I generally have no problem with evolution, and don't really subscribe to ID or similar arguments, but I was trying to point out to a friend of mine that there are people who are adament creationists that know more about evolutionary theory than he ever would, because they've taken on the debate in their lives and had to answer all the challenges and nitpick the opposition. This was a concept he could barely fathom. How could a creationist know more than him about evolution when they reject it? He just lamely allied himself with evolution and considered himself more knowledgable.

The problem isn't what the students will learn or not learn, and it isn't about a desire to 'bring up a generation of darwinists'.

Most students will sleep through their newly-bastardised science classes just as they slept through the previous ones, and there will be far stronger influences on them in normal daily life which mean that most have a vague notion that God created the birds, bees and dinosaurs. Meanwhile, a handful will slip through the net and take an interest in science in later life, and probably no smaller or larger a handful than before.

The issue is this: why should evolution get this treatment, when no other aspect of science (most of which are equally 'unprovable' on those terms) does? Plate tectonics is just one of the most obvious parallels, but you could make an 'ID'-style case for virtually anything.

Of couse, when I pose the question 'why', I already know the answer as well as everyone else.

ID is wrose than bad science, it's bad religion. As biologist (and devout Catholic) Dr. Kenneth Miller pointed out:

"Intelligent design does a terrible disservice to God by casting him as a magician who periodically creates and creates and then creates again throughout the geologic ages. . . . God is not a magician who works cheap tricks. Rather, His magic lies in the fabric of the universe itself."

This is in keeping with Catholic doctrine and tradition which has never had a problem with Darwin. This was recently reiterated by the Vatican which is seeking to make it clear that it wants nothing to do with ignorant and loony Creationists:

(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-1860310,00.html)

He had said that the description in Genesis of the Creation was �perfectly compatible� with Darwin�s theory of evolution, if the Bible were read properly. �Fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim.�

He argued that the real message of Genesis was that the Universe did not make itself, and had a creator. �Science and theology act in different fields, each in its own.� In Rome, the immediate reaction was that this was a Vatican rejection of the fundamentalist American doctrine of �intelligent design�. No doubt the Vatican does want to separate itself from American creationists, but the significance surely goes further than that. This is not another Galileo case; the teachings of the Church have never imposed a literal interpretation of the language of the Bible; that was a Protestant mistake. Nor did the Church condemn the theory of evolution, though it did and does reject neo-Darwinism when that is made specifically atheist.

Indeed, one can go back nearly 1,500 years before Darwin and find St Augustine of Hippo, the most commanding intellect of all the early doctors of the Church, teaching a doctrine of evolution in the early 5th century. In one of his greatest works, De Genesi ad Litteram, he stated that God did not create an organised Universe as we see it now, but in the beginning created all the elements of the world in a confused and �nebulous� mass. In this mass were the mysterious seeds of the creatures who were to come into existence.

Augustine�s thought does therefore contain the elements of a theory of evolution, and even a genetic theory, but does not have natural selection. St Augustine has always been orthodox. He did not foresee modern science in AD410, but he did have an extraordinary grasp of the potential evolution of scientific thought. Cardinal Poupard�s address to the journalists should not be seen as a matter of the Roman Church changing its mind and accepting Darwin after 145 years.

It is a precautionary statement, distancing the Church from the American attack on Darwinism that Rome considers to be neither good science, nor good theology. It will also be taken as an indication of the priorities of the present Pope Benedict XVI.

Makes me proud to be Catholic, the only religion with an intelligent response to Darwin.

Peter:

What RC, Brit, and Anon said.

Without saying it in so many words, it sounds to me like Catholicism has recognized the ultimate irony in ID/Creationism.

It is an exegesistical doddle to accommodate a moral and merciful God with naturalistic evolution, and would go something like this: God, in his infinite wisdom, created a Universe He knew would ultimately produce creatures in his own image that were part of His Natural Creation, yet stood above it.

Contrast that with ID/Creationism, with God involved in every jot and tittle of evolution. As I have mentioned before, this presents theodicy with a vengeance.

And irony in all its glory. Naturalistic evolution, despite claims to the contrary, does not threaten belief in God.

ID/Creationism, despite claims to the contrary, does. If one wanted to demolish belief in the Christian conception of God, I could think of no more effective way to do so than completely buy into ID/Creationism.

Jeff:

I don't have any problem with that. I don't know how many times we've said that ID is unpersuasive, but you don't want to believe us.

Here is the dilemna. There is plenty of evidence for natural evolution but also some serious evidentiary and logical gaps. There is plenty of evidence of design in nature but more than enough hit and miss to make that (as a total or even principle guiding explanation) the work of a very inscrutable deity. No theory of the origin of existence and life can be substantiated empirically by definition, because we weren't around to witness it. There are too many impressive minds behind each for either to be disdainful or contemptuous. So, teach the kids the competing theories, warts and all, and everyone wins. The darwinist rearguard action to keep science clesses "pure" is anti-intellectual and confuses education with indoctrination. Too many on your team are playing Torquemada in the name of the purity of the canons of biological reductionism.

