I am of course covering this case on my blog in as much detail as possible, as will the Panda's Thumb. I just got off the phone with Rob Pennock, who is leaving tomorrow to testify on Wednesday as an expert in this case, and I'm waiting for a phone call to do an interview on it with WWJ in Detroit. This case really could be the Waterloo for intelligent design creationism in public schools. The trial phase is expected to last a full month, but I expect the whole thing to drag on for 2 years and go all the way to the Supreme Court, assuming the TMLC wants to foot the bill for it.

I don't know if I've ever seen Josh work so hard in a post to avoid taking any sort of position on something.

What is wrong with the statement (not properly "teaching") that is read once at the beginning of the course?

http://www.dover.k12.pa.us/doversd/lib/doversd/DASD_Biology_Update_2-05.pdf

Blandus Rex wrote:

What is wrong with the statement (not properly "teaching") that is read once at the beginning of the course?

The policy is not limited to the statement read to students, there is also a much longer change in the official biology curriculum, and that change is bad to the point of being entirely incoherent. But even the statement read to students makes little sense. First, the statement implies that because something is a theory in science, that means it should be doubted. But that's nonsense. The designation of "theory" does not indicate a lack of support for the idea, it is in fact the highest level of certainty assigned to an explanation in science.

Second, it singles out evolution as the only theory to be treated in this way when there is no logical reason why it should be singled out. There are "gaps" in every scientific theory, including theories that no one takes the time to doubt or dispute. No one ever asks for a competing explanation for gravity to be offered, yet gravity is probably less understood than evolution is (we don't even know what gravity is, for crying out loud).

Third, the definition of evolution is inaccurate. It includes abiogenesis, which is not properly a part of evolutionary theory. But even after defining evolution as including abiogenesis, they then go on to claim that, "The Origins of Life is not taught." And then on top of that, they call ID an "explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

There is a lot wrong with the newsletter that you linked to. Some of it is quite absurd. For instance, look at their definition of ID:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that differs from Darwin’s view, and is endorsed by a growing number of credible scientists. ID attempts to explain the complexity of the world by interpreting the scientific data now available to modern biologists. Its principle argument is that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than undirected causes such as Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

First, ID is not a scientific theory and even some ID advocates, like Paul Nelson, admit as much. If you think it is a theory, please state what the theory might be in positive, predictive terms. Second, the notion of a "growing number of biologists" is simply false, as is the purely propagandistic reference to those vaunted "300 scientists" who signed on to a statement that has nothing to do with being skeptical of evolution or with accepting ID. And the last sentence makes no sense at all. Evolution deals with life on earth, not with "features of the universe". If IDists want to argue the anthropic principle, fine. But to pretend that this somehow invalidates evolution is nonsense. It's an argument against atheism, not an argument against evolution.

For a much more thorough critique of the Dover statement, see this post at my blog when it was first announced.

See the First Things commentary. I would point out that Intelligent Design has a pedigree of a bit more than 15 years. It was, after all, the basis for one of the proof's of God's existance. Those with interest in the subject of evolution might consult the 1907 version of the Catholic encyclopedia (0n line)and obtain a better version of it than this Scopes trial remake. I don't see Creationism in the Dover matter so get over simplistics.

"The "intelligent design" concept, developed by scholars over the last 15 years, sets forth the belief that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution cannot completely explain the origin of life, contending that an unidentified intelligent force played a role."

Heavy sigh

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution (as you call it) does not purport to explain the origin of life in any shape or form. As many IDers do, you are conflating evolution with what some call abiogenesis and others prebiosis.

I promise not to write as if I know about the law if you promise to quit spouting the CW ID nonsense about evolution. It's wrong and it's embarrassing. Back off, man, I'm a biologist.

Anonymous,

You are right that intelligent design creationism is older than fifteen years. In fact, Darwin's own budding interest in natural history was shaped partly by Paley's arguments in his days at Cambridge. It's just that his studies in the course of his life moved him to abandon, and decisively refute, the natural theology of Paley. What is surprising is that the concept still has popular support after all these years since Darwin refuted it. The reasons for this popular support have little to do with science, and a lot to do with religion. That's why attempts to dress it up as an ongoing controversy within the scientific community are absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

See the First Things commentary. I would point out that Intelligent Design has a pedigree of a bit more than 15 years. It was, after all, the basis for one of the proof's of God's existance. Those with interest in the subject of evolution might consult the 1907 version of the Catholic encyclopedia (0n line)and obtain a better version of it than this Scopes trial remake. I don't see Creationism in the Dover matter so get over simplistics.

It's nice to see someone admit that ID is just the old-fashioned "argument from design" and is therefore a question of Christian apologetics, not science. These are theological inferences drawn from science, not scientific theories.

As many IDers do, you are conflating evolution with what some call abiogenesis and others prebiosis.

In all fairness, every biology teacher and biology textbook I had in Jr.High, high school and college taught these as one and inescapably the same.

Perhaps if scientists and science educators stuck to the science, we wouldn't have so many polarized people in the "debate."

And to follow up on what Blandus said, I think when most people consider the "origin of life," they're thinking of how the diversity of life came to exist. So even though it's possible to conceptually separate the process that created the first cell from the process that generated all life forms from that first cell (and the former is arguably much more difficult than the latter), it's not usually a real issue in the debate.

It's nice to see someone admit that ID is just the old-fashioned "argument from design" and is therefore a question of Christian apologetics, not science.

Whether it's science or not, there's nothing inherently Christian--or indeed religious of any stripe--about ID. Christians may be attracted to ID, just as atheists are attracted to Darwinism, but that doesn't make Darwinism a "question of atheist apologetics."

Design in nature has been apparent to philosophers since the beginning of civilization. Even many evolution textbooks recognize this and instruct students to keep in mind that systems weren't really designed, but evolved.

The question of who (or what) the designer is is rightly left outside the boundaries of ID theory.

Christians may be attracted to ID, just as atheists are attracted to Darwinism This seems a very odd thing to say, since most people in this country who believe in evolution are Christians. A more accurate report of the demographics here would be "A number of Christians are attracted to ID, just as a number Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. and atheists are attracted to evolutionary biology."

And this is odder still:
The question of who (or what) the designer is is rightly left outside the boundaries of ID theory. It's one thing to say that ID, at this early stage, doesn't have much of an account worked out as to the nature of the designer (or, indeed, designers). But to stipulate the nature of the designer right out of consideration by ID is to condemn ID permanently to its current status of completely & utterly incapable of explaining anything whatsoever. The only way you can get a scientific explanation going is to make novel predictions, and the only way ID can do that is with a theory of the designer. Intelligent Design without a theory of the designer is just no theory at all. One can at least pretend right now that ID is a sort of proto-theory. But if we stipulate the question of the designer out of ID, then it can't even count as a proto-theory.

This seems a very odd thing to say

Nothing odd about it at all, phil. I think it's self-evidently true, although I suppose I could clarify it further by inserting the word "apologists" after the words "Christian" and "atheist."

Intelligent Design without a theory of the designer is just no theory at all.

You're going to have to explain this further for it to make any sense. The concept is that natural systems show evidence of design. I don't see the relevance of whether the designer was Yahweh, Shiva, The Force, or alien beings from another dimension.

"The concept is that natural systems show evidence of design. I don't see the relevance of whether the designer was Yahweh, Shiva, The Force, or alien beings from another dimension."

I would think it's relevant because although ID doesn't name it's designer, it asserts that the designer cannot be nature. The 'logic' that ID seems to use is a negative one, that nature cannot design living things, therefore they were designed by some intelligence. However without naming a designer and its attributes, ID cannot be subjected to the same method of verification/rejection via negative arguments that it uses to exclude natural causes.

"In all fairness, every biology teacher and biology textbook I had in Jr.High, high school and college taught these as one and inescapably the same."

That is a total bs statement. They are NOT taught as one and the same by any competent biologist. I'd like you to show me a single college biology text that equates prebiosis with evolution.

As has been so often said, the plural of anecdote is not data.

And Eric, I don't think your conflation is intentional, but if you persist in it, your motivation would seem to be to mislead. You have had the distinction clearly pointed out to you. Would you at a minimum acknowledge that Darwin and the theory of evolution say absolutely nothing on the origin of life on earth? He spoke to the origin of species, not the origin of life.

It is sophistry for you to now fall back on some variant of "well that's what people mean when they talk about Darwin and evolution." If you want to talk about the origin of life on the planet and about ID in relation to that, be my guest. But leave Darwin and evolution out of it.

Building on Dave's comment, if one claims, as ID does, that the complexity of life requires a designer, then it would seem to follow that the designer is necessarily more complex than his creation. If complexity invokes a need for design, then the designer now needs his own designer - and if he does not, you've essentially put your designer outside of the universe as we know it.

Hmmm, sound like anyone you might know or believe in?

ID is nothing but arguments from first causes and personal incredulity heaped in an ugly mess, and the Discovery Institute's wedge document shows it is every bit as much a religious movement as a "scientific" movement.

Going back to something Eric said:

"I think when most people consider the "origin of life," they're thinking of how the diversity of life came to exist."

I think this is the crux of the matter as well as the center of what bothers me most about the techniques used in this debate.

What exactly is meant by "most people?"

If you mean it to include everyone who enters this debate, whether sufficiently informed or not, then you may well be correct. Indeed, you probably are.

But if you mean those people who are by reason of such things as education and professional background more likely to accurately understand and represent the details, then no, you are wrong. The number of ID scientists is nearly nil in relation to the number of non-ID scientists throughout the world. So, that group of "most people" knows better and stands as rebuttal to your "most people" claim.

Now that may come off as arrogant, but I cannot help it. I meant it when I said that I have no business telling some of you what the law says. And you, in turn, have no business telling me what Darwin purports on evolution, expecially if by your contribution, you demonstrate a lack of understanding.

And, fwiw, I'm a believing, practicing Christian biochemist, able to accept the role of God in the creation of this universe and this world and even life on this planet. Darwin and evolution do NOT refute the existence of God. ID is not a scientific theory.

Nash, I guess your real problem is with the apparent lack of competence in the science education that gives credence to the views of "most people."

You don't have to accept my experience as normative for American science education. But my story fits the experience of the majority (~80%) of my friends and family. Judging by the number of people on both sides who claim that "Darwinism" or "evolution" does away with the "need" for God, it seems like a relatively common experience. My story may represent the teaching of inaccurate or imprecise information, but it is far from "BS."

The modern political fight over "evolution" in the public schools is in part fueled by science educators on all levels standing up in their classrooms and proclaiming to students that "science has removed the need for God" or that "in Science, God does not exist" (my own personal non-bs examples). These cases may well be infrequent and extreme, but they largely go unchallenged by "real biologists" when local religious folks get all in an uproar about it.

When I meet people like you [my best friend is an evolutionist ;) ], they are quick to heap scorn on ID proponents for not understanding "science," but have no condemnation for those who profess to teach "science" while making unscientific ultimate truth claims in class.

Why, if my science teacher is wrong and Dembski et.al. are wrong, are either allowed to teach in my class? Or more to the point here - why is my biology teacher allowed to preach about God, but no corrective to be offered?

Blandus Rex wrote:

The modern political fight over "evolution" in the public schools is in part fueled by science educators on all levels standing up in their classrooms and proclaiming to students that "science has removed the need for God" or that "in Science, God does not exist" (my own personal non-bs examples). These cases may well be infrequent and extreme, but they largely go unchallenged by "real biologists" when local religious folks get all in an uproar about it.

I've never heard of any public school science teacher saying any such thing. At the college level, perhaps. At the secondary level? If a high school science teacher said such a thing, they should be fired immediately. Do you have any actual documented examples of this happening and "real biologists" not saying anything about it? I'd love to see them. It's perfectly fine at the college level, but absolutely forbidden below that.

If you want to talk about the origin of life on the planet and about ID in relation to that, be my guest. But leave Darwin and evolution out of it.

Nash, let's not quibble about semantics. I think it's clear that when Josh wrote "the belief that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution cannot completely explain the origin of life," he meant the entire process by which we ended up with millions of plant, animal, and other species on this planet.

I doubt you can find one person who, when presented with the disclaimer that evolution cannot explain how the first living cell came to be, would drop his objection to Darwinism. So your objection, while technically meaningful, is practically pointless.

"I doubt you can find one person who, when presented with the disclaimer that evolution cannot explain how the first living cell came to be, would drop his objection to Darwinism."

That may be true, but it is my assumption that this may actually be what most Christians who do not object to evolution actually do believe, so it's hardly a quibble. Plenty of Christians believe in the scientific validity of evolution to account for the diversity of species, but it is my assumption that they believe that God created the first life form and/or created humans.

Unfortunately the ID supporters also argue that the improbability of life arising 'randomly' from chemical components, as they have calculated it at least, as a point refuting evolution, when all they've really done is demonstrate that they don't even know what they're criticizing.

Eric wrote:

I doubt you can find one person who, when presented with the disclaimer that evolution cannot explain how the first living cell came to be, would drop his objection to Darwinism. So your objection, while technically meaningful, is practically pointless.

I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me what "Darwinism" means. It can't be synonymous with "evolutionary theory" because so many people say "I accept evolution, but not Darwinism". But no one ever says what "Darwinism" is, distinct from evolution. I don't think such real distinctions are pointless, however, and I certainly don't think their pointlessness depends upon whether the average person understands that distinction. Theories are discrete explanations. They explain specific and particular things. The theory of evolution is actually a collection of theories and hypotheses that explain biodiversity, not the origin of life.

Because evolution requires replication, the origin of the first replicating life form, while a fascinating subject that science will no doubt provide better explanations for as research continues, cannot be a part of that explanation. It's a related subject, of course, but it has to have an explanation separate from the explanation for the subsequent development of life for the simple reason that it was not itself a product of replication and selection, which is the key explanatory mechanism of evolution. Whatever explanation there ultimately is for the origin of life on earth, it will be a distinct theory from evolution for the obvious reasons stated above. This is not merely a technical distinction, it's a very important one. And the fact that those who don't understand either subject confuse the two doesn't change that importance a bit.

Ed - Students didn't sue their teachers as much when I was in school. Besides, at the time I was a raging Christian-hating atheist. I cheered my teacher and made the religious kids feel stupid.

It would be interesting to do some kind of poll: "Did you learn in school that Darwinism/evolution proved that life was not created by God?"

I assume (with all of the dangers therein) that my experience was, if not normative, widely shared (in some respect) by many based on the similarity in popular-level perceptions of the situation.

Assertions like those of Nash, that evolutionary theory does not contain origin of life speculations, are simply foreign to me - and seem to be to many others as well (including lots of smart folks). The idea that science is so narrowly defined as to exclude the thoughts of men like Dembski are part and parcel of the most virulent anti-Christians I have personally known - who rejected them purely on anti-religious grounds. I have lived broadly enough to realize that lots of very nice people (even other Christians like Nash) disagree with Dembski using other arguments. But again, the rhetoric of the "anti-evolution" populists suggests that they may have had similar experiences in sufficient numbers to now fuel a controversy.

I can appreciate Nash's point about anecdotes, but I think he too easily dismisses their power (especially when personal experiences lead to rationally held beliefs) for shaping the debate. Simply screaming, "ID is not Science!" will not convince people like me that ID is not true, or could not possibly be true, or is not a proper avenue of scientific inquiry.

Perhaps my story is a sad isolated example. Pity me and move on. Or - it may be that my story is more common than we think and real scientists like Nash misunderstand the situation.

Perhaps we try this- Of the educated readers of this post, how many of you were taught one of the following in school (secondary or lower):

a) "Life spontaneously originated from inorganic matter."
b) "Darwinism meant that there was now no more need for God."
c) "Darwin showed how all life originated from a single inorganic source."
d) "Evolution is the theory that all life spontaneously originated."
e) anything like either of my examples cited above

I read ITA a lot, but don't often comment. Thanks for the respectful reception.

I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me what "Darwinism" means. It can't be synonymous with "evolutionary theory" because so many people say "I accept evolution, but not Darwinism".

I've never heard anyone say that, but when I refer to "Darwinism," I am talking about the theory that claims the entire diversity of life on earth came from a single-cell life form by entirely natural processes. This might also be called "materialistic macroevolution," I think.

This is distinct, of course, from microevolution (changes within a species), or theistic evolution (God guided evolution as part of His creative process).

As an extra bonus to confuse the issue, abiogenesis is sometimes referred to as chemical evolution.

Eric wrote:

I've never heard anyone say that, but when I refer to "Darwinism," I am talking about the theory that claims the entire diversity of life on earth came from a single-cell life form by entirely natural processes. This might also be called "materialistic macroevolution," I think.

Then you use it to mean nothing more than "the theory of evolution". What you just wrote IS the theory of evolution, the theory of common descent.
What I don't understand is why this theory is continually singled out for pointing out the materialistic aspects of it. Every scientific theory is based solely on "materialistic" or "naturalistic" explanations. There are non-scientific alternative explanations for virtually every scientific theory. We could as easily contrast the germ theory of disease with the religious explanation that sickness and disease is sent by God as punishment for our sins, or with the Christian Science position that all illness is a result of negative thoughts. But no one ever bothers to point out that the germ theory of disease is "materialistic". For that matter, no one ever bothers to point out that the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity are "materialistic", yet they are materialistic in precisely the same way that every other scientific theory is materialistic. So why does it add anything new to attach that label to evolution?

This is distinct, of course, from microevolution (changes within a species), or theistic evolution (God guided evolution as part of His creative process).

I'm not sure that's true. Theistic evolution can mean many things. Some would say that life did evolve on Earth by purely natural processes, but then at the end God intervened to place a soul in man. Others, like Howard Van Till, would say that "theistic" doesn't add anything to "evolution" at all, that it merely means that they are both a theist and an evolutionist. Howard does not believe that God intervened to insure a given outcome, only that he created the universe with the capacity for life to evolve toward an end and did such a good job of it that, lo and behold, it did. Ken Miller would take a slightly different position, that life evolved purely by natural means and not toward a particular end, and that contingent nature of evolution was necessary in order to establish free will. So the term can mean many things, not all of them distinct from what you call "materialistic macroevolution."

And it certainly isn't distinct from microevolution. No one but the abysmally ignorant still take the position that there is some barrier that stops evolution at the species level. Even the staunchest young earth creationists no longer take that position because speciation has been observed. They move that barrier to the vague level of "created kinds" and say that evolution, including speciation, can and does take place within the originally created kinds, but no further. Indeed, the young earthers not only accept speciation, they must have it in order to explain how so few species on the ark 4500 years ago turned into the millions of species we see around us today. In fact, they have to posit speciation at staggering, astronomical rates to shore up the Noah's Ark story (a million species of beetles coming from just two on the ark in only 4500 years, for example).

As an extra bonus to confuse the issue, abiogenesis is sometimes referred to as chemical evolution.

And theories of cosmology are often referred to as "cosmological" or "stellar" evolution. Educated people know that these are entirely separate theories explaining entirely different things with entirely different mechanisms. Only the ignorant would confuse biological evolution with cosmological evolution and not recognize the incredibly obvious differences between them. Stars do not reproduce or leave offspring. The fact that the same word is used is irrelevant. They are as distinct from each other as the meanings of the word "bat" are when used in biology and in baseball.

Blandus:

I was taught none of those things, and I don't know anyone else who was either. I deal with school boards and science teachers routinely in my work in this area and I have never encountered a teacher who told their students that evolution suggests there is no God. If I ever do encounter one, I will happily suggest that they be removed from teaching biology classes, just as I do with those who teach creationism in science classes (and those people I come across all the time).

I am far more likely to believe that your story is either exaggerated or rare. Just as there are groups like mine who get reports of teachers using creationist materials in science classes, there are a huge number of groups to whom situations like this would be reported in a heartbeat. In this day and age, with a thousand different Christian legal groups just begging for a chance to sue the schools for every possible slight of Christianity, if this was going on we'd know about it. The ADF, the Christian Legal Society, the ACLJ, the Rutherford Institute, the Thomas More Law Center, Liberty Legal or any number of others would fall all over themselves getting to the courthouse to file suit if a teacher was reported to have done so. They're so keen on it that they have often invented absurd cases to file such suits (the Cupertino lawsuit is a textbook example). It just doesn't make sense that this is going on all over the place and it hasn't hit the media or the courts. If there were even 2 or 3 verified instances of this going on, Alan Sears and Matt Staver would be calling press conferences and declaring it everything but a communist conspiracy. But if they ever do find such an example of a teacher using evolution to argue for atheism in a secondary school classroom, I will gladly join them in demanding that the teacher be punished for doing so.

Question - should cosmological natural selection be taught? Cosmological natural selection (hereafter CNS) is an attempt to explain the apparent serendipity of all the constants of nature in our universe. Tweak any one (especially the initial curvature of the universe) very much, and life of any knid cannot exist.

CNS, propounded mainly by Lee Smolin, says that there is a "natural selection" type process which governs the evolution of fundamental constants of nature which happen to yield the constants we measure today.

The problem with his theory is that it is entirely untestable, and seems to be an atheist's attempt to explain the nature of existence in a way that conforms to the atheist worldview.

So, would it be equally wrong (as teaching ID) to teach CNS in a public school? Granted it is a moot point since this material is probably too tough for a high school astronomy class. More info on the theory at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes

Jacob wrote:

Question - should cosmological natural selection be taught? Cosmological natural selection (hereafter CNS) is an attempt to explain the apparent serendipity of all the constants of nature in our universe. Tweak any one (especially the initial curvature of the universe) very much, and life of any knid cannot exist.

CNS, propounded mainly by Lee Smolin, says that there is a "natural selection" type process which governs the evolution of fundamental constants of nature which happen to yield the constants we measure today.

It's neither testable nor falsifiable, and therefore has contributed nothing to our understanding of the world. It spawns no fruitful research and is non-existent in the scientific literature. No, it should not be taught in science classrooms.

Ed,

Indeed it isn't taught in science classrooms (at least not in my astrophysics class). However, the weak anthropic principle (that there is an infinity of universes with various constants of nature, some of which can produce life) is sometimes taught. In my opinion, it more or less can be categorized the same way as cosmological natural selection. The weak anthropic principle is usually cited only to say that science doesn't prove God, and physicists aren't very enthusiastic about it. That is why Smolin came up with CNS.

Jacob

Wow, it's hard to decide whether and where to wade back in. There's a lot of mischaracterization going on here and even more of the illogical but commonly used guilt by assumed but unproven association.

But I'll respond to this first:

Nash, I guess your real problem is with the apparent lack of competence in the science education that gives credence to the views of "most people."

To a certain degree yes, but the more proximate complaint is over the sheer stubborness without merit of people such as you and Eric when you make the erroneous conflation I have pointed out and then insist on continuing in the error, feeling emboldened to do so by claiming that other people's ignorance gives you the standing to continue to be wrong.

You don't have to accept my experience as normative for American science education. But my story fits the experience of the majority (~80%) of my friends and family. Judging by the number of people on both sides who claim that "Darwinism" or "evolution" does away with the "need" for God, it seems like a relatively common experience.

A predicament: what do you do if an "experience" is common, but also based on incorrect information? Do you shrug your shoulders and give in, all the while continuing to posit additional thoughts on "science"?

I suggest that this is a classic "urban legend," unusual only in that it is limited to the scientific domain. I also suggest that when urban legends are shown to be legends not based in truth, people who actually *care* about a debate quit using them and quit defending others' use of them.

My story may represent the teaching of inaccurate or imprecise information, but it is far from "BS."

Let's say that each of us overstated our case--I shouldn't have called your claim "BS" (I apologize for that)--and you are over-the-top in saying

In all fairness, every biology teacher and biology textbook I had in Jr.High, high school and college taught these as one and inescapably the same.

That is outrageous. I'd have no reason to disagree with this if you hadn't thrown "textbook" in there. Unless you are talking about texts published by Grace Brethren or for Robert Jones Univ., there are no textbooks I am aware of that make such a fallacious equation. I'll chalk it up to hyperbole on your part, while granting that I have no cause to deny the experiences you, your family and your friends believe you have encountered. I will also note that in a number of entry-level texts I have glanced at today in support of my claim, the ideas of heritability, speciation mechanisms and prebiosis tend to occur in the *same* chapter, but in none of these are they in any way considered the same. I'd note also that in none of these do they add that these theories invalidate the existence of God.

But, and it's not really part of our discussion, I want to draw your attention to one particularly tired rhetorical device you repeatedly insist on using, as for example in:

When I meet people like you [my best friend is an evolutionist ;) ], they are quick to heap scorn on ID proponents for not understanding "science," but have no condemnation for those who profess to teach "science" while making unscientific ultimate truth claims in class.

I'm sorry, but it's not valid for you to insist by implication (people like [me]) that in order to support my argument, I am also required to condemn or explain the arguments or methods of any other parties (those who profess to teach "science" while making unscientific ultimate truth claims in class) that you artificially draw into the debate.

You chose to engage ME in debate. Discuss this with me and take on MY comments. Do not continue to attribute motives or arguments to me that I have not expressed. This device is so tired that I have decided to call foul every time someone throws it up at me. It adds no weight whatsoever to the claims you make in answer to me.

And thanks for engaging me at all.

Eric

I doubt you can find one person who, when presented with the disclaimer that evolution cannot explain how the first living cell came to be, would drop his objection to Darwinism.

I have no desire to deny this. There appear to be examples of your assertion in this thread.

So your objection, while technically meaningful, is practically pointless.

That's what's so funny about this. As Ed said so well:

This is not merely a technical distinction, it's a very important one. And the fact that those who don't understand either subject confuse the two doesn't change that importance a bit.

You insist that you be permitted to use terms and scientific arguments incorrectly. By doing so, you insist on setting the clock back to the original erroneous proposition that ID charges that Darwin/evolution fails to adequately explain the origin of life.

By the way, in answer to your poll:

Perhaps we try this- Of the educated readers of this post, how many of you were taught one of the following in school (secondary or lower):

a) "Life spontaneously originated from inorganic matter."
b) "Darwinism meant that there was now no more need for God."
c) "Darwin showed how all life originated from a single inorganic source."
d) "Evolution is the theory that all life spontaneously originated."
e) anything like either of my examples cited above

chalk me up for none-of-the-above. Not even close.

Even in high school, my science teachers were all PhD's (small college town and all that), and not one would be caught dead advocating any of your choices as "truth." "a" was discussed, but not taught as demonstrable or supportable--indeed, it was held up as an example of The Scientific Method (I'm smirkng about that) at work, because, lo, to the extent it had been thus far tested, it had tested negative (conditions too extreme, not reproducible, not germane). Perhaps the tests so far were the wrong tests, perhaps not. So far, Campbell's soup continues to taste better than Primordial soup.

"Philosophy and science have not always been friendly toward the idea of God, the reason being that they are dedicated to the task of accounting for things are impantient with anything that refuses to give an account of itself. The philosopher and the scientist will admit that there is much that they do not know; but that is quite another thing from admitting that there is something which they can never know, which indeed they have no technique for discovering. To admit that there is One who lies beyond us, who exists outside of all categories, who will not be dismissed with a name, who will not appear before the bar of our reason, nor submit to our curious inquiries: this requires a great deal of humility, more than most of us possess, so we save face by thinking God down to our level, or at least to where we can manage Him." -AW Tozer

I see no reason not to agree with the claim that, to the extent that science educators are being unclear about what is or is not included in evolutionary biology, it's a Bad Thing; and I'd sure be gung-ho about souping up both our curricular and credentialing standards in science ed. Nonetheless, given the vast amount of pure balderdash put forward by the anti-evolution crowd, I would hypothesize that a fair amount of perceived confusion on the part of the teacher, is more a matter of just mediocre (but accurate) teaching being unable to overpower the vigorous (but utterly wrong) message from the nutcases.

As for no-ID-without-a-designer: as has been argued for repeatedly on threads here, a theory can be scientifically explanatory only if it can make novel predictions. Without a theory of the designer, ID can make no predictions whatsoever. (After all, one 'design' hypothesis is that the designer aimed to make the world just like it would look if the theory of evolution were true.) If ID is eternally unable to say whether it's a more Yahweh-type designer, or a more insane-alien type, then it's just condemned to eternal vacuity.

Here's one thing that bothers me (and many others): the attempts to portray ID as more Christian-friendly than real biology. But I don't see it. All of real biology is completely consistent with all not-ultra-fundamentalist forms of Christian belief. But only a very tiny subset of ID is! All the forms where the design is something un-Yahwehish, after all, are in direct conflict with pretty much any form of Christianity more full-blooded than Unitarianism. If ID is really so agnostic about the designer, than Christians should generally loathe it.

Matthew, what is the purpose of the Tozer quote? His proposition is both only partially relevant and thus also incorrect:

The philosopher and the scientist will admit that there is much that they do not know; but that is quite another thing from admitting that there is something which they can never know, which indeed they have no technique for discovering.

We were speaking about scientists, not philosophers, so Tozer's inclusion of scientists is the only part relevant to this discussion. And your quoting of him is not to the point. Scientists, almost by definition, readily admit there is much which they can never know, and this generally falls in the area of religion.

But if I came across as arrogant earlier, one cannot surpass this for arrogance:

To admit that there is One who lies beyond us, who exists outside of all categories, who will not be dismissed with a name, who will not appear before the bar of our reason, nor submit to our curious inquiries: this requires a great deal of humility, more than most of us possess...

The Select with sufficient humility to say there is much we can never know exclude all scientists, include Tozer and include....you, Matthew?

Nash, my only reason to venture in here was to suggest that there may be legitimate cultural reasons why something like the "Dover statement" is reasonable. What is or is not technically "science" is almost beside the point if no agreed upon definition is consistently used by the educators who claim to know what it is. My point was that there are clearly other factors involved and all are not necessarily morally bad, unenlightened, or anti-intellectual (terms common to the debate).

However, you and Ed have made me think that my own experiences may not be as portable as I thought. I have much to consider, which is why I participate on these things. Thanks for the exchange.

Nash wrote:

Wow, it's hard to decide whether and where to wade back in. There's a lot of mischaracterization going on here

I agree, and you're part of the problem when you make a statement like this:

the more proximate complaint is over the sheer stubborness without merit of people such as you and Eric when you make the erroneous conflation I have pointed out and then insist on continuing in the error

I have made no such conflation, sir, nor continued in any error, and you owe me an apology. I have made it clear that I understand that Darwin did not attempt to explain how the first living cell came to be. You decided to criticize Josh for using the term "origin of life" in its general usage--how all the living things on this planet came into existence. As much as it may annoy you, that is how the term is used in the popular (non-scientific) press.

There is no intent to confuse the issue. As you acknowledge, most people who don't believe in evolution aren't thinking of how you get from nonliving chemicals to a living cell; they're thinking of how you get from a single cell to a human being. And even for the folks who think Darwin's theory tries to explain how you get from a primordial soup to man, they probably don't realize that getting the first cell from the soup is a bigger problem, scientifically, than getting to a man from the first cell. Your accusation that ID-ers intentionally conflate these issues as a tactic is without merit.

Do not continue to attribute motives or arguments to me that I have not expressed. This device is so tired that I have decided to call foul every time someone throws it up at me. It adds no weight whatsoever to the claims you make in answer to me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Ed wrote:

What you just wrote IS the theory of evolution, the theory of common descent.

The problem, however, is that if I were to tell someone I don't believe in evolution, they might well respond with examples about drug resistance in bacteria, and other intra-species examples. Having a consistent definition of terms seems to be an endemic problem in discussing evolution.

What I don't understand is why this theory is continually singled out for pointing out the materialistic aspects of it.

Speaking for myself, I don't use the word "materialistic" as a pejorative. I merely use it to distinguish wholly naturalistic theories of evolution from theories that involve or allow some aspects of supernatural intervention.

Eric,

No, you haven't made the conflation, you merely insist that the conflation is immaterial.

I'd forgotten, but now remember from previous encounters, that you are infallible.

examples about drug resistance in bacteria, and other intra-species examples.

Plasmid transferrence of, e.g., beta-lactamase genes, put the lie to drug resistance in bacteria being specifically intra-species.

Eric wrote:

The problem, however, is that if I were to tell someone I don't believe in evolution, they might well respond with examples about drug resistance in bacteria, and other intra-species examples. Having a consistent definition of terms seems to be an endemic problem in discussing evolution.

I agree that multiple definitions used in casual conversation is a problem in those casual conversations, but I think that's all the more reason to use terms consistently and not to add duplicate terms. Using "Darwinism" instead of "theory of evolution" or "theory of common descent" doesn't add anything but another term that people define in multiple ways. I'll also agree with you that people on "my side" often use terms in multiple ways as well, not so much the educated ones as the badly educated ones. We often see conversations that go like this:

Person A: I don't believe in evolution.

Person B: How can you not believe in evolution? Evolution is just change over time. No one could possibly deny that species change over time.

Both of these people need to define their terms. The first one is objecting not to evolution in its broadest, most uncontroversial sense but is objecting to the theory of common descent (which, as I said, is the theory of evolution). So Person B's response is quite irrelevant to Person A's position. All of which points up the need to use these terms consistently, which is why I objected to the word "Darwinism" as an irrelevant and anachronistic term that is of no use (and I say the same thing to people on "my side" who use it).

It's also important, I think, not to try to draw a line between "intraspecies" and "interspecies" evolution. As I said, no one, not even the staunchest young earth, thinks that evolution happens within a species but stops at the species level. This alleged distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution is just plain fiction and should be dropped. When scientists use those terms, they are only distinguishing between relatively small transitions and relatively large ones in the history of life on earth. The development of a new body plan would be viewed as "macroevolution", while the slight modification of a long existing body plan would be "microevolution".

In that same vein, I would caution you against being fixated on what Darwin may have thought or said, as when you comment to Nash above about whether Darwin sought to explain the origin of life. Darwin has been dead for well over a century and evolutionary theory has long since left him behind. Darwin gave a basic framework for understanding the natural history of life on earth, and that framework remains true today. He made predictions about the nature of the evidence yet to be found that have turned out to be spectacularly accurate. But he didn't even know what a gene was, for heaven's sake. Our knowledge has moved light years beyond Darwin, so what he might have thought or said in most cases is almost entirely irrelevant. I would argue that it would be more accurate to refer to evolution as "Simpsonism" or "Mayrism" than "Darwinism".

Speaking for myself, I don't use the word "materialistic" as a pejorative. I merely use it to distinguish wholly naturalistic theories of evolution from theories that involve or allow some aspects of supernatural intervention.

But you're missing the important point, the reason why I pointed out that only evolution is singled out as "materialistic". Whether it's used as a pejorative or not, ALL scientific theories are materialistic in the exact same sense. Evolution is materialistic or naturalistic in exactly the same way that relativity or, for that matter, plumbing are naturalistic. Not in the sense that they rule out anything non-natural, but in the sense that they do not use non-natural entities to explain the natural world.

And they do this not because of an a priori rejection of the non-natural or supernatural, but because there is no way to test or falsify any non-natural proposition. Can you think of any supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon that has ever helped us understand nature? I can name dozens of supernatural explanations that have been subsequently replaced by natural explanations because scientists didn't settle for "God did it" as an explanation and kept searching for natural mechanisms that could be used to make accurate predictions. Supernatural explanations have never been useful in science, and in fact have always, in every circumstance, been supplanted by natural explanations. All scientific theories are materialistic for two reasons. A) Because they have to be; and B) because history tells us clearly that this method works.

nash,

i just posted the quote because I had been reading these comments, then I read the quote from Tozer in his book and it seemed to be in-topic. Sorry if it was out of place.

This is not apropos, but Ed Brayton wrote:

“No one ever asks for a competing explanation for gravity to be offered, yet gravity is probably less understood than evolution is”

That is utter nonsense; an oft-repeated meaningless statement. Recent test of general relativity are of such precision that it may be the most accurate theory we have. Evolution, on the other hand, has nowhere near the predictive power—it can only wish it did. When I ask, given that we see methane and water on Mars, what will Martian life be like, the best evolution can answer is, “if there is life, then whatever it is will be entirely consistent with evolution.”

Please, keep your comments to the merits of the case. It is embarrassing to read that gravity is less understood than evolution.

David-

My understanding is that we don't even know what gravity is - a particle? A wave function? A force? Of course we can make very accurate predictions with it on a macro level, but our understanding of why it is that way is, as far as I know, quite weak. Physics is not my specialty, however, as it is yours, so I'm certainly open to the fact that I may be wrong about this. I'm only going by what I've read in the past.

Any theory at all, evolution included, is subject to "well, where did that come from?" when examined in its most fundamental form. (which is exactly why it is so much fun to blend discussions of philosophy and science, something that will soon be lost, I fear.) Sure, I can say that gravity is the bending of space near a massive object, and you can say "how does mass do that?" The same is true for evolution. For one very important problem, abiogenesis, evolution simply abdicates, so you are not allowed to ask "well where did life come from?" But even so, we can always drill down to a point we don't know, and in fact we don't even know if we can ever know.

In fewer words, if physics discovers a highly predictive theory of everything, will evolution be "better understood" because we don't know where the theory came from, it just is?

Nash wrote:

No, you haven't made the conflation, you merely insist that the conflation is immaterial.

Actually, I merely pointed out that popular usage of a term in a way that is not as precise as specialists would like is not tantamount to an attempt to decieve.

I'd forgotten, but now remember from previous encounters, that you are infallible.

Certainly not infallible, but I do try to be sure I'm aiming at the right person(s) when I accuse them of something like "stubbornly continuing in an error I've already pointed out." (Hint: when you aim such a thing at more than one person, your chances of being accurate decrease rapidly.)

David-

Honestly, I don't have enough knowledge of physics to dispute you, and I'm familiar enough with the type of hyper-skepticism you mention in other areas to know that what you say may well be accurate. So I will concede your point here and stop making this argument in the future.

But you're missing the important point, the reason why I pointed out that only evolution is singled out as "materialistic". Whether it's used as a pejorative or not, ALL scientific theories are materialistic in the exact same sense.

Yes, I understand your point. (I am, after all, several credits away from a masters degree in chemistry, and find it rather amusing to be lectured on the nature of science by someone who's had several orders of magnitude less formal scientific training than I.) Nevertheless, there is a significant group of people who think evolution happened, but believe the chances of it happening naturally are so slim that it must have been directed by God. This is not the case with germ theory, plate tectonics, or plumbing.

I believe that the relevance of the gravity argument is to aim it at the kinds of "but there's all these unanswered questions!" lines that one sometimes hears from anti-evolution folks. One doesn't have to say that gravity is worse off than evolution. One merely has to say, "look, the existence of some significant unsolved problems does not even come close to being a case to doubt, let alone reject, a theory. There are still significant unanswered questions about gravity, in particular its relationship to quantum physics; yet we do not consider it thereby to be even remotely in trouble as a theory." One can avoid the which-has-more-open-questions issue, and simply note that they are in basically the same ballpark, with regard to that silly argument.

Eric Seymour wrote:

(I am, after all, several credits away from a masters degree in chemistry, and find it rather amusing to be lectured on the nature of science by someone who's had several orders of magnitude less formal scientific training than I.)

Haughty sniff and sneer duly noted and chuckled at. I've never had someone pull an appeal to almost-authority on me before. Does that mean that if someone said the exactly same thing I did, but was fewer credits short of a degree than you are, they'd be more or less correct than I am?

You do not talk to me like that!! I work too hard to deal with this stuff!! I work too hard!! I'm a Division Manager in charge of 49 people!! I drive a Dodge Stratus!!

Ed, it's hardly an appeal to authority when I was agreeing with you, fer crying out loud. And if there was any haughtiness about it, it was only in response to what I perceived as your haughtiness and pedagoguery in waxing eloquent about the nature of science, presumably for my benefit.

Now, it's possible you wrote those paragraphs for the benefit of other readers following the conversation, in which case it would have been nice of you to throw in a qualifier such as "as you know..."