| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
21 Dec 2005 11:45:17 PM |
| Object: |
"Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is wrong |
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1290
"Where did intelligent design come from?"
by Casey Luskin
FAQ 3: "Where did intelligent design come from?"
3a. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and People,
the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area schools."
3b. "Intelligent design and Of Pandas [sic] emerged in the wake of the
Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that it was
unconstitutional to teach so called "creation science" in the public
schools."
Response:
FAQ 3A. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and
People, the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area
schools."
While Pandas was one of the first books to contain the phrase "intelligent
design" it surely didn't "popularize" the theory. As a conclusive example,
on Amazon.com, Pandas has an abysmally low sales ranking of #117,176. In
contrst, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, published in 1996, has an
extremely high Amazon sales ranking of 2,323 (this means that out of all the
hundreds of thousands of books sold on Amazon.com, only 2322 books have sold
more than Darwin's Black Box)!
Which book really "popularized" intelligent design?
Of Pandas and People (1989, 1993): Amazon Sales Ranking of 117,176.
Darwin's Black Box (1996): Amazon Sales Ranking of 2,323
In other words, for every copy of Pandas sold on Amazon.com, Darwin's Black
Box has sold about 50 copies. Behe's book, published 7 years after the first
edition of Pandas, is clearly the book that "popularized" intelligent design
theory--not Pandas!! And if we care about the book which popularized
intelligent design, we should pay careful attention to what it says about
the identity of the designer:
"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently
of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must
first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the
designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is
possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer."
(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197)
In his award-winning history of intelligent design theory, Doubts about
Darwin, Thomas Woodward gives scant mention to Pandas. Woodward finds that
"[f]our principal spokespersons represent the Design Movement" (Woodward
2003, pg. 24) but none of them are the authors of Pandas. When Pandas
coauthor Dean Kenyon is introduced in Doubts About Darwin, (pg. 44) he is
mentioned in relation to his 1969 textbook Biochemical Predestination but no
mention is even made of Pandas. Indeed, in Woodward's entire history of
intelligent design, the index lists only 3 pages mentioning Pandas. The most
that can be said for Pandas was that it represented "a milestone in the
infancy of design" (Doubts About Darwin, pg 89) where the word "infancy"
testifies as to how early in the game Pandas emerged. One might not
necessarily expect it to fully represent modern ID theory.
As a final testimony to the lack of influence Pandas has had upon the
public's understanding of intelligent design, when two of the nation's
largest newspapers covered intelligent design theory with prominent
articles, neither mentioned Pandas (see Biologists Face a New Theory of
Life's Origin, by James Glanz, New York Times, April 8, 2001; Enlisting
Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator, by Theresa Watanabe, Los
Angeles Times, March 25, 2001).
FAQ 3B. "Intelligent design and Of Pandas [sic] emerged in the wake of the
Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that it was
unconstitutional to teach so called 'creation science' in the public
schools."
The ACLU's claim here is quite odd as the concept of intelligent design has
a long tradition and history with arguments that go all the way back to the
days of Plato and Aristotle, and was starkly debated by 18th and 19th
century philosophers (see Michael Ruse, "The Argument from Design: A Brief
History," in Debating Design, Cambridge Univ. Press 2004). Of course modern
intelligent design theory was formulated much more recently, but Eugenie
Scott says that modern intelligent design theory has its origins in the book
The Mystery of Life's Origins (as stated at her talk at Scripps Institution
for Oceanography on Jan 10, 2005), which incidentally was published in 1984,
3 years before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision was handed down. Plus, the
intelligent design movement has its roots in scholars who were not in any
way affiliated of the creationist movement of the 1980's. People like
Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, and William
Dembski, some of the most influential people of the intelligent design
movement, had nothing to do with the creationist movement in the 1980's.
But let's assume here that the ACLU is correct--let's assume that
intelligent design did emerge in the wake of the Edwards v. Aguillard
decision. As noted, in Edwards, the Supreme Court declared creationism
unconstitutional because it taught there was a "supernatural" creator--a
"religious viewpoint." It is entirely possible that the idea that some
aspects of life were created could have been formulated as a scientific
theory--however creationists behind the law in question in Edwards failed to
formulate their ideas in a scientific manner because they appealed to a
"supernatural" being which could not be investigated by scientific methods,
and thus required religious faith. If anything, intelligent design is the
result of outsiders to the creationist movement who saw what was wrong with
creationism, but also recognized that some of its ideas could be salvaged
and formulated in a scientific manner. They then formulated a scientific
approach--and there is nothing to be ashamed of in regards to this. If
anything, these people should be commended for trying to create something
which is appropriate for scientists and the science classroom rather than
trying to bring religion into the science classroom, as was done in the
creationist movements of the 1980's.
In short, creationists of the 1980's saw that there were arguments from
informational complexity which implied that a mind was behind life. However
when these creationists formulated their ideas, they did something eminently
unscientific in that they explicitly named that "mind" as a supernatural
God. What if intelligent design theory finally had the boldness to excise
the unscientific and unconstitutional aspects of creationist thought and
formulate a pure scientific theory which could investigate the nature of
objects caused by intelligent agents. If this is what happened, then the
ACLU should not be criticizing intelligent design proponents but praising
them for taking creationism, looking at one of its propositions (i.e. that
life was designed), and then excising the unconstitutional religious and
unscientific elements (i.e. that the designer can be identified as God or a
supernatural being), and focusing on the pure empirical claims and
developing scientific methods such that intelligent design can be
investigated.
To reiterate, if the ACLU's pedigree of intelligent design is correct and
intelligent design simply emerged in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard
intelligent design proponents have done something wonderful for education:
they have taken the notion that life was designed, excised the religious
components, and tried to formulate a pure scientific approach to testing if
life was designed. If anything, they should be praised, whatever their
pedigree may turn out to be.
However, given that all of the leading members of the ID movement had
nothing to do with the creationist movements of the 1980's, the ACLU's
attempt to connect ID to creationism appears questionable.
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: "Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is wrong |
21 Dec 2005 11:50:03 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
news:11qkeu1aj16lo9b@corp.supernews.com:
(snip garbage)
Bwahaahaaahaaahaaa. Now that the courts have ruled against ID, you come
here whining....
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Torch" |
|
| Title: Re: "Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is wrong |
22 Dec 2005 12:48:56 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11qkeu1aj16lo9b@corp.supernews.com...
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1290
"Where did intelligent design come from?"
by Casey Luskin
FAQ 3: "Where did intelligent design come from?"
3a. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and
People,
the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area schools."
3b. "Intelligent design and Of Pandas [sic] emerged in the wake of the
Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that it was
unconstitutional to teach so called "creation science" in the public
schools."
Response:
FAQ 3A. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and
People, the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area
schools."
While Pandas was one of the first books to contain the phrase "intelligent
design" it surely didn't "popularize" the theory. As a conclusive example,
on Amazon.com, Pandas has an abysmally low sales ranking of #117,176. In
contrst, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, published in 1996, has an
extremely high Amazon sales ranking of 2,323 (this means that out of all
the
hundreds of thousands of books sold on Amazon.com, only 2322 books have
sold
more than Darwin's Black Box)!
Which book really "popularized" intelligent design?
Of Pandas and People (1989, 1993): Amazon Sales Ranking of 117,176.
Darwin's Black Box (1996): Amazon Sales Ranking of 2,323
In other words, for every copy of Pandas sold on Amazon.com, Darwin's
Black
Box has sold about 50 copies. Behe's book, published 7 years after the
first
edition of Pandas, is clearly the book that "popularized" intelligent
design
theory--not Pandas!! And if we care about the book which popularized
intelligent design, we should pay careful attention to what it says about
the identity of the designer:
"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite
independently
of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must
first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the
designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that
is
possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer."
(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197)
In his award-winning history of intelligent design theory, Doubts about
Darwin, Thomas Woodward gives scant mention to Pandas. Woodward finds that
"[f]our principal spokespersons represent the Design Movement" (Woodward
2003, pg. 24) but none of them are the authors of Pandas. When Pandas
coauthor Dean Kenyon is introduced in Doubts About Darwin, (pg. 44) he is
mentioned in relation to his 1969 textbook Biochemical Predestination but
no
mention is even made of Pandas. Indeed, in Woodward's entire history of
intelligent design, the index lists only 3 pages mentioning Pandas. The
most
that can be said for Pandas was that it represented "a milestone in the
infancy of design" (Doubts About Darwin, pg 89) where the word "infancy"
testifies as to how early in the game Pandas emerged. One might not
necessarily expect it to fully represent modern ID theory.
As a final testimony to the lack of influence Pandas has had upon the
public's understanding of intelligent design, when two of the nation's
largest newspapers covered intelligent design theory with prominent
articles, neither mentioned Pandas (see Biologists Face a New Theory of
Life's Origin, by James Glanz, New York Times, April 8, 2001; Enlisting
Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator, by Theresa Watanabe, Los
Angeles Times, March 25, 2001).
FAQ 3B. "Intelligent design and Of Pandas [sic] emerged in the wake of the
Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that it was
unconstitutional to teach so called 'creation science' in the public
schools."
The ACLU's claim here is quite odd as the concept of intelligent design
has
a long tradition and history with arguments that go all the way back to
the
days of Plato and Aristotle, and was starkly debated by 18th and 19th
century philosophers (see Michael Ruse, "The Argument from Design: A Brief
History," in Debating Design, Cambridge Univ. Press 2004). Of course
modern
intelligent design theory was formulated much more recently, but Eugenie
Scott says that modern intelligent design theory has its origins in the
book
The Mystery of Life's Origins (as stated at her talk at Scripps
Institution
for Oceanography on Jan 10, 2005), which incidentally was published in
1984,
3 years before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision was handed down. Plus,
the
intelligent design movement has its roots in scholars who were not in any
way affiliated of the creationist movement of the 1980's. People like
Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, and William
Dembski, some of the most influential people of the intelligent design
movement, had nothing to do with the creationist movement in the 1980's.
