All religion is bullshit , why wouldn't that include jews?

One question--Why is it that religions aren't satisfied to remain within the confines of the church or synagogue? Weren't we all happier then?

Until we start teaching calculus or science in churches or synagogues you can keep your religious crap out of our schools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Come on, Mariah, show some scientific knowledge. ID is not a theory, it is an untested and probably untestable, hypothesis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So next they'll turn their backs on Spinoza? And Einstein? It's hard to believe that a religion which has given rise to some of the world's most brilliant scientists would abandon science itself. But their are reasons why people shun Orthodoxy, just as Protestant Christians often shun Fundamentalism. You'll never convince me that the theory of evolution is any threat to God.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is profoundly sad is that the people who want to abandon Darwin in favor of such tripe as ID always cite "randomness" as the feature of Darwinian evolution that makes it "impossible" as an explanation for the marvels of biological systems. This of course reveals their total lack of understanding as to what Darwinian evolution is in the first place. (This is certainly not surpising. After all, Ayatollah Khomeini rendered a death fatwa on Salman Rushdie without ever having read "The Satanic Verses," and the same type of ignorance is at work here.) The results of Darwinian evolution are not really random; it is DNA mutations that are the random events. As someone else pointed out, those "random" events are then filtered through the process of "natural selection," so that only those mutations which contribute to success become "selected" to be passed on to future offsrping; those that are detrimental (which are most), lead to nowhere, or worse. The results of the "selected mutations," which manifest themselves over very lengthy periods and large populations, lead to the amazing diversity and functonality of biological systems. The problem with science seems to be that we are simply not doing a good enough job of teaching Darwinian evolution in the first place. Of course those who criticize it the loudest understand it the least, and unfortunately (still) do not want to!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This report was written as if the jury is still out on the scientific character of ID. It never needed to be out in the real world (hokum is hokum), and it isn't even out in the fantasy world of the US legal system any longer. ID is *unscientific* and *antiscientific*.
Which is why reactionaries and obscurantists of all persuasions flock to it. Some of them well-dressed and impressively titled.
It's all like the farmer watching his sheep leaping from trees in the Monty Python sketch.
Reporter: "But they don't so much fly, as plummet."
(sound effect of plummeting sheep....)
Farmer: "Ah, but think if the amazing commercial possibilities if they succeed!"
In the present case, not so much commercial as ideological. Irrationality in indisputable control of the minds of the young.
Rasputin rules!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This report was written as if the jury is still out on the scientific character of ID. It never needed to be out in the real world (hokum is hokum), and it isn't even out in the fantasy world of the US legal system any longer. ID is *unscientific* and *antiscientific*.
Which is why reactionaries and obscurantists of all persuasions flock to it. Some of them well-dressed and impressively titled.
It's all like the farmer watching his sheep leaping from trees in the Monty Python sketch.
Reporter: "But they don't so much fly, as plummet."
(sound effect of plummeting sheep....)
Farmer: "Ah, but think if the amazing commercial possibilities if they succeed!"
In the present case, not so much commercial as ideological. Irrationality in indisputable control of the minds of the young.
Rasputin rules!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm kind of ashamed to hear about fellow Jews who support intelligent design. For nearly two thousand years, Jews have embraced the idea that the Torah/Bible is meant to be taken as symbolism rather than literally. That's why we have the Talmud (Rabbinical commentary on the Torah), the Midrashim (allegories meant to explain Biblical themes), and Kabbalah (a school of mysticism that aims to bring out the hidden messages in the Torah). I think all this can be summed up in Rabbi Hillel's teaching "What is hateful to you, do not do to any other person. That is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it." If a Rabbi who lived two thousand years ago understood that the Torah is a code of ethics, rather than a historical account of how the world was created, surely modern-day Jews can understand that as well.

On the other hand, I am relieved that the Orthodox community is debating the issue, rather than pushing one particular viewpoint. Debate (read: disagreement) over religious and ethical principles is a cornerstone of Judaism.

Finally, I'd like to say that I think many people misinterpret exactly what is being debated, particularly those who support the notion of intelligent design. The debate is not about whether intelligent design is "true", but rather whether it should be taught in science classrooms. There is a MAJOR difference there. No one will ever be able to prove whether or not intelligent design is "true", as it is a matter of faith. This is precisely why it should not be taught in science classes and there is no way to make a valid argument against that statement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...for the way in which evolution has been presented. Take this line in the article: '...intelligent design theory -- which holds that life is too complex to be a fluke of evolution.'

To my mind, by focusing on the fluke - the random mutation aspect - you are denying an equally important part of the theory - the practicalities. Surely it's inevitable that if people are constantly told evolution is a 'fluke' they are bound to throw up doubts. After all, we are very complicated beings.

By focusing on the random mutation you negate to mention the vast amount of time involved in evolving. If instead of thinking of it as random mutation, think of it as trial and error played out on a massive scale over a period of billions years.
Now, when I think about random mutations taking place against a backdrop of, and I'll say this again, billions of years, with life for the winners and death to the losers, the idea that living things are incredibly complicated, efficient survival machines not only stops being implausible but, indeed, feels inevitable. You can almost see the family tree of all life forms ever to have lived and, if you do, you'll notice literal millions of dead branches for every one that continues on. To say evolution is just a fluke negates the memory of all those creatures who died trying to live.

