Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » ID LOSES IN DOVER
  • ID LOSES IN DOVER

    Filed at 5:35 am under by dcobranchi

    Not the trial. The election. All 8 school board members up for re-election appear to have lost. I hope someone quickly makes the point to the new board that they should not change the ID policy until after the judge has ruled. The school district is going to be hit with the legal bills either way. The reason is that ID has lost the trial. It’s important that the ruling be heard loud and clear by school districts all across the country.

    24 Responses to “ID LOSES IN DOVER”


    Comment by
    COD
    November 9th, 2005
    at 9:05 am

    The Fark headline is classic.

    //Spiffy – Mysterious force makes eight intelligent-design PA school board members suddenly evolve into Homo Unemployedus//


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 10th, 2005
    at 12:45 am

    But, it won elsewhere, and the good news is that the quality of the debate is improving. The folks in Dover were too impatient and arrogant, but they were right about the problems with the way evolution is currently being taught.

    It won’t be long before references to spontaneous generation are removed from biology texts, as well as the false examples like peppered moths and four-winged fruit-flys. And it won’t be long before the general public realizes that what was being called science and critical thinking has been a ruse.

    Articles such as this are appearing more frequently, and the number of scientists that are openly supportive of ID or a more critical examination of ND is growing.

    stnews...39.htm


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 10th, 2005
    at 1:42 am

    Are you referring to Kansas? A pyrhhric victory, no doubt, as the current board will be voted out next year. Again.. And, Dave, you really ought to read an article closely if you’re going to cite it as supportive of ID:

    Most mutations are disasters, but perhaps some inspired few are not. Can mutations be inspired? Here is the ideological watershed, the division between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution, and frankly it lies beyond science to prove the matter one way or the other. Science will not collapse if some practitioners are convinced that occasionally there has been creative input in the long chain of being. [emphasis added]

    It lies beyond science. As in, it’s not a fit subject for science to study. As in, it ain’t science to try. As in, it doesn’t belong in 9th grade biology classes. Thanks for proving my point.


    Comment by
    Annette
    November 10th, 2005
    at 7:32 am

    A critical analysis of evolution does belong in science class.

    edweek.org/
    Published: November 9, 2005
    Treatment of Evolution Inconsistent
    States’ standards ignore many central concepts.
    By Sean Cavanagh

    **snip**
    >>


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 10th, 2005
    at 7:37 am

    Perhaps. When someone invents a cogent one, maybe we can teach it.


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 10th, 2005
    at 9:40 am

    Science can’t prove anything, and neither can a single article or event. DI has good coveage of all the doings in this area, and I believe that in addition to Kansas and Dover, there are 2 or 3 other states/school districts that are also looking at revising their standards.

    When I have a moment, I am going to read the new Kansas standards because I beleive those reflect the DI position much more than say what happened in Dover. My guess is that they will address my concern over the manner in which evolution is taught. Then, I’m going to see if they align with Eugenie Scott’s assertion that the school kids in Kansas will be learning “rubbish” and that they will be in for a shock when the get to college.

    I think its a good article because of who wrote it and the institution involved, and the POV. I don’t necessarily agree with all that is in there, and I know you don’t either. But, I think it demonstrates that most people (you do it, I do it) focus on the things that support their POV and ignore the rest. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the current state of evolutionary biology.

    And, its not just us amateurs on the sideline. Francis Collins does it when he asserts that co-option was the mechanism that “evolved” the bacterial flagellum.

    Another dude from Harvard, Thomas Kuhn, wrote all about these dynamics in his book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”


    Comment by
    speedwell
    November 10th, 2005
    at 4:33 pm

    “Science can’t prove anything…”

    You can’t prove anything. All you have is faith.


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 10th, 2005
    at 11:54 pm

    Here’s a great movie re ATP Synthase – bioc.a...se.mov

    Watch this, (and read about the process) and you’ll understand why atheist priest of evolution Richard Dawkins says that biologists have to constantly remind themselves that cellular mechanisms just APPEAR to be designed.

    If there was experimental evidence suggesting that these mechanisms evolved, then Dawkins would be making a scientifically based claim. But there is none, so, his statement is one based on faith.

