You guys are a riot. You could just go with the simple explaination that McCain (and Graham and Hagel...) are critical thinking individuals, but nooooo.... there must be some nefarious reason for their off the reservation positions.

Please do kick them out of your Republican Party, you'll feel much better when you're unanimous in all things.

It's not the polls, it's because he read these 2 wonderful articles on Intelligent design:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4761

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4762

Both are seriously excellent.

"But such logical and impartial responses to ID are unlikely to happen. Since the dogma of evoluticism is at the root of all liberal thinking, and since it depends on spontaneous evolution, that theory is sacred and any opposing concept is heresy and must be peremptorily silenced.. So we now have the paradox of religionists being scientific and scientists being dogmatic. We can only hope, with Pope John Paul II, that

"science can purify religion from error and superstition [and] religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes,” [italics mine]"

"As I said at the opening, I am not persuaded by intelligent design arguments, not because the theory of evolution is unassailable – it most certainly has weaknesses – but because I don’t think anyone has successfully answered the criticisms of intelligent design offered by Hume, Kant and Kiergegaard. If those secular fundamentalists who wish to gag intelligent design theories are so worried about future generations, let them demand, then, that we also teach Hume, Kant and Kierkegaard in our public schools – rather than censorship! Our students should be exposed to this great discussion in all its dimensions, so that they can make up their own minds."

You could just go with the simple explaination that McCain (and Graham and Hagel...) are critical thinking individuals, but nooooo.... there must be some nefarious reason for their off the reservation positions.

Dude, read the headline. In this case, Maverick McCain is choosing to stay ON THE RESERVATION. He's not going off of it -- he SUPPORTS teaching ID.

I DID READ THE HEADLINE!

I also read Karol's short piece. You all have identified McCain et al as RINOs and heaped loads of insults on their heads for their off the reservation positions to the point that even McCain's on reservation position is insulted as being poll driven.

duh.

"The movement to gag discussion of intelligent design theory is grounded in neither science nor philosophy. The theory of ID itself may or may not be true. But the argument against even discussing it reveals dogmatism, ignorance, and willful failure to argue from science."

class="text">http://www.americanthinker.com/index.php

Utron - I don't know about "wingnut reservation", but supporting teaching ID along with evolution became Republican party line when Bush made it so. It was in the papers and stuff.

utron - I'm a 'crunchy con' and always willing to talk about ID :)

Seriously, what I find time and again is that people who are opposed to abortion often also support the idea of discussing Intelligent Design instead of making ad homnium attacks on ID's supporters.. McCain is opposed to abortion so he meets that test.

McCain drives me nuts because of (i) campaign finance 'reform' and (ii) his ego, which seems as big as Kerry's, but that doesn't mean he's wrong all of the time.

Learning about "Intelligent Design" has always been a standard component of basic Beginning Philosophy -- I'm talking high school level (college prep maybe, but high school level) philosophy courses -- as part of learning about the different arguments for the existence of God. There are three basic arguments: the teleological, the ontological, and the cosmological. The cosmological argues that existence itself proves that God also exists. The ontological argument claims that God's existence can be proved by reason alone. The teleological argument asserts that the fact that the cosmos works like something that has been assembled (like a watch) proves that God exists, and that he created everything. This was put into words by William Paley, in his famous comparison of the universe to a watch and God as the watchmaker. The teleological argument is otherwise known as the philosophy of Intelligent Design. It is pretty much impossible to teach even the basics of Western Philosophy without bringing up Intelligent Design. This is why all the fuss and pother over the so-called "new" introduction of ID into the curriculum is a bit of a red herring. Sure, there's that "they're going to teach it in a science class!" alarum, but you know what? You can't really descently teach science without touching on Western Philosophy.

Max, I couldn't agree more on campaign finance reform and McCain's ego. If he does wind up in the Oval Office (and I very much doubt he will), McCain is going to get along with Congress about as well as Jimmy Carter did. The guy is, to put it mildly, not collegial.

I avoid discussions of evolution and ID for the same reason I avoid discussions of abortion: I have never, not once, seen anyone alter their views as a result of one of those discussions. That seems to be true for the whole range of viewpoints on those issues.

And what is this "party line" hooey, VonK? I disagree with Our Supreme Leader on immigration, deficits, NCLB, and a truckload of other issues. Come on, I know you can do better than this. Your attacks are usually smarter, which makes them much more effective and annoying.

>>Sure, there's that "they're going to teach it in a science class!" alarum,

But that's the whole of the alarum!

