NationStates Jolt Archive

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class
From Delia Gallagher and Phil Hirschkorn
CNN

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site.

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes.

Intelligent design claims the complexity of some systems of nature cannot be explained by evolution but must be attributed to a designer or supernatural being.

The Dover Area School District, about 25 miles from the state capital, sought to become the first in the nation to require high school science teachers to teach the concept of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Jones described the school board's decision as "breathtaking inanity."

"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact," said the statement that the old school board approved in a 6-3 vote in October 2004. "With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."

'Of Pandas and People'

That school board mandated the teaching for ninth-grade biology classes and directed school libraries to purchase an alternative textbook, "Of Pandas and People," which advocated the concept. The town has since voted out eight of nine board members.

A lawsuit challenging the policy was brought in December 2004 by 11 parents in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State last December.

Jones presided over a six-week trial that ended last month. His decision applies only to the Pennsylvania school district.

His decision would block the school district's plan "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

Jones says in his ruling that he did not doubt that intelligent design advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors," but he also said scientific experts testified that Darwin's theory "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

Jones: Not an 'activist judge'

Jones -- an appointee of President Bush, who backs the teaching of intelligent design -- defended his decision in personal terms.

"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," Jones writes.

"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 intelligent design, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy," he said.

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, "Children in public schools deserve top quality science education and freedom from religious indoctrination and today they were granted both."

A 'troubling decision'

Richard Thompson, a spokesman for the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, which aided the school district, called Jones' verdict a "troubling decision."

"The founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this simple curriculum change established religion in violation of the Constitution that they drafted," Thompson said.

Jones said of the defendants, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose" behind the intelligent design policy.

In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana could not teach creationism because it would "restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint."

***

See here, intelligent design "is not science". Evolution rules!!! ID: 0 Ev: 1

This is about the 5th post on this.

But I do like:

Richard Thompson, a spokesman for the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, which aided the school district, called Jones' verdict a "troubling decision."

"The founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this simple curriculum change established religion in violation of the Constitution that they drafted," Thompson said.


Did they notice if he said it with a straight face? ;)

Even if the universe was created by an intelligent agent why must we assume he is benevolent, or that an afterlife exists or for that matter recognises religion or answers prayers. Creationism seems illogical but religion seems even more so.

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class
From Delia Gallagher and Phil Hirschkorn
CNN

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site.

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes.

Intelligent design claims the complexity of some systems of nature cannot be explained by evolution but must be attributed to a designer or supernatural being.

The Dover Area School District, about 25 miles from the state capital, sought to become the first in the nation to require high school science teachers to teach the concept of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Jones described the school board's decision as "breathtaking inanity."

"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact," said the statement that the old school board approved in a 6-3 vote in October 2004. "With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."

'Of Pandas and People'

That school board mandated the teaching for ninth-grade biology classes and directed school libraries to purchase an alternative textbook, "Of Pandas and People," which advocated the concept. The town has since voted out eight of nine board members.

A lawsuit challenging the policy was brought in December 2004 by 11 parents in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State last December.

Jones presided over a six-week trial that ended last month. His decision applies only to the Pennsylvania school district.

His decision would block the school district's plan "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

Jones says in his ruling that he did not doubt that intelligent design advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors," but he also said scientific experts testified that Darwin's theory "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

Jones: Not an 'activist judge'

Jones -- an appointee of President Bush, who backs the teaching of intelligent design -- defended his decision in personal terms.

"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," Jones writes.

"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 intelligent design, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy," he said.

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, "Children in public schools deserve top quality science education and freedom from religious indoctrination and today they were granted both."

A 'troubling decision'

Richard Thompson, a spokesman for the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, which aided the school district, called Jones' verdict a "troubling decision."

"The founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this simple curriculum change established religion in violation of the Constitution that they drafted," Thompson said.

Jones said of the defendants, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose" behind the intelligent design policy.

In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana could not teach creationism because it would "restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint."

***

See here, intelligent design "is not science". Evolution rules!!! ID: 0 Ev: 1

yay! finally SCIENCE is at last being taught in a SCIENCE classroom, not ID :D

ID is a theory that scientists (albeit not too many) believe I don't see why it should be rejected in the classroom anymore than evolution I think it would be perfectly sensible to teach them both and let children decide what they want

Question: who here can honestly say they were taught ID in biology?

ID is a theory that scientists (albeit not too many) believe I don't see why it should be rejected in the classroom anymore than evolution I think it would be perfectly sensible to teach them both and let children decide what they want
Because ID is not a fucking theory. It's not testable, it's not falsifiable, and has no evidence to support it. Ergo, it's not a goddamn theory, is not scientific, and should not be taught in a fucking SCIENCE class.

ID is a theory that scientists (albeit not too many) believe I don't see why it should be rejected in the classroom anymore than evolution I think it would be perfectly sensible to teach them both and let children decide what they want

The problem with teachin ID is that it tends to be a matter of faith, it doesn't as far as I can see have any evidence in its favours.

ID is a theory

Not a scientific one. It is a layman's theory yes - a conjecture with no evidence. That doesn't fly in science.

that scientists (albeit not too many) believe

Many, many scientists believe that Christ died on the cross for our sins. Does that mean we should teach it in a science class? I certainly don't think so, and I do believe it. Science class is not a place to discuss beliefs. It is a place to learn about science.

I don't see why it should be rejected in the classroom anymore than evolution

Evolution is a scientific theory that has been arrived at following the scientific method. ID is religion. We don't teach religion in schools - 1st Amendment and all that.

I think it would be perfectly sensible to teach them both and let children decide what they want

What the children want is irrelevant. If they are going to learn science, they have to learn, well, science. Their religion, or what they think of science, is and has always been their own business.

Question: who here can honestly say they were taught ID in biology?

Taught it? Nope, sure wasn't.

Talked about it? Yup. My teacher said, "Some people believe God created everything in a more direct manner and believe that many of the scientific explanations are incorrect. Ok, moving on...."

people please all things that are taught in class should have an argument against it freedom of thought doesn’t end in the classroom it is in no way are right to decide what a children want to think instead we should give them the pro’s and con’s of each type let them decide and if it must be done have separate classes teaching the same thing under a different rule

people please all things that are taught in class should have an argument against it freedom of thought doesn’t end in the classroom it is in no way are right to decide what a children want to think instead we should give them the pro’s and con’s of each type let them decide and if it must be done have separate classes teaching the same thing under a different rule

You cannot teach religion in public schools. School isn't the place for it and the government cannot endorse any particular religious view. The only way it would be possible is if we taught every single possible religious view of every single person in the entire world, past and present, in a single class. Since this isn't possible, the best thing to do is leave religion out of it altogether.

And you absolutely cannot teach religion as science. That would be lying to the students. You don't want to deceive them under the guise of "freedom of thought" do you? Because I don't think it goes very well with deception.

You cannot teach religion in public schools. School isn't the place for it and the government cannot endorse any particular religious view. The only way it would be possible is if we taught every single possible religious view of every single person in the entire world, past and present, in a single class. Since this isn't possible, the best thing to do is leave religion out of it altogether.

And you absolutely cannot teach religion as science. That would be lying to the students. You don't want to deceive them under the guise of "freedom of thought" do you? Because I don't think it goes very well with deception.

I.D isn't just a Christian concept you know

I.D is a religion?

Why not teach ID if it is a theory? Evolution is just a theory as well but scientists treat it as fact though they cannot prove it as accurate.

Why not teach ID if it is a theory? Evolution is just a theory as well but scientists treat it as fact though they cannot prove it as accurate.

Just a theory? You do know theories are actually quite powerful; right?

I will give you one simple reason. God. How do you make a test to prove or disprove his involvement; let alone his existence?

Since you can't do either, you can't use it. The recent examples of the Flying Spagetti Monster come to mind. How do you know it wasn't involved?

ID is about religion. Nobody is saying it can't be taught. It can't be taught in the science classroom. You won't find anybody here fighting its inclusion in a religions class or even a social studies class.....

ID is a theory that scientists (albeit not too many) believe I don't see why it should be rejected in the classroom anymore than evolution I think it would be perfectly sensible to teach them both and let children decide what they want


holocaust exageration or denial is not a belief of many historians but does that mean it should be taught

I will give you one simple reason. God. How do you make a test to prove or disprove his involvement; let alone his existence?

Since you can't do either, you can't use it

ah but until we learn how to create life you can't prove that there isn't a God

ah but until we learn how to create life you can't prove that there isn't a God

You can't prove there is. BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

people please all things that are taught in class should have an argument against it freedom of thought doesn’t end in the classroom it is in no way are right to decide what a children want to think instead we should give them the pro’s and con’s of each type let them decide and if it must be done have separate classes teaching the same thing under a different rule

Not only is what you're asking more than likely a violation of the estabilishment clause (unless you wish to teach all religions), but it's unrealistic. If we teach EVERYTHING that people view as an non-scientific counter to a scientific theory, then kids are going to need to be in school for a few more decades. We'll have to teach about faith-healing as a counter to medicine. We'll have to teach about astrology as being part of the causes of certain events. We'll have to teach all of the dozens of non-scientific theories of creation. We'll have to teach all of the dozens of non-scientific theories on death. We'll have to teach about the stork in sex ed. We'll also have to teach that birth control is sinful and that condoms have no effect on preventing the spread of AIDS. Then we'll have to help this children send out resumes around the world because there simply aren't enough janitorial jobs in this country to sustain all of them.

ah but until we learn how to create life you can't prove that there isn't a God

Nobody is attempting to prove there is no God. In fact, even if we create life that doesn't mean there is no God. That's the problem. Scientific theories must at their core be able to be disproven and altered based on new evidence. The problem is there is no evidence that can ever disprove an intelligent creator. EVER. That part of the theory is in violation of the rules of science and is, thus, unscientific.

I.D isn't just a Christian concept you know

I.D is a religion?

ID is religious-based. It, therefore, has no place in the classroom. It doesn't matter if it is a concept in many religions or just one, it is a religious concept and thus has no place in the classroom let alone a science classroom. ID is in direct contradiction to the methods by which many other religions believe the universe to have come about. To teach ID is to promote the religions that believe in ID over all others. It also singles out evolution as more contested than other theories taught in the classroom, when it is in fact less contested than many of the theories that are taught. There is only one difference between evolution and say Newton's laws of motion and that is that Newton's laws of motion aren't viewed as in contradiction to Christian fundamentalist beliefs while evolution is in contradiction. Strangely, the only ones countering evolution are people promoting a fundamentally religious belief.