    To Speedwell – you seem to be bitter or resentlful about something, please don’t take it out on me.


    Comment by
    Annette
    November 11th, 2005
    at 7:06 am

    Daryl wrote about “Critical Analysis of Evolution”:

    >>Perhaps. When someone invents a cogent one, maybe we can teach it.>>

    A good, critical analysis of evolution doesn’t mean you and other evolutionists have to agree with it.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 11th, 2005
    at 9:14 am

    . DI has good coveage of all the doings in this area…

    Interestingly, they haven’t mentioned that the board was voted out en masse. Can’t imagine why.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 11th, 2005
    at 9:18 am

    Daryl wrote about “Critical Analysis of Evolution”:

    >>Perhaps. When someone invents a cogent one, maybe we can teach it.>>

    A good, critical analysis of evolution doesn’t mean you and other evolutionists have to agree with it.

    Annette,

    Surely you’re not that obtuse. I meant that ID didn’t qualify.


    Comment by
    Annette
    November 11th, 2005
    at 12:09 pm

    Actually, Daryl I don’t know what you mean when you say Critical Analysis of Evolution.

    I think a critical analysis of evolution would point out problems with evolution that I bet you would say don’t exist. If an analysis dealt with the problems of modern dating methods, or some of the problems with the Big Bang, or a closer look at the principles of uniformitarianism and catastrophism, and why some scientists reject uniformitariansim,
    would you say that it was ID raising its ugly head again in the ps?


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 11th, 2005
    at 12:23 pm

    Actually, Daryl I don’t know what you mean when you say Critical Analysis of Evolution.

    Annette,

    You wrote “A critical analysis of evolution does belong in science class.” I never mentioned it.

    I think a critical analysis of evolution would point out problems with evolution that I bet you would say don’t exist. If an analysis dealt with the problems of modern dating methods, or some of the problems with the Big Bang, or a closer look at the principles of uniformitarianism and catastrophism, and why some scientists reject uniformitariansim,
    would you say that it was ID raising its ugly head again in the ps?

    Annette,

    Please read a book on what is and is not “evolution.” The Big Bang, dating, and everything else you listed are not. ID tries to paint itself as NOT creationism. Are you saying that ID is YEC? I’m sure the DI would be quite disheartened to learn that all of the obfuscation has been for naught. ID is not science. YEC is just plain silliness.


    Comment by
    Annette
    November 11th, 2005
    at 3:19 pm

    So you are saying the a critical anaylsis of evolution wouldn’t also involve a critical look at some of the so-called proofs for evolution such as dating methods? I’m not going to defend ID at all or the DI. As far as creationism, I’m not suggesting that it be studied in a ps science class. However, many scientists who are creationists have made a good case with the problems with the dating methods. So, I don’t see why their scientific case and evidence couldn’t be included in a critical anaylsis of evolution without ever mentioning creationism.

    BTW hitting on what you wrote elsewhere last week about flu vaccines are evolution in action: natural selection and mutations aren’t a problem for me as no new genetic information is added. Natural selection was established before Darwin’s theory of evolution. And it was set forth by a creationist.


    Comment by
    speedwell
    November 11th, 2005
    at 4:35 pm

    “To Speedwell – you seem to be bitter or resentlful about something, please don’t take it out on me.”

    I’m bitter and resentful about a lot of things, believe me, but the fact remains that you have no proof; you just believe.

    Clap your hands; maybe you’ll save some fairies, too.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 11th, 2005
    at 5:54 pm

    So you are saying the a critical anaylsis of evolution wouldn’t also involve a critical look at some of the so-called proofs for evolution such as dating methods?

    Yes. That’s what I’m saying.

    However, many scientists who are creationists have made a good case with the problems with the dating methods.

    Evidence, please?

    Annette,

    I understand that you are a YEC and for you this is a matter of faith. But you also claim that YEC is scientific. Let me ask you, is there any kind of evidence at all that would falsify YEC in your mind? If not, all you have is faith. Scientific creationism went extinct in ’86. Of course, it most likely evolved into ID.


    Comment by
    Annette
    November 11th, 2005
    at 10:07 pm

    Daryl,
    If evolutionists get to define what a critical analysis of evolution is, how is that a “critical anaylsis of evolution”??? It’s just more authoritarianism and control being exercised over the masses.