But let's assume here that the ACLU is correct--let's assume that
intelligent design did emerge in the wake of the Edwards v. Aguillard
decision. As noted, in Edwards, the Supreme Court declared creationism
unconstitutional because it taught there was a "supernatural" creator--a
"religious viewpoint." It is entirely possible that the idea that some
aspects of life were created could have been formulated as a scientific
theory--however creationists behind the law in question in Edwards failed
to
formulate their ideas in a scientific manner because they appealed to a
"supernatural" being which could not be investigated by scientific
methods,
and thus required religious faith. If anything, intelligent design is the
result of outsiders to the creationist movement who saw what was wrong
with
creationism, but also recognized that some of its ideas could be salvaged
and formulated in a scientific manner. They then formulated a scientific
approach--and there is nothing to be ashamed of in regards to this. If
anything, these people should be commended for trying to create something
which is appropriate for scientists and the science classroom rather than
trying to bring religion into the science classroom, as was done in the
creationist movements of the 1980's.
In short, creationists of the 1980's saw that there were arguments from
informational complexity which implied that a mind was behind life.
However
when these creationists formulated their ideas, they did something
eminently
unscientific in that they explicitly named that "mind" as a supernatural
God. What if intelligent design theory finally had the boldness to excise
the unscientific and unconstitutional aspects of creationist thought and
formulate a pure scientific theory which could investigate the nature of
objects caused by intelligent agents. If this is what happened, then the
ACLU should not be criticizing intelligent design proponents but praising
them for taking creationism, looking at one of its propositions (i.e. that
life was designed), and then excising the unconstitutional religious and
unscientific elements (i.e. that the designer can be identified as God or
a
supernatural being), and focusing on the pure empirical claims and
developing scientific methods such that intelligent design can be
investigated.
To reiterate, if the ACLU's pedigree of intelligent design is correct and
intelligent design simply emerged in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard
intelligent design proponents have done something wonderful for education:
they have taken the notion that life was designed, excised the religious
components, and tried to formulate a pure scientific approach to testing
if
life was designed. If anything, they should be praised, whatever their
pedigree may turn out to be.
However, given that all of the leading members of the ID movement had
nothing to do with the creationist movements of the 1980's, the ACLU's
attempt to connect ID to creationism appears questionable.
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires]
that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is
the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to
be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights
which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
This quote about sums it up for me:
George Diepenbrock:
"The fact is that every scientific theory presented as orthodoxy in science
classes began in exactly the place ID finds itself now: A heresy believed by
a handful of people dissatisfied with the orthodox view. In no case,
however, did the supporters of the heresy earn their place in the curriculum
by appealing directly to school boards and state legislatures. Rather, the
heresy won out only by producing evidence adequate to convince a large
majority of scientists.
And that is exactly what ID proponents refuse to do. The arguments they are
making now are identical to the ones they were making a decade ago. As a
scientific enterprise they have made no progress at all. At no point have
they shown how their theory accounts for the data of the fossil record, or
the findings of genetics, or the evidence from embryology, or the data from
any other branch of science. Evolution accounts for all that data. Nor have
they described, let alone carried out, any innovative research program based
on their ideas."
.
|
|
|
| User: "d" |
|
| Title: Re: "Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is wrong |
22 Dec 2005 08:29:12 AM |
|
|
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in message
news:dodi8l$4u4$2@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11qkeu1aj16lo9b@corp.supernews.com...
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1290
"Where did intelligent design come from?"
by Casey Luskin
FAQ 3: "Where did intelligent design come from?"
3a. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and
People,
the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area schools."
3b. "Intelligent design and Of Pandas [sic] emerged in the wake of the
Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that it was
unconstitutional to teach so called "creation science" in the public
schools."
Response:
FAQ 3A. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and
People, the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area
schools."
While Pandas was one of the first books to contain the phrase
"intelligent
design" it surely didn't "popularize" the theory. As a conclusive
example,
on Amazon.com, Pandas has an abysmally low sales ranking of #117,176. In
contrst, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, published in 1996, has an
extremely high Amazon sales ranking of 2,323 (this means that out of all
the
hundreds of thousands of books sold on Amazon.com, only 2322 books have
sold
more than Darwin's Black Box)!
Which book really "popularized" intelligent design?
Of Pandas and People (1989, 1993): Amazon Sales Ranking of 117,176.
Darwin's Black Box (1996): Amazon Sales Ranking of 2,323
In other words, for every copy of Pandas sold on Amazon.com, Darwin's
Black
Box has sold about 50 copies. Behe's book, published 7 years after the
first
edition of Pandas, is clearly the book that "popularized" intelligent
design
theory--not Pandas!! And if we care about the book which popularized
intelligent design, we should pay careful attention to what it says about
the identity of the designer:
"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite
independently
of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must
first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the
designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that
is
possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer."
