<p>Darwin himself heard just such proclamations from the dogmatic orthodoxy of his day…he persevered in the face of it so as to be part of the debate. </p>
<p>Though a minority, there are much respected scientists who hold that there is a design in the universe, many are currently members of the National Academy of Science and many others have been Nobel Prize winners (I have posted extensive lists in the past, along with the testimonials of said scientists). </p>
<p>Kluge, the only thing you have to fear is fear itself…and the views of the majority of your fellow democrats [at least in a democracy, you do].</p>
<p>there have been very intelligent people who beleive in all sorts of things
Piltdown man- fairies-Ramtha…that an african prince in exile wants to transfer his money into their account
Testimony from someone who believes that Intelligent design should be taught as science in schools, even if said person is highly esteemed in their field doesn’t sway me.
I know people who very well could be nominated for Nobles in the next 20 years, who are very esteemed and highly intelligent but sometimes their judgement ( or lack of) really blows my mind.
Intelligence doesnt’ go hand in hand with common sense</p>
<p>Majority rule does not work in science. That should make you happy FountainSiren, since the majority of scientists and American adults don’t buy your product.</p>
<p>Using Darwins theory other scientists have made predictions about the existance of fossils before they were actually found. Intelligent design offers no such predictive quality. Neither does my panda story.</p>
<p>I was just on the top of the highest navigable road in washington state- Slate Peak over 7,000 ft- scariest thing I ever did in my life( I had to get someone else to drive me back down)- we found fossils of seashells on top- so I wonder how would intelligent design explain that?
Were they put there to test faith?</p>
<p>Why would that test the ‘faith’ of someone who finds Intelligent Design to be a viable explanation of life?
I’m not sure you understand the difference between ID and Creationism.</p>
<p>Let me help. Einstein believed that there was design in the universe and that the universe’s existence was not a matter of chance. He, however, did not believe in the creation stories of any monotheistic or polytheistic tradition.</p>
<p>So I could rephrase your question thus:</p>
<p>Would these fossils put Einsteins opinion that there is design and not chance in the universe to the test?
I think he would endure the existence of the fossils, the mountain and the ridicule of all those here who would feel the need to demean and ridicule the beliefs of those who disagree with them including Einstein. </p>
<p>There are, on the other hand, those who believe in a specific explanation of a creation. I would agree that these beliefs are not science, and have no explanatory value in a science class., and that, your experience on the mountaintop might trouble them, but Im not even sure of that.</p>
<p>That is very clever FountainSiren, trying to have a dead scientist on your side, except that Einstein probably would have not suggested that his religious or spiritual observations be taught in a science class. And if he did suggest it he would have been wrong about that.</p>
<p>(an aside)How is college going for you? Is it what you imagined it would be like?</p>
<p>Do you think the world was created in six days?</p>
<p>1) You’re wrong about Einstein and there are a number of living Nobel winners who have an even more pronouced view in favor of ID in addition to members of the National Academy of Science who favor ID.
2) I love it. I’m writing for the Dartmouth Review (2 articles publishedone on the Israeli/Palestinian question and one brief week-in-review article on euthanasia titled Suffer or Die), I’m working on a research internship in infectious diseases and I have a weekly radio show on the Dartmouth run radio station. Im currently working on an article on Intelligent Design for the Review.
3) As an article of faith, Sufis have no position one way or another about the creation stories. They do, however, believe that the universe has reason, meaning and purpose–like most people do.</p>
<p>Fountain, I don’t fear fear. I do worry about sophistry cleverly packaged as wisdom and peddled to the public as grounds for reinforcing irrational fear of critical analysis and scientific investigation. Why are you so determined to have an untestable belief labelled as “science”? Is it not enough to teach it as a philosophical musing, and let actual science be taught in science classes?</p>
<p>FountainSiren, I was wrong about my perception that most Americans agreed with evolution. CBS poll (sorry not link) 51 percent of Americans think that God put humans on earth as is. People, not some evolutionary progression from apes. What do you think of that?</p>
<p>(an aside) keep up the good work at school…proud to argue with you</p>
<p>Looking through the fog of ideas and calumny here I occasionally glimpse a light of kindness and it has been my experience that you are, oftentimes, in the distance shining that light.
Thanks, that was an unexpected and kind thing to say,</p>
<p>Ah, yes, FountainSiren, I see you’ve studied Martin Luther’s ninety-sixth thesis, the one which sets forth the profound significance of : “I know you are but what am I?” (Or in the original Latin: Neener, neener, neener.")</p>
<p>Kluge, you are simply too witty!
