Hi Gordon,
It's interesting what you took away from the doco compared to what I
did. Probably a sign of my prejudices more than anything. I watched
most of the doco and had read about it previously, so maybe we saw
different bits as well.
I guess it's a question of the question; I read it that the court case
was to determine:
"Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools and presented as a
valid scientific theory?"
The court's answer was a resounding no. The proponents of ID could not
prove that they had a theory that stood up to scientific reasoning; ie
a theory that could be proven false and that had not been proven
false. The bacterial flagellum is the classic example of failing the
'irreducibility theory" that ID is based on. The theory goes that if
an organism has an apparatus/organ (organelle in the case of the
bacteria) that can not work if some parts are missing then it must
have been designed for that purpose. The ID defenders had always held
up the flagellum, and it was proven as false in court with the mention
of the injecting organ found in other bacteria. There was also mention
of the evolution of the immune system in mammals, which was also
disproven.
To address your major concern, that "To conclude that, one must prove
either that there is no possibility whatsoever that an intelligence or
a designer is out there." I totally agree, but that was not the point
of the doco, nor is it the point of evolution. As a wise man once
said, Science is good at the how, not the why. The theory of evolution
has been one of the most successful theories in the modern era. Easily
falsifiable and creating predictable results for over 100 years. But
as you say, this does not disprove that there is some creator behind
the evolution. This would be the why that science is so bad at.
Further, how on earth would you prove that there was a creator?
So, the aim of the court case and the evolution/ID debate is this.
Separate science and religion. Trying to pass off one as the other
cheapens both and helps no-one. Leave science to those things we can
prove and religion to those we can not. ID may still prove to be a
valid theory, but they have an awful lot of work to do before that
happens.
EB
On 12/9/08, Gordon and Pam Cain <> wrote:
> I only had time to watch about half of the first episode of 'Intelligent
> Design On Trial' on SBS.
>
> What struck me, Evan, wasn't so much the soundness of the dismissal of
> intelligent design (ID) -- though there were lots of 'missing links'
> provided. Rather it was the huge logical non-sequiter underlying it all:
> Because this evidence suggests a long and gradual development of the
> species, there is therefore no intelligence behind that process.
>
> That just doesn't follow. To conclude that, one must prove either that there
> is no possibility whatsoever that an intelligence or a designer is out
> there.
>
>
> It reminds me of Yuri Gagarin: "I went into space and I didn't see God".
> Fine, but that proves nothing except that there is no God visible in space
> near the earth.
>
> Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of an intelligent
> designer, so let's not fall for the line that ID has been disproved.
>
> Let's not let any side get away with bad logic in the quest for truth and
> what really happened.
>
> Cheers and happy birding,
> Gordon Cain
> Schofields, NW Sydney
>
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:58:15 +1100
> > From: "Evan Beaver" <>
> > Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] why swamphens have white undertail coverts
> > To:
> > Cc:
> > Message-ID:
> >
> <>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > I haven't read the paper yet, I'll have a look later. However, I'd
> > wondered the same thing about rabbits and deer, that both have white
> > under their tails. In rabbits, I think it's to break up the outline
> > while they're running away. From behind you see a moving grey/white
> > spot that, surprisingly, disappears into the greenery.
> >
> > Difficult to prove the why's of evolution, but maybe this helps as
> > well? The undertail just needs to be a different colour for
> > signalling, not necessarily white. Maybe the white is an adventageous
> > colour for camoflage?
> >
> > Slightly off-topic: Did anyone see Intelligent Design On Trial the
> > other night? I didn't realise how roundly it had been dismissed. The
> > scientists on the ID side didn't do their reputations any credit by so
> > obviously ignoring evidence that discreditted their theory.
> >
> >
> > EB
> >
> > On 12/9/08, Andrew Taylor <> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There is a new paper in Evolutionary Ecology,
> > > "Why some rails have white tails: the evolution of white undertail
> > > plumage and anti-predator signaling"
> > >
> > > The authors believe the white-tail on swamphens (and other rails)
> > > are to signal that there is danger from a predator to other swamphens.
> > >
> > > I am not sure how convincing the analysis is - but the discussion of
> > > the various rails around the world and their behaviour is
> > > fascinating.
> > >
> > > Currently the full text of the paper is freely available at:
> > > http://www.springerlink.com/content/5k21n03541762178/
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > > ===============================
> > > www.birding-aus.org
> > > birding-aus.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> > > send the message:
> > > unsubscribe
> > > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> > > to:
> > > ===============================
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database:
> 270.9.15/1837 - Release Date: 12/8/2008 9:38 AM
> >
> >
> >
>
> ===============================
> www.birding-aus.org
> birding-aus.blogspot.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message:
> unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
> ===============================
>
--
Evan Beaver
Lapstone, Blue Mountains, NSW
lat=-33.77, lon=150.64
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
