Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
481

<p>“None of us said, and there is no basis to believe that any of us meant to imply, that there is “something wrong” with “some of those who practice Christianity” or have faith.”</p>

<p>I must have misread your posts, did you intend to say that the things that were listed in the posts you mentioned were positive or ambivalent actions of the Church. I personally find many of these accusations reprehensible when true—I figured you all did too.</p>

<p>Moreover, I have never understood how this argument (Church: bad) has anything to do with a belief in the explanatory power of intelligent design by any scientist, or dull-normal. How would the actions of any organization affect the truth or falsity of intelligent design as an explanation of the universe? And if it does not, I am left to see such continuous harping on “the church” as the anti-religious dogma expressing itself out of turn.</p>

482

<p>Simple: the argument is not “Church: bad”. The argument is that when the church is a dominant element in the society, people, including scientists and “dull normal” people, will routinely credit the church’s teachings as long as they don’t create a major problem for them. </p>

<p>This is a poor analogy but it’s the best I can come up with on short notice: Back in the 50’s, during the Red Scare era, college professors were asked to sign “loyalty oaths” swearing that they weren’t communists. Most of them actually weren’t communists, of course, but even many who weren’t communists didn’t think that it was right to require college professors to sign an “oath” whether they were or not.</p>

<p>But they signed anyway, for the most part. Not because they believed in what they were doing, but just because signing the oath did not directly conflict with their work or their core beliefs. They didn’t believe in the principle that a college professor should have to sign a loyalty oath, but they weren’t ready to lose their jobs over it. It wasn’t their fight, and they weren’t prepared to make it their fight. </p>

<p>The moral of that story is not: “anti-communism: bad”, it’s “most people will give lip service to the dominant social philosophy even if they don’t wholeheartedly support it.”</p>

483

<p>First ID is not a social philosophy, not now or in the past. It is an explanation of existence that has been understood as true throughout history coming right up over the ledge of the twentieth century amongst intellectuals; for “dull-normals” like me, on into the fresh air of the present.</p>

<p>Factually, Copernicus and Galileo wrote of their cosmological views not just in their public writings and opinions but in their private correspondences. It would be a very dogmatic anti-religious person who would read all that and insist that they didn’t really believe in the harmonic design of the universe and were deceiving their friends, family or supporters. No doubt those “in-the-know” acquired their visions into the past through some form of séance (I fail to see in what other way they could know) —some may even say that it would be insulting to the memory of some of our greatest thinkers, I think so. </p>

<p>As to your analogy with communists (atheists all I imagine) and the social repercussions of their alleged faith:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If they were in fact communists, they were communists and identified as such (the social sanctions are another sorted matter).</p></li>
<li><p>If they were not communists, they were unlikely to claim to be communists or believers in Marxism in their personal correspondence, as were many of the people in my list (I believe all of them; Newton, Galileo and Copernicus to be sure, I have read their words on the subject and they have said such things repeatedly and intimately, leaving not a shred of doubt). </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Kluge, or anyone else,
on my much reviled list, which scientist/thinker do you claim believed in ID because, as you say, “most people will give lip service to the dominant social philosophy even if they don’t wholeheartedly support it."</p>

<p>If you care to name them, I will look it up myself and get back to you. </p>

<p>If on the other hand, you are just projecting your religious prejudice on to them, you probably have no specific information that would support such a prejudice against those who profess such a purpose and faith and, like Bob Marley, I will be waiting in vain—and I don’t wanna wait in vain.</p>

484

<p>FS: you say
"As to your analogy with communists (atheists all I imagine) "</p>

<p>let me ask you: if that’s true, why then did the USSR experience a sudden resurgence of the Russion Orthodox church following the collapse of the Communist regime?</p>

<p>Perhaps they were only giving lip service to avoid political persecution? It does happen.</p>

485

<p>

Not that I would ever presume to speak for FountainSiren, but might not those poor folks been giving lip service as to their support of communism? The “true communists,” i.e. those holding the keys to the gulags were certainly atheists.</p>

486

<p>Nevermind…to call those that disagree religously prejudiced shows that you are closeminded and have your prejudices against those that disagree.</p>

<p>Not worth the conversation anymore…anyone that disagrees with FS is prejudiced…nice</p>

<p>And I know some quite respectable athiests, thank you very much. </p>

<p>And history is not always as it appears. When I was in school I was told only how wonderful our adventures nto the west were, how noble. And now, my D tells me about a part of our history I never knew, that Native AMericans were sold as slaves if the buyer would agree to converting them to Christianity. I never knew that. I never would have believed it.</p>

<p>But yet…</p>

487

<p>“Perhaps they were only giving lip service to avoid political persecution? It does happen.”</p>

<p>dmd77,</p>

<p>………….and as my Uncle was given to say (in an altered fashion):</p>

<p>“And if your aunt had a **** she’d be your uncle.”</p>

<p>How would your analogy in any way have anything to say about Copernicus’ well articulated belief in Design? Or anyone else’s for that matter? If it happened anytime, does it always happen every time? </p>

<p>Even when the “victims” themselves claim it did not?</p>

<p>If anyone has any information that this was the case, please, share it with all of us. If not; you don’t-- and I suppose you won’t.</p>

<p>No one need wonder whether or not Stalin or Mao were atheists and fond of the Gulags: this is history; the implication that Copernicus et al pretended to believe in Design is not.</p>

<p>When I was 14 I read “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denesiovich”.</p>

<p>Solzinitsyn was a powerful man of faith: his persecutors were ruthless men of a particular metaphysical outlook that involved no spiritual power greater than themselves. Some say they were atheists. Solzinitsyn was not. You should read his Harvard commencement address (don’t know the year).</p>

