Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Back in July, I found out about an absolutely abysmal article published in the Chapman Law Review that advocated teaching creationism in public school science classrooms in the name of "neutrality." Since I knew Sandefur was a graduate of Chapman Law School, I figured he might be interested in it; that was a bit of an understatement. So angry was he that his alma mater had published such drek that he immediately set down to write a response to it. That response is now available on SSRN.
The original article was written by Stephen Trask, then a law student and a graduate of Liberty University. And he didn't just argue for teaching ID in science classrooms, he argued for overturning Edwards and allowing outright creationism to be taught. In fact, not only allowing it to be taught, but requiring it to be taught. That, he argued, was the only way the government could show religious neutrality. To call that conclusion silly is to understate the case considerably. Sandefur accurately describes the nature of Trask's argument:
Further, Trask argues, the Establishment Clause requires government to remain neutral, and to treat all "ways of knowing" as equal. Science's focus on natural causes rather than supernatural or magical causes,10 is it-self a type of religion, and for government to endorse science, and particularly of evolution--by teaching it in schools--is "forcibly indoctrinating students into the religion of secular humanism"11 and compelling them to undergo "religious instruction."12 Government instead ought to remain "neutral" by teaching "alternative theories" to evolution in science classes, including explicitly "supernatural" ones.
As Sandefur notes, this is yet another example of conservative Christians adopting the language and arguments of leftist postmodernism in order to justify their position.Sandefur does an excellent job of debunking the whole bushel of silly arguments. And though it was very kind of him to thank me and several others in the article for helping him hone his arguments, I should say that I have no doubt the others contributed far more than I. My contribution consisted of reading a couple of drafts and telling him I thought they were very good.
Comments
Although I'm sure the article is overall very good and well-written, I was turned off by the first sentence in the abstract.
" Although it is a well-established scientific fact, evolution remains a controversial subject in the United States, and especially the issue of teaching evolution or creationism in public schools."
No, sorry, evolution is not in the least controversial. Let me explain.
Imagine that I filled a pitcher full of water and floated a large block of ice in that pitcher, so that the water came right up to the top of the pitcher. The ice would float above the top of the pitcher, since ice is less dense than liquid water. Now suppose I asked 1000 people on the streets what would happen when the ice melts.
Anyone who has ever watched "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" or "Street smarts" should realize that at least 900 of those thousand people will say, incorrectly, that the water would overflow.
Does that make it a "controversial" position that it will not? Of course not. It just means that most people don't know what they are talking about.
Whether the antibody based test for Lyme disease has a large number of false positives is a controversial question. Educated medical professionals disagree on this difficult question. Whether modern organisms are descended from ancestors which were different that they are, and whether natural selection is the major mechanism of such change is about as controversial as gravitation.
Posted by: BaldApe | February 3, 2008 10:53 AM
BaldApe -
I disagree with your point in relation to teaching evolution. I agree that people that believe evolution does not explain the origin of species are wrong.
Imagine your ice and pitcher demonstration were given with access to nearly all Americans at some point, say Junior High as a requirement in 8th grade science. Imagine the results in regards to the audience's reaction was as follows: some parents permanently or temporarily pulled their children out of the schools that provided such a demonstration, others lobbied their school boards to stop the demonstration, some people watched the demonstration but refused to believe the results. Preachers railed against the experiment, called it a religion, and told you that you were going to Hell if you believed the water didn't overflow. There were protests, law suits, and worst of all, millions of children's career opportunities were narrowed due to their parent's delusional beliefs. I would call that controversial.
I don't think controversial suggests that more than one side is valid, merely there is a public dispute. My online dictionary appears to bear that out.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 3, 2008 11:11 AM
I think its ironic that, when I visited the link, the Google Ads tab on the SSRN page consisted entirely of ads for ID and creationist publications and movies.
Posted by: AnneS | February 3, 2008 11:11 AM
BaldApe, he said the subject of evolution is controversial, not the truth value of it.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 3, 2008 11:24 AM
"An argument that appears to be increasingly popular among creationists is based on a postmodernist notion that science is simply one among many different but equal "ways of knowing" end quote.
I loved this observation. I think that being called out for taking advantage of the postmodern framing would drive creationists crazy. But that is exactly what they are doing.
Posted by: dogheaven | February 3, 2008 11:36 AM
Ed,
Do you have more sources I could read from both sides of this argument? It sounds a lot like what I was saying. Of course I got most of my information from David Noebel and you have convinced me at least to a point that he is slanted in at least some of his views. His argument, which is the same as the man in this article, seems reasonable when it is preached to the chior. I came on here to see if it held up to scrutiny. I am not sure.
Now that I understand your viewpoint at least a little better, I can begin to see where I stand on this whole subject. I am absolutely against legislating morality but do want to see all points of view taught as much as possible. I know you probably think I have some agenda but I really want to be fair and hear you out. We Christians label people so easily and they think we hate them. I hope to show at the least by coming on here that I am willing to learn from you guys and open to being wrong on some things.
