Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
921

<p>I don’t see how what Susantm and driver are talking doesn’t fall under Theistic evolution (<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_creationism[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_creationism&lt;/a&gt; - I know bneg, I’m a bad, bad man). If you believe in God, then you can see the natural laws of our universe as a extension of God’s creative will. And if the scientific evolutionary theory explains our existence through natural laws, then we can be considered products of God’s will through those constraints. This is a philosophy that just shows how evolutionary theory is religiously-neutral and can work with people who believe in God and people who don’t. I really wouldn’t care if kids were taught the idea of this as a philosophical concept to unite religion with sound science.</p>

<p>Where Intelligent Design differs drastically from that is that it insists that life as we know it CANNOT exist without direct interruption by some supernatural power. In otherwords, randomness and the natural laws (even if they are to be seen as products of God) of our universe are insufficient and so God has pop off from clouds and do His thing. From theological point, I find it ridiculious that God has to do a run-around against His own natural laws to create life. From a scientific point, it is plainly isn’t science to propose a theory that can only work with supernatural powers (that would be like saying MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC to explain everything we see). It doesn’t improve our understanding of our world, which is what science is supposed to do; it basically just enables literal creationists to insert their agenda where it patently doesn’t belong. If you look at who is funding Discovery Institute, it is blindly obvious that this is what ID is attempting to accomplish (see “the Wedge” memo), and why it deserves the scorn it is receiving. I don’t believe ID even accepts the most basic idea that species can evolve, which is why it has such generous support from fundamentalist churches.</p>

<p>Lastly here is a direct quote from the preminent ID textbook “Of Pandas and People”:

Please explain again how ID isn’t a very poor attempt to repackage creationism.</p>

922

<p>Driver, you are so funny!!!</p>

<p>I feel like i’m repeating the same things over and over again - but please note that i am open to more constructive things and that I only repeat when a question or an invalid attack is repeated. </p>

<p>there might be absolutely nothing wrong with life forms being different than it was in the beginning of time. BUT going from “life forms changed” to “inorganic stuff changing into living stuff” to “everything is a random process” to “there can’t be God”, THAT is going way over the line. some may not have this view of evolution on this thread; the point is that some science teachers do. Only when evolution over-extrapolates and touches religion (which science isn’t supposed to do; and so much for being “religiously neutral”) is there a contradiction between ID and evolution. If not, they are very weakly related, and proving evolution right doesn’t prove ID wrong.</p>

<p>So something needs to be done to the science classes to avoid all indirect messages of “there is no creator, no God” or more simply “atheism”. we could: “1.ensure 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>

<p>black penguin, i have one sincere question: when was randomness sufficient to create? or am i misunderstanding: “In otherwords, randomness and the natural laws (even if they are to be seen as products of God) of our universe are insufficient and so God has pop off from clouds and do His thing.”</p>

<p>“(that would be like saying MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC to explain everything we see)”</p>

<p>we are dealing with the origin, not any obersavable thing that we can research everyday, so there’s no point in including the phrase ‘everything we see’ in your argument. And here’s the magic magic magic directly from the Bible (Genesis): God SPOKE to create the world. Now centuries ago people would be like magic magic magic, but now we know that speaking produces sound waves, a form of energy, and energy/matter aren’t really exclusive things. </p>

<p>'It doesn’t improve our understanding of our world"</p>

<p>so the over-extrapolating in the evolution theory is supposed to be the only one that can be taught forever and ever?? THAT is certainly not "improving our understanding of our world. "</p>

<p>“I don’t believe ID even accepts the most basic idea that species can evolve, which is why it has such generous support from fundamentalist churches.”</p>

<p>you don’t “believe”…then why can’t we stand for our so-called beliefs without being disrespected by some people on this thread?? Where is that disrespect coming from??? for some reason i am beginning to suspect that it originates from indirectly teaching an over-extrapolated theory as the one and only “absolute” theory in science class. </p>

<p>TheDad, looking at your posts, i don’t think you have a problem with ID itself, but a deep-rooted disagreement with either the religion or the political party that you associate ID with. Would you mind sharing that with us?? if not, are you just in a very bad mood??? So how are things coming along for TheFamily??</p>

923

<p>thedad,</p>

<p>Keep it up! The distinction you bring to the debate offers clarity and delight to all concerned…</p>

924

<p>BlackPenguin,
Not exactly what I meant. More along the lines of microevolution versus macroevolution–some change over time is obvious. Even Creationists (which I am not) agree with microevolution. The problem comes when random chance is used to explain the origin of ALL life. I just don’t see evidence or logic supporting that. For example, it seems that evolution always (or almost always) begins with very simple and moves toward more complex. And yet any mechanic can tell you that, the more complex something is, the more chance for something to go wrong. Why would natural selection always seem to favor more complexity? Bacteria have been around for a very, very long time and seem to do just fine. So why were more complex living things selected for? The simple bacteria seem to survive better than compex organisms.</p>

