News Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design in Florida

[vector3]

My reply is completely devoid of emotions. Yours, however, is not. You seem to be obsessed with an imaginary claim of "fairness", which is classical creationist tactics. RS did not say that you should compare them as valid ideas, which is the point - myth is taught in mythology, fact in science.

Never asked for fairness or implied it.

It is basic logic. You do not promote the teaching of factually false information in a science curriculum. Since intelligent design creationism is creationism and creationism is religion, then it violates the Establishment Clause.

Thank you for your time, have a nice day,
Moridin

In countless mathematical proofs we assume the truth of something false. We work through the proof and at the end demonstrate a conflict. I perceive no difference.

Thank you for your time as well...

 

[Pelt]

myth is taught in mythology, fact in science.

I hope that's not a hard a principle, seeing as mythology is of interdisciplinary importance in several science fields.

 

[Moridin]

No doubt, but that has nothing to do with anything I've just said.

You tried to play the fairness / majority card, which I refuted.

Except old Earth creationists, irreducible complexity, fine-tuning, yada yada. ID proponents have come up with whole new apologetics to be slapped down.

There where plenty of old Earth creationists advocating "Scientific Creationism". Irreducible complexity is just the same old, reworked argument from "nonfunctional intermediates" (such as "What good is half a wing or eye"). Now it is just "what good is a half bacterial flagellum?".

Creationists have been using various fine-tuning arguments since Leibniz (see Voltaire's Candide).

Even the concept and term "irreducible complexity" has its origins in the earlier "Scientific Creationism":

"To believe that the incredibly complex functions necessary in the bombardier beetle came about as a result of genetic accidents, is, at best, pure fabrication" (Gish, The Amazing Story of Creation From Science and the Bible, p. 101)

"The creationist maintains that the degree of complexity and order which science has discovered in the universe could never be generated by change or accident" (Morris, Scientific Creationism p. 59)

"serious problems” with the evolution model: high improbability of random formation of life; difficulty of evolving complex integrated structures since each part of the integrated structure alone would be useless to the organism in which it first appeared and therefore would be weeded out by natural selection; the near impossibility of the random formation of chromosomes, genes ordered to fit together both by internal components of genes and the ordering of the genes to fit each other." (Norman Geisler, quoting creationist Ariel Roth's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas 81)

Dembski's "Law of the Conservation of Information" is also taken from earlier creationism; an increase in "information" is an decrease in entropy and we have the same old claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is a classic creationist argument.

Here's Johnsson in his own words. Care to show me where he says teaching evolution is the http://www.apologetics.org/articles/nihilism.html of any of those horrible things?

My apologizes, it was the book "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism". Homosexuality at page 2, divorce on page 41, genocide on 144. He technically refers to it as one of the major causes.

Weikart makes the case that Darwinism played a key role in pushing scientific racism and eugenics. Is there a particular part of his presentation you find unfactual?

Yes, his major thesis is factually incorrect ;)

On his website, Weikart presents evolution as "The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed. Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively explains."

Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian." Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since it predates evolutionary theory.

Let's see, you're the one baselessly demonizing the other side and I'm guilty of propagandizing?

Since I've clearly demonstrated that it is propaganda, how can it be a baseless demonisation?

In countless mathematical proofs we assume the truth of something false. We work through the proof and at the end demonstrate a conflict. I perceive no difference.

The standard way is to do original research, send in manuscripts for publication in major scientific journals, stage scientific debates and then get a consensus, write textbooks and then introduce it in class. ID creationists wants to skip from propaganda to class without doing any original research.

It is the same as trying to argue that the Earth is flat and that there is a scientific controversy in the shape of the earth.

I hope that's not a hard a principle, seeing as mythology is of interdisciplinary importance in several science fields.

No, mythology is itself not related to science in any way. The anthropological, cultural and historical study of mythology is.

 

[Pelt]

You tried to play the fairness / majority card, which I refuted.

Where? Be careful now. I like to think I'm bright enough to know what I've said and haven't said.

There where plenty of old Earth creationists advocating "Scientific Creationism". Irreducible complexity is just the same old, reworked argument from "nonfunctional intermediates" (such as "What good is half a wing or eye"). Now it is just "what good is a half bacterial flagellum?".

Nonfunctional intermediates and irreducible complexity or contemporaries of one another. Neither idea existed before Behe's argument.

Creationists have been using various fine-tuning arguments since Leibniz (see Voltaire's Candide).

Fine-tuning is not synonymous with the anthropic principle, and it's silly to credit creation science with such a thing.

