A school administrative director in Maine has come under attack and ridicule recently for his recent urging that evolution be dropped from the curriculum in schools.
Matthew Linkletter, director of School Administrative District 59 in Somerset County, claims that no theory – neither evolution nor creationism – should be taught in schools if it cannot be proven.
"You can't show, observe or prove [evolution]," Linkletter said in a statement.
David Connerty-Marin of Maine’s Department of Education, however, countered Linkletter’s stance, claiming that evolution should continue to be taught in schools because it is based on “proven science,” and is part of the state mandated curriculum.
"For our students to be prepared for college work and life in the 21st century, it's necessary. Evolution is not just a belief, or based on faith, it's based on scientific evaluation. The worldwide science community supports it,” he said.
Town Manager Norman Dean of Madison, one of the locations where the instruction of evolution has been challenged, also criticized Linkletter, adding that his opposition to evolution was "absolutely stupid."
Linkletter’s opposition, however, has come at a time when the “Evolution Academic Freedom” legislation – which allows for the public criticism of the tenets of Darwinism in public schools – advances under review in four states.
Lawmakers in Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan are currently considering options to change or modify the instruction of evolution in schools that would allow students to challenge and “think critically” concerning Darwinism.
"The evolution concept is a theory, and not provable. If the science department at Madison High (a school in Somerset County) is simply teaching theory, then you ought to leave it in the science department,” said Roy Blevins, pastor at the Church of the Open Bible in Athens, Maine.
Linkletter’s arguments will be examined for review by school district directors on May 19.
Comments
Despite extensive searching of the Gospels I am unable to find any teaching of Christ's on Darwin's origin of species. Also I found nothing in the gospels where Christ seeks to prove the existence of God. It seems to me that not only is the pursuit of "scientific" evidence for God (ID) a enormous waste of time and inherently doomed to failure (since Science by definition deals with NATURAL phenomena and NATURAL causes and God by definition is supernatural) it is also fully inconsistent with the manner and teachings of Christ. One even wonders seriously if this vanity is what Christ spoke of when he discusses the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. Is it not the Spirit of god living within us as C.S. Lewis so well describes in "Miracles" which informs us of the truth of Christss revelation. Is not chasing after other "proofs" of god and his covenant a repudiation of this new spirit which is to live within us.
Tgender when you say that ID is falsifiable by showing that any particular object is not contingent,complex or specified what do you mean by these terms. I am sincerely interested. If I take your grammer as stated the term or allows falsification if any of the three conditions exists in relation to "any particular object" if this you mean what you say by this and you use the term complex in the way that ID advocates use it (irreducible complexity) then I would contend that by your proposition of falsification ID is already shown to be false since such objects are numerous in our natural universe. However for my self I can't see how such a proposition for falsification for ID hypothesis could be correct since the advocates when shown something that was not "complex, contingent or specified" could simply posit that that is the way the designer wanted it. You can't have it both ways that the designer can make things any way he wants and then say that there can be in the design something that shows their is no designer. ???
Agentorangx
Hi, While I agree with your line of argument that ID is not science and no falsifiable hypothesis is formable the SETI project has problems as well. The project directors admit that in fact their hypothesis is not falsifiable either. Like ID they look at the universe and based on their understanding of statistical probability can not conceive of a universe that does not have other intelligent life somewhere in it and therefore based on this belief they search for what they can not develop a falsifiable test for. You are correct in that they search in the natural world and therefore have the possibility of demonstrating the truth of their guess about the universe at some point. This however would be the discovery of a fact by virtual explorers not the vindication of a theory through experimentation under the scientific method.
TGender,
As I believed you are unable to provide any support from the SETI project itself that supports your INTERPRETATION of that project. Also you failed to respond to the challenge for you to provide something beyond a bald assertion that ID is science.
The absence of external support for your SETI claim is somewhat moot since even if true it would not follow that ID is science. The problem with your SET claim is that SETI does not use the "Scientific method" in their search. Even the people who run it admit that it would be impossible to falsify their hypothesis even if all human endeavors were turned to searching the radio waves for millions of years. They would contend that this simply meant that the E.T.s didn't use radio waves or that we missed the broadcast. They admit this and rely on a probability equation as the basis of their belief system. It is ok with me if they want to believe this. (In fact the belief in E.T. does not conflict with my spiritual beliefs and I consider it a feasible possibility). However the SETI While using technologies to explore the universe do not do SCIENCE. Scientific hypothesis by definition must be falsifiable or they are not scientific. It is the willingness and ability to posit the opposite of ones hypothesis and consider it to be legitimately possible which is at the heart of the difference between science and faith. You seem fundamentally unable (as do the supposed ID scientists) to consider the possibility of your being wrong in relation to creationism. This is understandable since the propositions you are advocating are faith positions. There is nothing wrong with holding such faith positions in my book. (I do so myself) What I do not do and object to in others is the self delusion that faith positions are science.
By the way your quote regarding Theology being the Queen of Sciences was not a saying of medieval scholars in general as your statement implies. Rather it is a commentary on the attitude of the scholars of that time found in various texts that discuss the period. In fact the statement relates very strongly to Thomas Aquinas. Interestingly it does not mean what you interpret it to mean.
A master principle which informs Aquinas' analysis of creation is that the truths of science cannot contradict the truths of faith. God is the author of all truth and whatever reason discovers to be true about reality ought not to be challenged by an appeal to sacred texts.
While they disagreed on some things this is one area where Aquinas was in agreement with Augustine. In fact both of them agree in this regard with all major Christian theologians. Your argument that science must be interpreted through the lens of Christology is contrary to centuries of Christian theology. What is alarming is that it is consistent with the approach to science/faith that members of the Taliban and other extremists find attractive.
Tgender,
So you’ve heard how the type 3 secretory system explains the evolutionary pathways for the bacteria flagella then? So you’ve read the literature on species showing how the blood clotting cascade system isn’t in fact IC? These are just 2 instances of IC which aren’t IC and its exactly what you asked for to falsify ID as a hypothesis, well, there it is, now what?
“different disciplines?”
Science is science, philosophy is philosophy, they shouldn’t be used in the same manner to explain each facts in each IE, we leave scientific methods to be used in science and we leave philosophical methods like predicate logic in philosophy. Explain these 2 genetic facts using the ID hypothesis in a scientific manner. After tryign to do explain these 2 in a scientific manner you'll see how ID as a hypothesis isn't scientific, but quasi philosophy.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
ao,
Don't bother. I've heard it all before and it's a crock. Don't care to address my comment about integrating knowledge from different disciplines?
tgender,
ok, did you want me to explain the instances of IC Behe refers to and how they were shown in Dover to not be IC, or do you take my word for it?
ao,
Respectfully, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what IDs purpose is, but more importantly, the need to integrate various disciplines of knowledge to form a coherent worldview that we can be confident is true. If God exists, then all your contortions to constrain science and avoid theology are all for naught.
Regards
“I suspect you accept SETI because the SETI scientists do not posit God as the intelligent agent, but some sort of mysterious alien life.”
Right, SETI appeals to the natural world, while ID appeals to the supernatural (ID/God), however the supernatural can’t be held constant and therefore can’t be readily studied by scientific methods.
“! Well, it is science just like SETI is because the principles are the same.”
Not quite. SETI attempts to explain the natural world with natural things and only natural things, while ID attempt to explain the natural world via supernaturalism, thus not science.
“ID is falsifiable by showing that any particular object is not contingent, not complex, or not specified’
So if I list the systems which Behe asserts to be IC and show how they have evolutionary pathways would that about suffice?
“When evolutionists run into trouble, they simply posit more time for evolution to happen or appeal to future discoveries”
Ya, like when? Lord Kelvin first suggest the Earth to be many millions (about 20) of years old based solely on the laws of thermodynamics, but he didn’t know about radiation and so his numbers were off, the earth is much older, closer to 4.5 billion years. Even the Disco Institute clowns know and accept the age of the earth and all life which has lived on it so even there you have explain why the ID folk accept it.
“How do you falsify evolution?”
Find some mammalian fossils in the Devonian layers and its spot on about dead. I can list numerous falsifiable predictions evolutionary theory has passed if you’d like?
