Election Pork Barrelling in Oz

The Liberal Party here in Australia are at it again trying to bribe people to vote for them, this is so typical of this Political Party and I am hoping the Australian Electorate will be much wiser. Maybe we will be more safer with the Labor Party here in Australia. Unfortunately they are the two choices we have with the Democrats too small to have any effect.

Evolution under the Long White Cloud

Christopher Taylor has written an excellent introduction about the enigmatic Moa, a flightless bird of New Zealand. Not only Flightless, but no wings. Christopher explained why this creature has always been a bird, and in his blog he explains the taxanomic issues surrounding this beastie. The biological and paleontological evidence varies as to reliability, and it does raise issues. At least we can preface why certain decisions are made and anyone can come along and with additional evidence and change it. This is something our creationist brothers can't offer, the animals (creatures) are set in concrete as to kind, what ever that means.

Creationists Can't Make The Case

Sometimes it seems that the US is far away from reality. NASA and many schools in that country teach evolutionary biology successfully with post doc work on going as we find many branches of science backing up Darwins original idea, with some modification as one would expect, yet people who are on the creationist side fail to understand the science, what's next.

A High Percentage of Evangelical Christians Simply... [Derived Headline]

A high percentage of evangelical Christians simply will not consider the possibility that God might have created the world and living things and used evolution as one of the means to do so. We seem to have moved into the realm of ideology.

Political philosopher Kenneth Minogue in "The Liberal Mind" says, "An ideology may ... be defined as a set of ideas whose primary coherence results not from their truth and consistency, as in science and philosophy, but from some external cause; most immediately, this external cause will be some mood, vision, or emotion ... The intellectual mark of ideology is the presence of dogma, beliefs which have been dug deep into the ground and surrounded by semantic barbed wire."

For many years, I accepted the creationist view, as it was always stressed as a vital support to evangelical Christianity. But I have gradually become troubled by the fact that in creation science the "right" answers seemed to be known even before the observations and experiments. In "Science Held Hostage," physics professor Howard J. Van Till (himself an evangelical Christian) pointed out that the role of creation science "is not to discover answers to open-ended questions, but to provide the appearance of scientific warrant for answers already established by other means."

The other warning signal for me was the ever repeated creationist claim that practically the entire scientific establishment was engaged in a virtual conspiracy to conceal and distort evidence in order to support the theory of evolution. The more I thought about that, the more preposterous it appeared.

I undertook to read what the evolutionists had to say. A few of them have tried to use science as a club against religion, such as Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins - an approach which, by the way, violates the parameters of science. But most of them dealt intelligently and persuasively with the material evidence.

Joan Roughgarden, Christian and the daughter of missionary parents, is an eminent scientist at Stanford University. In her new book, "Evolution and Christian Faith," she sets forth a challenge to those who consider intelligent design to be scientific:

"What would intelligent design proponents need to do to make their program scientifically credible? I would like to see four scientific points addressed. Intelligent design scientists need to publish an objective procedure to screen for complexity so that the five best-case candidates for irreducibly complex traits can be defined for analysis.

Then, they need to explicitly state and present direct evidence for specific hypotheses about when the traits first appeared and in what form. Next, they need to demonstrate that natural breeding acting on random mutations does not account for these best-case complexity candidates. Finally, should existing evolutionary theory prove inadequate, then intelligent design scientists need to show that no possible material modification of the theory can be made that would account for the candidate traits. If all four criteria are met, then I would say that the intelligent design program has succeeded scientifically. Until then, it's hot air."

Her comment refers to the creationist claim that some biological structures are so complicated that they could not have evolved since they wouldn't have been functional until all the parts were simultaneously in place. It is a claim refuted many times by mainstream scientists.

As to the charge that evolutionists have distorted and concealed evidence to support their case, the truth seems to be more nearly the opposite. In "Science Held Hostage," previously cited, professor Van Till, together with co-author geologists Davis A. Young and Clarence Menninga (all evangelical Christians) point out that it is the creationists who have played fast and loose with the facts. Three standard creationist claims for a recently created Earth are the level of dust that has accumulated on the moon, the amount of salt that has drained from the Earth into the oceans, and the rock layers of the Grand Canyon in Arizona.

According to the creationists, if the earth and solar system were billions of years old as mainstream science claims, there would be much deeper dust on the moon and vastly more salt in the ocean. As to the Grand Canyon, the claim is that almost all of the exposed rock cliffs were laid down in the great flood of Noah.

Young and Menninga demonstrate exactly how some of the most famous creationist writers have manipulated and falsified the evidence in each of these. Example: the creationists deny that there are any erosion levels between layers of rock in the Grand Canyon as that would indicate a lengthy passage of time between their positioning, not the short time of the Genesis flood. In fact erosion levels are well documented. They are there for all to see.

If my fellow evangelicals will be patient, a truer case for biblical religion is coming.

(Grael Gannon, of Bismarck, is a teacher at Shiloh Christian School.) Creationists can't make a case

(c) 2007 Bismarck Tribune. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.

Source: Bismarck Tribune

NO, Creationists haven't taken the hint.

It seems that the Judge was wrong, "an activist judge abusing his appointment by Saint George W Bush." Judge Jones applied the law as he understood it and made clear his reasons, nothing in his judgement could be misrepresented as being activist. What would be activist would be calling the imposition of Intelligent Design into the science curricullum of Dover High School as reasonable. Of course it is nothing of the sort. More and more the evidence is pointing to a continuation of the campaign against evolution in biology by the Discovery Institute and it's associates. Claims against respected scientific enquiry without any basis in fact are common. What they do claim is that the work being conducted doesn't fit into their definitions, the definitions only they hold. ON top of "Intelligent Design" and "Creationist" arguments, there are even the "UFO/Alien Abduction" crowd getting into the discussion with variations to "Panspermia" and Aleien intervention into the development of homo sapien sapien. The evolution was moved along by genetic engineering of some lower life form like "homo erectus", although why that paticular progenitor, I don't know. So why not analyse the evidence? Why not look at what the various claims from th evarious groups are. This will require some neccessary reading. It doesn't matter what field of enquiry one undertakes, reading is essential to look at the literature and find what has been said before and what the current thinking is. So we have 4 broad categories thus:

1. Creationism
2. Intelligent Design
3. Evolution
4. Alien Intervention.

We will analyse each and then do some comparative alalysis and logical analysis of the arguments. We need to be able to understnd some "Logical Fallacies" inorder to wheight the arguments. Just a point on reading. Read from the sources if you can, in other words, read a creationist on creation and an evolutionist on evolution. Use your own faculties of reason to come to a conclusion. Creationism By far the oldest of ideas concerning the origins of the Earth and Man is a literal interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1,vs 1-27 and Chapter 2, 1-7. Often this only is the reference except where the Bible itself refers to those same passages elsewhere. Archbishop Ussher whose "Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world"), which appeared in 1650 and its continuation, Annalium pars postierior in 1654. The English translation you can get by clicking on the above link. Considering the 17th century date I find it curious that it is still being touted as the last word on the Genesis debate and Evolution vs Creation. Of course we must remember the possibly pre-exilic date fro Genesis and even earlier if you include all the other cultural origins stories of the Middle East. Reference:

1. Fall in the House of Ussher by Stephen Jay Gould

House committee rejects 'Intelligent design' bill

• House committee rejects ‘intelligent design’ bill

BY LAURA KELLAMS Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 URL: http://www.nwanews.com/story/adg/110914 Legislation that would require the state to teach the "theory of intelligent design" in public schools failed to get any support in an Arkansas House of Representatives committee on Wednesday. Rep. Mark Martin, R-Prairie Grove, wants the state to teach, along with the theory of evolution, the theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and not by an undirected process such as natural selection." Martin, who describes himself as conservative Christian, said he doesn’t want schools to teach children that God exists or that evolution is wrong. Scientific teaching simply should take on a more "agnostic" view, he said. When he presented his House Bill 2608 to the Committee on Rules, the only discussion was why the bill had been assigned to that committee and not the Committee on Education, of which Martin is a member. Martin said he was puzzled, too, and said he can only assume it was a mistake. After explaining his aims with the legislation, no one on the committee made a motion to recommend the bill to the House. "What I’m trying to do here is not to deal directly with the existence or non-existence of God, but restore to science the agnostic viewpoint that there could be or could not be rather than the dogmatism that actually currently exists... that absolutely precludes the existence of God," Martin said. Martin, who is a biomechanical engineer, said he’s not sure about the theory of evolution but that there’s enough scientific evidence to show that there’s "a lot of truth" to it. "I don’t consider it in conflict with my strict Christian beliefs, or, quite frankly, my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture," he said. "I don’t believe that they have to be in conflict. I don’t have the answers to that stuff." Martin’s own school-aged daughter is taught at home because he wants her education to be Bible-based, he said. washingtonpost.com Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens By Peter SlevinWashington Post Staff WriterMonday, March 14, 2005; Page A01 WICHITA – Propelled by a polished strategy crafted by activists on America's political right, a battle is intensifying across the nation over how students are taught about the origins of life. Policymakers in 19 states are weighing proposals that question the science of evolution. The proposals typically stop short of overturning evolution or introducing biblical accounts. Instead, they are calculated pleas to teach what advocates consider gaps in long-accepted Darwinian theory, with many relying on the idea of intelligent design, which posits the central role of a creator. The growing trend has alarmed scientists and educators who consider it a masked effort to replace science with theology. But 80 years after the Scopes "monkey" trial -- in which a Tennessee man was prosecuted for violating state law by teaching evolution -- it is the anti-evolutionary scientists and Christian activists who say they are the ones being persecuted, by a liberal establishment. They are acting now because they feel emboldened by the country's conservative currents and by President Bush, who angered many scientists and teachers by declaring that the jury is still out on evolution. Sharing strong convictions, deep pockets and impressive political credentials -- if not always the same goals -- the activists are building a sizable network. In Seattle, the nonprofit Discovery Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls and media pieces supporting intelligent design. In Fort Lauderdale, Christian evangelist James Kennedy established a Creation Studies Institute. In Virginia, Liberty University is sponsoring the Creation Mega Conference with a Kentucky group called Answers in Genesis, which raised $9 million in 2003. At the state and local level, from South Carolina to California, these advocates are using lawsuits and school board debates to counter evolutionary theory. Alabama and Georgia legislators recently introduced bills to allow teachers to challenge evolutionary theory in the classroom. Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico and Ohio have approved new rules allowing that. And a school board member in a Tennessee county wants stickers pasted on textbooks that say evolution remains unproven. A prominent effort is underway in Kansas, where the state Board of Education intends to revise teaching standards. That would be progress, Southern Baptist minister Terry Fox said, because "most people in Kansas don't think we came from monkeys." The movement is "steadily growing," said Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution. "The energy level is new. The religious right has had an effect nationally. Now, by golly, they want to call in the chits." Not Science, Politics Polls show that a large majority of Americans believe God alone created man or had a guiding hand. Advocates invoke the First Amendment and say the current campaigns are partly about respect for those beliefs. "It's an academic freedom proposal. What we would like to foment is a civil discussion about science. That falls right down the middle of the fairway of American pluralism," said the Discovery Institute's Stephen C. Meyer, who believes evolution alone cannot explain life's unfurling. "We are interested in seeing that spread state by state across the country." Some evolution opponents are trying to use Bush's No Child Left Behind law, saying it creates an opening for states to set new teaching standards. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a Christian who draws on Discovery Institute material, drafted language accompanying the law that said students should be exposed to "the full range of scientific views that exist." "Anyone who expresses anything other than the dominant worldview is shunned and booted from the academy," Santorum said in an interview. "My reading of the science is there's a legitimate debate. My feeling is let the debate be had." Although the new strategy speaks of "teaching the controversy" over evolution, opponents insist the controversy is not scientific, but political. They paint the approach as a disarming subterfuge designed to undermine solid evidence that all living things share a common ancestry. "The movement is a veneer over a certain theological message. Every one of these groups is now actively engaged in trying to undercut sound science education by criticizing evolution," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "It is all based on their religious ideology. Even the people who don't specifically mention religion are hard-pressed with a straight face to say who the intelligent designer is if it's not God." Although many backers of intelligent design oppose the biblical account that God created the world in six days, the Christian right is increasingly mobilized, Baylor University scholar Barry G. Hankins said. He noted the recent hiring by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of Discovery Institute scholar and prominent intelligent design proponent William A. Dembski. The seminary said the move, along with the creation of a Center for Science and Theology, was central to developing a "comprehensive Christian worldview." "As the Christian right has success on a variety of issues, it emboldens them to expand their agenda," Hankins said. "When they have losses . . . it gives them fuel for their fire." Deferring the Debate The efforts are not limited to schools. From offices overlooking Puget Sound, Meyer is waging a careful campaign to change the way Americans think about the natural world. The Discovery Institute devotes about 85 percent of its budget to funding scientists, with other money going to public action campaigns. Discovery Institute raised money for "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," a DVD produced by Illustra Media and shown on PBS stations in major markets. The institute has sponsored opinion polls and underwrites research for books sold in secular and Christian bookstores. Its newest project is to establish a science laboratory. Meyer said the institute accepts money from such wealthy conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," and the Maclellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture." "We'll take money from anyone who wants to give it to us," Meyer said. "Everyone has motives. Let's acknowledge that and get on with the interesting part." Meyer said he and Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman devised the compromise strategy in March 2002 when they realized a dispute over intelligent design was complicating efforts to challenge evolution in the classroom. They settled on the current approach that stresses open debate and evolution's ostensible weakness, but does not require students to study design. The idea was to sow doubt about Darwin and buy time for the 40-plus scientists affiliated with the institute to perfect the theory, Meyer said. Also, by deferring a debate about whether God was the intelligent designer, the strategy avoids the defeats suffered by creationists who tried to oust evolution from the classroom and ran afoul of the Constitution. "Our goal is to not remove evolution. Good lord, it's incredible how much this is misunderstood," said William Harris, a professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City medical school. "Kids need to understand it, but they need to know the strengths and weaknesses of the data, how much of it is a guess, how much of it is extrapolation." Harris does not favor teaching intelligent design, although he believes there is more to the story than evolution. "To say God did not play a role is arrogant," Harris said. "It's far beyond the data." Harris teamed up with John H. Calvert, a retired corporate lawyer who calls the debate over the origins of life "the most fundamental issue facing the culture." They formed Intelligent Design Network Inc., which draws interested legislators and activists to an annual Darwin, Design and Democracy conference. The 2001 conference presented its Wedge of Truth award to members of the 1999 Kansas Board of Education that played down evolution and allowed local boards to decide what students would learn. A board elected in 2001 overturned that decision, but a fresh batch of conservatives won office in November, when Bush swamped his Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), here by 62 to 37 percent. "The thing that excites me is we really are in a revolution of scientific thought," Calvert said. He described offering advice in such places as Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio and Cobb County, Ga., where a federal court recently halted an attempt to affix a sticker to science textbooks saying evolution is theory, not fact. 'Liberalism Will Die' Despite some disagreement, Calvert, Harris and the Discovery Institute collectively favor efforts to change state teaching standards. Bypassing the work of a 26-member science standards committee that rejected revisions, the Kansas board's conservative majority recently announced a series of "scientific hearings" to discuss evolution and its critics. The board's chairman, Steve Abrams, said he is seeking space for students to "critically analyze" the evidence. That approach appeals to Cindy Duckett, a Wichita mother who believes public school leaves many religious children feeling shut out. Teaching doubts about evolution, she said, is "more inclusive. I think the more options, the better." "If students only have one thing to consider, one option, that's really more brainwashing," said Duckett, who sent her children to Christian schools because of her frustration. Students should be exposed to the Big Bang, evolution, intelligent design "and, beyond that, any other belief that a kid in class has. It should all be okay." Fox -- pastor of the largest Southern Baptist church in the Midwest, drawing 6,000 worshipers a week to his Wichita church -- said the compromise is an important tactic. "The strategy this time is not to go for the whole enchilada. We're trying to be a little more subtle," he said. To fundamentalist Christians, Fox said, the fight to teach God's role in creation is becoming the essential front in America's culture war. The issue is on the agenda at every meeting of pastors he attends. If evolution's boosters can be forced to back down, he said, the Christian right's agenda will advance. "If you believe God created that baby, it makes it a whole lot harder to get rid of that baby," Fox said. "If you can cause enough doubt on evolution, liberalism will die." Like Meyer, Fox is glad to make common cause with people who do not entirely agree. "Creationism's going to be our big battle. We're hoping that Kansas will be the model, and we're in it for the long haul," Fox said. He added that it does not matter "who gets the credit, as long as we win." Special correspondent Kari Lydersen in Chicago contributed to this report. Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science (March 30, 2005 LA Times Comentary) By Michael Shermer, Michael Shermer is founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and the author of "Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown" (Times Books, 2005). According to intelligent-design theory, life is too complex to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore life must have been created by a supernatural force — an intelligent designer. ID theorists argue that because such design can be inferred through the methods of science, IDT should be given equal time alongside evolutionary theory in public school science classes. Nine states have recently proposed legislation that would require just that.The evolution-creation legal battle began in 1925 with the Scopes "monkey" trial, over the banning of the teaching of evolution in Tennessee. The controversy caused textbook publishers and state boards of education to cease teaching evolution — until the Soviets launched Sputnik in the late 1950s and the United States realized it was falling behind in the sciences. Creationists responded by passing equal-time laws that required the teaching of both creationism and evolution, a strategy defeated in a 1968 Arkansas trial that found that such a law attempted to "establish religion" in a public school and was therefore unconstitutional. This led to new equal-time laws covering "creation science" and "evolution science." In 1987, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, said teaching creation science "impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind." This history explains why proponents of intelligent design are careful to never specify the true, religious nature of their theory and to insist that what they are doing is science. For example, leading ID scholar William Dembski wrote in his 2003 book, "The Design Revolution": "Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments. Whereas the creator underlying scientific creationism conforms to a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying intelligent design need not even be a deity." But let's be clear: Intelligent-design theory is not science. The proof is in the pudding. Scientists, including scientists who are Christians, do not use IDT when they do science because it offers nothing in the way of testable hypotheses. Lee Anne Chaney, professor of biology at Whitworth College, a Christian institution, wrote in a 1995 article: "As a Christian, part of my belief system is that God is ultimately responsible. But as a biologist, I need to look at the evidence…. I don't think intelligent design is very helpful because it does not provide things that are refutable — there is no way in the world you can show it's not true. Drawing inferences about the deity does not seem to me to be the function of science because it's very subjective."Intelligent-design theory lacks, for instance, a hypothesis of the mechanics of the design, something akin to natural selection in evolution. Natural selection can and has been observed and tested, and Charles Darwin's theory has been refined.Intelligent-design theorists admit the difference, at least among themselves. Here is ID proponent Paul Nelson, writing last year in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: "Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity' — but, as yet, no general theory of biological design." If intelligent design is not science, then what is it? One of its originators, Phillip Johnson, a law professor at UC Berkeley, wrote in a 1999 article: "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism versus evolution to the existence of God versus the nonexistence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.' " On March 9, I debated ID scholar Stephen Meyer at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo. After two hours of debate over the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of IDT, Meyer admitted in the question-and-answer period that he thinks that the intelligent designer is the Judeo-Christian God and that suboptimal designs and deadly diseases are not examples of an unintelligent or malevolent designer, but instead were caused by "the fall" in the Garden of Eden. Dembski has also told me privately that he believes the intelligent designer is the God of Abraham. The term "intelligent design" is nothing more than a linguistic place-filler for something unexplained by science. It is saying, in essence, that if there is no natural explanation for X, then the explanation must be a supernatural one. Proponents of intelligent design cannot imagine, for example, how the bacterial flagellum (such as the little tail that propels sperm cells) could have evolved; ergo, they conclude, it was intelligently designed. But saying "intelligent design did it" does not explain anything. Scientists would want to know how and when ID did it, and what forces ID used.In fact, invoking intelligent design as God's place-filler can only result in the naturalization of the deity. God becomes just another part of the natural world, and thereby loses the transcendent mystery and divinity that define the boundary between religion and science. The connection is merely a strategy mainstream scientists use to discredit intelligent design, Buell said. The word “God” is never used in the book. Instead, “Pandas” suggests Earth is created by an “intelligent agent,” a “personal agent” and a “master intellect.” Its critics say “Pandas” steers clear of almost all reference to the Earth’s age in order to hold up to First Amendment challenges and to avoid alienating biblical creationists. The book’s only reference on Earth’s age is this: “Some take the view that the earth’s history can be compressed into a framework of thousands of years, while others adhere to the standard old earth chronology.” Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemist who wrote one of the chapters in “Pandas,” said he is unconcerned that the age of the Earth is not covered because it is covered in students’ primary biology books. But Kenneth Miller, who co-authored with Joseph Levine “Biology,” the best-selling biology textbook in the country and the one used in Dover, is one of the most vocal critics of “Pandas.” He said the book’s hedging on the age of Earth is like teaching U.S. history but refusing to tell students the dates of the Revolutionary War. * * * The debate that led to the Dover Area School Board’s decision to insert intelligent design into its science curriculum started with a mother’s concern that the 1998 version of the district’s biology book was out of date. As board members in June debated the merits of the teacher-recommended textbook “Biology,” the board’s curriculum chairman said he wanted a book that combined creationism with evolution. “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross,” Bill Buckingham said at a June public meeting. “Can’t someone take a stand for him?” Buckingham fought to have “Pandas” included in the curriculum as a “companion text” to the textbook “Biology,” published by Prentice Hall. But before the board could vote on Buckingham’s proposal to buy “Pandas,” 58 copies were donated by residents — whose names the district will not release — and several copies are now housed in the high-school library on the reference shelf. The remaining books are kept in a storage room. As of Friday, 10 people had checked out copies from the library. Eleven parents who filed suit in December over Dover’s intelligent-design requirement have not asked “Pandas” to be banished from the school, but the federal lawsuit states the book should not be in the science classrooms. * * * Even Buell doesn’t recommend the book. “If they would have contacted me, I would not have encouraged the people in Dover to use it because of other tools that are more up-to-date,” he said. “The idea of intelligent design and the evidence that supports it has gotten extraordinarily more strong than when it was originally printed.” As for the criticisms that the book misrepresents the theory of evolution, Buell disagreed. He said the main point is valid — that the theory of evolution’s basic principal of life evolving through natural selection and genetic mutation isn’t possible. “The authors and we feel those are the most powerful arguments,” he said. John West of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which is now at the forefront of the intelligent-design movement, said his organization didn’t have anything to do with “Pandas” and had little to say about it. Behe, author of the pro-intelligent design book “Darwin’s Black Box,” thinks, for the most part, the book accomplishes what it sets out to do — namely, getting the message out “that there are other ways of approaching biology.” Behe wrote the book’s chapter on blood clotting, in which he states that any one of the many components needed to stop bleeding on its own is like “a steering wheel that is not connected to the car.” He said the entire concept of intelligent design is essentially a debate over random versus directed processes. “Darwin’s idea of random mutations is, I think, at the heart of the big brouhaha,” Behe said. But Miller said it’s not true, even though the book may try to make it look that way. “The book is just a shambles,” said Miller, a Brown University biology professor. He said to his knowledge, “Pandas” has never been used as part of any curriculum in the country. While students in Dover are not required to use “Pandas,” Miller said, it’s a poor choice even as a voluntary reference manual. “One of the criticisms raised by educators is that this is simply not appropriate for the high-school level,” Miller said. Rather, Miller said he recommends “Pandas” to graduate students. “If they can recognize why this book is so wrong, they know their biology,” he said. “If you’re a high-school student, you’re not going to be able to see the flaws in this.” * * * The mainstream scientific community raises a list of complaints, such as: · The book includes a graphic listing examples of “living fossils,” which includes the horseshoe crab, alligator and aardvark. It raises the question, “Why has an organism like the shark not changed for 150 million years?” The obvious answer, scientists say, is that it didn’t need to. According to Darwin’s theory, if a living organism possesses traits necessary to survive in its environment, it will pass on its genes to the next generation. If its environment changes and the living organism does not survive to sexual maturity, those genes will not get passed on. Also, Miller said, while it is true that sharklike animals existed long ago, they are a different species than sharks today. It’s disingenuous to say they have not evolved, he said. · “Pandas” misrepresents paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould’s observations. The book raises questions about whether punctuated equilibrium — the idea that evolution tends to be characterized by long periods of virtual standstill punctuated by episodes of very fast development — contradicts Darwin’s theory of slow, gradual change. But the idea that punctuated equilibrium is “an admission of weakness in evolutionary theory was always baffling to Stephen Gould,” said Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. At issue is “Pandas’” argument that the fossil record is missing evidence of transitional organisms. It states, “... fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, and apparently fully functional, rather than gradually developing.” But the National Academy of Sciences, in its 1999 booklet, “Science and Creationism,” states: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.” In the chapter on “Biochemical Similarities,” the book points out that biochemical analysis of the bullfrog and the horse show that they are the same distance on the evolutionary ladder from the carp. The book says this shows a flaw in Darwinism because the bullfrog should be more closely related to the fish. But Miller said that’s an inaccurate interpretation of Darwinism. “Are these guys intentionally distorting this to mislead readers?” he said. “Or do they just not get it?” He said present-day amphibians are as far removed from the ancestors of the carp as horses and humans. “It’s clear that the people who wrote ‘Pandas’ don’t understand that evolution is branching through time,” he said. Perhaps the most glaring proof the book is outdated, scientists say, is on the subject of whales. In “Pandas’” chapter on “Gaps and Groupings in the Fossil Record,” the writer states, “the absence of unambiguous transitional fossils is illustrated by the fossil record of whales.” Scientists have long theorized that whales evolved from land mammals, but “Pandas” argues that mammals and whales are so different, there should be many transitional fossils. But none have been found, the book states. But since the book came out in 1993, scientists have found three of those intermediate fossils or “missing links.” “We have whales with legs, we have whales with feet, we have amphibious forms that look like weird seals,” Scott said. “We’ve got all these wonderful transitional morphologies, most of which were not described at the time even when the second version of ‘Pandas’ came out.” · Another omission, Miller said, is on the subject of extinction. Throughout evolutionary history, new organisms appear and disappear all the time in the fossil record. “If they were perfectly intricately designed organisms,” Miller asks, “why do they die?” For example, there have been 22 documented species of elephants that have roamed the Earth. “If all 22 species were intelligently designed, why does he need 22 tries for two successful elephants?” Miller asked. Darwin’s evolutionary theory explains it “quite nicely,” Miller said: In the struggle for existence, some will perish. Reach Lauri Lebo at 771-2092 or llebo@ydr.com.

• Excerpts from ‘Of Pandas and People’

On the intelligent designer · From page 14: “Darwinian evolution locates the origin of new organisms in material causes, the accumulation of individual traits. That is akin to saying the origin of a palace is in the bits of marble added to the tool shed. Intelligent design, by contrast, locates the origin of new organisms in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent.” · From page 58: “. . . the experimental work on the origin of life and the molecular biology of living cells is consistent with the hypothesis of intelligent design. What makes this interpretation so compelling is the amazing correlation between the structure of informational molecules (DNA, protein) and our universal experience that such sequences are the result of intelligent causes. This parallel strongly suggests that life itself owes its origin to a master intellect.” · From page 150, “Intelligent design (cause) — Any theory that attributes an action, function, or the structure of an object to the creative mental capacities of a personal agent.” “Pandas” further defines intelligent design, on page 150, “In biology, the theory that biological organisms owe their origin to a preexistent intelligence.” On Earth’s age · From page 92: “While design proponents are in agreement on these significant observations about the fossil record, they are divided on the issue of the earth’s age. Some take the view that the earth’s history can be compressed into a framework of thousands of years, while others adhere to the standard old earth chronology.” On transitional specimens in fossil record · From page 96: “The gaps result from the imperfect nature of the fossil record, only a small part of which was preserved, and it seems unlikely that future research will fill them. Support for the theory of evolution must come from other fields of study.” · From page 99-100: “Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, and apparently fully functional, rather than gradually developing. No creatures with a partial wing or partial eye are known.” On whales evolving · From page 101: “The absence of unambiguous transitional fossils is illustrated by the fossil record of whales. The earliest forms of whales occur in rocks of Eocene age, dated some 50 million years ago, but little is known of their possible ancestors. By and large, Darwinists believe that whales evolved from a land mammal. The problem is that there are no clear transitional fossils linking land mammals to whales.” On “living fossils” · From page 88: “Why has an organism like the shark not changed for 150 million years (by the conventional time scale)? W.H. Thorpe, director of Subdepartment of Animal Behavior at Cambridge University in England said: What is it that holds so many groups of animals to an astonishingly constant form over millions of years? This seems to me the problem now (for evolution) — the problem of constancy, rather than that of change.” On genetic variation and natural selection · From page 88: “There is a strong case based on experiment that there are limits to genetic variation, which diminishes the persuasive power of Darwin’s argument. Moreover, a growing number of scientists accept natural selection as a reasonable explanation for the modification of traits but not for the origins of new structures.”

