<p>Over 520 posts and I have changed my mind. We should teach intelligent design in schools. I am totally happy with teaching Einstein’s beliefs. I think we should teach those beliefs in Christian schools too.</p>
<p>‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.’ So Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed: ‘A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.’
<a href=“http://einsteinandreligion.com/E2.html[/url]”>http://einsteinandreligion.com/E2.html</a></p>
<p>[let me add-- to the conspiracy theorists out there–there is no reason to think that Albert was under any undue political pressure when he said the these thingsthe Gulags and concentration camps he was worried about were of a different metaphysical nature back in an areligious Europe; America, as the most religious country in the Western World, provided him with a liberal appropriate amount of personal and intellectual freedom]</p>
<p>But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.</p>
<p><a href=“http://einsteinandreligion.com/religion2.html[/url]”>http://einsteinandreligion.com/religion2.html</a></p>
<p>But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.</p>
<p><a href=“http://einsteinandreligion.com/Einstein2b.html[/url]”>http://einsteinandreligion.com/Einstein2b.html</a></p>
<p>. “When I wrote my treatise on our system, I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose. But if I have done any public service in this way, it is due to nothing but industry and patient thought.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/gregory/215/handouts/h17_in.doc[/url]”>http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/gregory/215/handouts/h17_in.doc</a></p>
<p>For those not pining away for a more antagonistic attitude between science and design, you may enjoy the following article which features reconciliation:</p>
<p>Nevertheless some (and it worried Darwin) have found it difficult to reconcile belief in God as Creator with the undoubted role of chance in the evolutionary process (mutations in the genetic carrier, DNA, are random with respect to the organism’s environment, interaction with which ‘naturally’ selects the best procreators). But we now know, through key developments in theoretical biology and physical biochemistry, that it is the interplay of chance and law that allows the matter of the Universe to be self-creative of new forms of organization. God, whom the theist believes gives existence to the whole process, can now be conceived as creating through this interplay.</p>
<p>The Disguised Friend - Darwinism and Divinity
ARTHUR PEACOCKE
<a href=“http://www.srforum.org/newsite/articles_1.htm[/url]”>http://www.srforum.org/newsite/articles_1.htm</a></p>
<p>Read the Rest of Einstien…and do not forget, the Founders of ID say the the Intelligent Designer is the God of the Bible, a Christian God, and to continue to deny they have said that, believe that and want that in the schools is indeed trying to cover up for them. </p>
<p>To say they have no agenda is saying they are liars. Interesting that. They say they have an agenda. If you are going to study and promote a science and claim it has no biblical connections and that the proponents-legally and politically- beliefs and missions are irrelevant is, in my opinion, negligent.</p>
<p>“It was, of course, a lie which you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it.” Einstein</p>
<p>“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by the laws of nature…For this reason. a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural being.” Einstein</p>
<p>What I see in nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." Einstein</p>
<p>“Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A mans ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” Einstein</p>
<p>Let’s teach that in the schools (post 528). Let’s start this semester. Why wait?</p>
<p>Einstein explicitly did not believe in a personal God…he did however, believe in Intelligent Design, which is after-all the point of this thread and the only one relative to science. Wouldnt you say?</p>
<p>That is to say, Einstein is entitled to speak as an expert as it relates to science and its domain, but only as a layman (like most of us) as it relates to that which is not, like the practice and dogmas of religion or cooking.</p>
<p>Still, like dstark, I would be happy to see the embargo against Einsteins view of the universe rescinded in all the classrooms across America. </p>
<p>How about you?</p>
<p>the Founders of ID say the the Intelligent Designer is the God of the Bible, a Christian God</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>Do you really mean to say that Pythagoras, Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton and Einstein were all Christians riveted and devoted to getting Yahweh into the classroom?</p>
<p>Well, you are obviously correct with Copernicus and Newton, but I think that if the others could speak for themselves that would say that you are being presumptuous in your attributions.</p>
