The Opposition Facing High School Biology Teachers Who Support ID

Rubble says "A great deal of fruitful research has arisen from hypotheses stemming from the RM+NS paradigm." BS. The fruitful research outside of historical biology is performed on living tissue. Whether RM+NS or intelligent design was the mechanism behind speciation in the distant past is of no consequence to modern biology. The relatedness between species is the same in either case and is determined empirically not by application of theory. The usual icon of microevolution held up to endorse RM+NS is acquired antibiotic resistance by bacteria. Keep in mind they're still bacteria at the end of the day. Even so it's becoming clearer and clearer that bacteria don't passively wait around for serendipitous mutations to defeat toxins. When they're subjected to the toxins they open up mutation floodgates in certain genes to accelerate the process. That's not a random mutation. It's a mutation but the bacteria is reactively directing it. So it appears that RM+NS is a lame duck even in the microevolution of bacteria. Another icon held up is the relatedness between rats and humans that enables some amount of drug testing to be done on rats with the expectation that it will have the same effect on humans. Again, whether RM+NS or ID established the relatedness is of no consequence. Common descent is very well supported. The codon->amino acid translation table used by ribosomes to build proteins is virtually identical in every living organism. The table could have taken on a practically infinite number of permutations and remained equally functional. It being the same in all living things is about as good a proof as you're going to get for common descent from a universal ancestor. There's still a caveat in that common design is equally capable of explaining it and there's no way to distinguish between common descent and common design. Dembski and Behe both accept an old earth and universal common ancestor - or at the least they don't attempt to dispute it (both are aware of the caveat). The issue in dispute is whether chance and necessity have the creative power to explain the origin and evolution of life. In this they posit that it does not have that power and that RM+NS is falsifiable both mathematically (complex specified information) and empirically (irreducible complexity). DaveScot

Rubble: Your criticisms are shopworn. Please take them elsewhere. William Dembski

DaveScot: A great deal of fruitful research has arisen from hypotheses stemming from the RM+NS paradigm. ID can't even begin to say this. Let's not also forget that common descent has also been quite fruitful as a scientific research program; unless you're in agreement that common descent constitutes a fact, your coy tip-toe around this means that your mention of RM+NS is a red herring. Rubble

RM+NS design of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans is a narrative with no empirical evidence. If that's science so is ID. Science or non-science is a red herring. ID and RM+NS both use the same empirical evidence. In fact the more science that's done the more ID fits the facts while RM+NS becomes weaker. For example, Behe needed to know the protein complement and intricate structure of the flagella to make one of his arguments. He also needed the exact details of the blood clotting cascade for another. Dembski is a mathematician/philosoper not a laboratory scientist. "ID should do the science first" is another red herring. DaveScot

The suggested topic doesn't belong in the science curriculum, simply because there's no science there in the first place. ID should do the science first. Rubble

If intelligent design theorists "accept the vast body of Darwinian theory" then the converse is true. Darwinian theorists accept the vast body of intelligent design theory. LOL - thanks for pointing that out. It's actually the vast body of empirical evidence that ID theorists accept. The evidence doesn't "belong" to either theory. Evidence stands alone. Where ID departs is where Darwinists accept some evidence, ignore contradictory evidence, and extrapolate the convenient bits into a speculative narrative explaining the mechanism behind all of evolution from soup to nuts. The intense blind support for the wild extrapolation in the neo-Darwinian narrative is driven by atheists and Christophobes. DaveScot

Please erase my third post! Benjii

“I am familiar with the agenda behind the Intelligent Design movement and am very uncomfortable seeing this in the curriculum. I would not want to get into any arguments about the scientific validity of this as I am in agreement with the scientific community that this does not muster as any sort of real science.” I would definitely agree with Qualitative's former statement. Seeking design and having methods of deducing such phenomenons is perfect science. Go ahead and ask the archealogists. Better yet, go ask the astronomers down in SETI. Without intelligence we wouldn't know anything about ancient cultures, fingerprints, DNA and the like. So, think about your statement that you just said, and reconsider. Benjii

“I am familiar with the agenda behind the Intelligent Design movement and am very uncomfortable seeing this in the curriculum. I would not want to get into any arguments about the scientific validity of this as I am in agreement with the scientific community that this does not muster as any sort of real science.” Benjii

I think it musters as some sort of science. If anyone is into argumentum ad auctoritate- Mike Gene and Behe accept vast body of the darwinian theory. Now how could that be? sblank

Here's what parents should be writing:

“I am familiar with the agenda behind the anti-Intelligent Design movement and am very uncomfortable seeing strictly Darwinism in the curriculum. I would not want to get into any arguments about the scientific validity of this as I am in agreement with many prestigious scientists that this does not muster as any sort of real science.”

Qualiatative

Charlie This type of comment You just made often pops-up in context of ID-darwinism debate. Whether darwinism is propelled by a unscientific agenda is of no relevance to whether ID is (and it is, IMhO) Neither of this options cancels the second one out. Maintaining a polichromatic worldview instead of a monochromatic one is crucial. Sblank Poland sblank

"I am familiar with the agenda behind the Intelligent Design movement and am very uncomfortable seeing this in the curriculum. I would not want to get into any arguments about the scientific validity of this as I am in agreement with the scientific community that this does not muster as any sort of real science." well, all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldnt put humpty dumpty back togather again... -how is that different from darwinisim ? hmmmm.... i wonder. Charlie Charliecrs