Creationism/ID as Science

mitchellmckain writes: Judge John E Jones III, in his 2005 Dover vs Kitzmiller ruling, makes the same points you do. He ruled that ID is not science because it is 'an inherently religous concept' that depends on the fallacy of incredulity and the fallacy of competing outcomes (that is, that ID is automatically validated if problems in the theory of evolution arise). Well put. Jones argued that attempts to introduce the supernatural violate 'the ground rules of science'.To anyone with questions about the validity of ID theory I think the ruling is required reading. It spells out why ID failed and in the process does a fine job of describing how science works.Page not found | Middle District of Pennsylvania | United States District Court

---

Archer

OFF TOPIC. The subject is ID.Another thread exists for this. Come on over.

---

Archer

Intelligent Design is not science because it is an inherently supernatural concept.Science adopts a methodological (as opposed to philosophical) naturalism. It also adopts as part of its method an epistomological approach. The premise is that knowledge is gained by the experience of phenomena through the human senses and the application of reason to these observations. Scientists adopt this approach not because they deny the validity of other ways of knowing. They adopt this approach for practical reasons: it works. Disease cures, technological advances, and environmental discoveries have been made possible through the scientific method. Previously existing methods and epistomologies were far less productive in this way.The American cultural phenomenon usually referred to as 'the intelligent design movement' is not science. It is a legal ploy.The 1980s movement known as 'creation science' or 'scientific creationism' attempted to introduce religious ideas in public school science classes. Specifically, it sought a 'balanced treatment' between the findings of science and a theology of creationism based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. The effort was defeated when creationism was ruled unconstitutional in the case Edwards v Aguillard (482 US 578) as a violation of the Establishment Clause mandating the separation of church and state.Creationists hurriedly reached for secular-sounding synonyms to camouflage the (unchanged) religious nature of their ideas. 'Intelligent design' served at once. It provided a means, creationists hoped, of getting religion through the doors of schools and court rooms where 'creation science' had failed.In the early 1990s 'intelligent design' became the calling card of a creationist movement called The Wedge. Founding figures of The Wedge included Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer. Their organization, the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (the word 'Renewal' was later dropped), described its goals in a document called 'The Wedge Strategy.' This strategy achieved notoriety on the Internet as 'The Wedge document' after it was leaked to the public.'The Wedge Strategy' makes it clear that the goals of ID's backers were anti-science from the outset. The document's writers, like creationists generally, confused the methodological materialism of science with the philosophical materialism characteristic of many atheistic belief systems, such as Marxism. The opening page states: 'The center seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.' The overthrow sought by ID's backers would ultimately require the overthrow of the scientific method.In public statements ID proponents distance their ideas from religion. But 'The Wedge Strategy' was intended for internal circulation. It thus did not shrink from stating the religious nature of the agenda: 'We also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, [conservative] Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars.'The first legal test of ID arrived in 2005 with the case of Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania. Barbara Forrest, a historian of the ID movement, provided key testimony. Forrest chronicled the history of 'intelligent design' and showed its origin in creationism's defeat in the 1987 Edwards case. Nearly all of ID's most vigorous apologists declined to appear at the trial. One who did appear, Michael Behe, admitted that ID would require the word 'science' to be redefined. Under cross-examination he admitted that his proposed redefinition of 'science' would allow the teaching of astrology.Judge John E. Jones III ruled 'intelligent design theory' unconstitutional, a violation of the Establishment Clause separating church and state. 'The ground rules of science' are violated by any attempt to introduce the supernatural, Jones ruled, and ID proponents had never been able to demonstrate why their idea was 'not an inherently religious concept.'Conclusion: 'we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.'
____Barbara Forrest interview with Americans United
Page not found - Americans United
Summarizes ID history as a political movement. Outlines key issues in science and law.Wikipedia article: 'Intelligent Design'
Intelligent design - WikipediaChart: 'Tracing ID's Ancestry'
CreationismsTrojanhorse
One of exhibits used by Forrest in the Dover case. Uses a proposed creationist science tetbook, Of Pandas and People, and shows how 'intelligent design' suddenly appeared as a substitute for 'creation' in 1987, the year creationism was ruled unconstitutional in the Edwards case.Chart: Of Pandas and People word counts
CreationismsTrojanhorse
Shows freqency of the word counts for 'creation' and 'intelligent design' in a proposed creationist science textbook. Established a clear reversal in 1987, after the Edwards case.Brauer, Forrest & Gey: 'Is It Science Yet?' Washington University Law Quarterly
http://law.wustl.edu/...r%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf
Journal article surveying creationist efforts to surmount problems of law and science.Discovery Institute: 'The Wedge Strategy' (in-house document CRSC)
HTML - http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
PDF - Wikimedia Error
Full text of the document by ID proponents outlining their goals and strategies.Decision by Judge John E Jones III, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District
CreationismsTrojanhorse
Full text of the decision that struck down ID theory as unconstitutional. Contains cogently stated criteria defining science and non-science.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Added a reference.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Concision.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Concision.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Many thanks to Dr Adequate for an excellent post. Cogently reasoned and presented.I especially liked the Sherlock Holmes bit. I look forward to the TV series.
Hughes writes: Fossils tell us many things, but not this, as Dr A informed you.Big Al (an allosaur who left this world far too soon) died of dehydration and exposure near a riverbed when seasonal rains came late. When they finally arrived, the sediment they carried gently covered his remains and preserved them. Today Big Al's skeleton represents the most complete we have for a member of his species.His story is the subject of a very informative BBC TV show. Check it out.We have many fossils from tar pits, too. Animals that die in tar pits rarely go suddenly. It's a leisurely, if none too pleasant, path out the exit.The causes of death recorded in fossils differ, as happens in nature. Some animals choke on a meal, some die giving birth, some die in sandstorms. You could argue that fossils often show remains that were preserved quickly--before they could be dispersed by scavengers and natural elements. But it's not clear what the point of the observation would be. That's just how fossils are made.Your comments only apply to a certain kind of fossil anyway. Many fossils do not document deaths at all. They record lost teeth, footprints, shed exoskeletons, burrows, turds--things living creatures leave behind as they go about their business.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Hughes asks: Darwin's idea had to establish itself as mainstream science before it could be taught in science classrooms. No one got a special break.When originally presented in 1859 the idea could be said to be a hypothesis. As hypotheses go it was a potent one, though, because a sizable amount of research could already be cited in support of it. Still, the idea went through a process of testing to establish itself as a valid scientific theory. This process included peer-reviewed research, of course. Research topics of the time focused on fossil discoveries. The discovery of the first Archaeopteryx skeleton in 1861 validated the theory's prediction that transitional species could be found in the fossil record.Darwin's 'non-pier reviewed book', as you call it, was first published in 1859. But his theory was still a new idea in many US science classrooms over fifty years later. The Scopes trial took place in 1927.It's silly to suggest Darwin's theory was somehow 'rushed through' without an adequate research foundation. The facts are not behind this.Your attack on Darwin is off topic. The subject is ID. Casting doubts on one theory does not in itself validate a rival idea.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

