ACLU Vs Creationism

[fix]

Most scientists today start out by rejecting the truth and then go on to investigate and propose many things that are not only wrong, but immoral. The medical field is full of such things.

My question is if a school district allowed science instructors to teach that homosexual conduct was a mental disorder and showed all the scientific evidence available today and the “gay” lobby objected to teaching the truth, which side would the ACLU take? After all, they want to serve the truth, correct?

 

[buffalo]

Catholic2003:

What does it mean when human biologists can design a more efficient system than the Designer of “intelligent design”? Surely God is more intelligent that Drs. Behrman, Marzluf, and Bentley. Thus, for those of us who believe in God, this is proof that God used evolution rather than directly designing DNA.

.

It could mean that the DNA we see today is not the original DNA designed by God.

 

[jlw]

Trelow:

Science is only as good as it’s tools.

What we thought was true 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago no longer holds up to modern technology and discoveries.

And so it will be with evolution.

Agreed.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

I think the following is interesting because news of a peer-reviewed paper on “intelligent design” was significant (surprising?) enough to appear as a news/editorial article in one of the top peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Nature 431, 114 (09 September 2004); doi:10.1038/431114a

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design

JIM GILES

Critics of evolution score publishing success

A new front has opened up in the battle between scientists and advocates of intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution and is regarded by its critics as another term for creationism.

A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue. The paper appeared in a low-impact journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. But critics say that it could still be used by advocates of intelligent design to get the subject on to US school curricula (see Nature 416, 250; 2002).

The article comes from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, a leading promoter of the theory. In the article, senior fellow Stephen Meyer uses information theory and other techniques to argue that the complexity of living organisms cannot be explained by darwinian evolution (S. C. Meyer Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 117, 213–239; 2004).

Many of Meyer’s arguments have already been aired by advocates of intelligent design, but critics say that publication will be used to back up claims that the theory is scientifically valid.

Kenneth Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has argued against Meyer in public debates, does not doubt that this will happen. “They’ve tried very hard to get material into peer-reviewed journals.”

Richard Sternberg, a taxonomist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information in Bethesda, Maryland, was editor of the journal publishing the Meyer paper when it was reviewed and accepted. Sternberg is also on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, which publishes papers on “scientific research in creation biology”. He says the paper was seen and approved by three well-qualified referees.

Meyer’s article has attracted a lengthy rebuttal on The Panda’s Thumb, a website devoted to evolutionary theory. But Miller says that, despite criticism of the journal, versions of the theory will find their way into the scientific literature at some point. Arguments for it can be written, he says, as reappraisals of certain aspects of evolution rather than outright rejection. “Peer review isn’t a guarantee of accuracy,” he adds. “That is especially true of review articles.”

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group

 

[Catholic2003]

buffalo:

If you run across a set of lettered cards and they are littered on the floor you would conclude what from this? If you run across this same set of cards arranged to spell a word what would you conclude? Extend this to a more complicated word? What do the probablities say about the more complicated word? Is the search for this empirical? Can we then assign them future probabilites and predict the odds of this same thing happening again? Does this qualify as science?

I’m not sure what you are asking. Basic probability is mathematics; it can be proven from the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, so there is no need for experimental verification. However, a deep understanding of what probability really measures (e.g., the work of Bruno di Finetti) is a key component in the various interpretations of quantum physics (e.g., the work of Roland Omnès) as to what the probabilites computed by the projection postulate really mean.

 

[buffalo]

Catholic2003:

I’m not sure what you are asking. Basic probability is mathematics; it can be proven from the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, so there is no need for experimental verification. However, a deep understanding of what probability really measures (e.g., the work of Bruno di Finetti) is a key component in the various interpretations of quantum physics (e.g., the work of Roland Omnès) as to what the probabilites computed by the projection postulate really mean.

Applying quantum physics to this would only yield a probability that something would happpen at a particular time. The only way to actually know if the event happened or not is to observe it. The observer has to be outside the events frame of reference.

So if we could predict the probabily of a certain set of cards spelling out something meaningful, we cannot know it actually happens unless we see it.

 

[Trelow]

Ooooh, walked right into that one.

 

[Catholic2003]

buffalo:

The observer has to be outside the events frame of reference.