NOTE: The 'laws' of motion have actually been disproven (they are just close enough in the macro world to make them effective).

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

-Douglas Adams

My favorite part of it all was how the judge called out the school board members who supported ID as lying hypocrites. Lying about motivations for wanting to include ID in school classes while espousing religious veiws. A stroke of brilliance.

Why not teach ID if it is a theory? Evolution is just a theory as well but scientists treat it as fact though they cannot prove it as accurate.

why... I dont understand why people keep taking this stand.. that its a "theory".. Its as though if you repeat the same lie (or ignorance) enough times, it will be true.

It is NOT a scientific theory, for the very reason that it is NOT testable. So it not being related to science in anyway, why would it be included in a science class ?

Evolution btw IS testable. THAT is the difference. You make all Christians look bad pushing this point.

And yes, some "scientists" actually belive this... just as some "historians" belive the holocust didnt occur. Yet, we dont go and include their "ideas" in history class do we.

Yaaay!

And there was much cheering for the end of the madness!

I.D isn't just a Christian concept you know

Considering that it developed completely out of Christian Creationism and essentially all of its propoents are Christian, it's pretty close.

Of course, that it isn't "just Christian" is irrelevant. It is religious, regardless of what religion it is ascribed to.

I.D is a religion?

Yes. It invokes the supernatural - as supernatural creator. Thus, it is religion.

Why not teach ID if it is a theory?

Because it isn't, at least not from a scientific point of view. Evolution is a theory in the way that gravity is a theory. ID, on the other hand, is a theory in the way the Abelardian theory of atonement (that Christ died so that we would turn to him in love and thus be saved by that love) is a theory.

Evolution is just a theory as well but scientists treat it as fact though they cannot prove it as accurate.

There is no "just a theory" in science. Theory is the best you've got.

Meanwhile, I haven't met a single scientist yet that "treats it as fact." Please do point to one.



And, interestingly enough: From the decision itself:
In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe
was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an
evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight
peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook
chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted
that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good
enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).

Wow. (bold for affect)

ID is a theory that scientists (albeit not too many) believe I don't see why it should be rejected in the classroom anymore than evolution I think it would be perfectly sensible to teach them both and let children decide what they want

There are scientists who believe that thing? :eek:

I can't stand the "ID is just a theory like evolution - so why not teach it as an alternative"

ID is NOT a scientific theory.

And the alternative thing? Hell - why not teach Geography as an alternative theory in French class? Because Geography is not French. you teach French in a French class and Geography in a Geography class. So why do these people think you should teach Religion (or at least Philosophy or Mythology) in a Science class?!

There are scientists who believe that thing? :eek:

Well, they call themselves scientists and technically have degrees in it (some of them - some have degrees in philosophy or theology and just talk about how they have a Ph.D. without saying what they got it in).

Of course, I wouldn't define anyone as a scientist that didn't, you know, use the scientific method in their studies. But maybe it's just me.

The "Theory" of Intelligent Design REQUIRES (wait, wait, step back, look again, it REQUIRES) the existence of a higher power, a God or group of Gods, or alien, or group of aliens, or something, to prove it correct. Existence of a god or gods is not part of science, it is part of religion. Existence of aliens which act as a higher power is part of Scientology and various cults.


RELIGION SHOULD NEVER BE ALOUD IN A CLASSROOM
(Unless it's a private school)

and

SCIENTOLOGY SHOULD NEVER BE ALOUD ANYWHERE
(Never.)


Now, the "Theory" of Intelligent Design in my own words: Basically, living things are far too complex to have evolved by chance. Therefore, there must be some sort of higher power, albeit god or aliens or whatever, who designed/guided the evolution of all the world's species.

Please, look it over. If you believe in ID you can't deny that my description sums the "theory" up perfectly well.

Intelligent design CAN NOT be tested. You can't test for a higher power.

Intelligent design CAN NOT be disproved. You can't disprove a higher power. This fact also makes ANY AND ALL evidence against ID completely void if you believe in ID. Convenient for people arguing for it, isn't it?

Intelligent design DOES NOT suggest any experiment to either prove or disprove it, or to elaborate on it. All scientific theories suggest some sort of experiment you can conduct to test the theory. ID does not.

And, one final note... Please don't try to argue for ID by arguing against evolution. That's just ignorant. There is a ridiculous amount of evidence for evolution, more than you would ever be able to find in your lifetime. There are thousands and thousands of scientists all over the world who are testing and studying the modern theory of evolution every day.

Intelligent design is, in my opinion, and probably in fact, complete bullshit made up by some random purpose with the purpose of putting religous ideals in to schools. That hasn't been proven, and may merely be my opinion, but one thing stands true...








INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE, DAMNIT!

Well, they call themselves scientists and technically have degrees in it (some of them - some have degrees in philosophy or theology and just talk about how they have a Ph.D. without saying what they got it in).

Of course, I wouldn't define anyone as a scientist that didn't, you know, use the scientific method in their studies. But maybe it's just me.

Nah, i think that's just us :p
The only name i've heard of is this Baga or Bage guy, but he seems abit of a nut

Perhaps I.D theorists might want to suggest geography classes teach the theory that the world is flat or that maths classes teach that 2+2=5 (but only as a theory so the kids get to decide when they know all the facts). I.D promoters try to pass off their teachings as scientific theory whilst ignoring the fact that the only textbook they wish to draw from is the book of genesis.

ID is a theory that scientists (albeit not too many) believe I don't see why it should be rejected in the classroom anymore than evolution I think it would be perfectly sensible to teach them both and let children decide what they want

I agree with this statement.

Also, why is everyone making a big deal out of something that we all knew was coming?

Perhaps I.D theorists might want to suggest geography classes teach the theory that the world is flat or that maths classes teach that 2+2=5 (but only as a theory so the kids get to decide when they know all the facts). I.D promoters try to pass off their teachings as scientific theory whilst ignoring the fact that the only textbook they wish to draw from is the book of genesis.

I have heard, and I am not putting any stock into this, that by using science, you can prove that 2+2=5.

Again, I'm not putting stock into that but that is what I've heard.

ID is a theory that scientists (albeit not too many) believe I don't see why it should be rejected in the classroom anymore than evolution I think it would be perfectly sensible to teach them both and let children decide what they want
To me, it seems a bit early to teach ID in a science classroom. ID supporters haven't published any peer-reviewed papers in important journals, they haven't ironed the errors out of their theories, and they generally don't provide evidence for ID, just arguments against evolution.

To teach ID now seems to me a bit like teaching any of the other new, untested ideas out there. I think it would be a bad idea to allow ID into science classrooms until they are able to come up with a solid theory.

Of course, whether it is even possible for them to do so is a different matter...

To me, it seems a bit early to teach ID in a science classroom. ID supporters haven't published any peer-reviewed papers in important journals, they haven't ironed the errors out of their theories, and they generally don't provide evidence for ID, just arguments against evolution.

To teach ID now seems to me a bit like teaching any of the other new, untested ideas out there. I think it would be a bad idea to allow ID into science classrooms until they are able to come up with a solid theory.

Of course, whether it is even possible for them to do so is a different matter...

That is the problem. They know it would never survive peer review as they know you can't make arguments based on Faith in science. As such they attack evolution.

They will keep trying in the hopes people will change their minds.

I agree with this statement.

Also, why is everyone making a big deal out of something that we all knew was coming?

What was comming? The new Creationism? Yup we know that and we know that like the clap they will return again.

The new Creationism? Yup we know that and we know that like the clap they will return again.

Perhaps the most apt analogy I've heard all day. Though perhaps I'd compare ID to syphilis, due to the amount of insanity it causes. E-cookie for Black Forrest.

why... I dont understand why people keep taking this stand.. that its a "theory".. Its as though if you repeat the same lie (or ignorance) enough times, it will be true.

It is NOT a scientific theory, for the very reason that it is NOT testable. So it not being related to science in anyway, why would it be included in a science class ?

Evolution btw IS testable. THAT is the difference. You make all Christians look bad pushing this point.

And yes, some "scientists" actually belive this... just as some "historians" belive the holocust didnt occur. Yet, we dont go and include their "ideas" in history class do we.

I see God as something that cannot be proven or disproven. Does he exist or doesn't he? No proof either way. Evolution is the same with scientists coming up with theories then putting supposition in to fill the holes. I really don't see how you can test evolution without a time machine to see species evolving. Which is why it will (for now at least) remain the "theory of evolution".

I see God as something that cannot be proven or disproven. Does he exist or doesn't he? No proof either way. Evolution is the same with scientists coming up with theories then putting supposition in to fill the holes. I really don't see how you can test evolution without a time machine to see species evolving. Which is why it will (for now at least) remain the "theory of evolution".

...or you could test it by observing evolution occuring right now. Bacteria and antibiotic resistance are good, and I believe that there are also some microorganisms (new species) that have evolved very recently to digest synthetic stuff like nylon and TNT, which is extremely clear evidence. Also, evolution can be "tested" by making predictions about the fossil record. Which have been confirmed, by the way. Also, your last sentence there demonstrates the all-too-common error of misunderstanding what "theory" means to scientists. This has been amply covered all over the place by tons of people, so I won't go into it.

Evolution wouldn't pass it's own tests if it had to be approved by the standard they use for all other theories today.

The theory of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the fundamental evolutionary machinery. But the theory itself is not a scientific principle, since fitness is the definition or the equivalent to survival. Meaning, we have a case of circular logic; no predictive value can be tested with the concept.

According to this thought the individual organisms that have survived through the ages have by ‘default’ passed the evolutionary testing process, stating that they have survived simply because they are better fit, and thus, the way one tells it, the proof that they are better fit is that they survived.

Without proof of survival we have not predicted, neither yeah or nay for any species, and the theory continues without solidifying itself despite what species survive and which do not. Neither proving nor falsifiable, the theory continues regardless of the result of the research.

In the end, the principle of survival of the fittest isn’t falsifiable by nature or concept and by becoming unfalsifiable it becomes a tautology, irrefutable, but still not proven and certainly not science.

Neither does the theory of “survival of the fittest” itself, inevitably imply any need for the theory of evolution? Would not the fittest survive whether they evolved or were created by any other means equally? The all-powerful “natural selection" philosophy is so inundated in science classes today that one is forced to wonder if there is any difference in this kind of explanation as compared to that of all the religious fundamentalists that the evolutionist so deride.

Which is why it will (for now at least) remain the "theory of evolution".

When was the last time you saw a law created?

You won't as they are not absolute.

