Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Progress in Kansas

William Dembski
November 9, 2005
Evolution, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Evolution suffers Kansas setback
The US state of Kansas has approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on evolution.

The Board of Education’s vote, expected for months, approved the new language criticising evolution by 6-4. Proponents of the change argue they are trying to expose students to legitimate scientific questions about evolution. The Kansas decision came as voters in Pennsylvania replaced all eight school board members who approved a similar policy in some of the state’s schools.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4419796.stm

Comments
jmcd What physical laws do you posit need to be violated in order to modify DNA to acheive a specific heritable trait? It seems to me that humans are already modifying genetic information for their own purposes. How can you posit that humans are a natural product of the universe and at the same time say that any intelligence capable of genetic engineering is supernatural? Non sequitur. Big time.DaveScot
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
jmcd "a cultural backlash to a percieved assault on religious faith" Even if that were true it doesn't make ID wrong. You need to learn to separate ideas from the people that hold them. As for the perceived assault - ID is essentially Paley's watchmaker argument updated with recent scientific discoveries. It's those recent discoveries that really caused the resurrection of the watchmaker argument not any new perception that religion is under assault. Religion has been under assault at least since Copernicus.DaveScot
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
I aint came from no monkay!IDEA_AASU
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
"...as the rules are structured in a proper manner." This statement requires no comment. ;)Bombadill
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
i think that MN is a problem in itself. its says that an entire possible spectrum of possibilities is automatically off the table from the start of it all. thats the epitome of anti-knowledge. thats not the way to go about finding truth. i have to admire the scientists who didnt adhere to MN- which are most of the scientists through history. it leaves too much outside the realm of science... then again, they claim much of this is outside the realm of science, then they claim theyve studied these same things outside of science and debunked them. nonsense. if MN is the sole thing we look at, of course other possibilities might exist, and youre basically saying- to hell with them, they might have truth to them, they might be totally correct, but were writing them off from the start. this is a terrible way to find truth.jboze3131
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
jmcd, I don't know if you are intentionally trying to misrepresent Intelligent Design Theory or if you're hopelessly confused, but your arguments are utter nonsense. First of all, stop trying to conflate the religious views of one man, Philip Johnson, with IDT as a whole. Ever hear of an ad hominem fallacy? Second, how can neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which follows directly from Methodological Naturalism, ever be falsifiable if no other theoretical framework is even permitted consideration? MN incorporates the presumption (a priori speculation) that all natural phenomena are reducible to unguided natural processes. If no other theoretical framework can be considered, then neo-Darwinism wins by default; it is unfalsifiable - even in theory. Indeed, the concept of ID in nature provides the counterargument which makes neo-Darwinism a falsifiable scientific theory. Read Bill's blog entry just above this one, "What Counts as a Plausible Scientific Theory?", and the excellent first post by Neurode. Also read this other blog entry: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/266 Davidcrandaddy
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
"If all ID said was that the organization and complexity seen in the universe indicates design, that would be outside the realm of science." If a team of archeologists stumbled upon what appeared to be the ruins of an unknown city and inferred design, would they also be venturing outside the realm of science? An obvious difference between the two cases is that, in the latter, the design is easily attributed to human agency--something with which we are familiar and comfortable. The former can't be attributed to human agency, so even though it looks like there's intelligence behind it, we run into problems when we try to identify the agent. Most would say it's "God"; a few might say, "I don't know who it is"; and more would say that it just looks designed but actually isn't. I speculate that if we had a common knowledge of an intelligent agent or agents who could plausibly be credited with the design of the universe or with encoding DNA, no one would entertain for a moment the idea that such things might have arisen through unintelligent processes. The very idea would be laughed out of court. If this is true--and I think it is--then it suggests that the reason why actual design is denied where human agency is implausible or impossible is not because the evidence for design is wanting but because of a desire to avoid the questions that must arise the moment design is acknowledged as real.Rick Toews
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