(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197)
In his award-winning history of intelligent design theory, Doubts about
Darwin, Thomas Woodward gives scant mention to Pandas. Woodward finds
that
"[f]our principal spokespersons represent the Design Movement" (Woodward
2003, pg. 24) but none of them are the authors of Pandas. When Pandas
coauthor Dean Kenyon is introduced in Doubts About Darwin, (pg. 44) he is
mentioned in relation to his 1969 textbook Biochemical Predestination but
no
mention is even made of Pandas. Indeed, in Woodward's entire history of
intelligent design, the index lists only 3 pages mentioning Pandas. The
most
that can be said for Pandas was that it represented "a milestone in the
infancy of design" (Doubts About Darwin, pg 89) where the word "infancy"
testifies as to how early in the game Pandas emerged. One might not
necessarily expect it to fully represent modern ID theory.
As a final testimony to the lack of influence Pandas has had upon the
public's understanding of intelligent design, when two of the nation's
largest newspapers covered intelligent design theory with prominent
articles, neither mentioned Pandas (see Biologists Face a New Theory of
Life's Origin, by James Glanz, New York Times, April 8, 2001; Enlisting
Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator, by Theresa Watanabe, Los
Angeles Times, March 25, 2001).
FAQ 3B. "Intelligent design and Of Pandas [sic] emerged in the wake of
the
Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that it was
unconstitutional to teach so called 'creation science' in the public
schools."
The ACLU's claim here is quite odd as the concept of intelligent design
has
a long tradition and history with arguments that go all the way back to
the
days of Plato and Aristotle, and was starkly debated by 18th and 19th
century philosophers (see Michael Ruse, "The Argument from Design: A
Brief
History," in Debating Design, Cambridge Univ. Press 2004). Of course
modern
intelligent design theory was formulated much more recently, but Eugenie
Scott says that modern intelligent design theory has its origins in the
book
The Mystery of Life's Origins (as stated at her talk at Scripps
Institution
for Oceanography on Jan 10, 2005), which incidentally was published in
1984,
3 years before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision was handed down. Plus,
the
intelligent design movement has its roots in scholars who were not in any
way affiliated of the creationist movement of the 1980's. People like
Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, and William
Dembski, some of the most influential people of the intelligent design
movement, had nothing to do with the creationist movement in the 1980's.
But let's assume here that the ACLU is correct--let's assume that
intelligent design did emerge in the wake of the Edwards v. Aguillard
decision. As noted, in Edwards, the Supreme Court declared creationism
unconstitutional because it taught there was a "supernatural" creator--a
"religious viewpoint." It is entirely possible that the idea that some
aspects of life were created could have been formulated as a scientific
theory--however creationists behind the law in question in Edwards failed
to
formulate their ideas in a scientific manner because they appealed to a
"supernatural" being which could not be investigated by scientific
methods,
and thus required religious faith. If anything, intelligent design is the
result of outsiders to the creationist movement who saw what was wrong
with
creationism, but also recognized that some of its ideas could be salvaged
and formulated in a scientific manner. They then formulated a scientific
approach--and there is nothing to be ashamed of in regards to this. If
anything, these people should be commended for trying to create something
which is appropriate for scientists and the science classroom rather than
trying to bring religion into the science classroom, as was done in the
creationist movements of the 1980's.
In short, creationists of the 1980's saw that there were arguments from
informational complexity which implied that a mind was behind life.
However
when these creationists formulated their ideas, they did something
eminently
unscientific in that they explicitly named that "mind" as a supernatural
God. What if intelligent design theory finally had the boldness to excise
the unscientific and unconstitutional aspects of creationist thought and
formulate a pure scientific theory which could investigate the nature of
objects caused by intelligent agents. If this is what happened, then the
ACLU should not be criticizing intelligent design proponents but praising
them for taking creationism, looking at one of its propositions (i.e.
that
life was designed), and then excising the unconstitutional religious and
unscientific elements (i.e. that the designer can be identified as God or
a
supernatural being), and focusing on the pure empirical claims and
developing scientific methods such that intelligent design can be
investigated.
To reiterate, if the ACLU's pedigree of intelligent design is correct and
intelligent design simply emerged in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard
intelligent design proponents have done something wonderful for
education:
they have taken the notion that life was designed, excised the religious
components, and tried to formulate a pure scientific approach to testing
if
life was designed. If anything, they should be praised, whatever their
pedigree may turn out to be.
However, given that all of the leading members of the ID movement had
nothing to do with the creationist movements of the 1980's, the ACLU's
attempt to connect ID to creationism appears questionable.
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires]
that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is
the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to
be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights
which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
This quote about sums it up for me:
George Diepenbrock:
"The fact is that every scientific theory presented as orthodoxy in
science
classes began in exactly the place ID finds itself now: A heresy believed
by
a handful of people dissatisfied with the orthodox view. In no case,
however, did the supporters of the heresy earn their place in the
curriculum
by appealing directly to school boards and state legislatures. Rather, the
heresy won out only by producing evidence adequate to convince a large
majority of scientists.
And that is exactly what ID proponents refuse to do. The arguments they
are
making now are identical to the ones they were making a decade ago. As a
scientific enterprise they have made no progress at all. At no point have
they shown how their theory accounts for the data of the fossil record, or
the findings of genetics, or the evidence from embryology, or the data
from
any other branch of science. Evolution accounts for all that data. Nor
have
they described, let alone carried out, any innovative research program
based
on their ideas."
