what kind of experience?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

That's part of why ID isn't a theory; what testable predictions does it make? I don't know of any. Real scientific theories form models that make predictions, which can be tested to further correct and refine the model.

[Gunny2862]

Honestly Merlyn, I possess a fairly shallow knowledge of this piece of the knowledge pie. I also wouldn't know where to begin to test this idea of ID within the realm of Science.

 

But I think my problem lies in the people who choose to defend Evolution as though it is FACT. And in doing so close themselves off to the possibility that alternate explanations exist - and then characterize others as unthinking redneck hillbillies who simply believe everything they are told and don't engage their neurons for any worthwhile purpose.

 

However it seems to me that Science would be better served by disproving ID rather than discrediting it. But that puts us back in the position of finding testable hypothesis doesn't it? Even evolution tends to test past evidence and try to find outcomes where the data fits the hypothesis under study. So, possibly someone closer to the point of study could come up with past evidences that might lead to testable hypothesis for ID?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

"Evolution" refers to both the theory of evolution, and observations of evolution (such as the change in allele frequencies over time), just as people can talk about the theory of gravity and observations of gravity (release a rock and it falls). So it isn't surprising that people refer to both the theory of evolution and observed facts of evolution.

 

Science doesn't have to "disprove ID"; anyone who wants to advance ID as a theory has the burden of coming up with a scientific theory and arguing that it has better explanatory power than any other theory. That certainly hasn't happened yet, and scientists generally have better things to do with their time than debunk religious myths.

[GaHillBilly]

My older son, who has surprised us all (including himself) by turning out to be a whiz at things like organic chemistry and biochemistry, surprised his biochemistry professor by asking her what she thought of Michael Behe's work (he's the biochemist behind the idea of "irreducible complexity").

 

Like a good little post-modern scientist, she recoiled, and expressed tremendous skepticism. He then asked her if she'd read either of his books on the topic, and she sheepishly acknowledged that she had not. So, he loaned her Darwin's Black Box, and she read it.

 

Her observation afterwards was, "He makes an awfully strong case!"

 

I understand that she's agreed to read The Edge of Evolution, this semester. It will be interesting to see how she reacts to it: my son and I both think it's quite a bit stronger than his first book.

 

As a Christian with a long time interest in the topic, I would be the first to admit that the bulk of the argumentation I've seen in favor of creationism is seriously defective.

 

Unfortunately, the fact that many Creationists couldn't reason their way our of a wet paper bag, doesn't prove that they are wrong nor that believers in naturalistic reductionism are right, nor even that many of the arguments for Darwinian (or even Gouldian) evolution are much better.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

PS: As a point of information, for the uninitiated, published descriptions of Behe's argumenation are NEVER (in my experience) correct. If you want to know what he says, you have to read his books. Neither evolutionists nor creationists report his work accurately. He is NOT a "Creationist" in the sense popular in my own rather fundamentalist denomination, nor in the sense used in evolutionist charactures. Rather he is a Catholic, who defines evolution as consisting of three independent core concepts:

1. Common descent (man from monkeys, birds from lizards . . . genetically speaking)

 

2. Natural selection as the means of by which new 'more highly adapted' species arise.

 

3. Random mutation as the mechanism by which the genetic variation, upon which new biological orders depend, occurs.

 

He accepts 'common descent', but argues that we now know enough about biochemical mechanism and genetic transmission via DNA to KNOW that neither natural selection nor random mutation can successfully explain common descent.

[Gunny2862]

Merlyn, again, you do present your cases well but you had to throw in debunking religious myths when ID may have nothing to do with religion - as I clearly pointed out in my first post on this topic.

It's that kind of attitude that caused me to post in the first place.

 

GaHillbilly,

I do like Behe's work.

 

Merlyn, It is still interesting to me that when peer review only is authoritative when it's made up of those who are in the mainstream of Science are listened to. It would seem that peer review would have to be able to show that the truth of an argument should stand regardless of the philosophical ideology of the reviewer.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

As soon as Behe or any other ID advocate comes up with a theory that makes testable predictions, you'll have a theory. However, given Behe's statements under oath in the Dover case where (quoted from the opinion) "Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God," I don't think Behe will be much help in convincing people ID isn't just a religious myth.

 

Gunny, ID is just rewritten creationism; in the case of the ID book "Of Pandas and People," literally so. They took a creationist book and just went through and changed "creationism" to "intelligent design" and so on. This lead to the accidental inclusion of "Cdesign proponentsists" (google for it), in a botched change of "creationists" to "design proponents". No science was ever involved.

 

Merlyn, It is still interesting to me that when peer review only is authoritative when it's made up of those who are in the mainstream of Science are listened to. It would seem that peer review would have to be able to show that the truth of an argument should stand regardless of the philosophical ideology of the reviewer.

 

That's what science does now. Scientists don't waste much time with ID or creationism for the same reason they don't waste much time on dowsing, astrology, or bigfoot sightings. Why should ID be taken more seriously than astrology? A lot of people believe in astrology, and it's a very old field, but it still isn't science, either.

[packsaddle]

Wow, I never expected my comment to hijack the thread. Anyone who is in doubt about the deception that been attempted by the intelligent design creationists needs to read the Dover transcript.

