From what I have seen far more scientists and researchers are people of faith and see no difference between having faith and believing in science. Perhaps I could take secular fundamentalists more seriously if they were willing to allow competition in the arena of ideas. Having seen they act like the Taliban one ventures their beliefs are also cloaked in a faith that is based on?

I'm going to be writing about this stuff on my blog a lot pretty soon. In passing I'll tell you both that there was a theologian writing in the late 1950s-early 1960s named W. W. Bartley III, who had a lot of good things to say about these sorts of issues.

He wrote an article (published in Harper's, I think) in 1959 called "I Call Myself a Christian", and eventually this work and its reaction led to a book called The Retreat to Commitment. I'm reading his first edition now, and will be trying to trace his thought as it evolved ( :) ) through the second edition.

I'm being a good boy instead of a link dork -- look for Gumptionology over in the Blogkids section here if you want to visit. I'll post a followup on this thread when I've pubbed something about Bartley.

"Perhaps I could take secular fundamentalists more seriously if they were willing to allow competition in the arena of ideas."

This is flat out absurd on so many levels.

First, high schools are not the arenas of ideas where scientific theories are hashed out and more than PE classes determine Olympic medalists.

Second, every scientist in the world would be more than happy to entertain any scientific theory on ID or anything else. The problem here is largely that ID supporters dont know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to scientific terminology or procedure.

ID is not a theory by scientific definition, it is a philosophy. There are several requirements for a theory to be scientific, but the most important, non-negotiable one is that it has to be testible. How do you test Intelligenct Design? What experiments can you perform to provide evidence one way or the other? There are millions of ways to test evolution, and they are carried out every day. Fruit flies are bred in every college in the country and again and again generational change is tested.

The bottom line is this: if I walked into any biologists office in the world and offered compelling evidence that evolution was flawed and wrong, i would be listened to, and if my logic and experimental evidence was correct, every scientist in the world would agree that evolution was dead. On the other hand, were it even possible to test intelligent design (which its not), what evidence could I present to its proponents that would make them agree that it is wrong and not true? None of course, and that is the simplest answer for why it is not and never can be science. To be scientific, a theory has to be falsifiable.

I've got two basic points that I ponder on occasion. The first is this. It seems to me that the authors of the Bible and other such texts were fairly primitive in their understanding of science. Therefore, the explanations of events in religious texts reflect that. This is not to say that there is no god, or that I do not believe in God, but I do not have as much faith in man. It is man's fault that religion cannot evolve as understanding evolves. The more science I study, the more I am convinced that there is something more powerful; everything is based upon randomness, yet it is all just too perfect. Why should the convincing factor be the one that drives good people away from the church?
My second pondering is in consideration of the theory of evolution, and it goes like this: if evolution holds true, that those creatures with some advantage are the ones to reproduce and share the advantageous trait, then why aren't there any genius crocodiles? Crocodillians have been on Earth evolving much longer that mammals leading up to primates and Man. It would seem that intelligence would always be an advantageous trait. It would also seem that if variation in a species are random, there would be an equal chance of crocodillians to incur random increases in intelligence or changes that lead to larger brain size. Sure, they seem perfectly suited to their environment, but added intelligence would still make them better suited to their environment and to changes in that environment.
Well, that's what I ponder. Now others can ponder these points as well.

"if evolution holds true, that those creatures with some advantage are the ones to reproduce and share the advantageous trait, then why aren't there any genius crocodiles? Crocodillians have been on Earth evolving much longer that mammals leading up to primates and Man"

Jim, thats a fine question, and certainly right in line with the tradition of scientific reasoning. I would just warn that its dangerous to try judging an exacting scientific discipline with a limited knowledge of it. You wouldnt look at the space shuttle, notice it doesnt beat its wings and then conclude it cant fly, right? You have to have an understanding of aerodynamics, chemistry, materials science, all types of things to understand how and why the space shuttle flies. But if you really wanted to you could study all those things and logic would intractibly lead you to the conclusion that it should fly. And failing that you can always launch the sucker and see what happens, thats why its science.

(in answer to your question ther are several reasons there are no genius crocks. Here are a few: 1)they dont need to be smart, they have survived millions of years quite nicely, being 'extra smart' would require various resources that if unnecessary could prove wasteful and hence are not favored by evolution 2)evolutionary adaptation isnt an open ended bonanza, if you go down some roads you cant necesarilly go back for physical reasons. Cold blooded animals have smaller brains, i believe because neurons need to be kept warm and oxyginated 3)evolution relies on chance. It could have been kangaroos or dolphins that ended up smart and humans just another group of chimps. Like they say, luck is where preperation meets opportunity.)

I agree that co-called creation science is not science, or ID of whatever moniker it may go by at the moment.

I also believe that the world is not an accident, that the God described in the Bible made the universe and all contained therein. And I can reasonably point to science as one basis for my belief. What I don't do is claim that my belief is in itself a scientific belief.

Just as there are religious fundamentalists, there are scientific fundamentalists who fail to recognize the limit questions of science itself. It is one thing for a scientists to claim that science reveals no purpose (teleology) in the universe. It is quite another for him to say that science proves there is no purpose in the universe, as S.J. Gould explicitly did claim. There is no scientific basis for such a claim, and no way for it to be falsified.

I'd like to know why ... the theory of evolution itself is falsifiable, while intelligent design is not. ... Let's consider the idea that we've evolved over time as the result of gradual changes which can eventually take something like a fish to become something like a human. How is that falsifiable? Particularly, what experiment could one do that would indicate that this is NOT true? ... When it comes to the idea that all the species we see around us evolved from something like a bacteria, or many of the species or genera we see around us were designed by an intelligent creator, the theory of evolution and Intelligent Design are at least equally unfalsifiable. Certainly, microevolution is much more falsifiable -- and has indeed been confirmed in some cases -- but that's not what Intelligent Design is dealing with.

The debates between IDers and evolutionist fundamentalists is not really about science on either side, it is about one religion butting against another. Yet both sides ardently claim to have no religious dog in the hunt. It'd be nice if they'd both admit it, but that ain't gonna happen.

