Science Wins Vs. Mythological Nonsense
Tweet
“Intelligent design” cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.
Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said. Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.
The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.
“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy,” Jones wrote.
47 Responses to “Science Wins Vs. Mythological Nonsense”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
By order of the Court, there is no sign of Intelligence in our Universe.
Yay!
Frank, even you’re not dumb enough to believe ID.
“Wolfgangus”?
I think the Intelligent Designer left a little bug in the software.
http://www.stringsinthemountains.org/m2m/name.htm
So I am to believe that by random chance “fairy dust” landed on the planet earth and over a few billion years or so, single cell bacterium evolved into Wolfgangus Mozart? There is absolutely no other explanation? Sounds like a religion to me.
I guess that’s a compliment, Oliver, but I don’t believe in “no – fault” creation, either
Here’s some stuff that makes me think that ID and Evolution are both bologna:
http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm
randy -
So I am to believe that a magical being up in the sky and around us at any given moment created men exactly as we are, created women using one of our ribs, and over a billion years or so absolutely nothing has changed?
Quaker:
Sorry. The above link was provided for you.
In publications and other formal contexts early-modern Europeans frequently Latinized or Hellinized their names (so that Heinz becomes Heinzius, Schwartzerde (“black earth” in German) becomes Melanchthon (“black earth” in Greek), etc.)
So, while you can find Mozart’s name written as “Wolfgangus”, that is just a Latinization of his real Germanic name: Wolfgang.
Yay, pedantry!
Believe whatever you want, but the absolute adherence to a dogma that stifles other plausible theories verges on religiosity.
Amazingly enough, this ‘dogma’ is based upon centuries of scientific experimentation and observation! And it is not so much adhered to as it is tried to be disproven, time and time again, without success.
You original statement seems to apply more to ID than it does to evolutionary theory. Yet you project it on to that which you do not want to accept in order to discredit it. Coming from a reich wingnut to boot. What a surprise!
Quaker,
Yes. Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophillus Amadeus Mozart.
BD,
Believe whatever you want, but the absolute adherence to a dogma that stifles other plausible theories verges on religiosity.
sam:
I declare!
Some people can’t imagine that the ocmplexity of today’s universe is the product of undirected natural processes.
Fine, that’s hardly an unreasonable opinion, but it is not science. The court decision is not telling anyone that they can’t hold that opinion, just that a science textbook is not the place to find it.
The court realized that ID is simply a dishonest attempt to get religion into the classroom. Some ID proponents need to read their Bible where God talks about not bearing false witness. If you want science classrooms to reflect your religious beliefs, come right out and say so. Your opinion will be rejected by the majority of Americans, but better you lose that battle than lose your soul.
Frank: that page you link is all x-files stuff. Sparkplugs that supposedly were found in a geode, now conveniently lost, etc. etc. That kind of ‘science” might fly in Kansas in coming decades, but not in the reality-based part of the country.
And while kids in Kansas are learning about the impossible complexity of aardvark’s snout and about human footprints in precambrian rock, kids from Germany and India and China will be eating our scientific lunch. Go America!
The operative word, once again, is “plausible.” That’s a hurdle Intelligent Design has a little trouble with.
Tom,
“centuries of scientific experimentation and observation!”
Really? Charles Darwin b. 1809-d. 1882. Origin of Species was published in 1859. Actual scientific experimentation and observation conducted based on his theory began?
So 146 years is centuries? And why the name calling? I wasn’t beligerent in my posting.
Quaker,
I aagree that the ID case that was brought before the court had alterior motives which do not reflect the ACTUAL scientific definition of ID which is:
“some biological systems are too complex, periodic explosions in the fossil record too large, and differences between species too great to be explained by natural selection alone.”
In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason why a factual statement like this should not be included in a science text.
If that were actually a factual statement, and not a mere assertion without proof, then it might be considered scientific. The fact is, though, that those claims cannot be proven scientifically, and are actually contradicted by experimental evidence.
One of the big claims of ID proponents is that DNA couldn’t have evolved, because it required protein, but protein couldn’t evolve because it required DNA (a.k.a. the “bootstrap” problem). In fact, though, scientists have actually managed to evolve artificial DNA in the laboratory, by recreating in the laboratory the conditions that existed when Earth was newly formed. Search Google for “artificial DNA” and you’ll get a bunch of articles about it. So the whole “some biological systems are too complex” argument goes out the window.
Some people claim that Intelligent Design theory is religion dressed up as science, but it doesn’t even approach that level of intellectual rigor. Intelligent Design theory is primarily a rhetorical device, designed to trick ignorant people into thinking that there’s a controversy about evolution, when in fact there’s nothing of the kind.
Frank,
A few anecdotal stories, ala the “Piltdown Skull” (look that one up…interesting story) don’t refute an entire theory of evolution.
From “Lucy” to modern man, I can’t fathom how people can possibly say that evolution science is bunk. It defies all logic.
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/skullpage.htm
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/
JK
P.S. Seriously…do a Google on “Piltdown Skull.” Interesting…
I love it when judges use words like “breathtaking inanity.”
randy says:
If Intelligent Design were a real, scientifically provable theory and not religious mumbo-jumbo, it might be considered plausible.
At least we can agree that absolute adherence to dogma is a bad thing, though.
I hope you don’t believe that, because that’s not it works. There was no “fairy dust” involved, and random chance actually plays a pretty small part in evolution. The fact that you would ask this question, even rhetorically, suggest that you are ignorant of the science behind evolution, and therefore unqualified to hold an opinion about it. I would recommend reading the talk.origins FAQ, especially the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution, and then move on to Evolution 101.
JK: I don’t have to Google “Piltdown Man”. I probably heard about it before you were born.
There are more mysteries than those described in the about.com article I stumbled across today. I just read that stuff now. There are many more.
25 years ago, I learned about dinosaur tracks and footprints in the same stone, indicating they were there simultaneously. Have you ever heard of the crystal skulls, skulls carved from crystal, that couldn’t have been duplicated until the twentieth century?
There are many such mysteries that lead me to believe that, while the earth wasn’t part of a six – day Creation scheme 6 thousand years ago, evolution leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
And, Randy is correct. Nothing has evolved in the 150+ years since Darwin’s work was published. The “adaptation” of the gypsy moths in England was shown to be bad science. And, as far as I know, no one has ever duplicated the conditions whereby inert, inanimate molecules become lifelike. The “evidence” for evolution is, at best, tautological.
About ten years ago, scientists discovered a pure white emperor penguin. They had never seen such a creature before, that they could tell.
A pure white penguin, arguably, has a greater chance of surviving in the pure white continent of Antarctica, because it is less likely to be targeted by predators.
That’s how natural selection works–a mutation occurs, and then conditions favor the survival of those mutations.
The ID model would have us believe that the Intelligent Designer is revising this thing on the fly.
Which, you know, I have no problem with in principle. But it makes it very hard to have absolute faith and trust in that Designer if it turned out he or she couldn’t get it all right the first time.
I have no quarrel with randy’s “definition”:
It’s the explanations of those gaps that are troublesome. Those proposed explanations owe far more to religion than to science.
Aaaah…the temptation is almost too great.
BD:Which, you know, I have no problem with in principle. But it makes it very hard to have absolute faith and trust in that Designer if it turned out he or she couldn t get it all right the first time.
But the Theory of Evolution proposes that “Nature” never gets it right the first time. Yet, the “mistakes” are nowhere to be found.
It is just as likely that your “white penguin” will be virtually invisible on the ice and snow, as it is that it will be attacked in the dark sea, or be repulsive to potential mates, and never reproduce.
Frank, 99% of all the known species are extinct. That’s a lot of mistakes, no?
Ryland,
“…ignorant of the science behind evolution, and therefore unqualified to hold an opinion about it.”
I may be ignorant of much of the science behind evolutionary theory, even though I agree with it, but I still hold that there can’t be any harm in suggesting to children that evolutionary theory does not hold all of the answers…yet.
Not all extinct species are “mistakes.” I was referring to those creatures that were unable to adapt, and thus never reproduced.
Also, without actually checking your 99% figure, I challenge it. First, if they are extinct, exactly how are they known? Or else, it represents the tautology I spoke of before. The “failures” are not around because they “failed”, the successes are here because they succeeded, and around and around it goes.
And, once again, I agree with Randy. To teach that evolutionary theory leaves a lot to be desired is not only factual, but it couldn’t do any harm
And a Happy ChristmaHannuKwanzaakah to you, too, Mouse.
No scientist would suggest otherwise. In fact, there would be no point in continuing to study evolution if all the answers were known.
The harm comes from treating a non-scientific, religious philosophy as science. Or do you propose we also teach astrology in science class since our current knowledge in astronomy is incomplete?
ID can be taught in a religion or philosophy class. Teach science in science class.
Why thank you Frank. The sentiment is returned.
