# Is it curtains for the intelligent design movement? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118 "2006-11-12T17:13:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/21 "2006-11-13T14:41:15Z")
[QUOTE=Revtim] Jesus carving animals from magic pixie clay. [/QUOTE] _When God said, 'Jesus Son of Mary, remember My blessing upon thee and upon thy mother, when I confirmed thee with the Holy Spirit, to speak to men in the cradle, and of age; and when I taught thee the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel; and when thou createst out of clay, by My leave, as the likeness of a bird, and thou breathest into it, and it is a bird_ —Qur’an 5:110 That’s one of the cutest images from the Qur’an… Magic Jesus holding on his palm a little clay sparrow he just made, he puffs some breath on it, and it takes off from his hand in a flutter of wings. He smiles as he looks up and watches it fly into the sunlight. This would work great in a Christian rock video. Or Islamic, I mean. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![kung\_fu\_lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f4b2a3/32.png) [@kung\_fu\_lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kung_fu_lola)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/22 "2006-11-13T14:50:14Z")
Can someone come over here and explain to **diggleblop** what the word _theory_ as a scientific term means? I would do it, but I don’t have the chops. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/23 "2006-11-13T15:25:57Z")
[QUOTE=diggleblop] I don’t think evolution or creationism/ID should be taught in school. There is absolutely no _solid evidence_ for either one. Sure, there is plenty of “circumstantial evidence” supporting their _theories_, but not proof. [/QUOTE] What is the plenty of “circumstantial evidence” for creationism/ID? 😕 How does it compare to the scientific evidence for evolution? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/24 "2006-11-13T15:47:28Z")
[QUOTE=kung fu lola] Can someone come over here and explain to **diggleblop** what the word _theory_ as a scientific term means? I would do it, but I don’t have the chops. [/QUOTE] If **diggleblop** wants to start a whole new thread on the subject, I’d be more than happy to help set him straight. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/25 "2006-11-13T16:31:39Z")
[QUOTE=diggleblop] I don’t think evolution or creationism/ID should be taught in school. There is absolutely no _solid evidence_ for either one. Sure, there is plenty of “circumstantial evidence” supporting their _theories_, but not proof. [/QUOTE] Using that logic, you’d also have to eliminate the whole science curriculum. You’d better eliminate the history curriculum as well. Why? Because there is absolutely no solid evidence for either one. Sure, there is plenty of “circumstantial evidence” supporting their _theories_, but not proof. For example, there is only circumstantial evidence for the existence of atoms. That’s why the **theory** that Dalton postulated for the existence of atoms is called Dalton’s Atomic **Theory**. In fact, nothing in science has ever really been proved, nor can it be. The best that we can do is to gather more and more evidence that supports a given theory or law, or conversely, disproves it. As for the history curriculum, how do you _know_ that George Washington ever even existed? Were you there? Are you not depending on mere circumstantial evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/26 "2006-11-13T23:31:55Z")
[QUOTE=robby] Using that logic, you’d also have to eliminate the whole science curriculum. You’d better eliminate the history curriculum as well. [/quote] Actually, there is no “circumstantial evidence” at all supporting ID (which isn’t different from Creationism; it’s merely another name for it). The premise the IDers have is that a deity created the universe and since the universe exists, that proves the deity created it. > [@](#): > > Why? Because there is absolutely no solid evidence for either one. Sure, there is plenty of “circumstantial evidence” supporting their _theories_, but not proof. You seem to be confused by the difference between science and history. > [@](#): > > For example, there is only circumstantial evidence for the existence of atoms. That’s why the **theory** that Dalton postulated for the existence of atoms is called Dalton’s Atomic **Theory**. Again, you appear to be confused. > [@](#): > > In fact, nothing in science has ever really been proved, nor can it be. The best that we can do is to gather more and more evidence that supports a given theory or law, or conversely, disproves it. Hie down the road, so to speak, and read the numerous threads explaining in patient detail the way a scientific theory comes about. > [@](#): > > As for the history curriculum, how do you _know_ that George Washington ever even existed? Were you there? Are you not depending on mere circumstantial evidence? History ain’t Science. ---
**Author:** ![mrrealtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@mrrealtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrrealtime)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/27 "2006-11-13T23:39:27Z")
The only way Intelligent Design movement will go away is if its supporters suddenly became intelligent. Short of some miracle drug…we may need to wait for several thousand years of evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/28 "2006-11-14T00:33:05Z")
[QUOTE=robby] Sure, there is plenty of “circumstantial evidence” supporting their _theories_, but not proof. [/QUOTE] Unfortunately, years of bad-to-middling lawyer TV shows seems to have left the impression that “circumstantial” means “flimsy”, “hypothetical” or “about as convincing as Tarot cards.” Formal definitions are available but to gist of “circumstantial evidence” is that it helps one to infer the truth in the absence of an actual witness. In matters of science, you’ll have to decide which is more convincing: [list=#[li]Scientist: I compiled the findings of various geologists, paleontologists and geneticists and collectively their work strongly implies an Earth which is billions of years old, with a gradual progression of lifeforms slowly changing into recognizable modern forms with many DNA markers in common.[/li][li]Intelligent-design Advocate: God tells me ID is true.[/list][/li] Technically, the second is eyewitness evidence, rather than circumstantial evidence. I’ll go with the first, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/29 "2006-11-14T07:43:33Z")
