Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
621

<p>“vilainize those who disagree with you…you allude to their relationship or comparison to nazis, McCarthy”</p>

<p>Mr.B,</p>

<p>Though I have said no such thing about anyone posting on this board, such things have been said of me…Goebbels, religious bigot, fundamentalist, immature, etc.
No one seemed to mind though.</p>

<p>Anyway, do you think that the tactics used against Prof Sternberg are any different in kind to those used by Sen. McCarthy and his posse? </p>

<p>“An e-mail stated, falsely, that Sternberg had “training as an orthodox priest.” Another labeled him a “Young Earth Creationist,” meaning a person who believes God created the world in the past 10,000 years. “They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. “I was basically run out of there.”
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5081801680.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5081801680.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>What aspect of this is not worthy of Joe McCarthy?</p>

<p>2 entries found for McCarthyism.
Mc•Car•thy•ism P Pronunciation Key (m -kär th - z m)
n.

  1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
  2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition. </p>

<p>I’m a little sensitive to those in power ruining the lives of those without it.</p>

<p>Having read through your posts, I would assume you are too.</p>

622

<p>In truth, our knowledge of science is very limited. Yes, evolution as a theory has many, many, flaws. Men have always used God to explain that which was not fully understood. By saying, evolution works because God directed it, we have created a quick fix that prevents scientists from looking for the real answer. Maybe the theory of evolution needs to be tweaked, maybe it must be thrown out and a better one thought up. It will obviously take years of thinking by people much smarter then me. But history has taught us that using God to fill in the gaps of understanding never solved anything. Now we laugh at the thought that lightning is zeus’s anger. Using God as a reason keeps us from striving for a better understanding of the natural universe. But as an Orthodox Jew, don’t think I don’t believe in God. The more we learn, the greater we can appreciate His power, and saying that God couldnt come up for a solution to the development of life within the confines of His natural law is to put a limit on His abilities. If you want to say he started the Big Bang and got the ball rolling, great. Past that, try to work soley on logic and theory, and what results will be a true appreciation for creation. If you truly believe in the God and Bible of your choosing, you shouldn’t be afraid that new scientific knowledge will discredit Him.</p>

<p>As for Bush’s statement our education system is already rapidly falling behind that of Europe’s and Asia’s, we really don’t need this right now when there are so many more important things to do like increasing the overall quality of our public schools.</p>

623

<p>I agree! yet</p>

<p>As long as evolutionists believe and teach that their theory proves that there is no God, ID will be necessary to balance that.</p>

624

<p>dmk,</p>

<p>I agree with you, but than so would Aquinas, Ibn Sina and Maimonides. They said exactly this, repeatedly. You might as well have quoted them. </p>

<p>I don’t know that anyone is proposing to “use god to fill in the gaps.” I’m not even familiar with the expression. I think this is a caricature that a-religious people are fond of when they want to critique those of an opposing view: see “Inherit the Wind” for a wildly popular and well-worn example of it. Moreover, I saw no suggestion of in Meyer’s paper.</p>

<p>Obviously, if there is no design, there is no God; some people take comfort in that.</p>

<p>However, this seems a poor reason to slander and demean and ruin the scientific careers of those who have found reason to investigate and propose it—even from a position of faith. I believe the reaction of those from the “National Center for Science Education” tells us far more about them and their motivations than it does about Meyer’s paper.</p>

<p>As to science in America, I can’t speak for the scientific community but I went to school in Canada and in New Jersey and I can tell you that the intensity of science was greater here.</p>

<p>By the way, what do you think of what is being done to Prof Sternberg?</p>

<p>Is this acceptable scientific reaction to you? And does it differ in kind (not degree) from the Medieval Church’s reaction to dissident science?</p>

