Bush on "Intelligent Design"

[Warriorbird]

People seem to like, "calm, civilized, debate." How can you debate when people offer faith based governance?

.................................................. ...............


Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate

By Peter Baker and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 3, 2005; Page A01

President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.

Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

These comments drew sharp criticism yesterday from opponents of the theory, who said there is no scientific evidence to support it and no educational basis for teaching it.

Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students. Opponents say that church groups and other interest groups are pursuing political channels instead of first building support through traditional scientific review.

The White House said yesterday that Bush's comments were in keeping with positions dating to his Texas governorship, but aides say they could not recall him addressing the issue before as president. His remarks heartened conservatives who have been asking school boards and legislatures to teach students that there are gaps in evolutionary theory and explain that life's complexity is evidence of a guiding hand.

"With the president endorsing it, at the very least it makes Americans who have that position more respectable, for lack of a better phrase," said Gary L. Bauer, a Christian conservative leader who ran for president against Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. "It's not some backwater view. It's a view held by the majority of Americans."

John G. West, an executive with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank supporting intelligent design, issued a written statement welcoming Bush's remarks. "President Bush is to be commended for defending free speech on evolution, and supporting the right of students to hear about different scientific views about evolution," he said.

Opponents of intelligent design, which a Kansas professor once called "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," say there is no legitimate debate. They see the case increasingly as a political battle that threatens to weaken science teaching in a nation whose students already are lagging.

"It is, of course, further indication that a fundamentalist right has really taken over much of the Republican Party," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a leading liberal lawmaker. Noting Bush's Ivy League education, Frank said, "People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."

Bush's comments were "irresponsible," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He said the president, by suggesting that students hear two viewpoints, "doesn't understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint." Lynn said Bush showed a "low level of understanding of science," adding that he worries that Bush's comments could be followed by a directive to the Justice Department to support legal efforts to change curricula.

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.

At a morning briefing yesterday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was simply restating long-standing views. "He has said that going back to his days as governor," McClellan said. "I think he also said in those remarks that local school districts should make the decisions about their curriculum. But it's long been his belief that students ought to be exposed to different ideas, and so that's what he was reiterating yesterday."

In comments published last year in Science magazine, Bush said that the federal government should not tell states or school boards what to teach but that "scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the science curriculum."

The president's latest remarks came less than two months after Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, archbishop of Vienna and an influential Roman Catholic theologian, said evolution as "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" is not true.

"Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science," Schonborn wrote in the New York Times. He said he wanted to correct the idea that neo-Darwinism is compatible with Christian faith.

Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, warned this year in a "Dear Colleagues" letter of "increasingly strident attempts to limit the teaching of evolution."

The most prominent debate is underway in Kansas, where the conservative state board of education is expected to require the teaching of doubts about evolution to public high school students. A challenge to the teaching of intelligent design is scheduled for trial in Dover, Pa., while a federal court in Georgia said textbook stickers questioning evolution were unconstitutional.

Slevin reported from Chicago.

[Back]

Without reading the entire thing (trying to get up to speed at work having missed yesterday) I don’t see the big deal. If I read correctly he said both sides should be explored, not just one.

As far as “intellligent design”, I can accept that as much as I can accept anything supernatural... its really just a fantasy as it can’t be proven. As for my own beliefs, I’ve often marvelled at our world and though there was some intelligent design behind it. Not saying there is a team of designers coming up with new frogs, but that the entire system of nature is an ingenious work.

Is that the white haired bearded visage of Christianity’s God behind it? Not in my view. Something undefinable. And when one person says they know the supernatural more than the next I call bullshit.

[Warriorbird]

I don't think education based on faith has a place in public schools. That is education based on faith, no matter how you look at it. Want "alternate views?", they should put up some of the potentially valid non faith-based notions like catastrophic change and things like that.

[StrayRogue]

If you're going to teach Christian views, you should be prepared to teach ALL the alternative religious creation views.

Originally posted by StrayRogue
If you're going to teach Christian views, you should be prepared to teach ALL the alternative religious creation views.


Ehh.. I'm not to sure about that in predominately Christian nation. Should we have days off for all religions? Damn, kids would love that!

- Arkans

[StrayRogue]

Thats my point Arkans. I don't think ANY such views should be taught in School. However, I feel it's a bit narrow minded to only teach one if it is going to be part of the normal curriculum.

[Warriorbird]

I suppose I could dig it if it WAS all the views. "Introduction to Cosmology." instead of introduction to Biology could actually be kind've neat. Wouldn't stop our sciences from declining, but might open a few minds.

[Back]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I don't think education based on faith has a place in public schools. That is education based on faith, no matter how you look at it. Want "alternate views?", they should put up some of the potentially valid non faith-based notions like catastrophic change and things like that.

Well, I remember in school biology and other science classes learning about what the word supernatural meant and how it fit within the realm of science. That was an important part of learning what science was. Also, I seem to remember being told there were other theories besides Darwin’s and that we should explore those as well, though we didn’t cover those in class.

I think thats great actually. To speak in non-specific terms about the supernatural and leave it up to the individual to research. Because no matter how you cut it, the supernatural while being undefinable, is a major part of human culture.

I generally agree that religion shouldn't be taught in schools. If I want my children involved in religion, I want them to make their own choice in which religion to follow.

Unfortunately, here in the United State we have a weird standards. Sure, we'll take days off to celebrate Christian religions, but not other religions, though we can't teach "intelligent creation" which is basically Christian.

Well, that's fine, but we need one standard. Do we do away with the Holidays intended for celebration (let's ignore the fact that most people don't celebrate, they love the day off) or do we offer education that teaches the bare bones basics and keep more or less "back" the holidays by allowing time off for celebration and worship?

- Arkans

[Warriorbird]

"Well, I remember in school biology and other science classes learning about what the word supernatural meant and how it fit within the realm of science. That was an important part of learning what science was. Also, I seem to remember being told there were other theories besides Darwin’s and that we should explore those as well, though we didn’t cover those in class. "

Eh. I don't think it really has a place. There's actually scientific alternate theories to Darwin, however, which I'd see as fine. The right isn't backing any of those, however.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
If you're going to teach Christian views, you should be prepared to teach ALL the alternative religious creation views.

I love you Stray.

He just said what I was getting ready to and what came to my mind when I read this yesterday. Further, just call it what it is, and say you want to teach "creationism". But that has a bad connotation. "Intelligent Design" sounds much better and like something that might garner less opposition.

-M

[Landrion]

I long for the day we can put an athiest president in the white house.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Arkans


Unfortunately, here in the United State we have a weird standards. Sure, we'll take days off to celebrate Christian religions, but not other religions, though we can't teach "intelligent creation" which is basically Christian.

Well, that's fine, but we need one standard. Do we do away with the Holidays intended for celebration (let's ignore the fact that most people don't celebrate, they love the day off) or do we offer education that teaches the bare bones basics and keep more or less "back" the holidays by allowing time off for celebration and worship?

- Arkans

When I was in school, we got time off for Jewish Holidays, Muslim Holidays, and even a few african-american holidays; many of them simply fall at or around the same time.

If kids went to school all year round, I could see scheduling more frequent long breaks to coincide with each holiday time.

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Landrion
I long for the day we can put an athiest president in the white house.

I'd rather an agnostic honestly.

-M

[CrystalTears]

Eh, at this point he's discussing theories and faith based beliefs. If people wish to learn that, leave it for college where people can choose to learn it if they wish.

Children in public schools should be focused on facts, past and present, and preparing for the future. If you wish for your child to be engaged in religion, put them in a religious school. That's why they're there.

Until they allow all religions to represent, there shouldn't be any religion taught in public schools. Days off should consist of the standard government ones, and then there would be holiday breaks for December (that extend and include all other religous holidays) and spring break for March/April.

I always found it unfair that Christians were given time off to worship Jesus but Jews and other religions had to attend school through their own holidays.

