ID expert admits 'It's not science'

[Perfection]

We are just going to have to disagree on this one. I personally think you are greatly exaggerating the importance of evolution theory in high school. Remember, I was in high school once and have two kids in high school today. Evolution is maybe a chapter in biology class......MAYBE.

I'd agree that one chapter or so is about right. Two to three weeks should cover the basic

Its overall impact on kids continuing to study biology is fairly nil, they are really interested in biology or not, but generally its not evolution theory that draws them in.

It almost switched me over from physics...
It's really just about the quality of the biology program, and any decent program will have a unit on evolution

Sure its simple enough. Too many people argueing over something that doesnt really matter. If you ask me, toss em both out of high school and teach em both in college.

Then everyday folk won't have a clue what people are talking about when they talk about evolution. Part of a high school education is getting a broad view of all sciences. Evolutionary biology definitely deserves 2 or 3 weeks of your kids time.

Also, you advocate teaching ID at college?! Why?

 

[sanabas]

As I recall my middle and high school classes in biology, it was more about dissection of various animals and an understanding of the basics of various biological systems (how cells work etc.) as opposed to any in depth study of the theory of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with a kid cutting up a frog in biology class. Once again, Darwin added to science, but he is not the baseblock for all of scientific advancement. Teaching ID beside ET wont be the end of anything...teaching neither of them wont be the end of anything. Really, really, silly arguement to begin with.

My high school (Middle school to the US) biology class didn't involve any dissection. We did get to do basic genetics, looking at stuff like dominant and recessive traits, how stuff is inherited, etc. Lots of the stuff done by Gregor Mendel. Definitely sparked my interest.

The issue isn't exactly what should be taught, or how much of evolution should be taught, or what depth of anything should be taught. When people hit more specialist courses at uni, they're all going to have different things they need to work more on because their high school curriculum didn't go into it in depth. My high school maths curriculum involved lots of matrices, hardly any D.E.s. Other people had barely encountered lin alg work at all, but had plenty of D.E.s. Same deal for uni biology classes. There's not room in a high school class to go into depth on anything, exactly which bits you go into in how much depth doesn't make much difference.

The issue is taking religious dogma dressed up as pseudoscience, and presenting it to kids as science. Read that confederate geography textbook someone posted on OT this week, what sort of effect do you think teaching geography like that would have on people's knowledge? I have no problem with different areas choosing exactly what they want their curriculum to cover. As long as it covers enough of the basics, and as long as it sticks to covering only science. That's where ID is a problem.

Some of the claims made by ID'ers actually do have a scientific basis. Example: initial premise = certain biological structures (the human eye seems to be a popular one) are too complex to have evolved naturally. Conclusion: the eye must have evolved by some other means. Currently the only explanation we have for that is the G word. Hypothesis --> conclusion.

If the eye was too complex to have evolved in small increments, then yes, it must have come about by some other means than evolution. That's scientific, it follows from what the theory of evolution says. However, "we can't imagine it evolving-->therefore it's too complicated" isn't scientific, and "It didn't evolve-->therefore an intelligent designer did it" isn't scientific either. Both of those last two are crucial components of ID, neither one is scientific.

 

[Archbob]

I just don't agree with teaching ID in science class because ITS NOT A SCIENCE. In science class we should be teaching scientific theories, not non-scientific ones.

And requiring ID to be taught in schools is a violation of first amendment rights. Its forcing Christianity down everyone. It is illegal for a public institution to do such. You can't force people to learn a Christian idea. If you want to teach ID, you had better start teaching all the other theories of how earth was created also.

 

[general_kill]

I just don't agree with teaching ID in science class because ITS NOT A SCIENCE. In science class we should be teaching scientific theories, not non-scientific ones.

And requiring ID to be taught in schools is a violation of first amendment rights. Its forcing Christianity down everyone. It is illegal for a public institution to do such. You can't force people to learn a Christian idea. If you want to teach ID, you had better start teaching all the other theories of how earth was created also.

ID is not a unique Christian belief you know... thats why teaching ID in class isn't totally shut down, they claim they can leave jesus and religion out of teaching ID.

ID could be about aliens for all that matters, seperation of church and state can't be applied here.

 

[Babbler]

I would humbly submit that the science of atomic theory is more known than the science around evolution theory. Evolutionary theory didnt impact the introduction of new drugs, or make for better forestry management...you would make it out to be some sort of "magic bullet" as a field of study and thats simply not true. Biology is much more than just a bunch of "random facts"......Darwin didnt publish his work until 1859...you mean there was no advancement of genetics or biology before that?

There was no development in genetics before Darwin; in fact, the was no development after Darwin's Origins. It was only in 1900, with the rediscovery of Mendel's papers that genetics took off.

But Darwin did help change the study of life as we know it. In Darwin's day, scholars studying life where called naturalists, and they mostly went country (occasionally around the world), collecting and classifying species. In other words, stamp collecting; there no theoretical framework to hang the facts on, except for some vague theological theories. After Darwin, they where transformed into biologists, who not only work in the field, but in the labs, or even just on pad and paper calculating. (This was not just a because of Darwin, several factors were involved. And it did not happen overnight. It was ... should I dare say ... an evolution!)

With evolution, and later genetics, there was theoretical structure which scientist could see how the facts came together, and predict who yet known facts could come about. No long did the zebra have strips just because (or because God dunnit), but because it evolved it to evade predators (for example).

Such a theory has broad practical applications. We can look at a problem, like resistance in bacteria to antibiotics, and explain how it occurs, and propose solutions to the problem. It could predict new problems yet undetected. Even problem with the theory could be useful, suggesting more area for further research.

People deserve the government that they elect. If people are so dumb to elect idiots to positions of power then they deserve what they get.

Maybe, but it does not make the problems they cause any less worst. Regardless of the democraticness of a government, if people believe its policies to be wrong, then they have a democratic duity to protest. It is underdemocratic, in fact, allow a government to abuse its power just because they were elected a few years ago.

 

[carlosMM]

Did anyone see the Daily Show interview where Jon Stewart interviewed an evolutionist (who admitted that God may play a certain role in evolution, but definitely not as part of "Intelligen Design), an IDer who was arguing God did, and some lady who believes we're all energy concentrasted around a central grid of 12 squares, or something as crazy.

If Carlos gives me the go-ahead, I'll post a link to the interview video

(Hi, and welcome back by the way, Carlos )

I for one didn't see it - and I could use the adrenalin surge. Please post!


(and no, I wasn't banned again, I was away )

 

[Archbob]

The ID that is mentioned has Christianity written all over it. Thats fine for me and other Christians, not fine for the non-christian folk who attend school.

 

[carlosMM]

I would humbly submit that the science of atomic theory is more known than the science around evolution theory.

I would humbly submit that you study them both - you will find you are quiet wrong.

Evolutionary theory didnt impact the introduction of new drugs, or make for better forestry management...you would make it out to be some sort of "magic bullet" as a field of study and thats simply not true.

False, again, as any understanding of ecosystems or microbes requires understanding of genetics, e.g. - and understanding genetics without evolution is not possible.

Biology is much more than just a bunch of "random facts"......Darwin didnt publish his work until 1859...you mean there was no advancement of genetics or biology before that?

Indeed there was no advancement in genetics that didn't lead to evolution. Nor in other aspects of biology! Those who fudged their data to include a creator god slowed sceintific progress ecxepct for observational data!

What, e.g., remains of George Cuvier's work if you kick out his diluvial re-creation theory?


Guess what - obersavtion.

People deserve the government that they elect. If people are so dumb to elect idiots to positions of power then they deserve what they get.

Sure, I am looking forward to the sudden and massive decline of American supremacy in all fields of biosciences. Thank you!

 

[carlosMM]

Though I personally am strongly anti-ID.....

Why is it that when this Behe guy says "ID isn't science", he is taken immediately as the guy who's correct??

You missed the point: he's the one they always use as their trump card - said trump card now admits he was wrong.

So, what is the point of the ID people now? Their own expert had to admit they have none!

Some of the claims made by ID'ers actually do have a scientific basis. Example: initial premise = certain biological structures (the human eye seems to be a popular one) are too complex to have evolved naturally. Conclusion: the eye must have evolved by some other means. Currently the only explanation we have for that is the G word. Hypothesis --> conclusion.

Uh, no!

Where is testability? Where are predictions from this?

What you call a hypothesis is nothing but speculation - htere is no observational data to back it up, there is no testabilty, no nothing. And especially, no explanative value.

