Creationism growing in European schools
 

I translated this from my newspaper: NRC Next. As an exercise, but also because I know some of you might find this interesting. ;)

Creationism growing in European schools
Politician resists against American creed stating that the world is created in a short period of time

The Luxembourg politician Anne Brasseur is concerned about teachings in creationism.
Soon students won't know the difference between science and religion, according to her.

By JEROEN VAN DER KRIS
BRUSSELS. Creationism, the idea tat the world is ceated in a short period of time, is no longer an American phenomenon. It's also in Europe on the rise. And here it's primarily a threat for education.

That's the intent of that resolution subject to debate today in the European Council, the organization of 47 countries in Strassbourg. "If we're too careless creationism can form a threat to the human rights", says Anne Brasseur, a Luxembourg liberal, in the resolution. Brasseur is member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council. The Council is the oldest pan-European institute, mainly focussing on human rights. The Parliamentary Assembly is made up out of representatives of national parliaments.

The handling of the resolution was initially planned for June. A close majority in the Assembly obstructed this. "The resistance came primarily from the christian democrats", says Brasseur. "They saw the resolution as an attack against religion." That was not her intent. The resolution says that creationists - christian as well as islamic - are mainly trying to obtain a place for their ideas in the curriculums. To do so they argue that the evolution theory is only an "interpretation". Next to that they present their ideas as science.

In the Netherlands former minister of Education Maria van der Hoeven caused a fuss by stating that the evolution theory is "incomplete".

The risk lies in the fact that children are unable to separate religion from science, according to Brasseur. "This may lead to an 'everything-is-equal'-attitude which might look appealing and tolerant, but is actually disasterous". Next to her resolution Brasseur wrote a report in which she points to attempts of the Turkish creationist Harun Yahya to spread books in France, Switzerland and Belgium. "In one of his works", she writes, "Darwinism is described as a 'source of terrorism'."

The Luxembourger is also concerned about expressions of certain European politicians. "The minister of education of the German confederation Hessen for example said that creationism had to be a part in biology lessons."

In Poland some politicians went even further. There Miroslaw Orzechowski, secretary of education up till recently, said the evolution theory is "a lie". And he added: "We shouldn't teach in lies."

Brasseur didn't change much of the text that was held up in June. She did add a few lines to emphasize that it was not her intent to "start a discussion about faith or to fight against it".

In the resolution the countries joined in the European Council are called upon to oppose against the presentation of creationism as a theory that is equal to the evolution theory. The Luxembourg politician thinks that accepting this resolution won't have direct consequences. "I hope to achieve that people become aware of the danger", said Brasseur.


Creationism and Intelligent Design

Creationism, a christian movement trying to make the Creation compatible with modern science. The movement came up halfway through the last century, when because of Darwin's theories theology was no longer considered relevant when reflecting on the creation of life on earth.

Creationists state that the theory of evolution of Darwin does not satisfy to explain the creation of life on earth. It is a 'purely materialistic theory' that assumes that all life came into being out of one single organism without providing any evidence. Creationists argue that the 'creation' can only be explained by assuming that God created the earth.

A modern variant of creationism is Intelligent Design (ID). An intelligent designer would have a part the realization of life. In the US the ID-movement is large and well organized in the conservative christian Discovery Institute.

In the American state of Kansas and Pennsylvania school councils have tried to get IDinto the curriculum. The judge put the enterprise in the bud.

When did creationism become an American creed?

Not only that, but since when (and how) is the teaching of creationism "a threat to the human rights"!? And what in the world is the "Danger" Brasseur is referring to? Crazy Europeans.

Ooo, I love this. :D Remember: this is a Dutch newspaper. And in this country 51% is christian, 41% of the population is atheist, 5.5% muslim and 3.5% other. And the christians here are mostly quite liberal, so it is a common opinion here that creationism is...well...rubbish.

I consider myself a liberal catholic (certainly compared to the global average catholic), and I too think the story in Genesis is not meant to be taken literally.

History of Science is an area I have been studying for the past year or so (independant of my research, I started attending some classes and discussions on the subject since I have to have a "minor" away from my field). By actually having some knowledge of the subject, it makes me cringe at the gross errors in the press release.

What Kansas and Pennsylvania (and if I recall correctly a few districts in Florida and Georgia) did was to try and declare evolution an unproven and highly debated theory (true on both counts). Because it was called a debated theory, individuals felt it was necessary to present opposing viewpoints instead of saying, "This is a highly controversial subject, but you can only hear one side". (Granted in my opinion this is better than what was occuring before and there are even a number of evolutionists who feel shut out of the debate because their theories, such as punctuated equilibrium etc. didn't make it into the accepted curriculum and school boards weren't allowing anything else in because of it tends to bring massive amounts of controversy in).

