Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

[UCLAri]

<p>bneg,</p>

<p>See, some of us like to have SOURCES for our arguments.</p>

<p>And I don’t have an uncommon definition of science, I have a SCIENTIFC definition of science. I don’t care what the plebes think, I care what science thinks.</p>

[VirginiaAlum]

<p>I don’t even know why this is a debate. ID is not science. I cannot understand how people can even believe ID remotely resembles science. This is not even worth discussing or debating. I hear over and over on these conservative shows, especially the ones on a certain cable news channel, that liberals are trying to undermine religion by opposing ID. I think it is the opposite, religion is trying to undermine science.</p>

<p>If the Discovery Institute supports ID, it should no longer be considered a scientific institution - but rather just a political organization.</p>

<p>ID IS NOT SCIENCE. WHEN PEOPLE LOOK BACK AT THIS TIME PERIOD, THEY WILL LOOK AT KANSAS AND DOVER, PA AND ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT ID AS COMPLETE IDIOTS - just like we view the people who thought the Earth was flat.</p>

[poetsheart]

<p>“If a hypothesis cannot be tested in a way which could possibly disprove it, it’s not science.”</p>

<p>I don’t know, Kluge. String Theory, which I find altogether intriguing, cannot be “tested” in any of the ways which science currently has available, but very few people argue that it doesn’t fall within the purview of scientific inquiry. Yes, I realize that string theory is a controversial concept within the physics community, but no one is questioning its validity as a subject of scientific reasoning. </p>

<p>I think the problem with ID is the fact that it has been absolutely hijacked by political agendas on both sides of the debate. Too many proponents of ID are religious conservatives who sulley the waters with their zealot’s ferver that, “God” with a capital “G” be given at least a glancing acknowledgement within their children’s public school science curriculum. They weren’t able to defend their demand that the biblical creation story be taught right along-side Darwinism, so they are grasping for what they see as being the next best thing. They’ve been wrought up about Darwin from the start, believing that the Theory of Evolution is a tool of the Devil himself. I can in no way support their agenda. God, and certainly not god with a capital “G”, has no place in the discussion of ID, other than in stating that there is currently absolutely no scientific way of knowing the nature of the “I” in ID. </p>

<p>But, having said that, I cannot support the fear motivated, panic button approach of many of ID’s opponents. Not surprisingly, their agenda lies at the very opposite end of the spectrum: They are terribly afraid of ANY examination of science that doesn’t dismiss out-of-hand the possibility of a deity-based explaination. In fact many of IDs most fervent opponents are atheists, who not only DON’T believe in God, but are offended by the very concept of “deity” in any of its manifestations, particularly the christian one. They are so horrified by the transparent agenda of the religious right in this debate, that they refuse to truly examine the scientific reasoning behind the concept. They are afraid, and they are deeply offended: two very heightened emotions that essentially disallow dispassionate examination of the concept of ID.</p>

<p>I personally, am NOT particularly invested in the idea of ID becoming part of the standard science curriculum, but as my last post discusses, I WOULD very much like an explanation of how “nature” performs such a seeminly cognitive task as “natural selection”. The fact that the larger scientific community has steadfastly refused to even ask this question of Darwin’s theory is a gapping hole large enough to drive a truck through. ID at least asks the question.
I see no harm in asking science questions such as these. It doesn’t mark one as numbering among those with a not-so-hidden religious agenda.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Natural selection is cognitive? Okay, here’s what happens:</p>

<p>Lame gazelle goes in lion’s tummy. Strong gazelle doesn’t. Strong gazelle has gazelle babies. Repeat process. </p>

<p>Where’s the cognition there?</p>

[TheDad]

<p>The overwhelming majority of Creationists–and “Intelligent Design” is nothing but Creationism with aluminum siding–haven’t the foggiest idea of what a Miller apparatus is, the experiment it is/was used for, and what is produced as a result, and what the significance of this is. </p>

<p>Nor are they aware that virtually every atom currently existing in our bodies was produced in the core of a Population I star and was dispersed into the void when said star went nova. Throw in some research with cellular automata on the side.</p>

<p>The fact that every dot of evolution can not be precisely filled in doesn’t mean that the line(s) of development are not clear. Moreover, said lines are subject to being filled in even further with additional study and research.</p>

[weenie]

<p>And yet Bush talks of the bird flu virus as MUTATING to infect humans…</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>Thedad, Kluge, Digmedia, et al, </p>

