You've been gone a long time.  Did you rise from the dead? 

Wow. Can't wait to see that film.


larry

Design there is Thanx 4 t3ll1ng of the f1llum (-:
& loving to see you back <3

where you been?  I'm reposting this.

Sounds awesome.

I LOVE Ben Stein.

I sense a hostile implication that this issue means scientists are subduing fact supporting creationism. I haven't seen the movie or what examples it discusses, but I know about the issue and will point out that these ideas being shot down aren't necessarily anti-evolutionary or creationist simply because they contradict the stance of other Darwinists. Most often they propose merely different details in cosmological or natural formulations that aren't at odds with the formulations in their entirety, but specific details. You need to be careful and respect the specificity of arguments in scientific revision and not imply that there can't be opposition over details WITHIN a formulation like big bang theory or Darwinism, because there can. You seem to think this issue ("ISSUE", not evoking the movie specifically) contributes to your efforts to impugn atheistic natural theories. It's terrible that good ideas and progress are being stiffled, but all the examples that I'm aware of have been atheistic.

PZ Meyers, who was interviewed for this movie, is claiming he was deceived, since he was interviewed for a movie with a different title ("Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion").

You can read his indignation about this here. More about the Expelled producer's tactics here and here.

Peace, Love, Krisko Disko

I would like to see this, cause I think Ben Stein is funny.  As for evolution being dogmatically infered in the class room...well, I guess it depends on the quality of the teacher or your location.  They didn't bother teaching evolution to us in public school in Kentucky.  I had to learn about it on my own.  The teachers would unofficially omit it, and if it was asked about the student would be automatically shut down.  As for college, I only took a single biology course, and I had a gentle, soft spoken professor start the subject by saying "This is what I will be teaching in class, you don't have to believe it.  You will, however, be tested on the basics of the theory, so I expect you to read and take notes just as I would any other topic in this class.  This is a scientific theory, and will therefore be taught as such.  You will be tested solely on your knowledge of theories in this class and not on your "belief" in them."  Nine kids dropped the course because they said he was being offensive and abusive.  The "debate" never took root in the class as the prof told us, "It would be interesting to engage in this, but we still have a great deal to cover."  It was always my opinion that he was eluding to the fact that public schools didn't quite do their job..."I will not engage in this debate because we still have a ton of stuff to cover that your lazy high school teachers simply refused to teach at their leisure because they were so afraid of your freaky parents going ape."  As for him being absuvie, I would say the abuse was self inflicted by the closed minded student who refused to hear anything different from what pat robertson told them was true. 

What I find ironic is that in the 1920's it was the Darwinists like John Scopes that were being discriminated against for questioning the status quo by introducing new theories into the classroom. Scopes was arrested just for teaching the theory of evolution in his class! Today we have come full circle. Now it is anyone who tries to introduce theories into the classroom that compete with Darwinism who are being discriminated against. As Stein points out in his movie, those who question the TOE are denied tenure, turned down for promotions, have their financial support revoked and suffer widespread discrimination in the workplace. When will we learn as a society that competing theories can and should coexist? Science is about free-inquiry and the marketplace of ideas. We cannot expect our students to be prepared for college if we pretend that there is only one theory when infact there are several competing theories. They are eventually going to find out about the alternatives such as I.D. theory anyway, so why not teach the debate in high school? At least that way they will be prepared when the debate comes up later in their college science courses.

Godless:

[PZ Meyers, who was interviewed for this movie, is claiming he was deceived, since he was interviewed for a movie with a different title ("Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion").]

Thanks for the links. You are correct about the title of the movie being changed. According to this article in the New York Times, the producer at Rampant Films admitted that the title of the movie was changed at the suggestion of marketing experts, something that is fairly common in film making. However, after reading the original description of the movie on PZ Meyers blog, it doesnt seem like the focus of the movie changed much....just the title. Granted that the original description sounded like a more balanced look at the conflict between science and religion whereas Stein's current movie is obviously more one-sided. Frankly I don't see what Meyers and Dawkins are fussing about. They agreed to the interview and I assume they didnt say anything that they would regret saying and not want included in the film just because Stein changed the title.