<p>If I were to concede that each of the scientists mentioned believed in God, …it still wouldn’t mean that the idea should be taught in science class as a scientific theory. So producing a list of people who may or may not have really believed in a “force” doesn’t mean that there is scientific evidence of this “force” any more than listing the founding fathers of this country who owned slaves as an argument to teach that God wants people to own slaves, but at least you would have tangible evidence of the founding fathers beliefs. </p>
<p>In an earlier post I quoted Andrew White’s, research led him over one hundred years ago to identify a three step process of responding to scientific concepts. </p>
<p>"· First, the Church tries to crush the “heretical” view, often through censorship and persecution of the scientist. (scopes monkey trial -MrB)</p>
<p>· But as the evidence supporting the scientific viewpoint inevitably grows, the Church struggles to find a compromise position that incorporates both viewpoints. (ID theory - MrB)</p>
<p>· Eventually, the scientific victory is complete, and the Church is left to indulge in apologetics, a field of study that explains away and defends the Church’s actions. In this stage, it is common for apologists to claim that there is not, and never was, any conflict between the Church and science." (Where we are heading-Mr.B)</p>
<p>ID is not science but a concept to appeal to religious and personal needs that an answer exist.</p>
<p>Dstark - Are you old enought to remember what happenned to the Catholic Church decided to switch from latin to English language masses - The population of the church dropped off in the US. Some religions would not benefit from scientific scrutiny. Look at church positions on social issues - inter alia, women’s rights, war, slavery…hard to allign practice with philosophy there.</p>
<p>The Current supporters, the ones YOU quoted me over and over again do. And that is what is being brought into the classroom. The ones who are righting the “textbooks”, advocating in to the government…</p>
<p>Their versions of ID, which they did not call it, and the ones currently out there are not the same…and the one being presented as what to teach, through many sites, the sponsors, the funders, the spokemen (interesting I haven’t seen any female scientists, but maybe I jsut missed them) are based on Christianity.</p>
<p>“If I were to concede that each of the scientists mentioned believed in God”</p>
<p>They may or may not have believed in god, but that is not germane to this thread. What is appropriate to this question of design is that these scientists believed that their theories and science supports the idea of intelligent design and that any classroom discussion of origins should not exclude that opinion as a part of science.</p>
<p>And once again,
I fail to see how religious misdeeds bare on a question of design and origins, other than to the negative purpose of poisoning the well.</p>
<p>Mr.B,</p>
<p>I still think you had it right when you said, repeating a false argument will not make it a truth.</p>
<p>This litany of accusations is false inasmuch as it bears not one wit on design, but rather on your estimation of this or that particular religion. If it does tell us something about design, specify what is it? </p>
<p>If, to the contrary, it is simply a righteous condemnation of the misdeeds of religious leaders it is a false premise to begin a discussion of Intelligent Design.</p>
<p>“the ones YOU quoted me over and over again do.”</p>
<p>I quoted two of them (recent advocates) and only one of the ones I quoted did you smear (repeatedly), the other you have never addressed (Henry F. Schaefer:
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</a>
College of Chemistry Prizes and Lectureships [Berkeley]
1998-1999 Henry F. Schaefer III
<a href=“http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/edito...coc_prizes.html[/url]”>http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/edito...coc_prizes.html</a>
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/c...riofhRt8X&VER=E[/url]”>http://chemport.ipe.ac.cn/cgi-bin/c...riofhRt8X&VER=E</a>. )</p>
<p>I quoted the others, most especially Aristotle, Copernicus, Einstein and Newton repeatedly.</p>
<p>They explicitly believe Design to be the only explanation.</p>
<p>Mr.B, I wrote in this thread…<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=73598&page=5&pp=40[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=73598&page=5&pp=40</a>
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. I think it is immoral to push your beliefs on others. It is immoral to threaten people with hell if they don’t believe. It is immoral to preach one thing and do another (Fundamentalist Christians have one of the highest divorce rates of any religion). It is immoral to rewrite history and deny that Hitler was a Christian. It is immoral to deny that Christians have been mass murdering people for most of their existance. North America was a Red Continent before the White Christian Man came here and slaughted the Indians and rewrote history. South America was a Red Continent.