<p>At one time in North America, during the first half of the 20th century, the working end of Darwinism was called eugenics. It offered a cornucopia of ideas to respectable racists and their racial “cures” for what ailed mankind. The “science” had a rather popular run and even had some wondrous “practical” applications in their brave new world: “the future is unwritten,” they were heard to say.</p>

<p>Darwinian eugenics offered these fellows a breath of fresh air. The theories themselves were brought to fruition by Charles Darwin’s practical cousin, Francis Galton with Darwin’s encouragement and moral and intellectual support; at the time, eugenics was considered to be the logical and practical consequence of Darwinian Evolution—the glory days…it wasn’t just for “egg-heads” anymore.</p>

<p>[Similarly, the “science” behind those who believed the world to be flat also applied their theory, though I’m not so sure they did it with such a sense of zeal or mission. This view of the earth had practical implications that played a part in peoples day to day lives and observations (for the record, this was a “scientific” theory simply reaffirmed by the philosophy of the day which, incidentally, was composed from top to bottom of people whose view of the universe expanded into metaphysics: you know, belief in god. The “proofs” for this theory were offered through the best experimentation of the day—“the scientific method” such as it existed at the time, not theology; theology merely affirmed, it did not propose or innovate the science of earthly flatness; just as sociology and secularism affirm and endorse the current “science” and work diligently through its consequences: endorsed, not innovated).]</p>

<p>Here’s a little synopsis, from a “liberal” source-- <a href=“http://www.facinghistorycampus.org/[/url]”>http://www.facinghistorycampus.org/&lt;/a&gt;, of the working-end of Darwinism and the happy campers it gave license to in eugenics during the first half of the 20th century (some posting here may have been alive during this time, but probably not during the reign of “earthly-flatness" that so worries them). There were, of course, those who opposed it, like William Jennings Bryant, but they were universally dismissed as being reactionary and superstitious, buffoons really, obstructing “progress” and “the future”:</p>

<p>

By 1900, writes historian Page Smith, Darwin’s theory “colors the way social
classes view themselves and, more important, the way they view other classes.
It affects attitudes toward other races . . . especially American Indians, blacks,
[East Asians], all of whom are generally viewed as representing lower stages of
evolutionary development. It is taken by some Americans, generally wealthy and
‘successful,’ as confirming the model of competitive individualism and thereby
justifying capitalism, and it is taken by many others as anticipating socialism as
a higher and more humane form of political and economic organization. It
divides clerics and professors of philosophy, natural scientists and ‘social scientists,’
husbands and wives, parents and children.”

</p>

<p>

In time, some thinkers came to believe that evolution could do more than
explain physical and social differences. It could be used to “improve the race”
through eugenics—a new branch of scientific inquiry developed by Darwin’s
cousin, Francis Galton. He claimed that eugenics would “raise the present miserably
low standard of the human race” by “breeding the best with the best.” At
another time, that idea might have been dismissed or ignored. In the early
1900s, many people found it appealing. What attracted them to eugenics? Was
it “good science” or, as Frederick Douglass once argued, another example of scientists
“sacrificing what is true to what is popular.

1. The Rise of Industrial America by Page Smith. McGraw-Hill, 1984, p. xiii.

<a href=“http://www.facinghistorycampus.org/Campus/reslib.nsf/80008d40234fcbf985256f790074caaa/2d9cb93da4291b8485256f8d005b4e77/$FILE/R&M%20Chapter%203.pdf”>http://www.facinghistorycampus.org/Campus/reslib.nsf/80008d40234fcbf985256f790074caaa/2d9cb93da4291b8485256f8d005b4e77/$FILE/R&M%20Chapter%203.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Darwinian eugenics also offered some rather innovative and brutal “cures” for homosexuality that I think many here would find distasteful, to say the least (in case the racial component just isn’t not enough to get your blood boiling). </p>

<p>There were those who opposed it; you know, the usual suspects in the religious crowd, but it wasn’t until the revelations of the Nazis shamed these brave new worldites that a rethinking of what they had done retrospectively occurred to them; admittedly, it was more “look at those evil Nazis” than “what have we done”, but the consequence was the same and eugenics was driven out of scientific fashion (but wait, perhaps “genetic engineering” is just eugenics “with aluminum siding”…hmmm, what do you think, thedad?) .</p>