That's perfect :) Well put, Mr Diepenbrock :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: "Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is wrong |
22 Dec 2005 11:47:44 AM |
|
|
Ignorant religionists!
"d" <d@example.com> wrote in message
news:YKyqf.13237$iz3.10911@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in message
news:dodi8l$4u4$2@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11qkeu1aj16lo9b@corp.supernews.com...
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1290
"Where did intelligent design come from?"
by Casey Luskin
FAQ 3: "Where did intelligent design come from?"
3a. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and
People,
the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area schools."
3b. "Intelligent design and Of Pandas [sic] emerged in the wake of the
Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that it
was
unconstitutional to teach so called "creation science" in the public
schools."
Response:
FAQ 3A. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and
People, the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area
schools."
While Pandas was one of the first books to contain the phrase
"intelligent
design" it surely didn't "popularize" the theory. As a conclusive
example,
on Amazon.com, Pandas has an abysmally low sales ranking of #117,176. In
contrst, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, published in 1996, has an
extremely high Amazon sales ranking of 2,323 (this means that out of all
the
hundreds of thousands of books sold on Amazon.com, only 2322 books have
sold
more than Darwin's Black Box)!
Which book really "popularized" intelligent design?
Of Pandas and People (1989, 1993): Amazon Sales Ranking of 117,176.
Darwin's Black Box (1996): Amazon Sales Ranking of 2,323
In other words, for every copy of Pandas sold on Amazon.com, Darwin's
Black
Box has sold about 50 copies. Behe's book, published 7 years after the
first
edition of Pandas, is clearly the book that "popularized" intelligent
design
theory--not Pandas!! And if we care about the book which popularized
intelligent design, we should pay careful attention to what it says
about
the identity of the designer:
"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite
independently
of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must
first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the
designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that
is
possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer."
(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197)
In his award-winning history of intelligent design theory, Doubts about
Darwin, Thomas Woodward gives scant mention to Pandas. Woodward finds
that
"[f]our principal spokespersons represent the Design Movement" (Woodward
2003, pg. 24) but none of them are the authors of Pandas. When Pandas
coauthor Dean Kenyon is introduced in Doubts About Darwin, (pg. 44) he
is
mentioned in relation to his 1969 textbook Biochemical Predestination
but
no
mention is even made of Pandas. Indeed, in Woodward's entire history of
intelligent design, the index lists only 3 pages mentioning Pandas. The
most
that can be said for Pandas was that it represented "a milestone in the
infancy of design" (Doubts About Darwin, pg 89) where the word "infancy"
testifies as to how early in the game Pandas emerged. One might not
necessarily expect it to fully represent modern ID theory.
As a final testimony to the lack of influence Pandas has had upon the
public's understanding of intelligent design, when two of the nation's
largest newspapers covered intelligent design theory with prominent
articles, neither mentioned Pandas (see Biologists Face a New Theory of
Life's Origin, by James Glanz, New York Times, April 8, 2001; Enlisting
Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator, by Theresa Watanabe, Los
Angeles Times, March 25, 2001).
FAQ 3B. "Intelligent design and Of Pandas [sic] emerged in the wake of
the
Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that it
was
unconstitutional to teach so called 'creation science' in the public
schools."
The ACLU's claim here is quite odd as the concept of intelligent design
has
a long tradition and history with arguments that go all the way back to
the
days of Plato and Aristotle, and was starkly debated by 18th and 19th
century philosophers (see Michael Ruse, "The Argument from Design: A
Brief
History," in Debating Design, Cambridge Univ. Press 2004). Of course
modern
intelligent design theory was formulated much more recently, but Eugenie
Scott says that modern intelligent design theory has its origins in the
book
The Mystery of Life's Origins (as stated at her talk at Scripps
Institution
for Oceanography on Jan 10, 2005), which incidentally was published in
1984,
3 years before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision was handed down. Plus,
the
intelligent design movement has its roots in scholars who were not in
any
way affiliated of the creationist movement of the 1980's. People like
Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, and
William
Dembski, some of the most influential people of the intelligent design
movement, had nothing to do with the creationist movement in the 1980's.
But let's assume here that the ACLU is correct--let's assume that
intelligent design did emerge in the wake of the Edwards v. Aguillard
decision. As noted, in Edwards, the Supreme Court declared creationism
unconstitutional because it taught there was a "supernatural" creator--a
"religious viewpoint." It is entirely possible that the idea that some
aspects of life were created could have been formulated as a scientific
theory--however creationists behind the law in question in Edwards
failed
to
formulate their ideas in a scientific manner because they appealed to a
"supernatural" being which could not be investigated by scientific
methods,
and thus required religious faith. If anything, intelligent design is
the
result of outsiders to the creationist movement who saw what was wrong
with
creationism, but also recognized that some of its ideas could be
salvaged
and formulated in a scientific manner. They then formulated a scientific
approach--and there is nothing to be ashamed of in regards to this. If
anything, these people should be commended for trying to create
something
which is appropriate for scientists and the science classroom rather
than
trying to bring religion into the science classroom, as was done in the
creationist movements of the 1980's.