[Back]

Read the article a little more closely and I agree that no one alternative view than scientific should be given more weight than another, or cover them all. (that would take a long time considering how many creation theories there are)

But I do believe that it should be mentioned, like it was when I was in school, that there are alternative viewpoints than the scientific.

[CrystalTears]

Oh I don't mind religious theories and such being mentioned along with scientific theories, so long as it's more than Christian ideology. I have more issue if it were taught as the main subject.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I don't think education based on faith has a place in public schools. That is education based on faith, no matter how you look at it. Want "alternate views?", they should put up some of the potentially valid non faith-based notions like catastrophic change and things like that.

Holy fucking shit.. I agree with Warriorbird for once.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Oh I don't mind religious theories and such being mentioned along with scientific theories, so long as it's more than Christian ideology. I have more issue if it were taught as the main subject.

I have a problem with it being mentioned, unless you plan to devote the same amount of time to each of the other creation theories (and yes, I know that's impossible due to their sheer number). That's why a blanket statement like, "There are many religions that have their own theories on the beginning of the world, and I encourage every one of you to explore them, as they're very interesting themselves." works well for me.

-M

[CrystalTears]

Heh, that's why I said as long as it includes other theories, because I know they won't want to cover that many theories in the little time they have. ;)

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I don't think education based on faith has a place in public schools. That is education based on faith, no matter how you look at it. Want "alternate views?", they should put up some of the potentially valid non faith-based notions like catastrophic change and things like that.

Holy fucking shit.. I agree with Warriorbird for once.

Actually, you disgree with Bush. Its been well established how you feel about religion and politics so its not surprising.

[Landrion]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by Landrion
I long for the day we can put an athiest president in the white house.

I'd rather an agnostic honestly.

-M

Works for me.

[Terminator X]

This is touched on ten thousand times in AP philosophy without the big stink. It should be kept as such.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Heh, that's why I said as long as it includes other theories, because I know they won't want to cover that many theories in the little time they have. ;)

:lol: Nice.

It's kind of sad though that we have to make those little impossible requirements instead of just saying that the Constitution forbids the crossing of religion and state programs. (I was doing the same thing).

I think the debate is really about how much we can not separate church and state, as Bush is a huge advocate of Charter Schools, and I *think* (someone else do the research) has tried to fund them with Government Money.

The hot issue then becomes how much do we allow the basic premises of the Constitution to be erroded? Supreme Court found that "Under God" could stay in the pledge because it's a symbolic thing, but is the instruction of religious theory in public schools symbolic?

I just can't see the angle that is going to be used to try to get this in there, unless we're relying on people forgetting a few of the basic tenents of the Constitution.

-M

[DeV]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Oh I don't mind religious theories and such being mentioned along with scientific theories, so long as it's more than Christian ideology. I have more issue if it were taught as the main subject.

I have a problem with it being mentioned, unless you plan to devote the same amount of time to each of the other creation theories (and yes, I know that's impossible due to their sheer number). That's why a blanket statement like, "There are many religions that have their own theories on the beginning of the world, and I encourage every one of you to explore them, as they're very interesting themselves." works well for me.

-M Agreed. I couldn't imagine them coming anywhere close to discussing other theories such as Adam and Lilith when it comes to a subject as encompassing as this one. It'd be a bitch coming up with a cirriculum for such a subject in any case.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal governmentSo much for "faith based governance".
Originally posted by Tzar Georgiy
Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about,That even-handed bastard!!!!
The article
Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students.I'm glad I learned about Buddhist and Hindu thought, personally. If we were talking about eliminating evolution from schools, then we'd have a problem.
"doesn't understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint."Science is a religion.

I would have gotten a lot more use out of spending a few days on intelligent design than that dumb pangene theory.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Children in public schools should be focused on factsEvolution (or any science) isn't a fact, it's a theory. If all we taught kids was facts they'd be out of school in 4 years.