I'm not sure the Catholic Church is as ad idem with mainstream evolutionary thought as you and Anon profess (free will, consciousness, alienation, sin and miracles?), but it certainly seems to respect reason more than many on the Protestant right and left. You might enjoy this.

Peter:

So you are suggesting that the Discovery Institute's motivation in this is to fully extend the horizons of the children, in the interests of honest, open and impartial scientific enquiry?

And who exactly do you think you're kidding? Have you even kidded yourself that that is what it's about?

Brit:

Yes.

While we're on the subject of Catholocism and science this might be a good time to examine some of the myths of RCC oppresion of science. One of history's truisms is that the victors write the history books. Nowhere is this truer than in the battle between religion and Science. Now as for some of those anti-Church myths, as Paul Harvey would say, "Here's the whole story":

Giordano Bruno: Who was not burned at the stake for advocating the idea that there were other inhabited planets orbiting around other stars. He was condemned for being a pagan advocate for the hermetic tradition. Hermetic writings treated the sun as a god, and the rest of the universe as moving, and hence alive. This it turns out is the real reason Bruno was attracted to Copernican heliocentricism. His belief in the sun's divinity nicely dovetailed with a heliocentric worldview. Was the Chruch wrong to burn this man at the stake for his views? By our standards of course it was wrong. But Bruno was a martyr to pagan mysticism, not scientific free thought.

Galileo Galilei: Whose friends and admirers included the Pope and Jesuit college in Rome. There was much more involved in Galileo's trial then a simple confrontation between religion and science. Ironically, the majority of church intellectuals were on Galileo's side while the clearest opposition came from secular ideas of the academic philosophers (see "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santilanna). The truth is, on the whole, the Church had no argument with Galileo's theories on science. Their objections lay with his attacks on Aristotelian philosophy (As formulated for the Church by Thomas Aquinas' Scholasticism) � and all the metaphysical, spiritual and social consequences associated with it. Aristotle's philosophy was thought necessary for the formulation of religious and moral laws. Galileo was also caught up in an intellectual power struggle between the older secular elites which ran the universities and had a vested interest in defending Scholasticism and a new generation of pragmatic young Turks like himself. The Church, being threatened by Protestantism felt it imperative to defend Aristotle.

His friends in the Jesuits in effect told Galileo, "We know you're right, but give us time to break the news to the masses. The middle of a religious war with the Protestants is no time to be undercutting what we consider to be the basis of our theology. So please publish in Latin for the elite and not in the vernacular for the masses." Not only did Galileo ignore the advice of his Jesuit friends, his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Principle Systems of the World" includes a dim-witted buffoon named Simplicio, a thinly disguised caricature of the Pope who had been Galileo's friend and admirer. Is it any wonder that the Pope and the Jesuits turned against him? Galileo was an arrogant prima donna and publicity hound who betrayed an agreement with his friends in the Church.

Kopernick (Copernicus): Whose heliocentricism was proposed without a single shred of empirical evidence. Such evidence would not be available until Galileo saw through his telescope that Venus had phases like the moon. In fact, the original Copernican system was more complicated than the preceding Ptolemaic system with all of its epicycles. Copernicus could not explain the movement of the planets with his theory because he assumed planetary orbits (as befitting denizens of the celestial spheres) moved in perfect circles. A mechanical explanation for planetary orbits would await Newton's "Principia". (Newton, BTW would remain a devout Christian who spent more time in Biblical study than in scientific pursuits). So until evidence was available supporting a heliocentric view, Copernicus failed the test of Occam's Razor when compared to the Ptolemaic view. What motivated Copernicus wasn't science but neo-Platonist philosophy that taught that the sun was symbolic of God's ability to create and therefore deserved primacy at the center of the universe. This was in opposition to the Aristotelian view (which dominated the Church as Thomas Aquinas' scholasticism) which assumed that the Earth was the enter of the universe.

Peter both you and the DI are being very disengenuous. What you and the DI are doing is atacking evolution, not broadening intellectual horizons. Furthermore, your tactics are weak as they rely upon the "God of the Gaps". Like Kenneth Miller and the RCC you should be relying on the "God of the Foundation".

ID should be taught - in a philosophy class. A distinction should be made between evolution (the mere mechanism of creating new species) and Darwinism (everything is meaningless chance w/o purpose).

At the opposite end of the spectrum (and making an equal and opposite mistake to the proponents of ID) are those scientific nihilists who claim that evolution proves there is no God. People like Richard Dawkins. Once again Kenneth Miller has the appropriate response:

Dawkins contends that religion and evolutionary theory are incompatible. Alister McGrath, a molecular biophysicist turned Anglican pastor, disagrees. �What Dawkins shows, strictly speaking, is simply that the theory of evolution leads to agnosticism�a principled uncertainty about whether there is a God or not,� says McGrath. �And in driving it to atheism�that there is necessarily no God�he goes way beyond the limits of the evidence.�...As even his friend Patrick Bateson conceded, �Personally, I think he�s gone a bit over the top on that, attributing all the evils of the world to religion. . . . I am not a believer, but I know some of my colleagues have been very offended by his brief on this.� �I wish he wouldn�t do it,� said David Barker flatly. �It creates huge negative feelings in some people.�...As he confessed in his book Finding Darwin�s God, Miller is a practicing Catholic, and as he pointed out to Dawkins, �I will persist in saying that religion for me, and for many other people, answers questions that are beyond the realm of science.� Indeed, he complained that scientists often trafficked in a caricature of religion. And then, nodding toward Dawkins and Ann Druyan, he suggested that �atheists and agnostics are a whole lot more evangelical than religious people are.� The observation may have started out as a joke, but it landed at Dawkins�s end of the table like a spear.

Ignorant fundies and nihilistic atheists, like Nazis and Communists they're more alike than different. A pox on both their houses.

Peter:

In that case, you still have to answer the key question: why is it only evolution that is getting the 'disclaimer' treatment, when you could, with exactly the same justification, apply it many, many other aspects of science, such as plate tectonics?

Anon:

Call me when the Discovery Institute calls for the banning of darwinism from the classroom and we'll see who is being disingenuous.

Any institution, religious or otherwise, that has a monopoly on educational indoctrination will try to exclude competitors. In 2005 public education in North America is monopolized by secualy othodoxy and scientific theory (by definition self-correcting) presented as proven immutable fact. There is no reason to exclude any of the theories in play here from education on the origins of life

For the 6,824th time, I'm not an ID'er, but it is silly to think they don't have something to say, especially with respect to mathematical probabilities. I can have as much fun as you with the "God of the Gaps", but how would your perfect Catholic/evolutionary synthesis and "God of the Foundation" explain stasis without something similar?

The DI is not so foolish as to mount a direct attack on evolution. The indirect approach of sowing doubts is their preferred method. Frankly I have no problem with teaching ID - as a philosophy class. It ain't science and it has no place in a science curriculum. Which is a perfectly good reason for excluding this "theory" from play.

I guess Peter thinks the extraordinarily high number of churchgoers in the ranks of those impartial scientists at the DI is just a weird coincidence....

I agree with RC, but not with Jeff or Anon, mainly because they all fall into the SAME sin of the darwinists by mischaracterizing their opposition. It is quite the liberal thing to do.

The biggest accusation I lodge against darwinists is that they are innumerate: arguing the probabilities of random generation of proteins to even START life is a fruitless task, because they assert that, no matter how great the numbers are, they are not zero, and so darwinist evolution is not disproved. Since there are no "scientifically acceptable" alternatives (i.e. required to not require a sentient being), Darwinism is claimed to win by default. The illusion of a runner who claims to be the fastest runner in the world after arranging with the judges to disqualify ALL his competitors.

ID is the biggest threat to darwinism, because it cites Darwin's admission (required to bring his theory within the pale of science) that his theory is refutable if one demonstrates that a structure cannot be generated by small incremental changes. I.e., with SOME structures or processes, you simply cannot get here from there. The term is irreducible complexity: the idea that the parts of a biomolecular structure or process are so inter-related that removing one piece makes the structure useless for its purpose.

The LIES about ID revolve around deliberate misrepresentations of what ID advocates actually say, which is, again, quite the liberal thing to do. The first lie is that ID claims that ALL biological structures are irreducibly complex, and then show that some processes are a concatenation of two or more processes, the intermediate-products of which are required by the organism. The accusation is not true, both scientifically and literarily, and no one can even cite a reference of an ID advocate with a PhD making that claim. (ID, along with evolution, is rife with people who think they know everything about it, and whose ignorance is cited as disproof of the theory in question.) Secondly, if the output of molecular process chain A is useful in itself, and is the input to molecular process chain B, whose output is also useful in itself, that is NOT PROOF that individual chains A and B are NOT irreducible IN THEMSELVES. In fact, the main argument being made by evolutionists is that molecular process chain A, acknowledged to be irreducible because none of its intermediate products is useful to the cell, really arose because of 'vestigial' subchains. I.e. there was once chain A', whose product was ONCE USEFUL, and there evolved a second chain A'', which is one small step in addition to A', whose output was ALSO useful. However, as the cell itself evovled, the product of A' became unneeded except as input to chain A'', which continued to be useful.