In short, creationists of the 1980's saw that there were arguments from
informational complexity which implied that a mind was behind life.
However
when these creationists formulated their ideas, they did something
eminently
unscientific in that they explicitly named that "mind" as a supernatural
God. What if intelligent design theory finally had the boldness to
excise
the unscientific and unconstitutional aspects of creationist thought and
formulate a pure scientific theory which could investigate the nature of
objects caused by intelligent agents. If this is what happened, then the
ACLU should not be criticizing intelligent design proponents but
praising
them for taking creationism, looking at one of its propositions (i.e.
that
life was designed), and then excising the unconstitutional religious and
unscientific elements (i.e. that the designer can be identified as God
or
a
supernatural being), and focusing on the pure empirical claims and
developing scientific methods such that intelligent design can be
investigated.
To reiterate, if the ACLU's pedigree of intelligent design is correct
and
intelligent design simply emerged in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard
intelligent design proponents have done something wonderful for
education:
they have taken the notion that life was designed, excised the religious
components, and tried to formulate a pure scientific approach to testing
if
life was designed. If anything, they should be praised, whatever their
pedigree may turn out to be.
However, given that all of the leading members of the ID movement had
nothing to do with the creationist movements of the 1980's, the ACLU's
attempt to connect ID to creationism appears questionable.
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires]
that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is
the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to
be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights
which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
This quote about sums it up for me:
George Diepenbrock:
"The fact is that every scientific theory presented as orthodoxy in
science
classes began in exactly the place ID finds itself now: A heresy believed
by
a handful of people dissatisfied with the orthodox view. In no case,
however, did the supporters of the heresy earn their place in the
curriculum
by appealing directly to school boards and state legislatures. Rather,
the
heresy won out only by producing evidence adequate to convince a large
majority of scientists.
And that is exactly what ID proponents refuse to do. The arguments they
are
making now are identical to the ones they were making a decade ago. As a
scientific enterprise they have made no progress at all. At no point have
they shown how their theory accounts for the data of the fossil record,
or
the findings of genetics, or the evidence from embryology, or the data
from
any other branch of science. Evolution accounts for all that data. Nor
have
they described, let alone carried out, any innovative research program
based
on their ideas."
That's perfect :) Well put, Mr Diepenbrock :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: "Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is right |
23 Dec 2005 01:06:38 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1290
"Where did intelligent design come from?"
by Casey Luskin
FAQ 3: "Where did intelligent design come from?"
3a. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and People,
the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area schools."
3b. "Intelligent design and Of Pandas [sic] emerged in the wake of the
Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that it was
unconstitutional to teach so called "creation science" in the public
schools."
Response:
FAQ 3A. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and
People, the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area
schools."
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8061
Book thrown at proponents of Intelligent Design
13:01 06 October 2005
"Devastating" early drafts of a controversial book recommended as reading
at a US high school reveal how the word “creationism” had been later
swapped for “intelligent design”, a landmark US trial scrutinising the
teaching of ID heard on Wednesday.
The early drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, were used as evidence
to link the book to creationism, which it is illegal to teach in
government-funded US schools.
“ID proponents have said for years that they are not creationists,” says
Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland,
California, which is advising 11 parents who are suing the school board
of Dover High School in Pennsylvania for incorporating ID into the science
curriculum. “This proves beyond a doubt that this is simply a new name for
creationism.”
...
The early versions of the book were displayed to the court by expert
witness for the plaintiffs and creationist historian Barbara Forrest of
the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. She suggested that they
were strong proof that ID is indeed creationism by another name.
Forrest compared early drafts of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy,
and showed how in several instances the word “creationism” had been
replaced by “intelligent design”, and “creationist” simply replaced by
“intelligent design proponent”.
“Forrest’s testimony showed that ID is not a scientific theory, but a
Trojan horse for creationism,” said Eric Rothshild of Pepper Hamilton in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
Matzke, who was at the trial, points out that the “switching” of the words
is also suspicious because of its timing, which came just after the US
Supreme Court’s decision on 19 June 1987 that it was unconstitutional to
teach creationism in schools.
The names of the drafts alone are incriminating, he says. The first draft,
in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation,
dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until
later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges.
...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: "Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is wrong |
22 Dec 2005 08:08:25 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:45:17 -0900, "Dana"
<whoya@whoya.com> let us all know that:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1290
"Where did intelligent design come from?"
by Casey Luskin
FAQ 3: "Where did intelligent design come from?"
3a. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and People,
A creationist textbook (if there can be said to be such a
thing).
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: "Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is right |
23 Dec 2005 01:08:05 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:45:17 -0900, "Dana"
<whoya@whoya.com> let us all know that:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1290
"Where did intelligent design come from?"
by Casey Luskin
FAQ 3: "Where did intelligent design come from?"
3a. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and People,
A creationist textbook (if there can be said to be such a
thing).
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8061
Book thrown at proponents of Intelligent Design
13:01 06 October 2005
"Devastating" early drafts of a controversial book recommended as reading
at a US high school reveal how the word “creationism” had been later
swapped for “intelligent design”, a landmark US trial scrutinising the
teaching of ID heard on Wednesday.