Further, if I was to psychoanalyse the piece, you would have to say the most telling line is spoken by Sholom Lipskar when he says: "If it's accidental, then what's the point? But if there's design, we're here for a reason."

This is the reality of Intelligent Design and perhaps ‘God’ themselves. Lipskar is, without wanting to be blunt, in it for himself. He is not dedicated to truth, whatever that may be. He is satisfying his own emotions first and foremost by giving himself what he perceives as an opportunity for peace. That wouldn’t be a bad thing, if he accepted he can only satisfy himself by such a conclusion. Personal peace is a subjective experience, a fact is universal. It is because of this universality of facts that we value them so highly and for this reason we should abandon teaching religion as fact. They may be noted Jewish scholars but, in my opinion, they should stop being so selfish and learn to accept the truth, whether they want to believe it or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A question that has always bothered me, but not enough to do any research on, is this. Is a colony of bees, or any colony of insects that has a queen, made up entirely of clones?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Page 1:

Come on, couldn't there POSSIBLY be a god?


Page 2:

Seriously, don't ya think there COULD be?


Page 3:

'Cause, you know, I don't understand how biology works, and saying God did it is just so much easier than, you know, RESEARCH.

Discussion Questions

1. Isn't saying God did it easier than studying biology and physics? Explain.

2. Could you come up with an actual textbook for ID that actually does more than plead ignorance about the natural world and offer God as a copout? Explain.

3. Is the existence of Intelligent Design Theory actually the best argument AGAINST an Intelligent Designer? Discuss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Sholom Lipskar personifies the appeal of ID to the masses with his statement:"If it's accidental, then what's the point? But if there's design, we're here for a reason". In other words, the absurdity of our existence( viz. Sartre, Camus et al.) is too unbearable for the masses, they need something which provides or entails purpose, hence the appeal of ID.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuts! And I now have lost my last faith in Jews as well. I have always been impressed that Judaism produced so many great thinkers who could put aside the god thing in order to study the world as it is.

And it makes me insane when anyone says things are too complicated for god NOT to exist. The opposite is the case. If there were a god we could all be animated gumbys. Whenever punishment became necessary he/she could just make an arm or leg fall off -- why mess around with using complicated cancers and weird auto immune difficiencies?

One more point: If god can be eternal, what makes it so problematic that the earth can be millions of years old?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Other examples of evolution-insect resistance to pesticides. The number of pesticides to which insects are resistant to has gone up tenfold (to around 50-I think) in the last 20-30 years as pesticide use has increased. Often called the pesticide treadmill, it means we have to think of different (often more toxic, expensive) means to kill things. Same reasons for rapid evolution in bacteria; animals that breed quickly, in large numbers, combined with a powerful incentive to adapt. If that's still too small, Peter and Rosemary Grant have observed large changes in beak size in Darwin's finches (the canonical example of evolution, where beak size and shape is a distinguishing feature of different species, and allows species to eat different types of seeds). Beak size may change 10% per generation (2 years). If that doesn't sound like a lot, average height of humans probably hasn't changed that much in th last 1000 years.
As a side note, the IDers attempt to minimize the importance of these changes because they happen within species as opposed to leading to new species (micro- vs macroevolution) and they do not consider complex traits (e.g. flagella) that to them, requirer a designer. Total bs of course, but that brings me to the evolution of complex traits.
The structure of the IDers central point here is that something so complex as an eye, or wing or flagella cannot have evolved all at once, without a designer. The logical flaw is that it need not evolve all at once, of course. They eye or wing is a product of many small(ish) steps, where at each stage, the structure is advantageous, but maybe not in the same way as in the final product. Eyes started out as sheets of pigments just designed to sense light/dark, then became elaborated into more refined structures. These many small steps do not require the final structure to be designed de novo, as is implicit in the IDers arguments. Its like saying the space shuttle must have been designed by God because its so complex-it ignores every thing from Von Braun to the present. Going forward is not the same as looking back (which is what the IDers only do).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Before I kvetch, let me kvell. I love your publication, a wise and witty presentation of what used to be a centrist viewpoint that the right has radicalized and "liberalized". However, in your zeal to brief and clever, your headline was completely misleading. Jews in general DO NOT endorse Intelligent Design. Orthodox Jews may, and perhaps not all of them. Most of my Jewish friends – and I – see Intelligent Design as the religious right's Trojan Horse, to slip their theology (creationism) into the classroom. It's not surprising that another fundamentalist branch backs ID. And that's their prerogative. But your headline is a blatant misstatement, as to be sensational. I expect better from the news source that is supposed present a balanced and factual point of view, albeit from the left side of the window. Get it right next time!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ID is unscientific? It's untestable? Sure. Just about as unscientific and untestable as the idea that there is not a designer, which plenty of secular evolutionists feel free saying. Relax, everyone, ID is not the end of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You proponents of Darwinism are really blinded by your religious fervor for this discredited theory. The ID folks have a better basis for their arguments than you Darwinists for yours. You have no reasonable explanations for the lack of transitional fossils. You have no arguments for "irreducible complexity" and development of the bio-organism. The mathematical computations of the chances of 10's of thousands of flora and fauna developing simultaneously over a mere 4 billion years (assuming that is how old the earth is) has been calculated as so great as to be impossible. In fact there is a greater (mathematically speaking) chance of a tornado going through a junk yard and leaving in it's wake a fully assembled 747 with a full flight crew than for Darwin's speculations to be true. Then again this will have no impact on you followers of Darwin because his theories validate your religious beliefs. That being the religion of humanism and in humanism there can be no G/D except man himself. Darwin gave you the road to follow and wide is the way that leads to........you can fill in the blank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Intelligent Design is a claim without scientific proof that there is an intelligence behind life. It is a belief. It is a religious belief. Evolution is a theory which has moved from hypothesis to theory after much examination and observation by scientists.