Again, you don't understand science if you view it as "just a theory"

...or you could test it by observing evolution occuring right now. Bacteria and antibiotic resistance are good, and I believe that there are also some microorganisms (new species) that have evolved very recently to digest synthetic stuff like nylon and TNT, which is extremely clear evidence. Also, evolution can be "tested" by making predictions about the fossil record. Which have been confirmed, by the way. Also, your last sentence there demonstrates the all-too-common error of misunderstanding what "theory" means to scientists. This has been amply covered all over the place by tons of people, so I won't go into it.

Being scientists they will always put qualifiers in any findings and it will be hard to get any 100% agreement that, there is no God we have all formed out of millions and millions of years of development. Maybe God created and then left us alone to evolve?

Maybe God created and then left us alone to evolve?
I suppose its possible, but there's no positive evidence for it. So why make that assumption when we have an explanation that doesn't involve the supernatural but functions just as well to explain the whole thing?

If you are still going to argue that ID should be taught in schools, then you had better be prepared to read (gasp!) and point out the flaws in the US District Court's opinion.

Here is a link (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf). It is 139 pages of well-thought out discussion. It is the result of litigation that began in 1994 and a trial that lasted from September 26, 2005to November 4, 2005. Unless you can explain where the Court erred, you are just pissing in the wind.

Evolution wouldn't pass it's own tests if it had to be approved by the standard they use for all other theories today.

The theory of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the fundamental evolutionary machinery. The theory is not itself a scientific principle, since fitness is equivalent to survival. Meaning, we have a case of circular logic; no predictive value can be tested with it.

Amusing. Um, survival of the fittest is a name for the natural force that says that creatures mutate (have small changes) that either better suit them to their environment or make them less suited to the environment and the creature best suited to the environment survives. It's not an argument, it's an observed phenomena. That observed phenomena is used to explain evolution. As you correctly pointed out, it is a basis for the theory. Scientific theory is based on observed phenomena. Survival of the fittest is the observed phenomena.

According to this thought the individual organisms that have survived through the ages have be ‘default’ passed the evolutionary process, stating that they have survived simply because they are better fit, and thus, the way one tells they are better fit is that they survived. Without proof of survival we have not predicted, neither yeah or nah, and the theory continues without solidifying itself. Neither provable nor falsifiable.

No, we examine the process of evolution to see if there is some other observable process also involved in the process. We have already observed that the phenomena we call survival of the fittest is involved in evolution.

In the end, the principle of survival of the fittest isn’t falsifiable by nature or concept and by becoming unfalsifiable it becomes a tautology, irrefutable, but still not proven.

Absolutely true, if one were to redefine survival of the fittest to be a conclusion rather than an observed phenomena. As it is observed and it's just a succinct method of describing the observed phenemona, it's only necessary that the mechanism it describes occurs. It does. Your description practically makes it a truism.

Neither does the theory of “survival of the fittest” itself, inevitably imply any need for the theory of evolution? Would not the fittest survive whether they evolved or were created by any other means equally? The all-powerful “natural selection" philosophy is so inundated in science classes today that one is forced to wonder if there is any difference in this kind of explanation as compared to that of all the religious fundamentalists that the evolutionist so deride.
Natural selection is a mechanism. It's not the theory itself. You argue as if the natural selection mechanism is the only aspect of the theory that is tested. Other aspects of the theory that have been tested is that populations of organisms will change over time due to changes in the environment. It's not a guess. It's been observed. Those observations have led to many other relavant and related theories that also held up against investigation.

I suppose its possible, but there's no positive evidence for it. So why make that assumption when we have an explanation that doesn't involve the supernatural but functions just as well to explain the whole thing?

Since God cannot be tested this is where people with religion have to depend on faith. Not that it really matters as even if God was proven absolutely to exist, ID could not be taught as it is religous thus violating seperation of church and state and this won't change. It is not going to change thinking it will is delusional like people thinking Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Both WILL NOT HAPPEN!

I see God as something that cannot be proven or disproven. Does he exist or doesn't he? No proof either way. Evolution is the same with scientists coming up with theories then putting supposition in to fill the holes. I really don't see how you can test evolution without a time machine to see species evolving. Which is why it will (for now at least) remain the "theory of evolution".

Evolution is a ongoing mechanism that we can observe today, much like gravity and motion. We assume that because it exists today that the laws of nature were the same yesterday and the day before. You don't seem to have any difficulty with this being true of motion and gravity, why is it so difficult to accept this as true with evolution?

Unless of course your referring to abiogenesis (the origin of life) which we cannot directly observe but we can postulate on using indirect observation, much like we do with subatomic particles.

I will ignore your attempt to relate a scientific theory to a lay theory. It is still the theory of gravity. The reference to theory really has little to do with whether or not it has a lot of support.

Since God cannot be tested this is where people with religion have to depend on faith. Not that it really matters as even if God was proven absolutely to exist, ID could not be taught as it is religous thus violating seperation of church and state and this won't change. It is not going to change thinking it will is delusional like people thinking Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Both WILL NOT HAPPEN!
I'm not making a statement that you can't believe that if you want, I'm just saying that there isn't any evidence, so from a purely logical standpoint the simpler explanation is just to cut God out of the whole thing and rely on naturalistic explanations until we run into something that can't be explained that way. Occam's Razor, hard at work there. But by all means, believe what you want if it makes you more comfortable. Just don't (as you correctly pointed out there) teach it in my public schools.

Amusing. Um, survival of the fittest is a name for the natural force that says that creatures mutate (have small changes) that either better suit them to their environment or make them less suited to the environment and the creature best suited to the environment survives. It's not an argument, it's an observed phenomena. That observed phenomena is used to explain evolution. As you correctly pointed out, it is a basis for the theory. Scientific theory is based on observed phenomena. Survival of the fittest is the observed phenomena.

No. Survival is the observed phenomena, 'fittest' is the theory. The theory says they are the fittest because they survived. No irrefutable evidence is presented, falsifiable evidence is impossible. Thus, not a scientific excercise.

No, we examine the process of evolution to see if there is some other observable process also involved in the process. We have already observed that the phenomena we call survival of the fittest is involved in evolution.

Again, no. Anything that survives, according to the theory, is the fittest, period, nothing else can happen. You have not observed 'fittest' you have only observed 'survival.'


Natural selection is a mechanism. It's not the theory itself. You argue as if the natural selection mechanism is the only aspect of the theory that is tested. Other aspects of the theory that have been tested is that populations of organisms will change over time due to changes in the environment. It's not a guess. It's been observed. Those observations have led to many other relavant and related theories that also held up against investigation.

You are confusing the evidence with the theory. The theory IS natural selection. Period. Not the ability to change, the ability to change is the evidence, not the theory.

If you are still going to argue that ID should be taught in schools, then you had better be prepared to read (gasp!) and point out the flaws in the US District Court's opinion.

Here is a link (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf). It is 139 pages of well-thought out discussion. It is the result of litigation that began in 1994 and a trial that lasted from September 26, 2005to November 4, 2005. Unless you can explain where the Court erred, you are just pissing in the wind.

The flaw (although I'm not a big ID fan) is that the judge 'assumes' an air of trial of a religious belief in a public school. The 'proof' that ID is in fact a religious belief is not proven. By section C of the ruling Judge Jones is already judging a first amendment separation case, assuming ID a religious doctrine and never trying it as a scientific theory (neither am I, just pointing out how the judge was wrong in his ruling and may be over-turned by a higher court later).

Again, no. Anything that survives, according to the theory, is the fittest, period, nothing else can happen. You have not observed 'fittest' you have only observed 'survival.'
Strong Lion Cub - survives.
Weak Lion Cub - dies.

Voila, I observed the survival of the fittest in practice.

I'm not making a statement that you can't believe that if you want, I'm just saying that there isn't any evidence, so from a purely logical standpoint the simpler explanation is just to cut God out of the whole thing and rely on naturalistic explanations until we run into something that can't be explained that way. Occam's Razor, hard at work there. But by all means, believe what you want if it makes you more comfortable. Just don't (as you correctly pointed out there) teach it in my public schools.

Hey, people like to think outside what could be considered rational. If you hear hoofbeats and want to think zebra instead of horse then what the hell right? Religion cannot be taught in public schools but since evolution isn't proven without a doubt yet it would be good if teachers would at least keep that in mind. I once had a proffesor who openly scoffed at the idea of religon and that shouldn't be tolerated either.

No. Survival is the observed phenomena, 'fittest' is the theory. The theory says they are the fittest because they survived. No irrefutable evidence is presented, falsifiable evidence is impossible. Thus, not a scientific excercise.


No you don't understand. Fitness is only a small part of the equation.

Take a look at Cycle Cell. Would you call that a benefit? Did you know it is if you live in Malaria ridden areas?

Fitness is not a factor. Why did we dominate? A lion, tiger or bear OH MY! could kick our ass if we fought without weapons.


Again, no. Anything that survives, according to the theory, is the fittest, period, nothing else can happen. You have not observed 'fittest' you have only observed 'survival.'


No sorry wrong. The Neaderthal was way more tougher then we were and yet they are gone.


You are confusing the evidence with the theory. The theory IS natural selection. Period. Not the ability to change, the ability to change is the evidence, not the theory.

Actually Jocabia is correct.

Have you ever taken a class in Biology or physical anthropology?

Why not teach ID if it is a theory? Evolution is just a theory as well but scientists treat it as fact though they cannot prove it as accurate.


Hey Smart One you know what else is a theory?

THE FUCKING THEORY OF GRAVITY
EVER HEAR OF IT

Its like saying magical strings run to every person in the world to hold them on, thats my theory, lets call it lord rob's theory.
NOW LETS TEACH IT IN A FUCKING SCIENCE CLASS

This doesnt work because it has no evidence backing it

On the other hand evolution does. - like gravity it is a theory, but a mostly proven one.
Ever hear of DNA

The flaw (although I'm not a big ID fan) is that the judge 'assumes' an air of trial of a religious belief in a public school. The 'proof' that ID is in fact a religious belief is not proven. By section C of the ruling Judge Jones is already judging a first amendment separation case, assuming ID a religious doctrine and never trying it as a scientific theory (neither am I, just pointing out how the judge was wrong in his ruling and may be over-turned by a higher court later).

He doesn't need to. How do you test for the existence or non-existence of God?

Strong Lion Cub - survives.
Weak Lion Cub - dies.

Voila, I observed the survival of the fittest in practice.

No you didn't. Strong lion cub gets eaten by the hyena because he was wandering around... sickly lion cub was hanging out by Mom because he was too weak to want to wander around... weak genes passed to next generation.

