| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/11/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Science/Biology] UID:40662 Activity:kinda low |
11/20 Krauthammer also hates ID
http://csua.org/u/e16
\_ What I don't understand is why this is even up for debate. I mean,
it's the fuckin' 21st Century. Get with it, people. Aren't we
done having the Scopes Monkey Trial? BTW, Wikipedia, for all its
\_ Errr.. You do realize Scopes lost, right?
\_ Indeed. And from what I understand of the facts of the _real_
trial, if Scopes were trying to teach today what he was trying
to teach back then, he'd lose again.
\_ What was he teaching?
\_ Above poster is being disengenuous. He's probably
referring to the fact that the textbook Scopes was
using contained references to eugenics and the
"superiority of the white race." However, the
Tennessee law he was accused of violating read:
"That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of
the Universities, Normals and all other public schools
of the State which are supported in whole or in part by
the public school funds of the State, to teach any
theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of
man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that
man has descended from a lower order of animals"
faults, has a nice summary of ID and its gaping logical and
empirical holes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
\_ George Will doesn't like it either:
\_ George Will can't stand it either:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will111705.asp |
| csua.org/u/e16 -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html Phony Theory, False Conflict 'Intelligent Design' Foolishly Pits Evolution Against Faith By Charles Krauthammer Friday, November 18, 2005; Page A23 Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous: that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert E instein, and they were both religious. He was a staunch believer in Christian ity and a member of the Church of England. Einstein's was a more diffuse belief in a deity who set the rules for everything that occurs in the u niverse. "He believe d he was doing God's work," James Gleick wrote in his recent biography o f Newton. Einstein saw his entire vocation -- understanding the workings of the universe -- as an attempt to understand the mind of God. Not a crude and willful God who pushes and pulls and does things accordin g to whim. Newton was trying to supplant the view that first believed th e sun's motion around the earth was the work of Apollo and his chariot, and later believed it was a complicated system of cycles and epicycles, one tacked upon the other every time some wobble in the orbit of a plane t was found. The laws of his unive rse were so simple, so elegant, so economical and therefore so beautiful that they could only be divine. Dover distinguished itself this Election Day by throwing out all eight me mbers of its school board who tried to impose "intelligent design" -- to day's tarted-up version of creationism -- on the biology curriculum. Pat Robertson then called the wrath of God down upon the good people of Dov er for voting "God out of your city." Meanwhile, in Kansas, the school b oard did a reverse Dover, mandating the teaching of skepticism about evo lution and forcing intelligent design into the statewide biology curricu lum. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" who se only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific k nowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain s uch things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other s uch evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change a nd says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the pro position that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the mo tion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together? In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase " nat ural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmi stakably implying -- by fiat of definition, no less -- that the supernat ural is an integral part of science. The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an "ungu ided process" with no "discernible direction or goal." This is as ridicu lous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular int eractions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is beh ind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis? But that discussion is the province of religion, no t science. The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed- over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuit ously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisd om precisely about those questions -- arguably, the most important quest ions in life -- that lie beyond the material. What could be more ele gant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indee d more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and ye t interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a s ingle double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mol lusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas S tate Board of Education, too. |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence cl aims "Proponents of Intelligent Design regard it as a scientific researc h program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that Intelligent Design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not in telligent causes per se. In his view, questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the idea, since one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within. edit Origins of the concept For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature's " design" that operates for complex purposes indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The modern concept of Intelligent D esign is distinguished from the teleological argument in that Intelligen t Design does not identify the agent of creation, and its proponents see k to take the debate into the realm of science rather than just philosop hy. George James Allman: No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible in heredity and in adaptivity, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design. edit Portraying Intelligent Design as science Intelligent design proponents often claim that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution. Falsifiability) + Based upon controlled, repeated experiments + Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered) + Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) + Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The few er which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any me aningful sense of the word. There is no way to test its conjectures, and the underlying assu mptions of Intelligent Design are not open to change. Intelligent design critics further point out that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts. United States Supreme Court articulated a set of criteria for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, in effect developing their own demarcation criteria. the former being directed at t he public while the latter at their conservative Christian supporters, i s explained by Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, as being due to the Discovery Institute obfuscating its a genda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activi ties betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only Inte lligent Design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it." Theistic realism The Intelligent Design debate centers on three issues: 1 whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theori es of origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer 2 whether the evidence supports such theories 3 whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate in public educat ion. Intelligent Design supporters generally hold that science must allow for both natural and supernatural explanations of phenomena. They assert tha t excluding supernatural explanations artificially limits the realm of p ossibilities, particularly where naturalistic explanations fail to expla in certain phenomena. Supernatural explanations provide a very simple an d parsimonious explanation for the origins of life and the universe. specified co mplexity appear to make it highly unreasonable that the full complexity and diversity of life came about solely through natural means. Finally, supporters hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and Intelligent Design in schools, because teaching on ly evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding the Creationis t beliefs. Teaching both, Intelligent Design supporters argue, allows fo r a scientific basis for religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote a religious belief. According to critics of Intelligent Design, not only has Intelligent Desi gn failed to establish reasonable doubt in its proposed shortcomings of accepted scientific theories, but it has not even presented a case worth taking seriously. Scientists argue that those advocating "sc ientific" treatment of "supernatural" phenomena are grossly misunderstan ding the issue, and indeed misunderstand the nature and purpose of scien ce itself. Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal tim e for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to th e number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school syste m While Christian fundamentalists imagine their God to be the only deit y to be referenced, a cursory examination of mankind's belief systems re veals that there is a very large number of potential supernatural "expla nations" for the emergence and organization of life on earth, none of wh ich have any empirical support and all of which therefore are equally de serving of promotion as Intelligent Design. Proponents of Intelligent De sign, however, rarely if ever appear to note such alternative theologica l/supernatural possibilities, defaulting invariably to their particular interpretation of the Christian God. ma terialism in an attempt to erase religion from public life and view thei r work in the promotion of Intelligent Design as a way to return religio n to a central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege t hat this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over Inte lligent Design, though others note that Intelligent Design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent Intelligent Desig n proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view w ithin society. edit Intelligent Design concepts The following are summaries of key concepts of Intelligent Design, follow ed by summaries of criticisms. Counterarguments against such criticisms are often proffered by Intelligent Design proponents, as are counter-cou nterarguments by critics, etc. Jacqu es Monod's Chance and Necessity provides a good discussion of the "trium ph" of the mechanistic view in biochemistry. Systems theory remained pop ular among social sciences long after its demise in the physical and bio logical sciences. Intelligent Design advoc ates argue that the systems must therefore have been deliberately engine ered by some form of intelligence. "--(Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference). According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur without sp ecific design or intent. The environment 'selects' variants that have th e highest fitness, which are then passed on to the next generation of or ganisms. Most Intelligent Design advocates accept that evolutio n occurs through mutation and natural selection at the 'micro level' suc h as changing the relative frequency of various beak lengths in finches, but assert that it cannot account for irreducible complexity, because n one of the parts of an irreducible system would be functional or advanta geous until the entire system is in place. Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mou setrap consists of several interacting piecesthe base, the catch, the s pring, the hammerall of which must be in place for the mousetrap to wor k The removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Likewise, biological systems require multiple parts working together in order to function. Intelligent Design advocates claim that natural selec tion could not create from scratch those systems ... |
| jewishworldreview.com/cols/will111705.asp And President Bush's straddle on that subject "both sides" s hould be taught although intended to be anodyne, probably was inflamma tory, emboldening social conservatives. Dover's insurrection occurred as Kansas's Board of Education, which is controlled by the kind of conserv atives who make conservatism repulsive to temperate people, voted 6 to 4 to redefine science. The board, opening the way for teaching the supern atural, deleted from the definition of science these words: "a search fo r natural explanations of observable phenomena." "It does me no injury," said Thomas Jefferson, "for my neighbor to say th ere are twenty gods, or no God. But it is injurious, and unneighborly, when zealots try to compel public education to infuse theism into scientific education. The conser vative coalition, which is coming unglued for many reasons, will rapidly disintegrate if limited-government conservatives become convinced that social conservatives are unwilling to concentrate their character-buildi ng and soul-saving energies on the private institutions that mediate bet ween individuals and government, and instead try to conscript government into sectarian crusades. But, then, the limited-government impulse is a spent force in a Republica n Party that cannot muster congressional majorities to cut the growth of Medicaid from 73 to 7 percent next year. That "cut" was too draconian for some Republican "moderates." But, then, most Republicans are moderat es as that term is used by persons for whom it is an encomium: Moderates are people amiably untroubled by Washington's single-minded devotion to rent-seeking to bending government for the advantage of private facti ons. Conservatives have won seven of 10 presidential elections, yet government waxes, with per-household federal spending more than $22,000 per year, the highest in inflation-adjusted terms since World War II. Federal spen ding including a 100 percent increase in education spending since 2001 has grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Bill Clinton, 65 percent of it unrelated to national security. Washington subsidizes the cost of water to encourage farmers to produce s urpluses that trigger a gusher of government spending to support prices. It is almost comforting that $2 billion is spent each year paying farme rs not to produce. Farm subsidies, most of which go to agribusinesses an d affluent farmers, are just part of the $60 billion in corporate welfar e that dwarfs the $29 billion budget of the Department of Homeland Secur ity. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that Congress responded to the Korean War by setting priorities, cutting one-fourth of all non-war spending in one year . Recently the House failed to approve an unusuall y ambitious effort to cut government growth . This is today's ambitiousn ess: attempting probably unsuccessfully to cut government growth by $54 billion over five years. War is hell, but on the home front it is indistinguishable from peace, except that th e government is more undisciplined than ever. Gerard Alexander of the University of Virginia wonders whether conservati ves' cohesion is perishing because it was a product of the period when c onservatives were insurgents against dominant liberals. About limited-go vernment conservatism, he says: "Perhaps conservatives were naive to expect any party, ever, to resist re nt-seeking temptations when in power. Just as there always was something fatally unserious about socialism its flawed understanding of human n ature is it possible that there has also been something profoundly uns erious about the limited-government agenda? Should we now be prepared fo r the national electoral wing of the conservative movement the House a nd Senate caucuses and executive branch officials to identify with leg islation like the pork-laden energy and transportation bills, in the sam e way that liberals came to ground their identities in programs like Soc ial Security?" But if so, limited-government conservatives will dissociate from a Republican Party more congenial to overreaching social conservatives. Then those Republican congressional caucuses will be smaller, and Repub lican control of the executive branch will be rarer. com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." |