darwin was a religious person?! when he wrote origins, he was clearly not a religious person, and he died an atheist. so no, he was in no way a religious person after origins. and of course darwinism is inherently atheistic. i bring it back to provine from cornell who said that the only logical conclusion with darwinian evolution is that there is no purpose or meaning to life, that there is no afterlife, and that life is a mere accident. i think most of the big names in the theory would agree with this statement. if theres no purpose or meaning to life, no afterlife, and no reason for being here- youd be hard pressed to posit ANY sort of god at all. and you seriously need to read just ONE book on ID, because you continue to claim that ID is an appeal to a supernatural force that designed. ID doesnt look to the designer- they leave that to religion and philosophy. ID looks for the inference of design- which is, in itself, neither natural or supernatural. there is absolutely no appeal to the supernatural with ID. if ID were to search for the designer, that might be true...but it doesnt. the theory has limits, limits that its proponents recognize, unlikes darwinism - most proponents of this theory refuse to put limits on it, as i showed to be the case with provine. dawkins refuses limits on it as well, scott, pz myers, many others- they all claim things outside of the limits of darwinian theory.jboze3131
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
I am out of time for today I just want to address one comment by jboze "so, darwinism, which is inherently atheistic, is also not science and a religious idea, correct?" Darwinism is not inherently atheistic. To say so is utterly incorrect and represents a profound misunderstanding of enolutionary theory. Catholicism does not have a problem with it nor do many scientists of faith. Darwin himself was a very religious person. I provisionaly agree with Darwinian principles and I am not an atheist. So no, Darwinism in and of itself is not a religious idea.jmcd
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
anteater I would agree with you. I see natural evidence for deisign too. The problem is that ID insists or at least relies on non-natural/supernatural mechanisms to explain life. If all ID said was that the organization and complexity seen in the universe indicates design, that would be outside the realm of science. That is primarily how I resolve any conflict between science and faith.jmcd
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
"Motives don’t detremine whether something is scientific or not. I certainly never said that. " You've been using the "Wedge Document" as evidence that ID is religion and not science. You've cited the Wedge document twice as evidence that ID is religion. "I have said or at least implied that the supernatural is outside the realm of science. Any idea that appeals to the supernatural is fundamentally unscientific." Except that ID doesn't appeal to the supernatural. Certainly it has theological implications, but the ID theory itself says nothing of the designer. ID simply says that we can infer design in biological systems. Period. The fact that someone can then speculate that such design was by God, is, I agree, theological/religious/philisophical -- but it's also beyond what ID is. "I was trying to demonstrate that ID is the theistic science that Johnson needed. A theistic science is not science at all. At best you can have theistic philosophies of science. " I don't see how design inference is theistic science. You'dodgingcars
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
also: "I have said or at least implied that the supernatural is outside the realm of science. Any idea that appeals to the supernatural is fundamentally unscientific." we have yet another problem with this. if god were to come down to earth and sit and have lunch with a group of scientists...if that god is outside of nature, or beyond nature- we might call him supernatural. thus, even tho god was sitting there talking with the scientists, proving he was god by making the sun disappear, making things float, stopping the rotation of the earth, etc- science wouldnt be allowed to study him to debunk or verify him, because hes out of the realm of science. same goes for the study of ghosts, spirits, hauntings, esp etc. if they DO exist, theyre probably beyond nature (supernatural), which means theyre outside of the realm of science. now, scientists can study these things and claim theyre just natural events that are bogus...but, how would it be possible to debunk an idea when one possible explanation is inherently outside of the realm of science? you cant study something scientificall when the negative is considered science yet the positive is considered outside the realm of science. of course, scientists in general, will claim that the positive is impossible and claim it must be a natural event that just SEEMS supernatural. but, thats an impossible claim to make, since youve already proclaimed the positive result out of bounds! which is why science is inherently limited by the narrow view it now takes. for most of the history of science- these limits were not in place. they are now, which means a great deal of possible knowledge is already proclaimed out of bounds from the start.jboze3131
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
"Irreducible Complexity requires the supernatural creation of irreducibly complex systems. That is well outside the realm of science and much closer to religion." ----------- another bogus claim. i suggest you actually learn what ID is before you comment any further. IC requires no supernatural operation.jboze3131
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
I keep hearing that id is not about the supernatural yet you ask me to “explain where information arose from and how it did so without a source that created the information.” By implying that there had to be a source of creation for the information that makes life possible you are appealing to the supernatural. -------------- that doesnt make sense. so, what youre saying is- you know of information without a source? in life, we know that ALL forms of information have sources. to comply with that rule (which would be a law of information) with DNA, thats appealing to the supernatural? so youve shown how information can arise from nothing without a source? no scientist has been able to do such a thing- because we know that all sources of information come FROM a source. because design fits with monotheism, ID is now religious and not based on any science? so, darwinism, which is inherently atheistic, is also not science and a religious idea, correct? you admit that there are some IDers who are not theists...yet you turn around and say- here, look at this document! this proves it! you still have to explain those non-theist IDers, which you refuse to do, because it exposes the bogus claim that this is religion trying to undermine science. theistic science is an oxymoron? tell that to pascal, newton, boyle, and the majority of scientists throughout time who were quite implicit of their theistic attitudes in their work. science was born out of the idea to study gods creation. i dont care what you think was the reason a theory was started...or what the religious ideas of those who started it were (when darwin published origins he was a devout atheist who despised christianity- so by your view, darwinism is now religious solely for that reason)...the fact is, you cant say this "Now can you honestly tell me that this is a theory born out of science and not a cultural backlash to a percieved assault on religious faith." after you just admitted that some IDers and non-theist. again, i ask you, why did famous life long atheist flew come to god thru science, the very science underlying ID? since he spent most of his life debating theists, doing all he could to show the idea of god was false, he couldnt have come to his conclusions based on a perceived threat to his non existant religious faith. you continue to refuse to answer the basic questions here that disprove your bogus claims...and you continue to distort the very thing youre discussing. its like talking to a wall. 'former atheist here came to god thru the science of ID...yet, i will proclaim that ID is merely a theory of religion used to protect the religious faith from a perceived threat.' talk about absurd. i wonder what religious faith flew thought was under attack, and i wonder how this attack on his nonexistant faith brought him to god via science. hmmm. feel free to continue to pretend him and others like him dont exist!jboze3131
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
The evidence for design is natural and tangible, not supernatural.anteater
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
dodgingcars Motives don't detremine whether something is scientific or not. I certainly never said that. I have said or at least implied that the supernatural is outside the realm of science. Any idea that appeals to the supernatural is fundamentally unscientific. I was trying to demonstrate that ID is the theistic science that Johnson needed. A theistic science is not science at all. At best you can have theistic philosophies of science.jmcd
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Benjii Who is to say that natural law is not an agent of design? Regular patterns and complex designs can be created with random change so long as the rules are structured in a proper manner. Stephen Wolfram (the genius of Mathematica fame) did an excellent job illustrating that in his book A New Kind of Science. By the vague definiton you give ID Science in general nor enolutionary theory in particular would have a problem with it. You describe a philosophy of science. As it happens I would agree with such a philosopyhy. However, ID is a bit more specific then that. Irreducible Complexity requires the supernatural creation of irreducibly complex systems. That is well outside the realm of science and much closer to religion.jmcd
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
jmcd, Again, I ask (you ignored it the first time) How does the motives of individuals determine whether something is scientific or not? Wouldn’t that invalidate darwinism then, too? As it’s well documented that Dawkins had religious motives (or anti-religious motives) in promoting darwinism?dodgingcars
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
“By implying that there had to be a source of creation for the information that makes life possible you are appealing to the supernatural.” If you read the design inference, it doesn't take a mathematician or scientist to infer design. If you find an inscription on a rock, will you attribute it to chance or design? And if you attribute it to design, then are you invoking supernaturalism? That's the same thing with ID. It has nothing to do with supernaturalism. All it states is whether something in nature is the direct outcome of natural law or design. “Design” is something to mean “neither regularity nor chance,” that is to say, if something is not explicable in terms of natural law or chance, then by definition it is due to “design.” To say that something is due to “design” is just to say that it exhibits a certain kind of pattern."(Craig) If SETI scientists, cryptographers, forensic scientists, and even school teachers use design methods, then, why can't biologists do it?Benjii
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
"By implying that there had to be a source of creation for the information that makes life possible you are appealing to the supernatural."Benjii
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