<p>Darwinism is still socially engineering things today, although it has less to do with race (only inasmuch as most racial minorities seem to need tradition and religion to work through their lives) and more to do with certain social groups and their retrograde “superstitions”, i.e. their most deeply held moral, ethical and cosmological beliefs—you know, the components of the self that buttresses their being against the machinations of their “betters”.</p>

<p>Well, you go get ‘em boys…though I see from your posts that you need no encouragement in this “scientific” pastime of yours.
The Brave New World is always just around the corner!</p>

[dmd77]

<p>FF: would you ban all physics because it was used to make the atomic bomb? Would you ban all medicine because torturers use it to make things worse?</p>

<p>Eugenics was a bastardization of Darwin’s theories.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>dmd,</p>

<p>Eugenics does not reflect on “biology” as the Atom bomb does not reflect on Physics. Rather, the Atomic Bomb reflects on the practical implications and uses of Nuclear fusion and Eugenics reflects on the practical implications and uses of Darwinian evolution. </p>

<p>Apparently many here think that a once-upon-a-time belief that the world was flat reflects on the veracity of Religion, or more specifically Christianity—I believe you have made just such a comment yourself—and atheists will not go long without sarcastically and erroneously blurting out this non sequitur in any discussion of religion or Christianity.</p>

<p>Moreover, is “bastardization” a scientific term?</p>

<p>Isn’t the history, and aren’t the practical outcomes, errors and corrections of scientific theories relevant to a discussion of science? Should it be dismissed as irrelevant and called a “bastardization” by the Darwinian true-believers or should it represent a cautionary tale for the future of science? …a factor, when considering social policy? </p>

<p>Remember, public education is social policy, not science. Science is taught, but that it is taught is social policy, as is what will be taught (there are some very scary racial implications coming out of “embryonic evolution” having to do with the expression of gene traits, it will be interesting to see how the social policy of scientific education deals with the “racial” implications of this bombshell).</p>

<p>Meanwhile, the religious people of the day vehemently opposed eugenics while the true-believers in Darwinism dismissed their stump-jumping critics as troglodytes and made a mockery of them (as shown in the media portrayals of the Scopes “Monkey” Trials—“Inherit the Wind” comes to mind, it’s required reading in many high schools, including the one I attended…wonder why?). Some things never chage. Consider how the people in this thread who support the idea of design have been refered to by those who plow ahead into their utopia.</p>

<p>History shows that in darwinian eugenics one view was morally right and the other was in very serious moral error: mortal error for too many innocents.</p>

<p>Eugenics is now a shame on the history of Darwinism (but not necessarily on evolutionary theory). This is especially true, since the theories of science are so often presented as pure theory and above “good and evil” and social policy and by implication, moral critique. The fox is in the hen house.</p>

[wesam88]

<p>FountainSiren,</p>

<p>Are you saying that evolution shouldn’t be taught just because it was misused a century ago? I think the history of religion is much darker than that of evolution. What about the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades? What about terrorists? All of their actions were in the name of religion. Also, you seem to have forgotten some of the less “evil” practical apllications of the understanding of evolution. It is an essential tool in the fight against mutating bacteria and viruses; and against hereditary deseases. I’m sure there are many other uses that I can’t think of at the moment. We would not stand a chance against bird flu if we did not understand evolution. So, I don’t think your dimissal of evolution as a useless theory that has only brought evil to the world is justified.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>Wesam88,</p>

<p>It is probably too much to ask, but I would suggest you actually look through a couple of my posts. I have repeatedly stated that I support the teaching of evolution with a few caveats, addressed in the posts above.
The process of evolution, to me, seems near indisputable.
Darwinism holds no such credibility.</p>

<p>The question is, is there nothing more?</p>

<p>No design…at all.
No intelligence either behind the process or in the process.
No regard for the tradition held to by the bulk of America when determining the public policy of education.
No caution when teaching Darwinism (as distinguished from the actual scientific processes of both mutation and natural selection).
No caution when presenting aspects of Darwinism as indisputable and established fact when this is not the case, even amongst the parsing of theorists themselves (Gould, Dawkins, Wilson et al).
No attention to major inconsistencies and gaps in both the fossil and genetic record.
No tolerance for the religious cultural beliefs of students and their curiosities (which I believe, more than anything else, deadens real interest in science on the part of many students).</p>

<p>It goes on. But the orthodox priesthood is entrenched and see bigger game in this debate.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>

We would not stand a chance against bird flu if we did not understand evolution.