Could you give me some sources?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 3, 2008 1:29 PM
I hereby submit that if any Creationist view it taught, they must ALL be taught (in the name of fairness). Including those of the Hopi, Hindus, Pacific Islanders, etc. In fact, create a class entitled: VARIETIES OF CREATIONISM that can be taught as an alternative to science. For those who don't want to learn science.
Posted by: Rod | February 3, 2008 1:53 PM
King of Ireland:
If you look at the article linked to above, Sandefur includes several articles from the other side in footnotes. One of his points in criticizing Trask's article is that Trask didn't even bother to cite the legal literature that's on his side. Most of it is in law review articles, so you'll need access to a college library to find a lot of them. Francis Beckwith and David DeWolf are probably the two most prominent legal scholars who take the position that it's constitutional to teach ID in public school science classrooms.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 3, 2008 1:59 PM
Ed,
Thanks I read the article. It some ways it is like reading the King James Bible thought it is full of scientific and legal terms that the average person is not going to understand the full meaning of. But I think the guy had some good points. It is interesting that one of the main concerns in some Christian circles now is the whole post-modern there are not absolutes thing. I see Science is concerned with this New Age thinking as well.
It is very interesting to see the institutions and practices of the Industrial Revolution being questioned on all sides at the beginning of the Information Age. His arguments about how far Science has taken us as humans are extremely valid. We cannot go back to Poseiden did it. We just cannot. But in my view we cannot just rule out the supernatural all together either. Tough issue indeed. This is what I was trying to say about people on boths sides of this issue possibly digging there own holes to fall in later as post-modern thought takes root in the world.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 3, 2008 2:21 PM
Posted by: Bill Poser | February 3, 2008 2:22 PM
King of Ireland said
Why not?
Posted by: Bachalon | February 3, 2008 3:00 PM
King of Ireland wrote
What does that have to do with what is appropriately taught in public school science classrooms?Posted by: RBH | February 3, 2008 4:01 PM
I don't think most people object to teaching ID - the objection is to the idea of teaching it *in science class*. I would have no trouble with my daughter learning about creationism (or ID or whatever other name they want to call it) - along with many other creation mythology stories - in a course about literature or philosophy or a, or some other *non-science* course. For some reason, this is not adequate for cdesign proponentists. I don't want astrology taught in science class for the exact same reason - teach it as a way of thinking about the world, and as a mythology, and I'm fine with that, but NOT in science class, where it doesn't belong any more than does the Easter Bunny (no offense to Bunnyists out there).
I really cannot understand the overwhelming need to have their mythology - and ONLY theirs - taught as a science. If my daughter's school starts mumbling about ID, I'm going to insist on FSM getting exactly the same amount of time.
Posted by: Migo | February 3, 2008 5:03 PM
King of Ireland-
Reading legal scholarship is, indeed, a lot like reading the KJV or some other manuscript in a lost language. For those who aren't used to the jargon and the meaning of certain terms of art, it can be frustrating and pointless.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 3, 2008 5:06 PM
That depends on what you mean by "learning about creationism".
In our philosophy department, we do offer two classes that touch on ID and creationism--Philosophy of Biology and a summer course called Evolution and Creation. However, neither class teaches ID or creationism as a fact. Quite the opposite, both classes have a section devoted to going over the scientific evidence and reviewing why it supports evolution and not creationism, and after that the various philosophical issues are discussed. Both classes acknowledge just as much as the zoology department that the claims of creationists have been thoroughly scientifically refuted. Evolution is a fact, creationism is not.
The religious studies department also discusses various creation myths, but of course they are not taught as fact either (if a religious studies department were to teach religious beliefs as fact, it would be a theology department).
I don't think it would be appropriate to teach creationism (in any form) as if it were anything but mythology.
You can't relabel pseudoscientific falsehoods as "philosophy" and then expect them to suddenly be acceptable. Unfortunately, some creationists have discovered that they can relabel creationism as "philosophy" and then teach it exactly as they had intended to do in a biology class (i.e. as a string of bogus attacks on a straw man evolution), making creationism into a perversion of both science and philosophy. This is really deceptive and it undermines efforts to get science and the humanities (which have a long history of unnecessary conflict, a lot of it involving goof-ball postmodernists) to cooperate and work together.
I realize that some philosophers' tenacious and misguided clinging to discredited theories like those of Marx and Freud makes it look like "philosophy" might be merely a synonym for "safe haven for bogus pseudoscience", but it's not.
Posted by: Wes | February 3, 2008 6:19 PM
King of Ireland writes... "...But in my view we cannot just rule out the supernatural all together either. Tough issue indeed..."
No one is ruling out the supernatural. It is discussed in church every Sunday. The problem is that only natural explanations for natural phenomenon are falsifiable. That is why science limits itself to that.