jboze3131 I keep hearing that id is not about the supernatural yet you ask me to "explain where information arose from and how it did so without a source that created the information." By implying that there had to be a source of creation for the information that makes life possible you are appealing to the supernatural. Yes you keep naming that one guy and I am sure there are several other non-religious believers of ID, but the vast majority are religious. You have apparently not read the Wedge Document. Here are a few quotes: "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." "Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture." "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built" And finally this quote listed as a twenty year goal for design theory "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life." Now can you honestly tell me that this is a theory born out of science and not a cultural backlash to a percieved assault on religious faith. Philip Johnson, one of ID's founders is a law professor who found God after the love of his life left him. He wrote a treatise on the need for a "theistic science" (an oxymoron if you ask me)and got the ball rolling on ID. ID is at its heart a cultural movement with good intentions. People like Johnson view a materialistic worldview as a grave threat to humanity as we know it. They think materialism is a threat to morality, free will, and individual responsibility. I recognize their concern but I also find it somewhat naive.jmcd
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
jmcd- really, when will you learn? PLEASE, for the love of all things, explain away the existence of IDers who dont believe the intelligence is God. you continue to claim ID is religiou, tho in other comments youve proven you dont even understand ID. you continue to say that ID is an appeal to the supernatural, which is also not the case. ive told you this many many times, yet you continue to comment on nearly every post proclaiming that ID is religion and its an attempt to undermine science. please explain anthony flew to us. please explain all the IDers who dont believe the intelligence is God. please explain the fact that ID has nothing to say of the designer to begin with. justify your claim that this is a case of religion trying to undermine science- tho since relihion is what started science, i hardly think thatd even be possible. while youre at it- explain P.E. for us and why it came about if there is no problem with darwinism (the fossil record is surely a problem!) explain those who hold to ET in the sense you seem to, but have concluded that theres no way NS is the mechanism. explain where information arose from and how it did so without a source that created the information. explain the process that lead to the BF.jboze3131
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
How does the motives of individuals determine whether something is scientific or not? Wouldn't that invalidate darwinism then, too? As it's well documented that Dawkins had religious motives (or anti-religious motives) in promoting darwinism?dodgingcars
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Darwinian evolution is real science. It is certainly true that a materialistic philosophy is part of many scientist's world view (the terribly abrasive Richard Dawkins for example), but preaching such a philosophy goes beyond the realm of science. The fact that several scientists who are commonly in the public eye decide to take to the pulpit is unfortunate. That fact does not make Darwinism a materialistic philosophy though. There is nothing wrong with criticism of a scientific theory on scientific grounds in science class. ID is something quite different though. All one has to do is read the well publicized Wedge Document to recognize that ID's mission is a religious one. It is an attempt to fundamentally change the nature of science and open it to supernatural possibilities. You cannot get much more unscientific.jmcd
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Since when is it okay to teach theory as fact? I am impressed that someone finally had the guts to take a stand and say that evolution is only one theory to explain life.taiwanmouse
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
"Bringing religion into science is yokelism, or at least that is how many in this country and throughout the developed world would see it." Since when is criticism of a theory, relgion?dodgingcars
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
"The contoversy is between science and those that feel that science is an assault on their faith." No.. not really. If anything science (true science) validates my faith. It's materialistic philosophy that assaults my faith.dodgingcars
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Kansas carefully avoided mentioning ID because that is immediate cause for a law suit. In a very subtle way they are introducing a teleogical view of the world into science class. That is essentially the goal of id so that may be why your teacher is upset. The problem with teach the controversy is that there is not a controversy to teach. At least not a controversy in science. The only controversy that exists is the same one that has existed since Darwinian evolution entered the lexicon. The contoversy is between science and those that feel that science is an assault on their faith.jmcd
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
The article mentions that "Teachers have been ordered to tell pupils that Darwin's theory of evolution is unproven, and that the universe is so complex that it may have been created by a higher power." is this really what has been mandated? my biology professor today was ranting about this and saying that they were going to be dumbing down science standards by teaching intelligent design in Kansas. I suspected that she picked up an article that was slanted. It's my understanding to "teach the controversy" does not mean teaching intelligent design, but simply involves teaching criticism of evolutionary theory. so what's the real deal here?IDEA_AASU
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Bringing religion into science is yokelism, or at least that is how many in this country and throughout the developed world would see it.jmcd
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply