Judge Jones loses in Florida and Louisiana

_{Salvador Cordova

April 29, 2008

Constitution, Courts, Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Judge Jones (the former liquor control board director famous for his involvement with Frog Beer) ruled in 2005 that it was unconstitutional for teachers in the Dover school district to question Darwinism. Jones viewed himself as the person who would settle the question of Darwinism for all time an eternity. He even went on the talk show circuit boasting of his brilliant cut-and-paste of ACLU opinions.

Thankfully Jones does not speak for all of the United States, and his cut-and-paste ruling apparently has not been able to stifle the first amendment rights of students in other states.

Casey Luskin reports in Florida House and Louisiana Senate Pass Evolution Academic Freedom Bills.

Academic Freedom bills have now passed both the Florida House of Representatives and the Louisiana State Senate. The bills protect the rights of teachers to teach controversial scientific theories objectively, where scientific criticisms of scientific theories (including evolution) can be raised as well as the scientific strengths. The Darwinists in those states do not like this. First Florida Darwinists called academic freedom “smelly crap.” Then Louisiana Darwinists called academic freedom protections a “creationist attack” that is “Just Dumb.” Most recently Florida Darwinists used the “enlightened British will laugh at us argument” to oppose academic freedom. All I can say is, you heard it here first: “For the Darwinists who oppose the bill, this battle is about falsely appealing to people’s emotions and fears in order to suppress the teaching of scientific information that challenges evolution.”

The creationists at Dover did a great disservice to the cause of ID by refusing to heed the wise counsel given to them by the Discovery Institute. The creationists on the Dover school board represented themselves as proponents of ID when they themselves couldn’t even explain the basics of ID. Their indiscretions destroyed the fine work of many in the ID movement.

But finally legislatures are heeding wise counsel. While ID is not explicitly advocated in the latest bills, criticisms of scientific theories (including evolution) can be raised. And that is good enough as far as I’m concenred.

I am ambivalent to the idea of teaching of ID in public schools, and I’m definitely negative on pro-Darwin NEA teachers teaching creationism in public schools.

However, I am a gung ho about exploring evolution in public schools. [A very good outline of how to explore evolution is provided in the book: Explore Evolution. ]. I am also in favor of ID being explored and taught in the court of public opinion and in university contexts like Allen MacNeill’s Evolution and Design course at Cornell…

Freedom has visited the children of Florida to explore evolution! May this freedom visit all the children of the USA one day!

Comments

Holster that pistol there, gpuccio. I agree with everything you said, but Venus Mousetrap seems like a nice enough chap. He appears to be genuinely unaware that it is *not* in fact easy to accomplish the biological feats in question. Can you blame him? Haven't we all been raised to believe, without question or reason, the ease with which Darwinian Evolution has shaped the world? Venus Mousetrap has simply landed on the other side of the fence. It is difficult to change one's mind, so let us handle our level-headed opponents with gentleness. Let's reserve our venom for the demi-Dawkins' out there, reducing them to absurdity only after their disdain for rational discussion has earned it. I, for one, invite Venus Moustrap to continue fueling this discussion.QuadFather_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap said: "these are quite easy to evolve step by step" Then how come modern engineering is currently incapable of being able to create it? If it was that easy to evolve randomly overtime (*as you say), then with the guiding force of human intelligence it should be a piece of cake. "by easy, I mean they’re not problematic." Yes, because nuffing is impossible for Darwinian Evolution, no problems unsolvable! :) I'm surprised Venus Mousetrap didn't point us to a "talkorigins.org" link. I thought this was part of modern Darwinian culture.godslanguage_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

