Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
961

<p>“I don’t know that much about ID, but I don’t believe it is equivalent to creationism, as you implied.”</p>

<p>Uhh, that’s where you’re wrong. ID is stealth creationism trying to sneak its way into mainstream science. Additionally, I’m pretty sure churches don’t support science. If they did we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Please don’t say that churches support evolution, because that’s preposterous.</p>

<p>“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.”</p>

<p>This is perhaps even more irrelevant than MrB’s comment. It doesn’t matter what your “test scores” are in any functioning society. What matters is how one applies oneself. So your comment about your "high intelligence proves nothing in a civilised discourse.</p>

<p>Like I said previously, when in doubt, check the sources of funding. In ID’s case, refer to some of my previous posts.</p>

962

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, nothing. I use “man” the same way I use “dude.” Just an informal term of endearment. I’m too Valley for my own good.</p>

<p>See, I don’t think that any biology class I took necessitated that God didn’t exist. It wasn’t even brought up. All that was discussed was how things evolve, etc. </p>

<p>I think a lot of creationists and IDists just read waaaaay too much into evolutionary theory and conclude that somehow science wants to take God out of the universe.</p>

963

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, the Catholic Church recently came out and said that ID has no place in science. One step in the right direction.</p>

964

<p>MrB</p>

<p>Though it remains an open question how well Einstein would have done on the new SAT, by all accounts, he was a rather bright fellow. It seems, (re: post 946)

that he also favored design and one might assume it would have been of the plebian, intelligent variety.</p>

<p>Perhaps, along with SAT scores, we should consider race.
That would be interesting.
How about income, word is poor people are not quite what your average cc’er would like them to be in the ‘ole beaner?
How about those committing genocide and installing mistopias amongst are fellow dwellers on earth, how’d they feel about a designer and design?
I hear they were a bit put off about that whole “higher power” thing.</p>

965

<p>Seth, Mr. B implied that it was his belief that faith in a higher intelligence was equal to low SAT scores – I wouldn’t have mentioned any of the other information otherwise, and only brought it up as a means to counter an unfair assertion. </p>

<p>

This is opinion, not fact. I will say that I don’t believe in creationism, and don’t know enough about ID to say whether I support it or not. I’m willing to listen to ideas, however.</p>

<p>By the way, UCLAri, Catholic Universities (an arm of the Catholic Church) certainly DO support science i.e. Notre Dame, Boston College and Georgetown. My kids attended Catholic schools since preschool, and were taught a healthy dose of science, including AP Calc BC, AP Physics, AP Bio and AP Chem. I’m pretty sure the subject of evolution came up. In any case, my post was primarily intended to draw attention to the insulting comments made by some people who disagree with a point of view. I’m sure I won’t bother posting on this thread any further – the limits of civil discussion have been reached.</p>

966

<p>

</p>

<p>I doubt you will be giving us a site on this one…as there isn’t one.</p>

<p>The Catholic Church is opposed to literal creationism being taught in any schools, for obvious reasons.</p>

967

<p>*Actually, the Catholic Church recently came out and said that ID has no place in science. One step in the right direction.</p>

<p>I doubt you will be giving us a site on this one…as there isn’t one.*</p>

<p>Do a search for Cardinal Paul Poupard
<a href=“http://www.stoqnet.org/[/url]”>http://www.stoqnet.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

968

<p>

I think Mr Einstein would be rolling in his grave at that characterization.
Here’s a quote on matter:

What Einstein believed is what every scientist believes: that the universe is at its heart knowable, and what we see operates under the discretion of natural laws which can be discovered. If he was anything, he was a Deist, whose idea of God is nestled in the order of the natural world, not supernatural power.</p>

<p>I think many of the ID proponents on this board have a very progressive idea of intelligent design, one that is unfortunately not shown by the chief advocates of Intelligent Design through Discovery Institute, its affialites, and its donors. I’ll bring up “Of the Pandas and People” again, which is the main (and possibly the only?) textbook on ID. It refutes the idea of species evolution entirely, and proposes that all life appeared more or less as is by God (intelligent agent if we’re still pretending this isn’t about thestic issues.) The extermity of this view and its ignorance of the mountains of evidence in favor of common ancestry is what makes ID seem as more or less creationism “science” clothed in secular language.</p>

