It would be a good idea to include it in a discussion of long-refuted ideas in the history of biology, along with such conceptual errors (or outright frauds) as teleological evolution, inheritance of acquired characteristics, and vitalism. I'm only referring, of course, to the long-dead ID of William Paley. Its current zombie-like manifestation is the result of ignorance, or, worse, fanatical self-blindness, and as such doesn't merit inclusion in a discussion of serious ideas in the study of life.

I think "refuted" is too strong a word for Intelligent Design, which cannot even in principle be refuted. That's why it isn't science.

I had no idea I was an "acolyte" of the "fundamentalist zealots" at the NCSE. I always enjoy being told by someone who is religious that I am religious and that's a bad thing. The mind positively boggles at the implications.

Ed,

What are the implications that are boggling your mind?

It is interesting that long refuted ideas in the history of biology seem to lead to the idea that current biology is beyond refutation.

The suggestion that the high profile defenders of evolution absolutely oppose discussion of ID in the science classroom is incorrect, if PZ Myers is any indication of that group. See his recent post here regarding that subject:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/dont_try_to_help_unless_you_know_what_youre_talking_about/
Essentially, he is not calling for a prohibition of the discussion, but rather prevention of ID inclusion in the standards of science education:
"This is about standards. What do we consider important for students to come out of the classroom knowing at the end of their school years? What are the valuable concepts in biology that a well-educated person should understand? It is not about pedagogy."
and
"We are not worried about discussing the subject in the classroom. We are also not trying to legislate that Intelligent Design not be taught; no one is suggesting that teachers should be penalized for mentioning Dembski or Paley or Gish in the classroom."

It can be refuted because it is based on evidence. The fastest growing field in evolutionary biology is the analysis and comparison of genomic sequence data. This data is leading scientists to rearrange some of the phylogenetic trees that were previously based only on morphology and other such factors. For the most part, however, this new data almost entirely confirms theory, much as relativity and quantum mechanics is regularly confirmed by observation. Is quantum mechanics above refutation? No, and neither is evolutionary biology. But while physics lacks a coherent theory to describe both cosmological and subatomic processes, it would seem that terrestrial biology does indeed have its GUT in the form of the modern evolutionary synthesis. One emerging problem to look out for that may ultimately overturn some previous assumptions is that of prion biology. It is becoming clear that prions play a much larger role than previously thought.

What changes are happening in theology these days, DaveS?

By the way, Dave S, the amount of ignorance of modern science betrayed by your comment is staggering. I suggest that you come down from the cabin you live in and go to a library if your hamlet has one and look at some science journals published in the last fifty years. I'm talking about real science journals, not Origins or CRSQ.

I don't know what PZ Myers has to say (he asked me to stay away from his site) but the common chain of logic you will find in the comments on Panda's Thumb is this: ID is religion, and therefore by the 1st amendment it is illegal and cannot taught in a public school classroom. I have seen little to no discussion about a distinction between "discussing" and "teaching." Anytime on PT when I brought up "discussing", it was immediately equated to "teaching". If Myers finds ID discussions acceptable, I'm pleasantly surprised. If he finds ID discussions that involve a science teacher who is favorably disposed toward ID acceptable, I'd be speechless.

The climate is already changing, and this is prior to the School Board's inevitable loss in Dover. I can no longer get into high schools to discuss cosmological ID --in spite of the fact that such discussions were clearly stimulating to students on both sides of the debate --and that what was stimulated was in interest in science. For some, on either science, science was no longer mundane but suddenly relevant.

Standards are an interesting issue. The general theory seems to be that a well thought out, comprehensive national science standard is a good thing. It is not. It will stifle teachers. The best thing to do is give rather broad guidelines and let competent teachers teach as they see fit. The system has always been self-correcting without the need of draconian oversite.

By the way, on my post I struck through the word Science in the National Center for Science Education and replaced it with Evolution. I did this without explanation, because I have explained to my small group of regular readers on several occasions. Had I known I would get linked by a busy site such as ITA, I would have explained yet again: As a physics teacher, I might think that I could get some help with recent developments in physics instruction from a site of an organization called The National Center for Science Education. I would be wrong --the site is not dedicated to science education, unless evolution is the only science.

What changes are happening in theology these days, DaveS?

You might be suprised, Chuck. While the central tenets of Christianity have changed very little over the years, theology is an area of active inquiry. As is mathematics, even though algebra and arithmetic remain the same.

" I would be wrong --the site is not dedicated to science education, unless evolution is the only science." Well, evolution is pretty much the only science in our classrooms under continuous assault by antiscientific forces. So, until the astrologers start getting some of the political clout that the creationists currently have, it's entirely appropriate for them to make protecting evolution education the focus of their mission.

Also, you are simply wrong that they are 'zealots' advocating a 'no mention of ID anywhere!' policy. This is from their site, in an item titled "The Evolution/Creation Continuum", in which the author advocates a classroom strategy of outlining the wide variety of creationist ideologies, noting:

"It is perfectly legal for teachers to describe religious views in a classroom; it is only unconstitutional for teachers to advocate religious ideas in the classroom."

David Heddle wrote:

What are the implications that are boggling your mind?

The implications of being an "acolyte" to the "fundamentalist zealots" at the NCSE. An acolyte is one who assists a priest in the Roman Catholic Church during mass. I'm not sure what sort of mass we're supposed to be having. I've been to the NCSE offices many times and not seen an altar. Perhaps they keep that hidden in a cavern below, where they sacrifice Christian babies during satanic rituals.

True enough, Eric. But philosophical inquiries into the existence and nature of God, being metaphysical, are by definition untestable by looking at the physical world. I objected to DaveS's implication that modern evolutionary biology constitutes a similar set of metaphysical and faith-based postulates. By the way, I do find theology interesting, and religion moving. It's just that when religious people make claims about the physical world that have been disputed by reason and evidence, I must object to those claims.

I do so for the sake of not only out of gratitude to science's gifts to humanity, but for my own fierce hope that what we know as fact through science is compatible with my private, quiet faith.

Interestingly enough, in every case that I know of where the bible and science are/were in conflict, the bible was right. Best example: when scientists (including Einstein) believed in a steady state universe. The bible clearly teaches of a time when the universe was not. This was a definite conflict, and the bible was right.

Now of the even more numerous times when Christians and scientists disagree (as opposed to the bible and science), according to my scorecard, scientists are more often correct. Such examples include Galileo, the young earth, and most strangely the homosexual debate. In all those cases Christians are, by misreading the bible or by wholesale insertion, creating a conflict where none exists.

"in every case that I know of where the bible and science are/were in conflict, the bible was right. "

So all land animals living today are descendents of Noah's Ark?

No, nor was there "hyper evolution" following the flood. There are many accounts of reconciling a localized flood (to where the people and their livestock were, Mesopotamia) with the Genesis account. I can point you to some if you like.

Thanks for the offer, David, but I would point you to the Bible itself. In God's discussion with Noah instructing him to build the ark:

Genesis 6:17 -- "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."

I don't think it could be any clearer that it's talking about more than Mesopotamia. Is that Bible verse 'right'?

Yes, the verse is right, but your conclusion is not. It needs to be viewed with a self-consistent exegesis and with a view toward how the Hebrew has been translated into English--and alternative (but realistic) ways it might have been translated. This is similar to the "yom" controversy. It has been translated into "day", but it needn't have been.

'Yes, the verse is right, but your conclusion is not.'

Translation problems? So how do you know that there weren't translation problems with your statement that the Bible says there was a time when the universe was steady-state? 'Everything on earth will perish' and 'destroy all life' are pretty clear statements. Of course you can redefine 'heavens' and 'earth' and 'every creature' to be consistent with reality, but it's a pretty tortured interpretation.

That's why I said "reasonable" and that is why I offered to refer you to scholarly reports. It's not me making this stuff up.

It's not as trivial as willy nilly stating that this might have meant that.

Of course, such interpretations might be wrong--they be the incorrect way to reconcile the bible ans science. But as long as plausible exegesis exists that does allow for consistency (such as yom = "age" or "era") then there is no reason to avoid them just because they do not conform to a literal reading of the English translation.

You should look at studies that show how the Hebrew didn't need to mean all the animals in the earth but (without torture) could have been rendered more along the lines of all the animals in Noah's world. Of course, if you are happy to just keep reiterating the english translation, go for it.

How can I be sure the translation is correct at other places? I can't. That's not the point. The point is, the bible and science have to be consistent, since they both come from God. So I'm happy as long as I can see a plausible way to maintaing that consistency.

By the way, I never said the bible claimed a steady state universe--just the opposite.

Dave,

No tortured interpretation is necessary. Read this page, for instance. Specifically, this paragraph:

As for the reference, "under the entire heavens," such expressions must always be understood in their context. What would constitute under the entire heavens for the people of Noah's time? The extent of their view from the entire region in which they existed or operated. Perhaps a verse from the New Testament will clarify my point. In Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul declares that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being "reported all over the world." Since "all over the world" to the Romans meant the entire Roman Empire (and not the entire globe), we would not interpret Paul's words as an indication that the Eskimos and Incas were familiar at that time with the activities of the church at Rome.

David, I'm intrigued by this statement of yours:

Such examples include Galileo, the young earth, and most strangely the homosexual debate. In all those cases Christians are ... creating a conflict where none exists.

Do I read you correctly that you're arguing the Bible does not describe homosexuality as sinful? I don't wish to drag this thread off-topic, but perhaps you could link to a post on your site where you explain this idea and reconcile it with Romans 1.

I am not arguing that homosexuality is not a sin. I am making a point about Christians who dispute the science that indicates at least some people are born gay. We have all heard Christians argue: "you weren't born that way, you chose to be gay." This goes against science and certainly bad Christianity. Both sides in the debate make the following assumption: God wouldn't punish you for how you were born. But orthodox Christianity has always taught just the opposite: God will most certainly punish us for how we are born (original sin.) Which is why we need a savior. Agustine and Pelagius argued this point. Pelagius would have agreed with modern Christians who say: "you weren't born that way, you chose to be that way." Pelagianism has been declared, repeatedly, a heresy.

In summary, in this case Christians are willing commit a heresy (Pelagianism) just to argue with science. It is so weird because, if you think homosexuality is a sin, then you should be quite willing to accept that homosexuals are born that way, since we are all born sinners.

Ah, I see. Understood. And agreed.

Whoops, sorry about that David; I did reverse what you said about steady-state.

As far as whether the flood was global, here's a link that to me argues pretty effectively that the flood was not local:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp

It brings up some very good points, such as why if the flood was local that they needed to bring birds, and why an ark was even necessary in the first place if the flood was local. A local flood interpretation to me also seriously diminishes the entire Noah story; definitely not as awe-inspiring. Regardless, I do understand that you're satisfied that you can reconcile the 'truth' of your interpretations of the bible with what science and reason tells us.

Chuck,

I didn't mean to drive you batty with my comment.

However, I was trying to make a point about inductive knowledge (as I think we would agree, biology is).

A man makes a claim that there are no green swans in the universe. Generations of serious swan-searchers find no green swans. At the present, it would be mockable to think that even one could exist. In fact, it is such a strong belief, that many base their world-views on this certain fact.

I am a student of the hard sciences. Yet, I know the limit of such thinking. Science is merely a model to explain what we see before us, not a source of ultimate truth. Such thinking defines our times.

Well said, Dave. Thanks for clearing it up. I thought, at first, that it was a cheap "Evolution is a religion too" comment, but I see that it was more.