Keeping supernatural notions out of science is done for the same reason supernatural notions are kept out of the rules of evidence in a court of law, and out of accounting practices. If you let in the supernatural, these things stop being useful.
Posted by: Chiefley | February 4, 2008 12:30 AM
Its not simply creationism that's being advocated, its protestant creationism - and even then its a particularly minor segment of that communities story (is there some reason why people let them get away with this point?).
Never mind the question of teaching the children, how on earth can a tutor mark the biology exam questions if students can advocate supernatural answers based on religious beliefs (which, after all, can encompass absolutely anything)?
How about mixing them together?
Would it be a valid answer to write that the earth, which is flat and balanced on the back of a giant elephant standing on a turtle, was created in a period of seven literal days, 4.5 billion years ago, by the flying spaghetti monster?
Posted by: Sigmund | February 4, 2008 4:51 AM
And this is why I can't stand (non-early*) post-modernism. By the postmodernist arguments they are using, they are absolutely right. It's what happens when you start cutting down laws to get at your enemy. Of course the shortcuts you used are going to be turned against you. I can stand post-modernists more than I can creationists (who I put on a par with Holocaust Deniers and Confederate Apologists) - the post-modernists are just little kids with excess enthusiasm rather than being actively malicious.
* The early post-modernists were reacting understandably to arrogance and were part of a useful corrective. Second and subsequent generations of post-modernists have been every bit as arrogant as those they were opposing without having the benefits the arrogant side produced.
Posted by: Francis | February 4, 2008 5:31 AM
Francis Stated:
"I can stand post-modernists more than I can creationists (who I put on a par with Holocaust Deniers and Confederate Apologists) - the post-modernists are just little kids with excess enthusiasm rather than being actively malicious."
This is a completely asinine statement. Are you stating that all Creationists are malicously denying something to hurt someone? Please explain this.
Too all:
I have given a lot of thought to what was written in the article. I will have to go and find the one the Christian guy wrote. Believe it or not Ed has convinced me that Creation should not be taught in the Science class. In its most broad sense it would open up a can of worms that need not be opened and do harm to the progress that Science has made when myths are proven just that. In its most narrow sense it would be entirely unfair to teach the Biblical story and not the others.
With that said, Intelligent Design is a different issue in my mind. I am not sure where I stand as of yet. I think I was putting both together as one. Creation is part of one belief system. Intelligent Design could be a legitimate Scientific inquiry. I think that is why it bothers some of you so much. If the Religious Right were trying to sneek Creationism in gradually by using ID that would be ingenious. I am sure some are trying to do this.
But it is not all. I think if it can be agreed on by Scientists valid tests to look for an Intelligent Design then why not? Now I know that you guys are going to say there are no Scientists who believe in this or whatever the argument is. It is quite obvious to me, someone who never even thought about this until months ago, that sides were drawn on this years ago and it is venemous at times. It is exactly like the abortion issue. We look at the other side and want to compare them to Hitler or Jack the Ripper.
These issues are complicated. But there is hope. Ed through patient discussion took the time to present to me his case and as I began to understand it I think he is right. Creation cannot be taught in a multi cultural society as part of Science class. ID I am not sure and have not really read much about it other than on here.
Just a note: The Sumpreme Court agreed with me that Humanism is a religion as teh article stated in a foot note. I am going to back track here some and investigate some of the claims I made more before stating there is an agenda though. Dewey had one for sure. But I do not want you guys lumping me in with Falwell just because I am a Christian. So I will not lump you in with Dewey just because you are Scientists and many of you secularists.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 4, 2008 12:16 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
This is exactly the problem: there is no way to test for intelligent design. Not even hypothetically. There is one obvious reason for that: can you imagine any way the universe or organisms could look or work that could possibly NOT be explained by an intelligent designer? In science, this is called falsification and it is the key to being able to test an idea. The idea of a supernatural creator cannot be falsified, even hypothetically, because no matter what the evidence looks like one could just say, "Well, that's the way the creator decided to do it."
Let's contrast that with evolution. Evolution, like all scientific theories, makes risky predictions. That means that it can only explain a certain set of evidence; if the evidence looked quite different than it does now, evolution would fail as an explanation. To take a single simple example, the fossil record. If evolution is true, the fossil record must look a certain way. The patterns of appearance must show new traits and new body plans emerging over a very long period of time, beginning with relatively simple single-celled organisms and building up in diversity of organization over time. And that is exactly what we see. For the first 3 billion years, life on this planet consisted of nothing but single-celled bacterial life. Then we see simple multi-cellular organisms appear (stromatolites of algae). Then simple invertebrates, in increasingly diverse forms. Then hemi-chordates, then chordates, then jawless fishes, then jawed fishes, then (much later) amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals and birds. And within each of those groups, we find a similar pattern - the earliest forms are the most like the presumed ancestors and they become increasingly diversified over time as new traits evolve and spread out into new environments. All of these patterns are what MUST be true if evolution is a valid explanation. If they looked any other way, evolution would be falsified. If the fossil record showed that all animal types appeared at the same time, evolution is dead. If the first life forms to appear were mammals rather than bacteria, evolution is dead. There are sets of data that evolution could not explain and that makes evolution, like all scientific theories, testable and falsifiable.