This little tale omits the fact that THEN there would have to be an A''', then an A'''', and then A''''', each of which produces something useful at first, then became unneeded except as input to the next chain, before one then got A as the current chain. Then there had to be a B', then a B'', then a B''', etc., each of which produced an output that once was useful to the cell, but then became unneeded except as input to the next B prime+1. If there ever was a stage where a B prime-x produced an UNUSEFUL product, it becomes an energy sink rather than a contribution to survival, and is selected against.

There is no proof that such a process happened in the evolution of chains A and B SEPARATELY. All they cite is A and B, and hope nobody recognizes that part of their proof relies on their justification of the lack of evidence as proof of the process. Indeed, if you look carefully, you'll find that many arguments in favor of Darwinist Evolution revolves

Another lie is the interpretation that ID has God "creating and recreating and recreating again and again" (paraphrase of anon's quote from Dr. Miller). ID actually supports Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (derived from a straightforward observation of the fossil record), but with the agent of change being the "designer", rather than unexplained accelerated spurts of evolution. Call it punctuated interventionism: After the initial creation of the first cell, God lets things trundle along until a dead end is reached or a specific purpose is attained, then comes in, injects a specific new structure or process in an existing cell, and the amplified cell becomes the beginning of a new "kind". This becomes a "style" of or "template" for God's activity: anyone that has any depth of biblical history will darn well recognize the exact same pattern in the history of Israel and the Church. Indeed, the idea of "inject something new into the mix" accords perfectly with the Incarnation.

in fact, if one accepts this model of divine intervention into human, as well as biological, affairs, as a norm by which God interacts with His creation, then one can confidently say that the most recent "evolutionary" leap forward took place in Jerusalem on Pentecost Sunday...

This is not to say that I BELIEVE in ID. Rather, I have honestly tried to evaluate it based on its claims of itself, rather than what others say its claims are. Having been on the receiving end of deliberate misrepresentation, I can see it when someone is doing it to me, and have no intention (unlike the darwinists) to do unto others what I hate them doing to me.

My personal opinion: Irreducible complexity is making an impossiblity claim that thermodynamics makes about the efficiency of heat-driven engines. The impossiblity claim of the latter is accepted because of the matehmatical underpinnings. I think ID needs to go that route as well, and thus need to pull some good mathematicians on board. I think it's possible, but that holds as much water as a darwinian looking at the odds and still insisiting that their version of evolution is possible.

Anon,

Nice review of the myths of Christianity's oppression of science.

Let me add one you forgot: The Columbus-Flat Earth myth, the idea that Columbus was opposed by churchmen who believed that the earth was flat.

This myth is absurd, particularly as it contradicts the other myths which have churchmen opposing heliocentrism because they hold on to the Ptolemnaic theory of a round earth orbited by the sun and other planets.

In fact, scholars and churchmen opposed Columbus' voyage because Columbus greatly underestimated the circumference of the earth. The science at the time had made roughly accurate calculations of the earth's true size. Columbus was just lucky that there was a continent between Europe and Japan; otherwise, he and his crew would have died at sea.

The originators of the Flat Earth Myth were people like Washington Irving, John W. Draper and the founder of Cornell University, Andrew Dickson White. Thereafter, it was perpetuated by sloppy historians who created a false body of knowledge by consulting each other rather than looking at the evidence.

The book "Inventing the Flat Earth" by Jeffrey Burton Russell, a history professor at UC Santa Barbara, is a short and enjoyable read.

Ptah:

Your 'innumeracy' objection doesn't work, because, as you say, the number is not zero. The objection disappears immediately, and that's all there is to it.

Mr. Duffy: The amusing thing about the Vatican's "clarification" after the brouhaha over Cardinal Schonborn's statement is that it in no way contradicts what he said, because what he said was and is utterly correct--"Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.�

Anon:

All well and good, well mostly anyway.

But I have a couple objections. First, Copernics, IIRC, relied on Tycho Brahe's planetary observations in forming his equal area theory of elliptical orbits. Secondly, again IIRC, he delayed publication of his book until after his death, for fear of persecution from the Church.

Also, perhaps you could explain why so many scientific books ended up on the Index?

Jeff: Elliptical orbits was the profound breakthrough of Kepler, not Copernicus.

Ptah:

Please see my comments in this related thread, also of Peter's.

The question of life's origin is completely separable from what happened afterwards. We are talking evolution here, not abiogenesis.

Regarding what the Discovery Institute has in mind, please see The Argument Clinic. The DI's goal is to banish rational inquiry, and views banning naturalistic explanations of evolution from the classroom as the first step.

You are right that ID represents the biggest threat to naturalistic evolution, but under one very demanding condition: its claim to truth is not placed squarely in the God-of-the-gaps.

The argument is precisely the same as the now abandoned assertion evolution fails because there is no use for half a wing, the macro version of SCI.

Absolutely true. And absolutely stuck in the gap, as subsequent discoveries in China showed.

Similarly here. ID asserts, out of ignorance, that there is no way bacterial flagella, or the blood clotting cascade have any function at all except as an intact whole.

Nobels all around, if true. Unfortunately, it isn't. Whales, for example, have a perfectly functional blood clotting cascade that is far simpler than ours. As well, flagella co-opt previously existing mechanisms and structures.

What is worse, ID proponents act as if none of that knowledge exists.

Irreducible Complexity is making the claim that it can identify that complexity which is truly irreducible. But it cannot, and has not.

Additionally (and as I mentioned in the first link), until ID has even one deductive consequence (that is, what phenomena does ID require to be true in order for ID to be true, and that does not include a tautology), it does not qualify as science.

Can you describe even one?

Even as merely a well read amateur, I can easily list a half-dozen for naturalistic evolution.

b:

Thank you, you are absolutely correct. Which makes me glad I added IIRC ...

Anon/Brit:

The DI is not so foolish as to mount a direct attack on evolution. The indirect approach of sowing doubts is their preferred method.

...extraordinarily high number of churchgoers...

Do they have secret passwords and handshakes too? Do they meet deep in the forest to bay at full moons? Remember, just because you are paranoid...

Kind of puts an interesting take on your protestation below about how inoffensive you find religion, Brit.

Brit: "I guess Peter thinks the extraordinarily high number of churchgoers in the ranks of those impartial scientists at the DI is just a weird coincidence..."

Seriously, this is an argument you REALLY don't want to make if you have even the slightest desire of "winning" this debate in America. It's equivalent to the caricature that is thrown around the other way: "I guess Brit thinks the extraordinarily high number of atheists in the ranks of those impartial scientists at University X is just a weird coincidence..."

Also pertinent to the posted article -- yesterdays election for the Dover, PA schoolboard (the schoolboard desiring to put ID/Creationism in the curriculum, made famous by the consequent court case), every pro-ID/Creationism board member, all 8 of them, lost.

Ptah:
Please see my comments .

The question of life's origin is completely separable from what happened afterwards. We are talking evolution here, not abiogenesis.
Regarding what the Discovery Institute has in mind, please see The Argument Clinic. The DI's goal is to banish rational inquiry, and view banning naturalistic explanations of evolution from the classroom as the first step.

You are right that ID represents the biggest threat to naturalistic evolution, but under one very demanding condition: its claim to truth is not placed squarely in the God-of-the-gaps.
The argument is precisely the same as the now abandoned assertion evolution fails because there is no use for half a wing, the macro version of SCI.

Absolutely true. And absolutely stuck in the gap, as subsequent discoveries in China showed.

Similarly here. ID asserts, out of ignorance, that there is no way bacterial flagella, or the blood clotting cascade have any function at all except as an intact whole.

Nobels all around, if true. Unfortunately, it isn't. Whales, for example, have a perfectly functional blood clotting cascade that is far simpler than ours. As well, flagella co-opt previously existing mechanisms and structures.
What is worse, ID proponents act as if none of that knowledge exists.

Irreducible Complexity is making the claim that it can identify that complexity which is truly irreducible. But it cannot, and has not.

Additionally (and as I mentioned in the first link), until ID has even one deductive consequence (that is, what phenomena does ID require to be true in order for ID to be true, and that does not include a tautology), it does not qualify as science.

Can you describe even one?

Even as merely a well read amateur, I can easily list a half-dozen for naturalistic evolution.

Ptah:
Please see my comments .
The question of life's origin is completely separable from what happened afterwards. We are talking evolution here, not abiogenesis.

Regarding what the Discovery Institute has in mind, please see The Argument Clinic. The DI's goal is to banish rational inquiry, and view banning naturalistic explanations of evolution from the classroom as the first step.

You are right that ID represents the biggest threat to naturalistic evolution, but under one very demanding condition: its claim to truth is not placed squarely in the God-of-the-gaps.

The argument is precisely the same as the now abandoned assertion evolution fails because there is no use for half a wing, the macro version of SCI.

Absolutely true. And absolutely stuck in the gap, as subsequent discoveries in China showed.
Similarly here. ID asserts, out of ignorance, that there is no way bacterial flagella, or the blood clotting cascade have any function at all except as an intact whole.

Nobels all around, if true. Unfortunately, it isn't. Whales, for example, have a perfectly functional blood clotting cascade that is far simpler than ours. As well, flagella co-opt previously existing mechanisms and structures.

