Intelligent Design

[The Galatian]

So far, I've had a lot of creationists tell me that ID is way too cozy with common descent for them. But there's probably as many kinds of creationism as there are creationists.

At any rate, this particular attempt to sneak creationism into public schools came to grief. It's why the Discovery Institute opposed forcing the issue in the first place; it's not science, they know it isn't, and they are trying to find a way to make it science.

But they aren't there yet. And this might have been the final blow to the effort to get people to see ID as something besides stealth creationism.

 

[Bunyon]

I wonder. I sceince a philosopy or religion with boundrys one can't cross, or is it a tool to be applyed to legitimate questions.

 

[just-want-peace]

-- it's not science,--

You are absolutely correct, creationism is not science. Any creationists will agree with you on this point.

The bug in the ointment is that neither is evolution science, but evolutionists WILL NOT admit it.

The whole difference is the EXPLANATION, note: not the existance of, or type of, or abundance of, evidence, but the different EVALUATION of, this evidence!!!!

Neither can be PROVED as valid via science; the only difference is YOUR BELIEF as to which explanation of the evidence is valid. So it boils down to whether you believe God, Who spoke very clearly and plainly on the subject of creation, or man who has (by inspiration of satan) always been subverting God's Word.

This then becomes a matter of faith, not facts! That comes awfully close( ) to religious belief, folks, not scientific proof.

So once again, why are the evos so adamant that Creationism or even just ID not be allowed? Their religion is being questioned, and sooner or later, if ID is allowed, will be proven false, or at least not the masive cornerstone of granite that some have insisted that it is.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by billwald:
What does "believable" have to do with science?

That's exactly my point Bill, that evolution should not be taught as "science" but perhaps a faith based religion, just like ID.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by Daisy:
What does "intuitive" have to do with science?

To a Spirit controlled believer it is a great thing. What it has to do with science is approximately the same relationship that Darwinism has, which is little or none.

 

[UTEOTW]

I am surprised that no one has yet provided a link to the court's website such that all can read the decision. Yeah, it is 139 pages long, but with the spacing it really does not take long to read. It is worth a read to get a feel for what was presented in the case and the judge's reaction to it. It should also be noted that rather than this being some liberal activists judge, this is one of Bush's apointees.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Now above Helen says "But because so many parts of the natural world DO show evidence of intelligent design, it terrifies the evolutionists who will use any lie possible to keep it from being considered." Emphasis added.

Now I think the obvious question here becomes if she can produce a strong case for science constantly using lies to promote the prevailing mainstream view. This has to be a deliberate, purposeful falsehood. It is not enough to disagree with their opinions or to present what you think is opposing evidence. It is necessary to show where we have a pattern of scientists promoting what they know to be untrue as the truth and it being accepted by the mainstream.

So what "lies" are currently being used to support evolution?

In contrast, this is a fairly easy thing to do for "creation science."

But to tie this back into the OP, let's go through the court's ruling and use it to examine the actions of the ID proponents in this case. Perhap's Helen pointed her finger in the wrong direction.

Added emphasis in bold. Original emphasis will be in italics.

In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students.

Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.

Plaintiffs’ expert Professor Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology.15 His testimony therefore remains unrebutted. Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles.

We will provide several representative examples of this distortion. First, Pandas misrepresents the “dominant form of understanding relationships” between Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 84 of 139
85 organisms, namely, the tree of life, represented by classification determined via the method of cladistics. (16:87-97 (Padian); P-855.6-855.19). Second, Pandas misrepresents “homology,” the “central concept of comparative biology,” that allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes for hundreds of years. (17:27-40 (Padian); P-855.83-855.102). Third, Pandas fails to address the well-established biological concept of exaptation, which involves a structure changing function, such as fish fins evolving fingers and bones to become legs for weight-bearing land animals. (16:146-48 (Padian)). Dr. Padian testified that ID proponents fail to address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function, which is a view necessary to support abruptappearance. Id. Finally, Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre-Cambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals.

In addition to Dr. Padian, Dr. Miller also testified that Pandas presents discredited science. Dr. Miller testified that Pandas’ treatment of biochemical is “inaccurate and downright false” and explained how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory through a series of demonstrative slides. (1:112 (Miller)). Consider, for example, that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals, a distortion which Professor Behe, a “critical reviewer” of Pandas who wrote a section within the book, affirmed.

In summary, Dr. Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles, as well as the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound.

Superintendent Nilsen’s contemporaneous notes reveal that Bonsell identified “creationism” as his number one issue and “school prayer” as his number two issue. (P-21). Although Bonsell claims he cannot recall raising such subjects but does not dispute that he did, in fact, raise them, the overwhelming evidence indicates that he raised the issues of creationism and school prayer during the January 2002 Board retreat.

It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendants’ opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest. (1:19). Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects.

With surprising candor considering his otherwise largely inconsistent and non-credible testimony, Buckingham did admit that he made this statement.

Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points.

The fact that Baksa contradicted this testimony on re-direct and stated that he had never read the webpage has an unfortunate and negative impact on his credibility in this case.

The testimony at trial stunningly revealed that Buckingham and Bonsell tried to hide the source of the donations because it showed, at the very least, the extraordinary measures taken to ensure that students received a creationist alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. To illustrate, we note that at January 3, 2005 depositions taken pursuant to an order of this Court so Plaintiffs could decide whether to seek a temporary restraining order, upon repeated questioning by Plaintiffs’ counsel on this point, neither Buckingham nor Bonsell provided any information about Buckingham’s involvement in the donation or about a collection he took at his church.

As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas,

Their asserted purposes are a sham, and they are accordingly unavailing, for the reasons that follow.

Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test.

Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.

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.

As Dr. Alters explained this paragraph is both misleading and creates misconceptions in students about evolutionary theory by misrepresenting the scientific status of evolution and by telling students that they should regard it as singularly unreliable, or on shaky ground. (14:117 (Alters)). Additionally and as pointed out by Plaintiffs, it is indeed telling that even defense expert Professor Fuller agreed with this conclusion by stating that in his own expert opinion the disclaimer is misleading.

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.

 

[UTEOTW]

Helen also claimed that "You can look at ID philosophically, but the field itself is pure science."

According to the court, Behe, the defense expert witness, disagrees.

Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

The ruling and the transcripts contain a wealth of similar findings.

Helen also claims that "The Dembski filter is NOT philosophical, nor is an examination of irreducible complexity. Both are scientifically examinable and falsifiable. You can look at ID philosophically, but the field itself is pure science -- it's just that it's science that secular science doesn't like." But the trial judge says differently.

Although both Professors Behe and Minnich assert that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference, on cross-examination they admitted that there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design, rather than a natural process.

 

[UTEOTW]

Since I am trying to use the court's ruling to tie back into the OP and other issues raised on the thread, let's look at one more

Just-want-peace posted "If the total truth were taught and the students allowed to form their OWN (very important point) beliefs based on evidence, I have no doubts that by far the majority would opt for some form of intelligent design over 'chance'!"

Once again, the judge heard expert witnesses from both sides. If you are really interested, go find the transcripts of the case, Google is your friend, and read the testimony of the Dr. Miller, who was one of the plantiff's expert witnesses and who is well known as a Christian willing to weigh in with his beliefs, and the testimony of Dr. Behe, who was one of the expert witnesses for the defense. If you read the Behe cross examination you might see why many of the defences other expert witnesses suddenly decided against testifying.

Let's see what the judge had to say. Again, remember by whom he was appointed.

Added emphasis in bold. Original emphasis will be in italics.

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. 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; (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; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology.

Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such.

Additionally, the [AAAS], has taken a similar position on ID, namely, that it “has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims” and that “the lack of scientific warrant for so-called ‘intelligent design theory’ makes it improper to include as part of science education . . .” (P-198).

Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best “fringe science” which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy...

To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have been identified in the intervening years.

Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.

 

[UTEOTW]

part two...

Irreducible complexity additionally fails to make a positive scientific case for ID...

Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address “the task facing natural selection.” (P-718 at 695). Professor Behe specifically explained that “[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an alreadyfunctioning system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.” Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;” Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 73 of 139
74 however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect. Id.; 22:61-65 (Behe).

However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system. As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means.

By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument.

Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peerreviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition.

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

We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design.

In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes.

A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. Expert testimony revealed that the peer review process is “exquisitely important” in the scientific process. It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to study, testing, and criticism. (1:66-69 (Miller)). In fact, defense expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that science must “publish or perish.” (22:19-25 (Behe)). Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the scientific method, and are relevant to other scientists in the field. (1:39-40 (Miller)). Moreover, peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field, journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field and deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures, employed up-to-date methods, considered and cited relevant literature and generally, whether the researcher has employed sound science.

The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed.

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.

Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.

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.

 

[Phillip]

UTEOTW, the above transcripts sound a lot like the trials I have been involved with. Trials, especially civil, have very little to do with reality--and more to do with procedure and technicalities.

If you wish to discuss the trial, then we are certainly in an area in which I can debate you with ease.

 

[UTEOTW]

I have various motivations here.

The first is simply to get the PDF of the ruling into the thread on the ruling. It seems to be an impotant part that was missing.

The summary of the trial contained in the ruling gives a nice overview of several topics and is worth a read. Even better would be if someone would take my suggestion and go read the transcripts of the experts from both sides. That should be enlightening.

Second was to counter the claim of those lying evolutionists by Helen. As I said, it is hard to show where any lies are being used in support of evolution but easy to show in the case of YE. To keep it on topic and to complete the point, I showed how the participants on the ID side in this trial were found to have been deceitful throughout the process.

Third was to get in some of the observations of the evidence for ID from a lifelong Republican and a Republican court appointee who heard expert witnesses from both sides. It seems like he is likely to be an unbiased observer who has heard directly from the experts. If he has personal leanings, one would have expected them to be towards the defendants.

If you want to debate the judge, go right ahead. If you want to start pulling out testimony from the experts, that could be fun, too.

But since we have reached three pages, I get the feeling this thread will not last much longer.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I agree with the ruling, but here is a little gem for you. This judge will no doubt be labeled a liberal activist jurist, but he was appointed to the federal bench by the darling of the religious right, George W. Bush.

 

[billwald]

By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe . . . has redefined "up" as "down."

Information theory defines (text, information) as irreducibly complex if the description of the text or information is as large as the origional text or information thus a random string is irreducibly complex.

 

[billwald]

Dembski has forgotten his undergraduate statistics.

If the odds of winning a lottery were a trillion to one and it paid off $2 trillion it is a good bet.

 

[LadyEagle]

3-page warning This thread will be closed no sooner than 3:45 p.m. ET by one of the Moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

[LadyEagle]

Closed.