UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case

[emad]

Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian


A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that should be taught to children in American schools.

Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick, said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.


The landmark case arose after eight families took legal action to have the theory removed from the curriculum because they feel it promotes the Bible's view of creation and so violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

A year ago, the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania decided that students should be told about intelligent design as part of their lessons on evolution. The statement that they voted to include in lessons said that Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html

[Charlie Brown]

1. What is the "evidence" that he's referring to?

The existence of biological systems is hardly objective criteria for a designer.

[cyberpj]

8. All I read in the article was this:

Citing the work of Michael Behe, a leading advocate of intelligent design and a previous witness at the trial, Prof Fuller said scientists have observed biological systems and inferred that a "designer" must exist.

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. It's a matter of common sense, not science - at least, in the

purblind reductionist sense that science is touted by its myrmidons, who hold court so jealously after each paradigm shift.

If Fuller and Behe can bring them up to speed on the usefulness of looking beyond the level of the "scientismifical" clockwork world of their dreams, to appreciate that the proliferation of paradoxes at the quantum and macrocosmic levels of physics shows them, and indeed all mankind up for the boobies we are, when it comes to trying to understand the fundamental nature of reality at both extremities, they will do us all a great service.

Of course, thanks to Einstein and Newton, to mention but two giants, who would have none of their "painting by numbers" twaddle to discover the secrets of the universe, they have taken at least one cautious, hesitant step in the right direction by their acceptance of his aesthetic criterion - elegance -in their selection of fundamental hypotheses.

[cyberpj]

14. How very eloquent. I tend to use the simplistic thunder model...

Remember when we didn't understand how thunder happened.
And so we attributed it to an act of God.
They said God was angry. My Grandmother told me God was bowling!

Once science was evolved enough, we came to understand the thermal/chemical reasons for thunder.

Just because we don't yet understand something doesn't mean it is God.

That said, I do believe in a higher power --one that I can never understand with this particular brain. I choose to believe in Good- and the power that doing Good has. Sometimes I just think someone forgot the second "o" in the entire concept and then personified it, creating a God of their own.

[underpants]

15. Nice try but you are WAY off

Thunder means God dropped a sack of potatoes. Everyone knows that.

[cyberpj]

17. I like that! Wonder how many God/Thunder tales exist - Anyone else?

When it thunders, that means God...........

[underpants]

18. ...the Devil is beating his wife

oh no sorry that is when the sun is out and it is raining at the same time.

[Kailassa]

36. .... is dropping bricks, of course.

[Terran]

40. My grandmother always said that

thunder was the sound of gnomes bowling up in the mountains (this was in SoCal). I never believed her but I always thought it was a cool idea.

[bobbieinok]

69. Old Norse mythology: when Thor gets angry he swings his hammer

and this causes thunder....basically Thor often acted like a 2-year-old; he got angry (and swung his hammer) A LOT

English Thursday='Thor's day'

German word for Thursday is Donnerstag; Donner is German for thunder.....so Donnerstag means 'thunder day'

(Wednesday named for the Old Norse god Wodin; Friday for the goddess Freya)

[cshldoc]

34. Pure heresy!!!

Heretic! Burn him! Thunder is God bowling and that's the final Word on the matter.

[cyberpj]

43. Welcome to DU cshldoc!

:hi:

oops. on edit I see you're no newbie!
well, thanks for the 'bowling' vote!

[readmoreoften]

42. Spaghetti Monster is Juggling Meatballs, you idiots!

Don't you know anything! Thunder is not caused by *snicker* God (as you call him) moving furniture or bowling. It has been proven that thunder means The Flying Spaghetti Monster is Juggling Meatballs.

Here is SPAGHETTI THEOREM OF MEATBALL THUNDER:

(1) As everyone knows, The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. This is proven in the picture of the opus known as A Mountain, Some Trees, and A MIGDIT (sic).
(2) The Flying Spaghetti Monster makes a BA-BOOM BA-BOOM NOISE when he juggles meatballs.
(3) Thunder makes a Ba-Boom Ba-Boom noise.

Thus it can be confirmed if one assesses this analysis and then adds +3 and -3, which will add nothing but make the SPAGHETTI THEOREM OF MEATBALL THUNDER seem that much more scientific.

(What's the phone number of that Texas School Textbook company again?)

[cyberpj]

44. LOL! Thanks for that. nt.

[yorkiemommie1]

68. in Hawaii, it's God moving the furniture around

n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. No, thunder, is God moving his furniture.

I thought you'd have known that.

PS: Nor does it mean it's not God. Nothing happens wihtout his say-so. In fact he thinks creation. If he stopped, your chemicals would all disappear, in all the myriad forms they have taken, and everything immaterial with it.