I believe you mean “genetics”.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Evolution as well. Understanding how viruses evolve is key to combatting them.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>Not Darwinian evolution, but rather Wright, Haldane’s and Fisher’s genetic revolution. Genetics were unknown to Darwin and were no part of natural selection, as defined by Darwin and his followers.</p>

<p>Genetics is, as they say, stand alone and will still be standing no matter how Darwinian Evolution is defined now, or in the future.</p>

[bneg]

<p>why has this page suddenly become so wide??!!! </p>

<p>UCLAri, I like your definition, and i think they should make that definition clear to science students since one needs to have great insight to understand that definition (i am serious, so please stop being so hostile). and the sources - all i meant is that i don’t understand these things. so instead of just posting a link to a bunch of info please just point out where i’m wrong (notice that i used a question mark in my first post; i am open to correction and i show it!)</p>

<p>Virginiaalum， the news is not a scientific source, not is the debate going on between POLITICAL parties going to affect the nature of ID. would you like to try some books instead, as previously suggested two pages ago???</p>

<p>“The overwhelming majority of Creationists–and “Intelligent Design” is nothing but Creationism with aluminum siding”</p>

<p>wee-woo, wee-woo, this statement’s been used over and over again as an unsuccessful argument on this thread. so please, would people read at least a few pages for a thread with like nearly 50 pages???</p>

<p>fountainsiren, do you feel the triplets are emerging again??? ^_^lll</p>

<p>and as with evolution, most of us realize that it has to do with the changing of life forms over time. So when ID is about the origin of the universe, proving evolution to be right does not prove ID wrong. and wee-woo wee-woo i thought this had already been addressed or at least implied, again, in this thread. </p>

<p>it is so nice of everyone to come here and join us in expressing their opinions!!! but before we’re going to use our opinion’s to attack other’s opinions we should at least check out whether or not 1.it is relevant to the thread, 2.that it has already been used and deemed successful or unsuccessful. this way we can move on to more interesting discussions instead of just going around in circles, agreed?</p>

[wesam88]

<p>I’ve only seen vague criticisms of evolution such as “It has gaps” and “It’s just a theory” coming from creationists and IDers. Anyone want to clarify what these problems are? Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. Do you expect a specimen of every species that ever existed to be preserved? Fossilization is extremely rare. </p>

<p>Can you explain what the inconsistencies in the fossil and genetic records are?</p>

[bneg]

<p>fossils/genetic records are really more relevant to life forms changing and not origin of life. So…</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>bneg,</p>

<p>Hostile and forward are very different things. Get used to that about me.</p>

<p>

all i meant is that i don’t understand these things.

</p>

<p>No offense man, but if you don’t understand the most basic evolutionary concepts, why are you debating evolutionary issues?</p>

[TheDad]

<p>FS, the appropriation of some readings of Darwinism by crackpots does not invalidate Darwinism. </p>

<p>And I wouldn’t attempt to separate out genetics. Among other things, genetics is a tool for understanding and tracking evolution.</p>

<p>Bneg, apparently it can’t be stated enough that ID is Creationism with aluminum siding; as a scientific theory, it’s crackpot and deserves to have a bright light shining on it as to what it really is…a refugee from certain religious beliefs seeking respectability as part of Science.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>

I’ve only seen vague criticisms of evolution such as “It has gaps” and “It’s just a theory” coming from creationists and IDers. Anyone want to clarify what these problems are?

Happy to!</p>

<p>Even better, I will refer only to the proponents of Evolution and Darwinism:</p>

<p>Niles Elderidge:

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff flakes yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When do we see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot ever be going on somewhere else

“Re-Inventing Darwin, 1995, p.95</p>

<p>STEPHEN GOULD

"…one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so called Cambrian explosion…during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record.

RICHARD DAWKINS

And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists…the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation…", THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, 1986, p229-230

[I found Dennett’s following remarks instructive of many of you who feel children should be taught “real” science, or else! It is part of his “forced ideas of conversion.”]</p>

<p>Daniel C Dennett:

If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods-- that the earth is flat, that “Man” is not a product of evolution by natural selection–then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being–the well-being of all of us on the planet–depends on the education of our descendants.

I would also suggest a reading of this review of Daniel C Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” in The New Criterion: <a href=“http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/dennett.htm[/url]”>http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/dennett.htm&lt;/a&gt;
…………does that help?</p>