Our Views: A new effort for science

With admirable persistence, state Sen. Karen Carter Peterson is pushing again for repeal of what most experts consider Louisiana’s “stealth creationism” law.

Peterson, D-New Orleans, would repeal the misnamed Louisiana Science Education Act, passed in 2008 in the first flush of victory by Gov. Bobby Jindal and backers among religious fundamentalists. Previous efforts for repeal have been blocked in the Senate Education Committee.

Ostensibly, the law is to allow divergent opinions to be taught in public school classrooms about evolution and global warming, among other topics. But in reality, it is cover for introducing religious views into science classrooms.

Louisiana’s is a groundbreaker for other proposals in states to question the theory of evolution, basic to the biological sciences. Peterson’s battle for repeal of the law is an important national concern.

As we noted last year, the conservative Fordham Institute has criticized this measure as promoting “anti-evolution pressures” that undermine state science standards.

A leader of the anti-creationism forces is Rice University student Zack Kopplin, a Baton Rouge native who noted that the questioning of evolution provokes widespread criticism and ridicule of the state. Zopplin organized an open letter of 78 Nobel laureates calling for repeal.

“We believe that this spring we can muster the votes we need to pass” a repeal bill, Kopplin said.

We hope so and commend the efforts to repeal this creationist stalking horse.

Comments

1) Comment by Tomato Addict - 10/04/2013

It is worth noting that there is no equivalent counterpart to the Irreducible Complexity argument in favor of evolution or any other field. Science works in small steps, building up evidence incrementally in support of a conclusion. There isn't any attempt to prove evolution in a single statistical hypothesis test, because it would be a preposterous thing to do. The attempt to overturn whole fields of science in a single hypothesis test proposed by IR and CSI is equally ridiculous.

2) Comment by Tomato Addict - 10/04/2013

@LeeBoman >> The UPB plays no role in statistical inference. It's not even a term you would find in a textbook on probability theory. --- Classical statistical inference compares the Likelihood of the observed data to the Likelihood of the same data under the null hypothesis, NOT to an arbitrarily small number. Intelligent Design avoids defining any null hypothesis which would be testable. Incidentally, Dembski's CSI strongly resembles a Likelihood Ratio Test, the difference being an arbitrarily small number being inserted in place of the null-likelihood, which is incorrect. ---- If you wish to go with the Bayesian formulation, then the ID hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity only make sense if you assume a prior probability of 1.0 for design. Starting with this assumption, design is the only possible conclusion (with probability = 1.0) and the evidence for or against is not even considered. This is also a fair summary of Intelligent Design Creationism in general; it's an assumption that doesn't even consider the evidence.

3) Comment by leebowman - 09/04/2013

@Tomato Addict - 04/07/2013 "Lee Bowman's "Universal Probability Bound" is not a concept that plays any roll in the theory of statistical inference - the science of making conclusions from data." - - - Incorrect. I stated PB, rather than UPB. - - - " The UPB comes from an out-of-context quote (a Quote Mine) of mathematician Emile Borel, originally referring to single events that are unlikely to be observed, not sequences or samples of multiple events." - - - Using a mathematical term is not quote mining. - - - "It is a mathematician's interpretation of when a probability is so small that - for practical purposes - is essentially zero." - - - Mathematics such as Bayesian formulations would indeed be used in specific probability determinations. - - - "Even then it plays no role in theory." - - - Are you saying that mathematics plays no role in validation or falsification of a theory? Not so. Or that probabilities of causative hypotheses cannot be determined by those means? Granted that probability calculations are merely estimates, but short of empirical replication of prior evolutionary events, tentative causative factors arrived at by 'guestimations' will remain 'tentative'. And, when the probabilities are near zero, falsification is the logical conclusion.

4) Comment by Tomato Addict - 07/04/2013

Lee Bowman's "Universal Probability Bound" is not a concept that plays any roll in the theory of statistical inference - the science of making conclusions from data. The UPB comes from an out-of-context quote (a Quote Mine) of mathematician Emile Borel, originally referring to single events that are unlikely to be observed, not sequences or samples of multiple events. It is a mathematician's interpretation of when a probability is so small that - for practical purposes - is essentially zero. Even then it plays no role in theory.

5) Comment by potkcalb - 24/03/2013

Once again Phil it is safe to say that all science teachers acknowledge that "humans do not know all the answers" so why do you keep bringing that up.? And no there is no proof (or disprove for that matter) of God or of intelligent design. And I know of no science classes where students are taught that there is no God. That would assume that science teachers know more than they know. Only religious fundamentalists make that mistake.

6) Comment by phil - 24/03/2013

leebowman: not sure exactly what you really said. I already said that I personally feel that science does not need to be taught in religion class and religion does not need to be taught in science class. What I am saying is that students in public schools can be taught in science class that we humans do NOT know all of the answers, probably never will, and leave it at that. That is a fact. Religion can be taught elsewhere by people who actually believe in what they are teaching and have studied it.. There IS some recent proof of God (and of intelligent design) if you believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus lived about 2013 years ago which is a relatively short time compared to the estimated age of the universe, and there were eye witnesses of his life and death here on Earth. It is documented in the New Testament along with the miracles that were actually performed by Jesus. There are no eye witnesses of the beginning of what people classify as "evolution" - or of the beginning of the universe. I say you do not have to teach religion in science class, but what some people here really want is to actually teach that there is NO God in science classes. There is a big difference in the two. Our own reality maybe could be compared to this computer screen. We humans invented or discovered the things that make the reality of what you see on this screen. What you see on this screen does exist. We humans and life also do exist, and I think an intelligent being (God) created our reality, including the basic quantum particles, energy, and the chemical program we now call DNA and genetics. I doubt that atheists and those who believe in God will ever agree.

7) Comment by potkcalb - 24/03/2013

There is no evidence for intelligent design and no way to collect any to support it. It's all surmise and belief. leebowman's beliefs are not going to convince anyone except true believers, and they don't need to be convinced because they already know the truth.

8) Comment by leebowman - 24/03/2013

Back to Phil. You may have taken my words as a denial of God or gods. I do NOT deny these concepts, except based on scientific inquiry alone. If one chooses to embrace such a belief, regardless of no hard evidence, it makes perfect sense. Some might even say its simply taking measures to CYA, just in case ... > > > > But it's more than that. The evidence of a designed realm is strong. To deny even a 'tentative' theistic conclusion, based simply upon another form of dogma, abject materialism, is equally 'faith based'. > > > > Interesting that the 'brites', or the new atheists claim "free thought", but are actually prevented from true free thought by the denial dictate of their consensus community. If anything, true 'free thought' would be agnosticism. > > > > I am a theist, but somewhat resilient to much of the religious dogma. I do, however, accept that an imbued sinful propensity is inherent within our nature, and that the need for redemption makes perfect sense. I thusly accept it, based not on Eve's 'cookie jar attack', but on free will, and what that encompasses. It remains, however, a personal choice, is a total non consideration within science, and will remain so. A few 'private' religious schools may rope it in within science, but given Constitutional law and existing case law, it could never materialize within the public sector. No way, no how.