I like that "genius croc" question. Intelligent Design proponents would answer, "because they were designed to exhibit a set of reactions and instincts that required a brain exactly the size it is". Fait accompli. Evolutionists might answer, "Actually fossil evidence shows the crocodile to have been evolving for the last 170 million years, including changes to brain-case capacity and shape. In the crocodile's ecological niche, speed, intent, tenacity, obvliviousness to pain, and efficiency are in balance with brain-capacity. A larger brain would only be slower, more easily distracted, more sensitive to pain and less efficient in hunting. Those crocs wouldn't make it." Scientific Ergo et Sum.

The real problem is that like MATH, science is - at the high end - damned difficult stuff to grok, and even harder to explain in common parlance. You take your average white born-again fundamentalist and try to explain the esquisite machinery of say the Krebbs cycle, and he'll wane into that laconic, diffused look in about 90 seconds. The terminology, lack of diagrams, lack of ancillary knowledge, lack of interest, lack of anologous systems or experience... and you're working with a human chimpanzee - from a Krebbs cycle discussion view.

And there it is, on the table.

99% of humans (who can read) can read the newspaper, and understand it. 99% of them can NOT grasp the complexity of biological systems, physics principles, chemistry rules, electronics design, metallurgy, petrochemistry, geology or even most industrial processes, such as paper making.

The only and singular reason why the fundies have tirelessly drafted and redrafted counter-arguments to evolution is because Darwin's Evolutionary Theory is the only scientific theory that directly contramands the genesis story of the Bible. Let's be very, very attentive to remember that.

For, if truely the idea is "intelligence went into the design of all complex systems including biological ones", then there would be ID theories for chemistry, nuclear physics, geology, mathematics and metalurgy.

Note that they haven't the audacity to pick those off yet. For, it is obvious to everyone that the fields of chemistry, physics and so on are FULL of theories, not just a single big one. Further, they're all rapidly evolving and specializing, as science learns more on every scale of inquiry.

[Actually some of the wackier creationists did have a theory for geology, astronomy and physics ... that held that God put down the fossils as a challenge to our faith, that he created radioisotopes in ratios that would lead us to believe the earth and the heavens are arbitrarily old, but they're really not, etc...]

GoatGuy

When you add in the Young Earth Creationists, you get the full on weirdness as they try to explain away fundamental physics and chemistry in conflict with their beliefs.

"He said that it is not true that all scientific theories are or must be falsifiable. The Big Bang theory, for example, is not falsifiable, yet astrophysicists worldwide accept its validity."

The Big Bang theory certainly is falsifiable. If the hubble telescope took a picture tomorrow showing that the universe was not expanding, and we in fact learned that all of our evidence that it was was a mistake, the Big Bang theory would be falsified. Scientists would go back to the drawing board. Can the same be said of Creationists?

"The foundational belief of scientism is that science alone reveals the Real, and that there is no Reality that science cannot investigate. But this is not a scientific conclusion; it is actually a matter of faith, not science"

I dont know any scientists that feel that way. Sure like any profession scientists feel a certain pride of their field and may feel that it is more important than most or all others. Ask a psychology, humanities, literature, or art professor why their field is fundamentaly the most critical to human development and you will get the same answer. Ask a priest. Same answer.

Look, this argument is largely a matter of misunderstanding what science is and does. Science simply is not equipped to tell us if there is a creator or not. It can certainly provide data that philosophers can use in their ideas. But it is the wrong tool for this. Look at it this way, if you asked a physicist to "prove that blue is the most beautiful of all colors", what would you expect his answer to be? Its not within the scope of science, it cant be answered with that tool any more than mathmatics can prove that the Mona Lisa is a great portrait. You cant scientifically investigate "I think therefore i am", its philosophy, just like intelligent design. Study it in philosophy class. That doesnt make it any less valid or important.

If anyone has fabrticated this extra importance and emphasis on science its the creationists that insist on coopting science becuase they arent satisfied arguing over it in its proper venue. Whats next, economists marching down to the physics lab demanding to argue Capitalism has its roots in quantum mechanics?

Jim wrote:

My second pondering is in consideration of the theory of evolution, and it goes like this: if evolution holds true, that those creatures with some advantage are the ones to reproduce and share the advantageous trait, then why aren't there any genius crocodiles? Crocodillians have been on Earth evolving much longer that mammals leading up to primates and Man. It would seem that intelligence would always be an advantageous trait. It would also seem that if variation in a species are random, there would be an equal chance of crocodillians to incur random increases in intelligence or changes that lead to larger brain size. Sure, they seem perfectly suited to their environment, but added intelligence would still make them better suited to their environment and to changes in that environment.

Good reasoning, but there are some problems. One is our common assumption that intelligence is always advantageous. But there are some ecological roles where it's difficult to turn intelligence into an advantage. Crocs are shoreline ambush predators, so they rely on being able to hide, wait very patiently, and react rapidly when opportunity arises. It's not obvious that small improvements to their intelligence would help them much here.

Another problem is that you don't get anything for free. In order to increase a croc's intelligence, some other characteristics will be changed, and those may turn out to have been more advantageous for its survival than the increased intelligence was. In which case the croc's survival chances have been reduced rather than increased.

Someone else pointed out that cold-blooded animals have smaller brains. Brainpower is metabolically expensive, but the low metabolism of crocs is one of their key advantages as ambush predators. It allows them to stay perfectly still for extremely long periods while waiting for a strike opportunity, as well as to go for long periods between kills. Furthermore, low metabolism lets a croc drown a victim underwater without the risk of drowning itself. If you make a croc a little smarter but also make it harder for it to wait for prey or drown it, you may well have a net loss.

One other point: variations in a species aren't perfectly random. Some genes might be more susceptible to alteration than others, and some genes might be very tolerant of changes, while changes in others could kill the organism or even not allow it to develop at all. And some gene changes might fail to be expressed, or might be restricted in their possible expression by other aspects of the organism. All this is a roundabout way of saying that an animal is not a Tinkertoy set: there may be lots of possible mutations, but some mutations may be much easier to hit than others, and some may simply be unreachable.

By the way, one could argue that we do have something like "genius crocs", namely the smarter birds: crows, jays, parrots, and macaws. Of course there's a long line of descent and alterations between the crocodilians' thecodont ancestors and those predatory dinosaurs that gave rise to the birds.

While other posters have already hit many of the important bases, I'd also like to point out that IDers have a lot of explaining to do for all the unintelligent design out there. Why are the light receptors in the human eye installed backwards, making it less efficient than it could be? Why do we eat and breathe through the same orifice, leading us to risk choking when we eat? There are thousands of examples of extremely inefficient engineering solutions in nature. Which is exactly what you would expect if they were crafted by a blind process, but exactly what you wouldn't expect if they were crafted by a guiding intelligent mind.

Hmmm, maybe it's falsifiable after all, and indeed already has been... :)

Mark,
So the Big Bang theory is falsifiable if you can invent a reality, "If the hubble telescope took a picture....", which falsifies the theory.
I think that Occam's razor states that logically one should not and could not invent a reality to prove a point.
That aside you do have a strong point that science and philosophy are different and teach us different ideas and they should be treated as so.
I wonder if there are many high schools which have philosophy courses? I don't recall any attempt to teach it in my high school. If there are, would they be the appropriate forum to discuss philosopy of religion, or mans existence? Would this then be allowed in public high schools?
What makes me sad is the notion that there are some (present company excluded, great discussion) that feel it necessary to exclude other ideas their presentation, on both ends of the spectrum.

Has any creature/plant ever been observed to have offspring that were more complicated than itself? (Flora or Fauna) I'm not talking about organized differently than its progenitor, I mean an actual rise in structural compexity.

#13 ...

Yes, all the time - and not rare cases at all.

Consider the ROSE. Every single one of its variations are mutations discovered to have some property of additional coloration, form, smell, appearance, thorniness... And these mutants are cross-bread until desired plants result. Man didn't "make the rose", but he sure single-mindedly carefully selected what nature threw down as the "rose genes".

Or, the CORN plant. Unknown in anything approaching is current form until 1,700 years ago. Again, carefully selected for teotzinte, the genetic predecessor.

Or, the DOG. Every couple of years or so, a new breed, more complex and changed from its predecessors is identified, selected, and eventually registered with the ACS.

Or, the CURLY PARSLEY - a relatively recent addition to our foodstuffs, having been found in a field of it in the 19th century.

Or, the TOMATO in all its various and wonderful forms. All again more complex than the good ol' garden variety cherry tomato, from which they ALL came.

Or, WHEAT
Or, Rye
Or, Barley 6-row
Or, the LIME.
Or, Tangerines
Or, Varigated plants of any kind
Or, the GRAPE [vitis vinifera]
Or, BANANAS
Or, ALMONDS (which formerly were deadly poisonous)
Or, CATS

Then there are things that mutate all the time,

AIDS
Influenza
Pneumococcus
Staph
The Cold [rhynovirus]

And more.

There's no end of examples out there of both ADDing and SUBtracting of complexity. For "evolution" isn't just one directional - not just "more" complexity. Just as often, it is the losing of something. Its most fair to say it is really about inheritable CHANGE in any direction.

And that kind of mutagenic change is everywhere.

As the final example...

MAN, with our blue eyes, brown, hazel; with our riot of hair colors, our panoply of facial features, skin colors, heights, breadths, heat and cold tolerance, our myriad of other basic characteristics - hairness, susceptiblity to disease, temperment, intelligence, smell, ...

There's no question (for anyone who has had kids) that A + B does not equal AB. More like Xa, Yb, Zab, W, N, QbA, ... and more. There seems to be only a hint of Mom and Dad in most kids, with their mutation from parents being as diverse as can be imagined. WAY more so than a litter of kittens, a pod of porpoises, a gaggle of geese.

GoatGuy

"So the Big Bang theory is falsifiable if you can invent a reality, "If the hubble telescope took a picture....", which falsifies the theory."

I'm not sure how that is inventing a reality. I just designed an experiment. The hypothesis is that any picture of space a telescope takes will show the universe expanding. If that hypothesis is proved false by data, the logical bricks that build the Big Bang theory fall apart. The fact that all the data points to an expanding universe certainly doesnt make the Big Bang Theory unfalsifiable, it simply makes it likely. Its hardly 'creating realities' to imagine what countervailing evidence would look like.

"I wonder if there are many high schools which have philosophy courses? I don't recall any attempt to teach it in my high school. If there are, would they be the appropriate forum to discuss philosopy of religion, or mans existence? "

I would say absolutely. First, theres no doubt that discussing scientific implications on philosophical ideas of a creator in general should cause no possible ACLU complications (of course in reality they would have a hissy fit, but screw em). Plus, there are plenty of over of religions type classes that would be fine as well.
Maybe we do need a new curriculum to meet this need, a sort of "Thinking about Science" type class that discusses how scientific data and theories impact what we think about life, the universe, and everything. I think that would be an outstanding class. But that is a far cry from teach ID as some sort of scientific theory or avenue of research which it simply is not. That is a line we should not cross.

"What makes me sad is the notion that there are some (present company excluded, great discussion) that feel it necessary to exclude other ideas their presentation, on both ends of the spectrum."

I agree, but I think it is even more critical to keep the fields coherantly intact. I would rather science not be taught in HS at all rather than butchering it by confusing students as what science is and does.
Basically science is in the business of deductive reasoning, and ID is entirely composed of inductive reasoning. One isnt necessarilly superior to the other, but they mix like oil and water.

Buehner is dead on point here, esp. #9. We had an excellent serve-and-volley on this topic back in "Faith, Freedom, Virtue," begun by USMC. That portion of the thread starts here.

Quick primer, because it streams right into this debate

"You can teach creationism, as far as I'm concerned. Just tell the truth - teach it as religion. What I object to is lying about it and calling it science, in order to lend it science's credibility without earning that credibility through the scientific method. To be false in that way is not only unscientific - I believe it's also un-Christian (and un-Jewish, and...).

To understand WHY that would be a knowing falsehood, you may need to upgrade your understanding of what science is and how it works. Creationism has an hypothesis that cannot be falsified. It is not going to come back and say: "shucks, sorry, we've looked at the evidence. We can't prove G-d exists, and there's no evidence that he created the world directly. We were all wrong. Our bad."

But if it can't imagine itself doing that, it isn't science. No buts.

Evolution is an incredibly useful theory with a lot of evidence behind it, but so was Newton's mechanics, and parts of it have been replaced.

Read Bronowski - and Feynman - again from the links above, to clarify this point... because it's a big part of the civilization you live in and defend, and what makes it great. Its effects also extend wayyy beyond just science.

Messing with that is like playing with a UNIX root folder - you can't undermine that without consequences. Just as science, economics, and governance all rest on a public moral foundation that is largely a religious inheritance, and can't be undermined without consequences, either."

