NOVA program: Judgement Day, Intelligent Design on Trial

[uruk]

It's logically possible:

"I do not believe in the existence of any gods. I believe that intelligent life on some other planet, let's call it Planet X, arose through evolution by natural selection. The Planet Xers then designed all life as it exists on Planet Earth."

But I'm not holding my breath waiting for someone to claim this.

Thank you. This would be the only alternative for an ID'r to hold if they are exluding god or gods as the designer.

Unfortunately for them it would also make thier claim that biogenesis could have only come about through intelligent design as hogwash. It would also render irreducible complexity as bunk.

So they really could not hold this argument and still claim intellegent biogenesis and irreducible complexity because the aliens that designed us came about through ways which excluded a designer.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But I'm still not sure how the question 'is there design?' requires

1) there to be only one designer, and
2) information on the designer's pant size and likes/dislikes

to be a valid question as some believe.

Because IDers are trying to treat ID as science, that's why. In science, we avoid setting arbitrary limits on inquiry. You ain't letting us get away with "abiogenesis is irrelevant," just like we ain't letting you get away with "the identity of the designer is irrelevant." There shall be no *poofing* in science.

The other problem is that, without any evidence for the designer itself, all you have is the design inference. But the design inference really is so horribly weak. You can't even point to one biological mechanism for which there is any evidence for design other than "it looks kinda like what humans would do, if they happened to be working with wetware." The most that lets you infer (and you're out on a limb if you do) is that it might have been designed by a human.

~~ Paul

 

[hgc]

One of the most maddenly frustrating things about court cases from Scopes to Dover is that they have to be argued on the basis of the law and not on the science. Just once, and I mean more than something like Judge Jones inserting stuff into his decision, I'd like to see a head to head showdown on the stand between Creationism over the science.

It's not such a bad thing that matters of science are not decided in court rooms. That venue just doesn't hold a candle to replication of observation and experiment and peer reviewed publication of results and conclusions.

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

I plan on sitting back some evening and perusing the official documentation...

The Kitzmiller decision, in a downloadable .pdf document

 

[Paulhoff]

IDers don’t like thinking of themselves as animals, let alone that they are descendant from the ape lineage, but they sure act worse than apes when you tell them that they are.

Paul

 

[articulett]

IDers don’t like thinking of themselves as animals, let alone that they are descendant from the ape lineage, but they sure act worse than apes when you tell them that they are.

Paul

I'm sure apes would be appalled to learn they sure ancestry with intelligent design proponents.

Even I find the prospect off-putting.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Are you sure you didn't read the rebuttals? That is eerily close to the content of the first one.

Heh. I've been dealing with Creationists almost daily for 10 years now. I could Poe one in my sleep by now.

It's not such a bad thing that matters of science are not decided in court rooms. That venue just doesn't hold a candle to replication of observation and experiment and peer reviewed publication of results and conclusions.

I agree completely, but I'd like to see more scientific evidence (and rebuttal of C/ID arguments) introduced to suppliment the establishment clause.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If you really want to get fired up, the website has some readings to get you in the mood. Phillip Johnson shows what an IDiot he is and how proud he is for creating the wedge strategy here.

I finally got around to reading that and I sometimes feel like C/IDers are speaking a type of pidgin English where they make up words (like "Darwinism") and use words as if they can mean whatever they want them to be (virtually everything else they say). If Johnson is one of the most erudite advocates for ID, it's no wonder the movement is in trouble. I saw him in a panel debate 10 years or so ago and he's not much better now. Perhaps if he'd concentrate less on saying "Darwinism" every 5 words and on making an actual point he'd be a better voice when he's not preaching to the chior.

This response from AiG was posted on another forum.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/14/over-after-dover

 

[Gregoire]

I finally got around to reading that and I sometimes feel like C/IDers are speaking a type of pidgin English where they make up words (like "Darwinism") and use words as if they can mean whatever they want them to be (virtually everything else they say). If Johnson is one of the most erudite advocates for ID, it's no wonder the movement is in trouble. I saw him in a panel debate 10 years or so ago and he's not much better now. Perhaps if he'd concentrate less on saying "Darwinism" every 5 words and on making an actual point he'd be a better voice when he's not preaching to the chior.