Since teachers were filling in their own choices as the competing ideas against evolution, administrators felt the need to step in and avoid a lawsuit on 1st Ammendment Grounds. The result was saying that a limited form of Intelligent Design (ID) would be allowed, as it had gained some support in scientific journals as a potential alternative. The problem arose in that many groups called their theory ID including a number of fundamentalists for both Christianity and Islam, but only a relatively Deistic version had been officially sanctioned. The media, not doing its homework, treated all of these as approved to be taught causing a public relations nightmare.

Creationism as such was never specifically sanctioned (though not actually barred), but ID was. The conservative christian Discovery Institute represents ID, but not in the form that was sanctioned. One of the major pieces of fallout is that ID researchers have been essentially banned from publishing in American scientific journals as this was seen to open the door for allowing creationism into schools (definately overreacting and causing feuds in the scientific community in the US). The fight inside the school curriculum is now fierest among different branches of evolutionists as states switch back to evolution only teaching and must present a united front.

On a side note: Regarding the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, the ruling was that evolution could not be taught in schools as it promoted a state religion of atheism. Things certainly have changed.

My main argument here would be that (w/o declaring a "winner") kids are smart. With the goal of the education system being to teach, why not teach them both sides? Or at the very least, teach them opposing viewpoints and let them decide based on the evidence. Seriously, isn't the educational system supposed to nurture thought rather than censor information?

EDIT by Killer: I misclicked and accidently 'edited' this post - sorry!

When you are talking about "both sides", one side is religion, the other is science. The problem is that the Discovery Institute wants to put them together, or against each other, as two sciences, or rather two possible truths, as though they are equal. They are not equal! And they are not necessarily incompatible.

One is the scientific truth (for as far as we know), the other is the religious context. Whether you think or believe God created life on earth is a matter of your religion. How God created life on earth is a question Darwin answers. And if you do not believe in God, Darwin still explains how life on earth was spawned.

See, this is the problem with you guys. I'm on the side that would allow leeway and looks at things through the lens of reality. One is not scientific truth, but theory. The other is also a theory. If it is indeed a theory based on limited evidence in the larger view of things, why teach it as THE TRUTH? I just don't understand. It's like taking a cup full of water out of the ocean and saying that there's no other life forms in the water based off of studies of that one cup. However, I digress. I'm not gonna get in a peeing contest with you cause your mind is already made up unfortunately. By "your mind" I mean lack of one nyuck nyuck Can I get a rimshot!?

Ok, that's a matter of philosophy. It's not the truth, but it's the best science can come up with. But that's the case for [u]every</u> scientific theory that exists.

Take the theory of quantum mechanics. There is not a single scientist on earth that will say that quantum theory tells us the truth. Fact is that classical mechanics (Newton & co) did not suffice on the atomic level. The most simple example is hydrogen: one proton (+) with one electron (-) circling around it. If it really circles that would mean there's a force present. That force needs energy coming from somewhere, in other words, it consumes energy. If it consumes energy the electron's radius would decrease until it hits the proton and diminishes. To summarize: the classical theory says that even a hydrogen atomic is unstable. [crazyeye] So they (Einstein, Schrödinger) had to come up with something else which eventually became the quantum theory, which says the electron isn't circling, but is present all around the proton. If you hypothetically could take a instantaneous picture, it's a matter of chance where that electron is at that point. Einstein already said this can't be true ("God does not play dice."), however, it's the best thing they could come up with. Until a few years ago when recent scientists (Hawkins, a.o.) came up with the string theory in which we live in an eight-dimensional space. [rolleyes] (The quantum theory already brought in time as a full fourth dimension.)

Another typical example in philosophy is the fake theory "All swans are white." How do you know all swans are white? You only know for sure all swans are white once you've seen all swans in the past, the present and the future and observe they are indeed all white, every single one of them. Only then the theory is 'verified'. That's of course impossible. You can only 'confirm' it ("That swan is white, so all swans are white." or "That car is red, so all swans are white." (Since that object is not white, it should not be a swan.)) or you can 'falsify' it ("That swan is black, so not all swans are white.")

When something is falsified, the theory ends in the trash can. The more often it is confirmed, the more firm the theory is.

The theory of evolution is not confirmed as much as the theory of gravity, therefore it's completely legit to question it. But if you want to pose a counter theory, you have to bring more confirmation (e.g. proof) than the older theory. What proof does the theory of Intelligent Design have? It's based on a book written nineteen centuries ago! Or better: it only exists to justify what is written nineteen centuries ago.

There rests my defense for the theory of evolution.

A theory can never been displayed as THE TRUTH, for it's just a theory. Consequence : a theory can't be proven. Exception : mathematics, which still requires some initial theories (stuff you learn in superior classes, oooh hurting memories :D ).

