<p>
If you were to disallow any discussion of intelligent design–or God-- from a philosophy class, you would have censored out a lot of the interesting stuff. I guess you would still have Marx to work with.</p>
<p>Single example against evolution: for example, evolution <em>solely</em> by natural selection would be disproven if there was one proven instance of inheritance of acquired characteristics.</p>
<p>As another example (outside evolution), there was a theory for a long time that the earth was the center of universe. That was disproven with the sole example that the earth revolves around the sun.</p>
<p>There was a theory of Aristotle’s that the rate of acceleration of an object was proportional to its weight (feathers fall slower than cannonballs). Disproven by Galileo, among others.</p>
<p>FountainSiren says:</p>
<p>"Is Intelligent Design a possible real interpretation … ?</p>
<p>Answer: Yes. Absolutely. Intelligent Design is <strong>always</strong> a possible explanation for anything and everything. Short Term creationism - holding that the Earth is 6,000 years old, starting from Genesis and counting up the “begats” in the Bible - could be absolutely correct. There’s nothing in science which does, or can, refute it. The short-termers have a perfectly valid and irrefutable explanation - based on ID - for any argument you might want to make to suggest that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. (The answer is: “because God made it like that.”) Driver’s “snow globe” theory of ID could also be right. Can’t prove otherwise, because it’s based on the assumption that the answer is beyond our ken. And that’s the problem.</p>
<p>“If your answer is no, it cant be true, then I understand why you insist on it not being mentioned in a science class.”</p>
<p>Well, no. That’s not why you don’t “mention” it in science class. It doesn’t come up in science class because science is the endeavor of trying to figure out the way things work based on the assumption that there is a testable theory to explain them. And when you fall back on “Because God made it that way” as the answer you’re pretty much out of science room. Because God, er, ID, is not testable. So ID may be true, or may not be true, but either way, it’s not science.</p>
<p>“However if it could be, in the end, true, why would you exclude it as an explanation of the origins of the universe in a science text book?”</p>
<p>Because it’s not science. It’s religion (or, if you prefer, philosophy or possibly metaphysics) But it’s not science because it’s not testable. It is a self-validating belief system.</p>
<p>“I do not think it should be ‘taught’ because there is not currently that much to teach (as far as I know); however, it is a very real and lucid explanation of life, lucid enough to win over the minds of many incredible scientists.” </p>
<p>Lucidity is not the test of valid science - ask any scientist 
And you’re right - there’s not much to teach, beyond “God made it that way. Any more questions? Okay, same answer.”</p>
<p>You should realize: I’m not attacking your religious beliefs. I’m sure they are very real and lucid, and sincerely held. I wouldn’t want to talk you out of them. But it is valid to recognize the difference between science and non-scientific belief systems. And “Because God made it that way” is a non-scientific belief - even if it’s right.</p>
<p>"Single example against evolution: for example, evolution <em>solely</em> by natural selection would be disproven if there was one proven instance of inheritance of acquired characteristics.
"</p>
<p>OK, but that only relates to one aspect of evolution. What single example would disprove that evolution, from single cell to human being, takes place entirely by random mutations?</p>
<p>
But I don’t agree with that at all. I think carbon dating and other such procedures are exciting and valid scientific tools, and that they do refute biblical creationism. The idea that intelligent design isn’t the same thing as creationism seems to be the insurmountable hump, for many.</p>
<p>Intelligent Design is <strong>always</strong> a possible explanation for anything and everything.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>If that is what you believe, I am of the opinion that you have no understanding of the concept of design as endorsed by Einstein amongst many other scientists and philosophers.</p>
<p>It is not an empty shell, to be filled by pink unicorns or tooth fairies. This sort of condescending attitude is not much different from the ill-informed attitude of those who insist evolution is wrong because monkeys have written no symphonies nor played in the World Series. </p>
<p>The idea of design alone inspired some of the greatest scientist in history to do some of their best work which they themselves felt would have been unlikely to have occurred without itthis in and of itself should be reason to speak of it in a classroom of potential scientists.</p>
<p>But it is just your kind of attitude that makes normal Americans distruting and suspicious of the agenda of some in this debate (mostly non-scientists) who insist that the common view of the world/universe/life is a superstition to be rooted out by Darwinism and that the real evil to be defeated in our time is anything associated with religious culture (it was already happening to Darwin himself in his own day). By virtue of their repeated comments I would include about 2/3 of the posters in this thread amongst those with just such a social, and non-scientific, agenda.</p>
<p>One may wonder why, for instance, Inherit the Wind is required reading in many high-school English classesas it was in mine. My freshman English class was told by our biology teacher that if evolution is true there is no need for a creatorthis is science? Please.</p>
<p>Clearly there is a social agenda attached to the resistance to even considering that there may be a design in the universe as opposed to no design in the universe.</p>
<p>Your summation of ID confirms this to me.</p>
<p>This whole thread is riddled with just such condescending and irrational comments. You, for instance, have implied that any great scientist in history who actually believed that the universe had a design, did so because of bad-ole religious intimidation (one presumes this is because you believe no rational scientist could possibly disagree with your anti-design/crypto-anti-religious position on the matter).</p>
<p>I asked you or anyone else to backup such scurrilous charges with some evidence and instead I was given meaningless and blusterous analogies about communism and professors and the public resurgence of Orthodox belief in Russia (have you come up with any evidence for those repeated accusations?).</p>
<p>Im certain this will all be deniedin the name of sciencewith a straight face.</p>
<p>Im equally certain that none of those who insist that Newton, Copernicus et al were disingenuous in proclaiming there certainty in design will be presenting even a modicum of evidence to support such a bizarre and anti-religious accusation.</p>
<p>Prove me wrong.</p>
<p>Endorsed? That last post was so odd, I can’t even comment…anti-religious…again with the names</p>
<p>I give up, when you call me, a Catholic, with a Buddhist mother, anti-religious, well you have lost</p>
<p>I never called you a religious zealot, now did I</p>
<p>And as a Sufi, you would have been a heretic during Newton’s time…and my mother could have been burned at the stake…</p>
<p>And heretics didn’t have such an easy time, either</p>
<p>And look at what religion has done in countries to women, I thought that would matter to a young woman who wants to go to school…all in the name of religion and government and school</p>
<p>And I have shown you what the current funders, pushers, spokesmen of ID want, and you ignore it. And where are the women, the current scientists and spokespeople of ID…I didn’t see many on the ID websites I looked at, I might have missed one or two, but it is overwhelmingly men. Christian, self profressed, who want the Bible back in the school, say the ID is a Christian God and more. But ignore all that. As for the scientist, the most prolific, the one you quote, is a Unification Member whose mentor was Rev. Moon, who, thinks he is humanities new savior, like Jesus. If you are going to bring in the religions of the scientists of the past, you must bring in the religious beliefs of the scientists you talk about. </p>
<p>Seriouslly, look to the past and see what has happened. If we don’t learn from it…well…</p>
<p>Is having a religious of philosophical belief the same as endorsing it as a topic for science class?</p>
<p>Have I missed the discussion of whether an intelligent design could have a flaw in it?</p>
<p>Exactly, Mr. B, and with regard to FountainSiren’s obsession with Albert Einstein, et al, having a religious or philosophical belief is not the same as believing that that belief is proven by science.</p>
<p>But Driver, God could simply have created the objects with the proportions of carbon isotopes which we construe to mean they are older, just as he could place seashells on mountaintops. You can’t prove that didn’t happen. Any Intelligent Designer worth his IDhood could have created a design 6,000 years ago which had all of the features of a world which evolved over millions of years. Just because the ratio of different isotopes of carbon in an object is consistent with a theory that the objects containing them are a certain age based on the half-life of the isotope doesn’t mean that’s actually the age of the object. If the Universe is designed by a designer, he, she or it can design it anyway he, she or it pleases, including the ratio of carbon isotopes in each object in the world.</p>
<p>The essence of Intelligent Design is that the Designer designed the universe in a particular way for some reason - generally viewed to be a reason beyond our understanding. What I find interesting is that various proponents of ID move to different levels of abstraction to argue for design. Was the design put in place at the moment of the Big Bang, and has simply been unraveling (or evolving) ever since according to a set of principles designed in at that moment with a “hands off” approach by the Designer? Was the moment when the first quantum leap was made from inanimate to animate - the creation of life - an event which the Designer just decided to design at that moment? Or was it just chemicals combining in a manner defined by a design set in place at the time of the Big Bang? Or were all of the creatures of the Earth created fairly recently, in more or less their current forms? You can pick any point to say: “That’s where the design occurred.” And the essence of ID - and the reason it isn’t science - is that there’s no way to say one point of “design” is correct and others are not. Because once you accept “Because that is how God made it” as a valid scientific hypothesis you can never disprove it on any level. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that ID is synonymous with short term creationism - I’m saying that creationism is just as valid an ID theory as any other - including your “snow globe” theory. You seem to reject creationism. But I’m not sure just where (and when) you think the design work was done, or why you choose any particular point in time and space for the design to have been created, or if the creating work has all been done, or is still going on. Snow globe? Genesis? God’s Big Bang? How do you choose?</p>
<p>.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>you would have been a heretic during Newton’s time
This is simply false. This link will help you to figure that out on your own:
<a href=“http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=heretic&x=19&y=17[/url]”>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=heretic&x=19&y=17</a></p></li>
<li><p>my mother could have been burned at the stake…
False: see above link (though, I suppose for reasons other than being a Buddhist, anyone could have, theoretically…a captured member of–the Buddhist–Chengis Khan’s posse for instance). </p></li>
<li><p>I never called you a religious zealot, now did I
That is, I suppose, because by definition this could not be true and therefore no one ever has. Not that it matters, but I was voted Chairperson of the Multicultural Committee of my high school my senior year and served as such, I suppose this is because I am not seen as a zealot, or a bigot by those who are not blinded by their own narrow dogma. I do not simply profess openness you see, I practice it.</p></li>
<li><p>And look at what religion has done in countries to women, I thought that would matter to a young woman who wants to go to school…all in the name of religion and government and school
Why not simply say, religion is bad, stay away silly little girl; it would be more concise and to the point.</p></li>
<li><p>And I have shown you what the current funders, pushers, spokesmen of ID want, and you ignore it.
