God and science dont mix.

[stuartj]

"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

A considered article on the Intelligent Design presented in the interests of edified debate. If you are interested to read the article...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/god-and-science-dont-mix/2005/09/10/1125772732711.html?oneclick=true

Stuart

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IT SOUNDS so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As President George Bush said: "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

At first hearing, everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators like ourselves.

One of us spent years as an Oxford tutor and it was his habit to choose controversial topics for the students' weekly essays. They were required to go to the library, read about both sides of an argument, give a fair account of both, and then come to a balanced judgement in their essay. The call for balance, by the way, was always tempered by the maxim: "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

As teachers, both of us have found that asking our students to analyse controversies is of enormous value to their education. What is wrong, then, with teaching both sides of the alleged controversy between evolution and creationism or "intelligent design" (ID)? And, by the way, don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip under the radar of the US Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state.

Why, then, would two lifelong educators and passionate advocates of the "both sides" style of teaching join with essentially all biologists in making an exception of the alleged controversy between creation and evolution? What is wrong with the apparent sweet reasonableness of "it is only fair to teach both sides"? The answer is simple. This is not a scientific controversy at all. And it is a time-wasting distraction because evolutionary science, perhaps more than any other major science, is bountifully endowed with genuine controversy.

Among the controversies that students of evolution commonly face, many are genuinely challenging and of great educational value: neutralism versus selectionism in molecular evolution, adaptationism, group selection, punctuated equilibrium, cladism, "evo-devo", the "Cambrian Explosion", mass extinctions, interspecies competition, sympatric speciation, sexual selection, the evolution of sex itself, evolutionary psychology, Darwinian medicine, and so on. The point is that all these controversies, and many more, provide fodder for fascinating and lively argument, not just in essays but for student discussions late at night.

Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

So, why are we so sure that intelligent design is not a real scientific theory, worthy of "both sides" treatment? Isn't that just our personal opinion? It is an opinion shared by the vast majority of professional biologists, but of course science does not proceed by majority vote among scientists. Why isn't creationism (or its incarnation as intelligent design) just another scientific controversy, as worthy of scientific debate as the dozen essay topics we listed above? Here's why.

If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific public and — with great shrewdness — to the government officials they elect.

The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the same character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favour of intelligent design. All we ever get is a list of alleged deficiencies in evolution. We are told of "gaps" in the fossil record. Or organs are stated, by fiat and without supporting evidence, to be "irreducibly complex"; too complex to have evolved by natural selection.

(more) http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/god-and-science-dont-mix/2005/09/10/1125772732711.html?oneclick=true

[Moses]

Originally posted by stuartj
"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

...ID no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class

Amen.

[HardDrive]

An 83 SC with a 3.6...now THAT is intelligent design....from Moses no less....

[jkarolyi]

"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

I agree with this statement. But it is also possible that the truth *does* lie somewhere in the middle. It all depends on the topic you choose.

Intelligent Design and Evolution both fall into the category of "debatable" and "not fully researched" in my mind, and probably in the majority of Americans' opinion. Thus I believe both theories should be taught in schools. Evolution is not a wholly proven truth such as the holocaust or 1+1=2.

How presumptious of scientists to assume that their theories (and yes, evolution is still an unproven theory) are the only ones that matter and should be taught exclusively. Until strict evolution and origin of life has been irrefutably proven by scientists, or Intelligent Design proven by creationists, the topic is up for debate and both sides deserve to be heard.

The arrogance and self-righteousness of the supposedly open-minded scientific and atheist community never ceases to amaze me.

[IROC]

Originally posted by jkarolyi
Intelligent Design and Evolution both fall into the category of "debatable" and "not fully researched" in my mind, and probably in the majority of Americans' opinion. Thus I believe both theories should be taught in schools. Evolution is not a wholly proven truth such as the holocaust or 1+1=2.

Well, luckily, what is true and what is not from a scientific standpoint is not decided by the "majority of American's opinion" or your personal feelings. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and as such does not belong in a science class. Contrary to public opinion, there is essentially no dissent among the scientific community as to the validity of the theory of evolution.

You need to learn more about the theory of evolution as your statements above seem to indicate a lack of understanding.

Mike

[gavinlit]

"How presumptious of scientists to assume that their theories (and yes, evolution is still an unproven theory) are the only ones that matter and should be taught exclusively."
Yes, you're right. The school curriculum should be equally split between everyone's theories. Got a favourite theory (about anything)? No probs - we should be teaching it then huh. Ridiculous.

