A good review of the Kansas hearings

Posted 19 May 2005 by Jack Krebs

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/a-good-review-o.html

I have not had time yet to reflect in writing on the Kansas hearings, but here is one of the best stories I’ve seen on what actually went on in the hearings. About the author, it says

Stan Cox lives in Salina, Kan. He has a Ph.D. in plant breeding and cytogenetics and has been a plant breeder for 22 years.

I encourage anyone interested in the Kansas hearings to read this article. If you think it is appropriate, you might send him an email at or offer a comment at the alternet site.

88 Comments

frank schmidt · 19 May 2005

An excellent article, and one that shows how the Kansas creationists are religiously motivated. Of course anyone who follows the PT discussions recognizes that - scratch an anti-evolutionist, find a fundamentalist.

Will a transcript of the hearings be posted somewhere? Hopefully, it will be searchable, so we don't have to wade through the entire thing, which would be virtual chloroform.

Well done, Stan, and KCFS!

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 19 May 2005

Ohio biology teacher Bryan Leonard testified that he helped write a state lesson plan called "Critical Analysis of Evolution." He said he knows it's a "good product" because of the overwhelmingly positive reaction from students: "The key is to find out what students want and teach toward their interests."

Six hours of recess every day!

Jason · 19 May 2005

A plant breeder?? Doesn't he know that only God can breed plants????????/?? He probably uses dead babies for fertilizer. String him up!

Steve Reuland · 19 May 2005

[Clavert's] legal argument, which had been implicit in all of his questioning of witnesses, goes like this: (1) Evolution as it's now taught in Kansas schools is based on methodological naturalism, that is, the search by science for explanations only in the natural world. (2) Methodological naturalism always implies philosophical naturalism, the belief that there is nothing beyond the natural world. (This, say anti-ID scientists, is the fatal flaw in the argument.) (3) Philosophical naturalism is atheistic.

As per our discussion on the other thread, Calvert is taking the position that all of science, including meteorology, medicine, astronomy, etc., is one big exercise in atheism.

tytlal · 19 May 2005

Quote:

Ohio biology teacher Bryan Leonard testified that he helped write a state lesson plan called "Critical Analysis of Evolution." He said he knows it's a "good product" because of the overwhelmingly positive reaction from students: "The key is to find out what students want and teach toward their interests."

In other news, children have expressed an interest in smoking cigarettes.

caerbannog · 19 May 2005

"The key is to find out what students want and teach toward their interests."

So much for abstinence-only sex-ed....

Steve U. · 19 May 2005

Thanks for the excellent link, Mr. Krebs! Stan Cox is a fine writer. I was also impressed by many of the comments in response to his article, particularly this one posted by "tofocsend"

"Evolution ... is based on methodological naturalism, that is, the search by science for explanations only in the natural world. Methodological naturalism always implies philosophical naturalism, the belief that there is nothing beyond the natural world." This is a ridiculous tautology. Of course science is the search for explanations only in the natural world - the natural world is the only medium humans can observe and manipulate in a documented, repeatable manner - i.e. scientifically. Science does not presume that "there is nothing beyond the natural world" (although some scientists doubtless believe this), only that science is not competent to explore whatever lies "beyond the natural world". The simple fact is that there is no contradiction between evolution and creation. Evolution is a scientific theory to explain the diversity in life across space and time, and "intelligent design" (ID) is a philosophical theory to explain how life came to exist in the first place. As soon as you introduce ID into a science discussion, you're no longer talking about science, since ID implies influence on natural processes that originates from "beyond the natural world" - i.e. outside the purview of science. If schools want to discuss ultimate questions about how life originated, let them do it in a philosophy class. Transforming science from experiment and observation into mysterious forces that cannot be discussed in class destroys science and does an injustice to whatever mysterious forces may be at work in the universe.

Man with No Personality · 19 May 2005

Hmm. Nearing ten comments, and no ID/creationist trolls have shown up. Wonder how long this blessed state will last...

That said, while ID took a beating in the eyes of anyone who actually knew scientific theory from a hole in the ground, I've no doubt the flag-waving zealots on the sidelines are already preparing to trumpet their great "victory"--when the board comes to conclusion we are a ll reasonably sure they're going to...

Sir_Toejam · 19 May 2005

any bets on who will be the first IDer to post on this thread?

I'm gonna go with Slaveador Condorva

bill · 19 May 2005

My, my, Sir T! You definitely need more fibre in your diet.

The IDers are probably out having another crisis of faith. I recall as a budding scientist going through that. I started out a confirmed Bud drinker, then a fraternity brother converted me to Coors. Fortunately, there was an intervention, I spent some time in a half-way house and emerged a Michelob devotee. Less filling? Tastes great? I say teach the controversy and let the kids decide.

Sir_Toejam · 19 May 2005

"My, my, Sir T! You definitely need more fibre in your diet."

just the opposite, actually. I'm tired of eating the high fiber diet being fed to us by the IDers.

I wish they would get some meat to their arguments.

Sir_Toejam · 19 May 2005

btw, i did write to Stan to thank him for taking the time to respond to the Kansas Kangaroo.

As to the comments to Stan's article quoted above. these two lines cannot be repeated often enough, imo:

"This is a ridiculous tautology. Of course science is the search for explanations only in the natural world - the natural world is the only medium humans can observe and manipulate in a documented, repeatable manner - i.e. scientifically.

Science does not presume that "there is nothing beyond the natural world" (although some scientists doubtless believe this), only that science is not competent to explore whatever lies "beyond the natural world"."

At any given moment in time, this is absolutely true.

I would only add that "beyond the natural world" is very strictly tied to the present. Science has had a great track record of addressing things that eventually become part of the natural world as our understanding increases, along with our technical ability to test predictions.

The reason so many of us have chosen the scientific method over religion is simply because of its track record in providing useful results when applied to things that historically were thought to be part of the non-natural world.

You can use disease research as a classic example of this. There was a time when diseases were considered totally outside of the "natural" realm. If we stuck to religious explanations, we would never have solved the riddle posed by disease. However, applying the scientific method, as we grew in understanding that diseases were, in fact, part of the natural world, once we had the technical ability to examine these things and test them... we solved that riddle.

My point is one that has been raised many times before. We don't abandon the scientific method simply because a particular subject is "untestable" with our current understanding and abilities.

so, my only correction to Stan's statement would be that we shouldn't limit science to what is "beyond" the natural world, no more than we should resign god to those gaps as well.

I would think more in terms of god existing "outside" of the natural world, not "beyond". That is why faith and god are not applicable to the scientific method. not because they are beyond the natural world, but because by definition, they exist outside of it.

Commonly "debate" on the issue of the purview of science includes terms like "beyond the natural world", but imo, this only results in the standard "god of the gaps" argument which is ultimately limiting for both science and and religion.

semantics, perhaps, but this whole creation/science debate seems to revolve around basic definitions anyway.