Africa was a Black Continent before the White Christian Man went over there and dehumanized the Africans and brought them here, into slavery for financial gain. Let’s get out immorality straight. If these Christians, who slaughtered the American Indian, slaughted the Mexican, and slaughted the African are in heaven because they didn’t drink or fool around,
I will take hell.</p>
<p>I agree wtih Andrew White. And this should be taught in public schools.</p>
<p>You’re really mucking the thread up with that screed, dstark. Nothing to do with intelligent design. Start a white Christian-bashing thread if you must.</p>
<p>(scopes monkey trial -MrB)</p>
<p>Mr.B</p>
<p>The Scopes trial had nothing to do with the Church. It had to do with whether or not people living in Tennessee could decide what the State would teach their children. The whole thing was a shame. On a personal note, in 11th grade I was assigned to read the play Inherit the Wind which is a complete falsification of the Scopes Trial, but none the less serves the interests of certain anti-religious English teachers.</p>
<p>Below are some excerpts from a historical look at the Scopes Trial</p>
<p>Review of the Pulitzer prize-winning ‘Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion’ by Edward J. Larson (Basic Books, New York, 1997) </p>
<p>In a small town in East Tennessee, a few young professionals gathered at the local drug store to discuss the offer from the ACLU. It seems they were struck with the possibilities of free publicity for their town. One of the group invited a close friend of his, 24-year-old John T. Scopes, to join them in one of their drug store get-togethers. He was asked if he would be willing to let his name be used for a test case. Although he was not actually a biology teacher, he had filled in for the regular teacher during an illness using the state-approved biology text, which had a section on human evolution. It was enough for the trial
Many within the ACLU leadership were uncomfortable about Darrow’s help, since he clearly had no particular interest in Scopes nor free speech in general
Bryan considered the trial to be mainly about majority rule; about the democracy he had spent his political career defending and nurturing. It was not just a matter of whether evolution should be taught; the fact was, a large majority of the voters of Tennessee did not want it taught, and had the right to have their democratic decision abided by
Clarence Darrow, on the other hand, saw a chance to ridicule Christianity on a scale previously unforeseen. He gathered a battalion of professional witnesses who would testify that evolution was true
The most serious misreporting of the trial, however, came in 1955 when Inherit the Wind, the play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, opened on Broadway
History was altered in several significant ways for the sake of the play. Inherit the Wind did not portray the trial as a comic farce, as Allen’s book had, but as a dramatic, serious threat to progress and freedom. In the play - and in the later film of the same title - the ACLU and the actual reasons for the trial disappeared altogether, and a romantic interest was introduced between Scopes and the pretty daughter of a (fictitious) fire-breathing fundamentalist local pastor.
<a href=“http://www.facingthechallenge.org/scopes1.htm[/url]”>http://www.facingthechallenge.org/scopes1.htm</a></p>
<p>Mr.B (or anyone else),
I would love to hear your opinion of this farce that has been portrayed (and you obviously accepted) on the American People.</p>
<p>Should Inherit the Wind be required reading in English?</p>
<p>Mr. B, from your own thread… post 173</p>
<p>Ok. I will be clear. I don’t want faith taught in the public schools.
I don’t care what anybody believes, but I don’t want that stuff taught in the public schools.</p>
<p>Here is an article that scares the crap out of me and warms the hearts of conservative Republicans.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...&sn=001&sc=1000[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...&sn=001&sc=1000</a></p>
<p>This is the pattern throughout history. First it starts out, my way of life is the right way of life.</p>
<p>Then it continues with my way of life is superior to any other way of life.</p>
<p>Then it continues with your way of life is inferior; therefore, you are inferior.</p>
<p>Now starts the process of dehumanization.
These people who are inferior to us are less than human. Therefore, giving the inferiors fewer rights is OK. Therefore, taking their property away is acceptable. Turning them into slaves is OK. Turning them into workers with slave labor salaries is OK. Killing them is OK.</p>
<p>There are many variations, but they all have the similar characteristics. My way is superior, your way is inferior. Therefore, say good- bye to your rights.</p>
<p>Before people argue, look around. All you have to do is look a few posts up.</p>
<p>This might be a repeat. Driver, you are the teacher in a classroom. How would you teach ID?</p>