They’re in all those “gaps” in the fossil record.
Er…Frank, modern creationists don’t use the footprint argument anymore. It was easily debunked long ago. In fact, the major creationist groups (like Answers in Genesis) specifically ask creationists not to bring it up because it discredits their other arguments.
As far as “crystal skulls” are concerned, I’m not sure how you think they are relevant to evolutionary theory.
Well, if you don’t want to consider becoming extinct as an example of “failure,” then maybe you could give me a definition that would satisfy your search for evolutionary “failures.” Then I could point some out.
As soon as it is shown to be inadequate. Currently, it does a reasonable job of explaining how millions upon millions of pieces of evidence fit together…unless you think there is a huge conspiracy within the scientific community to deceive the public. The specifics of evolutionary theory will always be debated and improved, but until a series of explanations is provided that does a better job…we’re stuck with evolution.
One small correction: Teach evolution as inadequate to explain the origin of species, as it is, to date, non – verifiable.
“ID can be taught in a religion or philosophy class. Teach science in science class.”
Exactly. ID is not science so it should not be taught in a science class. Science is not a religion because science is not based on faith, it is based on skepticism. The scientific method requires a scientist to disprove their hypothesis, not prove it. The Christian right’s attempt to suggest that there is some kind of equivalence between evolution and ID and the science is a religion for scientists is the height of sophistry. This is integrally connected to the separation of church and state debate. The Christian Right is simply trying to expand the sphere of its authority into areas where it simply does not belong and has no claims.
unless you think there is a huge conspiracy within the scientific community to deceive the public.
It’s interesting that I have seen that line so many times before. i don’t believe there is a conspiracy; that’s silly: Millions of lab – coated co – conspirators sitting around university coffee shops, saying, “You don’t believe that Darwin crap, do you?” “Nah!” “Me. neither!”
But, until the 1850′s, no reputable scientist would have suggested that heavier than air objects could fly. Conspiracy?
Cure Polio? Tuberculosis? Before 1950. scientists would have told you there was no cure. Conspiracy?
Before the 1850′s, there was no way doctors would have guessed that they were transmitting germs that were killing women in childbirth Conspiracy?
No, simply the limits of science.
I’m not comfortable being “stuck with evolution”, anymore than I would be comfortable looking at a curved horizon every single day from 800 AD to 1200 AD, while being told by scientists that the world was flat.
Fine. Then when someone begins to present scientific evidence to provide a better explanation we’ll all be better off. Proponents of ID have yet to provide any testable scientific hypotheses that support their claims.
As far as the conspiracy question is concerned, I repeatedly bring it up because whenever the accurate claim that ID is religious rather than scientific is brought up, the supporters of ID return with the claim that belief in evolution is also dogmatic and religious in nature. If that is the case, then clearly there must be a conspiracy among scientists like myself to hide the true nature of science. Either that, or we really don’t understand what science is since we keep publishing articles that we think provide testable and verifiable results about evolutionary processes.
“But, until the 1850′s, no reputable scientist would have suggested that heavier than air objects could fly. Conspiracy?”
Care to back that claim up with some historical evidence? Any scientist pre-1850 would have been able to point to millions of heavier than air objects that could fly. They’re called birds, Frank.
A disreputable scientist is one who refuses to accept the evidence in front of his face even when it is shown to him.
Once the evidence of powered flight, polio vaccines, etc, were provided, the scientists stopped disbelieving in them. Contrast this with the ID proponents who insist on notions like “irreducable complexity” even when their examples have been fully debunked.
Frank_D also said:
That’s actually two very common misconceptions about evolution, 1) to assign motives to evolution, and 2) to assume that organisms that survive are good and organisms that go extinct are “mistakes”. This is a natural error, partially due to somewhat misleading phrases like “survival of the fittest.” “Fittest” does not equal “best,” not in any qualitative sense. It merely means that a set of genes will (or will not) be conserved and propagated in a given group of organisms in a given environment. If you had a bunch of beagles and a bunch of German shepherds and dropped them down in a wilderness, and came back 10 years later to find that the German shepherds died and the beagles survived, does that mean that nature “got it right” with beagles, or that German shepherds are a mistake? Not at all, it just means that for whatever reason, German shepherds didn’t have what it takes to survive, in the environment you dropped them in. In another environment, it may have been the other way around, or it may be that both species survived. And that’s all it means. Nature doesn’t care. Assigning motives to nature is a religious idea that is false-to-fact.
[Since when are birds considered to be "objects"?]