625

<p>I really don’t know much about the issue and am still going through the posts. American media has a bad habit of twisting views and giving half stories. Bad journalism is unfortunately pretty prevalent and gives people mistaken prejudices. Sending hate mail and threatning someone for voicing there opinion is immature and solves nothing. For better or for worse, America is a land of free speech and you can argue its pros and cons for a very long time. If you have a problem with someone’s opinion, voice your idea in one of this countries many mediums for free speech, and use logic and facts instead of emotion. Of course there is no gaurantee anyone will listen. I have never seen Inherit the Wind, and I try not to label people into categories, that has led only to bigotry and bloodshed. The expression, fill in the gaps, refers to people using some form of divine intervention to fix holes in a theory, rather then looking for another explanation. It is similar to the concept of Dues ex machina, where at the end of a play a greek god would resolve any hanging plotlines simply through his own will.
Using ID to balance evolution is using one flawed thing to cancel another. Instead, address the faults of the evolution rather then citing ID. As for teaching that evolution negates the existance of God, I am a firm believer of keeping religion out of public schooling, both of the form “this is why God exists…” and “this is why God doesn’t exist…”. If you are still discontent about a college prof. teaching you why there is no God, never forget that in this area he is citing his OPINION, and you don’t have to agree with it, although it would probably help your grade.</p>

626

<p>“As long as evolutionists believe and teach that their theory proves that there is no God, ID will be necessary to balance that.”</p>

<p>Please. I don’t know any scientists who say their theories or any theories prove that there is no god. Such remarks are specious.</p>

627

<p>I don’t think people who agree with evolution are automatically opposed to God, but it seems to be the response most easily triggered. Can a person believe in angels and not want it covered in a public school science class any more than the power of prayer? Of course they can. </p>

<p>Fountain, I apologize, I edited my posting and ended up with you accussing people of being nazi…it was the other way around… I had started with a general comment to all posters and ended up with it misdirected at you. That was wrong and I have no excuse for not reading what I am printing. However, I still feel that you have tried to post those who oppose ID as non religious and most recently McCarthyites. Other posters who have accused IDers of being Nazi were equally wrong. I don’t think anyone benefits from this type of argument. </p>

<p>I would also ask you to clarify…do you feel that historically scientists were harrassed and threatened but that it didn’t affect their published theories? How would you compare what Galaleo went through to these two ID scientists? Don’t you think they will make a fortune speaking and selling books to the Christian right? I will not attempt to justify the childish unprofessional behavior described in the news article but do not really think it is close to the magnitude of death and torture that other scientists have gone through over the past 1,000+ years?</p>

628

<p>dmd77, that would be good then!</p>

<p>but please, i don’t think all students get the message that evolutionism cannot prove that there is no God. That calls for teaching ID along with evolutionist theories.</p>

629

<p>Fountain Siren, I just reread your post and want to clarify a few things. First, as I said Im an Orthodox Jew, please dont try to imply that Im a-religious. Yes, I admit I could be more observant, but understand this: I go to synogague every week unless Im out of town, in the summer when attendace dropped I tried to go everyday to help make a minyan (prayer group). I even lead the service occasionally. So call me many things, but don’t imply Im a-religious simply because I see the flaws inherent in ID as it is defined by our dear president. Also, our schools are falling behind those of Europe and Asia. Canada is part of North America. Also, schools in the northeast and California are not representative of those in the rest of the country. If you want an example, look at the state scores required on the PSAT to become a semi-finalist. The same test is given in each state, but the scores really vary.</p>

<p>bneg, public schools don’t teach that evolution implies the nonexistance of God. Religion is not discussed in public schools AT ALL. If you still believe students might make that mistake, then they have parents and a local religious leader to give them a better explanation. Or have teachers teach why evolution doesn’t prove or disprove God. Why would you have our public schools teach a flawed theory that clearly violates the separation of church and state.</p>

630

<p>I have never heard a science teacher or any other public school teacher tell a student there was no god or that any type of proof of this exists. I have heard a Baptist minister once say that people who teach evolution are teaching that the Bible is a lie. I don’t recall the bible coming up in any science classes either. I think the concept that evolution is anti-god comes from the ID side of this argument not from the people who believe evolution is closer to the truth than other theories.</p>