The problem with the above line of thought is that the counter-claim that the eye must have been created by a God is unprovable. It isn't fact until you can verify it experimentally.

So you see the problem.....

In the end, it's the same old problem: we agree with Mr. Behe for one reason, and one reason only--because he's saying what we already believe.

Nope, we assume that if he tells two stories, one UNDER OATH and one NOT UNDER OATH, that IN COURT he will tell the truth, especially if said truth is backed by facts while his other story is totally unfounded.


Please, get off you 'science is a conspiracy' horse, willya?

 

[carlosMM]

We are just going to have to disagree on this one. I personally think you are greatly exaggerating the importance of evolution theory in high school. Remember, I was in high school once and have two kids in high school today. Evolution is maybe a chapter in biology class......MAYBE. Its overall impact on kids continuing to study biology is fairly nil, they are really interested in biology or not, but generally its not evolution theory that draws them in.

That is the problem - if maths or languages was taught as badly as biology, then you'd need a pocket calculator to take along when shopping

The problem is that biology is taught as cell chemistry and some so-so other stuff. And that leaves an opening for the religious fanatics to push their weird religious ideas into science class.


I have in my life encountered only ONE biology teacher who could correctly formulate a definition of evolution! Only ONE!

 

[carlosMM]

ID is not a unique Christian belief you know...

whatever - it is a belief!

thats why teaching ID in class isn't totally shut down, they claim they can leave jesus and religion out of teaching ID.

Jesus - yes. Their idea of a god - no!

And if you doubt that, ask their own expert, Mr. Behe:

"If one exchanges the words ›carrier of intelligence‹ by ›Christian Creator‹, the definition would by no means lose its sense, right?" Perhaps the lawyer found the finger print of the religion in this moment.

ID could be about aliens for all that matters, seperation of church and state can't be applied here.

uh, not really - as there is even less indication of aliens than of God - they didn't even leave a book

 

[Blasphemous]

Wrong. Remember it says congress shall make no law....there is nothing in the law that says ID should or should not be taught in schools.

There are loads of precedents in place both to guide the legal system to interpret that clause as one calling for complete seperation of church and state, and to have the legal system rule against policies that are not secular in their motives. You can disagree with the American legal system's interpretation of the constitution, but regrettably you are not the undisputed authority here.

Some of the claims made by ID'ers actually do have a scientific basis. Example: initial premise = certain biological structures (the human eye seems to be a popular one) are too complex to have evolved naturally. Conclusion: the eye must have evolved by some other means. Currently the only explanation we have for that is the G word. Hypothesis --> conclusion.

The problem with the above line of thought is that the counter-claim that the eye must have been created by a God is unprovable. It isn't fact until you can verify it experimentally.

Actually the problem is that the premise is unscientific. How do you scientifically prove that something is too complex to have evolved through chance? If you can't prove that, you have no reason to jump to any conclusions, be they direct and linear logic like "said something did not evolve" or indirect and convoluted religious postulation like "god did it".
What I still can't understand though is why anyone who believes that life was specifically designed actually calls the designer intelligent. What kind of moron creates life like this?! For the very same function you have countless different forms, 99.9% of the species that have been in existence have failed to survive thus far (and this statistic will continue to be true until life all becomes extinct and it turns into a round 100%). Seriously, what the heck is so intelligent about this designer?

 

[MobBoss]

I still think you guys are making a big deal over nothing. And I tend to think you overblow the importance of evolution in how its presented in middle school or high school. I will grant that for someone majoring in biology or some type of advanced study, yes, an understanding of it is required. But guys, we are talking about high school kids here...not scientists.

If like Perfection said, a chapter of evolution is about right in high school, the impact of a chapter of ID as well would be negliable. Honestly. And thats what we are talking about here...a high school.

You guys (both sides) are wasting so much energy argueing over this for subjects that 95% of kids today will forget anyway and never use.

To be honest I am not pro or con either side. Wasted effort in my opinion.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually the problem is that the premise is unscientific. How do you scientifically prove that something is too complex to have evolved through chance?

I think that science uses the concept that nothing can be proven, just disproven. We attempt to disprove a theory as much as we can, until we're 'pretty sure' it's true.

You can't prove that it's too complex to evolve, but you certainly can disprove that something is too complex to evolve. You design intelligent experiments that force an evolution, letting chance take care of the grunt work.