9) Comment by leebowman - 24/03/2013

One more point to debunk: @ to 1ryben: "The problem is when there is a gap and you just say it was god, the discussion is over. No further inquiry is needed. Imagine what your life would be like today if those blasphemous scientists would have accepted the god hypothesis." > > > > NEVER, save for a few bronze agers, has a scientist thrown up his hands and stated that "no further inquiry is needed." Evidences of design in complex organs have NEVER closed the curtains of investigation. > > > > more: "Time and time again, God was given credit for the unexplainable. Then, as man's tools for measurement have improved the god hypothesis has been proven false." You mean like guiding planetary orbits, and producing thunder and other natural events? No serious scientist in recent centuries (or even millennia) have attributed physical phenomena to interventionary acts from above. The few that have were from pre-science eras. > > > > In short, ID as a hypothesis does nothing to inhibit scientific progress. If anything, denying ID 'carte blanch', despite the vast contra-reductionistic data, is the real science inhibitor. It simply closes too many doors.

10) Comment by leebowman - 24/03/2013

Now to 1ryben. Which "God hypothesis" were you referring to, since there have been many. There are the various religious ones, supported only by scripture. There are various philosophical ones, from Descartes to Hume to Dawkins and Stenger, et al, but based on the subjective thought, and easily debunked by simple logic. > > > > Both (1) 'natural evil' and (2) inherent 'engrained evil' are based on flawed logic (1) God (or gods) do not micromanage tectonics and weather, nor (2) the 'inhabitants' activities (free will, regardless of St Paul, St Augustine, and John Calvin's subjective errors in logic). > > > > That said, we must back away from philosophy (yes, and ingrained religion) to more logically interpret the data. The 'overwhelming' (to borrow an evotard's favorite adjective) conclusion of the current data is an intentioned biosphere.

11) Comment by leebowman - 24/03/2013

First, to Phil. Yes, there are scientific evidences of 'creation', based on observed specified complexities, as well as synergies that defy a simplistic 'reproductive advantage' as explanatory. But the term 'creation' is all encompassing, tied irrevocably to scripture, and conjures up the idea of miracles and of a 'let there be' scenario. To explore from a solely scientific perspective, this needs to be stripped back to what is observable; essentially non-evolvable structures and systemics, and synergies not yet defined, although widely observed. > > > > So who/what/when/where/why/ and how were the intricacies invoked? I predict that they were incremental as needed (or desired), and invoked by one or multiple entities. But at least within science , the widely accepted monotheistic God is not in evidence. > > > > Sryan says I tie myself in knots to avoid a God conclusion. Nope, I only abide by the current scientific data. ID (or directed intervention; a form of genetic engineering) where natural causation exceeds probability bounds.

12) Comment by MBW - 23/03/2013

Science is based on evidence and research. Religion is based on faith. Not the same things. Teach them separately. Period.

13) Comment by 1ryben - 23/03/2013

Phil, that's a long way to go to state that since we don't know everything, it must be God. Too bad the God hypothesis has yet to bare fruit. Time and time again, God was given credit for the unexplainable. Then, as man's tools for measurement have improved the god hypothesis has been proven false. NEVER has the inverse been true. Not even once has there been a scientific principle proven false by proof of God.

14) Comment by phil - 23/03/2013

We humans learn new things like science and make up new words and categories to place what do we know into nice neat "boxes" and call those things various words like "science" and "evolution" , "philosophy" etc. Even scientists seem to indicate that unknown things relative to science should be placed in the "philosophy" box. I contend that we humans create these boxes and then often do not know how to think outside of those boxes. Evolution can be 'boxed" into a subject to just cover living things and how living things evolve. However, we still do not know exactly what life really is although scientists have placed it in a "box" and have attempted to define the characteristics of life. The concept of evolution in my opinion needs to expand to the total evolution of everything. We have quantum particles that nobody really understands and a "big bang" that is a theory of how the universe started. Then we have the stars which over millions of years have created what we call the elements which make up everything we know of including possibly photons and what we call energy. Then I guess all of those non-living elements come together with that energy somehow to create living things - but how that happens nobody really knows. Then we have the formula E=MCC which basically states that energy and matter are the same thing and matter can be turned into energy and energy into matter. So now we have people here who seem to think they know where everything started and how it started. I think we humans have a long way to go to figure out the how and why we are here. You can believe it all just happened by accident if you want. I will continue to believe it is just too complicated to have started and developed on its own - therefore I contend that there is a GOD.

15) Comment by prbeav - 22/03/2013

Natural selection is one algorithm in the overall evolution of the cosmos. Ambiogenesis, or life from inorganic matter is a process within the overall process and no more significant to the evolution of humans about 2 million years ago than eukaryotic sex, beginning perhaps 2 billion years ago. Darwin did not have enough information to risk challenging creationism, but today, there is plenty of evidence against it.

16) Comment by potkcalb - 22/03/2013

Phil the sole purpose of an electric generator is to make electricity. That's all that it does. It does not make apple pies, nor does it explain the meaning of life, what life is, the origin of the universe, or anything else. The sole purpose of evolution is to explain how life forms change, evolve. It does not make apple pies, nor does it explain the meaning of life, what life is, the origin of the universe, or anything else. That is all that it does.It has no other function. That is the only point that I have been trying to make. I apologize for accusing you of ranting.

17) Comment by 1ryben - 22/03/2013

You are correct, there are things scientists have yet to measure, or do not yet have the tools to measure. Scientists freely admit that. No controversy there. The problem is when there is a gap and you just say it was god, the discussion is over. No further inquiry is needed. Imagine what your life would be like today if those blasphemous scientists would have accepted the god hypothesis. Medicine, electricity, communication, transportation, comfort? As history has shown, time and time again, as the tools for measurement improve, the hypothesis of a god diminish. Time and time again, science has proven the god hypothesis false, NEVER has the inverse been true. Never. This, I believe, is the main reason why religion, or more specifically, religious institutions have tried their best to censor science. To eliminate exposure to truth that would negate their control systems. Religion ruins everything.

18) Comment by sryan - 22/03/2013

Very nice of you to say. Im happy to take part. I hope the new owners of The Advocate continue to allow such comments.

19) Comment by sryan - 22/03/2013

Im glad we can have this back and forth without resorting to some of the unpleasantness on other sites. I looked at the comments on the DHH/Jindal/Greenstein headline and some of the insults traded were ridiculous. A criticism of the belief/idea is not necessarily a condemnation of the believer. All ideas and opinions are fair game, though, if raised and some people really do 'babble nonsense' although I wouldnt take that as an insult as its pretty harmless and good natured, i think.

20) Comment by potkcalb - 22/03/2013

sryan I compliment you on your reasoned and well expressed comments.

21) Comment by Protean - 22/03/2013

sryan: Well written! Let's see what new gemstones of shallow reasoning appear in the next attempt to dress superstition as science.

22) Comment by sryan - 22/03/2013

As for SETI, their goal is to find evidence of extraterrestrial life, not divinity. If they find that along the way, then lagniappe. There is nothing superstitious about it. If a message is received from another planet saying 'hello, how are you' then it's fair to infer intelligent life. There are no such direct communications in biological life on earth, only the left over messages of species passed. The aim of SETI is not to find evidence of intelligence simply in the matter of space itself, but rather transmitted through that matter, hopefully to reach us one day. Receiving a newspaper on your lawn that you are able to read suggests that a newspaper factory exists in town. To infer that this information was present all along in the particles, photons, matter, antimatter, and vacuum between your home and any factory, and that a newspaper is proof of divinity in the cosmos, would be deemed foolish by some. SETI hopes to finds that paper, and trace it to its intergalactic publisher. To misconstrue the goal of SETI to such a degree is astonishing.