"Until strict evolution and origin of life has been irrefutably proven by scientists"
Theories in science are not proved, but rather supported with evidence/experimental findings OR disproved. As such you will have a long wait if you're going to hang out for a theory to be proved. By your argument, you could deny the existence of gravity (yet to be proved, but there's a substantial body of evidence supporting it).

[johnco]

pardon my ignorance, but isn't teaching evolution many semesters/years of teaching how things adapt and change to suit their current and changing environment and ID just teaching that god created everything in 7 days... as in life is so complex, it had to be created by a supreme being? if that's the case, then that will be some short ID classes. . maybe science should be taught in schools and religion taught in churches.

[304065]

Somewhere in that self-masturbatory intellectual narcissism that Stuart posted (Stuart: I'm not saying that about YOU, but rather about the writer, who troubles us to explain the old Oxonian tutorial system as though he were describing seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time) there is a grain of geniune wisdom: There are HUGE arguments to be made about tributaries off Chuck D's original premise, like path-dependence (why are we still typing this on a QWERTY keyboard), Darwinian medicine, etc.

But the critical point is that these discussions are only carried on after we've gotten over the fact that the THEORY of EVOLUTION has been validated by all of the available biological record, from fossil days to the peppered moth. It's the starting point for everything.

The whole ID canard reminds me of a hilariously funny part of one of the Douglas Adams books, where he's describing the Babel Fish. The Babel Fish, when placed in your ear, translates all the Galaxy's languages into your language. Such a fish is considered to be too complex to have evolved merely by chance, and therefore is held up as proof of divine creation.

Says G_d, "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing." "Ahhh, but what about the Babel fish, which is clear and uncontrovertable evidence that you DO exist, and therefore faith isn't necessary, and therefore, you don't exist!" "Oh, I never thought of that" says G_d, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Anyway, if you want to explore ID, the proper place is in the Theology department, where it is the big kid on the block. Can you imagine the first day of "Theories of Human Origins 401" in which we all sit down to debate ID vs. Evolution? Out comes Darwin looking like the Scots at Bannockburn. Now, where is the scientific evidence for ID?

Sound of crickets chirping. Cough.

And let's not start perverting the rules of science. I have never SEEN the inside of a Bohr Atom. But that didn't stop us from leveling a couple of cities.

[skipdup]

Scientific theory evolves. Think how many "theories", which were tightly held by "a vast majority of" scientists, were later disproved. I find it presumptuous to believe we have all the evidence to answer this question - so as the issue isn't even debatable.

What will we discover in the next 1,000 years? What further evidence & knowledge will be gained? Will it make what we know now seem irrelevant?

[IROC]

Skip - you're right. Science evolves. The theory of evolution has evolved over the years based on new findings, etc. 1000 years from now the theory will have evolved even further. Heck, every living thing on Earth is currently evolving.

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that our current theories are wrong. Assuming the evidence doesn't change (and I doubt the fossil record will change), then the basic precepts of the theory of evolution will withstand the test of time. They've done pretty well so far.

Anyone who has a theory that better explains the evidence we see around us and the biological processes that we see every day than the theory of evolution is welcome to bring it forward. No one has done that yet. Until someone does, the theory of evolution must be accepted.

Mike

[304065]

Well, no question that science has evolved, and continues to. But the cutting edge is about the nature of matter, boundaries of the universe and genetics and medicinal chemistry. Reconsideration of evolution just isn't on the list in terms of scientific priorities.

Are you suggesting that because we have thrown out, for example, the pseudo-science of "phrenology," that a healthy scientific skepticism means we should introduce into the scientific curriculum a theological opinion with no known scientific basis? This is rather like suggesting that since we don't have absolute proof as to the causes of migrane headaches, we should reintroduce the Radium Jar and allow folks to start their morning with a glass of radioactive water.

One other point. It does not do anyone any good to attempt to harmonize nature with religion, nor have religion "endorse" a particular viewpoint, and can lead to some embarassing consequences, such as the embrace of the Geocentric model of the Solar System, when in fact, the Copernican, or Heliocentric model, is the THEORY that fits all the observable data.

There is NO reason why religion and science cannot peacefully coexist, and science has no more place in attempting to provide RULES for the ORDERING OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR than religion has in attempting to define the ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE. It seems to me that each should stay out of the other's business.

[Moses]

Originally posted by skipdup
Think how many "theories", which were tightly held by "a vast majority of" scientists, were later disproved.

