Okay, ID may be taught — But you don’t get to teach it!

_{William Dembski

December 16, 2005

Education, Intelligent Design}

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

The latest edition of Jeffrey Bennett et al’s astronomy textbook The Cosmic Perspective (4th edition) is now out. Sure enough, “intelligent design” is in the index. Indeed, it gets a full page treatment (p. 714). Below is the scan of that page. Does this text provides a fair representation of ID? Hardly. It appears now that ID will indeed be taught in the science curricula of this nation, only ID proponents won’t be doing the teaching. Life is so unfair.

ID in The Cosmic Perspective

Comments

Behe doesn't define ID as a supernatural cause for design. Working on his religious worldview, he thinks this is the case for him, but the science itself says no such thing. That's like saying Darwinism isn't science because Ken Miller think that it fits perfectly fine with his Christian worldview! The judge clearly says that ID is creationism updated. That cannot be true, because even Behe has no problem with common descent. Creationism - key word creation. It's the idea that there were numerous acts of creation to bring about all life on earth. ID never says any such thing. ID isn't specific to Christianity (the judge also made that bogus claim)...the top post on this site is about Jews and ID and there are numerous Muslim ID sites out there! Clearly, he's wrong...likely purposefully as this evidence is available via any google search. He's attacking a strawman here, and no doubt he knows it.Josh Bozeman_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

keiths: "If you read the decision, PaV, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll see that Judge Jones understood the arguments from both sides, and that he carefully justifies each part of the opinion by referencing the evidence and testimony on which it was based." Here's what he wrote about Behe's testimony: Professor Behe specifically explained that Ã¢â‚¬Å“[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system,Ã¢â‚¬Â but Ã¢â‚¬Å“[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.Ã¢â‚¬Â In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to Ã¢â‚¬Å“repair this defect in future work;Ã¢â‚¬Â however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect." Tell me, keiths, does that sound like the judge understood the argument? He fails to see that the "defect" Behe was referring to wasn't an actual "defect in logic", but rather, it was Behe saying that the argument could be made more forceful by rewording the argument. The judge seems to have bought Miller's argument about secretory systems when he says: "However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system." Now Miller and Behe have gone around on this, and based on my cursory read of Miller's paper, and Behe's rebuttal, I take Behe's side. Dembski wrote: "There's another problem here. The whole point of bringing up the TTSS was to posit it as an evolutionary precursor to the bacterial flagellum. The best current molecular evidence, however, points to the TTSS as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa (Nguyen et al. 2000). http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm This is an argument that is way beyond the judge's competence. He acted inappropriately in taking a position on something he didn't understand as well as he needed to. What appears to have happened is that Miller's testimony seems to have completely swayed the judge's opinion on the matter. So, in effect, we have a judge who doesn't have a full grasp of the issues, but who, nevertheless, based on the testimony of one expert witness, Miller, has decided that ID is not science. And, because of the way case law works in the United States, has effectively ruled that ID is creationism and not science in American courtrooms across the land. He must have the wisdom of Solomon. This is over-reaching on the part of judge. This said, though, I think the Dover Board, based on what is included in the opinion, over-stepped their bounds as well. Just one more point for the legal scholars: Judge Jones utilization of the McLean decision seems to be in error. When he cites the case, the "dualism" that he talks about is clearly, in the original case, a "dualism" between evolution and a "literal interpretation of the Genesis." When, in the case at hand, he talks about "dualism", it is a simple, generic kind of "dualism": evolution versus "supernatural interventions". That seems like an awful big stretch to me of what the McLean case decided.PaV_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Josh Bozeman: "If a federal judge defines ID his own way and refuses to define it the way actually ID theorists do, then what is his role at all? To put up a bogus definition and attack it? ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s insanity. Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care how ID is defined, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m gonna give it my own meaning!"" To my knowledge, he used the definition presented to him in Of Pandas and People and through the hearing of Michael Behe. He references Behe's words where he says that a supernatural designer is 'probable'. And there are many more objections in general, though that is the main one. Still, since you seem so adamant on this, perhaps you (or anyone else) could run a detailed analysis of the statement by me and explain to me why it is, as you say, insane?Edin Najetovic_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

I think it's fair to say it's insane for a federal judge to define ID by his own terms and not the terms of those who actually put forth the idea. It's like him saying that religion is the search for natural causes in the world and proclaiming it to be true, tho anyone with any sense can find a quick definition of those who put forth religious ideas to see that's precisely what religion is not. If a federal judge defines ID his own way and refuses to define it the way actually ID theorists do, then what is his role at all? To put up a bogus definition and attack it? That's insanity. "I don't care how ID is defined, I'm gonna give it my own meaning!"Josh Bozeman_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