    Evidence: You are seeing what you see and talking about what you know. So am I; different interpretations of the same evidence. I’ll look forward to our next discussion about some particular scientific theory from our different interpretations. I thought the Big Bang one back last spring was quite fun. 🙂


    Comment by
    Annette
    November 11th, 2005
    at 10:17 pm

    Daryl asked: >>Let me ask you, is there any kind of evidence at all that would falsify YEC in your mind? If not, all you have is faith. >>

    Faith has a role in what you believe too. Your faith is compatible with your evolution beliefs, it is incompatible with mine. It’s just the other side of the coin.
    I was taught in ps and learned about evolution and the origins of man. I didn’t accept it then as truth. I had no support for creationism at the time. The evolution indoctrination didn’t take–even though I knew nothing about YEC or ID or anyone telling me about an “alternative theory”. It’s not an issue of faith for me, it’s an issue of truth. You can’t change my truth and I can’t change yours. 🙂

    About truth:
    In China, tourists can see people entering churches without molestation week after week, year after year. These are churches that the government has sanctioned (authoritarianism). I have before me a picture of eight police officers standing outside an underground house church who are there to “greet” church goers. Since July 2004, over 2200 of house church members all over China have been arrested and imprisoned, women often raped, both sexes beaten, and some have lost their lives as they were tortured. Why the difference in one group of church goers being allowed to exercise their faith, and the other group suffering persecution? A tourist who saw only the government sanctioned church in attendance, and then who professes that there is religious freedom in China, cannot be faulted for lying. He saw what he could see, and spoke about what he knew. It was truth for him.

    About faith and truth:
    Samuel Lamb, a pastor in China (probably still living today at 81 years old), was imprisoned for many years for his faith. His hard prison labor consisted mostly of fertilizing fields with buckets of human waste. After all day of working in the fields, sometimes past sundown, the prisoners spent two hours in a lecture hall. While they were there, their indoctrination consisted of politics, evolution and atheism. Buddhism, Islam and Christianity were discredited in those sessions. At one point, a priest who was also imprisoned, said to Samuel.
    “We will be asked to denounce our faith. What will you do?” Samuel answered, “My faith is my life. I could never deny it.”
    Shortly there after the time came when the two were called to denounce their faith. The priest complied and slandered and denounced all that he believed in the way of his faith to the satisfaction of his captors, while writhing in agony on the inside. It was then Samuel’s turn. And this is what he said:

    “Christianity has been made a mockery by those so-called Christians who question the teachings of the Bible. They deny the inspiration of the scriptures. They speak of the miracles performed by Jesus as myths. They also classify much of the Old Testament events as merely traditions.”
    Samuel then denounced liberalism and shallow Christianity. He derided syncretism, fanaticism, hypocrisy, gossip, covetousness, backsliding, secularism in the church, materialism in the lives of Christians, spiritual pride, complacency, and disobedience. When Samuel was done, his captors couldn’t have been happier. His indoctrination meetings were to continue for some more years. The meetings became a strengthening time for his faith which he never denied.

    You know even if massive evidence (from my perspective) came to light that there wasn’t a global flood of Biblical proportions, I think I would continue to be a YEC taking a stand for intellectual freedom. If there isn’t another choice for one to freely choose, there isn’t freedom–at least not without a cost. Why is it important for you that I give up a YEC view? Because you don’t want me to be “silly” any longer? Newton wrote some great stuff about the books of Daniel and Revelation. In this aspect, he was an embarrassment to some of his scientific friends. The guy who is known for inventing calculus and discovering the law of gravity. Such a great mind, and he seemed to be wasting it at times. The world was a better place after Newton left it, silly or not. Perhaps, those writings about the Bible are an undiscovered treasure. Intellectual freedom means being allowed the freedom to have views that others consider silly. Hopefully, authoritarianism won’t cause the world to miss great minds and work in the different scientific fields who also have “silly notions”.

