Ramen.

Farkin' A!

Good. Congratulations, Texas. Once again, the forces of sanity prevail.

Sad that it was so close though.

Science and rational thought breaking out in Texas. Good.

Good news..

Now maybe they can turn their attention to more important things, like fixing the perpetually corrupt and dysfunctional DISD administration.

Thank goodness. Love my state, hate the fundies.

2wolves: Science and rational thought breaking out in Texas. Good.

Hey, whoa. Don't put too much pressure on us.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."

Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature.

Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method:

i. Observation:

The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:

If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:

We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:

Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.


Putting Intelligent Design to the Test:


Table 1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):

(1) Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.
(2) Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.
(3) 'Re-use parts' over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
(4) Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).

Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Table 3.

Line of Evidence Data

(1) Biochemical complexity / Laws of the Universe.

Data (Experiment)

High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Specified complexity found in the laws of the universe may be another.

Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)

Yes.

Line of Evidence Data

(2) Fossil Record

Data (Experiment)

Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example.

Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)

Yes.

Line of Evidence Data

(3) Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics

Data (Experiment)

Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example.

Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)

Yes.

Line of Evidence Data

(4) DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality

Data (Experiment)

Increased knowledge of genetics has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but discovery of function may be expected (or lack of current function still explainable under a design paradigm).

Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)

Yes.


Link (new window)

Sadness:

Barbara Cargill now has some more nasty amendments to ESS. As usual, she is springing them on the SBOE members and public at the last minute without explanation and expert evaluation. She will need a majority vote to get these passed. Will Agosto give the Republicans the vote they need to further damage ESS? I can't get a copy of these amendments right now. However, the first one she wants is to strike the current standard for the Big Bang and remove the 14 billion year old age from it. She is promoting a Young Earth Creationist view, of course. Many times in the past the SBOE has changed standards that mention millions and billions of years to simple "a long time ago." She wants to substitute a standard from Astronomy that simply adds, "add current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe" to the Big Bang standard 4A. Cargill's amendment to strip a very ancient number of years one that is equivocal about the age of the universe passed 11-3, with only Knight, Miller, and Nunez voting No. So the SBOE holds true to its wonderful tradition of stripping any date older than 10,000 years from science standards!

What a useless and do-nothing amendment that only works to justify the already present belief many children are raised with out there. But at least we don't have to worry about teachers undermining education legally.

Still gotta worry about them doing it though.

Not so fast; the fat lady hasn't sung yet, and the creationists are still trying:
Link (new window)

I almost went extinct waiting for that page to load. Ha-HA!

CDP, how is that experiment falsifiable? Your "experiment" read more like an observation. What exactly is the test, and how is the test falsifiable? That's what makes a scientific experiment a legitimate experiment.

Talon: CDP, how is that experiment falsifiable?

The test is all in the image.

Interesting the House education committee voted today to a sunset review of the BOE.

And a pro-science member who will provide a swing vote will attend tomorrow's session, when the standards are finalized.

I expect the politico-religionists will get some modest gains this week, and at least set the stage to waste precious education funds on lawsuits once some benighted teacher attempts to proselytize on the taxpayer's dime, but it won't be the coup that the Discovery Institute, who is behind this whole fiasco, is hoping for.

The ironic thing is that politico-religionism is a greater threat to religious freedom than any science book or ACLU or fossil ever was.

.

CDP: Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method:

i. Observation:

The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:

If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:

We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:

Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

You/they could have just written "tautology" and saved on bandwidth.

1: Complex things are intelligently designed.
2: We can prove things are intelligently designed by looking at how complex they are.
3: Things are complex.
4: Things are intelligently designed.

Step 1 is assumed, and not supported by anything. "CSI" is one of the most hilarious things I've seen.

ninjakirby: Talon: CDP, how is that experiment falsifiable?

The test is all in the image.

this.

and despite the image, people still fall for it thread after thread.

Thank god.

You know, it just seems kind of sad that, during the decline of Western Civilization, a group calling itself "conservative" would be happily building the coffin

.

I knew there couldn't be an evolution thread without CDP coming in with blocks of text that have no point.

FTFA:The seven board members and social conservative groups supporting the rule have argued that its absence would discourage classroom discussion about evolution. They have cited alleged flaws in Darwin's theory that they contend should be covered in classes and textbooks.

Why won't these cretins learn that evolutionary theory has changed (evolved) since Darwin? The evidence for evolution has increased dramatically as well. But what do I know? I don't have an imaginary degree in Law...

As a Texas resident I am happy that at least 7 of our board members have brains.


Ramen!!!

So, if they want to show "strengths and weaknesses" then they'll show the weaknesses of intelligent design, right?

right?

That'll do Texas...that'll do

Texas? THE Texas? I'm not ashamed of my state right now? It's a strange feeling. I'm not sure I can get used to this.

What happened to the little quotes button?

SleepyMcGee: FTFA:The seven board members and social conservative groups supporting the rule have argued that its absence would discourage classroom discussion about evolution. They have cited alleged flaws in Darwin's theory that they contend should be covered in classes and textbooks.

Why won't these cretins learn that evolutionary theory has changed (evolved) since Darwin? The evidence for evolution has increased dramatically as well. But what do I know? I don't have an imaginary degree in Law...

They are not interested in learning. They are interested in carrying out the wedge strategy, and insinuating a narrow interpretation of scripture into public education. They themselves have published documents plainly stating this. This is a matter of public record.

