Advertisement
Evolution vs Creationism in court -
Battle Over ‘Intelligent Design Creationism’ Goes To The Courts
Should public schools teach religion in science classes? The U.S. Constitution says no!
Proponents of intelligent design are pressing their agenda at school boards across the country. Every American should be alert to the danger posed by this movement.
Checkout the "Frequently Asked Questions" at the bottom ...
Q: What is intelligent design?
A: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific set of beliefs based on the notion that life on earth is so complex that it cannot be explained by the scientific theory of evolution and therefore must have been designed by a supernatural entity.
Q: Is ID a scientific theory?
A: No. A scientific theory must be testable and based on observable evidence. A scientific theory makes predictions about occurrences in the natural world that can then be tested through scientific experimentation. ID makes no predictions and cannot be scrutinized using the scientific method. So although proponents of ID couch their views in scientific terms, their assertion that ID is a scientific theory is false.
Q: How is ID like and unlike traditional creationism and creation science?
A: ID is the most recent incarnation of the evolving strategy that began with creationism and creation science. Unlike creationism, ID does not openly state that it relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible. ID does not discuss publicly the age of the earth, and accepts some scientific evidence as fact. ID is like creationism and creation science in that it assumes the existence of a supernatural entity, but it does not declare that the entity is “God.” Some proponents have suggested that the entity may be a space alien or possibly a highly intelligent human with a time machine.
Q. What is biological evolution?
A. Biological evolution is a scientific theory that explains how life on earth has changed over time. The belief that species have evolved existed before Darwin, and was first stimulated by finding fossils of animals that no longer exist. Evolution has undergone many important developments since Darwin's time, most notably the incorporation of genetics. We know, though Darwin did not, that evolution is largely managed by DNA. The human genome project, for example, fully relies on developments in evolutionary theory that were unknown to Darwin.
Q. Why isn’t ID a possible alternative to evolution?
A. ID is not a scientific theory and therefore cannot be put forward as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution. ID has no explanatory power or predictive power. It simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.
Q: Who is behind the ID movement?
A: The ID movement is led by a small group of activists based at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (formerly Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) in Seattle, WA. There are very few credentialed scientists among the group’s leadership, and those who are scientists typically studied in fields unrelated to biology. Their approach to religion is very different from the leading scientists in the United States who are religious. Most legitimate scientists who are people of faith accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the scientific theory of evolution and see no conflict between the two.
Q: What is the “Wedge Strategy?”
A: The Wedge Strategy is an internal memorandum from the Discovery Institute that was leaked to the Internet in 1999. Although ID proponents publicly declare that they are neutral on many questions related to their religious motivations, the Wedge document reveals in clear terms that their assertions are at best deceptive. The document specifically outlines plans to reverse prevailing scientific practices and methods, and makes clear that the motivations of ID’s main supporters are religious, not scientific. It is indeed curious that they would choose deception to advance their religious beliefs.
Q: Why not “teach both sides?”
A: This would be like teaching astrology in an astronomy course or alchemy in a chemistry class. There are not “two sides” to the science. Evolution is a scientific theory that seeks to explain how life on earth has changed over time, while ID is simply an ideology that attacks science and asks that its ideas be accepted as if they are true. Evolution and ID address different topics, employ different methods and certainly should be judged by entirely different standards.
Q: How does ID undermine science education?
A: Teaching ID as a so-called “alternative” to evolution would misinform students as to the scientific standing of the theory of evolution and the workings of the scientific method. In addition, it would improperly prepare them for postsecondary science education, placing them at a significant disadvantage to their peers. All scientists and physicians who study such diseases as SARS and AIDS, as well as those who trace how bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics, completely rely on evolutionary theory to understand the phenomena they are examining. We are certain that even ID proponents would prefer to rely on these scientists rather than a scientist who believes that SARS or AIDS was created by intelligent design and can be explained only by intelligent design.
Q: How does ID undermine religious freedom?
A: ID is attempting to insert its particular religious beliefs into science education as if it were science. By trying to use governments to give the prestigious label of “science” to their controversial theories, they are misleading children and parents. By attempting to elevate a single religious viewpoint over others and situating religion in conflict with science, they are endangering the religious freedom of all Americans. In the words of Theologian John F. Haught, “If a child of mine were attending a biology class where the teacher proposed that students consider ID as an alternative to…evolution I would be offended religiously as well as intellectually.” (Haught, J, rep. App. 3, tab F, at 7.)
Q: What’s wrong with the claim that evolution is “just a theory?”
A: Calling evolution “just a theory” is deeply misleading because it confuses the everyday meaning of the word “theory” (a “hunch” or an “opinion.”) with the scientific meaning (requiring an explanation that is testable, grounded in evidence and able to predict natural phenomena better than competing theories). The scientific theory of evolution is one of the most robust theories in modern science. It has been corroborated by hundreds of thousands of independent observerations and has succeeded in predicting natural phenomena in every field of the biological sciences, from paleontology to molecular genetics. No persuasive evidence has been put forward in the last 150 years to contradict the theory of evolution. In the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the most prominent geneticists of the 20th century, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.”