<p>I think most of the debate here centers around the interpretation of evolutionary theory rather than the theory itself. Some like bneg feel it
is used by atheists to denounce the idea of God, since it does not explictly include God within the model. I am aware that some atheists do view evolutionary theory as such, but like UCLAri I have never had evolutionary presented to me in this light by either teachers or textbooks, and I have taken A LOT of biology courses!</p>

<p>I think John Paul II said something to the effect of while science offers an explaination of our universe, it is always silent on the ultimate purpose of everything. Science explains the how, while religion explains the why. While there may be some need to clarify the limits of science in divining the truth or lack of God, I feel diluting the meaning of science by teaching ID would be a grave mistake.</p>

969

<p>It is hard to look at the Hubble galaxy pictures, especially the Deep Space View, and conclude that there is not “intelligent design” at work, but the concept on its face does not contradict evolution in any way - to think that it does is adopting the same mindset that is donned for that old argument (courtesy CS Lewis) about Jesus - “Jesus Christ was either a fool, a madman, or the Son of God.” </p>

<p>Just don’t tell me the Grand Canyon was created in six days, and I’m tolerant about the assumption of intelligent design. </p>

<p>I don’t know what there is to TEACH about the version of intelligent design that is proposed by radical Christians - seems to me to be mostly an assertion that evolution isn’t true, that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, and that sort of nonsense. Which would be harmless, except that proponents want to cram it down everyone’s throat. </p>

<p>I had a conversation a few weeks ago with a fundamentalist (very nice person who seems quite sane day to day) who was assuring me that the hardest thing he had to do living in this world was to work with all these damned souls. I said, “You think that you’re going to be up there with your halo, wings and harp (cf: Captain Stormfield’s Visit to Heaven, Mark Twain) while I’m writhing in the torments of the damned? I don’t believe that - see you in heaven.” I also talked about the immensity of the universe, and that he must feel very sorry for the gadzillion heathen sentient species that never read The Word because they couldn’t even find this little fly-speck on an insignificant arm of a second-rate galaxy. (Of course, they are all in hell, screaming, weeping, and wailing). He said “I’m only concerned with this planet.” See? Voluntarilyy placing oneself into a narrow little box of comforting (if you call it that) beliefs - can’t even reach for the stars - I rest my case.</p>

<p>So (rambling on even more) my son told me that his most impressive instructor was the philosophy tutor, and mentioned that one of his specialties was philosophy of religion - I encouraged him to take that tutorial, which centers around arguments for and against the existence of God and the problem of evil - because it would innoculate him for life against irrational fear-based religious claims. My friend mentioned in the anecdote above clearly has not reconciled the “all-loving God” with the “God of judgement and damnation.”</p>

970

<p>People have posted that the majority of Americans agree with Creationism, so why is it wrong to ask a question about the level of their logic, reasoning and understanding?</p>

<p>Contrary to SJmom’s assertions, I don’t believe people of faith are troglodytes, just as I know that all people of faith aren’t supporting teaching ID or other religious views in Science class. I do think that most people who push the strongest for ID are closet creationists, and want a religious view of the world taught. Pat Robertson obviously is out of the closet on this one, a set back for triumphalism caused him to condemn an entire community to life without God.</p>

<p>As for the politics of this discussion, a Republican President made a statement in support of including ID in Science, A former republican Presidential Candidate condemns a community for replacing a school board for forcing it upon the communities science classes…(a republican community, at that.)<br>
Two quotes:
George Orwell:
“In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”</p>

<p>Mohandas K. Gandhi:
“Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.”</p>

<p>I agree with those who see everything in politics and politics in everything!</p>

971

<p>

</p>

<p>Do I smell an appeal to the masses? This is a terrible reason to give something weight.</p>

