Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
601

<p>(1964 Nobel Prize in Physics)</p>

<p>“Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It’s very clear that there is evolution, and it’s important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they’re both consistent.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml[/url]”>http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1964/townes-lecture.pdf[/url]”>http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1964/townes-lecture.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

602

<p>(Former President of the Association of Women in Science and MIT Physicist)</p>

<p>“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” </p>

<p><a href=“Error”>Error;

603

<p>“physicist Paul Davies, “by introducing vast (indeed infinite) complexity to explain the regularities of just one universe. I find this ‘blunderbuss’ approach to explaining the specialness of our universe scientifically questionable.” Davies concludes: “In the end, Occam’s razor compels me to put my money on design…”</p>

<p><a href=“Error”>Error;
<a href=“http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publications/books.htm[/url]”>http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publications/books.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

604

<p>(Nobel Prize in Physics)</p>

<p>“Dirac unified the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, but he also is remembered for his outstanding work on the magnetic monopole, fundamental length, antimatter, the d-function, bra-kets, etc”
<a href=“http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Dirac.html[/url]”>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Dirac.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“Art and science have their meeting point in method…God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world.”
<a href=“http://www.spaceandmotion.com/quantum-theory-paul-dirac-quotes.htm[/url]”>http://www.spaceandmotion.com/quantum-theory-paul-dirac-quotes.htm&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Dirac.html[/url]”>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Dirac.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

605

<p>(President of Queens’ College, Cambridge University)</p>

<p>“all of us who work in quantum physics believe in the reality of a quantum world, and the reality of quantum entities like protons and electrons. The basic reason we believe this is not because they are objective in the classical sense – because they’re not – but because the supposition of their existence enables us to understand, to a great extent, physical experience. Thus, intelligibility is the guarantee of reality, rather than of objectivity.”
<a href=“http://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm[/url]”>http://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/speakingoffaith/20050310_quarks.ram[/url]”>http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/speakingoffaith/20050310_quarks.ram&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.polkinghorne.org/[/url]”>http://www.polkinghorne.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

606

<p>FS: you have some lovely quotes about intelligent design from physicists. Have any from biologists?</p>

<p>In my experience, no one sits in a physics class and protests that god is not mentioned when astronomy is discussed; in the biology classroom, however, the mere mention of evolutionary theory infuriates some students. </p>

<p>The Kansas board of education doesn’t mind the teaching of physics; they’re trying to restrict the teaching of evolution in the science classroom, however. <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101258.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101258.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

607

<p>I don’t know, but I suspect that some of this has to do with the historical differences between biology and physics.</p>

<p>Biology has deep and long connections with the social sciences. </p>

<p>First anthropology, but also economic ecology (Malthus et al) and still later, biology has had connections to sociology and now genetics and the implications it has in human reproduction, cloning etc. amongst many other uses it has been put to. </p>

<p>Specifically, as biology relates to the theory of evolution, it has been used to promote very controversial social agendas both in the popular culture and in the social sciences. I don’t know if you took note of what I said about “Inherit the Wind,” a fraudulent piece of fiction that is used in an English class to bolster the image of the ‘stump-jumpin-hick’ who believes in god and creation, and the champions of freedom who stand up for evolution. </p>

<p>A complete fraud that most people in America believe as Truth. It’s insulting to people of faith, and atheists by an large love it for obvious political reasons. A Pulitzer Prize winning book was written about it in 1997 which exposed the fraud perpetrated:<br>
<a href=“http://www.facingthechallenge.org/scopes1.htm[/url]”>http://www.facingthechallenge.org/scopes1.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It would not be a stretch to think that there are far more politics involved in biology than in physics.</p>

<p>Physics is, to my mind, a pure science and is mainly tied to Mathematics, along with astronomy and chemistry to a lesser degree, but not sociology or anthropology. Physics has, therefore, less social controversy and, more importantly, less meddling in culture and society as such. Moreover, I think you will get a few more mavericks who will speak their mind in physics than in the echoing cathedrals of biology. </p>