• Parents Kept Out of Dover Suit
• They wanted to support the school board on intelligent design, but the judge won’t add them to the suit.

By LAURI LEBODaily Record/Sunday NewsSaturday, March 12, 2005 Six parents who say their children have a First Amendment right to hear about intelligent design won’t be able to join a federal lawsuit on the Dover Area School District’s behalf, a judge has ruled. In court documents filed Thursday, Judge John E. Jones III said the parents have not demonstrated that their interests will not be adequately represented by Dover’s attorneys, who will likely “prosecute their defense vigorously.” Also, Jones said, they could substantially increase the cost of the litigation, which could end up resting “squarely upon the shoulders of the Dover School District taxpayers.” Eleven parents filed suit against the district in December over the school board’s decision to make intelligent design part of the high-school biology curriculum. The parents believe the requirement violates the First Amendment’s clause prohibiting the government establishment of religion. Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex to have evolved solely through natural selection and therefore must have been created by an “intelligent designer.” In January, the six parents, who include newly appointed Dover school board member James Cashman, asked to join forces with the district, saying their children have a right to be aware that there “are gaps in the biological theory of evolution.” The plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild of Pepper Hamilton, said Jones’ decision was good news for both sides. “I have no doubt about the sincerity or interest in the parents who defend having intelligent design taught,” Rothschild said. But, he added, “it’s helpful to both sides that we don’t have to incur the extra time and costs that this would have created.” Jones also rejected the district’s request to dismiss five of the plaintiffs from the suit on issues of standing. The children of two of the plaintiffs, Beth Eveland and Cynthia Sneath, are eight years away from taking the required biology class, which defense attorneys argued is too far into the future to be relevant. But Jones said there is no evidence that the “injury-triggering event” will not be in place by the time the children reach ninth grade. As for three parents whose children have already taken biology — Julie Smith and Barrie and Frederick Callahan — Jones denied the motion to dismiss them from the suit but said he might entertain a new motion later. The district’s lead attorney, Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, said he was disappointed by the ruling but said he hopes to revisit the issue again regarding the standing of Smith and the Callahans. In the meantime, he said, the district is whittling away at the plaintiffs’ arguments. Reach Lauri Lebo at 771-2092 or llebo@ydr.com. The other two intelligent design supporters running for office are Alina Kline and Michael Arnold.When he applied for a vacant seat in December, Arnold refused to answer how he felt about intelligent design. "I thought it was an inappropriate question," he said. But now that he's a candidate, he's only too happy to make his feelings known. "I support the direction the board's headed," Arnold said.

Post Dover

Or, Did The Discovery Institute and it's associates learn from their loss.

Robert T Pennock is a well known critic of all things creationist when it comes to science, and he is claiming a well deserved victory for science in the Kitzmiller et vs Dover Area School Board et al in Harrisberg Pennsylvania.Kitzmiller et al vs Dover Area School District et al, was an "activist" judge and was not being true to his appointment by President George W Bush.

Michael Behe in his "Whether Intelligent Design is Science" article date Feb 4, 2006, and published at the "Center for Science and Culture" a part of the "Discovery Institute" clearly maintains a definition of science that is so broad as to include Tarot Cards and Faith Healing (See Whether ID is Science is not Semantics.) To allow ID as science we must rewrite the definition to be so broad as to be meaningless in any functional way.

The definition of science espoused by Behe and Dembski to name a few is a problem the near future is going to deal with. Within my own family, what is called science and what is not appears to be blurred. Blurred because a number of people are making false claims about their equiry, like meta-physics, whatever it's merits, it is not science and certainly not physics.

Why should we concur with a definition so broad that every thing under the sun can be called science, just because some fellows of the Discovery Institute and The Thomas More Law Centre say it is and say it is a "widely held belief".

Meanwhile in Arkansas the problem persists (see The Missing Link by Jason R Wiles at Arkansas Times 23 March 2006) School science teachers are under a threat if they teach evolution in science classes, so they leave it out. Obviously, as mentioned in the article, the community does understand the two previous cases on the subject, Epperson v. Arkansas and McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, which prohibit the teaching of evolution. It is sad because all this started with the concerns of a science teacher and his geography lesson.

Creationism and Science Part Two

The ID debate in schools issue seems to be far from over. The court case on the Dover, Pennsylvania vs some concerned parents is over, and one would think the protagonists, the Discovery Institute, and various Evolutionists would be reviewing their position and planning the next step. Since the nature of the science defendants in this case and others is reactionary, they simply will adn are crowing about their win, however the opposition Creationists are on the assault. In Utah, State Bill SB96 is being considered by the State Legislator, despite the Court decision in Pennsylvania, and the Ohio State Board of Education has tossed out an ammendment to the curricullum asking for critical analysis of the Evolution Theory, and incidentally only thehe evolution theory. Critical Analysis is something science already teaches it's students about their assumptions when preparing experiments and conducting them. Perhaps the creationists should have attended science classes instead of football when in High School. I commend an speech by President Shirley M. Tilghman of Princeton University the George Romanes Lecture, presented at Oxford University entitled Strange Bedfellows: Science, Politics and Religion December 1, 2005. It gives a worrysome look at the state of Science and Politics in the US today. One where unwise manned scientific expeditions (to Mars), and science class being usurped by some religious statement that completely misrepresents amd misunderstands the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as first powerfully explained by Charles Darwin. I can't imagine what science and biology will be like if ID (Intelligent Design) is given equally valid a position with current accepted theories without having to go through the rigourous proccesses that a scientist has to to simply get published let alone appear in a text book. Support you science teacher and science in general encourage analytical thinking as a first order in all the seniour high school subjects. Maybe learning how to research a topic will assist a diluting of the intelligent design lobby in political circles and also the religious circles, Tilgman's speech covers that well.

Fear of Scientists or?

I thought this discussion curious and will search out these two dudes as to what happens if anyone comes to the party and discusses ID in any intelligible way, or better still, has actually proven some aspect or other, but with less of the statistical mumbo jumbo.

---

 ‘Intelligent design': What do scientists fear?

Let's have a public debate on the merits

USA Today 31 November 2005

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.

Today: Should public schools teach “intelligent design,” the theory that the universe and its life forms are so complex that a higher cause must have been involved in making them?

Bob: Cal, I'm going to stray from the consensus liberal line on the issue of intelligent design. The Dover, Pa., school board had a good reason to allow the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific alternative to Darwinism in the school system's science classes. Despite the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that evolution is the sole explanation for all living things, these scientists have yet to prove the theory conclusively. Not only are there still gaping holes in the evolutionary chain from single cells to man, the science crowd hasn't come close to explaining why only man among all living things has a conscience, a moral framework and a free will.