No, I have not, I just find it irrelevant. You dont seem to understand, I believe the universe was designed. I do not believe it on someone elses authority (unlike many here); I believe it because I have found that it is consistent with my own understanding of life and how things come about: freethinking
its like flying, give it a shot.</p></li>
<li><p>where are the women
Some are obsessed with the exploits of LEADERS, FOUNDING FATHERS etc. Im not. I believe what I believe because I find it to be true, not because it makes me one of the BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE or in with the RIGHT CROWD. Not to put sand in your Vaseline but have you considered that you are talking to a WOMAN who believes in designpretty sure driver is a WOMAN too, and from what I have read, an extremely bright, thoughtful and rational woman which will probably make your Vaseline more or less useless.</p></li>
<li><p>If you are going to bring in the religions of the scientists of the past
I have never mentioned the religion of any scientistthat has been your obsession (and Kluge, Mr.B, dstark, GDWilder, dmd77, etc). I have only referred to their scientific views of the universe and the fact that Design, like the Sun in our solar system, was at the center of all of them
(which sometimes agree, and sometimes disagree with their religions, to the degree that I even know what they are) check it out if you doubt it. [I will follow this post with some of the thinkers that have influenced my understanding on this subject.]</p></li>
<li><p>look to the past and see what has happened
I dont have a clue what this means
or, perhaps is this another attempt to poison the well.</p></li>
<li><p>again with the names
CGM, I thought we had already been through this:</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Citygirlsmom [post #431]
FoutainSiren, I have never called you a name. Not once. Yet, you feel it in your right to call those that disagree with you names. You write well, but when you call names, to be honest, you lose credibility.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom to Fountainsiren [post #257]:
your bigotry is shining through bright and clear.</p>
<p>Susantm asks: “OK, but that only relates to one aspect of evolution. What single example would disprove that evolution, from single cell to human being, takes place entirely by random mutations?”</p>
<p>Susan, I think you are misunderstanding modern evolutionary theory. At the risk of oversimplifying to the point where I’m misrepresenting the theory (after all, SJGould’s <em>Structure of Evolutionary Theory</em> is over 1000 pages), modern evolutionary theory includes these tenets (taken directly from <a href=“Evolution - Wikipedia”>Evolution - Wikipedia; </p>
<p>The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.
The origin of novel traits in a lineage.
The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish. </p>
<p>Common descent does not imply that every mutation has to be random. In fact, Lynn Margulis believes that multi-cellular life forms arose through symbiosis of bacteria. There is in fact much evidence that environmental stress enables certain types of mutations by turning on certain types of genes, etc. (Bacteria will share their genomes more often under certain situations, etc. Viruses attack and modify genomes all the time, something we humans use in genetic engineering.)</p>
<p>Origin of novel traits and mechanism for survival: as a single example, sickle cell trait/anemia in humans is a single-base-pair mutation in the coding for a specific part of hemoglobin, which causes sickling of the red blood cells. A single copy of the sickle-cell gene causes sickle-cell trait, which makes the red blood cells difficult for the malaria plasmodium to infect and confers a <em>selective advantage</em> in places where malaria is endemic. Unfortunately, two copies confers sickle-cell anemia–which is (without treatment) painfully fatal at a young (pre-reproductive) age. Thus, sickle-cell trait/anemia continues to survive in the human population.</p>
<p>To answer your question above: a single example would probably not suffice to refute ALL of evolutionary theory, but a single example could chip away at a portion of the theory, and perhaps light the way for further experimentation that would further correct evolutionary theory. I am unable to think of any such examples. Scientists–many far smarter than I–have looked for such experiments since the 1860s without finding any. In fact, biological research has confirmed the theory of evolutionary over and over again.</p>
<p>The theory of evolution as presented by Darwin and Wallace is not an immutable theory; it is an explanation of how life forms arise from a single source on earth. Note that it says nothing about the origin of life; other theories do that. The original objections to Darwin arose as a result of his suggestions that humans and apes descended from a single common ancestor. Later objections to Darwinian theory arose when the Nazis used his theories to justify genocide.</p>
<p>Fountain Siren:
You’ve spent an enormous amount of time defending your belief in an intelligent designer for our universe. I’m impressed with your persistence. </p>
<p>But I must ask: why is it so important to you that others share your beliefs?</p>
<p>why is it so important to you that others share your beliefs?</p>
<p>It isn’t, I may even be wrong, but I love a diversity of opinions and think all opinions benefit from a confrontation with a reasoned diversity of opinions and facts. I do not wish for anyone to share mineIm even somewhat jealous of thembut rather I wish that they will be able to form their own beliefs given the plentiful information available on the subject: that is what education is for, I think.</p>
<p>That the universe and life had an origin may be of some passing interest to those learning about life and their world/universe. And in an age of science, that is an age where knowledge is truly only knowledge if it so in a scientific sense, students should have access to ALL knowledge of science at the very least.</p>
<p>Design is the elephant in the class room that no one wants to acknowledge because it has implications that threaten what they perceive to be their interests, orthodoxy or politics. They perceive some slippery slopea concept that is as unscientific as any I can imagine.</p>
<p>In the case of biology, I readily accept that evolution is the gold standard of explanation and prediction, but that in no way implicitly contradicts the logic and intuitive scientific power of design, otherwise, I doubt so many scientist would accept it as an explanation, and they do (many do not believe this and many say that they just do not know).</p>
<p>Science is not a democracy in the sense that the majority opinion wins; if that were the case, there would be no science.</p>
<p>[you might want to click on the “Sinner’s Alley Happy Hour” thread and see that even more people are very persistent in there adoration of imaginary alcoholic drinks it takes all kinds]</p>
<p>"To answer your question above: a single example would probably not suffice to refute ALL of evolutionary theory, but a single example could chip away at a portion of the theory, and perhaps light the way for further experimentation that would further correct evolutionary theory. I am unable to think of any such examples. "</p>
<p>I guess what I am trying to point out is that people are complaining that ID could not possibly be scientific in any sense of the word because it is not falsifiable. And yet no one can show me that evolution is falsifiable. So why is that OK for the theory of evolution, but not for the theory of ID?</p>
<p>(And don’t start with the "Well ID supporters could just say God designed it that way and not have to answer questions. I have never heard an ID supporter say that. Their ideas of ID cause them to try to understand the design of the universe. Evolution supporters, I would think, could just as likely say there’s no way to understand that. It’s all random, after all.)</p>
<p>Experiments have been designed (and observations have been made) to test many parts of the theory of evolution; they have all shown the validity of the theory. I refer you to Gould’s books for details.</p>
<p>Well, Susantm, according to a letter to the editor in my morning newspaper, evolution already has been falsified. 
I think that the premise of “irreducible complexity” is valid: that is, if a fully complex new life form were to be found in Central Park tomorrow, complete with biological systems significantly different from all known species, rendering the possibility of their evolution from other life forms known to have existed impossibly low, then that would probably disprove evolution. </p>
<p>Granted, no such life form has been discovered, which tends to support the viability of the theory of evolution. (Although ID proponents argue that various life forms <strong>are</strong> too complex to have evolved from other forms - at least there is a basis for scientific research and debate of this question.)</p>
<p>kluge,
OK, that makes sense. And thanks for acknowledging that there IS some basis for research to compare the ideas of ID and evolution, that the idea of “irreducible compexity” is one that can be researched.</p>
<p>Well, it’s not really “comparing the ideas of ID and evolution.” As I pointed out above, ID is inherently not susceptible to research. “It was designed that way” is <strong>always</strong> a viable explanation for anything in the Universe. If you can never disprove it, you can’t really research it. That doesn’t mean it’s not true, just that it’s not science. I think the proponents of “irreducible complexity” are trying to find something which disproves evolution, because if you can eliminate the best available scientific explanation, that strengthens the appeal of the always available “because God made it that way” explanation. Of course, if evolution was disproved, there could be another scientific explanation we just haven’t discovered yet, but “God made it that way” will always be available as an alternative explanation for everything, because you just can’t prove that it’s false.</p>
<p>In describing Implicate Order Bohm writes: This order is not to be understood solely in terms of a regular arrangement of objects (e.g., in rows) or as a regular arrangement of events (e.g. in a series). Rather, a total order is contained in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. Now the word ‘implicit’ is based on the verb ‘to implicate’. This means ‘to fold inward’ (as multiplication means ‘folding many times’). So we may be led to explore the notion that in some sense each region contains a total structure ‘enfolded’ within it.
<a href=“http://everythingforever.com/Bohm.htm[/url]”>http://everythingforever.com/Bohm.htm</a></p>