This sounds unfeasible, but nowadays it's not really unfeasible. We can mimic genetic drift using computers, and they can run through thousands of calculations before our eyes. We're not 'solid' yet, because each computer scenario has criticisms (honest to goodness peer reviewed criticisms), but eventually we might run a scenario that disproves the 'too complex' theory, and no one (well, no one who's informed on the topic) will be able to suggest a better way of re-running the scenario.

 

[nonconformist]

I for one didn't see it - and I could use the adrenalin surge. Please post!


(and no, I wasn't banned again, I was away )

I'm afraid I can't link directly to it. It's about halfway down the page, called "Evolutioon, Schmevolution".

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml?start=33

Enjoy!

EDIT: Forgot Link..duh!

 

[Blasphemous]

But guys, we are talking about high school kids here...not scientists.

To me as a-teenager-not-a-scientist the most important thing about evolution is the application of the idea in different areas. You're right, I'm not gonna be studying biology so in-depth that it terribly matters any time soon, but the implications of natural selection as a working concept are huge in the way I see things. Evolution implies, for one, that people are generally suited to survive on their own, because if they weren't they would be beaten by natural selection. That's an important thing to understand, that we are not around thanks to schools, thanks to computers, thanks to cars. We're around because we're highly adaptable and our big brains let us solve most problems without getting killed.
ID has absolutely no good implications as a working concept. First of all it's not a working concept. Second of all it can only imply that a higher power exists and most people buy that anyways so it's not exactly a refreshing way of thinking.
My view of education doesn't include any of this anyhow, but I know that most people believe that a primary role of education is to teach people good ways to think and to solve problems. In that respect, evolution has great merit, ID has none.

I think that science uses the concept that nothing can be proven, just disproven. We attempt to disprove a theory as much as we can, until we're 'pretty sure' it's true.

You can't prove that it's too complex to evolve, but you certainly can disprove that something is too complex to evolve. You design intelligent experiments that force an evolution, letting chance take care of the grunt work.

This sounds unfeasible, but nowadays it's not really unfeasible. We can mimic genetic drift using computers, and they can run through thousands of calculations before our eyes. We're not 'solid' yet, because each computer scenario has criticisms (honest to goodness peer reviewed criticisms), but eventually we might run a scenario that disproves the 'too complex' theory, and no one (well, no one who's informed on the topic) will be able to suggest a better way of re-running the scenario.

But this kind of negative postulation is rather unscientific. It's not based on evidence, it's based on a gut feeling, and one coming from the bowels right below heads that don't have that many hard facts in them in the first place. ID is not scientific, it never was scientific, and I doubt it evel will be.

 

[El_Machinae]

The null hypothesis is a foundation of science. I cannot submit any research proposal that doesn't include one. Will you believe me if Perfection jumps in here?

 

[Blasphemous]

The null hypothesis is a foundation of science. I cannot submit any research proposal that doesn't include one. Will you believe me if Perfection jumps in here?

This doesn't look like the null hypothesis. I'm not any kind of expert on this, but the way the negative assertion at the basis of ID is used does not look to me anything like science. Also the way the assertion is made does not look to me like science. It sounds like the people don't mean "it's impossible for X to evolve" but instead "I can't imagine X evolving". The words they use may be closer to the former, but everything leading up to that is almost always precisely the latter.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess we might be agreeing. My only point is that the premise "it's too complex to evolve" is actually disprovable. Science prohibits making statements that can't be disproven, because that's not what science is for.

I agree that the concept of: "It's too hard to evolve, so don't think about it anymore" is contrary to science.

As an aside, we're running into problems with math, because more and more of our 'too hard to solve' theorems are getting solved by computers, but we're not smart enough to generate a new theorem off of the proofs.

 

[Bluemofia]

Some of the claims made by ID'ers actually do have a scientific basis. Example: initial premise = certain biological structures (the human eye seems to be a popular one) are too complex to have evolved naturally. Conclusion: the eye must have evolved by some other means. Currently the only explanation we have for that is the G word. Hypothesis --> conclusion.

Avida is a computer program programed to do one thing. Copy itself, and occasionally make mistakes while copying it's program. (just like evolution does with life) What happened was that it evolved irreducible complexity, meaning that irreducibly complex things can evolve.

Avida.