Even the concept and term "irreducible complexity" has its origins in the earlier "Scientific Creationism"

"To believe that the incredibly complex functions necessary in the bombardier beetle came about as a result of genetic accidents, is, at best, pure fabrication" (Gish, The Amazing Story of Creation From Science and the Bible, p. 101)

"The creationist maintains that the degree of complexity and order which science has discovered in the universe could never be generated by change or accident" (Morris, Scientific Creationism p. 59)

By this reasoning, the concept and term "universal gravitation" finds it origins in the first Latin-speaking individual to note that what goes up inevitably comes down. And that's ignoring the fact that one of your examples is from a book published in 1996, three years after Behe introduced irreducible complexity in Pandas.

"serious problems” with the evolution model: high improbability of random formation of life; difficulty of evolving complex integrated structures since each part of the integrated structure alone would be useless to the organism in which it first appeared and therefore would be weeded out by natural selection; the near impossibility of the random formation of chromosomes, genes ordered to fit together both by internal components of genes and the ordering of the genes to fit each other." (Norman Geisler, quoting creationist Ariel Roth's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas 81)

Or before that: ""If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." (Darwin, Origins of Species)

If Darwin's challenge is unanswered by his mere issuing of it, how is reiterating its condition declaratively an answer? For right or wrong (and clearly, the record shows, for wrong), creationists don't even take on this challenge until 1992-3.

Dembski's "Law of the Conservation of Information" is also taken from earlier creationism; an increase in "information" is an decrease in entropy and we have the same old claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is a classic creationist argument.

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" is a creationist assertion. The argument is the particular strategy used by the creationist to "justify" the claim. Dembski's approach via information theory was as novel in creationist circles as it was wrong.

My apologizes, it was the book "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism". Homosexuality at page 2, divorce on page 41, genocide on 144. He technically refers to it as one of the major causes.

In short, he technically said something entirely different than what you said he did.

Yes, his major thesis is factually incorrect ;)

On his website, Weikart presents evolution as "The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed. Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively explains."

Welcome to the advocacy side of the debate. Assuming the worst about your opponent is part and parcel of the game and neither side has clean hands. This was the key point I made when we started this tangent. McClean was a moral victory for a scientific community in a pluralistic society. Aguillard should've been as well, but unfortunately the academy has seen fit to make good on their victory and run the enemy to ground. In an age where Republican success in presidential elections accompanied an enlarged the influence of talk radio, an explosion in the number of conservative think tanks and law centers, and five terms of Republican majorities in Congress, did you expect creaetionists not to regroup?

Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian." Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since it predates evolutionary theory.

As I understand it, Weikart's book does not accuse Darwin personally of use or misuse of his conclusions by others. Likewise, while Hegel and Marx catch a lot of flak philosophically, it's rare you'll find an intellectual argument holding them personally responsible for Bolshevism.

Since I've clearly demonstrated that it is propaganda, how can it be a baseless demonisation?

You accused me of propagandizing. You're the one resorting to personal attacks and somehow lumping me in with the creationists.

The standard way is to do original research, send in manuscripts for publication in major scientific journals, stage scientific debates and then get a consensus, write textbooks and then introduce it in class. ID creationists wants to skip from propaganda to class without doing any original research.

You raise a fair point. Could Dawkins and Behe be doing something better with their time than publishing popular science/pseudoscience? Is there a better way to call for original research than having scientists like Pinker and Krauss write monographs disguised as popular media?

This is a day and age where many scientists who generate significantly more research publication than say ID proponents will still push out book-length lit reviews in popular media that also double as a presentation of one or more hypotheses on matters of public controversy. There's an argument that the standard way goes out the window when national politics steps through the door. Whether we're talking Behe after Black Box or Dawkins after the Selfish Gene, I'd argue it's generally an accepted trend. Still, Dawkins has a chair with a title fully justifying his drop in published research.

Either way, ID proponents and creationists aren't the only interested parties in the debate. There's plenty of refereed scholarship both critical and explanatory that's worth covering in a philosophy of science course that treats the subject in a deferential or at least constitutionally amenable manner. Even Barbara Forrest could past muster in such a class, provided her work wasn't presented as advocacy.

It is the same as trying to argue that the Earth is flat and that there is a scientific controversy in the shape of the earth.

Except there is no controversy over the shape of the Earth. There is one regarding origins, as it pits religion against scientific inferences drawn from observable processes to derive a theory of an inherently unobservable history.

No, mythology is itself not related to science in any way. The anthropological, cultural and historical study of mythology is.

That's like saying cells or stars aren't related to science in anyway. They are objects of study as well.

 

[D H]

It is the same as trying to argue that the Earth is flat and that there is a scientific controversy in the shape of the earth.

Except there is no controversy over the shape of the Earth. There is one regarding origins, as it pits religion against scientific inferences drawn from observable processes to derive a theory of an inherently unobservable history.

In the scientific community there is no more controversy regarding the validity of the key concepts of evolutionary theory than there is regarding the validity of the shape of the Earth. The "controversy" is a fabrication of the religious right.