You observed survival and 'quantified' for yourself 'fittest' as your rationale for why one survives and not the other.

No. Survival is the observed phenomena, 'fittest' is the theory. The theory says they are the fittest because they survived. No irrefutable evidence is presented, falsifiable evidence is impossible. Thus, not a scientific excercise.

Again, no. Anything that survives, according to the theory, is the fittest, period, nothing else can happen. You have not observed 'fittest' you have only observed 'survival.'

Yes, we observe survival, and we call those that survive the "fittest". That is then used as the mechanism behind the theory of evolution.

The meat of the theory is the part that states that this mechanism ("survival of the fittest") is responsible for species as a whole changing over time.


You are confusing the evidence with the theory. The theory IS natural selection. Period. Not the ability to change, the ability to change is the evidence, not the theory.

The "theory" part of it is the part that states that this mechanism ("survival of the fittest") is responsible for changes in species...

He doesn't need to. How do you test for the existence or non-existence of God?

He does need to because the accusation 'may be' false.

Yes, we observe survival, and we call those that survive the "fittest". That is then used as the mechanism behind the theory of evolution.

The meat of the theory is the part that states that this mechanism ("survival of the fittest") is responsible for species as a whole changing over time.


The "theory" part of it is the part that states that this mechanism ("survival of the fittest") is responsible for changes in species...


Yes, exactly. And as such, it is unfalsifiable.

Hey Smart One you know what else is a theory?

THE FUCKING THEORY OF GRAVITY
EVER HEAR OF IT

Yeah, I wasn't thinking of that but that point has been made already so fuck you very much.

The flaw (although I'm not a big ID fan) is that the judge 'assumes' an air of trial of a religious belief in a public school. The 'proof' that ID is in fact a religious belief is not proven. By section C of the ruling Judge Jones is already judging a first amendment separation case, assuming ID a religious doctrine and never trying it as a scientific theory (neither am I, just pointing out how the judge was wrong in his ruling and may be over-turned by a higher court later).

Try actually reading the opinion.

The judge does not assume that ID is a religious belief. He spends the bulk of the opinion explaining why it is a religious belief. For example:

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).

In other words in just this one paragraph of the 139 pages, the Judge shows how the defenses' own witnesses admitted that ID was a religious theory.

He does need to because the accusation 'may be' false.

Well the main forces of ID are 3 christians(2 hard core) and one moonie. Dembski is an orthodox Christian. I don't know of any Orthodox types that would even consider an idea that God was not involved.

The fact they won't confess that Religion is the motivation does not exlcude the chance it is...

But lets take their arguement

Who or what is the intelligent designer? How do you test for him or let alone his involvment in a "design"

You can't prove or disprove it. Not Science.....

it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).[/INDENT]

In other words in just this one paragraph of the 139 pages, the Judge shows how the defenses' own witnesses admitted that ID was a religious theory.

Behe admitted it? I have been lax in my followings. I have been meaning to get the Pandas book for awhile.

Thanks for the link. I have been meaning to get a copy. Just too busy these days......

The talkOrigins FAQ actually has an in-depth answer to this very criticism! I shall put parts of it here. It also has references, if you're interested in following them.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html :

"The simple version of the so-called 'tautology argument' is this:

Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. Therefore, evolution by natural selection is a tautology (a circular definition).

The real significance of this argument is not the argument itself, but that it was taken seriously by any professional philosophers at all. 'Fitness' to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population. This is not a tautology, or, if it is, then so is the Newtonian equation F=ma, which is the basis for a lot of ordinary physical explanation.

However, there is another, more sophisticated version, due mainly to Karl Popper. According to Popper, any situation where species exist is compatible with Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.

This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since. Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps. It rules out new species being established without ancestral species.

All of these hypotheses are more or less testable, and conform to the standards of science. The answer to this version of the argument is the same as to the simplistic version - adaptation is not just defined in terms of what survives. There needs to be a causal story available to make sense of adaptation (which is why mimicry in butterflies was such a focal debate in the teens and twenties). Adaptation is a functional notion, not a logical or semantic a priori definition, despite what Popper thought."

Different way of looking at it.

...I prefer to not bother quibbling about the semantics of what fittest or adaptation means, because they're not, in my mind, anything more than the mechanism of the theory - "survival of the fittest" is the mechanism by which gradual change of a species' genome is accomplished. So unless you think that the claim that species change over time is a tautology, the theory of evolution is pretty clearly not a tautology.

No you don't understand. Fitness is only a small part of the equation.

Take a look at Cycle Cell. Would you call that a benefit? Did you know it is if you live in Malaria ridden areas?

Fitness is not a factor. Why did we dominate? A lion, tiger or bear OH MY! could kick our ass if we fought without weapons.

You misunderstand the theory. Fittest is the winner. Fittest might be 'better suited.' Whoever the survivor is, is the most fit.


No sorry wrong. The Neaderthal was way more tougher then we were and yet they are gone.

The theory would say, 'smarter' makes fittest. We were better and more fit because we were ‘smarter’ than the Neanderthals, or so the theory would have us believe… Of course, the same theory would then apply to explain why Europeans beat out the native Americans (north and south) as well. (I myself don’t buy it though, ‘fittest’ is a theory that doesn’t believe in the lucky draw).


Actually Jocabia is correct.

Have you ever taken a class in Biology or physical anthropology?

Actually, you are both wrong, have YOU taken the classes?

Actually, you are both wrong, have YOU taken the classes?

Primatologist my boy. Taken more then a few.

But hey if you think you are right. Kuddos to you.

I will let the others try and teach you....

-edit-

Re-read this a few dozen times. He has summed this up quite well:

"I prefer to not bother quibbling about the semantics of what fittest or adaptation means, because they're not, in my mind, anything more than the mechanism of the theory - "survival of the fittest" is the mechanism by which gradual change of a species' genome is accomplished. So unless you think that the claim that species change over time is a tautology, the theory of evolution is pretty clearly not a tautology."

No you didn't. Strong lion cub gets eaten by the hyena because he was wandering around... sickly lion cub was hanging out by Mom because he was too weak to want to wander around... weak genes passed to next generation.
This, class, is what we call an "anomaly" in a theory. Every theory has at least one anomaly, even the theories of gravity or quantum mechanics.

So what were you saying about not taking classes?

*snip*
So unless you think that the claim that species change over time is a tautology, the theory of evolution is pretty clearly not a tautology.

No, changing of species over time can be explained by other theories as well as evolution, thus, the rationale of explaining 'why' change is being seen is being attacked, not the changing in and of itself.

This, class, is what we call an "anomaly" in a theory. Every theory has at least one anomaly, even the theories of gravity or quantum mechanics.

So what were you saying about not taking classes?

There is no anomaly at all in that evidence at all. In fact, I'd wager is was as often true as not. Let's see some of your evidence to the contrary.

No. Survival is the observed phenomena, 'fittest' is the theory. The theory says they are the fittest because they survived. No irrefutable evidence is presented, falsifiable evidence is impossible. Thus, not a scientific excercise.

Really? Didn't you just say that fitness was defined as survival? How can you claim fitness, by how it is defined in the mechanism, cannot be observed when you claimed it is equivalent to the observed phenomena.

You are redefining the observed phenomena to dispute it. I told you exactly what the observed phenomena is that we call survival of the fittest. It is has been observed over and over. You've done nothing to dispute the point except redefine what is observed and what is a theory. Survival of the fittest is the term that describes what we now observe to occur.

Again, no. Anything that survives, according to the theory, is the fittest, period, nothing else can happen. You have not observed 'fittest' you have only observed 'survival.'

You just defined survival of the fittest as a truism (because it was defined that way) when a minute ago you claimed it was a theory. A little silly, no?

That's not the whole theory. You are only talking about the description of the observed phenomena, that's why it seems circular. It's like saying that because I call a two dimensional shape with four equal sides that for a box a square and then use a square in a geometric argument that it is a circular argument because I defined what shape a square represents. Survival of the fittest is simply the name of the observed phenomena.

You are confusing the evidence with the theory. The theory IS natural selection. Period. Not the ability to change, the ability to change is the evidence, not the theory.

The theory of evolution is the change. Evolution is the change. it's the theory. The theory is that through natural selection and mutation that a population of a species will slowly adapt to the environment. A change in the evironment, changes the adaptations. That's the theory. Natural selection IS NOT the theory. It's the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

You are confusing the observed phenomena on which the theory is based with the theory. The is a reason it's called the theory of evolution and not the theory of survival of the fittest. I understand your confusion though, because initially Darwin had to show that he was observing survival of the fittest. Not all observable phenomena is obvious or direct. Some of it requires us to collect data to show the phenomena. Theories are used to predict other phenomena. Then we find ways to observe or support that phenomena. Survival of the fittest is no longer predicted phenomena, it is observed phenomena. It doesn't require support. It can be observed, particularly because as you pointed out it's virtually a truism, which is what leads you to claim it's circular logic.

No, changing of species over time can be explained by other theories as well as evolution, thus, the rationale of explaining 'why' change is being seen is being attacked, not the changing in and of itself.

You don't actually know very much about ID theory or evolution, do you?

No, changing of species over time can be explained by other theories as well as evolution, thus, the rationale of explaining 'why' change is being seen is being attacked, not the changing in and of itself.

What other testable theory can explain the changing of species over time? Now remember that a theory requires two things, that the mechanism be observed either directly or indirectly and that it be based on an observed phenomena.

No, changing of species over time can be explained by other theories as well as evolution, thus, the rationale of explaining 'why' change is being seen is being attacked, not the changing in and of itself.

Lets turn this around.

You seem to be a fan of things that are actually observed instead of theorised. You seem to agree that at least *some key parts* of the theory of evolution have indeed been observed.

Now - please tell me which key parts of Intelligent Design have been observed/shown/proven. Give me some irrefutable examples of irreducable complexity for instance; and demonstrate why irreducible complexity indeed supports the ID notion. Do not attack evolution, but actually make a case for ID.

Try actually reading the opinion.

Try not actually being a condescending prick when you type... :rolleyes:

In other words in just this one paragraph of the 139 pages, the Judge shows how the defenses' own witnesses admitted that ID was a religious theory.

In other words, in just one paragraph, he proved that the witnesses in the case were relgious people with religious motivations pretending to be people they were not... He spend the 'bulk' of his ruling saying why it can't be allowed because it's religious...

Now what exactly did he say about the theory of ID? Nothing meaningful. When did he show that any accepted by the government religious sect today believes and preaches ID? That some things are too complicated to be easily explained by 'random mutation and survival of the fittest?' But by declaring the theory religious, he then can reference 'creationist' theories of the past.

Different witnesses produce different results. Witnesses in this case were called liars (and probably correctly so). Doesn't say a thing about the ID theory itself, just their motivation for using it.

What other testable theory can explain the changing of species over time? Now remember that a theory requires two things, that the mechanism be observed either directly or indirectly and that it be based on an observed phenomena.

Why does it need to be testable? Survival of the fittest isn't testable.

You misunderstand the theory. Fittest is the winner. Fittest might be 'better suited.' Whoever the survivor is, is the most fit.

Yes, more evidence it is a description of an observed phenomena and not the theory itself. Maybe we should just let you make the arguments for us.

The theory would say, 'smarter' makes fittest. We were better and more fit because we were ‘smarter’ than the Neanderthals, or so the theory would have us believe… Of course, the same theory would then apply to explain why Europeans beat out the native Americans (north and south) as well. (I myself don’t buy it though, ‘fittest’ is a theory that doesn’t believe in the lucky draw).

No, it does. it simply doesn't believe that over the course of an entire population that luck is the only factor. Technically, mutation is reliant on luck to a degree. Survival of the fittest is simply the phenomena that describes what is actually lucky. For example, if you were starving to death if you and a buddy were looking for food and all you can find is an apple orchard. One of you is unlucky enough to happen to be allergic to apples and one of you is not. Having that mutation is lucky or having an advantageous mutation is lucky (except when the population is large enough and there are enough species, it's no longer lucky, but rather probable), however which mutation can be called 'lucky' is determined by the environment. Having the 'lucky' trait is described as fittest and it causes you to survive.

Actually, you are both wrong, have YOU taken the classes?
Oh, well, you said we're wrong so we must be. Would you care to find some scientific texts that support your claims of what the theory of evolution is?

Try not actually being a condescending prick when you type... :rolleyes:

In other words, in just one paragraph, he proved that the witnesses in the case were relgious people with religious motivations pretending to be people they were not... He spend the 'bulk' of his ruling saying why it can't be allowed because it's religious...

Now what exactly did he say about the theory of ID? Nothing meaningful. When did he show that any accepted by the government religious sect today believes and preaches ID? That some things are too complicated to be easily explained by 'random mutation and survival of the fittest?' But by declaring the theory religious, he then can reference 'creationist' theories of the past.

Different witnesses produce different results. Witnesses in this case were called liars (and probably correctly so). Doesn't say a thing about the ID theory itself, just their motivation for using it.

Speaking of condescending pricks, you still haven't read the opinion you are saying was wrong -- have you? That takes some chutzpah.

Wouldn't it be ironic if man was not evolved or created by "God". However we were some "Alien" enginered being. Of course we would only find this out after we found the evidence under the face of Mars.

You don't actually know very much about ID theory or evolution, do you?

Speaking of condescending pricks, you still haven't read the opinion you are saying was wrong -- have you? That takes some chutzpah.


You don't know much about actually weighing of evidence do you? You know, actually presenting evidence supporting why you believe what you believe, it would be helpful, rather than just being a pompous prick and a condescending jerk because some people might actually have the audacity to see things outside of your little self described box of what is acceptable human viewpoints :rolleyes:

You don't know much about actually weighing of evidence do you? You know, actually presenting evidence supporting why you believe what you believe, it would be helpful, rather than just being a pompous prick and a condescending jerk because some people might actually have the audacity to see things outside of your little self described box of what is acceptable human viewpoints :rolleyes:

*Points at his earlier post in this topic*

Preacher, practice what you preach. Give some evidence in favour of other hypotheses, do not just attack the established one.

Why does it need to be testable? Survival of the fittest isn't testable.

It's observed. You described as a truism. Do all creatures survive? No. Do all species survive? No. Do all traits of a species survive? No. Do some creatures survive? Yes. Do some species survive? Yes. Do some traits of a species survive? Yes. All of these things have been observed. We call the things that creatures, species and triats that survive as fittest. That's why you complain that it's circular logic. Thus observation of the environmental factors described ARE the evidence. What would make it falsifiable and testable is that it's technically possible that ALL things survive and ALL traits survive and thus fitness doesn't matter. However, that would require that what we have observed is not true.

You don't know much about actually weighing of evidence do you? You know, actually presenting evidence supporting why you believe what you believe, it would be helpful, rather than just being a pompous prick and a condescending jerk because some people might actually have the audacity to see things outside of your little self described box of what is acceptable human viewpoints :rolleyes:

Gee. You didn't answer the questions. Instead, you turn to flaming -- or perhaps that is an answer.

No, it does. it simply doesn't believe that over the course of an entire population that luck is the only factor. Technically, mutation is reliant on luck to a degree. Survival of the fittest is simply the phenomena that describes what is actually lucky. For example, if you were starving to death if you and a buddy were looking for food and all you can find is an apple orchard. One of you is unlucky enough to happen to be allergic to apples and one of you is not. Having that mutation is lucky or having an advantageous mutation is lucky (except when the population is large enough and there are enough species, it's no longer lucky, but rather probable), however which mutation can be called 'lucky' is determined by the environment. Having the 'lucky' trait is described as fittest and it causes you to survive.

That's the theory. Now how is it falsifiable...

Gee. You didn't answer the questions. Instead, you turn to flaming -- or perhaps that is an answer.

You flamed condescending crap shit and then bitch that I reply in kind? :rolleyes: What a ninny

You flamed condescending crap shit and then bitch that I reply in kind? :rolleyes: What a ninny

Again, you don't answer the questions. I didn't name call or flame. You are.

Do you really want another forum ban?

EDIT: In a thread expressly about a court decision, referring to the actual decision is hardly "crap shit."

That's the theory. Now how is it falsifiable...

No... that's the mechanism of Evolution theory.

*Points at his earlier post in this topic*

Preacher, practice what you preach. Give some evidence in favour of other hypotheses, do not just attack the established one.

No need. No theory passes the test. Including Evolution (yet, if ever, who knows)

Wouldn't it be ironic if man was not evolved or created by "God". However we were some "Alien" enginered being. Of course we would only find this out after we found the evidence under the face of Mars.

Somebody read the Martian Chronicles! ;)

You don't know much about actually weighing of evidence do you? You know, actually presenting evidence supporting why you believe what you believe, it would be helpful, rather than just being a pompous prick and a condescending jerk because some people might actually have the audacity to see things outside of your little self described box of what is acceptable human viewpoints :rolleyes:

You made the assertion that the judge did not show that the theory was religious and that he did not show that it was unscientific, but if you have not read the decision, how do you make this assertion? Why do you require someone else to show it to you?

It refers to an unobservable intelligent designer that makes it both in the realm of religion (reliant on faith) and outside of the realm of science (in a nutshell). And, yes, some Christian churches now preach that Intelligent Design is the marriage of Creation and the evidence available in the world, which of course is accurate. Unfortunately, the Creation aspects of it are what make it religious and unscientific. Would you like me to point to some of the churches that preach such things?

No need. No theory passes the test. Including Evolution (yet, if ever, who knows)

So, you cannot offer any evidence to support ID, but it should be taught in our schools?

Again, you don't answer the questions. I didn't name call or flame. You are.

Do you really want another forum ban?

EDIT: In a thread expressly about a court decision, referring to the actual decision is hardly "crap shit."

Are you a mod? Do they like it when people threaten other people with moderation? Did I or did I not quote your condescending pretend question posts? Why yes, yes I did.

So, you cannot offer any evidence to support ID, but it should be taught in our schools?

Where's your evidence that Evolution and be falsified? It's taught in schools anyway (as well it should be).

The theory would say, 'smarter' makes fittest. We were better and more fit because we were ‘smarter’ than the Neanderthals, or so the theory would have us believe.

I forgot to comment on this.

Intelligence may not have been a factor in their demise.

Their cranial capacity on the average was much larger then ours.

Are you a mod? Do they like it when people threaten other people with moderation? Did I or did I not quote your condescending pretend question posts? Why yes, yes I did.

Quoting a question does not mean you answered it.

Just admit you didn't read the opinion. I'm probably the only one in the thread that has -- and I'd admit I skimmed much of it.

Similarly, rather than try to rely on name-calling, try producing some evidence that (a) ID is a valid theory and (b) ID is not religious.

Where's your evidence that Evolution and be falsified? It's taught in schools anyway (as well it should be).

Evolutional theory is not asking for acceptance.

You want legitimacy, then prove your arguments.

Why does it need to be testable? Survival of the fittest isn't testable.

well yes, actually, it is.

it's very simple: create a bacterial growth medium that's, say, very high in sugar. put some bacteria in that have a low tolerance for sugar, and the same number of bacteria that eat it up like hot cakes.

Go home.

Return in the morning and count the bacteria.

admit you're wrong.

Quoting a question does not mean you answered it.

Just admit you didn't read the opinion. I'm probably the only one in the thread that has -- and I'd admit I skimmed much of it.

Similarly, rather than try to rely on name-calling, try producing some evidence that (a) ID is a valid theory and (b) ID is not religious.

I skimmed most of it after the first dozen pages because it so quickly got to the religious arguments for why it can’t be allowed... As I already stated.

As to the ID being a valid theory, my point, since my first post in this thread, is that by the definition required as proof, evolution itself could not be taught if it was a new theory today because it too is not falsifiable (among other things).

I don't need to defend ID to prove that no theory would qualify by the standards required of ID.

That's the theory. Now how is it falsifiable...

That is not the theory. That's the observed phenomena. It's observed and I also showed how that phenomena could be falsified by it would require that which we observe to be found to be inaccurate somehow.

Changing of a population over time. Has since been observed. Could be falsified if it was showed that populations do not, in fact, change over time, but just appear to. NOTE: appearing to be true, but not being true is what happened to the Laws of motion.

Mutation. If it was shown that mutations to not occur and get selected it would be falsified. However, this has also been observed. It can still be falsified if it is found that it only appears to be true and not is true.

Fitness. If it was showed that every part of the population survives, then fitness would be found to be falsified (or moreso the factor it describes would be found to not exist). Of course, support for fitness has been observed (in fact, as you pointed out it was defined to describe what is observed. You called that circular logic.), but it is possible again to find that what we believe we have observed is not actually what occurs.

I skimmed most of it after the first dozen pages.

See was that so hard?

because it so quickly got to the religious arguments for why it can’t be allowed... As I already stated.

Um. You did see the long discussions of the evidence proving it was religion, right?

