Douglas: The "Big Bang" was, just like ID, initially widely and vocally opposed by the vast majority of scientists, PRIMARILY because to them, it seemed to support the idea of a Creator. But we all know scientists (except for those who believe in Design) are completely objective in their scientific assessments, right?

To get a more accurate perspective on what the Big Bang theory had to do to be accepted (and what the real response to the theory was), I recommend "The Big Bang" by Simon Singh. It's just come out in paperback.

Sadly for your point, you won't find a "vast majority" of scientists blindly opposing the new theory because it conflicted with their religious beliefs. You will find quite a few who objected because it conflicted with Isaac Newton's model of an eternal, unchanging (on the big scale) and infinite universe which had reigned for over two centuries.

Instead, what you will find is an army of Big Bang supporters combing the skies and physics theory for theories and data that supported their position. They scratched for every possible observation that could confirm or deny their theory. After decades of work, both theoretical and observational, what finally tipped the theory into the "justified" column was the prediction of the microwave background by two different groups and the disovery of the same by Arno and Penzias.

Curiously, Singh doesn't mention any attempts to force the Big Bang into the nation's high schools and colleges, nor were there any political or PR attempts to justify/force the theory into main stream science. No pleas to give a struggling new science a break, either, nor were there any Discovery Institute style attempts to "reform" science by gutting it of methodological naturalism and "improving" it by elevating supernatural "evidence", hunches and deeply held feelings to the standard of scientific evidence.

Instead, you had about three decades of pure scientific endeavour (read: hard work) before the Big Bang was accepted.

Kind of exactly opposite what we see with ID today.

Over on Telic thoughts Jack is asking about ID's position on common descent here, here, and here. I'm going to assume this is an honest question. ID has no position on [...]

"The aspect of common descent that is relevant to this discussion is not the issue that Nelson and Woese and others are discussing. The issue is whether amphibians evolved into reptiles, or whether homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens, etc.: we're talking about whether once life got started (be it one unique single-celled organism or a milieu in which elements of life intermingled), evolution of the various phyla and further taxon levels proceeded from there. That is the issue I am interested in, and the one that I think about when "common descent" is mentioned."

Indeed. And that was also the sense of the term that I encapsulated in my definition ("one or a few common ancestors"). So why did we have to waste time with that whole diversion about Paul Nelson and Woese? Obviously, we both mean the same by "common descent", so what was the point of your claim, "No one is clear about what rejecting common descent means" ?

Krauze: "So let me get this straight: I cannot quote a statement from you in which you characterize intelligent design as anti-evolutionism without being accused of quote-mining, because ID supporters haven't themselves discussed whether intelligent design is anti-evolutionist?"

Jack: "I didn't accuse you of quote mining."

I didn't say that you did. Remember, this all started with Afarensis' claim that instead of doing a poll, I should have read the blogs of ID critics. I responded by using a statement from an ID critic (you), showing how easy it was to reach different interpretations of it. As I continued:

"Instead of a couple of definitions and a missing option, we'd now be discussing every statement and their various interpretations. And whenever an ID critic announced that his or her beliefs were contrary to my interpretation of their statements, you'd bet we'd be hearing accusations of quote-mining and politicial motivations on my part."

It was at this point that you entered the discussion, arguing that "that's the fault of the vagueness and unspecificity of ID proponents, as well as the fact that the ID proponents aren't out there discussing these various issues themselves." In other words, if I get accused of quote-mining, it's my own darn fault because of a lack of discussion among ID supporters.

"I'm comfortable saying that I think ID is "anti-evolutionary", but what that means depends on what flavor of ID we are talking about. Almost none of the anti-evolutionary perspectives are completely against evolution, and most of the anti-evolutionary perspectives deny some level of common descent (of the type described above.)"

Do you think there's any "flavor of ID" that isn't anti-evolutionary?

"My point is simple, if you want to find out how ID critics perceive intelligent design, why not enter into a discussion with them on the subject?"

This was explained in my previous post:

"For a while, I've been disappointed with the lack of sociological data concerning how those who see themselves as "defending science" perceive intelligent design. There is plenty of evidence that this group suffers from stereotypes (such as Douglas Altshuler claiming that, "People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly."), but no systematic surveys. So I decided to do my own little informal survey, e-mailing various ID critics and asking them about intelligent design."

So, I have indeed been engaging in discussions with ID critics - in fact, what do you think happens on a daily basis in the comments on this blog? The point of the poll was to gather data in a more systematic way, by having a number of ID critics answer an identical question.

"The standards repeatedly challenge common ancestry with e.g. gaps in the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, 'irreducible complexity' (those exact words are in the standards "” looks like ID to me), the silly evolution-can't- produce-new-genetic information argument, and many other common ID/creationist talking points."

