Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
201

<p>addendum to above re chem rules, I mis posted the peace prize rules above:
"The Nominators – Chemistry
Right to submit proposals for the award of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:</p>

<ol>
<li>Swedish and foreign members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; </li>
<li>Members of the Nobel Committees for Chemistry; </li>
<li>Nobel Laureates in Chemistry; </li>
<li>Permanent and assistant professors in the sciences of Chemistry at the universities and institutes of technology of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm; </li>
<li>Holders of corresponding chairs in at least six universities or university colleges selected by the Academy of Sciences with a view to ensuring the appropriate distribution over the different countries and their seats of learning; and </li>
<li>Other scientists from whom the Academy may see fit to invite proposals. </li>
</ol>

<p>Decisions as to the selection of the teachers and scientists referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 above shall be taken each year before the end of the month of September.</p>

<p>Prize-Awarder: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm"</p>

202

<p>Perhaps I’m missing something, if you define ID as as scientifically equivalent to the Big Bang. Please clarify EXACTLY what ID means. I have understood it to mean that the person believes that the universe was designed by an omnipotent being. (This to me raises the far more interesting question: who designed the designer? Unless I choose to believe in an infinitely cycling universe (for which there is some scientific evidence) and time travel (which is theoretically possible, except for that pesky little problem of the laws of thermodynamics), ID then raises its own objection: no designer could design itself.)</p>

203

<p>MrB</p>

<p>The following is from the first page of a goggle search for Henry F. Schaefer III (seems to have won more awards in science and chemistry than your average poster:</p>

<p>“American Academy of Arts and Sciences” Award Winner:
Schaefer III, Henry F.; Graham Perdue Professor, University of Georgia
<a href=“http://www.amacad.org/news/induction_2004.aspx[/url]”>http://www.amacad.org/news/induction_2004.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>College of Chemistry Prizes and Lectureships [Berkeley]
1998-1999 Henry F. Schaefer III
<a href=“http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/editor/COC_facts/coc_prizes.html[/url]”>http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/editor/COC_facts/coc_prizes.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry (Director£º Henry F. Schaefer III), Department of Chemistry, University of Georgia, USA
<a href=“http://chemport.ipe.ac.cn/cgi-bin/chemport/getfiler.cgi?ID=RfmSTS7bTdqqL8SphxsyJ6pSnjC3D6TE4YyXxee9SCZiF7VkdwCD3T3riofhRt8X&VER=E[/url]”>http://chemport.ipe.ac.cn/cgi-bin/chemport/getfiler.cgi?ID=RfmSTS7bTdqqL8SphxsyJ6pSnjC3D6TE4YyXxee9SCZiF7VkdwCD3T3riofhRt8X&VER=E&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>UGA chemistry professor Henry F. Schaefer III named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
WRITER: Phil Williams, 706/542-8501, <a href=“mailto:phil@franklin.uga.edu”>phil@franklin.uga.edu</a>
CONTACT: Henry F. Schaefer, 706/542-0364, <a href=“mailto:hfs@uga.edu”>hfs@uga.edu</a>
May 5, 2004, 13:20
“Fritz Schaefer is a world-renowned scientist whose research has not only opened important new frontiers in computational chemistry, but also brought international recognition to the University of Georgia,” said UGA President Michael F. Adams. “He is fully deserving of this signal honor, and the entire university community is exceedingly proud and delighted.”
<a href=“UGA Today - Today’s top news from the University of Georgia”>UGA Today - Today’s top news from the University of Georgia;