23) Comment by sryan - 22/03/2013

A few further points – information systems not existing anywhere that weren’t placed there? They exist not anywhere, but everywhere, and were placed there, by a natural process. We live in a small part of the universe, and to look at a computer or a car and determine that, as it was obviously designed, then all else in the universe must also exhibit some sort of hallmark, is somewhat myopic. What began this evolutionary process? Who knows? That is not for science to answer at this point, and is not the domain of evolutionary inquiry. Many religious people believe their god (s) began the process, and are comfortable with that. There is no reason they should be uncomfortable. Evolution explains the growth and change of species through time and according to environmental pressures and internal mutations. No reasonable or learned scientist or theologian refutes this anymore. The (at the time) infallible John Paul II even accepted this, thus obliging all Catholics to accept it as well. The word ‘perhaps’ has no place in an established scientific theory. That is guesswork and reveals its own lack of foundation. There is no case of ‘perhaps’ in living organisms sharing certain DNA and genomic information, with that prevalence of sharing receding as the biological break on evolution recedes. There is no ‘perhaps’ in the phenomenon of differing fossils being located in the strata in the order in which they lived and died, geologically perfect and predictable every single time. There is no ‘perhaps’ in the sequence of hominid skull fossils found so far, 19 I believe, that illustrate a predictable development toward modern homosapien, and appear in perfect date-order according to the strata and according to carbon dating. This sequence is also corroborated by genomic data and DNA strands shared by apes and humans, and the demarcation of the time the species split. ‘Perhaps’ god did all of this, but ‘perhaps’ not. That is of no matter. Evolution doesn’t concern itself with the ‘why’ but the ‘how’. As I said, most moderate religious mainstream people (of at least limited education) the world over have no difficulty accepting evolution. The argument against it not based on scientific competition, but on the offended sensibilities of conservative fundamentalist religion, and authoritarian strain that brooks no affront to the rigidity of its dogma. That’s OK too. But I would like to see a creationist own up to that conviction, instead of tying themselves in knots (as Mr Bowman does) to avoid the plainly obvious (and all the unwelcome accompanying implications). If there is a god(s), Christian or otherwise, we can be sure of one thing. He/she/it is an evolutionist. Sorry for going on so long.

24) Comment by On_The_Fence - 22/03/2013

Fractals are intriquing.

25) Comment by Fjsteven - 22/03/2013

Protean, the difference is that the SETI project is trying to analyze data from outerspace in search for patterns, mathematical codes, etc. that demonstrate intelligence. I thought that the observation of "codes" in nature that prove intelligence, was outside the realm of science? I'm surprised an atheistic scientist would be in support of using taxpayer funding to support such superstitious nonsense. How is it when scientists find the same type of "codes, patterns, information, " etc. in biological organisms on this earth, it is the product of random non-intelligent mechanisms? Just wondering?

26) Comment by On_The_Fence - 22/03/2013

SETI or the study of the sweat glands of aborigine bullfrogs...it's what non-3rd world countries do with their time and taxpayer money. Relax. There are no answers.There never have been. Not in 2000 years or 14 billion years or infinity- whichever your preference.

27) Comment by Protean - 22/03/2013

"why are we wasting taxpayer dollars on the SETI project?" Oh, maybe for the same reason we wasted taxpayer dollars on a silly theory that light waves could be made to propagate in-phase and perfectly collimated. Or the fantasy that atomic nuclei could produce energy (not to mention genocide). Or the utterly ridiculous notion that people could communicate with each other using small plastic squares and a glowing screen. You know, all those things that came about because someone decided that "god dunnit" wasn't a valid answer to tough questions.

28) Comment by On_The_Fence - 22/03/2013

Perhaps there is no spoon. Offer courses about Creationism; Evolution; Multi-Verses and Holographic Principles - list all of these classes under "Theories". Because that's all they are- all of them.

29) Comment by Protean - 22/03/2013

Aww, sryan beat me to the keyboard. Biological vs. self-replicating, indeed. So I shall strike back with a form of "creationist method" that proves the pedigree of a computer. an airplane or anything else. Strip the mechanical device down to individual parts. Look for closely, and somewhere you'll find "Made in China". There's your answer. Those two samples are clearly man-made, because everyone knows (or has "faith") that god lives in 'MeriKuh", not amongst the heathens in China. Now take two other items, a fish and a tomato. Filet the fish. Dice the tomato. Look carefully. No imprint? Well, there ya go. Irrefutable proof. No imprint; no human involvement. God dunnit!

30) Comment by Fjsteven - 22/03/2013

Thanks for your comments sryan. Granted, it is certainly an imperfect analogy, but the computer and living organisms are both machines. Perhaps, the "manufacterers markings" also exist in biological machines. Perhaps the "manufacerers markings" are evident in the information system present in the DNA code. As far as I know, information systems don't exist in any other medium that can be observed anywhere that wasn't placed there by an outside intelligence. We find an informatoin code within living biological machines. You claim that "basic observance" illustrates that a computer has a designer. Why, then is it out of the realm of science for "basic observance" to find the "manufactuers markings" in living organisms. Furthermore, I thought scientists already recognized this was possible. If it isn't then why are we wasting taxpayer dollars on the SETI project?

31) Comment by GardenVariety - 22/03/2013

Ah--challenges to prove a negative, false comparisons, and arguments of infinite regression--some of the favorite fallacies of both scoundrels and idiots. All people who value reason, please do not engage these people. Remember, they feel the need to win, while those who value science have no need to do so.

32) Comment by sryan - 22/03/2013

The computer analogy is meaningless as it’s not a biological self-replicating organism. It’s a computer, and must be assembled from other parts that themselves are assembled. One need only look at the manufacturers markings to determine who the designer was. Evolution is based on the well-established fact that organisms reproduce and replicate, and in so doing, change and alter. The scientific theory itself is not applicable to computer design, because it offers no hypothesis or testing opportunity. You can’t simply place various parts in a room and see if they assemble. They won’t. A plant, microbe, bacteria, or cell just might, however. And if it does, you can then create an experiment or hypothesis predicting what the next generation or mutation might look like. If the result does not fit the hypothesis you change the hypothesis and experiment again. This is the scientific method, and despite the supposed cleverness of the analogy, it is not applicable to inanimate objects that cannot recreate themselves. Basic observance can indicate that a computer was designed. One need only look at the tags and imprints, and prior computers perhaps of the same manufacturer. But are those changes formed by the computers themselves as a result of environmental forces and factors? That is the distinction this misdirected analogy ignores.

