ID...why isn't it religion?

[Kurieuo]

>>judges probably know very little about science<<

Everybody in that courtroom got an impressive primer on science, including the judge - enough to convince him ID was basically a religious proposition and that it wasn't science.

DB

I thought everyone knew by now that Judge Jones didn't do any real judging, but just cut and paste ACLU's brief. In other words, Jones already sided with ACLU before the case even got started. A Google search should turn up some interesting reading for you.

[David Blacklock]

Hi Kurieuo,

I googled it - haven't found yet what you are speaking of but will look again. I did find evidence that he responded to claims that he was a liberal activist by his rebuttal:

If you look at public polls in the United States, at any given time a significant percentage of Americans believe that it is acceptable to teach creationism in public high schools. And that gives rise to an assumption on the part of the public that judges should 'get with the program' and make decisions according to the popular will.

There's a problem with that....The framers of the Constitution, in their almost infinite wisdom, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will--in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time--but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

That distinction, just like the role of precedent, tends to be lost in the analysis of judges' decisions, including my decision.

DB

[Gerald McGrew]

Does ID include the supernatural and religious tenets? Certainly; one need look no further than the Discovery Institute's own writings to demonstrate that (e.g. the Wedge Strategy). Additionally, the fact that ID advocates seek to argue against and remove references to science seeking "natural explanations" (e.g. their efforts in Kansas) speaks directly to ID invoking the supernatural.

Where are you getting this misinformation from?

The Wedge Strategy

The very first sentence states: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built". So the DIscovery Institute makes no bones about exactly what "designer" they're talking about.

Later, the document states: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". IOW, it invokes the non-material (i.e. the supernatural), which is specifically identified as the Christian God.

There are many, many more documents, speeches, and other material from folks at the Discovery Institute that make it very, very clear the "designer" they are attempting to argue for is the Christian God.

[Gerald McGrew]

Finally, if you define "macroevolution" as the link does ("Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species"), then the evidence for it is that we've seen it happen.

No you haven't.

Yes we have.

[Gerald McGrew]

Again... ID does not seek to identify the designer.

As you can see from the post above (re: the Wedge Strategy), ID was crafted specifically to make a case for the Christian God.

We can't totally prove that evolution happened or it didn't either.

Science does not "totally prove" things. Since every population we've ever studied evolves (we've never seen a population not evolve), why should we conclude that populations in the past didn't evolve?

It's beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion with any degree of certainty on either side. And if we performed the same rigorous tests that we could on ID with evolution, evolution probably wouldn't pass the test to be classified as science either.

That may be your opinion, but the overwhelming opinion of the earth and life sciences community has been the exact opposite for over a century.

You didn't answer the question. What makes macroevolution unscientific?

Look at the previous page... Where is your evidence for macroevoltion?

See the post above; we've seen it happen. And you still haven't answered the question: What makes macroevolution unscientific?

How do explain the cambrian explosion?

Can we stay focused on the topic at hand? I'd be happy to discuss the Cambrian in another thread, but for now I'd prefer to fully address the current topics before we start throwing in more (especially given that you have yet to answer some of my questions).

Finally, if you define "macroevolution" as the link does ("Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species"), then the evidence for it is that we've seen it happen.

No one has ever witnessed a fish morphing into a human. If you have seen this occurring then where is your evidence?

Can you provide a citation or reference to a scientific source claiming that "a fish morphing into a human" is what macroevolution entails? Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of argument via straw man?

[Gerald McGrew]

And Stephen J. Gould was a staunch defender of evolution, including what you are calling macroevolution....and...evolution has stood up to vigorous scientific testing for 150 years - sometimes being refined, but never even coming close to being threatened as a theory - which, in science, pretty much means fact, subject to change upon receipt of further information.

That is why I quoted him...

Being misquoted by creationists as saying "there are no transitional fossils" was one of S.J. Gould's major irritants...

Evolution as Fact and Theory

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

You would be well-advised in the future to not attempt to quote Gould as arguing that there are no transitional fossils, lest you be perceived as arguing dishonestly (which makes both the arguer and his cause look quite bad).