What is worse, ID proponents act as if none of that knowledge exists.
Irreducible Complexity is making the claim that it can identify that complexity which is truly irreducible. But it cannot, and has not.

Additionally (and as I mentioned in the first link), until ID has even one deductive consequence (that is, what phenomena does ID require to be true in order for ID to be true, and that does not include a tautology), it does not qualify as science.

Can you describe even one?

Even as merely a well read amateur, I can easily list a half-dozen for naturalistic evolution.

Ooops. I'm having a bad HTML day.

Should have been "Please "see my comments"

And

garding what the Discovery Institute has in mind, please see The Argument Clinic.

Write 100 times: I will preview, I will preview ...

Jeff: What MUST be true in order for this to be true: "Evolution as an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." ?

I'll put my PhD and peer-reviewed journal articles (I know, a cheap ante considering I prefer to stay anonymous for professional reasons) on the fact that that's philosophy, interpretation, conclusions, whatever you want to call it, but it ain't a "fact", "scientific" or otherwise, and sure as heck ain't provable, or even testable.

b:

I think you misunderstood what I said; or, probably more accurately, what I meant.

There is a list of things that absolutely have to be true in order for naturalistic evolution to be true. NB: That does not mean the converse holds

The Earth must be very, very old.

All isolated populations must diverge over time.

A new survival niche (ozone in the upper atmosphere allowing life on land; the first grasses; the first trees) always precedes life forms taking advantage of the niche.

Inheritance must be particulate, not blended.

All life on earth must share a common ancestor.

There must be close correspondence between the Linnean classification and genotype.

The genotypic difference between related species must be consistent with the time since the species diverged.

Those are all deductive consequences of naturalistic evolution; things that must be true for the theory to be true. Again, I note the converse does not hold.

In contrast, ID/Creationism does not have even one deductive consequence. The earth could be any age; isolated populations need not diverge, etc.

As for "Evolution as an unguided, unplanned [recursive] process [characterized by] random variation and natural selection." (I added the text in brackets as, I hope, an improvement; and noting that it ignores things like viral lateral gene transfer) That is, like any other scientific theory, an inductive statement based upon observation. It is just as "provable" as any other scientific theory.

Which is to say, not at all, if for no other reason than the impossibility of proving a negative.

However, it is scientific, because it is emminently disprovagble. Those statements above are binding, and if even one was ever to prove false, all naturalistic evolution would immediately come crashing down.

As Brit noted above, naturalistic evolution has the same evidentiary basis as plate tectonics, and is just as "provable." So why doesn't naturalistic evolution qualify as science?

OK. I put up my list of binding deductive consequences.

Is there even one for ID/Creationism?

Jeff: I think you've mentioned most of those before. And I think I may have noted that I think half of them are wrong and half I don't quite understand why you think they are relevant and/or significant.

But I'm not here to defend ID. I just have a visceral distaste for much of the arguments used against its proponents, based on the fact that in my personal experience the large majority of my professional scientist friends & colleagues are absolute bigots towards the religious (meaning Christians, of course), and openly so since it never occurs to them that one of their fellows could believe such nonsense.

Peter/b:

I've got nothing against churchgoers, fellas. I just find very funny Peter's notion that the DI is doing what it is doing in the interests of impartial scientific study, rather than in the interests of replacing evolution with christian creationism.

No, Brit, they are doing it in the interests of promoting the truth on the origin and development as life as they believe it to be. Who isn't? You seem to think there is some hidden agenda here that disqualifies them from serious scholarship. As I assume you don't know them well enough to allege personal bad faith, I can only guess you are beholden to the tenet of your faith that holds darwinists speak the disinteretsed, objective truth while the ID'ers dabble in some kind of menacing mysticism.

Ptah:

Thanks, that was great. Anytime you see the darwinists claiming their theory is "not disproven", you know they are squirming, or would be if they were honest about their claims. To my unscientific mind, the argument seems to be about mathematical plausibility and the most common rejoinder is that things "could" have happened no matter how fantastic the odds. It's their equivalent of the religious default reliance on mystery, except they deny there is such a thing.

Jeff:

You keep beating the drum about deductive consequences. We've got the message. Your error is that you keep insisting (hoping) that the ID critique, like biblical literalism, is a full-blown competing theory about what happened historically. It isn't. It's a critique that accepts the same factual and evidentiary base as natural evolution and then addresses cause or agent of change. If you and I are arguing about whether my car was intelligently designed in a factory or just "evolved", we don't need differing theories of locomotion or thermodynamics and we aren't arguing which part goes where, when.

No, Peter. They've got plenty of opportunity to promote that in Sunday schools or philosophical classes, if they want.