One-upping Luther by adding another thesis, to the 95 theses he penned himselfthe 96th Thesis! Though perhaps puerile in content Im sure you singular amendment to the original 95 Theses in Luthers opening salvo has proved to be quite a tool in your nimble hands when applied to your own theology, metaphysics, practice of law and, for all I know, romantic encounters. </p>
<p>However, I had intended to be understood not so much in the wisdom of your 96th thesis but more in the spirit of the words of the One Luthers theses refer to, Jesus:
Although, your witty-ditty likely has greater currency in the courtroom, I am more of a traditional galand Id like to be a physician myself someday.</p>
<p>I would have used an analogy more appropriate to the essence of the art you actually practice but I was a bit put off by it when I realized I would be limited to Lawyer, screw yourself;)
It’s less therapeutic, potentially offensive and beyond the pale it seems.</p>
<p>Are you sure that wasn’t the 11th commandment you are quoting?</p>
<p>I found this interesting?
</p>
<p>Do you think colleges like Dartmouth will start rejecting applicants from Kansas because they received a faulty education? What would happen if the Ivy League colleges issued a statement that graduates from Kansas public schools would have to supplement their science education with a “valid” program?</p>
<p>Recent events: The Dover Area school board wants to include a statement regarding Intelligent design, and some families don’t want it included in the ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. I noticed they got a professor for Idaho to defend the school board position, but Jimmy Carter’s comments make more sense to me.
<p>This month’s issue of the American Museum of Natural History’s magazine is devoted to the subject of evolution, and is absolutely fascinating, as well as well-written.</p>
<p>I have a question for all the people who support Intelligent Design being taught in our schools,</p>
<p>Would you also accept every other theory that tries to explain the origin of life be taught in our schools - such as the creation “theories” from other religions?</p>
<p>It is completely wrong to think that teaching Intelligent Design will not undermine our nation’s ability to stay competitive intellectually and economically with the rest of the world. The ban on stem-cell research, etc. will put this nation many years behind other countries in this industry.</p>
<p>When I was a kid my first two magazine subscriptions were National Geographic and Popular Science (I am still waiting for the flying cars they predicted.) I know that Popular Science is not Scientific American, but i was surprised to see it has listed teaching science in Kansas as #3 in its list of top ten worst science jobs.</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>It comes between #2 Manure Inspector and #4 Extremophile Excavator
Number one worse job in Science? Human lab rat.</p>
<p>The article says some colleges (med schools) are scrutinizing the science education that Kansas students get. Well they can always go to a good bible college.</p>
<p>It would probably be way too much to ask of the middle-brow dogmatist, but their critiques, such as they are, would be so much more effective if they were accompanied by even a modicum of intellectual honesty and vigor: most especially when they speak with the condescending voice reserved to experts. </p>
<p>Clearly, the mass of those venting and ranting against design in science havent the slightest idea of what it is that they so despise; but of course, bigotry is always concocted out of just such a mixture of hatred and ignorance, its axiomatic.</p>
<p>Here, I suspect it involves a cruel resentment and a desperate need to hold to the proposition that there is no greater authority in this universe than that possessed by a PhD.</p>
<p>Remarkably, like a broken clock, anyone of those posting has the potential to be adventitiously right; that is, it may be that there is no design in the universe and by extension biological life could be non-causal (or Darwinism could meet a similar fate to those two other notable 19th century isms, Freudianism and Marxismdont bet the rent but Id put my pocket money on this one).</p>
<p>Unfortunately, none of those posting seems to have even the slightest familiarity with the scientific concepts involved in the latest research in design, particularly in cell biology (amazingly, few even show signs of a working-knowledge of their own dogma: neo-Darwinism) and therefore are limited by their scope to doing nothing more than spewing out cartoon-ish, though nonetheless vitriolic, slogans of hate and intolerance, or simply rephrasing what they think they heard on NPR (which amounts to more of the same) to cheer the team on from the sidelines. In a nasty turn of phrase, they resort to the last refuge of a scoundrel, and had Shaw got his malediction right the first time he would have christened the rogues refuge, simply and appropriately, the dogmatism of the day.</p>
<p>FS: you seem to have resorted yourself to the last refuge in an argument: attacking the other side. </p>
<p>I have a BS in biochemistry and a hobbyist’s passion for marine biology. I certainly follow developments throughout biology and have read both Gould’s weighty (5-pound) tome on evolution and Mayr’s What is Evolution? I recommend them both to you. </p>
<p>I have no problem with the philosophy of intelligent design (it’s not a scientific theory, not being testable), but I cannot advocate for its teaching in a science class. Why not? It has nothing to do with its soundness–but it does not belong in science class. Where would you stop? If we add ID to the science curriculum, do we also add other belief systems? Say the Navajo one, in Arizona schools? The Hawaiian one, in Hawaii schools? </p>
<p>OTOH, I’d love to see the schools add a comparative religions course. What a chance for students to learn about other cultures, other creation stories, and how religion affects day-to-day life! When my children attended their private Episcopalian high schools, they both had to take such a course: an eye-opener for both of them!</p>
