ID and Evolution

[Dons]

Actually, the Kitzmiller decision is only on the district level and, strictly speaking, has no applicability outside that district. However, Judge Jones's verdict is so magisterial that it's likely to have broad influence, akin to some of the other creation-evolution court decisions that never made it to the Supreme Court but have nevertheless held up.

What Kitzmiller v. Dover does to all forthcoming ID cases is sets precedence or Stare Decisis (to stand by things decided). In USA law, and judicial rulings, this is a corner stone procedure and better not be diverted without over bearing reasons and evidence, or there would be room for appeals to a higher court.

This is a widely held legal doctrine under which it is necessary for a court to follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation… see Blacks Law Dictionary, 2001.

Stare Dicisis holds vitally true to all US Supreme Court rulings, US District Courts, and State Supreme Court rulings, and in general our entire legal system.

Kitzmiller v. Dover is a major case specially directed at the ID argument, if any other State or Federal Courts are confronted with the same arguments, they are all but compelled to rule accordingly, but not guaranteed.


More than likely if a ID/creationism case comes up again, (any state or federal district) one party would ask for a “summery judgment” against ID/creationism intruding into a public school, and more than likely relief granted based on Stare Dicisis.


A summary judgment is granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of material fact and upon which the movant (the person making the request) is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. This procedural device allows the speedy disposition of a controversy without the need for a trail. See Oregon Rules Of Court and Federal Rules Of The Court, 2005. Summery Judgments have been with us since the founding of the USA.


Beyond this, and perhaps even more important, it is required, as good faith to the court, that if there is a controversy that a “letter of demand” be sent in the hopes of not going to court and solve the issue(s) reasonably. In that letter, if properly constructed would be legal memo, showing the legal weakness of the offending party, any evidence, and stating on what legal grounds you intend to make the claim. Most often, controversies are settled without going to court. The unreasonable party become reasonable and acts accordingly.


Kitzmiller v. Dover and many more as Edwards v. Aguillard, settled any ID/ creationism issues from being in any public schools, private schools, and home schooling. Briefly put, the courts writs are indisputable, valid science will be taught as an academic standard and NOT religious doctrine in science class.


Of course, there are gray areas, micro-management is not necessarily prudent, but if any school board (or teacher) gets egregiously out of line, they can be reigned in to comply with the laws, based on Stare Dicisis.


Don

[Professor Illwill]

Perhaps it is time for you to define ID and CS.

Be specific, so we can avoid misunderstandings.

This isn't easy. The "courts" have "defined" ID = CS = "religion" = anything that disputes or calls into question the "theory of evolution", more or less. I don't follow that crap very closely at all, since it's pretty predictable. They seem to say "secular = atheist = the law" on a fairly consistent basis.

I'm not so familiar with ID. CS I know more about. CS concludes from the available evidence that the earth (and sometimes the cosmos) is fairly "young" compared to other schools. >20,000 years and frequently >10,000. Different lines of inquiry yield different results. I understand ID is more attuned to "theistic evolution", although not exclusively so. It's a broader concept, and the two are thought by some to be interchangeable. On many topics there is agreement.

CS acknowledges the high probability that historic records are correct, and a worldwide flood did occur. A good part of ID probably don't care about the flood. I can't say how much or which has the majority.

I believe ID grew out of or branched off from CS, but I can't really say. As the organizations are small and few in number, people will "join up" with what's available where they live. One might find a good number of "young earth" people in a given ID group simply due to geographic availability. That group might even be predominantly "young earthers"

People are individuals, and each will have different opinions on different subjects. Nobody is thoroughly knowledgeable and up-to-date on all subjects. Newer or less-involved members of a group may be fairly ignorant in certain fields of science, and this is typically used as an excuse to mock them.

As to religious diversity, it does very much exist on a larger scale; although it often does not on a local scale. I know for a fact there are Moslem and Jewish creationists, although creationism is portrayed as "exclusively Christian".

The superiority of CS/ID, from a scientific standpoint, lies in the willingness to present all data and all interpretations/conclusions. Contrary to the myth that this "leads to confusion", I maintain that it leads to better understanding. Censorship and cover-up don't impress me.

The weakness of CS/ID lies in the lack of numbers and resources. While evolutionism has funds to blanket the globe with researchers, CS/ID can't do it. They further "waste" time by giving both evolutionary and CS/ID interpretations of their discoveries, while evolutionists only need to come up with one.

Probably the essential element of CS/ID is the willingness to ask "is there a valid scientific interpretation of this that is consistent with history?" They will give other interpretations, but that's what they look for. As used here, history would be the individual's best opinion of history. It will vary from individual to individual. Now if this interpretation is influenced by the individual's religion, so what? 'Is it a valid scientific interpretation?" - That's the real question. If not, discard it and use another interpretation.

I good concise definition of CS/ID is probably in that paragraph above. I don't think I'm finished with it yet, but that's a start. I should point out that it is silly to expect the CS/ID layman to be aware of all things and always behave as a professional scientist would. Likewise if you ask him why he believes something, there's nothing at all wrong with "because the Bible says so". That's an honest response, and it's likely to be the primary reason. He may or may not have others. He may simply assign higher weight to an history book in matters of history.

CS and ID are schools or scientific inquiry which... I suppose I should start with something like that.

As to the quality of present-day CS work, I want this book!
http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entrop...ews/1599190028

Sanford's "credentials" can match or exceed... Do I even want to go into that? No. As I understand it, the book looks not at "how do we get a given lifeform?"; rather "how long can a given lifeform continue?" A problem that's been known about for some time, but not thoroughly looked into. Until now.

That took too long. I think I have time for one more.

[Ken G]

The superiority of CS/ID, from a scientific standpoint, lies in the willingness to present all data and all interpretations/conclusions. Contrary to the myth that this "leads to confusion", I maintain that it leads to better understanding.

I'm glad you are starting to actually look critically at the scientific methodology questions, as those are the key to everything here. But as for the above statement, my reaction is, this is all you got, the reason CS/ID is good science is simply because it is openminded? Belief in UFOs and ghosts are openminded too, and demonstrate a "willingness to present all data". Shall we throw study of the "scientific controversy" surrounding UFOs and ghosts into the K-12 science curriculum too? Why not, given your argument? Note that I'm not necessarily against the idea, but like ID, it would only be in there to show what a house of cards those pseudoscientific beliefs are, to demonstrate good science by contrast. Again, I don't think this is what you'd have in mind.

The weakness of CS/ID lies in the lack of numbers and resources. While evolutionism has funds to blanket the globe with researchers, CS/ID can't do it.

Darwin was one man. Galileo was one man. The idea that ID would make sense if more people studied it is a laughable scientific argument.

Probably the essential element of CS/ID is the willingness to ask "is there a valid scientific interpretation of this that is consistent with history?"

"History"? Can we have a little truth in advertising here please-- you mean the bibilical account, do you not? Why wouldn't you just say it, afraid it would expose the true underpinnings of ID?

As used here, history would be the individual's best opinion of history.

You could not possibly have hit the nail more squarely on the head with that comment, and it completely exposes the nonscientific character of ID. You are actually suggesting that a whole branch of science could have as its foundations the subjectively different "opinions" that different people have about history! Isn't that putting the cart before the horse, suggesting that science be designed from the ground up to validate a pre-existing opinion? And what happens to the key requirement of objectivity in science?

I can summarize my entire position on this by noting that to me, the central and most inviolate rule of good science is that one must not know the answer in advance of the inquiry. That is precisely the test that CS/ID fails most completely. I realize that you think evolution is also in that camp, but evolution was motivated by the need to explain observations, it was never motivated by pre-existing beliefs and still isn't. Any scientist that can find evidence for an alternative to evolution that stands the tests of science will be among the most famous scientists of the 21st century, so I don't know why ID types tend to "imagine" that evolution is also a pre-existing belief that people wish to defend the way CS/ID obviously is.

[Professor Illwill]

Well, let's start with this. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html You seem to think that either scientists haven't thought of this or that they're actively pretending it isn't there. Which is it?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html Same question as above.

Actually, in order to be "clearly history," there must be evidence that what happened in the work happened in actuality, and there isn't for most of the Bible. But let that pass; I've got a more relevant point. You say that study of what happened in the past isn't scientific. This, for one, means that all of astronomy, pretty much, isn't scientific; likewise geology. But more importantly, it assumes that evolution isn't still happening, which is flat wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html We watch evolution happen. That much is fact. The finer details are still being analyzed. It's an important difference. As more fossil species are found, we learn more about our ancestry. You claim evolution is bankrupt, but the evidence for it increases all the time.

What on Earth are you talking about? I'm really not clear. What fight against the establishment did they have? Are you referring to the fact that they had to fund their initial experiments themselves? If you are, that had nothing to do with any idea that "the establishment" was trying to keep them down. It had to do with practical things like the fact that, in 1903, no one really got scientific funding from the US government, and certainly not random Midwestern bicycle repairmen.

Actually, what we'd like is some evidence that this particular judge was crooked. Or, if this is the point you seem to be making, that all judges are crooked, which is certainly a bold statement that I really, really doubt can be backed up. I'm also curious as to this "knowingly sentecing an innocent man to 20 years." Is that the judge from an ID case, or is it an attempt to poison the profession?

Enough of talkorigins already. I've debated evolution vs. creation in the past and I'm familiar with that nonsense. I know what it is to single-handedly try to debunk all their lies, and I'm not doing that right now.

Last time I checked, they were still promoting recapitulation theory, which was trashed in the 1920's and abandoned by the mainstream as worthless. It not only isn't so, it was based on deception. That's all one needs to know about the integrity of talkorigins.

What I said was that the "secret plan" or whatever was to let kids learn how science properly works and then they could see for themselves how bankrupt evolution is. Do I have to cut & paste from my own posts? For cryin' out loud! It's right there. Do you people know what 'context' means? I agree that the plan is sound, but it wasn't my idea, so stop trying to give me credit for it.

You people don't even believe me when I say that's what the "hidden agenda" was, so what's to argue about?

I'll not be baited into discussing judges, either kind: crooked or make-believe.

Nevermind about the Wright bros. either. I really don't want to disillusion the young and optimistic. Educate a little, maybe.

[Dons]

Doesn't look like I'll be able to get around to all of this tonight.

I'll work by priority, giving weight to the good faith I've noticed from some parties.

I don't intend to get into a heated debate here. There are too many issues, and one could easily divide things up into a dozen threads. I think three is about the minimum if one wants to even give the illusion of organization.

I will not be baited or sidetracked easily. I'm done talking about judges. It should be clear to you by now that their opinion has no value when trying to convince me of anything. As appeals to authority go, it's about as weak as they come.

Now I'll try to get started.

I assume you are a person that feels they cannot live without a god of some kind. I do not have any problem with that. I do not fault you; I do not think you are any less of person than any other. I am sure you are very proficient at life and living, I have read your post and you are reasonable, well balanced, not a danger to yourself or others, you like learning you are courteous and you respond to courtesy.

You feel you want a god of some kind, the ID god fits well with you. ID is a little different spin on a god, you can blend in much of your science skills, and you are free to give ID even a more of a spin to your liking. Chances are you will consolidate your beliefs in the light of opposition, come up with a few more ideas in your behalf and that is OK. The court never said you could not do that, as to quote Kitzmiller v. Dover:

“Nor do we controvert (to argue strongly against something…Don) that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed.”

However, not in the public school science classroom.

I am curious however, why don’t you pick mechanical theory i.e. mechanical science, and plug in your ID theology? Why do you single out evolution that makes NO claim of divine creator one way or the other, that is benign of any god as starting your car.


Don

[AK]

Last time I checked, they were still promoting recapitulation theory, which was trashed in the 1920's and abandoned by the mainstream as worthless. It not only isn't so, it was based on deception. That's all one needs to know about the integrity of talkorigins.

Link?

[Gillianren]

Enough of talkorigins already. I've debated evolution vs. creation in the past and I'm familiar with that nonsense. I know what it is to single-handedly try to debunk all their lies, and I'm not doing that right now.

I'd be happy if you'd accurately and scientifically debunk one.

I'll not be baited into discussing judges, either kind: crooked or make-believe.

"Baited into"? You brought it up! So essentially, you're intending to libel a judge without anything to back it up. Or maybe a whole profession; I'm not clear.

Nevermind about the Wright bros. either. I really don't want to disillusion the young and optimistic. Educate a little, maybe.

I'd like to see you educate, too, but all I've seen from you is veiled innuendo and scientific inaccuracy. Gods help the young if this is the education you intend to give them.

[Dons]

Illwill:

“(the law) seem(s) to say "secular = atheist = the law" on a fairly consistent basis.”


Don:

As in Physics, the answerer is yes and no.


Yes, any judge is free, as any common person, to have any beliefs they enjoy.

NO, we do not allow the god(s) to be in judicial proceedings (other than token).

What is a judge going to say in a murder trial, “GOD TOLD ME, HE DID IT!” That would be a first class comedy for sure. But common at one time.

There is time tested “rules of evidence” and a “chain of evidence” and god(s) are just NOT included. What is the DA going to say, “We can’t find the evidence, but if you pray hard enough God will reveal it to you!” So funny, but YES it has happened in our history.

Here is what is not funny, as was common in the 15 and 16th centry. A man is brought before the Judge and the first thing asked by the Judge, “Are you Catholic or Protestant?” Depending on the district, and the answer, the man was hung the next day, or set free, and that was the end of the trial.

Trust me, you do not want god in our legal system nor in our courts.


If you want morality and ethics, I suggest you study Torts, that exceed by “thousands of light years” anything produced by religious doctrine (gods) as to human behavior one to another for justice. NO god needed.



Don

[Ken G]

What I said was that the "secret plan" or whatever was to let kids learn how science properly works and then they could see for themselves how bankrupt evolution is.

I'm just curious now, do you have a mental explanation for why the scientific community would wish to deceive youngsters into adopting a "bankrupt" view of human origins? I really would like to hear your answer to this, it's the big "huh?" I always run into when I hear views like yours expressed by otherwise rational people. The reaction I get is a little like if I imagine my doctor, after discussing reasonable treatment options for some health issue, then saying "by the way, did I tell you I was once abducted by aliens?"

[Professor Illwill]

I'm glad you are starting to actually look critically at the scientific methodology questions, as those are the key to everything here. But as for the above statement, my reaction is, this is all you got, the reason CS/ID is good science is simply because it is openminded? Belief in UFOs and ghosts are openminded too, and demonstrate a "willingness to present all data". Shall we throw study of the "scientific controversy" surrounding UFOs and ghosts into the K-12 science curriculum too? Why not, given your argument? Note that I'm not necessarily against the idea, but like ID, it would only be in there to show what a house of cards those pseudoscientific beliefs are, to demonstrate good science by contrast. Again, I don't think this is what you'd have in mind.

Well, I never thought of the UFO stuff. I don't much care for it, but I don't see very much there to make a fuss about. And I'd be surprised if somewhere there isn't some pretty good science being done with it. Might be pretty hard to find.

But here's something interesting: there is actually no need to teach origins of any kind in K-12. Genetics, Earth Science, you name it - any type of science. All can be taught very efficiently without ever mentioning ancestry.

So why is it so important to teach evolution? They can't teach up-to-date theory anyhow, and it serves no practical purpose, other than to introduce atheism.

Don't knee-jerk on this. Think about it. Even a zoo veterinarian has no practical use for evolutionary presuppositions. Neither does a microbiologist. If one had to believe evolution to perform these jobs, Creationists actually would be unqualified. But they aren't. Real world results speak for themselves.

In medicine, recap theory has proven quite counterproductive. (The word that it was wrong was a little slow to reach some ears.)

I'm actually liking the idea of some UFO stuff. Not a whole big waste of time, but maybe a few days just to take advantage of kids' interest in them.

Darwin was one man. Galileo was one man. The idea that ID would make sense if more people studied it is a laughable scientific argument.

Ah yes, the Great Man theory of history. Personalities that just can't be stopped. Doesn't make them right. What about Stalin? Now there's a self-made man!

"History"? Can we have a little truth in advertising here please-- you mean the bibilical account, do you not? Why wouldn't you just say it, afraid it would expose the true underpinnings of ID?

That is not what I mean. I would expect a Moslem CS or ID scientist to give his account in accordance with his beliefs. I would hope for more, and I'd be very surprised if he didn't take your belief system into account. What I'm trying to imagine is an evolutionist taking the trouble to actually give correct dates under both his belief system and mine.

Nah - image is just fuzzy.

You could not possibly have hit the nail more squarely on the head with that comment, and it completely exposes the nonscientific character of ID. You are actually suggesting that a whole branch of science could have as its foundations the subjectively different "opinions" that different people have about history! Isn't that putting the cart before the horse, suggesting that science be designed from the ground up to validate a pre-existing opinion? And what happens to the key requirement of objectivity in science?

If objectivity is the key requirement, there will be no scientists. That being said, it is possible (in fact the only honest approach) to present all of one's findings, and clearly distinguish between what is objectively found and what one's personal interpretation is. When a person is knowledgeable about different schools, one can show how one school's interpretation would differ from another. You people do exactly that all the time here, and I think you may be "guilty" yourself of understanding more than one school.

The CS/ID approach is to do this, while the evolutionist approach is to only ever give the preferred interpretation. Furthermore, the predominant method is to claim interpretations and conclusions are firm, if not outright indisputable facts. The press shares responsibility to be sure. Why do we have terms like "absolute dating"?

Speaking of dating, how honest is it to take assumptions that are known to be false run them through a 'scientific procedure' merely to produce results that match what we want/need them to be. All these methods assume the existence of 100% pure xxx at the time it was deposited. The people who conduct them even claim this isn't possible. Oh, and dates that don't match the preconceptions are not reported, "so as to avoid confusion".

Talk about 'people in glass houses'!

Find a fossil at the wrong level? "Intrusive burial". AUTOMATICALLY regardless of what the surrounding strata indicates.

Oh yes indeed! "that science be designed from the ground up to validate a pre-existing opinion?" I like that. I can't recall seeing a better summary of evolutionism. Atheism and Evolution go back hand-in-hand at least to the time of the Greeks. You're hitting the nail pretty squarely yourself.

Javaman (Pithecanthropus). Dreamt up, laughed at, searched for, and found by combining man-skull with ape-jaw. Only 25m apart! Nothing beats good preconceptions.

I'm just guessing, KG, but I think you put a whole lot of stock in science, and just maybe your undervalue history a bit. Something to ponder in your spare time: science < history because science cannot even be known without it. You can't have the results of any experiment until it's done, and once it's done it's part of the past - thus it is history.

I can summarize my entire position on this by noting that to me, the central and most inviolate rule of good science is that one must not know the answer in advance of the inquiry. That is precisely the test that CS/ID fails most completely. I realize that you think evolution is also in that camp, but evolution was motivated by the need to explain observations, it was never motivated by pre-existing beliefs and still isn't. Any scientist that can find evidence for an alternative to evolution that stands the tests of science will be among the most famous scientists of the 21st century, so I don't know why ID types tend to "imagine" that evolution is also a pre-existing belief that people wish to defend the way CS/ID obviously is.

All you can expect in this world is honesty in reporting the results. Everyone has expectations or they wouldn't bother searching/experimenting.

New Twist
Suppose an arc should turn up on Mt. Ararat. Cages, frozen animal droppings, even a soccer ball-sized reptilian egg shell, just for good measure. Should schoolteachers be gagged and forbidden to discuss it?

That's for all of you, not just Ken G.

[Professor Illwill]

Link?

http://www.google.com/custom?q=recap...alkorigins.org

It's quite a mix. They try to say Haekel wasn't really pushing it. They try to say it doesn't work, but there's hope for a new version. They speak pretty favorably about it, and gloss over the harm it has done.

How can you have a "new improved" version of a theory that baby humans have "gill slits"? I know it's not quite that simple, but if you can wade through all that garbage that's essentially what it's all about.

Why in the world would anyone want to resurrect such a thing? Must they try to vindicate all things Darwinian?

I repeat: there's one of me. Sorry I don't have time to sift through all of it again right now. Search AJ or Google, etc. for recap theory or Haekel and even the other evolutionist sites will give you a lot more truthful info.

[Professor Illwill]

{snippity}
If... IF you or anyone can show that ID is science, then it should be presented in science class. If... IF you or anyone can show evolution is not science, then it should not be taught in science class.

{snip}

We seem to be in full agreement. Something ain't right here.

The Kansas standards "open the door" to CS/ID if they are science. And this is objectionable. I don't get it.

If it isn't objectionable, what's the problem with the standards? If it is objectionable, how so.

The only way the press could be construed to be honest, is if they believe CS/ID is actually valid science, but would still in some way be detrimental to the children. Maybe that's the case?

I'm sorry, but this does not make any sense. I'm not saying you're one of 'em, but I've met folks who will argue one way and the other at the same time just to see how long they can get me to waste my time. Either clarify this or I'll not waste any more time with it.There's a good chance you're legitimately confused. It happens.

[Ken G]

Well, I never thought of the UFO stuff. I don't much care for it, but I don't see very much there to make a fuss about.

But why then does it not get included specifically in the standards, when spaceflight is discussed? After all, I might have said the exact same thing about CS/ID.

So why is it so important to teach evolution? They can't teach up-to-date theory anyhow, and it serves no practical purpose, other than to introduce atheism.

You are assuming, without proof, that evolution implies atheism. Is it not possible that it might equally well imply better informed theism? Why is it given that to have beliefs, one must put one's head in the sand when it comes to scientific discovery? I personally think that trend is alarmingly negative for the future of religion, that's the bit the CS/ID camp is pretty much blind to. I think it is basically a reaction out of fear, but since when was religion not intended to be a great challenge?

Even a zoo veterinarian has no practical use for evolutionary presuppositions. Neither does a microbiologist. If one had to believe evolution to perform these jobs, Creationists actually would be unqualified.

Why can't I just say that very few applications require general relativity instead of Newtonian gravity, so why teach that either? Your argument basically sounds to me like "cherry picking" science to include what you like and has clear applications, and leaves out what you don't like and has less obvious applications yet still follows from the exact same methodology as the first set. I am simply not qualified to know the potential applications of evolutionary theory in biology, but I have heard quotes from eminent biologists who have made great discoveries to the effect that "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution".

In medicine, recap theory has proven quite counterproductive. (The word that it was wrong was a little slow to reach some ears.)

I have no idea what that theory is, and therefore it certainly cannot be of much importance to evolutionary biology as a whole.

I'm actually liking the idea of some UFO stuff. Not a whole big waste of time, but maybe a few days just to take advantage of kids' interest in them.

I agree, there is interest there, but the way it would play out (trust me) is that any concerted scientific inquiry into the UFO phenomenon will quickly result in the students understanding what a non-starter the whole issue is. To sum up something Feynman said, it ends up being far easier to attribute it to the known irrationalities of terrestrial life than to some greater rationality of extraterrestrial life. But that's not the kind of conclusion the CS/ID camp is looking for, now is it?

Personalities that just can't be stopped. Doesn't make them right.

I never said it did. I said that it is incorrect to assert that great scientific discoveries require at their onset a large well-funded scientific community, as you claimed.

That is not what I mean. I would expect a Moslem CS or ID scientist to give his account in accordance with his beliefs.

OK, in that case I will give you points for tolerance, but not for understanding science. Your approach links science to individual beliefs, to religion in a nutshell, which would result in a "tower of Babel" the likes of which we have not seen since the Dark Ages. Indeed, what you avow is precisely a prescription for the return to a scientific Dark Age, where each person's science is slave to their own beliefs rather than to the scientific method. You just turned the clock back almost a thousand years! This is exactly what people in Europe find so amusing about the ID movement in the U.S.

I would hope for more, and I'd be very surprised if he didn't take your belief system into account. What I'm trying to imagine is an evolutionist taking the trouble to actually give correct dates under both his belief system and mine.

That's exactly the "Tower of Babel" approach to science I'm talking about. Why don't you just accept that science leads to different conclusions, and lighten up about it? Nobody said science should be all things to all people, you are still welcome to your own version of the truth. Just don't call it science, when it isn't.

If objectivity is the key requirement, there will be no scientists.

That is not a valid objection, for the goals of science are different from what is always attainable in practice. Science is a flawed human endeavor, but nevertheless it aspires to objectivity above all. Remove that, and you have no science at all. I may as well have said that because humans are naturally doubting creatures that there is no such thing as "the faithful", no religious people. We all have the ideals that we strive for.

When a person is knowledgeable about different schools, one can show how one school's interpretation would differ from another. You people do exactly that all the time here, and I think you may be "guilty" yourself of understanding more than one school.

Anyone can hang a shingle and call it a "school". There are people in the "school" of homeopathy, of reading auras, of speaking to dead people. That doesn't change the fact that good science and bad science are distinguished by their methodology, not by their "schools".

The press shares responsibility to be sure. Why do we have terms like "absolute dating"?

The real question is, why do we have people so willing to put their heads in the sand and ignore perfectly straightforward and well demonstrated dating techniques? The self-correcting nature of science moves forward, refining its tools, finding more and more self-consistency, while those with their heads in the sand just see the same sand.

Speaking of dating, how honest is it to take assumptions that are known to be false run them through a 'scientific procedure' merely to produce results that match what we want/need them to be.

This reminds me that you haven't answered my question above-- why do you think scientists would do that? I really want to know why you believe there is a great scientific conspiracy to fool people into believing things that the scientists themselves know are bunk. I'm serious, I cannot come up with any answer a reasonable person would give there, and you seem reasonable (though taken to logical overextrapolations), so I want to know.

All these methods assume the existence of 100% pure xxx at the time it was deposited. The people who conduct them even claim this isn't possible. Oh, and dates that don't match the preconceptions are not reported, "so as to avoid confusion".

Now you are in complete la-la land. That's just baloney, the techniques control against not knowing the initial concentrations, you really need to inform yourself better about how they work if you're going to criticize them. And the suggestion that data that doesn't match is not reported "to avoid confusion" is a perfectly laughable interpretation of how science works. There's some pretty serious denial going on here, do you really think that your faith needs to hinge on denial, is it so fragile as that? My advice is, find what really matters in the things you believe, and it isn't the dates of rocks.

Oh yes indeed! "that science be designed from the ground up to validate a pre-existing opinion?" I like that. I can't recall seeing a better summary of evolutionism.

I repeat my question-- why? Why would scientists, whose desire to know the truth exceeds all other motivations and governs why they are scientists instead of more lucrative jobs in industry or finance, do this? I really want to know. You're saying that they want to be atheists so feel they need to knock down creationism? This motivation is so strong it governs the behavior of the entire scientific community? Don't you feel the sand scratching at you? Science does not give you the preconceived answers you want, you must strive harder to base your theological stance in a place that can accomodate that reality. Don't be afraid.

[Professor Illwill]

Oh, for heaven's sake. Darwin himself explained it in the very next paragraph!

You see, in the written language, there's this thing called a "rhetorical device." In this case, the one Darwin most frequently uses in On the Origin of Species is posing a question and then answering it himself. To those who are ignorant of the text, it seems as though he's suggesting that he himself is not really sure of things. However, those with the intellectual integrity to study the text itself soon recognize what he's doing and aren't fooled.

So the next question is, "Is Darwin's hypothesis as to the origins of the eye plausible?"

Yes.

After all, there are currently-extant species with every one of the various possible eye precursors that he suggested; I could be wrong on this, but I'm fairly sure at least some of them were discovered after he posited the transition.

You're really going to have to work hard at your quote-mining.

You seem to think the quote was give in order to claim "Eyes are impossible to evolve even according to Darwin himself" Please pay closer attention.

The purpose of the quote was to demonstrate the antiquity of the concept called "Irreducible Complexity". Now would you claim Darwin didn't understand this concept in light of the quote I gave?

And for the record, I've read the entire chapter (most of the book as well) and all his attempts to gloss over problems are pretty lame. That's my opinion. Standard technique: State the problem. Tell why it's a problem. Go into this and that detail. (optional) Obfuscate a little more. (optional) Go off on tangent(s). Pretend problem is resolved.

It's still used today.

[Dons]

Illwill wrote:


“Last time I checked, they were still promoting recapitulation theory, which was trashed in the 1920's and abandoned by the mainstream as worthless. It not only isn't so, it was based on deception. That's all one needs to know about the integrity of talkorigins.”

Don:


You need to check in again as this was taken from talkorigins.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701_1.html

1. Haeckel's biogenetic law was never part of Darwin's theory and was challenged even in his own lifetime. Haeckel himself did not necessarily advocate the strict form of recapitulation commonly attributed to him (Richardson and Keuck 2002).

2. Irrespective of biogenetic law, embryological characters are still useful as evidence for evolution (in constructing phylogenies, for example), just as adult characters are. Furthermore, there is some degree of parallelism between ontogeny and phylogeny, especially when applied only to individual characters (Richardson and Keuck 2002). Various causes for this have been proposed. For example, there is selective pressure to retain embryonic structures that are needed for the development of other organs.

Also at talkorigins there is a link found here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/prec...curstrans.html

This gives a fairly good complete history of the recapitulation theory, and I have found nothing anywhere that Talkorigins has endorsed the theory of “recapitulation”.

Item number one: speaks for itself, and does NOT support recapitulation.

In Item number two: it says some of the information gleamed from the study can be used, phylogenies is nothing more than a chart of comparison to aid in understanding put together as the “best fit” possible, with the information available at the time.

This in NO wise endorse recapitulation as theory.

So show me Illwill: where does talkorigins endorse the recapitulation theory?


However at an ID website in regards to recapitulation:

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origin..._not_supported


“From a design standpoint it makes sense that a single designer would reuse not only parts but genetic programming instructions as well; this is done in human design all the time.”

Who are they and who are you Illwill, by what authority or ability, does anyone say what makes sence to a designer? That being your ID god.

Why a "single designer" why not many gods? How do you know Illwill?

Don

[Van Rijn]

But here's something interesting: there is actually no need to teach origins of any kind in K-12. Genetics, Earth Science, you name it - any type of science. All can be taught very efficiently without ever mentioning ancestry.

So why is it so important to teach evolution?

I would be curious what science you think should be taught, and what other science should be ignored in K-12? Your (incorrect) comment about the moon suggests that you would have problems with geology and astronomy as well.

They can't teach up-to-date theory anyhow, and it serves no practical purpose, other than to introduce atheism.

Uh, it's science, not philosophy.

Suppose an arc should turn up on Mt. Ararat. Cages, frozen animal droppings, even a soccer ball-sized reptilian egg shell, just for good measure. Should schoolteachers be gagged and forbidden to discuss it?

That's for all of you, not just Ken G.

My answer is that science class should show what is supported by the objective evidence. Of course, a world flood is most definitely not supported by the evidence and an ark on Mt. Ararat is about as likely as my backyard elf.

[Professor Illwill]

{snip}
I really want to know why you believe there is a great scientific conspiracy to fool people into believing things that the scientists themselves know are bunk. I'm serious, I cannot come up with any answer a reasonable person would give there, and you seem reasonable (though taken to logical overextrapolations), so I want to know.

"logical overextrapolations" I love that. Hope I can remember it. Might have to change my sig - that's really pretty good.

And understandable. For example I expect most folks aren't aware that "all" is a perfectly valid term to use for values of 90%, or even slightly less. You're so mathematically oriented. In English, "absolutely all" would have to mean 100%. I used to think as you do, but found out the real deal. I should probably be more careful around here.

Now you are in complete la-la land. That's just baloney, the techniques control against not knowing the initial concentrations, you really need to inform yourself better about how they work if you're going to criticize them. And the suggestion that data that doesn't match is not reported "to avoid confusion" is a perfectly laughable interpretation of how science works. There's some pretty serious denial going on here, do you really think that your faith needs to hinge on denial, is it so fragile as that? My advice is, find what really matters in the things you believe, and it isn't the dates of rocks.

La-la land? Well, the only way I got where I am is through the real world. I don't like discussing things this way because evidence from personal experience is indisputable to the one who experienced it, and doesn't carry much weight with any other party.

However, about 5 years ago I had an exchange with a retired professor from California. Those dates are a complete joke, although some folks do honestly take all possible precautions. This professor was no fan of the "young earth" idea - he was strongly opposed to it in fact.

But I asked him a question about something I'd always suspected: "Does water alter the dates?" It does, and sometimes by quite a bit. Turns out that's the excuse they have for rocks dating younger at the bottom of the Grand Canyon than at the top. No matter which technique you name, water will throw it off.

Now if the whole world's been under water, where can you get something that will give you an accurate date? He had one example I couldn't "bust". He had a single crystal with "datable" materials inside of it, and the crystal was waterproof. We both were fairly satisfied. He still had one piece to hang his faith on, and I'd finally found out that I can basically dismiss all the phony "dates" - just add water. And whether you accept the flood in Noah's day or not, you won't find any place that hasn't been under water. Even rainwater counts, as in the case of the Grand Canyon.

The basic procedure for dating was based on the 100% formula. It may have changed. Used to be they only resorted to more detailed study if they got the "wrong" date from the 100% test. I don't keep up with everything, and don't try to require that I do so. The test was designed with that premise, and used for many, many years. Those dates are in most available books, so why pretend it's all squared away.

Or would you tell me there weren't thousands of books printed with those obviously faulty "dates"? It's obvious because the premise is bad science from the get-go.

Even if it were square, you can't avoid the water problem. Water can add or subtract "age" anywhere in the world. Except that one blasted little crystal!

But water is everywhere, and they know it. And they continue to reassure the world about the precision of their "dating". Is that good science? Could not a schoolboy spot the flaws if he knew what science was about? One did. And he hasn't forgotten.

Now it's time to go. I see Dons wants me to go waste a day or two over at talkorigins. There's probably at least 30 articles to sift through to see if the one they used to have is still there. All in favor?

[R.A.F.]

CS concludes from the available evidence that the earth (and sometimes the cosmos) is fairly "young" compared to other schools. >20,000 years and frequently >10,000.

What "available evidence"?

CS acknowledges the high probability that historic records are correct, and a worldwide flood did occur.

The bible is not a "historical record".

The superiority of CS/ID, from a scientific standpoint, lies in the willingness to present all data and all interpretations/conclusions.

When any answer is possible, all answers are meaningless. Why does that sound familiar??

Probably the essential element of CS/ID is the willingness to ask "is there a valid scientific interpretation of this that is consistent with history?"

"History" as presented in the bible? Once again...the bible is not a history book, nor is it a science text.

I should point out that it is silly to expect the CS/ID layman to be aware of all things and always behave as a professional scientist would. Likewise if you ask him why he believes something, there's nothing at all wrong with "because the Bible says so". That's an honest response, and it's likely to be the primary reason. He may or may not have others. He may simply assign higher weight to an history book in matters of history.

From this I must assume that you see nothing wrong with people blindly believing in the bible as if it were a history book.

CS and ID are schools or scientific inquiry which... I suppose I should start with something like that.

What scientific inquiry??? CS/ID starts off knowing what the conclusion will be. How is that scientific???

[Ken G]

"logical overextrapolations" I love that. Hope I can remember it. Might have to change my sig - that's really pretty good.

But still, you have not answered my question. I'll pose it again-- which is easier to believe, and why: that the entire geological and biological scientific communities as a whole would suddenly let their normally exacting standards fall into complete disarray in the area of evolution just to be able to conclude that certain religious depictions are scientifically unsupportable, or that people with a pre-existing stake (prior to the science, that is) in a particular religious depiction would naturally find it distressing and requiring of a defensive and closedminded response in the face of mounting scientific evidence that contradicts that pre-existing view? We know it has to be one or the other, which sounds like a more plausible statement of human nature, if you had no stake in the answer? I really want to know the reasons that you conclude the first is easier to believe than the second. This is the big weakness in your position, independent from any item by item challenges of various scientific results, and so far you have offered not the least hint of support for that choice of societal view, except for a blanket condemnation of all that you perceive as "crooked", which seems more to me like a classic example of said "defensive" response.

However, about 5 years ago I had an exchange with a retired professor from California. Those dates are a complete joke, although some folks do honestly take all possible precautions. This professor was no fan of the "young earth" idea - he was strongly opposed to it in fact.

Indeed, the geologists have to be "in on it" as well. This is starting to sound more like paranoia than reason, but I'm not a geologist. I'll inquire with ones who are, and I fully expect that the views of that unspecified retired geologist are either nonsense or are being misrepresented.

But I asked him a question about something I'd always suspected: "Does water alter the dates?" It does, and sometimes by quite a bit.

You see, in a normal scientific argument, this would be a nice place to interject a reason why water does this, and the potential magnitude of the resulting effect. Can it be as big of an effect as you claim (what, a factor of a thousand re-calibration, yes?). That's the beauty of science, it is not just based on idle claims, but rather on reasons. Then you can judge the reasonableness of the claim, and what impact it might be expected to have. On the surface, your claims sound like usual make-believe CS geology, but again I'd have to ask a geologist or two.

Turns out that's the excuse they have for rocks dating younger at the bottom of the Grand Canyon than at the top. No matter which technique you name, water will throw it off.

Again I am not inclined to take your word for this without explanation, but I'm not a geologist. What is the scale of the effect you are talking about here, and could it possibly make geological dating consistent with YEC? Scientific arguments require giving numbers to these concerns, whereas you tend to be content as soon as you can discredit the mainstream science.

And whether you accept the flood in Noah's day or not, you won't find any place that hasn't been under water. Even rainwater counts, as in the case of the Grand Canyon.

Exactly my point, your argument requires that the bulk of geologists are either fools or intentional liars, and you have offered not one legitimate reason for this conclusion, whereas I offered a perfectly legitimate reason for the alternative that people with strong beliefs in advance of the science are typically reticent to accept scientific results that contradict those beliefs. Especially when it's never hard to find sand around.

Used to be they only resorted to more detailed study if they got the "wrong" date from the 100% test.

Again that is simply preposterous. Remember, the "wrongness" we are discussing here is between many millions of years versus a few thousand years, and you actually believe the answer is "water" and "not 100%"? You are saying that the geologists all over the world, crossing all cultural lines, are idiots, because it lets you hold on to your belief that your preconceived ideas should be supported by science. Personally I don't feel that faith requires self-deception, but fear does.

Or would you tell me there weren't thousands of books printed with those obviously faulty "dates"? It's obvious because the premise is bad science from the get-go.

I would tell you that science includes a concept of "error bars" on inferred data, and real scientific debate should look at whether millions of years or thousands of years can fall within the same set of error bars, no matter what you do with "water" and "initial concentration". Why do you stop when you get a result you can live with, instead of really carrying through the logic? That's the hallmark of someone who doesn't really want the truth about what answers science gives. As I said before, science doesn't tell you where to put those answers, only what they are, and their error bars.

And they continue to reassure the world about the precision of their "dating".

Precision, exactly-- what is the precision that they would need to refute the scientific credibility of YEC? You kind of avoid anything that might look like an actual number, don't you?

Now it's time to go. I see Dons wants me to go waste a day or two over at talkorigins.

None of us have time to make ourselves personal experts on all these issues, that's true, but why don't you content yourself to simply answer the one question I posed above? All others flow from it.

[Delvo]

The arguments against it haven't improved much: "We know it looks impossible that such a thing evolved, but it did anyhow", usually strung out into many more words.

That's simply a lie. The argument against it is to describe intermediate stages.

Some things (quite a few actually) just won't work without all their parts.

Except when "working" is defined by a somewhat different task that needs to be done. (In the eye example, species with an intermediate form can't see detailed images like we can, but they don't need to and that isn't what their simpler structures that are related to eyes are there for. In the pages after the paragraph you quoted, Darwin describes not only the intermediate stages but also the simpler purposes that each stage serves.)

In shop class, irreducible complexity can be easily learned even if the teacher never brings it up. It's pretty well present in machinery.

Show me a machine that really is irreducibly complex, and I'll show you one that's only that way because it, unlike life, really was designed by an intelligent designer and the parts were in their current form all along rather than having gradually progressed through different sizes, shapes, compositions, and such. But in reality, such a machine would be hard to find, because most machines are developed from simpler components that were around first anyway, and were always perfectly useful themselves for somewhat different purposes, before being put to a new use in the latest machine... thus demonstrating irriducible complexity NOT to be the case.

[Dons]

Let me help you out with your homework Illwill:

Illwill claims talkorigins web site endorses the theory of Recapitulation.

Briefly: embryo’s go threw a stage of their historical past as they develop. This was proved “false” many times over.


In the archives of talkorigins dated 1997 found here


http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/mar97.html

it is made clear, to quote:

“Recapitulation is an old, discarded concept, and I seriously doubt any current biology textbook discusses it except to expose its flaws.”

That was posted about 10 years ago. I seriously doubt talkorigins have ever supported the theory, unless you can show otherwise.

Here is another talkorigins site that gives greater details dated 1999 that is very negative on the Recapitulation concept. This site goes into greater detail where Recapitulation is debunked with many references.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb99.html

Don

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Jim
If... IF you or anyone can show that ID is science, then it should be presented in science class. If... IF you or anyone can show evolution is not science, then it should not be taught in science class.

We seem to be in full agreement. Something ain't right here.

Somehow, I doubt we're in "full agreement."

The Kansas standards "open the door" to CS/ID if they are science. And this is objectionable. I don't get it.

If it isn't objectionable, what's the problem with the standards? If it is objectionable, how so.

I was right. You are still misinterpreting, I hope unconsciously so.

If CS/ID can be shown to be real science, they should be taught in science class.

But, they are not and should not.

And the folks who inserted that language knew so.

The only way the press could be construed to be honest, is if they believe CS/ID is actually valid science, but would still in some way be detrimental to the children. Maybe that's the case?

Based on your statement, and my supposition that "the press" do not consider CS/ID to be science, then they are not lying. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. If you do not, then stop maligning "the press."

I'm sorry, but this does not make any sense. I'm not saying you're one of 'em, but I've met folks who will argue one way and the other at the same time just to see how long they can get me to waste my time. Either clarify this or I'll not waste any more time with it.There's a good chance you're legitimately confused. It happens.

When necessary, I can argue all sides of any issue fairly well.

In this case, I am not. My stance is, has been, and will be that only science should be taught in science class, and that CS/ID cannot be shown to be science and should not be presented as such.

I am not at all confused. Perhaps you are?

[Gillianren]

If evolution is of necessity an atheist conclusion, why do so many theists (myself included) espouse it?

[Professor Illwill]

New Twist
Suppose an arc should turn up on Mt. Ararat. Cages, frozen animal droppings, even a soccer ball-sized reptilian egg shell, just for good measure. Should schoolteachers be gagged and forbidden to discuss it?

That's for all of you, not just Ken G.

Van Rijn has responded to my question. Maybe I missed another response somehow. But it looks as if a few are reluctant to address it. I assure you I don't intend to turn it into a trick question.

For example I could say that there are already reports on an arclike object. But unfortunately they're unconfirmed. It would be dishonest of me to twist things that way.

I'm going to be pretty busy trying to figure out the Ehrenfest paradox, and the "Circular problem" thread has a higher priority since I started the topic myself.

I don't want to get bogged down over the talkorigins recap thing. It's been at least four years, maybe five or six. They may very well have amended or deleted the article. My opinion of them still stands, but I don't expect any of you to adopt it unless I can find the article. It would be a good thing for everyone if they have changed.

[Ken G]

Maybe I missed another response somehow. But it looks as if a few are reluctant to address it.

Not nearly as reluctant as you have been to address mine. My question cuts to the very heart of this issue. Your question is quite simple, there is not one single scientist in all the world who thinks that such a result should be 'covered up', if it was established using standard scientific methodology (surely you can see the potential for hoaxsters here, and if you can't, take a peek at the footage of an "alien autopsy" at area 51). Scientists are not the ones, historically, with the reputation for standing in the way of the advancement of scientific truth.

[Gillianren]

Say they find an ark. (Which is the spelling you want, by the way; ye Gods, why has the Pagan got that right and the Christian not?) First off, I'd expect you to carbon date that wood to ensure it's not a forgery. After all, there have been a lot of fradulent ark stories, and it would only make sense to assume it was forged.

Second, assuming it passed the carbon dating process, which it probably wouldn't, I'd want to know how it managed to survive for 5000 years or whatever on a mountain known for glacial movement that should have destroyed it long since.

But okay. Say it passed all the tests. If it were relevant to a class, sure, mention it. However, I would not consider it proof for Genesis above and beyond the geological evidence that proves there was no global flood.

[Professor Illwill]

What "available evidence"?

There is far too much evidence for me to list here. And to do so would simply be the start of an evolution vs. creation debate, since you'd "challenge" any piece of evidence I list. I don't dispute the fact that evolutionists choose to interpret all evidence differently, so there's no point in arguing about it.

The bible is not a "historical record".

Talk about a blunder! You can't substantiate that for one minute. Even if you think the Bible is inaccurate somehow, I don't see how you can dispute that it claims to report history.

When any answer is possible, all answers are meaningless. Why does that sound familiar??

I thought "science" was defined by methods - not conclusions. Silly me. Only conclusions which support evolution can possibly be valid. Does that not lead to circular reasoning?

"History" as presented in the bible? Once again...the bible is not a history book, nor is it a science text.

see above.

From this I must assume that you see nothing wrong with people blindly believing in the bible as if it were a history book.

Yes and no. I have no problem with children believing the Bible, and blindly accepting it. More mature individuals are a different case. The Bible itself says all things are to be questioned. People who did so laid the very foundations of science. One can go somewhat deeper into this subject.

What scientific inquiry??? CS/ID starts off knowing what the conclusion will be. How is that scientific???

You confuse issues. Learn what history is first. Then I could explain it. Evolution as taught is history. If you say one isn't allowed to have any opinion at all before investigating an historical event, it precludes investigation.

[Van Rijn]

Van Rijn has responded to my question. Maybe I missed another response somehow.

How about answering my question: What science do you think should be taught in K-12? What other science besides evolution do you think should be ignored?

[Van Rijn]

There is far too much evidence for me to list here. And to do so would simply be the start of an evolution vs. creation debate, since you'd "challenge" any piece of evidence I list. I don't dispute the fact that evolutionists choose to interpret all evidence differently, so there's no point in arguing about it.

This was in response to a request for your evidence of a very young earth (some thousands of years), and it is a bit more than "evolutionists" interpreting things differently. There is evidence from many fields of science that the earth is far older than this. That's why I'm curious what fields of science you would allow in school.

[Professor Illwill]

Lest anyone doubt my good faith on this issue, here's what I've got so far.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...l#ontogeny_ex5

Note the "falsification" part.

This is subtle, and there are fine distinctions involved. There is an attempt being made to repackage recap theory & either call it by another name, or just apply it anyhow. TA may or may not "officially endorse it", and those who are doing it must for obvious reasons deny that the "new theory" is recap theory.

This isn't the best example, it's just the best I can give. You can take their word for it that this isn't recap, or you can compare the "2" methods. I've seen better examples where it's clearer than in this one.