What I hope is the definitive argument against ID.

[GaYellowDawg]

Let me try to hammer this down once and for all. Before I start, let me give you a little of my background: I've got a B.S. and M.S. in biology, and have taken two years of courses in genetics at the PhD level. This includes an evolution class taught by John Avise, one of the first scientists to apply molecular biology techniques to population genetics and a preeminent member of the National Academy of Sciences. Additionally, I've taken a PhD level philosophy of science course, where I read original writings by Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos, as well as Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". In that class, I wrote a paper on creationism/ID that I will be presenting at a conference in the next academic year. In researching that paper, I read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" as well as Henry Morris' "Scientific Creationism" and Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial." In other words, I'm extraordinarily well-informed and feel that I can speak as an authority. I'm also a liberal Christian; therefore, I may not be accused of having an anti-religious bias.

Whether you look at Popper, Kuhn, or Lakatos, ID is not science. Very briefly, it's not falsifiable, it falls far outside any research paradigm used in science, and it has no legitimate protective belt for its hard core. Any of you who have read Popper, Kuhn, or Lakatos will recognize these terms. ID does not hold up as science from a philosophy of science viewpoint, unless you're Feyerabend, and he advocates treating voodoo as science. Literally.

ID is not a theory. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; in other words, an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. Theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. ID incorporates NO facts. NO laws. NO tested hypotheses. It is NOT well-substantiated. Its primary proponent, Michael Behe, has put forth several examples of his main tenet of "irreducible complexity." ALL of his examples have been effortlessly rebutted by evolutionary biologists.

The scientific community does not regard ID as science. Not a single ID paper has ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Not ONE. There's no grand cabal of scientists conspiring to hold down the truth; in fact, there's not a single scientist who wouldn't leap at the chance to topple a major theory like evolution simply because it would put his/her name in the history books and in every single science textbook. Doing landmark research and becoming a household word is currency in the scientific world, and toppling evolution would give a scientist the equivalent of Bill Gates' fortune in that currency. Imagine having your name established beside Einstein or Copernicus or Watson/Crick. Any scientist would go wild at the prospect.

As for teaching ID in science classrooms? Let me address a couple of the arguments "for" that I saw here:

I see no reason why an alternative, even a non scientific alternative, can't be provided alongside evolution.

I'll give you the reason. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION. Hence, any given alternatives aren't science. Teaching them in a science classroom is intellectual dishonesty.

The Supreme Court should not, and I don't believe has the power to, ban the teaching of ID in public schools.

OK. Let me lay this out for you.

1. Intelligent design requires a designer.
2. That designer is necessarily a creator.
3. That creator is some sort of omnipotent/omniscient being (and don't give me aliens; there's not a single ID proponent who can answer "how did the aliens come to be" and more iterations of same without retreating to an original omnipotent/omniscient alien creator - otherwise they have to think that perhaps the very first aliens evolved... and that's the ball game)
4. An omnipotent/omniscient being does not exist outside of religion and/or Star Trek's "Q".
5. Unless you're telling the kids that "Q" created the universe, then recognizing this omnipotent/omniscient being is teaching a religion, or aspect of a religion.
6. Mandating the teaching of a religion or an aspect of a religion as fact in public schools is making a law respecting an establishment of religion.
7. First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
8. A law violating any Constitutional amendment falls under the purview of the Supreme Court, who has not only the right but the obligation to abolish that law.

So why not teach ID in science classrooms?

1. It's not science.
2. Teaching ID would be intellectually dishonest, therefore ethically bankrupt.
3. It's unconstitutional.

I hope that's clear enough. No insults, just explanation. :-)

[HereSince1628]

1. Enough is never enough...

People persist in believing what they want to for a variety of reasons, including the convenience of self-interest.

You've put forward an argument that has been presented on this board many times since I began visiting over 2 years ago.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. And maybe this link to refutations of Behe's "irreducible complexity"

will help:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

I'm sure there will be others around on the net too. I think Behe's argument was strong enough that it did deserve refuting, rather than dismissing it as 'back-door creationism', since it does accept the fossil record, and seems to allow that some evolution would happen as neo-Darwinists would argue. But the refutations show that it's a 'godd of diminishing gaps' argument, and the gaps are far smaller than Behe knew.

I think ID belongs as a footnote in a 'history of philosophy' discussion, where the anthropic principles must also be discussed, because the underlying assumptions of ID are entwined with them.

[RC]

3. Please, define all the initials when they are first used.

I had to search through 2/3 of the post to find out what you were talking about. "ID" I clicked in thinking this was about a national ID card scheme. As a result your information lost its punch.
If in doubt, spell it out.

[Walt Starr]

5. Too little room in the subject line

Sorry, but that's the fact, so acronyms MUST be used.

[Qanisqineq]

7. but I still haven't figured out what ID is

is it intellectual dishonesty?

I don't think RC was referring to the title of the thread, just anywhere near the beginning put the full words with the acronym in parentheses behind it.

[ChairOne]

8. ID = Intelligent Design = Creationism Lite = Teaching religion as science

Been a lively topic the last few days here...

I'll leave the googling to you....

[RC]

10. What I hope is the definitive argument against intellectual dishonesty.

Sure. But if that were the case, define the acronyms up front, anyway.

[Bill McBlueState]

13. no coincidence

Perhaps it's no coincidence that "Intellectual Dishonesty" and "Intelligent Design" have the same initials...

[illflem]

4. A town near where I live

school board outlawed the teaching of evolution in it's public schools. A few days later a new sign appeared under their city limits sign that read.
"The town evolution forgot"

[ChairOne]

6. rofl! Q!

I love that shit....

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. would there be a problem with this???

"While evolution is a directly observable fact of our world, there is debate over the origin of life. Evolution explains the changes in the species that we see over time but is not the only theory as to how the initial step to life began."

If there is a problem with this statement, what would it be? Recently there has been an uproar in several school systems placing disclaimers in books saying that Evolution is merely a theory.

What do you think?

theProdigal

OnEdit : I italicized the word 'theory' in the second sentence above because I know that ID/Creationism/Creation Science is not a valid scientific theory because it cannot be proved nor falisified. I just couldn't think of a more appropriate word this early in the morning.

[loyalsister]

12. If only!!

Section A. Chapter 170, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 170.032, to read as follows:

170.032. All biology textbooks sold to the public schools of the state of Missouri shall have one or more chapters containing a critical analysis of origins. The chapters shall convey the distinction between data and testable theories of science and philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological evolution, the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.
http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills051/biltxt/intro/HB0035I.htm

In other words, the most right wing nutcase they can find is going to be commissioned to write the Biology text for Missouri. We really need to fight this as hard as we can. This is our kids' education. It's being warped in enough parts of the country.

[ChairOne]

11. Care to share a preprint of this essay? /eom