The whole question before the Court was whether teaching ID violated the Establishment Clause. Of course that is what the opinion discusses.

As to the ID being a valid theory, my point, since my first post in this thread, is that by the definition required as proof, evolution itself could not be taught if it was a new theory today because it too is not falsifiable (among other things).

I don't need to defend ID to prove that no theory would qualify by the standards required of ID.


I notice you don't deny that ID is a religious theory.

Where's your evidence that Evolution and be falsified? It's taught in schools anyway (as well it should be).

I'll start with the last 150 years of evolutionary science. Over that span, scientists have again and again encountered observed phenomena that did not exactly match predictions of the existing theory, and so the theory was refined to match the actual physical realities of the universe.

ID, on the other hand, has existed without change for roughly a millenia, and today doesn't even exist asa theory as such, but instead as a poorly constructed objection to contemporary evolutionary theory which, as noted, will change with time.

ID doesn't even have the balls to admit when their objections are shown to be bollocks. The "Irreducible compexity" argument, for example, is not only a facile argument, it is also in direct opposition to observed fact. The "eye" for example, exists in a multitude of forms of varying complexity, even today, making the construction of its possible evolutionary history an actually quite simple process.

Ultimately, however, your claim amounts to "evolution isn't science." And frankly, I think you need to provide more evidence for that argument than your dishonest re-defining of scientific terms to suit your semantic needs. In light of the fact that the entire scientific community does consider evolution a scientific theory, your tortured pseudo-logical constructs aren't just disingenuous, they're downright tedious.

No you didn't. Strong lion cub gets eaten by the hyena because he was wandering around... sickly lion cub was hanging out by Mom because he was too weak to want to wander around... weak genes passed to next generation.

You observed survival and 'quantified' for yourself 'fittest' as your rationale for why one survives and not the other.

Survival of the fittest is a trend not a singular event. And if the 'strong' lion cub was actually not suited to remaining in safety until it was prepared to defend itself in the world, then it is in fact less fit. Survival of the fittest does not address the creature that happens to get hit by an asteroid. The reason for this is that over time asteroids are not a factor that affect the population. Again, it doesn't discount lucky it just doesn't consider it to be a significant factor.


If there were a regular asteroid events that made them a factor however the theory of evolution would predict that over time the population would evolve to have some tend towards some sort of protection, for example becoming subterranean or spending more time under the protection of a shelter, etc.

I skimmed most of it after the first dozen pages because it so quickly got to the religious arguments for why it can’t be allowed... As I already stated.

As to the ID being a valid theory, my point, since my first post in this thread, is that by the definition required as proof, evolution itself could not be taught if it was a new theory today because it too is not falsifiable (among other things).

I don't need to defend ID to prove that no theory would qualify by the standards required of ID.

No you don't. But you do need to provide some evidence for your positive statement about the nature of science itself. Your annoying decision to re-define evolution and natural selection (*not* survival of the fittest, which is a fairly archaic phrase at this point) as you see fit aside, the ACTUAL argument about ID science vs non-science.

ID is simply not science because science is about the natural world, and ID is about the extra-natural causes of that natural world.

If you want to start another thread proposing that 99% of scientists are wrong in calling evolution a scientific theory, that'd be great, and I'd be happy to watch another slew of people prove you wrong while you doggedly refuse to cease repeating the same phrases over and over as if sheer force of will could make your position true, but in this context, the comparison and contrast between ID and Evolution's adhering to scientific standards is not only apt, it's spot-on.

Survival of the fittest is a trend not a singular event. And if the 'strong' lion cub was actually not suited to remaining in safety until it was prepared to defend itself in the world, then it is in fact less fit. Survival of the fittest does not address the creature that happens to get hit by an asteroid. The reason for this is that over time asteroids are not a factor that affect the population. Again, it doesn't discount lucky it just doesn't consider it to be a significant factor.


If there were a regular asteroid events that made them a factor however the theory of evolution would predict that over time the population would evolve to have some tend towards some sort of protection, for example becoming subterranean or spending more time under the protection of a shelter, etc.

not exactly. Proponents of the "puntuated equilibrium" theory claim that catastrophic natural events have a profound effect on evolutionary history that actually, after a fashion, "reset" the clock periodically, allowing sudden explosions of biological diversity disconnected from the slower forces of natural selection.

There are numerous, interesting, competing arguments about what the most dominant forces producing evolution are, and supporters of the FACT that life evolves should get backed into defending equating defending single mechanisms of change with defending the overriding theory.

As far as ID goes, now that the religious have already lost the battle fought in the Scopes trial, they've moved on to demanding that scientists at least acknowledge "god" is in there somewhere - i.e. they now claim to believe in some historical biological change, but insist that at some points, science can't explain thing x, and then they jump up and down jibbering "GOD GOD GOD."

Fine.

If it's all the same, however, I'll just let the scientists keep looking.

@Greenlander:

You are making several mistakes that just about every ID proponent seems to make.

You don't know what theory means for science and assume the layman term which boils down to making wild unsupported guesses.
This is not scientific theory, you cannot get to theory status unless you present observations and a hypothesis of how it fits together. Then both the observations and your hypothesis need to survive peer review (and this is a fairly brutal process) and repeated testing on the points where the hypothesis should be falsifiable or makes predictions of things not yet discovered. If your hypothesis survives it will eventually be called a theory, if it doesn't you start over with a new hypothesis that encompasses the evidence that nullified your old hypothesis. Note that this is also happens to theories if someone finds a better way to explain things then the current theory (but the new theory has to encompass the old one, just like the theory of gravity is a part in the theory of relativity)
You assume that by attacking one part of the theory that you can invalidate the entire theory.
The problem here being that attacking does not mean invalidating. It's even worse the part of the theory you are attacking is just about the oldest part there is and people who were a lot smarter then you and me could not disprove it when it was first proposed (This does not mean we can't try but it makes it highly unlikely we can succeed). At best you can manage is to invalidate this part while leaving the rest of the theory intact and start a scramble for a better explanation (and it would be a scramble since the person finding the better explanation would most likely get a Nobel prize) .
You commit the following fallacy: If not A then B (also known as the excluded middle or false dilemma).
Where A is the theory of evolution, B is ID. The fallacy is that you have not proven B right or that there are only two options. Because of this you cannot say that if A is wrong then B is correct. It is possible that B is also wrong and/or that there is an option C that is more correct then A and B.
Burden of proof.
If you claim that the theory of evolution is wrong you need to bring testable proof not merely make assertions, then stuff your fingers in your ears when people point out why your assertions are wrong.
If you claim that ID is a scientific theory you need to bring testable proof why, not assert that the other side didn't play by the rules so you don't have to play by the rules either.
You commit the appeal to authority fallacy.
You did this when you said the there are many scientist supporting ID. Science is not conducted on how many people support something. In fact a new hypothesis eventually accepted as theory get attacked by the majority. Darwin for example presented his theory in a world where everyone (in what is now the western world) was a creationist. In the beginning he was the only one supporting his theory but then others who could not disprove either his observations, the hypothesis nor the predictions it made started supporting it.
The many scientists claim is a lie.
There are only a few scientists in the relevant field that support ID. One is a moonie who was sent to the university for the express purpose to get some titles to be more authorative when trying to attack evolution. Another admitted under oath that to get ID included as a scientific theory, the definition of scientific theory would have to be altered in such a way that astrology would be scientific as well. And at least two have written a covenant that says that whatever the observations the conclusion of their research should be that God did it (which is not how science works).
You are diminishing God.
You are asserting we cannot explain this therefore God did it. Then science comes along and finds an explanation. You then have two options (you chose the first one) either ignore/attack the evidence or shrink God so that he does not encompass what is now explainable.

Intelligent Design IS science. It IS a theory because it can be falsified. All you need to do is get a bunch of Intelligent Creation proponetists in a lab and have them create and design life. Thus you have proven life doesn not require an intelligent designer!

Intelligent Design IS science. It IS a theory because it can be falsified. All you need to do is get a bunch of Intelligent Creation proponetists in a lab and have them create and design life. Thus you have proven life doesn not require an intelligent designer!

Good you've just 'disproven' abiogenesis (note the ' marks).
Now where does this tie in with disproving Evolution or proving that ID is better then evolution. You need to do one of those two to get it to be taught instead of evolution (not this side by side crap, teach the better theory).

ID cannot be falsified. This would require the ability to disprove a supernatural phenomena described as God which is something that science cannot do since science only deals with the natural.

It would also be refreshing to see the ID crowd actually do some research that would survive peer review instead of spending all that time trying to convince people into believing that evolution is wrong therefore ID is correct.

And you might want to backpedal on this one. You just commited the mistake I pointed out under point 7. That is stating that because we can't explain something God has done it.

As to the ID being a valid theory, my point, since my first post in this thread, is that by the definition required as proof, evolution itself could not be taught if it was a new theory today because it too is not falsifiable (among other things).
Of course it is! There are plenty of ways to falsify the theory of evolution.

Good you've just 'disproven' abiogenesis (note the ' marks).
Now where does this tie in with disproving Evolution or proving that ID is better then evolution. You need to do one of those two to get it to be taught instead of evolution (not this side by side crap, teach the better theory).

ID cannot be falsified. This would require the ability to disprove a supernatural phenomena describe as God which is something that science cannot do since science only deals with the natural.

It would also be refreshing to see the ID crowd actually do some research that would survive peer review instead of spending all that time trying to convince people into believing that evolution is wrong therefore ID is correct.

And you might want to backpedal on this one. You just commited the mistake I pointed out under point 7. That is stating that because we can't explain something God has done it.
Sorry. I was actually implying that ID proponents were stupid. I even added the whole "Intelligent Creation Proponetists" thing so people would realize it was a joke. I guess if I have to explain it then it wasn't that funny.

Sorry. I was actually implying that ID proponents were stupid. I even added the whole "Intelligent Creation Proponetists" thing so people would realize it was a joke. I guess if I have to explain it then it wasn't that funny.
You got the be careful when posting sarcasm or parody when in an ID debate as all to often the people you seek to mock make even dumber posts - so it is very easy to mistake sarcasm/parody with someone who genuinely believes what they are saying in this topic.

Sorry. I was actually implying that ID proponents were stupid. I even added the whole "Intelligent Creation Proponetists" thing so people would realize it was a joke. I guess if I have to explain it then it wasn't that funny.

The whole problem being that this type of claim happens so often that I'm just going on rote here when I replied. That said the research bit should have put me on alert, that was/is the first time I ever saw that suggestion.

Evolution wouldn't pass it's own tests if it had to be approved by the standard they use for all other theories today.