No, mythology is itself not related to science in any way. The anthropological, cultural and historical study of mythology is.

That's like saying cells or stars aren't related to science in anyway. They are objects of study as well.

Red herring.

We do not study Aristotelian physics in physics classes other than in passing mention. The only reason to mention it is because some people do have an Aristotelian mindset; they need to be instructed that this mindset is invalid. Aristotelian physics on the other hand is a proper subject for a history of science class.

The key difference between Aristotelian physics and creationism is that most people do not have an emotional attachment to their wrong-headed Aristotelian beliefs. It is easy to teach them valid physics, ie., physics that does describe the way the world works. On the other hand, people do have very strong emotional attachments to their wrong-headed creationist beliefs.

While mythological creation stories are a valid subject for a sociology comparitive cultures class, the only reason to mention mythological creation stories in a biology or geology class would be to debunk them. Since doing so might well rub some people in the wrong direction, it is better to not address these myths in biology or geology classes at all. Just teach the facts and the theories, letting them speak for themselves.

You're somehow lumping me in with the creationists.

That because you're somehow coming across as one. We don't know you other than by what you post.

 

[Pelt]

In the scientific community there is no more controversy regarding the validity of the key concepts of evolutionary theory than there is regarding the validity of the shape of the Earth.

Who said otherwise?

The "controversy" is a fabrication of the religious right.

William Jennings Bryant was a member of the "religious right?" You'd have to twist the label to the point where it bears no resemblance to its contemporary meaning to pull that one off.

Red herring.

We do not study Aristotelian physics in physics classes other than in passing mention...

Red herring. None of this has anything to do with anything just said. Here's the exchange again for your benefit:

No, mythology is itself not related to science in any way. The anthropological, cultural and historical study of mythology is.

That's like saying cells or stars aren't related to science in anyway. They are objects of study as well.

I look forward to your rebuttal of the argument at hand.

While mythological creation stories are a valid subject for a sociology comparitive cultures class...

There's no need to make up silly sounding, awkward titles for what everyone here knows qualifies science education.

...the only reason to mention mythological creation stories in a biology or geology class would be to debunk them.

One, that would be unconstitutional. Two, if it weren't then another reason would be in an illustrative discussion of philosophy in science. Three, I've never once proposed discussing alternatives to evolution in biology or geology class, although I see no reason to oppose discussing philosophy taught elsewhere at any level of science education.

That because you're somehow coming across as one. We don't know you other than by what you post.

Then I suggest you actually read my posts. It also might help to respond to what's written rather than engaging strawmen. Regardless of your passion on the issue it serves no purpose to misrepresent the points of others.

 

[Moridin]

Where? Be careful now. I like to think I'm bright enough to know what I've said and haven't said.

Are you retracting your opinion? Second paragraph is an appeal to democracy / fairness.

Nonfunctional intermediates and irreducible complexity or contemporaries of one another. Neither idea existed before Behe's argument.

I just proved to you it did! Darwin's Black Box was published in -96, the argument from "nonfunctional intermediates" originated in -74 with the publication of Morris' "Scientific Creationism". I've clearly shown this. It is the same basic argument.

Fine-tuning is not synonymous with the anthropic principle, and it's silly to credit creation science with such a thing.

It is the exact same thing as the SAP. To the letter. The original idea has been used since Leibniz. It is the same basic argument.

By this reasoning, the concept and term "universal gravitation" finds it origins in the first Latin-speaking individual to note that what goes up inevitably comes down.

Incorrect, since it was not used to argue for the same thing. Its basic assumption was not even remotely similar. In the examples I've shown, both the term and its meaning is the same.

And that's ignoring the fact that one of your examples is from a book published in 1996, three years after Behe introduced irreducible complexity in Pandas.

Morris' book was published in the 70s.

Also note that Behe took no part in the writing of "Of Pandas and People" (successor to such creationist literature as "Biology and Creation" and "Biology and Origins"). It was was written by self-proclaimed creationists (Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon) and was published by the same creationist publisher (Foundation for Thought and Ethics), coincidentally, the same publisher that published "Biology and Creation", "Biology and Origins" as well as "The Design of Life", the newest book by the intelligent design creationists.

Or before that: ""If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." (Darwin, Origins of Species)

Red herring, since I've demonstrated that the intelligent design creationists use the same arguments as the intelligent design creationists.

If Darwin's challenge is unanswered by his mere issuing of it, how is reiterating its condition declaratively an answer? For right or wrong (and clearly, the record shows, for wrong), creationists don't even take on this challenge until 1992-3.

It demonstrates the connection between SC and IDC. Creationists has used the argument since the publication of On The Origin of Species. It appeared in Morris (1974).