.

CDP: iii. Experiment:

We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

Argh. This is hideously incorrect. My brain hurts from the stupid.

...

The fact that it was a 7-7 decision does NOT give me hope for the future.

FloydA: Once again, the forces of sanity prevail.

Somewhat.

CDP: Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer

Technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). ID does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, or even at present explicit purpose to claim. No evidence, no purpose, no point, no theory, no science, NO COOKIE!

Bloody William: "CSI" is one of the most hilarious things I've seen.

Like anyone would believe anything a furry has to say....

If you believe in "creation science," you'd better get checked for Down Syndrome.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: And a pro-science member who will provide a swing vote will attend tomorrow's session, when the standards are finalized.

It's ridiculous that these things haven't been finalized already. This is what, the second or third vote that has gone towards striking the ridiculous passage, and yet they still keep holding votes for it? What on earth for?

Raptor Jesus or Raptorcopter?

Texas is the only thing that keeps me going. We didn't take the "ownyou" dollars from the assholes in DC and we are set to pass a law telling employers to fark off over their ban on guns in the cars of employees in their lots. Texas is still quite a respectful place. No need to piss off a neighbor and get shot. It works here. Of course we aren't allowing ourselves to be run by criminals such as is the case in places like Oakland and Chicago.

Hopefully Kansas will come around soon as well.

Well, of course not! He'll be walking on foot.



With Texas' anti-dinosaur and anti-zombie rulings, what CAN you ride?.

TheWhaleShark: CDP: iii. Experiment:

We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

Argh. This is hideously incorrect. My brain hurts from the stupid.

More to the point, there have been lab-reproducible studies that show several structures that continue to work with components missing, removed, or not having evolved yet. Interestingly, some structures performed a different function with the part removed--and in all cases, a biologically useful function.

Of course the IDiots have no use for this type of real science, because they are a politico-religionist propaganda outfit whose sole purpose is to "replace science with a theistic view of the universe," IN THEIR OWN WORDS.
.

I'm somewhat impressed, Texas. Keep this up and I might just come back.

/yes that is a threat

The war between science and religion has been over for 500 years. Science won. That's why we no longer live in the dark ages and we're able to communicate with each other over the internet.

The only reason there is a debate about science and religion now is because the religious right has been shot down by the constitution over and over again in their attempt to get religion into our public schools, so now they dishonestly try to repackage their religion as "science" in an attempt to shoe horn it into public schools.

In the end all they've accomplished is to expose their ignorance and dishonesty.

Please keep your religion and it's inherent ignorance and dishonesty in your own homes and places of worship.

Yay! Now come on, Oklahoma, make mama proud.

yay! i have a reason to be proud of my state for once!

The dollars being printed by the government are creating government jobs. Not good if you aren't in the club and have no desire to be in the club. We are going to need to downsize the federal government in earnest or there's going to be big problems. Hopefully if it comes to that, the one plank of the federal government, the military, will be ready to set things right. That's no sure thing anymore though if the democrats go through with their plan to create a domestic praetorian guard to defend their privilege.

I know they'll never put this in any high school textbook ever, but here's the "teach the controversy" language I'd like to see about evolution: While nearly every single scientist alive agrees that evolution happens, there's considerable debate about how and why. Biologists and paleontologists disagree about the causes, mechanisms, and time scales involved.

/you me and everyone else was taught the biologists' point of view
//very long timescales like the ones paleontologists work with point to very different answers
///didn't know that until I talked to a paleontologist
////i can haz raptor jesus?

Wow, way to crush the hopes of children all over Texas. Why don't you just go ahead and tell them Santa Claus isn't real while you're at it. Way to go, horriblepersonmitter!

Too close for comfort. I hate parts of my state sometimes

Hooray for my old home state!

By god, science shall prevail over superstition!

In any college level evolution class, they of course DO explain the "weaknesses" of the theory. Or to be more correct, the limitations of the theory.

Any science class is like this. People who actually take science classes know this. Teaching science is not about teaching indisputable facts. It's about teaching how anyone can figure out these things for themselves.

My first science class in 9th grade, we not only learned the Bohr model of the atom, but alternative models that people came up with, how those alternative models don't hold up well, and how the Bohr model makes sense as best as we can measure.

It would be irresponsible to teach evolution and not provide alternative theories. NOTE: Creationism is not an alternative theory to evolution, and the people who go on about it don't really understand science at all.

Murkanen: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: And a pro-science member who will provide a swing vote will attend tomorrow's session, when the standards are finalized.

It's ridiculous that these things haven't been finalized already. This is what, the second or third vote that has gone towards striking the ridiculous passage, and yet they still keep holding votes for it? What on earth for?

Lord, I have no idea how bureaucratic processes work in Texas. I do know that one member of the board could not make it today, and that this person is pro-science.

The legislature may make an end-run around the whole fiasco as well.

It's really odd--I remember the Cold War and our commitment to real science back then. This sort of thing would never have happened back then. Could you imagine US researchers attempting to engineer vaccines against bio weapons without the predictive power of the theory of evolution? Ask the dept of cell and molecular biology at Tulane, which is contracting with the US Army right now. The Army votes for Evolution when it comes to the safety of our soldiers.

BTW, IDiots, where are the industrial or medicinal applications for Intelligent Design? What's that? None? That's because it's not science!

.