The system they made was based on the idea that certain rights are God given and cannot possibly be taken from the govt because the govt cannot overpower God. Washington was a devout Christian, as were most of the founders...they wrote in personal letters and official documents constantly about The Lord in clear reference to Jesus Christ as well as actually praising Christianity. So, maybe a few were deists to some degree- even Jefferson was a Christian of some sort, or so he probably would have thought of himself a Christian since he followed the Bible and Christ, tho he wasn't so much for the supernatural aspects of it all. The Constitution says the govt cannot establish a national church, no more no less. No one can argue that this is anything in the ballpark even if they decide ID is religious, tho the ruling was bogus to begin with- the judge defined ID as calling for supernatural causation, tho ID says no such thing. This is a BS ruling throughout.Josh Bozeman_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

The reason I say the above is because while I agree that Jones is being disingenuous claiming he is "insane" is a bit too much.Gumpngreen_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

"There is no constitutional basis for this ruling. No one in their right mind would argue that even IF ID was a religious idea that it would constitute what the constitution bans. The founders would be rolling in their graves if they knew about this ruling against our GOD GIVEN liberties. See, the founders had some sense, unlike the courts today." As a dutchman, I can say we were taught that the US revolution is a fine example of a state based on Enlightenment ideas. That is to say, strictly secular, division of the 3 powers etc. I have read many letters and convincing essays that suggest they were Deists at best, and their faith was more based on Pascal's wager and the strong belief that society would fall apart without than any personal revelation. A quick google search shows me at least this, but as someone not from America I may be wrong. It is largely irrelevant what the founding fathers thought anyway, given the system they made. Then there is the earlier Edwards case, heavily referenced in the ruling. All the judge is doing is applying a precedent ruling by drawing the line IDEdin Najetovic_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Well...ID doesn't directly invoke a non-material causation but, in my opinion, it at least permits it. This is only a bad thing if you "cannot allow a divine foot in the door" as Richard Lewontin put it. Also, that "rule" only holds true if you define science as directly equating with antiteleological naturalism. By this definition Jones would at least be partially correct.Gumpngreen_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

I just saw this. Like I said, this judge is out of his mind. ID says no such thing. Jones asserted: "We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation." And that idea is NOT centuries old. Scientists in the 1800's went to the supernatural all the time. Before the 1850's nearly all scientists were actually creationists in the biblical form, so he's insane to claim this nonsense. A judge trying to play a scientist. How precious.Josh Bozeman_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Gump, it wouldn't. No sane person would argue that it does. This is the insanity caused by SCOTUS starting in the 40's when they got onto the path we're on now- where even mentioning the word God will cause the ACLU to foam at the mouth. Having the words "christmas break" on a school calendar is considered an establishment of religion to these fools, so there's little use even TRYING to reason with them.Josh Bozeman_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

I'm fully aware of the Incorporation Doctrine and that doesn't answer my question. How would teaching ID be an establishment of religion? Also, which religion is being established?Gumpngreen_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

There is no constitutional basis for this ruling. No one in their right mind would argue that even IF ID was a religious idea that it would constitute what the constitution bans. The founders would be rolling in their graves if they knew about this ruling against our GOD GIVEN liberties. See, the founders had some sense, unlike the courts today. The ruling that ID is creationism disguised proves that this judge is out of his mind. Creationists do NOT believe in common descent. Creationism itself means just that CREATION- they believe in a chain of creation events. ID is merely a mechanism like NS that has no problem with common descent. Only a fool would argue that both are the same thing when they share no real similarities at all. The American Humanists came out to applaud the ruling...ironic. Seems to me that the ID critics, YET AGAIN, are the ones making it into a religious issue.Josh Bozeman_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

BTW, this is very upsetting to us Pastafarians. :)beervolcano_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Gumpngreen, You might not like the way the courts have been applying the First Amendment since the 1950s, but the Incorporation Doctrine is used to apply the first ammendment to the States. By applying the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, the courts have ruled that the States may not "establish religion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrinebeervolcano_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

PaV writes: "I suppose by Ã¢â‚¬Å“factual backdrop which has not been fully revealedÃ¢â‚¬Â he means that the Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ side chose not to testify..." PaV, this was Pennsylvania, not Kansas. The evolution side did testify, and to great effect. I highly recommend that folks read the expert testimony on both sides of the issue. It's available at http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=11 . "This seems to be no more than a prejudicial statement. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s almost like he had his mind made up from the beginning, or that he was unable to follow the ID arguments, or both." If you read the decision, PaV, you'll see that Judge Jones understood the arguments from both sides, and that he carefully justifies each part of the opinion by referencing the evidence and testimony on which it was based. "Since he also calls them liars, he probably thinks theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re wicked." He didn't just call them liars, PaV. They did lie. Read the testimony if you don't believe it. "But if his whole opinion is nothing but ad hominem attacks, he should be severely criticized." Easy, PaV. Why not read the opinion before attacking it?keiths_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