its clear to little children that things in nature are 'for' other things. only when they grow up and lose their god like sense of wonder do we begin to lose our natural teleological thinking. it's why adults are so selfish and only perform actions that further their own interests or those in their family or social group, they lose the innate belief (due to the secular assualt from evo-materialists both in churches and schools) in the purposefulness of their life.irreducible_complacency_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: "With all due respect, are you kidding me?" I think you got it right: Venus is probably kidding us all. At least, I hope, for his own good, that, behind our backs, he is really laughing at what he says. His concept of "easily" is really sublime. I admire your patience in taking the time to answer. Of all darwinist fairy tales, the story of the gradual evolution of the eye probably deserves a special prize. To call it "easy" is to really underestimate the poor darwinists who spent sleepless nights to conjure it...gpuccio_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Venus: "by easy, I mean they’re not problematic. Light-sensitive chemicals exist, and so does a wide range of eye sensing organs. If you’re talking about information processing, it’s hardly difficult to have one cell that zaps other cells when light hits it." With all due respect, are you kidding me? When light strikes the retina of the eye, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to form trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before interacting with activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision. - Behe Again, with all due respect, this is process that you describe as "hardly difficult to have one cell that zaps other cells when light hits it" (?) I would then suppose that the artifacts of visual recognition and memory within the brain would be as easy to describe by a gradualistic process as well. Hell, we might as well move on to solving world hunger; apparently the mysteries of life (and the processes by which they were formed) have become easy for us. I think not.Upright BiPed_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap said: "Information processing systems. If you mean things like eyes, these are quite easy to evolve step by step. If you mean the biochemical machinery of the cell, then, why not, call that designed. It’s as good a guess as any, since we don’t know where that came from." I don't think the eye is an information processing system, its more of a signaling system taken as input to which the brain further processes and creates the final mental image. In essence, without the brain, eyes would be useless complex structures. Changing information by performing operations (ie: arithmetic) or manipulating, even interpreting the data are examples of information processing systems. For example, the eye takes in an image upside down and then the brain processes that image and changes it state by flipping it right side up again. Tell us how that evolved gradually? Was it just a matter of convenience? Did natural selection select that all because there was demand for new functional interacting components? I don't know how you can say "its quite easy to evolve step by step" when eyes are part of a vastly larger system.godslanguage_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Thanks Apollos. Whoa that's cool. :-DQuadFather_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Joseph at 103- I think that the definition of irreducible complexity that you quote excludes the possible evolutionary pathways known in this context as scaffolding and co-option. Why does a system's "basic" function (whatever that is) have to be the same as it's original function?
each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function.
congregate_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, Negative evidence is evidence against another hypothesis and not for your hypothesis. Once the other hypotheses have been discredited, then one has to accept your hypothesis because the others are not valid. The problem with such an approach is that you never know if you have discredited all the hypotheses, for example there may be a black swan waiting in our future. Yes we know that intelligence can produce CSI but we do not know for sure in the case of DNA that it was an intelligence that created this particular CSI. We know that no other process that anyone has brought forth can accomplish it. To get to an intelligence as the source of DNA we discredit other sources and hopefully intelligence is the only possibility left standing. But that is a negative approach which is essentially eliminating other hypotheses. Now I think it is very powerful but it does not convince most of the biologists. Why? Because they continue to hold out hope for a process that is naturalistic which will explain it and cite a God of the Gaps argument. The Theistic Evolutionists will say we do not yet know how God did it while the Darwinists will say we do not know how nature (law and chance) did it. The negative approach is the chief method of getting at ID. That is what mockery is all about. ID people believe in fairy tales, the "poof" mechanism of creating new species, a God who no one has ever seen or heard from, someone who every few million years changes something in life, makes imperfect parts or junk, causes pain, suffering and death etc. These are some of the main arguments against ID and are used to justify a naturalistic argument.jerry_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

News Flash Darwinists and the enemies of freedom were routed in the Louisiana Senate 35-0. Rob Crowther reports: Evolution Academic Freedom Bills Spread to More States: National Movement Grows
Today, there will be a legislative hearing on Missouri's academic freedom bill. Tuesday, an academic freedom bill was introduced in Michigan, bringing the number of states currently considering legislation to five. Monday, the Louisiana state Senate passed an academic freedom bill 35-0. Also on Monday, the Florida House passed a bill 71-43 that would require inclusion of scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory in the classroom. The Florida Senate previously passed an academic freedom bill that would protect the rights of teachers to do this. The two bodies must now reconcile their bills before the end of this year’s legislative session. Last week, an academic freedom bill was introduced in Alabama.
scordova_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

QuadFather wrote:
"By the way: May I ask what it means when certain people’s posts appear on a white background?"
Either that person is the author of the post, or the person is an administrator (or perhaps even editor) on the blog. You'll notice that some have comments in white on certain threads, but not others. These AFAIK are folks with contributor status -- their posts will appear in white when commenting on posts they have authored, but not on others. :wink:Apollos_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Oops- one more point: "Evolution" is not being debated. Telic vs non-telic processes are. Designed to evolve (ID) vs evolved via culled genetic accidents (modern synthesis).Joseph_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

To Venus Mousetrap: Two points: 1-No one, I repeat NO ONE, knows whether or not a vision system can evolve via non-telic processes- step-by-step OR in great leaps. I have read Sean Carroll and all he has is speculations based on the assumption. He also uses the thing that needs to be explained (embryonic development) to do the explaining. 2-
IC- A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. Page 285 NFL Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop. Page 287 Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit. Page 287
Do you understand how transcription and translation work? Do you really believe that non-telic processes stumbled onto a coding process, a regulating process, tool-kit genes, genetic switches and combinatorial logic? Would you be interested in purchasing a bridge?Joseph_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap, You are correct that if IC could be explained in terms of both intelligent and UNintelligent activity, then the presence of IC could not serve as evidence either way. This is why an arrangement of sand is neither evidence for intelligent causation nor for UNintelligent causation; both are known to produce apparently random arrangements of sand. But the fact that IC can ONLY be explained in terms of intelligent activity is precisely why it DOES serve as evidence for intelligent causation.QuadFather_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

By the way: May I ask what it means when certain people's posts appear on a white background?QuadFather_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap, You have merely pointed out that these effects can be found in nature. Well that is obvious, as it is the very reason for the controversy in the first place. The question, however, is from whence did these effects *originate*? On that question, intelligence is the only known cause, so it remains the best inference. You still do not understand Behe. Just because it is possible *in principle* that IC is "evolvable," that does not mean that it actually is; you have to demonstrate this. But that intelligent activity can produce IC has *already* been demonstrated. Remember: It is possible *in principle* that some old man invented a flying sleigh, delivered some presents, and called himself Santa Claus - but that doesn't mean it actually happened. Behe argues that IC has not been explained in terms of Darwinian Evolution. This is essentially the same as JPCollado arguing that unintelligent processes lack the capacity to produce IC. In either case, one must demonstrate that unintelligent activity CAN produce IC (in order to falsify the proposition). So the propositions that you say are different are, in fact, functionally identical.QuadFather_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Biped: by easy, I mean they're not problematic. Light-sensitive chemicals exist, and so does a wide range of eye sensing organs. If you're talking about information processing, it's hardly difficult to have one cell that zaps other cells when light hits it. As for the precursor states of DNA, I don't really know what that means. As far as I know, fairies made the first cell.Venus Mousetrap_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Quad: that isn't how people are using IC. JPCollado made an ID prediction that natural processes lack the capacity to produce IC. Was he wrong? If IC is a criterion for determining design, and evolution can produce it, then why is it there at all? It doesn't tell you one way or the other that something is designed. gpuccio: by functional change, I mean a part changing its function, rather than losing it. For example, evolutionists have suggested that the flagellum changed function from a water stirrer to a propeller. If you're only interested in whether the flagellum is a good propeller, you're going to miss the option that it was something else along the way.Venus Mousetrap_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

"but those can be useful (evolution, after all, has the prediction that no animal will exist that isn’t related to all the others by dna)." And, by the way, where is there any evidence of the precursor states of DNA?Upright BiPed_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Since when are eyes "easy" to evolve in a step by step process?Upright BiPed_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Quad: ah, I rather assumed you would ask if you didn't know. :) Well, let's take them one by one. Symbolic information. Assuming that means a code, then the biochemical processes of the cell can, and do, mutate DNA to produce variants on that code, which battle in the arena of life, and get refined by selection. We can do it on computers and we can see it in real life. Information processing systems. If you mean things like eyes, these are quite easy to evolve step by step. If you mean the biochemical machinery of the cell, then, why not, call that designed. It's as good a guess as any, since we don't know where that came from. And irreducibly complex structures are quite evolvable, if I understand Behe. So evolution mostly covers that, although one of them is an origin of life question... ID may as well get in there while it can :) But there isn't any point in forcing intelligence into the places where the better explanation is already.Venus Mousetrap_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap: You say: "However I’m not sure relying on irreducible complexity is a good move for the ID movement, since it relies on a flawed definition of evolution (it leaves out duplication, deletion, and functional change)." I really can't understand what you mean. In what sense IC jeaves out duplicatgion or deletion? It has been debated many times that any random change, whatever the mechanism, is still a random change. That's why it is better to speak of random variation (RV) rather than of random mutation (RM), which could be referred, in the understanding of some, only to point mutations. But all the ID arguments, both the CSI argument and the IC argument, are about any kind of RV. Therefore, they include duplication and deletion, as much as any other random mechanism of change. In other words, the ID arguments say: take any kind of random mechanism of variation, or any mixture of them. They cannot: a) Generate CSI, so that it may be selected (because CSI is beyond the range of random search) b) Generate IC by step by step selection of partial results, because an IC structure cannot be deconstructed in simpler working structures. In other words, if the level of complexity of any IC structure is such that it can be classified as CSI, then that structure is beyond the range of any random search, even if "helped" by selection mechanisms. Finally, could you please explain what you mean by "functional change"? That seems a very vague deifinition.gpuccio_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