<p>Once at a teachers convention, I saw a group of people with miniture plastic dinosaurs, reported to be actual size dinosaur infants, which they claimed proved that dinosaurs could have fit on Noah’s arc. I didn’t think you could get two on every animal at the Bronx Zoo onto a boat the size of Noah’s, but they claimed that they all were there and so were all the baby dinosaurs.</p>

631

<p>"I don’t think people who agree with evolution are automatically opposed to God, but it seems to be the response most easily triggered.”</p>

<p>Mr.B,
If by that you mean that many of those who are unswerving in their defense of a ‘stand-alone’ theory of evolution will see their stance as invalidating or at least degrading religion, I agree with you and I’m troubled by it.</p>

<p>Looking back through this thread I have found that there are far more direct disagreements and condemnations of religion then there are of design or intelligent design as such. </p>

<p>In fact, in most cases the ‘proof’ offered against design is that since it is believed by those who are religious it is therefore part of some ‘vast theistic conspiracy’ and not worthy of discussion; remember, as many posters have repeatedly pointed out, you might end up being thrown into a prison cell, or tortured until you recant—and that is if you are a man, if you are a woman you are likely to be burned as a witch or forced into domestic servitude. All of which in one form or another has been suggested in this thread.</p>

<p>Most do no more than caricature the idea of design as espoused by some of, but not most of, our greatest scientists.</p>

632

<p>Mr.B you ask and answer,
“Can a person believe in angels and not want it covered in a public school science class any more than the power of prayer? Of course they can.”</p>

<p>Without getting into the theology of the statement itself, one could rephrase it and say: can there in fact BE angels without it needing to be covered in public school science and the answer would still be, yes.</p>

<p>Can there in fact BE a god and not have it covered in science class and the answer is still, emphatically, yes.</p>

<p>Can there in fact be, or even be evidence to suggest that there is design in the universe and life and not have it covered in science class, NO!</p>

<p>I will add fuel to the flame by saying that I think that the term “Intelligent Design” is a political term, not a scientific or even a logical theistic term. I believe that it does expose an agenda in many of those who believe in a creator or designer and as such and is the cause of a great deal more resistance and trepidation than is necessary in this discussion. This, unfortunately, often the nature of any dissident critique of the status quo: overstating the case.</p>

<p>Design, as a scientific concept, should stand alone with no appeal to a designer, because such a “designer” cannot be a subject of science; in truth, no serious person believes it can be, though many, from both sides, imply that it either must be, or that it will end up being the subject of science.</p>

<p>I will make my position clear:
There can be no investigation or even speculation as to the nature of a “designer” in a science classroom, period. I would vociferously oppose this at every level.</p>

<p>However, design must be a part of any scientific discussion of life, in all of the sciences—not as truth—but, in the very least, as the negative position to random mutation and environmental selection; as a common criteria of must people’s inherent disposition to believe in the logical principal of cause and effect; as a critique of the tradition of science until rather recently; as evidence and current scientists hypothesize.</p>

<p>It would I believe be no more than a passing critique in the current context, but a legitimate one. </p>

<p>By the way, thanks for the clarification.</p>

633

<p>dmk, of course schools do not teach that! yet evolution itself can might imply that…</p>

<p>and do you think all parents and religious leaders will provide 'less flawed" info? </p>

<p>i agree that teachers can specifically teach that evolution cannot prove that there is no God… then we wouldn’t need ID, which as ‘flawed’ as it may be, can point out many flaws in the modern theory.</p>

<p>…which i’ve stated more than once.</p>

634

<p><a href=“Academy of Science of St. Louis. All accomodation in Saint Louis”>Academy of Science of St. Louis. All accomodation in Saint Louis;
I see the primary argument of the ID’s is that things are too complex and organized to well for it to be an accident.
This makes me think of Serpinski, who made very detailed and involved drawings using fractals. Fractals and their attractants are interesting things to study. Note the triangle and fractal moon in these sites:
<a href=“Academy of Science of St. Louis. All accomodation in Saint Louis”>Academy of Science of St. Louis. All accomodation in Saint Louis;