Now, I can't prove that, but it doesn't bother me, because it's not supposed to be provable. It's a wee secret between God and his own nippers. The Holy Spirit informs us with suffused knowledge, co-ordinating the strands of our intelligence.

[Realityhack]

51. Which means it isn't even remotely scientific.

The proponents of ID claim it is a scientific theory... it isn't. Nor is the 'theory' you just stated reguarding god thinkin creation etc. They do not make testable predictions. They are not science.

Of course science can't rule out a creator, thats not the point at all. ID is not science. In fact many of the statements that Behe made at various times in support of ID are now understood to be factualy incorrect... but because ID is not scientific that means nothing.

ID does not belong in the classroom. It is not science and is in fact poorly decized religion.

[Realityhack]

52. Common sense...

is what tells you the earth is flat.

[Demit]

2. "we don't know who did it but somebody must have"?

How long does it take to say that? What exactly is the rest of the course content of ID that would be "taught"?

[Caution]

4. Saying even that little is still saying too much.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a "designer" (the christian god in the case of the ID charlatans) in the scientific sense.

This is classic "god of the gaps" type stuff. Any time there is something that science can not YET explain, godidit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. You gadidit!

[Caution]

3. sociologist is qualified to determine if ID is a valid biological theory?

Ummm..OK

[progressivejazz]

6. Dr. Laura should testify next.

She's just as qualified.

[Joe Chi Minh]

30. A very eminent scientist - in the history books, like Einstein -

called his theories "utter rubbish". Just shows what dunderheads scientists are as a breed. One of their brightest and best, if you please, was left for dead by a man who was a thinker, not a drudge in a white coat.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Isn't Warwick where AUT leader Sue Blackwell teaches?

[IntiRaymi]

7. Fuller has basically made a career out of criticizing Kuhn

Kuhn is the man that postulated that science moves forth in terms of paradigmatic shifts. In essence, Kuhn's model consists of a process by which models are created by outstanding scientists, which are then followed by meticulous study by 'lesser' folk. This produces a system that is inherently autocratic, and lacks atributes of democracy.
In other words, the free flow of ideas supposedly does not happen, and Mr. Fuller would like this to change. My basic impression is that Fuller is a gadfly, and that he is purposefully ignoring the political ramifications of 'Intelligent' Design.
Intelligent Design was not formulated via the free flow of well disciplined arguments, rather, it is the product of a concerted campaign to regain for the church - and religious entities in general - the claim as the 'definer' of the common person's worldview. Which basically means a return to the Dark Ages, so to speak.
Science is very vulnerable to public opinion, in terms of sources of Federal Budget funding, and for that reason the scientist that dedicates herself to teaching is as valuable as the one that cloisters herself in a lab. Carl Sagan sucked, relatively speaking, as a hardcore astrophysicist, but was also a stupendous educator. Educating is a must, otherwise crap like Intelligent Design begins to gain validity.

[SidDithers]

9. Now, why would a sociology professor be an expert...

in what is and what isn't science?

I think I'll stick with the biologists and the botanists on this one, thanks.

Sid

[xchrom]

10. so, if i look at a frog and say '' designer must have made that'' --

it makes it so?

ignoring the fact that the ''designer'' might never be ''found''?

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. What on earth has "the fact that the 'designer'

might never be found" to do with the the possibility or otherwise of his existence. All it would display is the limitations of our cognitive faculties and the proclivity of people such as your good self for non sequiturs, for drawing illogical inferences.

What is your rationale for positing that, if something can't be found by us, it mustn't exist! I've heard of presumption, but that's got to take the biscuit.

No scientist has yet managed to make a single cell vegetable out of nothing, never mind a single-cell, animal life form, and you people rabbit on about what hot-shots scientists are, they don't need God any more to explain the seemingly infinite wonders and mysteries of creation!

[jfxgillis]

13. I thought you were kidding and making

double-talk just for fun, but apparently not.

"Elegance" is a normative judgment. It is not positivistic. It is subjective, not objective.

Just because you or some dim-witted Brit sociologist "testifying" under oath think creation has esthetic appeal doesn't mean that it's falsifiably "beautiful." It means you think it's beautiful.

That okay (I think creation is beautiful, too); it's just not science.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underpants]

16. "if something can't be found by us..." is also the argument against evolut

evolution isn't it?

Since THE missing link has never been found it disproves the whole idea. Find the missing link and then we might consider it is the standard line on that....right?

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. No because it is gratuitous. Whereas nature, itself, the whole

universe, proclaims intelligent design to everyone with a smidgeon of common sense.

Common sense, however, suggests that evoutionists are just a mite "previous". We can fly to the moon and plumb the ocean's deepest depths, yet no-one has managed to find the missing link or links! It seems to me as if God's been taking the mickey.