Q: Does the scientific theory of evolution deny the existence of an intelligent designer or God?
A: No. Since the question of God’s existence is outside the realm of science, the theory of evolution is silent on it. Darwin himself openly wondered about the existence of a supreme designer throughout his life, but kept these questions separate from his scientific work. Accepting evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. Many scientists hold personal religious beliefs, including Dr. Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project and a practicing Catholic.
Q: Aren’t there controversies among scientists about evolution?
A: There are many debates within science about aspects of any theory, and scientific theories are constantly being revised as new and compelling information is learned. In evolution, as in all areas of science, our knowledge is incomplete. There are many important debates within evolutionary theory. For example, did human evolution occur in a steady succession of mutations or was there a sudden explosion in human biodiversity at some point in history? Does evolutionary change occur mostly as a result of individual mutations or group adaptation? How much of evolutionary change occurs because of the need to adapt to changing environments versus spontaneous genetic mutations? The list goes on. None of these debates, however, undermines the scientific standing of evolution itself. In fact, each has added to our understanding of the ways in which evolution works, and strengthened the core elements of the theory.
Q: Why not teach ID as just one controversy about evolution along with others?
A: Unlike real scientific theories, ID cannot provide any evidence in favor of its conclusions meaning that it is an ideology and not science.
Q: Have the ID critiques of evolutionary theory been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
A: Peer review is the standard process by which scientists judge each other’s work and deem it acceptable for publication in scientific journals. Only one article supporting ID has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and it was later disavowed by the Society’s governing council. The writer was a philosopher of science, not a practicing scientist, and the article reported no original data. Other scientific publications by authors affiliated with ID were on subjects other than ID. Aside from this one instance, proponents of ID have published their work in the popular press, avoiding review by experts.
Q: What do ID proponents mean by “irreducible complexity” and how do they argue that this concept implies design?
A: Michael Behe, a Discovery Institute fellow, coined the term “irreducible complexity” as a description of organisms that are so complex that they could not come into existence gradually. He uses a mousetrap as an example: a mousetrap has many different parts, and if one of them did not work, you wouldn’t have an inferior mousetrap, rather your mousetrap would not work at all. Therefore, you should assume that the mousetrap must have had a designer. The principal flaw in his argument, which has been repeatedly shown by scientists familiar with evolution, is that no theory of evolution imagines that the complex entity spontaneously appeared. The organism became complex over a long period of time, having undergone gradual transformations. Indeed, Behe’s “irreducible complexity” is a perfect example of the flaw in ID. It sees a complex object, and without understanding how it came into existence, imagines it must have been created spontaneously.
www.au.org/site/PageServer
--------
Remember, ...
"Creation science" is three things:
1) An attack on evolution, offering no evidence for their hypothesis of a designer ("Natural selection is wrong, so we win by default");
2) The old "god of the gaps" strategy of seeking supposedly unanswerable questions, and plugging the gap with a deity ("Gosh, we can't explain this, so there must be a god");
3) A story, such as the creation myth in the book of Genesis ("God said it, I believe it").
"Intelligent design" is not science. Its proponents have never had an article published on the topic in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. They conduct no experiments that would prove or falsify their hypothesis. Their conjecture makes no useful predictions, nor can it be mathematically modeled. There are no research labs doing ID science."
www.ffrf.org/news/2005/bushID.php
;
Battle Over ‘Intelligent Design Creationism’ Goes To The Courts
Should public schools teach religion in science classes? The U.S. Constitution says no!
Proponents of intelligent design are pressing their agenda at school boards across the country. Every American should be alert to the danger posed by this movement.
Checkout the "Frequently Asked Questions" at the bottom ...
Q: What is intelligent design?
A: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific set of beliefs based on the notion that life on earth is so complex that it cannot be explained by the scientific theory of evolution and therefore must have been designed by a supernatural entity.
Q: Is ID a scientific theory?
A: No. A scientific theory must be testable and based on observable evidence. A scientific theory makes predictions about occurrences in the natural world that can then be tested through scientific experimentation. ID makes no predictions and cannot be scrutinized using the scientific method. So although proponents of ID couch their views in scientific terms, their assertion that ID is a scientific theory is false.
Q: How is ID like and unlike traditional creationism and creation science?
A: ID is the most recent incarnation of the evolving strategy that began with creationism and creation science. Unlike creationism, ID does not openly state that it relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible. ID does not discuss publicly the age of the earth, and accepts some scientific evidence as fact. ID is like creationism and creation science in that it assumes the existence of a supernatural entity, but it does not declare that the entity is “God.” Some proponents have suggested that the entity may be a space alien or possibly a highly intelligent human with a time machine.