What could possibly falsify a supernatural creator? If mammals appeared first, well that's just how God decided to do it. And if the fossil record just happens to mimic evolution, as it does, well God decided to do it THAT way. The idea is entirely untestable and unfalsifiable and that is why it is not and will never be a scientific idea.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 4, 2008 12:41 PM
KoI says:
ID could be a legitimate scientific inquiry. It could be, but it isn't! That's precisely the point. ID, and by that we mean ID as espoused by the DI, is not a form of scientific inquiry, because it does not conform to that activity, not because we say so. If a plane polygon doesn't have 4 90-degree angles, its not a rectangle - and if something does not posit an empically testable prediction making theory it is not science. We already know what it isn't. But what is it? What it is is nothing more than a subset of older Creationist notions with a new label, "intelligent design", attached to it. As Judge Jones opined, ID cannot separate itself from its creationist roots.
But that's part of the problem. ID does not propose any tests at all "for an Intelligent Design". What they put forward are arguments against evolution, after which they assume ID wins. There is no logical reason for this to be so.
Not at all. We already know you can get at least one "scientist" to say pretty much anything you want. Science would go nowhere if any scientist could throw any field into doubt and uncertainty merely by his own say-so. That's why we have a method.
It's not the same really. Your example is one of opinion. Scientific theories are not mere opinions.
ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. Old wine in a new bottle is still old wine.
Posted by: Dave S. | February 4, 2008 1:01 PM
Tell that to Ken Lay and David Addington.
Posted by: itchy | February 4, 2008 1:25 PM
If intelligent design could be a legitimate scientific inquiry, it would, on the whole, excite, not bother scientists, just as all scientific controversies have.
Science thrives on legitimate controversies; they're the catalyst for progress.
Posted by: itchy | February 4, 2008 1:33 PM
I agree with itchy. If ID had any basis in science - at all - those advocating for it would be *doing science*. They'd be making scientifically valid hypothesis, designing experiments and testing their ideas. They have enough money and energy that if they were serious about ID being a science, they could certainly fund some entry level research that would be considered scientific - and scientists love a good - science-based - argument. Almost every scientific paper I've ever read was criticizing another group's work in the field, and it actually gets pretty interesting to watch the back-and-forth between scientists who disagree vehemently. Scientists are not afraid of ID - it's annoying to us because it's put out there as science by people who know damn well that it isn't, and who want to force their religion on other people's kids to validate their beliefs in a fantasy. I don't care if they believe in a fantasy, but I won't tolerate fantasy in of my science class!
Falsifiability is an important part of science, but if you can just say "goddidit, in a way we can't possibly understand" or "god made the fossils to test our faith in his creation" or "god makes the earth *seem* spherical, when we're looking/asking/testing, but really, the rest of the time it's flat" then there's no possible way to falsify the idea, which means we're back to ID Isn't Science.
As to my earlier comment about teaching creation/ID in philosophy classes - I'm not talking about large college level schools with the ability to *have* a theology department (and I'm not sure why a public high school would have a theology dept). I was thinking of the bible course taught at my public high school, which was taught by a philosophy teacher and which I was not permitted to take, because it didn't teach the stories of the bible as fact, or as historical (so I had to keep going to catechism...).
I understand that philosophy is NOT pseudoscientific falsehoods, and I can't/won't defend those who use the label of philosophy to teach creationism/ID in a way that is just an attack on biology. I still believe there's not a problem with the idea of teaching creation/ID - along with creation mythology from many other cultures: Greek, Roman, Native American/First People's, and many others* - and I believe that it's a better fit in a philosophy (as a way of thinking of the world and thinking of the way people think about thinking context) course than in a biology/cosmology/astronomy/science course.
*Actually, I think the amazing mythology laid out in J. R. R. Tolkien's Silmarillion should be included - it's as well thought out, and less contradictory than some creation mythologies. (That's kind of a joke, since it is riddled with inconsistencies, but all creation myths are!)
Posted by: Migo | February 4, 2008 2:01 PM
Posted by: mark | February 4, 2008 2:24 PM
You'll find more ground-breaking research done in Muppet Labs than in any ID "lab". Probably part of the reason they have to go back to old-fashioned notions like "evolution is a theory, not a fact" and "evolution is a religion".