By the way, like Rev. Sensing I also believe G-d created the universe. I also believe that the modes of creation for a being of G-d's stature will be far more advanced than human conceptions of "presto, magico!" or "lego assembly". It might behoove us to learn more and understand better.

Science cannot answer "is there a creator" - what it can help us answer is "how did the Creator put this place together and on what rules does it run." Accept that, and science can become a way to understand more of the Creator's design, that we may further our understanding of what it means to be like our Creator. The need for religion is not removed by this phenomenon, of course, for there are many moral/spiritual aspects which are outside of science, and their neglect is unbelievably costly as the 20th century showed. We need both wings to fly.

On which topic, our debate in "Faith, Freedom, Virtue" eventually turned to Marxism (another cargo-cult version of science wearing its mantle), at which point I noted:

"Incidentally, USMC, this is also a good example of why it's important to maintain those scientific foundations I was talking about. Once the foundations of The Habit of Truth, falsifiability, et. al. are compromised or discarded, that society is much more open to exploitation by other faiths that may be far less beign.... for society as a whole, and for practicing Christians in particular."

Food for thought...

Blast you Joe, taking my talking points :p

Anyways, yeah, what he said ...

... But beware ...

The #1 "Fatal Logic Flaw" that will inevitably be used to counter my lists is, "But has anyone SEEN a MORE evolved creation happen?", which of course is as vapid as questioning whether a falling tree makes noise just because you're not there.

More insidious yet is the argument, "No one has ever seen the novation of a new species." ... which has the variation, "(...) except assisted by man".

It is one of the most sincere packagings of ignorance-is-bliss that the neocreationists have in their handbag of tricks. It sounds so important, and it is so patently insignificant. One doesn't need to see the genesis of a cloud to admit that clouds cause rain, especially as its falling all over the place. One doesn't need to catch the particular cosmic ray or unusual chemical bond that mutates a gene so that the progeny have a new, novel mutation probably never before seen in nature. In fact, if you go too far down that line of thinking, then you come up with, "Well then, the intelligence of the designers left a lot of toggle-switches then in the genetic code, which can be turned on and off as evolutionary pressure demands."

Now that is a pretty hard argument to counter. It says essentially that all genetic material that exists, is all that exists in the future, but for variations on the theme. Even tossing in prions (which don't even have DNA), and the introns and other -ons that MOVE dna around between cells, organisms and even inter-species ... still seems to conserve the idea of intelligent design having done the work, and us just learning how the great machine works. Makes a fine argument for the unknow-ability of God as well: we would have to impossibly know the state of all the genes in every cell of all life, in order to know (but not to understand!) what the intelligent designers created.

I think that the transformation of science fact into hocum and myth is one of the most endearing aspects of humanity. Let's just face it - we really prefer a grand, magical, awe inspiring story to a sheaf of dry facts and carefully tabulated tables proving the point. Most people prefer an Earth that sits on the back of a Turtle, or a woman created from the rib of a man, or to blame them damned snakes for everything that is lusty, immoral, unethical and downright wrong.

And that's what the ID folks are trying to drum up. Plausible pap. Sweet pseudologic. Fantastic philosophy.

Fap, fap, fap.

Did you know that the heavens were created when Lord Frong ate a wee too many blueberries and passed the most stupendous wind in all the galaxy some 689,500,000,000,000,000 seconds before the Earth was liberated from the jowls of Trunkas, his galactic dog?

See, at least that was mildly interesting, even if entirely fabricated.

GoatGuy

Great post Joe, exactly what i was trying to convey.

Matt McIntosh reminds me of Richard Hoppe's proposal for Multiple Designers Theory
That is, if "design" is to be assumed, evidence from biology suggests multiple, competing, antagonistic, periodically incompetent and occasionally sadistic designers.

Or my own little suggestion: "Creative Landscape Artist Theory" in geography.
"...never mind plate tectonics, obviously the Atlantic was designed the shape it is to produce the Gulf Stream. And the mountains aren't produced by vulcanism, deposition, uplift, erosion and ice ages. They were shaped to look real pretty and keep Nevada from getting mixed up with California."

(And Slartibartfast as subcontractor for fjords :)

More seriously, a presumption of the non-involvement of supernatural, non-falsifiable causes is an essential basis of science.
Otherwise any problem in science could be answered, now or at any point in the history of science, with "...oh, an external agent did that."
At which point science STOPS. Sure, it has been done (for instance with the "winding up god" of the Newtownian "clockwork" universe) but it is by definition outside science, and the "god of the gaps" has generally embarassed natural theologians when scientists get round to looking at the supposed "gap" with new techniques.
And that is precisely WHY religious (and philosophical) issues do not belong in science education.

Within the current understanding of scientists, evolution is a apparent phenomemon from the evidence of genetics, paleontolgy and comparative biology. And the neo-Darwinian theories of descent-with-variation via genes, and natural selection through relative reproductive success the best explanation of that evidence.

I'd be inclined to say (if asked) that materialist presumption in science education and research was an operational necessity with no philosophical or theological implications whatever. (At risk of scandalous generalisation, I'd venture most scientists tend to accord philosophy about the same value as pocket lint, their common origins in Hellenic natural philosophy notwithstanding.)

It should also be noted that concepts of objective knowledge are currently also under assault from postmodernist relativism. The last thing needed is to give ground on the basic methodology of modern science.

As far as theological consideration goes, I'd be inclined not to poke my laymans toe in the water. But if I did, I might say "God so formed the cosmos and its laws that even apparently purely random events could and would produce life".

My point: science and religion are incommensurable activities, distinct in methodology, epistemology and ontology, in ethical significance and the very nature of knowing and understanding.
Confusing them is a recipe for grief on all sides.

P.S.
Question from an ignorant Brit: is teaching of Biblical creation theology(s) in Religous Education in US state schools precluded by Church/State separation laws? It is (or was when I was at school in the deeps of time) acceptable practice in the UK.

Were any of those flora examples not a case intelligent breeding?

"Its most fair to say it is really about inheritable CHANGE in any direction."

I don't think this is true. The fundamental asumption here is not that your eyes will change color or even work better or worse than your parents, but that you will develope some new sensory organ that is so drastically different from your ancestors that you will qualify as a different species. Like people with telekinesis or something like that. Obviously it's not limited to your sensory system, but you get the idea.