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" is a creationist assertion. The argument is the particular strategy used by the creationist to "justify" the claim. Dembski's approach via information theory was as novel in creationist circles as it was wrong.

No, since it (Shannon uncertainty, H) can be shown that it is equivalent (with a constant) to the entropy S used in statistical mechanics.

S = k log_e(2)H

You accused me of propagandizing. You're the one resorting to personal attacks and somehow lumping me in with the creationists.

I have not made any ad hominem. Please show me exactly where I have done this please. Furthermore, you are (1) advocating the teaching of creationism, (2) claiming that there is little or no connection between SC and IDC and that (3) is it a legitimate scientific concept to be taught in science class. If that's not creationism, then what is?

As I understand it, Weikart's book does not accuse Darwin personally of use or misuse of his conclusions by others. Likewise, while Hegel and Marx catch a lot of flak philosophically, it's rare you'll find an intellectual argument holding them personally responsible for Bolshevism.

The title is "From Darwin to Hitler" suggesting a causal relationship. In his lecture Darwin to Hitler:
Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life[/url], Weikart seems to have that view and express it clearly.

As for Marx, Weikart blamed him in an earlier book called "Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein (-99)"

You raise a fair point. Could Dawkins and Behe be doing something better with their time than publishing popular science/pseudoscience? Is there a better way to call for original research than having scientists like Pinker and Krauss write monographs disguised as popular media?

Dawkins is irrelevant. Evolutionary biologists do original research, send in manuscripts for publication, discuss it, form consensus and then start teaching it. Dawkins does the same, as well as Pinker and Krauss, only they take part in this process as well, which none at the DI seems to do. It is clear that intelligent design creationists have a religious agenda in promoting factually false information with a untestable explanation (goddidit).

This is a day and age where many scientists who generate significantly more research publication than say ID proponents will still push out book-length lit reviews in popular media that also double as a presentation of one or more hypotheses on matters of public controversy. There's an argument that the standard way goes out the window when national politics steps through the door. Whether we're talking Behe after Black Box or Dawkins after the Selfish Gene, I'd argue it's generally an accepted trend. Still, Dawkins has a chair with a title fully justifying his drop in published research.

Dawkins continues to take part in active research. Dawkins was a professor in Zoology at Oxford before, and published plenty of papers. The ID creationists do not have single peer-review publication in a major scientific journal.

Either way, ID proponents and creationists aren't the only interested parties in the debate. There's plenty of refereed scholarship both critical and explanatory that's worth covering in a philosophy of science course that treats the subject in a deferential or at least constitutionally amenable manner. Even Barbara Forrest could past muster in such a class, provided her work wasn't presented as advocacy.

Be so that it may, only one side of them do not perform original research.

Except there is no controversy over the shape of the Earth. There is one regarding origins, as it pits religion against scientific inferences drawn from observable processes to derive a theory of an inherently unobservable history.

Indeed, just like there is no scientific controversy concerning evolution. Evolution makes testable predictions that can be tested. ID creationism does not. The past can indeed be observed in areas from genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, speciation studied in the laboratory etc. But that is a classic creationist argument.

Where You There

1. Yes, because "there" is here. Events in the past leave traces that last into the present, and we can and do look at that evidence today.

2. If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed.

3. A more useful and more general question is, "How do you know?" If the person making a claim can not answer that question, you may consider the claim baseless (tentatively, as someone else may be able to answer). If the answer is subjective -- for example, if it rests on the person's religious convictions -- you know that the claim does not necessarily apply to anyone but that person. If you can not understand the answer, you probably have some studying to do. If you get a good answer, you know to take the claim seriously.

Can you please drop the creationist arguments - we both know they are seriously flawed.

William Jennings Bryant was a member of the "religious right?" You'd have to twist the label to the point where it bears no resemblance to its contemporary meaning to pull that one off.

Red herring. WJB was a religious fundamentalist. Clarence Darrow tried to get to to admit that some parts of the bible needs to be take metaphorically, which WJB did not agree with.

Everyone from Paley to Dembski advocating for creationism has been a member of the religious part of society. You cannot escape this fact.

That's like saying cells or stars aren't related to science in anyway. They are objects of study as well.

Simple - starts and cells are real - creationism is false. Surely, this cannot be that hard to understand.

You need to separate the study of mythology as an anthropological or historical fact (that people believed in it) and the study of mythology as scientific facts or in any way relevant to modern science.

There's no need to make up silly sounding, awkward titles for what everyone here knows qualifies science education.

Again, teaching creationism as valid does not belong in science education just like teaching a flat Earth as valid does not belong in science education.

One, that would be unconstitutional.

No, it would not be unconstitutional, since it would pass the Lemon test. Isn't it time to give up your advocacy of creationism?

 

[Pelt]

Are you retracting your opinion? Second paragraph is an appeal to democracy / fairness.

Um, no it isn't.

On a purely policy note, my concern is that an American scientific community that doesn't at least give due deference to pluralism risks painting itself as merely another advocacy group in the eyes of the taxpaying public. Americans are divided half and half in whether or not they believe in common ancestry or creationism, but two thirds favor teaching both anyway. I've seen no evidence that discussing the controversy is anymore detrimental to the classroom experience than the random litany of trivia that makes up middle school science education. Still, presenting Biblical creation in context where it unequivocally viewed as the sole alternative to evolution serves no pluralistic or educational purpose beyond advocating for "an establishment of religion." Unfortunately, the same can be said of education that presents evolution and Earth science that unequivocally takes naturalism for granted. Neither approach is good for the relationship between the public and scientists.

At no point do I advocate presenting Biblical creationism as an alternative to evolution to address some perceived unfairness.

I just proved to you it did!

No, you didn't, but first...

Darwin's Black Box was published in -96...

And Pandas 2d edition was published in 1993.

...the argument from "nonfunctional intermediates" originated in -74 with the publication of Morris' "Scientific Creationism". I've clearly shown this. It is the same basic argument.

I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say, though you're still mistaken here. If you're talking about the fallacy of nonfunctional intermediates, this refers to the best of my knowledge an objection to irreducible complexity SJAB1958 from 2006. Otherwise, you're talking about the criteria for falsifying Darwin's theory by the man himself. If that latter, I'm clearly wrong but it's kind of ridiculous to credit Morris simply because he incredulously restates a century old observation about a possible road to falsifying evolution as "scientific" fact.

It is the exact same thing as the SAP. To the letter. The original idea has been used since Leibniz. It is the same basic argument.

The hell it is.

SAP: "the Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage."

Nothing in that sentence whatsoever mentions this as requisite proof of creationism.

Incorrect, since it was not used to argue for the same thing. Its basic assumption was not even remotely similar. In the examples I've shown, both the term and its meaning is the same.

How do you figure that the term and meaning are the same?

Morris' book was published in the 70s.

Gish's was not.

Also note that Behe took no part in the writing of "Of Pandas and People" (successor to such creationist literature as "Biology and Creation" and "Biology and Origins").

Yes, he did: "Yes. I wrote the section at the end of Pandas which is discussing blood clotting. And on page 144 of the text there's a section entitled 'A Characteristic of Intelligent Design.' And it begins, 'Why is the blood clotting system an example of intelligent design? The ordering of independent pieces into a coherent whole to accomplish a purpose which is beyond any single component of the system is characteristic of intelligence.' "

Red herring, since I've demonstrated that the intelligent design creationists use the same arguments as the intelligent design creationists.

Excuse me? You've demonstrated a tautology?

It demonstrates the connection between SC and IDC. Creationists has used the argument since the publication of On The Origin of Species. It appeared in Morris (1974).

It appeared in Origins of Species, it's reappearance in 1974 without even the pretense of an answer notwithstanding.

No, since it (Shannon uncertainty, H) can be shown that it is equivalent (with a constant) to the entropy S used in statistical mechanics.

S = k log_e(2)H

Excuse me? How does that show that Dembski is right?

I have not made any ad hominem. Please show me exactly where I have done this please.

You: "Cut the propaganda."

Furthermore, you are (1) advocating the teaching of creationism...

That is a misrepresentation of my remarks. I've addressed this early in this post.

(2) claiming that there is little or no connection between SC and IDC...

Nothing in my remarks supports that accusation.

...and that (3) is it a legitimate scientific concept to be taught in science class.

I never characterized creationism a body of scientific knowledge, nor have I ever argued it is legitimate to teach it as such.

If that's not creationism, then what is?

I'd call it a suspicious misrepresentation of my remarks.

The title is "From Darwin to Hitler" suggesting a causal relationship.

Or a chronological one.

In his lecture Darwin to Hitler:
Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life[/url], Weikart seems to have that view and express it clearly.

Of course Darwinism devalues human life. It has nothing to say on the value of human life.

As for Marx, Weikart blamed him in an earlier book called "Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein (-99)"

Blamed him for what?

Dawkins is irrelevant. Evolutionary biologists do original research, send in manuscripts for publication, discuss it, form consensus and then start teaching it. Dawkins does the same, as well as Pinker and Krauss, only they take part in this process as well, which none at the DI seems to do.

Tell me, Moridan. How much original research has Dawkins produced since 1996?

It is clear that intelligent design creationists have a religious agenda in promoting factually false information with a untestable explanation (goddidit).

I hesitate to use such sweeping generalizations when I can help it.

Dawkins continues to take part in active research. Dawkins was a professor in Zoology at Oxford before, and published plenty of papers. The ID creationists do not have single peer-review publication in a major scientific journal.

How many since 1996, Moridan?

Be so that it may, only one side of them do not perform original research.

Well, Dembski and Behe have definitely dropped off in productivity. No argument there. But how's Dawkins doing?

Indeed, just like there is no scientific controversy concerning evolution.

No, there isn't. But there is a public controversy nevertheless.

Can you please drop the creationist arguments - we both know they are seriously flawed.

Can you please stop making crap up? I haven't advanced a single creationist argument.

Red herring. WJB was a religious fundamentalist. Clarence Darrow tried to get to to admit that some parts of the bible needs to be take metaphorically, which WJB did not agree with.

WJB was also a liberal Democrat. Labeling him as a member of the "religious right" is just foolish.

Everyone from Paley to Dembski advocating for creationism has been a member of the religious part of society. You cannot escape this fact.

Paley? Come on. Who wasn't a creationist in the 18th century? Give me a break.

Simple - starts and cells are real - creationism is false. Surely, this cannot be that hard to understand.

One, science is not the business of divining what's true and what's not. It's the business of determining what is in natural evidence and what isn't. Two, the question of what is or isn't real is epistemological (and in my view, a waste of time). Three, creationism, stars, and cells are all subjects worth of study in their appropriate forums; that is my point.

You need to separate the study of mythology as an anthropological or historical fact (that people believed in it) and the study of mythology as scientific facts or in any way relevant to modern science.

You need to stop drawing this silly distinction between anthropology and science. It serves no purpose other than to insult a field of professional scientists.

Again, teaching creationism as valid does not belong in science education just like teaching a flat Earth as valid does not belong in science education.

If by "valid" you mean "scientific fact," then we agree.

No, it would not be unconstitutional, since it would pass the Lemon test.

In what way would it pass the Lemon test?

Isn't it time to give up your advocacy of creationism?

Isn't it about time you stopped with the strawmen? If you're only prepared to argue the issues with creationists, go find some. Otherwise, do me the courtesy and respond in good faith.

 

[russ_watters]

Uh, yeah. Plessy v. Ferguson?

Oh, good, you found one. I figured with the US's checkered past on some issues it was possible. Plessy. v. Ferguson was 1896 and was overturned in 1954. So would you say that that supports your argument that a 7-year turnover of most of the existing court makes a case vulnerable?

Also, the issue you cited (segregation) was at the center of a massive cultural revolution in the US, and it makes sense that that is required for the overturning of a fairly strong majority court decision. Are you then suggesting that the rise of creationism will be similar? Creationism has been around a long time - I would say that though the crazies who push it are getting a little more vocal lately, the issue itself is not gaining traction in the US. And the fact is that legally, every time a new decision goes against it, the strength of the precedent against it increases.

You said something about odds that didn't make sense to me, so let me ask more directly: what do you think the odds are that the USSC will, in the next 20 years, make a decision that directly overturns the Aguillard decision? Anyway:

That's not true at all. [that it is rare to overturn strong precedent]

I think the fact that you had to go back 110 years to find a case - one worthy of being taught in elementary school history classes - shows that it is rare. Regardless of what you believe about the merrits of creationism's case, the courts don't seem to agree with you.

So again, my point here is that you are arguing about the plausibility of something that is very unikely. It's pointless. Contrasted with, say, recent movement against Roe v. Wade, (also a 7-2 decision), nothing is actually happening to suggest the legal standing of creationism is on the rise. With Roe, a possibility at least exists that it will be overturned in the relatively near (next 20 years) future.

 

[Pelt]

Oh, good, you found one.

I didn't find it, it was off the top of my head.

I figured with the US's checkered past on some issues it was possible. Plessy. v. Ferguson was 1896 and was overturned in 1954. So would you say that that supports your argument that a 7-year turnover of most of the existing court makes a case vulnerable?

I'd say it shows that there is at least one 7-2 decision Supreme Court that's been overturned. I'd also say neither one of us has sufficient knowledge of case law to say how rare or common it is for 7-2 or better Supreme Court decisions to be overturned. Finally, I'd say that the overturning of precedent in general isn't rare at all, and I've provided evidence to that end.

Also, the issue you cited (segregation) was at the center of a massive cultural revolution in the US, and it makes sense that that is required for the overturning of a fairly strong majority court decision.

And evolution/creationism is not culturally controversial?

Are you then suggesting that the rise of creationism will be similar? Creationism has been around a long time - I would say that though the crazies who push it are getting a little more vocal lately, the issue itself is not gaining traction in the US.

Two-thirds of the country are for teaching creationism and evolution side-by-side regardless of the constitutional issues, despite a 50-50 split in the public on actual belief in creationism. Traction's not an issue; the question is whether it's enough to get nominees who'll be amenable to creationist pressure groups and their sympathizers on the bench.