Nevertheless, what I'll claim is that Darwin is a respectable man in his works, that the Theory of Evolution is a pretty fucking good idea, that it stands the test of time, that it still requires some polishing and more evidence... while creationism and whatnot is for scared dummies. Basically it stands in one sentence :

WE DON'T NEED CREATIONISM.

It's just a nice story invented by the human mind to feel comfortable, and to match other stories also written by the human mind (namely : Torah, Bible and Quran). Trust me, we really don't need this to be happy. [lol] One quick way to know that creationism is rubbish is when you consider it was invented out of the blue by some people. Darwin didn't really invent his theory to match his beliefs, but rather based it on personal observations. So there is a total schism between both stuff as for their natures.

Creationists all have a church, and thus wouldn't be unhappy if their beliefs could spread. Darwin didn't have a church, as far as I know. In the end, there is absolutely no reason to believe in creationism, while the Theory of Evolution seems like a nice explanation of what could have happened. And it doesn't brag about how (White) Man is the ultimate creature of the Universe.

The problem with the theory of evolution is that the version taught in most high schools has been shown false (mainly because a number of the key observations were based on falsified data, such as the classic white versus speckled butterfly population shifts in England during the rise of the industrial revolution). Unfortunately, much of the major publications on this have been within the past 10 or so years, or more recently than most high school science textbooks.

To combat this, there have been a number of permutations of the theory of evolution, neo-darwinianism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. None of these have been falsified, yet they are mutually contradictory. As these don't have the classic experiments to back them up, ID is saying that they have just as much proof for their side and can show the mathematically impossibility of almost all of these new permutations (this is not creationism, it's based on the concept of irreducible complexity and allows for the source to be anything including creation, aliens, guided luck, but says that there comes a point when random mutations would fail).

One key fact you seem to be missing is that ID wasn't started by christians nor was that it's original goal. Christians have joined the movement relatively lately because of it's success in challenging evolution as mathematically impossible. Also the original source of life in ID isn't clear other than it has to be an intelligence. Obviously people who believe in god are going to stick their beliefs in, while in evolution they really can't. This brings in the fringes to what is a fairly sound idea and lets the press and ill informed jump out and have a field day against solid science.

Perhaps ID shouldn't be promoted in schools because of the fact that the fringes are trying to control the debate, but it should at least be put before the choices of individual school boards to look at. Remember people didn't squash all research in quantum theory simply because of the Hindu movement to claim it as their own and that it validated their religion. I feel that ID should be given the same fair shake.

Interesting. Good point, sz_matyas. :) So it's actually creationism rather than ID that should not be put in as science.

Krys,
I thought that as a man that championed the greek ideals of philosophy that you would jump at the ideals put forth by greek thinkers well before the birth of Christ.
In fact from a metaphysical state the most important questions include:
Where did we come from?
Where are we going?
How do I handle death?
Is there an afterlife?
In my copies of Plato, he acknoledges a creator. Socrates spent a good portion of his teachings on death.
In the purpose of education, both sides should be presented such that people can draw their own conclusions.

My best statement in this matter comes from John Milton's "Areopagitica": "Do not restrict the writing and teachings, for all that you need to do is present the truth, and it shall triumph" (Paraphrased heavily)
I believe in creationism, however, both ID and evolution should be taught to show that it is an unsettled issue.

So far the anti ID people have only come up with "They're dummies and we're right"....lol

Very respectable indeed.

I definately think that ID should be put in as science (and the major scientific journals should end their boycott of scientists who had thrown their lot in with ID and the creationists that came with that).

Personally I believe in creationism with discrepencies from mainstream ID on key points. That being said, much of my core beliefs on this matter are not appropriate for the science classroom. What is appropriate is the major flaws and current falsifying data to evolution, given that using extrapolation techniques espoused by it's proponents lead to physical impossibilities when applied to other areas over the same data (example: the cooling rate of the earths core driven backwards in time allows the earth to form; however applied to the magnetic fields of the earth, their strength at the point of formation would form an impossibility to earths formation, therefore a different formula is applied for magnetics and cooling in classical darwinism. Some major branches have corrected this problem, but have others as a consequence).

As a result it is important to have alternate accepted view points presented along with data against them. They should not necessarily be treated as equals, as much less work has been put into the study of ID to expose its flaws. Giving them equal weight would allow any crackpot to present his theory and require it be given it's time in the sun (which is happening in a number of areas unfortunately). Still, the truth should ultimately win out if given a fair shake.