Darth:

Your professor's demands sound reasonable to me. I mean, it sounds like your professor made it clear that he did not care whether or not the students believed in evolution or not, only that they learn it and be ready to pass a test on it. I don't see how that is being "offensive and abusive". On the contrary it sounds like he was being tolerant of their beliefs to me. Its interesting that you were not taught the theory of evolution in highschool in Kentucky because I also attended a high school in Kentucky and we were taught the TOE. I had no problem with the theory itself being taught. My only problem is that it was taught rather uncritically.  In other words, we were not taught to question anything about the theory. Rather, we were taught it rather dogmatically, almost as if it were as established as gravity or physics. Dr. Jonathan Wells, a PhD in Biological science has authored an excellent book on this very subject called Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong. Personally, I believe our schools do not teach enough about the TOE. I think more emphasis needs to be placed on teaching it critically, flaws and all. Students should know about potential problems with the theory such as the Cambrian Explosion and the inability of random mutations to create new information in the genome. Then, after they have all the information, they are in a better position to make up their minds about the validity of the theory.

[where you been?]

I've been around...just too busy for xanga lately. I've been working on finishing up graduate school so that has been keeping me pretty busy with reading and writing papers, etc. Only one more class to go and I'll have my M.A...woohoo! I'm going to try to update my xanga periodically from now on though.  I'm excited about this movie. Finally a celebrity who will take a stand against materialistic bigotry! Free scientific inquiry has been stifled for too long by the "dogma of Darwin," both in the classrooms and in the workplace. This movie is a breath of fresh air.

Thank you for ignoring my comment, I'm flattered. Now I know what it must feel like to be Noam Chomsky, only I have my own ideas.

You should read "Finding Darwin's God."

[Thank you for ignoring my comment, ]

Sorry Desolate. Its not that I was ignoring your comment...I guess I just wasn't sure how to respond to it because I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to get across. Perhaps if you could claify?

[You need to be careful and respect the specificity of arguments in scientific revision and not imply that there can't be opposition over details WITHIN a formulation like big bang theory or Darwinism, because there can. ]

Not sure exactly what you mean here about respecting the "specificity of arguments in scientific revision" but I never said that there cannot be opposition withing a theory such as Big Bang or Darwin. Certainly there are Darwinists who disagree with one another about the specifics of the theory. A good example would be Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Gould of Oxford. While Gould was at Oxford, he and Dawkins seemed to be constantly disagreeing about evolutionary ideas. Similarly, there are differnt variations of the Big Bang theory, although I accept the standard model since that is the one accepted by the vast majority of scientific scholarship.

[You seem to think this issue ("ISSUE", not evoking the movie specifically) contributes to your efforts to impugn atheistic natural theories.]

Not sure what you are referring to when you say "this issue". Could you be a little more specific about what you are talking about? And just so we are clear, my aim is not to "impugn" naturalistic theories such as abiogeneis and evolution. Neither is that the goal of Stein's movie. Rather, the goal is to stop the widespread discrimination against people, both in schools and in the workplace, who propose alternative theories such as I.D. The article mentions two such examples: Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian who suffered major discrimination simply for publishing a I.D. article in their peer-reviewed journal, and Gonzalez, a professor at Iowa who was denied tenure because he advocated a designed universe rather than an accidental one. This kind of bigotry in the classroom and in the workplace cannot be allowed to continue.

[It's terrible that good ideas and progress are being stiffled, but all the examples that I'm aware of have been atheistic.]

Again, I'll ask you to clarify. Do you mean that the atheists are the ones having their "good ideas" stifled? If so, could you offer an example please?  

Hey im Tom, like the way you write. Come visit us and hear our music and get some ringtones. Xanga supported.