Sir_Toejam · 19 May 2005

sorry, in:

There was a time when diseases were considered totally outside of the "natural" realm.

change outside to beyond

tytlal · 19 May 2005

I'm sure this has been brought up numerous times . . . how can you teach a controversy that doesn't exist? Is the battle cry really "teach the controversy"? Have "ID'er" ever described the controversy besides rants and arm-waving criticism?

I live in a Red State (Indiana), alas, there are many people here who believe in scripture (Bible) before facts. Perhaps they should change their religion and not try to change science (facts)? Just a thought.

God in the gaps is a popular argument I hear as well.

Back to the article, Stan had an interesting point about the audience in the proceedings.

Brian Andrews · 19 May 2005

I say teach the controversy and let the kids decide.

It can't be said enough - what controversy?!? Has any evidence been presented for a competing theory? No. Does ID make any effort to present any? No.

Dave Cerutti · 19 May 2005

One of the first conversations I had with a member of the UCSD IDEA club (actually, its President at one point) went like this:

Him: "Well, ID wants people to be aware of the problems with evolution and the way it's dogmatically taught, in spite of the evidence."

Me: "How should people be more aware?"

Him: "Well, they should be able to study the controversy over evolution."

Me: "What controversy?"

Him: "Wait..." (crouches slightly) "you mean you don't know about the controversy?"

Me: "No."

(...)

Me: "So, what sorts of things do you guys discuss at the IDEA club?"

Him: "Oh, know you, stuff about design, signs of intelligence, information theory, complex systems."

Me: "What information theory?"

Him: "Wait..." (crouches) "you mean you want to debate evolution and you don't know about information theory?"

I find it amusing with these people. They think that the only way to defend evolution (if it could be done!) would be with the strawmen that they have constructed in order to argue against it. It's also pretty funny how much these people remind me of LaRouchies in the way their eyes glaze over when tehy start talking about the conspiracies behind it all, how great Bill Dembski is, or how they start roughing you up and insinuating that you're confused and ignorant if you disagree with them. It can be just like any other cult of personality.

Bill Ware · 19 May 2005

Sir T

You said "I'm tired of eating the high fiber diet being fed to us by the IDers."

Shouldn't that be "high fibber diet?"

That aside, the article and posts at AlterNet have been quite good.

Dave Cerutti · 19 May 2005

One of the first conversations I had with a member of the UCSD IDEA club (actually, its President at one point) went like this:

Him: "Well, ID wants people to be aware of the problems with evolution and the way it's dogmatically taught, in spite of the evidence."

Me: "How should people be more aware?"

Him: "Well, they should be able to study the controversy over evolution."

Me: "What controversy?"

Him: "Wait..." (crouches slightly) "you mean you don't know about the controversy?"

Me: "No."

(...)

Me: "So, what sorts of things do you guys discuss at the IDEA club?"

Him: "Oh, know you, stuff about design, signs of intelligence, information theory, complex systems."

Me: "What information theory?"

Him: "Wait..." (crouches) "you mean you want to debate evolution and you don't know about information theory?"

I find it amusing with these people. They think that the only way to defend evolution (if it could be done!) would be with the strawmen that they have constructed in order to argue against it. It's also pretty funny how much these people remind me of LaRouchies in the way their eyes glaze over when they start talking about the conspiracies behind it all, how great Bill Dembski is, or how they start roughing you up and insinuating that you're confused and ignorant if you disagree with them. It can be just like any other cult of personality.

Ed Darrell · 19 May 2005

I say teach the controversy and let the kids decide.

But you were talking about the controversy over Coors vs. Budweiser. And you did the research on both sides so you had the facts first. Teach the facts. If there is controversy, the kids will be competent to judge, once they have the facts. Leave no child behind: Teach evolution.

Dave Cerutti · 19 May 2005

Sorry, redundant posts.

bill · 19 May 2005

I'm sorry if my writing was slurred, but, yes, I was referring to beer. Actually, I solved that controversy in England where the beer was both less filling and tasted great. Why choose one over the other? And, yes, too, I did lots and lots and lots and lots of research. Can't have enough data. I always say that.

Hmmm, it appears we've created an IDiot Free Zone? How refreshing!

Steve U. · 19 May 2005

Dave that post was good enough to read twice!

That Casey Luskin character at the UCSD IDEA Club makes my skin crawl. A genuinely disturbing individual.

Brian Andrews · 19 May 2005

Since ID can't argue the facts their argument is purely theological, not scientific. But to them it is science. It's science because their theology tells them that science is wrong. The quandary for them is that they can't do real science. They have no evidence to present. They just know they're right. If they could only get science to look in the right direction they'd be vindicated. Once they have the science community working for them and supporting their agenda we'll find the designer.

So how would you change the very meaning and objectives of science? You can't directly challenge scientists. Tried it, didn't work. What you'd have to have is a grass roots culture change. With everyone on your side you could take control of politics, religion and the media. Then you'd have power enough to take on science. They're not winning yet but they seem to be doing a great job so far. Teaching ID in schools to the next generation of scientists would fit nicely into this plan.

Their ultimate aim is hijacking science. I'd like to laugh but these guys are a real threat.

Steve U. · 19 May 2005

In light of various discussions here recently, this recent news item struck me as especially interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/05/19/voodoo.sex.ap/index.html

Faith in the power of voodoo -- sometimes called juju -- is deeply ingrained in West African culture. It's a direct link to ancient ancestor-based beliefs that include a wide variety of spirits and other supernatural entities, and it forms the base for rituals brought to the Caribbean and elsewhere. In West Africa, voodoo priests still are often used to seal financial transactions or root out suspected thieves -- often with a threat of a deadly curse for the wrongdoer. ... "But in the cases of voodoo, it can be just beginning," said the Rev. Tom Marfo, a Ghanian-born Pentecostal pastor who operates mission houses around Amsterdam that specialize in helping West African women break from prostitution gangs. "They think, 'Oh no, the curses will begin.' I tell them to have faith that the true God will not let this happen." Dutch authorities have taken notice. Marfo is increasingly consulted to understand the centuries-old rituals behind the Nigeria prostitution rings. "This is more than a police issue. This is an issue of native spirituality -- a kind of spiritual terrorism being used on these women," said Marfo. "You need religious people and the power of faith to fight this.[b/]"

My understanding of history is that it often comes down to who has the biggest fire stick.

Dave Cerutti · 19 May 2005
Steve U, close but no cigar. I wasn't referring to Casey. And thanks for the props.

Stan Cox · 19 May 2005
I also would like to complain about the absence of nasty pro-ID responses. As I hit the 'Send' button to submit the article to Alternet, I was licking my chops in anticipation of what the other crowd would have to say. So far, nothing here or at Alternet.
Anyway, thanks to you folks for fighting the good fight.

Don S · 19 May 2005
Dave and Steve U., I went to UCSD, a long time ago. When I first heard of the UCSD IDEA Club recently, I should have fallen flat on my blacks-beaching eucalyptus-loving cement-box-dwelling space-ship-library-studying hang-gliding hump-lunching quonset-hutting Koala-reading lead-treeing Porter's-Pubbing purple-fence-running butt.
But I was already sitting down. What a pity, those people infiltrating such a fine institution. Sun-Goddammit.
I even got married there.

Steven Laskoske · 19 May 2005
I'm sorry if my writing was slurred, but, yes, I was referring to beer. Actually, I solved that controversy in England where the beer was both less filling and tasted great. Why choose one over the other? And, yes, too, I did lots and lots and lots and lots of research. Can't have enough data. I always say that.
— bill
With Bud? Coors? Michelob? As a Guinness man, I find your arguements to be weak.

PaulP · 20 May 2005
[the following is not an attempt to take the sting out of evolution or science for creationists, jut me wondering out loud]
It is regularly said that scientists are "methodological naturalists". I am not so sure. Perhaps "methodological conservatives" is better. "Conservative" because scientists tend to look at new phenomena with the same mindset they use for known phemomena - so they will not reach of new types of explanations as soon as they are stumped. They try to keep as much of what they already think, while trying to accomodate the new information. Since they have no need for supernatural explanations so far, when faced with something new they will stick with natural ones. [Which is not to say they do not have other excellent reasons for doing so].

Kaptain Kobold · 20 May 2005
"With Bud? Coors? Michelob? As a Guinness man, I find your arguements to be weak."
I bet all you athesistic, materialist, baby-eaters drink your beer cold, and teach your children to do so as well.

GT(N)T · 20 May 2005
One word: Shiner Bock.

nihilan · 20 May 2005
Off topic, but I thought you all would appreciate this article:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24716

Louis · 20 May 2005
Since none of you drink Ringwood Fortyniner*, the world's best and most quaffable beer and the chosen brew of the Brewer (see intelligent designer), I can only discern that you are all benighted heathens who shall be the first ones to be wiped off this planet (which is clearly cask shaped and not an oblate spheroid like those heathen scientists think) when the Great Beer Towel comes.
I mean, we can debate trifling trivia like whether IDists/creationists are deluded, misguided but otherwise charming loons or rampaging neo-con religious right shills determined to reconstruct the world into their idea of heaven which seems to be a composite of the nice bits of Happy Days, other bad 50's nostalgia and the more violent bits of some shepherds' imaginary conversations, all day (my guess is both). But let's be honest, beer is IMPORTANT.
Vive la revolution, tally ho, and up the Lions etc.
*I may allow Tim Taylor's Landlord or Ringwood Old Thumper, but only on a good day.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 20 May 2005
With Bud? Coors? Michelob? As a Guinness man, I find your arguements to be weak.
I homebrew my own porter. It's the only way to go. :>

Moses · 20 May 2005
Since none of you drink Ringwood Fortyniner*, the world's best and most quaffable beer and the chosen brew of the Brewer (see intelligent designer), I can only discern that you are all benighted heathens who shall be the first ones to be wiped off this planet (which is clearly cask shaped and not an oblate spheroid like those heathen scientists think) when the Great Beer Towel comes. I mean, we can debate trifling trivia like whether IDists/creationists are deluded, misguided but otherwise charming loons or rampaging neo-con religious right shills determined to reconstruct the world into their idea of heaven which seems to be a composite of the nice bits of Happy Days, other bad 50's nostalgia and the more violent bits of some shepherds' imaginary conversations, all day (my guess is both). But let's be honest, beer is IMPORTANT. Vive la revolution, tally ho, and up the Lions etc.
But I don't like beer. I can barely stomach some wines. I'm okay with most non-malt liquors. And gin goes with everything.

PaulH · 20 May 2005
Louis #31180 -- Having lived less than 10 miles from the holy site of Ringwood for the first 18 years of my life, I have to agree. Old Thumper is also a fine pint, although I find it well named on the morning after.

Jack Krebs · 20 May 2005
Hi guys - I'm not sure how the beer discussion got started, but I'd like to see some comments on the actual article linked to in the opening thread. The beer discussion may be getting in the way of that.

csa · 20 May 2005
IMO, Dr. Cox's statement summed up the farce nicely:
"And by the time the hearings adjourned on Saturday evening, Calvert and his witnesses had made it clear that the formula "evolution = atheism" did indeed lie at the core of their legal case for the new standards."

Gregory Gay · 20 May 2005
My new favorite question for ID advocates is "Imagine the theory of evolution vanished off the face of the Earth tomorrow. What theory would you replace it with?"
"How would you test your theory?"
"What hitherto unobserved phenomena might your theory predict?"
"Describe a discovery that, if confirmed, might require you to overhaul or scrap your theory."
Okay, that's really four questions, I guess.
Oddly, I haven't seen anyone on the ID side who wants to tackle them.

Intelligent Design Theorist Timmy · 20 May 2005
Comment #31195 Posted by Gregory Gay on May 20, 2005 09:58 AM (e) (s) My new favorite question for ID advocates is "Imagine the theory of evolution vanished off the face of the Earth tomorrow. What theory would you replace it with?"
Genesis, obviously, which is the only true account of biological history.
"How would you test your theory?"
Test the bible? Are you daft? The bible is automatically correct, because it is. This requires no testing.
"What hitherto unobserved phenomena might your theory predict?"
It will predict everything. Everything which is discovered, will automatically accord with ID Genesis Theory. Like Bill Dembski said.
"Describe a discovery that, if confirmed, might require you to overhaul or scrap your theory."
The theory explains any result or its opposite. That makes it superior to Methodologistical Naturalismistic theories.
Okay, that's really four questions, I guess.
You need to learn some math. David Heddle can teach you. He does real statistics, not those confusing lies they teach in mainstream classes.

FL · 20 May 2005
My new favorite question for ID advocates is "Imagine the theory of evolution vanished off the face of the Earth tomorrow. What theory would you replace it with?" "How would you test your theory?"
Briefly: 1. I would offer Dembski's 3-point ID hypothesis from his book Intelligent Design, (modified slightly so that Dembski's phrase "specified complexity" became "specified complexity ~or~ irreducible complexity"). 2. I would use Meyer/Hartwig's prediction from Of Pandas and People, 2d ed., to provide the testable prediction and hence the falsifiability. 3. I would choose "origin of life" as the battle arena of choice in which to offer (1) and (2). 4. Specifically, I would critically examine the evolutionist-claim that Earth life originated via chemical evolution from non-living chemicals (the "primordial soup"), which is universally accepted and taught AS SCIENCE in both the high school and college textbooks. Using comparison and contrast, I would show: a. that (1) does indeed fit the accepted parameters of what-is-science-versus-what-is-not-science, just as equally (or better) as the specified evo-hypothesis does, and therefore IS SCIENCE just as much as the textbook-taught evo-stuff. b. that (1) does compete as an equal (or better) with the specified evo-hypothesis, in terms of scientific plausibility and likelihood of actually happening. ***************** And that is what I'm working on this summer, btw, for a certain religion class I hope and intend to take in the fall. I don't know how successful I'll be in following the above stated approach, or to what extent, (though I ~am~ at least certain that I'll get my paper done in time!), but I do sincerely believe that this is at least the best ~approach~ to scientifically answering your questions, and therby gaining a new foothold that will persuade yet more multitudes to consider and accept ID instead of the status quo spoonfed naturalistic Darwinism.
Oddly, I haven't seen anyone on the ID side who wants to tackle them.
Then you have clearly not been reading much ID (or other non-Darwinist) materials. There ARE scientists and scholars on the non-Darwinist side who are taking your questions seriously. It's from reading their combined stuff that I believe the above approach is the most workable at this time. So please keep on reading 'em. I believe that it'll only get better as new books/articles/blogs/etc. come out. And rest assured they will. *************** In fact, let me go further. There seems to be a new trend not only of good recent ID books and media, but also some good recent print and online resources coming out of the OEC and YEC camps as well these days. Look for Fazale Rana/Hugh Ross on the OEC side, and books by Kurt Wise and Todd Charles Wood on the YEC side, for example. In light of this trend, one could speculate that perhaps a ~combination~ of ID, OEC, and YEC scientists and scholars, through their various publications and media, could eventually force some measure of "sharing the microphone" in public school biology and science classes, in the not too distant (in fact, perhaps the near) future. Delicious!! ******************* At any rate, the questions you asked aren't bad. They are in fact, fascinating to me. So that's the way I would approach (and in fact ~do~ approach and work on) the task of answering those questions. FL

david s · 20 May 2005
What I find interesting about a student's question, "Who then is the designer?" is that a teacher might say, "Well, we all know it was the devil, don't we?" Or perhaps, "Well, Billie, the universe was designed by the creator, Almighty Zeus."
Now just for a minute imagine in the uproar. Clearly there'd be a rush to 'establish' certain creators as acceptable and others not : Judeo-Christian OK, Devil Not OK, Zeus Not OK, Allah ......
Didn't we address this kind of problem over two hundred years ago?

Moses · 20 May 2005
Test the bible? Are you daft? The bible is automatically correct, because it is. This requires no testing.

(Deu 14:7 NRSV) Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cleft you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you.
Rabbits aren't ruminents and they don't chew their cud.
(Lev 11:20-21 NRSV) All winged insects that walk upon all fours are detestable to you. But among the winged insects that walk on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap on the ground.
Insects have 6 legs, not 4.

Jim Wynne · 20 May 2005
1. I would offer Dembski's 3-point ID hypothesis from his book Intelligent Design, (modified slightly so that Dembski's phrase "specified complexity" became "specified complexity ~or~ irreducible complexity").
— FL
Dembski's hypothesis? What, no organized theory? What you're proposing is pre-Darwinian creationist conjecture.
I would use Meyer/Hartwig's prediction from Of Pandas and People, 2d ed., to provide the testable prediction and hence the falsifiability.
— FL
But without the theory of evolution, the would be no Pandas and People. You might have to think for yourself, in other words, instead of using outdated, long discredited creationist drivel. But on the other hand, if youdid think for yourself, the result would probably make no more sense, so never mind.
Specifically, I would critically examine the evolutionist-claim that Earth life originated via chemical evolution from non-living chemicals (the "primordial soup"), which is universally accepted and taught AS SCIENCE in both the high school and college textbooks.
— FL
Regardless of how many times you've been told otherwise, you and your creationist bretheren keep insisting that abiogenesis is a factor in the study of biological evolution. Here's a hint for you--IT'S NOT. And while the subject might be mentioned in biology text books as a possibility, nowhere is it treated as fact in the sense that evolution is. It's much easier to be dishonest about it though, I guess.

Brian Andrews · 20 May 2005
I would offer Dembski's 3-point ID hypothesis from his book Intelligent Design, (modified slightly so that Dembski's phrase "specified complexity" became "specified complexity ~or~ irreducible complexity").
These claims aren't replacement theories for evolution, rather they're designed to poke holes in evolution. Trying to disprove something and presenting an alternative are radically different things. IDers seem to get this one wrong every time. At least he admits he's presenting his 'science' in a religion class, but unfortunately without understanding the implications.

Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
damn, i lost. FL was the first to show up, not slaveador.
FL, all your lame attempts are doing are deceiving folks who don't know better. If you had any ethics, I would say you should be ashamed.
Dembski's "hypothesis" is nothing of the kind. Ask Paul Nelson if you don't believe me. It's a mere definition of terms, and anybody who knows anything about the scientific method can immediately see it isn't testable.
"And that is what I'm working on this summer, btw, for a certain religion class I hope and intend to take in the fall."
well, there ya go. if it were in fact science, you'd be working on it for a science class.
"I don't know how successful I'll be in following the above stated approach"
I do.
I have a better question for you:
Say we all decided (purely hypothetical) that ID/creationism was to replace the scientific method.
What practical applications do you see arising from that?
The scientific method, used by evolutionary biologists, has a fantastic track record of producing not only useful and interesting information, but practical applications as well.
Can the same be said of religious philosophy?
Have any of your ID heroes produced anything practical and useful as a result of their belief in ID?
not a thing.

JRQ · 20 May 2005
FL: In light of this trend, one could speculate that perhaps a ~combination~ of ID, OEC, and YEC scientists and scholars, through their various publications and media, could eventually force some measure of "sharing the microphone" in public school biology and science classes, in the not too distant (in fact, perhaps the near) future.
So I presume thier "various publications and media" will include some peer-reviewed science articles? You, know, the ones with actual data and theory, as opposed to rhetoric, posturing and obfuscation? It's about time!

Moses · 20 May 2005
You need to learn some math. David Heddle can teach you. He does real statistics, not those confusing lies they teach in mainstream classes.
I had a minor in math which included a number of statistics classes, including a class in statistical methodology and design. I learned a lot of rules and theory so we wouldn't fall for the kind of crap that David Heddle tries to pull. Crap that has been going for over a hundred years, and will probably go on for the rest of eternity. As is attributed to Mark Twain (among others): There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Which would be more appropriately stated as : liars, damn liars, and people who lie with statistics. The problem with Heddle's stats is that he uses them as a drunk uses a lamp post - for support instead of illumination. And thus, has a tendency to deliberately mis-understand and mis-apply statistical tools to further his argument.

Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
er, before the comments on ID theorist timmy goes any farther...
IDTT only posts satire, as far as i can tell. He's caught me a couple of times too.
Check those irony/satire meters.
:)

Brian Andrews · 20 May 2005
specified complexity and irreducible complexity, as stated above, are definitions - not theories. They have no predictive power and, by themselves, cannot explain anything.