I don't think anyone cares if transubstantiation is taught in schools. They do care if the "theory of transubstantiation" is taught in chemistry class as some sort of alternative to "the periodic table orthodoxy."

Seriously, what I find time and again is that people who are opposed to abortion often also support the idea of discussing Intelligent Design instead of making ad homnium attacks on ID's supporters.. McCain is opposed to abortion so he meets that test.

I don't mind discussing it. I don't approve of teaching it as a real scientific theory competing with evolution, which it simply is not.

I hate to go into this Briar Patch all over again, but if you're talking about magic, you're not talking about science. ID is magic. ID is God exhibiting his magical powers of foresight and omnipotence to set into motion a chain of events (Heisenberg uncertainty principle be damned) that will organize molecules billions of years down the road to create the flowers and animals and birds on the wing.

That *could* have happened. I can't prove it didn't. But it's magic, and so it's not science.

To make molecules "want" to assemble in a certain fashion, you need some sort of force capable of "remembering" that built-in desire to assemble in such a fashion.

Does science indicate any such information-storage nodule in carbon atoms? I'm not aware of any. So it's "magic" once again how these carbon and nitrogen and oxygen molecules "remembered" how to self-assemble after millions of years.

Yet another supernatural, plainly magical assumption the ID "theory" needs in order to be viable. And once again, for that reason, not science.

"ID is magic." yada yada yada puke barf heave etc.

Ace,

For goodness sakes at least read the articles I linked to before replying. PLEASE. You couldn't possibly post as you just did if you'd read them.

I really haven't seen any evidence that they are going to teach this as a valid scientific theory beyond hysterical website claims. For one thing, that simply isn't possible. Of course, if a school district is populated solely by Creationist Baptists, the kids in the schools are going to believe what they are told at home. But I simply can't see this being taught as a scientific theory. I can see it being "mentioned" as one of the ideas for the existence of the universe, but what kind of test can you give for that? Note: going over the many hoaxes perpetrated in the name of Darwin's theory of evolution (such as the moths glued to trees, and so on) isn't the same thing as either debunking the theory, or proving ID. Saying "well, that argument is false because someone who believed in it lied" is one of those logical fallacies whose name I forget. I am quite willing to believe that there are many bad teachers who will use that approach, though; I've had bad teachers who, if I had actually listened to them instead of looking up stuff on my own, would have planted quite a few crap ideas in my head. Fortunately students become quite savvy and cynical after just a few years in the American school system, and are quite good at figuring out where teacher slipped up in the "real life" department.

I think the real anxiety here is that stupid, close-minded students (as opposed to cynical, clever ones) will not receive the necessary mind-opening medicine that will keep them from believing dumb things. I rather doubt there is anything we can do about that; a certain number of stupid people will always exist. But they tend to go into professions where the duties extend to nothing more society-affecting than stocking shelves or greeting people at the front door of Walmarts so I don't see that we have that much to worry about.

Max,

I've read similar cites. It's magic. There's no getting away from that.

You cannot explain to me what force or quality of an atom stores the information needed to execute such a scheme for assembly into life-engendering molecules, can you?

You knock evolution for its various holes. Well, please address this particular hole. You can't just keep knocking evolution without explaining what heretofore unknown information-storing quality of carbon atoms allows them to self-assemble into amino acids based on a billion-year-old plan.

Really, a serious, rigorous scientific theory ought to welcome such questions and be able to answer them. ID proponents can't just keep saying "let's not sweat the small stuff" when questions like this are asked.

If this is not just a theory of supernatural creation of life, you're going to have to do a better job of explaining how the natural, provable forces that shape our universe could possibly be utilized for a very, very, VERY long term intelligent design scheme.

You can't just toggle off the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, unless you're talking Omniopotent God Magic, which makes long-range (or even short-range) forecasting of where atoms will be at any particular time impossible.

Which means that the atoms would have to have, somewhere inside of them, a retained plan of how to structure themselves in order to create life in a certain manner... but again, I don't know of any such informational coding available in carbon atoms.

If you say, "Well, carbon atoms just naturally have the inclination, due to their chemical properties, to form organic molecules which may lead to the creation of life," well, no evolutionist would disagree. That's what they believe too.

O.k. Ace ,Vonkrettin(oops Vonkreedon) and all you other evolutionists, I'll take you on. I'm reeeeally seriously ticked. In order to have evolution, YOU need matter--chemicals, chemical reactions, space etc. Where do you suppose it came from? Hint: the tooth fairy is not acceptable as an answer.

