Intelligent Design is religion - not science

[winoman]

Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

HARRISBURG, Pa., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum.

Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Eleven parents in Dover, a growing suburb about 20 miles south of Harrisburg, sued their school board a year ago after it voted to have teachers read students a brief statement introducing intelligent design in ninth-grade biology class.

The statement said that there were "gaps in the theory" of evolution and that intelligent design was another explanation they should examine.

Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.

Judge Jones said that teaching intelligent design as science in public school violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits public officials from using their positions to impose or establish a particular religion.

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

The six-week trial in Federal District Court in Harrisburg gave intelligent design the most thorough academic and legal airing since the movement's inception about 15 years ago, and was often likened to the momentous Scopes case that put evolution on trial 80 years earlier.

Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.

But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled."

The Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, cannot be taught as science in a public school.

Judge Jones's decision is legally binding only for school districts in the middle district of Pennsylvania. It is unlikely to be appealed because the school board members who supported intelligent design were unseated in elections in November and replaced with a slate that opposes the intelligent design policy and said it would abide by the judge's decision.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said at a news conference in Harrisburg that the judge's decision should serve as a deterrent to other school boards and teachers considering teaching intelligent design.

"It's a carefully reasoned, highly detailed opinion," said Richard Katskee, assistant legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, "that goes through all of the issues that would be raised in any other school district."

Richard Thompson, the lead defense lawyer for the school board, derided the judge for issuing a sweeping judgment in a case that Mr. Thompson said merely involved a "one-minute statement" being read to students. He acknowledged that his side, too, had asked the judge to rule on the scientific merits of intelligent design, but only because it had to respond to the plaintiffs' arguments.

"A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid," said Mr. Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest firm in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says it promotes Christian values. "It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that."

The scientists who have put intelligent design forward as a valid avenue of scientific research said they were disappointed by Judge Jones's ruling but that they thought its long-term effects would be limited.

"That was a real drag," said Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University who was the star witness for the intelligent design side. "I think he really went way over what he as a judge is entitled to say."

Dr. Behe added: "He talks about the ground rules of science. What has a judge to do with the ground rules of science? I think he just chose sides and echoed the arguments and just made assertions about our arguments."

William A. Dembski, a mathematician who argues that mathematics can show the presence of design in the development of life, predicted that intelligent design would become much stronger within 5 to 10 years.

Both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski are fellows with the Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of intelligent design.

"I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion," Dr. Dembski said. "The burden is on us to produce."

Mainstream scientists who have maintained that no controversy exists in the scientific community over evolution were elated by Judge Jones's ruling.

"Jubilation," said Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University who has actively sparred with intelligent design proponents and testified in the Dover case. "I think the judge nailed it."

Dr. Miller said he was glad that the judge did not just rule narrowly.

Jason D. Rosenhouse, a professor of mathematics at James Madison University in Virginia and a fervent pro-evolution blogger said: "I was laughing as I read it because I don't think a scientist could explain it any better. His logic is flawless, and he hit all of the points that scientists have been making for years."

Before the start of a celebratory news conference in Harrisburg, Tammy Kitzmiller, a parent of two daughters in the Dover district and the named plaintiff in the case, Kitzmiller et al v. Dover, joked with other plaintiffs that she had an idea for a new bumper sticker: "Judge Jones for President."

Christy Rehm, another plaintiff, said to the others, "We've done something amazing here, not only with this decision, but with the election."

Last month, Dover, which usually votes majority Republican, ousted eight school board members who had backed intelligent design and elected the opposition that ran on a Democratic ticket.

Witold Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, who helped to argue the case, said, "We sincerely hope that other school districts who may have been thinking about intelligent design will pause, they will read Judge Jones's erudite opinion and they will look at what happened in the Dover community in this battle, pitting neighbor against neighbor."

The judge's ruling said that two of the most outspoken proponents of intelligent design on the Dover school board, William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, lied in their depositions about how they raised money in a church to buy copies of an intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," to put in the school library.

Both men, according to testimony, had repeatedly said at school board meetings that they objected to evolution for religious reasons and wanted to see creationism taught on equal footing.

Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."

Mr. Bonsell did not respond to a telephone message on Tuesday. Mr. Buckingham, a retired police officer who has moved to Mount Airy, N.C., said, "If the judge called me a liar, then he's a liar."

Mr. Buckingham said he "answered the questions the way they asked them." He called the decision "ludicrous" and said, "I think Judge Jones ought to be ashamed of himself."

The Constitution, he said, does not call for the separation of church and state.

In his opinion, Judge Jones traced the history of the intelligent design movement to what he said were its roots in Christian fundamentalism. He seemed especially convinced by the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a historian of science, that the authors of the "Pandas" textbook had removed the word "creationism" from an earlier draft and substituted it with "intelligent design" after the Supreme Court's ruling in 1987.

"We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," the judge said. "The writings of leading I.D. proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."

Opponents of intelligent design said Judge Jones's ruling would not put an end to the movement, and predicted that intelligent design would take on various guises.

The Kansas Board of Education voted in November to adopt standards that call into question the theory of evolution, but never explicitly mention intelligent design.

Eugenie Scott, executive director, National Center for Science Education, an advocacy group in Oakland, Calif., that promotes teaching evolution, said in an interview, "I predict that another school board down the line will try to bring intelligent design into the curriculum like the Dover group did, and they'll be a lot smarter about concealing their religious intent."

Even after courts ruled against teaching creationism and creation science, Ms. Scott said, "for several years afterward, school districts were still contemplating teaching creation science."