Posted by: Dave S. | February 4, 2008 2:30 PM
To all:
There are people who use what they call Science to prove what they believe is Intelligent Design. You say they are not Scientists so what they do is ignorant. It seems that possibly some of you have decided that not only are you right but that those who disagree with your view of what Science is are stupid. That is the tone of many here. I am starting to think this is a waste of my time.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 5, 2008 9:51 AM
But that doesn't mean that it is science. You seem totally hung up on the view that if they call it science, then it must be. Fine, then I call dowsing and astrology and telekinesis sciences. I call witchcraft a science. And since I have a degree and am saying so, then according to you, it must be so, right?
We're saying what they are doing is not science, since it doesn't match what science actually is. Unless you think they get to re-define science however they please?
No, they are wrong, not stupid. Of course when its patiently explained again and again how ID does not raise to the level of a science and still one sees arguments that their mere say-so seems to be enough to establish it as a science, then yes, time does get wasted.
Posted by: Dave S. | February 5, 2008 10:12 AM
King of Ireland:
I suggest you re-read my response to you again. I said nothing like what you imply here. I didn't say they aren't scientists. Some of them are, some of them aren't. Michael Behe is a scientist. Scott Minnich is a scientist. I can even buy Jonathan Wells as a scientist (though I'm not aware of him ever actually doing any science since his post-doc work). Dembski is not, nor is Meyer, nor is Nelson. But the issue isn't whether they are scientists, the issue is whether ID is a scientific theory or not and whether it can legitimately be tested and falsified. I provided a very detailed explanation for why it's not, which you seem to have ignored completely.
Nor, by the way, did I ever say or even imply that any of those men are stupid. I would call them many things, but certainly not stupid.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 5, 2008 10:29 AM
Ed stated:
I suggest you re-read my response to you again. I said nothing like what you imply here. I didn't say they aren't scientists. Some of them are, some of them aren't. Michael Behe is a scientist. Scott Minnich is a scientist. I can even buy Jonathan Wells as a scientist (though I'm not aware of him ever actually doing any science since his post-doc work). Dembski is not, nor is Meyer, nor is Nelson. But the issue isn't whether they are scientists, the issue is whether ID is a scientific theory or not and whether it can legitimately be tested and falsified. I provided a very detailed explanation for why it's not, which you seem to have ignored completely.
Nor, by the way, did I ever say or even imply that any of those men are stupid. I would call them many things, but certainly not stupid.
I am not really talking about you Ed. This was to some of the people on hear who are so venemous it is hard to dialouge with them. I did read what you said but was in a hurry. I will read it again and check out some of what you suggested. Sorry, I should have been more clear I was not speaking to you. You have been kind and patient for the most part.
I think what I am not getting here is because of my lack of understanding of Science jargon. Someone can be totally wrong and if you do not know the jargon you would never know it. I do think general self education would help and I will pursue this. It seems that some on here would say that these men are not Scientists. I need to read some more and see if my confusion ceases. I do not change my mind easy though and you convinced me that teaching Creationism is not an option.
I HOPE THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW DIALOUGE ABOUT THESE TOPICS CAN LEAD TO SOME COMMON GROUND.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 5, 2008 4:12 PM
KoI, if you want to learn about why ID isn't considered science, I recommend reading a particular section from the recent (12/2005) Kitzmiller v Dover court decision about ID/evolution:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Starting on page 64 is a section titled "Whether ID is Science". I find Judge Jones' explanation to be very easily understandable and compelling.
Oh... and to try to prevent you (or anyone else) from dismissing him as an 'activist liberal judge', here's some background on him... He's a Christian and a Bush Jr. appointee with strong ties to both Tom Ridge and Rick Santorum. You can't get much more conservative than this person.
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 5, 2008 4:36 PM
Doctor Goo stated:
"Starting on page 64 is a section titled "Whether ID is Science". I find Judge Jones' explanation to be very easily understandable and compelling."
I read it and other parts. Leaving aside whether this should be taught in schools, I cannot keep from going back to the fact that he does not comment on whether it is true or not. I was an atheist for most of my life. Why? I bought evolution and never questioned it. It was presented as a fact and one that if not advocating atheism sure pointed one in that direction. Later in life I questioned whether there was possibly a Creator or something out there. I personally looked to the Bible and became convinced that there is a God.
Now for arguments sake I could be delusional and wrong. Or maybe my perception of God is not the real God. Or I have found the real God and am wrong about some things about Him. There can be all kinds of possibilities. All kinds of explanations. I guess I am asking what if the natural does not have all the answers? Then I guess we just have to throw Science out? If it states that the natural is where the answers are and this is wrong throw it out then?
This is what most Scientists think Christians want to do. I do not want to throw it all out. I think the vast majority of Science is good. I have a problem with certain aspects of evolution. In short it seems like Science has and is used by some over the centuries to eliminate God or the supernatural from the discussion. I personally think we should look for a natural cause until we cannot find one. Then it may help to look to the supernatural. Is this for Science class? Maybe not.