I’m not sure why you said this. Are you trying to conclude that the observer must be God? All other possible observers are in the same universe that the event is a part of.

buffalo:

So if we could predict the probabily of a certain set of cards spelling out something meaningful, we cannot know it actually happens unless we see it.

Yes. If you roll a fair die, the probability of a “1” coming up is 1/6, but no one will know whether or not the “1” actually came up until they look.

 

[jlw]

Excerpt from article above:

Meyer’s article has attracted a lengthy rebuttal on The Panda’s Thumb, a website devoted to evolutionary theory. But Miller says that, despite criticism of the journal, versions of the theory will find their way into the scientific literature at some point. Arguments for it can be written, he says, as reappraisals of certain aspects of evolution rather than outright rejection. “Peer review isn’t a guarantee of accuracy,” he adds. “That is especially true of review articles.”
This is all I am arguing for. Not looking to outright reject evolutionary theory, but to just include “intellegent design” theory along side of Darwinist theory.

 

[Catholic2003]

buffalo:

It could mean that the DNA we see today is not the original DNA designed by God.

So God designed the original DNA, but the DNA that we see today in all living things was produced by some other mechanism? Could this other mechanism be evolution?

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Exactly; this is a key characteristic of any scientific theory. This is why “intelligent design” is not a scientific theory - it makes no predictions that can be falsified.

So, then - what you are saying is - that we can only teach theories for which we can produce evidence in favor of and which have competing negative evidence.

We cannot teach theories for which we can produce evidence in favor of and which have no competing negative evidence.

In other words, we can only teach schoolchildren things that can be proven false.

Is this somehow connected to the verification principle which says that only things that can be verified can be learned? This principle has been universally condemned as it would exclude many types of knowledge, including philosophy and portions of metaphysics. We’d have to throw out Aristotle for example.

So, what is the opposition to teaching Intelligent Design except that Chrisitianiy agrees with the concept?

 

[Catholic2003]

jlw:

This is all I am arguing for. Not looking to outright reject evolutionary theory, but to just include “intellegent design” theory along side of Darwinist theory.

I have no problem with a science class examining the argument that information theory and other techniques show that the complexity of living organisms cannot be explained by darwinian evolution. But there is no “intelligent design” counter-theory that is worthy of study in science class until ID can make falsifiable predictions.

 

[jlw]

Catholic2003:

So God designed the original DNA, but the DNA that we see today in all living things was produced by some other mechanism? Could this other mechanism be evolution?

Maybe.

Of course, as a Catholic, I am faithful to the mystery of God and his ways. I believe he “created” evolution.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Perhaps. But science class should stick with what science can explain. Which, as the Holy Father points out, is not everything.

Why should learning be limited only to what science can explain or has defined? There is volumes of evidence for reality that has been given to us through Divine Revelation. There is plenty of philosophical evidence that points to intelligent design.

Simply because science has limitations didn’t stop Aristotle, Augustine or Aquinas. Why should our kids suffer from these limitations placed on their thinking?

Teach Intelligent Design as something other than science if you wish - but don’t demand that one can’t learn it. On that note, a case could be made that evolutionary theory is more philosophy than science as well. Isn’t it scientists that had to (and still have to) presuppose naturalism to accept evolutionary theory? In other words, it is science that requires the elimination of God in order for students to truly accept it’s evolution theories.

Is this any way to conduct learning? I’d say our schools need a revamping in how they educate students. How about you?

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Creationism is bad religion. Many Protestant denominations insist on taking every word in the Bible literally; this is what can happen when everyone interprets the Bible for themselves. Catholicism is one of the few (if not only) branches of Christianity that acknowledges that true faith and true science can never be in conflict, as they both come from God. Even Pope John Paul II said that evolution is more than just a theory.

Exactly. TRUE science can never contradict reality - which is, in essence, faith in that which is true (God).

The Catholic Chuch has certainly not discounted creationism as a possibility. She takes no position on the matter except to say that the entire human race has descened from a common male and female human ancestor.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Then what predictions does it make that can falsify it?

Intelligent design could be falsified if it were proven, for example, that the universe is not ordered or that human life can easily pop up on any planet or other celestial body. In fact, the latter is what today’s scientists have been feverishly trying to prove - I would suspect, in an effort to disprove the concept of Intelligent Design.