This is tedious,, explain these 2 simply genetic facts using the ID hypothesis in a scientific manner.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
ao,
Yes, your view is what I suspected. You want to deny ID as science because you seem to fear who might be at the end of it. In other words, you’ll accept ID in SETI because at most we’ll find aliens and you can deal with that. However, if we apply ID to nature and discover God, you want to reject it and say it’s not science! Well, it is science just like SETI is because the principles are the same. Scientific discoveries of design would then lead one into theology to identify and understand the Designer. So what? If it leads to TRUTH, then that’s what we’re after, right? ID does not tie the hands of science, rather it frees it to pursue the truth wherever it leads. Disciplines of knowledge should not be compartmentalized, but integrated.
ID is falsifiable by showing that any particular object is not contingent, not complex, or not specified. It is evolution is that is not falsifiable. When evolutionists run into trouble, they simply posit more time for evolution to happen or appeal to future discoveries. How do you falsify evolution?
TG,
Here’s the key difference, SETI and their search for signs revolve around not the supernatural like ID, but instead the natural world. SETI doesn’t refer to things in the supernatural realm to explain those in the natural world, its entire avenue of gaining knowledge on ET’s stems from the natural world. As opposed to ID, which appeals to some un-described supernatural agent to explain natural phenomena in the natural world, again this is why it’s not scientific.
SETI is searching for something in the natural world and therefore it can make falsifiable predictions based on it, ID is engaged in searching, but again its searches revolve around detecting supernatural agents. SETI isn’t used to collectively explain many things in the natural world. More of less I am just asking to show how ID as a hypothesis is falsifiable? Take for instance the examples of ERV’s and Human chromosome 2 fusion, how could the ID hypothesis explain such facts in a falsifiable manner?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Viking—
SETI is a scientific research program dedicated to searching for extraterrestrial intelligence (the “I” in SETI). It does this by scanning radio signals looking for contingency, specification, and complexity—which would be signs of intelligent life (or intelligent causation or intelligent design), i.e., it looks for complex patterns that cannot be mistaken for chance events. This is exactly what ID is arguing for, except they say let’s point this ID filter at other things besides radio waves to see if we can discern intelligent causes in nature. If you don’t see this, then you simply are not willing to see it. I suspect you accept SETI because the SETI scientists do not posit God as the intelligent agent, but some sort of mysterious alien life.
I want to clarify something I wrote in my last post. I agreed with agentorange that “science is NOT the only avenue of knowing” and that only real science should be taught in science classes—as opposed to bad science. I fear that you and perhaps others might have misconstrued my meaning. I believe that God is the maker of the heavens and the earth, therefore we will find Him in all things. Since God created the nature that science investigates it will be no surprise to find Him at every turn.
Medieval scholars were right when they said “Theology is the queen of the sciences; and philosophy is her handmaiden.” Theology must therefore transcend, inform, and unify all human disciplines. Since God is the ultimate Reality, all truth is God’s truth. So, if Christianity is true, then any view of science that leaves Christ out of the picture is fundamentally deficient. Christ is the lens through which it is possible to understand all of human existence. Therefore, we should expect Christology to enter substantially into all of life’s various disciplines. The naturalistic views of science I have seen on this website do not seek to integrate it into a coherent worldview, but rather want to isolate it from other forms of knowledge. This is detrimental and ultimately dangerous in my opinion.
Hi Tgender, based on your last post you would agree that if ID is not science then it should not be taught in schools. you give as support for the proposition that ID is science is that its principles are used in the SETI program. I went to the SETI web site and could not find this. Could you provide the link that demonstrates this claim with an official quote from the SETI scientists that says their project is based on ID principles.
In contrast to this proposition I would refer you to the exhaustive examination of whether ID is science in the Dover PA decision where it was found that ID as it was presented by its advocates was in fact not science on multiple grounds.
Given lack of any evidence to support the opinion that ID is science I would expect you be consistent with your own statement and withdraw your position that ID should be taught in schools.
ao,
“I am suggesting not that science is the only avenue of knowing, rather I am saying that what aught to be taught in science classes must remain as science and not quasi philosophy or other realms of knowing.”
Believe it or not I agree with you. Our difference of opinion is that I say ID is legitimate science and you do not. SETI is an established scientific program and it uses the principles of ID. Do you object to that program being called science?