33) Comment by Fjsteven - 22/03/2013

Potkcalb, If I'm understanding you correctly, you are admitting that science is unable to demonstrate that a computer is designed and that it did not make itself. In my example, I did not state that God designed the computer but man. You ask me then, what would I have the science teacher do. For starters, I would ask you this question. Would it make sense to you if the science teacher were to say, "In front of us is a computer. Science is unable to determine whether or not it has a designer. It is out of he scope of science to do so. Therefore, a designer doesn't exist, and the only other explanation is that the computer created itself". If your answer is no, then why are you okay when the science teacher teaches the identical message about biological machines? My point is that the limitations of science don't mean that the natural world is all that exists, yet, science class has now become equal to naturalism. It is cearly evident in my example of the man made computer a designer exists whether or not science can prove it or not. I just don't buy your statement that science would be unable to prove that the computer had a designer. I'm certain that there are many smart scientists who would be able to create a theory that "proves" that the computer didn't originate by random chance through natural processes. I don't believe that the scientific method is as limited as you do.

34) Comment by sryan - 22/03/2013

To conflate evolution (change over time) with abiogenesis (the beginnings of life) is foolish and indiciative of gross ignorance on the subject at hand. It does not take an atheist or a godless person to see that. There is certianly no reason to resort to personal name calling, although that is par for the course here im finding out, but there is also an obligation by people who actually have a basic understanding of a subject to call out those who profess to, but obviously dont.

35) Comment by potkcalb - 22/03/2013

Fijsteven Scientists do not think in terms of absolute fact but in scientific fact as supported by evidence. No scientist (unless The Discovery Institute) is going to entertain that a computer was made by a god because thus far there is no evidence to support the notion of a god. Scientists and science teachers acknowledge that a myriad of religious explanations are posited to explain phenomena. Some of those explanations may indeed by correct. But scientifically there is no way to investigate them. What would you have the science teacher do? Discuss supernatural explanations on the assumption that they can not be ruled out?

36) Comment by phil - 22/03/2013

potkcalb - Your statement "There is no meaningful way to respond to Phil or leebowman. Both are babbling." First you (and others) accuse me of ranting nonsense and then of babbling, and then you proceed to do that same thing in several more of your own comments here. I am used to your tactic of attacking the person when you cannot counter a fact or add any real relevant information to a topic. That is a typical tactic used by the atheists and others here who do not like religion or believe in God. Note, I did not attack you personally until you attacked me first and that is how I will continue to proceed in the future. Fact is you can talk about science and evolution etc until you are blue in the face but you will never be able to have an answer to who or what started the entire universe, including science and evolution, to begin with. You can now go back to attacking me. Have a good day.

37) Comment by On_The_Fence - 22/03/2013

I want a class that teaches religion, another that teaches evolution and yet another that teaches all we know is computer generated- including this conversation and all participants. Chew on that a while.

38) Comment by prbeav - 22/03/2013

For seven decades, I joined pretension that, first, monotheism is true and second I knew God, by ignoring both the universe and the evolutions of cultures. I did not even consider what I saw at museums of natural history.>>>>>What humankind understands is that 13.7 billion years ago, this universe had neither mass nor space nor its time. After about 10 billion years, the Earth formed and there was only inorganic chemistry. After about another billion years, organic chemistry started. Then there came, in succession during 3.5 billion years: life, mind, awareness, religion, monotheism, understanding, and appreciation. The age of religion seems measured in tens of thousands of years, and monotheism maybe seven thousand years--staggeringly recent.>>>>When “in God we trust,” “under God,” and “may God bless America” are drilled into your population, it is difficult to consider, let alone accept, the evidence that God is an intellectual construct that was bound to fail. It has taken me seven decades to consider it. (I am slow but persistent.)>>>>Now, I am in awe of natural selection, want to understand it better, and am in no position to speculate as to whether anything is in control of life beyond an algorithm that responds to a changing universe.

39) Comment by Fjsteven - 22/03/2013

Potkalb said "Scientifically there is no way to gather evidence, much less to prove, that there is or is not a designer, a creator. Scientists acknowledge that." Are you actually admitting that science couldn't even perform the simple task of demonstrating that a computer is manmade? If you are admitting that, then you are also admitting that the limited utility of the scientific method in that it can't even demonstrate something that is plainly obvious. If that is true, why do atheists use the the idea that since the idea of proving a creator falls outside the realm as science, as proof that a creator doesn't exist? Why not admit that there are certain things that science just can't measure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist. As in the example of a man made computer, we know that it has a creator, even though, you say science could never demonstrate that truth. On the other hand, I would like to hear the opinion of other atheists. Do you agree with Poltkalb that science can't perform the simplest task of demonstrating that a computer has a designer? If you disagree, then why can't science demonstrate whether or not biological machines have a designer or not? Furthermore, if science is as limited in its utility as you claim, then why are we wasting tax dollars on the "secular" SETI project which believes science can identify "intelligent design" out in the universe?

40) Comment by krl777 - 22/03/2013

To see a lack of imagination in action, return to leebowman's example of the development of the eye. We are asked to imagine how random mutation under natural selection could cause the wondrous marriage of optical and neural mechanisms which eyes exhibit in animals today. This argument from lack of imagination hinges on a view of the genome as a complex mechanism, on which random mutation can never do much more than wreak havoc. This is contrary to what we know about genomes. At one level, they are, indeed, delicate clockwork, which is why most mutations are catastrophic. But at another level, they have a hierarchic operational structure, much like a bureaucracy, in which "random" changes can occasionally produce felicitous results. If I could make ten thousand random changes to a bureaucracy and have the results filtered by a selectional mechanism, I could produce a much improved bureaucracy. And this isn't just imagination. It has been simulated by genetic algorithms.

41) Comment by krl777 - 22/03/2013

ID and other forms of creationism are born of a lack of imagination. In a reply to Protean earlier in this thread, leebowman asks what we would do if natural causation fails to be confirmed. (begin quote) Sorry, but 'directed', or 'interventionary' input to evolutionary processes is a valid hypothesis to consider. Or please name a third possibility. (end quote) Many things look like manifestations of intelligence if we don't understand them. And there is research in cognitive science which indicates that humans have a natural predisposition to see agency in the world whether or not it is really there. It is natural to think that the sun "knows" to rise in the morning, until you discover the structure of the solar system. So, if natural causation fails to be confirmed, what do we do? We step back and try to understand the world on its own terms. We are in that situation in other fields. Neurology is complicated, and it is tempting to try to understand our cognition by postulating non-material agents within the mind. And for all we know, maybe there actually are non-material agents operating within the mind. That is a logically possible explanation. But it is not an active hypothesis because the "explanations" it offers are largely vacuous. ("Person A did X because an unknown intervener Z made him do it. We know intervener Z is there because the statistical pattern of neural firing does not fit any cause that we know.") This sort of explanation just dresses up our ignorance as pretend knowledge. What we have to do is to imagine different ways in which the elements we observe can interact to produce the phenomena we are trying to explain. What is really going on in the brain which could cause consciousness and thoughts, or various behaviors? What can really happen to a genome in deep time to cause the generation of progressively better eyes? What goes on to cause a bone in the jaw of reptiles to migrate to the inner ear of mammals? What caused the extraordinarily bad design in modern humans whereby the male urethra is ringed by the prostate gland? (An idiotic designer? Maybe. But probably not.) ID proponents are fond of representing ID as the victim. The real victim is genuine, exploratory science which sometimes needs to ask, "What else could be really going on here other than what our current theory says is going on?" but find that such rhetoric has been discredited by ID proponents who persistently ask that question on behalf of their favorite hobby-horse, intelligent intervention. The other victims, of course, are schoolchildren whose first exposures to science are polluted by ideas which have not merited inclusion in the curriculum.