But if someone asked me about Science class I would tell them to take it all with a grain of salt because it does not accout for the supernatural. If it is out there then Science may not have all the answers it thinks it does.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 6, 2008 12:29 PM
Whether its "true" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether it is scientific, and if not scientific, then what. Conclusion: Not scientific, and not able to disentangle itself from its creationist (religious) roots.
There are lots of people out there who both accept evolution and accept a personal God. One doesn't invalidate the other. You seem to have this engrained notion that if evolution is correct, there can be no God. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Science can neither confirm nor deny the supernatural. The supernatural is by definition outside the scope of science. If something is "true", but untestable, it is useless as science.
Posted by: Dave S. | February 6, 2008 12:40 PM
KoI: "I cannot keep from going back to the fact that he does not comment on whether it is true or not"
It wasn't for him to say whether or not it's true, just whether or not it's science (which, btw, doesn't need capitalization. Sorry to nitpick).
"I personally think we should look for a natural cause until we cannot find one. Then it may help to look to the supernatural."
This is called the "god of the gaps" argument and I'm afraid it doesn't hold water. Science hits walls periodicly and people always point and say "see? God did that". Then a breakthrough happens and that gap is closed, god didn't do it. I'm sure other here will be able to explain it better, I'm not very good at explanations.
Posted by: jba | February 6, 2008 12:51 PM
KoI:
First of all, it wasn't the purpose of the court to determine the truth of ID, just whether or not it could be taught in science class. Take a look at clause at the end of that statement and the next sentence for context:
Secondly, evolution (or science in general) doesn't even attempt to disprove the existance of God or the supernatural. All that it can do is show that there are other, natural, explanations that explain the world around us better.
But going back to my first point, I'd appreciate it if you would go back and re-read the entire section I highlighted (pp 64-89). The very last sentence ties back into this:
Science doesn't bother with whether or not God exists. It will never be able to confirm nor deny the existance of the supernatural because it just doesn't deal with that subject. For you to use the "god of the gaps" argument (as jba explained above), it completely defeats all the benefits that science can bring us. From page 66 (internal citations removed):
* An aside, Dr. Miller is Dr. Kenneth Miller... you -- or your children, depending on how young you are -- probably studied biology in high school from one of the textbooks he wrote. He also wrote Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. He's both a Christian (of the Catholic variety) and a well respected biologist. (Well... at least outside of Pharyngula he's well respected... lol... but that's neither here nor there...) While I don't necessarily agree with where he takes his conclusions, he's certainly capable of explaining the basics of evolution in a religion-friendly sort of manner. I recommend you read this.
But back to my response to you... didn't you find anything else of interest in that section of Kitzmiller?
How about page 68:
Just like the 'gap' argument of "Goddidit", astrology is a science stopper, simply because it invokes the supernatural.
Well, I could go on and on pointing out my favorite parts of Kitzmiller or tackling your claims one sentence at a time, pointing out the inaccuracies... (by the way, I'm not trying to be mean here or imply that you're stupid, just that you're not educated on this topic, somthing which shouldn't be considered something offensive - I've yet met a single person who can be considered fully literate on every subject. :-) In fact, I applaud you for your thoughtful exchanges without resorting to threats of hellfire and damnation. This is a huge step up from most defenders of the faith who show up here. lol)
...But I'll just take on your last paragraph:
Well, if the supernatural ever did interact with the natural world, then it wouldn't be considered supernatural any longer, would it?
In other words, if God really does interact with the world, then science would be able to measure these interactions. He would be a part of the natural world then. Conversely, if God remained in the realm of the supernatural, then he would have no impact on us anyway. So why bother dealing with this topic at all anyway?
I addressed this same topic a couple weeks ago on a different thread. My fingers are getting tired from typing... lol... so please read more over here:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/01/darksyde_in_the_newspaper.php#comment-723897
But one final thing, you wrote:
It's just doctorgoo, if you would. I'm neither a Doctor of any kind, nor am I made of Goo. ;-)
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 6, 2008 11:54 PM
doctorgoo,
Thank you for your response. I had read parts of this months ago. I am willing to read it over some more. In a Theological sense I would respond to your statement about God not being apart of the natural world. I would disagree. This goes back to the same argument: Some use Science to point toward a Creator others use it to point to the lack of one. I think even Ed agrees with this. Whether it should be a discussion for the classroom is a different story.
My whole point over many weeks here is that maybe we can look at the natural and have it point us to the supernatural which then can points us to God which in turn could point us to the truth. This happened for me. And yes, coming on here telling everyone that God hates them and they are going to burn does nothing but enforce stero types. Thank you for the compliment.
I do feel enlightened through the conversations on here. I went to a church discussion last night and was bored to death.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 7, 2008 1:41 PM
First off, you haven't read much of Ed's blog if you think he'd agree that ID is science, or that in general, there exists scientific evidence for the supernatural.
But that's the thing. ID folks are able to convince intelligent, but otherwise undereducated people, like yourself, that what they are performing is science.