mjfloresta writes (while rolling on the floor laughing): Complex systems are characteristic of nature. Why is it so hard to predict the weather? Because it's a complex system.Linear systems are more characteristic of design.You might want to read up a bit on chaos theory. Fascinating.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Quote box.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

inkorrekt: And discoveries.Like Archaeopteryx.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Sorry, it appears I contributed to the mess with an off-topic post. Please excuse.Dr Adequate has a point. Attacking evolution is most of the ID argument. You can head over to Dembsky's blog or the Discovery Institute web site and attacks on evolutionary theory are what you see. (That, and kvetching about the scientific establishment.)I think you'll see more of this. In the aftermath of the Kitzmiller v Dover defeat creationists are running away from the words 'intelligent design' just as they did from 'creationism' in the late 1980s.The recent changes in science education proposed in Kansas never mentioned intelligent design. They said arguments 'for and against' evolution would be presented. 'For and against evolution' is the new mutation of the creationist genome.It's already dead in Kansas. But it is interesting to note that this is a purer formulation of the very tactic Dr Adequate describes. Don't put up any evidence yourself--or, now, any theories. Just attack.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Spelling corrected.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Dr Adequate: Want me to become a creationist so you can have someone new to talk to?Give me a lot of time to think up an argument...

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Hughes wrote: This repeats a common misunderstanding of the ToE. Evolution is a natural process in which chance plays a role. Creationists, in their desire to make ToE sound haphazard and willy-nilly, tend to overlook this.Chance plays its role at the outset. New mutations occur by chance. Once this happens, though, mutations are passed on or not according to processes that are natural, not random.An analogous situation can be seen in waterfalls. Chance comes into play countless times as drops go one way or the other, as water flows around the left side of a rock or the right side of a rock or over the top. But it's no big dice roll about which way the water will flow. All the water that comes over the falls will obey natural laws.That's why someone can show you multiple pictures of Niagara Falls and you always recognize it--even though you are looking at a completely different body of water in each photo.Natural processes are important, and they are not random. Do not overlook this.--Just a correcting a common misunderstanding. Back to the discussion of ID.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Hughes: It is not science. Science deals with the natural world and ID's premise is inherently supernatural.You can describe natural organisms and make valid observations. But to say, no metaphors intended, that organisms are 'manufacturing plants' or that you are in the business of 'detecting messages' is to assume not only a designer whose existence you cannot demonstrate, but even that unproven designer's intentions.This is not science.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.