[winoman]

Re: Intelligent Design is religion - not science

From disucssion forum:

Arlington, Va.: I agree with Gary Trudeau: anyone who believes in intelligent design should not get antibiotics to treat their tuberculosis. Seriously, these people are destroying the science curriculum in American schools and that's why they scare me. And the fact that major corporations are kowtowing to the fundies re the Darwin show at the Museum of Natural History in New York city is sickening.

Douglas Baynton: It does seem to me odd that many people accept science in every aspect of their lives and then claim to not trust science -- and ironic to be having a debate over the merits of the methods of modern science in a live discussion on the Internet.

Tucson, Ariz.: The article effectively demonstrates the difference between the faith-based vs. modern view of science, but misses the larger problem: a largely scientifically illiterate populace does not grasp the significance of the argument. That the "intelligent design" movement is even able to generate popular support without demonstrating scientific merit pointedly highlights the low understanding and value our nation has placed on science education for the masses. Gallop polls since the 1980's have consistently shown 45% of people in this country think the earth was created within the last 10,000 years. Who have been the more effective science educators--the fundamentalist churches or the public schools?

Douglas Baynton: Thanks for the comment. I agree, and the importance of a sound science education is what this debate is really about. Intelligent Design as a philosophical discussion is fine. But it does not belong in the science classroom until it has demonstrated itself *as* science.

[winoman]

Re: Intelligent Design is religion - not science

Defending Science by Defining It

By David Brown and Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; A20



The opinion written by Judge John E. Jones III in the Dover evolution trial is a two-in-one document that offers both philosophical and practical arguments against "intelligent design" likely to be useful to far more than a school board in a small Pennsylvania town.

Jones gives a clear definition of science, and recounts how this vaunted mode of inquiry has evolved over the centuries. He describes how scientists go about the task of supporting or challenging ideas about the world of the senses -- all that can be observed and measured. And he reaches the unwavering conclusion that intelligent design is a religious idea, not a scientific one.

His opinion is a passionate paean to science. But it is also a strategic defense of Darwinian theory.

When evolution's defenders find themselves tongue-tied and seemingly bested by neo-creationists -- when they believe they have the facts on their side but do not know where to find them -- this 139-page document may be the thing they turn to.

"That will be extremely useful not only in future cases but to the scientific community, to science teachers and others who are struggling against this tremendous pressure to bring religion into the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest general science organization in the country.

Halfway through his opinion, Jones asks "whether ID [intelligent design] is science." It is a question at the core of the case -- and he does not shy from it.

"While answering this . . . compels us to revisit evidence that is entirely complex, if not obtuse," he writes, "after a six-week trial that spanned 21 days . . . no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area."

He makes plain his hope that many months of intellectual heavy lifting "may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us."

The ruling gives two arguments for why intelligent design is not science but is, in the judge's words, "an old religious argument for the existence of God."

The first is that intelligent design invokes "a supernatural designer," while science, by definition, deals only with natural phenomena. Second, the court found that intelligent design suffers from blatant flaws in logic, one of the chief tools of science.

Since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, "science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena," Jones writes, noting that the scientific revolution was explicitly about the rejection of "revelation" in favor of empirical evidence.

Since then, he writes, "science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth."

As part of that fact-based approach, Jones emphasizes, science goes out of its way to avoid a search for "meaning" or "purpose."

By contrast, intelligent design's views on how the world got to be the way it is offer no testable facts, choosing instead to rely on authoritative statements. Adherents posit, for example, that animals were abruptly created (many in the same form in which they exist today) by a supernatural designer.

The court found that intelligent-design documents are quite open about the movement's goal of changing "the ground rules" of science to accommodate much more than natural phenomena -- a broadening so great, one witness for intelligent design testified, that science would embrace even astrology.

"Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community," Jones writes.

The judge also cites several ways in which he says proponents of intelligent design failed to think logically, each example offering a take-home lesson that could prove useful to people trying to rebut challenges to evolutionary theory.

First, Jones writes, people would be well advised to remember that an argument against one thing cannot necessarily be interpreted as an argument for something else. For example, the fact that the fossil record is incomplete is not evidence that human beings must have been created in their current form.

The world, in other words, is not a zero-sum, dichotomous one in which a vote against one candidate equals a vote for another.

"Just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow," the judge says.

Another logical failing cited by the court concerns one of intelligent design's central arguments: "irreducible complexity."

That argument states that some biological systems -- such as the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike appendage that offers some microbes a means of propelling themselves -- are made of components that, individually, do not have any purpose. Because there would be no evolutionary advantage for those individual parts, they must have arisen all at once -- and expressly for the purpose of serving in that complex organ.

But Jones notes that just because a complex organ cannot work today with one component removed, that does not mean the component did not evolve independently to serve a different purpose and later took on a new role when combined with other parts. The judge notes multiple examples involving the immune system, the blood clotting system, and even the bacterial flagellum itself, in which this appears to have been the case.

Irreducible complexity is in many ways a theological argument -- and a rather old one. A theologian testified at the trial that Thomas Aquinas argued in the 13th century that wherever there is complex design, there must be a designer, and that because nature is complex, it must also have a designer.

While many of the scientists who defended intelligent design in the Pennsylvania trial stopped short of saying that the idea requires belief in God, the defense's chief expert, biochemist Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, noted that intelligent design's plausibility depends on the extent to which a person believes in God.

"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God . . . Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view . . . ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition," Jones notes in his opinion.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[TomServo]

Re: Intelligent Design is religion - not science

Don't you just love Republicans?

[winoman]

Meanwhile Evolution is Science

Science Magazine declares 2005 - the year of breakthrough for evidence confirming Evolution

(If we didn't already know that rats were quite unintelligent - boy would he be looking pretty stupid today...I mean more so then usual...)

Evolution evidence rated as top ‘breakthrough’
Science selects ‘hot topic’ to lead its annual list of research highlights

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10574901/

Highlights:

the journal Science Thursday proclaimed that fresh evidence of evolution in action was the top scientific breakthrough of 2005.

In the annual roundup, the journal's editors pointed to wide-ranging research built on the foundations of Charles Darwin’s landmark 1859 work ”The Origin of Species” and the idea of natural selection. Among the highlights: a study that showed a mere 4 percent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA, and studies documenting the splits within species of birds and caterpillars.

“Amid this outpouring of results, 2005 stands out as a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds,” the editors wrote. “Ironically, also this year, some segments of American society fought to dilute the teaching of even the basic facts of evolution.”

And the actual article:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878

Science 23 December 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5756, pp. 1878 - 1879

Evolution in Action

Today evolution is the foundation of all biology

2005 stands out as a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds. Concrete genome data allowed researchers to start pinning down the molecular modifications that drive evolutionary change in organisms from viruses to primates. Painstaking field observations shed new light on how populations diverge to form new species

2005 was also a standout year for researchers studying the emergence of new species, or speciation. A new species can form when populations of an existing species begin to adapt in different ways and eventually stop interbreeding.

This year field biologists recorded compelling examples of that process, some of which featured surprisingly rapid evolution in organisms' shape and behavior.

more evidence of the importance of DNA outside genes came in 2005. A study of two species of fruit flies found that 40% to 70% of noncoding DNA evolves more slowly than the genes themselves. That implies that these regions are so important for the organism that their DNA sequences are maintained by positive selection. These noncoding bases, which include regulatory regions, were static within a species but varied between the two species, suggesting that noncoding regions can be key to speciation.

Darwin focused on the existence of evolution by natural selection; the mechanisms that drive the process were a complete mystery to him. But today his intellectual descendants include all the biologists--whether they study morphology, behavior, or genetics--whose research is helping reveal how evolution works.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Intelligent Design is religion - not science

Winoman is so desperate to validate his faith.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Intelligent Design is religion - not science

The Religion of the State

by Butler Shaffer



I have long been interested in the hidden assumptions that underlie our thinking – mine as well as others. As a confirmed agnostic, I have no defense to make for the theory of “intelligent design.” To the contrary, when advocates of that proposition contend that life is too complex for its origins to be explained by theories of evolution, my interest in the study of “chaos” reminds me that it is the very complex nature of life that makes intelligent planning and control as unworkable in matters biological as it is in the realm of state economic planning and control. I share Terry Pratchett’s view that “chaos always defeats order because it is better organized.”

Nonetheless, the basis of the Pennsylvania federal district court’s recent opinion that requiring teachers in government schools to offer “intelligent design” as an alternative to Darwin’s theory was a violation of the First Amendment, carries a hidden premise that I have not heard discussed. A news report informs us that the judge condemned the required reference to “intelligent design” in part because it is contrary to science. If this report is correct – I have not read his opinion – the decision rests on an article of faith – by definition a matter of religious belief – that the scientific process provides the ultimate standard by which all “truth” is to be defined and measured.

While I am a strong supporter of scientific inquiry, I recognize that, as with any belief system, it has its limitations: one cannot use the so-called “scientific method” to validate the scientific method. Gregory Bateson observed the need for every belief system to be subject to the standards of a metasystem for confirmation, a never-ending process requiring each metasystem of thought to be validated by yet another metasystem. The explanation “it’s turtles all the way down” helps to put the limited nature of our thinking in perspective.

One must also factor in the late scientific historian Paul Feyerabend’s thesis that the sciences have not been driven by a single “scientific method.” Scientific understanding has employed not only the more familiar empirical, replicative procedures; but also chance, guesswork, accidents, dreaming, visualization, even fraud, to advance our knowledge of the world. The notion that there is an objectively “correct” route to truth becomes, itself, a religious proposition.

Furthermore, if the scientific process ends up being capable of validating only that which is verifiable by announced scientific methods, what is to be said of those values that are beyond quantifiable and empirical assessment? What are the costs of Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, or American and British torture camps? It is this awareness that sets the Austrian school apart from other schools of economic inquiry (i.e., those that presume that the unquantifiable cannot – and ought not – be incorporated into economic analyses). This was the central point of my Rothbard Lecture given at the Mises Institute in early 2003, titled “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Human Spirit: The Luddites Revisited.”

To smuggle a set of a priori assumptions into a discussion and then imagine that one is challenging religious faith, is an exercise in self-delusion. There is an element of arbitrariness underlying every belief system, if for no other reason than the fact that our beliefs arise wholly within our minds; that they are about the world rather than of it. To condemn the theory of “intelligent design” because it contravenes scientific understanding is no less an act of religious faith than attacking Charles Darwin’s work because it is contrary to the Book of Genesis.

Each of us, I believe, has a need for spiritual experiences; for a sense of transcendence; a need to connect up with the universe – including other people – in a profound way. We pursue this need in a variety of ways reflective of the inherent diversity of life. Some of us seek this spiritual sense in religious and philosophic speculation; others in scientific pursuits; still others in music, art, dance, poetry, architecture, engineering, business, gardening, or the raising of children. Those who pursue wealth, power, fame, or status, are driven by a need to transcend themselves by becoming “bigger than life.” Even politics attracts people who believe, however mistakenly, that they can experience a connection with others through careers in government, conduct that puts themselves in conflict with – and coercively violates the wills of – their fellow humans.

Institutions – particularly the state – have no interest in spiritual or emotional matters. Their pursuits are purely materialistic and mechanistic. The inner lives of individuals – such as the desire for liberty – are of no consequence to them, other than as entropic wastes to be avoided or disposed of in the most efficient manner. To such entities, a materialistic science applied to “human resources” through technology and social engineering is all that matters. The nonmaterial becomes immaterial in such a world, and those who insist upon a metasystem of values – whether grounded in religion, philosophy, or other normative pursuits – are simply looked upon as being counterproductive to the “brave new world” of corporate-statism. Spiritual inquiries provide too much of a distraction from politically-centered purposes to be abided by the state.

We live in a world in which the mass killing of people is dismissed as “collateral damage”; the constant and ever-more-intrusive control and surveillance of men and women is treated as a form of “inventory control”; the spontaneity and curiosity of children is defined as a social disease to be drugged; and the inviolate nature of human beings is routinely disregarded by robotic functionaries of the state whose own spiritual death allows them to torture, maim, and kill others upon command. All of this is defended by morally deranged political leaders on the twisted grounds of “necessity” and, far worse, the preservation of “freedom.”

As I stated earlier, I do not believe in the notion of “intelligent design.” But my dispute is not over the comparative merits of this doctrine versus evolution. There is a far deeper issue going to the separation of religion and state that is rarely mentioned: the secular religious faith that government should be involved in education; in indoctrinating the minds of people to accept a politically-centered society. State education is no less grounded in religious faith than are churches; replacing a crucifix or Star-of-David atop a building with a flag does not change the fundamental nature of what is taking place.

[winoman]

Re: Intelligent Design is religion - not science

[QUOTE=Butler Shaffer]The Religion of the State

by Butler Shaffer

[If this report is correct – I have not read his opinion – the decision rests on an article of faith – by definition a matter of religious belief – that the scientific process provides the ultimate standard by which all “truth” is to be defined and measured.[/B]

Welllll..."truth" concerning the workings of the world around us and natural phenomonon of the universe and such is in fact - I think we pretty much believe - derived from Science. Science (the means of inquiry defined by such) gives us the best means that we currently know to understand these things - thus we have Scientific fields of study and employment and we teach SCIENCE in our schools - because SCIENCE has proven itself to give the best understanding of things and to allow us to advance our knowledtge in all areas - such a s medicine for instance. So yes - Science is taught in our schools and we have a definition for what consititutes Science and Inteligent Design and other religeous explanations have no place in Science cirriculum (and this is all the rulign is stating) and it is no more appropriate that Astrology in Astonomy class, voodoo in Medical School, and whatever supersticious belief - insert here - in place of actual knowledge (scientific) based education. I'm certainly not ashamed of this - but if I were you (or the nutty ideologicaly driven author of this piece) I would certainly be ashamed of taking up such an ignorant position against science. Idiots.

[While I am a strong supporter of scientific inquiry, I recognize that, as with any belief system, it has its limitations: one cannot use the so-called “scientific method” to validate the scientific method. Gregory Bateson observed the need for every belief system to be subject to the standards of a metasystem for confirmation, a never-ending process requiring each metasystem of thought to be validated by yet another metasystem. The explanation “it’s turtles all the way down” helps to put the limited nature of our thinking in perspective.

A meaningless argument if there ever was one. No one has ever claime dthat science is the onlly possible knowledge. However Science validates itself by the quality of the results it achieves and by the rigorous standards its sets for making any claims of fact and such - and ths point is that if a claim is made that is based on Science you can understand the oth the question and the ansewer - it is quantifiable and/or definable and is testable/acheivable. This does not mean that it is the only possbible explanation or that it is the final say - it is but an as[pect - a question that can be answered to the best of current knowledge - and the process moves forward as more knowledge is gained. And no - this guy and you are absolutly not strong supporters of scientific inquiry - to attemtp to equate supersticious beliefs with scientific discover and to attempt (without any real argument - just meaningless logic games) to denigrate the knowledge achived through Science. Those who practice and understand Science and the Scientific Method are well aware of the limitations of Science - however what has not be ever sufficiently proposed is any better alternative. So in the meantime we use and build on the knowledge obtaiuned through Science while understanding that we (and it) have/has limitations.

[One must also factor in the late scientific historian Paul Feyerabend’s thesis that the sciences have not been driven by a single “scientific method.” Scientific understanding has employed not only the more familiar empirical, replicative procedures; but also chance, guesswork, accidents, dreaming, visualization, even fraud, to advance our knowledge of the world. The notion that there is an objectively “correct” route to truth becomes, itself, a religious proposition.

So there is "bad science" - and there are frauds - certainly you accept that there are frauds masquarading as priests - accepting that this is so does this invalidate any or all other priests or religious activities? Well? Obviously this is a spurious argument. What is new.

[Furthermore, if the scientific process ends up being capable of validating only that which is verifiable by announced scientific methods, what is to be said of those values that are beyond quantifiable and empirical assessment?

That these issues (whatever they may be) are beyond quantifiable and empirical assessment...was that so hard?

[

What are the costs of Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, or American and British torture camps? It is this awareness that sets the Austrian school apart from other schools of economic inquiry (i.e., those that presume that the unquantifiable cannot – and ought not – be incorporated into economic analyses). This was the central point of my Rothbard Lecture given at the Mises Institute in early 2003, titled “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Human Spirit: The Luddites Revisited.”

What an absolute ding-dong. This waste of breath thinks to repudiate Science - in fact he is claiming that his "science" of economics is capable of dealing with unquantifiable data - well OK - I'm sure it is useful/intersting (and not really new at all - as Veblin made this sort of analysis in the 1800's...) - however what he is refering to "economics" is not in fact "science at all - not in and of itself - though scientific analysis can be applied to aspects of economics - but only in limited capacity. Economics - as the other social "sciences" are not "hard" science but in fact do rely on theories, supositions and best guesses to fill in for what may never be known/knowable/testable and what have you. Just the nature of the beast...


[QUOTE=Butler Shaffer][To smuggle a set of a priori assumptions into a discussion and then imagine that one is challenging religious faith, is an exercise in self-delusion. There is an element of arbitrariness underlying every belief system, if for no other reason than the fact that our beliefs arise wholly within our minds; that they are about the world rather than of it. To condemn the theory of “intelligent design” because it contravenes scientific understanding is no less an act of religious faith than attacking Charles Darwin’s work because it is contrary to the Book of Genesis.

Total BS. Science is taught in Scince classes - not religion. Evolution is based on known and accepted scientific principles. If you want religion - go to bible school.

[Each of us, I believe, has a need for spiritual experiences; for a sense of transcendence; a need to connect up with the universe – including other people – in a profound way. We pursue this need in a variety of ways reflective of the inherent diversity of life. Some of us seek this spiritual sense in religious and philosophic speculation; others in scientific pursuits;

mixing apples and oranges - we don't pursue Science for relaxation - but to obtain knowledge - only a fundi type (or a right wing nutjob with an agenda as this guy obviously is...) would think to equate superstision with scientific undersrtanding

[still others in music, art, dance, poetry, architecture, engineering, business, gardening, or the raising of children. Those who pursue wealth, power, fame, or status, are driven by a need to transcend themselves by becoming “bigger than life.”

Even politics attracts people who believe, however mistakenly, that they can experience a connection with others through careers in government, conduct that puts themselves in conflict with – and coercively violates the wills of – their fellow humans.

this has nothing to do with anything - and it is entirely unsuportable supposition on this guys part - it is not useful analysis in any form.

[Institutions – particularly the state – have no interest in spiritual or emotional matters. Their pursuits are purely materialistic and mechanistic.

Should they? Pehraps he should ask Ayatola whoever what he thinks...

[ The inner lives of individuals – such as the desire for liberty – are of no consequence to them, other than as entropic wastes to be avoided or disposed of in the most efficient manner.

Again conjecture. How does he knwo any of this?

[ To such entities, a materialistic science applied to “human resources” through technology and social engineering is all that matters. The nonmaterial becomes immaterial in such a world, and those who insist upon a metasystem of values – whether grounded in religion, philosophy, or other normative pursuits – are simply looked upon as being counterproductive to the “brave new world” of corporate-statism. Spiritual inquiries provide too much of a distraction from politically-centered purposes to be abided by the state.

I'm findiing the opposite these days - a bit too much concern on the part of idiot politicians in spiritual matters and justifications...

[We live in a world in which the mass killing of people is dismissed as “collateral damage”; the constant and ever-more-intrusive control and surveillance of men and women is treated as a form of “inventory control”; the spontaneity and curiosity of children is defined as a social disease to be drugged; and the inviolate nature of human beings is routinely disregarded by robotic functionaries of the state whose own spiritual death allows them to torture, maim, and kill others upon command. All of this is defended by morally deranged political leaders on the twisted grounds of “necessity” and, far worse, the preservation of “freedom.”

relevance?

[As I stated earlier, I do not believe in the notion of “intelligent design.” But my dispute is not over the comparative merits of this doctrine versus evolution. There is a far deeper issue going to the separation of religion and state that is rarely mentioned: the secular religious faith that government should be involved in education; in indoctrinating the minds of people to accept a politically-centered society. State education is no less grounded in religious faith than are churches; replacing a crucifix or Star-of-David atop a building with a flag does not change the fundamental nature of what is taking place.

Bulls hit - the issue is entirely the opposite of what he states. He offers no analysis at all in this peice only a political diatribe - a repetition of the so-called libertarian mantra with little or basis on any reality that is much worth our consideration. Not that I disagree with some of the critique - but it is misapplied in this case and he has not supported any of these argument in this piece - he just accepts these mantras...based....on....faith....

[winoman]

Re: Intelligent Design is religion - not science

[QUOTE=Butler Shaffer]The Religion of the State

by Butler Shaffer

[If this report is correct – I have not read his opinion – the decision rests on an article of faith – by definition a matter of religious belief – that the scientific process provides the ultimate standard by which all “truth” is to be defined and measured.[/B]

Welllll..."truth" concerning the workings of the world around us and natural phenomonon of the universe and such is in fact - I think we pretty much believe - derived from Science. Science (the means of inquiry defined by such) gives us the best means that we currently know to understand these things - thus we have Scientific fields of study and employment and we teach SCIENCE in our schools - because SCIENCE has proven itself to give the best understanding of things and to allow us to advance our knowledtge in all areas - such a s medicine for instance. So yes - Science is taught in our schools and we have a definition for what consititutes Science and Inteligent Design and other religeous explanations have no place in Science cirriculum (and this is all the rulign is stating) and it is no more appropriate that Astrology in Astonomy class, voodoo in Medical School, and whatever supersticious belief - insert here - in place of actual knowledge (scientific) based education. I'm certainly not ashamed of this - but if I were you (or the nutty ideologicaly driven author of this piece) I would certainly be ashamed of taking up such an ignorant position against science. Idiots.

[While I am a strong supporter of scientific inquiry, I recognize that, as with any belief system, it has its limitations: one cannot use the so-called “scientific method” to validate the scientific method. Gregory Bateson observed the need for every belief system to be subject to the standards of a metasystem for confirmation, a never-ending process requiring each metasystem of thought to be validated by yet another metasystem. The explanation “it’s turtles all the way down” helps to put the limited nature of our thinking in perspective.

A meaningless argument if there ever was one. No one has ever claime dthat science is the onlly possible knowledge. However Science validates itself by the quality of the results it achieves and by the rigorous standards its sets for making any claims of fact and such - and ths point is that if a claim is made that is based on Science you can understand the oth the question and the ansewer - it is quantifiable and/or definable and is testable/acheivable. This does not mean that it is the only possbible explanation or that it is the final say - it is but an as[pect - a question that can be answered to the best of current knowledge - and the process moves forward as more knowledge is gained. And no - this guy and you are absolutly not strong supporters of scientific inquiry - to attemtp to equate supersticious beliefs with scientific discover and to attempt (without any real argument - just meaningless logic games) to denigrate the knowledge achived through Science. Those who practice and understand Science and the Scientific Method are well aware of the limitations of Science - however what has not be ever sufficiently proposed is any better alternative. So in the meantime we use and build on the knowledge obtaiuned through Science while understanding that we (and it) have/has limitations.

[One must also factor in the late scientific historian Paul Feyerabend’s thesis that the sciences have not been driven by a single “scientific method.” Scientific understanding has employed not only the more familiar empirical, replicative procedures; but also chance, guesswork, accidents, dreaming, visualization, even fraud, to advance our knowledge of the world. The notion that there is an objectively “correct” route to truth becomes, itself, a religious proposition.

So there is "bad science" - and there are frauds - certainly you accept that there are frauds masquarading as priests - accepting that this is so does this invalidate any or all other priests or religious activities? Well? Obviously this is a spurious argument. What is new.

[Furthermore, if the scientific process ends up being capable of validating only that which is verifiable by announced scientific methods, what is to be said of those values that are beyond quantifiable and empirical assessment?

That these issues (whatever they may be) are beyond quantifiable and empirical assessment...was that so hard?

[

What are the costs of Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, or American and British torture camps? It is this awareness that sets the Austrian school apart from other schools of economic inquiry (i.e., those that presume that the unquantifiable cannot – and ought not – be incorporated into economic analyses). This was the central point of my Rothbard Lecture given at the Mises Institute in early 2003, titled “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Human Spirit: The Luddites Revisited.”

What an absolute ding-dong. This waste of breath thinks to repudiate Science - in fact he is claiming that his "science" of economics is capable of dealing with unquantifiable data - well OK - I'm sure it is useful/intersting (and not really new at all - as Veblin made this sort of analysis in the 1800's...) - however what he is refering to "economics" is not in fact "science at all - not in and of itself - though scientific analysis can be applied to aspects of economics - but only in limited capacity. Economics - as the other social "sciences" are not "hard" science but in fact do rely on theories, supositions and best guesses to fill in for what may never be known/knowable/testable and what have you. Just the nature of the beast...

[To smuggle a set of a priori assumptions into a discussion and then imagine that one is challenging religious faith, is an exercise in self-delusion. There is an element of arbitrariness underlying every belief system, if for no other reason than the fact that our beliefs arise wholly within our minds; that they are about the world rather than of it. To condemn the theory of “intelligent design” because it contravenes scientific understanding is no less an act of religious faith than attacking Charles Darwin’s work because it is contrary to the Book of Genesis.

Total BS. Science is taught in Scince classes - not religion. Evolution is based on known and accepted scientific principles. If you want religion - go to bible school.

[Each of us, I believe, has a need for spiritual experiences; for a sense of transcendence; a need to connect up with the universe – including other people – in a profound way. We pursue this need in a variety of ways reflective of the inherent diversity of life. Some of us seek this spiritual sense in religious and philosophic speculation; others in scientific pursuits;

mixing apples and oranges - we don't pursue Science for relaxation - but to obtain knowledge - only a fundi type (or a right wing nutjob with an agenda as this guy obviously is...) would think to equate superstision with scientific undersrtanding

[still others in music, art, dance, poetry, architecture, engineering, business, gardening, or the raising of children. Those who pursue wealth, power, fame, or status, are driven by a need to transcend themselves by becoming “bigger than life.”

Even politics attracts people who believe, however mistakenly, that they can experience a connection with others through careers in government, conduct that puts themselves in conflict with – and coercively violates the wills of – their fellow humans.

this has nothing to do with anything - and it is entirely unsuportable supposition on this guys part - it is not useful analysis in any form.

[Institutions – particularly the state – have no interest in spiritual or emotional matters. Their pursuits are purely materialistic and mechanistic.

Should they? Pehraps he should ask Ayatola whoever what he thinks...

[ The inner lives of individuals – such as the desire for liberty – are of no consequence to them, other than as entropic wastes to be avoided or disposed of in the most efficient manner.

Again conjecture. How does he knwo any of this?

[ To such entities, a materialistic science applied to “human resources” through technology and social engineering is all that matters. The nonmaterial becomes immaterial in such a world, and those who insist upon a metasystem of values – whether grounded in religion, philosophy, or other normative pursuits – are simply looked upon as being counterproductive to the “brave new world” of corporate-statism. Spiritual inquiries provide too much of a distraction from politically-centered purposes to be abided by the state.

I'm findiing the opposite these days - a bit too much concern on the part of idiot politicians in spiritual matters and justifications...

[We live in a world in which the mass killing of people is dismissed as “collateral damage”; the constant and ever-more-intrusive control and surveillance of men and women is treated as a form of “inventory control”; the spontaneity and curiosity of children is defined as a social disease to be drugged; and the inviolate nature of human beings is routinely disregarded by robotic functionaries of the state whose own spiritual death allows them to torture, maim, and kill others upon command. All of this is defended by morally deranged political leaders on the twisted grounds of “necessity” and, far worse, the preservation of “freedom.”

relevance?