The essential elements[9][10][11] of a scientific method[12] are iterations[13], recursions[14], interleavings, and orderings of the following:

* Characterizations (Quantifications, observations[15] , and measurements)
* Hypotheses[16] [17] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)[18]
* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[19] from hypothesis and theory)
* Experiments[20] (tests of all of the above)


-----
from wikipedia (Scientific Method)

I don't say Creationism or ID are rubbish.
I say, it is not scientific and therefore it must not be taught in biology classes (only in philosophy or so).

If all people would have said in the past: "The world is like we believe it is and all other evidence for it being different is just false trails to hide the truth" we wouldn't be talking here. Computers would surely have never been invented.

ID and creationism are not based on what we really can observe and try to challenge by experiments/further investigations. The point is: It might even be true (although almost everything points another way), but we wouldn't get anywhere in science if we'd say: There are flaws in our current theory, although it explains almost everything we see, so the complete opposite must be true. That has nothing to do with logic.

I don't condemn anyone believing in ID or creationism. But that is where it belongs: Belief, Religion. Not science.
(And challenging current theories is a good thing, but an argument against the current state of ToE does not mean ID is more likely)

When I was at school, creationism (we didn't have the term ID back then) was taught as part of religious education, which in my day was basically Christian Bible studies as different religious beliefs didn't get a look in until around the age of 13. It was also taught if you went to Sunday School or the wednesday evening classes at the local church (which I did). I went to a church school in my younger years so learnt about creationism before I learnt about the theory of evolution, but it was never presented as science, it was always presented as this is what we believe as Christians.

I'm happy for Creationism to be taught as belief, it worries me a lot when people try to class it as a science and present it alongside scientific theories which are based on logic. It is a completely different process, a belief does not have to be justified with facts, it just is. Perhaps us Europeans look back to the days when religion did hold sway in Europe, stifling research that didn't fit in with the religious beliefs of the day. The earth went round the sun?

Hmmm, I think I just rambled on when I could have said I agree with the above post.

It's funny, in my head I always think that it's not worth discussing this subject with religious people, but then I end up doing it again and again. Thankfully, others here already pretty much made my point, so I'll only add this:

My girlfriend is a biologist, with one specialty in genetics. But, she is also very religious (at least for a European, who, as Matrix stated, a very liberal and most of them only go to church on Christmas. She is one of the very few younger people who actually go to church quite regularly, like twice a month or so). But even for her, Theory of Evolution is a well-know fact in the sense that creatures (plants, animals (&lt;- and yes, humans are animals, too!!!)) evolved and were not put on earth by a god. I think this is a good read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

However, I will make two statements which might be offending to some:
- You can't reason with people who believe in Creationism. A friend of mine (yes, a friend! ...but also an American) replied, after I had asked him about the Dinosaurs: "God put them there to test our faith and to give us puzzles". Now, while I'm sure that's not the official policy, it sure illustrates the problem: An ignorant person can disqualify science in thousand different ways and they will be immune any argument that goes against their belief.
- Creationism is just a new way for the churches to stay in power (= collect tons of cash from poor fellas who donate to the church). In that sense the church is much like Microsoft: You will never hear MS saying: "[i]Well, we know now Windows was a bad idea and the world would be a better place if everyone would just switch to Open Source programs". Even now, when the majority of people is unsatisfied with Vista, MS still goes out and tells everyone that Vista was a great success, instead of admitting that after such a long development circle, the end result could (and should) have been much better.
The church is the same: They hold on to their view on the world as long as they possible can until there is no more way around it. For them, the earth was flat and only when people started to come back at the other side, they finally "revised" their position.

Imo the behavior is very similar to the ongoing sacrifice of human rights in the name of the "fight against terror" (not only in the US). Civ 4 players know the phrase: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. While it does sound a little cheesy and out of place in the modern (and seemingly complicated) times, I do find it is still true today, maybe even more than ever. While politicians use fear to pass more laws restricting the rights and justify spying on people, the church creates fear and doubt (of science) to strengthen its own position.

- People are stupid, that's why they fall for that crap.

- That, and the fact that many people who believe in God do so because they are simply afraid of the alternative: That they'll just die and rot away, only leaving their children behind.

@ Romeo : Yes I'm very attracted to Ancient Greek stuff, but that doesn't mean I consider it the end of it all. After all, many movements existed in that society, you just can't agree with them all (fucking sophists ;) ). And yet I humbly agree I know very little about it, if you check CFC, you'll see I've used the title "Researching Philosophy" for years : all I know is that I know nothing (all hail Socrates, down with the sophists :D ). Last point, I have my hero as my avatar (with shades [cool] ) ; don't think I'd become an emissary of Satan if suddenly I changed my avatar to hellish stuff. I'm just a Frenchie behind his PC.

Where did we come from?
Species-wise, very probably from Lucy and big apes, and then from primary mammals, and then from single cells.
Where are we going?
To Mars if I believe Bush. :D I don't know, SURPRISE !
How do I handle death?
In any case, you don't need to think about it. Just prepare to die. We'll all get the same treatment, it's not because you believe in Heaven that there is a Heaven. If you're a good man and if there is a Heaven, you'll end up there. If you're a good man and if there is no life after death, you'll die and rot, and jump into total void, just like before your birth. So, no need of believing, just act good.
Is there an afterlife?
SURPRISE ! You won't ever know before dying anyway. And you won't know it if there is nothing. [groucho]

I have no problem with teaching creationism and ID in religious class. That's where it belongs. There is no God in science. Just like there is no study of cow digestion in mathematics. Differences between creationism and the ToE is so huge that one must be complete crap. When you know that the former is supported by people with an agenda, the case is clear... ID is the same, people with an agenda and goals. [eek] That's just moisture to me. You can believe what you want. But don't throw your agenda on the Youth, they didn't ask for it.

Creationism and ID are not science, so they should not be taught in science class. I have no problem having them taught in a Philosophy class, though. Also, I disagree with the article that creationism is an American creed. It existed long before the USA existed.

You had two really good points, one I agree with wholeheartedly, and one I can attempt to prove wrong.
First, I agree that people are entirely stupid (myself included).

On the point of the church contending that the earth is flat, I will attempt to argue this point using Saint Thomas Aquinas. More details availible at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

In his works, one of the fundamental tenats of Catholic Theology, and inspiration for a majority Dante's Divine Comedy (See how many cross-references there are between the two), he states that the world is round. In the time frame from 1225-1274!! He even states that it could be proven by using the greek astronomers and mathemiticians!! I will admit that I have not read all of Aquinas, or even more than 30 pages or so, but that nugget jumped out at me in the first 30 pages of the book I was reading in my high school library.
According to my much more "modern" texts, they claim that the catholic church held doggedly to a position of a flat earth until well after Magellen!! Somewhere in here there is a disconnect, and this common rebuttal to ID can be disproven, at least to some extent.

Present the Truth, and it shall set you free!!

Thanks for the good answer Krys! You are actually mostly right down the middle in Socratic thinking, with one exception. Socrates appeared to be monotheistic, as in he knew the Greek Pantheon was crap. This is from my copies of Plato writing for Socrates, but it was published by Harvard University Press in the early first half of the 1900's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Classics
From this, springs the Apostle Paul's comment on the Alter to the unknown God!

Anyway, the fundamental precept of all the religions that I have been exposed to which include the following list: Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormanism, Lakota Sioux, Islam, Judiasm, and Hinduism, all refute the lynchpin of your arguement on death. All men are not treated equal when they die. They also have the same tenat that being "good enough" isn't enough, that faith is required, and that good works will come from the faith.

Sola Fide

You should do this too, for you know that in the history of the Church, for every Thomas Aquinas, there's a Galileo Galilei. Anyways, St. Thomas was not a scientist, he was a philospher, so if you're suggesting his arguments support ID, then they should be taught in Philosophy, not science class.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Philosophy is science. Or even better: philosophy is the basis of science. One first starts to wonder before one research.

@romeo: Thank you! I stand corrected on the whole "flat earth" thing, as it seems that, contrary to popular belief, it was already widely known in the 8th century.

However, my point still exists: The church did prosecute people who questioned the church. And often enough even those who didn't but were just a little different.

This episode is a rerun. I've seen it a million times before.

Well, indeed. This again turned into a creationism vs evolutionism debate, to which I'm also guilty in participating (mainly because I have never participated in one before). My main goal was to evoke comments on the newspaper article itself.

But you know, American (neo-)conservatism is in our black book, and this article is just a result of that. To put it bluntly: conservatives/republicans are orthodox christian and therefore believe in creationism. And us Dutchmen have made up our mind about this debate: we believe in the theory of evolution, and those who believe in creationism have blinkers on and just believe anything that's written in the bible. That's basically the general opinion here. I know it's not very diplomatic. We have a hard time dealing with the orthodox catholic Polish and Italians in the European Union...

While the debate is interesting so far, I still haven't heard much response on the teaching of ID (NOT CREATIONISM, though they are somewhat related). ID is science, creationism when it attaches itself would belong in a philosophy class (which actually was where science was taught through the 17th century and in many universities into the 19th century, lacking a science department/classes).

@grahamiam: If you have a problem with the church and Galileo, you should probably go read a history of science textbook. His work was accepted by the church and even sponsored by them until he started actively taunting the pope. In his famous Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo used three characters a Heliocentric, a Geocentric and an undecided skeptic. While the pope really should have fit into the character of the skeptic, Galileo placed him as the Geocentrist, whom he named Simplicius, a double insult. Galileo further upset him by placing outdated arguments in the mouth of Simplicius to have him get trapped and appear the fool.

