Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

[driver]

<p>Pretetmanger, your demonstration of selective reading is the sort of thing that has fueled this whole thread. It’s worth re-reading this paragraph from the end of the WP article you cite:

Bush gave no sign that he intended to wade that far into the debate. The issue came up only when a reporter from the Knight Ridder news service asked him about it; participants said the president did not seem especially eager to be asked. “Very interesting question,” he told the reporter playfully.

Doesn’t sound like much of a presidential priority does it?</p>

<p>And this, from the OP:

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life. During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported. “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

So, to reiterate, yet again: The president was asked a gotcha question by a journalist; he threaded the needle rather skillfully, saying that if science teachers were going to teach creation theory that they ought to present multiple theories, not just the unprovable/unfalsifiable “spontaneous emergence from nothingness” theory; and this gets morphed in the press to the what we see regurgitated here by kluge, mr. b, et al.: “Bush wants to require schools to teach biblical creationism as an alternative to Darwinian evolution.” It’s sloppy, manipulative reporting, and sloppy thinking by those of you who fall for it.</p>

[pretetmanger]

<p>driver? My “demonstration of selective reading”? In what did I do anything but post the article? Since you feel it backed you up, then how did you assume what my interpretation was? In fact I made no editorial comments at all. </p>

<p>But I do note that you have changed from saying “it never happened” to not much of a presidential priority. </p>

<p>As for me, I just posted the article, and let people make of it what they will.</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>UCLARI,</p>

<p>Sadly, outside of sacredness, morality and ethics are a matter of preference and power. Some prefer this method of justification, a number of political figures come to mind; as it stands, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Lincoln etc are not among them. </p>

<p>There is nothing “sacred” about life beyond a transcendent belief that “life is sacred”; all else is preference and power.</p>

<p>sa•cred P Pronunciation Key (s kr d)
adj.

1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Woodwork, first off, last two letters in my name are lower case. Sorry to be picky, but it matters to me that people bother to write my name correctly.</p>

<p>Anyway, I’m not a moral relativist, so I can’t say that I agree. There are certain moral values that we can define as undeniable (whether or not some societies have ignored them). Rape, murder, and thievery are wrong. This is not something that is just concluded by Western societies, either. These are wrongs in Asia and Africa as well. Moral relativism means that we allow Nazis, Idi Amins, and other murdering tyrannical regimes to simply make life without value. No logical human being can see that as anything but immoral. It’s not an issue of your or my or his God’s saying it’s bad. It’s a matter of logically concluding that these sorts of infractions on another’s inherent rights are neither good for the individual nor the society (no matter what society we are dealing with.)</p>

<p>Morality as governs mores and social nuances, on the other hand, are not definitive.</p>

[kluge]

<p>The nice thing about this medium is you can actually go back and see what people said, and compare it to what people later try to twist it into. To wit:</p>

<p>In response to Driver’s post #928, where she tried to morph the ID discussion into a question of the creation of the universe, Kluge (post 929) said:</p>

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>Driver responded (930):

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

</p>

<p>Pretetmanager posted (#937) a link to the (uncontested) reports that: “President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.”</p>

<p>and so Driver claims (941) that Kluge said:

“Bush wants to require schools to teach biblical creationism as an alternative to Darwinian evolution.”

</p>

<p>Obviously, I didn’t say that, I said that Bush said what he, in fact, did say - he thinks ID should be taught as an alternative to evolution. (Which is, in fact, Bush’s position, although Driver seems to be uncomfortable with it, as a Bush supporter.) </p>

<p>Similarly with Woodwork’s view that describing a fellow posters comments as “naked drooling rage” is “playful” while twisting TheDad’s comments about the dangers of pseudoscience into a statement that is unacceptable. All you’re telling me is that people you agree with can say anything they want, and you’ll excuse it; anyone you disagree with, you will find a way to be outraged by. I personally would prefer if Driver didn’t feel the need to be “witty” by describing those she disagrees with in derogatory terms (to me it’s a schoolyard bully’s idea of “humor”) and I’d have prefered it if TheDad had chosen a different example of pseudoscience. But TheDad was at least making a point - if you were willing to look beyond the rhetoric to consider it. Driver was just making a pejorative comment about someone she disagreed with - with no other content.</p>