[As I stated earlier, I do not believe in the notion of “intelligent design.” But my dispute is not over the comparative merits of this doctrine versus evolution. There is a far deeper issue going to the separation of religion and state that is rarely mentioned: the secular religious faith that government should be involved in education; in indoctrinating the minds of people to accept a politically-centered society. State education is no less grounded in religious faith than are churches; replacing a crucifix or Star-of-David atop a building with a flag does not change the fundamental nature of what is taking place.

Bulls hit - the issue is entirely the opposite of what he states. He offers no analysis at all in this peice only a political diatribe - a repetition of the so-called libertarian mantra with little or basis on any reality that is much worth our consideration. Not that I disagree with some of the critique - but it is misapplied in this case and he has not supported any of these argument in this piece - he just accepts these mantras...based....on....faith....

[Anonymouse]

Re: Intelligent Design is religion - not science

Before I dissect the hodge podge of nonsense you call a rebuttal, might I offer a bit of advice? Learn to use the quote function and how to separate quotes from each other.

Welllll..."truth" concerning the workings of the world around us and natural phenomonon of the universe and such is in fact - I think we pretty much believe - derived from Science. Science (the means of inquiry defined by such) gives us the best means that we currently know to understand these things - thus we have Scientific fields of study and employment and we teach SCIENCE in our schools - because SCIENCE has proven itself to give the best understanding of things and to allow us to advance our knowledtge in all areas - such a s medicine for instance. So yes - Science is taught in our schools and we have a definition for what consititutes Science and Inteligent Design and other religeous explanations have no place in Science cirriculum (and this is all the rulign is stating) and it is no more appropriate that Astrology in Astonomy class, voodoo in Medical School, and whatever supersticious belief - insert here - in place of actual knowledge (scientific) based education. I'm certainly not ashamed of this - but if I were you (or the nutty ideologicaly driven author of this piece) I would certainly be ashamed of taking up such an ignorant position against science. Idiots.

Your absolute belief in science clouds your judgement. You have so much faith in science you state constantly how it works and is the truth. We have discussed, debated, rehashed, restated constantly about this very topic on these here boards and what you are I say will be nothing new to either of us. We both already have our fixed notions of what's what, and where we stand on the spectrum of ideas. But since you insisted on dragging this, I shall divulge what is a more coherent and cordial rebuttal, since you seem to be incapable of both.

The key to everything my young padowan, is as you stated in the above paragraph: I think we pretty much believe. That we believe is essentially the gist of it, in simple terms.

Science, before it can be used as a workable model, must first be accepted as somehow valid, in order to be used as a conveyor of knowledge. Science, or what is science, i.e. knowledge, has changed throughout history. With the times, so has the science changed. Conceptual models have been created and destroyed, and yesterdays knowledge is today's heresy. All knowledge is is societies psychological perception of itself - its learning and reasoning. That which we learn, we must first put faith in. We trust in the cirriculum, content, and criteria of certain forms of knowledge, without which we would not have what we deem to be truth. In order for something to work as a tool of knowledge, i.e. the scientific method, it must first be accepted as valid, in other words, you must first put trust and faith and accept it blindly, before you can use it as such.

It's interesting in your whole rebuttal not once did you address this very point, that you cannot use science, or the scientific method, to prove exactly that - the scientific method. In other words, at some point, in any area, if you go back far enough, you must accept on faith that thing which you come to see as the tool of acquiring knowledge.

The number system is another perfect example. For any of it to be valid, it must first be believed and accepted. Everyone believes that the notational system which we use is the official one. Why is the conceptual idea of one written as 1? Why could it not be another symbol? Why is two written as 2? It must first be agreed upon, and trusted, for it to be disseminated as knowledge. The same applies to the criteria science uses in order to learn about the natural world. There must first be faith in what it uses, otherwise it would not work.

And as I've stated a billion times, science has changed, and it's conception as well. At one point Euclids geometry reigned supreme, at another it was Newton's physics which was seen as the truth. Then modern physics came along and replaced that as the valid tool of measuring knowledge. When you speak of quarks or wave functions, and energy, people often think that somehow these are equivalent to everyday objects that are observable such as trees, stones, or oceans. The difference between them is that a change in a scientific model is the difference between real and invented concepts. Changes in a scientific model can absolve a black hole as a conceptual entity, but they cannot rid of the everyday and observable objects such as trees, cliffs or oceans.

A meaningless argument if there ever was one. No one has ever claime dthat science is the onlly possible knowledge. However Science validates itself by the quality of the results it achieves and by the rigorous standards its sets for making any claims of fact and such - and ths point is that if a claim is made that is based on Science you can understand the oth the question and the ansewer - it is quantifiable and/or definable and is testable/acheivable. This does not mean that it is the only possbible explanation or that it is the final say - it is but an as[pect - a question that can be answered to the best of current knowledge - and the process moves forward as more knowledge is gained. And no - this guy and you are absolutly not strong supporters of scientific inquiry - to attemtp to equate supersticious beliefs with scientific discover and to attempt (without any real argument - just meaningless logic games) to denigrate the knowledge achived through Science. Those who practice and understand Science and the Scientific Method are well aware of the limitations of Science - however what has not be ever sufficiently proposed is any better alternative. So in the meantime we use and build on the knowledge obtaiuned through Science while understanding that we (and it) have/has limitations.