Or the the book by Miller, "Only a Theory".

Or...Or...

Creationism is a religious perspective that should not be presented in a science classroom. Intelligent design is nothing more than a 'cover' for creationism, and a poor one at that. They are too timid and PC to even name the creator, God. But this is explained in the transcript...they changed the terms to avoid legal consequences. Now THAT is an honest approach....NOT.

 

The 'irreducible complexity' argument is just wonderful. It states that the more complex a system is, the more improbable that it could arise from mere chance. Setting aside the error of the straw man statement this is, the logic can be turned on itself. If increasing complexity accompanies decreasing probability, what is the most complex thing and therefore the least probable, perhaps zero probability?

 

Answer: the creator.

[GaHillBilly]

Back to the originally scheduled question . . .

 

Sarah Palin did NOT advocate teaching creationism in the classroom. Instead, what she said was

 

I dont think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesnt have to be part of the curriculum, Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-untruths-about-sarah-palin/

 

Several other concerns voiced on this Forum also are apparent frauds, perpetrated by various Democratic 'sympathizers', like the professional liars at the Daily Kos.

 

So Packsaddle, now that your concern about Sarah Palin has been resolved, are you going to vote for her?? Or was all that 'concern', just a red herring?

 

GaHillBilly

 

[GaHillBilly]

Oooh . . . just found this one:

 

"He added that McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate was "absolutely wonderful for the state of Alaska."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/palin.trooper/index.html

 

WHO added?? That would be Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law, who's at the center of "Trooper-gate". Gee, with enemies like that, Trooper-gate is clearly a serious threat to Palin!

 

 

So . . . packsaddle, are ya gonna vote for Palin/McCain now?

 

 

GaHillBilly

[NJCubScouter]

GaHillBilly, the truth is that Sarah Palin did advocate teaching creationism in schools, and then after her remarks drew some unwanted attention, she un-advocated it. Here is what she said in a debate:

 

Teach both. You know, dont be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and its so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.

 

The next day, or so, she said what you said she said. So it is kind of up to the voters (the ones who care a lot about this issue, anyway) to decide which of her statements she actually believes. (To be fair, Joe Biden also is prone to making remarks that have to be followed the next day by "What I really meant to say was..." But he has never advocated teaching creationism in schools, as far as I know.)

[packsaddle]

GaHillBilly,

Sorry man, I was going by the earlier quote from the same Anchorage paper article that your quote came from:

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

 

From the article: "Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.""

 

The 'fair and balanced' people at Fox news conveniently left that part out and so did you. But when she was interviewed a day later, she tried to back off (your quote). Does the word, 'flipflop' bring back any memories?

 

In fairness, I'll reserve final judgement until I hear or read some more definitive statements from her if any are forthcoming, but for now I am suspicious that her first statement came from the heart, her later statement might have been calculated to blunt the reaction.

Or I could be wrong and she's just clueless about science and science education. Is that better?

 

At any rate, suggesting that alternative views should be taught is fine as long as the alternative views are scientific. However, such a suggestion is bad in this case because it is merely a ruse to bring in ID/creationism as the alternative view. ID/creationism isn't science so it isn't a scientific alternative that should be taught along side science. Teach it in political science or religion class. But keep it out of the science classroom.

 

Show me her strong support for science education and for keeping religion out of science classes, and I WILL reconsider my decision. Show me.

 

See you Sunday night. I'm gone camping...assuming my companion ever shows up.

 

 

[Lisabob]

pack writes:

"Teach it in political science or religion class. But keep it out of the science classroom."

 

Ugh, what did I do to deserve THAT, packsaddle? We political scientists teach how the government works (or doesn't work, depending), why it was set up that way, and how it has evolved. If you want to have a culture war complete with the screaming meemees on topics such as abortion or ID vs. evolution, go do it in some other class. Please!

 

 

[gwd-scouter]

Hmmm, it appears there are more issues about which we didn't hear the full story:

 

The plane on ebay: yes, she PUT the plane on ebay. In that she was correct. Of course, that statement lets us infer that she SOLD the plane on ebay - something Sen. McCain actually said at a rally yesterday. Not only did he take the story further to say she sold it, but she sold it at a profit. Well, the real story is that while she put it on ebay, it didn't sell. The State had to hire a private broker and the plane eventually sold to an Alaskan but at a loss of about half a million dollars.

 

The bridge to nowhere: She was for it before she was against it. Gee, that sounds familiar. What she doesn't say though is that the State still received the money to be used at its discretion.

 

Both statements have their basis in truth. Like so many skilled politicians she didn't exactly lie, just left out a few pesky details.

[GaHillBilly]

Like so many skilled politicians she didn't exactly lie, just left out a few pesky details.

 

Or like many local Scouters, when they say, 'Sure, he passed the rank requirements!", not that he can tie a square knot, or actually apply first aid, but he PASSED!

 

Shoot, lets' check and see if she gained THAT skill in Scouts. Maybe in Alaska, they let hard-core girls into Boy Scouts, and then teach them Scout skills. God knows that fudging the facts is ONE skill that is constantly and successfully taught in this council.

 

. . . from a hillbilly, who's feeling rather cynical this morning, after banging his head -- HARD -- on local Scouting political reality.

 

 

GaHillBilly