<p>Driver, very few science <em>classes</em> discuss cosmology, which is the field of science that addresses the very earliest moments of the universe. Cosmologists don’t get a lot of funding either, since what they do is considered impractical. It is my opinion (which you will also find above) that cosmology borders on religion, in that it is untestable.</p>
<p>dmd77, you are right, what would you do with the patent on that idea?</p>
<p>For all, thank you for participating politely. Time Magazine has an article dated today: <a href=“http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090836-1,00.html[/url]”>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090836-1,00.html</a></p>
<p>There are several other news stories. One issue that seems to bother some is that they feel scientific theories should be printed in a peer review journal as part of its validation. Some scientists argue that the justification of teaching intelligent design falls apart under this type of scrutiny.</p>
<p>Post 156
Longevity of an idea might mean something but what? How long has racism been around? Didn’t Aristotle think that flys had five legs?</p>
<p>and 159
I think the study of the Big Bang theory might come under the “How” question more than the “Who”
The arguments for ID are interesting…one is that the world of biology is too complex for it to be a statistical accident.</p>
<p>Let me adress the complexity issue first. Climate, weather, lightning are fairly complex and offerred as evidence of God(s) being pleased or angry; as people studied and developed understanding of these topics the immediate role of God’s emotions diminished; although I will concede many people think that God specifically directs every lightning bolt and I defend their right to that belief as long as they don’t teach it in science class.</p>
<p>Statistical accidents - As a math teacher I know how little I know about higher level statistics but the little nerd that I do have in me knows something about accidents. If there was an accident at the paint factory and huge amounts of paint were produced under different brand names each one different because of the mistake in the mixing computer. If paint A peeled after a week, or was solid in the can…it wouldn’t be used. If paint B was usable but hard to apply or washed off with rain…its use might be replaced by paint C which was slightly easier to use and lasted longer. If the accidental formula for paint C was recorded (DNA) it would eventually replace A and B and be used until another accident produced a superior paint D. If people carried this paint (and paint making technology) with them when they moved, the next generation of superior paint might be different in different places. Although the evolution of this paint involves accidents, it is no accident that the superior and perhaps more complex paint formulas get created.</p>
<p>I know other people can offer better explanations in their arguments, but I wanted to explain, what ID arguments I have read and why I do not agree with them. Incidently do you think it was an accident that ID sprang to a higher life form after the supreme court ruled against creationism?</p>
<p>I find this site fascinating and informative in a scientific, rather than religious discussion of Intelligent design:</p>
<p>Dr. “Fritz” Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. “The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it!’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.origins.org/articles/schaefer_bigbangandgod.html[/url]”>http://www.origins.org/articles/schaefer_bigbangandgod.html</a></p>
<p>Questions addressed:
- Is the universe finite or infinite in size and content?
- Has the universe been here forever or did it have a beginning?
- Was the universe created?
- If the universe was not created, how did it get here?
- If the universe was created, how was this creation accomplished, and what can we learn about the agent and events of creation?
- Who or what governs the laws and constants of physics?
- Are such laws the products of chance or have they been designed?
- How do the laws and constants of physics relate to the support and development of life?
- Is there any knowable existence beyond the apparently observed dimensions of the universe?
- Do we expect the universe to expand forever, or is a period of contraction to be followed by a big crunch?
Its a good read.</p>
<p>Mr. B–a nice illustration of the idea that unsuccessful chemical events don’t get retained, which is of course what evolution is all about. Gell-Mann referred to it as “frozen accidents.” Of course, if all you see is the stuff that works, it begins to look designed.</p>
<p>But there’s lots of stuff left over that doesn’t actually work all that well: wisdom teeth, the appendix… These are the legacies of an un-designed, accidental system.</p>
<p>the kidneys my D found particulary interesting
Example: In order to regulate blood pressure in the kidney, a bundle of nerves (situated elsewhere in the kidney) sends a message (via enzymes) to the liver, which sends a message to the lungs, which passes it on to the brain, where it kicks around for a bit and then finally goes to the kidney (somewhere near the loop of Henley, if I recall correctly), which makes the appropriate change to the blood pressure.</p>
<p>Fountainsiren, Thanks for posting that site. I found it quite interesting.</p>
<p>Mr. B, I would have read yours, too, but you have to register there–or perhaps subscribe.</p>
<p>Each side can certainly raise objections to the other side’s conclusions. I admit to having occasional doubts about my faith. I would never accept a faith that was not logical; it’s just the kind of person I am. I do see logic in believing in God. I also cannot deny evidences I have seen. I know people who were miraculously healed, in such a way that doctors had absolutely no explanation. I have had my own personal experiences that lead me to trust God. I will not parade those out here, because they are very personal and precious to me. </p>
<p>As far as public education goes, I say, go ahead and teach evolution. Just don’t teach that it answers all questions about life’s origins. Admit that the theory, as currently formulated, does not match all the data, that not all developments in organisms can be explained by a series of small mutations, that it is a theory still in process. And let the children know that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and that data may be interpreted in different ways, according to the person doing the interpreting. Teach students to ask questions and search for answers; isn’t that what science is all about?</p>
<p>I agree that philosophy is an important part of education, and optimally the school day would allow for time to teach it.