I respectfully intone, "So what?" All those things are legitimate SCIENTIFIC issues: there ARE gaps in the fossil record, there IS an apparent "explosion" of fully-formed life in the Cambrian layer, "irreducible complexity" IS an apparently reasonable and valid understanding of certain types of organization (even, or at least, theoretically), and "evolution-can't-produce-new-genetic information" is far from a "silly argument" (it is no more "silly" than the ridiculous claim that "evolution-can-SO-produce-new-genetic-information"). The mere fact that these scientific facts and observations "challenge" the idea of common ancestry do not mean they are born of a Christian (i.e., "Creationist", with a capital "C") faith; and, even more importantly, even if they were, they are still scientific, and not mere "faith-issues". There is no more reason to avoid them or cast them out of "science" or science education than there would be to dismiss scientific evidence which atheistic scientists believe support their atheism. I'm amazed at the widespread knee-jerk response of so many scientists in dealing with arguments from Creation Science (or in dealing with arguments which merely stem from Intelligent Design): "Oooh, that stuff seems to support Creationism; it's therefore religious in nature, and therefore is not science, and must be censored and burned at the stake."

Thank you for trying to respond, but since it's important enough an issue, can I make sure I understand you right and the implications of your postion. Is it fair to say this represents your position and it's logical consequences:

1. school children with creationist religious beliefs should have those religious beliefs changed since it impedes their scientific understanding

2. public schools are an appropriate means of changing their religious beliefs regarding origins since such beliefs are an impediment to their ability to do science

Does that materially represent your position? I think that's actually an even better blog poll question…

Salvador

Me, I side with what George W. Bush said in the State of the Union this week:

And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all. We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hard-working, ambitious people, and we are going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce the American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science.

[...]

Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead Advanced Placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world.

That's a lot of time, money, and effort to blow if you're just going to scrap the bit about rigorous science education and professional science teachers, and teach the doctrines of a particular religious group instead.

But, I'm sure that China and Japan will be perfectly happy to take the lead in bioinformatics and biotechnology if we refuse to…

Thank you for participating again. Since we're talking polls, what would you consider unfactual, or unfair?

Let's start with identifying the spectrum of empirical facts versus inferences versus interpretations versus outright speculations.

There are Biblical creationists children in the school. Their religious beliefs are that God made life fully formed. Is it fair to take unproven speculations, pass them on as "empirical facts" to destroy their religious beliefs? Is that fair? It doesn't matter whether a scientist has offered the speculation, it's still a speculation. A speculation is defined as something a scientist admits is a speculation….

Is it unfair to tell them that there is a very tiny minority of biologists who do not accept evolution?

The standards repeatedly challenge common ancestry

What wrong with that. Are you claiming common ancestry is absolute truth? You may not like the fact some people dispute it, but are you in a position to declare on behalf of all the univerise it's true? I'd say unless you and the scientists were there to establish it as an eye witness, there is a little room for skepticism. And unless you have direct facts, it's a little unfair to the kids who believe in special creation, for you to dismiss and destroy their religious beliefs.

I'm not asking your legal opininon. I'm asking what you personally feel is fair or unfair. Do you feel a public school teacher, or anyone for that matter, can speak on behalf of God and and say common ancestry is absolute fact? Unless scienfiic empirical facts can absolutely establish common ancestry is fact, I'd say it's only fair to give space to a religious beliefs, given the magnitude of what you are willing to destroy in the childrens belief system.

If that's your attitude, that you want to revise the faith beliefs of students and replace them with the dominant scientific view, that you won't rest until their professing acceptance of that theory, then fine, come out and say it. Tell the evangelical creationists out there you don't want their kids to believe in special creation, and you want to see to it the schools enforce that outcome. That it's for the better good they relinquish the way they believe God acts in the world in favor of the dominant scientific view. That there is no room for scientists to hold minority opinions, what ever the reason….

Salvador

Let's see, exactly what creationist "stuff" is being pushed by the Kansas Board of Education? Didn't seem to be anything in the science standards that would qualify for this accusation. If this is true, I for one would like to know. Or perhaps this is just mindless repetition of a standard NCSE talking point?

The standards repeatedly challenge common ancestry with e.g. gaps in the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, "irreducible complexity" (those exact words are in the standards — looks like ID to me), the silly evolution-can't- produce-new-genetic information argument, and many other common ID/creationist talking points. It's all found in Pandas, in ID generally, and in the preceding creationist literature. The front page of the standards is one big government-sponsored advertisement for the scientific-ness of ID, even though they say that the standards "neither mandate nor prohibit" teaching about ID (wink wink, nudge nudge).

It's all very transparent — the changes to the science standards were written and promoted by members of the Intelligent Design Network, and the Board of Education members who passed it are avowed creationists, some of the young-earth variety. If they were consistent, all of the high-minded ID advocates who condemned pushing ID in the Dover policy would be condemning it in Kansas as well, but they all seem to be strangely silent.

What do you mean by "design"

Too obvious? Too suggestive? Too biased?

Toooo ooobbvioousss?