Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
381

<p>No, CGM, as has been said since the beginning of this thread, ID simply rejects the idea (presented as fact) that the universe as we know it is necessarily random accident. Some may ascribe this notion to a “god;” Obving the lines ofously some do. I’m on record as stating that I think the “IDer” as you call it is actually the giant Star Trek brain. But…again and again and again…No one here (nor the president) has advocated teaching ID as science, or teaching it at all. Just allowing discussion of what is a logical, timeless human question. And everyone should feel free to shrug and say “I don’t know,” as they have from time immemorial. I will quote…yet again…from the original article posted by the original poster, Mr. B:

Now: there are those of you who seem to believe, as an article of faith, that we are all here as the result of a cosmic belch. All random accident. That’s fine, that’s your right. But…if you are going to be “teaching students about the creation of life,” as the article states, shouldn’t you acknowledge to the students that you don’t know how life was created? And if you insist on teaching your faith-based version of creation (cosmic accident), shouldn’t you at least entertain discussions among students of other possibilities? Perhaps teachers should be enjoined from making any assertions as to the creation of life, since none of us were there and there’s no scientific proof of how it all began. But then we get to the politically correct sterility of such a hamstrung, circumbscribed pedagogy, the point which Mini missed.</p>

382

<p>Phillip Johnson- the socalled Father of ID:
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>“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>

383

<p>It would be fun to discuss logical, timeless questions in a religion class. Or even on College Confidential. ;)</p>

<p>(Note that neo-Darwinian evolution doesn’t deal with the “original creation of life” at all, but with speciation and change.)</p>

384

<p>So, driver, where is the idea of God a falicy in my understanding of ID?</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>These are the leaders of the ID movement…</p>

385

<p>William Dembski-another ID proponent whose name is everywhere
[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>Should that be taught in science…</p>

<p>And what about Wells, who calls evolution evil and set out to destroy it…ID is uses his science…</p>

<p>The “some” you say ascribe to the God being the Intelligent Designer is the ID spokespeople themselves…and it is often the Biblical God or Christian God…</p>

386

<p>

I have yet to see anything–fallacious or otherwise–that resembles an exposition on whatever your “understanding” of ID might be.

No, those are the people that you, Grand Inquisitor/KeystoneKop of this emergency investigation have chosen to use as caricatures/demons in your crusade.</p>

387

<p>You stated that "some"ascribe to the idea that the IDer is God…I showed you those “some” are the ID spokepeople and scientists themselves. You have nothing to say about that?</p>

<p>"No, CGM, as has been said since the beginning of this thread, ID simply rejects the idea (presented as fact) that the universe as we know it is necessarily random accident. Some may ascribe this notion to a “god;” " </p>

<p>It is know to be in Kansas Science classes…and that has been pushed by the very people that are the spokepeople for ID, who, from their own words, see the IDer as a biblical God.</p>

<p>What am I missing, besides discussing the Pseudo science?</p>

388

<p>

Among the other things you are conspicuously missing is a working definition of “some.”</p>

<p>(Note that neo-Darwinian evolution doesn’t deal with the “original creation of life” at all, but with speciation and change.)</p>

<p>Yes, I realize that…it was the lead sentence in the OP’s article, though. And if you’re going to ask about the teaching of original creation, you’re going to get a variety of opinions.</p>

389

<p>Check out the websites of discovery and origins, research the names and where they are…Behe was quoted in time, Johnson has a huge number of articles on one of the sights, Wells is the scientist from Berkely, Yale and the Unification Seminary that whose scientific works have been quoted often, Ross is also all over the place when it come to ID.</p>

<p>I have done my research. Do not think I have not. Those are the names that are associated with ID in many many many publicnations. They are on the radio, they have written editorials, they are not just names I picked from thin air.</p>

<p>Do not dare accuse me of that. That is another diversion.</p>

390

<p>[Why does my mind’s eye keep seeing little police cars running round and round with their lights flashing and their sirens wailing?]</p>

391

<p>MrB said,</p>

<p>“I think many of the great thinkers would have liked to have had the church and theology out of their labs.”</p>

<p>I guess so, and one can only imagine what a horror it would have been for them to have had to entertain the idea of Intelligent Design in their ‘labs’!</p>

<p>……….oh, wait a minute, I guess they actually did entertain the idea of Intelligent Design in their ‘labs’; I believe it may even have been the assurance of Intelligent Design that inspired them to get off their a s s and start speculating and experimenting and providing us with their wonderful and daring scientific insights: seemed to give Galileo a good kick in the rump. </p>

<p>I wonder what would have happened if these great scientists would have been told by the STATE that they were not allowed to even discuss the idea that there was a design in the universe; what a non-starter that would have been. </p>

<p>I’ll bet we would have all missed out on some lovely science and controversy.</p>

392

<p>You wanted the people I quoted to be just some random people. They are not. So, just ignore that again.</p>

<p>Did you check out the names? Did you do any research? I did. And not in a panic. I found out some facts…Was that bad?</p>

<p>From Driver:"No, those are the people that you, Grand Inquisitor/KeystoneKop of this emergency investigation have chosen to use as caricatures/demons in your crusade."ohhhhh</p>

<p>I guess I shouldn’t have looked at the ID websites to get my names…</p>

393

<p>They are on the radio, they have written editorials, they are buzzing in my head! They won’t g e t o u t! They’re coming!</p>

