Deleted.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
"Masterful" Federal Ruling on Intelligent Design Was Copied from ACLU
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
December 12, 2006
Seattle -- The key section of the widely-noted court decision on intelligent design issued a year ago on December 20 was copied nearly verbatim from a document written by ACLU lawyers, according to a study released today by scholars affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
"Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU's proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling," said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
"Ironically, Judge Jones has been hailed as 'an outstanding thinker' for his 'masterful' ruling, and even honored by Time magazine as one of the world's 'most influential people' in the category of 'scientists and thinkers,'" said West. "But Jones' analysis of the scientific status of intelligent design contains virtually nothing written by Jones himself. This finding seriously undercuts the credibility of a central part of the ruling."
The study notes that, while judges routinely make use of proposed findings of fact, "the extent to which Judge Jones simply copied the language submitted to him by the ACLU is stunning. For all practical purposes, Jones allowed ACLU attorneys to write nearly the entire section of his opinion analyzing whether intelligent design is science. As a result, this central part of Judge Jones' ruling reflected essentially no original deliberative activity or independent examination of the record on Jones' part."
Jones' copying was so uncritical that he even reprinted a number of factual errors originally made by ACLU attorneys.
For example, Jones claimed that biochemist Michael Behe, when asked about articles purporting to explain the evolution of the immune system, responded that the articles were "not good enough." Behe actually said the exact opposite: "it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject." Jones' misrepresentation of Behe came directly from the ACLU's "Findings of Fact."
Again copying from the ACLU, Jones insisted that "ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed⦠publications." But, in fact, the court record contained evidence of several such publications.
The study, titled "A Comparison of Judge Jones' Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs' Proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,'" was co-authored by West and law professor David DeWolf and is available at: http://tinyurl.com/2gsguk
West noted that "those who thought the Dover decision would end the debate over Darwinian evolution were obviously wrong. That debate is just as vibrant and vigorous as it ever was, and Darwinists know it." West cited a recent New York Times report about a gathering of scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in November where there was "a rough consensus" that the theory "of evolution by natural selection" was "losing out in the intellectual marketplace."
"A year after Dover, it's the Darwinists who seem filled with gloom, not us," said West, highlighting several positive developments over the past few months.
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
December 12, 2006
Seattle -- The key section of the widely-noted court decision on intelligent design issued a year ago on December 20 was copied nearly verbatim from a document written by ACLU lawyers, according to a study released today by scholars affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
"Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU's proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling," said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
"Ironically, Judge Jones has been hailed as 'an outstanding thinker' for his 'masterful' ruling, and even honored by Time magazine as one of the world's 'most influential people' in the category of 'scientists and thinkers,'" said West. "But Jones' analysis of the scientific status of intelligent design contains virtually nothing written by Jones himself. This finding seriously undercuts the credibility of a central part of the ruling."
The study notes that, while judges routinely make use of proposed findings of fact, "the extent to which Judge Jones simply copied the language submitted to him by the ACLU is stunning. For all practical purposes, Jones allowed ACLU attorneys to write nearly the entire section of his opinion analyzing whether intelligent design is science. As a result, this central part of Judge Jones' ruling reflected essentially no original deliberative activity or independent examination of the record on Jones' part."
Jones' copying was so uncritical that he even reprinted a number of factual errors originally made by ACLU attorneys.
For example, Jones claimed that biochemist Michael Behe, when asked about articles purporting to explain the evolution of the immune system, responded that the articles were "not good enough." Behe actually said the exact opposite: "it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject." Jones' misrepresentation of Behe came directly from the ACLU's "Findings of Fact."
Again copying from the ACLU, Jones insisted that "ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed⦠publications." But, in fact, the court record contained evidence of several such publications.
The study, titled "A Comparison of Judge Jones' Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs' Proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,'" was co-authored by West and law professor David DeWolf and is available at: http://tinyurl.com/2gsguk
West noted that "those who thought the Dover decision would end the debate over Darwinian evolution were obviously wrong. That debate is just as vibrant and vigorous as it ever was, and Darwinists know it." West cited a recent New York Times report about a gathering of scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in November where there was "a rough consensus" that the theory "of evolution by natural selection" was "losing out in the intellectual marketplace."
"A year after Dover, it's the Darwinists who seem filled with gloom, not us," said West, highlighting several positive developments over the past few months.
Intelligent Design is a Science, Not a Faith
By: Richard Buggs
The Guardian
January 9, 2007
If Darwinists distinguished between science and their religious beliefs, we'd all be wiser, says Richard Buggs, who holds a DPhil in plant ecology and evolution from the University of Oxford.
'It is true that complex things in nature look as if they have been designed. Darwin knew this. But the sublime truth about his theory is that it explains how complex things can come about without design." That was James Randerson arguing that Darwin refuted intelligent design - which, he says, has no place in school science.
Darwin made a massive contribution to science, and his ideas still suggest hypotheses today. These provide the starting point for my own research, published in journals of evolution. But despite the brilliance of Darwin's work, it is overoptimistic to claim that his theory explains the origin of all living things.
If Darwin had known what we now know about molecular biology - gigabytes of coded information in DNA, cells rife with tiny machines, the highly specific structures of certain proteins - would he have found his own theory convincing? Randerson thinks that natural selection works fine to explain the origin of molecular machines. But the fact is that we are still unable even to guess Darwinian pathways for the origin of most complex biological structures.
Science has turned lots of corners since Darwin, and many of them have thrown up data quite unpredicted by his theory. Who, on Darwinian premises, would have expected that the patterns of distribution and abundance of species in tropical rainforests could be modelled without taking local adaptation into account? Or that whenever we sequence a new genome we find unique genes, unlike any found in other species? Or that bacteria gain pathogenicity (the ability to cause disease) by losing genes?
But, whatever the limitations of Darwinism, isn't the intelligent design alternative an "intellectual dead end"? No. If true, ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry. The pioneers of modern science, who were convinced that nature is designed, consequently held that it could be understood by human intellects. This confidence helped to drive the scientific revolution. More recently, proponents of ID predicted that some "junk" DNA must have a function well before this view became mainstream among Darwinists.
But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because "there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID". Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID.
Finally, Randerson claims that ID is "pure religion". In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence. When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or "Trojan horse", just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.
By: Richard Buggs
The Guardian
January 9, 2007
If Darwinists distinguished between science and their religious beliefs, we'd all be wiser, says Richard Buggs, who holds a DPhil in plant ecology and evolution from the University of Oxford.
'It is true that complex things in nature look as if they have been designed. Darwin knew this. But the sublime truth about his theory is that it explains how complex things can come about without design." That was James Randerson arguing that Darwin refuted intelligent design - which, he says, has no place in school science.
Darwin made a massive contribution to science, and his ideas still suggest hypotheses today. These provide the starting point for my own research, published in journals of evolution. But despite the brilliance of Darwin's work, it is overoptimistic to claim that his theory explains the origin of all living things.
If Darwin had known what we now know about molecular biology - gigabytes of coded information in DNA, cells rife with tiny machines, the highly specific structures of certain proteins - would he have found his own theory convincing? Randerson thinks that natural selection works fine to explain the origin of molecular machines. But the fact is that we are still unable even to guess Darwinian pathways for the origin of most complex biological structures.
Science has turned lots of corners since Darwin, and many of them have thrown up data quite unpredicted by his theory. Who, on Darwinian premises, would have expected that the patterns of distribution and abundance of species in tropical rainforests could be modelled without taking local adaptation into account? Or that whenever we sequence a new genome we find unique genes, unlike any found in other species? Or that bacteria gain pathogenicity (the ability to cause disease) by losing genes?
But, whatever the limitations of Darwinism, isn't the intelligent design alternative an "intellectual dead end"? No. If true, ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry. The pioneers of modern science, who were convinced that nature is designed, consequently held that it could be understood by human intellects. This confidence helped to drive the scientific revolution. More recently, proponents of ID predicted that some "junk" DNA must have a function well before this view became mainstream among Darwinists.
But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because "there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID". Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID.
Finally, Randerson claims that ID is "pure religion". In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence. When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or "Trojan horse", just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/060523.shtml
"Dr John Pannell, who co-authored the paper with his Oxford doctoral student Dr Richard Buggs, said: âIt is clear that climate change and human interference can set plant populations on the move, with rapid extinction being one possible consequence when different species meet. Processes occurring in natural plant populations can teach us important lessons about what can happen when related but genetically incompatible species mate with one another.â"
That was May 2006. So Buggs is a newly minted PhD. With the help of his teacher, he may have figured out a plant or two. How does that make him an authority in evolution or ID?
BTW, it's probably more appropriate for him to study insects...
"Dr John Pannell, who co-authored the paper with his Oxford doctoral student Dr Richard Buggs, said: âIt is clear that climate change and human interference can set plant populations on the move, with rapid extinction being one possible consequence when different species meet. Processes occurring in natural plant populations can teach us important lessons about what can happen when related but genetically incompatible species mate with one another.â"
That was May 2006. So Buggs is a newly minted PhD. With the help of his teacher, he may have figured out a plant or two. How does that make him an authority in evolution or ID?
BTW, it's probably more appropriate for him to study insects...
Was Buggs appealing to himself as an authority on which to reach conclusions about ID and/or evolution?
Seems to me that he was simply making a logical argument, not one that is based in any particular scientific findings.
It is logical to question whether the theories of Darwin would be arrived at in the same way he arrived at them when he did, with the exact same conclusions if he had all the information we had today...
That is a logical question, worthy of debate, not your dismissal based on an ad hominem attack.
The door to ID remains open, simply because nothing that has been achieved by science has shut that door...
Why are scientists so afraid of ID?
Would it suddenly make them irrelevant in the pecking order if ID were chosen over non ID?
Seems to me that he was simply making a logical argument, not one that is based in any particular scientific findings.
It is logical to question whether the theories of Darwin would be arrived at in the same way he arrived at them when he did, with the exact same conclusions if he had all the information we had today...
That is a logical question, worthy of debate, not your dismissal based on an ad hominem attack.
The door to ID remains open, simply because nothing that has been achieved by science has shut that door...
Why are scientists so afraid of ID?
Would it suddenly make them irrelevant in the pecking order if ID were chosen over non ID?
Cardinal Condemns Suppression of the Darwin Debate in America
by John West on February 8, 2007
In a speech last night in New York City, Roman Catholic Cardinal Cristoph Schoenborn of Vienna sharply criticized efforts in America to prevent students and the public from learning about the debate over Darwinâs theory. According to the Associated Press report:
Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna said in a lecture that restricting debate about Darwin's theory of evolution amounts to censorship in schools and in the broader public.
"Commonly in the scientific community every inquiry into the scientific weaknesses of the theory is blocked off at the very outset," Schoenborn said of Darwinism. "To some extent there prevails a type of censoring here of the sort for which one eagerly reproached the church in former times."
In his comments, the Cardinal condemned in particular the Kitzmiller v. Dover court decision in 2005 banning the coverage of intelligent design in science classes in Dover, Pennsylvania:
The Austrian cardinal said he found it "amazing" that a U.S. federal court ruled in 2005 that the Dover, Pennsylvania, public school district could not teach the concept of "intelligent design" as part of its science class...
"A truly liberal society would at least allow students to hear of the debate," he said.
Discovery Institute opposed the Dover policy, because it does not favor efforts to require the inclusion of intelligent design in public schools. But, like the Cardinal, the Institute also strongly opposed the Kitzmiller decisionâs attempt to ban even voluntary discussions of intelligent design and to declare them unconstitutional. The Cardinal is to be commended for continuing to champion the right of free expression in the growing debate over Darwinism.
by John West on February 8, 2007
In a speech last night in New York City, Roman Catholic Cardinal Cristoph Schoenborn of Vienna sharply criticized efforts in America to prevent students and the public from learning about the debate over Darwinâs theory. According to the Associated Press report:
Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna said in a lecture that restricting debate about Darwin's theory of evolution amounts to censorship in schools and in the broader public.
"Commonly in the scientific community every inquiry into the scientific weaknesses of the theory is blocked off at the very outset," Schoenborn said of Darwinism. "To some extent there prevails a type of censoring here of the sort for which one eagerly reproached the church in former times."
In his comments, the Cardinal condemned in particular the Kitzmiller v. Dover court decision in 2005 banning the coverage of intelligent design in science classes in Dover, Pennsylvania:
The Austrian cardinal said he found it "amazing" that a U.S. federal court ruled in 2005 that the Dover, Pennsylvania, public school district could not teach the concept of "intelligent design" as part of its science class...
"A truly liberal society would at least allow students to hear of the debate," he said.
Discovery Institute opposed the Dover policy, because it does not favor efforts to require the inclusion of intelligent design in public schools. But, like the Cardinal, the Institute also strongly opposed the Kitzmiller decisionâs attempt to ban even voluntary discussions of intelligent design and to declare them unconstitutional. The Cardinal is to be commended for continuing to champion the right of free expression in the growing debate over Darwinism.
Cardinal Expands Censorship Question
by Bruce Chapman on February 8, 2007
It was gratifying to read the AP account of Cardinal Schoenbornâs lecture in New York last night and to note the way that His Eminence once again set the media and others straight on the position of the Catholic Church. It wonât make any difference to the Darwinists, of course, because, depending on their audience, they hold either that the Church has accepted Darwinism or that the Catholic Church is just an enemy of reason. Donât confuse Darwinists with evidence on anything.