<p>Yet, both physics and biology respond to the same reality.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I think that there is a “circle the wagons” orthodoxy to biology, that does not exist in physics, or if it does, certainly not anywhere near to the same degree that it is enforced, as religion, in biology.</p>

<p>Biology has been used to brake it…and now society wants biology to own it.</p>

<p>I would love to hear your opinion on the subject.</p>

608

<p>In this morning’s Washington Post, there is an article detailing how an editor of a small biological journal was harassed following its publication of an article “making the case for intelligent design.” </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This is the article in question for those of you who would like to read it and form your own opinions as to the validity of the views. Note that it is 37 pages long; I have just begun to read it.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.theapologiaproject.org/The%20Origin%20of%20Biological%20Information.pdf[/url]”>http://www.theapologiaproject.org/The%20Origin%20of%20Biological%20Information.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

609

<p>dmd77,</p>

<p>First let me say: you are clearly not one of the orthodox dogmatists on this issue—far from it. I really appreciate your having posted this link. I’m taken aback by it. We may have more in common on this issue than I may have thought (not to imply that you agree with my position on this, simply to say you are open-minded on the issue).</p>

<p>We used to live outside DC and would go to the Smithsonian and the Museum of Natural History frequently (dozens of times a year; my parents have photo albums filled with pictures of us in both locations). I LOVE it there.</p>

<p>Now, if you can imagine that this sort of thing goes on at the Smithsonian, how often do you think things of a lesser degree happen at Podunk High School or Middle School, whenever a question of this sort comes up, as it assuredly does if my classes were any example?</p>

610

<p>Here is another article from a different type of news source. <a href=“http://www.ufoarea.com/misc_scientists_battle_over.html[/url]”>http://www.ufoarea.com/misc_scientists_battle_over.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>There are numerous articles now about this incident and there appears to be a list of about 70 scientists who have signed a letter indicating support for intelligent design.</p>

<p>I am not a fan of retaliation of the type these articles describe. It seems scientists on both side of the argument need to control themselves. Within the article I noticed two points that are interesting. </p>

<pre><code>"A small band of scientists argue for intelligent design, saying evolutionary theory’s path is littered with too many gaps and mysteries, and cannot account for the origin of life.
</code></pre>

<p>Most evolutionary biologists, not to mention much of the broader scientific community, dismiss intelligent design as a sophisticated version of creationism. To teach it in science classes, they say, would be to overturn hundreds of years of scientific progress. The National Museum of Natural History was drawn into this controversy in June, when protest forced it to withdraw from co-sponsorship of a documentary on intelligent design."</p>

<p>And getting back to my original post:
“It is hard to overstate the passions fired by the debate over intelligent design. President Bush recently said that schoolchildren should learn about the theory alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution – a view that goes beyond even the stance of intelligent design advocates. Dozens of state school boards have attempted to mandate the teaching of anti-Darwinian theories”</p>

<p>The peer review of this article and the comments it will draw out will certainly be interesting.</p>

611

<p>“I am not a fan of retaliation of the type these articles describe”</p>

<p>Mr.B
Any chance your opinion of retaliation will amount to more than just withholding your applause when retaliation occurs?</p>

<p>I should think that anyone interested in the integrity of science would be in condemning mode; not simply remaining in their seats hands clasped while waiting for an intermission.</p>

<p>Much was made by you and others of the supposed political pressures applied to the likes of Newton and Copernicus: Have we now become more tolerant of such political tactics…when it suits our agenda?</p>

612

<p>Actually Fountain, I have been busy researching this incident looking for an additional source, but so far most articles seem to be based on the same article. Patience, grasshopper.</p>

613

<p>I see your point, The Washington Post has always been known for its manipulating facts in an effort to prop up Intel. Design;)</p>

<p>Faith is such a subtle and delicate thing, isn’t it.:)</p>

614

<p>Better the Post over the Washington Times with Tony Blankely as it’s head comedian. I was hoping to find some response from the NAS because this makes them look particulary bad.</p>