    Daryl, I come here to think and be challenged; not to convert. I enjoy learning more about science and considering evolutionary views against my own YEC view. Due to the length and nature of this post, feel free to delete it without my being slighted. I answered your question with the same sincerity I felt you asked your question.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 12th, 2005
    at 5:48 pm

    Except that you really didn’t answer it. I was asking if your belief in YEC was falsifiable. Is there ANY conceivable evidence at which you would say that YEC was wrong? That’s one of the hallmarks of science. It must be falsifiable. For instance, if tomorrow a geologist discovered hominid fossils beneath dinosaur fossils, the entire neo-Darwinian model would be junked. What would cause you to junk YEC?


    Comment by
    Annette
    November 12th, 2005
    at 9:02 pm

    Daryl,
    I’m about to become a (young) grandmother tonight/tomorrow. So, I’ll answer you soon. I do have one. My babies at two years become aunts!
    Annette


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 12th, 2005
    at 11:07 pm

    Re the fossil record – Burgess shale anyone? I didn’t see that dramatically change the public rhetoric and dogma espoused by the fundamentalist evolutionists either.

    But, evolution is what is taught, while critical analysis is shouted down.

    One ID paper gets publised and this happens: (Note, this is from NPR so it must be true… don’t forget to read the USOSC letter to Richard Sternberg)

    npr.or...007508


    Comment by
    Annette
    November 15th, 2005
    at 9:21 pm

    Daryl wrote:>>Is there ANY conceivable evidence at which you would say that YEC was wrong?>>What would cause you to junk YEC?>>>

    Daryl,
    Correct me if I’m wrong but I understand that evolution is a unifying concept in science. Even if there was a reason to seriously reevaluate one particular evolutionary view based on possible contrary evidence, more than likely no contrary evidence would deliver a knock-out blow to evolution as a unifying concept. There would be too many areas that would also have to be reevaluated.
    It’s the same with creationism. It’s a unifying concept for that view.
    I have my own things that I’m waiting on in the way of time and discovery as it relates to particular pillars of a young universe and YE view. For example, perhaps, there isn’t an Oort Cloud and perhaps no new comets are being formed. There is no direct evidence for an Oort Cloud or that comets are still being formed.
    I’m looking at the arguments for and against a “helium clock”. Gentry talks about Helium retention in very hot rocks deep in the earth’s crust. This may provide evidence for a young earth.
    Nothing would cause me to junk creationism at this time. Because it is in my view a unifying concept on which so many other concepts and theories would have to be very closely reevaluted. I don’t yet have all the important questions I would need in order to junk YE. I still have to find the questions for myself.
    Don’t feel too sorry for me. Bretz saw a situation in which his peers saw millions of years and gradual process as the necessary ingredient in a particular geological area. If Bretz wore the same glasses, he would have missed the truth. In another aspect of my life, I have watched my deeply held assumptions and beliefs become shaken. This is a good thing I think questioning all I have been *told* by some *expert*. If evolution was some how given a knock-out blow, would it shake your beliefs? And if so, how? I’m not asking so you can tell me, I just personally wonder if it would be a big deal to your worldview if macro-evolution was proven not to be a possibility.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 16th, 2005
    at 10:49 am

    No– I’d probably be surprised and skeptical (as all scientists are). But if evolution couldn’t explain some phenomena that a new theory could AND if that new theory was also successful in modeling the existing data AND if it was also falsifiable, Cool! That’d just mean science was getting closer to the right answer.

    That’s the difference between science and ID (and YEC). We start with the data and looks for answers. You start with the answer (the Bible) and look for data that fit.


    Comment by
    Annette
    November 17th, 2005
    at 7:32 am

    Daryl,
    You are forgetting that many scientists were believers in a Biblical creation model, and they also began with a Biblical framework. Matthew Maury and Bacon, father of the scientific method, would be good examples.

    snip:
    answer...ry.asp
    Over the next 19 years Maury devoted himself to studying the winds, clouds, weather, and ocean features … as well as the Bible. In his Bible studies, the words of Psalm 8 stuck in his mind:
    ‘… whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas’. Maury determined that if God’s Word said there were ‘paths’ in the seas, then there must be paths. So he set out to find them.

    uark.e...ci.htm
    snip:
    Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the father of the scientific method described the harmony between the Bible and creation and the need to study both to discover truth by saying: “To conclude therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain, that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy: but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together.” (Sir Francis Bacon, 1605, The Advancement of Learning).