I'm way out of my league here goatguy, but it seems to me your talking about viruses mutating to emphasize some elements of their structure which were extant but dormant or passive. The dogs your talking about aren't actually more complicated than their predecessors their just a different variety of dog. My biggest problem with evolutionary theory is the idea that at some point one species gives birth to another. Where does the genetic information come from that would allow this to happen? It can't come from already existing species because presumably this natural process starts out with a single celled organism and, as an inherent and consistent function, grows steadily more complicated over time. It's not just that our brains are bigger. They're organized to do things that other brains aren't anywhere near capable of doing, let alone comprehending.

If the change is achingly slow then doesn't that make environement as a survival determinant (and so, guiding hand) insufficient to direct a branching of a species? And if it's gradual why am I so closely related genetically to my ancestors going back thousands of years? In fact I'm so closely related that if you look at my DNA and the DNA of a dead pharoah you can tell if we're even slightly related.

Mark Buehner: if I walked into any biologists office in the world and offered compelling evidence that evolution was flawed and wrong, i would be listened to, and if my logic and experimental evidence was correct, every scientist in the world would agree that evolution was dead.

Ha ha ha. Let me know if that works. I could throw away my copy of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

In actual fact, you could swing your "compelling evidence" like Conan's battleaxe for decades before making any progress. And nothing will count as compelling evidence until the major science journals are willing to publish it - which, if they don't like you (or the country you come from) might be never.

"Were any of those flora examples not a case intelligent breeding?"

Those examples are things familiar to us. There are as many and more of evolutionary pressures that have nothing to do with human preference. Mutations in cockroaches allow them to survive pesticides for instance. Certainly not an intelligent design on our part.

"The fundamental asumption here is not that your eyes will change color or even work better or worse than your parents, but that you will develope some new sensory organ that is so drastically different from your ancestors that you will qualify as a different species."

Thats not the fundamental assumption. Small changes can create drastic results. A slightly different colored insect might be orders of magnitude more (or less) successful than its predessesors. Neutral random mutations that for millions of years have no effect may combine with a new mutation to produce a seemingly inordinately complex mechanism. This may be extremeley unlikely, but it may also be so wildly successful that it is practically guaranteed to survive and pass itself along for millions of generations (the eye for instance, once developed is so fantastically useful its survival value practically guarantees its endurance). If the human appendix developed some mutation that made it extraordinarilly useful and seemingly compex, of course it would see miraculous, but as we know it had been useless for millions of years and suddenly gained utility through chance mutation. No mystery there.

"If the change is achingly slow then doesn't that make environement as a survival determinant (and so, guiding hand) insufficient to direct a branching of a species?"

I dont know why you would think so. Because evolution is generally so slow, it usually takes many many generations for a small improvement to win out via survival. Imagine if a human developed a resistance to drowning. How many people drown to death? It would take millions of years for the aquatic human to either outsurvive or find better prosperity and hence pass along genes at a better rate than the rest of the population. More likely the two species would simply split with better surviving aquahumans developing mutations that favor their niche and land humans doing the same. That is how species diverge.

"In actual fact, you could swing your "compelling evidence" like Conan's battleaxe for decades before making any progress. And nothing will count as compelling evidence until the major science journals are willing to publish it - which, if they don't like you (or the country you come from) might be never."

Glen, in practice you have a point. Human beings have egos and stupidity to deal with. The system is sound even if the people who enact it arent. There is a truism that the new theory is never truly accepted until the last generation of skeptics dies off. But, if an idea is so good and the evidence so sound, it becomes impossible to ignore. Science is replete with ideas that the mainstream of science found repugnant but were forced under duress to accept. Einstein famously hated the probalistic implications of quantum mechanics. Einstein himself was an unheralded clerk who simply wrote such brilliant papers they had to publish them. Scientists, in there defense, have to be careful. Its a rare week when some kook doesnt come up with a perpetual motion machine, claim to have proved ESP, or seen aliens.

If there are, would they be the appropriate forum to discuss philosopy of religion, or mans existence? Would this then be allowed in public high schools?

I think its undoable. Which religions get included and which excluded? How about the divisions within religions? How about borderline cults? Or hate groups or pyramid schemes masquerading as religios movements? Can a high school teacher objectively teach about their own religion, how about other religions? What are the parents complaing about creationism going to do when Johnny comes home with a story about a space alien named Xenu, who sounds kind of cool?

Some of the philosophical issues regarding science could be taught in literature. Shouldn't novels like Frankenstein and Brave New World be read in high school? Don't these offer a non-sectarian rejoinder to the religion of science (as opposed to science)?

Question from an ignorant Brit: is teaching of Biblical creation theology(s) in Religous Education in US state schools precluded by Church/State separation laws?

No. But a school must remain neutral on religion. It cannot promote one religion over another. This may be impossible as a practical matter or it might be too potentially devise for many schools to want to touch.

I agree Shaw, the nuts and bolts get difficult when you start getting into specific religions, although it is done to some extent. But i think there is a compromise point where you can talk philosophy in more general terms, with specific allusions to major religious ideas as you go (in such a class, the parallels between Budhism and probalistic wave nature of the universe might be discussed alongside the big bang-genesis parallels). I think so long as you frame the subject as major human philosophical issues rather than religious tenents, you can be alright. Hundreds of millions of people believe in Genesis, its an ancient idea and hence from an educational standpoint easily argued as more relevant to discussion than wicca or satanism or whatever else. So long as you treat it as a humanities/philosophy study, there shouldnt be a problem.

Mark Buehrer -

What has to be recognized is that Neo-Darwinism is not just another scientific theory, it is a heavily entrenched cultural territory. Its existence as such is more or less permanent, since Natural Selection does not lend itself to proof or disproof - what would "compelling evidence" against it even look like?

Darwinism has no predictive power and rules by explanatory power alone. As such it can't be refuted, only replaced by a theory with equal or greater explanatory power. And much of that explanatory power must appeal to a non-scientific subjectivity - on both sides of the debate.

So Evolution, Pro and Con, is about 10% science and 90% social propaganda. For an excellent example, see Inherit the Wind (the film version with Spencer Tracy and Frederic March) which is a great movie, but a total distortion of history.

As a result of this, popular views on Evolution (again, on both sides) are fossilized and dead. The significant debate has been carried on not by scientists per se but by scientific popularizers: Haekel, Dawkins, Gould, Sagan, etc. They argue about punctuated equilibria, cladism, selection by gene, and such things. This esoteric stuff makes absolutely no impact on popular views of evolution, which are so conservative they might never evolve.

I took philosophy in school from Grade 11 to Grade 13. We also covered the basics of world religions in History Grade 10, as I recall.

The question as to whether ID is actual science is simple to answer. We can reasonably agree that while it may offer some sense of hope or philosophical meaning to its believers, it offers no significant contribution to the scientific community that enhances further study. As a scientific explanation for the existence of life as we know it, it falls far short.

So dismissing it outright from the science curriculum seems reasonable for all but the radical nut jobs that sit close the the Taliban level of religious devotion and wacko-ism. But that does not mean that it has no place philosophically or that it merits immediate dismissal.

We see the influence of religion in our society and in the world at large. We consistently teach Greek Mythology and other forms of mythology as well as teach from novels like Brave New World. Religion and History as well as these other issues have real merit in the study of Ethics, Sociology, and History.

The issue here is that the wacko-Uber Christians want the pulpit to be in the classroom and want to undermine the scientific community's versions of reality. ID has no place in science classes. It is akin to teaching the Pope's theory of birth control and condom usage in health class. If we allow ID to be taught in Science, perhaps it makes more sense just to stop teaching our kids science in school at all. If we teach that condoms are evil and the birth control pill is a sin, perhaps we should not teach health at all in school. Introducing a junk science theory into a science class undermines the whole purpose of teaching science.

But that is the whole point of it. The wacko's would actually prefer us not teaching science at all and short of that, their answer is to try to insert ID into our curriculums. They may have their heads in the sand, but as soon as we allow their junk science to be called science, we have to allow Tom Cruise to come in and teach Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins. He can go on his Today Show or Brooke Shields rant. If ID is science, then Tom Cruise's opinions on Ritalin should be taught as science in Psychiatry classes.

I'll add a very practical point: immunology & medicine. Because of their lifespans and exposed nature, mutation, natural selection and evolution play a BIG role in our current understanding of viruses and bacteria, and our treatment/ policy approaches.

Dispensing with or weakening that underpinning will have very practical consequences, unless the phenomenon that replaces those concepts is also science, rather than a dressed up version of "it's magic!"

This isn't just some academic debate, or even just a discussion re: the foundations of Western & American freedom (though it is that, too). Pathogens are becoming more and more resistant, even as the structure of our societies make their spread easier and populations around the world get older.

"But this isn't theology - the intelligent designer could be an alien." Well, compadre, unless the Bleems from Tau Ceti have a pharma firm and want to put us on their sales route, that doesn't help much, does it? And we're still left grappling with the underlying mechanisms our imagined creator leveraged - and so far, that looks like natural selection, mutation, and evolution.

This is no time to play games with science - and especially not with an element of science that's critically important to grappling with this looming problem.

Why do we believe in electrons, but not in fairies?

I enjoy teasing my students with this question. No one has directly observed either electrons or fairies. Both of them are theoretical constructs, useful to explain observations that might be difficult to explain otherwise. The "theory of fairies" can actually explain more things than the "theory of electrons". What's not to like?

Is the issue a political one, where the "electron" fans got the upper hand in the nineteenth century, so by the twentieth century the "fairy" fans were a scorned and persecuted minority? Or, have we proved for sure that fairies don't exist?

No, to both. The real difference is that for electrons, we have accumulated a set of quite narrow and specific rules about how electrons will behave under various circumstances. Those rules let us make very specific predictions about electron behavior, and about the observations that will result. If those predictions don't come true, we know that either we didn't set up the circumstances correctly, or there is something wrong with the rules. But over many decades, we have repeatedly fixed problems with the rules, so we can now make really good predictions about electrons, especially in certain highly contrived circumstances (i.e., circuits).

Fairies are much more free. A fairy does what it decides to do. We haven't been able to find any useful rules for predicting how a fairy will behave under particular circumstances, or even for telling when a fairy has been involved in a particular observation. (At least I don't know of any such rules. I stand ready for correction on this.) Over many, many decades, it has not been possible for people to try out pretty-good sets of fairy-prediction rules, find out where they make mistakes, and replace them with better sets of rules.

It's always possible that there really are fairies. But the theory of electrons has been far more successful because it makes testable predictions. Because it doesn't make testable predictions, the theory of fairies hasn't enjoyed the same process of incremental improvement. So we have lightbulbs and microprocessors and the Internet, all based on electrons, and no fairy processors.

The scientific method is an amazing procedure for incrementally improving certain kinds of theories: those that make testable predictions. A theory that doesn't make testable predictions could still be true, but it doesn't participate in the scientific method. (There are people who believe that the only truths are scientific truths, but this is essentially a religious faith on their part.)

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, because it implies a large number of specific testable claims. The specific rules leading to testable predictions have been tested, modified, and refined over many decades (roughly as many as the theory of electrons). Simple versions of the rules for evolution have been tested and refuted long ago, and replaced by better, more specific ones, just as they have for electrons. We are about as confident in the theory of evolution as we are in the theory of electrons.

The theory of intelligent design could be true. The biological world is a marvelous place, with truly amazing complexity. The theory of evolution assumes certain random processes for generating mutations. If an Intelligent Designer could influence those random processes, then perhaps both theories could be true simultaneously. But the theory of intelligent design does not make testable predictions, just like the theory of fairies. The Designer does what He does because He decides to, not because He is governed by rules.

The scientific method is an enormous intellectual asset to the human race. All citizens should understand what it can and cannot do, and all children should be taught to appreciate and apply it. It is important for them to understand why the theory of electrons is a scientific theory, while the theory of fairies is not. Likewise, of course, for evolution and intelligent design.

In the debate between evolution and intelligent design, I believe that we scientists are missing an important opportunity to educate people about the difference between "truth" and "scientific truth". There is a perfectly reasonable role in society for faith in truths that are not scientifically testable. But we and our children need to understand and respect the difference.

While one driver in this controversy comes from people with a fundamentalist religious agenda, there are scientists on the other side who pursue an essentially religious belief that "There is no Designer." We don't know that. Precisely because the intelligent design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, it cannot be refuted by scientific testing. Occam's Razor is a useful piece of practical advice about preferring simpler theories, but it has no more empirical content than the Apostle's Creed.