All I can tell you is, I was an IDer when I joined the SDMB in 1 **999**. I had just been reading _Darwin’s Black Box_. It was reading the Great Debates here that persuaded me to drop that idee. 😃 So as far as I’m concerned, the answer to the question is yes. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/30 "2006-11-14T08:26:31Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] Actually, there is no “circumstantial evidence” at all supporting ID (which isn’t different from Creationism; it’s merely another name for it). [/QUOTE] Oh, but haven’t you heard, [they’re totally different.](http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html) :rolleyes: As for my vote, no, ID is not on its last legs. We have plenty of fundies in this country, many who are like one of our recent posters here who actually lacked all shame when he claimed that all facts, anywhere, ever, are in the Bible. And anything that disagrees with the Bible is, thus, not a fact. ID aint going anywhere as far as I can see… especially as long as people remain both militantly ignorant, and cling to any religious dogma, in toto, because otherwise they won’t become immortal upon their death. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/31 "2006-11-14T15:58:02Z")
[QUOTE=robby] As for the history curriculum, how do you _know_ that George Washington ever even existed? Were you there? [/QUOTE] Yes, I was there. How do you know I wasn’t? WERE YOU THERE??? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/32 "2006-11-14T16:46:58Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Formal definitions are available but to gist of “circumstantial evidence” is that it helps one to infer the truth in the absence of an actual witness. In matters of science, you’ll have to decide which is more convincing: [list=#[li]Scientist: I compiled the findings of various geologists, paleontologists and geneticists and collectively their work strongly implies an Earth which is billions of years old, with a gradual progression of lifeforms slowly changing into recognizable modern forms with many DNA markers in common.[/li][li]Intelligent-design Advocate: God tells me ID is true.[/list][/li] Technically, the second is eyewitness evidence, rather than circumstantial evidence. I’ll go with the first, thanks. [/QUOTE] Wouldn’t #2 be more along the lines of **hearsay** evidence, unless the IDer can actually bring God for cross-examination? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/33 "2006-11-14T17:53:59Z")
Where is George Burns when we really need him? ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/34 "2006-11-14T18:02:06Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] … In matters of science, you’ll have to decide which is more convincing: [list=#[li]Scientist: I compiled the findings of various geologists, paleontologists and geneticists and collectively their work strongly implies an Earth which is billions of years old, with a gradual progression of lifeforms slowly changing into recognizable modern forms with many DNA markers in common.[/li][li]Intelligent-design Advocate: God tells me ID is true.[/list][/li]… [/QUOTE] Precisely. One could expand your definition. Intelligent-design Advocate: The particular God my church believes in, as opposed to other Gods and even other worshippers of my God, tells me ID is true. ---
**Author:** ![Rucksinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/898d66/32.png) [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/35 "2006-11-15T04:38:11Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] .. In South Carolina, Karen Floyd has probably lost her job as Superintendent of Education to another good guy… [/QUOTE] I live in South Carolina. I watched all the ads. I don’t recall ID being mentioned as an issue. (The main issue was school vouchers - for this race and the governors’ race.) This is a very conservative area, and I don’t doubt that most voters are creationists, but that wasn’t an issue in this election. Sorry if I destroyed your OP. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/36 "2006-11-15T08:39:15Z")
[QUOTE=glee] Precisely. One could expand your definition. Intelligent-design Advocate: The particular God my church believes in, as opposed to other Gods and even other worshippers of my God, tells me ID is true. [/QUOTE] I don’t think that’s a particularly accurate description of ID. It might well be a fair summary of the underlying, unspoken motivation of many proponents of ID, but ID would be more accurately and honestly summarised as something like: _It is possible to develop methodologies that can be mechanically applied to complex systems, that will diagnose conclusively whether or not an intelligent agent was involved in the creation of those systems_ and _We have developed and applied the aforementioned methodologies and they have diagnosed that an intelligent agent was indeed involved in the creation of living organisms_ This is not to say that I consider these claims true or even honest, but lets at least represent them as they are. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/37 "2006-11-22T01:41:25Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] Actually, there is no “circumstantial evidence” at all supporting ID (which isn’t different from Creationism; it’s merely another name for it). The premise the IDers have is that a deity created the universe and since the universe exists, that proves the deity created it. You seem to be confused by the difference between science and history. Again, you appear to be confused. Hie down the road, so to speak, and read the numerous threads explaining in patient detail the way a scientific theory comes about. History ain’t Science. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Unfortunately, years of bad-to-middling lawyer TV shows seems to have left the impression that “circumstantial” means “flimsy”, “hypothetical” or “about as convincing as Tarot cards.” Formal definitions are available but to gist of “circumstantial evidence” is that it helps one to infer the truth in the absence of an actual witness. In matters of science, you’ll have to decide which is more convincing: [list=#[li]Scientist: I compiled the findings of various geologists, paleontologists and geneticists and collectively their work strongly implies an Earth which is billions of years old, with a gradual progression of lifeforms slowly changing into recognizable modern forms with many DNA markers in common.