<p>UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA’S DR. HENRY F. SCHAEFER III NAMED WINNER OF CHEMISTRY’S REMSEN AWARD FOR 2003 <a href=“http://www.franklin.uga.edu/news/2003/article30.htm[/url]”>http://www.franklin.uga.edu/news/2003/article30.htm&lt;/a&gt;
Henry F. (Fritz) Schaefer III, is currently the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. Dr. Schaefer has presented endowed or named lectures at more than a dozen major universities. He has won every award in his field except the Nobel Prize, and he has been nominated for the Nobel at least five times. At age 27 he refuted a theory of the man who did win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1971. Dr. Schaefer was lured to the University of Georgia in 1987 from the University of California at Berkeley, where he had served as a professor of chemistry for 18 years. Philip Johnson says, “The president of the university announced this academic coup with a level of pride approaching that with which the university might have greeted the recruitment of the best high-school quarterback in the nation.”
Dr. Schaefer has been an exchange professor at the University of Paris, twice a guest professor at a university in Zurich, and a professor and inaugural Director of the Institute for Theoretical Chemistry at the University of Texas, Austin. He has written more than 750 scientific publications, the majority appearing in the Journal of Chemical Physics or the Journal of the American Chemical Society. He has been the research director for more than 40 successful doctoral students and has presented plenary lectures at more than 100 national or international scientific conferences. He is the Editor in Chief of the London based journal Molecular Physics. From 1984 to 1991, the most recent period for which statistics are available, Dr. Schaefer was the third most highly cited chemist in the world. His research uses computers and theoretical methods to solve problems in molecular quantum mechanics. He also teaches freshman chemistry.
His service to the chemical community includes the chairmanship of the American Chemical Society’s Division of Physical Chemistry (1992).
<a href=“http://www.id.ucsb.edu/veritas/SPEAKERS/Schaefer.html[/url]”>http://www.id.ucsb.edu/veritas/SPEAKERS/Schaefer.html&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/fs/Article.asp?Type=CurrentIssue[/url]”>Faraday Symposia of the Chemical Society  Home-Faraday Symposia of the Chemical Society was published from 1972 - 1984. In 1985 it continued as Faraday Discussions.;

<p><a href=“RSC Publishing Error - Content not found”>Silacyclobutadiene: singlet and triplet geometries, vibrational frequencies and electronic structures - Faraday Symposia of the Chemical Society (RSC Publishing);

204

<p>We sure seem to keep talking past each other here. I think a few points need to be reiterated:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>This is an inaptly named thread (sorry, MrB). Bush never said, or even implied, that “he wants schools to teach ID.” Read what he said again…and again. </p></li>
<li><p>ID as I understand it fully embraces evolution theory (or fact, if you prefer.) They’re completely compatible and consistent with each other.</p></li>
<li><p>“It’s the same old BS, repackaged.” I’ll buy that, except for the BS part. It’s been around in recorded form since at least 500 B.C. That’s Before Christ, for you Christianityphobes.</p></li>
<li><p>It’s not something that needs to be “taught,” per se (at least not in science class; the “prime mover” concept is essential to much of philosophy); It’s simply a concept, a possibility, certainly in the realm of metaphysics rather than hard science. But to reduce science to sterile problem sets at the expense of the natural human wonderment at the base of all science is to make it a dry exercise. ID doesn’t mean God. It simply remains open to the possibility that there’s more to our existence than happenstance.</p></li>
</ol>

205

<p>dmd77,</p>

<p>It’s interesting that after an 11 page thread trashing Intelligent Design that we should now need to “clarify EXACTLY what ID means”, prior to continued trashing.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Some here have suggested it is “Biblical” or even “literally Biblical” this is ridiculously false and shows complete incomprehension of the facts.</p></li>
<li><p>Some consider it a diabolical “Trojan Horse”; they need to give it a rest, the sky is not falling.</p></li>
<li><p>I’m guessing none here have ever read any “real” literature on the subject but feel qualified to condemn the theory in any case. There’s plenty out there to find, but that would require an intellectual investment before participating in the thrills of condemnation of 1) Christians and/or 2. Bush. It also seems to be an opportunity to show those stupid people who believe in some god or other what bumpkins they really are when compared to some ephemeral and self-satisfied “educated-us”.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>You will find the common answers to your question at the link below (I doubt the sites view count will be shaken by curiosity from this board).</p>

<p>Anyhow, here’s one (there are many others):
<a href=“Frequently Asked Questions | Center for Science and Culture”>Frequently Asked Questions | Center for Science and Culture;

<p>[well said, driver]</p>

206

<p>dmd77,</p>

<p>“Unless I choose to believe in an infinitely cycling universe (for which there is some scientific evidence) and time travel (which is theoretically possible, except for that pesky little problem of the laws of thermodynamics)”</p>

<p>Other than speculation or theory, what SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is there of an infinitely cycling universe? (remember: evolutionists who are critical of intelligent design frequently indicate that in order to be SCIENTIFIC, a theory must be repeatable and/or testable).</p>

<p>How do the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS limit time travel? I am familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. Which ones are violated by time travel? What assumptions do you need to make in order to conclude that the laws of thermodynamics limit time travel?</p>

207

<p>FountainSiren, people who push their “beliefs” onto others as the “truth” using so-called experts (which don’t exist), and accuse non-believers as ignorant have been around for a long time. </p>

<p>The fact that these people attach their theories to something benign doesnt’ change anything. ID is not about science. It is not about religious freedom. It’s all about the conversion.</p>

<p>Disgusting. It’s just so low. :(</p>

208

<p>

Straw man. And that’s being polite. I don’t know why you keep injecting this stuff into what is otherwise a fairly reasonable conversation. It’s entirely possible to be agnostic about religion and still wonder about how it all started, and to conclude that it may not have been accidental. That’s all ID is. A concept that something as amazing as the evolution of the planet and all that’s on it might have been put into motion by something sentient rather than just being the result of an anomolous cosmic fart. But, even following this, your logic…who or what cut the cosmic cheese?</p>

209

<p>dstark,</p>

<p>Clearly you bear a heavy burden (protecting the minds of the nations youth). To the digree that I agree with your ‘cause,’ I sympathize. </p>

<p>So either define ID and prove it wrong, or lighten up!</p>

<p>Your real concern–athiesm–seems to doing quite well.</p>

210

<p>FountainSiren, I’ve met people like you a little too often in my life.</p>

<p>Scary. :(</p>

<p>You’re not going to convert me and I find where you are going …</p>

<p>So I better stop now.</p>

211

<p>Wow. Speechless.</p>

212

<p>Breath in, Breath out…please let us try to avoid taking this to a personal attack level…
Let me go back to an earlier analogy or example… when lightning or cancer kills a person, are we to believe that there is a scientific argument to be made that a creator of the universe intended that to happen all along, or was it an unintended side effect of the creators basic rules, or does it happen because of some laws of science/nature that have and will always exist.</p>

<p>If a science teacher was told to teach that there was another faith based theory called Intelligent Design…and a student asked, “Do you mean God?” What would you think if the teacher responded, “I don’t think so!” or “It could have been some alien life form.” or that most accredited scientists who study this think this idea is absurd and not science at all, but because a group of religious fundlementalists have become a voting block for the political group in charge…"</p>

<p>When faced with an unexplained event, some people will research, test theories, retest the theories that seem to apply and eventually create a scientific principle, while others look for cause and effect based on the one experience…the virgin fell into the volcano and it stopped errupting, the gods must be pleased. We are smarter more sophisticated people who clearly recognize the first group as being closer to the way we would view ourselves but ID seems to appeal to those people who want an answer that hasn’t been found but is dressed up to look like a scientific theory.</p>

<p>Henry F. Schaefer III seems like a very respected Chemist, but none of his thoughts on Intelligent Design seem to have won him any prestigious scientific awards. That is probably because the vast majority of scientist don’t think this ID is science.</p>

<p>George Bush did not say, “Teach ID in Science class” he said it should be taught along with evolution. Evolution is taught in science class. Therefore the implication is to teach it in science…which is where the fundlementalist movement has been trying first,to get Genesis taught and, now that the courts have denied them that, they want Intelligent Design taught. </p>

<p>There is no proof of inteligent design, it doesn’t hold up as well as evolution and for those who argue, what else could it be…I can comfortably say I don’t know all the answers but I will continue to look for scientific explanations in science class, and to theological explanations elsewhere.</p>

<p>I personally don’t believe some supreme intelligent designer wanted Peter Jennings to die of cancer…or for millions of children to starve to death in poverty stricken areas. When people argue that the eye is so intricate it could not have happenned by chance…I think of fractal designs which seem to appear by chance but I know exist simply because some basic rule was applied over and over.</p>