Cal: What I find curious about this debate, not only in Pennsylvania, but in Kansas and throughout the country, is that so many scientists and educators are behaving like fundamentalist secularists. Only they will define science. They alone will decide which scientific theories and information will be taught to students. That sounds like mind control to me, Bob. If their science is so strong on the issue of origins, why not let the arguments supporting intelligent design into the classroom where it can be debunked if it can't be defended? You liberals are always accusing us conservatives of censorship. It sounds like your side has picked up the disease on this one.

Bob: One reason is that your side insists on making this debate about religion. I believe there is a good science debate here. Many people believe that the Christian community is using intelligent design as a backdoor for teaching creationism. If not, this issue would not be in the federal courts in a constitutional argument over separation of church and state. But there are a number of serious scientists who believe in intelligent design as a theory of evolution based on scientific argument.

Cal: Exactly right, Bob. And many of them have advanced degrees from the same universities from which the evolutionary scientists have graduated. And what about some of the greatest names in science — men like Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler and Galileo? Charles Darwin was a devout Christian as a young man, but his religious views — like his scientific ones — “evolved” as he got older. By the time he wrote The Origin of Species, he was as good a practical secularist as any non-believer. Was the later Darwin smarter than the combined wisdom of those scientists who believed the universe did not come into existence by chance but had a creator behind it? Readers can Google “scientists and intelligent design” for the names of many more scientists who believed someone was behind what we see in the sky with our eyes and beyond through a telescopic eye.

Bob: Good, now you're talking science, not theology.

Cal: But I doubt the secular fundamentalists and their judicial friends will ever allow this debate to occur. That's why I support, for this reason and many others, pulling conservative and Christian kids out of public schools and placing them in private or home-school environments where they can get a real and truthful education.

Bob: Cal, if you encourage Christian believers to take their kids out of public schools, then it's likely intelligent design will never get a fair hearing and forever be seen as Biblical creation only. That's not fair to those who want competing theories to Darwin introduced as a scientific debate, not a theological food fight.

Cal: Fair point, Bob, but the primary responsibility of parents is to their children. If they are teaching them one thing at home and in their place of worship, and they are subsidizing with their taxes the teaching of conflicting views — which are taught as truth in the government schools — they are undermining the very things in which they believe. School choice would settle a lot of this, but those politically beholden to the National Education Association aren't about to allow parents the freedom to choose where to educate their kids.

Bob: Some public school systems may well be hostile to Christian dogma, but most are looking at intelligent design as a church-state issue, and until told otherwise by the federal courts will continue to keep the debate out of science classes. You can't blame them. Nearly the entire school board in Dover was defeated over this very issue in the last election. Pulling Christian kids from public schools only helps the “Darwin only” science crowd.

Cal: Scientists have accepted theories in the past that proved to be wrong. Science is supposed to be about openness to competing ideas. But the very people who want to impose evolution as the only scientific explanation for life on the planet violate this basic tenet of science when it comes to intelligent design.

Bob: True, but these scientists will say the overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution, and no other theory comes close. Well, of course it doesn't because no other theory has been studied seriously. This crowd has a vested interest in proving Darwin correct, and anything else is dismissed out of hand. This from the same scientific community that for years believed the universe was shrinking. They have since discovered the Big Bang and now believe the universe is expanding.

Cal: You're making my point, Bob. Science advances by considering all theories and evidence, not by conspiring to teach only one to the exclusion of others. This is Flat Earth Society thinking.

Bob: But if this debate continues to be viewed as an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to get their beliefs into the public schools, then intelligent design will never get a fair hearing, and it deserves one. The scientists who view intelligent design as a science, not a dogma, believe that the smallest building blocks of life are so complex that they couldn't simply evolve from amoebas. That's about as far as I can go in my understanding of all this.

Cal: What has been set up is a false premise: that the Bible and science are in conflict and that nothing in Scripture can be tested scientifically. That is just not true. But when God asks Job — “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?” — the question should make scientists humble about their certainties concerning the origins of the earth and of human life.

Bob: There you go again mixing science with the Bible. We both want to see intelligent design introduced into the scientific debate. Can't we leave the Bible out of this while we're trying to convince the public that this is a debate about science? It's a means-ends issue, Cal.

Cal: Some Christians are trying to water down what they really believe for the wrong reasons. It would be better for them to exit the government schools so they can teach their beliefs without compromise. For those who remain — like you — and want intelligent design taught alongside evolution, why not have a series of televised debates so the public could make up its own mind?

Bob: That's a start. The scientific community has gone out of its way to depict intelligent design as a religious view. Most people have no idea that serious scientists believe there is a strong case for intelligent design. These scientists have been denied a forum, and a series of public debates would be educational and give the intelligent design researchers a chance to tell their side.

Cal: Surely C-SPAN would carry the debate if the scientists were prominent enough. Anyone opposing the debate would be rightly labeled a censor and anti-academic freedom. That should make the liberals choke. Sound like a good idea to you, Bob (except the part about choking liberals)?

Bob: I'm all for it. I just wonder if the Darwinists will show up.

Cal: Maybe we can offer them some bananas as an incentive. As they eat them, they can contemplate their heritage.

'Intelligent design' about faith, not science

Letters USA Today 6 December 2005

 

I was disappointed to read the Common Ground commentary by Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel regarding "intelligent design." While I'm sure the authors are excellent evaluators of public policy, it is obvious that they are ignorant of the ways of science ("'Intelligent design': What do scientists fear?" The Forum, Thursday).

They completely misunderstand the issue. I would challenge them to identify a scientist who maintains that evolution and intelligent design shouldn't be debated. Besides, the real issue is not public debate, but whether the teaching of non-science should be mandated in the science classes of public schools.

Scientific theories are potential explanations of observed phenomena that can be subjected to objective tests. Only by subjection to such tests does a theory gain acceptance in the scientific community. Important theories such as continental drift and catastrophic extinction events, for example, were initially rejected by science and became widely accepted only after convincing evidence from multiple sources was presented and reviewed by the scientific community.

Evolution has repeatedly been subjected to such tests, and debate continues on the mechanisms by which it occurs — but its validity is not in question. Even most proponents of intelligent design do not argue about the existence of biological evolution, only the mechanism behind it.

By its very nature, intelligent design cannot be tested, and "evidence" to support it consists largely of claims that certain biological features are "too complicated" to have occurred without an unnamed guiding intelligence. Intelligent design is a matter of faith, not science, and such matters should not be mandated in public school, and certainly not in science classes.

Derek Barkey, Lake Forest, Calif.

Allow critics to be heard

Finally some intelligent discussion regarding intelligent design.

Whatever happened to truth being revealed by its ability to withstand critical discussion in the public arena, instead of being imposed by fiat?

If evolution is correct, and defensible in all aspects, its proponents should not fear critical examination and honest debate. When scrutiny of the evidence validates either position, it will not be necessary to legislate a defense or inhibition of opposing thought.

Douglas Puckering, Lummi Island, Wash.

OK, let's debate topic

Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel propose a public debate on the scientific merits of intelligent design, and Beckel wonders whether "the Darwinists will show up."