<p>This is why I find the right today to be so similar to the “new left” of the 60’s and 70’s. I see the same “true believer” attitude.</p>

[Mr.B]

<p>I agree with Andrew White that this is not a debate between science and religion but a debate between science and dogmatic theologies. Remember that when Cornell University was being created, church leaders rose up in opposition because it was not going to be a “Christian School.” His Festschrift to Cornell University was The Warfare Of Science With Theology.</p>

<p>In my earlier posts I discussed Whites views of the steps religion goes through with new scientific discoveries: Denial; the sun goes around the earth and anyone who believes that is in conflict with the teachings of the bible. Accomodation: it is worth considering this unproven alternative idea that the earth goes around the sun. Acceptance: The earth does revolve around the sun, but that doesn’t conflict with our beliefs. We have traveled out of the first phase into the second with ID.</p>

<p>FountainSiren, who makes a noble effort in defending ID, has discussed how Einstein and others expressed their belief in a design, and I both respect and disagree with some of her views relating to Einstein. </p>

<p>Einstein in his writings about religion has described three sources of religious belief: fear, social or moral needs, and a third higher level of religion that does not rely on an individual personality as a god. The fear belief is that natural phenomenon will get us if we don’t sacrifice and behave right. The Social/Moral belief is that we need to behave a certain way to get rewards and avoid future punishment. These first two belief systems often required priests or officials to help guide us through the rules, but the third one is different. It doesn’t threaten to punish people for breaking God’s law, because if God is omnipotent, doesn’t that imply his own guilt in the event?</p>

<p>

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another. <a href=“http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/relig.html[/url]”>http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/relig.html&lt;/a&gt;

His description of science was the understanding of what is perceptible. He did believe that science without religion was lame, that we need both in our lives.

Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization.

</p>

<p>So, while I agree with Fountain Siren that Einstein believed was that there is an intelligent design, I do not agree we must believe there is a designer, only that there are natural rules that cannot be violated, but which must be studied to be understood. Philosophical interpretations of science and nature should be kept out of the science class. Polite discussions out of science class should be encouraged.</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>

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.

post #862

Bneg, I’d rather discuss this with a brick wall than you…the brick wall has a better chance of understanding.

post 894

“Intelligent Design” seeks to be regarded as a respectable alternative. It deserves no such respect, any more than astrology, phrenology, the social theories of the Ku Klux Klan, or the racial theories of the Nazis.
Yes, its adherents will feel offended by the lack of respect. That is not my problem.

post# 902

you are obviously an adherent of Joseph Goebbels: “If you repeat a lie frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it.”

Kluge,</p>

<p>Yes, I guess you right, I’m probably reading too much into it.</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>Well, I haven’t read through every page of this, but I think that evolution is hard core science, whereas ID is but dogma, some food for the fundamentalist’s brain. ID attempts to justify itself and amalgamate itself into the realm of mainstrean science by purporting that it’s supported by empirical evidence and by asserting that life is too complex to have evolved through a Drawinistic process, ie its “specified complexity” and “something wlse complexity”(sorry, can’t remember). I think it’s baltantly obvious that whatever evidenc eis found in ID has been deduced NOT from nature, but from religious scriptures or doctrines. ID is honestly stealth creationism. It attempts to prove the same things as creationism, but in a more stealthy manner as to creep into mainstream science. I have nothing against ID, but really, it needs to be confined to religious institutions only.</p>

<p>The claim of intelligent design is that no unintelligent process could produce this system. The claim of darwinism is that some unintelligent process (involving natural selection and random mutation) could produce this system. To falsify the first claim, one need only show that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To falsify the second claim, one would have to show the system could not have been formed by any of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, which is effectively impossible to do. </p>

<p>Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable, darwinism is not. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual darwinistic or whatever process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. To falsify darwinism, one must prove that no Darwinistic mechanism could have led to a biological structure. </p>

<p>And I think that many antievolutionists like to use rhetorics like “the second law of thermodynamics is violated”(fundamental misunderstanding of entropy on their part), and “lack of transition fossils”, (lack of research). I haven’t really accepted evolutionism, but I don’t ever intend on accepting dogma.</p>

<p>-just my 2 cents.</p>

[bneg]

<p>first to black penguin: um…the point is energy into matter. so there is no point in determining whether or not a medium was needed (like a physical sound), or in determining if a medium was there. And umm…i was NEVER against inorganic stuff changing into organic stuff. i was even questioned in post 890, page 45, i believe. so would you like to read before you post?</p>

<p>then to UCLAri: "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>

<p>what?</p>

<p>that is totally disrespectful. it just proves that you’ve been ignoring post 886, 887, 889 and a bunch of others. the ID proponents on this thread REALIZE that life forms have changed since the beginning of life, okay??? and so we said that there’s no point in proving evolution right on this thread , 'cause that simply isn’t relevant to ID. "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>excerpt from post 922, from post 886 and post 889. I have this feeling that you know a lot, and you are desperate to show it. You completely ignore what others have to say, even twisting the exact argument of the other side (life forms changing irrelevant to ID) to jump to your conclusion that ID is trash. again the point of this “is discussion, not simply standing by one’s position.” post 901. so please read more carefully next time!! -post 881</p>

<p>maybe i should just repeat it right here to all those who like to repeat the same arguments against ID (ummm…dogma, eh?):</p>

<p>“so please read more carefully next time!!”
“so please read more carefully next time!!”
“so please read more carefully next time!!”
“so please read more carefully next time!!”
“so please read more carefully next time!!”
…</p>

<p>driver, you think it’s time for another break??</p>

[bneg]

<p>kluge: “I personally would prefer if Driver didn’t feel the need to be “witty” by describing those she disagrees with in derogatory terms (to me it’s a schoolyard bully’s idea of “humor”) and I’d have prefered it if TheDad had chosen a different example of pseudoscience. But TheDad was at least making a point - if you were willing to look beyond the rhetoric to consider it.”</p>

<p>i will ask what i believe is a very impartial question (prove it to me if you don’t think so): how can you prove that theDad was making a point and that driver wasn’t? </p>

<p>If you cannot, this is simply your opinion and belief. </p>

<p>Mr.B: “I agree with Andrew White that this is not a debate between science and religion but a debate between science and dogmatic theologies.”</p>

<p>Are you referring to ID as dogmatic theology? and can you show me which part that post supported this statement?? If you cannot, this is simply your opinion and belief. </p>

<p>…and some are screaming that ID is “simply a belief” that we shouldn’t force on others.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>bneg,</p>

<p>When did I say that there can’t be a God? You’re making some pretty interesting fallacies there man.</p>

<p>All I said is that evolution doesn’t support God per se, nor should it. It’s a scientific theory. It would be like looking for God in star formation in nebula. Intelligent star formation.</p>

<p>Better yet, Intelligent gravity. Intelligent weather. Intelligent cell biology. Intelligent supernovae. Intelligent black holes. None of these need God to be explained, and all have some theories attached, so why evolution? Why does evolution need God to be explained? Does not explaining God’s involvement in star formation make an astronomy class atheistic? </p>

<p>Taking God out of evolution doesn’t take God out of the universe.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

…and some are screaming that ID is “simply a belief” that we shouldn’t force on others.

</p>

<p>If I got rid of God in ID, and instead installed Zeus and the pantheon, would you take it as seriously?</p>

[bneg]

<p>UCLAri, if you would read carefully I never said that you said that there can’t be a God. not that i don’t care about you, but i don’t care about your religious beliefs. </p>

<p>i care when science teachers imply their atheistic beliefs when they overextrapolate evolution, implying there is no God. implying there is no god DOES NOT EQUAL not involving god, correct? </p>

<p>“Why does evolution need God to be explained?”</p>

<p>it doesn’t. life forms changing has nothing to do with God, and ID doesn’t want God in the process of life forms changing…i’m sure you know that already. </p>

<p>“Taking God out of evolution doesn’t take God out of the universe.”</p>

<p>i like that, and i totally agree! but the key is to balance the two religious beliefs here: taking out God while not implying atheism. </p>

<p>again, if you would read carefully we wouldn’t be having this disagreement.</p>

<p>don’t understand your logic in post 952. you know perfectly well that determining who or what is the Intelligence has nothing to do with this discussion. </p>

<p>one interesting thing note is that you probably think i won’t take it seriously because you think i think zeus/pantheon is myth. so could it be that you don’t take ID seriously becaues you have the preconception that the religious Intelligence you associate ID with is a myth?</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>UCLAri,</p>