Ed Darrell · 20 May 2005
FL said:
4. Specifically, I would critically examine the evolutionist-claim that Earth life originated via chemical evolution from non-living chemicals (the "primordial soup"), which is universally accepted and taught AS SCIENCE in both the high school and college textbooks.
FL, can you name for us any curriculum which "teaches" life arose "via chemical evolution" (whatever that might be), or from "primordial soup?" Can you name the text, and quote for me the passage where you say such a claim is made? I've read all the legitimate high school books. None of them say that.

Flint · 20 May 2005
Say we all decided (purely hypothetical) that ID/creationism was to replace the scientific method. What practical applications do you see arising from that?
— ST
No need to ask, since we have a few millennia of history, involving many cultures, answering it already. First, we'd have an average lifespan of about 32 years. Second, we'd live in small groups in primitive conditions. Third, we'd have a priesthood in charge of beseeching the gods as the only known way to influence our circumstances. We'd be doing sacrifices, rain dances, or whatever the priests thought would change the gods' minds about this or that. Fourth, our short lives would be unpleasant grinds of disease-ridden manual labor. On the plus side, we wouldn't be contributing to global warming, polluting the water, air and soil, exterminating other species wholesale, exhausting our supply of fossil fuels, etc. I predict that in no more than 100 years, our few surviving descendents will return to those glorious days when the best we can do, is what we can trick the gods into doing for us, if we live long enough to memorize the rituals.

Ed Darrell · 20 May 2005
Fuz Rana an expert in biology? Woo.

bill · 20 May 2005
Fourth, our short lives would be unpleasant grinds of disease-ridden manual labor.
That's because of polluted water. But, we'd soon learn to treat it with grains and herbs, like the Egyptians did, to provide a mild medicinal value. Yes, that's right, we'd be beer drinkers. (Sorry, Jack, couldn't resist.)

Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
beer, is better than spam.

Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
Flint!
how are they supposed to learn if we give them the answers!
geez.

GT(N)T · 20 May 2005
FL said:
"1. I would offer Dembski's 3-point ID hypothesis from his book Intelligent Design, (modified slightly so that Dembski's phrase "specified complexity" became "specified complexity ~or~ irreducible complexity")."
But how would you TEST those hypotheses?
"2. I would use Meyer/Hartwig's prediction from Of Pandas and People, 2d ed., to provide the testable prediction and hence the falsifiability."
If the Meyer/Hartwig prediction IS testable, why hasn't anyone done so?
"3. I would choose "origin of life" as the battle arena of choice in which to offer (1) and (2)."
Good luck.

"4. Specifically, I would critically examine the evolutionist-claim that Earth life originated via chemical evolution from non-living chemicals (the "primordial soup"), which is universally accepted and taught AS SCIENCE in both the high school and college textbooks. Using comparison and contrast, I would show:"
Universally accepted, Gracie?
"a. that (1) does indeed fit the accepted parameters of what-is-science-versus-what-is-not-science, just as equally (or better) as the specified evo-hypothesis does, and therefore IS SCIENCE just as much as the textbook-taught evo-stuff."
Saying creationism is science doesn't make it so. Tell us how you would test the hypothesis that the first life was designed/created/prescribed?
"b. that (1) does compete as an equal (or better) with the specified evo-hypothesis, in terms of scientific plausibility and likelihood of actually happening."
Magic doesn't fit well with scientific plausibility.

Intelligent Design Theorist Timmy · 20 May 2005
Rabbits aren't ruminents and they don't chew their cud.
There you go, you atheist scientists. You want proof of ID theory, there you go. Just test whether rabbits chew there cud. Scientists say there not runimants, but scientists are misled by the Darwinist Paradigm. I'm sure when a dispassionate scientist like Bill Smartski investigates he will determine ID Theory to be correct. Remember, they thought Galileo was crazy when he invented the Steam Boat.

FL · 20 May 2005
Extremely quickie notes:
Fuz Rana an expert in biology? Woo.
Not biology. Chemistry, as in PhD chemistry.
Universally accepted, Gracie?
Looks that way. In the biology textbook used in my hometown's high schools (Holt, "Biology", 2004) and in the evolution textbook used in my hometown's university biology department (Volpe-Rosenbaum, "Understanding Evolution 6th ed", McGrawHill, 2000 or 2001), it is taught and accepted as science. (Same for Freeman-Herron's text too.) Haven't yet found a textbook where it was NOT taught or NOT accepted as science. Have you?

Sir_Toejam · 20 May 2005
uh.. not too put too fine a point on it finley, but you missed the point (the use of "Gracie" might be a bit before your time?).
"Universally accepted, Gracie?"
as in, if universally accepted... how could you argue against it?
perhaps you should choose a better term?

steve · 20 May 2005
Haven't yet found a textbook where it was NOT taught or NOT accepted as science. Have you?
I found one http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0131244051/103-6407380-3376606?v=glance Which must really surprise the &*%# out of Sancho P. Cordova, since he considers it fundamental to Origin Of Life science.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 20 May 2005
And that is what I'm working on this summer, btw, for a certain religion class I hope and intend to take in the fall.
Why on earth are you working on a scientific theory of ID for a *religion* class . . . . Or are IDers just lying to us when they claim ID is science and has NOTHING TO DO with advancing religion -- nothing AT ALL.

Ed Darrell · 21 May 2005
FL had said, earlier, that biology books teach that life arose spontaneously. Knowing that is not the case, I asked for referenes. FL said:
Looks that way. In the biology textbook used in my hometown's high schools (Holt, "Biology", 2004) and in the evolution textbook used in my hometown's university biology department (Volpe-Rosenbaum, "Understanding Evolution 6th ed", McGrawHill, 2000 or 2001), it is taught and accepted as science. (Same for Freeman-Herron's text too.) Haven't yet found a textbook where it was NOT taught or NOT accepted as science. Have you?
The Holt book does not say, anywhere, that it is a fact that life arose without God. Nor does any other book in use in the U.S. in high schools. I asked for a citation -- you list the whole book. I challenge you to show us the language, please. The Volpe-Rosenbaum book does not ring a bell with me -- but I doubt that it is as sloppy as creationists usually are, FL. Again -- citation, please. Quotes would be better. American high school biology texts present the facts: There is ample evidence that the essential chemicals of life can arise spontaneously, there is tantalizing evidence that life itself arises spontaneously, but the issue is not settled by any means. That is why ID folks want to teach the controversy: The facts are so damaging to the ID case. They hope to fuzz over the facts. And the critical facts here are that science textbooks do not present an atheistic view, nor endorse it, but they do present a wealth of facts that tend to falsify ID.

FL · 21 May 2005
Why on earth are you working on a scientific theory of ID for a *religion* class.
Odd that you should ask---there's quite a bit of interest in the philosophy and religious studies fields concerning the subject. I saw an article in the Journal of Religious Studies, for example, several months ago. Wm. Rowe's college-level philosophy of religion textbook (the 3rd edition) even mentions the ID hypothesis for a few paragraphs, while discussing the Design and Cosmological Arguments in general. The interest is definitely there. Also, fwiw, religious people are sometimes just plain interested in the topic, as well as the overall evolution-vs-alternatives debate. Both young and old. Hence the importance of being able to address the topic for a religion class, whether said class is being offered by a university, or at a local Sunday School or Catechism class, or just plain Whatnot. ******************
I found one
Ah, yes. Thank you for searching, steve. Let's see now. What is this high-school level biology textbook in which the standard prebiotic evolution hypothesis is not taught or accepted as science? Why, it's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David Griffiths. Uhhh, yeah, I see. I'm sure the high school biology teachers get a lot of mileage out of it with the biology kids.....(insert smile here). Thanks again, steve. ****************** Ed says,
The Holt book does not say, anywhere, that it is a fact that life arose without God. Nor does any other book in use in the U.S. in high schools. I asked for a citation --- you list the whole book. I challenge you to show us the language, please. The Volpe-Rosenbaum book does not ring a bell with me --- but I doubt that it is as sloppy as creationists usually are, FL. Again --- citation, please. Quotes would be better.
Well, sure, Ed. Sounds like you don't have a copy of either book with you, but that's okay.
FL had said, earlier, that biology books teach that life arose spontaneously. Knowing that is not the case, I asked for references.
Let's start with Holt page 257. "Therefore, the subject of how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest." "Spontaneously." There you go. Also, the above quotation has bearing on another statement of yours:
The Holt book does not say, anywhere, that it is a fact that life arose without God.
I'm sorry, but "naturally and spontaneously" means exactly what it means. No room for God in that phrasing, eh? Further, the Holt book says "Most scientists think that life developed through natural chemical and physical processes." (p 253) Again, they are careful to ascribe the origin of life to natural processes ONLY. Chemical and physical processes. ONLY. Finally, though the new Holt edition carefully avoids using the word "evolution" in Section 1 where these quotes are located, where do you suppose Section 1 is located? But of course---directly after the page marked in big letters, "UNIT 3: Principles of Evolution". Making sure the kids get the evo-picture, natch. ***** Let's quickly do Volpe-Rosenbaum, the currently used college textbook. You say that quotes would be better? Then so be it---your humble servant shall serve 'em right up. First, let's have a "spontaneous" quote again so that it's clear that God gets no credit: "Conditions on the primeval earth billions of years ago were assuredly different from present conditions, and the first form of life, or self-duplicating particle, did arise spontaneously from chemical inanimate substances." (p 146.) Secondly, other quotations of interest (that is, showing that you're being presented with evolution as the cause for life originating on Earth) are: "Moreover, RNA evidently preceded DNA in the evolution of life" (p 148) "At some later stage in the evolutionary process, DNA took the place of RNA as the repository of genetic information." (p 149) So, Ed, there you go! FL

Enough · 21 May 2005
FL, are you high? You might have possibly the worst reading comprehension problem I have ever seen.

FL · 21 May 2005
Nope, I'm not high, and it doesn't sound like you have a copy of either of the two textbooks either.
Go get your own copies and offer your own assessment of what they say.
FL :-)

Steven Laskoske · 21 May 2005
Let's start with Holt page 257. "Therefore, the subject of how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest."[\i] "Spontaneously." There you go. Also, the above quotation has bearing on another statement of yours: The Holt book does not say, anywhere, that it is a fact that life arose without God.[\quote] I'm sorry, but "naturally and spontaneously"[\i] means exactly what it means. No room for God in that phrasing, eh?
— FL
Let's take a look at your quoted sentence again: "Therefore, the subject of how life might[\b] have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest."[\i] The word "might" says that they are not teaching it as FACT but as supposition or speculation. That hardly matches up with the accusation that you made:
Specifically, I would critically examine the evolutionist-claim that Earth life originated via chemical evolution from non-living chemicals (the "primordial soup"), which is universally accepted and taught AS SCIENCE in both the high school and college textbooks.
— FL
The sentence you quoted made no such claim. Is study in the possible natural origins an active area of science? Certainly. This is a far cry from saying that there is a scientific consensus that life did develop in a certain way. There is certainly not a scientific consensus there. As far as whether there is room for God in that phrasing, certainly the word "might" leaves that open. In fact, even without the word "might" there would be room for God. I truly dislike the creationist arguement that, simply because we can only verify what is in nature, evolution and abiogenesis is atheistic. Poppycock! If you believe God created Nature and the Laws of Nature and accept that life arose in a natural way then it follows that God is still involved in the origins of life. The only thing argued is whether it was done through natural means or *poof* from special creation. A look at the evidence to date suggests that it came about through natural means. In other words, "natural and spontaneously" leaves a lot of room for God.

Ed Darrell · 21 May 2005
FL said: [qipte]Well, sure, Ed. Sounds like you don't have a copy of either book with you, but that's okay. Not the current edition, no -- but I've reviewed it carefully, and it differs in no significant way from the previous two editions, which is to say that it scrupulously avoids making a conclusion that science does not make: It does not say "how life arose." It gives the facts -- facts that ID cannot explain, of course -- but it sticks to what is known and makes no religious suggestion (nor antireligious suggestion). And that was my point. I do have copies of the Prentice Hall and Glencoe books, previous edition, here. They don't make the claim either. I reviewed the Campbell-Reece text. None of them make the claims you ascribe to them. I had said earlier: FL had said, earlier, that biology books teach that life arose spontaneously. Knowing that is not the case, I asked for references. FL responded:
Let's start with Holt page 257. "Therefore, the subject of how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest." "Spontaneously." There you go.
Yes, you made my point for me. The book does not claim that life did, in fact arise spontaneously. It says that scientists are interested in whether it arose spontaneously, and if so, how that could have occurred. I didn't ask whether the word "spontaneously" is contained in the text; I asked for a citation where the text makes the claim you ascribe to it, that life definitely arose spontaneously and without divine assistance. That citation doesn't support your claim. FL said:
Also, the above quotation has bearing on another statement of yours: The Holt book does not say, anywhere, that it is a fact that life arose without God. I'm sorry, but "naturally and spontaneously" means exactly what it means. No room for God in that phrasing, eh?
There's plenty of room for God in that phrasing for Christians. We take on faith that God created the universe, the matter and energy in it, and the processes we see. To us Christians, it is no less a miracle for life to arise "spontaneously" in a pool where the conditions took a billion years to set, or for humans to emerge from a long, 3 billion-year process of evolution, than it is for a magician god to "poof" life into existence. Frankly, I'm more comfortable with a God who takes 3 billion years to get the conditions right than with a slap-dash, 144-hour creator. Haste makes waste, some say (See Proverbs 21.5, for example: "If you plan and work hard,/you will have plenty;/if you get in a hurry,/you will end up poor." See also Proverbs 14.29 and 19.2, also.) You impart a religious significance to the word "spontaneous" that is unwarranted either by the words in the biology text, or by any theology on the planet. "Nature" is from God, in Christianity. To the extent that creationism denies that nature is God's and good, it denies God. Christianity traditionally regards nature as another testament of and to God; creationism regards nature as testimony against God. The error is not in the biology texts' laying out the facts; the error is in the theology creationism tries to defend. In any case, it's unfair to claim that the word "natural" means "not from God." It doesn't. I can't even find a definition in a dictionary that would support your conclusion. FL said:
Further, the Holt book says "Most scientists think that life developed through natural chemical and physical processes." (p 253) Again, they are careful to ascribe the origin of life to natural processes ONLY. Chemical and physical processes. ONLY.
They are also careful to ascribe it to "most" scientists, and not to theologians. It's a statement of fact. As I noted, as a Christian I'm comfortable that there is ample room for God there. Your reading that "natural" somehow excludes God is simple theological error on your part, and not scientific error or religious bias on the parts of the authors.
Finally, though the new Holt edition carefully avoids using the word "evolution" in Section 1 where these quotes are located, where do you suppose Section 1 is located? But of course----directly after the page marked in big letters, "UNIT 3: Principles of Evolution". Making sure the kids get the evo-picture, natch.
I thought the Holt book pulled punches and was way too weak on evolution. But I don't think in any way it says God didn't do it, except, as I've noted, to that small band of people who think God doesn't have much to do with nature. Certainly the language you cite should cause no problem for any mainstream Christian. It's carefully qualified to note that it's only the current thinking of many scientists based on the information they have -- it is at most a tentative conclusion well open for discussion and further study. That last point -- that the issue is open for study -- is one that should not be lost. It seems to me that the position of ID is that these issues should NOT be open for further study. ID offers no suggestions for research, and no encouragement for further study in the areas, especially when ID advocates get on their erroneous cant about science being wrong and conspiratorially against the truth. And, as you noted, there is an entire unit on the principles of evolution. Were the authors trying to make a case that evolution denies God, you'd think in that unit there would be thirty or forty clear lines where they make that point. Instead, you offer one sentence which you must torture to make it confess to a sin it does not commit. Miller's book, published by Prentice Hall, has a chapter on the origins of life -- concluding that "there are many current hypotheses regarding the formation of life. But you will also learn that, as in much of science, there are many unanswere questions as well." (Biology first edition, 1991, p. 338) I think it's the Campbell-Reece AP book that has one page devoted to debunking most of the more common and bizarre claims of creationism, while carefully avoiding saying that God didn't do it. I think your reading of the books the kids use, and your interpretations of what kids are taught, are off the mark, FL. They are no more anti-Christian than any algebra book.

FL · 21 May 2005
The word "might" says that they are not teaching it as FACT but as supposition or speculation. That hardly matches up with the accusation that you made:
However, I didn't claim that the textbook taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. I'm well aware of the "might"; in fact, if you have a copy of the text, you'll even see a couple "scientists disagree..." in there. So for me, I never claimed that the text taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. But I specifically said, "...taught AS SCIENCE", which of course is clearly true.
As far as whether there is room for God in that phrasing, certainly the word "might" leaves that open
But NOT the word "spontaneously", especially when that word is deliberately coupled with "naturally" as Holt clearly does. The idea is that it happened ~on its own~ (spontaneous, undirected, as in undirected natural causes, which means no God need apply), and also it happened specifically ~naturally~, not supernaturally. Also notice that in the same quote, the "might" quote, it's not about the "subject of ~whether~ life might have originated...naturally and spontaneously", nor is it about the "subject of ~if~ life might have originated...naturally and spontaneously", but instead it's specifically about the "subject of ~~how~~ life might have originated...naturally and spontaneously." IOW, you're just supposed to automatically buy into the evo-claim that life originated "naturally and spontaneously", the only remaining question being the not-yet-settled "how" of it. Taken together, it all seems reasonably clear. Though the Holt textbook seeks to communicate the diversity of scientific opinion about "how" life supposedly evolved from non-living chemicals via chemical evolution, its presentation and wording stays squarely in line, naturalistically in line, with Lewontin's famous quotation about refusing to "...allow a Divine Foot in the Door". FL

steve · 21 May 2005
So if a meteorology textbook said that storms form 'naturally and spontaneously', FL would regard meteorology as being aggressively atheistic.
The more these Creationists open their mouths, the worse they look.

Flint · 21 May 2005
Should a science text simply pretend that curiosity about, or investigation of, how life originated simply doesn't exist? Since investigation and scientific curiosity is very real in this area, mention would be omitted only for religious reasons. But if it IS mentioned, should a science text have a footnote (or more) devoted to how believers in some religions choose a posture with respect to this topic. So some think there are gods who created the conditions by magic, and others think there are gods who not only created the conditions, but then miracled them into accelerating the process of producing whatever we see. And for equal time, I imagine the text would have to go down quite a long list of creation myths from around the world, so as to leave nobody's beliefs out.
But in that case, is this still a science text, and is any of this scientific in any way? I think FL is demanding that a science text take a religious position about the unknown. Specifically, HIS religious position.

Steven Laskoske · 21 May 2005
However, I didn't claim that the textbook taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. I'm well aware of the "might"; in fact, if you have a copy of the text, you'll even see a couple "scientists disagree . . . " in there. So for me, I never claimed that the text taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. But I specifically said, " . . . taught AS SCIENCE",which of course is clearly true.
— FL
So let me see if I understand this: you object to a science book talking about a scientific hypothesis as science (although it is being shown as a highly contested hypothesis). The question I have is whether the possibility of organic material coming from a collection of inorganic material is a legitimate question of scientific inquiry. I believe that it is. It is certainly something that is testable, falsifiable and, while it can never be completely verified if life truly originated in that way, does present possibilities of how life originated. As for your objection to the term "spontaneously", I fail to see how that knocks God out of the picture. In the quote, spontaneous merely reinforces the term "natural". In the context, they are essentially synonymous. However, the sentence does, very plainly, show that scientists are looking at natural explanations instead of supernatural ones. Good. That's their job and how it should be approached in a science class. It does clearly state that nothing conclusive has been found according to your statements. So where's the beef?

Sir_Toejam · 21 May 2005
"So where's the beef?"
nowhere. there never has been any meat to any of FL's ramblings.

Wayne Francis · 22 May 2005
FL can you give me an example of what "non-living chemicals" and "living chemicals" are.

Frank J · 22 May 2005
FL can you give me an example of what "non-living chemicals" and "living chemicals" are.
— Wayne Francis
Or even "what is a chemical?" As you probably know, most nonscientists think that there are fundamentally different "kinds" of matter, chemicals and the "natural" stuff. But that's another story, though eerily similar to anti-evolution thinking. Of course, it's all chemicals, and life is a chemical system, emergent properties, "sum greater than its parts" etc," not a "lump of chemicals." And even if it needed something out of the ordinary to get it started, that has no bearing on evolution. Note how FL slipped from the "evo-hypothesis" to "it happened..." to "evo-claim that life originated." IOW, the evolution to abiogenesis bait-and-switch that no anti-evolutionist would leave home without.