The early drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, were used as evidence
to link the book to creationism, which it is illegal to teach in
government-funded US schools.
“ID proponents have said for years that they are not creationists,” says
Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland,
California, which is advising 11 parents who are suing the school board
of Dover High School in Pennsylvania for incorporating ID into the science
curriculum. “This proves beyond a doubt that this is simply a new name for
creationism.”
...
The early versions of the book were displayed to the court by expert
witness for the plaintiffs and creationist historian Barbara Forrest of
the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. She suggested that they
were strong proof that ID is indeed creationism by another name.
Forrest compared early drafts of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy,
and showed how in several instances the word “creationism” had been
replaced by “intelligent design”, and “creationist” simply replaced by
“intelligent design proponent”.
“Forrest’s testimony showed that ID is not a scientific theory, but a
Trojan horse for creationism,” said Eric Rothshild of Pepper Hamilton in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
Matzke, who was at the trial, points out that the “switching” of the words
is also suspicious because of its timing, which came just after the US
Supreme Court’s decision on 19 June 1987 that it was unconstitutional to
teach creationism in schools.
The names of the drafts alone are incriminating, he says. The first draft,
in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation,
dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until
later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges.
...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys little helper" |
|
| Title: Re: "Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is wrong |
22 Dec 2005 04:24:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:45:17 -0900, Dana wrote:
While Pandas was one of the first books to contain the phrase "intelligent
design" it surely didn't "popularize" the theory. As a conclusive example,
on Amazon.com, Pandas has an abysmally low sales ranking of #117,176. In
contrst, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, published in 1996, has an
extremely high Amazon sales ranking of 2,323 (this means that out of all the
hundreds of thousands of books sold on Amazon.com, only 2322 books have sold
more than Darwin's Black Box)!
Dana, you're either extremely stupid or a shameless liar.
--
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, we eat, drink and be merry.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: "Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is wrong |
22 Dec 2005 08:49:49 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:24:23 +0000, Sanity's little helper
<elvish@noshpam.net> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:45:17 -0900, Dana wrote:
While Pandas was one of the first books to contain the phrase "intelligent
design" it surely didn't "popularize" the theory. As a conclusive example,
on Amazon.com, Pandas has an abysmally low sales ranking of #117,176. In
contrst, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, published in 1996, has an
extremely high Amazon sales ranking of 2,323 (this means that out of all the
hundreds of thousands of books sold on Amazon.com, only 2322 books have sold
more than Darwin's Black Box)!
Dana, you're either extremely stupid or a shameless liar.
Is there some unwritten rule that says he can't be both? <G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: "Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is wrong |
22 Dec 2005 06:33:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:45:17 -0900, Dana wrote:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1290
"Where did intelligent design come from?"
by Casey Luskin
<snip>
To reiterate, if the ACLU's pedigree of intelligent design is correct and
intelligent design simply emerged in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard
intelligent design proponents have done something wonderful for education:
they have taken the notion that life was designed, excised the religious
components, and tried to formulate a pure scientific approach to testing
if life was designed. If anything, they should be praised, whatever their
pedigree may turn out to be.
However, given that all of the leading members of the ID movement had
nothing to do with the creationist movements of the 1980's, the ACLU's
attempt to connect ID to creationism appears questionable.
From the trial, it emerged that the definition of "Intelligent Design" in
the "Of Pandas..." book was *word-for-word identical* to the definition of
"creationism" in an earlier draft of the same book. Following the Edwards
decision, they changed the terminology, but not the meaning. How honest
is that?
The plaintiff's attorneys also showed that Behe's book was not
"peer-reviewed", and that a large number of legitimate scientific studies
have been done on the evolution of "irreducibly complex" structures.
In short, the IDers had their asses appropriately handed to them, on a
plate, by a conservative judge. Go lick your wounds, and start planning
your next attack on objective rationalism.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: "Where did intelligent design come from?" the ACLU is wrong |
22 Dec 2005 10:29:41 AM |
|
|
rofl More made-up crazyass republicrap.
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11qkeu1aj16lo9b@corp.supernews.com...
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1290
"Where did intelligent design come from?"
by Casey Luskin
FAQ 3: "Where did intelligent design come from?"
3a. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and
People,
the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area schools."
3b. "Intelligent design and Of Pandas [sic] emerged in the wake of the
Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that it was
unconstitutional to teach so called "creation science" in the public
schools."
Response:
FAQ 3A. "The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in Of Pandas and
People, the very textbook that was adopted for use in the Dover Area
schools."
While Pandas was one of the first books to contain the phrase "intelligent
design" it surely didn't "popularize" the theory. As a conclusive example,
on Amazon.com, Pandas has an abysmally low sales ranking of #117,176. In
contrst, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, published in 1996, has an
extremely high Amazon sales ranking of 2,323 (this means that out of all
the
hundreds of thousands of books sold on Amazon.com, only 2322 books have
sold
more than Darwin's Black Box)!
Which book really "popularized" intelligent design?
Of Pandas and People (1989, 1993): Amazon Sales Ranking of 117,176.