<p>aaahhhh!</p>

394

<p>Driver, it’s clear that you feel that metaphysics should be taught in high school - and “alongside evolution” at that. I’m not so sure, frankly. Metaphysics is a worthwhile area for thought and discussion but it may not lend itself to the high school science classroom, but rather best be left to other venues - including church. </p>

<p>I am sure that science should be taught in school, not so much to teach the nuts and bolts of the various scientific disciplines (much of what I was taught in high school science classes is now obsolete) but to teach the scientific method of inquiry and analysis - even though (maybe especially because) science doesn’t have a pat, 100% certain answer to every question.</p>

<p>The fact that there is not a certain answer now known to every scientific question does not seem to me to be a valid reason to discuss the possibility that there is no knowable answer because things were simply “designed” that way by Go— er, the Intelligent Designer. </p>

<p>Fundingfather is convinced of the necessary existence of ID because the world is so beautifully complex that it must be the result of a unimaginably transcendent Divine plan. I don’t want my kids to be taught to give up so easily. I want them to try to figure everything out - no crutches - even if something appears now to be so overwhelmingly complex that it could only be the product of Go— the ID’s superhuman design.</p>

<p>It is impossible to refute ID. ID absolutely could be the complete, end-of-story answer to everything. There’s no way to prove that it isn’t. But if it is, it’s a dead end. “It was Designed that way” becomes the answer to every question. I want my kids to be taught science, which ultimately is based on the principle that you never give up trying to find an understandable, real world explanation for everything.</p>

395

<p>cgm,
A quick reply as I saw my name mentioned back a ways… I really AM trying to avoid getting involved back in this thread, which is why I have been being quiet. It obviously is not going anywhere, and I may soon stop reading it completely. So if I ignore questions, it will probably be because I am not here…</p>

<p>yes, I know that Philip Johnson is a Christian. I know that many ID proponents think that the force behind the universe is God. I also know that many, many scientists of past and present have been Christians, and that the belief that God created an orderly universe was a driving force behind many important discoveries. Because their belief in God made them believe the universe would be logical with rules behind it, they were able to learn a great deal about how the natural world works. </p>

<p>That doesn’t mean ID proponents want their own personal religion taught in science class, just that their faith gives them a reason to ask certain questions and look for answers. Does Dawkins’ atheism and obvious antagonism toward religion make his research biased and unreliable? Would he refuse to acknowledge any evidence of design if it bit him in the face?</p>

<p>Or are you saying that a person can be antagonistic toward religion and yet totally unbiased, but a person who believes in God is so biased that you can’t believe any research they do?? That would certainly be a form of prejudice, wouldn’t it? Perhaps only agnostics should be allowed to do scientific research, so long as they could prove they were completely neutral and did not lean one way or the other???</p>

<p>ID is NOT trying to teach religion in the classroom. It is trying to allow for the possibility that some form of intelligence could have created the universe and that there is some evidence for this. It is asking that people look at the facts without a preconceived prohibition against considering anything beyond strictly materialistic causes.</p>

<p>If a person believes that left-handed people are more talented musically (just a random hypothesis) and therefore begins doing research to find out if, indeed, his belief is accurate, would you therefore ignore any of his research because he had an idea of what he might find before he did the research? Belief in God does not disqualify someone from doing good research and thinking logically.</p>

<p>okay, I’m going now… really…I think…</p>

396

<p>Hey, they are about to talk about this on Lou Dobbs on CNN. Meet back here for a post show quiz.</p>

<p>FF, true. TTYL</p>

397

<p>FountainSiren, you have resorted to that?</p>

<p>It is amazing when facts, quotes, information, that does not go along with what you have saying all along are shown to you, you resort to that without even commenting on the information. </p>

<p>It shows your true colors.</p>

<p>I said they were on the radio etc because driver accused me of just picking those names and those quotes to make my point. I chose those names because they are spokepeople for ID, on their websites, are the scientist, you yourself quoted, and driver accused me of picking some wackos.</p>

<p>I was making the point I didnot just pick some random people, I picked the ID people themselves.</p>

398

<p>Phillip Johnson- the socalled Father of ID:
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>“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>“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.’” (Church and State Magazine, April 1999)</p>

<p>The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that “In the beginning was the Word,” and “In the beginning God created.” Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." (Forward to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, 2000)</p>

<p>Johnsons own words…my goodness, he is pretty clear to me!</p>

<p>“But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed…And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done - and he’s not getting it.” (Address given at Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004)
that is Dembski</p>

399

<p>

No, you did not understand me. It is not the beauty and complexity that causes me to believe it, it is the fact that anything at all exists which is the tip-off that something really “weird” and supernatural must have happened for something - even a ball of energy which exploded - to be created from nothing. Science (and logic) has taught us that this is impossible. Hence the most (only?) logical interpretation of this is an outside entity - an IDer.</p>

400

<p>

I didn’t accuse you of “picking some wackos.” I respect their point of view, despite not necessarily sharing it. I said that you, in your Grand Inquisitor/KeystoneKop/Inspector Clouseau role had only chosen to cite those who conformed with your personal prejudices. “Some” people ascribe intelligent design to a god. We can agree on that. Some. Look it up.</p>