Not that evolution would disprove intelligent design of course. Quite the contrary. Somewhat cleverer than making a child's scooter change into a tricycle, then a bicycle, then a car.

[IntiRaymi]

48. What does common sense have to with anything?

Do you have ANY idea what went into forming your so-called 'common sense'?
You are asking people that they rely on their prejudices for the elucidation of nature. The fact that someone, or you specifically, cannot grasp the logic of causation, does not mean that such logic does not mean.

[0rganism]

24. So what does the hypothesis of design bring to the table, then?

You've said, "No scientist has yet managed to make a single cell vegetable out of nothing," yet that is exactly what ID would suppose -- a relatively adept knower (perhaps an alien scientist) capable of making a life form from nothing. On the other hand, the theory of evolution says nothing about abiogenesis (life from non-life). All our "designer organisms" are made using DNA spliced in from other evolved life forms.

So what do biologists have to gain from positing an intelligent creator of, e.g., single cell life forms? How does it further inquiry? What evidence can you give to support it? What phenomenon does it predict? What does it provide for humans, other than fodder for religious zealots, that the current theory of life adapting via natural processes does not?

[Joe Chi Minh]

27. Who gives tuppence what biologists gain from anything!

You people remind me of the mythical Irishman, who when he was asked the quickest way to such and such a town, replied, "Well, if I wanted to go there, as quickly as possible, I wouldn't start from here...".

By gum,you people have a high opinion of yourselves and your activities in the scheme of things, don't you?

See my post, "No, it's God moving his furniture", for further enlightenment.

[0rganism]

29. Very presumptuous of you

I never claimed to be a biologist, but I care very much what they have to learn from their studies of Terran life. Nonetheless, I will read your "furniture" post and attain "further enlightenment", if such is merited.

[Joe Chi Minh]

31. Alas, I can't guarantee that you merit enlightenment.

But, biologist, worshipper of empirical science? what's the odds?

[0rganism]

35. Apparently not, because your post leaves me as ignorant as ever

> It's a wee secret between God and his own nippers. The Holy Spirit
> informs us with suffused knowledge, co-ordinating the strands of our
> intelligence.

Shame upon your Holy Spirit for condemning me to this state of invincible ignorance! Can God and his divers multitudes of nippers do nothing more to demonstrate for me the value of including "intelligent design" in a curriculum of otherwise empirical science? Alas, I must humbly place myself among those who, in your estimation, are devoid of even a modicum of "common sense," for I cannot fathom what seems so glaringly obvious to you -- and, apparently, most of the American population.

> But, biologist, worshipper of empirical science? what's the odds?

I have no idea. Perhaps your God can better inform you of the chances next time you toss the term at any who dare to ask such unwholesome materially-oriented questions in the face of your pure certainties.

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. If you think most Americans share your view,

you're living a pipe dream. At least from what I've read on these threads.

[0rganism]

38. No, I said they shared YOUR view, genius

You're certainly not an iconoclast, you speak on behalf of the enlightened millions.

[Joe Chi Minh]

45. You're too kind. But your insights, very much appreciated,

nonetheless.

[IntiRaymi]

47. Red herrings

You are directing the argument to a place where it does not belong. Like I said previously, this is not about the truth, on the ID side, but its about who retains the power to tell the common person what the universe is about.
Its all politics.

[Realityhack]

56. Actualy....

its ability to provide testable predictions is what defines it as science.

Doesn't mean it is wrong... just that it is not science. And therefore should not be taught as such.

[Realityhack]

55. It transforms the theory of the desiners existance from...

scientific theory... to a non-scientific one.

A group of 6 majic eleves on the other side of the galaxy could have created life here... but its not a scientific theory unless it includes something testable.

[WindRavenX]

19. Well, there are some mistakes in Darwin's view of evolution

We know think evolution is punctuated, rather than a continuous, steady process, for example. We know that allele frequency is the reason for natural selection...

But than that, he was spot on and correct. Evolution is fact, and the "gaps" that this moron refers to are being closed everyday with new fossils.

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. Ooooh! I can't wait... I'll be scanning the headlines every day,

from now on.

[Realityhack]

53. Perhapse you should scan diffrent headlines

A lot of the 'gaps' that oponents/critics/whatver of evolution pointed to in the past have been filled in.

[-..__...]

21. It was the Monolith.

[Walt Starr]

23. A SOCIOLOGIST????????

HE has not fucking clue about scientific standards!

[truebrit71]

25. THANK YOU.....

...:eyes:

[Joe Chi Minh]

33. A sociologist deals with rather more subtle and abstruse matters

than the grossest, most elementary aspects of creation. It's like reproaching the golden Baar for being no good at tiddly-winks! Go back to sleep, Walt.