But currently this is how the school day is laid out- in Seattle- the district pays for high school students to have 5 periods although students are available for 6- therefore if the high school wants to have 6 periods they must make cutbacks elsewhere to provide it.
required classes to graduate are
3 years of language arts
3 years of history
2 years of math
2 years of science
2 1/2 years of PE/Health
1/2 year of art
1 & 1/2 years of Oc ed
Many students don’t take a lot of extra science besides intergrated science and maybe environmental science, to add evolution in there not to mention intelligent design, isn’t feasible.
The classes that have mentioned evolution dont say we have all the answers, but they are usually at a college level- I have taken both physical anthro and historical geology classes which both discussed evolution but scientists are frank about new information being found all the time, however, we haven’t found anything that disproves evolution, but we find out new information about organisms that we never dreamed of.
But really for high schools to cover math/english/history and some science, and then for students to try and get some foreign language, maybe even some art and music along with their occ ed and their Pe requirements is more than the schools can handle.
If the states and federal want to extend funding so that schools can offer 7 periods a day- that would be fantastic- then they could take philosophy, they could have science labs that were actually stocked, they wouldn’t have to have parents go out and furnish them with copy paper and pencils.
But you can’t have umpteen tax cuts, pay for a war and give schools money too, it just doesn’t work.</p>
<p>you might find conservative columnist Charles Krauthammers column in the TIMES of interest
He is arguing that to teach faith as science undermines both
the last two paragraphs ( you don’t have to register)
<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1088869,00.html[/url]”>http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1088869,00.html</a>
*
How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes “monkey trial”? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton’s universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein’s revisions. There are gaps in Einstein’s universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.</p>
<p>To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.*</p>
<p>I actually don’t think very many people want to teach faith as science. (I know, there are a few, but very few…) I think we have a major disconnect going here, where each side cannot seem to understand the other.</p>
<p>All I want is for science to be taught as science, as people studying the evidence and searching for the how’s and why’s that the scientific method dictates. All I ask is that if evidence might point toward some intelligence behind the universe, that it not be categorically denied and ignored because it is not “science.” I just want science to be the search for truth, not a dogma where certain possibilities cannot even be discussed.</p>
<p>It would not require any additional courses and not more than a few minutes of classtime when the appropriate subjects are being studied.</p>
<p>And it has nothing to do with my political leanings, as I am a liberal politically.</p>
<p>
Oh boy, do we ever. Great post, and one with which I strongly agree. I was reminded of something I saw in a blog yesterday on this subject. Links to blogs aren’t allowed here, but I wouldn’t want to Biden-esquely claim credit for this succinct comment, so here’s a snip:</p>
<p>
So true.</p>
<p>EK4, you said:
“I say, go ahead and teach evolution. Just don’t teach that it answers all questions about life’s origins.”</p>
<p>As a science teacher, I have always been careful to distinguish what questions evolution answers and which it does not. Evolutionary theory answer questions about how life forms change over time (from bacteria to humans, for example), but really does not address how life itself initially evolved. (I believe most fundamentalists object to the idea that humans were not specially created by (a) God.) Questions about how the complex molecules underlying lifeforms arose lie more within the realms of chemistry and biochemistry. I am currently reading a book that addresses the formation of such biochemical systems from a thermodynamic point of view, called <em>Into the Cool</em> (<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226739368/qid=1123461043/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_1/002-9722235-2436836?v=glance&s=books&n=507846[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226739368/qid=1123461043/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_1/002-9722235-2436836?v=glance&s=books&n=507846</a>)</p>
<p>I actually didn’t say that that was Susantm :)</p>
<p>Ok. I will be clear. I don’t want faith taught in the public schools.