Well, it's not. It's either one of 3 things:
1) Theological arguments dressed up to sound 'sciency', but which are ultimately supernatural... therefore they are untestable and therefore these arguments are not science.
2) Criticisms of the theory of evolution, most of which are really easy to refute. The problem is that even if evolution was wrong, it still wouldn't point to the existence of a creator. This isn't some either/or dichotomy no matter what some might say. If you think science can prove the existence of the supernatural... then you have to find positive evidence for it... not just negative evidence against evolution.
3) Actual attempts at science that have been proven wrong, and therefore has completely failed to prove that ID has anything to offer. For the perfect example of this, the ID folks at the Discovery Institute always like to point to the Behe/Snokes paper, which allegedly shows positive proof of ID and design. Well, just read footnote 17 on the bottom of page 88 of Kitzmiller, where Behe, under oath and the threat of perjury charges if he were to lie, "admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used."
In other words, whenever they claim to have positive scientific evidence of designer, they are always stretching the truth (to put it politely) to advance their agenda.
Just think about it, they are trying to prove the existence of God (even though they hide behind words like 'designer', everyone knows that they mean the Christian version of god)... and they resort to using blatant falsehoods to convince the undereducated masses. And when someone calls their bluff and points out these falsehoods, they claim persecution by the 'darwinian orthodoxy' (whatever that means... lol).
No, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there is no evidence, or 'science' as you put it, that "point[s] to a creator". And since Intelligent Design doesn't qualify as science at all, then of course it follows that it doesn't belong anywhere close to a science class.
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 7, 2008 5:46 PM
doctorgoo:
I meant to say Ed would agree that some of these guys are scientists.
Call it what you want. I believe that nature proves there is a God. So do others that are a lot smarter than me and know science and science jargon. Like I said, even Ed acknowledges that so people take the big bang and say it proves God and others say it proves there is no God. I am sure he would more agree with the latter and not the former but there are Scientists that believe the former. He said it on a comment on here not me.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion and the reference to the court case.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 8, 2008 8:53 PM
Well, about 10% of the US population are atheists. And while that percentage might be higher in the sciences, I doubt that it would constitute a majority. (Anyone have any hard numbers to throw out?) So basically, I think it's safe to say that a majority of scientists believe in one form of a creator-god or another - the Christian God, or otherwise.
So yes, if you limit your previous statement in the way you just did, then yes, I'd agree that plenty of ID advocates have also been known to perform real science. But that doesn't mean that they are speaking as scientists when they try to promote their religion. Behe and Minnich do perform science. But when they inject theology instead of evidence in support of their conclusions, then they aren't performing science at those times.
So to use your example... When a scientist says the Big Bang proves God... he might be speaking all sciency, or trying to make it look he's talking science, but what he's saying is nothing more than a theological argument. Why is this? ...because there is no scientific evidence for God. God is supernatural, and science is limited to the natural world. Any attempts that have been made to prove otherwise have already been refuted.
So having a Christian, who's also a scientist, misuse his scientific credentials to say that there is scientific proof of a god is as rediculous as an astronomer who states that astrology is proven true or is an actual science. Sure, he can dress up his astrological predictions with more science jargon and make it sound really impressive to the undereducated lay-listener, but if you inspect his 'sciency-ness' (yes, I just made up that word... lol), you'd quickly discover that he's not using science at all, in spite of all his superficial appearances of using science.
But the other side of your example "others say it proves there is no God" is also false. If a scientist uses the theory of evolution to state that a god (Christian or other) couldn't possibly exist, he's not speaking with his science hat on either. How could he be? Science, by definition, can only investigate the natural world... And since it doesn't address the supernatural world at all, it cannot have anything to say about whether it's real or not.
But I'd like to point out that very few, if any, atheist scientists would actually make that claim that science "proves there is no God". What they usually do is take the religious claims of supernatural interactions with the natural world, and merely apply the scientific method to determine if these claims are possible or are easily debunked.
For example, many Christians claim that the earth is about 6000 years old. Now this, by itself, is a scientific claim (...an incorrect scientific claim, but I'll get to that soon...) But they don't have any scientific evidence to prove this claim, the only evidence they have is a supernatural or theological argument that the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore inerrant. The problem is that the premise that they start from is incorrect... There is no evidence, or reason to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired (other than because it says it is... which I hope you can find out that circular logical fallacy on your own! lol)
Now to tie my topic back to the original point that we were discussing before. Well, this isn't science... and has no business being taught in science class. Now I'll admit that this example is strictly a creationist claim, and you've already conceded that creationism has no place being taught in high schools.
But honestly, the only difference between creationism and ID is that ID claims merely look more sciency than the easily refuted creationist claims. So it's easier to trick the undereducated lay person that what they say actually is scientifically valid. But not a single ID claim has yet to stand up to scientific scrutiny either. And to that end, it is an equal ground with creationism.
