Goodbye, Kansas

Welcome to the dark ages Kansas! This is painful reading - I just hope that these clowns come to realize that the rest of the world is either shaking their heads in disbelief or laughing uncontrollably. I'm doing both...

If the Dover case is ruled how we think it will, does this mean legal action against the Kansas School Board?

Janet Waugh, one of the four intelligent members of the board, put it well:

"This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that."

I hope those ACLU lawyers are ready to fly from Dover to Kansas! All we need is one brave parent to sue right? This reminds me of an old joke: You know why they call Kansas the "heartland" of America? Because the brain's not there!

--darth

Lyin' Luskin:

Students will learn more about evolution, not less as some Darwinists have falsely claimed

Actually, those students will learn a lot about liars like you, Casey.

Just like those rubes in Dover learned a lot about liars like you.

And Casey, since I know you read this blog, why not pop in here and tell us why you refuse to debate scientists about the nature of "intelligent design" and the rest of your employer's false propaganda?

What are you afraid of, Casey?

"These changes are not targeted at changing the hearts and minds of the Darwin fundamentalists," Calvert said.

Wow. A notorious liar and paid stooge for Christian reconstructionism calls the world's scientists "fundamentalists" and our lazy media simply passes the microphone around.

It doesn't get more pathetic. Oh wait, I forgot: they quoted Luskin, too ... and some moron named John Bacon ...

the move "gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today."

Bacon added: "This is the first step towards teaching our kids the controversy about disease-spreading fags."

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

Perhaps you are overestimating the harm that this will do. How much evolution education is there in high school anyway? And only a small portion of those which, if teachers go along with this, will be overexaggerating the problems with the neo-Darwinian consensus. Doesn't seem like such a really big deal. For all we know, it might encourage more kids to study evolution further, at which point they will be straightened out.

Perhaps you are overestimating the harm that this will do. How much evolution education is there in high school anyway? And only a small portion of those which, if teachers go along with this, will be overexaggerating the problems with the neo-Darwinian consensus.

Grammar: D+
Accuracy: F
Originality: F

Just one question for Luskin et al.

"Define the Intelligent Designer?"

LGM,FSM, The infinite dreams of the Hindu God's, Adams Mother, The Time before Time began etc etc. are all equally likely.

"the board rewrote the definition of "science"

Why stop there?

Why not redefine "country", "attack", "cat", "ship", "crash", "space ship", "water", ............or "PI" yep that will definitely work.

A simple intelligence test is needed for the IDDIots.

H2O is to water as God is to .......
Electron is to Electricity as ID is to ........

Here's an easy one
True or False.

Ghost is to Science as Science is "no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."

This just gets easier and easier.

I caught an article about this on CNN.com while in the school library earlier today. I decided to wait until PT posted something about it before I expressed my opinion.

Though it is sad, I have a feeling that the decision will come back to haunt those who voted for it. (look at the relection records for the Dover school board and the way that the results of the K v D case are leaning)

PS
Anyway, this post is not a comment as much as a reanouncment of my presence:

About a year and a half ago, I started posting at PT. I have not posted anything in about a year. However, even though I left PT, I have still followed the ID movement and the ID controversy. By next semester I will graduate with my hard-earned BS in biology. I have a strong interest in evolution and next semester my college (Mesa State in Grand Junction CO) will FINALLY be offering the evolution course (yes! so I can learn all about this subject I love o-so-well). Unlike the last time I was posting on PT, this time I will not leave my email address.(if I can)(the fact that I received so much $*@%^ SPAM from leaving it last time that I had to change it to make the #($&($@ spam stop should serve as a reminder)

Anyway, for those who care, I'm going to start posting again (I just hope that I don't leave my actual email address behind.)

Wait, didn't the *insert acronyms that I can't remember here* pull copyright for those standards? Don't they have a lot of work to do before they can actually use them?

One bright side to this. Fellow pseudoscientist Richard C. Hoagland has announced that he is happy about this decision and will be seeing how serious the Kansas board is by trying to introduce his bizarre theory that some intelligent designer is responsible for life on Earth, the life that existed on Mars and the OBVIOUSLY intelligently designed moons of Saturn. Hoagland is probably too cranky even for Kansans.

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

Is there a link to the new standards anywhere?

"I hope to help the students think," he said of his presentations to schools. "I'd like them to have the options and think about it. When students are presented options, their science scores soar."

What happens if a Kansas science teacher explains to his/her students that this redefinition of science is baloney? Might we see another "monkey trial"?

I particularly liked the part of "getting rid of dogma in the science classes."

Let's be clear: according to Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition, dogma is:

1) a doctrine; tenet; belief
2) doctrines, tenets, or beliefs, collectively
3) a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion
4) (Eccles.) a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed
(emphasis mine)

Note the prevailing use of opinion and belief in here. Dogma refers to religion. Science is not a religion. It doesn't depend on faith, belief, opinion, or "authoritative affirmation" in order to exist. When we do science, we observe the natural world and attempt to explain those observations with explanations. It doesn't matter whether 99% of the population believes that massive objects fall faster than less massive ones -- they still fall at the same rate!!!!!

I particularly liked the part of "getting rid of dogma in the science classes."

Let's be clear: according to Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition, dogma is:

1) a doctrine; tenet; belief
2) doctrines, tenets, or beliefs, collectively
3) a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion
4) (Eccles.) a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed
(emphasis mine)

Note the prevailing use of opinion and belief in here. Dogma refers to religion. Science is not a religion. It doesn't depend on faith, belief, opinion, or "authoritative affirmation" in order to exist. When we do science, we observe the natural world and attempt to explain those observations with explanations. It doesn't matter whether 99% of the population believes that massive objects fall faster than less massive ones -- they still fall at the same rate!!!!!

only two left to go:

war is peace
freedom is slavery

er, make that just one...

I do not expect any better from the folk in Kansas for one very mundane reason: they are quite happy with the sale of 3% beer in that state. How can you expect people who do that to beer to NOT think ID is good for them and their kids?

Sorry about the double comment...browser issues.

This is a sad day for me as someone who earned a PhD in Biology from the University of Kansas. This institution has one of the finest programs in evolutionary biology in the world and some of the best research in the field (especially systematics and paleontology) takes place in the Natural History Museum there. It is shame that the reputation of such a great program will probably suffer (some say it has already) as a result of the actions of the Board of Education.

Were there any school board elections, by chance, in Kansas yesterday?

Doesn't something like this happen there every few years or so? This time around they at least seem to be endorsing the Intelligent Design nonsense instead of young-earth creationism. It's still stupid but it's Stupid Lite.

I'm not sure how this round is the final irrevocable loss of Kansas; either we lost it a long time ago or there's hope for more reversals in the future.

1)I don't know Kansas law, but from what I have read local school districts in Kansas don't have to follow the State Board guidelines.
In fact enlightened districts will ignore such stupidity since they will have good secondary school students headed for pre med and biology major programs. I don't see how it can be enforced if teachers refuse the standards.

2)What keeps parents in a school district from suing the board in the manner of the Dover case in Penn?

"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."

How the world would such a definition be enforced? There will not be a single science teacher in Kansas that will pay any attention to such a statement!

W'v lst Knss...

Hmmm.. Ok. This is a comment, so I will just leave my 0.02$ here.
(oh, I am also from Kansas BTW, and resent some of the above comments.)

1) Chemical evolution is not 'impossible'... It is just HIGHLY HIGHLY improbable. There were experiments involving high heat, high pressure to artificially create polypeptide chains (Forgive me for not citing a research note, please), and in fact, DID succeed-- However, the conditions of the experiment required high concentrations of specific amino acids, which even in today's bio-active world are not normally found naturally. Additionally, the peptides generated were not the correct ones for forming complex life-precursor interactions.

The thesis of the experiment was not to prove that chemical evolution 'did' occur, as much as to show that it 'could have' occurred, under the meteorite impacts of the early solar system. (High heat, high pressure impacts on a primordial earth, presumably laced with amino acids in water from organic compound rich cosmic dust collection).

The result of the experiment shows that it is indeed 'possible', however, the variables involved (temperature, pressure, amino acids present, concentration, etc, etc...) cannot be examined, and therefore cannot be tested conclusively. Further, even under controlled conditions, the resulting polypeptides highly favored non-life precursors, over those that are suggested as having done so. This could say that our understanding of chemical evolution is flawed from lack of evidence on which to experiment-- but I personally believe that bio-chemists know what they are talking about, and are correct in their assertions about which polypeptides are essential, and which ones are not.

Given the Bias here, I would say that the statistical odds of chemical evolution are not in the evolutionist's favor. (Kinda like how astrophysicists point out why there is so much more matter in the universe than antimatter...) It is possible that earth is a VERY VERY rare exception... But that still doesn't solve the improbability issue.

As you might imagine, I am an advocate of the Occam's Razor principle.

Then, once you have the issue initial formation improbability, you have random re conformation/interaction improbability, and the issue spirals hopelessly outside of the scope of logical reason. (Though any finite improbability is still a logical possibility.)

Remember folks--- Just because chemical evolution is the best that science has to offer at the moment, does not necessarily make it "The correct Answer" (TM).

As for the implications of (Ahem) "Intelligent Design", If you remove any religious implications (Which is the only way I could even begin to see it taught in a school as a possible resolution to this question), It could just as easily have the role of "God" being an alien from an alternative universe (A theoretical possibility), as that of some "divine Creator", since all it takes to be quote "Intelligent design", is for some intelligence (Divine or otherwise) to concoct a plan to seed a suitable planet with microbes--

Or in the case of direct universal cosmology-- for some intelligence in an alternate universe to be conducting advanced quantum mechanical research, and as a side effect of that research, 'accidentally' create a new universe (Which would have been impossible for them to tell-- For all we know, our own research in that Field may have generated a universe or two, since parallel universes are purely hypothetical already.) The only reason I even suggest such a thing here, is because of the EXTREME improbability of chemical precursor evolution... So, I thought, why not give another, highly improbable scenario. :D

Currently, the only thing the school system REALLY should teach as "The correct answer" (TM), is this:

"We do not know. However, our current understanding of life suggests (insert tirade about chemical evolution, and subsequent bio-evolution here)-- Unfortunately, it appears that such a series of events is highly improbable. Additionally, there are proponents that (Insert tirade about intelligent design, covering *ALL* aspects, not just religious), but there is no way to prove or deny such a claim. Both contributors to this argument believe that their direction of thinking is the correct and proper one, however, since it is a topic of debate, we can teach neither as a fact, since neither has been summarily proven. Evolution has the current bid for correctness however, in that it has shown evidence to the effect that it is in fact "possible", where as the intangible speculative nature of Intelligent Design has yet to be able to do."

This answer, however, would probably not sit well with the Creationist (Christian Science) peoples, despite the fact that the bible does not rule out evolution. There are many such 'scientists' who feel the earth is only some 6000 years old, as per the estimated lifespans of early biblical figures-- However, the truth of the matter here is that the bible itself does not give an actual age, but does give a very shattering hint here and there that the 6000 year figure given by such dogmatists is in fact false. ;) (As per geological record, and radio carbon date analysis.) This is, in my opinion, just another incarnation of "Copernicus VS Dogma", just instead of a heliocentric universe, we have a several billion year old planet, VS a 6000 year old one. :P

As for Evolution Proper, VS "Creationism", the bible is not descript in the way in which 'god' "Created" these life forms. Since the general theme of the bible is that god is both "All knowing" and "Mysterious" (to prove his own grandeur), I personally think it more in line with the character of this divinity to USE evolution as the method of his creation (What better way to show off your powers as a god, than to pull a veritable rabbit out of his hat, in causing the above HORRIBLY improbable chemical evolution scenario as the means to his end? LOL!). This given that the biblical time frame (6 "Days") is symbolic, and not actual time. (Later passages in the old testament give "Days for years" etc.. the concept of "Days" in the bible is often used very symbolically, therefore citations of this short a time frame is not grounds for creationists to throw out evolution as a means by which their divinity created life)

Now, the real kicker against the Creationist, comes from theological examination of the bible. Early in genesis, it mentions the expulsion of Cain--

(Genesis 4)
16And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Hold it a moment--- We went straight from First and second born sons to having a wife, and a whole city pop up in just a short time! Where did all those people come from, and where would Cain find a wife in the land of Nod!?

Some christian apologists say that Cain married one of his sisters, but the bible clearly says nothing of the sort here--- It instead raises an interesting possibility, considering a few things:

Early man's accepted evolutionary ancestors were not into agriculture per se- They were hunter gatherer tribes.

and that god created 'Adam' because "There was no man to till the fields" (IE, to practice agriculture) (Genesis 2, 4-7)

Taken together, the modern creationist could reconcile human evolution (and the lack of fossil evidence for "Missing link" Man (For lack of better term) with these verses and come up with the following adapted creation idea:

God had created other kinds of man (Genesis 1 26-31) that did not practice agriculture (Evolution anyone?), But decided after his day of rest, that he had missed making a man that practices agriculture (genesis 2, 4-7). Cain screwed the pooch, and was outcast for killing his brother, moved to "Nod", married one of these other early humanoids, and settled over there-- causing a city to be built.

This holds closer to biblical scripture than suggesting that Cain married his sister, and also explains why there would be people in Nod (and possibly why different regions already had names. Hmmm...)

Of course, I have yet to see a creationist come up with such a creative idea... They often as not being too deeply grounded in LITERAL dark-age dogma to even convince themselves to look acceptably at Evolution as a possibility to begin with.

But hope springs forth eternal, no? At least it would be a start....

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life .

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Conditions today are different from conditions in the past in two important ways: First, there was little or no molecular oxygen in the atmosphere or oceans when life first appeared. Free oxygen is reactive and would likely have interfered with the formation of complex organic molecules. More importantly, there was no life around before life appeared. The life that is around today would scavenge and eat any complex molecules before they could turn into anything approaching new life.

Retarded Kansans

The problem my dear friend, is that you DO have a random collection when the planet first forms. Thus, statistical odds DO have bearing.

Sheesh.

As an interested astronomer, albeit from across the Pond, can anyone tell me what the new Kansas standards say about cosmology? I believe that both cosmology and plate tectonics were dropped back in 1999 along with some of the evolutionary material. Thanks, and keep up the good work.

This is indeed bad news. What happens now?

As you might imagine, I am an advocate of the Occam's Razor principle.

The problem my dear friend, is that you DO have a random collection when the planet first forms. Thus, statistical odds DO have bearing. Sheesh.

Plus "time" and an awful lot of it.
My favorite candidate for ID is the time before time began.

As you might imagine, I am an advocate of the Occam's Razor principle.

Parsimony suggests that out of a range of explanations we take the one which most closely fits the evidence (ie., has fewer added hypotheses,) it does not suggest we reject improbable arguments out of hand. 'We don't know but have some rather excellent indicators of what may have happened' is an acceptable way to broach the origins of life. 'Intelligent Design is in any way scientific' is not.

-Schmitt.

Hmmm.. Ok. This is a comment, so I will just leave my 0.02$ here. (oh, I am also from Kansas BTW, and resent some of the above comments.)

— weird

1) Chemical evolution is not 'impossible'... It is just HIGHLY HIGHLY improbable.

There were experiments involving high heat, high pressure to artificially create polypeptide chains (Forgive me for not citing a research note, please), and in fact, DID succeed--- However, the conditions of the experiment required high concentrations of specific amino acids, which even in today's bio-active world are not normally found naturally. Additionally, the peptides generated were not the correct ones for forming complex life-precursor interactions. The thesis of the experiment was not to prove that chemical evolution 'did' occur, as much as to show that it 'could have' occurred, under the meteorite impacts of the early solar system. (High heat, high pressure impacts on a primordial earth, presumably laced with amino acids in water from organic compound rich cosmic dust collection).

The result of the experiment shows that it is indeed 'possible', however, the variables involved (temperature, pressure, amino acids present, concentration, etc, etc...) cannot be examined, and therefore cannot be tested conclusively. Further, even under controlled conditions, the resulting polypeptides highly favored non-life precursors, over those that are suggested as having done so. This could say that our understanding of chemical evolution is flawed from lack of evidence on which to experiment--- but I personally believe that bio-chemists know what they are talking about, and are correct in their assertions about which polypeptides are essential, and which ones are not. Given the Bias here, I would say that the statistical odds of chemical evolution are not in the evolutionist's favor. (Kinda like how astrophysicists point out why there is so much more matter in the universe than antimatter...) It is possible that earth is a VERY VERY rare exception... But that still doesn't solve the improbability issue.

As you might imagine, I am an advocate of the Occam's Razor principle.

Then, once you have the issue initial formation improbability, you have random re conformation/interaction improbability, and the issue spirals hopelessly outside of the scope of logical reason. (Though any finite improbability is still a logical possibility.)

Remember folks---- Just because chemical evolution is the best that science has to offer at the moment, does not necessarily make it "The correct Answer" â„¢.

As for the implications of (Ahem) "Intelligent Design", If you remove any religious implications (Which is the only way I could even begin to see it taught in a school as a possible resolution to this question), It could just as easily have the role of "God" being an alien from an alternative universe (A theoretical possibility), as that of some "divine Creator", since all it takes to be quote "Intelligent design", is for some intelligence (Divine or otherwise) to concoct a plan to seed a suitable planet with microbes---

Or in the case of direct universal cosmology--- for some intelligence in an alternate universe to be conducting advanced quantum mechanical research, and as a side effect of that research, 'accidentally' create a new universe (Which would have been impossible for them to tell--- For all we know, our own research in that Field may have generated a universe or two, since parallel universes are purely hypothetical already.) The only reason I even suggest such a thing here, is because of the EXTREME improbability of chemical precursor evolution... So, I thought, why not give another, highly improbable scenario. :D

Currently, the only thing the school system REALLY should teach as "The correct answer" â„¢, is this: "We do not know. However, our current understanding of life suggests (insert tirade about chemical evolution, and subsequent bio-evolution here)--- Unfortunately, it appears that such a series of events is highly improbable. Additionally, there are proponents that (Insert tirade about intelligent design, covering *ALL* aspects, not just religious), but there is no way to prove or deny such a claim. Both contributors to this argument believe that their direction of thinking is the correct and proper one, however, since it is a topic of debate, we can teach neither as a fact, since neither has been summarily proven. Evolution has the current bid for correctness however, in that it has shown evidence to the effect that it is in fact "possible", where as the intangible speculative nature of Intelligent Design has yet to be able to do."

This answer, however, would probably not sit well with the Creationist (Christian Science) peoples, despite the fact that the bible does not rule out evolution. There are many such 'scientists' who feel the earth is only some 6000 years old, as per the estimated lifespans of early biblical figures--- However, the truth of the matter here is that the bible itself does not give an actual age, but does give a very shattering hint here and there that the 6000 year figure given by such dogmatists is in fact false. ;) (As per geological record, and radio carbon date analysis.)

This is, in my opinion, just another incarnation of "Copernicus VS Dogma", just instead of a heliocentric universe, we have a several billion year old planet, VS a 6000 year old one. :P

As for Evolution Proper, VS "Creationism", the bible is not descript in the way in which 'god' "Created" these life forms. Since the general theme of the bible is that god is both "All knowing" and "Mysterious" (to prove his own grandeur), I personally think it more in line with the character of this divinity to USE evolution as the method of his creation (What better way to show off your powers as a god, than to pull a veritable rabbit out of his hat, in causing the above HORRIBLY improbable chemical evolution scenario as the means to his end? LOL!). This given that the biblical time frame (6 "Days") is symbolic, and not actual time. (Later passages in the old testament give "Days for years" etc.. the concept of "Days" in the bible is often used very symbolically, therefore citations of this short a time frame is not grounds for creationists to throw out evolution as a means by which their divinity created life)

Now, the real kicker against the Creationist, comes from theological examination of the bible. Early in genesis, it mentions the expulsion of Cain--- (Genesis 4) 16And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. Hold it a moment---- We went straight from First and second born sons to having a wife, and a whole city pop up in just a short time! Where did all those people come from, and where would Cain find a wife in the land of Nod!?

Some christian apologists say that Cain married one of his sisters, but the bible clearly says nothing of the sort here---- It instead raises an interesting possibility, considering a few things:

Early man's accepted evolutionary ancestors were not into agriculture per se- They were hunter gatherer tribes. and that god created 'Adam' because "There was no man to till the fields" (IE, to practice agriculture) (Genesis 2, 4-7) Taken together, the modern creationist could reconcile human evolution (and the lack of fossil evidence for "Missing link" Man (For lack of better term) with these verses and come up with the following adapted creation idea:

Sheesh indeed, as you have failed to address any of the valid points that rebo raised. A billion years passed between the time the planet formed and the first cells appeared. An unlikely but not impossible event is sure to occur if enough trials occur, so small absolute magnitudes of probabilities are not, per se, relevant.

Then, once you have the issue initial formation improbability, you have random re conformation/interaction improbability, and the issue spirals hopelessly outside of the scope of logical reason. (Though any finite improbability is still a logical possibility.)

Sheesh indeed, as you have failed to address any of the valid points that rebo raised. A billion years passed between the time the planet formed and the first cells appeared. An unlikely but not impossible event is sure to occur if enough trials occur, so small absolute magnitudes of probabilities are not, per se, relevant.

Then, once you have the issue initial formation improbability, you have random re conformation/interaction improbability, and the issue spirals hopelessly outside of the scope of logical reason. (Though any finite improbability is still a logical possibility.)

This is like the argument that chaos theorists have, that you can place a broken watch into a burlap bag, and shake it up--- and eventually, the watch will assemble itself, no?

— WW

Considering that you have multiple repeats of unsuccessful trials (repeated outcomes that arent successful), it would take a long time indeed...............

Are you sure that the time postulated by geologists is enough?

In the above post I said it was highly improbable, but also qualified that improbablity. Apparently you werent reading the whole comment.... naughty naughty you. :P

There is no improbability issue. That's a simple fallacy of post-hoc reasoning. Given that our current life-forms exist, the probability that conditions favorable for their generation is... 1. Just 1.

This is like the argument that chaos theorists have, that you can place a broken watch into a burlap bag, and shake it up--- and eventually, the watch will assemble itself, no?

Only if you're totally ignorant of the biochemistry involved.

Try again.

It's a sad day for American science. We've lost Kansas.

Okie Dokie-- We want a mathematical explanation of why I feel this is improbable- Ok. Sure-- I'll bite, but it will take me awhile to write up.

I will have to do some exhaustive digging to get you a quantified (Perhaps you misunderstood the difference between quantify (To number, or list components of) and qualify (To give merit to)?) report about the improbability of the scenario you depict.

(You realize this is the kind of stuff that people get grant money to do, right?)

Nanny Nanny Boo Boo !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go Jayhawks!!!!!!!!!!!! The first of many defeats for the evos because a lie can't live forever!!!

I just love the prospects when we get the evo egomaniacs in our new supreme court.

Now go reread the Shapiro, Yockey, Hubble, Markowitz, Denton, Behe, etc etc etc calculations again solve the binomial math again and voilla!!! It exceeds the universsally agreed Limit Of Probability as in 10**-130 ... impossible in other words.

A sad day for the pseudo wireheads.. LOL

Kissy Kissy
Evopeach

Only if you're totally ignorant of the biochemistry involved. Try again.

I posted this in response to DaveScot's latest pearl of wisdom over at UncommonDescent. Although I loathe the place and DS equally, I couldn't let this one slide:

"I'd like to see the ACLU go up against the State of Kansas but I doubt they will. That would be a level playing field and the last thing the anti-religion zealots want is a level playing field - the cowards. "

Coming from someone who posts on a blog where any opposing views are routinely censored (I guess "hearing both sides of the argument" only works one way with William "I lie for JESUS!" Dembski), not to mention the fact that ID has to resort to getting school boards to approve it being taught because it can't possibly compete on the LEVEL PLAYING FIELD of peer reviewed scientific journals, or the fact that you glibly lie as a matter of routine about ID not being creationism yet complain about atheistic/anti-religious zealot scientists, you're the true coward here, and a repellent liar to boot.

So, you reject other yet undiscernable solutions? sounds like a logical fallacy you have yourself my friend.

Considering that you have multiple repeats of unsuccessful trials (repeated outcomes that arent successful), it would take a long time indeed...............

Are you sure that the time postulated by geologists is enough?

In the above post I said it was highly improbable, but also qualified that improbablity. Apparently you werent reading the whole comment.... naughty naughty you.

As a disappointed, but not surprised, Kansan, I can address a couple of the questions raised above. The state Bd. of Ed. sets standards, defining what constitutes "good" education. Schools don't have to follow the standards--there's no "enforcement" mechanism, per se--but the standards are used to create the tests by which student progress is judged, potentially effecting school funding, etc. So, teaching good science can potentially lead to bad scores for schools on statewide measures. As to the Bd., Ks. doesn't do odd year elections; 4 of the 6 IDiots will be up for re-election in '06. There are movements to oppose them starting up; but the reality in Ks. is that most of these elections are really decided in the Republican primaries, and it isn't clear how the sane candidates will be running, as yet. It's also not clear what the actual standards will look like; large portions of them are cribbed from a coupleof national education consulting groups, who have notified the Bd. that it can't use their copyrighted material in light of the bullshit the board has inserted.

I posted this in response to DaveScot's latest pearl of wisdom over at UncommonDescent. Although I loathe the place and DS equally, I couldn't let this one slide: "I'd like to see the ACLU go up against the State of Kansas but I doubt they will. That would be a level playing field and the last thing the anti-religion zealots want is a level playing field - the cowards. " Coming from someone who posts on a blog where any opposing views are routinely censored (I guess "hearing both sides of the argument" only works one way with William "I lie for JESUS!" Dembski), not to mention the fact that ID has to resort to getting school boards to approve it being taught because it can't possibly compete on the LEVEL PLAYING FIELD of peer reviewed scientific journals, or the fact that you glibly lie as a matter of routine about ID not being creationism yet complain about atheistic/anti-religious zealot scientists, you're the true coward here, and a repellent liar to boot.

I hope that wasnt aimed at me...

hasnt been totally trashed

since we have people here wanting to terraform planets allready

If that isnt an ID in progress, I dont know what is..

So if you adhere to that, then you have no choice but to accept that kind of ID as possible.

It is possible that earth is a VERY VERY rare exception... But that still doesn't solve the improbability issue.

The problem my dear friend, is that you DO have a random collection when the planet first forms. Thus, statistical odds DO have bearing.

This seems based on the misguided assumption that ID == "Christian Creationism". The ambiguous classification of "Intelligent Design" only dictates that some other entity caused life to form, through a non-descript means.

Nice to see you're still spouting utter rubbish, evopeach :)

Well, at least that provides yet more evidence that sanity is inversely proportional to the number of question marks used in a post... I guess that makes it more of a scientific theory than ID ever will be.

It exceeds the universsally agreed Limit Of Probability as in 10**-130 ... impossible in other words.
Universally agreed upon? rofl. The only thing about it that is universally agreed upon (well, almost), is that Dembski pulled that number straight out of his arse to agree with his predrawn conclusions.

For example, try considering the likelihood of the molecules in a litre of gas being in the positions that they are, even only considering transpositions of the different molecules (completely ignoring orientation). It's so so far below 1^-150 that anyone who ever touts it as a meaningful value should be thoroughly embarrassed, particularly Dembski.

h brthr. ppl snd dmb mst f th tm, bt nvr qt s mch s whn g nt r chckn-lttl md. f D s mntnd n scnc clss, vn f t s "tght", t wll hv n ffct. D thnk ths kds r stpd? ( thnk d.) D thnk th r nwr f th cntrvrs? (pprntl d.) D thnk ths wh r ntrstd n scnc cnnt fnd spplmntl nfrmtn th nd? D thnk th cnnt dscrn? Wll, lt's s f th Knss scrs n scnc fll blw ths f, fr xmpl, th frvntl sclr Wshngtn DC schl sstm. ctll hp wn ll r crt css. vn hp tht Gstp frm th Ntnl Cntr fr Scnc "s lng s t's nt phscs r strnm r csmlg r chmstr---ths w dn't cr bt---n fct w cr mr bt rlgn thn ths scncs" >dctn> grds vr clssrm t mk sr tht tchrs d nt str frm strct scnc-nl dscssns. Thn, whn .S. scrs n scnc stll lg bhnd, wht wll blm t n? M gss: prvt rlgn nstrctn n th hm. t'll b tht tp f "chld-bs" tht gts blmd.

Evo,

Don't think the "boys" have forgotten the bet you made. When ID goes down in flames in Dover you have to pony up....or perhaps we can just call it even with a well deserved swirly.

Kansas has yet to face its eventual court battle. When the BOE gets served, as it will, the light will shine and the cockroaches will run back under the pews.

So, you reject other yet undiscernable solutions? sounds like a logical fallacy you have yourself my friend.

Considering that you have multiple repeats of unsuccessful trials (repeated outcomes that arent successful), it would take a long time indeed...............

No, nor do I have to be. Here are some clues: empirical epistemology. Occam's Razor.

In the above post I said it was highly improbable, but also qualified that improbablity. Apparently you werent reading the whole comment.... naughty naughty you.

If it walks and talks like a troll ...

The problem my dear friend, is that you DO have a random collection when the planet first forms. Thus, statistical odds DO have bearing. Sheesh.

It is possible that earth is a VERY VERY rare exception... But that still doesn't solve the improbability issue.

Okie Dokie--- We want a mathematical explanation of why I feel this is improbable- Ok. Sure--- I'll bite, but it will take me awhile to write up. I will have to do some exhaustive digging to get you a quantified (Perhaps you misunderstood the difference between quantify (To number, or list components of) and qualify (To give merit to)?) report about the improbability of the scenario you depict.

(You realize this is the kind of stuff that people get grant money to do, right?)

(grumbles about how this thing doesnt accept URLs the way it should)

Ok.

Here we go again:

1) Occam's Razor: The most probable (or easiest) solution, is the most likely to be true.

What you guys are saying, can only be the inverse of what Occam's Razor is all about-- You have a very complicated source set, and a very finite end set, and give the explanation of "A very long time" to answer the middle. Not only is that unscientific, it also violates the principle. In order to have a simple answer, you must have a simple start-set. Increasing the number of progenitor compounds (Theoretical progenitor compounds) to the size of the set found in stellar dust and carboniferous meteorites, makes this set very very very large, as it includes inverted amino acids of a whole wide assortment of flavors....

Since the moment of impact is what triggers the event of spontaneous polymerization of these peptides (as was performed in the experement) then unless you think racation of these peptides can occur in the milliseconds exposure to ocean or atmospheric conditions---- you have to include WAAAYYY more amino acids than are accepted as being suitable for life producing molecules. By occam's razor, you are much more likely to get totally worthless compounds per meteor strike this way.

These compounds may in fact break down, or switch isomers on contact with a primordial ocean-- Or they could break down or denature in the hot saline mud just as well. It depends on the peptide chain. This added level of uncertainty moves you further away from the direction of choice, if you follow the rationale behind the Occam's Razor idealology.

As for Empirical Epistemology.......... Do I really really need to go there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

That is the kind of logic that led us to believe the earth was flat.

As for the troll issue.. I do believe it was you who started the flames and name calling. :P

ww's statement is like saying that someone who wins the lottery is a rare exception doesn't solve the problem that it was improbable that they would win. Of course, he "qualified" it --- by asserting that the odds of winning the lottery is too low to be in favor of the theory that the winner wasn't purposefully selected. It's an argument by raw assertion --- and an argument that ignores Occam's Razor.

Here we go again: 1) Occam's Razor: The most probable (or easiest) solution, is the most likely to be true. ...

— wierd_w

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." ...

Occam's Razor: The most probable (or easiest) solution, is the most likely to be true.

I personally see the only (even quasi) scientific merit to ID, is that it opposes conventional wisdom. Since it gives a different idea, no matter how little evidence, and hasnt been totally trashed (Mind, I find religious themed ID totally perposterous, but other forms of ID arent really that far fetched, if you adhere to accepted evolution, since we have people here wanting to terraform planets allready...... If that isnt an ID in progress, I dont know what is.. So if you adhere to that, then you have no choice but to accept that kind of ID as possible.)

— wierd_w

If that isnt an ID in progress, I dont know what is..

So if you adhere to that, then you have no choice but to accept that kind of ID as possible.

This seems based on the misguided assumption that ID == "Christian Creationism". The ambiguous classification of "Intelligent Design" only dictates that some other entity caused life to form, through a non-descript means.

You REALLY don't know what you're talking about, do you? Or you're an out and out liar?

Saying this after the Dover trial means you're a) extremely ignorant, b) quite stupid, or c) extremely ethnically challenged.

You do not understand the principle of parsimony.
For some discussion of its applicability to these issues

Try http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/occams_hammer_creationist_rhetoric_and_the_myth_of_philosophical_naturalism.html#more

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity."

Occam's Razor: The most probable (or easiest) solution, is the most likely to be true.

Um, try spelling your own email handle correctly, m'kay?

— Arden Chatfield

According to the ideal of the razor, you probably wont win the lottery, because the odds of winning are very very low.

So, Going to a planet that has no native life, and putting life there, isn't Intelligent Design?

Are you on crack?

"Noone denies it is possible", yet the very idea of ID vexes you so? Explain.

You REALLY don't know what you're talking about, do you? Or you're an out and out liar? Saying this after the Dover trial means you're a) extremely ignorant, b) quite stupid, or c) extremely ethnically challenged.

— guangung

"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."

I wish scientists would stop insisting that science is limited to the study of natural phenomena. This just plays into the hands of those who want to accuse us of dogmatism. Our stand should be that we examine all the evidence and seek to explain what is observed in terms of models based on space, time, matter and other concepts that in the past have proved successful. However, should some phenomenon defy all natural explanations, then we are willing to consider other models.

Now, here is an additional advantage I can see if we take this attitude. It means that when supernatural phenomena are claimed we will be able to address them according to the same critical analysis we apply to natural phenomena. Make a hypothesis and test it against the data.

This is what I am doing with my current book-in-progress, "God: The Failed Hypothesis. Why Science Shows that God Does Not Exist." See http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/godless.html.

Those who are promoting a critical analysis of evolution in science classes might not be so happy if we come back with proposing a critical analysis of religious claims. Maybe that would shut them up.

Quite right Mobius.

Or-- "Given two equivilent solutions, choose the least complicated"

As for "silly circular logic", leave out the word "probable" and just leave the parenthesised "Easiest" (in terms of simplicity), and there you go. A paraphrased occam's razor.

Not even close my foot.
Grow up.

Tell me how ignoring a potential alternative answer that isnt 'accepted' by conventional wisdom, is any any way logical in terms of scientific method, and I'll give you the prize of the argument.

So, Going to a planet that has no native life, and putting life there, isn't Intelligent Design? Indeed, it's not.

Tell me how ignoring a potential alternative answer that isnt 'accepted' by conventional wisdom, is any any way logical in terms of scientific method, and I'll give you the prize of the argument.

As for "silly circular logic", leave out the word "probable" and just leave the parenthesised "Easiest" (in terms of simplicity), and there you go. A paraphrased occam's razor.

Tell me how ignoring a potential alternative answer that isnt 'accepted' by conventional wisdom, is any any way logical in terms of scientific method, and I'll give you the prize of the argument.

So, to be "ID" (and not, for say "id" in lower case) we have to assume it was a god that did the intelligent design?

guangung, if you think you can explain the situation, try to do so. Throwing out insults like this only makes you and this blog look dumb.

Trying to state that "ID = Christian Creationism is a misguided concept" after the truly pathetic performance in Dover by the former school board is astoundingly inept or stupid. In a major case, the board, the publishers of the main text and the major proponents of ID have given EVERY indication that ID is creationism. If the idea is misguided, it's because the ID proponents have given substantial support to it.

If ID=Christian Creation is a misguided concept, then you had better do a lot better job than simply assert it AND you have to explain for the antics of the major supporters of ID.

Is it a full moon again ?
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pink-floyd/108608.html

The link I gave above, which I'm positive you've ignored, does just that. And, may I suggest, you're not in a position to be handing out "prizes".

However, should some phenomenon defy all natural explanations, then we are willing to consider other models.

— Vic Stenger

"...it shouldn't be ignored as possible..."
The logically possible is not a position from which to begin inquiry.
Parsimony is a methodological principle. It is logical within the methods of science to ignore non-explanations with no testable implications.
You're spinning your wheels.

As I read it, Individual school districts will determine what is taught in their classes, but the standards set by the State Board of Education will be used to determine what is tested throughout the State.

It is my understanding that those tests are used under the federal law No Child Left Behind to rank the school districts. The rankings of the districts will affect the careers of the administrators, so they will "teach to the tests."

W'v lst Knss...

The logically possible is not a position from which to begin inquiry.

Are you sure that the time postulated by geologists is enough?

— Posted by morbius on November 9, 2005 01:48 PM (e) (s) Vic Stenger wrote: However, should some phenomenon defy all natural explanations, then we are willing to consider other models. Hello, Dr. Stenger. What distinguishes

""...it shouldn't be ignored as possible..."
The logically possible is not a position from which to begin inquiry.
Parsimony is a methodological principle. It is logical within the methods of science to ignore non-explanations with no testable implications.
You're spinning your wheels."

"Oberservation"
"Hypothesis"
"Experementation"
"Conclusion"

We have an observation that there is life on the planet

We have 2 hypotheses.

1) Life formed here on its own
2) Life was brought/formed here by some other means

Experementation:

1) Find lifeless planetoid, bombard with meteors containing building blocks of life, return several billion years later, collect data. Take measures to ensure no further contamination of test planet occurs.

2) Engineer life forms in lab, deposit them on lifeless planetoid, return several billion years later, collect data. Take measures to ensure no further contamination of test planet occurs.

Conclusion:

1) Cannot be realistically performed

2) cannot be realistically performed

Sounds like both are plausible. Let's look at our own planet:

Planetary crust samples suggest bombardment by meteors in past.
Meteors are comprised of mostly iron and silicates in inner solar system. Outer solar system objects are composed mostly of gas and cosmic dust, suggesting differing composition of accreted materials.

Some objects in both regions contain amino acids. (I would like to know the distribution, any ideas where to look?)

Fossil record shows long "incubation" period where no life forms are present, long after initial bombardment. Several layers of ocean sediment predate deposition of microbial fossils.

Ok-- The clencher here, sounds like if geologists can find traces of primative self-replicating protiens in the pre-life strata, they win the debate.

Otherwise, where did the microbes come from, and are there any simmilar microbes in the solar system?

The only models I've ever seen are "natural causes" and "poof". Natural causes has certain advantages: it actually IS an explanation, it allows for accurate predictions and for falsification, it allows for testing, it leads to more and more useful and accurate explanations. It has a disadvantage as well: it's hard. The "poof" model is the inverse: it's simple, it "explains" absolutely everything, it's otherwise useless, it predicts nothing.

I too would appreciate it if Vic Stenger could provide an example of a phenomenon that defies all natural explanations, along with a model of investigation that didn't involve anything natural. Seances? Altered states?

We can follow Phillip Johnson and define natural as material.

It has a disadvantage as well: it's hard. The "poof" model is the inverse: it's simple

Experementation: 1) Find lifeless planetoid, bombard with meteors containing building blocks of life, return several billion years later, collect data. Take measures to ensure no further contamination of test planet occurs. 2) Engineer life forms in lab, deposit them on lifeless planetoid, return several billion years later, collect data. Take measures to ensure no further contamination of test planet occurs.

1) Find lifeless planetoid, bombard with meteors containing building blocks of life, return several billion years later, collect data. Take measures to ensure no further contamination of test planet occurs. 2) Engineer life forms in lab, deposit them on lifeless planetoid, return several billion years later, collect data. Take measures to ensure no further contamination of test planet occurs.

Hi all,

I am new to this board, am not a scientist, but have been following PT along with the Dover trial for some time. Please keep up the good work.

To Wierd W,

One very important thing you are ignoring about ID (religious-based or not) is that it wants to propose an alternative to evolution to explain the mechanisms of how we went from early chemical processes to today's diversity of life on earth (that is, a designer is doing it, not random mutations of DNA, natural selection, etc). Nevermind the fact that ID has no mechanisms in mind. None of your talk about meteors vs "alien experiments" addresses that aspect of ID.

So, in essence, you are either arguing something separate from ID, or are focusing on a detail of ID, which, in the end still falls flat once you get to the part addressing the mechanisms involved after life has come to be.

I think that it is worth mentioning, that one of the primary reasons that the Kansas State Board of Education was able to so easily manipulate its science standards to effectively reintroduce creationist theology into the public schools, is because the scientific community boycotted the hearings.

The Board requires only a preponderance of evidence to find in favor of change, and by failing to rebut the position of the intelligent design community, the scientific community lost by default.

In the liberally applied phraseology the Kansas Board:

"Based on the unrebutted testimony of..." (insert your favorite intelligent design nemesis)

Were the hearings a farce? Probably so. But, the reality is simply, that by failing to show up on grounds of "principle," Kansas has practically established its public school system as teaching creationism on the same level as evolution.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that truth will prevail over falsity. Galileo may have proven the Church wrong...

...but he died anyway.

There's a lesson in that.

Here's a link to the new Kansas science standards. It's pretty nauseating.

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/schearingff.pdf

Oh well, live and learn.

:)

It doesn't involve any "lifeless planetoids."

abiogenesis

I was certainly surprised by the lie concerning fossil evidence and/or molecular biology being used anywhere as evidence against common descent. Proving common descent false is not something that is typical of the ID "position" -- it seems that those who religously favor special creation for humans got their hand in the document as well.

On the bright side, since special creation is a known tenant of "creation science", it'll be easy to get that one thrown out in court long before it has to go up to the supreme court.

Pro-intelligent-design, the wretched sucktards of Ignorance:

I don't know what gamers have to do with it. Or catharsis, for that matter.
This is a pro-education site that should be available for library and classroom use. None of the colorful apellations you refer to are consistent with that mission.
Further, such expletives are the refuge of the inarticulate. They stand out unfavorably amidst the (generally) erudite commentary here.
There are plenty of places you can go to call people names.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that truth will prevail over falsity. Galileo may have proven the Church wrong... ...but he died anyway.

socrateaser, the Bd. was able to manipulate the standards because they decided before they were even board members to manipulate the standards. They didn't need or want any "evidence"; the "hearings" were pre-decided; and the presence or absence of anyone was immaterial. They had the recommendations of the professional standards development team; they had input from every imaginable scientific organization, and input from Kansas scientists and educators. The hearings were a farce, and joining the "debate" would have done nothing to change the outcome but would have provided a chance for the Bd. to claim victory over scientists.

Hey, PZ, Pharyngula is acting kinda glitchy today.

Anybody else having trouble connecting just to Pharyngula, or previewing or submitting comments?

In the liberally applied phraseology the Kansas Board: "Based on the unrebutted testimony of..." (insert your favorite intelligent design nemesis)

Yes, the odds are against evolution happening. Luckily, there are a nearly infinite number of opportunities for it to happen. Maybe there are 500,000,000 other planets in the universe where it didn't happen? the odds are against any individual ticket winning powerball, but if enough tickets are sold, the odds get pretty good that one of them will win, right?

we just don't bother with the losing odds, since we happen to be one of the winners in the evolution lottery.

by the way, these are the brilliant people who voted to change the definition of science...

Iris Van Meter
Iris graduated from Kentucky Mountain Bible College in 1956 with a degree in Christian Education.

Steve Abrams
Steve owns a veterinary practice in Arkansas City.
Once served as president of Rural Water District number 6.

Kenneth R. Willard
He currently serves as a district manager for an insurance company, managing 25 agencies in south-central and southwest Kansas.

Kathy Martin
Kathy earned her Bachelors Degree in Elementary Education in 1967, and her Masters in Special Education in 1984, both from Kansas State University.

Connie Morris
Connie and her husband Kelly farm and ranch and own a plumbing business in St. Francis where they have resided for 12 years.

John Bacon
John earned his Bachelor's degree in accounting from Mid- America Nazarene University in 1985 and is now self-employed as a certified public accountant.

OPEN EPISTLE TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD
November 8th, 2005
I write with joy and thanks in my heart after having read of your bold decision to promote the Church of The Intelligent Designer and its one true God IDio. Finally, our Church needs no longer cower behind a façade of science.

Now that your blessed action on IDio's behalf has rendered the Constitution, with its irritating religious establishment clause, inoperative, we can proudly proclaim in every Kansas classroom, "There is but one Intelligent Designer and His name is IDio!" We thank the taxpayers of Kansas for donating their money to proselytize for His church. May IDio mutate you all intelligently.

www.godinabox.com - Spread the Word of IDio!

This response is to russell: In your #56141 post above, you suggest that I assert that it is a "far-fetched idea that Science or scientists are responsible for the follow of the Kansas BoE..."

Nevertheless, it is a fact that the scientific community did not attempt to be heard, and this provided the Kansas BoE with a "legal" rationale for making its changes to the State Science Standards. Had credible scientists chosen to appear and defend the position of evolutionary theory, this rationale would have been removed, or at least considerably dampend.

Would the result have been the same? There's no way to know, now. And, that is my point. When there are two opponents on a battlefield, one must overcome the other's ground to pick up territory. When there's only one opponent, the ground is already relinquished.

As for Mr. Iregonegaray's noble defense, you must understand, that legally, a cross examination can impeach a witness's credibility, but unless opposing counsel produces affirmative evidence to support his client's position, he cannot prevail on the merits.

The hearings were clearly set up on the presumption that the Board had already decided to change the rules to favor of intelligent design. Therefore, it became Mr. Iregonegaray's burden to affirmatively overcome the legal presumption and prove evolution all over again. Was this an unfair position, in view of the fact that the existing standards didn't support intelligent design? Of course! But, administrative agencies, like school boards, don't have to play fair -- they merely need to provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment, and reasonable grounds for their rules/regulations. After that, you can challege their decisions in court, but the court must generally review the matter from the facts "on the record." And, since no supporters of evolution appear on the record, the court would be forced by due process to rule in favor of the Board.

The above discusses is the standard method of judicial review over administrative agency regulations. Obviously, there is also Constitutional Law argument that what the State of Kansas has done is to establish a defacto state religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

And, I'm sure that the ACLU will be suing soom enough to overturn the new science standards on that ground.

:)

The hearings were clearly set up on the presumption that the Board had already decided to change the rules to favor of intelligent design

Response to Sir_Toejam #56156:

If there were scientists in support of evolution who formally submitted statements or testimony "on the record" of the Board, then you're right, and I am incorrect in thinking that scientists were not "heard." Otherwise, nothing stated in the press or elsewhere would be admissible in a later court review of the evidence provided at the Board "hearings."

Also, and regardless of what you may have been led to believe, an administrative agency hearing "is" a legal proceeding. It's not a "formal" legal proceeding with full due process, but it is absolutely a legal hearing and the effect of the Board hearings is one of potentially legal and binding effect.

The Kansas State Board of Education can make orders within the scope of their authority as delegated by Kansas Legislative enactments, and those orders, if not appealed timely, will have the same legal effect as an order from a Kansas Court.

Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument with any of you -- I'm merely suggesting that boycotting the hearings did not achieve the desired end, and I think that this approach should be reconsidered for future circumstances.

:)

the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.

Socrateaser:
"After that, you can challege their decisions in court, but the court must generally review the matter from the facts "on the record." And, since no supporters of evolution appear on the record, the court would be forced by due process to rule in favor of the Board."

Untrue. The main standards writing committee is clearly on the record as opposing the changes. Keep in mind, the changes were made by a *minority* of the committee.

"Posted by morbius on November 9, 2005 02:16 PM (e) (s) We can follow Phillip Johnson and define natural as material. What is "material"? I don't see how this answers my question. I think it would be better to just drop the word "natural" from "natural explanation", because there is no other sort of explanation. So then we get "should some phenomenon defy all explanations, then" ... we continue to seek an explanation. I have no idea how a phenomenon can "defy all explanations" --- if this doesn't mean that we simply don't have an explanation yet, then it appears to be an argument from ignorance. People quite often say "It defies all scientific explanation!" but they are almost always talking nonsense.

— morbius

"Posted by morbius on November 9, 2005 02:16 PM (e) (s) We can follow Phillip Johnson and define natural as material. What is "material"? I don't see how this answers my question. I think it would be better to just drop the word "natural" from "natural explanation", because there is no other sort of explanation. So then we get "should some phenomenon defy all explanations, then" ... we continue to seek an explanation. I have no idea how a phenomenon can "defy all explanations" --- if this doesn't mean that we simply don't have an explanation yet, then it appears to be an argument from ignorance. People quite often say "It defies all scientific explanation!" but they are almost always talking nonsense.

— morbius

Kansas and Dover were just mentioned on ABC's nightly news. Eugenie Scott got a statement in. The reporter was clearly treating ID as a crypto-creationist scheme. The coverage was actually pretty sweet--they showed Stephen Meyer, and showed an off-camera Discovery Institute handler stopping the interview when the reporter asked about the DI's funders. The off-camera guy could be heard saying "We don't want to go down that road."

HAHAHAHAHA.

Response to shenda #56160:

The changes may have been made by a minority of the Standards Committee, but they were approved by a majority of the Board, and that's all that matters.

However, if there were scientific supporters of evolution on the committee who testified or submitted written objections to the Board, re the final Standards, then I agree that these objections would be "on the record."

Also, I must repair my own prior misconstruction. Earlier I posted a link to what I thought was the final science standards. What I actually posted was a link to the "suggested findings of facts," as proposed by Discovery Institute proponents, which is why it appears so frighteningly biased.

Here is the link to the actual final standards, which are considerably more reserved in their language concerning intelligent design theory (and, yes I know, there is no such theory, but that's what they choose to call it, so I shall do similarly):

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.pdf

Socrateaser:
"However, if there were scientific supporters of evolution on the committee who testified or submitted written objections to the Board, re the final Standards, then I agree that these objections would be "on the record.""

They are: http://www.kcfs.org/standards05/index.html

Chemical evolution is not 'impossible'... It is just HIGHLY HIGHLY improbable.

As for the implications of (Ahem) "Intelligent Design", If you remove any religious implications (Which is the only way I could even begin to see it taught in a school as a possible resolution to this question), It could just as easily have the role of "God" being an alien from an alternative universe (A theoretical possibility), as that of some "divine Creator", since all it takes to be quote "Intelligent design", is for some intelligence (Divine or otherwise) to concoct a plan to seed a suitable planet with microbes

Now, the real kicker against the Creationist, comes from theological examination of the bible.

h brthr. ppl snd dmb mst f th tm, bt nvr qt s mch s whn g nt r chckn-lttl md. f D s mntnd n scnc clss, vn f t s "tght", t wll hv n ffct. D thnk ths kds r stpd?

are you a biochemist? Are you familliar with organic isomers, inverted protiens, and the like? Those are all potential outcomes of such random fusions of stellar amino acid isomers....

"Based on the unrebutted testimony of..." (insert your favorite intelligent design nemesis)

On the bright side, since special creation is a known tenant of "creation science", it'll be easy to get that one thrown out in court long before it has to go up to the supreme court.

"Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

Q. Do you believe in common descent? A. You mean, common ancestry? Q. Common descent, yes. A. Well, I have difficulty with common ancestry and maybe that's what you mean by common descent. Q. Do you believe in common descent in humans, such as the fact that there were perhominids before homo sapiens? A. Are you asking me if I accept evolutionary thought on this? Q. I'm asking you if you accept prehominids as the ancestral line to homo sapiens? A. Personally I don't, no. Q. You what? A. I personally do not. Q. You do not? A. Yes. I mean, I'm not an expert on this. (Thaxton testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. You do accept, do you not, common descent within species? A. Within a single species, of course. I don't know anyone who doesn't. Q. What about among species? A. Among species? Well, I stated in my power point that I find it extremely unlikely based on the evidence that the animal phyla are related through common ancestry. Other biologists have said they're dubious of common ancestry at levels higher than that. The levels in between, I don't know. As a scientist I would have to say each case would have to be settled based on the evidence. Q. What about between humans, the humans-- homo sapiens and other species, such as prehominids? A. I think it's extremely unlikely based on the evidence. (Wells testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. Sir, the first question I'd like to ask you is, do you accept the evolutionary theory of common descent of humans from prehominids? A. From the data that I've been following it's probably not true.(Simat testimony, Kansas Hearings, transcript) ************************************************* Q. Do you-- do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life was biologically related to the beginning of life? Yes or no? A. No. Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no? A. No. (Leonard testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life? Yes or no? A. No. Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to predominant ancestors? Yes or no? A. No. (Ely testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. Do you accept the principle-- the general principle of common descent that all of life was biologically related back to the beginning of life? A. Not if you interpret common descent, and realize that I'm taking liberty here, not if you interpret common descent as being that that is natural selection acting on random mutations I do not. Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no? A. No. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. Do you accept the principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life? Yes or no? A. I will say no, because -- Q. I didn't ask you for an explanation. Yes or no? A. Okay. No. Q. Okay. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no? A. No. (Millam testimony, Kansas Hearing transcript) ************************************************* Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life was biologically related to the beginning of life, yes or no? A. No. Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors, yes or no? A. No. (Bryson testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life, yes or no? A. I won't answer that question as a yes or no. I accept the idea of limited common descent. I am skeptical about universal common descent. I do not take it as a principle; it is a theory. And I think the evidence supporting the theory of universal common descent is weak. Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors, yes or no? A. I'm not sure. I'm skeptical of it because I think the evidence for the proposition is weak, but it would not affect my conviction that life is designed if it turns out that there was a genealogical continuity. (Meyer testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life? A. Not as defined by neo-Darwinism, no. Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? A. I doubt it. (Menuge testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************************* Q. And I'm going to ask you first how old, in your opinion, is the world? A. I'm going to answer like Dr. Sanford earlier, I would say between probably a lot younger than most people think. Q. That doesn't say anything to me. What is your opinion in years the age of the earth? A. I'm fine with 5,000 to 100,000. Q. You're fine with 5,000 to 100,000? A. Correct. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) Some of the witnesses, on the other hand, recognized the danger in the tactic that Irigonegaray was pursuing, and tried to evade the question, with some still leaving a crack open for a young earth. Indeed, the Board members also saw the danger in it, and promptly "reminded" one of the witnesses that they didn't have to answer any questions: Q. In your opinion, your personal opinion, what is the age of the earth? A. Do you want my personal-- why are you asking me about my personal-- Q. You're here to answer my questions. First of all, what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is? A. I understood I was being called as an expert witness. Q. What is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is? A. I'm unclear. I understand-- Q. The question is simple. What is, in your opinion, the age of the earth? A. Well, I'm just wanting to clarify the ground rules here. I thought I was being called as an expert witness, so why are you asking me about my personal-- Q. That's not the issue. Now, please answer my question. What is your personal-- A. I would like to understand the ground rules first. Why am I being asked about-- MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Chairman, if he's not going to answer my questions, I'd ask that his testimony be stricken from the record. A. I'm happy to answer your question. I'd like to know why you're asking about-- Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) The "why" is not for you to determine. . . . A. You would like me to cooperate with that? CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: You can either answer "yes," "no," or "I don't know," or whatever you want to do, but that-- yes, I'd like you to cooperate. A. It's a transparently obvious strategy to impeach the credibility of your witnesses, but I will cooperate. So my answer to your question, Pedro, is that I-- my personal opinions and my professional opinions are the same. I think the earth is 4.6 billion years old. I think the universe is-- Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) No, just the earth. I didn't ask you about the universe. A. My opinion of-- Q. Mr. Meyer, please just answer my question. I'm not asking you other opinions. MR. SISSON: I'd simply request to make a point here, ask the Chairman if I may make a point. Mr. Chairman, would you instruct the witness that there is no subpoena power here and that he is under no compulsion to answer and he would suffer no penalty if he chose to decline to answer. CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: He can answer the questions to his extent. However, we would like you to answer them. A. Does that mean I can say something else about the age of the earth? CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Mr. Irigonegaray is going to ask the questions that he thinks important and he may repeat the question. And he will ask-- my guess is it will be a yes or a no answer or some side of an answer like that. If you feel comfortable answering that, say "yes," or if you don't know, say you don't know, whatever it is. I mean, be truthful and answer however you feel comfortable answering. A. Right. But may I say anything more about the age of the earth, then? Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) I'm the one asking questions here, Mr. Meyer, and all you need to do is to answer my question. A. Okay. I think the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old. That's both my personal and my professional opinion. I speak as someone who is trained as a geophysicist-- Q. I'm not asking you about that. I just asked you for a number, and you have given it to me. A. Okay. That's all you want is the number? Q. My questions are pretty clear, Mr. Meyer. (Meyer testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. I'd like to ask you for the record, first, can you tell us how old you believe the earth is? A. I don't know. I think it's probably really old. Q. How old is really old? A. I don't really know. Q. You have no idea how old the earth is? A. There's theories around that the earth is 10,000ish years old. There are theories around that it is four billion years old. If it was a multiple choice test and I only had two choices and I couldn't check "I don't know," and I wanted to get credit for the question, I'd check old. Q. I understand, sir. But in all the work you have done, in all the research that you have done, in all your experience to this day you still don't have an opinion as to how old the earth is? A. I have an opinion, I just don't really know. My opinion is it's probably fourish billion years old. Q. Four billion years old. All right. (Harris testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. Doctor Wells, do you have a personal opinion as to how old the earth is? A. I think the earth is probably four-and-a-half billion or so years old. But I'll tell you this, I used to-- I would have said, a few years ago, I'm convinced it's four-and-a-half billion years old. But the truth is I have not looked at the evidence. And I have become increasingly suspicious of the evidence that is presented to me and that's why at this point I would say probably it's four-and-a-half billion years old, but I haven't looked at the evidence. (Wells testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. I have a few questions that I want to ask you for the record. First, what is your opinion as to what the age of the world is? A. I really don't have an opinion. Q. You have no opinion as to what the age of the world is? A. Four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students. Q. I'm asking what is your opinion as to what the age of the world is? A. 'Um, I was asked to come out here to talk about my experiences as a high school biology teacher. Q. I'm asking you, sir -- A. I was not under the impression that I was asked to come out here -- Q. I'm asking you -- A. -- talking about -- Q. -- sir, what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the world is? A. Four-- four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students, sir. Q. That's not my question. My question is, whatis your personal opinion as to what the age of the world is? A. Again, I was under the impression to come out here and talk about my professional experience -- Q. Is there a difference? A. -- more of -- Q. Is there a difference between your personal opinion and what you teach students the age of the world is? A. Four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students, sir. Q. Is-- my question is, is there a difference between your personal opinion and what you teach your students? A. Again, you're putting a spin on the question is-- you know, now I'll spin any answer, sir, to say that my opinion is irrelevant. Four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students. Q. The record will reflect your answer. (Leonard testimony, Kansas Hearing transcript) ************************************************* Q. What is your opinion as to the age of the earth? A. In light of time I would say most of the evidence that I see, I read and I understand points to an old age of the earth. Q. And how old is that age? A. I don't know. I just know what I read with regards to data. It looks like it's four billion years. Q. And is that your personal opinion? A. No. My personal opinion is I really don't know. I'm struggling. Q. You're struggling with what the age of the earth is? A. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure. There's a lot of ways to measure the age. Meteorites is one way. There's a lot of elements used. There's a lot of assumptions can be used and those assumptions can be challenged so I don't really know. Q. What is the range that you are instructing? A. I think the range we heard today, somewhere between 5,000 and four billion. Q. You-- you-- you believe the earth may be as young as 5,000 years old. Is that correct? A. Well, we're learning that there's such a thing as junc -- Q. Sir, answer -- A. -- really has a function. Q. Just please answer my question, sir. A. We're learning a lot about micro -- Q. Sir? MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Abrams, please instruct the witness to answer the question. CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: I think -- Q. (By Mr. Irigonegaray) The question was-- and winking at him is not going to do you any good. Answer my question. Do you believe the earth may be as young as 5,000 years old? A. It could be. (Ely testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. The first thing I'd like to ask you is what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the world is? A. I'm undecided. Q. What is your best guess? A. I'm totally undecided. Q. Give me your best range. A. Anywhere from 4.5 billion years to ten thousand years. Q. And, of course, you have reached that conclusion based on the best scientific evidence available? A. Yes. (Bryson testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ************************************************* Q. What is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is? A. I don't know. And that's my final answer. Q. Do you have an opinion as to what the age of the earth is? A. I'm not giving an opinion. Q. I didn't hear you. A. I am not giving an opinion. Q. You don't have any personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is? A. I have no opinion. (Menuge testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) ID witness John Sanford declared that the age of earth was "maybe 10,000 years" but "not as young as 5,000".

they showed Stephen Meyer, and showed an off-camera Discovery Institute handler stopping the interview when the reporter asked about the DI's funders. The off-camera guy could be heard saying "We don't want to go down that road."

I *bet* they don't.

Well, in the interests of public information, let me say (for the benefit of any newbies here) what the DI didn't want to say:

The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris's book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. "There can be no separation of Church and State," Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) "Christians," a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, "are called upon by God to exercise dominion." (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning.

According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the "Godly" have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: "The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God's People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ's feet, the end shall come." (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) "Christian Reconstructionism," another pamphlet says, "is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God . . . Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint." (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the "enemies" which must be "put under Christ's feet" if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God.

In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban.

While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", and Morris's son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR's Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR's "curriculum director" until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" (COR, July 1986), and the "Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview" (COR,1989), which declares, "We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man." ("Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8). P>The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for "intelligent design theory", is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory" (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security "reform", and (anti) environmentalist organizing).

Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation -- a major Reconstructionist think-tank -- for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", intelligent design "theorist" Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, "My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives."

Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine).

Some of Ahmanson's donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation "Fieldstead" is Ahmanson's middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI's shining stars.

Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Howard Ahamnson, Jr sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.

Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself. However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was.

So it's no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

Comment #56181
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 9, 2005 07:35 PM (e) (s)

h brthr. ppl snd dmb mst f th tm, bt nvr qt s mch s whn g nt r chckn-lttl md. f D s mntnd n scnc clss, vn f t s "tght", t wll hv n ffct. D thnk ths kds r stpd?

Gee, Heddle, that's the most sensible thing I recall ever seeing from you. (snicker)

Dr. Lenny - EXCELLENT! I LOVE this comment! Heddle is such a smarmy toad, that this comment is ALMOST as good as the news from Dover!

As I said earlier, I can easily prove that it can happen with ID as well--- Just by sending a rocket with a soda can full of microbes to Europa.

— weird_w

The material model is the familiar one based on space, time, mass, energy, etc.

I can imagine all kinds of possible observations that would be labeled unexplainable by the material model (but not necessarily "scientifically unexplainable"). Example: A psychic talks to a dead person who tells him that Usama Bin Laden is living at 6969 69th Avenue in Manhattan. The FBI go there and arrest him.

apologies for going slightly off topic, but...

i want to thank the posters on this board for being so damn articulate and intelligent. it gives someone like me, smart but with limited hard science knowledge, a great deal of succor and hope that people are out there fighting the rigorous scientific fight, and not resting on laurels. asshats like Wierd_w are at their core disingenuous, so taking them on must be tiring and frustrating (as one suspects is the point--these days blogs are filled with people with professional agendas, shall we say, commenting in support of lead paint or asbestos standards or ID--pretty much anyone with an axe to grind and some cash behind them is doing so). bless you for doing so.

the saddest thing for me is to imagine what it does to the real area of importance in scientific research and debate--the fact that there are ongoing and quite brutal battles of interpretation of data as that data comes in. in that ferment are born many of the great ideas that make it possible for us all to enjoy most of what we enjoy. yet IDers insist that science is "closed off to debate" and use terms like "dogma" and the like to (reverse judo chop!) make science seem like...religion. but in a bad way. because, confusingly, they are mostly extremely religious. maybe someone can enlighten me on that aspect of their argument, because i still can't parse it. point is, idiots now believe that evolution is some dogmatic thing, instead of a set of principles that are ever battled-tested by constant empirical research. they get science exactly 180 degrees wrong, and people believe them.

sorry so discursive, it's why i'm NOT a scientist. but, again, reading this comment field has been like diving into a good novel, and i'm thankful to all involved, even vowel-light Heddie, for that.

Janet Waugh, one of the four intelligent members of the board, put it well: "This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that."

Greetings to all. I've been following the Dover trial, and PT, for some time but am a first-time poster. I've truly enjoyed reading the posts here and like Robert, am heartened that so many here are standing up for science and reason -- and that you have well-tuned baloney detectors!

Throwing my two cents in as a physical chemist doing research in quantum theory: "molecular complexity" seems counterintuitive and "unlikely" from a macro-perspective, which the IDers love because they equate perceived improbability with design. But atomic and molecular interactions are governed by quantum mechanics and its associated laws of atomic and subatomic physics, which underlie and explain a great deal of this so-called complexity. Of course we don't know everything about how atoms interact, which is why those of us in the business can't wait to get up and head for the lab every morning -- there's always something new and fascinating and unexpected about this universe, just waiting to be discovered, and ID on the other hand is a flat, dead end: why bother, because we can just say it's too tough for us to figure out, and was therefore "designed." What a waste.

The most shocking thing Behe said during his Dover testimony, amid all the other distortions and mischaracterizations, was that "all science is appearances." I can't imagine how a real scientist could ever make this claim. Someone's perception means absolute zilch unless it's backed up by testable evidence and data. If scientists really believed it was all appearances, we would never have come up with quantum theory -- peculiar, counterintuitive, bizarre, makes no sense on the macro level -- but it works.

Lenny, you are awesome :-)

Madam P

maybe someone can enlighten me on that aspect of their argument, because i still can't parse it.

Lenny, you are awesome :-)

The most shocking thing Behe said during his Dover testimony, amid all the other distortions and mischaracterizations, was that "all science is appearances." I can't imagine how a real scientist could ever make this claim.