*does not constitute a Darwinian explanation. Sorry about the typo.QuadFather_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap, I think you misunderstand Behe's argument. Behe does explain evolution as a gradual, step-by-step process, but he does not specify that this process is linear, and his arguments about IC do not preclude the things you mention. His argument is that there are no specific Darwinian explanations for how it could have happened. It is certainly possible that parts can serve multiple and redundant functions and that these parts can later be lost, leaving an irreducibly complex structure; I believe Behe acknowledges this in his book. But this does not yet constitute a Darwinian. It is conceptualization of how Darwinian Evolution may go about explaining irreducible complexity, but this does not mean that it has done so. Nobody disagrees that it is possible *in principle* to explain IC as the product unintelligent activity. The question is whether DE has done so *in fact*. But the task is to demonstrate that naturally-occurring unintelligent processes can produce IC, not to preprogram a computer game to do it.QuadFather_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Venus Quadfather: the problem is that all those things ARE within the abilities of one unintelligent process, evolution That is nothing but belief without evidence. It's an article of your faith in chance & necessity. We can at least observe intelligent designers like Craig Venter inserting CSI into DNA. Your hypothesis remains undemonstrated in any way.DaveScot_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap, It looked like you assumed the truth of Darwinian Evolution (DE) when you asserted, without substantiation, that it does produce the effects in question. It does not matter how much DE has been tested; What matters is the results. And for all of its testing, DE still cannot explain these certain effects. Intelligent activity remains the only known cause. Thus, it remains the best inference.QuadFather_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Quad: I'm sorry, could you show me where Behe says that? My understanding has always been that he modelled evolution as stepwise addition of parts, which does not allow for the possibility of parts being lost, or for multiple functions for a part, or for parts to alter over time. It can be shown that these events, all possible under evolution, can produce irreducible complexity, so I'm not sure how Behe has shown that they cannot.Venus Mousetrap_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

jerry: You say: "I am not sure what positive information would look like." That at least is very clear. Why are you so interested in such vague (even for you) concept as "positive" or "negative" evidence? I can't get your epistemological premises. Evidence is evidence. Scientific theories are only inferences at the best explanation for facts. Given facts to explain, and a few possible theories which try to explain them, any evidence in favour or against any of the theories existing is pertinent to the debate of which is the best scientific explanation for those facts. The correlation between CSI and intelligent agents is strict, and is constantly and positively verified in the field of human agency. Isn't that positive evidence? The negative aspect is that no other kind of causal explanation is available, and that's "negative" evidence at least as important as the "positive" evidence of the correlation between CSI and human agency. Moreover, in most biological sciences, including medicine which is my field, the process of Fisherian hypothesis testing is practically the main, often the only, statistical methodology applied in practical research. That process works by demonstrating the improbability of the null hypothesis, that is the hypothesis that the results obtained are due to chance. An alpha level of 0.05 is usually used, although I believe that it is by far safer to stick at least to 0.01. Although the improbability of the null hypothesis does not affirm directly the test hypothesis, it is usually used in that sense, if no other reasonable explanation is available. In other words, if a chance explanation of the results is considered too unlikely, the test hypothesis is usually affirmed. That's how most medical knowledge is built everyday. Would you consider that "negative" evidence? Would you consider that non scientific? The same process is used by our beloved darwinian biologists each time they affirm that two genes show significant homology. All they are saying is that they are similar enpough that such a result is unlikely by chance. Negative evidence, again, at the root of almost all molecular evolutionary biology. (And besides, that kind of evidence for homology does not imply descent, and least of all a causal factor, because there is at least another reasonable theory which can explain homology, which is design; and yet, homology is daily used as absolute evidence of both common descent and darwinian causality, without any reasonable basis).gpuccio_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Quadfather: I'm not sure that evolution is actually assumed before all else. It won on the evidence, and you can't blame scientists for sticking by it when it really does predict what they see. Evolution and ID are both answers to the problem, and one has been tested more than the other, so until ID comes up with something amazing, evolution is the better answer.Venus Mousetrap_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap, Behe's argument for Irreducible Complexity (IC) does not reject duplication, deletion, and functional change. Behe argues that unintelligent activity cannot produce IC even WITH these processes. It is also true that intelligent and unintelligent are mutually exclusive terms. Thus, to disconfirm one is to confirm the other.QuadFather_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply