Design vs. Evolution In Kitzmiller vs. Dover

[DemPGH]

One of the most positively fascinating and impacting court cases in recent years has been Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education.

Nova made a documentary about it a few years back: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Intelligent Design was revealed as creationism and defeated in front of a Republican judge (John E. Jones III) here in Pennsylvania. But the whole backstory about how a few local yokels on the school board tried to consciously undermine science is really disturbing. Local reaction there was interestingly pretty much against them.

And of course this is another reason why I dislike local school boards. They should never be allowed to toy with an academic curriculum like that.

(Since this set of posts in the Favorite court case(s) thread was largely not about the case that started this discussion, I chose to split them into a separate thread and move it to the Religion & Philosophy board. - True Federalist)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Well, favorite recent one: Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education

Nova made a documentary about it a few years back: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Intelligent Design was revealed as creationism and defeated in front of a Republican judge here in PA. But the whole backstory about how a few local yokels on the school board tried to consciously undermine science is really disturbing. Local reaction there was interestingly pretty much against them.

And of course this is another reason why I dislike local school boards. They should never be allowed to toy with an academic curriculum like that.

I have no problem with teachng intelligent design as a theory and alongside evolution (also taught as a theory and not a fact.)

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Well, favorite recent one: Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education

Nova made a documentary about it a few years back: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Intelligent Design was revealed as creationism and defeated in front of a Republican judge here in PA. But the whole backstory about how a few local yokels on the school board tried to consciously undermine science is really disturbing. Local reaction there was interestingly pretty much against them.

And of course this is another reason why I dislike local school boards. They should never be allowed to toy with an academic curriculum like that.

I have no problem with teachng intelligent design as a theory and alongside evolution (also taught as a theory and not a fact.)

In religion classes, yes?

[DemPGH]

Well, favorite recent one: Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education

Nova made a documentary about it a few years back: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Intelligent Design was revealed as creationism and defeated in front of a Republican judge here in PA. But the whole backstory about how a few local yokels on the school board tried to consciously undermine science is really disturbing. Local reaction there was interestingly pretty much against them.

And of course this is another reason why I dislike local school boards. They should never be allowed to toy with an academic curriculum like that.

I have no problem with teachng intelligent design as a theory and alongside evolution (also taught as a theory and not a fact.)

1) Intelligent Design is not science.

2) Evolution is as much a theory as gravity. Both are facts. A theory in science is not something that someone comes up with at midnight after drinking a bottle and a half of Cabernet-Sauvignon while the snow piles up outside. A theory is backed by decades, even centuries, of tests and research, like Newton's work, much of which was an improvement upon Kepler's work.

3) I have no problem with Intelligent Design being covered in a myth class where myths are surveyed, stories like: Some god who lives on the Sun rolled up something, smoked it, the ashes became the Earth, then people came out of it, then he selected the hottest women to make children with, and so on. Or Intelligent Design could be presented in a "history of ideas" kind of context.

4) If you teach Intelligent Design as science, then you have to teach Vampirology, Werewolfology, Bigfootology, and UFOlogy as science as well. Alongside pseudoscience like clairvoyance, Planet X nonsense, and whatever else.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I'm almost surprised we're not teaching "race realism" in school these days, if we're going to cater to every opinion that guises itself as science.

[Donerail]

I have no problem with teachng intelligent design as a theory and alongside evolution (also taught as a theory and not a fact.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I'm not aware of anyone outside intended fiction having dinosaurs hitched to plows, it is generally accepted that cavemen and dinosaurs were alive at the same time.  That's because we now believe that birds are dinosaurs.

[TJ in Oregon]

A theory is a falsifiable hypothesis supported by evidence that has been tested and has not been proven wrong.  Intelligent design is not science and cannot be taught as science because it makes a claim that cannot be proven false. The existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent being is not a testable claim. However, referring to evolution as a "fact" also makes little sense. "Facts" are individual datapoints not broad, overarching concepts like evolution. A theory is used to connect many facts in a way that makes sense.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I have no problem with teachng intelligent design as a theory and alongside evolution (also taught as a theory and not a fact.)

Evolution is a fact.  Deal with it.

[MaxQue]

I have no problem with teachng intelligent design as a theory and alongside evolution (also taught as a theory and not a fact.)

Evolution is a fact.  Deal with it.

Well, he is right. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, but but people aren't aware of the scientifical meaning of those terms.

A theory is an explanantion of collections of facts, which together, and in absence of facts proving it wrong is supposed to be true with current knowledge.

Theory is much more stronger word than facts, in science world.