You're the one who is paranoid about the menace of the darwinists. Do you really think that prior to this move the Kansas education system was churning out darwinist atheists? Of course it wasn't: the influence of church and the local religious community are far stronger than a couple of science classes per term, which most of them doze through anyway.

The bone of contention is about why the science of evolution should be singled out by the DI.

Yet again, you have ignored the key question: why are the DI pressing for evolution to get these "unproven" disclaimers, but not for plate tectonics or any other branch of science?

I think I know the answer. Do you?

Brit:

My paranoia is more justified than your paranoia. Have you forgotten that darwinists went to court to stop a textbook on evolution from including an anodyne preface stating it was a theory, not fact, and that not everyone buys it?

Please stop pretending that teaching the kids the arguments of those who hold the evidence shows life eveolved entirely from unguided, natural processes is science, but teaching them the arguments of those who say the evidence shows it couldn't have is not science. If you can't shake fevered worries about science teachers hauling out Genecis or the Gospel when no one is looking, that's between you and your therapist.

b:

Which half? Why?

There are two reasons they are significant, and why I keep banging this drum.

First, they, and more like them, completely contradict the notion that naturalistic evolution is not disprovable.

Second, and most important here, they make naturalistic evolution a scientific theory. I'm perfectly willing to be corrected, but as far as I know, there isn't one scientific theory without deductive consequences.

In that light, ID/Creationism simply isn't science.

I'm sorry you are surrounded by anti-Christian bigots. I have read a fair amount of stuff from the ID/Creationist side, though. And while I don't think your colleagues reaction is justified, it is understandable in the face of the quote mining, misrepresentation, ad hominem attacks and outright lying that constitutes much of what ID/Creationism has ever said.

Peter:

Thank you. Now how about answering that question?

Peter:

Perhaps I need to bang the drum more. My critique of ID is that it can be used to prove anything regarding evolution, including naturalistic evolution itself.

What's more, and I know I am repeating myself here, it is purely a God-of-the-gaps argument, one that is occupying fewer, smaller gaps as time goes on.

In questioning whether some theory belongs in a science class, those are two mortal wounds already. But there is a third.

Let's say we take as stipulated that, say, the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex.

What then? Is the question forever answered, immune from further inquiry? Can we now rely on ID to point out to us everywhere rational inquiry must stop, because beyond there lies monsters?

The arguments posed by those who say "couldn't have" simply aren't science yet, as their proponents will admit.

But Brit raises by far the best question, that no one has taken on. Why did that "anodyne" sticker apply only to evolution, and not, say, Einstein's theory, or the theory of plate tectonics?

Then there is the theodicy problem -- have you spotted it?

What then? Is the question forever answered, immune from further inquiry? Can we now rely on ID to point out to us everywhere rational inquiry must stop, because beyond there lies monsters?

No, that's the great thing about ID. It's self-correcting. :-)

The sticker was only on evolution books because parents and democratically elected school trustees objected to the kids' being taught as proven fact a scientific theory that necessarily implied atheism had been proven scientifically while other theories or even critiques had been excluded from public education through the specious argument that they somehow violated the constitutional prohibition against established religion. That objection doesn't arise with other theories like plate tectonics, which have not been politicized by groups like the ACLU or enforced or mandated by courts. So what, exactly?

So it is a politically-motivated action, rather than a scientifically-motivated one.

Most definitely--on both sides. They are both theories, after all. Your team wants enforced orthodoxy and ours is for free inquiry.

Recall Theodore Rozak's sarcastic quip about the modest, diffident scientist who just happens to know the difference between what is real and what isn't and alone possesses the means of telling the difference.

So what happened to the DI acting solely in the interests of honest scientific enquiry?

I don't recall any science lesson in which I was told that atheism was proven true.

Children in biology classes don't get told that darwinism is right and therefore religion is wrong. They get told that the theory of evolution is science.

Which it is. Studying evolution is the act of applying the scientific method to natural history. Therefore, the resultant theories might not be the DI's so-called 'proven facts', but they are science.

Intelligent Design does not result from applying the scientific method to natural history - it results from applying a philosophical viewpoint to the scientific theories. Therefore it belongs in a separate classroom.

Brit:

The CATO Institute exists to promote libertarianism, but it's economic analyses stand or fall on their empirical accuracy. Med schools promote mainstream medicine over holistic medicine or chiropractic, but their research is judged on its objective merits. Most biology faculties promote natural evolution, but does that effect the accuracy of their DNA analyses? The fact that the Discovery Institute exists to promote ID means nothing except that they will be inclined to argue the objective evidence supports their theory. Just like everyone else, so why are you making such a big thing about it?

If you are arguing that seriously religious people have some inherent disqualifying bias when they undertake scientific inquiry, then you really do have a bad dose of the scientism virus.

