Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
321

<p>This quote, from CGM’s cut-and-paste, gives the lie to the idea that creationism (i.e., the Genesis version of origin) is at the heart of the concept of intelligent design.

Now…his version of ID clearly contemplates God. But he doesn’t set out to prove that, so much as he rejects the assumption that evolution is purely random.</p>

<p>Sorry, I had missed FF’s initial reference to Richard Dawkins.</p>

<p>dmd…I’d be interested in how evolutionary theory explains cancer, male nipples…and throw homosexuality in there while you’re at it, since it’s been raised. And how any of these are at odds with an intelligent designer that set things in motion, and let them play out.</p>

322

<p>When it was pointed to me that Wells was just one scientist, but from looking at all the websites, all the articles, all the news, his name appears over and over again. He is important in the ID field. His science is used. His research is quoted. His agenda is important.</p>

323

<p>These are quotes from the proponents that I have seen listed on several websites for ID-I will preface this by saying I have seen these names over and over again on ID websites, in articles, as authors of books and these men (many anyway) are connected with the group that is endorsing ID. So, when you claim that God is not the necessary connection as the IDers, here are the words from the people themselves> When you claim it is not Faith Based, these are the people attached to ID in the most prolific way. The scientists you quote. These are also their words:</p>

<p>Michael Behe
I try to stay completely in my role as a scientist although I’m certainly a Christian and I believe the designer is God.
Date: 20 March 2000</p>

<p>Phillip Johnson
Article by Steve Maynard in Tacoma News Tribune (and posted on Discovery Institute web page) concerning a speech by Johnson at Pacific Lutheran University:
Johnson said he and most others in the intelligent design movement believe the designer is the God of the Bible.</p>

<p>William Dembski
[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.
Date: 1999. Source: Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill, page. 206.</p>

<p>George Bush
[Interviewer] I feel like I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask a couple of question[s] on some, I guess, controversial subjects of late, one of which is this whole creationism debate in Kansas.
[Bush] I believe in the alignment of authority and responsibility away from the federal government when it comes to issues of governance and schools. Secondly, my own personal opinion is that I believe that it’s important for children to understand there’s different schools of thought when it comes to the formation of the world. I have no problem explaining that there are different theories about how the world was formed. I mean, after all, religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism. And I think it’s important for people to know what people believe in-but whatever the case, here’s what I believe. I believe God did create the world. And I think we’re finding out more and more and more as to how it actually happened.
Date: 12 December 1999. Source: George W. Bush: Running on his Faith US News & World Report.</p>

<p>Phillip Johnson
“The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’”
Date: April, 1999. Source: “Missionary Man”, Church & State Magazine</p>

<p>Phillip Johnson
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.</p>

<p>Design and the Anthropic Principle </p>

<p>by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. </p>

<p>…Man the Creator? </p>

<p>The growing evidence of design would seem to provide further convincing support for the belief that the Creator-God of the Bible formed the universe and the earth…
His Conclusion: "An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have brought the universe into existence. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed the universe. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed planet Earth. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed life. "</p>

324

<p>It appears that while on the surface, it appears to be science, the very vocal proponents of ID have religious beliefs that are entwined in their scientific “proof” and while you can deny all you want that ID is not faith based or religious, the very people saying that to the world, have been found to have a religious agenda.</p>

<p>Go ahead slam away.</p>

325

<p>Sorry if this is a repeat. While I’m not particularly fond of ID in biology (physics, that’s a different issue), I do believe the essential point this makes in the last line I quote.</p>

<p><a href=“Tech Central Station”>Tech Central Station;

<p>

</p>

326

<p>Worth repeating:</p>

<p>“One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith.”</p>

327

<p>I disagree, but whatever. </p>

<p>No one has any comments about the quotes I shared? I am not suprised. They tend to refute the claim that ID is not connected with religion and God. But I am not suprised by them at all. It is amazing that the face of ID is science, but its soul is God and religion, namely Christianity.</p>

328

<p>Scientistic Materialism accepts only one reality: the physical universe, composed as it is of matter and energy. Everything that is not physical, measurable, or deducible from scientific observations, is considered unreal. Life is explained in purely mechanical terms, and phenomena such as Mind and Consciousness are considered nothing but epiphenomena - curious by-products, of certain complex physical processes (such as brain metabolism)
Scientistic Materialism asserts that all the claims of the religious and spiritual traditions of humanity throughout the ages are false. There is no God, no survival of physical death, no non-physical realities, and no ultimate meaning or purpose to life
<a href=“http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/scientism.htm[/url]”>http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/scientism.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

329

<p>“Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism’s single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

330

<p>[not especially know for their love of Christ and Biblical exegesis]</p>

<p>People who are devout followers of Scientism share a number of quaint dogmas, the most important of which is the one that they don’t have any. These people will always declare themselves to be open-minded and willing to be convinced of the error of their ways — and then set up the logical rules of their game to exclude all non-Scientistic reasoning or evidence as fallacious. That’s because there’s only one reality, and only one way to understand it — does this sound familiar?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.neopagan.net/Scientism.html[/url]”>http://www.neopagan.net/Scientism.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

331

<p>“No one has any comments about the quotes I shared?”</p>

<p>Great quotes. Thanks.</p>

332

<p>I said I was going to stay away from this thread from now on, since it was going nowhere, but I strayed over… </p>

<p>Great quotes, FS!</p>

<p>Yes, scientism defines the parameters of the debate and then calls anything nonscientific that does not fit their predefined parameters, defined so that only scientism fits within. Kind of like a Bush town hall where hard questions are not allowed… Or a Bush speech where anyone who questions is called unpatriotic… (Sorry, Republicans, I was trying to use an analogy that liberals could relate to.)</p>

333

<p>You kids sure have been busy while I was gone. Almost too much to read for one day.</p>

<p>Questions for ID supporters.</p>

<p>Could the ID be flawed at any level? Is flawed a concept that could be applied to the design…considering diabetes, AIDS, hunger?</p>

<p>Is the or are the intelligent designers still with us and designing?</p>

<p>Can this design be changed through prayer?</p>

<p>For the posters who feel Intelligent design does not merit even a mention in a science class. Is there anything that could qualify ID as a scientific topic?</p>

<p>Do you think that Intelligent design should be mentioned someplace in a general education…if for no other reason than to have students exposed to the different sides of the argument? Should students be exposed to the constitutional arguments that members of the science community have raised against having ID taught in science?</p>

<p>When people refer to science as scientism are they trying to bring it down to the level of religious beliefs or elevate it up to the level of religious beliefs, or are they trying to create confusion so that the clear lines and discipline of scientific study are lost simply because the scientific processes do not prove what faith requires?</p>

<p>Once again, please join me as I try to remember that behind these webnames we may be speaking to a young teen, a person who is even more sensitive to some of these topics than I am. Let us all show that included in our belief system is a modicum of kindness.</p>

<p>My earlier description of the balancing rock actually represents the two ways I see natural beauty and amazing events. It was not meant to mock either side.</p>

334

<p>“William Dembski
[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.
Date: 1999. Source: Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill, page. 206.”</p>

<p>It’s no more deficient than any view of religion that leaves out the possibility that God doesn’t exist. ;)</p>

335

<p>Mini,</p>

<p>Is it no more deficient than any personal Love (husband and wife, father and daughter, etc.) that leaves out the possibility that the one you love doesn’t actually love you back…and never has?</p>

336

<p>MrB, </p>

<p>Good (though obviously slanted) questions. Here I ask some slanted, nay, biased questions of my own [I’m currently pondering the ones that are not implicitly answered in the tone and content of my questions].</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Could scientific materialism be flawed at any level?</p></li>
<li><p>Could scientific materialism be flawed in its view that there exists nothing but that which is measurable, quantifiable or deducible to scientific observation? If yes, does this view necessarily exclude the reality of:</p></li>
<li><p>Love? </p></li>
<li><p>Is Love only a mechanical process devoid of the reality it enjoys in the minds of most?</p></li>
<li><p>Faith? </p></li>
<li><p>Is faith simply hoping your dumb-luck holds out?</p></li>
<li><p>Hope?</p></li>
<li><p>Must Hope necessarily be a psychological delusion in the materialist world?</p></li>
<li><p>God? </p></li>
<li><p>Must god be a material object to be quantified in order to be real?</p></li>
</ol>

337

<ol>
<li><p>Does life have a purpose or meaning?</p></li>
<li><p>Is there any validity to a philosophical truth claim?</p></li>
<li><p>Is there and validity to a religious truth claim?</p></li>
<li><p>Must everyone who believes in something immaterial be necessarily wrong or deluded?</p></li>
<li><p>Is there evidence for the positive effects of prayer or faith in surviving a disease?</p></li>
<li><p>Were the majority of the greatest thinkers, artists, scientist, etc., throughout all time, somehow more deluded than half of those posting, or should we pause before reaching the conclusion that love, hope, faith and god are all delusions they—and we—suffer from?</p></li>
<li><p>How’s the life-view of scientific materialism strike you?</p></li>
</ol>

338

<p>And all those questions are great…do they belong in science or philosophy? </p>

<p>That is the question, which, while we here seem to agree its the latter, the proponents of ID, through their websites, articles, etc, all want it in science class </p>

<p>That is the really big issue here</p>

<p>So ask your questions, but, as I was told, I will not “chill”, as the evidence from the ID proponents themselves have shown that they want to bring their religion into biology classes. </p>

<p>Yet, I was told over and over that religion was not involved. It was not faith based. It was not that God was the IDer.</p>

<p>Again, great questions, but for philosphy class, not bio</p>

339

<p>And discussion of love, etc is for Philosophy, Not Science…that is the big issue here, but again, ignore that fact that IDers want religion in science class</p>

<p>Discuss scientism, discuss religion, discuss whatever</p>

<p>But it is wrong to present ID as science.</p>

340

<p>Tue Aug 9, 9:52 PM ET</p>

<p>"TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas Board of Education voted 6-4 Tuesday to include greater criticism of evolution in its school science standards, but it decided to send the standards to an outside academic for review before taking a final vote. "</p>

<p>Yeah, lets let the proponents of ID set the standards, the ones who say God is the Intelligent Designer and who vowed to destroy Darwinism. The ones who want to bring the Bible into schools-remember the Wedge- and more.</p>

<p>So, the next person who tells me to chill, that I am reading things wrong, that I don’t “get” ID, please don’t.</p>

<p>I understand it well. I have read the words of its most vocal and quoted scienctists. I get it all right.</p>