I see no antagonism between the two ideas. One is a religious teaching which should be presented in the religion classes at religious schools, or in churches, synagogues, mosques or other meeting places of religious denominations. Evolution should be studied in biology classes.

I believe one of the purposes of man is to utilize his mind to understand as much about creation as possible. This means he must use all methods of learning, science, theology, cosmology, philosophy, etc. In this pursuit it is sometimes important to designate which discipline is being followed. At present, there seems to be confusion between the discipline of science and religion or theology. One is not more important than the other. One isn't more valid than the other. Each can contribute to man's understanding of creation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a religious person, it bothers me tremendously to see that some folks out there have the urgent need to prove that God exists and that He is behind all of reality.
This obsession is what seems most absurd to me, since when belief needs proof? This seems idiotic and a waste of time and energy to me. I understand that politicos, wether christain or jewish fundamentalists push it for the sake of political gain of some sort. The religious want their old political power back. Sorry, I may be jaded or by natural selection developed x-ray eyes that allow me to see right through bullshit, but I just don't buy this at all. Watch out folks, don't be fooled, this ID argument is Intelligently Designed to capitalize on our most transcendental existential fears and our irrational side for political gain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

#1 In Genesis, on the first day, God separated the light from the darkness. Even when I was a kid on my own I knew this story had to be a metaphor, simple because there was no spinning earth to define one day. Could a day be a billion years long, not unlike the length of ages in the Hindu and Sihk tradition. Look carefully, at this myth, every civilization has creation myths; humans need to know their origins to be content. They tell of how things changed in the past to become the way they are now. No where does it say the waters or the earth was created by God. God merely separates the waters, but no word on creating the waters. God merely separates the land from the waters, but no where creates the land. Isn't it interesting that the fish in the sea, going back to separating the waters, are before the land animals, just like the theory of evolution. Isn't is interesting that the other mammals were created before human beings, just like the theory of evolution? Could it be that God, the Creator, loves to play and create and has been using evolution as a tool experimenting with his medium: living beings? Afterall, God, the Intelligent Designer, can control atoms of the Universe, like those in DNA and has endless time to create and experiment and design. With so many kinds of insects, birds, cats, viruses, fish, monkeys, this creator loves variety. Why would this kind of Creator, spend a mere 6 days, in human terms, 144 hours and then rest forever from creating new life forms? Maybe God just moved on to another solar system? Why can't both theories be close to the Truth? Why can't an Intelligent Designer use evolution to create? Is the world flat?

See #2 Rapture in a comment below.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

#2 Rapture is what will happen, Fundamenalists Christians believe, when Jesus returns. All the good Fundamentalist Christians will experience this rapture and float up to Heaven to God and leave everyone else behind. (Sounds like Bush's Leave No Child Behind Act for education, because his staff picked that to get the Fundamentalist Christian vote. There is a series of books with a title like that, which has sold millions, all about the Rapture. See Amazon.com) But according to their belief, this will not happen until other events occur. A Satan figure will pretend to be the leader from God for peace, but will start wars, (sound familiar) then Jesus has to come and fight him and win. But that is not all. According to them all the Jews have to return to Israel and then be converted to Christianity. So when you hear about Fundamentalist Christians sending money to help Jews return to Israel and to support Israel, remember movement toward Rapture is their goal. Super Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist both take scripture literally and as the Word of God. They have much in common in that way. However, Fundamentalist Christians, as well as other Christians, believe the Jewish faith is surpassed by Christianity and Christians are the New and Improved Israel. If the Jews believe Christians are helping Israel out of compassion and love, think again, because all through history, they would gladly get rid of all non-converting Jews, like slaughtering whole towns of Jews on the way to Jerusalem during the Crusades. Catholic Hitler was not excommunicated by the Pope who was in view of the concentration camp from the Vatican. Pope John Paul ll converted the dead and buried Jews in Auschwitz and put up a huge cross. No, Jews, do not be fooled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Might it just be that the cultural construction we call religion, similar to the construct we call science, is a complex socio-biological feature of Darwinian selection processes at work within the human species?

