1

Ah, Joe:

Your cite from naturalistic/ evolutionary materialistic philosopher Daniel Dennett is so telling, and so pregnant with unintentional irony on his part:

“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science," admits Daniel Dennett, an atheist and philosopher, "there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." Bad philosophy inevitably makes bad science. And nothing causes more of a disconnect between theory and truth than unexamined a priori assumptions.

In particular, the attempt to redefine science as the best NATURALISTIC explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans is precisely a case in point of metaphysical and epistemological question-begging. For, we are in effect redefining science as a game played in a naturalistic circle.

So if evidence turns up that may point beyond that circle, presto: nope, you can't go there or it's not "SCIENCE."

Well, what if it's SIENCE, defined as the best current, empirically anchored understanding of the natural [and human] worlds in light of observation, theorising, critical analysis among the relevant communities of the learned and empirical testing?

Would that shift to - and here, I consciously echo a point made by Alvin Plantinga -- SIENCE: which avoids begging metaphysical questions -- make a practical difference to our ability to effectively describe, explain, predict and influence reality to our benefit? [That is, those who fear-monger that the idea that the cosmos adn life and mind are th eproduct of intelligent design, given giants of science like Newton, and a lot of others, have a lot to answer for]

I submit, not, but it is plain that much more is going on here than meets the smell test.

My prediction on Dover: more chaos to follow.

If question-begging and censorship prevail, that is ultimately corrosive to western culture. If there is a -- franlkly for me unexpected -- shift to realising ythat soething fishy is going on, there will be an eruption of "outrage" from the self-referentially inconsistent [follow my link on evo mat to see why I say that] metaphysical question-beggers.

All of this is so sad.

Grace, open euyes.

Gordon

2

"If we are forced to concede, though, that an intelligent being is required for a true explanation, we must then ask what “explanatory filter” the aliens used to come to this conclusion."

By comparing them with natural objects that obviously weren't designed. CDs are designed; rocks aren't.

3

Joe,

Another good post.

My problem comes with the incorrect assumptions right at the beginning. Intelligent causes do not have to be the same as supernatural causes.

For example, you could apply Intelligent Design right here on Earth. Forensic science, for example, uses Intelligent Design Theory.

If you find someone dead in an empty room and you want to know why the person died you have to apply some science. You don't need to rely on supernatural reasons nor do you need to look for a natural cause. You have a third option called intelligence.

People think that the alternative to natural is supernatural. While this is true in Philosophy, it is not true in science.

So then, what is the alternative to natural if you are a forensic scientist? Intelligence. If someone didn't die via natural causes, they died via intelligent causes. And by using science we can discover this, not always accurately, but it is possible.

So why can't we apply the same reasoning to dogs, or tree's, or fish, or people?

Those who are opposed to Intelligent Design fail to adequately explain.

It is a sign of the reasoning abilities of the opponents to Intelligent Design that they continually fail to grasp this concept and insist on the natural vs supernatural paradigm. They are either doing this on purpose to mislead, or they are not as smart as they think they are.

4

None wrote:

"By comparing them with natural objects that obviously weren't designed. CDs are designed; rocks aren't."

I wonder if you are wishing you could take that statement back?

Are you sure that rock you are looking at wasn't designed? I'm looking at a rock right now that was designed to kill other human beings and game. It's called an arrowhead. Geologists come upon designed rocks all the time.

Perhaps you'd like to find another example of things "obviously" not designed?

Too funny...

5

Looking at Joe's list of 8 items I was struck by the notion that all of the objects were designed, but in MN philosophy the designer of the object was not himself designed. This seems to indicate that in MN 'design' must be an emergent property of matter. But yet MN says that there is no 'designer', just the 'designed'. I must be missing something somewhere. The contradiction can't be this obvious.

6

http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=98

Man, did Judge Jones get it right.

And, yeah, I did predict this outcome and I did warn you guys about the lying and the stupidity.

Live and learn. Please, for the love of God: learn from this.

--------------------

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts
of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the
Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and
moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the
existence of a divine creator....

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
Board who voted for the ID Policy. 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 ID
Policy.
....

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an
activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction
on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a
constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the
Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which
has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers
of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal
maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order
permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school
within the Dover Area School District, from 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. We will also issue a declaratory
judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.
Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by
the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to
liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal
damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs
incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

7

Larry:

You beat me to it. I saw the title of this and thought, "another one of these recycled posts" but then I saw the topic.

What strikes me about this recycled post, though, is that it actually argues against "Intelligent" "Design":

If we are forced to concede, though, that an intelligent being is required for a true explanation, we must then ask what “explanatory filter” the aliens used to come to this conclusion. Because the aliens do not share our observer biases, they are able to logically follow their a priori assumptions where they lead. As we can see, that path leads to a dead end.

So if the "science" is specist it's not "science?"

Is that what he's saying?

Because if "Intelligent" "Design" were a science- and we all know it's not, but, let's for a microsecond pretend- then it would be true "in all times and places." It would be invariant to conditions, and in particular, it would be invariant to the condition of an alien culture, assuming the alien had a modicum of wispy-defined "intelligence" above a certain threshold.

But alas, not even the great Dembski can define "intelligence" in such a way as that is not ad hoc, and so poof!

Back to the drawing board.

8

Forgive me if this is naive, but can't an adherent of MN provide naturalistic explanations for all of the items you list? In principle, evolution provides an explanation for humans that is consistent with MN, and the existence of humans explains the presence of the items you've listed.

Obviously, if you don't believe that there is an explanation of humans consistent with MN, then you won't believe that there could be an explanation of things humans produced. But my point is that Joe's examples don't prove MN is inadequate: you have to assume (or prove) there are entities in the world whose presence can't be explained consistent with MN (i.e., humans) in order to establish that the things Joe provides can't be explained consistent with MN.

To put it another way, if we believe that there is an explanation for the existence of ants that is consistent with MN, then you can't use ant hills to prove that MN is inadequate. If you can explain birds consistent with MN, you can't use bird nests as proof MN is inadequate.

Or, to put it yet another way (because similar arguments come up quite a bit): we can use "designed" in two different ways. I think MN-ists acknowledge there are "designed" things in the world. But MN-ists would claim that, if the designer (i.e., humans, ants, whatever) can be explained consistent with MN, then the presence of "designed" things is also consistent with MN. On the other hand, Intelligent Design proponents seem to posit a "designer" outside the world of MN explanations.

Fire away.... :)

9

Aliens who were intelligent enough to travel across the universe would already know that they themselves were intelligently designed.

10

2 good articles related to Larry's post about the court decision and to Darwinism in general.
You may or may not like Fred Reed but he makes some very good points in these articles.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed80.html
and
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

11

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/thank_you_michael_behe/

The ID superstars reduced to rubble by ... just plain facts and common sense, like the kind I've been advocating here for the last couple years.

Live and LEARN, folks.

Your religious beliefs are just fantastic for your personal use. Don't confuse them with scientific facts. You don't NEED to do that. Your holy book teaches you that faith is all you need.

So please stop the charade.

12

I think ans under-reported aspect of the Dover case that gets short-shrift in the Christian press and blogs is just how much and how often the proponents of ID repeatedly lie outright. And that how common and widespread this tactic is used when it comes to this and other issues.

13

"Aliens who were intelligent enough to travel across the universe would already know that they themselves were intelligently designed."

And you would know this...how, Ed?
Oh my goodness...you're an alien!