You said something about odds that didn't make sense to me, so let me ask more directly: what do you think the odds are that the USSC will, in the next 20 years, make a decision that directly overturns the Aguillard decision?

My error: up to 4-5 if it comes before this court. Thomas and Scalia are sure anti-Aguillardists. Alito and Roberts are technically unknowns. Souter, Stevens, Breyer and Ginsberg will likely interpret Aguillard broadly. Kennedy is the wild card. Remember, the issue for DI and Thomas More isn't saving creationism from Aguillard, it's drawing a distinction between creationism and ID that will pass judicial scrutiny. They've already conceded Aguillard.

Anyway:

Hold up a second. I'd like to note that you inserted that bracket about "strong precedent," not I. I suggest you take a look at post #40 again.

Here's the exchange:

Except inso far as the courts always have the option to overturn previous decisions, so what, Pelt?

It matters because a decision isn't considered stare decisis simply because it was issued before another one on a substantially similar matter, especially if the decision is only binding in a certain jurisdiction.

The fact of the matter is that that it is very rare.

That's http://law.shu.edu/journals/circuitreview/issues/01_2005/005_to_026_Emery_Lee.pdf .

I'm clearly talking about non-compliance with precedent in general, not specifically on the unknown fate of 7-2 or better Supreme Court decisions. And since the discussion at that point was about the Dover ruling, the question isn't so much about overturning Aguillard (I do not wager that will happen) but in interpreting it narrowly enough that ID escapes. Dover (and Selman, which doesn't bind anywhere) says we can't do that. That's the only precedent we're debating.

I think the fact that you had to go back 110 years to find a case - one worthy of being taught in elementary school history classes - shows that it is rare.

Well, there's Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council (1976, 7-1) overturning Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942, unanimous), thus granting commercial speech some First Amendment protection.

I'm just digging these up one at a time. Like I said, I don't know if it is rare and neither do you.

Regardless of what you believe about the merrits of creationism's case, the courts don't seem to agree with you.

I'd say Selman and Dover agree with me on the merits of creationism's case, but that's not enough to determine whether or not ID will survive or die in the judiciary at large.

So again, my point here is that you are arguing about the plausibility of something
that is very unikely. It's pointless.

And my point is that your minimizing the odds lacks any sort of foundation. I'm pointing out a plausible legal development in an environment while recognizing that the environment does not lend itself to a clear calculation of the odds.

 

[Moridin]

I do not have time now, but I'll reply to an essential red herring.

It is irrelevant how many peer-review publication Richard Dawkins has. What is relevant is that evolution has a massive amount of peer-review publications in major scientific journals, while the ID creationism have none. Ergo, they have made no attempt at sending in original research for publication, thus demonstrating their religious and political agenda.

Gish's was not.

Red herring, since I have demonstrated that Morris' book contains the same line of argument, those tying intelligent design to creationism once and for all.

Yes, he did: "Yes. I wrote the section at the end of Pandas which is discussing blood clotting. And on page 144 of the text there's a section entitled 'A Characteristic of Intelligent Design.' And it begins, 'Why is the blood clotting system an example of intelligent design? The ordering of independent pieces into a coherent whole to accomplish a purpose which is beyond any single component of the system is characteristic of intelligence.' "

In any case, he was not one of the main authors. However, this is actually an argument in favor of my position, since Biology and Creation (a creationist textbook) contain the same arguments and passages as Panda's.

Excuse me? How does that show that Dembski is right?

No, it shows that Dembski is i. wrong and ii. using an old creationist argument, since an increase in "information" is the same as a decrease in entropy.

 

[Pelt]

I do not have time now, but I'll reply to an essential red herring.

It is irrelevant how many peer-review publication Richard Dawkins has.

It is if you're going to dump on the productivity of ID's scant few champions in the faculty.

What is relevant is that evolution has a massive amount of peer-review publications in major scientific journals, while the ID creationism have none.

Yada, yada, yada...you seem to think that we're debating whether or not creationism is scientific. We're not. Get over it.

Red herring, since I have demonstrated that Morris' book contains the same line of argument, those tying intelligent design to creationism once and for all.

Except you haven't. You've demonstrated that Morris' book incredulously restates Darwin's own observation about how his theory can be falsified. Remember, the argument was over whether irreducible complexity was novel, not the preceding question.

In any case, he was not one of the main authors.

Doesn't matter. The point is he put irreducible complexity into Pandas in 1993.

However, this is actually an argument in favor of my position, since Biology and Creation (a creationist textbook) contain the same arguments and passages as Panda's.

It does not contain Behe's contributions. Hand-waving your way around that won't change it.

No, it shows that Dembski is i. wrong...

Then what's your point? I already pointed out Dembski was wrong.