You bet we will! In fact, we'll host.

We challenge the top "intelligent-designists" to a debate of the scientific evidence for intelligent design, to be held at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland the first week of January.

"Doubting Thomas" Cal's nihilistic suggestion to subject the Bible to scientific analysis is too big a project for this event, but an hour or so sounds like just about how long it should take to dispatch any scientific claims for intelligent design.

The question is, will the designists show? Calls go out every day to present scientific data at scientific conferences. The designists are always busy that decade. Meanwhile, the scientific data supporting evolution continue to pour in on a daily basis and produce spinoff applications that create new medicine, more productive crops, cleaner water and better living for billions of people worldwide.

The Darwinists show up to work every day in thousands of labs around the globe. Mr. Thomas and Mr. Beckel, your guys are the ones who don't show.

January. Cleveland. The "science" of ID. Put up or shut up.

Patricia Princehouse, Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland

Don't censor design theory

Science is always based on observations, almost always on measurements and preferably is based on what can be demonstrated experimentally. The intelligent design theory, which has recently been in the news, does not meet these criteria.

And neither do the theories of the natural origin of life nor the development of more complex forms of life from simpler forms of life. Strictly speaking, they cannot be considered science, but they are possible theories.

Some argue that intelligent design should be restricted to philosophy or history classes, but then so should the other two theories. But that would be wasting a great opportunity to teach science students how science works, and the difference between theories and facts. Censorship of the intelligent design theory would be bad for both science and education.

Dave Nelson, Billings, Mont.

Theory isn't testable

Intelligent design (ID) is dismissed by scientists because it isn't science. It does not meet the definition of science, and the Kansas board of education had to alter its definition of science in order to wedge ID into the curriculum — a point Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel somehow missed. To be a scientific theory, it must be testable and it must be refutable.

ID can't be tested, and because it is a belief and not provable, it can't be refuted.

ID's entire existence is predicated on:

• Claiming there are "holes" in evolutionary theory.

• Claiming that some biological structures are, in the opinion of the observer, so complex that they must have been "designed."

• Declaring that, without proof, ID must be the reason for these first two claims. Proponents put forward not a single testable hypothesis to back this.

There is no point in debating the issue, either, because that is not how scientific theories are established. Darwin and current scientists didn't win a debate contest. Evolution is science backed by more than a century of research and thousands of experiments. Debating ID makes as much sense as having a debate over the validity of astrology vs. astronomy or alchemy vs. chemistry.

Scientists do not "fear" intelligent design. What they do fear are attempts to redefine science to include non-scientific theories and then teaching that to children in science class.

Mark Gottschalk, Huntington Beach, Calif.

Contradictory argument

Cal Thomas completely contradicts himself regarding the teaching of the "theory" of intelligent design in public schools.

On the one hand, he demands that competing theories be taught in public schools, while on the other hand, he insists that conservative Christian parents should take their children out of public schools so that they can indoctrinate them with only one belief regarding the origins of this planet.

I guess Thomas wants one group of children to be sheltered from having to face ideas that conflict with their own, while at the same time insisting that other children be forced to listen to "scientific theories" that cannot be supported with any quantifiable scientific data or observation.

How "intelligent."

Kevin Little, Atlanta

Richard B. Hoppe

Bring on the Chiquitas

Note that the offer is to host a debate on the scientific evidence for intelligent design. Not evolution bashing, not ID of the gaps, but actual affirmative evidence, if any there be, for intelligent design in biology. Wonder if the ID creationists will shake themselves free from the Disco Institute labs in which they’re beavering away at the ID research program and show up.

 

 

Intelligent Design and Stubborn Littigants

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

Laurie Goodstein's oped is interesting in its summation and has assisted me in quiting some predjudice statements I have made in the past. What were they? Well, simply putting all Christian Fundamentalists in the same club as the ID'ers and Young Earth Creationists. No longer will I do so. Interpretation of the scriptures varies and so to Biblical Literalists and Evangelical Christians. So thankyou Laurie.

It seems clear to me that despite William Dembski's objections, ID has been struck down in more areas of the search for truth than just Biology. With the Dover School Board in Pennsylvania now out of the picture for all practical purposes due to an election changing the board to a pro-science stand, we now await Kamsas and Utah and a host of other places in the US. Even Berkely California (Couple sues operators of UC Berkeley Web site that teaches evolution) is struggling with people that are either ignorant of the issues and definitions or plain stubborn, more likely the latter. All this will achieve is making an income for the Lawyers. Since the Berkely site (Understanding Evolution) is clearly an educational site and bares no resemblance to any religion I know, yes, even natural materialism, or whatever is alledged. I'm sure the University can find more productive uses for its budget than provide funds and time to fight this trivial matter that any educated person with a High School Diploma should be able to resolve.

I am pleased to see that the Science and Theology crowd have ditched ID as a genuine science, it looked a bit dicey at times. The IDer's had a chance to get funded in a research program to establish the basic tenets of ID. Simply put, Dembski's argument is one from ignorance. We don't know how something evolved (it's path) so we can infer Intelligent Design, we of course can do nothing of the kind. It is a glorified "God of the Gaps" argument, on ethat has fallen down on it's basic irrational assumptions and conclusions.

I suppose that all this will eventually blow over untill the next assault or "Wedge Attack" on Evolution.

Teaching Creation and Evolution?

School Districts lead debate on Evolution vs Intelligent Design in the Science Curriculum in the USA

Does Intelligent Design qualify to be included in the High School Science Curriculum?

Is Evolution by Natural selection just a theory, or a fundamental part of science?

Should Intelligent Design be taught in High School Science?

These sort of questions and others apply equally to the Dover Pennsylvania School Board, Topeka Kansas and our Educational institutions here in Victoria. The only difference is, it is not an issue in this part of the world.

The main issues a going on in Dover Pennsylvania and Topeka Kansas, where the school boards are elected with conservative Christians of the Republican Party trying to introduce religious claims to Biological and Paleontology subjects in the Secondary Schools which are covered in say year 9 - 12 equivalent. Creationists are serious and make claims that the Intelligence Design ideas should replace the Evolution Theory that is widely covered in those subjects in the Science fields from first year undergraduates to Phd.'s and professorial employment in the great fields of Science and medical areas. They do this without any theory being reviewed tested by its peers, nontheless it is being touted as a replacement. This is breaking all the rules of science developed over the last 250 years, they have been told again and again, without a dent in their program.

In October 2004 the Dover School Board voted to require school science teachers to teach alternatives to Evolution, including Intelligent Design.¹ This started a case where politics and religion were put together with science on the side lines. Arkansas, Florida and Kansas joined the group as the wedge was being applied through out the US. What is the wedge²? It is a policy document of the Discovery Institute with the purpose to bring a creationist view of biology and geology into those subjects as a legitimate alternative theory. The only problem with their plans is intelligent people, science teachers, science practitioners, science apologists, rationalists, etc. So how does such a program want to succeed? It is simple, rely on the ignorance of the general public, and the loyalty of conservative Christians to compel the State School Boards to change the curriculum to include Intelligent Design. Where this group has a majority, it is likely it will pass.