488

<p>FS: My post was about professors, not communists. If you were really trying to engage in a dialogue you would have caught that. As it is, you didn’t just miss the point - you’re not even looking in the right direction, with the result that your response is a mass of nonsequiturs. Poor work.</p>

489

<p>Kluge,</p>

<p>Your implication, actually accusation has been that some of our most prominent scientists (I suppose some of the ones I listed) were misleading us about the very nature of their view of the universe due to political pressure akin to professors having to sign some something, about something, something (nonsequiteurs).</p>

<p>Here’s my random list.</p>

<p>Which Ones choked?</p>

<p>Copernicus
Kepler,
Da Vinci,
Decartes,
Newton,
Boyle,
Faraday,
Mendel,
Kelvin,
Plank,
Einstein</p>

<p>If you could be specific, please, I will be happy to admit I am wrong.</p>

<p>“Poor work.”…sorry boss.</p>

490

<p>"Historical Landmark</p>

<h2>Everyday an important historical fact that cannot be found in history books.</h2>

<p>Tools</p>

<p>Print this
Send this</p>

<hr>

<ul>
<li><br>
1543</li>
</ul>

<p>24
May
* Copernicus: when science emancipated from religion
On May 24, 1543, canon Nicolas Copernicus dies in Frauenburg, Poland. As a Renaissance man, monk Copernicus studied at the prestigious university of Krakow before traveling all around Europe. A scholar, thirsty for knowledge, he studied every single field of knowledge: theology, medicine, mathematics, economy and astronomy. Pope Paul III, who wanted to reform the calendar, asked him to study the planets and the Sun to verify Claudius Ptolemaeus’ theory, a Greek geographer of the Second Century who said the Earth was located in the middle of the universe whereas the Sun and the planets revolved around it. The Catholic doctrine was based on this thesis to affirm that the Man and, consequently, the Earth, were in the center of the creation. However, in a very short period of time, Copernicus showed how incoherent this theory was. As a prudent man, he justly feared the theologians’ reactions and waited until the end of this life to publish his conclusions on De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. His work had a great impact and freed scholars from the theological prejudices presented as divine truths…"</p>

<p><a href=“ExpireSEO”>ExpireSEO;

491

<p>

It looks to me as if FS was responding to dmd77, not you, Kluge. Which would make your insult misplaced, and “poor work” at that.</p>

492

<p>CGM,</p>

<p>Does this in any way indicate to you that Copernicus did not believe in an Intelligence behind the design of the universe?</p>

<p>If not, what is the import? I certainly do not doubt that the authorities of the day enforced their dogma to the degree that they found it to be prudent, obviously often with negative and deleterious consequences.</p>

<p>This proves that religions may misbehave.</p>

<p>Might even make religion look bad…a black eye and all that; what does it say about the object of religion I wonder?</p>

493

<p>It just shows that Copernicus needed to play a game to get his ideas across…that is what that indicates…that he knew his ideas went against the prevelant leaders of the time and he needed to very careful with what he said and what he presented. It does not prove he believed or did not believe in ID, it shows what you claimed did not happen, that sometimes scientists did and said what was needed in order to get some ideas across and had to play a political game.</p>

<p>Religious leaders were political back then. They did have poltical power. They did start wars. It was not the religion, it was the leaders who used religion, and not always in good ways. </p>

<p>It is important to seperate religion and religious leaders. Did I say anything bad about religion? No, the comments were about it leaders at the time.</p>

494

<p>“it shows what you claimed did not happen, that sometimes scientists did and said what was needed in order to get some ideas across and had to play a political game.”</p>

<p>Where? </p>

<p>What did he claim to believe in that he did not believe? I do not see that in your copied link.</p>

<p>It is done even now. There are plenty of views that must remain unspoken for fear of violating the PC codes.</p>

495

<p>The list of scientist you have, were did that come from? It is an interesting list…</p>

496

<p>Federalist Society, no doubt.</p>

497

<p>It was a straighforward question. It could be from anywhere…I just am curious.</p>

498

<p>Maybe a high school history book? Those books are filled with interesting people.</p>

499

<p>No, that particular list is very specific…and no need to be condecending…</p>

500

<p>Driver is correct.</p>

<p>As to the list, feel free to substitute any name you please, the outcome will be more or less the same; that is, until you get into the social atheism of the 20th century with its accompanying logical positivists.</p>

<p>The fact is I spent the majority of my spare time during my Junior and Senior years doing research in chemistry. I had projects in the NJ science fair two years in a row and actually won numerous awards (some gratuitous, some significant). I have a great and persistent interest in science: biology and chemistry. Right now I’m studying my Cell-bio text book to take the placement test at Dartmouth.</p>

<p>I hope to be a scientist/doctor; I’m very pro-scientific innovation and have stated repeatedly that I have no problems with the method employed in neo-Darwinian evolution. However, I do believe that there is great explanatory power in a top down look at science rather than an exclusively bottom-up approach.</p>

<p>I like ‘cause and effect’ and have found it a useful tool in explaining things, as most do (excluding Hume). I find it useful in understanding not only what, but how.</p>

<p>Beyond this, I personally feel most of the daggers come out on this issue because of a social bias (amongst certain segments of our society) against anything that in any way explains the universe in a manner consistent with most people’s view of life and the universe; views such as my own. </p>

<p>It’s a common view and viewed as such by those who consider themselves to be uncommon and unique intellectuals of one sort or another. </p>

<p>Few common people believe that the universe is the outcome of nothing or has a material source. They see order and they perceive design—what else would they perceive? What else will they be expected to believe? </p>

<p>As Paul Feyerabend said in ‘Science and a Free Society’,
“science is not beyond the reach of the natural shrewdness of the human race.”</p>

<p>I have enough faith in humanity to believe he is right.</p>