Your characterization of myself, as well as the authors, as somehow haters of science is unjustified and simply part of your exaggerations. No where have I claimed science is not useful or helpful. Science - when it behaves like science - which means, when it deals with the observable and natural world around us, is a legitimate tool for acquiring knowledge. However, when anything, goes beyond its cirriculum, and makes claims to truth about origins, then that very thing ceases to be science, and becomes an arena of faith, as that which is unknowable such as our origins, can never be quantified, verified, observed or explained, not by science nor religion.

What constitutes part of science is the scientific method, and a part of what constitutes the scientific method, is that which is observable or testable. To this day, scientists have not been able to reproduce life, or the process of evolution, much less observe how a single cell produced a horse eventually. These questions and charges I am levelling in no way imply that creationism or intelligent design are the truth. Far from it. They only show, within itself, that evolution is not entirely science, at least not all parts of it. Therefore, it should be taken as nothing more than a criticism of part of evolution, since I have never denied the variation or adaptation that occurs within species. In fact, the questions I posed by Fred Reed have gone unanswered curiously enough.

(1) Life was said to have begun by chemical inadvertence in the early seas. Did we, I wondered, really know of what those early seas consisted? Know, not suspect, hope, theorize, divine, speculate, or really, really wish.

The answer was, and is, "no." We have no dried residue, no remaining pools, and the science of planetogenesis isn't nearly good enough to provide a quantitative analysis.

(2) Had the creation of a living cell been replicated in the laboratory? No, it hadn't, and hasn't.

(3) Did we know what conditions were necessary for a cell to come about? No, we didn't, and don't.

(4) Could it be shown to be mathematically probable that a cell would form, given any soup whatever? No, it couldn't, and can't. (At least not without cooking the assumptions.)

So there is "bad science" - and there are frauds - certainly you accept that there are frauds masquarading as priests - accepting that this is so does this invalidate any or all other priests or religious activities? Well? Obviously this is a spurious argument. What is new.

I never denied there are priests that are fraud or religious sects that are nothing more than fraud masquerading as a claim to truth. Obviously, that wasnt the point of the author, the point was that it's not all cut and dry and according to a nice perfect plan or objective criteria like the scientific method.

That these issues (whatever they may be) are beyond quantifiable and empirical assessment...was that so hard?

Well, since the origins of life, the observation of how a single cell eventually turned into a horse, the reproduction of a cell in a labaratory, are beyond quantififiable and empirical assessment, I suppose if you are holding everything to an objective criteria, half of the claims of evolution need to be struck down immediately.

What an absolute ding-dong. This waste of breath thinks to repudiate Science - in fact he is claiming that his "science" of economics is capable of dealing with unquantifiable data - well OK - I'm sure it is useful/intersting (and not really new at all - as Veblin made this sort of analysis in the 1800's...) - however what he is refering to "economics" is not in fact "science at all - not in and of itself - though scientific analysis can be applied to aspects of economics - but only in limited capacity. Economics - as the other social "sciences" are not "hard" science but in fact do rely on theories, supositions and best guesses to fill in for what may never be known/knowable/testable and what have you. Just the nature of the beast...

If you don't know anything about economics, you should not speak. One example of why Keynesianism failed was because it attempted to quantify and place peoples values into measurable equations which cannot work. As Hayek showing in "Road to Serfdom", centrally controlled economies and government bureaucrats could ever effectively make decisions for other people because it is impossible to process all of the information that goes into other people's decision-making. Peoples values are all different and different people value different things at different times and it is constantly changing, so freezing the supposed values in a timeless equation to make it "quantifiable" doesn't do much.

Your claim that economics relies on suppositions is true, because all science, even the science you worship which claims evolution as truth, relies on suppositions. Since nothing is 100% knowledge or certain, all we have at root are suppositions.

Total BS. Science is taught in Scince classes - not religion. Evolution is based on known and accepted scientific principles. If you want religion - go to bible school.

Not unless it can be shown, and has been shown, that a part of evolution relies totally on faith.

mixing apples and oranges - we don't pursue Science for relaxation - but to obtain knowledge - only a fundi type (or a right wing nutjob with an agenda as this guy obviously is...) would think to equate superstision with scientific undersrtanding

Everyone has an agenda. That is the way humans are. Since it is impossible to not be biased, it is impossible to not have an agenda. Simply put, by believing and adhereing to a certain idea or ideas, you are by the fact itself biased, and therefore have an agenda, i.e. promoting that idea which you adhere to.

this has nothing to do with anything - and it is entirely unsuportable supposition on this guys part - it is not useful analysis in any form.

Of course it does within the context of the article.

Should they? Pehraps he should ask Ayatola whoever what he thinks...

This has no point and totally missed the issue of what the author was aiming at. Unless you suggest a Cartesian world of mechanistic soulless existence, then I don't see a point to what you said.

Again conjecture. How does he knwo any of this?

Hardly conjecture if anyone considers that States, which are institutions onto themselves, have claimed the lives of 200 million people in the 20th century, and within it, excluding all the wars, are the state sanctioned genocides and persecutions. Yep, as a lover of Leviathan, and placing the masses and the State ahead of the individual, I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

I'm findiing the opposite these days - a bit too much concern on the part of idiot politicians in spiritual matters and justifications...

You failed to address what the author was talking about, namely, that States are not concerned with the spiritual well being of the individual.

relevance?

Why not read it within the context of the article?

Bulls hit - the issue is entirely the opposite of what he states. He offers no analysis at all in this peice only a political diatribe - a repetition of the so-called libertarian mantra with little or basis on any reality that is much worth our consideration. Not that I disagree with some of the critique - but it is misapplied in this case and he has not supported any of these argument in this piece - he just accepts these mantras...based....on....faith....

Well, this is where your inanity and irrationality takes over, and nothing much can be said about that.