[Gerald McGrew]

>>judges probably know very little about science<<

Everybody in that courtroom got an impressive primer on science, including the judge - enough to convince him ID was basically a religious proposition and that it wasn't science.

DB

I thought everyone knew by now that Judge Jones didn't do any real judging, but just cut and paste ACLU's brief. In other words, Jones already sided with ACLU before the case even got started. A Google search should turn up some interesting reading for you.

The part the judge copies came from the plaintiff's "findings of fact". But the ID creationist side submitted their own "findings of fact" document as well, and it was also written in ruling language.

Why do you suppose they did that?

[Kurieuo]

Does ID include the supernatural and religious tenets? Certainly; one need look no further than the Discovery Institute's own writings to demonstrate that (e.g. the Wedge Strategy). Additionally, the fact that ID advocates seek to argue against and remove references to science seeking "natural explanations" (e.g. their efforts in Kansas) speaks directly to ID invoking the supernatural.

Where are you getting this misinformation from?

The Wedge Strategy

The very first sentence states: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built". So the DIscovery Institute makes no bones about exactly what "designer" they're talking about.

Sounds like a general introductory statements to me: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences."

Are you arguing that ID necessarily includes supernatural and religious tenets? Certainly it may lead to such, and it does not exclude them, but to say it includes I think is just a baseless materialist reactionary critique.

Later, the document states: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". IOW, it invokes the non-material (i.e. the supernatural), which is specifically identified as the Christian God.

Your IOW is putting words where they are not spoken.

"The Wedge" certainly allows alternative viewpoints not bound to the materialist (metaphysical naturalist) view, however from that page you provided it does not: 'argue against and remove references to science seeking "natural explanations" (e.g. their efforts in Kansas) speaks directly to ID invoking the supernatural' (your original assertion). In fact ID is compatible with methodological naturalism. It does not rule out natural explanations at all, but rather seeks to free scientific inquiry from the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism.

[David Blacklock]

Hi Kurieou,

To me the Wedge strategy is obvious in its anti-scientific interests, which in this case are overwhelmingly religious. You see it very differently than I do and I think your worldview is preventing you from seeing the truth. I know mine is.

DB

[Gman]

As you can see from the post above (re: the Wedge Strategy), ID was crafted specifically to make a case for the Christian God.

Why are you deleting my posts? Again.. A majority of scientists have already accepted that the existence of intelligent life could exist elsewhere in the universe and that life could be the result of “seeding” by aliens known as the “panspermia” hypothesis... This does not require a deity...

Science does not "totally prove" things. Since every population we've ever studied evolves (we've never seen a population not evolve), why should we conclude that populations in the past didn't evolve?

I disagree... There are many scientist that believe that evolution is an undeniable FACT.... It has already been proven... End of story.

http://www.defendscience.org/science_letter.pdf

That may be your opinion, but the overwhelming opinion of the earth and life sciences community has been the exact opposite for over a century.

Overwhelming opinion? Legally it's the ONLY opinion...

See the post above; we've seen it happen. And you still haven't answered the question: What makes macroevolution unscientific?

No, that is the point. We have not seen it happen. Our web site challenges that opinion, not fact, here. I'm actually ok with calling Darwinian evolution a theory, but if you want to cram it down my throat as a fact, then we are going to have problems.

Can we stay focused on the topic at hand? I'd be happy to discuss the Cambrian in another thread, but for now I'd prefer to fully address the current topics before we start throwing in more (especially given that you have yet to answer some of my questions).

No... You have not provided any concrete evidence. What about the Cambrian explosion then? That is about all you can do it seems is ask questions...

Can you provide a citation or reference to a scientific source claiming that "a fish morphing into a human" is what macroevolution entails? Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of argument via straw man?

That was the way it was taught to me... How else to you propose that humans came into being? Ok, then show us how the first cell created itself via chemical evolution. Are you familiar with logical fallacy of an invisible man argument? These one's don't even exist...