Like so many other human cultural constructs (art, music, politics) they all create conditions that enable some to survive better than others. So, though all this concern about Intelligent Design is underdstandable --since it has nothing to do with the study or progress of science-- it is also seems clear to me that the consideration of all of our understanding can be framed within the context of a particular belief system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have never been able to decide if the Discovery Institute is an organ of neoconservative political movement, or a parasite that feeds on it -- if Dembski is a sincere crank, or a opportunist with a self-created academic niche and a gift for campus politics

In any event he and the Institute have had ten years and more to

1) Devise some lesson plans for teaching ID in a classroom. But, testimony in the latest Dover NJ case reveals not only that they have not done so, but also that they have no intention of doing so any time soon. Instead, they endorse the pre-existing Creationist text "People and Pandas" text edited to global replace 'creation' with 'intelligent design.'

2) Develop and publish some expansion on Dembski's original "Irreducable Complexity" mathematics. While ninth graders can't really be expected to follow the mathematical argument ... graduate math majors can -- and to this point the sort of people who have obsessed on the provability of Fermat's Theorum and every other mathematical puzzle and conundrum that comes there way, are not particularly impressed, intrigued, or curious about Dembski's equations.

The Discovery Institute agenda is political, not scientific or philosophical -- and their sincerity is highly questionable. What is indisputable is their announced opposition to teaching "Materialist Science" in public schools.

No wonder:

Teaching 'Science' inclulcates a habit of skepticism and inquiry. Scientifically minded people constantly ask themselves, 'how do I know what I think I know, and why do I believe it." So, it's hard to persuade them that "Saddam has Weapons of Mass Distruction and intends to share them with The Terrorists" without some tangible evidence.

But faith-based thinkers are easily satisfied with the line of reasoning that goes: "The President is a charming and honorable man who says "Sadddam-Terrorists-WMDs, Must-invade-Iraq" ... and since noone can prove there AREN'T WMD-Terrorists-Anthrax-Smallpox-Yellowcake -- QED: we MUST invade Iraq.

Or put another way: if you're innocent you want a jury of Scientists -- they won't convict without proof. If you're guilty, you want a jury of Intelligent Design Theorists -- if they like your lawyer, they'll acquit you IN SPITE of any proof.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you are someone who believes in your innate ability to change the way you see the universe, if you are able to adopt a world view in a sea of complexity, then you are evolving. There's no social organization – church, ethnic group, tribe, President, political party, etc. – that can do the work for you.

Religious leaders seldom match their religious beliefs with a firm understanding of scientific endeavors. However, there are a few rare individuals with have an understanding of complex systems and who are willing to examine the metaphysical (before physics) stream of thought as it informs experience.

To the religious brethren, who probably don't contribute to Alternet, we might encourage them to read George Ellis. The Rigid Right may then put down their swords and maintain proper sequencing of information using the frontal lobes of the brain. In the meantime we can talk in metaphor about the music of the spheres as well as the laws of physics, but not in the same breath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some of these posts just prove that the antireligious portion of the left wing can be just as intolerant as those "religious wackos" in the right wing, sometimes more so. Pardon the expression, but let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Look in the mirror, antireligious left wingers. You won't find much tolerance there.

I am a left wing person of faith. Faith is just that, faith. It is not science. Intelligent Design is based on faith, and should not be taught in public school science classes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The debate is certainly not about evolution but about metaphysics. Science has one metaphysical dogma: "Nature is not teleological" (nature doesn't have a purpose) and a corollary: "To physical phenomena a physical explanation" (for physical effects, physical causes). Both of them make up the materialist view which is what most proponents of ID oppose. The question is: Why have these dogmas at all?, why not be truly committed with truth and be open to whatever explanation we come up with and not just limit ourselves with materialistic explanations? The answer is Progress. The materialistic outlook ecourages the most research. If I were, as a biologist, to begin with the notion that life is the product of the creative abilities of an intelligent designer, there would not be much more to find out because I would have already found the cause of the phenomena in question and research would be trivial, at best. On the other hand, if I begin with the premise that the natural world has no purpose, and I also have evidence of highly complex systems like the human brain, then I would be inclined to come up with a hypothesis to try to explain the order or the natural world, and come up with ways to contrast our hypothesis with experience (with what there actually IS). My point is supported by the lack of evidence or research presented by the ID side of this debate. The ID group (I'm thinking about Behe and Dembski), has instead focused on criticizing Darwinism and have avoided presenting ID as a truly scientific theory.
Imagine what the state of our knowledge would be if the following were an acceptable scientific explanation: "Members of the American Acamdemy of Sciences, I have discovered that when bacteria enter the bloodstream of a human organism a miracle happens (God intervenes) and we get sick. Thank you." Imagine that instead of in front of the AAS it is in front of a jury that is supposed to determine whether you commited a murder or not. "Ladies and gentelmen of the jury, I know the defendant is guilty because the death seems too complex to have been accidental, therefore it must have been a murder". There is not one of the poponents of ID that would not ask for an appeal if tried for murder and accussed on such flimsy "evidence".
The contrast between these two outlooks is WHAT IS understood by the notion of EVIDENCE. And what is at stake is not just what we understand about science, but the basis of our judicial system as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is lying. It simply hasn't been. Not by any serious biologists who don’t have a religious agenda. There simply is no dispute about evolution among the knowledgeable. That a bunch of loonies and faux scholars loudly claim that evolution is discredited does not mean that it has been—it only means that a bunch of loonies and faux scholars say it has been. For whatever that’s worth.

I could loudly declaim that invisible squid orbit Venus. I could construct a nearly airtight argument to support this point. I could get thousands of people to say astonomy is discredited and that all who oppose our views are dogmatic and bigoted. But none of that would make giant squid orbit Venus if they're not there. Ditto for Iraqi WMDs.

ID is the pseudo-science variant of the Goebbels/Bush Big Lie technique--keep repeating the same of shit, scare the people with laughable lies most of them are too ignorant to evaluate, and, eventually, at least half the populace will believe you.

ID is also the end of science, progress, and the Enlightenment and a wholesale retreat to the "wisdom" of the Dark Ages. Anything we don't already perfectly understand becomes, under ID, "God did it." "God did it" is intended as a period, the end of the sentence, signifying that it's time to move on to another question. (Guess what the answer to the next question will be.)

If that's too abstract of a consequence for you, try this: No science, no technology. No technology, no progress. Yep; no new medicine, no new products, no new concepts. No new breakthroughs in military technology. Our knowledge would be forever frozen, replaced by speculations about the unknowable by people who cannot possibly *know* what they're talking about (and even admit that it's all a bit too "mysterious" to grasp!).

The U.S. economy would be in freefall as innovation ends. "Heresy" and "blasphemy" would reenter the national vocabulary. IDers would argue over each sectarian variant of their hypothesis. All the while, China and India would be stomping all over us economically, and perhaps militarily as well.

Sound like fun? Well, maybe God will save you ...

blog.myspace.com/metriccheesehead

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. A theory is, by definition, a well-supported general idea that explains a large set of factual patterns. Darwin's theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence, ranging from actual observations of evolutionary change, particularly among birds but also in bacteria and insects; to the fossil record, also showing steady change, over time, as a result of adaptation to environmental conditions; to the molecular evidence, showing that important organic molecules in living organisms, and the genes that code for those molecules, show regular and predictable differences that match the fossil record and estimates of evolutionary distance. The theory of evolution has repeatedly been subjected to scientific tests and has always passed those tests.

Intelligent design is not a theory, it is a concept. It has never been subjected to a single scientific test and thus is NOT "well-supported." Authors, such as the author of the article above (Mariah Blake) are misuing the English language, misleading the public, and creating false conceptions when they use the word "theory" to refer to Intelligent Design. As a concept, I have nothing against ID--it is a perfectly reasonable concept. But it is not a theory; it is a religious idea. Calling it a theory implies that it falls within the realm of science, but it does not. It is reasonable as a religious concept, in the same way that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a reasonable concept, albeit a religious/ethical one, not a scientific one.

Blake makes an egregious error when she calls ID a "theory." Alternet should issue a retraction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the article:

What do the students think? Many of those who heard Dembski speak said they would like to study his ideas in class.

One would think that to get a true student perspective, one would also interview students who hadn't gone out of their way to attend a speech on Intelligent Design!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First, I'll come clean on where I stand-- I'm an Orthodox Jew, and I don't have any problem with the notion that God created the world.

OK, having said that, I'll offer two observations-- first, ID isn't science (and thus shouldn't be taught as such). Whether or not God created the world isn't a scientific question; the mechanism and system of creation is. Since God, by definition, is not a natural force, one can't really get very far by trying to be scientific about the Deity.

Second, for Orthodox Jews, this is not a debate about what will be taught in public schools. As a general rule of thumb, Orthodox Jews send our kids to religious day schools, so, while there was obviously no agreement reached (and there won't be) among the Orthodox Jews in the article (much less the rest of us) as to ID, what's being taught in public schools isn't even on the table for this crowd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Could someone explain to me how natural selection can be without any "intelligent design" at all ? I have a degree in chemistry, so I'm not anti science at all and I'm well aware of the complexity in nature and so I'm not lookin 'simple' answers. It's just that the complexity in the natural world is so complex that it seems to me that to explain evolution we somehow have to invoque some kind of ID of some sort to explain why some choices are 'better' than other. I understand that 'better' is not correct, since nature seems (is) acting randomly.
Why is it, then, we considere some human action as being good and some other being bad? Why do we, us human beings, product of mere chance, why do we talk about right and wrong?
Why do you have the ringht to stay alive and I don't have the same right to kill you? Why are we now that we have evolved deciding that we have to control natural selection? Why can't I choose randomly who should stay alive and who should die, actually which family should stay and which one should desapear son that their genetic code would stop to reproduce?
Of course, you could kill me and my family for the same reason too.
Can someone tell me why we considere ourselve as bound to moral principle as if nature had some moral principle?
dbx26

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ladies and gents: It is necessary to lay back, lighten up, and think, with a few self-deprecatory chuckles, about the serious, serious limitations of the doodad that sits atop a human neck. This is all getting a bit heavy.