14

Patrick

"I think ans under-reported aspect of the Dover case that gets short-shrift in the Christian press and blogs is just how much and how often the proponents of ID repeatedly lie outright. And that how common and widespread this tactic is used when it comes to this and other issues."

Indeed. And already the Discovery Institute has started to smear Judge Jones as an "activist judge" (exactly as the Judge and many of us predicted they would).

Read Judge Jones' opinion. Note his reliance on this stuff called "evidence."

You'll also note that he does not pray or resort to quotes from some "holy book" to determine which is the correct result. That is because Judge Jones' courtroom is in the United States of American, not Iran, and Judge Jones respects that.

It would be nice if certain groups of evangelical Christians would learn to respect that, too. Nice for them, and nice for those of us who do not consider ourselves members of the Christian religion.

15

Being Christian does not make you a supporter of ID.
Espousing ID does not make you a Christian.
There are many proponents of ID that are NOT Christian. Just like there are some Christians that support evolution. Should we discount evolution on these grounds? Then, we shouldn't discount ID on these grounds. There are evolutionist scientists that outright lie. Should we discount evolution because of this?

The court case proves nothing other than who had a better lawyer. If you think this is how science should be settled, you aren't a real scientist but a zealot bent on suppressing dissenting views.
Fred Reed said it well in one of the articles that I linked to: "...tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. "Creationist" is to evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science."

16

Earlier today I was on BBC Radio discussing the Dover ruling and Intelligent Design. Many of the listeners appear to be completely unfamiliar with ID theory and conflate it with YEC creationism. Needless to say, this made it difficult to get the point across that this is not a debate between religion and science but about competing explanations. As usual, I was terrible on the radio but some of the other comments are worth hearing. The program is available for the next 24 hours at this link.
(Scroll down to the LISTEN TO THE PROGRAMME on the right sidebar.)

17

Joe Carter:

It's not even a debate between "religion" and "science," but a faux controversy pitting a pseudo-science against a science, which cannot be said to "compete" as a scientific explanation..

18

Mumon,

It's not even a debate between "religion" and "science," but a faux controversy pitting a pseudo-science against a science, which cannot be said to "compete" as a scientific explanation..

As I mentioned on the program, philosophers of science have long ago rejected the the demarcation problem (i.e., that we can make distinctions between science from pseudoscience). I claimed that the only people who hold such a view are high school science teachers.

But I guess you prove that I was wrong. Apparantly , some other groups of people are just as confused.

19

Eric & Lisa

You're right about that glaring problem with Joe's post. What you're missing is that intelligence can be posited as either natural or supernatural. It is the all-powerful supernatural type that can be used to unrobustly "explain" anything and everything when it itself is beyond description and is therefore kept out of scientific inquiry.

Ed

20

Mumon,
Read Fred's articles that I linked to. He also makes the case that evolution is "pseudo-science".

Creation by supernatural means would be different than creation by natural means. We should not expect to be able to determine how the universe was created if it was created by supernatural means. Ruling out supernatural creation by using our natural means and abilities is unreasonable. You're assuming what you are trying to prove.

Also, I'm sure that Larry would not be shouting "stop the charade" and concede that ID was true if the court case had gone the other way.

21

Joe says:

Earlier today I was on BBC Radio discussing the Dover ruling and Intelligent Design. Many of the listeners appear to be completely unfamiliar with ID theory and conflate it with YEC creationism. Needless to say, this made it difficult to get the point across that this is not a debate between religion and science but about competing explanations....

Joe,

You may place the blame for people equating ID and Creationism directly on the shoulders of those trying to force it into schools as an established fact. This is because they are by and large, as happened in the Dover case, Creationists. Even they are fuzzy on the difference. Some weren't even familiar with ID at all but simply wanted to put "God back into the classroom". Then they lied about this, but got caught on tape saying exactly that.

Mike says:

Being Christian does not make you a supporter of ID. Espousing ID does not make you a Christian. There are many proponents of ID that are NOT Christian. Just like there are some Christians that support evolution. Should we discount evolution on these grounds? Then, we shouldn't discount ID on these grounds. There are evolutionist scientists that outright lie. Should we discount evolution because of this?

The court case proves nothing other than who had a better lawyer. If you think this is how science should be settled, you aren't a real scientist but a zealot bent on suppressing dissenting views.
Fred Reed said it well in one of the articles that I linked to: "...tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. "Creationist" is to evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science."

Actually Mike, the majority of people who support evolution ARE Christians. And you are leaving out the fact that the judge did say ID could be discussed and debated in schools. It usually already is, in Philosophy class where it belongs. But that probably isn't sufficient for you is it? And conservative Christian zealots such as Fred Reed are the last people who should be complaining about "tactical demonization", when that has been the defining characteristic of the methods of the political Religious Right for the last 30 years.

22

Interesting comments from Francis Collins, an evangelical and head of the Human Genome Project. This is from an interview awhile back on Tucker Carlson Unfiltered.

Carlson: "What do you think of this statement read to the Dover, Pennsylvania public school children that the theory is just a theory and explaining briefly intelligent design? Is that that be read to kids?"

Collins: "It sounds as if it's a good idea to suggest anybody listening to a discussion about science to keep your mind open and to be sure that facts are actually backed up by data. But, of course, that statement is full of a lot more than scientific facts and data and concerns about them. It is a statement that reflects a battle that's going on right now. And in my view, an unnecessary battle. So let me explain why I say that. As somebody who has watched our own D.N.A. sequence emerge, our own instruction book over the course of the last few years, all three billion letters of our code, and watched how it compares with that of other species, the evidence that comes out of that kind of analysis is overwhelmingly in favor of a single origin of life from which various forms were then derived by a process which seems entirely consistent with Darwin's view of natural selection. By saying that, some people listening to my words will immediately conclude that I must therefore be opposed to any role for god in the process that's not true. But I'm not an advocate of intelligent design, either."

http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/tucker_carlson_.htm

23

Joe writes:

"As I mentioned on the program, philosophers of science have long ago rejected the the demarcation problem (i.e., that we can make distinctions between science from pseudoscience). I claimed that the only people who hold such a view are high school science teachers.

"But I guess you prove that I was wrong. Apparantly , some other groups of people are just as confused."

However, according to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

"the demarcation problem is generally considered unresolved."

Unless you are prepared to back them up with evidence, your statements, Joe, come dangerously close to ad hominem attacks.

24

Patrick,
1st...you apparently haven't read ANYTHING Fred Reed has written over the years. He is not a Christian nor a conservative.

2nd...I don't determine what is true by the number of people who believe in something. Galileo fought this as have any number of other scientists who have fought against prevailing thoughts.

3rd...I never said I wanted ID or Creationism taught in public schools...in the science class or philosophy class.

4th...evolutionists are just as guilty of blurring lines...again, see Fred's articles.

You also, shouldn't judge the merits of an idea based on the ability of some people to convey that idea...like Joe on the radio. Just because he was not able to effectivley answer questions does not discount his ideas.

Personally, I think 'public' schools should not exist. If all schools were private and parents decided where their kids were educated, none of these establishment clause cases would exist. It wouldn't be an issue...everyone would have their kids educated in a way that would fit with their beliefs.

25

Mike

"Also, I'm sure that Larry would not be shouting "stop the charade" and concede that ID was true if the court case had gone the other way."

HHahhahaahaahahahhahah.

Nope. Nor would I be shouting "stop the charade" if your deity appeared from behind a cloud and wrote in giant letters across the sky "I did it" and created a billion creatures out of nothing right in front of me.

Sadly for you, Mike, that's not ever going to happen. And creationists are going to continue to get their butts handed to them in court because (sorry for you) they are LYING when they pretend that their religious beliefs about who created the universe are scientific.

Read Judge Jones' decision. Show me where Judge Jones is lying. Show me the evidence that supports your claim that Judge Jones is lying.

If you can't do that, then just admit that you are a shill and that reality doesn't matter to you. All that matter is PRAISE JESUS! and whatever other script your preacher tells you to recite.

This wasn't even a close case. Why wasn't it a close case? Because the evidence that evolutionary biology is legitimate rock solid science is overwhelming, and the evidence that ID peddlers are lying charlatans with a theocratic agenda is equally overwhelming.

Welcome to planet earth, Mike. It's not a bad place but it would be nice if you stop trying to shove your religious beliefs down my kids throat.

Thanks.

26

Joe Carter

"As I mentioned on the program, philosophers of science have long ago rejected the the demarcation problem (i.e., that we can make distinctions between science from pseudoscience)."

100% pure post-modern rubbish.

And totally hypocritical in that regard for reasons that are too obvious to mention. It's disturbing how quickly Christians are willing to pretend that "there are not truths" as long as the confusion can be spun into anti-science invective.

27

Mike

"Just like there are some Christians that support evolution."

It's been pointed out here repeatedly that there are for more professional scientists who are Christians who know that evolution is the real deal and ID is crap than there are so-called "Christians" who peddle lies in order to smear science and get around the First Amendment.

Why does Mike pretend this isn't the truth?

Answer: because Mike can't handle the truth. His "faith" is a sniveling greasy worm compared to the faith of a Christian like Francis Collins, who doesn't need to tell lies to "justify" his religious beliefs.

28

According to… "the demarcation problem is generally considered unresolved. "Unless you are prepared to back them up with evidence, your statements, Joe, come dangerously close to ad hominem attacks.

The demarcation problem has been “unresolved” for over a century now. As with all problems I suppose there could eventually be a solution to it. Unfortunately for the neo-Darwinist, any line drawn would probably cut it away from the scientific herd.

But the broader point is that referring to ID as “pseudo-science” is merely an expression of a person’s ignorance. As philosopher of science (and no fan of ID) Larry Laudan notes: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us."

29

Perhaps you are correct that the term "pseudo-science" is used merely as a pejorative (like "fundamentalist"). At the same time I can't see that it is in any way legitimate to call ID a science. It's an idea, but it's not science. Unless we're going to redefine science to mean "idea". I think the wikipedia artice on ID makes it pretty clear that ID does not meet even the most rudimentary definition of science.

30

Joe

"But the broader point is that referring to ID as “pseudo-science” is merely an expression of a person’s ignorance."

No it's not. And it's obnoxious to say so, Joe.

I just thought powerful thoughts really hard at a glass of water. Will you be made more powerful by drinking that water versus drinking another glass of water that I didn't think at?

Nope.

What if I say that it's my brains Zeta-waves travelling through W-Time in microsecond pulses that are making the water powerful? What if point out that 2xy!/(42)R2 = G/T? Does that matter?

No. It's pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is not a "hollow" term. It's doing more than "emotive" work. The word "pseudoscience" is useful and it certainly does apply to the garbage peddled by hacks such as Behe and Dembski.

You're still playing the game, Joe. You still want to change the definition of science so your religious beliefs become something more than your religious beliefs. You want your religious beliefs to be deemed "scientific."

Give it up. It's a dishonest game to be playing.

31

Larry,
You're the one who is full of it.
Where do you get that I am trying to ram my beliefs down your kids throats? No where!! In fact I support you teaching your kids or having your kids taught in the manner you think best. The same applies to me and everyone else.

I never said the judge was lying. I said the case was won by the better lawyer. Just like every other case that goes to trial in this country. Our system doesn't ensure justice. It chooses the best lawyer.
Lew Rockwell said it well today...."Posted by Lew Rockwell at 12:57 PM
The state seeks always and everywere to displace God (though its preference is for ancient days when it could claim to be a god). The state is a jealous state, and it wants no higher authority than itself. Thus, its hatred (alternating between supression and cooption) of the one religion that seeks to circumscribe the state, and thus its intense attachment to neo-Darwinism. As is clear from Dawkins, Gould, and the rest, this theory is in part beloved because it denies the existence of a creator."

I haven't read the decision or kept up with the court case. It doesn't matter either way to me. If the ID side had won...big deal. It would prove nothing. Discerning science in a courtroom is a recipe for disaster. What are you going to do when shrub has stacked the court with his cronies and the tide turns the other way? (It could happen)

As is usually the case, you ascribe certain viewpoints upon people that you know nothing about and then make sweeping statements about them and their position. You always sidestep the actual arguements here and go off on a tangent. You may be a Dr. on paper but like so many educated people, your education doesn't translate into common sense. That's why you spend most of your time name calling and attacking strawmen. You are an embarrasment to PhDs and the institution that issued you your degree....assuming it's not a PO box in Haiti.

32

Mike

"Personally, I think 'public' schools should not exist."

Call your congressional representative and let him or her know how you feel.

In the meantime, face the music: a court that heard a ton of testimony from both sides in a debate that both sides deemed fair (remember the applause in the courtroom after the case ended) just held that ID is creationist crap, which is what most educated people knew already.

Live and LEARN, Mike. LEARN!!!!!!!!! Take a step forward for once.

33

Mike

"I said the case was won by the better lawyer."

That's just the lamest cop-out I've ever heard.

Read the case. This wasn't some arcane issue of how to construe the term "and" in a patent claim.

This was about mountains of evidence which showed that some scientifically illiterate rubes tried to get their religious beliefs about the diversity of life on earth put into public school SCIENCE classrooms. And those rubes LIED the whole time about what the were doing.

Those were plain facts. The Judge doesn't need to do legal backflips to arrive at his conclusion. All he needs to do is remember that his job as a Judge is not to promote Christianity.

Got that, Mike?

His job is not to promote CHristianity.

"Discerning science in a courtroom is a recipe for disaster. "

You're ignorant, Mike. Sorry to have to point this out to you but you clearly have no clue about how the legal system in this country works. Again: Christian judges every day are REQUIRED to discern what is science and what isn't in the courtroom. They do this be examining the evidence presented to them in light of their vast experience in examining such evidence. Then they are required to explain how they reached their findings without invoking their deities or writings in some "holy book."

Welcome to earth, Mike.

"What are you going to do when shrub has stacked the court with his cronies and the tide turns the other way?"

Yes, well, that's Phil Johnson's wet dream, isn't it? To "turn the train around"?

I'll tell you what I'm going to do: I'm going to either leave the country or I'm going to devote my energy to impeaching any Justice who would put his personal religious beliefs before the evidence and law in front of him.

But I'm not going to tell lies and make nonsensical comments simply because when strung together the lies and comments make a pleasing script.

"I never said the judge was lying."

That was implicit in your statement that the case was won by the better lawyer.

Where is the Judge wrong? Where was the judge bamboozled? How could it be that the Judge could get things so backwards, Mike? How do you explain it, Mike?

Let me guess: you explain it in the same way that you explain how it is that the Nobel Prize hasn't been awarded to the scientist who proved that a deity must have created the universe.

In other words, you either invoke some bizarro conspiracy theory that Christians are being "persecuted" or you simply ignore the question.

34

It's interesting to note in this recycled post that Joe says he will save his criticism for creation science 'for another day'. Has that day come yet? Will it ever?

Anyway, let's take Joe's hypothetical. Let us make it a bit easier to imagine. Suppose the astronauts who made the 1969 moon landing uncovered a CD on the moon. Since CD's didn't exist in 1969 this object certainly would have looked strange but its meaning would not be obvious since no one would have a CD player to try it.

What would science make of it? Well for one thing it would test the materials & note that while they were made of everyday elements no known geological process either on the earth or the moon would have produced them. 'Intelligent design' would not be ruled out and the artifact would most likely be considered by science to be evidence that something intelligent once visited or existed on the moon. Notice if you believe this is how science circa 1969 would have viewed the uncovering of a CD on the moon then Joe's 'limitation' on naturalism is overturned! Science would have reached the truthful conclusion.

What would make 1969 science jump to this conclusion? Most likely the fact that the materials used in the CD could be produced by no known geological or biological process. That the shape of the CD is highly unusual for a geological or biological object (flat and very circular). Of course, though, some scientists will wonder and seek to find novel geological systems that might have produced the CD...just as today many scientists speculated that the Mars rocks didn't really contain fossilized bacterial life.

Here's something else that is interesting about how 1969 science would view the 'intelligent designed CD' hypothesis. Intially it wouldn't be able to explain exactly how the CD was made. It would say that of all hypothesises ID would have the most going for it since all the other ones have so little. From there, though, it would move forward. It would seek to explain how the materials used to make the CD were synthasized. How the CD could have been manufactured. Perhaps after some time it would even present the hypothesis that the CD was used for storing information as opposed to a simple decoration or poor mirror.

What's different about science considering an ID hypothesis in our alternative 1969 versus today. Well here's a few:

1. 1969's hypothesis is open to advancement. The ID of today is close ended. "Designer(s) created X" is about all ID today can or ever will tell us. There's no research, no strategy, no tests nothing that go beyond that.

2. 1969's hypothesis is tested against other theories. If an unexpected vulcanic process that produced donut shaped flat silocone wafers was discovered the ID hypothesis will suffer greatly.

3. The 1969 hypothesis is not predicated on a false choice. It is not assumed to be true simply by trying to shoot down one other theory (in other words, all the variants on the "if not evolution then ID is all that's left" argument).

4. Unlike the 1969 hypothesis, other theories offer better explanations. Evolutionary theory offers predictions as well as dynamics that can be observed and tested. Yes the theory is not complete and there are aspects that are beyond easy testing (so far) but in principle the theory could be tested from the beginning if one had enough resources & enough time on one's hands. The same cannot be said of the ID theory of today. It cannot, will not be tested, will not be evaluated. It stands or falls as a mater of faith mixed with bad science fiction.

35

Judge Jones decision speaks for itself.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

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. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. 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 ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

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

----Judge Jones

36

Patrick,

Judge Jones decision speaks for itself.

Yes, it does. And what it says is that Judge Jones is cluesless. In order to draw his conclusion he has to ignore almost all of the philosophy of science, the basic definition of ID theory, sound judicial reasoning, logic, and Truth. The Judge is either incompetent, politically motivated, or just plain dumb.

Personally, I'm thrilled by the decision since it will help the cause of ID. It shows that since the basic tenets of design detection cannot be ruled out as science that the courts must step in make a de facto ruling in order to protect neo-Darwinism. In essence, the Federal Court is playing the role of the Catholic Church to ID's Galileo.

Anytime you try to demand allegiance to an idea simply because the authorities say so it is bound to fail. This pathetically sloppy ruling will do nothing but stir up more anti-censorship sentiment and questioning of neo-Darwinist authority.

37

Personally, I'm thrilled by the decision since it will help the cause of ID. It shows that since the basic tenets of design detection cannot be ruled out as science that the courts must step in make a de facto ruling in order to protect neo-Darwinism. In essence, the Federal Court is playing the role of the Catholic Church to ID's Galileo.

HAHAHAHAAH, so what if the decision said the school board was ok in what it did? Would that be a ruling that hurt the cause of ID? OHHHH I GET IT. No matter what the decision is it helps ID. Just like ID itself, no matter what the facts are they will support ID. You may have gotten the play right Joe but I think you mixed up who has what roles.

38

Today we witnessed in Dover a tremendous victory for reason over ignorance. The court delivered a very thorough and carefully considered argument. It's worth reading the ruling in its entirety (should take the average reader about 40 minutes).

One thing that really hurt the ID proponents - especially Behe - was their insistence that ID was not creationism. Joe quibbles about ID not being "YEC" creationism, but the court didn't see that distinction as important. What swayed the judge most strongly was a comparison between "The Panda's Thumb" and another text published by the same company.

The two texts in question were absolutely, in every respect indentical, except that the earlier text used the terms "God" and "Creationism" and the subsequent text replaced those words with "ID" and "Designer." And those were the only changes between the two texts.

Where it gets really interesting is that the former text was published until a 1968 Arkansas legal case that forbade the teaching of "creation science." The publisher - a Christian outfit - responded with "The Panda's Thumb": Creationism II.

Confronted with this evidence, the judge was able to surmise that Behe et al. were simply flat-out lying when they said that ID wasn't Creationism. And lying in court is a Very Bad Thing.

Joe, you said in your posting today that:
"If Rennie is correct then MN should lead to correct conclusions regardless of the observer. By simply examining the evidence at hand and, when necessary, expanding “scientific inquiry” we should find that MN can consistently lead to true conclusions and do so without resorting to question begging and special pleading."

We would need to discuss this at some length to ensure that I understand your position correctly, but as you've expressed it here, it appears that you are forwarding a strawman argument. To whit: capital 'S' Science does not, by definition, attempt to draw conclusions about anything. Science is not interested in "true" conclusions, either.

Science is a tool for examining the natural world and formulating testable hypotheses about it. The tool that we call Science is a process that has been shown to be effective at helping us grasp the nature of reality. But Science often makes wrong turns and goes down incorrect paths. Viz "phlogistan," "aether," "phrenology," "cold fusion." What good Science does, however, is maintain a self-correcting mechanism that eventually discovers such flaws. Whether or not it can correct them is not the work of Science (which is a process) but the practitioner (Scientist) who employs it.

Creationism is not a competing process or tool, and cannot be used in place of Science because it is not procedural; ID is thus nothing but the act of unwarranted assertion, quod erat demonstrandum.

39

"In essence, the Federal Court is playing the role of the Catholic Church to ID's Galileo."

That noise you hear is Galileo spinning in his grave. This has to be the most absurd analogy I have ever heard.

I learned a long time ago to be very suspicious of someone who capitalizes the word "Truth." Truth with a capital "T' is not open to review by mere mortals. Unfortunately, all the zealots can't seem to agree on what "Truth" is.

40

Carter

"And what it says is that Judge Jones is cluesless. In order to draw his conclusion he has to ignore almost all of the philosophy of science, the basic definition of ID theory, sound judicial reasoning, logic, and Truth."

When you say the Truth, you mean your religious beliefs, correct?

Please feel free to expound on your strange smear of Judge Jones. Why are you smearing this Judge -- applauded by both sides of the case -- who clearly worked very hard to do the job he was asked to do by an evangelical Christian by the name of George W. Bush.

It's one thing to just list some generic mistakes the Judge might have made. But this is a rather sharp attack and it would be nice to see concrete examples of each of the failures you refer to.

41

Joe,

What i'd like to know about this court case is, is it finished here or does it move on to the Supreme Court?

While I think that this case has gotten some national attention, I do not believe it has gotten enough national attention. It would be great if this got moved to the Supreme Court now. Then the American public could see for themselves who was using rhetoric and acting hysterically and who was remaining calm and laying out the facts.