...ii. using an old creationist argument, since an increase in "information" is the same as a decrease in entropy.

You've only shown that Dembski is wrong--something I already pointed out to you. You didn't show that his argument isn't novel. Seriously, hand-waving isn't much better than strawmen.

 

[Moridin]

I've already explained that irreducible complexity is not a novel argument, as it is just the same as nonfunctional intermediates. It is exactly the same.

You didn't show that his argument isn't novel.

I've demonstrated that "Law of Conservation" is equivalent to "Evolution violates 2nd Law of Thermodynamics", which makes it not that novel.

What exactly is your argument?

 

[Pelt]

I've already explained that irreducible complexity is not a novel argument, as it is just the same as nonfunctional intermediates. It is exactly the same.

No, you haven't explained it. You keep saying it over and over again without answering the objections raised. This is not turning out to be a constructive exchange.

I've demonstrated that "Law of Conservation" is equivalent to "Evolution violates 2nd Law of Thermodynamics", which makes it not that novel.

They're related, but they're not equivalent. How hard is that to understand?

What exactly is your argument?

We're having several at a time. As adults, we should be able to manage that sort of load. You don't need to keep falling about on the "evolution is supported by a vast body of evidence" line--everybody gets it. Save it for the creationists.

 

[Moridin]

I have even quoted creationists showing how irreducible complexity is not novel.

Behe defines IC as:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of anyone of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39 DBB)"

Morris defines his argument as:

"The creationist maintains that the degree of complexity and order which science has discovered in the universe could never be generated by change or accident" (Morris, Scientific Creationism p. 59)

""serious problems" with the evolution model: high improbability of random formation of life; difficulty of evolving complex integrated structures since each part of the integrated structure alone would be useless to the organism in which it first appeared and therefore would be weeded out by natural selection; the near impossibility of the random formation of chromosomes, genes ordered to fit together both by internal components of genes and the ordering of the genes to fit each other." (Norman Geisler, quoting creationist Ariel Roth's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas 81)

A rose by any other name!

I've showed how the argument "Evolution violates the law of the conservation of information" is equivalent to "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics".

S = k log_e(2)H

 

[Pelt]

I have even quoted creationists showing how irreducible complexity is not novel.

No, you haven't. What you've done is the equivalent of giving credit to the guy who came up with the character Daedalus for Wilbur and Oliver Wright's work.

Behe defines IC as:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of anyone of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39 DBB)"

Morris defines his argument as:

"The creationist maintains that the degree of complexity and order which science has discovered in the universe could never be generated by change or accident" (Morris, Scientific Creationism p. 59)

The two quotes are not equivalent. Behe's claim forms an a fully testable hypothesis--there exists an identified set of biochemistries composed of non-functioning intermediaries. We know his hypothesis was testable not because it was logically inconsistent or vague, but because it was flat out wrong.

Morris, on the other hand, does no such thing. He simply takes Charles Darwin's own criteria for falsifying Darwinism and says its been met for no better reason than his own incredulity.

""serious problems" with the evolution model: high improbability of random formation of life; difficulty of evolving complex integrated structures since each part of the integrated structure alone would be useless to the organism in which it first appeared and therefore would be weeded out by natural selection; the near impossibility of the random formation of chromosomes, genes ordered to fit together both by internal components of genes and the ordering of the genes to fit each other." (Norman Geisler, quoting creationist Ariel Roth's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas 81)

Once again, Roth doesn't actually present a hypothesis. There's nothing there to test.

A rose by any other name!

Using your criteria, so long as its red it might as well be called a rose.

]I've showed how the argument "Evolution violates the law of the conservation of information" is equivalent to "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics".

S = k log_e(2)H

No, you've hand-waved your way around the matter and now you're equivocating on the term "equivalent." Our argument wasn't over whether or not Dembski was trying to show that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That'd be about as meaningful as arguing over whether Dembski was trying to make a creationist point at all. The question is whether or not it was a novel objection. It was, if for no other reason than it added something new to a family of discredited anti-evolution attacks.

 

[D H]

Yada, yada, yada...you seem to think that we're debating whether or not creationism is scientific. We're not. Get over it.

This is a scientific forum. If you are not here to debate scientific concepts, please go away.

 

[Pelt]

This is a scientific forum. If you are not here to debate scientific concepts, please go away.

Excuse me, where did that come from? More importantly, why would anyone come to a science forum to just to "debate scientific concepts." My impression of physicsforums is that it's key mission is to provide a forum for scientific learning and discussion, not debate. Besides, the creationist/Darwinist disagreement isn't the only aspect of the controversy that's scientifically interesting. It has implications for anthropology, political science, psychology, education science, etc. While it's fun and useful to meet that debate head on, don't you get bored of simply regurgitating TalkOrigins?