[IntiRaymi]

49. Like I said, Fuller is a gadfly

Science is not a democracy, as the truth is not arrived at by consensus.
Its like this: if 50 Million Elvis fans think that 2+2=5, then there are 50 Million Elvis fans that are very, very wrong.
Or, better put, if there are 500 highly qualified mathematicians that think that there are 700 unique forms to the 4 color theorem, then YOU HAVE NO CLUE, because you have not studied math.
Your arguments for common sense are false, and are probably dishonest, as well.

[Karmageddon]

39. So who designed the designer? Where the hell did he/she come from?

[KittyWampus]

41. Who Selected The Selected?

[Realityhack]

54. Thats a missunderstanding of the term 'selected'

In relation to evolution the term 'selected' simply refers to those who happened to survive the best. IIRC the field has moved away from using the terms selected and survival of the fittest in favor of terms that are less easily understood.

[KittyWampus]

58. Likewise, maybe you are misunderstanding the term "design"

[Realityhack]

60. Perhapse you could elaborate on that.

If I understand you correctly you are claiming that (insert creator of choice here) did the selecting by chosing what would die etc.?

You could certainly chose to see it that way. As you know there is not way to disprove such a statement. And therefore it is not science.

Such postulation that some intelegent creator sits around all day chosing what traits might be interesting in a speicies and ensuring that they crop up and others are removed by lack of reproduction... frankly has no place in any scientific discussion. It is not science. Its religion or in some respects philosophy.

If I missunderstood please let me know.

[KittyWampus]

66. I NEVER insert the concept or proposition of a "Creator" or "Being"

in these attempts at discussion :)

However, I DO propose considering Nature capable of manifesting & exhibiting Intelligence AND taking part in genetic Selection.

[Realityhack]

70. YOU must then define intelegence

as you think nature is capable of manifesting it.

the fact is that intelegence is typicaly defined in relation to problem solving and prediction. Nature has neither of those traits except by hapenstance. Nature does not predict... gee this trait could be useful let me try it out. Nor does it say gee the climate might get colder soon... lets make some more furry stuff.

While it is imposible to PROVE that your 'theory' (in the non-scientific sense of the word) is wrong (which is why you like it so much). There is absolutely no evidence of any kind indicating that it is correct. Nor is their any 'need' for it.

[WindRavenX]

57. nature

[KittyWampus]

59. If Nature is capable of "selecting" it is also capable of "designing"

[WindRavenX]

61. there is no consciousness in the act of selection

The act of selection is passive, with no intelligence behind it.

[Realityhack]

63. Very well put.

Thanks.

[KittyWampus]

64. Incorrect. Selection is defined as an ACT or PROCESS. And You've offered

no definition of Intelligence nor proven Intelligence can't be manifested on SOME level by Nature.

[WindRavenX]

67. My definition of "intelligence" is related to the brain

Of which numerous variables (size, neuron density, components of the actual organ) are controlled by many polygenic traits with hundreds of thousands of allelles. Complexity of the brain has developed thru millions of years thru this process. This has been tested, proven.

An encompassing "Intelligence" of nature has no way to being tested. It's pure faith, not science.

[Realityhack]

62. Nope.

Sorry to break it to you but your 'nature as consious beeing / creator' thing is a religious beleif. It has no place in a science discussion uless it can make a testable prediction (ie its falsifiable).

[KittyWampus]

65. You Failed To Address My Point & Changed The Subject. YOU LOSE

[cyberpj]

46. I want to know what makes humans think they should be privy to that info

It's so very laughable that men throughout the ages have thought they could understand and explain anything about what God, Allah or even Beelzebub IS.

And that millions upon millions take as gospel, well...the gospel (testimony of observers many years after the event observed...then passed around and translated and retranslated with the politics of the church involved at each translation), is stupifying to me.

You either feel/know in your very soul that there is MORE or you don't. Studies of comparative religion can help here --- look for the similarities of the channeled basics in the big 3 and you'll have instruction enough to live up to.

As for understanding it with our feeble brains....


Fuhgeddaboudit.

[Barrett808]

50. I submit this site for your delectation: Panspermia.org

More thoughtful discussion than what you'll hear in court:
http://www.panspermia.org

[Julius Civitatus]

71. What evidence??? - The headline is deceptive

This is basically a creationist citing another creationist.

NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED AT ALL!

Certainly no "evidence" in the strict scientific understanding of evidence. This is crap, and the headline is also deceptive, as no real evidence of intelligence design is provided.

Waste of time.

:eyes:

[stepnw1f]

72. I'm A Designer...

and I'd say this composition of shit, doesn't meet my aesthetical requirement.