So, is this the end, or will the case get to go before the Supreme Court?

If it goes to the Supreme Court maybe we could get really lucky and have Larry Lord and/or Mumon testify.

Raven,

What is this other text of which you speak?

42

Joe,

Would you please formulate and post here the concise, specific, basic defintion of ID that the judge ignored?

43

Patrick wrote;

"I think ans under-reported aspect of the Dover case that gets short-shrift in the Christian press and blogs is just how much and how often the proponents of ID repeatedly lie outright."

Could you provide an example of one of these outright lies? If it is done often and repeatedly it should be rather easy for you.

44

Man, that is a comment for the ages from Joe:

"Anytime you try to demand allegiance to an idea simply because the authorities say so it is bound to fail."

Really? So when are "erosion" and "continental drift" going to fail?

Do you suppose they will fail before or after the idea that "global warming is just an environmentalist scare tactic"?

45

E and L

"Could you provide an example of one of these outright lies? If it is done often and repeatedly it should be rather easy for you."

Jon Ryland of the Discovery Institute claimed that the Discovery Institute never promoted teaching ID in public schools. That was a blatant lie and he was called on his lie in public and refused to acknowledge the lie.

If you want to see it, go to the American Enterprise Institute home page and download the video. It'll be a good education for you.

46

It will be interesting to see the spin ID apologists put on their latest setback. I expect the Dover case will be dismissed as a constitutional issue and not an evaluation of the scientific validity of ID. The book Of Pandas and People is a particularly interesting item in the case. Judge Jones thoroughly refutes the claim by the publishers of the book that ID is not creationism. This highlights the most astonishing aspect of the ID movement. In their zeal to defeat “godless evolution”, devoutly religious people are resorting to lies. They bear false witness about scientific experiments failing to support evolution and about scientific research underway that supports ID. They bear false witness about controversies within scientific circles regarding evolution and about supposedly embarrassing gaps in the fossil record. They bear false witness about the books they publish. “Ironic” is the kindest adjective that comes to mind.

I am not accusing anyone here of deliberate fabrication. I expect such claims are often repeated sincerely. The fabrication and distortion is so pervasive in ID literature that one could easily fall prey to presuming them to be true. Particularly when such claims resonate strongly with those who demand of God that He be not only the Creator and the Redeemer but also the Caretaker, constantly intervening in His Creation. It is no different, I suppose, then the reassurance we seek in human relationships – that those we love regularly demonstrate their love for us rather than expect us to believe in it simply in faith.

47

Here's another lie from the Discovery Institute, a fresh one:

"“He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.”

So Eric and Lisa -- please tell us where Judge Jones "totally misrepresents ... the motivations of the scientists who research [sic] it."

And tell us what "research" is being done on the mysterious beings with alien powers who allegedly designed the universe. Where do the beings live? How do they create universes?

And it would be nice for you to do so before the Discovery Institute publishes a script for you to recite.

Good luck. You'll need luck badly in this instance.

And try to stay focused. Scientists have developed drugs to help you focus on the issues if you are having difficulty.

48

LL writes;

"Jon Ryland of the Discovery Institute claimed that the Discovery Institute never promoted teaching ID in public schools."

In order for this to be a lie, first you have to show me where Jon Ryland said this, then you have to show me where the Discovery Institute promoted teaching ID in public schools. Please accept that I won't take your word for it, you have to provide evidence for your accusations. I know you are not used to that but if you wish to be believed you must do so.

LL also writes;

""“He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.”

So Eric and Lisa -- please tell us where Judge Jones "totally misrepresents ... the motivations of the scientists who research [sic] it.""

This isn't even in the realm of a lie. It's an opinion. Certainly you know what that is LL.

And now I have to go and take a shower. I feel dirty after reading LL and even dirtier for responding.

49

E/L

It's Marc Ryland, not Jon Ryland -- my mistake.

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1169/transcript.asp

Open the link. Search for the text: "Let me back up first and say that the Discovery Institute never set out to have schools get into this issue. We've never encouraged people to do it, we've never promoted it. "

Then use your miserable eyeballs.

50

Science would actually be a very good way of looking at this particular "thought experiment." Assuming that the aliens don't live on a planet where it rains nylon ropes and fermium (really, you could have at least picked an element where scientists can make a visible amount of it), they could indeed posit an intelligent designer. From past experience, they would have seen that objects like that are not formed spontaneously. They could then, yes, posit an intelligent designer and search for more information about this designer. However, living objects are formed spontaneously every single day. Millions of bacteria are forming spontaneously in your stomach right now.

Black phosphorus requires a seed of black phosphorus in order to form that particular crystalline structure. Of course, an intelligent designer could have made that original seed, but most people would obviously think that the first seed formed spontaneously. Life has a tendency to form spontaneously from a similar "seed crystal," and there are obvious mechanisms where it could mutate to a wide variety of forms.

51

E/L

"This isn't even in the realm of a lie. It's an opinion."

Shower all you want, E/L. I would recommend simply flushing your body down your toilet so it can reunite with your brain.

52

Eric and Lisa: "What is this other text of which you speak?"

My memory was a bit faulty - the decision is a long read - but the book "Pandas and People" went through multiple drafts, and I was referring to earlier drafts. Here's the section of the decision I was citing:

[begin excerpt]
Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work. (10:102-08 (Forrest)). As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:
(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas.
[end excerpt]

The key point is that these people got caught in an elaborate fabrication that they thought they'd get away with. They (Behe and his pals) thought that nobody would go back and check the drafts, and they expected to walk back to their hotel rooms after the case, laughing and slapping each other on the back and giggling like schoolgirls over having pulled a fast one over the court.

And they got nailed.

53

Larry,
so the lie you are referring to is the motive behind teaching ID? Is this the lying that the ID proponents did during the trial?

I'm not saying the judge is a liar. The better attorney won. If the ID side of this presented it's case poorly, then of course the other side would win. Has nothing to do with the judges honesty. I don't know the judge so I can't comment specifically on his reasoning behind his decision....and even people who do know him cannot comment on his reasoning because they can't read his mind. Only he knows his motives. So, once again, this trial only proved who presented the best case at this time. That's not to say that someone else could not have provided a more convincing case.

But of course, you couldn't hack at that arguement so you keep saying that I called or inferred that the judge is a liar.

Since I'm sure you haven't taken the time to read Fred Reed's critique of evolution, let me share with you one little exerpt:
Now (and I hope this doesn’t bore those who have read me before on the matter), an entertaining way to study the politics is to ask the Evolutionists questions that a scientist would answer (since scientists are not ashamed not to know things), but that an ideologue can’t afford to. They are simple. (1) Has the chance occurrence of life been demonstrated in the laboratory? Yes or no. (2) Do we really know, as distinct from guess, hope, or imagine, of what the primeval seas consisted? Yes or no. (3) Do we know, as distinct from guess, pray, wave our arms, and hold our breath and turn blue, what seas would be needed for the chance formation of life? Yes or no. (4) Can we show mathematically, without crafted and unsupportable assumptions, that the formation of life would be probable in any soup whatever? Yes or no.

I'm pretty sure your response will be much the same as Fred received from your kind.

54

"If the ID side of this presented it's case poorly, then of course the other side would win."

What is your evidence that this case was presented "poorly" by those intelligent highly-motivated Christian professionals at the Thomas Moore Law Center?

Given the same set of facts, what would have done differently and how would your changes have changed the outcome?

"I can't comment specifically on his reasoning behind his decision...."