972

<p>“I think many of the ID proponents on this board have a very progressive idea of intelligent design”</p>

<p>I agree! Though I wouldn’t exactly call myself a “proponent” of ID, since I’m more than a bit ambivalent about the inclusion of ID in the public school science curriculum. In fact, the more I read the arguments in this thread and search the internet for information, the more I think that ID SHOULD NOT be taught in public school science classes. For one thing, it is currently (and quite possibly, forever), hopelessly mired in politics. It turns out that my own personal concept of ID as a subject of scientific inquiry is VERY different from that espoused by it’s most vocal proponents, the “Christian Right”. That Pat Robertson, someone whom I hold in extremely low regard, would judge those who simply disagree with the idea of ID being relevent to the science curriculum as, “rejecting God”, makes me suspect that the cannibals are at the gate.
And I really rather resent the way “The Right” has made the discourse of ID all about the stealthy introduction of the bible and the discrediting of Darwinian science. </p>

<p>Sadly, I’ve concluded that an academic, non religious inquiry into the concept of ID is all but impossible in the current political climate. While I personally believe that the universe IS very probably intelligence driven by a source more advanced than mankind, I see no way in which this idea can be effectively, and dispassionately (in other words, scientifically) investigated in a public school science curriculum.</p>

973

<p>

</p>

<p>[Well</a>, maybe I’m crazy, but here’s one](<a href=“http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html]Well”>http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html)</p>

<p>Other sites have said that Benedict said the opposite. It seems that there’s a bit of a public relations coup going on in Rome. Oh well. </p>

<p>At least the Church isn’t excommunicating evolutionary biologists…</p>

974

<p>

Blackpenguin,
What part of this contradicts the idea that the universe has a design based on intelligence?</p>

<p>…help me out here.

My guess is he sleeps soundly, along with Mr. Jefferson, believing his designer is completely unconscious of his current slumbers or any of his many triumphs while he was still awake…as all deists do [by the way, they all also, by definition, believe in a designer and design].</p>

<p>According to A. Einstein’s beliefs and postulates, he would be, now, thankfully unaware of your attributions to him as a committed deist, though were he a theists rather than a deists he would most certainly be disturbed in knowing he has been adopted as the poster-boy for those who believe in the “Empty-Void’s” unwitting power to make something so complex and beautiful as the universe and the life he spent his waking days describing.</p>

975

<p>UCLAri and emeraldkitty4,</p>

<p>I don’t think this means what you think it means. Nothing in the statement of the Cardinal mentions ID. Of course, the Vatican has always opposed “Literal Creationism” whether it is taught in school or in the catechism of the Catholic Church (the view that the world was created “as is” 6000+ years ago). </p>

<p>It is, IMHO, rhetorically lazy to conflate the opinion of “literal creationists,” as is done by many on this board and in the media, with the scientific opinion of those, like Einstein, whose investigations of the universe lead to the conclusion that there is design (not even the largest Christian Church on earth teaches this form of literalism).</p>

<p>The much derided (by atheists) Discovery Institute (taking a position similar to the Cardinal, refused to support the Dover PA case because they said that the Dover board’s proposal was too religious (read: literal creationism).</p>

<p>Reading through many of these posts it is clear to me that those dogmatically opposed to even the possibility that there is evidence of design in the universe [of the variety espoused by Einstein amongst others] have, at best, a hear-say opinion of their despised nemesis: design [though let’s be fair, this is really a misguided attempt to belittle the premise of all religions]. Perhaps “straw-man” would be a better description. </p>

<p>I know, for instance, that many posters here who intuitively and obectively grasp the premise of design nonetheless believe that evolution is operable in the formation of biological life. Fountainsiren has explicitly said so, Driver has, Poetsheart has, I believe bneg has, I have…in fact, I would be interested in someone showing that anyone posting on this board has said they do not believe evolution, in general, to be a valid science. </p>