[/li][li]Intelligent-design Advocate: God tells me ID is true.[/list][/li] Technically, the second is eyewitness evidence, rather than circumstantial evidence. I’ll go with the first, thanks. [/QUOTE] Sorry for not replying back to this before, but this thread had dropped off my radar screen. Anyway, there’s a quite a bit of whooshing going on here. I guess I should have added some rolleye smilies to make the sarcasm of my previous post more apparent. For the record, **Monty** , I’m well aware of what a scientific theory is, and how it comes about. Also, **Bryan Ekers** , I certainly do not think “circumstantial” means “flimsy.” To avoid any further confusion, let me make my position perfectly clear. Creationism/ID is, of course, complete and utter superstitious, unscientific nonsense. I did _not_ state, **Monty** , that there was any evidence whatsoever for creationism/ID, circumstantial or other. Instead, in my previous post, I was sarcastically responding to **diggleblop** ’s comment that, in his opinion, neither evolution or creationism/ID should be taught in school, because, as he stated, “there is absolutely no solid evidence for either one.” I was noting that, using such erroneous logic, you could argue that there is no “solid evidence” for any scientific theory, or for that matter, anything in the historical record. After all, scientific theories and the historical record are inherently not provable things. With respect to the historical record, after all, nobody alive today can vouch by eyewitness account that George Washington ever lived. (Now, I do not for one second doubt that Mr. Washington did actually exist–I’m drawing an analogy here.) My whole point was that many theories (that creationists do NOT generally question) are also supported by non-flimsy circumstantial evidence. This diminishes them not at all. As an example, I mentioned atomic theory. Like all well-established scientific theories, we have a wealth of circumstantial evidence supporting the existence atoms, and no scientist seriously doubts their existence today. Nevertheless, nobody has ever seen an atom, and conceivably the evidence we have for their existence could someday be reinterpreted and explained by a more robust theory in the future. Indeed, this has already happened. Dalton’s original atomic theory stated that atoms are indestructible, and that all atoms of a given element had the same mass and other properties. Only later did other evidence come to light that was best explained by theorizing that atoms have subatomic structure. As I stated previously, **Monty** , you cannot prove theories correct! That’s not how science works. (You can prove them wrong, though.) I’ll quote from a textbook I used when I taught chemistry: “A **theory** _is a tested explanation of the behavior of nature_. Most useful theories are broad, with may far-reaching and subtle implications. It is impossible to perform every test that might show such a theory to be wrong, so we can never be _absolutely_ sure the theory is correct.” While we cannot ever prove scientific theories or laws correct, that is the best way we have of understanding the physical world around us. That being said, for someone like **diggleblop** to assert that because one of our most powerful and insightful theories supposedly does not have any “solid evidence” (presumably meaning non-circumstantial evidence), it is then comparable to superstitious mumbo-jumbo that is supported by no evidence whatsoever, is the height of folly, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how science works. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/38 "2006-11-22T13:10:23Z")
[QUOTE=Johanna] _When God said, 'Jesus Son of Mary, remember My blessing upon thee and upon thy mother, when I confirmed thee with the Holy Spirit, to speak to men in the cradle, and of age; and when I taught thee the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel; and when thou createst out of clay, by My leave, as the likeness of a bird, and thou breathest into it, and it is a bird_ —Qur’an 5:110 That’s one of the cutest images from the Qur’an… Magic Jesus holding on his palm a little clay sparrow he just made, he puffs some breath on it, and it takes off from his hand in a flutter of wings. He smiles as he looks up and watches it fly into the sunlight. This would work great in a Christian rock video. Or Islamic, I mean. Whatever. [/QUOTE] Of course you don’t have to go the the Koran for that image. There is something similar featuring Jesus as a child in at least one of the Apocryphal New Testament books, tho’ it’s thirty years since I read 'em and I can’t tell you which. ---
**Author:** ![rhettro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@rhettro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rhettro)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/39 "2006-11-22T19:58:17Z")
[QUOTE=diggleblop] I don’t think evolution or creationism/ID should be taught in school. There is absolutely no _solid evidence_ for either one. Sure, there is plenty of “circumstantial evidence” supporting their _theories_, but not proof. [/QUOTE] Theories arrived to by way of scientific method and still held to be true 150 years after Darwin put it forth. If evolution is false, scientific method will show this eventually. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118/40 "2006-11-22T20:50:16Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] Of course you don’t have to go the the Koran for that image. There is something similar featuring Jesus as a child in at least one of the Apocryphal New Testament books, tho’ it’s thirty years since I read 'em and I can’t tell you which. [/QUOTE] [The Infancy Gospel of Thomas](http://www.gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm). > [@](#): > > And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed straightway and told his father Joseph: Lo, thy child is at the brook, and he hath taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds, and hath polluted the Sabbath day. And Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying: Wherefore doest thou these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. And when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-curtains-for-the-intelligent-design-movement/380118.md?page=3)