The theory of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the fundamental evolutionary machinery. But the theory itself is not a scientific principle, since fitness is the definition or the equivalent to survival. Meaning, we have a case of circular logic; no predictive value can be tested with the concept.

According to this thought the individual organisms that have survived through the ages have by ‘default’ passed the evolutionary testing process, stating that they have survived simply because they are better fit, and thus, the way one tells it, the proof that they are better fit is that they survived.

Without proof of survival we have not predicted, neither yeah or nay for any species, and the theory continues without solidifying itself despite what species survive and which do not. Neither proving nor falsifiable, the theory continues regardless of the result of the research.

In the end, the principle of survival of the fittest isn’t falsifiable by nature or concept and by becoming unfalsifiable it becomes a tautology, irrefutable, but still not proven and certainly not science.

Neither does the theory of “survival of the fittest” itself, inevitably imply any need for the theory of evolution? Would not the fittest survive whether they evolved or were created by any other means equally? The all-powerful “natural selection" philosophy is so inundated in science classes today that one is forced to wonder if there is any difference in this kind of explanation as compared to that of all the religious fundamentalists that the evolutionist so deride.

:eek:
You have *GOT* to be kidding me, right?
Little example, during the days of coalburning insdustry in the UK, a particular species of butterfly, that was predominatly white, started to become predominantly black/dark colored. The reason was simple, due to the pollution, the white ones had problems due to lack of camoflage, while the (very rare) black ones had the adventage, thus better fit to survive, so they did survive, and they passed their genetic material, untill white became a better color for survival again, and we saw the exact oposite happen again.

That's evolution right there, took place in the UK, and it's documented, it was even on discovery if i recall correctly.

No you didn't. Strong lion cub gets eaten by the hyena because he was wandering around... sickly lion cub was hanging out by Mom because he was too weak to want to wander around... weak genes passed to next generation.

You observed survival and 'quantified' for yourself 'fittest' as your rationale for why one survives and not the other.

I know now that the madness that is will forever be :headbang:

Something that might be easily missed for those who don't read to comprehend is that 8 out of 9 members of the school board that made this decision are out. The voters saw BS and got rid of it. The court case was probably decided before the new school board decided to can the panda book.


Jones described the school board's decision as "breathtaking inanity."

"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact," said the statement that the old school board approved in a 6-3 vote in October 2004. "With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."

'Of Pandas and People'

That school board mandated the teaching for ninth-grade biology classes and directed school libraries to purchase an alternative textbook, "Of Pandas and People," which advocated the concept. The town has since voted out eight of nine board members.

That's the theory. Now how is it falsifiable...

Well lets see:

If we could show traits were not inheritable
If we could show some or all mutations are directed
if we could prove the universe was made last thursday
if we found made by god stamped on the genome
if it could be shown that having a different trait will not give a reproductive advantage under any circumstances
if it could be shown that mutations are never beneficial
if it could be shown that factors always remove variation from a population at a faster rate than mutation can introduce it

etc. etc.
etc. etc.
etc. etc.
etc. etc.etc. etc.
etc. etc.etc. etc.
etc. etc.etc. etc.
etc. etc.etc. etc.
etc. etc.etc. etc.
etc. etc.etc. etc.
etc. etc.etc. etc.
etc. etc.etc. etc.
etc. etc.

edited for spelling and grammer

@Greenlander:

You are making several mistakes that just about every ID proponent seems to make.
[LIST=1]
*snip list*

I've never defended ID, to take a random, generic argument you use for your anti-ID position and then post them at me only proves that you aren't actually responding to what I've posted, but what you assume I'm a proponent of.

To reply to all the rest of the people here that have yapped at me endlessly about this, I'll address this post (below) to you and if the question/statement matches or is similar to your own, assume I’d say the same thing to you…

Well lets see:

If we could show traits were not inheritable

Inheritable traits were well known long before Darwin and the theory of evolution. The theory attempt to explain ‘why’ (random mutation) and ‘how’ (natural selection).

If we could show some or all mutations are directed

What does this mean? We do and can direct adaptation of a species via breeding. This is neither proof for nor against evolution, it’s evidence that any theory of origin must account for.

if we could prove the universe was made last thursday
if we found made by god stamped on the genome

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, thus, it wouldn’t falsify it any more than it would falsify anything and everything else equally.

if it could be shown that having a different trait will not give a reproductive advantage under any circumstances

Freckle faces vs. non freckles is an inheritable trait. Evolution is neither supported nor dependent on this fact. Adoption and inheritable traits is the source, the raw data we have to work with, all theories that involve origin must account for these traits. Evolution is not supported nor falsified by the fact that traits themselves are within realm inheritance by progeny.

if it could be shown that mutations are never beneficial Actually, most mutations are not beneficial. The theory is that ‘random’ mutation accidentally develops beneficial mutation. An argument against it is that there isn’t enough examples of failed mutations to explain the beneficial ones when they occur (thus arguing that some form of directed mutation or non-random mutations occurs as needed or desired by the organism).

if it could be shown that factors always remove variation from a population at a faster rate than mutation can introduce it

Actually, if this was reversed a little, it would be a better one. But evolution does not dictate that variation is ever removed from a population. The theory is the opposite as a matter of fact. Population is constantly mutating and introducing new variation.

Except it isn’t. In the real world, all species (by the fossil record) have or will go extinct, they do not evolve, they die off and something new takes it’s place in the food chain/eco-system.

What was comming? The new Creationism? Yup we know that and we know that like the clap they will return again.

NO not ID TBF, way to miss the obvious. I was talking about the decision. I was expecting this decision.

I've never defended ID, to take a random, generic argument you use for your anti-ID position and then post them at me only proves that you aren't actually responding to what I've posted, but what you assume I'm a proponent of.

To reply to all the rest of the people here that have yapped at me endlessly about this, I'll address this post (below) to you and if the question/statement matches or is similar to your own, assume I’d say the same thing to you…



Inheritable traits were well known long before Darwin and the theory of evolution. The theory attempt to explain ‘why’ (random mutation) and ‘how’ (natural selection).



What does this mean? We do and can direct adaptation of a species via breeding. This is neither proof for nor against evolution, it’s evidence that any theory of origin must account for.



This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, thus, it wouldn’t falsify it any more than it would falsify anything and everything else equally.



Freckle faces vs. non freckles is an inheritable trait. Evolution is neither supported nor dependent on this fact. Adoption and inheritable traits is the source, the raw data we have to work with, all theories that involve origin must account for these traits. Evolution is not supported nor falsified by the fact that traits themselves are within realm inheritance by progeny.

Actually, most mutations are not beneficial. The theory is that ‘random’ mutation accidentally develops beneficial mutation. An argument against it is that there isn’t enough examples of failed mutations to explain the beneficial ones when they occur (thus arguing that some form of directed mutation or non-random mutations occurs as needed or desired by the organism).



Actually, if this was reversed a little, it would be a better one. But evolution does not dictate that variation is ever removed from a population. The theory is the opposite as a matter of fact. Population is constantly mutating and introducing new variation.

Except it isn’t. In the real world, all species (by the fossil record) have or will go extinct, they do not evolve, they die off and something new takes it’s place in the food chain/eco-system.

Shit there I am with a mere degree in genetics! Those were examples of what could falsify evolution. If any of those were shown to be true then the current theory of evolution would be false.

Example: If the world was made last Thursday there would not be enough time for evolution to happen, therefore it would be falsified.

Example 2: If mutations happen in a specific manner so that genes arose in a guided manner this would falsify evolution as the theory of evolution is based on 'random' mutations (but the reality is more complicated as mutations happen more often in some places in ht genome than others etc etc).

I gave examples (off the cuff) of potential ways to falsify evolution not ways in which evolution has been falsified.

Actually, most mutations are not beneficial. The theory is that ‘random’ mutation accidentally develops beneficial mutation. An argument against it is that there isn’t enough examples of failed mutations to explain the beneficial ones when they occur (thus arguing that some form of directed mutation or non-random mutations occurs as needed or desired by the organism).

Except it isn’t. In the real world, all species (by the fossil record) have or will go extinct, they do not evolve, they die off and something new takes it’s place in the food chain/eco-system.
These two would seem to support evolution.

There are not many 'bad' mutations about as those that had them were statistically more likely to die before producing offspring and so the 'bad' mutations were/are removed from the gene pool. The exception is when a 'bad' mutation gives an advantage in a specific case. for example sickle cell anemia - in areas with malaria this gene gives protection against a deadly illness - hence people who ahve the gene are more likely to live and produce children who ahve the gene. However it can also if someone has two of the gene cause severe anemia - which is bad, but not as bad as the risk of malaria. This is why people from areas where malaria is common are many times more likely to have this gene than someone from somewhere without malaria. It has been bred into the gene pool by natural selection in malaria areas, and bred out of the gene pool by natural selection in non-malaria areas.

your second point - what you are saying is that a species that does not apapt to a changing environment wil becombe extinct to be replaced by a better suited species. sounds a lot like natural selection to me.

not exactly. Proponents of the "puntuated equilibrium" theory claim that catastrophic natural events have a profound effect on evolutionary history that actually, after a fashion, "reset" the clock periodically, allowing sudden explosions of biological diversity disconnected from the slower forces of natural selection.

There are numerous, interesting, competing arguments about what the most dominant forces producing evolution are, and supporters of the FACT that life evolves should get backed into defending equating defending single mechanisms of change with defending the overriding theory.

As far as ID goes, now that the religious have already lost the battle fought in the Scopes trial, they've moved on to demanding that scientists at least acknowledge "god" is in there somewhere - i.e. they now claim to believe in some historical biological change, but insist that at some points, science can't explain thing x, and then they jump up and down jibbering "GOD GOD GOD."

Fine.

If it's all the same, however, I'll just let the scientists keep looking.

In catestrophic natural events, you are talking about a change in the environment. I'm talking about small meteors/asteroids that actually hit an animal not change the entire environment. I was suggesting if it became such a common occurance to be hit by randomly falling rocks that it needed to be adapted for, animals would.

Shit there I am with a mere degree in genetics! Those were examples of what could falsify evolution. If any of those were shown to be true then the current theory of evolution would be false.

Example: If the world was made last Thursday there would not be enough time for evolution to happen, therefore it would be falsified.

Actually, it would mean that current species did not evolve, it would not show that evolution is not occurring. It would certainly call the theory into question however.

Example 2: If mutations happen in a specific manner so that genes arose in a guided manner this would falsify evolution as the theory of evolution is based on 'random' mutations (but the reality is more complicated as mutations happen more often in some places in ht genome than others etc etc).