42) Comment by sryan - 22/03/2013

Like many of you I too am embarrassed by the repeated and dishonest efforts of creationists (now rebranded intelligent design advocates) and Discovery Institute apologists. The level of that dishonesty was uncovered in Dover PA, which ruined the reputation of Behe forever (no, he didn’t ‘do fine’ and he’s never recovered) and proved once and for all that ID is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo. As we all recall, the central textbook of the ID movement, Of Pandas and People, was revealed in pre-published form. Exactly the same as the published ID version except the word ‘creationism’ and ‘creationist’ was removed and supplanted with ‘ID’ throughout. Terribly dishonest to then pretend that ID is not related to old fashioned creationism. It’s a direct second generation descendant. As for ‘atheists’? It would be a mistake to believe that those opposed to creationism in schools are atheists. My family is catholic and not one is a creationist. This is a political issue as much as a religious one, governed by lines of rigid fundamentalism and ultra-conservative authoritarianism as much as anything else. In my experience most Catholics are not creationists, and most moderate religious people are also not creationists. You don’t have to be an atheist to recognize a dishonest boondoggle steeped in far right politics and the tradition of know-nothing fundamentalism. A quick look at the Discovery Institute Wedge Document tells you all you need to know about the motives of creationists/ID apologists these days.

43) Comment by ScotB - 22/03/2013

There is a difference between a theory (which evolution is: not a fact) and a belief (which religion is). A theory is backed up by observed, consistent experiments to test a hypothesis (which is closer to a belief). The truth can stand up for itself. As long as teachers explain material in the right context, I have no problem with it being introduced in schools. It serves a real purpose to let children understand that adults adamantly believe in diffferent things and all are assured of the "rightness" of their views. It seems we are greatly divided on more than creationism or intelligent design. Global warming, abortion, government redistribution (Keynesian economics), and many other theories divide intelligent people. And each diverging group of opinion seems to question the intelligence of the other, scratching their heads wondering how they can believe what they believe. It is a shame when disagreement devolves into personal character assassination (ad hominem attacks). Certainly, that is no way to win an argument or persuade the other side, but I think that the perpetrators know that the other side will not be persuaded and just want to hurt feelings. Not very evolved after all, sometimes, are we!

44) Comment by potkcalb - 22/03/2013

Scientifically there is no way to gather evidence, much less to prove, that there is or is not a designer, a creator. Scientists acknowledge that. The inability of science to explain something does not argue for including the miraculous in science education.

45) Comment by Fjsteven - 22/03/2013

I have a question for all the atheists posting here. If a scientist came upon a man made machine, let's say a computer or an airplane, in the middle of nowhere, would he be able to prove using the scientific method whether or not the machine made itself through random processes or whether or not it was designed by an intelligence? If the scientific method is unable to prove the obvious, then proof exists that the scientific method is limited in its utility for explaining certain factual realities. If on the other hand, the scientific method, can prove that a man made machine was designed and created by an intelligent agent, then why can't the scientific method be utilized to explore whether or not biological machines have an intelligent designer?

46) Comment by krl777 - 22/03/2013

In an attempt to rebut my point that honest ID scientists would advance their case before scientific peers rather than trying to worm their material into the public school curriculum, leebowman cites a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, urging that ID not be taught in public schools, as evidence that (begin quote) 'working scientists' and 'educators' are forbidden to even discuss teleologic views. (end quote) Note the sleight of hand leebowman commits in changing the subject -- I say that ID theorists should advance their case in scientific forums, and leebowman complains that they are kept out of the classroom. So what? The public school classroom is rightfully reserved for the most established science. If you only have a few minutes a day to teach 10 years olds what current science is about, you don't regale them with the lastest unsupported cosmological speculations, you don't push pseudo-science about vaccinations causing autism on them, and you wouldn't teach them the "theory" about the origins of depression which I and my friends came up with in my imaginary scenario. And likewise you shouldn't teach them ID. New scientific theories don't make their way in the world by convincing schoolchildren. BUT, tellingly, new social and political, and religious ideologies CAN begin in the classroom, as any Maoist is well aware. And 'whereas' rings of nothing other than the language of resolutions.

47) Comment by DMJ - 22/03/2013

You know how biblical literalists explain the Grand Canyon? They say it happened during Noah's flood. True story.

48) Comment by RickK - 22/03/2013

Let's look at ID research. ID researchers have access to a lot of funding. Nobody can deny there are millions of dollars available to anyone who can scientifically prove the existence of a supernatural designer. *** But since nobody has yet demonstrated the existence of supernatural magic, and since every mystery of nature we've ever solved turned out to NOT be the work of a supernatural agent, materialism still rules in science. That presents a big hurdle for ID-proponents to clear before being accepted into mainstream science. They have essentially the same obstacles as promoters of perpetual-motion machines. *** So in response the ID community created its own scientific journal: "Bio-Complexity". "Bio-Complexity" has been up and running for a few years now. It is so well established that it published FOUR articles in the entire YEAR of 2012 - a critical review, a critical focus and two research papers, one of which was actually related to ID. By contrast, scientific journals on evolution typically publish 20-40 papers per MONTH. Also, Discovery Institute fellows are heavily represented in the Bio-Complexity authors. From the nature of their publication, to their PR/Lawyer- heavy communication, to their reliance on people like Lee Bowman, ID has ALL the characteristics of an ideologically driven marketing ploy (precisely as outlined in "The Wedge") and has NONE of the characteristics of actual science.

49) Comment by Tomato Addict - 22/03/2013

AND what would you have them teach, Mr. Bowman? Should we teach Bad math? Incorrect biology? "Flood" geology? Twisted logic? As a science, Intelligent Design does absolutely nothing but provide fuel for internet arguments. Meanwhile, thousands of new research articles on aspects of evolution have appeared so far _this year_ (source: Google Scholar).

50) Comment by potkcalb - 22/03/2013

Sorry I missed your irony Bighug but no need for the sarcasm about the English textbook.

51) Comment by [e-mail] - 22/03/2013

If a person were to don a lab coat and make a statement, would it be more readily believed than if it came from a drunk in Bermuda shorts weaving around and making the same statement? Karen Carter Peterson is misguided.

52) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 22/03/2013

Bighug, I found your "suggestion" to be brilliant. And hilarious.

53) Comment by Bighug - 22/03/2013

potkcalb, my comments about scientific study of myths were what is known as "ironic." That means they are so ridiculous as to be unbelievable, and mean the opposite of what is said. Check it out in your high school English textbook.