I too have been confused at exactly what the ID'ers are saying when they refer to "Darwinism" They need to use more precise language so that one could at least understand them (unless muddying up the water is their actual intent.)

Call me crazy, but I recently started reading Behe's book, The Edge of Evolution. And I have to say that at least he, unlike the other ID'ers, did actually make an attempt to define his terms.

He stated that Darwinism implies 3 different concepts:

1)All organisms on earth share a common ancestry. As a scientist, Behe accepts this as true because of the overwhelming evidence. Curiously it seems no other ID'ers that I have ever heard of do. The show stated Panda's and People explicitly does not accept this idea.

2)Natural Selection which he also accepts.

3)Random mutation which he feels explains some but not all the variability we see in nature.

So by my own personal definition, he does accept evolution- i.e. the common descent of all species, but argues for a supernatural mechanism rather Darwin's mechanism (....or LaMarque's mechanism or anyone else's mechanism which involves observed physical laws) to explain most of the aforementioned variability.

However, clearly the defendants in Dover by their own statements were simply trying to get Genesis back into the classroom through the back door by any means necessary, so being precise with their terms is probably not important to them.

 

[hgc]

...

2)Natural Selection which he also accepts.

3)Random mutation which he feels explains some but not all the variability we see in nature.

...

He may say he accepts natural selection, but all I can say is "sort of." Afterall, if random (such as it is) mutation explains some but not all variability and the rest of the variability is due to an intelligent designer, it's more of that natural/supernatural combo selection. It's dualism on the plain of the mind/brain problem. Where does one start and the other end? Just a nose of the supernatural camel in the tent forces the natural explanation completely out into the sandstorm of incomprehensibility. Of course I am discounting the possibility that he attributes the intelligent design to some non-supernatural designer, a la men from Mars.

 

[Monza]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've yet to see anyone explain ID without referring to evolution or Darwin in some way. It can't be done. A refutation (especially one as poor as ID) doth not a theory make...

Very true. Phillip Johnson (the "father of ID") states that ID is a valid scientific theory. What evidence supports this theory, you ask? Well, by proving Darwin's theory is incorrect it leads to supporting proof of ID. It is a perfect example of a false dichotomy logical fallacy.

Q: What is the evidence for intelligent design?

Johnson: What if the Darwinian mechanism doesn't have the creative power claimed for it? Then something else has to be true. It's two sides of the same coin as I look at it, and that's why I've always devoted my energies to making the skeptical case about Darwinism.

Q: Is intelligent design a science?

Johnson: I think so. To answer that question I need to go back to the point that I see the scientific question as one of choosing between two hypotheses. One is that you needed intelligence to do the creating that had to be done in the history of life, and the other is that you didn't need it. Then the scientific approach is to decide between these two hypotheses on the basis of evidence and logic. That's what I want to see done. That's why it is a scientific question. If evolution by natural selection is a scientific doctrine, then the critique of that doctrine, and even of the fundamental assumption on which it's based, is a legitimate part of science as well.

 

[Gregoire]

He may say he accepts natural selection, but all I can say is "sort of." Afterall, if random (such as it is) mutation explains some but not all variability and the rest of the variability is due to an intelligent designer, it's more of that natural/supernatural combo selection. It's dualism on the plain of the mind/brain problem. Where does one start and the other end? Just a nose of the supernatural camel in the tent forces the natural explanation completely out into the sandstorm of incomprehensibility. Of course I am discounting the possibility that he attributes the intelligent design to some non-supernatural designer, a la men from Mars.

That's a good point.

What I have seen when he is interviewed, though, is that if he is pressed he will admit the designer is actually a Christian god. So I don't think he is one of those ID'ers who uses the term "intelligent designer" in the broadest sense. But as you point out, once again we are using words which are not well defined.

 

[niloroth]

i have this dvr'ed, but have yet to get 2 straight hours to watch it. Reading this thread really makes me want to put off sleep tonight. damn jref.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yeah. I hate you guys.

Only joking. I intend to watch the show online... sometime. Does anyone know if it can actually be downloaded? Or only streamed? Because streaming it would suck on my connection.