Desolate

Are you trying to make a cheap shot at Chomsky? He doesn't have original ideas? So who's ideas are they that he espouses? And the numerous linguistic models that he pioneered are those just unoriginal as well?


GPP

<b?They agreed to the interview and I assume they didnt say anything that they would regret saying and not want included in the film just because Stein changed the title.

That is beside the point. If someone asks to do an interview about x, and then later changes it to y; not even considering the possibility of misrepresenting them and pulling specific sound bites to play the rhetoric to be what it's not; they're still misrepresenting themselves in what they asked for (y, instead of x). The whole idea behind consenting to x, in this generalization, is that there is a free exchange transaction going on, and for that to be considered free or specifically fair, requires complete information. If they misrepresented what they were asking for (y) when applying for an interview with whomever (x), then they have wronged the interviewed by deceit and taking away their liberty to not participate in the interview, which I know Dawkins is very adamant about not doing interviews for creationists. If, on the other hand, they were honest in what they asked for (x), but later changed their mind or whatever (y), then they are still misrepresenting what the interview was agreed to. It would be no different than attaining a contract with someone and then changing it after-the-fact without notice to the other party. In this case, the interaction was not formal, or contractual, etc., but such trivial things do not change the fact they wrong the other party through misrepresentation, if there is a disparity between x and y, as analyzed here. And this is not even to bring up the fact that they can simply take a legitimate interview and splice it into a rhetorical tool for their argument, or to discredit the interviewed, something Comedy Central or Michael Moore has done numerous times. It is also what I alluded to that Dawkins prefers to avoid completely by simply rejecting creationist interviews. The fact of being responsible for what they believe/say is irrelevant since it can (1) be misrepresented as I explained, and (2) if attained through misrepresentation of some degree is proportionately counter to any concept of liberty that we all ought to be afforded in interacting with each other.

[What I find ironic is that in the 1920's it was the Darwinists like John Scopes that were being discriminated against for questioning the status quo by introducing new theories into the classroom. Scopes was arrested just for teaching the theory of evolution in his class! Today we have come full circle. Now it is anyone who tries to introduce theories into the classroom that compete with Darwinism who are being discriminated against. As Stein points out in his movie, those who question the TOE are denied tenure, turned down for promotions, have their financial support revoked and suffer widespread discrimination in the workplace. When will we learn as a society that competing theories can and should coexist? Science is about free-inquiry and the marketplace of ideas. We cannot expect our students to be prepared for college if we pretend that there is only one theory when infact there are several competing theories. They are eventually going to find out about the alternatives such as I.D. theory anyway, so why not teach the debate in high school? At least that way they will be prepared when the debate comes up later in their college science courses.]

Scopes could not teach evolution according to the Tennessee law, anywhere in their schools . As far I know of, there exists no legislative mandate saying people can't teach "intelligent design" in public schools. People can teach "intelligent design" in a religion or philosophy course. Judge Jones ruled that one that teaching "intelligent design" in a biology class violates the constituational separation of church and state. He made NO ruling concerning such in a philosophy or religion class.

"The Tennessee anti-evolution law, which had been proposed by state legislator John Washington Butler, declared:

"... that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

Scopes broke the law, so he got arrested. That's how the rule of law works. He wasn't discriminated against for breaking the law. Actually, Darrow and his team tried to get the state to discriminate for Scopes by challenging the law. Discrimination didn't take place... the law applied to Scopes, even though he was filling in for someone else "The conspirators summoned John Scopes, a twenty-four-year old general science teacher and part-time football coach, to the drugstore. As Scopes later described the meeting, Rappalyea said, "John, we've been arguing and I said nobody could teach biology without teaching evolution." Scopes agreed. "That's right," he said, pulling a copy of Hunter's Civic Biology--the state-approved textbook--from one of the shelves of the drugstore (the store also sold school textbooks). "You've been teaching 'em this book?" Rappalyea asked. Scopes replied that while filling in for the regular biology teacher during an illness, he had assigned readings on evolution from the book for review purposes. "Then you've been violating the law," Rappalyea concluded. "Would you be willing to stand for a test case?" he asked. Scopes agreed. He later explained his decision: "the best time to scotch the snake is when it starts to wiggle." Herbert and Sue Hicks, two local attorneys and friends of Scopes, agreed to prosecute." http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm

People who think "intelligent design" science do NOT clearly recognize a distinction between scientific and non-scientific information. This implies that if they work for a state institution, they can easily confuse religious information with non-religious information and promote this confusion as a clear viewpoint. In other words, such people pose a liability for state institutions, as since they do NOT clearly recognize the distinciton between science and non-science, they can easily confuse separation of religious matters and state matters. No institution wants liabilities . So, these people don't get promotions, etc. because they pose major risks to state institutions.

Honestly, since you talk about the coexistence of competing theories what other theories do you want to see compete GGP? What other theories do other sciences underpromote and why don't they get as much attention as "ID" does ?

Can someone tell me why all the large body of Christians feel the need to constantly quote the Bible for ... everything?!

Hi Poet,
along the lines of what you are writing, what do think of this:



Naturalism traps the thinking person in himself, without good basis to trust his own five senses. If the five senses came about by chaotic chance, without intelligence and purpose behind it, then I would argue that atheist have no basis to trust their five senses.

Here is an analogy. Chris and Nate, are both driving to a national park for the first time. Chris and Nate both in their own cars coming up to the words "Welcome to Yellowstone National Park" spelled out with big white stones on the green grass.

For Chris, he believes that a person must have put those stones in that patter to communicate to him that he arrived at the national park. Let us assume that Nate has a different worldview, claiming that there is no intelligent designer, but rather the stones just so happened to be that way accidentally by chance. No person intentionally put the stone in that way. Nate claims that it happened by natural causes; say an earth quack shook and the stone rolled down a slope and just happened by chance/accidentally/unintentionally each stone landed on its spot that so happens to look like it spells out those words.

Chris' way of understand the words is one way, and Nate's understanding of those same words is another explanation. It would be useless to for them to sit in their cars and argue over their interpretations. The true test is in living out their own interpretation with consistency.

In this story, Chris, who takes those stones as it was spelled out so as to communicate a message that he has a arrived, he would stop there and start camp. The stones are intelligible and communicates a message, that Chris is at the site. Now, would it makes sense for Nate to also stop and start camp as Chris would based on the stones? What would Nate do?

I think it is simple. Nate would keep driving. Now, here is the KEY POINT: If the stones forming words are a matter of chance and unintentional happenings, then what one may consider as "words," how ever complex, could not be trusted as if it communicates a message. If stones rolled and happen to form the words, then Nate could have arrived anywhere, even Yellowstone National Park, but because it is anywhere, it could not be trusted as if the stones to communicate a message. That would assume too much.

Now, let us bring the analogy back to the five sense. The point is, If the fives sense came about by accidental and unintelligent causes by natural forces, then the fives sense could not be trusted as to communicate anything of real meaning.

Thus, I would agree with C.S. Lewis that, "A strict naturalism refutes itself because if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true..."

RYC: Firefly is in on the shelf, still in the shrink wrap! :)

My problem with ID is mostly that I feel people are ascribing intent where there is only coincidence and circumstance. That doesn't mean this can't be investigated, but I understand intellectuals who reject it. If ID proponents want better representation in our institutes of higher learning, they need to create a better argument.

I have to second Spoonwood up there:

As far I know of, there exists no legislative mandate saying people can't teach "intelligent design" in public schools. People can teach "intelligent design" in a religion or philosophy course. Judge Jones ruled that one that teaching "intelligent design" in a biology class violates the constitutional separation of church and state. He made NO ruling concerning such in a philosophy or religion class.

Why do ID proponents feel the need to call ID science? How does ID follow the scientific method?