Way ahead of you, Rhys:
http://www.flyingmachines.org/fmach.html
The whole argument is bogus for one simple reason. I read as much of the decision as I could stomach
decision here: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
I always take issue with the idea that proposing that the Universe has a Creator is endorsing an establishment of religion. Which religion do you know of that preaches only that the universe was created by a supernarural being, and that’s it.
From the conclusion (pp. 136 -139)
“… 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…
… we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District… ”
I find that troubling on several levels.
Frank_D said:
Please cite a source that disproves the gypsy moths.
And if you don’t like gypsy moths, how about black squirrels? And the talk.origins FAQ has a whole section dedicated to examples of observed speciation.
And while we’re at it, how about selective breeding of animals? Evolution doesn’t just happen with natural selection – we’ve been causing accelerated evolution of species through artificial selection for many thousands of years. Poodles didn’t occur in nature, you know. Breeders looked for a mutation that showed the characteristics they wanted, bred the mutated specimens together to conserve those characteristics, and eliminated the culls. That’s what nature does, only slower.
Um, hello? Did you read my comment above, where I suggested a Google search for “artificial DNA“?
So what? Scientists aren’t the ones denying that evolution exists today, are they? You argue against your own case; you’re belittling the people who always say “there ain’t no such animal” when some new idea comes along… which is what creationists are doing now. What point are you trying to make? That the people you’re defending are anti-intellectual sticks in the mud? We already know that, thanks.
First of all, I didn’t see your “suggestion” to google ‘artificial DNA’
Second, I wasn’t referring to your analogy of beagles and german shepards, but to whether or not the process of evolution was systematic. According to your example, the woods may be, over time, full of beagles, or german shepherds. Why not jellyfish or hawks?
What’s random mean? Can apes mate with chimps? They’re very similar.
Now, back to the artificial DNA
http://lslwww.epfl.ch/~tempesti/Documents/2001/ICES01-Prodan.pdf
Either evolution requires too little time (black squirrels — who seemed to have increased in number in my lifetime) or too much time ( see above).
A story about the black squirrels: There weren’t very many black squirrels around when I was a kid — in the 50′s. Around about 1988, I was working on a temp job with a young lady who had moved to where I lived — a little north of NYC — from Washington state or Oregon, I think Washington.
I remember her saying to me, once, “Did you always have a lot of black squirrels around here?” I thought about it for a minute, and realized that I hadn’t recalled if there a lot, but they weren’t rare.
Well, as questions like that will do, now I was looking for black squirrels. As time went by, I noticed more and more of them.
I also noticed that all squirrels had become more “brazen”, getting a lot closer to me than I had ever seen squirrels do. Is there some connection between the color of squirrels and their ability to survive? What is that connection?
I’m 450 miles from Wash, DC. Did it take the black squirrel 95+ years to get to my neighborhood? By extrapolation, the globe should be swarming with black squirrels 1 million years from now.
What I find so amusing about the conservative Christian rage against evolution is that, in total contradiction to Christ’s teachings, the Christian right have embraced social Darwinism as the cornerstone of their capitalist-loving philosophy.
sigh
sigh
Sigh… my evolved ass. Your feigned exasperation is only evidence that evolution is, for many, only a biological process.
All this bickering aside, my concern is with the nature of the decision — its tone, its “precedents”, and as I’ve mentioned before, the idea that acknowledging the existence of God is supporting an establishment of religion.
Nearly all those who claim (rightly or wrongly) that the Founding Fathers were not Christians, will concede that they were Deists: “one who believes that God exists and that He created the world, but now stands completely aloof from it.”
So, if the Founding Fathers believed that God created the world, how could they also believe that the government can’t support the position that God created the world?
I know some good answers to that question that argue against it, but I’m just sayin’.
Finally, what I find ironic about liberals is that they feel comfortable flaunting their “knowledge” of Christ’s teachings as they battle to eliminate His words, images, devotions and remembrances.
Frank,
Unless I missed it…I concur with Ryland. Please cite a source disproving/debunking the Gypsy Moth story.
One more thing…how do you account for the fact that we share over 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees? (Or, in the case of George W. Bush, 100%.)
JK
It’s not feigned at all. Your lack of knowledge about what evolutionary theory teaches is extraordinary. I’m sure you’re happy with your dinosaur/human footprints and crystal skulls, but keep them out of my science classroom.
No one is preventing you from teaching ID (did you notice that you admit it is about the Christian religion?). You are only prevented from falsely presenting it as science within a science classroom.