"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."
and furthermore, both parties asked the judge to rule as to whether ID is a scientific theory or not.
Of course, ID is not a theory: it does not generate falsifiable predictions, nor is it sufficiently well-defined to allow it to be selected from a number of possible explanations in the Bayesian/Popperian sense. ID is a rewrapped form of Creationism, which is a religious and not scientific explanation for the existence of the world. It is, moreover, part of an avowed strategy by Evangelical Christians such as the Discovery Institute with their Wedge Strategy to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".
[Note to non-americans reading: The case seems rather strange to non-americans. In the UK for example, high schools curricula are determined by the National Curriculum and not by LEAs, which are in any case organized at the UK County level (equivalent to the US state level) and not at the City/Burrough/Parish level.]
The documentary is well worth watching and raises some interesting questions: What is Science? Who should control school curricula? On the other hand, as my friend Chris Ryan pointed out, the argument against ID by invoking the constitutional ban on promotion of Religion by Congress (and therefore by schools through their devolved power) is something of a red herring. ID ought not to be taught in Science lessons not because it is religion, but because it is not Science.
On the other hand, the documentary did a great job, through the testimony of noted biologists like Kenneth Miller, of expounding the evidence consistent with the theory of natural selection, such as intermediate fossils such as Tiktaalik, modern genetic theory, and debunking the myth of irreducible complexity in cell elements such as Microbial Flagella. (One might profitably have added the emerging field of paleogeneology with such fascinating things as the recovery of ancient retroviruses from the human genome). Moreover, by reconstructing the testimony of the ID proponents such as Michael Behe (who is also in fact a Professor of Biology), the documentary cast the case for ID in its strongest form, which is important as it is often pejoratively attacked in far weaker forms.
The bottom line is that, thankfully, in Judge Jone's Opinion,
"ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
Quite right.
4 comments:
...the documentary cast the case for ID in its strongest form, which is important as it is often pejoratively attacked in far weaker forms.
Really? Does that include the fictional scene where microbiologist Scott Minnich is portrayed as saying that he had not performed the experiment, when in fact he did testify in the trial about his own genetic knockout experiments? Since when does making up imaginary stuff and passing it off as factual constitute documentary work?
On the other hand, the documentary did a great job, through the testimony of noted biologists like Kenneth Miller, of expounding the evidence consistent with the theory of natural selection, such as intermediate fossils such as Tiktaalik...
If "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial", is really about the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, as you say, why does it include discussion of purported intermediate fossils such a Tiktaalik, which was not even discussed at the trial?
The documentary made it quite clear that Tiktaalik was not discussed in the trial, although other intermediate fossils were. It is a rather remarkable find nonetheless and serves to make the point that evolution is subject to ongoing test as new evidence is found. Of course there is a certain arbitrariness in what constitutes an intermediate fossil so perhaps it is better to argue that evolution predicts a continuity of species, and to note that the fossil record thus far is entirely consistent with such a theory.
I await your effort to recast an argument that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory in a stronger form than was presented in the trial! Considerable time was devoted to expounding an argument that Id could generate a testable experiment. Whether such an experiment has been performed or not is irrelevant; there exist many scientific theories that we do not yet have the power to test (the Higgs boson's existence is a good example) and yet they are perfectly scientific! The problem with ID is that it is fundamentally not falsifiable, that is to say it is not decidable.
also, could people identify themselves to me please if you know me in person? I am very happy to have anyone comment on my posts, but it would be nice to know who's who!
Hi Tim,
I knew you in person, once upon a time.
My name is Steve Sque, and, as it happens, I am an unashamed member of Project Steve. You'll find me on the list alongside such luminaries as Steven Chu, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, and, indeed, Steven Hepplestone.
Furthermore, I wear the T-shirt with pride (most often as pyjamas).
Post a Comment