Galileo was given the chance to rewrite this before publication (the church allowed research into heliocentrism at the time, just it couldn't be stated as a proven fact, just as the church allows research into evolution without allowing it to be stated as fact). He chose not to and because he had written the book under conditional approval and broke the conditions he was banned and his arrogance after the fact led to his persecution and house arrest.

Your metaphysical questions are somewhat incorrectly asked. One cannot speak there as "we" and has to change it to "I" since generalization is not very appropriate. And if one answers to these question from scientific POV, the answers would be true but ridiculous. For example:
1. Where did I come from? - From my parents and from genetic recombination of their genetic material and from the environment which influenced my development.
2. Where am I going? - I am going to die in the end.
3. How do I handle death? - You cannot change the outcome, so try to get comfortable with it.
4. Is there and afterlife? - Yes, you become dust and this dust belongs to this world. But this dust will be dead, so no, there is no afterlife.

I am not an atheist but neither am I a very religious person.

Regarding the purpose of education, imo, its main purpose is to hammer into child's head something about what is wrong and what is right. If you teach something wrong without actually telling that this is wrong, this mean that you don't teach well. Nobody is teaching that earth is flat nowdays. However, children are told that long time ago people thought that earth is flat but this is wrong since it is round.

IMO, POV of Milton is quite naive to the very least.

I'm not sure about that. It is taught that something is wrong and something is right. If you tell something wrong you have to tell that this is wrong. Especially this is true for evolution theory since it is so unbelievably complex, there is no way somebody can figure it out just because he is smart. However, the evidence presented as a proof should be solid scientific evidence and this is quite hard to come around with theory of evolution.

Also, a word "theory" is quite misleading. For example, there is "theory" of relativity but it is actually not as much a theory as a proven fact. While ToE is supposed to be a "theory", it is quite proven at its present state so that it can be considered as a fact. It had not settled down completely but it is a rather solid area of science explaining very well most of the known facts. it does not looks like something more is expected at this time point. Also, it is an active theory and moving forward at a lightning speed with recent progress in genetics and systems biology.

sz_matyas, for me (personal opinion), ID is also not scientific. It is pseudo scientific.

As it is not based on what has been observed or what was tested in experiments (it merely contradicts the logic there)...

Or, saving time, here is a part of the wikipedia...

----
For a theory to qualify as scientific,[156][157][158] it is expected to be:

* Consistent
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[159] violates the principle of parsimony,[160] is not scientifically useful,[161] is not falsifiable,[162] is not empirically testable,[163] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[164]
----

Although I don't see the point of the criterion "is scientifical useful" that pretty much sums up my doubts on it being taught in biology.

If I may play devil's advocate against myself here, the bashing from 159 to 161 is arguable in both ways - probably in favor of ID. Still, 162-164 I'm all for, which definitely does make it fall into pseudo scientific status IMHO as well.

If we go back a while, a long while, there were no scientific methods and no empirical sense of things, no written traditions, no records, well there were sentient beings yet and existential questions already. I completely adhere to the principle of God as an answer (a good one at that) to make sure people don't go massively hysterical. I do believe in whoever is the cordial bearded dude in the clouds if he helps the society I live in to be more moral, have stronger fellowship values and make people smile, laugh and feel good as a way of life. But I can't help to think that by-the-book religion grew to be the greatest sociopathological nutcase in history.

Anyone seen Zeitgeist (it's in english, don't mind the name), the documentary?

Thank you for actually responding to the issue at hand. I find it interesting how strongly people are willing to Karl Popper's ideas on what constitutes a theory, without applying his ideas on how theories should be built and tested (nothing to do with you and I actually follow many of his ideas myself).

Perhaps the most important thing we can do is to look at what is under debate. A key necessity is defining evolution, which is the generation of new species through random mutations and spontaneous generation of life from random chemical mixing. It does not involve natural selection/death of the unfit which was accepted as true even before evolution came along. It also does not include age of the earth questions (though this is an area of falsifiability for evolution).

Using this idea, the main differences between ID and evolution according to your list regard being dynamic, tentative, progressive and useful. Dynamic is largely a function of ID not being allowed into the public forum and cannot be judged until this happens. Tentative also requires public debate on the side of ID, though the current atmosphere almost suggests that evolution fails on this account (not letting ID even be discussed, because it must be wrong). Progressive goes hand in hand with usefulness which should definitely be discussed.