Q. What is biological evolution?
A. Biological evolution is a scientific theory that explains how life on earth has changed over time. The belief that species have evolved existed before Darwin, and was first stimulated by finding fossils of animals that no longer exist. Evolution has undergone many important developments since Darwin's time, most notably the incorporation of genetics. We know, though Darwin did not, that evolution is largely managed by DNA. The human genome project, for example, fully relies on developments in evolutionary theory that were unknown to Darwin.
Q. Why isn’t ID a possible alternative to evolution?
A. ID is not a scientific theory and therefore cannot be put forward as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution. ID has no explanatory power or predictive power. It simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.
Q: Who is behind the ID movement?
A: The ID movement is led by a small group of activists based at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (formerly Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) in Seattle, WA. There are very few credentialed scientists among the group’s leadership, and those who are scientists typically studied in fields unrelated to biology. Their approach to religion is very different from the leading scientists in the United States who are religious. Most legitimate scientists who are people of faith accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the scientific theory of evolution and see no conflict between the two.
Q: What is the “Wedge Strategy?”
A: The Wedge Strategy is an internal memorandum from the Discovery Institute that was leaked to the Internet in 1999. Although ID proponents publicly declare that they are neutral on many questions related to their religious motivations, the Wedge document reveals in clear terms that their assertions are at best deceptive. The document specifically outlines plans to reverse prevailing scientific practices and methods, and makes clear that the motivations of ID’s main supporters are religious, not scientific. It is indeed curious that they would choose deception to advance their religious beliefs.
Q: Why not “teach both sides?”
A: This would be like teaching astrology in an astronomy course or alchemy in a chemistry class. There are not “two sides” to the science. Evolution is a scientific theory that seeks to explain how life on earth has changed over time, while ID is simply an ideology that attacks science and asks that its ideas be accepted as if they are true. Evolution and ID address different topics, employ different methods and certainly should be judged by entirely different standards.
Q: How does ID undermine science education?
A: Teaching ID as a so-called “alternative” to evolution would misinform students as to the scientific standing of the theory of evolution and the workings of the scientific method. In addition, it would improperly prepare them for postsecondary science education, placing them at a significant disadvantage to their peers. All scientists and physicians who study such diseases as SARS and AIDS, as well as those who trace how bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics, completely rely on evolutionary theory to understand the phenomena they are examining. We are certain that even ID proponents would prefer to rely on these scientists rather than a scientist who believes that SARS or AIDS was created by intelligent design and can be explained only by intelligent design.
Q: How does ID undermine religious freedom?
A: ID is attempting to insert its particular religious beliefs into science education as if it were science. By trying to use governments to give the prestigious label of “science” to their controversial theories, they are misleading children and parents. By attempting to elevate a single religious viewpoint over others and situating religion in conflict with science, they are endangering the religious freedom of all Americans. In the words of Theologian John F. Haught, “If a child of mine were attending a biology class where the teacher proposed that students consider ID as an alternative to…evolution I would be offended religiously as well as intellectually.” (Haught, J, rep. App. 3, tab F, at 7.)
Q: What’s wrong with the claim that evolution is “just a theory?”
A: Calling evolution “just a theory” is deeply misleading because it confuses the everyday meaning of the word “theory” (a “hunch” or an “opinion.”) with the scientific meaning (requiring an explanation that is testable, grounded in evidence and able to predict natural phenomena better than competing theories). The scientific theory of evolution is one of the most robust theories in modern science. It has been corroborated by hundreds of thousands of independent observerations and has succeeded in predicting natural phenomena in every field of the biological sciences, from paleontology to molecular genetics. No persuasive evidence has been put forward in the last 150 years to contradict the theory of evolution. In the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the most prominent geneticists of the 20th century, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.”
Q: Does the scientific theory of evolution deny the existence of an intelligent designer or God?
A: No. Since the question of God’s existence is outside the realm of science, the theory of evolution is silent on it. Darwin himself openly wondered about the existence of a supreme designer throughout his life, but kept these questions separate from his scientific work. Accepting evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. Many scientists hold personal religious beliefs, including Dr. Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project and a practicing Catholic.
Q: Aren’t there controversies among scientists about evolution?
A: There are many debates within science about aspects of any theory, and scientific theories are constantly being revised as new and compelling information is learned. In evolution, as in all areas of science, our knowledge is incomplete. There are many important debates within evolutionary theory. For example, did human evolution occur in a steady succession of mutations or was there a sudden explosion in human biodiversity at some point in history? Does evolutionary change occur mostly as a result of individual mutations or group adaptation? How much of evolutionary change occurs because of the need to adapt to changing environments versus spontaneous genetic mutations? The list goes on. None of these debates, however, undermines the scientific standing of evolution itself. In fact, each has added to our understanding of the ways in which evolution works, and strengthened the core elements of the theory.
