Every once in a while some Ph.D. has a nervous breakdown late in life and turns to the life of prayer and contemplation - like Phillip Johnson - and they try and scoop him up, but their most significant catch so far is the molecular biologist Behe, and he’s a bit of a crackpot. (Behe invented the “irreducible complexity” argument that’s been demolished eight ways from Sunday already, and he accepts much more of Darwin then the rest of the Disco crowd thinks is permitted.) The program director, John West, is a flippin’ Moonie, for godsakes.

So no, they don’t have anybody on board with the kind of credentials that could make their critique sing, but then again it’s a pretty shoddy critique.

I’ve met some of the Disco people up in Seattle, and they’re extremely mediocre minds, but they try and make up for their lack of intelligence by acting arrogant and playing the victim. Disco is a blight on our democracy.

Governing Goals – To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. – To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Twenty Year Goals
– To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. – To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts. – To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Go read the whole thing here and theDisco response here.

ID isn’t properly a “theory” in the sense that the term is used in science. It’s more correctly viewed as a “critique” of evolution by natural selection that essentially says “gee, I just don’t see how that could have happened.” If the ID’ers ever get around to building a theory, and ever get any traction in the peer-reviewed scientific press, and ever attract scientific proponents with genuine credentials, maybe we could think about including it in school science curricula. But it’s nowhere close to the first level of what can charitably be called science, and therefore not ready for prime time.

And of course this will never happen because ID isn’t intended to shed light on any subject of scientific research, it’s intended to deceive.

And belief in evolution is in no sense incompatible with being a conservative or being a christian, at least on this side of the Atlantic.

“Nor is evolution about random chance somehow producing impossible complexity, a la the tornado and the 747. Of course such a thing is absurd, and there’s nothing in Darwinian evolution to support such a notion. ”

You really might want to read up on evolution.
–chances of even the first rung of DNA structure being reached randomly are 10 to the 87th power. That’s 10 followed by 87 zeros, which translates to about 7 billion years. Not even the most ardent evolutionists is willing to take on the job of convincing anyone that it took close to 7 billion years for even the first single cell life form to emerge from what can only be described as primordial slime
–not one single piece of evidence exists among the fossil collections in all the museums of the world to prove that their origins were evolutionary in nature

Paul Lemoins (1878 - 1940), past president of the Geological Society of France, past director of the Natural History Museum of Paris–”with regard to the origin of life, science …positively affirms creative power.”

There are so many other examples.

I’m not hard bent for ID not hard bent against evolution, but the theory that the observable processes of adaptation and natural selection within distinct species indicates a common ancestry and source of life is just that, a theory. The question is if the faith placed in the validity of this particular theory is waranted, and I simply see no evidential reason to invest the same confidence in the theory of common descent as we do experimentaly supportable theories such as gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetic waves and relativity.

G’night All/ONE.

Yes, Greg, yes. ‘Disco’ (was just reading up on it today at PhysicsToday.org) rocks on all levels. Unless you’re tone deaf.

I think it frightens some that scientific nerds would, could and DO - embrace the concept of Purpose utilizing tried and true scientific analysis.

What *if* something actually exists ‘beyond’ their own huge little egos?! Heaven forbid? Their open minds are quite closed in this regard. THEY don’t buy into even the possibility of it; ergo, it just plain doesn’t exist. For They are the center of their own (little) egocentric universes. I say this as someone who was agnostic for over 20 years…

I’ll go further. I guess they haven’t figured out, yet, that We are One. They are second graders. They’ll come along…in this lifetime…or the next or next.

Why don’t we talk about the evolution of Souls? Darwin was clearly a First grader, focusing on matters merely related to matter.

As to JE’s comment re my comment: of course! Question WHY I made the point.

Discovery Institute was my employer, although I didn’t work in the science program (tech, transportation and trade was my area). So I feel compelled to defend them against what I can only characterize as shallow, predictable attacks on the “religious fringe” and “creationists,” which they most certainly are not. (Ask a real creationist, like those at Answers in Genesis.) I can tell you one of the fellows in the science program, David Berlinski, is a secular Jew. He surely differs with the others on some things about origins and biological science, but is ultimately unconvinced by the evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, which at its core says there is no purpose in the universe. Of course the establishment is against them, and most of the supporters are Christians and conservative Jews of some kind, considering they’re inherently friendly to the notion of design in the universe. This is a very new movement, stuck in the very tired lens of religion vs. science, and reporters aren’t sure how to characterize this issue any other way. Still they’ve been quite fair to Discovery, as the Discovery folks will tell you. I know that irritates many bloggers of the secular libertarian wings of right and left.

The focus on intelligent design in education is rather misplaced - Discovery has principally argued that teachers not be punished for mentioning in class holes in Darwinian theory, the kind that get discussed in mainstream scientific journals. In Washington State, where Disco (as we affectionately call it) is based, one longtime biology teacher was run out of his school district for daring to bring in outside materials - those mainstream journals - and point out problems with Darwinian evolution over a couple days of classes. So I have little sympathy for these claims that we’re witnessing a new Dark Ages in education - look at who’s trying to burn the witches.

I frequently disagreed with how the science program did its PR, and am still uncomfortable with the closeness they have with a lot of prominent religious conservatives. But actually read their materials, talk to them at conferences and listen to them in state education board hearings, and you’ll find a big tent for disagreement (they disagree on details even in the Institute), very intelligent analysis, and through background in the latest mainstream scientific discussions on Darwinian evolution. They are classic science nerds. If you’re irredeemably hostile to any form of design in the universe, and won’t accept anything other than hardcore materialism, your mind has always been closed. But for the vast majority of America that doesn’t fall into either scripture-based science or full-blown scientific materialism, Discovery’s education agenda isn’t terribly offensive.

“Today’s proponents of “intelligent design” theory are doing nothing novel when they say the complexity of nature is more plausibly explained by postulating a designing mind—a.k.a. God—than by natural adaptation and selection. By 1925, Larson’s book notes, ”Christian apologists had long regarded the intricate design of the eye as a ‘cure for atheism’.”

“The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school’s science curriculum.”

Never have I fathomed why Christians of whatever stripe would have a problem with Darwinian evolution. One might do well to remember we live in a solar system that has (and will again) provided the earth with mass extinction events which, as one might say, wiped the slate more or less clean. Perhaps He was unhappy with those dinosaurs?

As for mandating such crap be taught alongside of actual science in the classroom — if your local school board wants to live in the Dark Ages, it’s fine by me. Just don’t come crying to the rest of us when your kids can’t get into a decent college because they weren’t actually taught biology in high school (though I guess Bob Jones will always take them in, eh?).

Eileen, modern medicine has long since acknowledged the beneficial effects of spirituality in treatment of disease. Requiring that ID be considered a “valid alternative” to Darwinian evolution would be like Harvard Medical School allowing its students to opt for a Christian Science medical track.

The problem is that faiths that attempt to explain how the universe works (rather than sticking to the much more mysterious problem of why) are ultimately incompatible with science. Why do you think the Vatican has pronounced evolution acceptable within the context of Catholic theology? Maybe because they spent centuries trying to mandate that its adherents believe that the sun revolved around the earth, only to be proven to be utter fools by the facts.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity, which is also a theory, mind you — although I don’t see any evangelicals doing “faith leaps” off of steep cliffs in protest of that dogmatic assertion of Godless science! We may debate about how evolution works, but none of that constitutes refutation of the core principles. Nor is evolution about random chance somehow producing impossible complexity, a la the tornado and the 747. Of course such a thing is absurd, and there’s nothing in Darwinian evolution to support such a notion.

But of course that’s the point. The would-be debunkers of evolution know that the comparison is absurd. But what if the tornado had produced a Spruce Goose instead of a 747? Less unlikely. A hang-glider? Even less. How about just a wing? Well now it’s not such a miracle anymore, is it? Darwin wouldn’t even start there, though, but with a thing that under certain circumstances might just generate some lift in a strong breeze, like for instance the wings of the birds’ ancestors. As time goes on, small advantages add up and reinforce themselves along the lines of natural selection — hardly a “random” process at this point.

Proponents of ID however like to suggest that evolution is nothing more than tossing dice over and over again in hopes of getting a winning result , for it is to their advantage to prey on their supporters’ fear of living in a cosmos dictated by blind chance and arbitrary randomness. Again, Darwin does not presume to answer the question WHY but HOW.

People who maintain that complexity invalidates evolution do so out of ignorance, pure and simple. Sorry if that offends any delicate sensibilites, but there it is.

Moreover, if we as human beings are examples of Intelligent Design, than would one of its proponents kindly tell me why we have wisdom teeth? Tonsils? Appendices? Vestigial tails? Or why if evolution had nothing to do with our body’s design that the human head of an infant fails to make it through the pelvic opening of the mother in approximately 33% of all births, unlike virtually all other mammals (the science of it: our species was selecting for ever larger brains, up to the point where it was literally pushing the limits of female biological design).

The main problem with ID is that in the end a believer is forced to accept either an incompetent or downright malevolent designer at Nature’s helm — so is God a screw-up, or is he simply a vicious bastard?

Bush, of course, can be excused for his ignorance of Scottish philosopher David Hume. Instead, Bush and intelligent design proponents should just see (or better yet, read) Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. In the Hitchhiker’s Guide, Adams offers an absurd proof of the non-existence of God every bit as compelling - and baseless - as intelligent design.

For the details, see:

“Bush and the Hitchhiker’s Guide to Intelligent Design.”

Dunno about you, but I call that evidence.

2. Bryan William Jones: “The theory of evolution has been supported time and time again by experiments and observation of biological systems at the ecological level as well as the organismal, molecular and genetic levels.” Despite the impressive verbiage, you fail to acknowledge the basic fact that all evidence to which you refer only supports microevolution, and none of it supports macroevolution. It is one thing to look at Eohippus and conjecture that through natural selection stronger and more adaptable variations eventually became today’s modern horse. It is quite another, though, to look at diverse species with different numbers of chromosomes and conclude that somehow they all came from a common progenitor and that mutations that added or removed various chromosomes somehow turned out beneficial (rather than deadly, as all evidence I know of shows) and somehow didn’t render the organism sterile (another common effect of genetic mutations) and somehow the organism was sufficiently compatible with another mutation that somehow happened close enough for these two to mate and produce off-spring of a different species that somehow managed to meet up with other off-spring of a close enough genetic makeup to render them viable mates…

If you want to call ID religious superstition you have to be fair and also call the idea of macroevolution scientific superstition. Both rely just as heavily on faith in the absense of evidence.

Well thanks for this. This thread has been the epiphany I guess I needed to experience about those who have been supporting Bush and not coincidently supporting ID - you’re simply not open to reason.

It’s the age old problem of those with reason and the enlightenment values trying to explain to the guy carrying a piece of wood called his rainstick why the relationship he sees between his dancing and the advent of rain may not be as sure as he believes. Rationality against dumb faith.

So I guess I could continue here arguing that Bush taking the longest-holidays in x many decades is another fundamental sign of how medicore this president is to the very core of his being but what would be the point? I would just have the rain stick shaken at me and some incantation along the lines of how he needs this to reconnect with the heartland or clear his mind or some other such stupidity. Any possible other explanation except the obvious - he’s a lazy incompetent who wouldn’t last a day in McDonalds. Occam’s Razor is very blunt indeed.

I don’t know what you see as so precious in our dear leader that has made you suspend all your critical facilities, but neither at this point do I care. I am bothered by your horrific destruction of the values this republic needs, including accountability, intelligence, honor and truth but I see little that can be done to stop you at this point. The damage is done - the time was now to oppose it as a nation. From here on out, all other politicians can simply claim the precedent of Bush. Start a war for all the wrong reasons that leads to the unecessary slaughter of thousands of our troops? Hey Bush did it.

So congratulations! the barbarians rule Rome, the retarded teach the lessons and the insane run the asylum.

Jeff, thanks for putting up with me in spite of my snarky comments.

It definitely should not be taught in a science classroom in any public school, though.

Jeff:

Off-topic, you have probably heard of Stephen Vincent’s execution in Basra last night. I wrote a short personal recollection of him here.

One can go visit Steven’s blog here.

***

In an October, 2000 article for the Association of American Medical Colleges:

“According to the latest survey conducted by the NIHR, approximately 70 U.S. medical schools address issues of spirituality in their curricula. Dr. Puchalski, like many other professors of spirituality in medical schools, sees this as a return to holistic medicine…

…When Howard University medical students enter the classroom of Martin Jones, M.D., they are exposed to music and slides of fine art that are meant to elicit the traditional role of spirituality in medicine. One of the slides he shows is Rembrandt’s “Tobias Healing His Father’s Blindness.” “It shows Tobias healing his father, and over Tobias’ shoulder is an angel, implying that Tobias is relying on higher spiritual entities for guidance in treating his father,” explains Dr. Jones, who is the director of the Spirituality and Medicine Program at Howard University College of Medicine and professor of the course “Faith and Medicine: The Spirit of Healing.” “The image helps students realize that as physicians they can rely on their spiritual reservoir to guide them through their duties as doctors.”

Dr. Jones gives credence to studies suggesting a link between spiritual and religious practices and improved health outcomes, and he presents them to his students as empirical data that give hard evidence to the benefits of addressing a patient’s spiritual needs. Among other things, these controversial studies have suggested that people who regularly attend religious services or engage in religious practices have lower blood pressure, recover more quickly from depression, have healthier immune systems, and experience fewer hospital stays.

“Some folks argue against such connections, but I believe they exist,” says Northeastern Ohio Universities’ Pethtel. “I believe researchers are finding the connections between spirituality and health.”…

…Dr. Puchalski says. “In any aspect of the doctor-patient relationship, it is the patient’s well-being that should always come first.”

Dr. Jones agrees. “We’re not evangelists,” he says. “We’re not calling people to be ministers. This is about examining the potential spiritual awareness has for healing patients, body and soul.”

http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/oct2000/spirit.htm

So if trained doctors consider spiritual issues as part of their
’scientific curriculum’, should we not be able to consider them alongside pure scientific theory in our classrooms? Or, at the very least, leave Darwinism - along with an analysis of it’s flaws - in science courses, but *also* require a course in philosophy which addresses ID, along with a full spectrum of other philosophies of religion.

http://www.healthy-elements.com/evolution.html

On the other hand, much of the push for ID comes as a reaction to those who push the teaching of evolution well beyond science to encompass their own faiths or un-faiths. My son was subjected to “Inherit the Wind” 3 times in his “science” classes.

Science instruction should focus on the theories and the evidence (which gets a lot more sketchy as one goes back in time). Speculations as to the origin of life (mechanism vs. ID) belong in philosophy class, if such is offered.

There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God’s existence through science.

It’s awfully funny that our supposed inarticulate, dimwitted, un-educated President can give such a reasoned, level-headed answer on such a difficult, emotional subject.

Like someone asked, who are the moderates in this debate? And who, Jeff, are the “fringe” dogmatiac nutjobs? In this case, it’s not Bush.

On this subject of intelligent design, it doesn’t take much of a brain to figure out how our science can’t figure out the answer to that theory? After all, since when does the creation of a creator have the intelligence of the creator?

I don’t who made God, but I know that He made me. And that’s all I need to know. Sorry, is that dogmatic?