Science education is about teaching the scientific method, and about teaching some of the knowledge that the human race has acquired by applying the scientific method. It would be a useful part of a science class to teach the distinction between theories that are scientific because they make testable predictions, and other theories that could be true, but are not scientific because they don't. Comparing fairies with electrons, or comparing evolution with intelligent design, should be an opportunity to teach better science.

Donald Sensing,

Evolution is falsifiable in a number of ways, and anyone who has thought seriously on this subject should realize this.

Some examples:

Is the fossil record static? If it were then that would indeed falsify evolution.

Is there a known issue with mutatations and their ability to accumalate?

Do true chimeras exist (e.g., mermaids)?

It is quite another for him to say that science proves there is no purpose in the universe, as S.J. Gould explicitly did claim.

Sorry, not buying this claim whatsoever. I'm very familiar with Gould's writings and I seriously doubt he ever wrote anything like that. Indeed, since Gould often wrote on the seperate spheres of religion and science and how they should remain seperate, I'm doubly dubious of this claim.

GoatGuy,

The materialistic universe described by evolution, etc. is deeply upsetting to a sub-set of Christians because it throws a monkey-wrench into their thoughts concerning Biblical inerrancy, the nature of humanity, etc.

The adequate response to that vapid statement is: "Has anyone currently alive seen God?" :)

One of the more dishonest things that you'll discover about the I.D. crowd is that while they often sing a tune about not demanding that their particular version of God be the designer, when they discuss the issue with fellow religionists they are more than willing to state that I.D. will bring people to Christ. Dembski is one of the more notorious flip-floppers on this issue. Behe has also been caught doing the same thing.

When the facts are against you, argue the law.

Actually, I'm okay with the facts. Darwin, like Newton, has it right. As far as he took it. As far as we have been able to take it today.

There is a principle in science that goes something like this: "As it was in the beginning, it is now, and ever shall be..."

Now, quoting the eminent scientist Martin Luther, "What does this mean?"

It means that the processes we see happening around us today, ("it is now") (and in the anthropological scale of our natural senses) is ALSO what happened before us, and before our ancestors' ability to record processes. (and in scales both too large and too small for us to perceive without indirect measurement and/or instrument). It is also true that what we see now happening will continue to happen ("ever shall be"). As Newton found, the apple falling to Earth from a treetop obeys the same law as the Moon perpetually falling around the Earth. So does a grain of dust or a bumblebee drifting, apparently without danger of falling, in the wind. The law is the same, but there are OTHER factors (friction, density, a billion years of evolutionary adaptation to the challenge of pollen-gathering) that apply as well. The moon shall ever be in orbit until, like Skylab, it encounters some factor slowing its velocity. Then, just as the apple does now, it shall fall to Earth. (I don't want to see that...) The bee shall ever drift in the breeze -- until it doesn't.

There is a tendency in science to extend the perceived "laws" beyond their natural and useful boundaries. We find that a standard mass of a normal gas reduces it's volume by 1/273rd for each degree Celsius of temperature drop. By projecting this law out we find that at -273 degrees the gas has a zero volume. Well, it would mean that except that the law (and the gas) CHANGES as temperatures approach that temperature. We find that a radiation dose of so many REM kills a rat within a week. We devise a law that extrapolates the finding that 1/1000th of that does will make the rat SICK, over the years of its life ... Maybe that's true. But there is a phenomina called hormesis that calls the law into question. The law, the relation between radiation dose and ill effects seems to change over the range of its application. (and then there's the question of radiation-induced beneficial alterations or mutations. Calling Dr. Reed Richards, Bruce Banner, Peter Parket, et al ...)

Darwin's Laws of Evolution are based on factual current observations and have shown useful predictive powers over all ranges tested. So far.
As did Newton's Laws until 1902. As we explore back towards the very edges of our ability to perceive origins, we may find the laws are, in fact, just as useful "in the beginning, as is now". But if we INSIST on that, we go into the exploration with one eye shut.

On the other hand, if we go into that exploration guided by the current doctrine of Intelligent Design, we have TWO eyes shut.

We may also want to be very very careful with the "ever shall be" part. If we focus too strictly on Darwin we risk the sorts of old predictive fallacies of the Eugenicists. We might, based on Darwin, decide we could eliminate the human scourges of Tay-Sachs or sickle cell anemia by selective breeding -- preventing the carriers from breeding, or more bluntly simply cull the whole infected herd, leaving a pure, strong, healthy race.

Ick. Like the bumble bee who ignores Newton, I live under considerations that compel me to selectively ignore Darwin.

The urgent strident militant polarized mutual insistance on the One True Law is poisoning the schools for both sides. There should be room in the public schools to acknowledge that doubt, and faith, both have roles to play in exploring our lives, our environment, and our efforts to direct our futures. We must trust, but verify. We take what our elders teach us -- with a grain of salt. We balance one point of view against another. Anything less is not education, it is indoctrination. And few of goodwill (anti-idiotarians) should prefer winning control of the classroom only to have a correct "doctrine" inculcated.

Just for the record, let me out down a few of my philosophical beliefs:

-God is clever. Much, much, much more clever than we puny brained humans tend to give him credit for. When we start decided exactly what he did and why we are at the height of our arrogance and wrecklessness.

-Humans are incrediably self-centered and self-absorbed. Point one should remind us that whatever god has been up to, we cant hope to understand it, and worse we may not even be central to it. For all we know we are gods mechanism for making styrofoam.

-God is a mathematician of the highest order. This is one thing i'm sure of. In fact, he is such an amazing mathematician he could easily have designed a set of rules that would create a universe very much like our without physically 'touching' a thing. He could do this so seemlessly we would never be able to prove it.

-If God wanted to give us undeniable proof of his existance, he would have. Since he has not, pointing to any supposed evidence that he has is illogical and a waste of time.

-God created a universe that permits beer to exist, which proves that he loves us.