Accolade:

[My problem with ID is mostly that I feel people are ascribing intent where there is only coincidence and circumstance.]

But coincidence and circumstance cannot explain the existence of CSI (complex specified information) in the world. For more on why CSI requires an intelligent cause you can check out the ten minute video in this post. Neither can coincidence and circumstance explain the origin of the first living organism. Only intelligence can. Go here.

[People can teach "intelligent design" in a religion or philosophy course.]

Yes, but why teach science in a religion or philosophy course? Doesnt it make more sense to teach it in a science course?

[Judge Jones ruled that one that teaching "intelligent design" in a biology class violates the constitutional separation of church and state.]

Yes he did because Judge Jones did not properly understand the claims that ID makes. If you read the court transcripts you'll see that Jones continually conflates ID with Creationism, when the two theories make totally different and often opposing claims. One invokes supernatural causes while the other doesn't. By the way there is nothing in the constitution about a "seperation of church and state". That phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferon in a letter he wrote to the Danbary Baptists, promising them that the state would not infringe upon their right to practice their religion freely.

[Why do ID proponents feel the need to call ID science?]

Because simply put, ID is science. For an explanation of how ID follows the scientific method, see my previous post on this topic. There was also some good discussion on that post if you have the time to read through some of the comments.

[Yes, but why teach science in a religion or philosophy course? Doesnt it make more sense to teach it in a science course?]

"ID" doesn't qualify as science. Science uses the scientific method or methodological naturalism. If one wants students who understand what they've learned about science, then to confuse students about the naturalistic methodology of science makes no sense whatsoever.

[Yes he did because Judge Jones did not properly understand the claims that ID makes. If you read the court transcripts you'll see that Jones continually conflates ID with Creationism, when the two theories make totally different and often opposing claims.]

Judge Jones opined:
"A "hypothetical reasonable observer," adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 531 (citations omitted); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 624-25. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. (P-461; P-28; P-566; P-633; Buell Dep. 1:13, July 8, 2005). Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work. (10:102-08 (Forrest)).
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005). Professor Behe's assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.
The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.
Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer, adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism. One significant difference is that the words "God," "creationism," and "Genesis" have been systematically purged from ID explanations, and replaced by an unnamed "designer." Dr. Forrest testified and sponsored exhibits showing six arguments common to creationists. (10:140-48 (Forrest); P-856.5-856.10). Demonstrative charts introduced through Dr. Forrest show parallel arguments relating to the rejection of naturalism, evolution's threat to culture and society, "abrupt appearance" implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to show its "strengths and weaknesses," and to alert students to a supposed "controversy" in the scientific community. (10:140-48 (Forrest)). In addition, creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for ID. (P-853; P-845; 37:155-56 (Minnich)). The IDM openly welcomes adherents to creationism into its "Big Tent," urging them to postpone biblical disputes like the age of the earth. (11:3-15 (Forrest); P-429). Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID's relations hip with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism. (Fuller Dep. at 67, June 21, 2005) (indicated that ID is a modern view of creationism).
Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term "creationism" applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism, including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as will be described below. (P-149 at 2; 10:129-32 (Forrest); P-555 at 22-24)."
<link> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html#p46

[One invokes supernatural causes while the other doesn't.]

If "ID" doesn't have to involve supernatural causes and consequently can work under naturalistic causes, then the designer would qualify as naturalistic and consequently we could know the nature of such a designer from science. However, the Panda's book indicated otherwise
"In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas' rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy." (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught))."
<link> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html#p46 So, since we can't know its nature, it simply can't work under naturalistic causes. Without an ability to know its nature, it doesn't qualify as science.

[By the way there is nothing in the constitution about a "seperation of church and state".]

The phrase "separation of church and state" comes as the idea expressed by the first part of amendment 1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This applies to states through the 14th amendment
"The prohibition against the establishment of religion applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Modrovich v. Allegheny County, 385 F.3d 397, 400 (3d Cir. 2004); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 49-50 (1985)."
<link> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html#p46
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
<link> http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

[For an explanation of how ID follows the scientific method, see my previous post on this topic. There was also some good discussion on that post if you have the time to read through some of the comments.]

Most tellingly your example fails as a proper falsification of such a "hypothesis".
"In Darwin’s Black Box, Biochemist Michael Behe claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required intelligent design. The flip side of his claim is that the flagellum cannot be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system was produced. If that happened, the claim that the flagellum is irreducibly complex would be disproven, and this would cast serious doubt on the flagellum being designed."
<link> http://www.xanga.com/GOODGREYPOET/465851504/item.html
First off, irreducible complexity doesn't imply design. If something really does in reality work out as irreducible complex, it doesn't imply that design works. It just falsifies exactly step-by-step evolution. It doesn't even refute common descent with modifictation, or evolution in general. Behe's originally claim had the implicity form that either we have step-by-step evolution or we have design. So, by falsifying step-by-step evolution, we would then have design. However, that doesn't falsify evolution, nor does it imply design as necessary, because there exist other possibilites. For instance, we could have symbiotic evolution, the already accepted NATURALISTIC explanation where the inheritance of acquired genomes happens, and also explains how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. No intelligent agent comes as working in such a model.

Second, note that no one in the "ID" community has attempted to do such an experiment. Also note that as stated, we have no knowledge of how many generations the test needs to work. For a properly falsifiable hypothesis we need much more specific information. Lastly, this wouldn't refute the idea that there would/could/do exist organisms "intelligently designed". If properly formulated, it would ONLY refute the idea of the bacterial flagellum as designed. After all, the biological community ALREADY basically has evidence that prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes through the inheritance of acquired genomes (serial endosymbiosis theory). Here we have an increase of biological information, a moving from simpler organisms to complex organisms, and we have common descent with modification (evolution). If so, then the notion of "design" already got falsified, making such not scientific, but non-scientific as a falsified hypothesis works out as false and no longer as science.

Lastly, as used by non-ID people, the term "creationism" does NOT refer to a belief in a literal interpreation of the Genesis story. The term "creationism" refers to any belief of 'special creation' where an intelligent agent causes such. The Pandas book , even in revised form, has a doctrine of 'special creation' or 'creationism'.

"In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept."
<link> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html#p46

[It just falsifies exactly step-by-step evolution.]

I don't mean step-by-step evolution. Irreducible complexity would falsify variations arising through random mutation and selection alone . But, as pointed out by serial endosymbiosis theory, genetic drift, sexual selection, etc. evolutionary theory doesn't work that way. Additionally, exaptation accounts for how complex structures can arise, yet work out as non-irreducible.

Now, I expect you'll claim Judge Jones committed the genetic fallacy. However, he writes
"The endorsement test recognizes that when government transgresses the limits of neutrality and acts in ways that show religious favoritism or sponsorship, it violates the Establishment Clause. As Justice O'Connor first elaborated on this issue, the endorsement test was a gloss on Lemon that encompassed both the purpose and effect prongs:

The central issue in this case is whether [the government] has endorsed [religion] by its [actions].

To answer that question, we must examine both what [the government] intended to communicate . . . and what message [its conduct] actually conveyed. The purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test represent these two aspects of the meaning of the [government's] action.

Lynch, 465 U.S. at 690 (O'Connor, J., concurring).