Neither intelligent design (as described in the article) nor evolution provide an answer for the creation of life. Therefore, the idea that schools would have to teach the creation stories of every religion to be fair is fallacious, because they wouldn't be teaching any in the first place. Bush didn't say "everyone should learn about Adam and Eve in the Garden".

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Holy fucking shit.. I agree with Warriorbird for once.

At least you admitted that you are wrong. :D

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Children in public schools should be focused on factsEvolution (or any science) isn't a fact, it's a theory. If all we taught kids was facts they'd be out of school in 4 years.

Neither intelligent design (as described in the article) nor evolution provide an answer for the creation of life. Therefore, the idea that schools would have to teach the creation stories of every religion to be fair is fallacious, because they wouldn't be teaching any in the first place. Bush didn't say "everyone should learn about Adam and Eve in the Garden".

You do have a point that it shouldn't be just facts and give them theories to ponder. If the theories they taught were more than science and Christianity ones it would be fine, but that's not the case.

I would have loved to learn about other culture and religious theories, but I was stuck into learning about the Christian views, and that's just wrong in my eyes.

Christianity is not the first religion in this country, not the last, and not the most important, so I don't see why it has to be treated as such in any fashion.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

You do have a point that it shouldn't be just facts and give them theories to ponder. If the theories they taught were more than science and Christianity ones it would be fine, but that's not the case.

I would have loved to learn about other culture and religious theories, but I was stuck into learning about the Christian views, and that's just wrong in my eyes.

Christianity is not the first religion in this country, not the last, and not the most important, so I don't see why it has to be treated as such in any fashion.


It's very narcissistic and naive to think that if we start teaching creationism, it isn't going to revolve around Christianity and offshoot religions, as that is what most teachers themselves know. It would take a concentrated effort for teachers NOT to teach what they know so readily religion-wise and move to subjects that they know less about. Further, if they don't know much about Hindu creationism myths, Pagan creationism myths, Buddhist creationism etc, how do you expect them to explain it?

Again, one must consider the consequences of the action that they propose. Either Bush hasn't done this or already anticipates the ramification of blurring the church and state lines. You can probably guess my take on it.

For that reason, among others, I'd rather leave it out of the equation all together.

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

Err the first line of previous post more addressed to Latri than CT, just i happened to read CT's post last.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
It's very narcissistic and naive to think that if we start teaching creationism, it isn't going to revolve around Christianity and offshoot religions, as that is what most teachers themselves know. It would take a concentrated effort for teachers NOT to teach what they know so readily religion-wise and move to subjects that they know less about. Further, if they don't know much about Hindu creationism myths, Pagan creationism myths, Buddhist creationism etc, how do you expect them to explain it?Again, creationism is not what is suggested as being taught, despite claims to the contrary. All that we're talking about is the idea that "an unseen force is behind the development of humanity", not "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." If Bush *meant* to say that kids should learn about LET THERE BE LIGHT, then I would agree with you. I would rather talk about what Bush said than get into a futile debate over what he meant to say, wouldn't you?

As an aside, my elementary school teachers did a bang up job of teaching us Native American creation stories, though none of them held degrees in Native American Studies.

As a further aside, it almost makes me giggle when I get an argument with you, ElanthianSiren, over whether we should consider an act's intrinsic moral standing or its consequences when deciding whether to do it. My intro to philosophy teacher calls it "talking past each other".

[Gan]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I don't think education based on faith has a place in public schools. That is education based on faith, no matter how you look at it. Want "alternate views?", they should put up some of the potentially valid non faith-based notions like catastrophic change and things like that.

Holy fucking shit.. I agree with Warriorbird for once.

Ditto.

If you want education based on faith, then send your kids to a faith based private school.

[Warriorbird]

" quote:Originally posted by Warriorbird
Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government

So much for "faith based governance"."

Well, unless one equates, "Let's let the school districts vote on a religious matter in schools" with non faith based governance, you'd be wrong.

"That even-handed bastard!!!!"

Science versus not science. One doesn't play into the equation.

"I'm glad I learned about Buddhist and Hindu thought, personally. If we were talking about eliminating evolution from schools, then we'd have a problem."

Well, along with Republicans eliminating birth control from the Wisconsin university system, Kansas has tried to do just that.

"Science is a religion. "

Now we come to an absolutely inane statement. I don't mean to be insulting, but people wonder why I have a hard time debating with certain folks. One simply can't. Faith blinds them to any sense of reason.

"Evolution (or any science) isn't a fact, it's a theory. If all we taught kids was facts they'd be out of school in 4 years.

Neither intelligent design (as described in the article) nor evolution provide an answer for the creation of life. Therefore, the idea that schools would have to teach the creation stories of every religion to be fair is fallacious, because they wouldn't be teaching any in the first place. Bush didn't say "everyone should learn about Adam and Eve in the Garden"."

Yet, curiously enough, we've got people who are advocating teaching out of the Bible for public school education. We've got notions of school prayer that work fine for Christians, but not for any other religion, and are patently against the Constitution of the United States, much less common decency.

And once again, people wonder why it is difficult to debate. Latrin's faith is strong. I respect that. People who base things on faith alone are immune to reason, however.

[ElanthianSiren]

So you never consider the consequences of the actions you will take before you take them? That's a scary thought.

How would your elementary school teacher have done if s/he had to teach all major 18 divisions of religion? How do you plan to break it down to make sure you don't exclude a following? Certainly, I'd be miffed if my kid went to school and didn't learn about the religion I desired while learning a lot of christian propaganda.

Further, how do you get around that pesky separation of church and state idea?

Creationism, any facet of it, simply shouldn't be taught, due to the fact that the mere idea of teaching it muddies the waters to a point beyond clarity (unless teachers were to simplify and only teach the big three, which is what we DON'T want to see happen).

-M

[Kefka]

"Evolution (or any science) isn't a fact, it's a theory. If all we taught kids was facts they'd be out of school in 4 years.

A scientific theory is not an educated guess such as one would label your typical theory. The failed arguement that many creationists use is that it's just a theory and not a law, yet Einstein's theory of relativity correct's Newton's law of gravity in some cases.


And for the record, 'Intelligent Design' has always been the talking point of creationists. We all, or most of us, knew what Bush meant.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
" Neither intelligent design (as described in the article) nor evolution provide an answer for the creation of life. Therefore, the idea that schools would have to teach the creation stories of every religion to be fair is fallacious, because they wouldn't be teaching any in the first place. Bush didn't say "everyone should learn about Adam and Eve in the Garden"." however.

Intelligent design wouldn't teach the stories of creation. It would be much more general and not include talking about whom the creator(s) were. Similiarily, there are several dozen of theories about how, when, and why evolution occurs but 99% of them are never given a minute in the classroom.

When you are talking with something as intimate as the creation of the world around us, how can you say believing any idea about its origin doesn't require some form of faith? Unless you yourself created this place, I don't see how your own perspective wouldn't require some amount of faith.

*In this context, faith is to mean confidence in what can not be proven nor disproven.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Kansas has tried to do just that. Kansas is stupid then.
Science versus not science. One doesn't play into the equation.So because intelligent design doesn't conform to your views, it's not worthy of being taught?
Now we come to an absolutely inane statement.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22problem+of+induction%22
we've got people who are advocating teaching out of the Bible for public school education.They're as dumb as Kansas. However, I don't see any quotes from Bush advocating what you describe, so I don't see how you can take shots at him for it.
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
So you never consider the consequences of the actions you will take before you take them? That's a scary thought.Not before I consider the morality of them, no. What sense would that make?
How would your elementary school teacher have done if s/he had to teach all major 18 divisions of religion?I would have given her an A+.
How do you plan to break it down to make sure you don't exclude a following?Rank the top X number of religions by amount of followers (preferably in America, but in the world is ok too) and teach those, where X is a number found by dividing time available for this program by time it would take to adequately cover a religion. I reckon they do the same thing for history courses.
Further, how do you get around that pesky separation of church and state idea?Bush isn't saying that teachers should say one particular theory is correct. In fact, he's saying exactly the opposite. He's saying that multiple modes of thought should be put forth to the students, and let them decide what's right or wrong.
Originally posted by Kefka
A scientific theory is not an educated guess such as one would label your typical theory.I'm well aware of the sturdiness of a scientific theory, thank you. I'm also aware that science requires just as much blind faith as religion to be at all useful. I'm surprised you were unable to view my thoughts as easily as President Bush's, though. Maybe it's the hair?

[Warriorbird]

"Intelligent design wouldn't teach the stories of creation. It would be much more general and not include talking about whom the creator(s) were. Similiarily, there are several dozen of theories about how, when, and why evolution occurs but 99% of them are never given a minute in the classroom. "

Of course not. It just has no scientific basis at all. It'd be wonderful for a Cosmology course.

[Warriorbird]

"Kansas is stupid then."

Yet, curiously your completely unreligious allies in the field of 'Intelligent Design' consider it some sort of Mecca.

'So because intelligent design doesn't conform to your views, it's not worthy of being taught?'

Actually, intelligent design corresponds rather well to some of my views on how things began. That doesn't have a thing to do with a high school science course, however.

The problem of induction is entirely inapplicable to this situation by your claims and Nakiro's. If you thought about it a little bit rationally, you'd come to a similar conclusion.

"They're as dumb as Kansas. However, I don't see any quotes from Bush advocating what you describe, so I don't see how you can take shots at him for it."

I wouldn't call it taking shots at him. I can criticize his statements that do appear, however. This being America still, and all that.

"Bush isn't saying that teachers should say one particular theory is correct. In fact, he's saying exactly the opposite. He's saying that multiple modes of thought should be put forth to the students, and let them decide what's right or wrong."

Yet one has an entirely religious basis. I'd be fine with some of the valid actually scientific alternate theories being taught in high school biology courses. 'Intelligent Design' belongs in a Cosmology course, if at all.

"I'm well aware of the sturdiness of a scientific theory, thank you. I'm also aware that science requires just as much blind faith as religion to be at all useful."

And I can punch you in the face to disprove that hoary old dog of a philosophical theory.

I'm glad that this isn't quite yet a complete theocracy.

[Edited on 8-3-2005 by Warriorbird]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
[quote]How would your elementary school teacher have done if s/he had to teach all major 18 divisions of religion?I would have given her an A+.


How do you plan to break it down to make sure you don't exclude a following?Rank the top X number of religions by amount of followers (preferably in America, but in the world is ok too) and teach those, where X is a number found by dividing time available for this program by time it would take to adequately cover a religion. I reckon they do the same thing for history courses.


Further, how do you get around that pesky separation of church and state idea?Bush isn't saying that teachers should say one particular theory is correct. In fact, he's saying exactly the opposite. He's saying that multiple modes of thought should be put forth to the students, and let them decide what's right or wrong.


Originally posted by Kefka
A scientific theory is not an educated guess such as one would label your typical theory.I'm well aware of the sturdiness of a scientific theory, thank you. I'm also aware that science requires just as much blind faith as religion to be at all useful. I'm surprised you were unable to view my thoughts as easily as President Bush's, though. Maybe it's the hair?


Yet your elementry school teacher never needed to teach 18 facets of creationism, so you can't know.

Rank the top religions? You have to be joking. History is fact, therefor your analogy is flawed. I don't want anyone teaching my kids how to have their heads bent around the Bible, thanks.

Ahh, so you're skirting the question? Bush is advocating bringing religion into schools. That definitely blurs separation of church and state, regardless if you want to call it "bringing another theory" into the classroom. That theory (or theories) is/are still based in religion and has/have no business in the classroom.

Science requires blind faith to be useful? Tell that to people who have been cured with penecilian or of polio. I doubt they recovered on blind faith where thousands of others died.

-M

[Warriorbird]

...must not bring up Gallileo...must not bring up Gallileo. Aw, heck.

[DeV]

Isn't the main premise behind Intelligent Design centered on providing experimental proof for the existence of God or some other existence of intelligent alien life form? In that case, wouldn't the Constitution consider Intelligent Design to be a religious theory or view and furthermore should not be promoted by the government itself anyway because it would be violating the constitution?

I thought Science class was named that for a very specific reason. It has already been the subject of experiement and debate as well as some theories relating to it already having been proved. Intelligent Design could not be taught as scientific fact.

I just see this opening a new can of worms with regards to Biblican interpretation which is still being interpretated on a daily basis. A subject of this magnitute should be left to the parents discretion as it currently is.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
...must not bring up Gallileo...must not bring up Gallileo. Aw, heck.

...I think he brought up Galileo's illuminati.

-M

[CrystalTears]

President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.

Oh really? What "unseen force" could Bush possibly be referring to? A supreme being? Certainly not the hot chick from The Fifth Element. No, the beat-around-the-bush (Bush, har) way of saying GOD.

If they don't touch on ALL "unseen force" theories, then it's a Christianity issue, therefore, should not be part of a high school curriculum.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yet, curiously your completely unreligious allies in the field of 'Intelligent Design' consider it some sort of Mecca.Uh, ok?
The problem of induction is entirely inapplicable to this situationIntelligent design - based on faith in a supernatural being
Evolution - based on faith in an unproveable hypothesis

I've seen some good arguments for proof of the supernatural. I haven't seen a thing for induction, and people plenty smarter than me have tried.
I wouldn't call it taking shots at him. I can criticize his statements that do appear, however. This being America still, and all that.Of course you're allowed to say what you want, I meant "I don't see how" from a rational perspective. It would be akin to blaming Jan Sobieski for the Protestant Reformation.
And I can punch you in the face to disprove that hoary old dog of a philosophical theory.I think the preferred method of philosophers is Reason, not Violence, but I guess you could give it a shot?
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
History is factComing from the person who said
In the end, history is written by the winners.that's a little hard to stomach.
Ahh, so you're skirting the question?...no, if the state is not supporting one Church above others or even religion vs. non-religion, then there isn't a problem. I'd say the idea of a Creator predates Christianity and Judaism, wouldn't you?
Science requires blind faith to be useful? Tell that to people who have been cured with penecilian or of polio. I doubt they recovered on blind faith where thousands of others died.Blind faith was what caused people to GIVE them penicillin.
I don't want anyone teaching my kids how to have their heads bent around the Bible, thanks.And if Intelligent Design had anything to do with the Bible, you would have a valid concern. I'm curious though, do you feel your position of non-religion is any different than a Bible thumper demanding that their children not be taught atheist views or philosophies?
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Oh really? What "unseen force" could Bush possibly be referring to?It's irrelevant what he considers the unseen force if he wants it taught in the generic form. If he wanted it taught in the Christian form, why didn't he say Yahweh? Or Jehovah? Or even God?

I don't know if I'd make the claim that anything concerning the supernatural is religious in nature. I certainly didn't pick up any religion vibes watching Ghostbusters (until Ray started busting out the Revelations, obviously).

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

[quote]I'm curious though, do you feel your position of non-religion is any different than a Bible thumper demanding that their children not be taught atheist views or philosophies?

Good question. Yes, actually. First because I do not hold a position of "non religion" as you put it. I do hold a policy against religion being shoved down other people's throats, however, regardless of their age.

Not wasting time on something is very easy to undo of your own free will. I don't think current classrooms are doing anything wrong saying, "There are many other theories on how the universe was made, and I urge you to research them outside of class. They are very interesting."

Further, you admit that this has to do with the religion when you advocated separating out the different religions and teaching about them based on their prominence.

Finally, no one has proposed teaching aethism in public schools, so your argument is moot.



Originally posted by Latrinsorm
It's irrelevant what he considers the unseen force if he wants it taught in the generic form. If he wanted it taught in the Christian form, why didn't he say Yahweh? