MO Congressmen introducing Intelligent Design Bills

[yurell]

Oh, that's what happens when you hit 'quote' then go for a stroll. Sorry!

[JudeMorrigan]

I meant from. Catholicism holds very different beliefs, they believe that you must atone for your own sins (pray the rosary, ect) and that the word of the pope is God sent. This article sums it up very nicely, it's how I've always understood it.

This is getting wildly off-topic, and if we want to get too far into it, I suspect the mods would prefer we find another thread. But for the record, that article grossly misrepresents Catholicisms viewpoint on the saints and VASTLY oversimplifies the Church's viewpoints on justification. It's more biblical that it might appear on first blush. You may find: this to be interesting reading. It's also an oversimplification to say that the word of the pope is God sent. Infallibility only factors in when he's speaking ex cathedra, which is actually pretty rare.

[Jahoclave]

What I don't get is why they bother with these sorts of bills when they're being so successful at slashing all the education budgets. After all, 25% budget cut after three years of cuts forcing universities to raise tuition just to pretty much function--outrage at tuition increase means those greedy fuckers should have their budgets cut more. At the rate they're going they won't have to have creationist bills, they won't have schools to teach it in. And, given the state of students I see in the university classroom, they're not having a problem indoctrinating kids into Christianity and creationism.

[TrlstanC]

One thing I don't understand is that these debates are usually framed as "they want to teach intelligent design in science class." Except, as far as I know (at least when I took biology) they did teach intelligent design (well, they called it creationism then). They taught it as the prevailing theory at one point in history, and then taught the history of other theories, and how evolution eventually came to be the dominant theory, and then the research that still going on now. Of course, we didn't spend a lot of time on creationism, but we did spend a decent amount of time talking about other theories that are no longer accepted, like land bridges and catastrophism.

All of which makes sense to me, the key idea I took away from my biology classes (and even other reading I've done in the field since then) is that science is a process of trying to understand a lot of data and very complicated processes, and that whatever answer we have now is almost certainly not 100% correct and may even be entirely replaced at some point. I don't think any science teacher would want to pass a law that takes our current best understanding of any scientific concept and makes that an unchanging standard that has to be taught. Or would want to take away the ability to teach ideas that have either been disproven at some point, or just aren't 100% correct, but are still useful (Bohr model of the atom, Newtonian physics, etc.)

The MO bill actually comes close to this idea too here: "(6) If a scientific theory or hypothesis proven to be false is taught for historical, illustrative, or other reasons, the theory or hypothesis shall be identified as false when taught orally or in writing." without realizing that that would apply to a lot of theories being taught, including ID.

[induction]

The MO bill actually comes close to this idea too here: "(6) If a scientific theory or hypothesis proven to be false is taught for historical, illustrative, or other reasons, the theory or hypothesis shall be identified as false when taught orally or in writing." without realizing that that would apply to a lot of theories being taught, including ID.

The tricky bit here is that ID cannot be proven false, because it can always be restated in a way that makes exactly the same predictions as natural selection. I remember being taught (this was in an orphanage, not a public school) that the Earth was created 5000 years ago complete with fossils. It's ironic that the feature that prevents ID from being a scientific theory (it can't be falsified, even in principle) is one of it's main selling points in the debate (since you can't prove it's false, you have to teach it as a viable theory).

The fact that this bill rewrites the definition of a scientific theory to include faith-based philosophy confuses the issue even more. The saddest part of this, to me, is that the most important part of primary school science education is IMO to teach how scientists know things: critical thinking and skepticism. If this bill passes, teachers would essentially be obligated to tell students that critical thinking == believing whatever you want.

[c_programmer]

One thing I don't understand is that these debates are usually framed as "they want to teach intelligent design in science class." Except, as far as I know (at least when I took biology) they did teach intelligent design (well, they called it creationism then). They taught it as the prevailing theory at one point in history, and then taught the history of other theories, and how evolution eventually came to be the dominant theory, and then the research that still going on now. Of course, we didn't spend a lot of time on creationism, but we did spend a decent amount of time talking about other theories that are no longer accepted, like land bridges and catastrophism.

All of which makes sense to me, the key idea I took away from my biology classes (and even other reading I've done in the field since then) is that science is a process of trying to understand a lot of data and very complicated processes, and that whatever answer we have now is almost certainly not 100% correct and may even be entirely replaced at some point. I don't think any science teacher would want to pass a law that takes our current best understanding of any scientific concept and makes that an unchanging standard that has to be taught. Or would want to take away the ability to teach ideas that have either been disproven at some point, or just aren't 100% correct, but are still useful (Bohr model of the atom, Newtonian physics, etc.)

The MO bill actually comes close to this idea too here: "(6) If a scientific theory or hypothesis proven to be false is taught for historical, illustrative, or other reasons, the theory or hypothesis shall be identified as false when taught orally or in writing." without realizing that that would apply to a lot of theories being taught, including ID.

They want ID to be taught as as science, they don't want it to be taught as a completely discredited theory. When they say equal treatment they aren't talking about validity, they are talking about it seeing equal time as being presented as fact. This is a major misconception among ID supporters, they think that ID is a valid theory based off of the same evidence that evolutionists see. They do not recognize that they are supporting a theory with no more basis than geocentrism. Creationism had the shield of "well the Bible tells us this so we know it to be true" but that makes it impossible to support in schools. ID is creationism, they just removed the notion of it being the Christian God. One of the books in the Dover trials called "Of Pandas and People" just had a few words switched to make it into an ID book. That was part of the reason their case got destroyed in court, they claimed that ID was a science where creationism was a belief and were found to be liars (Conye, 2009). Not misinformed or mistaken, liars, they deliberately said that it was a different thing than creationism when they knew it was not.


Conye, J. A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. New York: Oxford University Press.

[TrlstanC]

I understand what they want, what I don't understand is countering their reasoning with arguments like "it's not science, it's a discredited theory." Well, yes, but if we restrict ourselves to only teaching things that are proven to be 100% true, then we'd have nothing left to teach in science class. Science is about progress, the most important thing we can teach anyone in science class isn't a fact, it's the process that we use to improve our understanding of the world - the scientific method. Of course, we should also teach students how to think critically, and how to we've applied the scientific method over history to get where we are today, and teach our best current understanding of the world (or at least whatever part the class is focused on). The idea being that the next generation is going to continue to find the mistakes we've made, and improve on the theories we've taught them (or they've rediscovered themselves).

ID was, at one point, the dominant theory on the creation of life, that was a long time ago and we've made a lot of progress since then. But understanding where we started is useful, if for no other reason than to show how important discovering the theory of evolution was. So, arguing we should teach it seems fine to me. The problem I have with legislating what we should teach as 'true' is that it ignores the fact that anything we teach is going to be partly wrong. If they tried to legislate that Newtonian physics was 100% correct, I'd have a problem with that too. Any time we try to fix a certain set of facts as being true, and that's the only thing we can teach, we undermine the goal of science and science classes - progress.

People who argue that we should teach creationism (or whatever they want to call it) as being an accepted alternative to evolution don't understand the theory of evolution, but they also don't understand the scientific method. We should be committed to teaching the scientific method above all else, to teaching kids to be critical thinkers and to teach them that any fact they learn in science class they can in theory go out and test for themselves. The problem with ID isn't that it's wrong, lots of stuff is wrong, the problem with legislation like this is that to teach ID the way they want to they have to sacrifice teaching the scientific method too. And trying to argue about all the ways that evolution is right, or that we will eventually be able to answer more about the origin of life, or that "science doesn't have all the answers yet" is that arguing about what's wrong, or who has the 'right' answers misses the point.

[DSenette]

a science teacher (or hell, any other teacher) mentioning other theories that have fallen to the wayside, and saying as such (hey guys, people used to think the world was flat. they were wrong, but people used to think that) is not the same as what these bills are trying to get done in schools.

what these bills want is for a science teacher to be REQUIRED to teach ID/creationism as being a totally possible option that should be considered equally as scientifically valid/relevant as evolution.

it has nothing to do with 100% correct, and everything to do with not teaching things as science that are TOTALLY not science. or not teaching things as though they are equally valid/relevant when they are TOTALLY not equally valid or relevant.

[TrlstanC]

everything to do with not teaching things as science that are TOTALLY not science.

or not teaching things as though they are equally valid/relevant when they are TOTALLY not equally valid or relevant.

I agree with the 2nd, but not the first. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make, saying that we can't teach things that are wrong because they're not science means we can't teach anything. Science isn't a set of correct facts, it's a process that includes our best current understanding, but which is certainly flawed in a huge number of ways. And I'd argue that ID is science, as well as every other theory that's been believed and tested through the long history of science, when something is proved false it doesn't stop being science anymore. Science isn't facts, science is a process, we should be teaching the process, and if laws are attacking the scientific method than that's what we should be defending, not whatever facts we currently believe.

I'd be just as against a bill that told teachers they had to teach evolution in class, or teach it in a specific way. The problem isn't that ID is wrong, it's that legislators shouldn't be deciding what's a good theory or not because even if they do pick the current best theory we have in any field, it's going to be outdated sometime soon. But we're always going to be teaching the same scientific method, and (hopefully) always be teaching the same history of science, but what we're teaching as our current best understanding in any field shouldn't be passed in to law.

[DSenette]

everything to do with not teaching things as science that are TOTALLY not science.

or not teaching things as though they are equally valid/relevant when they are TOTALLY not equally valid or relevant.

I agree with the 2nd, but not the first. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make, saying that we can't teach things that are wrong because they're not science means we can't teach anything. Science isn't a set of correct facts, it's a process that includes our best current understanding, but which is certainly flawed in a huge number of ways. And I'd argue that ID is science, as well as every other theory that's been believed and tested through the long history of science, when something is proved false it doesn't stop being science anymore. Science isn't facts, science is a process, we should be teaching the process, and if laws are attacking the scientific method than that's what we should be defending, not whatever facts we currently believe.

I'd be just as against a bill that told teachers they had to teach evolution in class, or teach it in a specific way. The problem isn't that ID is wrong, it's that legislators shouldn't be deciding what's a good theory or not because even if they do pick the current best theory we have in any field, it's going to be outdated sometime soon. But we're always going to be teaching the same scientific method, and (hopefully) always be teaching the same history of science, but what we're teaching as our current best understanding in any field shouldn't be passed in to law.

tell me what portions of intelligent design coincides with scientific evidence?

there is nothing about teaching ID as a viable theory, that is science. nothing. there is no evidence that would be even remotely scientifically acceptable to support it. ergo, teaching it as if this wasn't the case is wrong.

it has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong". or proof. it has everything to do with evidence.

why in the world would you have a problem with science teachers being required to teach evolution? would you have a problem with them being required to teach thermodynamics? or anything about gravity?

[The Great Hippo]

And I'd argue that ID is science, as well as every other theory that's been believed and tested through the long history of science, when something is proved false it doesn't stop being science anymore.

How can ID be science? It makes no falsifiable predictions or claims. It's a theory in the same way that invisible elves that are immune to all forms of detection is a theory.

You're right that science is a process, but claims which cannot be dealt with scientifically cannot be part of that process. Science is only concerned with one thing: That which can be measured. If you can't measure it, science doesn't care.

We talk about discredited theories like spontaneous generation because they involved the process of science. They involved a theory which produced a falsifiable claim which was then discredited via testing. What falsifiable claim does ID make that has been since discredited?

The whole point of ID is that you don't have to make falsifiable claims--because if you did, science would discredit them and the conversation would be over. We could add it to the long list of scientifically discredited theories, give it a brief mention in the classroom, and move the fuck on. But instead, we're still talking about it.

It's a way for people to keep a conversation alive that should have died over a century ago.

[TrlstanC]

If you can't measure it, science doesn't care.

Technically, shouldn't that be written as "if we're 100% sure we'd never be able to measure it, science doesn't care."? Since that same argument could've been used to say that we shouldn't study the composition of atoms at one point?

How can ID be science? It makes no falsifiable predictions or claims.

All ID does is make falsifiable claims, and all of the claims have been proven false. It's a theory that was once widely believed, but was overthrown in the face of new and improved evidence. That's what science is, taking things that are widely believed and replacing them when better evidence comes along.

Just so everyone is clear, I don't think that ID is a valid theory anymore, and don't think it should be taught as being equivalent to evolution. But, I learned about creationism in biology class, as well as most other major theories that people believed at some point (young earth, land bridges, spontaneous life, catastrophism, etc.)

Right now, to the best of my understanding in the public school system, school boards review the currently available curriculum and textbooks on a regular basis and decide on the areas that should be covered in class for their system. That seems like a reasonable plan to me, including for science class. What doesn't seem reasonable is for legislators to vote on what they think is the best theory and pass laws that say what has to be taught - for a few obvious reasons: 1) they're usually not experts, 2) it can take a long time to get laws passed 3) outdated laws can stay around for a long time, and most importantly in regards to science classes 4) it's based on the assumption that we can figure out the "right" facts and just teach those.

If at some point in our history we had decided, for whatever terrible reason, to legislate that certain facts that we currently believed to be absolutely correct, had to be taught in science class exactly as we believed them, what would've happened to our science curriculum regarding: Gravity (the classical version), Newtonian physics, Bohr model of the atom, global warming, and every new discovery in evolution of the last 2 decades? I'm sure we would've gotten things right eventually, but how is that system preferable?

I have enormous respect for the scientific method, or as I like to think about it "the only way we've ever learned how anything works." It's easily one of the best things we can teach to the next generation. But if history has taught me anything about science, it's not to believe that just because something is the leading theory right now, that it's always going to be that way.

[DSenette]

If you can't measure it, science doesn't care.

Technically, shouldn't that be written as "if we're 100% sure we'd never be able to measure it, science doesn't care."? Since that same argument could've been used to say that we shouldn't study the composition of atoms at one point?

i think you're quite confused about what's being talked about here.

once there becomes measurable, testable evidence that suggests that anything claimed intelligent design could be considered possible, i can assure you science will study the shit out of it. in fact, that happens quite frequently. HOWEVER intelligent design doesn't actually make any testable claims. "god did it" is COMPLETELY untestable. it can't be tested because the people making the claim can't agree on what we should be testing for to show that god exists, let alone that he/it/they did something to begin with.

How can ID be science? It makes no falsifiable predictions or claims.

All ID does is make falsifiable claims, and all of the claims have been proven false. It's a theory that was once widely believed, but was overthrown in the face of new and improved evidence. That's what science is, taking things that are widely believed and replacing them when better evidence comes along.

Just so everyone is clear, I don't think that ID is a valid theory anymore, and don't think it should be taught as being equivalent to evolution. But, I learned about creationism in biology class, as well as most other major theories that people believed at some point (young earth, land bridges, spontaneous life, catastrophism, etc.)

that's called a history lesson, even if you're in the science lab, that's still a history lesson, not a science lesson.

Right now, to the best of my understanding in the public school system, school boards review the currently available curriculum and textbooks on a regular basis and decide on the areas that should be covered in class for their system. That seems like a reasonable plan to me, including for science class. What doesn't seem reasonable is for legislators to vote on what they think is the best theory and pass laws that say what has to be taught - for a few obvious reasons: 1) they're usually not experts, 2) it can take a long time to get laws passed 3) outdated laws can stay around for a long time, and most importantly in regards to science classes 4) it's based on the assumption that we can figure out the "right" facts and just teach those.

If at some point in our history we had decided, for whatever terrible reason, to legislate that certain facts that we currently believed to be absolutely correct, had to be taught in science class exactly as we believed them, what would've happened to our science curriculum regarding: Gravity (the classical version), Newtonian physics, Bohr model of the atom, global warming, and every new discovery in evolution of the last 2 decades? I'm sure we would've gotten things right eventually, but how is that system preferable?

I have enormous respect for the scientific method, or as I like to think about it "the only way we've ever learned how anything works." It's easily one of the best things we can teach to the next generation. But if history has taught me anything about science, it's not to believe that just because something is the leading theory right now, that it's always going to be that way.

this isn't about the "best theory" it's about teaching science. anything that isn't supported by measurable evidence isn't science. PERIOD. that's it. there's nothing about ID that's measurable by science, at all, so it should not be taught in science class.

want to teach it in a comparative religion class? bob's your uncle!

[Webzter]

All ID does is make falsifiable claims, and all of the claims have been proven false. It's a theory that was once widely believed, but was overthrown in the face of new and improved evidence. That's what science is, taking things that are widely believed and replacing them when better evidence comes along.

Just so everyone is clear, I don't think that ID is a valid theory anymore, and don't think it should be taught as being equivalent to evolution.

Prescribed material to teach from the bill:

(c) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught;

The MO bill actually comes close to this idea too here: "(6) If a scientific theory or hypothesis proven to be false is taught for historical, illustrative, or other reasons, the theory or hypothesis shall be identified as false when taught orally or in writing." without realizing that that would apply to a lot of theories being taught, including ID.

Some more snippets from the bill. tl;dr version.... this is framed as "they want to teach intelligent design in science class." not because there's any contention to it being taught in the context of history, but because they want to teach it as equivalent to evolution. Note, especially, their definition of hypothesis and their definition of a theory. Basically, a hypothesis like ID can be presented as a minority opinion which just might not be accepted because it's a new idea or philosophically unpopular. Meanwhile, a theory like evolution is based on incomplete understanding and it's acceptance is based on faith that it must be true.

(7) "Hypothesis", a scientific theory reflecting a minority of scientific opinion which may lack acceptance because it is a new idea, contains faulty logic, lacks supporting data, has significant amounts of conflicting data, or is philosophically unpopular. One person may develop and propose a hypothesis;

(9) "Scientific theory", an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy. The inferred explanation may be proven, mostly proven, partially proven, unproven or false and may be based on data which is supportive, inconsistent, conflicting, incomplete, or inaccurate. The inferred explanation may be described as a scientific theoretical model;

(c) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught;

(a) If a scientific theory concerning origin or destiny is taught without the teaching of opposing scientific theory, the taught theory may be criticized by the teaching of conflicting empirical data where considered instructive;

(b) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught. If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth's biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course;

[c_programmer]

All ID does is make falsifiable claims, and all of the claims have been proven false. It's a theory that was once widely believed, but was overthrown in the face of new and improved evidence. That's what science is, taking things that are widely believed and replacing them when better evidence comes along.

ID was never supported by evidence, ID is a thin veil behind creationism where they attempt to remove religious notions from it. Creationism was never science, it was never even a theory, it was supported by dogma and lack of real thinking. When actual science started happening it was immediately obvious that these things were wrong. No test was ever done nor was evidence ever gathered to show that creationism was true, it was believed because it was the religion.

I have enormous respect for the scientific method, or as I like to think about it "the only way we've ever learned how anything works." It's easily one of the best things we can teach to the next generation. But if history has taught me anything about science, it's not to believe that just because something is the leading theory right now, that it's always going to be that way.

There are areas where that is true, generally these areas have large unexplained gaps and are still open to rational debate. But we can't teach scientific theories like they are a popularity contest, calling evolution a "leading theory" implies that there is another theory that explains everything we've seen. There is no rational doubt given the evidence we have (which is substantial) that evolution happened. Science classes should teach to critically observe things, but when it comes to teaching biology evolution should be taught as a fact in the same way we teach kids that things go down when you drop them¹.

1. If you feel we should not teach that as 100% certain fact because thats just the leading theory we are not discussing evolution here, we disagree on how to teach anything.

[induction]

All ID does is make falsifiable claims, and all of the claims have been proven false.

This seems to be a sticking point for a lot of people. Can you give an example?

[c_programmer]

I also want to point out the basic difference between creationism and ID (in its various forms)

1. Creationism

• God created all of us
• Species did not evolve, but were created by God.

2. ID version 1

• God Someone created all of us
• Species did not evolve, but were created by God someone.

3. ID version 2

• God Someone created all of us
• Species did not evolve, but were created by God someone.

Where's the science? It's all religion and was never anything other.

[brenok]

If at some point in our history we had decided, for whatever terrible reason, to legislate that certain facts that we currently believed to be absolutely correct, had to be taught in science class exactly as we believed them, what would've happened to our science curriculum regarding: Gravity (the classical version), Newtonian physics, Bohr model of the atom, global warming, and every new discovery in evolution of the last 2 decades? I'm sure we would've gotten things right eventually, but how is that system preferable?

I have enormous respect for the scientific method, or as I like to think about it "the only way we've ever learned how anything works." It's easily one of the best things we can teach to the next generation. But if history has taught me anything about science, it's not to believe that just because something is the leading theory right now, that it's always going to be that way.

Exactly. And that's why, if Science is always walking forward, teaching an ancient, diproved and completely devoid of facts "theory", will always leave the poor students one step behind.

[TrlstanC]

Hmmm, maybe I'm the only one who actually learned about creationism in science class at some point? By the reaction here I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people think that creationism = The Book of Genesis. There were a lot of people pre-1800's, who believed that creationism was the most likely theory for the origin of life, but didn't interpret the bible literally. Of course they were religious, but most people were, scientists and lay persons alike. Some of the specific claims of creationism (I'll use some modern terms, even though most of these are relatively recent e.g., after I was out of high school):

1. Irreducible complexity
2. Fine tuned universe
3. Lack of any example of new species evolving
4. Earth wasn't old enough to explain observed diversity

Of course, as more data became available the flaws with all these reasons became apparent, more theories were proposed and tested and eventually evolution was the only theory that had any chance of explaining all the observed evidence (even before we understood it as well as we do today). And today the only way to understand biology and life science is through evolution. To summarize: we had a theory about how life started, we used science, we came up with some new theories, more science, evolution.

I don't see what the problem with learning about what people used to think, the way we tested those beliefs, and what new theories came out of that process. I mean, if nothing else, kids should learn why evolution was originally such a controversial theory. In fact, the knee-jerk reaction to not teach something just because some people still believe it seems backwards to me. Although not as bad as any attempt to legislate what is and what isn't current facts according to science.

To clear up a couple points I think people misunderstood:
1. I don't think the MO law is good, I don't think any law dictating what subjects teachers can cover in their classes is a good idea, especially science classes.
2. I absolutely don't believe any disproven theory should get equal time with evolution. Not only because evolution is 'right' but because evolution is so complicated and so integral to the rest of biology.
3. "that things go down when you drop them" - I think it's worth teaching at some point that general relativity has something to say about gravity too... By the time you get to high school you should know how to calculate the effects of 'universal gravity' but also know that's it's an approximation and a slightly more accurate answer is possible. Also, it would probably be worthwhile to learn how universal gravity was discovered, why people thought it was 100% right, and why we now know it isn't.

[c_programmer]

Hmmm, maybe I'm the only one who actually learned about creationism in science class at some point?

Having homeshooled in a Christian home all my classes were creationist. All I learned about evolution before I researched it myself is why it was wrong. All the creation (pseudo)science I learned existed in evolution shadow, it was not independent and merely existed to show that evolution was wrong. Showing that evolution is wrong does not prove creation right.

By the reaction here I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people think that creationism = The Book of Genesis. There were a lot of people pre-1800's, who believed that creationism was the most likely theory for the origin of life, but didn't interpret the bible literally. Of course they were religious, but most people were, scientists and lay persons alike. Some of the specific claims of creationism (I'll use some modern terms, even though most of these are relatively recent e.g., after I was out of high school):

1. Irreducible complexity
2. Fine tuned universe
3. Lack of any example of new species evolving
4. Earth wasn't old enough to explain observed diversity

None of those counter claims were science, they never had a basis of observation or research.
1. Irreducible complexity never had a scientific basis and evolutionists proved it wrong anyways. Creationists just said "well perhaps some organisms are too complex" and wanted people to reject evolution on that alone. They never went into the lab and showed that complexity had trouble evolving.
2. All this means is that we are in a good one, perhaps there are a billion bad ones that we are the only one that can support atomic structures and such. There is no science to this claim and it is not testable at this time in either direction.
3. There was never science from the creationists here. All that creationsits said was "well I've never seen a monkey turn into a person" and they expected that to be proof.
4. Never heard that one, I'd love to see the evidence they initially had.

As I mentioned before, these have nothing to do with creation. A disproof of evolution does not constitute proof of creation.

3. "that things go down when you drop them" - I think it's worth teaching at some point that general relativity has something to say about gravity too... By the time you get to high school you should know how to calculate the effects of 'universal gravity' but also know that's it's an approximation and a slightly more accurate answer is possible. Also, it would probably be worthwhile to learn how universal gravity was discovered, why people thought it was 100% right, and why we now know it isn't.

Agreed. I have no issue with saying that "people once believed X." But in the case of creation it should not be presented as anything that was remotely a science, not more than geocentrism or the flat-earth on a turtle mythology. As said above, this is history. If the theory (like Franklin thinking that current flowed the other way) has a great deal to do with what you are studying it is worth a mention, but creation serves no purpose in the science classroom. The only exception to this would be on day one where most teachers/professors go though the history of the field, it becomes relevant then.

[The Great Hippo]

TristanC, the items you listed do not make falsifiable claims in support of ID; they only attempt to discredit evolution. For example, if we were to run tests and get results that supported irreducible complexity, these results would not also support ID--they would only discredit evolution.

What falsifiable claims does ID make? Can you list some claims that it's made that could be tested in the laboratory to support or discredit the veracity of ID?

So long as ID fails to make falsifiable claims, it can't be science. So long as it's not science, it doesn't belong in the science classroom. It's that simple.

EDIT:

Technically, shouldn't that be written as "if we're 100% sure we'd never be able to measure it, science doesn't care."? Since that same argument could've been used to say that we shouldn't study the composition of atoms at one point?

No. If you proposed the existence of atoms in ancient Greece, science wouldn't care, because it wasn't a falsifiable claim. If I propose the existence of magical, undetectable elves who elude observation from our most powerful instruments but might one day be subject to discovery by some undisclosed invention that will be created centuries from now, that would also not be science.

Science uses scaffolding to get from point A to point B to point C. Just jumping to point C and saying "Science and technology will prove me right when they catch up" isn't science; it's conjecture. Fun, maybe, but science? Absolutely not.

[TrlstanC]

Agreed. I have no issue with saying that "people once believed X." But in the case of creation it should not be presented as anything was remotely a science, not more than geocentrism or the flat-earth on a turtle mythology.

Well, most people, including most scientists (or philosophers depending on how long ago we're talking about), believed in geocentrism (and heliocentrism) as well as creationism (although it wasn't called that) and believed that the earth was somewhat less than 10,000 years old. And it's not like science just didn't exist because people mostly believed things that were wrong, or thought things worked differently than they actually did. People spent a lot of time using the scientific method trying to figure out how the world worked, and how things were created, and for a long time the best answer they could come up with is "someone else must've created it."

Granted that today we mostly hear about religious people trying to mis-use science to disprove evolution, but that's a relatively recent phenomenon. And frankly the best response I can think of is to teach how we've used science correctly throughout history to slowly make progress from less to more understanding of the world.

TristanC,the items you listed do not make falsifiable claims; they only attempt to discredit evolution. For example, if we were to run tests and get results that supported irreducible complexity, these results would not also support ID--they would only discredit evolution.

What falsifiable claims does ID make? Can you list some claims that it's made that could be tested in the laboratory to support or discredit the veracity of ID?

So long as ID fails to make falsifiable claims, it can't be science. So long as it's not science, it doesn't belong in the science classroom. It's that simple.

Well, they're used now (incorrectly) to discredit evolution, but they're ideas that have been around for a long time. It's not like people suddenly thought that the Earth was only 6,000 years old in 1925. There were lots of attempts to accurately date the earth going back hundreds of years. If people were trying to figure out how the world worked, and where it came from, and they were basing their hypothesis on observations, that seems like science to me. They certainly didn't have the data, or tools, or huge amount of history to work with that we do, but they kept testing the current theory (creationism) and eventually found it to be false. If they eventually found it to be false, then it must've made some falsifiable claims, right? The biggest falsifiable claim is that species are basically fixed, with only small changes, and we have overwhelming evidence against that claim.

[The Great Hippo]

Well, they're used now (incorrectly) to discredit evolution, but they're ideas that have been around for a long time. It's not like people suddenly thought that the Earth was only 6,000 years old in 1925. There were lots of attempts to accurately date the earth going back hundreds of years. If people were trying to figure out how the world worked, and where it came from, and they were basing their hypothesis on observations, that seems like science to me. They certainly didn't have the data, or tools, or huge amount of history to work with that we do, but they kept testing the current theory (creationism) and eventually found it to be false. If they eventually found it to be false, then it must've made some falsifiable claims, right? The biggest falsifiable claim is that species are basically fixed, with only small changes, and we have overwhelming evidence against that claim.