<p>Please let us be agreeable in our style of disagreeing.</p>

213

<p>pafather:
Cycling universe: since there is evidence for an expanding universe, and there is evidence that there may (or may not) be enough mass that the universe will stop expanding and start contracting (or maybe not), that would imply a cycling universe. I agree that the evidence is appallingly vague. </p>

<p>Thermodynamics and time travel: it is the second law of thermodynamics that says that entropy always increases. Time travel would imply that you have to return to a state of lesser entropy. While the second law doesn’t restrict local changes in entropy, OVERALL entropy (as I interpret time travel) would have to be in two states at once with time travel, thus time travel can’t occur. I am open to <em>physics</em> arguments about the feasibility of time travel.</p>

<p>(“You can’t win” is the first; “you can’t break even” is the second; “you can’t get out of the game” is the third.)</p>

214

<p>Mr.B,
The president was presented with a loaded question by a reporter who felt he could snag him in a “gotcha” moment. I think the president fielded it well. No, he didn’t say ID “should be taught along with evolution.” Feel free to prove me wrong. What he said, according to the article you posted, was this:

I find nothing nefarious in this statement. Nothing to even quibble with. This is another press-invented tempest.</p>

<p>In fact, Mr. B, have another look at the opening sentence of the article that you posted:

[quote]
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.<a href=“emphasis%20added.”>/quote</a> OK, restricting ourselves to your parameters, when “teaching students about the creation of life,” (as opposed to its evolution) Mr. B, what do we tell them, according to your personal pedagogy?</p>

215

<p>Mr B, ID does not mean that every single detail of the universe is personally controlled by God, that he/she chose for a certain person to die at a certain time, etc., etc. It simply means that there is the possibility that intelligence was behind the forming of the universe. And it is about learning HOW to look for design. This is NOT a new concept. If police find a dead person in an alley, the first thing they do is try to determine whether or not he died of natural causes. When scientists from SETI are looking for intelligence life, they study radio waves to see if they show patterns that might indicate intelligence behind them. These are similar to what ID tries to do. It is not promoting religion; it is looking for truth.</p>

216

<p>I agree that Bush was very careful about his choice of words and did not state on the surface for ID to be taught in biology class to the same depth as evolutionary theory. However- that isnt’ to say that, that isn’t how some school boards will interpret his remarks and even those from teh Discovery Institute which is one of the strongest advocates of ID do sound like they have a religious focus</p>

<p>from Discovery institutes Dembski

</p>

<p>I have looked at the biographies of several of the “scientists” at the Discovery institute and since ID is their main emphasis and since they are putting forth it as a scientific basis- I was surprised to see that most of the scientists are philosophers and don’t have scientific backgrounds- ( well unless political science is science Im still looking for someone who has a degree in biology. :slight_smile:
Demskis degrees are in pyschology, Stats and philosophy</p>

217

<p>What does the Intelligent Designer look like? What form?</p>

218

<p>“I’ve met people like you a little too often in my life. Scary.”</p>

<p>dstark, I’d be very insulted if I didn’t like you and your occasionally kind and quirky posts, as I do. </p>

<p>I hope I am not really like the people you’ve met that scare you. I could always be a better person than I am—I try—but I’m a bit taken aback that someone like you (you) would describe people like me (me) as scary.</p>

219

<p>“What does the Intelligent Designer look like? What form?”</p>

<p>They say HE/SHE is to die for!</p>

220

<p>citygirlsmom, ID does not get into details like that. It is beyond the realm of science. They simply look for possible evidence of design.</p>

<p>ek4, I will have to look up more on individual ID proponents. I know I have read books by some who ARE scientists, but I didn’t keep track of the names or titles, so I can’t give details. sorry. Yes, there are Christians who work in ID, just as there are atheists (among others) who teach Evolution (using it with a big E to indicate the theory that all life came about through random chance and that there is no deity of any kind involved in any way) and will not consider any other theories because they refuse to look at the possibility of a Designer. ID is simply about the POSSIBILITY of a designer. It says nothing about what the Designer may be like. It does not deny that some evolution has taken place. A Designer could use evolution as a mechanism, perhaps guided. Of course, each person may draw different conclusions, but the basic foundation of ID is simply to look for evidence of intelligent design.</p>