Many of the theories that adopt the term evolution, such as social evolution, are built upon natural selection. Where evolution has been claimed to be useful is in the concept of naturalism. If there is nothing beyond nature everything must be testable and fit into scientific theory, otherwise it's usefulness lies primarily in that it gives prominent place to other theories that are useful. ID claims that there is an intelligence behind life and therefore we should expect to find examples of this intelligence elsewhere. Both of these are important and used in science for both sides and assumed to be implicitly true. Both of these are essential and if you remove either of them, the concept of science as we know it falls apart. But neither can claim the other's basic concept from its own building assumptions.

Since there are major falsifiability issues with evolution, it is necessary to present them in a science class. The reason that I feel ID should be taught, is that an opposing viewpoint is necessary and ID is the closest to fitting the idea of scientific theory that there is. If it is lacking (my view) hopefully this will be exposed and either evolution will be stronger to the point of proof or a new theory will replace ID in the classrooms.

@SM: That is a load of BS, I mean you just plain get it wrong here. It is not meant to be an insult it is that just you lack the expertise and hereby present a household view of the problem. Especially the two things which you somehow confuse to be a part of ToE. First one is random mutations as a part of generation of new species and second is generation of life from random chemical mixing.

I must admit, they do still teach that kind of crap in high school similar to how they teach you organic chemistry and nuclear or quantum physics basics. Not only it is oversimplified, it is at times completely wrong. However, to get things right, you've got to go to a decent university not just any university and the complexity of the problems is plain astonishing. For example, regarding diversity and random point mutations. The impact of random point mutation is actually absolutely negligible compared to the power of recombination during sexual reproduction. Another is generation of life due to some random mixing of chemicals and this is excruciatingly complex phenomenon which requires essentially impossible solution of all millions and millions of system states from the point of quantum chemistry. Alas, this is not possible and not meaningful. What is important is a creation of a steady state system with minimal energy and near zero entropy. Etc. and etc. and the list can be continued ad nauseum.

The point is that most of the people just lack a qualification to talk about things while they do still talk and make their opinions public.

I freely admit that I oversimplified my point and that I am not the most qualified to talk on this discussion. On the other hand, I am not completely unqualified as I have taken multiple courses each in physical chemistry, organic chemistry, thermodynamics (including state based), stochastic processes and Markov chains (propagation of state based random events) as well as a fair number of biology classes. In addition a portion of my research has been on optimizing growth of viruses under different gene ordering combinations (check the research of Yin, J. and Rawlings, J from UW regarding the subject, I am co-advised by Rawlings and do stochastic optimization for chemical plants. I believe that there is a recent paper between them and Hansel, S. regarding the work on the subject if you are interested, but it's rather boring to be honest)

You are correct that the power of recombination is the driving force for evolution, but the problem is that if you start with a limited data set, while the number of recombinations can be incredible, it is still limited. Essentially there is required at least a random point mutation required for every protein that is produced (and given the mathematics, you are required many more for mutations that didn't get passed along and identical proteins across species developing after the evolutionary split). Only after the random point mutation occurs does the recombination come into play at which point natural selection/death of the unfit takes over, which is not ToE.

As far as the mixing of chemicals to produce initial life, this is excruciating and more so because the current base proteins are not true steady state minimums, but in fact one of millions of local minima. Granted I am not intimately familiar with the quantum chemistry approach, but protein formation/folding is a classic test for non-linear optimizers, simply because there are so many local minima allowing for great tests on convergence of algorithm and how "good" of a local minimum they find relative to the global minimum. Little is known about the atmosphere at the time life was formed, but free proteins don't form well in conditions exposed to current atmospheric conditions (no longer a minimum, especially thanks to oxygen). This is still a stochastic process involving chemicals, so I feel I wasn't wrong though it was misleading and I shouldn't have written it as I did.

The purpose of simplifying the debate is that this will be taught in high schools where no one will have the necessary background (it took me until junior in undergrad to get the very basics needed for this level of discussion and a couple years of grad school before I begin to not feel like a complete idiot at terminology, though I am still a novice by all means). The biggest challenge I feel is teasing out what is at stake. Most of what is being taught as evolution simply isn't/shouldn't be questioned. It gets put into the discussion because it is necessary, but not sufficient to prove evolution. Most of what people have a problem with in ID is expansions, for which ID is necessary but not sufficient to explain.

So called micro-evolution, such as starting with a common ancestor and breeding both Great Danes and Toy Poodles, I don't have a problem with. This involves optimizing existing elements through breeding for a better survival rate (or in this case forced breeding with potential eugenics). While this is wildly popular as support of evolution it is support of natural selection and has been misnamed primarily because Darwinian supporters have chosen to call it evolution either out of ignorance or malice (I suspect ignorance as it is an essential concept and the idea was not popular in England in the mid 19th century, once it had been called such by enough prominent scientists it stuck). This is where the combinatorial power of reproduction comes into play and is not doubted at all. While I feel this should be renamed, it won't for reasons of tradition, but it should in no way be involved in the discussion.