Q: Why not teach ID as just one controversy about evolution along with others?
A: Unlike real scientific theories, ID cannot provide any evidence in favor of its conclusions meaning that it is an ideology and not science.
Q: Have the ID critiques of evolutionary theory been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
A: Peer review is the standard process by which scientists judge each other’s work and deem it acceptable for publication in scientific journals. Only one article supporting ID has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and it was later disavowed by the Society’s governing council. The writer was a philosopher of science, not a practicing scientist, and the article reported no original data. Other scientific publications by authors affiliated with ID were on subjects other than ID. Aside from this one instance, proponents of ID have published their work in the popular press, avoiding review by experts.
Q: What do ID proponents mean by “irreducible complexity” and how do they argue that this concept implies design?
A: Michael Behe, a Discovery Institute fellow, coined the term “irreducible complexity” as a description of organisms that are so complex that they could not come into existence gradually. He uses a mousetrap as an example: a mousetrap has many different parts, and if one of them did not work, you wouldn’t have an inferior mousetrap, rather your mousetrap would not work at all. Therefore, you should assume that the mousetrap must have had a designer. The principal flaw in his argument, which has been repeatedly shown by scientists familiar with evolution, is that no theory of evolution imagines that the complex entity spontaneously appeared. The organism became complex over a long period of time, having undergone gradual transformations. Indeed, Behe’s “irreducible complexity” is a perfect example of the flaw in ID. It sees a complex object, and without understanding how it came into existence, imagines it must have been created spontaneously.
www.au.org/site/PageServer
--------
Remember, ...
"Creation science" is three things:
1) An attack on evolution, offering no evidence for their hypothesis of a designer ("Natural selection is wrong, so we win by default");
2) The old "god of the gaps" strategy of seeking supposedly unanswerable questions, and plugging the gap with a deity ("Gosh, we can't explain this, so there must be a god");
3) A story, such as the creation myth in the book of Genesis ("God said it, I believe it").
"Intelligent design" is not science. Its proponents have never had an article published on the topic in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. They conduct no experiments that would prove or falsify their hypothesis. Their conjecture makes no useful predictions, nor can it be mathematically modeled. There are no research labs doing ID science."
www.ffrf.org/news/2005/bushID.php
;
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Evolution vs Creationism in court
Fri, September 23, 2005 - 12:07 PMI have been thinking about this idea of teaching “Intelligent Design Theory” in our public schools. I do not think the theory should be limited to Biology, since there are ID theories applicable to all the sciences. It would be very easy to do- on the first day of class hand out this ID theory “explaining” all of our current understanding of the world:
Question 1: How did all the life forms on Earth come to be?
A: Someone designed all these forms for unknown reasons.
Question 2: How did the sun, planets, and stars come to be?
A: Someone designed all these forms for unknown reasons.
Question 3: Why do we have wind, rain, snow, fog, and constantly changing weather?
A: Someone designed these things for unknown reasons.
Question 4: Why do we have mountains, oceans, hills, valleys, rivers, lakes…etc
A: Someone designed these things for unknown reasons.
Question 5: Why is there matter and energy and what do they consist of?
A: Someone designed these things for unknown reasons.
Question 6: Why does anything exist, change, and develop over time?
A: Someone designed these things for unknown reasons.
Question 7: How did the designing someone come to be?
A: Someone designed this someone for unknown reasons?
This short list pretty much covers the sum total of knowledge and insight into the natural world the ID theory encompasses. Every school child should be made to recite if from memory.
Anyone completely lacking in intelligence would find these explanations satisfactory. Nearly everyone else would find them completely unsatisfactory and thus begin their own search for answers which would lead them to science, exploration, and real learning. As they begin walking this path towards real knowledge, they can take the piece of paper containing the ID theory and toss it in the trash, never to be thought of again.
ID theory, besides not being related in any way to a scientific theory, is also poor religion. It posits a false dichotomy between scientific inquiry and religious belief. Many scientists through time have viewed their work as a spiritual quest- trying to understand how the universe works can be seen as an attempt to come closer to God by gaining knowledge of all his works. One could say the more we understand about the workings of the universe; the broader and deeper our scientific understanding of the world, the closer we are to God. ID theory asks us to not try and understand how things came to be. It says simply what is, is- someone made it that way. There is therefore no reason to question or learn any more. It is a dead end.
The one thing that separates science from most other human endeavors is that there are no dead ends. The more we learn, the more doors are opened; the more we learn there is to learn. Once we teach the children ID theory, it should not be hard for them to quickly realize that there is nothing there, that it is a dead end and move on. If they want to go on reciting their little poem for the rest their lives and cannot figure this out for themselves, then they really have nothing to contribute to society anyway and nothing has been lost.