Therefore, if you concede that creationism isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class, then it should follow that an equally theological argument such as ID doesn't belong in a science class either. As Dave S. put it above, "ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. Old wine in a new bottle is still old wine".
The only reason why I think you haven't reached that conclusion yet is the (perfectly understandable) lack of advanced education that allows a person to objectively analyze the claims of ID to determine whether or not it is scientifically correct or valid.
Right now, you think what certain parttime scientists like Behe or Minnich -- who often abuse science by injecting unwarranted theological premises in place of real evidence -- have a valid point of view equal to scientists (atheist, Christian, or other) who only speak with their science hats on when performing science.
Now, I don't blame you at all for being confused by their rhetorical skills... especially since it appears to confirm your preconceived notion of the existance of God, and I'm sure it's comforting to think that there actually is proof of your personal concept of God. But I've been trying to point you to different places where you could self-educate yourself on the other side. To that end, I recommend reading the archived posts on The Panda's Thumb (link is right below Ed's picture on this page). It's full of real science and well explained refutations of the claims of ID. Hopefully after a few weeks of reading some of these, you might be able to come to a different conclusion about the validity of ID.
In conclusion, I want to point out the reason why I decided to join in (and with your help, completely take over... lol) this thread. It was when you said, in all caps for extra emphasis, "I HOPE THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW DIALOUGE ABOUT THESE TOPICS CAN LEAD TO SOME COMMON GROUND." To be honest, this really got to me. While I completely agree with you that open dialogue is important to find common ground on this issue, it seems to me that you expect yourself to concede some ground on your side and you expect us to concede some also to reach some agreement. But why should we concede anything when the science completely backs up our side and not yours?
ID is NOT science. And KoI, I sincerely hope that you are open to educating yourself on this topic so that you can determine this for yourself (certainly don't take my word for it... I'm just an engineer who decided to read up on this subject for a hobby, starting a few years ago).
You're clearly an intelligent person who is capable of learning and really understanding the theory of evolution if you applied yourself to such a noble endeavor. So I challenge you... are you up to the task? In my opinion, our side could use some more 'good Christian soldiers' who are also willing to defend science (and specifically the theory of evolution) with equal vigor and ability as they do their theological perspectives. If you are willing, I encourage you to help us out.
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 9, 2008 11:59 AM
doctor goo:
I do not expect anyone to give up any ground. Dialouge can occur even if no one ever moves. That is the problem I have found with most "Christian Outreach". People would only talk to someone if they thought they could "covert" them. People are valuable in and of themselves. Most of the problems in this world are because of false perceptions. The only way to alleviate the problem is to listen to others.
I have read some about Evolution. I do have so preconceived ideas about God in my look at Science. But, they only replaced my preconceived ideas about evolution before I read the Bible, checked the History and claims of it, and decided for myself that my biggest question was answered: Are the miracles in it true?
My thinking was like this: If the miracles are true there is a God. So if the miracles are true the Bible most have to be true. Then I began to study it and the history behind it. I came from the evolutionist, post-modern, atheist perspective. It all checked out for me.
This is why I can totally repudiate the coercive group that I was apart of that gives God a bad name and yet still believe. I did not take what they said for gospel. I searched it our myself. I told them when they were wrong. I called bullshit when it needed to be called.
So I will do it again. I will try and put all my beliefs aside and read about evolution and decide on my own. I have read some and so far some of it seems to pan out and other parts are really troubling. The Geology used by some scientists seems flawed to. If the issue is truth and one seeks to discover the origins of the universe and man, then study of only the natural world is not sufficient to me. Why rule out the supernatural?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 11, 2008 2:42 PM
I agree whole heartedly with your idea, however, not to the exclusion of teaching basic science. How could we justify excluding an understanding of the modern world? It is impossible to be a moderately informed citizen capable of making rational and intelligent decisions about the world around us without such a basic understanding. I was waffling over whether to comment on this when I read this:
I'd contend that a majority of Americans would struggle to understand, even slightly, what most scientific (and legal) terms and concepts mean. That is the problem. As far as I can tell, the whole Creationist/ID movement to dilute science is to accelerate basic scientific ignorance and illiteracy in favor of advancing a narrow but clearly religious agenda. Why? The usual culprits, earthly power and money.
King of Ireland,
not to be flip but when you say that other world views should be taught in public schools do you at the same time assail the churches and associated institutions to open their doors for scientists to be let in to teach about evolutionary theory? What about letting in the astrologers, UFOlogists and alternative faiths to express their world views? Christians want to be included everywhere at all times but are not in the least willing to return the courtesy. Where's the call for reciprocity? Instead the most rabid seek to destroy what they cannot dominate. Why is this?
Specifics please.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | April 6, 2008 1:43 PM
Oops, got carried away and wasn't paying attention to the date.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | April 6, 2008 3:59 PM