Seeing as many of todays scientists are invesigating Intelligent Design, it must be science to them. Mainstream science may mock them but that doesn’t make them wrong.

 

[Brad]

jlw:

Big-wig longtime athiest scientist:

abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

Interesting. He best make a decision on which God he wants to believe in quickly. He spent 80 or so years claiming there is no God and was proven wrong, yet he wants to claim the Christians got it all wrong still - sorry pal but you won’t have another 80 years.

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

I did a search on “intelligent design” on the top universities in biological science, but founding nothing to indicate that it is taken seriously in any of their biology departments.

Of course not. This is because mainstream science presupposes naturalism. An academic institution has a reputation to uphold. Most of the universities are heavily influenced by their scientific pursuits - they’ve lead most disciplines to believe in naturalism - including even theologists (you wouldn’t think it were possible but just look at Notre Dame, Boston College, Georgetown etc.).

To take on Intelligent Design would get bad press leading to decreased enrollment and less (drum roll please) money.

Yep - you’ve guessed it - the liberal left revolves around the the great evil of money (must be evil - remember tax cuts for the rich?)

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Science is what can be studied by the scientific method, i.e., forming a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified, conducting experiments that either falsify or fail to falsify the hypothesis, and repeating. Science is divided into the physical sciences (including both physics and biology) and the social sciences (e.g., economics).

Doesn’t this all get back to the taking God out of schools thing?

Evolutionary theory, especially as it pertains to humans as they exist today , can be heavily falsified. Like I said, even Darwin had several doubts - but he was on a mission to rid us of the concept of God.

Now, I’m sure some of the evolutionary concepts that Darwin came up with can be just as scientifically applicable as say, the chemical elements table. These can be taught.

The problem here is the insistence that humans evolved in a manner that is purposeless and puts humans at an equal level with every other animal - leading to moral decay as their is not basis or reason for doing good and no possibility of stopping the animal instinct of pursuing pleasure.

Why must the schools insist on this extraordinarily flawed concept except that it is consistent with the no-God worldview that is prevalent throughout academia and the “we must have answers for everything” which is prevalent throughout society?

 

[Catholic2003]

Brad:

So, then - what you are saying is - that we can only teach theories for which we can produce evidence in favor of and which have competing negative evidence.

We cannot teach theories for which we can produce evidence in favor of and which have no competing negative evidence.

No. The theory of gravity has no competing negative evidence that I’m aware of, and it is a valid part of science. It makes a prediction that if one were to suspend a 10 ton weight over the head of a creationist and remove the support, then the weight would fall and knock some sense into the creationist. If, contrary to this prediction, the 10 ton weight were to levitate, maybe with a beam of light from heaven illuminating the creationist, then the theory of gravity would be disproven. Not that I’m calling for volunteers or anything.

Falsifiable predictions are not the same thing as negative evidence.

The theory of common universal descent makes many important predictions as to the characteristics of species, including newly discovered species. One such prediction is that evolutionary improvements are only transmitted to descendents, and thus will not appear in other branches of the phylogenetic tree.

On the other hand, every time a “less-than-intelligent” aspect of biological design is discovered, it is met with hand-waving on the part of ID proponents, who have yet to offer up any scientifically testable predictions from their “theory” (at least according to the AAAS).

Brad:

In other words, we can only teach schoolchildren things that can be proven false.

Perhaps a better wording would be “we can only teach schoolchildren things in science class that can potentially be proven false, in that they make definite predictions that can be verified experimentally.”

Brad:

Is this somehow connected to the verification principle which says that only things that can be verified can be learned? This principle has been universally condemned as it would exclude many types of knowledge, including philosophy and portions of metaphysics. We’d have to throw out Aristotle for example.

Only things that can be verified are within the realm of science, which as I’ve stated several times already, does not include all branches of knowledge. Philosophy and metaphysics are not part of the scientific realm. Aristotle’s idea that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects has been thrown out of physics. For that matter, Aristotle’s modal logic has been soundly thrashed in mathematics.

Brad:

So, what is the opposition to teaching Intelligent Design except that Chrisitianiy agrees with the concept?

Fundamentalist Protestantism agrees with the concept. Catholicism doesn’t use the Bible as a science textbook (or a mathematics textbook for that matter).