There appear to be scores and scores of different senses among the species. Just as dogs cannot see color or be aware of it, so, too, doth a human try to determine what is around her/him with but a few itty bitty hints.

“Intelligent design.” This comes from a sober, straining, serious study of the little bits of electronic sparks inside our heads from those paltry five sensory inputs and determining, “Golly ding! I think God, or Spirit Force X7, or Mandy Angel, is bloody well as intelligent as us humans - or almost, anyway - and designed everything just as a Harvard Ph.D. might!”

Intelligence. Many definitions, but most imply the ability to rationally and objectively determine its implications, arrive at conclusions, and use those to intelligently alter behavior in accord with these conclusions. The human record...?

Oh, my! Homo sapiens sapiens - henceforward referred to as Proud Monkey - has only been around for about 40,000 years - but a smidgeon in Universe time - and has managed to get into a pickle in which he has destroyed thousands of species, and is on the brink of destroying both his own species and his planet. As mammals go. he is magnificently violent both within and without his species. He fills his rivers with poop, and loves alcohol, and thinks the Superbowl wondrous and of much more important than the UN. His intelligence tells him he should floss his teeth, but ... what the hell. Studies indicate that 98% of his decisions are completed before he is aware of them, - a process he calls “free will.”

Now, I am a Buddhist and do not believe there is a god and am a complete historical determinist. In spite of that, or because of it, I just LOVE the Bible! It is full of more wisdom and fun than a bucket of turtles!

The Book of Job, KJV, Chp. 40, v. 8, God roars out: “Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?”

In short - “I judge you. You don’t judge me!”

Try it: “Wilt thou conclude I am intelligent, that thou mayest be super-proud of that silly doodad on top of your neck?”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course the simplest response to those who believe in creation, is that evolution itself would be God's creation too and obviously the "MOST Intelligent Design;" as well as the most logical way for every living thing to adapt to changing environments, without God making millions of minutiae adaptions constantly to keep pace with the way humanity screws up the environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I understand that people raised from birth in a religious culture are naturally going to want to defend their beliefs. The Founders, however, recognized the need to respect peoples freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. ID, as I understand it in my limited respect, has some merit, but has not been scientifically tested. But I see ID as thinly veiled Creationism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Life is incredibly complex and thus must have a "designer". Is the designer complex? Well...yes. Then who created the complex designer? Ad infinitum designers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God created heaven and earth, that's miraculous.
How it was done and how it works, that's breath taking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I notice a distinct lack of women advocating intelligent design. Well, this interesting tidbit should offend some of the prevailing sensibilities...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After reading this article, along with many others, which argue for intelligent design to be taught in the science classroom, I am still left asking the same question, how is this a scientific topic?? Science is a study of measurables, the building of theories based on results which can be replicated, etc. By better understanding why things do what they do, or react to a certain environment gives us a greater knowledge base for which we can work to solve some of the great problems that our civilization faces today.

Last I checked, ID does not have any structure for making scientific advancements though it's theories. It has no way of recording repeatable results which can be used to prove a theory. ID proposes that there is a higher power and that we as imperfect humans can never really understand how it was done so we should not try and figure it out. That does not sound like science.

What next, are we going to insert ID into chemistry, saying that the reaction of two elements is too much to understand and that we should just accept it as the work of a higher power? I do not have a problem with the teaching of religion in the classroom and but it deserves it’s own classroom, not as part of a science lab.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As anthropologist David Eller points out in Natural Atheism (Cranford, NJ, 2004 ) religious "knowlegde" comes from exactly two sources, either personal experience aka revelation, or authority. Authority, in the form of a holy book or a prophet, is nothing but hearsay (someone who claims to "know" told me - but how did he learn it?), and personal experience is worthless as evidence: No criterion exists to verify a personal revelation or to justify selecting it over other contradictory claims. That's also why the "God told me so" defense has no standing in court. It is this very lack of substance that makes religions so destructive. Where reason cannot possibly work, coercion, indoctrination and dictatorial force remain the most effective ways to perpetuate doctrinal belief organisations. With apologies to Monty Python: Everybody should expect the Spanish Inquisition!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I consider myself more spiritual than religious, and do embrace the idea of a "creator" and ID (mixed with Darwinism). But, the study of those beliefs belong in the Theology and/or Philosophy depts. of schools. They do NOT belong in the Science Depts. Science is a very specific form of study that does not include "beliefs". IF these ID supporters want ID to be taught in science, shouldn't they propose some ways of physically setting out to scientifically prove ID, instead of just teaching the "belief" in it? Which would be nearly impossible, since scientists are supposed to realize a belief or theory is just that until physically proven. These fundamental ID supporters are not willing to admit they may be wrong, thereby approaching the study of it in true scientific fashion. It leaves one wondering why they feel a need to take over a form of study that has nothing to do with ID. What's next? Are they going to take over the Math and English depts. and insist that we study that humans couldn't do either without the benefit of ID? Then, every other dept.? I think that's what's so upsetting to people. It's not that some people choose to believe in ID (I do). It's that some of these people want to infiltrate and even trample over other forms of learning, and thought. Also, I wonder if they want to include ALL beliefs that embrace or explore ID from various religions and philosophies, or only the JudeoChristian ones? But, the main question I have is... why is it that it's usually these fundamentalist ID pushers who are so eager to defile their own god's creations? They push to have the belief forced down everyone's throats, without giving respect to the actual concept AND the creation of their creator. - Candra

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "Problem With Science" is that it is not "Faith Based", as Religion is. Instead, of a fundamental belief that remains never questioned, never rationalizated, never found in any empirical evidence, never something that one tests, and always being something that someone believes in, just because they decide to believe it, .... Science is based on a Scientific Method, and THAT is the ANTITHESIS of what newly redefined "Faith-based" misnomer that has been usurpted from religious Scientists that are NOT crackpots, and been termed ID, which is in no uncertain terms not only the absurd fantasy of Early Earth Creationism that was BANNED in 1975 by the Supreme Ct. from being touted as Science, or confused with it, and propagandized within Public School Science classes. ---- What the proponents of this NEW definition need to do is to find yet one more way to teach Early Earth Creationism, as spelled out by the Old Testament.
Personally, I prefer to let such people that refuse to learn anything, to beleive any insipid thing they care to. Unfortunately, bringing a faith-based belief into a Science Class in a Public School RANKS ALONG WITH FOREIGN TERRORISM, and that is something worh speaking out against.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it not interesting the high frequency that evolution appears under attack whilst a lively (or should it be deadly?) discussion on the long sorrid history of perpetual violence (name your variety) caused by religious belief (my God is the only true God and your God is really a false one) remains off-limits-our complicitly agreed upon "blind spot".

We deceive ourselves into believing that we are tolerant of other religious beliefs until push comes to shove then all bets for a peaceful resolution are off (one shall have no other Gods/gods before Me and that is that! No room for apologies, no room for tolerance, nothing but accept Me or else).

How many wars have been perpetuated by accepting evolution as a scientific fact?

How many wars have been fought and are being fought over differences in religious beliefs (although we forward "reasons" in a more palatable form that permits us to gloss over the hostilities arising from those differences)?

Unless we are willing to openly acknowledge and examine the roots of evil that arise from systsems religious belief created by men for men's domination of other men and of all women and children in the name of "God" (always useful for giving the aura of authority), then peace will only remain a chimera.

Of course, we will not do so. We will continue to shift blame to science (of which evolution is a subset), to the mythical Satan, and to anywhere else that helps us avoid the obvious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With regard to this article -- it is important to know that ONLY FIVE PERCENT of American Jews consider themselves "Orthodox" -- with an undetermined number of this 5% adhering to "Intelligent Design" -- SOURCE: NATIONAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN JEWS - see page 7 of latest edition.
At a time when Americans need to become aware of
the difference between the large number of mainstreaIm
moderate Muslims and small number of radical
fundamentalist Muslims -- and most Americans are
already aware of the difference between the large
number of mainstream moderate Christians and small
number of radical fundamentalist Christians --
Americans must ALSO be aware that the SAME DISTICTION exists among American Jews -- large number of mainstream moderats v. small number of radical fundamentalists.
While this distinction appears to be known to the author of this article -- it does not appear to be known to the HEADLINE WRITER. For Alternet's headline to say that say that "Jews" say "feh" to evolution is IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM -- and requires a published CORRECTION by the EDITORS of AlterNet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

QUESTION TO BELIEVERS IN ID.

If God instructed you to do harm to your neighbor, would you do it?

What if those instructions were given by a man who says he speaks for God, would you still follow through?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let us “give peace a chance” by thinking with our minds and not with the viscera….

Are we really paying attention to what people are telling, thinking or believing? Or just to our own monologue?

What if we look at the situation as not just a “war” of opinions but as an exchange of points of view that complements each other; after all, both sides have “inconclusive” points that can be negotiated and solve if we want to get to a satisfactory conclusion on this very important topic of the human saga; in which we are living part…

For that, I would like to contribute in both plains. As a believer in a higher intelligence that rules above all the natural phenomena and also, as an admirer and, in some way pursuer, of knowledge through the discipline of the scientific methodology.

It is my experience and conviction, that an honest pursuing for the ultimate truth will bring us to the fact that science and religion are both based on faith and confirmation.

I can prove, to anybody who is willing to take the challenge, that through the use of the scientific method we can come face to face with God in order that HE/SHE will show us how intelligent design and evolution, are each part of the other, and are embedded into the “fabric” of every event, by that being that some call God and many other names by all different people…

I also can prove, using scientific facts and experimentation, that there is more evidence supporting intelligent design over evolution as the driving force that makes all phenomena change into more complex or sophisticated forms…

If you are really into breaking this infinite cycle of confrontational ignorance and none cense, of science over religion or vice versa, “give peace a chance” and let me know if you are interested on bringing this work forward for the sake of the truth, which is the wealth for all.

Who I am? First, I am who I am, as You are who You are, but also I am just a simple human being as you also are...
I am committed to the pursuing of truth over my own life and personal interests, traditions, compulsions, self conclusions, instincts, desires, studies, prejudices etc...

What about you? Are you for real or just another eternal quarrelsome?

salvapath@yahoo.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most Americans think a theory is just a belief, something accepted without proof, "an assumption, a suggestion, a hypothesis.
Americans don't think of a scientific theory as "a systematic set of principles that has been shown to fit the facts, and has stood up against attempts to prove it false."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In Congress, July 4, 1776

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

As we celebrate life in the free, independent US of A, and having followed this thread for so long, its also becoming self evident that most people dont know what ID is, and or dont understand evolution at all.

Shalom to thee all

moshe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CREATED EQUAL AND CREATOR ....This was Thomas Jeffersons way of of stating that King GEORGE (shades of irony) was not a GOD. That we were going to have a new country that was not based on a KING who was a GOD and whatever he said was literally the word of GOD.

Our new country was going to have elected citizen leaders and be based on reason and logic and law. And to protect this...we were going to have a SEPERATION of church and state. If we are just going to throw that all out...why not just make Bush our King. After all, we are half way there already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is easy to disprove ID.
Multiple Sclerosis
Cerebral Palsy
Sickle Cell Anemia
Spina Bifida
Need more proof Google Inherited Diseases

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CREATED EQUAL AND CREATOR ....This was Thomas Jeffersons way of of stating that King GEORGE (shades of irony) was not a GOD. That we were going to have a new country that was not based on a KING who was a GOD and whatever he said was literally the word of GOD.

Our new country was going to have elected citizen leaders and be based on reason and logic and law. And to protect this...we were going to have a SEPERATION of church and state. If we are just going to throw that all out...why not just make Bush our King. After all, we are half way there already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A big lie! This is the man who claims "God" speaks to him, remember? The same "God" that told him he was the "chosen" one and he then (Bush, not God)started a war against humanity? Obviously, "GOD" doesn't care who he speaks with anymore, or maybe he does exists after all since America (under bush's watch) faced disaster after disaster during 2005. Politically speaking, this year isn't looking any better for all those hypocrites.

Could it be that perhaps. just maybe, "God" has abandoned him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you want to know where everything came from, all you have to do is read the first chapter of Genesis. Evolution is a big crock of garbage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I understand the natural cycle of young people finding their own voice on this issue, I'm saddened by the frequent lack of historical perspective, as if this was the first time the controversy between what is now called "ID" and Darwin had come up.

If anyone wants a spell-binding exposition of this debate delivered in compelling form, simply rent the movie "Inherit the Wind", based on the stage play. I'd recommend the brilliant rendering by Spencer Tracey and Fredrick March, but there was a later TV movie version with Jason Robards and Kirk Douglas that was also very good.

In either case, you're going to see a dramatic reproduction of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925 that could not be more relevant to the current "debate". In my view this isn't a real battle between intellectual positions of equivalent cogency and solid foundation. It's a sham argument between fundamentalist religous fanatics trying to inject their extreme views by stealth into the public education system, and secular scientific and educational gatekeepers who know a Trojan Horse when they see one.

The same dynamics were in play at the Scopes trial 8 decades ago, nothwithstanding the absence of the Internet, 24/7 news cycle and the most regressive administration since Torquemada's. Scopes had to contend with the priggish Calvin Coolidge, an accidental president who could have been the inspiration for the judge in Arthur Miller's "The Crucible".

In the film, there is a climactic scene in which Tracey's character, based on Clarence Darrow, goads March's religious zealot, based on William Jennings Bryan, into admitting that the "7 days" of creation could have actually been thousands of years, since the Old Testament doesn't explicitly define the duration of a day, an hour or a minute. It's precisely this often maniacal obsession with literalism and absolutism that is at the heart of the religious right's dogma about ID, and for that matter, most other aspects of life and culture. Americans concerned about preserving our core principles of freedom of expression and diversity, as well as the accepted lucidity and rationale of the scientific method, should reject absolutism utterly.

See the movie with an open mind, and I have a strong hunch you'll come down on the side of enlightenment, sanity and "intelligence".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ID is for those whose image of God is too small to accept the grand miracle of evolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hello everyone,

I'm the author of this story and I'm very happy to see that it has generated so much debate. Miami New Times, the publication that I work for, has gotten very few letters to the editor on the piece. I would be delighted if some of those who are posting comments would voluteer to have thier views printed in our paper. Please e-mail me at mariah.blake@miaminewtimes.com.

Best wishes,
Mariah

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i love how folks here are claiming mariah needed to support both sides of the argument in her piece on the orthodox community.

that's not the point of the piece.

this is, simply, a look at the orothodox jews of miami and how many of them are rejecting darwinism. it's not about researching whether or not these people have their facts straight or if they are correct in their beliefs.

it's simply a look into their minds.

that's not a cause to ask the author to provide facts: it's a cause to look at subset of people and wonder to yourself how people can come to believe what they believe.

david koff
editor, message to america
http://messagetoamerica.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]