The judge nails the real problem: "The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources" The pro-evolution forces back in the 20's had the good sense to market the Scopes Trial as a money-maker. That's why John Scopes was sent to Dayton, Tennessee: The town was on-board because they thought they could cash in on the publicity. The Dover folks made their trial actually COST the town money rather than make it. Nothing is going to tick off a judge more... Dave T.taciturnus_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Benjii: it has not destroyed ID itself, it has destroyed ID as science in the eyes of the law. The consequences for this are marginal, really. All it means is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID in school. Really, ID can research until it can argue to have a scientific basis, but the courts decided it hasn't got one now. The court is not asking you to stop researching (in fact, it is encouraging you to do so), just saying ID has no place in the classroom (yet). I have read some excerpts and think this decision is sound. Is this a setback for ID as science? Well, yes but no. Though I would personally not think ID ever has the chance to become legitimate science (due to the reductionary chain to a supernatural designer Keiths has clearly stated in this thread), nothing is stopping you from continuing your research. So I say use that chance to start researching so we can stop debating here! ;) Kind regardsEdin Najetovic_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Here's the full opinion: http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site515/2005/1220/20051220_085143_kitzdecision.pdfPaV_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Judge Jones: "The breathtaking inanity of the BoardÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has not been fully revealed through this trial." I suppose by "factual backdrop which has not been fully revealed" he means that the 'evolutionist' side chose not to testify, and, further, had they testified, the 'breathtaking inanity' of the Board's decision would be even more 'evident.' This seems to be no more than a prejudicial statement. It's almost like he had his mind made up from the beginning, or that he was unable to follow the ID arguments, or both. To make the kinds of statements that have been coming out so far, stinks not of 'activism', but of 'arrogance.' He arrogantly believes that the Board was nothing more than a bunch of rednecks who can't understand science and so simply want to introduce 'creationism.' He seems to take Dawkins' position that anyone who denies evolution is either stupid, ignorant, or wicked. Since he also calls them liars, he probably thinks they're wicked. Where are the facts of this case? On what basis, i.e., legal principles in conjunction with the findings presented at trial, does he base this decision? This hasn't come out yet. But if his whole opinion is nothing but ad hominem attacks, he should be severely criticized. Anyone know where to find the full opinion?PaV_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

I'm still trying to figure out how a local school board supporting an alternative theory equates to congress establishing an official state religion... Perhaps someone can point out to me the legal reasoning for this particular decision?Gumpngreen_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Strong wording in the Dover opinion. Judge Jones writes: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."keiths_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

DaveScot writes: "Judge JoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s career just ended. He was appointed by President Bush and just now ruled against the presidentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wishes. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a good thing heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s got a lifetime appointment because thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the last appointment heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll ever get." Uh, Dave... Judges are supposed to uphold the Constitution, not the President's wishes. Have you heard of "checks and balances"?keiths_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Judge Jones is scathing in his criticism of the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover board. From the Dover ruling: "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has not been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."keiths_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Judge Jone's career just ended. He was appointed by President Bush and just now ruled against the president's wishes. It's a good thing he's got a lifetime appointment because that's the last appointment he'll ever get.DaveScot_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

No legal case will stop the advancement of ID. A one-sided court case will not destroy DNA.Benjii_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Results are in, Intelligent Design was destroyed by the judge. I'm sorry for you, but as an adherent to evolution, I can't really feel sorry myself. The judgement seems to be a lot wider than I'd expected though...Edin Najetovic_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Go ID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Benjii_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

The Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board decision is coming down today. Stay tuned at the following link: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=dover+%22intelligent+design%22&ie=UTF-8&scoring=dDaveScot_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Jay "In other words, doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t human intelligence alone disprove Darwinism?Ã¢â‚¬Â No, but it does IMO disprove the notion that only a supernatural being can tinker with the course of evolution. It can be done by ***naturally occuring engineers. That's if you believe that human engineers are naturally occuring which for a Darwinist is a given. A Darwinist contradicts himself when he claims that ID demands a supernatural intelligence and at the same time says that human genetic engineers evolved naturally. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either humans are supernatural or engineers capable of artifical interference in evolution are a proven part of nature.DaveScot_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

"Hey DaveScot, do you know the identity of MikeGene? Do you blog on his site?" The name is familiar and I might have dropped a comment or two on his site in the past but other than that no bells are ringing.DaveScot_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply