Nice summary, Ogre and I'd agree with the broad push of where you're going with it.

I would raise a couple of points however. Just because officials are elected, it doesn't necessarily mean that a majority even of the people who voted for those officials agree with every decision they make. For that to always be true, every decision would have to be confirmed by public referendum.

In the prepared statement, there's an implicit categorisation of Intelligent Design as a theory. An idea can only be called a theory if it predicts certain events or consequences of actions, and those predictions are open to testing (although the capability to test the predictions may come decades later, as in the theory of relativity).

As I understand it, Intelligent Design proponents hold the mechanism for the creation of life to be ineffable - forever beyond our understanding and therefore impossible to question.

Its all wordgames to me - I think the statement is perfectly reasonable, but I can see where the ACLU managed to get a hook in it to attempt to pull it down.

"To believe nothing is as foolish as believing everything - both remove the need for reflection".

No, it doesn't mean the majority of the people support the action, but then again, the majority of the people support it when they DON'T vote. We've got a representative republic, so people can only be represented by their electors.

All I see in that statement is the idea that Darwin's theory might not be perfect. In this case the ACLU is clearly engaging the censorship -- it's not religion vs. science, it's the ACLU attempting to stop any debate about evolution.

Thanks for stopping by again!

Great job! Didn't know these little details.

Sorry to have to inform you of more of their garbage.

Why can't the people who religiously support evolution stand the questioning? If evolution is a fact, what's wrong with asking questions?

They're knee-jerk reacting to relentless attacks from creationists that never stop.

This gives them their own form of zealotry that leads to the willful denial of any and all plausible science that might get mixed in with fanatically motivated bs.

And isn't it interesting, Island, that they defend their alleged non-religion with such a religious fervor?

More important to science, I think, is the fact that they are willfully blind to the existence of their own religous fevor... to the point that one of their own most respected members is impressed enough by this mentality to call them "neodarwinian bullies".

The problem with neo-Darwinism is that Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist. I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point.

-Lynn Margulis

That's not a normal disagreement among peers... it's a clear shot at fanaticism.

You can see that also every time a defender of Darwin starts with "science is science and religion is religion." Often when I ask questions about evolution and Darwin, I don't say one word about religion -- I just ask questions about the science -- and I get accused of being a religious nut. It is, as you have accurately pointed out, blind fanaticism that refuses to accept any challenges.

Yup... but "intelligent" intervention is still too distantly plausible to merrit the kind of consideration that IDists expect.

You can't prove intelligent intervention with evidence for purposeful design in nature, even if neodarwinists did manage to get over it and admit that such evidence even exists.

It's the refusal by both sides to interpret evidence honestly that hurts us all.

I usually approach it with the idea of "What if evolution is wrong?" I'm not trying to foist anything on anyone, just trying to get them to see facts as facts and ignore belief systems. I'm not saying evolution IS wrong -- I'm just asking questions about it that don't make sense -- and for that I'm attacked.

I don't have much experience on the other side, as I can't effectively argue in support of evolution -- I've observed and learned too much and don't have the rigid faith required to accept evolution.

I believe that I have a mountain of evidence that indicates that the anthropic principle is true for good logical physics reasons.

As a result, I've been called a creationist more times than Dembski... and denied it more times than Judas.

Luv,

Constantine

I was reading that info on the site you linked, and I liked it -- I might have to use some samples of that in a future post if you don't mind.

Then you've got to read this, but you'll have to remove the space after www.g... because your spam moniter is censoring it.

www.g eocit ies.com/naturescience/TalkOriginsArchive.html

Sure... it's there for that purpose if nothing else, but remeber that selective exclusion is willful ignorance.

Kinda like anthrax in Florida... nobody ever discusses the fact that this points to terrorists in posession of WMD's... that WE gave Iraq!

Terrorists trying to acqire crop dusters doesn't help anybody's argument... so we'll buy into the hype that a disgrutled scientist that will never be indicted... did it...

uh huh...

"Often when I ask questions about evolution and Darwin, I don't say one word about religion -- I just ask questions about the science -- and I get accused of being a religious nut. It is, as you have accurately pointed out, blind fanaticism that refuses to accept any challenges."

So posit a legitimate challenge to evolution. The ID creationists haven't, which is why they're being treated with due scorn. Whether or not one chooses to describe the reaction to ID creationists from scientists as "religious fervor" is entirely irreleant and smacks only of desperation - "nyah nyah nyah, EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION TOOOOOOOOO!!!" Sorry, but not only is this dumb -- nothing about evolutionary theory rests in "revealed knowledge" or any of the other hokum that festers within the minds of religiously motivated evolution opponents, rendering scientists' attitudes moot -- but it's beside the point, which is that ID has failed to marshal any semblance of support for its own supposed position.

You also don't have any grasp of the particulars of Kitzmiler vs. Dover. At the very heart of it is that teachers WERE being forced to teach ID creationism. Maybe you should read the transcripts. Failing that, you can pay heed to the testimony of Carol Brown, a ten-year member of the Dover school board who resigned in protest of the new ID policy.

"[Brown] testified to the repeated statements of Bill Buckingham, chair of the curriculum committee, and Alan Bonsell, chair of the school board, that they were seeking equal time for creationism in science classrooms. She detailed a year’s worth of proselytizing by members of the school board, their outspoken opposition to the separation of church and state, and much more. She testified that the search for an ID textbook began because several members of the board objected to the biology textbook (Ken Miller’s textbook, Biology) on the grounds that it did not give equal time to creationism or mention God. This follows on the heels of almost identical testimony from other former board members and teachers, including Bryan Rehm and Barrie Callahan."

Lynn "Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation" Margulis apparently does not understand contemporary issues in evolution, and somehow I doubt you do either. But if you're so certain that the ACLU is trying to stifle legitimate scientific alternatives to evolution, feel free to enumerate if not expand on these.

A few addenda. First of all, the ACLU didn't initiate this, they're merely the legal counsel for the plaintiffs, which consist of a group of concerned area parents. You wrote:

"Keep in mind, these are ELECTED officials, so a MAJORITY of PEOPLE in this area WANT this to be done"

One: Are you really shallow-minded enough to think that just because someone is elected to a given office means that everything he or she subsequently does reflects the desires of his or her constituency? What about candidates who run on a no-new-tax platform and then raise taxes?

Two: Even if a majority of people want something, this doesn't impart it with scientific validity. Science isn't about popular opinions. I'm sure you can find counties brimming with uneducated morons in the American South in which 90% of residents believe that Noah's Flood actually happened as recounted in the Bible. That doesn't mean geoscience should hew to these benighted vews.

"The school system wanted to teach evolution. The school system never wanted to, intended to, nor required anyone to teach intelligent design."

As I noted before, the Dover Area School Board DEMANDED that ID be taught. I am amazed that you could be bothered to comment on something you have not investigated in the least. It's though whenever you hear of the ACLU's involvement in something, you proceed to shoot from the hip...nah, that can't be it.

Lynn "Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation" Margulis apparently does not understand contemporary issues in evolution

It's too easy to tell when there's a fanatic on the line... the moron doesn't even know that Lynn was the honored key-note speaker at the last evolution conference.

Nah... she don't no nuffin bout no issues... LOL

"the moron doesn't even know that Lynn was the honored key-note speaker at the last evolution conference"

True, I don't know the last time she was at a conference, but I was attempting to be ironic. Margulis has been studying evolution for about 80 years. Part of my post was clipped (human error, it appears).

Margulis does have issues with standard "neo-Darwinian" evolutionary views, but more importantly for purposes of this discussion Margulis is a frequent victim of quote-mining by ID creationists, as I'm sure you are aware.

BV

Yeah... Contrary to your previous impications, I'm am quite aware of what both sides do, like neodarwinists like to disallow quoted statements, which creationists DO often abuse, but just calling it quote-mining doesn't rationalize it away as insignificant without the evidence that backs up that claim.

FYI: Lynn used to be married to Carl Sagan and their son, Dorion Sagan, recently co-authored the book that's reccommended on the first page of my website that you must assume proves that I don't know anything about the issues without bothering to actually find out.

BV, welcome to the word of blind obedience and selective reading/hearing yourself. You clearly open with an outright hostility to religion, so that is already coloring your views. I do not open that way. I have studied earth's history, rocks, geology, and other earth sciences at the graduate level of college instruction -- supposedly some of the best that there is to offer. I've weighed the options, seen the evidence, and I have committed heresy to the naturalistic religion -- I've questioned what I've found.

You complain about the statements of the curriculum committee -- but what was said on the committee is completely, 100% irrelavent to this lawsuit -- the lawsuit very specifically is about that single statement that is to be read -- there are NO changes to the actual curriculum -- all students are still being taught 100% evolution without another word about intelligent design -- not one word.

As for my challenge to evolution, how about something basic: uniformitarianism.

The ACLU DID initiate this challenge. They are ambulance-chasers, and I'd even be willing to bet they placed an ad in the local newspaper seeking people to challenge the lawsuit.

In this country, we are supposed to have a representative republic. That means that the people should be able to decide for themselves what they want taught to their own children, no matter what the ACLU thinks. If they wanted to teach Gaia, Hindu, Naturalist, or the Christian view of how the world was created, and the majority wanted that, I'd have no problem with that, either.

Show me where in written policies and the curriculum that intelligent design was being forced upon anyone. Just because it was suggested in a meeting is meaningless. If that makes it so, I can go to a county council meeting and suggest we murder all people over 65 and the fact that I mentioned it means that the council supported it. Just because it's discussed, does not make it so. And in this case, it's utterly irrelevant.

"Show me where in written policies and the curriculum that intelligent design was being forced upon anyone."

The reading of the ID creationism statement to 9th-graders was written into curriculum policy. But because this laughable affront to science evidently isn't enough for you, are you doubting Brown's damning testimony? Or are you asserting that issues broached at school board meetings and actions takes therein are somehow irrelevant? Remember, the lawsuit here is the direct result of actions taken by the school board, which in enacting certain ad hoc pro-creation changes blatantly flaunted district policy. For details, read this:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05273/580258.stm).

Here's a copy of the original plaintiffs' complaint.

http://www.aclu.org/evolution/legal/complaint.pdf

Note that it was brought by a number of Dover-area parents, not the ACLU. But that doesn't really matter if the lawsuit is valid, now does it?

What went on at Dover School Board meetings, exactly? Let's add it up just for you, Oags.

* A school board member's wife quoted scripture from the Old Testament and said the district students would be cheated if they couldn't learn about biblical creation.

* School board member Bonsell began "snorting through his nostrils" and said students should not be exposed to [a student-crafted mural depicting evolution] because "this is not where we came from." (Later, a creationist janitor burned the mural.)

* Bonsell also said that prayer and faith should be reintroduced to schools and told board members he wanted "fair and balanced" treatment of creationism alongside the theory of evolution.

* Board member William Buckingham spurred a movement against purchasing biology textbooks because they were "laced with Darwinism" and claimed he would only vote for buying it if the district also bought the intelligent design "textbook" "Of Pandas and People."

As the link reveals, there's quite a bit more.

So, to you, does the entire controversy still amount to nothing more than the reading of a (stupid, dishonest) statement? It upsets you that lawyers are getting involved when idiot custiodians are setting fire to to things that offend their religious sensibilities? I'm almost envious of your capacity for raucous self-deception.

These are summed up here: http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3075731

I could even link to the court transcripts, but you don't care. All you know is that the ACLU is involved and that there is clearly evil afoot as a result. But Dover is getting its ass kicked -- so one-sidedly, in fact, that I doubt the DI or anyone else will want to see this one appealed to higher courts because of the embarrassing publicity that would rain down as a result. Soon ID creationism will be a dead issue and the fundagelicals will have to come up with a "new" form of creationism with which to batter the 21st century.

BV, you're still arguing about what happened at the board meetings, which is not the same as arguing about the board's actions. While I'm sure they introduced all of those quotes as testimony in the case, they show that the board acted rather passively to the creationists ideas at the meetings. The suit is over the board-ordered reading of the statement, and nothing more.

As Christopher said, you're missing the point. You cannot sue over discussions at a board meeting -- or maybe that's what bothers you even more -- the idea that people of faith even participate in government and actually talk about their own faith.

THERE IS NO POLICY TO TEACH CREATIONISM. NO TEACHER WAS DIRECTED TO TEACH CREATIONISM. ALL SCHOOLS WERE TO SPEND WEEKS AND WEEKS TEACHING EVOLUTION AND ZERO WEEKS TEACHING CREATIONISM.

heh... you wouldn't be teaching creationism even if you did "teach" ID... whatever that means, the only thing that you could teach is that scientists try to identify patterns that indicate purpose in a given mechanism.

Then they'd claim that this was evidence for intelligent design, even though that's wrong.

It isn't like finding an arrowhead on Mars, or a ancient and empty spaceship on Venus, patterns in nature that indicate purposeful design, don't indicate intelligent design without the asymmetries that put intelligently motivated actions at the top of the physical hierarchy of nature.

For example, the arrowhead is fashioned by a means that runs contrary to the normal dissipative process in the environment, sentience was required to add the "point" to the erosive process... so to speak.

The logical flaw that's made by both sides occurs when we disassociate ourselves from the process, to think that human design can be motivated by anything greater or less than that which motivates fungi to make "fairy-rings". Humans are, pound-for-pound, about as "erosive" it gets in our universe, and this puts us at or near the top of the heap of dissipative structures, but we are still just contributing members of our ecosystem. We can't just assume that we are anything greater than an integral player in the normal process of the ecobalance that we belong to.

How arrogant are we humans that we would detatch ourselves from the hierarchy of nature, just because we're at the top of a heap of stuff that does the same thing as us, only not quite as efficiently.

Help me out here I remember evolution from high school but the only thing I know about ID is the statement that a designer guided the creation of life. What I haven’t been able to find is were ID came from, who’s idea was it originally, how did they come up with the idea, did they really conduct some kind of experiment that that hints at the presents of a designer?

You know, I'm not sure who was the first in modern times to propose intelligent design. I know much of the support for it comes from asking questions about evolution and pointing out errors with the evolutionary theory -- so many proponents of ID simply offer it as a theory that works better than evolution.

"THERE IS NO POLICY TO TEACH CREATIONISM. NO TEACHER WAS DIRECTED TO TEACH CREATIONISM. ALL SCHOOLS WERE TO SPEND WEEKS AND WEEKS TEACHING EVOLUTION AND ZERO WEEKS TEACHING CREATIONISM."

Type in all caps if it helps convince you you're right, Ogre, but here's the deal.

1. The reading of that school-board mandated phrase *is* a curriculum change, and if you can successfully argue that it isn't grounded in religious superstition (this is where the ardent anti-Darwin outcries from Bonsell, Buckingham and the other medieval mushbrains come in, not to mention the well-known "Wedge document") doesn't undermine the concurrent teaching of evolution, you should be legally representing the DASD in this case, because frankly they're getting their asses kicked (as they should be) and could use the help.

You probably don't even know the contents of the ID statement teachers are now obligated to read. Here it is:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments."

This, for reasons clear to most, has no place in contemporary science classrooms. I'm aware that the ignorant easily turn the other cheek when it comes to the evidence for evolution, but that's a discussion for another time and place.

Ordering copies of the creationist book "Of Pandas and People" (and it is a creationist book, as shown here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/why_didnt_they.html) and not agreeing to order biology textbooks unless copies of OPAP were also purchased is not "discussion." It's action, with measurable results.

Of course, this is why there's a trial -- because people like you believe that what the DASD has done in trying to usher creationism into its schools is innocent and justified, just hunky-dory in light of the Establishment Clause, while others know better. And this time, justice should actually prevail.

I understand that unconditional Jesus supporters who think evolution and theism are incompatible aren't going to give an inch here regardless of the evidence, but I admit I find it interesting to watch them try when their brains seem otherwise functional enough.

From Ogre:

"You know, I'm not sure who was the first in modern times to propose intelligent design."

Phil Johnson, the senile "HIV-doesn't-exist" lawyer, is typically "credited" with introducing the term. By adding the clause "in modern times," you show that you at least understand that ID is simply another name for creationism, with or without an old earth.

"I know much of the support for it comes from asking questions about evolution and pointing out errors with the evolutionary theory"

Wrong. If you believe there are such errors, list them. Links should be easy enough to find, given how active the DI is.

"...so many proponents of ID simply offer it as a theory that works better than evolution."

Wrong again. ID is distinctly not a theory. It offers nothing that can be tested and actually little that can't. If you believe this is untrue, again, provide evidence. You have done nothing but swallow the DI's campaign of lies, proving that if nothing else they are good at PR (especially when aiming it at people who are already religiously corrupted).

Charon, ID merely posits that evolution is wrong and that a Creator did it, and that's it. All of the DI's efforts are aimed not at constructing a body of knowledge or publishing anything, but at attacking evolution. It is a bona fide hunk of religiously driven propagandist bunk.

Ogre, I thought you'd made at least a token effort to remain up to speed, but you may well be as clueless as Jay at the ACLU.

BV, you're showing your incredible pre-determined bias -- that quote you posted is in the original post above. Neither your version nor mine forced anyone to teach anything. And you're ignoring the idea that 2 seconds after the quote is read, the students start spending a long period of time ONLY learning evolution.

You also complain about schools ordering books. What other books do you want banned from the school library? That is exactly the point of this whole post -- the ACLU has taken the side of censorship and wants opposing viewpoints WITHELD from students.

And I assure you, BV, as you would know if you read rather than commented before reading, I am completely "up to speed." You can go down the road of discussing exactly what a "theory" is if you'd like. That will continue to support the view that people should be allowed to challenge evolution.

I've had a number of other posts that answer your other various questions, but trying to stay on topic here, this post is firm evidence and discussion about the idea that the ACLU refuses to allow dissenting opinions. Why is that? Why are schools not even allowed to discuss that evolution might not be perfect? Why do you and the ACLU want to only allow books in libraries that YOU approve? Most scientists want full and open discussion of ideas -- why do you and the ACLU want only your ideas heard?

The burden of proof will always rest with the evolutionist because as a Christian, I hold to the idea that "we walk by faith, not by sight" as the Bible puts it. I think this is true of most modern religions.
When I examine evolution as a theory I find too many holes in it's logic. Therefore I have concluded that it takes more faith to believe this nonsense.

"Therefore I have concluded that it takes more faith to believe this nonsense... "

Than to believe what, that goddidit?

No, natural cause is the default position since we already know that every other effect in nature has a natural cause. You'd be making an unfounded leap of faith that isn't justified by any evidence.

But then, island, explain Uniformitarianism.

"What I haven’t been able to find is were ID came from, who’s idea was it originally, how did they come up with the idea, did they really conduct some kind of experiment that that hints at the presents of a designer?"

The teleological observation goes back to Hericlitus, the ancient greek sophist.

The erroneous assumption that this indicates that god is the mechanism behind the design goes back to about five minutes after that... ;)

Dembski has made attempts to produce a method of detecting algorithms for intelligent design in nature, and many ID "scientists" are working on using the idea to produce viable scientific papers.

But again... the best that they'll be able to do is to give evidence that we're not here by accident, which does not indicate intelligent design without proof.

Still... ID is necessary and important to science as long as fanatically motivated airheads willfully deny evidence for the existence purpose in nature.

Politically if not rationally... purpose in nature is important to science and IDists are the only ones to recognize it.

In your face neodarwinists...

Ogre... I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you speaking in context with local geological evolution or the universe as a whole?

Are you talking about causality?

Why is natural cause the default position? As I see it, that's the argument for uniformitarianism, which has no possible basis in fact, only 100% belief.

No... there is plenty of evidence that natural cause is the cause of every action in nature. There is no evidence that un-natural cause is the cause for anything.

When viewed as current processes, I agree. My problem is when that idea is proposed to be infinite without evidence just because it's possible/probable/likely.

Watch it... my motto is "DON'T PROJECT"... ;)

I don't believe in infinity... and there's no emprical evidence that this is anything more than a mathematical idealization that's been taken quite too literally.

Ergo the question of causality... if the universe is finite, then how did it start?

Again... there's no evidence that nothing can exist... no evidence for an absolute cosmic singularity... and you don't need inflationary theory if the universe has volume when a big bang occurs.

Don't assume that the structure of the universe isn't perpetually inherent to the energy... in other words, there is an extremely conservative cosmological model that allows for this, because the universe perpetually evolves in this model via a series of big bangs... ever closer to the impossible *idealized goal* of absolute thermal equilibrium... or perfect symmetry, it's the inherent asymmetry or imbalance in the energy that causes the effort toward equilibrium that can never be resolved.

That's why the universe isn't perfectly flat.

That's what the anthropic principle is all about.

Now that's a very interesting way to put that principle -- I've not heard it said quite that way before...which could raise other interesting questions, perhaps way out on the philosophical scale -- if there's no such thing as infinite, and no such thing as nothing existing, then the universe has to have always existed, but only for a finite period of time...before which didn't exist -- which implies and ending of time which would not result in nothing.

I knew that I forgot to cover something... ;)

Time restarts every time that you have a big bang.

I don't make the rules.

Well...that makes sense... in a really, really philosophical sort of way.

Hey, it's pretty logical. Give me awhile, I'll see if I can poke some holes in that theory, too... :)

Ya gotta have at least one good paradox or it's just not a good theory... ha!

The physics is justified here in this series of four short articles that I wrote to the physicist moderated research group. It apparently vindicates Einstein because he could have rejected arguments for an infinite universe if he would have simply noted that matter generation in a "quasi"-static version of his finitite model causes the expansion that he **thought** did his model in.

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html

I say that this "apparently" vindicates him... somebody better than me still has to validate it with the quantum vacuum in the manner described in about the second article, but the point remains that the ball is NOT in Einsten's court...

He is STILL right... until somebody proves him wrong, because there's nothing wrong with using this argument back in 1917 and so we still live in a finite closed universe that has a telic connection to every other object in it.

Science hits philosophy and the "why" question like a brick square in the face... the rules of science change dramatically if the most accurate cosmological principle in a finite closed universe is anthropic in nature.

Surprise.

Ken, I hope for your sake that your post was an attempt at parodying Bible inerrantists.

"The burden of proof will always rest with the evolutionist because as a Christian, I hold to the idea that "we walk by faith, not by sight" as the Bible puts it."

So you believe that although facts and observations have led modern scientists to irrefutable conclusions about the development of life as we know it, they can't be correct because an ancient book of faery tales doesn't mesh with these data?

"When I examine evolution as a theory I find too many holes in it's logic."

Name one. Just one will suffice.

"Therefore I have concluded that it takes more faith to believe this nonsense."

No, you concluded a long time ago that creationism was valid because it was drilled into your head, and since then you, like other victims of the religious byrus, have been struggling like hell to keep facts at bay so as to avoid cognitive dissonanance. You need to read "Idiot America" in the latest issue of Esquire Magazine -- you don't know it, but you're one of the unnamed stars of the story.

Quantum vacuum? Now you're talking!

But hey, you're daring to question evolution, so you're a religious nut...or so I'm told.

It's amazing the possibilities when one considers just tiny variations in theories that simply cannot be proven, isn't it?

Oh yeah... I forgot to include this recent observational stuff that appears with like 99.9% confidence to disprove the infinite universe, while disproving inflationary theory as a side benefit.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508047/

These are excellent pictures of observational evidence against the copernican cosmological principle and for something more "biocentric" in nature... given a thermodynamic need for intelligent life and the weak anthropic principle... then we can expect life to be as prevalent accross the universe as the need for it dictates.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmforall/18135101/in/set-435988/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmforall/18135102/in/set-435988/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmforall/sets/435988/

Quantum vacuum? Now you're talking!

Isn't it interesting how many differentideas can be considered when one has an open mind to the possibilities?

Ken, I hope for your sake that your post was an attempt at parodying Bible inerrantists.

"The burden of proof will always rest with the evolutionist because as a Christian, I hold to the idea that "we walk by faith, not by sight" as the Bible puts it."

So you believe that although facts and observations have led modern scientists to irrefutable conclusions about the development of life as we know it, they can't be correct because an ancient book of faery tales doesn't mesh with these data?

"When I examine evolution as a theory I find too many holes in it's logic."

Name one. Just one will suffice.

"Therefore I have concluded that it takes more faith to believe this nonsense."

No, you concluded a long time ago that creationism was valid because it was drilled into your head, and since then you, like other victims of the religious byrus, have been struggling like hell to keep facts at bay so as to avoid cognitive dissonanance. You need to read "Idiot America" in the latest issue of Esquire Magazine -- you don't know it, but you're one of the unnamed stars of the story.

"It's amazing the possibilities when one considers just tiny variations in theories that simply cannot be proven, isn't it?"

Yeah... especially since they love to claim that it can't be done... ;)

And yes, again, but you end up with the same model if you don't project beyond the observed universe, so empiricism and occam rule origins science in this matter.

It's win/win for me too, so I'm not complaining... the point is that my logic should be dead on the money if I'm right... and I may be biased, but I'd say that I make a LOT of sense... ;)

BV, it's just as valid for me to say: "BV, you concluded a long time ago that evolution was valid because it was drilled into your head, and since then you, like other victims of the scientific byrus, have been struggling like hell to keep facts at bay so as to avoid cognitive dissonanance. You need to read 'Idiot America' in the latest issue of Esquire Magazine -- you don't know it, but you're one of the unnamed stars of the story."

I think I understand why supporters of evolution are so quick to make personal attacks on individuals who support ANY other view than evolution, but I'm not going to project other meanings on other people. I do notice, that BV, in your defense of evolution, you waited three whole sentences before you started calling people names.

"it's just as valid for me to say: 'BV, you concluded a long time ago that evolution was valid because it was drilled into your head, and since then you, like other victims of the scientific byrus, have been struggling like hell to keep facts at bay so as to avoid cognitive dissonanance.'"

Sorry, but you don't get to just regurgitate others' sentences after substituting a few words.

Your assertion is plainly wrong for several reasons. One, your statement would only be "valid" if you could demonstrate that the body of evidence for Biblical creation is as extensive and established as the body of knowledge for evolution. Even you're probably not so far gone that you'd make this claim -- after all, if there were evidence for creation, there'd be no need for the term "faith."

Two, the process by which religion most often takes root in people is one of simple indoctrination early in life. No one I know has ever grown up without exposure to Christianity, had a gander around the world, made a series of critical judgments, and decided that a god who just happened to resemble the fictitious protagonist in the Bible is responsible for what we see in the natural world. Science is different; in a better world the basics of biology, chemistry and geology would, in fact, be introduced to more children at a young age, but instead it's something people need to seek out for themselves - what's presented in schools barely scratches the surface.

Three, science has no inherent investment in denying gods. Christianity is a crock of something warm and brown, but if it weren't, I could happily accept this and still maintain my beliefs in matters scientific (as do many believers). However, creationists by definition do not have this freedom. To admit biologists are correct would be a step toward burning in Hell. So again, the playing field is not level.

You don't have to like my words or my attitude, but a person of your intelligence cannot with a straight face deny the truth any of the above statements I have made. Remember, this topic isn't about whether people should get to harbor religious beliefs, it's about whether these should be forced onto schoolkids. It's plain that the Dover creationists are in the wrong, and this is one instance in which the efforts of the ACLU are well-directed (many of their machinations are not).

BV, you're filled with an outright and obvious hatred of all things religious -- you admit so yourself. Why could anyone expect you to look at anything objectively when you have already determined that you know the answer and facts don't matter?

There's plenty of evidence for creation, but that's not the point. My viewpoint is that the evidence for evolution is flawed. I'm not claiming to have the answers, I'm just pointing out that evolution isn't it. But you won't allow me to do that in your world because YOU are the one that defends your viewpoints with a religious fervor.

Your point two is a nice straw man argument.

Point three is just outright wrong. Those who proposed and initially defended Darwin's theory did so to deny God. That was their stated purpose-- they started with "There is no God," and went forward from there. If there is a God, all of evolution is wrong so supporters of evolution have a very strong interest in making sure they deny God.

And to reiterate again, because you don't seem to see it -- this is about exposing people to different points of view. The ACLU does not want people exposed to anything remotely related to Intelligent Design, the Anthropic Principle, Christianity, or anything that conflicts with their narrow goals.

This IS the ACLU supporting censorship, plain and simple.

There are numerous scientific papers that use anthropic reasoning to make real testable predictions, and I can do this myself, but the principle gains significantly more strength if the following is true, because it rules out multiverses and any other possible universal configuration.

Judge for yourself:

The Big Bang produced numerous principles and laws that have yet to be broken in spite of a lot of projections and theoretical speculation about the eventual and final fate of the usable energy of our expanding universe.

The inevitable heat death of the universe is one of the more obvious projections of an expanding "entropic" universe, but this conclusion doesn't completely justify the fact that the extremely small positive value of the cosmological constant means the big bang actually resulted in a near perfect balance between runaway expansion and gravitational recollapse, which actually puts the universe about as far away from the tendency toward heat death as you can possibly get, and yet still be heading in that direction.

The principle of least action says that it is no coincidence that this near-perfectly symmetrical configuration is also the most energy-efficient means for dissipating energy, because this means that tendency toward "heat-death" is most economically restricted to the most-even distribution of energy possible.

The universe actually expresses a grand scale natural preference toward the most economical form of energy dissipation, so if the second law of thermodynamics is telling us that the entropy of our expanding universe increases with every action, then the anthropic principle is telling us that this will occur by the most energy efficient means possible, since the flatness of the universe is one of the many coincidentally ecobalanced requirements of the principle.

If the second law of thermodynamics points the arrow of time, then the anthropic principle determines that time is maximized.

What need for humans?

From the above falls an empirically supported hypothesis that an "entropic" Anthropic Cosmolgical Principle is 'most-natural' in an expanding universe for self-explanatory reasons, but is there enough justifying evidence that the predominant expansive inclination of our universe also represents the reason that the forces are "tuned" in a manner that produces "sites" where intelligent life can arise and evolve?

Well, let's see...

A ) Is there evidence that human actions serve to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics? Yes of course there is, since all action accomplishes this, but...

B ) Is there evidence that humans can somehow make a more significant contribution to the entropy of the universe than say, a rock resting on the ground... or maybe even a "Dung Beetle"... or what about a, uh, a monkey...? Of course there is evidence for this too, but that's still not enough "specialness" to justify the kind of entropic favoritism that'll get a cosmolgical scale thermodynamic principle named in our honor, so...

C ) Is there evidence that humans are capable of some higher-level contribution to the process that is relatively uncommon, or "unique" and significant enough in our universe to justify an Entropic Anthropic Cosmological Principle?

Once, again, the answer is yes, if "good practical reason for it" makes it a biocentric principle, becauses humans are by far the most energy-efficient mechanism of only three known sources for isolating the release of enough energy to make real particles from the negative energy of the quantum vacuum, which directly affects the balance of the universe, so it is less probably a coincidence that the "flatness" of the universe is also the most apparently significant of all of the "anthropic coincidences".

The evidence most certainly does support a valid hypothesis for design in nature... in terms of thermodynamic structuring that enables and requires human creation as a means to satisfy a very practical physical need. Empiricism elevates the hypothesis to the status of "theory", since it projects a reproducibly accurate representation of nature that makes verifiable predictions. The entropic interpretation clarifies and completes the anthropic princple with good physical reason for an anthropic constraint on the forces, and this makes the principle more universally applicable. So, the thermodynamic connection justifies our seemingly insignificant human contribution, since the cumulative affect makes the need biocentric requiring that intelligent life be as common in our universe as the cosmological scale need for it demands.

"There's plenty of evidence for creation, but that's not the point."

No there isn't, and as pertains to the Dover case it's *precisely* the point. For something to be taught as science, it needs to be grounded in observations and evidence. What is the evidence for creation? Considering how many religious fanatics there are in America, they must have made this scientific evidence readily available. A simple link or other valid reference will suffice.

"My viewpoint is that the evidence for evolution is flawed."

That this is your "viewpoint" means nothing. Science relies not on opinions and preferences but on...well, I think I've been over this already.

"I'm not claiming to have the answers, I'm just pointing out that evolution isn't it."

So to you ID creationism is a great gap-plugger, eh? You're not satisfied with evolution, therefore creation (for which you say there is ample evidence) is correct and evolution is all wrong. You don't know what the right answers are, yet you have some standard by which to judge evolution wrong. Tat standard wouldn't be the Bible, would it? Good show.

"But you won't allow me to do that in your world because YOU are the one that defends your viewpoints with a religious fervor."

I don't care how you characterize my "defense" or whether you think I detest all things religious. Let's assume that I'm the wild-eyed founding member of an atheist church who runs around setting fire to Bibles and stealing crosses from little Christian children. This would have a bearing on my willingness to enter into dialogue with intractable parties, but no bearing on the validity of my statements. My perceived persona is just a convenient excuse for you to avoid my questions.

If you were equipped with means of refuting what I am writing, you would have eagerly done so. Instead, you just complain that I wouldn't listen anyway, so why bother. Sorry, but this is more transparent than you realize.

"Your point two is a nice straw man argument."

No it isn't. I know of virtually no one raised in an agnostic environment that decided upon reaching adulthood that the god of Christianity is a useful concept (senile old folks and the clinically insane excepted). From what source and at what age did you get your religious beliefs, Ogre? Be truthful, please.

"Point three is just outright wrong. Those who proposed and initially defended Darwin's theory did so to deny God. That was their stated purpose-- they started with "There is no God," and went forward from there."

It's fitting that you saved this spectacular outburst of ignorance for last, because it is laughably, incontrovertibly incorrect. Charles Darwin was himself a declared Christian and was troubled by the possible implications of his findings, but felt obligated as a scientist to pursue the truth. Would that more religious folks were like him.

"If there is a God, all of evolution is wrong so supporters of evolution have a very strong interest in making sure they deny God."

Theistic evolutionists would take issue with this, and don't pretend they don't exist in great numbers (they're wrong, but that clearly isn't the point).

"And to reiterate again, because you don't seem to see it -- this is about exposing people to different points of view. The ACLU does not want people exposed to anything remotely related to Intelligent Design, the Anthropic Principle, Christianity, or anything that conflicts with their narrow goals."

To reiterate again, science does not and should not admit of bogus ad hoc fables cloaked in scientific rhetoric. The day the ID gang publishes something, or hell, simply comes up with a single testable hypothesis, ID will be on its way to acceptance. If you can't or won't see that ID is creationism and that creationism doesn't belong in biology classrooms, then you're part of the problem.

I'm sorry that you refuse to even admit the facts of this case are true. I can no longer tell if you refuse to admit facts because you don't like them or because you just want another made-up excuse to attempt to personally attack any who disagree with your gospel.

I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion when you adamantly insist that 1 plus 1 equals 374.9.

Well, Ogre, I don't blame you for ignoring my direct questions and focusing instead on my supposed refusal to admit facts. At the least you could admit you were dead wrong about Darwin and atheism, but you're too small for that.

Oh well. This isn't the kind of place where I would expect anyone to listen anyway, but the psychological sideshow, though troubling on a grader scale, is actually kind of funny.

"troubling on a grader scale"

*ahem*..."grander."

The point of the entire post was to talk about the ACLU supporting censorship, but you refuse to admit that's what's going on and instead want to attack me personally based on your perceptions on my beliefs rather than actual facts.

"If you can't or won't see that ID is creationism... "

Wrong, ID cannot be creationism, regardless of whatever motives or plausibility underlies the claim, which essentially proves Ogre's point, since you insist on claiming something that cannot be true without a leap of faith. ID is a hypothetical scientific idea, albeit unrealistically implausible and equally unproven. Neo-darwinists don't want to give an inch because the know what's behind it, so that makes liars out of them.

Ergo, science needs ID to counterbalance the ensuing fanatical fallout that tramples all innocent scientific bystanders.

In your face, neodarwinists... *whoa... deja-vous*

"Keep in mind, these are ELECTED officials, so a MAJORITY of PEOPLE in this area WANT this to be done (not that the ACLU gives a damn about anyone but communists and themselves)."

And if all of these ELECTED officials were overt pedophiles...???

And if all of these ELECTED officials were overt pedophiles...???

Dude... get a grip... all elected officials are sick in the head, but does that stop you from voting?

Politically if not rationally, you can't fool mother nature, the system works in spite of either side, diametrically opposing tendencies/ideologies are what makes up all ecobalances. Don't assume that anybody can screw anything up... cuz they can't.

Unless they're government -- government can screw anything up.

"ID cannot be creationism," island? Why is it so difficult for you people to actually read about issues you address?

Here are drafts of the ID version of the Bible, Of Pandas and People, introduced in the court case so far.
---
Creation Biology (1983)
Biology and Creation (1986)
Biology and Origins (1987)
Of Pandas and People (1987, version 1, creationist version)
Of Pandas and People (1987, version 2, “intelligent design” version)
Of Pandas and People (1989, published 1st edition)
Of Pandas and People (1993, published 2nd edition)
---
Here is how one passage has, well, "evolved" over the years:
---
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Creation 1986, FTE 3014-3015, pp. 2-13, 2-14)

Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Origins 1987, FTE 3235, 3237, p. 2-13, 2-14)

Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, creationist version, FTE 4996-4997, pp. 2-14, 2-15)

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, intelligent design version, FTE 4666-4667, pp. 2-14, 2-15)

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1989, 1st edition, published, pp. 99-100)

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)
---
Anyone arguing that ID is not synonymous with special creation in the eyes of the very people behind the ID movement would obviously have to be either ignorant of the facts or a garden-variety idiot.

But you know, this post is about the ACLU supporting censorship.

Um... Dear, "Lack of sight"

Why is it that you can't read and respond to what I wrote for the reasons that I said?

ID CANNOT be creationism for the reasons that I gave... REGARDLESS OF MOTIVATION OR PLAUSIBILITY.

It can be disallowed for this reason, however, since educational materials can't be religously motived.

BV... can you read... and do you know ANY of the rules of science?

"But you know, this post is about the ACLU supporting censorship."

It's funny that you only started harping on this after your own non-censorship-related ideas (e.g., "Darwinism" is synonymous with militant atheism; your claim that the evidence for evolution is flawed; your incorrect notions about ID itself) were shown to be badly in error. Only then did you retreat into "Well, this is all about quashing free speech" mode.

Also, try assembling the pieces here. There aren't many and they fit together easily. If ID can shown to be nothing more than creationism (which is exactly what's happening in Dover), then it is, without question, *unconstitutional* to teach it in science class, and has been since 1987.

Are you saying you would just as soon flaunt the Constitution because your religious beliefs should take precedence over law? With so many carrying this attitude, is it really a surprise that we need armies of lawyers to keep such idiocy at bay?

I hate to break this to you, but science curricula are not forums in which everyone gets a chance to be right, or be heard, simply by screaming loudly enough. If the IDers had a legitimate theory instead of a religious agenda, ID would have its say in America's classrooms. As it is, the reading of the Dover disclaimer is nothing more than a religious gripe about the facts of evolution, and on that basis doesn't belong in the public sphere. If religious twits want to tell their kids at home that evolution is wrong, so be it -- there's no law against willfull stupidity, and the ACLU will even fight for your right to express it.

The plaintiffs in Kitzmiller are right. The Godidiots, as usual, are wrong. Please learn to accept this.

Well, island, if you're saying that ID cannot intrinsically be equivalent to creation, that's one thing. If you're claiming that for purposes of the Dover lawsuit (which is, as Ogre keeps reminding us, the topic of this thread) they are not one and the same, you're wrong -- but I think you understand the difference.

Please do not fault my reading comprehension or my understanding of science. You have to bear in mind that your writing style can most generously be described as cryptic. "Sloppy" is more accurate.

That's a classic quote, I'm going to have to keep it.

According to BV: "Unconstitutional since 1987." Just classic.

"According to BV: 'Unconstitutional since 1987.' Just classic."

The 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision. You've not heard of it? "Just classic" indeed.
-----
On June 19, 1987 the Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that [teaching creationism in public schools] constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is:

- The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;

- The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and

- The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
---
You can admit you're clueless any time now.

You're right -- in the fantasy land in which you live, I'm clueless. Sorry, I like the real world. Tolkien's lands are fun, and so are a few other authors I read, but I tend to end up back in the real world once I stop reading those stories.

BV wrote:
"Well, island, if you're saying that ID cannot intrinsically be equivalent to creation, that's one thing. If you're claiming that for purposes of the Dover lawsuit (which is, as Ogre keeps reminding us, the topic of this thread) they are not one and the same, you're wrong -- but I think you understand the difference."

Nope, supernatural creationism becomes distantly plausible science when the terminolgy gets changed, and it doesn't matter who is making the changes. It's the distance of the plausibility that kills it, and not the fact that ID is not *plausible* science.

If a creationist says that god causes gravity, then they're making an unfounded leap of faith that spells religion.

If said creationist then alters their statement to read that curved space causes gravity, then they are doing science, even if they, ("not-so secretly"), believe that god is actually the one that's pulling the strings to bend space.

As I said, this does not matter from a legal standpoint if they can prove that the hypothesis was religously motivated, why I don't know, because it's not okay to walk all over science in order to protect yourselves from the creationist movement. The law seems to stipulate that the end justifies the means, but that's wrong, especially when science suffers from this kind of mentalility, as is the case in this case, since evidence is interpreted with preconceived bias.

BV wrote:
"Please do not fault my reading comprehension or my understanding of science."

Excuse me?... you were the clown that decided to accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about... as if you understood... RATHER than to ask for clarification... uh huh... your actions indicate that you knew what I meant and now you're trying to rationalize.

BV wrote:
"You have to bear in mind that your writing style can most generously be described as cryptic. "Sloppy" is more accurate."

Really?... I often hear just the opposite, and I only hear that from people that are so warped to one extreme that they can't/won't see the forest for the trees, so they don't even understand how distorted their lense is.

und diese Zugehörigkeit zu ausländischen Souveränen (wenn auch aus der Dynastie der Kapetinger)