[DemPGH]

I have no problem with teachng intelligent design as a theory and alongside evolution (also taught as a theory and not a fact.)

Evolution is a fact.  Deal with it.

It is. I wonder if anyone would deny that mutations happen? Viruses mutate constantly, you can watch it happen. Evolution is the next step, and the fossil record confirms that it happens.

A theory is a falsifiable hypothesis supported by evidence that has been tested and has not been proven wrong.  Intelligent design is not science and cannot be taught as science because it makes a claim that cannot be proven false. The existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent being is not a testable claim. However, referring to evolution as a "fact" also makes little sense. "Facts" are individual datapoints not broad, overarching concepts like evolution. A theory is used to connect many facts in a way that makes sense.

Non scientifically-literate people jump on the word "theory" wrongly, yes - they think it means "half-baked idea" when it means something substantially more. But even more basic than semantics and what is known or what can be explained is how it can be explained or how it can be known. That's what the whole scientific revolution was about. How to know something is real or fact. This is where Intelligent Design, right from the get-go, departs from science.

Intelligent Design proceeds this way: I can imagine that something really fantastic happened in the past, like a creation event, and I can imagine a deity who may have done it, and maybe I had some contact with this deity at some point in my life - or maybe not, but nonetheless on that basis it's all real. That's. . . not scientific reasoning, I'll be nice.

Science, on the other hand, presents evidence in physical form and is aided by method that Sir Isaac  Newton did a really superb job of defining in "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy." It works.

I have no problem with teachng intelligent design as a theory and alongside evolution (also taught as a theory and not a fact.)

Ha! Good one. Of course 65,000,000 years separate humans from dinosaurs, so that "controversy" is best suited for the halls of the creation museum.

[Donerail]

I have no problem with teachng intelligent design as a theory and alongside evolution (also taught as a theory and not a fact.)

Ha! Good one. Of course 65,000,000 years separate humans from dinosaurs, so that "controversy" is best suited for the halls of the creation museum.

The creation museum? No, the creation museum accepts that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist. However...

[DemPGH]

Good website, SJoyce - I've sent a link to that to a few friends who will enjoy it!

Woops, thought the creation museum had a model of a big stegosaurus grazing like a cow while a caveman family tended their garden. May be thinking of something else. Which of course begs the questions, where did the dear dinosaurs go so suddenly, and how did early humans manage to share the planet with carnivorous predators of that size, ferocity, and appetite? Hmm. Controversy.

At any rate, while we're at it we have to teach this one for sure, which is verbatim how the Bible describes the Earth:  

[John Dibble]

The creation museum? No, the creation museum accepts that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist.

Ignorance must be bliss. Here, let me correct yours with a painful display of theirs!

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DemPGH]

I thought that was the one - good find, John Dibble. I remember seeing it in Bill Maher's movie, but who knows where they get this stuff or why they even try. It's one thing to say, "Accept it on faith," and quite another to try to verify these stories with science. I'll have to look up the creation museum's explanation of Noah's ark - that should be good.

Another one is that ancient peoples' depiction of dragons is also proof of creationism and that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time, because dragons = dinosaurs. Actually, ancient people just found dinosaur bones! And it didn't take much to excite their imaginations.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/06/28/the-creation-museum-6-dinosaur/

I just hope children exposed to this stuff get the truth in school, which is why what the Dover board of ed tried to do was so underhanded.

[DC Al Fine]

Another one is that ancient peoples' depiction of dragons is also proof of creationism and that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time, because dragons = dinosaurs. Actually, ancient people just found dinosaur bones! And it didn't take much to excite their imaginations.

Honest question here: Why couldn't there be a small number of "living fossil" dinosaurs living in isolated areas, occasionally glimpsed by humans?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Well, favorite recent one: Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education

Nova made a documentary about it a few years back: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Intelligent Design was revealed as creationism and defeated in front of a Republican judge here in PA. But the whole backstory about how a few local yokels on the school board tried to consciously undermine science is really disturbing. Local reaction there was interestingly pretty much against them.

And of course this is another reason why I dislike local school boards. They should never be allowed to toy with an academic curriculum like that.

I have no problem with teachng intelligent design as a theory and alongside evolution (also taught as a theory and not a fact.)

1) Intelligent Design is not science.

2) Evolution is as much a theory as gravity. Both are facts. A theory in science is not something that someone comes up with at midnight after drinking a bottle and a half of Cabernet-Sauvignon while the snow piles up outside. A theory is backed by decades, even centuries, of tests and research, like Newton's work, much of which was an improvement upon Kepler's work.

