Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
881

<p>UCLAri, when i said i don’t understand these things I am talking about the reverse logic thing that black penguin was talking about and NOT evolution. Although I’m not going to claim that I am an expert, I will ask you to read more carefully next time!</p>

<p>And for your information we are not debating evolutionary issues, or i don’t intend to. like i said, proving evolution right doesn’t prove ID wrong. and i have posted that as well. you’re not forward, you’re just too busy to read the post of others before you make an attack. </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>

<p>wee-woo TheDad, wee-woo theDad, elaborating doesn’t make a statement a valid attack or reasoning. If you’re going to spit out fancy stuff like that, back it up. you’re just spitting out your belief, your theory, your faith. And no offense, theDad, your faith is not reasoning nor evidence.</p>

<p>can we move on to something constructive now???</p>

882

<p>FountainSiren, post 832:

FountainSIren, post 867:

</p>

<p>Ergo, FountainSiren favors eugenics, right?</p>

<p>Well, no. But then, neither do 99.99% of the people who think Darwin has a better explanation of the world than FS’s favored theoreticians. So why attempt to attack Darwin’s theories by bringing up the banal evil of a few bad people? It’s no more appropriate than to attack a religious person because of the excesses of the Inquisition, and drags the debate down into the “Did not!” “Did too!” level.</p>

<p>Here’s a link to a website which explains common logical fallacies, i.e. arguments which are enticing and seem to be on point, but which are actually dishonest and not probative of the opinion being advanced: <a href=“http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm[/url]”>http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;
There are a lot of intelligent people posting on this site and on this thread, but it is depressing to see the topic veer off into mudslinging.</p>

883

<p>FountainSiren,</p>

<p>Since fossilization is so rare, the fossil records will have gaps and evolution will appear sudden. But that’s just because none of the intermediates were fossilized. Studies of modern populations and incipient species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area. The population genetics of small populations allow this new species to evolve relatively quickly. Its evolution may allow it to spread into new geographical areas. Since the actual transitions occur relatively quickly and in a relatively small area, the transitions do not often show up in the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record often simply reflects that an existing species moved into a new region.</p>

<p>Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record. And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.</p>

<p>I agree with Dennet - I found his remark kind of funny too.<br>
“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”</p>

<p>I have to admit that I am impressed. You are the first person who has offered anything even remotely like evidence to support your stance.</p>

884

<p>I am late to this discussion and cannot go back and read all of what has previously been stated. But from what I have gathered, there are two issues here, one involving the separation of church and state, and the second regarding who sets public school curriculum and how that curriculum should be determined.</p>

<p>The Consitution states, in part, that the Government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So to the extent we are all talking about creationism, I think that it has no place in the science curriculum of public schools. ( By public schools, I am talking about a K-12 curriculum.) To do so, in my opinion, would be tantamount to the government establishing religion. At the same time, parents, churches, friends, groups, etc. are not prohibited from teaching it in venues outside of public schools. Further, kids aren’t prohibited from discussing their religious beliefs with others while they are in public schools (or other public venues). And parents aren’t required to send their children to public school. They can send their children to private or religious schools or home school their children. </p>

<p>Then comes the factual question about whether ID is creationism thinly disguised. I’m not conversant with how, in a substantive sense, ID differs from creationism. But as I understand the Dover case, the parents fighting against ID allege that it is a new label put on creationism (which if true, gets back to the problem of the constitutional prohibition). I thought I read that the group sponsoring/financing the ID side was recently an organization advocating for creationism in the public schools but now has changed its name. Didn’t I also read that the book to be used in schools,“Panda (something)”, originally was about creationism and now reads “ID” in place of “creationism?” [Not sure of these facts.]</p>

<p>As I see it, in contrast to the constitutional issue, is the question of who sets the curriculum (be it science, math, history, etc.), and how those in charge go about deciding what should be taught in each grade and how it should be taught. That is where the discussion of whether evolution is established science and should be taught in public schools, or whether, assuming ID is not religion in disguise, it is established science and should be brought into the public school K-12 science curriculum. </p>

<p>I am not a scientist, so I cannot speak to any of the claims about science flying back and forth earlier in this discussion.</p>

885

<p>bneg, I know you’re sincere here, and I am trying to explain what I’m saying as clearly as I can. As to BlackPenguin’s comment, it related to this:

</p>

<p>Your second statement was not correct. Saying “If it can’t be disproved” is not the same thing as saying “If it can be proved”. Newton’s Laws can be proved - in the everyday world - because they work there. But they can also be disproved - and later were, when new theories based on further observations caused later scientists to create new experiments to test Newton’s laws to see if they applied in circumstances beyond the everyday limits of size and speed that we are used to. The ability to disprove something is inherent in things that are part of science. If a theory is based on science, that means you can create an experiment which, if your theory is wrong, will yield a result which conflicts with the theory - that is what “can be disproved” means. Now some scientific theories (like string theory) are based on concepts so far removed from everyday life that we don’t yet have the physical ability to craft an experiment that will disprove them if they are wrong. But that’s just a practical (and temporary) problem. Just because we don’t have the ability to disprove them right now doesn’t mean that we won’t ever have that ability. Most of the experiments which “disprove” Newton’s laws were not possible in Newton’s time.</p>

<p>Now turn to ID. We’ve heard a lot of comments about where ID “begins”. The Big Bang? The creation of life? Genesis? Ten seconds ago? Whichever point you want to use as the “design point” doesn’t really matter. Intelligent Design necessarily includes the possibility that the Intelligent Designer designed the universe in such a manner as to exactly mimic a universe which wasn’t designed. That is - if it’s Designed, there’s no way to disprove that fact, because a non-Designed universe is indistiguishable from a Designed one.</p>

<p>And that’s why ID isn’t science. I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m not saying it’s evil, I’m not saying it’s the last refuge of scoundrels. I’m just saying it’s “not science”. And that’s why it shouldn’t be taught in science class. (Aside from all the political overtones, of course.)</p>

<p>ID is metaphysics - “beyond science”. And contemplating metaphysics is a great thing to do. (I do it all the time. My kids think I’m weird.) Discussing metaphysics in school is a great idea, too, although many high school students are not going to be active and enthusiastic participants in such a discussion unless it’s very well presented. But injecting that discussion into science class just obscures the difference betwee science and “not science” - and that is a bad thing. Because science is a very useful tool, and needs to be handled as such.</p>

886

<p>ah, so what you’re saying is that for something to be classified as science, it has to be 1.proved, 2.disproved??? That is sure alot more clear than the diagrams from wikipedia, and thanks for that. </p>

<p>"But injecting that discussion (metaphysics) into science class just obscures the difference betwee science and “not science”</p>

<p>totally agree with that. and i think that when evolutionists use their theory to extrapolate that life on earth must have been formed from inorganic objects (which doesn’t oppose ID) on it’s own and therefore deny the existence of a higher intelligence, I think that is exactly “injecting that discussion (metaphysics) into science class” and therefore it is not beneficial, would you agree?? </p>

<p>that is exactly what ID supporters are opposing, so (i’m not trying to bribe you to join forces or something), but I think we both agree that evolution extrapolating there is no higher intelligence is no good for the students. and we should clear up that misconception through 1.ensuring all teachers get that message across clearly without any sarcasm nor attitude of “bush is making me do this”, or 2…forget about clearing up the misconception and just teach something to counter-balance it. I am more inclined to 2 (though it may not be as effective nor appropriate as 1), because i don’t really have confidence in 1 especially when personal political/religious beliefs collide there really isn’t a consistency in the messages every students will receive…</p>

887

<p>

</p>

<p>Very well said, bneg! Several of us said something similar 800+ posts ago, but such is life at the CC parents forum…some here have evolved with extremely thick skulls, and fail to see that their knee-jerk demand for secularism is the mirror image of the creationism they so deplore–or that ID isn’t synonymous with creationism, anyway. Repetition hasn’t worked so far, but we can still hope.</p>

888

<p>OK, bneg, I’m getting frustrated now. I’m not going to lash out at you, because I don’t think you are deliberately misconstruing what I’m saying. But you are misconstruing what I’m saying in a pretty blatant way.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>To be “science” a theory has to be such that if it is actually wrong, it can be proven wrong by an experiment which yields an answer which is impossible under the theory. That is, is must be capable of being “disproved”. Nothing in science is ever finally “proven” to be The Truth. Experiment after experiment can 'prove" a scientific theory by yielding results which are consistent with the theory, to the point that it becomes a “law.” But to be “science” you have to be able to at least try to disprove it by designing an experiment which, if your theory is not entirely correct, will yield a result which conflicts with the “law.” That is what happened with Newton’s “laws”.</p></li>
<li><p>It is impossible to disprove the existence or actions of a “higher intelligence” by scientific methods. But to make progress in science you have to assume that progress can be made by the scientific method - observe, make a hypothesis, do experiments and make measurements to see if you can generate results which confirm or conflict with the hypothesis, repeat. Since you can’t “test” for the input of a higher intelligence, in order to progress you have to act as though it doesn’t matter if things are Designed or not - because once you decide that any particular aspect of the universe is the way it is because it was Designed to be that way, you’re done as far as science is concerned. Even really smart people in lab coats can’t disprove Design; science can’t explain why the Designer chose to design the Universe one way instead of the other, or even in such a manner as to perfectly imitate a Universe which was not designed - because we can’t create a test which will disprove a false theory as to the Designer’s plan, only false theories about the way things are. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>bneg: I know you want schools to teach ultimate truths: “This is the way it is.” I know you think that schools are teaching that some particular aspect of scientific thought is “The Truth” instead of simply well regarded theories which do explain natural phenomena and have never been dispoved by innumerable experiments and observations. If they are teaching anything in science as The Truth, they shouldn’t be. Science is a process, not a list of Absolute Truths. But your belief that some science teachers are teaching that things which have been confirmed by repeated scientific experimentation are “The Truth” is not an excuse for requiring the teaching of another ultimately untestable belief about what The Truth is in science class. This is not a case where “Two wrongs make a right.”</p>

889

<p>very confused, but i don’t mind. correct me if you like, but here’s the bottom line: not all science teachers have such “clear” definitions of science that you have. “If they are teaching anything in science as The Truth, they shouldn’t be.” And therefore yes, some are. (i use “some” in a most conservative sense). Read through some other posts and you will see that there is a charisma in certain evolutionists that don’t just come from nothing. </p>

<p>“Two wrongs (don’t) make a right.”</p>

<p>i realize that. and i a-gree-DUH, yes, agreeD. and here’s what i HAD to say to that: “and we should clear up that misconception through 1.ensuring all teachers get that message across clearly without any sarcasm nor attitude of “bush is making me do this”, or 2…forget about clearing up the misconception and just teach something to counter-balance it. I am more inclined to 2 (though it may not be as effective NOR (emphasis added) appropriate as 1), because i don’t really have confidence in 1 especially when personal political/religious beliefs collide there really isn’t a consistency in the messages every students will receive…”</p>

890

<p>

</p>

<p>bneg, can anything ever oppose ID?</p>

891

<p>yes, “(which doesn’t oppose ID) on it’s own and therefore ‘deny the existence of a higher intelligence’” </p>

<p>you almost got there!</p>

892

<p>

</p>

<p>I couldn’t disagree more. They “did too!” I think the excesses of the inquisition are very revealing of the church/state relationship that existed in the 15th and 16th centuries. I also believe the Christian response to these excesses is very revealing and often quite sad. It certainly revealed great flaws in the fabric of the Catholic Church. I am for more knowledge and analysis, not less; more openness and accountability, not less. I believe it aids the truth, it does not hinder it. </p>

<p>The Darwinists of the day defended their scientific hegemony at that time against good humanitarians (largely people of faith) in a not dissimilar absolutist way to the way you do now—eugenics was consider a validation of Darwinism! It was not a few waco’s. They did too!</p>

<p>Moreover, unless you mean “banal evil” (when speaking of the crimes against humanity committed by the eugenicist and morally supported by Darwinists in general) in the sense that Hannah Arendt used the term when referring to the atrocities committed against the Jews, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses etc, by the NAZIS and Eichmann in particular (“the banality of evil”), I question your historical judgment</p>

<p>And really, it was not merely “a few bad people”, history shows that among many others, the Darwinist cognoscenti and Darwin himself supported his cousin in his eugenicists theories and endeavors. Again, they “did too.”</p>

<p>As I said earlier,

</p>

893

<p>The Inquisition does not affect my opinion of the validity of the teachings of Christ. Hitler was (reportedly) a vegetarian. That does not affect my opinion of the merits of vegetarianism. Many bad people have justified their behavior by claiming it to be mandated by patriotism, religion, etc. That doesn’t mean that love of country or religious beliefs themselves are to blame. You present a classic ad hominem argument. “Bad people believe in X, therefore X is wrong.” It’s a common fallacy. But it’s still a phony argument.</p>

894

<p>Bneg, I’d rather discuss this with a brick wall than you…the brick wall has a better chance of understanding. Evolution is consistent with observable science; the fact that explanations are incomplete does not invalidate it. See the scientific meaning of the word “theory.”</p>

<p>ID is not rooted in scientific observation. It’s a religiously based flim-flam. “Golly, this here life form is pretty complicated, someone must have designed it.” The “watch” metaphor so widely used by ID proponents doesn’t hold water. Now if a bunch of far-gone goobers want to believe in intelligent design, that’s their privilege. The privilege they don’t have is inflicting it in schools or using my tax dollars to teach it.</p>

895

<p>I’m sorry guys but every time i see this thread on the front page I have to laugh …seeing the words Bush and Intelligent in the same line.</p>

896

<p>Pat Robertson says that the people of Dover have voted God out of their district…I didn’t think you could do that! I learn something new every day!</p>

897

<p>TheDad,
You are quite free to reject ID without really understanding it; that is your right. However, as a Stanford graduate and a believer in ID, I do not appreciate being called a “far-gone goober.” If you must resort to name-calling to make your arguments, they must be pretty weak.</p>

898

<p>I stand by my position. ID isn’t an intellectual position, it’s a sheep in sheep’s clothing and is about as valid as astrology. Many people are passionate in their belief about astrology…which has just as much of a scientific underpinning as ID. You believe in it? Fine. But that does not compel anyone to respect your position.</p>

899

<p>TheDad,
I believe it is possible to disagree without insulting the people with whom you disagree.</p>

900

<p>I’m beginning to think that TheDad and a few others here are Smithsonian employees. Why? Well, read this NPR piece…we report, you decide.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508[/url]”>Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom : NPR;

<p>Be sure to read the report of the special counsel who investigated Dr. Sternberg’s complaint. You will see much of the nasty, overheated rhetoric employed by the anti-ID fanatics in this thread. It’s rather amazing the lengths these “free thinkers” went to to destroy a man who only dared to mention ID–He didn’t even believe in it himself. <a href=“http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm[/url]”>http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;