<p>sorry about the name. </p>

<p>Personally, I couldn’t care less. Still, as best as I understand the theory behind intelligent design, the “who” of the designer is of no consequence…and is, frankly, a matter of faith unless that designer gives some objective word or sign of divine presence, revealing the divine whereabouts and preferences. However, some, as a matter of faith, believe a god has done this very thing in times past; but that is religion, not evidentiary science and of no use to this discussion at all.</p>

<p>If Zeus is your preferred designer, I would go with that:)</p>

[bneg]

<p>woodwork, you are so meek and kind!</p>

[bneg]

<p>and wait, UCLAri…what makes you think i’m a man?</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>bneg, I don’t think you understand. Preachers of darwinism have nothing against those who preach ID. However, when proponents of ID want their dogma to be taught in school, it’s unacceptable. This has everything to do with evolution, because evolutionism is VALID, mainstream science whereas ID is merely creationism in a cheap disguise, in other words, stealth creationism. </p>

<p>Something for you to think about is where the funding for ID research comes from. In fact. always look to the source of funding to determine credibility! Just like the tobacco industry funded research purposely to distort the valid independent research showing links between smoking and cancer and emphysema, Discovery Institute is a think-tank with a $4 million budget heavily funded by conservative Christian donors. There is no wonder that every major U.S. scientific organization dismisses intelligent design and states there is no credible evolution controversy. Intelligent design is simply "a new bottle for the old wines of natural theology, creationism and serial concepts based upon the biblical account of creation.</p>

<p>What I find really funny, is when you say we need to merge hard core science with ID, because evolutionism is NOT atheism, it’s irrefutable science. ID on the otehr hand serves as a christian agenda to do nothing more than to drive a wedge into scientific materialism.</p>

<p>“If I got rid of God in ID, and instead installed Zeus and the pantheon, would you take it as seriously?”</p>

<p>definately a valid point and an effective one at that. good observation UCLAri.</p>

[Mr.B]

<p>Side question, if you could take the average SAT scores of people who believe there was a man named Adam and a woman named Eve that began humans on this planet and you could take the average SAT scores of people who thought there was an evolutionary process, which do you think would be higher?</p>

<p>What portion of the people who believe in ID also believe in the creation story told in Genesis?</p>

<p>As for referring the ID position to Dogma, I think former Republican Candidate for President Pat Robertson convinced me that it is dogma.</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>MrB, I don’t think politics needs to be dragged into this, but you’re right, this ID dogma is supportly mainly by evangelical, radical right wingers. This just goes to show that ID is nothing more than creationism in a disguise, which is but theological tripe.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>

@Mr. B

Side question, if you could take the average SAT scores of people who believe there was a man named Adam and a woman named Eve that began humans on this planet and you could take the average SAT scores of people who thought there was an evolutionary process, which do you think would be higher?

Mr. B, I think that this is an unnecessarily provocative and derogatory remark. I’ve read some of these posts, and find the debate to be interesting. I’ve also seen some supporters of ID make some very thoughtful, moderate remarks about the idea of keeping an open mind. This comment is what I seem to hear from extremely liberal people, who prefer to disparage ideas which are different to their own, as opposed to presenting some factual data and informed conclusions. And in fact, some of those who are open to the idea of a higher intelligence fall into the Democratic camp.</p>

<p>I don’t know that much about ID, but I don’t believe it is equivalent to creationism, as you implied. I do know that we don’t know everything there is to know about the universe. I’m open to other ideas, and I’m aware that many areas of physics border on philosophy, so the notion that only that which is provable is science, is false. Prior to a few years ago, the idea of String Theory would have seemed comical. To insult the intelligence of those who believe differently is craven, in my mind. For example, at least one poster (I believe it was SusanTM) has a degree from Stanford – the last time I checked, I believe the average SAT score was pretty high for Stanford grads. I am a practicing Catholic, and I’m confident that the Church supports evolution, within the context of a higher intelligence at the core. Just in case you are wondering, my test scores place me in the top 1% of intelligence, I’m married to a mathematician and I have one son in an Ivy League school. I don’t think that all people of faith drag their knuckles and drool.</p>