<p>I am saying that I do not have an exact idea of how life developed, but want to keep examining the evidence. Perhaps evolution was guided; perhaps some things were created “as is;” perhaps other mechanisms were at work; certainly some form of “change over time” and natural selection took place.</p>

<p>And it simply is not true that looking for evidence of design does nothing to advance our understanding of the world. It does just as much as looking for evidence of randomness. </p>

<p>As said before, I have nothing against evolution taught simply as “change over time.” I do agree with bneg that evolution often seems to become Evolution, going way beyond what evidence shows to an overarching story of creation through randomness for which it does NOT have evidence.</p>

925

<p>Jupiter, Zeus, and Dyeus Phter is nowhere to be seen in the night sky. The mightiest all the zodiac cedes the night to War. Jove only pretends to rule in the daylight with the brightness of the Sun (Self, Ego) to cover his failure, Jove is never seen and if ever seen, he seeks to stay low in the sky and out of sight of Mars, Saturn, and Venus. Mercury having delivered the message to Love, chases Zeus for more messages but is forgotten by the great one. Saturn, patron to Earth, is locked in a classical and prolong struggle with the constellation, Cancer (Water). Leo (Ser,Artan), Gemini, and Hydra looks on at this struggle waiting their time of opportunity. </p>

<p>TD, How am I doing?</p>

926

<p>

</p>

<p>Bacteria, as we know them today, are actually quite complex. Anyone who has taken a contemporary cell biology course knows that.</p>

<p>The fact is, evolution doesn’t select for the most complex, it selects for the fittest. It just happens that bacteria some bacteria are quite fit. I’m sure you’ve heard that some bacteria have evolved to become immune to many antibiotics.</p>

<p>In complex organisms, yes, there is more of a chance of things going wrong. That’s why those animals die (they aren’t fit). Evolution doesn’t occur in groups, it occurs in individuals. That’s what most people seem to overlook.</p>

927

<p>And here’s why looking for evidence of design isn’t scientific:</p>

<p>It’s not falsifiable. </p>

<p>QED.</p>

928

<p>Is spontaneous existence from nothingness any more falsifiable than existence caused by an infinite being? I’ll see your QED and raise you a QNED. I’ve stated the basic, age-old conundrum several times: Can something come from absolute nothing? Or can something have existed forever? Those are the choices.</p>

929

<p>Driver, that’s a quick-step from “creation of life” to “creation of the universe” (one you’ve used before.) ID proponents aren’t interested in the creation of the universe - there’s no current scientific theory to attack there. Geo. Bush - who you keep trying to recreate in a less theistic image - wasn’t talking about having ID studied in Astronomy class - he wanted it presented as an alternative to evolution. The fundamental creation of existence - something from nothing - remains firmly in the realm of metaphysics, as far as I’m concerned. But that’s got nothing to do with the injection of ID into biology class.</p>

<p>And Woodwork - I assume your objection to indelicate posts wasn’t directed at Driver’s characterization of TheDad’s post as

</p>

<p>How about we all try to play nice?</p>

930

<p>

Garbage. Utter, complete hogwash. You show me the evidence for that , Kluge, or stand down. It didn’t happen.

Again, this is nonsense. Where it all came from is what it’s all about. Yes, you can ignore that metaphysical question, admitting that we’ll never know the answer, and just concentrate on what we CAN know. Fine. But don’t use our limited scientific faculties to try and claim that we mere mortals are capable of declaring that there is no God or other force beyond our ken. That just makes you Pat Robertson in reverse.</p>

<p>My characterization of TD’s drooling rage was in direct response to his characterization of people willing to consider the possibility of ID as being like the KKK and Nazis. Don’t talk to me about “playing nice.” I actually like TheDad, when he’s not drooling.</p>

931

<p>Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with God. It has to do with changes in organisms over time.</p>

<p>The problem IDists and creationists don’t understand is that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. That’s a question for the metaphysicists. What science deals with is the observable. We have observed that speciation occurs. We know things evolve. What is so hard to accept about that?</p>

<p>ID is not a theory. It’s a bald-faced attempt to put theism into biological science.</p>

932

<p>BTW, for those of you school board members interested in providing additional warning stickers for science textbooks in time for the next election, a Swarthmore Biology professor has kindly produced this ready-to-print collection of warning stickers, modeled after the Cobb County, GA warning sticker on evolution:</p>

<p><a href=“Colin Purrington » nature photography / natural history / misc”>Colin Purrington » nature photography / natural history / misc;

933

<p>

Look, this is getting tedious. Try to say something worth a response. I completely agree that organisms change over time. I even believe in tectonics. I believe that what we now call the Atlantic Ocean opened and closed at least 30 times over the last 5 Billion years. And that all sorts of changes to the planet, and to the flora and fauna have occurred. These are all fascinating studies, but if you believe that it’s part of a process…a chain…it had to start somewhere. Some people believe that modern science is capable of demonstrating that our existence is a random accident. I call that illogical. Bumper sticker rhetoric doesn’t change that.</p>

934

<p>

</p>

<p>Right back at ya, chief. </p>

<p>Again, that’s a question for the metaphysicists. Not science. Teaching that sort of stuff in a science classroom is bollocks. Everything prior to the Big Bang is up to the priests, rabbis, etc.</p>

935

<p>Oh, Prof. Purrin also has a selection of gifts for biology teachers brave enough to stand up for science in the face of school boards. Included in the collection are:</p>

<p>Body armor. </p>

<p>Great for making presentations to backwards school boards, but light enough for daily use in the classroom. Rated for small arms, crossbow, and stones weighing up to 14 pounds.</p>

<p>Neanderthal skull replica. </p>

<p>Biology teachers love having dead things on their desks, and this heirloom-quality gift is sturdy enough to use as a hallway pass.</p>

936

<p>

Good night, bumpersticker people…talk to you in the a.m.</p>

937

<p>Kluge said:

</p>

<p>driver said:

</p>

<p>Bush said:
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

938

<p>I believe the Nazis and the KKK only came up as examples of what pseudoscience gets you, not as a suggestion that ID proponents run around in bed sheets sprouting German :slight_smile:

It takes a little bit of license to describe that statement as frothing rage.</p>

<p>More importantly however, is that it is 100% spot on.</p>

<p>In the Dover case, the Behe admitted under cross-examination that

  1. ID doesn’t fit the standard definition of science
  2. Behe’s new definition of “science” would include astrology (what’s your sign bneg?) as equally valid “scientific theory”, if not more so.
    <a href=“http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178[/url]”>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>As for bneg’s many questions, I will try to answer a few.</p>

<p>

Well, since when does sound work in vaccum? Morever, you can never “produce” energy. New energy can only come from the transformation of something else, which is a problem in a world of nothing.</p>

<p>And then you complained about “inorganic stuff changing into living stuff,” which I thought was odd since it seems to be one of the few areas of agreement between the creationtist belief and evolution. It’s been a while since I’ve been in church class, but I’m pretty certain Adam was formed out of the earth (“dust of the ground”), which IS inorganic. LOL</p>

<p>And as for how life can come from inorganic molecules in the sciectific view, just see Miller experiment. (Please don’t tell me it’s invalid; the research has varied on what early Earth was like, but the most recent work points to an environment that was EVEN MORE hospitable than Miller’s conditions)</p>

939

<p>

Driver, as I understand her writing, was using a cartoon image that had been previously used to de-legitimize your opponents. You know…the one of the stupid-cave man that “just doesn’t get it “. I found it to be a playful, if barbed, rhetorical flip.</p>

<p>On the other hand, The “Nazis” and the “KKK” are real instances of atrocities committed against people who, to this day, live on amongst us [No one is completely sure how the caveman felt about genocide]. It is an historical part of our modern existence, part of the narrative of our lives. It is facile and degrading to all concerned to use something that cuts so deep into our sense of good and evil, and the line between; to act so cavalierly in describing someone you simply disagree with…especially on a question that involves little more than a consideration of a few saccharine lines placed in biology textbooks in deference to a democratic society that has not utterly embraced the void (whether Darwinism is infallible, or not). Listening to you and your fellow travelers, you would think we were debating a crisis in our ultimate existence, like the legalization of eugenics–but we’ve already been there and done that, haven’t we.</p>

<p>The following argument goes no further, as it is historically misplaced: </p>

<p>

The poster is wrong on both counts. First, the Nazis and the KKK were not interested in a pseudoscience, it was the cutting edge of established science, it was just taken to its disgustingly logical and inevitable conclusion by the Nazis; it was adored by the dimwits at KKK central and it was, at the time, considered a Darwinian triumph:
It was called Eugenics.</p>

<p>“The survival of the fittest”…as an ethical and moral principal stepping up to the plate into the void left by the batter who ceased to believe in old-fashioned moral absolutes like “life is sacred”. Life cannot be “sacred” in the absence of religion and tradition. It has to do with definitions: look it up. It can only be casually “preferred” according to the whim of those who’s “preferences” matter: those with the power to make it happen. A power morally unchecked by a transcendent belief in anything greater than yourself, or simply more powerful than yourself: they say it is an exhilarating…though ultimately nauseous…feeling.</p>

<p>Myself, I’ll never know.</p>

940

<p>

</p>

<p>How can we know that if we’ve never established a society free of religion? Even the major communist nations, with all their attacks on religious freedom, created their own state religions.</p>

<p>Is life truly sacred even with religion? I’m an atheist, but I see no problem saying that I believe life to be sacred.</p>