 

[grayman]

I didn't notice if the link to the online version of the show was on the thread yet. Here it is.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Just a nose of the supernatural camel in the tent forces the natural explanation completely out into the sandstorm of incomprehensibility.

I'm not completely sure what this means, but it sounds absolutely right on to me.

Beware the natural/supernatural nexus!

~~ Paul

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I didn't notice if the link to the online version of the show was on the thread yet. Here it is.

Have any of you who couldn't watch it seen it on-line yet?

I also just noticed a lot of great articles on the show on the NCSE website.
http://www.natcenscied.org/

 

[shadron]

I watched it online last night. A wonderful exposition, IMHO.

I am amazed by the argument (expressed in some of the ID writings and also expressed by the ID lawyer in segment 12) that the ruling was judicial activism, and the the judge wrote his findings much too globally than the case deserved. In what way can his findings of fact (that ID is creationism and is not science) be localized? Once again, we see the law's (or at least lawyer's) misunderstanding of how science works, as if the finding of fact were invalid outside the district lines. Jones's enjoining of the district to not teach ID is, rightfully, limited to Dover only, but ID is not science even on the second planet around Polaris.

I noticed that there was at least one Islamic student in the teacher's class shown in the last segment. I wonder what her parent's feelings were concerning the controversy and decision.

The part in there about creationism "evolving" into Intelligent Design by way of global replace in the word processor was beautiful. It seems that the early editions of Of Pandas and People was written with creationism is it's target. Later on, after the 1987 trial finding creationism illegal to teach, "creationists" was replaced rather carelessly in the text with "design proponents", resulting in instances of "cdesign proponentsists" in the draft text - the veritable missing link between creationism and ID. ROFL.

Too bad the school district was required to pay the ACLU and other plaintiff's costs. I hope it was cut from administration costs and not educator's salaries.

 

[drzeus99]

And design detection doesn't necessarily exclude evolution.

For example, there are many people who believe 'god' set it all into motion, then evolution took over.

T'ai Chi....just a few important points here. Granted, ID does not 100% necissarily mandate that the intelligence MUST mean "god". It's close to 99.99999999999%, but not 100%.

The main issue here, is if people view this from an completely HONEST viewpoint is that it's certainly 100% clear that the DOVER case, and
99.99999999% of any FUTURE ID cases "IS because those parties involved HAD (or WILL HAVE) "RELIGIOUS" motives. This is NOT a theory, nor speculation, but 100% FACT.

Now, if humankind never made up ANY type of religions that thought a mythical, supernatural "god" created life (in whatever form... be it 1 celled creatures that evolved over billions of years to where we are now, or a "god" who created the earth 6,000 years ago according to the Christian Bible and made all life forms exactly as they are today <and people rode dinosaurs>), then I GUARENTEE you that ID would NEVER EVER be something being mentioned today. Again, if people are gonna be honest about it, this is the flat out undeniable truth to anyone who has any semblence of education, intelligence, and logical thought.

So, while it could be aliens to YOU, let's get real and be honest here and stop playing games regarding semantics. ID is nothing more than repackaged religion (christian creationist religion), and it was CLEARLY created by religious people with religious intents, trying to get creationism into the school systems to convert the populace into becoming religious believers, and re-affirm the religious beliefs of those who already are duped into believing. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry, but you've lost any credibilty you have to conduct an intelligent conversation with others.

Now....onto the show itself. I just watched it online and I gotta say: "WOW"
That might've been the best show I've seen that nicely explained the situation
in a clear and concise manner.

Also, I gotta add this. Judge John E Jones might be a new hero of mine. Hats off to him for using his noggin in making his logical, fact based decision. People gotta remember, Judge Jones was (and maybe still is) a friend of that defeated Senator Rick "The Dick" Santorum. Religious yahoo Santorum even recommended Judge Jones to President W for the his Judgeship on the Bench. And W, kissing up to his old lapdog, and religious compadre Santorum, appointed this Republican to the bench. (Side bar: Too bad the overly biased right wing of the Supreme Court can't use their own minds when making rulings and just tow the line of the religiouso fanatics on the far right.).

Anyway, since I haven't read Judge Jones verdict since the day it was issued, I re-read it today and I gotta say...I almost gotta a hard-on reading his TRASHING of the Dover schoolboard yahoos and of the audacity of the ID proponents. Judge Jones didn't mis a beat. Not only was his ruling the correct one based on the facts and the law, but his comments were like he gave a virtual ass kicking to the whole ID movement. A true beat down if ever there was one. He could've simply issued a 1-2 page ruling (hey, it's been done before on important cases), but he went WAY out of his way to lambaste and spank the ID proponents like they were naughty children. A bitch slapping if I ever saw one.

Here's to you Judge John E Jones. A true American Hero (OK, maybe not, but his moxie and use of his brain gives him high high marks with me).

Cheers,
DrZ

 

[drzeus99]

It could mean that we still don't have a full understanding of the nature of time and the universe.

The universe does not have to conform to what we would consider "non-sensical" or otherwise, take for instance Quantum physics. Speaking of which, energy can come form "nothing" under the right circumstances.


Well not a whole lot becomes a problem when all you have to accept is "Goddidit" as an answer to your questions.

EXACTLY.

Here's the GREAT thing about science. Just because we don't know how something works, or how it came about, doesn't mean the we, or you or anyone else, can logically say "Well, since you can't explain it 100% it MUST be becuase some (insert diety, boogey man, intelligence, hobgoblin here) created it (or caused it or made it happen).

Jeez, with this type of thinking, man would've NEVER evolved from our primative state. Since we knew how NOTHING worked back then, we would've just (as we did at the time) professed that "god" or "the gods" did it.

That's were the human brain and logical thinking and reasoning come from. We yearn to seek the answers by finding the TRUTH. And the truth may take far longer than we want it to. Because the church, up until 400 years or so ago stated that the earth was the center of the universe (not just the solar system, but the whole universe), did that make it so, or *scientifically acceptable* to believe? Of course not. But people believed that for 2 reasons. One, people are gullible by nature and will believe almost anything they hear as long as it's coming from someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about", and two - because if you didn't, you'd be tortured and/or killed until you DID believe it. Gullibility, naivity, fear, and just plain old not knowing any better (and following what everybody else in your town believed) WAS the known method of people's beliefs BACK THEN.

But, that was then...this is now. We've increased our knowledge (as a species) by leaps and bounds just in the past 100 years, moreso than in the 1,000 years that preceeded it (if not even longer). ALL the world's knowledge, mysteries, and unknowns don't just come to mankind in one bunch. It takes TIME, and SCIENCE, and TESTING and LEARNING and COMMUNICATION and SHARING OF INFORMATION to be able to increase our knowledge of how things work. MANY more discoveries of our universe and our existence will come in the future. Discoveries haven't stopped by any means of the imagination. But, patience is a virture, my friend. To the patient, rewards will come.

Since it's clear we don't know everything, that implies that we'll learn more as time goes on. So, just because we don't have all the answers now, doesn't mean that we won't attain that knowledge sometime in the future. It's something to look forward to. But again, to cheaply attribute something unknown to some sort of supernatural power (or aliens), simply because one's not patient and wants to know all the answrs this second, is, quite frankly, very childish, and shows a lack of understanding on how knowledge is aquired.

For some things, sadly, we may in fact NEVER know the answers. That's just life, deal with it. Somethings may just BE unknowable. For example, IF our universe is mearly a brane of some sort floating in a cosmic vat of numerous (or infinite) other branes, and came about as the result of a collision between 2 previously existing branes, then it's a scientific fact that we would NEVER know WHAT caused those 2 branes to collide, or how all those other branes formed becuase those branes (and their collision) took place in a universe not part of our universe. We'd have no idea if the laws of physics in this universe had anything in common with the laws of physics with any other of the brane universes. That's something that can never be known. And it seems that all signs are pointing to an unknowable answer when it comes to answering "What came before, or caused, the Big Bang". Since our universe wasn't in existence at the moment of conception (if you will), then it becomes impossible to EVER know that answer.

Deal with it. Life goes on. Enjoy it while you're living it, and just enjoy the wonders and marvels of the universe and appreciate that the human civilization is using all it's scientific know-how to TRY to explain and figure out as much as it realistically could. Patience.......


Cheers,
DrZ