Yes, there is a tendency in science to extend theories and laws beyond their breaking points, sometimes without many people even seeming to notice.
Blind faith in science can be just the same as in anything else.
For example, is the Big Bang falsifiable? I say no, because of a basic problem: What is the definition of "The Universe"? My definition would be "All matter and energy in existence".
Tell me, how can anyone base a theory on the assumption that we humans know exactly what "The Universe" is? Sounds like they have a lot of faith in their assumptions.
Now, of course they use the concept of "The Known Universe". I think currently astronomers can see out to 20 billion years, but for all we know, the part we detect may be a tiny volume of some kind of super galaxy within another mega galaxy and so on ad infinitum; and by the time the sun dies, we'd only be able to see another 5 billion years, so this theory will probably never be falsifiable. But I applaud the Big Bangers because I have an entertaining and NF theory of my own, which I'll explain in a minute.
The more I have learned about science the more I have been humbled by the realization of how limited it is and gained more respect for the ability of "non falsifiable" ideas to be entertaining wellsprings for creative thought. Science without flexible and imaginative thought is just dry data gathering feeding on its own old assumptions.
I am a biologist and even when I was an undergraduate, I noticed serious shortcomings with genetic theories. How could they expect me to believe that the genetic system was so simple- the DNA in the nucleus which was supposed to be wrapped up so tightly and elaborately simply unraveled and produced proteins within seconds after they were needed for an organism? I didn't think so, and indeed now they are finding a menagerie of RNAs which do formerly unthinkable tasks.
I am not a IDer, I almost completely agree with modern evolutionary theory, but I see scientific creative value (pun intended) in the idea.
Here is my NF theory: Many of us assume that the human brain is the most "intelligent" thing in the "universe". It is a multi-part electrochemical system.
The genetic system is also essentially a multi-part electrochemical system. Why is it impossible for it to have some kind of intelligence?
Maybe because the brain is directly connected to the hand and the mouth and it wants a monopoly on "intelligence". Really, it's similar to the chauvinism that other animals aren't anywhere near as intelligent as us because they can't speak at conferences or write papers.

I hate it when work gets in the way especially when such a topic crops up. It may be a little late for this thread but I'll donate my two cents.

"I wonder if there are many high schools which have philosophy courses? I don't recall any attempt to teach it in my high school. If there are, would they be the appropriate forum to discuss philosopy of religion, or mans existence? Would this then be allowed in public high schools?"

I can only speak of the schools I attended in my youth concerning education in philosophy. Philosophy was not taught at any level of K-12 but it is an interesting proposition. After all if society believes students are capable of understanding and responsibly acting on the knowledge of human sexuality at first blush I see no reason why philosophy could not or should not be taught.

When I was in the 4th grade Mrs. Orr started class every morning reading a Bible story. This lasted for approximately 15 minutes after the morning obligatory Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States and a class rendition of a patriotic song such as The Star Spangled Banner or America the Beautiful. Whether or not other teachers did the same I can't say. When I was in the fifth grade I recall Mrs. French sending me out to the hall as punishment for saying "Oh my God" out loud in class when I discovered I was doing the wrong math assignment for the day. Why she felt I needed to be punished for such words was never disclosed but as a dutiful student I accepted the punishment without question. (Better that than the paddle in the Principal's office.) A year later changes began to occur that led to the reading of a Bible story in the gymnasium prior to school activities which required parental consent for their children to attend. Shortly there after the all knowing elders of society put a screeching halt on religious invocations and activities in public schools period. To be honest about the changes and chain of events in my youth I had no clue as to why they were occurring nor did I care. These issues were not discussed with students nor did they come to light until the 11th grade which mandated a government course as a requisite for graduation from high school.

All of this may sound odd or possibly horrendous to some people today but from what I know and comprehend now these changes were based on (in my opinion) a misinterpretation of the United States Constitution concerning separation of church and state. None the less I am no worse for the wear concerning these matters.

What does all of this have to do with intelligent design and whether or not it belongs in our educational system? Several questions come to mind that I'm still grappling with. Why is it that government isn't taught to students at an earlier age? One would think if they can understand the implications of human sexuality at 13 they would certainly understand the mechanics of their own government. After all we lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, why wouldn't we lower it further if their minds can understand such implications at such a young age? Why is it society pits evolution and science against religion? My religious teachings did nothing to destroy my beliefs or faith in science. Why is it our children are introduced to every other ism and religion (humanities) on the planet in our educational systems yet Christian beliefs are taboo?

It seems to me the major impasse is societies concerns about the disturbances and possible fanatical implications of religious beliefs. If this is the case then why is it we teach our progeny to make nuclear weapons? Why is it we continue to teach our progeny to act out and create so many things that are destructive to human existence in K-12 and higher educational institutions? We do it because used in the right manner the things that are taught have benefits. This begs the question of whether or not religious beliefs are beneficial to humans. If we have room in our educational system for all of the beneficial destructive things that require reasonable responsible use then there is no basis for denying intelligent design. Does this mean intelligent design should be taught as a science? Not at all I see it being taught in the classes of Social Studies (if anyone remembers that) and Humanities. Will students find it confusing and contradictory to teaching evolution? Certainly. Students are presented with all manners of contradictory and confusing dilemmas in their formative and educational years.

To the boxing ring or should I say square we go. In the red corner we have those that believe in Adam and Eve in the blue corner we have those that believe in chimps to humans. One corner believes in divine intervention the other believes in evolution. To me the question concerning human's existence and history on the planet is not what the argument is really about. The arguments posed by either side of the fanatics are much deeper in the sense that the fanatic proponents of each seek to destroy each other rather then let reasonable responsible use take its' course.

Insightful post, and the discussion is wonderful as well. Thanks.

One short, belated note. An unappreciated aspect of evolution is that it's mostly about understanding things that happened in the past. In that way, it's more akin to history than to the experimental sciences (e.g. chemistry and physics).

Absent a time machine, it's harder to frame testable hypotheses about the past. Not impossible, but the complications make it more challenging for many people to evaluate evolution as science. If that were all there was to it, though, there would be as much ferment about IR (Intelligent Rockdesign) as there is about ID, as geology suffers from the same constraints as these fields of biology.

"When some biologist or paleontologist"

I'd be more interested in the opinions of mathematicians given a refresher in DNA and physiology....

Biologists and paleontologists are:
A: Very likely of falling into the fallacy of 'Evolution is real ergo the theory of evolution is real'. ID does not deny evolution; it just proposes the theory as currently presented can't explain the whole process.
B: They may understand DNA but how many can get their minds around the astronomical odds of random mutations pushing forward evolution in the form they claim? I'd think very few have tried (with confirmation bias and the rigidities of orthodoxy playing a role)... I also think very few could even if they did try..

Ergo, this is why I'd be interested in the opinions of mathematicians... maybe some working on compression algorithms or non digital computing (which would at least be in the ballpark of DNA)... What qualifies a biologist to state an opinion on the odds involved in evolution working as according to the current theory? They can only fall back on example A in my opinion.