragraphs on without any trouble.
You have agitated for some time to be given to ID in the classroom.
Several questions here are asking, in so many words, just what it is that you would have taught.
Your last suggestion seems to be that "purpose" should be introduced. You were asked some questions on that. Could you describe what the students would be taught and what reasoning and evidence would be laid before them?
Then you can get back to the other hanging questions. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by commike37, posted 03-23-2005 8:51 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2005 8:46 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 139 by commike37, posted 04-18-2005 10:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 134 of 154 (195886)
03-31-2005 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by NosyNed
03-26-2005 11:57 PM


Other IDists?
Since commike seems to be away for awhile are there any others who could answer the questions about what would be taught?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2005 08:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by NosyNed, posted 03-26-2005 11:57 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2005 1:58 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 135 of 154 (195927)
04-01-2005 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by NosyNed
03-31-2005 8:46 PM


Re: Other IDists?
There isn't an ID theory to teach and no likelihood that there will be one in the forseeable future. ID was intentionally set up to incorporate everything from straight YEC to Denton's Platonic ideas. With so many disparate views how could they converge on a theory ?
And they aren't likely to even try. ID is a political movment and they want the support of the YECs. The ID movement doesn't want to campaign for a straight YEC view because that failed in the courts. But if they go for an Old Earth view, allowing more evolution than YECs are comfortable with then how can they hope to keep YEC support ? Only by keeping things vague - as they have done the entire time - can they hope to avoid the dilemma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2005 8:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024