<p><a href=“Academy of Science of St. Louis. All accomodation in Saint Louis”>Academy of Science of St. Louis. All accomodation in Saint Louis;

635

<p>MrB,</p>

<p>Your first two links require authorization. The second was interesting. </p>

<p>I am somewhat familiar with the subject: we have B.B. Mandelbrot’s “The Fractal Geometry of Nature” in our home library and I have browsed thorough it on occasion–seems like design to me;)</p>

636

<p>FountainSiren, another thing you might find interesting is phi, also known as the Golden Ratio or God’s Number. It is a ratio that pops up in nature in a variety of places… To be clear, there are two forms of ID, and while the difference is subtle, they are two completely different ideas.
The first, advocated by many scientists, goes like this: Wow, creation is so complex, with so many beautiful hidden patterns, there must be some higher power responsible for all this. By better understanding nature and science, I can better appreciate how brilliantly everything falls together. Surely this must be the hand of God.<br>
The second is a preversion of the first, and follows this train of thought: Life is so complex it couldn’t have evolved in the time alloted, God must have had a helping hand.
The first uses our knowledge of science as proof of a higher power, the second uses a higher power as a scientific proof. I believe in the first, as do many scientists and mathemeticians. I strongly oppose the second, as outlined in my original post.
bneg, you can draw many different conclusions from evolution with regards to the existence of God. But the conclusion drawn is an opinion, either way. What seperates evolution from ID is that evolution is a theory created soley from scientific fact, and while it has flaws, at the moment it is the best we have. A good teacher will teach its pros and cons, and will honestly admit that there are many things that are simply not known. And thus you present to a student a complete understanding, from which they may draw whatever conclusions they please. If after learning its cons they still believe there is no God, that is there decision. ID as a theory is based on divine intervention and as such has no place in any science classroom. WHile evolution lets a student make up their own mind, ID REQUIRES the existence of a God. Simply said, evolution taught correctly requires no counterweight.</p>

637

<p>cartoon: <a href=“http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/ta/[/url]”>http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/ta/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

638

<p>“Wow, creation is so complex, with so many beautiful hidden patterns, there must be some higher power responsible for all this. By better understanding nature and science, I can better appreciate how brilliantly everything falls together. Surely this must be the hand of God.”</p>

<p>Dmk,
Well said, as long as we understand that “Wow” and “this must be the hand of God” are merely logical impressions and that patterns amount to convincing evidence without a conclusion being drawn as to the source of the pattern;</p>

<p>Inferring God requires an evidence of a different, though legitimate, source. It is a matter of conscience and faith.</p>

<p>Design, however, is a very real scientific concept which only dogmatists reject out of hand.</p>

639

<p>Just a few observations. First, it must be acknowledged that intelligent design theory starkly contridicts the literal Biblical creation story. Second, while Darwinian evolution seems to be a valid theory in explaining adaptive changes in species, there are huge gaps in the fossil records necessary to adequately explain the evolution of life from the simple lifeforms to the complex plant and animal lifeforms. The fossil record also establishes a hugh acceleration in the development of complex lifeforms, far beyond the rate which evolution theory can adequately explain. </p>

<p>So how can these problems be reconciled? Perhaps they cannont be scientifically be reconciled but shouldn’t students at least be introduced to them, even if as merely lingering questions? Do teach that Darwinian evolution adequately explaiins all things seems dishonest as well.</p>

<p>To believe that random processes could produce something as amazingly complex as an eye, an ear, or a brain boggles my mind. To think that these same random processes could then assemble them into a single complex lifeform defies imagination. Something more is involved than mere evolution or the literal Bible poof story.</p>

640

<p><a href=“http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/237499_evo22.html[/url]”>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/237499_evo22.html&lt;/a&gt;
That was certainly how many people read the Wedge Document, a five-page outline of a five-year plan for the science center that originated as a fund-raising pitch but was soon posted on the Internet by critics. </p>

<p>“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions,” the document says. Among its promises are seminars “to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence that support the faith, as well as to ‘popularize’ our ideas in the broader culture.”</p>

<p>The faith…yep no agenda here</p>