I don’t care what anybody believes, but I don’t want that stuff taught in the public schools.</p>
<p>Here is an article that scares the crap out of me and warms the hearts of conservative Republicans.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/07/MNG9TE4DO91.DTL&hw=GOP+uncompromising+on+far&sn=001&sc=1000[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/07/MNG9TE4DO91.DTL&hw=GOP+uncompromising+on+far&sn=001&sc=1000</a></p>
<p>This is the pattern throughout history. First it starts out, my way of life is the right way of life. </p>
<p>Then it continues with my way of life is superior to any other way of life. </p>
<p>Then it continues with your way of life is inferior; therefore, you are inferior. </p>
<p>Now starts the process of dehumanization.
These people who are inferior to us are less than human. Therefore, giving the inferiors fewer rights is OK. Therefore, taking their property away is acceptable. Turning them into slaves is OK. Turning them into workers with slave labor salaries is OK. Killing them is OK. </p>
<p>There are many variations, but they all have the similar characteristics. My way is superior, your way is inferior. Therefore, say good- bye to your rights.</p>
<p>Before people argue, look around. All you have to do is look a few posts up.</p>
<p>FountainSiren - I was away when you posted a question, and although this thread has moved far from the subject, I want to respond:</p>
<p>“Is it always about two hormone driven adults having to be granted special privileges and honored because they are attracted to each other and choose to have consensual sex with each other?” </p>
<p>I see that framing of the issue as itself being the problem. I’ll repeat: it’s not about sex.</p>
<p>I’m a lawyer. As a lawyer, I was taught (first year law school) that when two or more people go into business together, unless they formally write up an agreement documenting a specific set of rules for their partnership, a default set of rules applies as a matter of law. Similarly, if a man and a woman choose to get married, they can write up a specific set of rules to govern that relationship. Most don’t, though, and when they don’t a default set of rules applies - again, as a matter of law. The law governing marriages has been modified more than that governing partnership - a lot of work has gone into it. Some people don’t like those rules (most notably divorced men who think they should get to keep all of the money “they earned”.) There are some benefits for the people who sign up for that contract - medical benefits for spouses, that kind of thing - and there are a lot of responsibilities - the duty to support your spouse, etc. But I think the result is good. Good for most people who are married, good for society. In fact, those rules work so well that I think they should be applied to any two adult who want to sign up for them. Which is why I find the opposition to gay marriage so interesting. Because, without gay marriage (or its functional equivalent of “domestic partnership”) there’s no set of default rules for those couples. </p>
<p>Realize that not all married people have sex together. Some are too old. Some are sick. Some are just kind of wierd (in my opinion, but then - it’s none of my business.) But contrary to popular belief, sex isn’t a prerequisite for marriage. If you marry someone knowing they’re not going to have sex with you, you’re not entitled to a anulment (in court) on the grounds that the marriage wasn’t “consummated.”</p>
<p>So if marriage is about the relationship - and not the sex - what is the justification for limiting it to mixed-sex couples? Well, frankly, I’m not convinced by the people who claim they “love the sinner but hate the sin.” Sorry - I’m just not buying it, I’m too old and I’ve known too many people. They do not see those they perceive as “sinners” under the rules they’ve been taught in their religion/society/family/whatever as being fully as human as those who follow their rules. And as a result, they recoil from doing what, in their eyes, amounts to recognizing as equals those they view as less worthy than themselves.</p>
<p>You asked about poligamy. As a sexual matter- none of my business. I suspect that the people who have had sex with just one person in their life are a minority; I’m not going to condemn everyone else. But as a social issue - the default set of rules - it poses a lot of difficult issues. Again - the opponents of gay marriage focus on what you perceive as the “privileges” of marriage, but in fact marriage carries a lot of responsibilities. (Ask around outside the door of any divorce court - you’ll hear an earful.) If you want to set up a set of default rules for polygamists comparable to the set we’ve developed for couples - well, it would be complicated. And the societal issues raised by polygamous households also complicated. So I’m not going there. But again - it’s not because of the sex - it’s because of the relationships.</p>
<p>I believe most fundamentalists object to the idea that humans were not specially created by (a) God.)</p>
<p>first of all the discussion is about Intelligent Design and the origins of life, as science. As Queen Gertrude observes, the lady doth protest too much, methinks. </p>
<p>dmd77,</p>
<p>How does your desire to conflate ID with fundamentalist creation affect your attitude toward said creationists or fundamentalists or those who muse on the possibilities of ID in your classroom (say a modern day Aristotlenot Jerry Falwell)?</p>
<p>If some student, unaware of the faux pas of actually mentioning ID, raises her hand and suggests ID as a possible cause to the effect of the Big Bang, what do you say?</p>
<p> we dont discuss these things its not science</p>
<p>You do not seem to be able to separate the scientific idea of ID from the religious idea of Genesis and your disdain for Christian and fundamentalist theology, which Im certain is so cryptic that none of your students have ever sensed or guessed it ;)</p>
<p>That is, unlike my 9th grade Bio teacher, who, as I said earlier, made it quite clear, both subtly and overtly, that Evolution replaces the myth of God as creator. I have no doubt that you are far more subtle than he was, but doesnt the fact that even mentioning ID is verboten in science class in it self relay the message to students who do wonder about ID and the origins of life (all do) that it is simply pseudo-science for the bumpkins and puddle-jumpers who nod their heads in the pews (much like the ban on using pornography in health class)?</p>
<p>dmd77, would you say you are more judicious and subtle than most bio-teachers in high school who pooh-pooh ID, or less?</p>
<p>do you really discuss the “big bang” in biology?
I thought biology was about cells- cell divison- protista, photosynthesis, cellular reproduction, viruses, bacteria etc- at least thats what my daughters 9th grade bio class was about
wouldn’t the big bang be more appropriate to discuss in astrophysics?- which isn’t generally a middle or high school level class- not around here anyway.
my oldest daughter did take physics in 9th grade- but they were more about egg parachutes than origin of the universes</p>
<p>Some people don’t like those rules (most notably divorced men who think they should get to keep all of the money “they earned”.) There are some benefits for the people who sign up for that contract - medical benefits for spouses, that kind of thing - and there are a lot of responsibilities - the duty to support your spouse, etc.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>Any rules regarding potential offspring? </p>
<p>You didnt seem to feel the need to mention any, while being very concerned with either half of this union of adults, so I was just wondering if marriage stipulates any responsibilities the two adults might have to the potential and statistically likely children born to such a union in addition to the two individuals who chose to have their emotional/sexual/financial union while accruing all the other privileges that attach to it without having to dilute it to any extent by adding the children marriage at one time aimed to protect (along with the woman, who, in times past, did not share the social rights of the man they married and were granted somelimitedsocial protection through the institution of marriage).</p>
<p>Regarding the love some Christians pledge to those they morally disagree with, you said,</p>
<p>They do not see those they perceive as “sinners” under the rules they’ve been taught in their religion/society/family/whatever as being fully as human as those who follow their rules. And as a result, they recoil from doing what, in their eyes, amounts to recognizing as equals those they view as less worthy than themselves.</p>
<p>You seem to have a deep and penetrating view into other peoples feelings, motivations, sincerity and beliefs (particularly those who do not share your sense of morality, peculiarly enough), while denying anyone elses ability to do the same. </p>
<p>How do you know that any random person you come across that believes they should love those they morally disagree with are lying when they say that they love the sinner but hate sin? Is that a legal argument? Would it be accepted in court?
You seem very judgmental to me
any plains to get on the other side of the bench?</p>
<p>EK4,</p>
<p>I don’t know about physics in general, but it was taught in AP Physics.</p>
<p>Anyhow, in the above example, understand the Big Bang as the first step in an extending chain of life. I suppose I’m the only student who ever wondered about it in class?</p>
<p>I find with Intelligent Design, it is easy to just say, well, we can’t figure it out exactly, so it must be God. THe ancients didn’t understand the weather, it was GOD. </p>
<p>People used to think that if you killed a virgin, then God would be good to you, that the devil was in a disturbed person, that leeches would rid you of disease, that it was the women’s fault if you had a girl, that the earth was the center of the universe…this was all taken at different levels of FAITH…</p>
<p>We know tha chemical imbalances in the brain can cause mental illness, that it is the males respoisniblity (mostly) the sex of the child, that the Earth revolves around the sun.</p>
<p>It is just a matter of time before all the answers are discovered to how the universe came to be, and how man evolved and the animals</p>
<p>If we just say, well its all God, then why bother looking? Why bother learning about space, the atom, quarks, disease, germs? </p>
<p>And for those here, how old is our earth? Do you believe, as some do, that it is about 10,000 years old? And that carbon dating is wrong? </p>
<p>Intelligent Design is based on Faith. How could it not be? It is based on a religious foundation…one particular religious foundation to the ignoring of others…and anything based on FAITH (which God is- FAITH) is not science. Period.</p>
<p>FAITH is not SCIENCE.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html[/url]”>The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths) | Live Science;
<p>SO, which do we choose? Whose FAITH system? Yours, FountainSiren?</p>
<p>My husband is a high school biology teacher and he always prefaces the unit on evolution with a discussion of paradigms of knowing – what science seeks to know, what faith does. He’s been teaching for over 20 years and has had very few problems, until the past few years. Now it seems like the kids (and their parents) are much more aggressively hostile to any mention of evolutionary theory, even if he clearly lines out what theory means and what evidence is, etc.</p>