An integral component of ID isn't 'the earth is only six thousand years old'. You have proponents of ID who regularly reject this notion. 'The earth is only six thousand years old' represents a very specific group of ID proponents with a very specific agenda; this group is not applying the scientific method to their falsifiable claim, so I don't see any reason why science should bother addressing them.

I'm comfortable with a teacher mentioning that before advances in geology, chemistry, and biology, people assumed the earth was six thousand years old; this theory was largely discredited after the 19th century in the scientific community. But ID is a recent invention, created as a defense against scientific inquiry; it's a conscious attempt to discredit science without allowing science to fight back using its instruments. Including ID in the classroom--even as a discredited theory--is engaging in a game of scientifically dishonest rhetoric.

Again, in the field of science, this is a conversation that ended over a century ago. Mentioning it outside of that context should be left to the social studies room.

[c_programmer]

Well, most people, including most scientists (or philosophers depending on how long ago we're talking about), believed in geocentrism (and heliocentrism) as well as creationism (although it wasn't called that) and believed that the earth was somewhat less than 10,000 years old. And it's not like science just didn't exist because people mostly believed things that were wrong, or thought things worked differently than they actually did. People spent a lot of time using the scientific method trying to figure out how the world worked, and how things were created, and for a long time the best answer they could come up with is "someone else must've created it."

The scientific method is a relatively new creation, those beliefs were without science. It was an acceptable line of thought back then to claim things without any form of a test. Go back to Galileo's days and tests were persecuted because they disagreed with their interpretation of the Bible. If you can show me actual evidence that they had I'll be more open to this argument.

Granted that today we mostly hear about religious people trying to mis-use science to disprove evolution, but that's a relatively recent phenomenon. And frankly the best response I can think of is to teach how we've used science correctly throughout history to slowly make progress from less to more understanding of the world.

This started around the time that objective science became the accepted line of thought. Before science was around religion was just as good as anything else since the philosophy they had was crap. None of this has to do with scientific thought or making an objective assessment of whats around you.

Well, they're used now (incorrectly) to discredit evolution, but they're ideas that have been around for a long time. It's not like people suddenly thought that the Earth was only 6,000 years old in 1925. There were lots of attempts to accurately date the earth going back hundreds of years. If people were trying to figure out how the world worked, and where it came from, and they were basing their hypothesis on observations, that seems like science to me.

How many of those tests met the following:
1. They were conducted to find the age of the earth, not to prove that it was 6,000 years
2. They came out showing that the earth was young.

The approximation of 6,000 years old was based off of time analysis of the Bible. Not science.

They certainly didn't have the data, or tools, or huge amount of history to work with that we do, but they kept testing the current theory (creationism) and eventually found it to be false. If they eventually found it to be false, then it must've made some falsifiable claims, right? The biggest falsifiable claim is that species are basically fixed, with only small changes, and we have overwhelming evidence against that claim.

That's just not the case. As science emerged it showed the religious status quo to be incorrect. Even before The Origin of Species it was well known in the science community that the flood never happened that earth was probably not made in 7 days. Claims supporting a young earth never had validity, they were all religious. If you can show me some sort of proof that they did engage in science, perhaps tests that were done and showed that creationism was true (even if falsified now) I would be very interested.

[The Great Hippo]

Also, I missed this specific part:

Well, they're used now (incorrectly) to discredit evolution, but they're ideas that have been around for a long time. It's not like people suddenly thought that the Earth was only 6,000 years old in 1925.

All the ideas you listed were, in fact, created in response to evolution. 'Irreducible Complexity' and its ilk don't represent ideas that go back thousands of years; they represent ideas that go back less than a hundred years. They're counter-claims produced as a bulwark against the inevitable encroachment of evolution.

'The earth is six thousand years old' is a falsifiable claim, but being a falsifiable claim is only half the equation. After you make the claim, you then test it--and the process of testing is what makes it scientific. The counter-claims you proposed aren't attempts to test this idea; they're attempts to discredit the already thoroughly-tested, thoroughly-proven stance of evolution.

In the end, this debate is all about language. ID is an unscientific hypothesis being sold as science. Even mentioning it as a discredited theory is intellectually dishonest; it never had any credit to lose.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

If at some point in our history we had decided, for whatever terrible reason, to legislate that certain facts that we currently believed to be absolutely correct, had to be taught in science class exactly as we believed them, what would've happened to our science curriculum regarding: Gravity (the classical version), Newtonian physics, Bohr model of the atom, global warming, and every new discovery in evolution of the last 2 decades?

Umm, we probably would have changed the curriculum to reflect our new knowledge. What's wrong with that?

[TrlstanC]

wow, I get the sense that the level of discourse is about to go rapidly downhill.

But, I'm still curious, did no one else ever learn about creationism in science class at some point, at least those who went to public school?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I mean, sorry for polluting your thread with my idiocy, but could you answer my question? What would be wrong with just saying "We're going to teach the best current theories, defined as X" and leaving open the possibility of altering X later on?

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

wow, I get the sense that the level of discourse is about to go rapidly downhill.

But, I'm still curious, did no one else ever learn about creationism in science class at some point, at least those who went to public school?

Sorry, we just learned science.

[infernovia]

Well, most people, including most scientists (or philosophers depending on how long ago we're talking about), believed in geocentrism (and heliocentrism) as well as creationism (although it wasn't called that) and believed that the earth was somewhat less than 10,000 years old. And it's not like science just didn't exist because people mostly believed things that were wrong, or thought things worked differently than they actually did. People spent a lot of time using the scientific method trying to figure out how the world worked, and how things were created, and for a long time the best answer they could come up with is "someone else must've created it."

Granted that today we mostly hear about religious people trying to mis-use science to disprove evolution, but that's a relatively recent phenomenon. And frankly the best response I can think of is to teach how we've used science correctly throughout history to slowly make progress from less to more understanding of the world.

I have no problem studying about people's belief before science upturned their ideas, it's useful. For example, geology was formed as a way to record the 10,000 years of earth history... until the (devout christian) scientist found out the evidence made no sense with that model. I don't know if it's useful in a science class as much as a history class or a philosophy class or whatever, but it's useful to know what actually went on and how the idea changed.

But that is neither here or there with the bill nor with the topic as the point of the bill is to obviously teach creationism as an equal to the leading scientific theory, and not a hack of religious fervor that it is.

ID was, at one point, the dominant theory on the creation of life, that was a long time ago and we've made a lot of progress since then. But understanding where we started is useful, if for no other reason than to show how important discovering the theory of evolution was. So, arguing we should teach it seems fine to me. The problem I have with legislating what we should teach as 'true' is that it ignores the fact that anything we teach is going to be partly wrong. If they tried to legislate that Newtonian physics was 100% correct, I'd have a problem with that too. Any time we try to fix a certain set of facts as being true, and that's the only thing we can teach, we undermine the goal of science and science classes - progress.

Ok, let's put the facts up. When was ID a predominant as a theory in the scientific community? How the scientists justified it is relevant only as a philosophical point, it does not matter in the natural sciences unless the scientists specifically points to the heavens. Which they obviously won't do as science was either what could be understood by man or the understanding of god's mechanics or w/e. Because as far as I know, I don't think the Origin of Species actually pointed to intelligent design, no matter what was taught.

[Sockmonkey]

Not to be too cynical, but if this were just about science and not an attempt to sneak religion in the back door, the government wouldn't put in so much effort. We don't see them making a fuss over any of the theories that don't contradict the bible do we?

[Zamfir]

Because as far as I know, I don't think the Origin of Species actually pointed to intelligent design, no matter what was taught.

According to Wikipedia, this is Darwin's own quote on the matter:

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.[3]

That surely implies that Darwin saw his argument as a replacement for intelligent design. Perhaps design didn't have the status of formal theory, but that was arguably the same as with the constant passage of time: so taken for granted that few people bothered to make it a formal theory.

[The Great Hippo]

wow, I get the sense that the level of discourse is about to go rapidly downhill.

Keep in mind, Creationists and proponents of ID have been arguing for a variety of reasons why these ideas should be included in the classroom, and teaching them as discredited theories sounds like just another sneaky way to get a word in edge-wise. I don't believe science should be political, but science should mind politics; there's no particular reason to mention Creationism in the classroom beyond a possible reference to what beliefs evolution and other theories like it upset--and any mention of ID (except, perhaps, to point out an example of misleading pseudoscience) is wholly unnecessary.

[DSenette]

wow, I get the sense that the level of discourse is about to go rapidly downhill.

But, I'm still curious, did no one else ever learn about creationism in science class at some point, at least those who went to public school?

please learn the difference between learning something as science, and learning something as history. all of your descriptions of how you "learned about creationism" in highschool suggest to me that you learned it as a history lesson, not as a science lesson

if you are in a science class, that does not mean that everything you are told is learning science.

if your physics teacher tells you this great story about this great guy named tesla, your physics teacher is not teaching you physics. they're teaching you history. if then your physics teacher teaches you how to recreate some of tesla's experiments and explains how they work and what they do, then he's teaching you science.

if your biology teacher tells you a story about how people in the middle ages thought that maggots came from mixing air with meat, the teacher is not teaching you biology. they're teaching you the history of biology. now if they go on to teach you how to do an experiment to prove whether maggots come from mixing air with meat or not, the teacher is teaching you science.

so, what these bills are asking isn't for inclusion of ID or creationism as a history lesson of what some people used to think, or as a comparative religion lesson of what some people still think, they want it taught as science. they want it taught that ID or creationism are VIABLE alternatives for evolution. which they are not.

[TrlstanC]

A state senator from Missouri introduces a bill that would require all websites hosted in MO that include pictures of cats to include an equal amount of pictures of slugs because there’s a legitimate debate about which is cuter, cats or slugs.

This kicks off a big debate between some religious folks (who believe that slugs are in fact the cutest animal) and everyone else. There are arguments about the relative cuteness of cats and slugs, books are written, people go on talk shows to argue about it. Atheists post screenshots from facebook where they get in to an argument with their aunt over how slugs aren’t cute. Turn on Fox News and there’s Bill O’Reilly yelling at someone “Antenna are cute, you can’t argue with that!”

Some poor shmuck tries to make the point that it’s not that big deal if a website, dedicated to pictures of cute animals, includes a picture of slug. Maybe it’s there because at one point in history people actually did think slugs were cute (I assume, before the invention of cats) or maybe it’s there as a counterpoint to show things that aren’t actually cute. But he’s seen lots of sites with cute animals on them, and some of them have actually had a slug on there somewhere.

But isn’t the real point that some politicians somewhere are trying to pass a law that would define what is and isn’t cute, and force an entire state to change what pictures they have on their sites? Isn’t that an inappropriate use of government power? Who cares what kind of animals we’re talking about, the government is trying to define cute, and force people to use that definition. An entire state is going to lose the ability to decide, as they have been for forever, what kind of pictures to have on their sites, and how they want to present them. And shouldn’t we focus on that issue, the important issue, instead of trying to argue with people that have no idea what cute means?

Everyone goes nuts and argues that slugs have no place on a website dedicated to cute animals…

[DSenette]

A state senator from Missouri introduces a bill that would require all websites hosted in MO that include pictures of cats to include an equal amount of pictures of slugs because there’s a legitimate debate about which is cuter, cats or slugs.

This kicks off a big debate between some religious folks (who believe that slugs are in fact the cutest animal) and everyone else. There are arguments about the relative cuteness of cats and slugs, books are written, people go on talk shows to argue about it. Atheists post screenshots from facebook where they get in to an argument with their aunt over how slugs aren’t cute. Turn on Fox News and there’s Bill O’Reilly yelling at someone “Antenna are cute, you can’t argue with that!”

Some poor shmuck tries to make the point that it’s not that big deal if a website, dedicated to pictures of cute animals, includes a picture of slug. Maybe it’s there because at one point in history people actually did think slugs were cute (I assume, before the invention of cats) or maybe it’s there as a counterpoint to show things that aren’t actually cute. But he’s seen lots of sites with cute animals on them, and some of them have actually had a slug on there somewhere.

But isn’t the real point that some politicians somewhere are trying to pass a law that would define what is and isn’t cute, and force an entire state to change what pictures they have on their sites? Isn’t that an inappropriate use of government power? Who cares what kind of animals we’re talking about, the government is trying to define cute, and force people to use that definition. An entire state is going to lose the ability to decide, as they have been for forever, what kind of pictures to have on their sites, and how they want to present them. And shouldn’t we focus on that issue, the important issue, instead of trying to argue with people that have no idea what cute means?

Everyone goes nuts and argues that slugs have no place on a website dedicated to cute animals…

and this ENTIRE thing is the problem with this argument.

you're attempting to compare objective, observable, measurable scientific phenomena to subjective, unfalsifiable preference.

you're comparing apples to sloths here.

[induction]

A state senator from Missouri introduces a bill that would require all websites hosted in MO that include pictures of cats to include an equal amount of pictures of slugs because there’s a legitimate debate about which mammals are cuter, cats or slugs.
...
Some poor shmuck tries to make the point that it’s not that big deal if a website, dedicated to pictures of cute animals mammals, includes a picture of slug.
...
Everyone goes nuts and argues that slugs have no place on a website dedicated to cute animals mammals…

I don't think anyone is objecting to mentioning ID, even in a science class. We are objecting to calling it a scientific theory, and claiming that it makes falsifiable predictions.

I think your point that the government shouldn't legislate which scientific theories are valid or currently accepted is a good one (and I recognize that you stuck your neck out to make it), but it gets overshadowed by the fact that in this case, the government is attempting to legally redefine what constitutes a scientific theory. It would be stupid for Missouri to legislate that pi equals the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter, but it would be much more stupid for Missouri to legislate that pi = 7.

[brenok]

A state senator from Missouri introduces a bill that would require all websites hosted in MO that include pictures of cats to include an equal amount of pictures of slugs because there’s a legitimate debate about which is cuter, cats or slugs.

This kicks off a big debate between some religious folks (who believe that slugs are in fact the cutest animal) and everyone else. There are arguments about the relative cuteness of cats and slugs, books are written, people go on talk shows to argue about it. Atheists post screenshots from facebook where they get in to an argument with their aunt over how slugs aren’t cute. Turn on Fox News and there’s Bill O’Reilly yelling at someone “Antenna are cute, you can’t argue with that!”

Some poor shmuck tries to make the point that it’s not that big deal if a website, dedicated to pictures of cute animals, includes a picture of slug. Maybe it’s there because at one point in history people actually did think slugs were cute (I assume, before the invention of cats) or maybe it’s there as a counterpoint to show things that aren’t actually cute. But he’s seen lots of sites with cute animals on them, and some of them have actually had a slug on there somewhere.

But isn’t the real point that some politicians somewhere are trying to pass a law that would define what is and isn’t cute, and force an entire state to change what pictures they have on their sites? Isn’t that an inappropriate use of government power? Who cares what kind of animals we’re talking about, the government is trying to define cute, and force people to use that definition. An entire state is going to lose the ability to decide, as they have been for forever, what kind of pictures to have on their sites, and how they want to present them. And shouldn’t we focus on that issue, the important issue, instead of trying to argue with people that have no idea what cute means?

Everyone goes nuts and argues that slugs have no place on a website dedicated to cute animals…

It looks like more that it's more like a contest between what is more feline, Felis Catus or Felis Silvestris, and some congressmen, want to include slugs, dinossaurs (dinossaurs? do they really exist or are inventions of mad "evolutionists"?) and the Flying Spaghetti Monster on it.

[ahammel]

[referring to the claim that the earth is too young for evolution to have taken place]
4. Never heard that one, I'd love to see the evidence they initially had.

Lord Kelvin made an estimate of the age of the solar system based on the assumption that the sun was in the process of cooling off, which got him a date of a few million years. He argued that this was not long enough for natural selection to have acted in the absence of divine intervention.

It's been said a couple of times here that intelligent design was the best explanation of the natural world we had before natural selection. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I thought that the movement dated from about 1987 in response to the ruling that the teaching of creation science in US classrooms is in contravention of the First Amendment.

[DSenette]

[referring to the claim that the earth is too young for evolution to have taken place]
4. Never heard that one, I'd love to see the evidence they initially had.

Lord Kelvin made an estimate of the age of the solar system based on the assumption that the sun was in the process of cooling off, which got him a date of a few million years. He argued that this was not long enough for natural selection to have acted in the absence of divine intervention.

It's been said a couple of times here that intelligent design was the best explanation of the natural world we had before natural selection. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I thought that the movement dated from about 1987 in response to the ruling that the teaching of creation science in US classrooms is in contravention of the First Amendment.

i think the assertion that intelligent design was the best explanation isn't referencing the movement of intelligent design as it's seen now, but the concept that is implied by intelligent design. i.e. that sure, maybe evolution has occurred in some way shape or form, but it only did that because god told it to.

the actual movement, and the name intelligent design is totally a new thing