54) Comment by leebowman - 22/03/2013

"If we are genuine scientists, we publish journal articles and give talks at academic conferences in an effort to convince other psychologists and psychiatrists." = = = = Absolutely, and the list of peer reviewed papers that question aspects of evolutionary theory is growing. = = = = http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 > > > > "What would you conclude about us, if instead, we attempted to inject our ideas into grade school and high school classrooms, by insisting that those are the proper places for our "challenge" of conventional science to get an airing?" = = = = If your work was supported by previous studies, which ID is, then fine to do so. > > > > "You would immediately see that we can't hack it in real scientific forums, and we are trying to pervert the teaching of science at lower levels where the gatekeepers -- legislators and school boards -- are less technically and intellectually competent than our scientific peers." = = = = It's not that the working scientists (our soon-to-be peers) would necessarily disagree, it's more that 'working scientists' and 'educators' are forbidden to even discuss teleologic views. Don't think so? Read one 'dictate' form their prime regulatory organization: - http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml = = = = "Whereas" rings of an order from the top. "Therefore be it resolved" that working scientists will continue to do as they are told. ID deserves a place within scientific perusal, and it just 'may' need to begin in the primary grades.

55) Comment by krl777 - 21/03/2013

Pretend for a moment that I and a few dozen of my friends have an alternate theory of clinical depression. We claim that our statistical analysis of neurotransmitters shows that there is no consistent neuro-chemical etiology of depressive episodes, that some of them show evidence of Malevolent Intervention (not a devil, mind you, this is science, not religion). How should we advance our case? If we are genuine scientists, we publish journal articles and give talks at academic conferences in an effort to convince other psychologists and psychiatrists. What would you conclude about us if, instead, we attempted to inject our ideas into grade school and high school classrooms, by insisting that those are the proper places for our "challenge" of conventional science to get an airing. You would immediately see that we can't hack it in real scientific forums, and we are trying to pervert the teaching of science at lower levels where the gatekeepers -- legislators and school boards -- are less technically and intellectually competent than our scientific peers. The opportunities for "critical questioning" of conventional science provided for by the Louisiana Science Education Act are in exactly the same boat.

56) Comment by prbeav - 21/03/2013

It seems to me natural selection proves there is no god or God does not exist.>>>>First there was the universe; then the Earth; then amino acids; then bacteria; then animals big enough to see; then mammals; then humanoids; then humans; then religion; then language; then understanding; then appreciation.>>>>First there was life, then mind, awareness, religion, understanding, and appreciation. Love has not emerged, and only humans can make it happen.>>>>If there is a God, it knows my thoughts, so I'd better admit them to myself then to you.

57) Comment by Garystar1 - 21/03/2013

Let me second (and third and fourth) what potkcalb said. Responding to leebowman will have as much impact as arguing with your pillow. Do. Not. Bother. That part about he "can't go into the math here"? Yeah, he can't go into the math anywhere. Cuz if he did, people with *real* math skills (a la Tomato Addict) would tear it apart and mutilate it. There is a reason he posts so much on comment threads such as this (as opposed to, say, becoming a scientist and doing real research and publishing papers). The problem with utterly destroying his arguments (as if they don't destroy themselves, but I digress), is that they're *zombies*. They will rise again and attempt to eat your brains.

58) Comment by potkcalb - 21/03/2013

There is no meaningful way to respond to Phil or leebowman. Both are babbling. The thesis of ID is that there is a creator. Science can not "falsify" the existence of a creator. There is no way to falsify God. Neither the presence or absence of a god can be proved or disproved. Phil still does not understand that evolution makes no claim other than an explanation of how life forms change, evolve. It makes no other assumptions, asks no other. Please try to grasp that Phil.

59) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 21/03/2013

Yawn....at the troll

60) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

@ Tea_Slayer - " ... in case you haven't figured it out yet, 'leebowman' is a troll who searches out discussion threads concerning ID and tries to dazzle the posters with his incomprehensible babbling." = = = I've been accused of being a paid shill for DI, and yet, my defense of them has been unpaid and unrecognized by ANY ID group. My comments are based purely on the current data in support of genetics, cell biology, and anatomic physiology. My work experience is biomedical engineering, along with prior work in QA at Autonetics, the Minuteman and Ship's Inertial Navigation Systems producers. = = = My penchant, and that to which my critics have a misguided vision of, is unrestrained science, and with a goal of working to have untenable restraints lifted from academia as well. = = = What we have today within science approaches what Italy had under Benito Mussolini in the 20's and 30's. It's no wonder that science and engineering are in decline. http://online.wsj.com/ad/article/mathscience-rising

61) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 21/03/2013

Guys, in case you haven't figured it out yet, 'leebowman' is a troll who searches out discussion threads concerning ID and tries to dazzle the posters with his incomprehensible babbling. Just search 'Lee Bowman' and 'intelligent design' or 'discovery institute'. Heck, google suggested discovery institute as soon as I entered lee bowman. This troll is a joke and not worthy of the responses.

62) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

@ Tomato Addict - "The methods of Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specifie[d] Information are not correct inference under establish theory of statistical inference." = = = Can't go into the math here, nor did I get a chance to last time we sparred: http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/the-new-theory-of-improvident-design/#comment-34680 = = = But I would like to comment regarding the Dover decision. The School Board 'DID' have religious motives, but had no knowledge of ID as a hypothesis. Nor did Judge Jones. There was thus no basis for adjudicating ID based on (1) the Board's actions, and (2) on largely conjectural claims by certain expert witnesses. Behe did fine, considering the lambasting he got from skilled Courtroom shenanigans (witness leading re: 'astrology', and theatrics, 'a stack of books to crane one's neck to look around.) = = = I am completely versed on all of the testimony, as well as the 139 page double spaced decision.

63) Comment by Tomato Addict - 21/03/2013

@LeeBowman: Science is not the least bit fearful about Intelligent Design Creationism; It has had fair consideration and been rejected. Educators, taxpayers, parents, and scientists are rightfully concerned about the deliberate sabotage of the education curriculum to allow religion into public schools. IDC has even had it's day in court and been recognized as Creationism. From page 26 of the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District decision: "A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." The original is available online, as well as numerous summaries. And to your older replies: ==Genetic engineering performed by who, how, and when? IDC answers none of this. It does propose any mean by how these questions might even be answered. This alone make it not-a-science. ==Academic Freedom is the new buzzword of the IDC movement, but it has been politics since at least the time of Galileo Galilei. Mr. Protean's comments already address this point. And you stated, "ID (based solely on design inferences, and confirmed by statistical probabilities) is NOT religion." No. This is a false statement shrouded in difficult math that most people simply do not have the background to understand. The design inference is statistics done wrong, and deliberately presented as evidence for something it is not. The proper method is a Likelihood Ratio Test that compares the same evidence under two hypotheses. The methods of Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specifies Information are not correct inference under establish theory of statistical inference.

64) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

@ potkcalb - "I might have added that scientists can not "falsify " intelligent design because it is not a scientific concept. It is not amenable to scientific methodology." = = = It 'IS' amenable to falsification, even more so than the Darwinian premise, which is non-replicable. = = = http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica001819.html = = = "It is not possible to prove there is (or is not) a God(s)!" = = = Once again, your extending the data to encompass a personal belief. Not a necessary consideration to verify or falsify design premises.

65) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

@ potkcalb - "Intelligent design is a belief,not a theory, the same belief that prevailed before the Age of Enlightenment, that everything not understood must be attributable to a miracle." = = = I don't profess or accept miracles, except perhaps, the following: = = = = = An eye forming by sucessive 1% increases of cup curvature, along with a cerebral cortex of nearly 1/3 of the brain capacity (hominids), becoming a multi-layered retina with matrixes of photoreceptors (100 million +) consisting of opsins being continually chemically renovated, and all of the support structures (musclature for focusing and aperture function) and much more. = = = And of forming in non-related species culminating in nearly identical morphologies. THIS my friend, if due to chance mutations, 'however' selected upon, would be a prime example of a 'miracle'.

66) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 21/03/2013

It's funny to see bowman twist himself in knots in his attempt to keep 'god' out of his comments. Like I said earlier...he's done...it's worse than Phil's lame 'but science can't explain everything' arguments.

67) Comment by potkcalb - 21/03/2013

leebowman, I might have added that scientists can not "falsify " intelligent design because it is not a scientific concept. It is not amenable to scientific methodology. It is not possible to prove there is no God!

68) Comment by potkcalb - 21/03/2013

Intelligent design is a belief,not a theory, the same belief that prevailed before the Age of Enlightenment, that everything not understood must be attributable to a miracle.There may have been and there may be miracles, but they are not amenable to scientific analysis or investigation. The reason that Religious fundamentalists try to legitimize intelligent design has nothing to do with "critical thinking" but to legitimize that there is a Creator (God).

69) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

One more thing. Why is the science community so edgy over the mere possibility of ID being confirmed as an operative with evolutionary theory? Could it be that they fear it based on its merit? = = = If ID fails to be verified, and is thusly falsified, what was the harm in considering it? = = = Oh yeah, bibles in place of biology books ... = = = = http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=9664 = = = Thanks, Kirk, for the humor of 'what-could-never-be' !

70) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

@ Tea Slayer - Bowman stated: "Sorry, but 'directed', or 'interventionary' input to evolutionary processes is a valid hypothesis to consider. ". -- so who or what directed or intervened? Aliens? Or some supernatural being?" = = = Given the vastness of the Cosmos, there are many possibilities. Absolute proof of the pudding comes later. But, due to the long distant and forensic nature of the investigation into origins, science may never know. = = = "You're done ... " = = = Rather, like a new age of science, I / we are just beginning ...

71) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

@ Tomato Addict - "OK, let's have it. What exactly are the unresolved issues and alternatives to natural causation within evolutionary theory?" = = = A form of genetic engineering to alter particular genome. We can do it today, to a degree. = = = "How were there any barriers to teaching the science before the law was passed?" = = = Loss of tenure for one, for a prof that may have tentatively consider design as a possibility. = = = "How is this anything more than a political move to allow the teaching of religious ideas, including Intelligent Design Creationism, in the public schools?" = = = Academic freedom has only recently become "politics". = = = "And let's be clear: The only ones claiming Intelligent Design is a real science of any sort are Creationists themselves, and even some of those folks are wise enough to know the difference between religion and science." = = = Wrong dude. Some of course are, but the emphasis at this point is unrestrained science. And yes, religious teaching is (as always) not to be allowed on the lab bench.

72) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 21/03/2013

"Sorry, but 'directed', or 'interventionary' input to evolutionary processes is a valid hypothesis to consider. ". -- so who or what directed or intervened? Aliens? Or some supernatural being? You're done...

73) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

@Protean - "As for violations of academic freedom, the very nature of religion makes it a violation of academic freedom." = = = Again, 'religion' is an orthodoxy with liturgy, rituals, and a priori revelation as its basis. ID is based upon statistical data only. The mere fact the confirmed ID may lend credibility to a monotheistic perspective remains a personal matter. = = = Once again; try to wrap you mind around an investigative hypothesis. ID (based solely on design inferences, and confirmed by statistical probabilities) is NOT religion.

74) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

@Protean - "So, the alternatives to natural causation are what. Preternatural causation? Supernatural causation? Modified magic?" = = = Close, but no cigar. The crux of the problem of 'defining' is an INSISTENCE upon 'defining' an ultimate cause while lacking data. At this level of investigation, the 'who or how' question is unanswerable. = = = So we need to throw up our hands and utter, "Uh, mutantdidit !" = = = Look, if non-random causation fails to be confirmed, what remains? Sorry, but 'directed', or 'interventionary' input to evolutionary processes is a valid hypothesis to consider. Or please name a third possibility.

75) Comment by phil - 21/03/2013

potkcalb's comment -" Phil is back to ranting nonsense again. Scientists do not claim to know "all the answers." The only ones who make that claim are religious fundamentalist. "How things come to life," a question that Phil is stuck, on has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is an explanation of how life forms change (evolve) over time, not how life began, that and nothing more." -- My answer - If I am ranting nonsense then exactly what are you doing? If I am a religious fundamentalist because I do believe in God, I already admit that I do not know all of the answers, so that blows that theory. Evolution theory is just part of a much bigger picture, and my previous comment indicated that we do not even really know what is evolving because we do not even really know exactly what life is or how it starts. If we did, we could create life in a test tube and make it grow all the way to a living human. You might say I am ranting nonsense, but that nonsense is really a fact. Besides I already stated that religion does not need to be taught in public schools, which actually should have made all of the atheists here really happy. Just teach the truth, and the truth is - we do not know everything and probably never will.

76) Comment by potkcalb - 21/03/2013

The "actual intent of the bill is... not... to allow critical discussion of unresolved issues aspects of unresolved scientific issues." The sole intent of the bill is to inject the supernatural into science classes, an oxymoron if ever there was one.

77) Comment by Protean - 21/03/2013

One more question. "...the barriers are simply reprisals from school administrators...". What reprisals? Reprisals for teaching scientific alternatives? Not likely. Reprisals for teaching religious myths as scientific argument? Hmm. Imagine that.

78) Comment by Protean - 21/03/2013

Tea_slayer posed the top question. But elsewhere, "... This is not religion, but falsely interpreted as such". So, the alternatives to natural causation are what. Preternatural causation? Supernatural causation? Modified magic? As for violations of academic freedom, the very nature of religion makes it a violation of academic freedom. That some religious institutions begrudgingly allow directed discussions of scientific issues such as evolution and cosmology is merely window dressing for the main course: blind faith.

79) Comment by Tomato Addict - 21/03/2013

@LeeBowman: OK, let's have it. What exactly are the unresolved issues and alternatives to natural causation within evolutionary theory? How were there any barriers to teaching the science before the law was passed? How is this anything more than a political move to allow the teaching of religious ideas, including Intelligent Design Creationism, in the public schools? And let's be clear: The only ones claiming Intelligent Design is a real science of any sort are Creationists themselves, and even some of those folks are wise enough to know the difference between religion and science.

80) Comment by hemogoblin - 21/03/2013

Leebowman, random mutations are easily observable with our current methods of DNA sequencing and evolution is readily demonstrable in the response of bacteria to antibiotics and plants to herbicides. But random mutations are only a small part of evolution. Exon shuffling allows the creation of new proteins by using building blocks from old ones. Do that for a billion years, and Voila! we get the life forms we have today.

81) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 21/03/2013

"including ANY discussions of alternatives to natural causation within evolutionary theory" Outside of religion, what "alternatives to natural causation" are there? ( this should be interesting...)

82) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

@Protean - "the actual 'intent' of the Bill is to allow a critical discussion of unresolved issues aspects of scientific issues." - - - If this is true, then perhaps you can explain what barriers "to the critical discussion of scientific [rather than religious] issues [resolved or otherwise]" were eliminated by this law. - - - - The "barriers" are simply reprisals from school administrators for taking certain actions within the classroom, including ANY discussions of alternatives to natural causation within evolutionary theory. - - - This is not religion, but is falsely interpreted as such - - - It is plainly a violation a academic freedom, established in 1925 by the AAUP, The American Association of University Professors - - - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_University_Professors

83) Comment by DMJ - 21/03/2013

This Kopplin kid is quite impressive. I hope he continues political advocacy. Louisiana could use a rebel to fight against the Dark Side.

84) Comment by potkcalb - 21/03/2013

Bighug creationism is belief in the supernatural. The supernatural is not amenable to data gathering, analysis, or scientific theorizing. A scientific theory is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world (that's natural, not supernatural) based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." If a creation myth could be validated by "scientific research" it would no longer be myth but science.

85) Comment by potkcalb - 21/03/2013

Phil is back to ranting nonsense again. Scientists do not claim to know "all the answers." The only ones who make that claim are religious fundamentalist. "How things come to life," a question that Phil is stuck, on has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is an explanation of how life forms change (evolve) over time, not how life began, that and nothing more.

86) Comment by Bighug - 21/03/2013

Maybe it would be OK to teach creationism in science classes if it were limited to scientific research validating one of the creation myths.

87) Comment by Tomato Addict - 21/03/2013

You do not need a law to teach science. You do need a law to teach Creationism in public schools.

88) Comment by GardenVariety - 21/03/2013

Thank goodness for Senator Peterson! Following Protean's line of thought, science insists on "critical discussion" of its claims, including its laws. It depends on open-mindedness, further discovery, argument, testing, and re-testing. Religion, however, depends on unalterable premises based on belief (faith) that presume a certain outcome in order to fulfill themselves, regardless of evidence. This insidious creationism provision aims to put science and religion on the same footing, implying that science is practically a religion among competing religions. Science is not, for science is a process--a systematic, analytical means--for gaining, testing, and improving understanding. Religion is not; instead it is a set of beliefs that imposes its understanding--or lack of understanding--on the world/universe.

89) Comment by Protean - 21/03/2013

"... the actual 'intent' of the Bill is to allow a critical discussion of unresolved issues aspects of scientific issues." If this is true, then perhaps you can explain what barriers "to the critical discussion of scientific [rather than religious] issues [resolved or otherwise]" were eliminated by this law. Citation please.

90) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

@postscript56: "Your argument seems to be it's OK to have this law on the books since no one has sued to stop it." . Actually, I was referring to a lawsuit issued against a teaching arm (school board, district or prof) who has violated the law, in particular section (e), similar to the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover action. . "Supporters have developed a "science" curriculum out of the Bible's creation stories (there are 2, for those not familiar with Genesis). . Citation please. . @Noel Hammatt: "HB 368 (e) was specifically placed in the law based on court arguments where similar laws were thrown out. A very common practice. It does nothing to change the real intent of the law, which those who have studied the history of this legislation are very aware of." . While there were some who may have had that 'intent', they have not, nor will they subsequently be successful in that regard, due to Constitutional restraints and prior case law. Further, the wording of this law does not allow religion to be taught. . The actual 'intent' of the Bill is to allow a critical discussion of unresolved aspects of scientific issues. NS of random mutations is unproven at this time as the sole operative within evolutionary theory.

91) Comment by phil - 21/03/2013

Are "religious fundamentalists" those people who actually believe in God?. Religion really does not need to be taught in science classes and science does not really need to be taught in religion classes. What really needs to be taught is that we humans are not nearly as smart as we tend to think we are. Tell me EXACTLY what this thing we call "life" really is. Make something come to life and then make it grow into a complete human being (or a bird, etc). So let's teach students in science classes exactly how to do that? Good luck on that one. The fact is we do NOT know all of the answers, and that is what should be taught to students.

92) Comment by Bighug - 21/03/2013

Good for Senator Peterson. We could use more people like her in office.

93) Comment by BRLA1982 - 21/03/2013

The next agenda item should be to remove the FRC from all legislative activities. A 'hate group' should not be influencing our state laws or our people. It's time to put a sin/hate tax on the FRC and Greenwell Springs Baptist Church. Additionally, why again is Healing Place church receiving government money for the BRAVE program? Our tax money is paying to help this church convert citizens to Christianity, while we deplete other resources that could have prevented the citizen from commiting a crime in the first place. Fund vocational training and fund the public schools!

94) Comment by BRLA1982 - 21/03/2013

I agree with Senator Peterson 100% Repeal this backwards law and help shove Louisiana into the 21st century. The last thing we need to teach our children is that humans roamed the Earth with Dinosaurs when many of our citizens can't even balance a checkbook. Science is already complicated and continous, why make teaching and learning even more difficult by teaching false information?

95) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 21/03/2013

@leebowman: The language you quoted from HB 368 (e) was specifically placed in the law based on court arguments where similar laws were thrown out. A very common practice. It does nothing to change the real intent of the law, which those who have studied the history of this legislation are very aware of. Stealth is important to those who do not deal with truth, and they are very good at it. We keep hearing that the testing in this state is only on evolution, yet there are not questions anyone has ever produced showing we actually test ANY of the scientific teachings about evolution. Not a one. Has anyone out there seen any of the questions our Superintendent keeps mentioning when he says we test on evolution?

96) Comment by tradewinns - 21/03/2013

evolution is a proved fact, teach it in school.

97) Comment by lovemykids - 21/03/2013

Plain and simple, the legislators will not repeal. Not because they are god fearing, but because they fear the so called men of god.

98) Comment by postscript56 - 21/03/2013

leebowman - Are you following this story? Supporters have developed a "science" curriculum out of the Bible's creation stories (there are 2, for those not familiar with Genesis). Your argument seems to be it's OK to have this law on the books since no one has sued to stop it. That's like saying it's OK for one person to drive 100 mph on Airline Hwy as long as he doesn't wreck. You can see the inherent danger in that, can't you? But not the inherent danger of teaching creation in science class? I'd be willing to bet 99% of the people opposed to this law have no probelm with teaching creation stories. Just not in science class, where you learn about the natural world through the phenomena you can detect with your five senses

99) Comment by leebowman - 21/03/2013

"it's a cover for introducing religion into science classes" From HB368 (e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion. Matter of fact, Regarding the 2008 Bill, letters and signed petitions were numerous, including a 6/12/08 Press Release issued by Barry Lynn, lawyer and Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who stated: "If this new law is used to promote religion in Louisiana public schools, I can guarantee there will be legal action." Thus far, no legal actions.

100) Comment by Scrooge - 20/03/2013

For proof that evolution doesn't exist, one need look no further than Louisiana.

101) Comment by potkcalb - 20/03/2013

In addition to the hypocrisy of injecting supernatural explanations into science classes (an oxymoron if ever there was one), those who support the Louisiana Science Education Act know that "it's a cover for introducing religion into science classes", a sad and dishonest commentary considering that they consider themselves to be "God fearing folk."