Darwin's Black Box (1996): Amazon Sales Ranking of 2,323
In other words, for every copy of Pandas sold on Amazon.com, Darwin's
Black
Box has sold about 50 copies. Behe's book, published 7 years after the
first
edition of Pandas, is clearly the book that "popularized" intelligent
design
theory--not Pandas!! And if we care about the book which popularized
intelligent design, we should pay careful attention to what it says about
the identity of the designer:
"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite
independently
of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must
first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the
designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that
is
possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer."
(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197)
In his award-winning history of intelligent design theory, Doubts about
Darwin, Thomas Woodward gives scant mention to Pandas. Woodward finds that
"[f]our principal spokespersons represent the Design Movement" (Woodward
2003, pg. 24) but none of them are the authors of Pandas. When Pandas
coauthor Dean Kenyon is introduced in Doubts About Darwin, (pg. 44) he is
mentioned in relation to his 1969 textbook Biochemical Predestination but
no
mention is even made of Pandas. Indeed, in Woodward's entire history of
intelligent design, the index lists only 3 pages mentioning Pandas. The
most
that can be said for Pandas was that it represented "a milestone in the
infancy of design" (Doubts About Darwin, pg 89) where the word "infancy"
testifies as to how early in the game Pandas emerged. One might not
necessarily expect it to fully represent modern ID theory.
As a final testimony to the lack of influence Pandas has had upon the
public's understanding of intelligent design, when two of the nation's
largest newspapers covered intelligent design theory with prominent
articles, neither mentioned Pandas (see Biologists Face a New Theory of
Life's Origin, by James Glanz, New York Times, April 8, 2001; Enlisting
Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator, by Theresa Watanabe, Los
Angeles Times, March 25, 2001).
FAQ 3B. "Intelligent design and Of Pandas [sic] emerged in the wake of the
Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which ruled that it was
unconstitutional to teach so called 'creation science' in the public
schools."
The ACLU's claim here is quite odd as the concept of intelligent design
has
a long tradition and history with arguments that go all the way back to
the
days of Plato and Aristotle, and was starkly debated by 18th and 19th
century philosophers (see Michael Ruse, "The Argument from Design: A Brief
History," in Debating Design, Cambridge Univ. Press 2004). Of course
modern
intelligent design theory was formulated much more recently, but Eugenie
Scott says that modern intelligent design theory has its origins in the
book
The Mystery of Life's Origins (as stated at her talk at Scripps
Institution
for Oceanography on Jan 10, 2005), which incidentally was published in
1984,
3 years before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision was handed down. Plus,
the
intelligent design movement has its roots in scholars who were not in any
way affiliated of the creationist movement of the 1980's. People like
Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, and William
Dembski, some of the most influential people of the intelligent design
movement, had nothing to do with the creationist movement in the 1980's.
But let's assume here that the ACLU is correct--let's assume that
intelligent design did emerge in the wake of the Edwards v. Aguillard
decision. As noted, in Edwards, the Supreme Court declared creationism
unconstitutional because it taught there was a "supernatural" creator--a
"religious viewpoint." It is entirely possible that the idea that some
aspects of life were created could have been formulated as a scientific
theory--however creationists behind the law in question in Edwards failed
to
formulate their ideas in a scientific manner because they appealed to a
"supernatural" being which could not be investigated by scientific
methods,
and thus required religious faith. If anything, intelligent design is the
result of outsiders to the creationist movement who saw what was wrong
with
creationism, but also recognized that some of its ideas could be salvaged
and formulated in a scientific manner. They then formulated a scientific
approach--and there is nothing to be ashamed of in regards to this. If
anything, these people should be commended for trying to create something
which is appropriate for scientists and the science classroom rather than
trying to bring religion into the science classroom, as was done in the
creationist movements of the 1980's.
In short, creationists of the 1980's saw that there were arguments from
informational complexity which implied that a mind was behind life.
However
when these creationists formulated their ideas, they did something
eminently
unscientific in that they explicitly named that "mind" as a supernatural
God. What if intelligent design theory finally had the boldness to excise
the unscientific and unconstitutional aspects of creationist thought and
formulate a pure scientific theory which could investigate the nature of
objects caused by intelligent agents. If this is what happened, then the
ACLU should not be criticizing intelligent design proponents but praising
them for taking creationism, looking at one of its propositions (i.e. that
life was designed), and then excising the unconstitutional religious and
unscientific elements (i.e. that the designer can be identified as God or
a
supernatural being), and focusing on the pure empirical claims and
developing scientific methods such that intelligent design can be
investigated.
To reiterate, if the ACLU's pedigree of intelligent design is correct and
intelligent design simply emerged in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard
intelligent design proponents have done something wonderful for education:
they have taken the notion that life was designed, excised the religious
components, and tried to formulate a pure scientific approach to testing
if
life was designed. If anything, they should be praised, whatever their
pedigree may turn out to be.
However, given that all of the leading members of the ID movement had
nothing to do with the creationist movements of the 1980's, the ACLU's
attempt to connect ID to creationism appears questionable.
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires]
that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is
the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to
be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights
which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