[Gman]

Being misquoted by creationists as saying "there are no transitional fossils" was one of S.J. Gould's major irritants...

Evolution as Fact and Theory

Misquoted? Are you denying the fact that Gould wrote that?

You would be well-advised in the future to not attempt to quote Gould as arguing that there are no transitional fossils, lest you be perceived as arguing dishonestly (which makes both the arguer and his cause look quite bad).

Me look bad? No you don't understand, those statements where written by Gould. Basically he shot himself in the foot by stating that.... Ok maybe you would prefer Richard Dawkins. When he was recently asked how life got started he calmly replied, "No one really knows how life got started."

[Kurieuo]

Hi Kurieou,

To me the Wedge strategy is obvious in its anti-scientific interests, which in this case are overwhelmingly religious. You see it very differently than I do and I think your worldview is preventing you from seeing the truth. I know mine is.

Anti-materialistic interests, but not anti-scientific. To someone who does not know how to distinguish the two I can understand they would see the Wedge as anti-scientific. But there is a distinction. Many of the respected "fathers" of science (if you can call them that) were Christian and able to conduct the science perfectly fine without assuming metaphysical naturalism (for example, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal).

[Kurieuo]

I googled it - haven't found yet what you are speaking of but will look again.

I don't know what keywords you were using but try Googling "judge jones aclu"

[David Blacklock]

Hi Kurieou,

Indeed I found it. Buckingham and Bonsell are indeed perjurors but Judge Jones is unquestionably a plaigarist.

What a moron! How could he expect not to be discovered!

(He still made the right decision and the ACLU was quite eloquent)

DB

[Himantolophus]

Gerald McGrew wrote:
See the post above; we've seen it happen. And you still haven't answered the question: What makes macroevolution unscientific?

No, that is the point. We have not seen it happen. Our web site challenges that opinion, not fact, here. I'm actually ok with calling Darwinian evolution a theory, but if you want to cram it down my throat as a fact, then we are going to have problems.

I don't seem to get why creationists don't understand the answer to this question which they ask over and over again. You can't observe something directly that takes hundreds to thousands to millions of years to occur! That is why the "boundary" between micro and macro is undefined. We can agree that speciation can be called "microevolution" but what do you call genus-level change? Family-level change? Where does it become macroevolution???? We will never directly observe whatever you think macroevolution is (fish to man, even cat to dog). Lots of micro IS macro. The same changes that occur in microevolution occurr in macroevolution except the much longer timescales allow for a greater accumulation of changes. Therefore, in the opinion of the person looking at the evidence, the organism has the appearance of being "macroevolved". Timescale is the only difference between the two. I don't see how this is difficult to understand.

Gerald McGrew wrote:
Can we stay focused on the topic at hand? I'd be happy to discuss the Cambrian in another thread, but for now I'd prefer to fully address the current topics before we start throwing in more (especially given that you have yet to answer some of my questions).

No... You have not provided any concrete evidence. What about the Cambrian explosion then? That is about all you can do it seems is ask questions...

the explosion was not a "poof". There was an abundance of unoccupied niches and evolution progressed "rapidly" to fill those niches. Similar evolutionary bursts have occurred at multiple times in the Earth's history. Something about mass extinctions seems to trigger punctuated equilibrium. This is pure speculation but my point is that the Cambrian Explosion is not evidence for creation. It is a challenges for conventional evolution but that does not invalidate the entire theory. It has something to do with changing rates of evolution.

Gerald McGrew wrote:
Can you provide a citation or reference to a scientific source claiming that "a fish morphing into a human" is what macroevolution entails? Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of argument via straw man?

That was the way it was taught to me... How else to you propose that humans came into being? Ok, then show us how the first cell created itself via chemical evolution. Are you familiar with logical fallacy of an invisible man argument? These one's don't even exist...

I'm surprised at you GMan since you have provided a lot of interesting information on this site. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of evolution will NEVER use the "fish turning into a human" argument. That flies in the face of everything that evolution predicts!