In truth, evolution is no longer a theory. It can be demonstrated in the lab. DNA sequencing can illustrate chromosomal adaptations in a precise way. How evolution applies to the origin of man is theory. Gaps in the fossil record and other areas of knowledge lead to lively debate among scientists. I have no idea why evolution itself is still referred to as a theory as it is so easily demonstrated in controlled laboratory conditions.

Why some Christians insist on a literal interpretation of every sentence in the bible baffles me. I am aware of no preamble in the bible that claims perfect precision regarding the historical and scientific record. The vast majority of books in the bible were lost or edited along the way. Constantine tossed out great volumes of biblical verse for political expediency and King James's legacy is that of an editor, not a monarch.

Is it truly necessary to believe that Noah sailed with a pair of kangaroos and polar bears? If you do not, are you no longer a Christian?

It should not be a soul wrenching endeavor to reconcile scientific discovery and religious dogma. The bible seems more suited to the role of "spiritual guide" than "scientific authority".

[skipdup]

... the theory of evolution must be accepted.

See... it's that "must" word I have a problem with.

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that our current theories are wrong.

Valid argument. But then, it's also valid to argue that it doesn't prove you're right either.

And, I don't care if the world is 6,000 or 6,kazillionmillionbillion years old. I have no problem with animals evolving over time.

Just because some guy interprets the Bible to say something (6,000 yrs), does not make it true. My faith is not based on a 6,000 year old earth... unless you can where the Bible says specifically and clearly that God started the creation process on Jan. 1, 3995 BC ... then we can talk.

- Skip

edit: Moses- I read you last post after I submitted this one. Looks like we were thinking some of the same thoughts, just from opposite directions.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by Moses
How evolution applies to the origin of man is theory.

What gets most Christians going is the prevailing use of Evolution Theory to discredit and "prove" that Christianity is wrong. Yes, even on this board of open minded free thinkers. I have absolutely no problem with evolution as a fact of life as you described it. What we see is that a LOT of people try to use this as some kind of mental springboard to say that since there is ongoing change (evolution) there can not be a Creator.

[skipdup]

Why some Christians insist on a literal interpretation of every sentence in the bible baffles me.

Me Too (have they never read Revelation???)!! But then, I've never met one these people. I've never read works by these people. I know they exist, but I have never had contact with one.

[IROC]

Originally posted by skipdup
See... it's that "must" word I have a problem with.

Well, I realize that my use of the word "must" was a bit much, but my point is that for the people working in the sciences that utilize the premises of the theory of evolution every day, these people "must" accept this theory as it guides their daily activities and they rely on it to produce the results they expect. And it does that. It works. I think that is the point that most opponents to the theory miss - the theory works. It's not flawed. Sure, there are fine points that are still being debated, but the overall theory itself is not in crisis.

For a person to reject the theory, I think they "must" offer up a better alternative. Or at least offer up valid rationale for why they reject it. If they can't, then I don't understand why they reject it in the first place. You can't simply say you don't think it is true "just because". That is not a compelling argument.

Mike

[skipdup]

these people "must" accept this theory as it guides their daily activities and they rely on it to produce the results they expect.

Did you read what you wrote? This is my point exactly, and one I've argued with you in the past. They produce the results they expect.

Isn't there even a name for this occurrence? A scientific term for bias based on what the experimenter expects? - I should have stayed at a HolidayInn Express last night.

- Skip

[Taz's Master]

ID is patently false, and should not be taught in schools. If God had really created the universe, He wouldn't have had to invent "dark matter" to make His math come out right.

[IROC]

Originally posted by skipdup
Did you read what you wrote? This is my point exactly, and one I've argued with you in the past. They produce the results they expect.

Let me give you an example. I'm sure that we don't know everything there is to know about material behaviors, fracture mechanics, fatigue etc., but we have developed theories over the years based on experimentation and observed results, etc. It's not an exact science and minor points are debated here and there. I implement these theories every day, though, to design hardware that will behave the way I *expect* if I have utilized the theories correctly. In fact, I depend on utilizing these theories to ensure that things come out like I expect. People's lives depend on it.

Biologists use the premises of the theory of evolution in this way every day to achieve the results they expect if the theory is correct.

Would you want the designers of bridges to throw out stress and strain theory and just build whatever they think looks good because it's just a theory?

Mike

[skipdup]

I understand completely and agree - to an extent.

However, testing material fatigue (which is a simple procedure, which can be observed, with the ability to achieve very similar/repeatable results), is far, FAR different from testing the evolution a human being from nothing.

- Skip