As stated in previous posts, ID is necessary for, but does not entail, creationism. Creationism doesn't belong in the discussion. Even if some of the strongest supporters of the ID movement are creationists, that shouldn't affect the arguments presented for ID and only if ID is accepted into the curriculum should there be discussions on whether to allow creationism to piggyback its way in.

Out of curiosity, did you go to UT and if so did you take a course from Rawlings (it would likely have been on reaction kinetics if you did I would think as I can't think of any other courses he would have taught in the chemistry department).

Totally, 100% agree with this. Teach ID if you want, but not as science.

In essence creationism is not an American creed (Hell, even Plato, in his work "Timaeus", wrote down thoughts on a "demiurge of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos"), but you can not deny that the most vocal people in recent and current debates on Intelligent Design have been American. People like Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen are all American and they are the most notable voices promoting Intelligent Design.
Now I am not saying that this makes ID a purely American creed, but it does shift the balance of the ID "movement" towards the USA.

When I was in the US in june, I attended a lecture by Dr. Eugenie Scott (Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education) and she had a great presentation on the dangers of teaching ID as a science in school.
Interesting link: http://www.meta-library.net/bio/eugenie-body.html

No, I got all my education from Moscow University. I've attended course by N.Semenov back then although the guy was already very senile and barely walking. Who is the Rawlings guy, I have no idea TBH but he should be rather good since Madison is a nice place.

I must admit I'm reading things only casually now (just some papers in Nature and Science which deem to be of interest) and might be out of loop on active topics of evolution and origin of life. Apart from that I have a deep hatred of paleontology since high school and undergrad.

Your project does sound very good and interesting while being complex.

Rawlings is the top researcher in a field called model predictive control, which is used for predicting based on a stochastic molecule based formula for smaller scale reactions (that collapses to the standard derivatives at large scales). For developing this field he gained a fair bit of notoriety in the field and used to work extensively in Texas and teach at UT Austin. Wisconsin payed him a bunch of money to come up here after Bird (of BSL transport phenomena fame) retired. Essentially UW is trying to buy itself the top chemistry/chemical engineering faculty in the country and honestly in some ways it's working (my official adviser isn't, but it's tough to get into one of the truly top groups).

As far as origin of life, I don't do much direct work with it, but need to keep a basic understanding of some key concepts due to my research. I have also never taken a paleontology or college level geology course, so most of my knowledge on the subject is limited to theory of growth and other stochastic processes (protein folding, gene recombination,etc.). I'm sure there are a dozen people more qualified people in these areas on this forum, but in such a highly charged discussion, the best thing is to limit it to the issues, which are usually less controversial than their baggage.

My area of expertise is now shifting over to the business mode, where at least one of the principles can be applied to this debate. So I will list some assumptions and perhaps a conclusive compromise that will piss everyone off.
1) All people in this forum believe that the history of human origin is very complicated and involves large quantities of high level science.
2) The history of where we came from is a basic philosophical question.
3) Science is an attempt to answer philosophical questions through a systematic universal type approach.
4) Most science taught in the basic school levels is completely erroneous or taught by fools.

Based on these points, would it not be best off to teach something of a pure science that isn't erroneous such as mathematics, while leaving the larger philosophical questions only for those who are willing to put forth the effort of independant study?

In my current job, I have an interesting dichotomy: Half of my time is spent interacting with highly intelligent, highly educated engineers and busisness people (almost all who hold a M.S. or better) and half the time with a population of people who may or may not have graduated from really lax rural high schools, and think a good job pays $9.50/hr. Trying to explain science from one group to the other is a great challenge, and for the most part, they are quite happy being ignorant. Their only care is that they get paid, don't get fired, and they keep the supervisor happy. (The supervisor is a B.A. in mathematics and I really question how much math she truely has, because science doesn't work on her either).

One of the truely great things about CDZ is the people, almost all of whom, for various reasons, in various ways are trying to better their position and their world. This is truely a crowning example of the human spirit. Plus vigorous debate is healthy for both sides of an arguement, as a dissenting person increases group output by up to 50% in various management studies. If anyone is interested, I'll try and dig out the exact citations of that.

@romeo: Good points.

But 1) Finding out the history needs a lot of science. The overall solution might be easier in the end.

4) Yes. But, I think it is better to teach a simplified system that explains a lot and tell the pupils that it is not totally correct than to teach nothing at all.

E.g. if everyone knows the main principle of how a microwave works then one wouldn't need to write in the manual that one mustn't dry pets in it.
(was this Anti-American bashing? Maybe. Sorry.)