<p>I’m not exactly sure what all the strum and drang of the atheists posting here is about [unless it is a deep-seated dislike of religions, churches, synagogues, mosques and perhaps even “American Transcendentalists” like Thoreau (a naturalist, like Darwin) and Emerson]. These posts often seem nothing short of a mocking and mean-spirited rant…though not always.</p>

<p>Secularism is a religion with many adherents…not a few of them are posting on this board. I have no problem with their religion, I just don’t think it should be taught in schools;)</p>

976

<p>You keep missing the point.</p>

<p>I’m not against people finding order/higher authority in the universe. I’m against it being injected into a SCIENCE classroom. That’s it. Why do YOU find that so threatening?</p>

<p>Why isn’t intelligent gravity being proposed as an alternative to the scientific theory of gravity? What is so sacred about that theory being independent from faith, but not evolution? </p>

<p>And really, just because Einstein said something doesn’t make it right. That’s an appeal to authority, and not a good one as far as biological evolution is concerned. And don’t pull the atheists hate religion BS. I was raised Jewish, I was bar mitzvahed, and I believe strongly in my community’s importance. I just don’t think that biological evolution needs to have God involved.</p>

977

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh get off it. There’s a difference between teaching the foundational theory of modern biology and forcing God out of someone’s life. What an awful slippery slope you seem to be getting at.</p>

978

<p>UCLAri,</p>

<p>I don’t mean to be rude, but at least become familiar with what it is you are attacking. It will improve and refine your critique…you may even be right and prove it. </p>

<p>I shouldn’t have to tell you why there is no attack on gravity by those who find design in life and the universe. Do a little homework…if this interests you: and if not, why take such a strong view.</p>

<p>Physicist, like Einstein, which require mathematical proofs for their theories, are far more likely to see design in the universe than biologists who rely far less on mathematical proof but instead rely heavily on inference. This could be something to wonder about. Design is no more extraordinary than “String Theory,” yet I suspect few here would have a hot-blooded reaction against string theory being discussed in the classroom: few here harbor resentment toward the potential alternate universes in strings; many here resent the idea of a potential god in their lives.</p>

<p>It may be that design theory is completely amiss, wrong from top to bottom, but we could never gather why you, or anyone else here thinks so…beyond the boilerplate and ad hominem attacks made on the “idiots,” “Nazis,” “Troglodytes” KKKers,” “flat-earthers,” “low SAT score achievers”–generally speaking, unwashed America–offered here by the “smart guys”.</p>

979

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m quite familiar with what I’m attacking. But I wouldn’t want to deflate that delightfully inflated ego of yours. There there. (Yes, I was being a cynical jerk.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re missing the point then. Gravity is important to the very fabric of the universe. It is one of the key factors in everything that occurs from the grandiose formation of galaxies to the protein pumps that keep your cells working. I’d say it’s probably MORE important than natural selection as far as the “fabric of the universe” is concerned. So why not all the fuss about the God-free explanation?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Would you get off this? You’re like a broken record, saying I resent God or something. I’m an F’ING JEW. God was very much part of my upgringing. Jeez man. </p>

<p>And there is a LOT of inference involved in high-level physics. You think that relativity was developed with just number crunching? Similarly, biologists do a lot of data analysis as well. A large portion of contemporary evolutionary theory was derived from direct observation and analysis.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I said that anyone who ignores clear evidence and equivocates is either a liar or an idiot. I never said that those with faith are idiots. GET THAT STRAIGHT, WILL YOU?!</p>

980

<p>Let me put it this way:</p>

<p>If you don’t stop assuming that I have some vendetta against God, I will be forced to consider you stupid. Not because of your faith, but because you’re not basing your statements on observation.</p>

<p>Similarly, anyone who bases a scientific theory on God is equivocating. </p>

<p>Finally, let me make this clear in big fat BOLD caps: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE FIRST FORMATION OF LIFE ARE NOT EVEN REMOTELY IMPORTANT TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.</p>

<p>Evolution is about how species adapt and change. It’s not about how life first came to be.</p>