No, plenty of great scientists are also religious. Just one more reason why this DI campaign is unnecessary and possibly, ultimately self-defeating.

My objection is clear: there is no justifiable reason why evolution should be singled out for this treatment from amongst all the other branches of scientific enquiry.

We should either apply similar disclaimers to all scientific theories, or to none.

Sniff, sniff. My goodness man, are we talking intellectual inquiry here or setting the admission rules for an exclusive club?

Hey Peter, when you run out of ammo the correct Juddian response is a mysterious Zen-like one-liner, rather than a sarcastic scoff.

Peter:

You are missing Brit's point entirely. He is very much talking about intellectual inquiry. The naturalistic theory of evolution is no more presented as accomplished fact than is any other theory presented in high school science classes, and it is no more "atheistic."

There are no critiques of evolution that qualify as science. The only reason those critiques exist is due to theology. And if we are to allow ID/Creationism, whose wellspring is wholly religious into science classrooms, where do you propose we stop? There are, after all, a great many religious creation myths. Do they also belong in science classes?

You use blame the victim reasoning here -- the reason these things ended up in court in the first place was religious organizations blatantly attempting to insert Creationism in biology classes: religionists politicized this issue. Plate tectonics completely violates the religious tenets of Young Earth Creationists. Must we start "teaching the controversy" in geology classes as well? So does radioactive decay. Do we start teaching the controversy in physics classes?

If not, why not?

ID/Creationism is not a scientific theory: its induction is from ignorance, and it doesn't have even one binding deductive consequence. Accusing evolutionary biologists of favoring enforced orthodoxy due to ID/Creationism's manifest inadequacies as a scientific theory is to completely abandon intellectual standards in favor of a particularly pernicious form of affirmative action.

If I may speak for Brit, this is why he and I are making such a big thing about it.

Now, about that theodicy elephant in the room. Can you hazard a guess as to what it might be?

Hey, Brit, don't you know sarcasm evolved as a way to express surprise that someone who normally is full of intelligence and good sense is having an off day and says something silly. It's actually a form of compliment. You're welcome.

Jeff:

There are no critiques of evolution that qualify as science

Super. So evolution is science, but critiques of evolution are not. Did anyone ever tell you that simply repeating a fallacy or red herring over and over doesn't cure the flaw? Can you please tell us who or what decides what "qualifies as science"? I gather you draw a rather sharp distinction between science and truth.

Peter:

Any theory based upon first order knowledge and possessing deductive consequences qualifies as science.

By that standard, the naturalistic theory of evolution is science; equally, by that standard, so could any critique of evolution.

No fallacy, no red herring.

ID/Creationism is based on ignorance, and has absolutely nothing resembling a deductive consequence -- it simply does not yet, and maybe never, qualify.

There is no "who" deciding this, that is simply an assessment of the characteristics of ID/Creationism. I could well be wrong, but the absence of contradiction in this learned crowd suggests I am not.

Do I draw a sharp distinction between science and truth?

Certainly. Absolute Truth is unobtainable. Rational inquiry provides a means of distinguishing the relative truth values between competing propositions, provided they have the characteristics I have mentioned above.

I'm sorry, but I'm retreating here. I thought this was about solving the mystery of the origin of life and the universe and exposing our children to the intellectual wisdom that surrounds that question. I see now it is more about keeping the scientific Holy of Holies from being defiled by the unwashed.

Peter:

This is about setting and maintaining standards, not intellectual affirmative action. ID/Creationism isn't the least bit interested in solving the mystery of the origin of life, but are very motivated to stop science's pursuit thereof. (Don't take my word for it, go to the Discovery Institute's web site).

So far, you haven't taken any issue with my characterization of scientific theories, nor corrected my assertion that ID/Creationism shares none of those characteristics.

When, if, it ever does, then I will just as strenuously advocate its inclusion as I am now opposed.

You are a lawyer, clearly serious about the law. If some group wants come in and teach that existing legal theory is wrong, but their reasoning is without foundation, are you going to give them any air time?

Standards, eh. Why, you pompous old foggies. I guess your animating slogan has shifted from Veritas vos liberabit to "There goes the neighbourhood."

Now, look. I don't think there is much more we can do. We've been patient. We've tried to reason with you and show you we care. All for nought, it seems. I'm sorry, we were hoping it wouldn't come to this but I'm afraid the matter is now out of our hands.

Ok, Peter. I'll match your Pat Robinson and raise you one Dawkins and a 'Bright' picnic...

(ps. it's pompous old 'fogey', not 'foggy', don'tcha know.)

Durn! We creationists never did spell too good. I guess we never learned about them standards you're always goin' on about.

Peter:

Wow -- talk about WMD!

Above I mentioned that ID/Creationism has some inherent, vicious, theodicy issues. Has that occurred to you also?