The only problem is that Intelligent Design³, or ID is not a scientific theory, it is a statistical criticism of a scientific theory, which means it shouldn't be in a science class, but where it belongs, in the undergraduate philosophy of science subjects or a theology class, which in the US can not occur in a State School because their constitution forbids the State from making any laws with regard to religion. Therefore legal concerns occur, parents opposed to such actions and concerned citizens, all join the party. This is what happened in Dover Pennsylvania and Topeka Kansas.

The Kansas case was made more interesting because the science community refused to be part of the debate, so it was left to legal arguments,the science community felt it was not required to defend science in a forum dominated by christian conservatives with a clear agenda to introduce Intelligent Design to it's Schools and replace Evolution. The evidence was high farse from all accounts, with no science being disgust it must have been earie to here the oposition to the School Board explaining why it is unconstitional for such a obvious religious subject to be introduced to the curriculum without it going to the Supreme Court, and then everyone else saying how marvelous for our children to hear how some unspecified intelligent being allowed some of the adaptations and speciation to occur, and that an unpublished, uncritiqued by peers of the subject, and simply not science. That's how Daniel Ortega described the going on in better words than me in his article Scopes Snoops.⁴ Next week, I propose to introduce the discussion of magic in our physics classes and how it explains lightning and storms after a rain dance and why it should be used as an alternative to another theory.

Some of the big wigs of Intelliget Design were rolled out to defend the philosphy, Michael Behe attended a dedication meeting of a Dover Area High School to make“five points why intelligent design — the concept that life is too complex to have been evolved solely through natural selection and must have been created by an intelligent designer — was a better explanation for the biological world’s existence.”⁵

There is no reason why a belief in Intelligent Design can't be taught, but the maths is far beyond High School and should be taught in some undergraduate subject like philosapy of science, or theology and science. Meanwhile the creationists can teach their children in Sunday School, which will not impose their religious beliefs on anyone except the willing. That is not the plan.

From our perspective in the antipodies this subject is probably a small news subject, but in the US it is larger and covered by the media in the smaller cities where it is happening and as a subject in the Conservative Christian Areas and the debate between Evolution and Creationism that raise its head every now and again in the larger media in the US and as a curiosity here.

The papers I use are the ones available on the York Daily Review⁶, the talk.origins⁷,discussion and various other areas on the World Wide Web. It has been an education about the US and the conservative Christians Creationists. The rise of Biblical Literalist within the conservative branches of the Republican Party since George W Bush became president, indeed they assisted in his victory and worked hard on the campains, educateds any organisation how to go about gaining change in their society.

In Dover today, the witnesses for the plaintifs have withdrawn⁸, which leaves the court to decide on the non specialised events of lawyers and teachers, school board and parents. Since the science specialists boycoted the proceedings of this trial, the outcome will in all probability be in favour of the defendeds. However, in the State Capita, Harrisburg, legisaltors have proposed changes to the States Public School Code inorder to effect the introduction of Intelligent Design into the Science Curricullum⁹. It is not over yet, and probably, judging by the determination of the Creationist camp, will continue, at least as long as there is a Republican majority and President.

1York Daily Record http://ydr.com/news/doverbiology/

2Discovery Institute (internal document)http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html

3Intelligent Design was rescently made famous by WilliamA. Dembski, The Design Revolution, Answering the Toughest Questions about intelligent Design, Inter Varsity Press, 2004, ISBN 1844740145.

4DanielOrtegs, Scopes Snoops, http://www.pitch.com/issues/2005-03-17/news/strip.html

5Joseph Maldonado, Dover hosts speaker on evolution, Professor defends intelligent design, York Daily Record, Sunday 24^th April 2005,http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/66404/

6York Daily Record, York Pennsylvania, Dover Biology, http://ydr.com/news/doverbiology/, and The Pitch http://www.pitch.com/about/index.html Kansas City, MO

7Talk.Originswebsite ;"for the news:talk.origins

8Experts won't back Dover, June 19^th 2005,

9State Studies Intelligent Design, June 21 2005,

The Future of Space Aliens

Posthuman Blues

I think the author Mack has made an observation that needs to be followed up. Seiously, when he says"

If we are in fact observing an unknown intelligence, it has proven remarkably adept at insinuating itself into the belief-structure of any given era, comfortably skating the razor's edge of plausibility. It implants itself in our collective unconscious, an abiding trickster that entices us with the possibility of catching up at the same time that it morphs into more fashionable disguises. The phenomenon is a constantly moving goal-post -- and we're largely amnesiac of any duplicity.
Whether we think we see an indigenous nonhuman species in our midst, as in the case of the Celtic faerie faith, or the comings and goings of eccentric aeronauts (the "impossible" airship sightings of the 1800s), we always think what we're viewing is genuine. Then, in a now-recognizable pattern, the performance changes. Since we invariably change alongside it, we fail to note that our visitors have merely upgraded their image to match prevailing notions. Thus, the most widely accepted exotic explanation for apparent alien craft in our skies -- the extraterrestrial hypothesis, with its Westernized nuts-and-bolts trappings -- is likely a facade.

Clearly the various manifestations of strange human like creatures and todays greys and aliens of various types indicates a sub-meme that has gone on for years and that these myths are related, yes, aliens and abductions are modern myths, they fullfill all the conditions and none of the evidence to be myths rather than real world things or events.

We need to look as he says at our need for a fear/love relationship with the "other". In the past, perhaps the viiage folk feared a creature in the dark forest no one had seen. Sories from travellers introduced variations to the myth as it developed over the decades, in some cases, innocent people were murder to demonstrate their evil. The classic was in the days of King James and the appointment of a Witch Finder General, whose job success was measured by the number of convictions or admitions were achieved in a given month and the related hangings, burnings and tortures.

Further, we have nuns in cloisters finding themselves prgnet by some visiting priest would make a convincing claim that an incubus had assaulted her, thus presenting her with a bastard child. Sound better than, "Your eminence, you see, it was like this, father John from Red Hill and me had this private case of lust, and I am thus presented with hischild." Where upon, the priest is interviewed and denice such a slander. Beter to blame some poor innocent incubus.

These types of creatures pop up all over the place and indicate a fear of the unkown, a curiosity about the unkown and a relationship desire for the exotic and different. Perhaps those experiences today with alien abductions and visitations is related to the same fears, love, and curiosity transposed to the emodern world where all Gods creatures have been catalogued, filed and studied, the only place to fear and wander is outerspace.(cue the music from "Forbidden Planet" or "The Day The Earth Stood Still".

'Call to arms' on evolution

USATODAY.com - 'Call to arms' on evolution: "Nearly one-third of science teachers who participated in a national survey say they feel pressured to include creationism-related ideas in the classroom. And an alarmed science establishment is striking back in defense of teaching evolution.

'I write to you now because of a growing threat to the teaching of science,' National Academy of Sciences chief Bruce Alberts says in a letter to colleagues March 4. He calls on academy members 'to confront the increasing challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools.' The nation's top scientists belong to the congressionally chartered academy." It seems the science community is finally getting up enough steam to deal with the nonsense in York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the great USA with regard to "Intelligent Design" and the topic in Biology which covers Evolution. It would appear from the article which covers a survey of science teachers, gives us a picture of those teachers and the battle ahead, one that is being lead by a minority opinion that is load and unimformed.