Earlier yesterday the Cardinal of Vienna (and senior editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) also heard some discussions on evolution by various scholars, including Discovery Institute senior fellow (and biochemist) Michael Behe. Mike reports that the Cardinal made a point of talking with him and was truly enthusiastic and encouraging. Mike made it clear in his own remarks that the scientific theory of ID doesnât tread on the roles of theology or philosophy. Science can do many things, including detect design, but it cannot take over roles that properly belong to religion and philosophy. ID definitely is compatible with these other ways of knowing, of course.
Personally, for me the most satisfying part of the Cardinalâs lecture was his critique of court-ordered censorship of ID in school rooms. It seems to have escaped the New York Times and many other opinion leaders that the Kitzmiller (Dover) decision was about that subject. The court had no capacity to judge ID on its scientific merits, but it did have an obligation to speak to First Amendment issues. Sadly, the judge, as we have shown, took over 90 percent of his ruling on ID right out of the ACLU briefâfactual errors and all.
Since our critics always like to put wordsâand policy positionsâin our mouths, let me remind the reader that Discovery Institute does not support requiring the teaching of ID, only the teaching of the scientific evidence for and against Darwinâs theory. Like Cardinal Schoenborn we also support academic freedom on the subject of intelligent design. Let the critics therefore deal with the true issue of censorship.
Today Discovery announced that another 100 scientists have signed the Dissent from Darwin list. It now totals 700 names. One of the new signers is Dr. Michael Egnor, award winning professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at SUNY (Stony Brook). Says Dr. Egnor, âDarwinism plays no role in medicine. Period.â And âDarwinists have not shown any evidence that natural selection is capable of generating significant amounts of information.â
He and Cardinal Schoenborn are on the same page: Let people debate this issue openly. Donât try to hide the evidence or shut down the controversy. That is a dead end not only for education, but for science.
by Bruce Chapman on February 8, 2007
It was gratifying to read the AP account of Cardinal Schoenbornâs lecture in New York last night and to note the way that His Eminence once again set the media and others straight on the position of the Catholic Church. It wonât make any difference to the Darwinists, of course, because, depending on their audience, they hold either that the Church has accepted Darwinism or that the Catholic Church is just an enemy of reason. Donât confuse Darwinists with evidence on anything.
Earlier yesterday the Cardinal of Vienna (and senior editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) also heard some discussions on evolution by various scholars, including Discovery Institute senior fellow (and biochemist) Michael Behe. Mike reports that the Cardinal made a point of talking with him and was truly enthusiastic and encouraging. Mike made it clear in his own remarks that the scientific theory of ID doesnât tread on the roles of theology or philosophy. Science can do many things, including detect design, but it cannot take over roles that properly belong to religion and philosophy. ID definitely is compatible with these other ways of knowing, of course.
Personally, for me the most satisfying part of the Cardinalâs lecture was his critique of court-ordered censorship of ID in school rooms. It seems to have escaped the New York Times and many other opinion leaders that the Kitzmiller (Dover) decision was about that subject. The court had no capacity to judge ID on its scientific merits, but it did have an obligation to speak to First Amendment issues. Sadly, the judge, as we have shown, took over 90 percent of his ruling on ID right out of the ACLU briefâfactual errors and all.
Since our critics always like to put wordsâand policy positionsâin our mouths, let me remind the reader that Discovery Institute does not support requiring the teaching of ID, only the teaching of the scientific evidence for and against Darwinâs theory. Like Cardinal Schoenborn we also support academic freedom on the subject of intelligent design. Let the critics therefore deal with the true issue of censorship.
Today Discovery announced that another 100 scientists have signed the Dissent from Darwin list. It now totals 700 names. One of the new signers is Dr. Michael Egnor, award winning professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at SUNY (Stony Brook). Says Dr. Egnor, âDarwinism plays no role in medicine. Period.â And âDarwinists have not shown any evidence that natural selection is capable of generating significant amounts of information.â
He and Cardinal Schoenborn are on the same page: Let people debate this issue openly. Donât try to hide the evidence or shut down the controversy. That is a dead end not only for education, but for science.
Truly, it makes little sense not to allow children to make up their own minds.
However, if the controlling scientist supporters are afraid that the other point of view is actually one that would be accepted by the students as having some merit, it would keep the mind of the students open and searching to other possible ideas, and away from the dogmatism of the type we have seen on this thread.
I have seen a lot of fear expressed by the dogmatists, borderline phobia like when it comes to giving these kids an opportunity to think for themselves when presented with ideas from alternative points of view.
However, if the controlling scientist supporters are afraid that the other point of view is actually one that would be accepted by the students as having some merit, it would keep the mind of the students open and searching to other possible ideas, and away from the dogmatism of the type we have seen on this thread.
I have seen a lot of fear expressed by the dogmatists, borderline phobia like when it comes to giving these kids an opportunity to think for themselves when presented with ideas from alternative points of view.