3) I have no problem with Intelligent Design being covered in a myth class where myths are surveyed, stories like: Some god who lives on the Sun rolled up something, smoked it, the ashes became the Earth, then people came out of it, then he selected the hottest women to make children with, and so on. Or Intelligent Design could be presented in a "history of ideas" kind of context.

4) If you teach Intelligent Design as science, then you have to teach Vampirology, Werewolfology, Bigfootology, and UFOlogy as science as well. Alongside pseudoscience like clairvoyance, Planet X nonsense, and whatever else.

What's "unscientific" about the concept of everything being designed or having some sort of origin?  And evolution is only a fact on a very small scale.  Certainly organisms adapt in order to survive, but that doesn't necessarily explain the origins of life.  The odds against it being the origin of life are so astronomical that there has to be some other explanation.

[Insula Dei]

At any rate, while we're at it we have to teach this one for sure, which is verbatim how the Bible describes the Earth:  

Er, no, the world is the shape of the tabernacle.

[afleitch]

Another one is that ancient peoples' depiction of dragons is also proof of creationism and that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time, because dragons = dinosaurs. Actually, ancient people just found dinosaur bones! And it didn't take much to excite their imaginations.

Honest question here: Why couldn't there be a small number of "living fossil" dinosaurs living in isolated areas, occasionally glimpsed by humans?

Because there is no fossil record of dinosaurs past 64mya. Any 'dinosaurs' that survived would like everything else evolve (I mean, that far back ago our ancestors were like shrews) That's why we have birds.

[DC Al Fine]

Another one is that ancient peoples' depiction of dragons is also proof of creationism and that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time, because dragons = dinosaurs. Actually, ancient people just found dinosaur bones! And it didn't take much to excite their imaginations.

Honest question here: Why couldn't there be a small number of "living fossil" dinosaurs living in isolated areas, occasionally glimpsed by humans?

Because there is no fossil record of dinosaurs past 64mya. Any 'dinosaurs' that survived would like everything else evolve (I mean, that far back ago our ancestors were like shrews) That's why we have birds.

Ok, but what about the Coelacanth?

[Donerail]

The creation museum? No, the creation museum accepts that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist.

Ignorance must be bliss. Here, let me correct yours with a painful display of theirs!

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

There's an actual Creation Museum? Thought that was just a figure of speech. Kentucky makes me sad sometimes...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What's "unscientific" about the concept of everything being designed or having some sort of origin?  And evolution is only a fact on a very small scale.  Certainly organisms adapt in order to survive, but that doesn't necessarily explain the origins of life.  The odds against it being the origin of life are so astronomical that there has to be some other explanation.

What's unscientific about it is that the proposition is not testable.  I suppose if instead of science classes we had classes in natural philosophy then ID could be considered an alternative to evolution.

Also, who says the odds against it are so astronomical that there must be some other explanation?  The basic building blocks of life are found pretty much everywhere we look, and experiments have shown that getting them to form structures similar to cellular organelles is relatively easy.  Abiogenesis of something similar to simple bacteria is a sufficiently plausible thesis that it cannot be simply dismissed out of hand as ID proponents do. From there evolution is able to provide explanations of how more complicated life forms arose.

The primary argument of those that favor ID, that life is too complicated, so it must have been designed, simply does not hold if you actually take a look at the science.

[afleitch]

Another one is that ancient peoples' depiction of dragons is also proof of creationism and that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time, because dragons = dinosaurs. Actually, ancient people just found dinosaur bones! And it didn't take much to excite their imaginations.

Honest question here: Why couldn't there be a small number of "living fossil" dinosaurs living in isolated areas, occasionally glimpsed by humans?

Because there is no fossil record of dinosaurs past 64mya. Any 'dinosaurs' that survived would like everything else evolve (I mean, that far back ago our ancestors were like shrews) That's why we have birds.

Ok, but what about the Coelacanth?

Animal species that master their environment have no further need to evolve from bacterium to certain species of shark. Given that we are still discovering animal and plant species and have limited exploration of the oceans gives the basis for our little coelacanth. To think that big dinosaurs wandered around in a sort of 'Lost World' style mystery for 64 million years is just not backed up with a single shred of evidence. Next you'll be telling me that 20-40 million animals species, millions of plants, billions of bacteria and viruses and all their food sailed around on a big boat.

[DemPGH]

Good discussion. Hectic day today, folks, for obvious reasons. I'm with the group of people that says that Super Bowl Monday should be a holiday. Like, there's a sect of really, really conservative Jews (again, Maher's movie) that thinks God will get offended if you roll out of bed and turn on a light on the Sabbath. Minus the offend God part, that should be Super Bowl Monday. Punishable offense to get out of bed before 10:30 a.m. A decree from the football gods.

Another one is that ancient peoples' depiction of dragons is also proof of creationism and that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time, because dragons = dinosaurs. Actually, ancient people just found dinosaur bones! And it didn't take much to excite their imaginations.

Honest question here: Why couldn't there be a small number of "living fossil" dinosaurs living in isolated areas, occasionally glimpsed by humans?

That's a good question, and I'll avoid digression into areas that are only semi-related. The answer is that dinosaurs are massively unlikely to be "living fossils" and for any to still be around because it's obvious that they were not able to adapt to fairly sudden environmental and atmospheric changes 65 MYA. That's the short answer.

"Living fossils" are likely to be plants and deep sea animals, but if you want to stretch the definition of it far enough (an animal that has undergone few changes in a very long time), you can point to anything that's robust and well-adapted, like turtles. The issue of why this evolved and that did not gets into other issues and could go on and on. Not evidence of creationism.

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/dinosaur-extinction/

At any rate, while we're at it we have to teach this one for sure, which is verbatim how the Bible describes the Earth: 

Er, no, the world is the shape of the tabernacle.

Uh - behold! Thou hast received a magnificent vision! Thou must impart this wisdom to the ignorant masses. And remember the wise teachings of old. . . the beginning is the end is the beginning, or something like that.

Well, favorite recent one: Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education

Nova made a documentary about it a few years back: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Intelligent Design was revealed as creationism and defeated in front of a Republican judge here in PA. But the whole backstory about how a few local yokels on the school board tried to consciously undermine science is really disturbing. Local reaction there was interestingly pretty much against them.

And of course this is another reason why I dislike local school boards. They should never be allowed to toy with an academic curriculum like that.

I have no problem with teachng intelligent design as a theory and alongside evolution (also taught as a theory and not a fact.)

1) Intelligent Design is not science.

2) Evolution is as much a theory as gravity. Both are facts. A theory in science is not something that someone comes up with at midnight after drinking a bottle and a half of Cabernet-Sauvignon while the snow piles up outside. A theory is backed by decades, even centuries, of tests and research, like Newton's work, much of which was an improvement upon Kepler's work.

3) I have no problem with Intelligent Design being covered in a myth class where myths are surveyed, stories like: Some god who lives on the Sun rolled up something, smoked it, the ashes became the Earth, then people came out of it, then he selected the hottest women to make children with, and so on. Or Intelligent Design could be presented in a "history of ideas" kind of context.

4) If you teach Intelligent Design as science, then you have to teach Vampirology, Werewolfology, Bigfootology, and UFOlogy as science as well. Alongside pseudoscience like clairvoyance, Planet X nonsense, and whatever else.

What's "unscientific" about the concept of everything being designed or having some sort of origin?  And evolution is only a fact on a very small scale.  Certainly organisms adapt in order to survive, but that doesn't necessarily explain the origins of life.  The odds against it being the origin of life are so astronomical that there has to be some other explanation.

True Fed's answer is very good, and if I can think to add anything to it, I will do so tomorrow.

Evolution absolutely happens on a large scale. On a cosmic scale, really! All the elements are created in the super hot, super pressurized nuclear furnaces called stars (heavier, rarer elements in heavier, rarer stars), then distributed about the galaxy. "Star stuff" - Carl Sagan? But on an Earth scale, consult the fossil record! Fossils are waaaay cool.

[John Dibble]

Another one is that ancient peoples' depiction of dragons is also proof of creationism and that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time, because dragons = dinosaurs. Actually, ancient people just found dinosaur bones! And it didn't take much to excite their imaginations.

Honest question here: Why couldn't there be a small number of "living fossil" dinosaurs living in isolated areas, occasionally glimpsed by humans?

It's not impossible, but it is extremely unlikely for a multitude of reasons.

The asteroid impact event that killed off the dinosaurs resulted in a major food supply shortage. Larger animals require more food, so species that are large are typically the ones most likely to die off during a food shortage. Carnivores will be most threatened, as prey animals they depend on will be in shorter supply. Additionally, scientific consensus is now leaning towards most dinosaurs likely having been warm blooded, and warm blooded animals require more food than cold blooded ones. (which is one reason why the dinosaurs' cold blooded crocodile cousins survive to this day - they can go a long time without a meal) If any large dinosaurs had survived with a genetically viable population and were not wiped out in the next few million years by localized conditions, then their size would have had given an immediate advantage and they would have spread quite a bit, though they would likely have evolved quite a bit as well since many niches would have opened up.

Some small dinosaurs did survive though - their line just evolved into birds.