Frank J · 22 May 2005
Of course anyone who follows the PT discussions recognizes that - scratch an anti-evolutionist, find a fundamentalist.
— Frank Schmidt
Not always:
What better demonstration could there possibly be that I have reached both camps in this idiotic war of two stupid ideologies, Darwimpian atheist pseudo-materialism and Fundamentalist Bible Banging Baptist Bigotry.
— John A. Davison
Of course if one must make it an either-or, most Judeo-Christian religious leaders, including the last two Popes, are "Darwimpian atheist pseudo-materialists."

Jack Krebs · 22 May 2005
Given that Davison has been limited to his own thread these days, it might be considerate (and useful) to not mention him in other threads. Some adage about sleeping dogs and/or dead horses might apply here.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 May 2005
Why on earth are you working on a scientific theory of ID for a *religion* class.

Odd that you should ask
Not at all odd, though, that you didn't answer . . . .
----there's quite a bit of interest in the philosophy and religious studies fields concerning the subject.
No kidding, you mean there is really interest amongst philosophers and theolgians in ID philosophy and religion? Again I ask -------------- what has ID religion and philosophy to do with science.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 May 2005
Let's start with Holt page 257. "Therefore, the subject of how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest." "Spontaneously." There you go. Also, the above quotation has bearing on another statement of yours: The Holt book does not say, anywhere, that it is a fact that life arose without God. I'm sorry, but "naturally and spontaneously" means exactly what it means. No room for God in that phrasing, eh? Further, the Holt book says "Most scientists think that life developed through natural chemical and physical processes." (p 253) Again, they are careful to ascribe the origin of life to natural processes ONLY. Chemical and physical processes. ONLY.
Um, FL, it's a SCIENCE book. Science deals with natural chemical and physical processes. ONLY. Science can't deal with NON-natural chemical or physical processes. That is what we pay theologians and philosophers to argue over, not scientists. Sorry if you don't like that. Of course, ID claims to be "science" too, and not simply religious objections to science. So I'd be very interested to hear what scientific hypothesis ID "science" offers about the origin of life, and how we can test it using the scientific method. Ooops --- ID doesn't HAVE any "scientific hypothesis" to offer, does it . . . . Rather, ID is nothing more, as you yourself make so crushingly clear, than bitching and whining that science doesn't pay any attention to your religious beliefs. If it makes you feel any better, FL, science doesn't pay any attentnion to MY religious beliefs, either. (shrug)

Frank J · 22 May 2005
Again I ask --------------------- what has ID religion and philosophy to do with science.
— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
An unsolicied interpretation from a non-expert in religion or philosophy: There's a religion/philosophy called "scientism" that, AIUI, has no members (What would one call a member anyway? "Scientist" has already been taken.) There's another religion/philosophy called "anti-scientism" which has all sorts of members, with all sots of different ideas, and the only common thread of equating science with scientism. ID is fast becoming the central "science" of anti-scientism.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 May 2005
An unsolicied interpretation from a non-expert in religion or philosophy: There's a religion/philosophy called "scientism" that, AIUI, has no members (What would one call a member anyway? "Scientist" has already been taken.) There's another religion/philosophy called "anti-scientism" which has all sorts of members, with all sots of different ideas, and the only common thread of equating science with scientism. ID is fast becoming the central "science" of anti-scientism.
IDers, of course, can't use the word "atheism" publicly, sicne it would make their religious agenda too clearly apparent for any judge to ignore. Hence, IDers have replaced "atheism" with a whole series of buzzwords and code words, each of which has brief fame and then fades into disuse when it fails to impress anyone. So far, we have had IDers blithering about their opposition to "darwinism", "materialism", "naturalism" and "scientism" (indeed, lately, IDers have taken to DEFINING THEMSELVES solely and only on the basis of their opposition to "darwinism/naturalism/materialism/whateverism"). They all, of course, mean the same thing --- "atheism". I **strongly encourage** the IDers to make this argument in court. Please. Please, please, please. Pretty please with sugar and honey on it.

qetzal · 22 May 2005
Rabbits aren't ruminents and they don't chew their cud.
— Moses
Ah, but they used to! God originally made rabbits as ruminants. But after a while, he decided they were pretty tasty, and it was a shame no one could eat 'em, so He performed a miracle and turned them into non-ruminants. There was a thing about it in a really early version of the Bible, but one of the monks spilled beer all over that page, making it unreadable. It got left out after that.
Insects have 6 legs, not 4.
That just means you have to pull two of 'em off & let it walk a few steps before you eat it. You're also allowed to pull off any wings, so it can't fly away. Seriously, anyone know a good site that lists other such blatant contradictions from the Bible? I'll Google for some, but would be interested if anyone knows of particularly good ones.

jeebus · 22 May 2005
qetzal -
Have you tried this site?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

Henry J · 22 May 2005
Re "God originally made rabbits as ruminants. But after a while, he decided they were pretty tasty, and it was a shame no one could eat 'em, so He performed a miracle and turned them into non-ruminants."
But, I thought the cud chewers were the ones people were allowed to eat? The ones with hooves, anyway.
Henry

Sir_Toejam · 22 May 2005
qetzal,
while it is fiction, you might enjoy reading the Davinci Code, if you haven't yet.
Even tho it is fiction, the author uses correct biblical references and current and past catholic traditions to form the foundation for much of the plot... and the christians come out looking pretty dim.
an interesting read.
cheers

Jeff · 23 May 2005
Seriously, anyone know a good site that lists other such blatant contradictions from the Bible? I'll Google for some, but would be interested if anyone knows of particularly good ones.
— qetzal
I often use the fantastic Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Great resource, and they even split the biblical contradictions into categories, if you're interested in specific subjects.

qetzal · 23 May 2005
But, I thought the cud chewers were the ones people were allowed to eat? The ones with hooves, anyway.
— Henry J
Yeah, I that didn't make much sense, did it? Not to worry. Under the circumstances, I invoke the "ID Defense." ;-) Thanks for the suggested links, jeebus & Jeff. Sir_Toejam, no I never read The Da Vinci Code. Unfortunately, I did read his subsequent book, Angels And Demons. Hated it. Very unlikely to read Da Vinci Code, as a result. I appreciate the suggestion, though.

Ed Darrell · 23 May 2005
FL said:
However, I didn't claim that the textbook taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. I'm well aware of the "might"; in fact, if you have a copy of the text, you'll even see a couple "scientists disagree . . . " in there. So for me, I never claimed that the text taught the evo-hypothesis as FACT. But I specifically said, " . . . taught AS SCIENCE", which of course is clearly true.
Then I do not understand your complaint in the least. Of course it's science -- and now you appear to be saying that science is tentative, as indeed it is. In short, you're agreeing that the books have the facts correct, and they correctly categorize the facts in science and as science. So what are you complaining about? Do you even remember what your beef was, FL?