Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
361

<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>How is that not an agenda? Phillip Johnson is all over the place as a ID proponent. He is on the Origins website with his own page, and is by many to be considered the Father of Intelligent Design movement.</p>

362

<p>“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.” (American Family Radio, Jan 10, 2003 broadcast, in which Johnson “discusses his book The Right Questions, encouraging Christians to actively debate issues of eternal value.”)</p>

<p>So, when I was asked to look up the proponents, I did. And look what I found. Gee. No religion here.</p>

<p>Susantm, I looked them up. Have you?</p>

363

<p>Mini says,
“I can’t imagine any scientist I have ever met viewing science, especially evolutionary science, as “sterile”, especially as we have witnessed the science itself evolve.”</p>

<p>Perhaps, to a SCIENTIST, but most all of the students who will work through a science class (which is what is under consideration here) are not, nor will they ever be SCIENTISTS. Some hope to learn the lessons of science, some facts and more importantly, have some of the questions they have wondered about given serious consideration.</p>

<p>Guess what questions they are most interested in?</p>

<p>I’m one of them, and I finished the whole series of science courses offered in my school except environmental science, including all of the AP courses offered, Biology, Chem, Physics and Organic Chem.</p>

<p>When there were discussions outside of, or after class (other than “did you get question #4” and one or two other topical questions) they involved the very “BIG” questions that are being mentioned in this thread as being “outside” of science, particularly in the realm of “origins” “cosmology” and the old fashioned “how does it work”.</p>

<p>Apparently, the origins of life and cosmology are “outside” of science.</p>

<p>Sterile?
Maybe not—but not as interesting and informative as it could have been—not a chance…especially for those required to take science to graduate (everybody).</p>

<p>I do however agree with Mini when he says,</p>

<p>“To me, it is that natural human wonderment which represents the Divine implanted in the human heart. It is the process of science itself that allows (as do many other aesthetic processes) the Divine within the heart to unfold.”</p>

<p>Well said (if you add “LOVE”).</p>

364

<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>I am wondering what all you who said to research the proponents think of these statements. I did what you asked. I looked them up.</p>

365

<p>FountainSiren, what do you think of Phillip Johnson? He is all over the Origins website you linked to before. Do you think his religion is part of his ID science? </p>

<p>You said the barbarians aren’t at the gate. I never called them that, but I do see something that needs to be discussed regarding ID. So many posters said the Proponents only want science and not religion. What is your response to their own words?</p>

<p>Or do you have no response to Wells, Johnson, Ross, Dembski’s statements?</p>

<p>If you don’t why not?</p>

366

<p>CGM,</p>

<p>Who cares who they believe it will be? Either there is a design or there isn’t.</p>

<p>Someone will be our next president, but it will be no small matter for them to take office if, in reality, there is no government of the United States (that is an order to the concept of a political democratic order to the United States of America).</p>

<p>If there is no order in the universe, there is no design; if there is no design, there is no designer (as above: president). </p>

<p>What is under consideration is whether there is an evidence of “design”.</p>

<p>Your opinion matters too: who you gonna vote for (if you believe there is order and design in the universe)?</p>

<p>Are you going for a Platonic type, or an Aristotelian…or maybe someone of a monotheistic fashion?</p>

367

<p>“Perhaps, to a SCIENTIST, but most all of the students who will work through a science class (which is what is under consideration here) are not, nor will they ever be SCIENTISTS. Some hope to learn the lessons of science, some facts and more importantly, have some of the questions they have wondered about given serious consideration.”</p>

<p>That teachers teach neo-Darwinian evolution extremely poorly, and are for the most part between 50 and 100 years behind the time, I take as a given. If students are leaving the classroom believing that science is a bunch of “dry problem sets” and “sterile”, the cure is not to incorporate metaphysics! The solution is to teach both science and, in particular, evolutionary science, better, rather than gum it up with flotsam and jetsam that (while they may be “true” in some metaphysical sense) lack explanatory power.</p>

368

<p>Because they present claiming it is not based on any religion, so it is okay in a science class that is why it matters. And if they have decided already it is the God of the Bible, it is not what they believe it will be. It is what they beleive it is. Big difference.</p>

<p>Can you not see that? THey want it in science class rooms, they say it is all science based, they say it supports no one religion, they say it isn’t about any God…this is what they present in the lessons they want to have teachers teach.</p>

<p>That is why it matters? If you can not make that connection, well, you are choosing not to. </p>

<p>If you were a Buddhist and a science that teaches that the Creator of the Universe was the God of the Bible and that was taught to you in Science…well</p>

<p>And if you read what these men have said, (notice no women), they say the ID is the God of the Bible</p>

<p>It matters and it matters a great deal. If they have decided it is the GOd of the Bible, how can you trust their science and their objectivitiy in Science. My goodness. </p>

<p>You are blind to that.</p>

<p>And it is not just evidence of “design” far from it. And if you cared to even think about what your scientists have said you would see that.</p>

<p>But you have chosen to not even acknowledge they have an agenda to bring God into the science classroom ANd the Biblical God, the Christian one at that.</p>

<p>And, during my research, I have noticed some interesting words popping up in the writings fot these ID supporters:</p>

<p>Hitler, Scientism, Materiaism.</p>

<p>Have you read any of the counterpoints to ID?</p>

<p>Please do not tell me what they have said they want ID to do with regards to bringing religion into the public schools does not matter.</p>

<p>It matters.</p>

369

<p>Oh my,</p>

<p>What ever happens (and if the modern political history of this country can give us any indication, there is absolutely no threat of “God” or “religion” getting into education; the modern history of this country has shown a strong inclination to head the exact opposite, and a-theistic direction), lets hope that the teachers educate there students (the vast majority of whom come into the school system implicitly believing in Intelligent Design), in a polite and reasoned manner and do not take their cue from some here and start denigrating such students’ beliefs in Intelligent Design (but that is ‘hope,’ and as I understand it, in the New World Order, immaterial things like ‘hope’ are a placebo at best and likely a delusional malady in scientific fact).</p>

<p>Perhaps this will all be balaced out in their required “Philosophy Class”, lol.</p>

370

<p>

I’ll let PaFather speak for himself, but I didn’t take what he said to be an indictment against teachers, just a parody of how some (one in particular) here might behave in a classroom.</p>

<p>But, when you emphasized “theories” - plural, what multiple theories do you teach? You say that as a teacher you are not allowed to advocate a religion, which is appropriate. However, are you allowed to discuss as one of a set of possibilities a theistic view to the origin of the universe?</p>

371

<p>I said many times ID can be taught along with other Faith Systems in other forums, but it is not Science. Go ahead.</p>

<p>And have you not noticed that ID is Christian. From the proponents own Mouths. Ignore that.</p>

<p>It is not balanced. it is not neutral. It is Faith Based.</p>

<p>But, go ahead. twist the subject around. Call me McCarthy. Whatever you want.</p>

<p>Just don’t pretend ID is not relgious. Which many posters did. </p>

<p>Ciao.</p>

372

<p>Funding Father,</p>

<p>Wait a minute, I am confused. I thought Intelligent Design was not “theistic” from the discussion here. Wasn’t that what CGM was trying to get clarity on? </p>

<p>And I was quoting the standard, the plural is theirs. Did I not explain when I said “People use different methods to try to make informed “guesses” about what happened. Some use math, some use faith. I can’t advocate a religion, but I can talk about how one might use faith to develop a theory.”? Remember, I am teaching primary aged children talking about Earth Science. I am not going to teach them the math in the math based theories, nor am I going to teach them the faith in the faith based. I am fully qualified for neither.</p>

<p>And as to the classroom scenario, I repeat my admonition that you should BE in a classroom before you assume what goes on in one. If that, or something similar, did happen, why would there not be a hue and cry to fire the teacher? That would be cause for dismissal and a revokation of the licensure of the teacher. I challenge you to spend a day in a classroom or to become a teacher. Seriously. If you take it that seriously do something about it.</p>

<p>Have you ever read a book by Avi, I believe the title is “Everything but the Truth.” Not about ID or evolution, but about how things can spin out of control when people only get one side of the story. </p>

<p>I get the feeling that you will not be comfortable until your views are incorporated into the curriculum in a very complete manner. I submit that every school board has approval over the curriculum, and every teacher is required to teach the curriculum. Therefore you could very well take your ideas to your local school board and advocate for their inclusion into the curriculum. Remember, though, that your state, like ours, probably has standards that students must be tested on, and that there is a great deal of accountability for school districts in regard to the outcomes of those tests. The curricula are already jammed with material we have to get in so the students are prepared for the tests. What would you pull out of the curriculum to put this in, remembering that, to the best of my knowledge, ID is not addressed on the standard tests of achievement for k-12 students, SATs, the ACTs any other standardized test I know of? Perhaps you need to address the state standards, too.</p>

<p>Anyway, ID is not in our local curriculum, but the rotation of the earth and Copernicus are (in second grade - remember, I teach primary.) I will teach as I am directed. I do not denigrate the beliefs or practices of others. I have not done that here, in an anonymous forum, nor would I in class, where I have the awesome responsibility to shepard 2nd and 3rd graders through an academic year. I believe that I am the rule, rather than the exception. Please don’t bash teachers, they aren’t bashing you!</p>

373

<p>FountainSiren, there is a very strong chance that Religion and God will be brought into American Schools. The door is opening and ID is a start, its what the ID promoters want.</p>

<p>And the majority of Students do believe in ID?..where do you get that from? I have seen no statisitics. I have seen no studies. </p>

<p>ID design in its current form is not that old.</p>

<p>And if you think religion won’t get into schools, well, have you seen what is going on? It is starting and it is starting with ID.</p>

<p>So for the last while, teaching evolution has stopped people from believing in God. No wait, there is a vast majority that do, no wait…so we have church and we have school</p>

<p>Wow, Fountainsiren, take you head out of the sand and see the reality of our world. </p>

<p>ID is religion based. Do you still think it is not? Do you really still think that IDs promoters do not have religion as a fundamental part of their program?</p>

<p>They have said it over and over again. But you refuse to acknowledge that.</p>

374

<p>Whoa!!! Bash teachers??? Please … go back and read my post very slowly. Do you see any bashing there? I actually liked your previous post and was curious about certain aspects of it - like the plural of “theories” and what that meant. I was genuinely curious about what you can and can not teach in Alaska. I’m sorry if you read more into it than that - it was certainly not intended.</p>

375

<p>Consider me "whoa"ed! We teachers do tend to be a defensive lot. Okay, we cannot “teach” a theistic view, but we can say that there are various views and enumerate those. And when I was talking about including views in curriculum, perhaps I should have stated “those advocating Intelligent Design” rather than YOU. Anyway, this has been very enlightening as I am sitting here writing my outline for the year. I am almost as good at avoiding as some of my 8 year olds! Believe me, there was no vitriole in either post. I just believe that often we (yes, all of us!) make the mistake of painting each other with a very broad brush sometimes, especially in apersonal forums such as this, when there are huge variations even among those who fundamentally agree. ;-)</p>

376

<p>“And the majority of Students do believe in ID?..where do you get that from? I have seen no statisitics. I have seen no studies.”</p>

<p>Belief in God and Attendance of Religious Services
This survey found that 79% of Americans believe there is a God, and that 66% are absolutely certain that God exists. Only 9% do not believe in God, while a further 12% are not sure.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=693[/url]”>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=693&lt;/a&gt;
………………………………</p>

<ol>
<li> God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. </li>
</ol>

<p><a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=God[/url]”>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

377

<p>Some answers to post 336. Questions by fountain, as best as I can remember them.</p>

<p>I have never heard of scientific materialism before…so I guess it’s public relations department is flawed. Science recognizes and continually searches for flaws in it’s theories…most scientific inquiries look for answers that are reproducible by other scientists. Scientific theories have been found flawed, so this may apply to whatever term you are using if what you mean is science. However since you have limited science materialism to only those parts of science that do not believe in events outside of measurement and observation…I would say that you have missed out on a lot of science. Most scientists I know enjoy music and recognize a lot of what is beautiful is not measurable by themselves. Indeed, I would guess that many scientists also have interests in the arts, that they are musicians or artists as hobbyists to investigate this side of the universe.</p>

<p>If a mind enjoys love then the love exists, at least within the perception of that mind. Could this enjoyment be some type of chemical reaction…why not, aren’t vision, smell, hearing all chemical reactions? Could it be a primaeval species survival reaction…of course? Is it?..I don’t know…</p>

<p>Faith. My first experience with faith in science was thinking that my lab partner knew what she was doing. I don’t see any relationship between faith and luck except when you have faith in your luck. I often have faith in other peoples’ work… theories of gravity…it believe it but I have never actually proved it personally.</p>

<p>Hope, like faith and charity, I don’t see why scientists aren’t allowed these tendencies under your definitions. Or why this is even a question. I don’t think any of these things are delusions? You appear to have a very cynical view of what is science.</p>

<p>Does life have purpose or meaning? I hope mine does, a meaningful life is the best defense against a meaningless death.</p>

<p>Can and must God be measurable to be real…not to me…I don’t know how to begin measuring the Universe or whether other people are accurate with their measurements, but I have faith that it exists.</p>

<p>Which truth claims are you talking about…is any thing real…I hope so.</p>

<p>Can prayer help a sick person…I believe it can help some, I don’t know if it can help all. Some may attribute this to positive mental outlooks and optimism giving a person the mental stamina to continue while the body heals itself. I pray for people who are sick…I would want doctors to focus on biology when they are in biology class, and prayers at other times.</p>

<p>I think many of the great thinkers would have liked to have had the church and theology out of their labs. Galileo certainly suffered from those who didn’t like the truths science revealed because it violated their faith based version of reality…I wouldn’t want that happening in our science classes today. Now you would prehaps give my earlier questions a try.</p>

<p>Pafather’s parody of the classroom is offensive to teachers…the teachers I know would have given scientific explanations for the students…even if the answer was…we don’t know yet…perhaps you will be the scientist to find that truth. Historically it isn’t scientists or teachers that have burnt or banned books. Most of the active book banners (the conservative religious right) side with ID.</p>

378

<p>66% are absolutely certain that 79% believe there is a God? Chuckle. </p>

<p>I do take this with a grain of salt, having studied explicit and implicit societal values in sociology. What people say (because it is the explicit societal norm) is not always what they practice (they practice the implicite societal norm.)</p>

<p>IMHO, judging from the way people act in public, I would say they might believe it, but they aren’t living it in the numbers the survey puts forward.</p>

379

<p>So ID is believing in God, which God? I thought ID was not religion or based on Faith. Wasn’t I told that numerous times on this thread?</p>

<p>So ID is faith based by your conclusion. Finally an admission that ID is Faith Based and that the IDer is God.</p>

380

<p>

But, this is expected behavior in all facits of life. I’m sure that all of your 8 year old students believe that their parents make the rules, have a right to make the rules and love their parents. But, the fact that they violate those rules at every opportunity does not detract from the fact that they have the above beliefs.</p>