As the endorsement test developed through application, it is now primarily a lens through which to view "effect," with purpose evidence being relevant to the inquiry derivatively. In Allegheny, the Supreme Court instructed that the word "endorsement is not self-defining" and further elaborated that it derives its meaning from other words that the Court has found useful over the years in interpreting the Establishment Clause. 492 U.S. at 593. The endorsement test emanates from the "prohibition against government endorsement of religion" and it "preclude[s] government from conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred." Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). The test consists of the reviewing court determining what message a challenged governmental policy or enactment conveys to a reasonable, objective observer who knows the policy's language, origins, and legislative history, as well as the history of the community and the broader social and historical context in which the policy arose. McCreary County, Ky. v. ACLU, 125 S. Ct. 2722, 2736-37, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5211 at *41 (2005) (objective observer "presumed to be familiar with the history of the government's actions and competent to learn what history has to show"); Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 308 (objective observer familiar with "implementation of" governmental action); Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1306 (objective observer "familiar with the origins and context of the government-sponsored message at issue and the history of the community where the message is displayed")."
Dover Opinion

In other words, in order to decide the effect of something like an "ID policy" he has to consider the origins of such a policy. You can call this fallacious all you want, but this case didn't happen in a logic or philosophy class. It happened in a court of law, where previous cases indicate he has to consider the origins of such a policy as relevant. So, in order for your claim to have effect in a court of law, you would have to overturn not just this case, but the decisions of previous cases.

I consider that you may also claim that he committed "plagirism". However, this has NO bearing on the validity of such a document, as he in no way claimed his opinions to come as original, and he also rather constantly cites other sources. Second, he need not have cited other sources if he lifted texts from others, nor have had an original opinion for his document to carry weight for *some* court of some sort. For instance, many scholars claim the Declaration of Independence as a plagirized document... as plagirism of Locke's second essay concerning civil government. However, this would have no way invalidated such as a legal document had the British maintained of the, then, colonies. For such a claim of "plagirism" to work in today's world, the ACLU would have to press charges against Judge Jones. They aren't doing that and no amount of whining from the Discovery Institute or another institution comes as a good possibility to convince them of such.

I supect you might also claim that Judge Jones didn't have any business declaring "ID" as science or not. For scientists and philosophers of science, of course, he has no such business. But, he didn't decide such, and even gives hints that he didn't decide such as his final paragraph reads "With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
Jones 3 He decided such as science for science classrooms in the middle district of Pennsylvannia. To speak more to the point, the Lemon test used implies that he has to decide such, for to teach something religious in a science class comes as a violation of the establshiment clause (I use the term refers to the conjunction of the 1st and 14th amendment working together).

I suspect you might also claim that he tried to dictate policy. However, even the DI quotes Jones as saying
"I wrote the opinion in a comprehensive way because I knew that the dispute was possibly going to be replicated someplace else. And what I wanted to do was make the opinion sort of a primer that people could read. You're absolutely correct. It's not precedential outside of the middle district of Pennsylvania, but I thought that if other school boards and other boards of education could read it, they would possibly be more enlightened about what the dispute was all about. And, in fact, in Ohio, in Kansas, in California, and some other places, it was reacted to in a positive way."

Does a primer dictate policy? Does a statement drawn up by a president of a corporation dicatate to the board of directors the policty decisions they'll make? No. A primer primes people on how such a similar case might work in the future and what issues come as involved at most . He openly acknowledges such as "not precedential outside of the middle district of Pennsylvania." The 'enlightened about' part just indicates that such works as a primer to help otherwise think what might come as involved in such a case. It does not decide. Additionally, 'enlightening' doesn't set policy. For a good professor who teaches her students correct information enlightens those students, but does not dictate a policy of action to those students. Honestly, to say that such a decision "dictates policy" would come as equivalent to saying that teachers "dictate policy" by teaching... a rather strong conflation between teaching and policy making.

I suspect you might also respond by claiming Judge Jones as an "activist" Judge. But, again his opinion says otherwise, he openly ackonwledges that his opionion does NOT apply to anywhere else in the country, AND he did say "With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
Jones 3 He just wanted his opinion as a primer hoping that people wouldn't squander their resources over such matters. Do you want people to squander their resources? Are you against hope?

"Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the ability to handle conflict through peaceful means."
- Ronald Reagan

Vote and support freedom and peace! Vote and support Ron Paul! Now is the time to reclaim our country and stop its' current head first dive into further tyranny and oppression!