> ID is God exhibiting his magical powers of foresight and omnipotence to set into motion a chain of events

It seems to me that would only apply to "Calvinist Intelligent Design." There's no reason God (or any other intelligence) can't have continual input into the process. In fact, that's how just about every observable intelligence works. To paraphrase the old Stalinist apology: you can't make an omelette without folding some eggs.

Hint: the tooth fairy is not acceptable as an answer.

What if I worship the Tooth Fairy?

BTW, as AoS' resident semi-occasional InstaPunk link trollop, permit me to recommend this: this (scroll down to the "EVOLUTION" header for the part pertinent to this thread).

Ace - The thing about a God driven cosmos is that anything, literally and by definition anything is possible. God, being limitless, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent simply willing it perfectly from the get-go and that's all She wrote.

Given that such an entity exists then it makes perfect sense, but I don't see why we there is any scientific need filled by choosing that given when we seem to be able to figure out the vast majority of the cosmos without God.

What if I worship the Tooth Fairy?

Dear Vonkreedon: I wrote a book on the subject. Read it. It will do your soul good. (Hint: it is the best selling book of all time)

You wrote a book about the Tooth Fairy!?!

Also, much loose editing shit in my previous un-Godly post.

Max:

Thanks for the links. Have copied them all and am awaiting the appropriate opportunity to unload them on Andy at the World Wide Rant.

Ace,

1. Please read the articles. They're not what you assume.

2. I've written several replies to your question, but each time I go back and reread the question I realize I'm not sure I understand it. As best I can guess, you're saying that life on earth must be the result of random chance rather than a plan or design. If that's correct, my response is that I believe life on earth is not a result of random chance, but how it came about I don't know. ID seems like a possible alternative, but I'm open to other ideas. (The question of random chance is discussed in one of the articles I link to.)

3. My question -

Does evolution/random chance explain why anything at all exists?

"Does evolution/random chance explain why anything at all exists? "

That's a philosophical question not a scientific question. The best answer anyody can say in the context of science is 'I don't know'.

Max, you magnificent bastard, I've read your articles. They're crap. The first one argues that since ID isn't a creationist cover it should be taught in schools. I'll admit I didn't finish the second article, once I realized Mr. Shlichta had no idea what science and science education was about.

ID has no place in science classes because it isn't science. Period. Evolution and ID aren't competing scientific theories because ID isn't a scientific theory. Science is more than just math, jargon, and labcoats. It's about developing a TESTABLE description of reality. Scientific theories contain within them the seeds of their own destruction. We find the Higgs boson doesn't have the predicted mass and the theory is wrong. We find that populations of organisms don't changed based on the non-random selection of random drift in phenotype and the theory is wrong. Maybe not by much, but it still needs modification.

What testable prediction does ID make? Do not argue about probabilities and what makes more sense. The Universe doesn't give a rat's fart in a hurricane about your sense, and improbable events happen all the time. All I want from you is one (1) prediction that, if wrong, would result in the complete failure of ID. I'll even give you a template: If tomorrow CERN discovers the creation of net charge the last 100 years of quantum mechanics (and a good bit of the last 300 years of physics) goes out the window.

And to answer the question in your last post: No. It's not the job of evolution to say WHY things exist, that's more the realm of cosmology/quantum physics. And we don't have an answer. Yet. Ain't it cool?

Mts. Rainer and MMDeuce,

Please don't try to do Ace's work for him - he's lazy enough as it is.

MMDeuce - You ask for "one (1) prediction that, if wrong, would result in the complete failure of ID". You're asking me to provide you with evidence that you will say proves ID is wrong???

In any event, ID and other non-Darwinian arguments are not about prediction, but about observation of reality and seeking answers based on what we see when we observe reality, as opposed to trying to fit reality into some 'Procrustian bed' designed by a 19th century dead white man whose theories were used as a philisophical base for eugenics and worse, far worse.

I am a "creationist" (whatever that is, I guess), and believe what I do through faith. That is not scientific.

The way I see it, though, "evolutionists", on the other hand must have faith I cannot even fathom to believe in the leaps necessary to even consider evolution a fairy tale, let alone "scientific". The faith that binds them to such discreditation is amazing. That I could have such faith in my God!

Science classes should stick to science, not fairy tales created by a closed mind determined to prove there is no God.

Science is more than just math, jargon, and labcoats. It's about developing a TESTABLE description of reality.

Whoops. Uh, evolution can't be tested, either. There has yet to be one successful experiment that has randomly turned one organism into an entirely new one. And I'm not talking about cross-pollenization or animal husbandry because new strains and/or breeds don't demonstrate evolution; in fact, they're not even relevant to evolution because they resulted due to the Intelligent Design behind them.

Later,
bbeck

Max, I think you misunderstand. MMDeuce is asking for a test that could be used to measure the validity of the ID hypothesis. Just as the postulated mechanisms of evolution must be verified by observation and experiment.

To my mind, the science education of our youth concentrates primarily on teaching the scientific method, the facts that underpin modern scientific theory, and well-established theories. It sometimes touches on weak points or competing theories, but there is plenty to teach about what we know without teaching what we don't know (plenty of time in grad school to deal with the latter).

So I could see teaching the fact of evolution as the primary emphasis of K-12 education, and perhaps touching on the mechanisms postulated to account for evolution.

Does anybody know exactly how an ID curriculum would be implemented?

ID has no place in science classes because it isn't science. Period.

'It' isn't necessarily either or. If researchers looking for ID use the scientific method and make other discoveries, how is that not science?

Or ... the discovery of a message in junk DNA, loosly translated, 'Copyright Vegan Gene Tech Intergallactic 29-554-332-173'.

These hypotheticals might not pertain to the ID you deplore, which might be all phony baloney. The point is I can propose any number of scientifically valid ways to research ID. Thus the dogmatic claim that 'ID isn't science' is phony baloney for sure.

Check out Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. In his novel 'Contact' he has a plot device where ...

She finds a long string of 1's and 0's late in the expansion of Pi in base 11. It's length is a product of two primes, indicating a two dimensional array. So, she plots it on her computer screen (each digit representing a pixel) and sees a perfect circle. The constant which describes the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter itself contains a picture of a circle!

Ace,

This quote is for you:

"The first 138 pages of this book are pretty darn good. McFadden shows how evolution, particularly Darwinian evolution can not have occurred as we hypothesize. He drops the ideology of naturalism and admits quite plainly that cells have order, DNA is information, and there was not enough time to even make a simple cell."

From a review of Quantum Evolution: How Physics' Weirdest Theory Explains Life's Biggest Mystery

/0393323102/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-0131439-2292647?v=glance" target="_blank" class="text">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393323102/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-0131439-2292647?v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/XBMQVPLITKYY/ref=cm_lm_detail_ctr_full_2/103-0131439-2292647

Quite intresting article posting.I enjoyed reading this.
You can visit me at the link mentioned below:
http://www.heating-system-reviews.info

> ID has no place in science classes because it isn't science. Period.

We could all save a lot of time and trouble if someone in the public eye would just have the cojones to come forward and say "Science classes must, by definition, exclude the possibility that there is anything in the Universe besides observable, measurable matter." Then America could just say "To hell with science classes" and go about its business.

We could all save a lot of time and trouble if someone in the public eye would just have the cojones to come forward and say "Science classes must, by definition, exclude the possibility that there is anything in the Universe besides observable, measurable matter."

Okay:

Science classes must, by definition, exclude the possibility that there is anything in the Universe besides observable, measurable matter.

I though that's what I had been saying.

My definition of science explicitly does not embrace the paranormal or supernatural or magical or divine.

How about yours?

I would have thought that to be a rather commonsensical and widely accepted definition of science -- "no magic, period" -- but I guess I was wrong.

Sorry, Ace, but I gotta call you on this one: because "scientists" have tried for years with astounding knowledge of what it would take, and had laboratory conditions to experiment in yet have never come close to creating life with a jolt of lightning in primordial mud, I gotta believe your belief in "magic" is greater than my belief in God.

What they have done is observable. What "creationists" believe is conjecture. Just like evolution. No more, no less.

Suppose there were some undiscovered mechanism, beyond random mutation and natural selection, that made evolution possible. Something like a Turing machine, a nano-bio-computer that uses DNA for 'software and database'. Because the software DNA would not participate in normal cell operations it would be considered junk DNA. It might only be activated by detection of population stress at either extreme and contribute to rapid adaptation and/or production of new species.

Would the discovery of something like that be vindication for ID, which has been saying all along that random mutation and selection are insufficient?

Which group of scientists are more likely to discover such? The dogmatic standing pat on mutation and selection or scientists investigating shortcomings of current evolution theory.

Should scientists investigating shortcomings of current evolution theory be denounced as religious pawns and dupes?

MMDeuce wrote:
ID has no place in science classes because it isn't science. Period. Evolution and ID aren't competing scientific theories because ID isn't a scientific theory. Science is more than just math, jargon, and labcoats.

According to your definition, Albert Einstein was not a scientist. I think he would beg to differ.

It's about developing a TESTABLE description of reality. Scientific theories contain within them the seeds of their own destruction.

ID does:

FALSIFIABILITY: Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

Do not argue about probabilities and what makes more sense.

Your casual dismissal of probability as not being proper science is amusing. Wrong, but amusing.

(Tried to put up a fucking Google link, then a Dmoz link, and Ace's comment filter trashed them both, so now I'm saying fuck it. Google up "+science +probability" to see where you're wrong)

And before some dimwit comes in here to compare the criticizing of Darwinism to the Catholic Church's censorship of Galileo (thereby smearing anyone who is remotely religious as being antiscientific), you'll be very surprised at who really silenced Galileo.

The "scientific method" can exclude magic. Science, at least in the old sense of scientia or "natural philosophy," can't exclude anything, though it can assert that some things seem unlikely or unprovable. Trying to make a science class a "clean room" where the scientific method is kept pure and unsullied by the nasty business of people's questions, beliefs, and daily lives is a Sisyphean task.

More ID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8543

Mandatory reading for all believers in science.

Yes max. I expect you to tell me, an experimenter, exactly what experiment I would have to run, and what results I would have to get, in order to disprove ID. EVERY scientific theory, from Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation to Evolution, can do this. ID cannot.

Falsifiability is more than the result of Occam's razor. To be falsifiable a theory must make a testable prediction. Without a prediction there can be no test, without a test there can be no falsification. We may prefer one non-disproved theory to another due to mundane reasons (one makes more intuitive sense or is easier to solve) but until one theory makes a prediction that doesn't correspond to reality both are equally valid.

To the unnamed who quoted "Contact". Yes, a "signature block" in the structure of the universe would prove ID, but the lack of such a thing does not disprove ID. No signature could mean that Bob the creator was a modest sort, or that we haven't found how it is encoded.

What is required is a statement: If $this$ then the universe is intelligently designed. And $this$ cannot be "I can't explain x any other way", that's just a statement about your intelligence and imagination, not the universe.

I'm not going to bother listing the experimental evidence for evolution. Anyone truly interested can head over to talk.origins and look at the FAQ, written by real biologists.

My point is that until you can say "my theory makes these predictions which if incorrect will discredit my theory" you are not doing science. You are doing naval-gazing, mental masturbation, or philosophy. None of which have any place in a K-12 science class.

A Deuce outdoing an Ace. (Perhaps not a surprise on this site.)

Deuce - what experimemt would you have to run, and what result would you have to get, to disprove evolution? You state that such an experiment exists, but don't give specifics.

"I think the real anxiety here is that stupid, close-minded students (as opposed to cynical, clever ones) will not receive the necessary mind-opening medicine that will keep them from believing dumb things. I rather doubt there is anything we can do about that; a certain number of stupid people will always exist. But they tend to go into professions where the duties extend to nothing more society-affecting than stocking shelves or greeting people at the front door of Walmarts so I don't see that we have that much to worry about."

You've got problems.

Just the tiniest of quibbles: I've known many (self-proclaimed) "cynical" people who still managed to be plenty stupid.

First a caveat: This is somewhat outside my area of expertise (I come to this from the physics side of the house, not biology) talk.origins is full of experts in biology and evolution (and like any other usenet group its fair share of kooks and crackpots, caveat lector). If you're serious about this you should read the FAQ, understand the FAQ, then ask any questions.

But to respond to your challenge (even though I asked you first and you're the one making the claim that ID is scientific, so by all rights you should answer first): Given a pond in which a parameter (water quality, temperature, salinity, etc) is changing the life in that pond will, given enough time, change in its ability to handle the parameter without any outside interference. A 1:1 correlation between environmental change and extinction would disprove evolution. The fact that every part of the earth has experienced environmental change and there is still life serves to confirm evolution via natural selection.

Environmental change isn't necessarily fatal, and most animal species aren't rooted to the ground - they DO have the option of relocating elsewhere when the environment changes.

I'm not an ID guy, but the "pond" argument seems flawed to me.

Deuce,

Thanks for giving a reply to my 'unfair' question. Hurricane Katrina appears to be approaching where I live so I'm about to evacuate and can't reply right now. I'll be back though, I hope sooner rather than later.