I gave examples (off the cuff) of potential ways to falsify evolution not ways in which evolution has been falsified.

He mistakes us acting as the agent that chooses fittest (like a hyena that picks off the weakest in a herd) with guided mutation. We don't and can't direct the mutation, but do direct the selection.

Also, directed mutation has to be shown to be naturally occuring. I can create a system for making one ball revolve around another that does not require gravity. This doesn't falsify the theory of gravity. To falsify the theory of gravity, I would have to show that there is a naturally occurring force that makes one ball of mass revolve around another. Proving that I can form a mountain in a lab purposefully does not prove that is how the mountains formed. Mostly it only proves that I understand the mechanisms by which mountains form.

Inheritable traits were well known long before Darwin and the theory of evolution. The theory attempt to explain ‘why’ (random mutation) and ‘how’ (natural selection).

Inheritable traits are one of the bases of the theory. Yes, if a basis of a theory was falsified so would the theory be.

What does this mean? We do and can direct adaptation of a species via breeding. This is neither proof for nor against evolution, it’s evidence that any theory of origin must account for.

This is not directed mutation, it's directed selection, we know that intelligence is often involved in selection. We know that selection is often directed by other species. Why do you think ladybugs are red?

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, thus, it wouldn’t falsify it any more than it would falsify anything and everything else equally.

Actually, I agree with you here, except your reasoning is flawed. Many methods of falsification have profound effects on other theories. Subatomic discoveries had this effect. This doesn't disable a particular falsification method.

Freckle faces vs. non freckles is an inheritable trait. Evolution is neither supported nor dependent on this fact. Adoption and inheritable traits is the source, the raw data we have to work with, all theories that involve origin must account for these traits. Evolution is not supported nor falsified by the fact that traits themselves are within realm inheritance by progeny.

Evolution doesn't involve origin any more than a theory of that children should be disciplined throughout their childhood does. While that disciplining would go all the way back to that origin, the origin itself is not a part of the theory. Anyone who claims that evolution involves origin either doesn't understand evolution or isn't paying attention.

Actually, most mutations are not beneficial. The theory is that ‘random’ mutation accidentally develops beneficial mutation. An argument against it is that there isn’t enough examples of failed mutations to explain the beneficial ones when they occur (thus arguing that some form of directed mutation or non-random mutations occurs as needed or desired by the organism).

Wait, are you giving a method of falsifying the theory? Ooops. I'll ignore that you suggested mutations are 'desired' by the organism and point of that if what you say is true, that there are not enough examples of failed mutations to explain the beneficial ones when they occur, then you have actually falsified current evolutionary theory. I would like you to show any experimentation or gathering of data that supports your claim, however.

Actually, if this was reversed a little, it would be a better one. But evolution does not dictate that variation is ever removed from a population. The theory is the opposite as a matter of fact. Population is constantly mutating and introducing new variation.

False. Variations are often removed from a population. If they were never removed from a population this actually would an argument against evolution. No species would ever go extinct (a variation). No traits would ever become extinct (a variation). We know this not to be true.

Example:
Let's in bunnies being black is a dominant trait and being white is a recessive trait. We introduce 50 black bunnies and 50 white bunnies into a wooded environment covered in snow. We introduce 15 wolves into the same environment. The wolves would be more likely to find and, thus, eat the black bunnies. Eventually the success of the white bunnies would win out and black bunnies would cease to exist. Could a mutation that creates a black bunny occur in the future? Absolutely, but it's not necessarily going to happen. A mutation could create a pteradactyl(sp?) sometime in the future, but pteradactyls are still extinct. The black fur trait becomes extinct and this is evidence that through natural selection (environmental selection) species evolve (EVOLVE - THEORY of EVOLUTION, notice the relationship between the terms). Now if someone showed the populations of rabbits did not change over time and found no way to explain how black fur is not a benefit or at least not an environmental disadvantage, then the theory of evolution would be falsified.

Except it isn’t. In the real world, all species (by the fossil record) have or will go extinct, they do not evolve, they die off and something new takes it’s place in the food chain/eco-system.

Really? How do those new things come about? Magic? We've observed speciation. What evidence do you have that it does not occur?

The "Theory" of Intelligent Design REQUIRES (wait, wait, step back, look again, it REQUIRES) the existence of a higher power, a God or group of Gods, or alien, or group of aliens, or something, to prove it correct. Existence of a god or gods is not part of science, it is part of religion. Existence of aliens which act as a higher power is part of Scientology and various cults.


RELIGION SHOULD NEVER BE ALOUD IN A CLASSROOM
(Unless it's a private school)

and

SCIENTOLOGY SHOULD NEVER BE ALOUD ANYWHERE
(Never.)


Now, the "Theory" of Intelligent Design in my own words: Basically, living things are far too complex to have evolved by chance. Therefore, there must be some sort of higher power, albeit god or aliens or whatever, who designed/guided the evolution of all the world's species.

Please, look it over. If you believe in ID you can't deny that my description sums the "theory" up perfectly well.

Intelligent design CAN NOT be tested. You can't test for a higher power.

Intelligent design CAN NOT be disproved. You can't disprove a higher power. This fact also makes ANY AND ALL evidence against ID completely void if you believe in ID. Convenient for people arguing for it, isn't it?

Intelligent design DOES NOT suggest any experiment to either prove or disprove it, or to elaborate on it. All scientific theories suggest some sort of experiment you can conduct to test the theory. ID does not.

And, one final note... Please don't try to argue for ID by arguing against evolution. That's just ignorant. There is a ridiculous amount of evidence for evolution, more than you would ever be able to find in your lifetime. There are thousands and thousands of scientists all over the world who are testing and studying the modern theory of evolution every day.

Intelligent design is, in my opinion, and probably in fact, complete bullshit made up by some random purpose with the purpose of putting religous ideals in to schools. That hasn't been proven, and may merely be my opinion, but one thing stands true...








INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE, DAMNIT!


He explained things well.

He explained things well.
After about the eighth mispelled word and the fifteenth word in all caps, I stopped reading. I suspect I'm not the only one who did so.

My favourite ID argument is that the human body is too complex to be a result of evolution. Complex as it may be, it's stupid. We're pathetic. Only an idiot could have designed the human body. By definition, a god cannot be an idiot. Thus, ID fails.

My favourite ID argument is that the human body is too complex to be a result of evolution. Complex as it may be, it's stupid. We're pathetic. Only an idiot could have designed the human body. By definition, a god cannot be an idiot. Thus, ID fails.

Well, if we were designed one must wonder why people are born with six fingers on occasion or why we have the remains of a tail? Why do we have some systems that seem to no longer have an advantage, and occasionally cause us to die? Recessive traits and natural selection explain this, but why would a designed creature require these unnecessary traits. When we design a new radio we don't include tubes simply because they used to be in old radios, so how would you explain why 'tubes' are included in us 'new radios'? ID does nothing to explain such thing. The only tenets of ID is the problems it claims are inherent to evolution and then it just says "God did it" as a solution to those problems. It never attempts to shore up its own problems or to support its claims through experimentation. I would like to see one paper summarizing an experiment done to test ID. Not books talking about who evil evolution is or how evolution is flawed, but an actual scientific paper showing experimentation on the 'theory'. Certainly no one here can name one single other theory that's even been considered to be put into school curriculums that has never been experimented against.

Why does it need to be testable? Survival of the fittest isn't testable.

let me again, reiterate what so many other people have said. in order for something to be a theory, thereby making it scientific it must be able to be tested, and thereby be either proven or falsified. evolution has this proof, microorganisms observed by scientists are indeed evolving. there is no way to either prove or disprove ID, therefore it is not a science.

Originally Posted by Jocabia
No, it does. it simply doesn't believe that over the course of an entire population that luck is the only factor. Technically, mutation is reliant on luck to a degree. Survival of the fittest is simply the phenomena that describes what is actually lucky. For example, if you were starving to death if you and a buddy were looking for food and all you can find is an apple orchard. One of you is unlucky enough to happen to be allergic to apples and one of you is not. Having that mutation is lucky or having an advantageous mutation is lucky (except when the population is large enough and there are enough species, it's no longer lucky, but rather probable), however which mutation can be called 'lucky' is determined by the environment. Having the 'lucky' trait is described as fittest and it causes you to survive.


That's the theory. Now how is it falsifiable...

Just to answer your question... if we took this as a theory, rather then a mechanism for evolution (which it actually is) ... you could falsify it by showing that the weaker mutations would survive vs the stronger ones.. in this case, two men 1 apple, 1 guy with an alergy to apples.. if the guy with the alergy survived while the one without it didn't.. this would show survival of the fittests is invalid, because the weaker mutation survived.

In either case, its testable.. while ID is not, which is why its not a theory, but a hypothesis (and a poorly constructed one at that).

But lets take their arguement

Who or what is the intelligent designer? How do you test for him or let alone his involvment in a "design"

You can't prove or disprove it. Not Science.....

The Intelligent Designer is the Great Panda. :D
He is the pet of the Heavenly Father (father as in creator).

Testing...I'd say pray. Yeah, that seems to be only way. Mediatation/pray both work.

The Intelligent Designer is the Great Panda. :D
He is the pet of the Heavenly Father (father as in creator).

Testing...I'd say pray. Yeah, that seems to be only way. Mediatation/pray both work.


Damn, you win. Pandas rock.

I've never defended ID, to take a random, generic argument you use for your anti-ID position and then post them at me only proves that you aren't actually responding to what I've posted, but what you assume I'm a proponent of.


Yes I know you disclaimed being a big fan of ID (post #51). The problem being here that does not mean you are not a proponent of ID (Not being a big fan could indicate you accept the belief with reservations). I admit I could have been hasty with labelling you. The thing is your behaviour fits the profile I've build up over time on how an IDer debates. What behaviour? Not knowing how the scientific method works, argueing from ignorance, repeating the same argument, stating opinion as fact, ad hominem attacks, defending IDism.

I could go on about this I'll just add one other (since this one is more important) fallacy you commited.
That is taking one thing that I might have had wrong (you being an IDer) and using that to ignore all the points I made. The problem being here that several (points 1, 2, 4) points I made were about your lack of knowledge or logical fallacies you committed. You neatly side stepped them with that snip.
I'll reproduce the headers of those points here for you again so you don't have to look back what I said.

you don't know what theory means for science and assume the layman term which boils down to making wild unsupported guesses.
You assume that by attacking one part of the theory that you can invalidate the entire theory.
Burden of proof.