<p>Faith is like a spider web, delicate and yet so strong.</p>

<p>Don’t keep the faith, share it.</p>

615

<p>I wonder if Prof Sternberg will have to wait as long as Galileo to </p>

<ol>
<li><p>stir the righteous indignation of those who claim to be devotees of TRUTH;</p></li>
<li><p>be proven right: that there is no value in orthodox censorship;</p></li>
<li><p>be able to rehabilitate his career (likely never, really);</p></li>
<li><p>hear the Priests of dogmatic evolution grant him an indulgence, in order that he might have to spend less time behind the padded walls of PC Purgatory. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>My bet is, it will be like getting a camel through a needles eye.</p>

<p>I don’t expect I’ll be hearing the rest of the CC choir weighing in on this one. </p>

<p>Few care to retrieve the mud they have thrown.</p>

616

<p>Well, I’ve been over the article, and I’m afraid to say that I found it biased. Some of the questions it raises have been addressed by other scientists that are conspicuously not cited; other questions are phrased badly. Nonetheless, it does make it abundantly clear that there is a great deal yet to be researched in biology.</p>

<p>I also notice that the writer of the article is not a biologist, but a philosopher of science; this makes a difference to me. When an evolutionary biologist writes such an article, I may take it more seriously. For now, I think this article does an excellent job of pointing out areas for future biological research, but does little to shake my certainty that there is no god or intelligent designer.</p>

617

<p>Does anyone else find it ironic that the scientists appear to be reacting a little like religion has historically, using its authority and clout to criticize the opposing view? Fountain Siren, I am amused that you who have denied this type of behavior has impacted the scientific community for over a thousand years, not finds this an atrocity.
autres temps, autres moeurs</p>

618

<p>“Fountain Siren, I am amused that you who have denied this type of behavior has impacted the scientific community for over a thousand years, not [but?] finds this an atrocity.”</p>

<p>Mr.B,
I have never denied this happens (posts #477, #489), it absolutely has, and does; I have denied that it has changed the SCIENCE/beliefs of the scientists targeted by these tactics in the same way that I doubt that Prof Sternberg or Prof Meyer will change their SCIENCE/beliefs to suit the tyrannical attempts of the modern priesthood to ruin their lives.</p>

<p>It should, on the other hand, be kept in mind that the Church adopted its behavior, according to their own accounts, to protect the metaphysical beliefs of ‘non-scientists,’ that is the masses of people who did no research and took comfort in their religious convictions in raising families and hoping for a better spiritual life in a stable universe. Those today have only their own professional a s s in mind; unless they are, in their chivalry, protecting the metaphysical views of atheists.</p>

619

<p>dmd77,
“I also notice that the writer of the article is not a biologist, but a philosopher of science; this makes a difference to me.”</p>

<p>Darwin himself was no biologist, in as much as he was NOT even a SCIENTIST. He was a naturalist; he did no technical science to speak of at all. I suppose in Evolutionary biology there is something of a tradition of this.</p>

<p>“Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences.”
<a href=“http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=11&isFellow=true[/url]”>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=11&isFellow=true&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I have also read the paper by Meyers and some of his critics (to put it politely) and I was some what startled by the spit and bile (more along the lines of a street fight than a scientific review).
The most splashy review on the net was done by members of the “The NCSE” (National Center for Science Education) who according to their mission statement are “devoted to defending the teaching of evolution.”</p>

<p>Their invective now and again pauses to repeatedly remind the reader:
“Fully reviewing this would require an article in itself”
“A full discussion of[…]will have to appear elsewhere”
etc.
That is to say, it was a hatchet job that may or may not be proved to be correct.</p>

<p>Anyhow, in my mind the way this bears on the issue at hand, is not so much the absolute truth of Meyer’s paper (he is not arguing the merits of a new theory but is rather critiquing the dominant theory) but the tactics being used to silence alternative views and critiques in the field of evolutionary science; If Joe McCarthy were alive he would blush.</p>

<p>Why should any of us expect that it is any different in the classroom?</p>

620

<p>Fountain, Have you noticed that you tend to vilainize those who disagree with you…you allude to their relationship or comparison to nazis, McCarthy (above)…do you really think it is an effective debate technique?</p>