That's false. His reasoning appears in black and white, you miserable dissembling buffoon.

"even people who do know him cannot comment on his reasoning because they can't read his mind."

But they can read his decision. Please don't bullshxt me, Mike. You really are starting to sound like a cyanide-drinking fanatic. It makes me sick.

"Only he knows his motives."

What do you mean by "his motives"? Do you mean whether he is anti-Christian or not? What are you driving at?

"you keep saying that I called or inferred that the judge is a liar."

That's what you are doing, Mike. You are claiming that the Judge based his decision on some strange unarticulated "motives" and not on the facts or the law. That would be dishonest, in my book. It certainly would represent a complete betrayal of his role as a judge.

So where is the evidence for this betrayal, Mike? Where did Judge Jones fudge it? I want specific citations. Otherwise, you're just a liar for Jesus who engages in loathsome smearing of your brother because you disagree with the outcome of a perfectly rational decision.

Fyi, that crap from Reed is just creationist apologetics and Judge Jones addressed those "god of the gaps" style arguments in his decision, just as many of us here have addressed such arguments from the likes of you hundreds of times.

Live and LEARN, Mike. LEARN!!!!!!!!

Take a step forward in your life. Your deity allegedly gave you a brain and hopefully some balls. Suck it up, admit you were taken for a ride, and try a new salad dressing.

55

But of course, you couldn't hack at that arguement so you keep saying that I called or inferred that the judge is a liar.

That's also why if the ID side had won you wouldn't be trumpeting their success as a triumph of science. This case did not determine whether the ID or evolution theories had merit, but whether or not ID was teaching trying to teach religion...and even that is debatable. That might be where belief in ID leads, just like atheism is the logical end to believing in evolution.
Not everyone thinks through their beliefs logically so you do end up with some evolutionists who are Christian and some ID proponents who are not Christian. Irrationality can be found in both camps. So all this posturing about the trial proving ID is baseless is without merit.

56

"The Judge is either incompetent, politically motivated, or just plain dumb."

Well...either that or you are wrong. I'm going with the "Joe is wrong" option because that seems far more likely.

57

Mike wrote;

"I'm pretty sure your response will be much the same as Fred received from your kind."

LL wrote;

"you miserable dissembling buffoon"

Heh

58

"That might be where belief in ID leads, just like atheism is the logical end to believing in evolution."

The *logical* end to Christianity is also atheism. The *purpose* of Christianity is not atheism. The purpose of ID is not science (what discoveries are they purporting to make?), but proselytization.

59

Larry,
you were right on cue. Reed is far from a creationist apologizer. He does, however ask rational questions. As predicted, people like you have a closed mind and won't even take the time to read over a few very valid questions or a critique of your position if it in any way challenges the validity of your viewpoint.

Here's his results of asking people like you those questions:
Of the Knights Templar of Evolution, none – not one – answered the foregoing yes-or-no questions. They ducked. They dodged. They waxed wroth. They called names.
This is the behavior not of scientists but of true believers. I have spent countless hours as a reporter talking to scientists, as distinct from zealots with a scientific background. Without exception that I can remember, they were rational, honest, and forthcoming. Yes, they were often trying to establish a pet theory. But they said, “I think this is so, and here’s the evidence, and I think it’s pretty solid, but I still need to show this or that, and no, we haven’t, but I hope we will.” If I expressed doubts, they either showed me clearly and civilly why I was wrong, or said, “Good point. Here’s what we think.” Parenthetically, my impression, based on a small sample, is that the more incensed of the Evolutionists tend to be either of the hard Right or the hard Left: those who need to believe one thing categorically seem to need to believe other things categorically. Which means that if they are wrong, they are unlikely to notice it.
And this is what disturbs me about them. I do not object to the content of Evolutionism. Some, all, or part of it may be correct. I would like to know. A more fascinating question does not readily come to mind. But dispassionate discussion with them is not possible, anymore than it is with Gloria Steinem or Herbert Marcuse or Cornell West, and for exactly the same reasons. They are the same people. How sad.

I have to agree with Fred. You are not a real scientist. You are a true believer. A zealot with a scientific background.

You won't answer the questions because you know the implications. THAT LARRY IS WRONG. You have finally exposed yourself as the pathetic wretch that you accuse of us of being.

60

All:

It's kind of hard to get online here on evenings, as a rule, but I did get through today.

A few observations:

1] Time to calm down:

Those who fought through say civil rights or even way back to slavery will easily tell youy that a court room [or a parliament for that matter] is not where issues of truth, justice [!!!!] or objectivity are usually decided. Indeed, in my observation, what happens is that until a threshold of political influence is crossed in the community at large, courts and parliaments will as a rule act to protect the powerful at the exprense of the perceived weak -- just think 1857, Dredd Scott.

2] Religion vs Science -- philosophy is the missing factor

The issue is in the end worldviews and their influence on how science and science education are understood and done.

Joe is dead right on the demarcation issue, but over several months I have come tot he conclusion that evolutionary materialists are simply not listening to the issues, and they plainly feel that they have enough cultural power to force through an agenda.

What has plainly happened is that the voices that dominated were those with the line that methodological naturalism is not at least as much of a worldview agenda as anything that challenges it.

But, in fact, that is plainly not the case. And labelling one worldview "science" and the other "relgion" then saying (by distorting US constitutional history) that the latter is barred from the education arena at the local level -- and remember what was the substantive issue here: a notification that one could find an alternative view in the school library! -- is not going to work out in the end.

3] the root science issue

Let's go back to basics:

* in science, rouytinely, inferences to intentional and unintentional intelligent agency are routinely done, say in pharmacology, climatology, etc. That is, intelligent action is not an inherently unscientific inference.

* In the case of the molecular chemistry of life, Meyer has correctly observed in a recent article, that

"The modern theory of intelligent design was not developed in response to a legal setback for creationists in 1987. Instead, it was first formulated in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists-Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon-who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule. In the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, Thaxton and his colleagues first developed the idea that the information-bearing properties of DNA provided strong evidence of a prior but unspecified designing intelligence. Mystery was published in 1984 by a prestigious New York publisher-three years before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision."

* DNA embeds a specific code, with a specific and highly complex syntax and semantics, executed through an integrated network of molecules in turn produced through that code. While it is logically possible that such information can emerge by chance, the thermodynamic probability -- absent a clear theory of self-organisation [not in prospect] -- is as near zero as makes no difference. That, in part is why we are seeing speculative scenarios about infinite arrays of subuniverses so that the probability hill seen with a known cosmos of ~ 10E80 atoims and 13.7 BY can be ducked. (And this has been discussed enough that I can confidently say that.)

* The force of this is simple: books are not written at random, nor are software packages. [Contrary to popular opinion, Bill does not have a room with 1 Mn monkeys pecking away at random there in Redmond. to get this softeware into Swahili, he had to hire experts and work at it for 2 years, as just announced on BBC). In short, we do know of a most likely explkanation fpor such omplex code: intelligent agents. Of course, this cannot speak to whether within or beyond the cosmos.

* When we turn to the other major design theory issue, we find that the cosmos as we observe it exhibits a pattern in the cosmogentric factors of such knife-edge finetuning in aggregate, that Meyer in the same article could observe:

"Even as early the 1960s and 70s, physicists had begun to reconsider the design hypothesis. Many were impressed by the discovery that the laws and constants of physics are improbably "finely-tuned" to make life possible. As British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it, the fine-tuning of numerous physical parameters in the universe suggested that "a superintellect had monkeyed with physics" for our benefit."

* Again, the alternative is a quasi-infinite, as yet unobserved arrray of sub universes. That is, we are looking at metaphysics, not science.

4] Speaking of science

Part of the trouble here is that the definition of science is being ideologised, and not by the Design thinkers: methodoliogical naturalism, as discussed above, is a capital example of metaphysical gerrymandering. And, eventually, when the genral public wises up, there is going to be a very serious price to be paid by the advcocates of MN.

So, let us go back to a telling contrast that we can see between Dembski and Dawkins, on bilogy and design:

Dembski: intelligent design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.

Dawkins: “biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”

Kindly explain to me how -- given the issues above on logical possibility vs thermodynamic probability -- definition 1 is "religion," whilst definition 2 is "science," without begging some serious worldview questions.

5] For instance . . .

So far as I can see, the judge over in Dover, sadly, fails that test. I cite here DI's quickie response, which raises serious concerns that do need to be addressed:

Judge Jones offered three mains reasons for his conclusion that ID isn't science, all of which fall apart on close inspection.

Jones asserted: "We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation."

No. Design theorists argue that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for certain features of the natural world. Jones countered this point by noting that most design theorists believe in the Christian God, untroubled by the fact that he is here committing the genetic fallacy, dismissing an argument based on its source (here Christian scientists and philosophers). Commented one legal scholar, "It is worse than horrible, if that is possible. Essentially, what the judge has concluded is that if one is a religious citizen who offers an argument for a point of view consistent with your religious worldview, you will be segregated from the public square. But not because your argument is bad, but because of your beliefs and the company you keep or may have kept. I can't believe this could happen in America." . . . .

"(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's."

The dualism he refers to goes something like this: "If one can punch enough holes in Neo-Darwinism, then creationism must be true." Design theory does not proceed this way, his appeals to the ACLU's expert witnesses, and his misrepresentations of Behe and Minnich, notwithstanding . . . .

(3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

Instead, ID has merely been denounced by the scientific community, while a small but growing minority of scientists have challenged the reigning paradigm. Scientists like Kenneth Miller have merely refuted straw men versions of intelligent design, such as the depiction of ID as merely a negative argument. The judge attempts to head off our positive case for design by stating that it's merely the "Reverend Paley's" watch analogy updated for the modern era . . . .

The charge is two-fold. (1) Paley was a Reverend arguing for God, so all design arguments are just religious arguments. Never mind that the pagan philosophers Socrates and Plato made similar design arguments . . . . the judge attempts to dismantle design theory's appeal to our uniform experience of things like information and intricate and functional machinery, things that always turn out to be designed when we know the history of their origin . . . .

Design theory holds that we have broad and detailed experience with intelligent causes. Here the identity in the comparison is intelligence or mind. Intelligent agents can look ahead to a future goal and arrange parts for the purpose of some future outcome. Material causes can't do this, a point not even contested by Neo-Darwinists. Such purposeful activity often leaves behind telltale features in the designed systems, a point granted in scientific fields like forensics.

Time to do a serious rethink.

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

61

Regarding the Jones decision speaking for itself, Joe responds:

"Yes, it does. And what it says is that Judge Jones is cluesless. In order to draw his conclusion he has to ignore almost all of the philosophy of science, the basic definition of ID theory, sound judicial reasoning, logic, and Truth. The Judge is either incompetent, politically motivated, or just plain dumb."

Really, upon reading this response, what more is there *possibly* to say to Joe and the more salted members of the fundamentalist peanut gallery assembled here?

They will never, I repeat, NEVER, smell the freakin' "naturalist" coffee. All the evidence accumulated on this list, every time the topic comes up, indicates they absolutely LOVE marinating in reality-denial, and even better, cherish their position on the cutting edge of contortionist argumentative re-framing. This IS their reality, elaborately constructed, and held on to with white knuckles.

Fortunately, for the rest of us, when the bright light of deliberate scrutiny, via a court of law, is shone upon these tactics, they consistently melt into a harmless evaporative puddle.

But kudos to Raven, LL, Rob Ryan, and the other voices of reason assembled here for continuously calling out the tired arguments and tactics regardless. For anyone reading this list who IS capable of confronting reality, outside the labyrinthine fundamentalist tunnel, their contributions are likely invaluable.

62

Patrick wrote;

"I think an under-reported aspect of the Dover case that gets short-shrift in the Christian press and blogs is just how much and how often the proponents of ID repeatedly lie outright."

Could you provide an example of one of these outright lies? If it is done often and repeatedly it should be rather easy for you.

Regarding the Dover case, I'd refer to you to the other posts above outlining the deception regarding the Pandas book. You can also look at the depositions of those involved on the statements of those on the board of Education saying that their motivations for inserting ID were secular rather than religious, which conflicted with their own previous statements both in the official board minutes, and had even been caught on videotape.

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/12/interesting_items_in_dover_bri.php#more

And Joe, Wow. I never realized you were such a militant nut-case on ID. Your beginning to sound a lot like me when I write on the topic of Christian bigotry toward gay people. Apparently you really do want Christianity to be taught in public Schools as the official State-sanctioned Religion. Good. I'm sure once you accomplish your goals the Man from the Government will stop by to give you your checklist on "approved" Christian beliefs. Make sure you toe the line. I'm so glad you found a hobby.

So why don't you do one of your famous bit-by-bit analysis of the flaws of Judge Johnson's reasoning? Backed up by facts and references of course. I look forward to it only slightly less than I do to hearing whatever idiotic thing Pat Roberston is going to say regarding the case.

63

Patrick writes;

"Regarding the Dover case, I'd refer to you to the other posts above outlining the deception regarding the Pandas book. You can also look at the depositions of those involved on the statements of those on the board of Education saying that their motivations for inserting ID were secular rather than religious, which conflicted with their own previous statements both in the official board minutes, and had even been caught on videotape."

I'll take this to mean you were previously engaging in hyperbole.

64

Mike

"As predicted, people like you have a closed mind and won't even take the time to read over a few very valid questions or a critique of your position if it in any way challenges the validity of your viewpoint."

That's a joke. I did read over the questions. They don't challenge the "validity of my viewpoint" (whatever that means) because my "viewpoint" doesn't include the claim that evolutionary biology has provided explanations for every scientific question that can be posed on the subject.

In fact, my "viewpoint" is that science will never answer every question that scientists can pose about any topic because the practice of science is all about asking more questions. But the key is that the questions aren't unscientific questions that do not lead to testable hypotheses and the answers to those questions are not pre-ordained by what some freak with poopstains on his poncho wrote thousands of years before humans figured out that the earth rotates around the sun.

Speaking of questions, I asked a bunch of questions in the "Creation Story for Young Materialists" thread that you are free to answer. You don't need a science background to answer them.

But you do need a conscience. Maybe you can find a friend to help you.

65

And Joe, Wow. I never realized you were such a militant nut-case on ID. Your beginning to sound a lot like me when I write on the topic of Christian bigotry toward gay people.

I’ve noticed that myself. It started after the radio interview today when hearing otherwise intelligent people repeatedly misrepresent the ID debate. Setting aside the Dover case, ID is not against evolution, nor are they incompatible. What ID is incompatible with is a strictly materialist interpretation of evolution which is just as religiously motivated as any “creationism.” It gets under my skin when people remain willfully ignorant of the true nature of the debate.

Apparently you really do want Christianity to be taught in public Schools as the official State-sanctioned Religion. Good.

No, Patrick, what I want is for legitimate ideas to remain uncensored. The issue is simple: Is it possible that biological organism were designed by an intelligent agent? If the answer is “yes” then why can’t that be mentioned in a science classroom? If the answer is “no” then on what basis has design detection been ruled out?

I’m just tired and frustrated by the rampant idiocy of people who think ID has been ruled out on empirical grounds. If they want to admit that it is only their philosophical and/or religious bias that leads them to exclude the theory then I can at least admire their honesty. But for people to repeatedly try to dismiss the theory without addressing it’s central contention is both silly and an exercise in futility. Reality always wins out and if design is detectable (which everyone agrees it is – except when it comes to biology!) then ID will eventually become the dominant scientific paradigm.

If the critics of ID were a bit brighter they would stop trying to censor the view and try to come up with an alternate theological explanation for who the Designer is.

Also, I find it telling that not one person has been able to answer the question in my post about how the aliens can explain how each of these items developed in the way that they did. The reason ID will win is because once you set aside the bluster and hand-waving the fact remains that most critics of ID simply don't have a clue as to what they are talking about.

66

E/L

So how about Marc Ryland's lie, E/L? Read the transcript yet?

C'mon, let's see if creationist Christians are capable of behaving honestly.

Stop making your Messiah look like a worthless turd. Surely he meant the things he said, didn't he?

So how's it going to be, E/L? Does Jesus want you to lie and behave dishonestly? Is that how it works?

If so, you've picked a real loser for a deity.

Did you pick a loser for a diety, E/L?

Or are you behaving in a way that contradicts your holy book?

Marc Rylan is a lying sack of crap. Does he exemplify how Christians should behave?

Your silence speaks volumes.

67

"a strictly materialist interpretation of evolution ... is just as religiously motivated as any “creationism.”"

Explain that statement of yours, Joe. Or try to explain it.

Are you saying that practicing the scientific method in a way that leads to testable hypotheses is "religious"?

Under what definition of "religion"?

Where is the deity? Where is the faith in the supernatural? Where are the pre-ordained conclusions in the holy book?

Science is not religion. If it is, then your religion is just bad science because you get your conclusions not from doing experiments and testing reality but from a holy book.

Is that where you want to go? That's where you are going.

"Is it possible that biological organism were designed by an intelligent agent? If the answer is “yes” then why can’t that be mentioned in a science classroom? If the answer is “no” then on what basis has design detection been ruled out?"

We don't teach garbage "alternate explanations" in science class merely because they are theoretically possible if we make outrageous assumptions. There are practical reasons for that.

In addition, when the "alternate explanations" are clearly just shorthand for Christian religious beliefs, then we've got Constitutional issues because NEWS FLASH we don't live in a Christian theocracy.

That's it. Very simple. Very easy.

You're finished.

There's no censorship involved, Joe. It's just that an honest discussion doesn't take a whole lot of time.

"But for people to repeatedly try to dismiss the theory without addressing it’s central contention is both silly and an exercise in futility."

The central contention of the theory is that mysterious alien beings that are undetectable created the universe.

You say it's Jesus. I say Jesus was a puppet of Borgomorson and those who claim otherwise are going to suffer eternal torment and should be shot on sight so we don't have to listen to them.

It's not a question of "dismissing" the central claim. It's a question of: the central claim has nothing whatsoever to do with science until you have scientific evidence to support the claim.

You have no scientific evidence that Jesus created the universe.

That's it. Very simple.

"If the critics of ID were a bit brighter they would stop trying to censor the view and try to come up with an alternate theological explanation for who the Designer is. "

I've been doing that for years. Let me know when you are okay with me teaching kids in public schools that Jesus was a puppet for my deity and that all those school kids are going to hell and will be shot on sight as soon as we get some more people from my religion on the Supreme Court.

68

"I find it telling that not one person has been able to answer the question in my post about how the aliens can explain how each of these items developed in the way that they did."

I thought Boonton answered it.

But it would better, Joe, for you to try to answer the question. How would the aliens who were scientists explain each of those items?

How would the aliens who worship a holy book which claims that the True God and Creator of the Universe looks like a puffy dog with a red bow in its hair answer the question?

And what will those aliens say when Fifi kicks the bucket?

69

"...over several months I have come tot he conclusion that evolutionary materialists are simply not listening to the issues, and they plainly feel that they have enough cultural power to force through an agenda."

I usually just scroll past Gordon's interminable maunderings, but this delicious piece of unintentional irony caught my eye. Rich, isn't it?

70

Joe Carter:

As I've said before, we can posit a physically observable process by which natural selection would happen. We cannot do so for "Intelligent" "Design," which is why one is a science and one is not, despite protestations to the contrary.

They English guys were spot on when they brought this up.

They "you're not really talking about 'Intelligent' 'Desgin'" gambit was used by the Discovery Institute types and Dembski, without, you know really saying what their "real" "theory" was. Kind of like Seinfeld, it's a theory about nothing, I would have to conclude.

As Larry said read the decision. Read the excellent coverage at Panda's Thumb. Why some of the defendants weren't charged with contempt of court or perjury can only be because their case was so weak that there was no way the outcome of the case could have been affected materially by their lies. But make no mistake about it. They were caught dissembling red-handed as it were.

71

...what I want is for legitimate ideas to remain uncensored....

Did anyone point out that the "sticker" thingy and the "disclaimer" thingy were found to have censorious affect by the judge?

Seems that some folks want some ideas censored because it conflicts with their religious prejudices.

Interestingly enough,

72

LL wrote;

"Open the link. Search for the text: "Let me back up first and say that the Discovery Institute never set out to have schools get into this issue. We've never encouraged people to do it, we've never promoted it. "

Then use your miserable eyeballs."

I used my wonderfully designed eyeballs but still couldn't find the text. No matter, I'll take your word for it that it was said.

What is the lie exactly?

"Marc Rylan is a lying sack of crap. Does he exemplify how Christians should behave?"

Oh dear, the venom is getting pretty thick.

What is the lie, LL? I'm still trying to figure it out. In order for that to be a lie, you must show that the Discovery Institute set out to get schools into this issue. That they encouraged people to get into it and that they promoted it.

People lie all the time, it is the nature we were given and it is why we need the sacrifice of Christ. But you have yet to demonstrate a lie. I'll continue to search the transcript in hopes that i'll find the line you quoted.

73

E/L : copy a portion of the quote and search for it with your computer's "find" function.

Then start reading.

Oy ...

74

Hi,Joe-
I'm new here. I discovered your blog through the Weblog Awards. I'd like to return to your basic critique of Methodological Naturalism and your hypothetical example.

If Rennie is correct then MN should lead to correct conclusions regardless of the observer.

You are confusing the method with the evidence. MN can only lead to relatively correct conclusions because having all the existant evidence is impossible. Not all observers [either in location or in time] are operating with the same set of evidence.

But science is collective and cumulative--constantly recomparing conclusions against new evidence and achieving correspondingly better relative fit with its MN method.

This is why your example is fundamentally flawed. Let's take it from one vantage point and assume that this is all the evidence available and our aliens have little or no a priori standpoint on what the evidence might mean.

That would place them roughly in the same position as Darwin on the Beagle. From that standpoint you have simply not provided enough evidence to apply the MN method reliably.

We forget very quickly that the better half of Darwin's work, as with most scientists until the middle 19th century, was that of observation and not explanation. Reliable explanation was simply not possible until you had sufficient evidence.

The strength of Darwin's TENS [or any good scientific theory] is not its abstract "correctness" in the absolute, but its power to explain an incredible amount of observed evidence in precise detail. ID has essentially one explanation for any observed fact: the "designer" did it.

If we look a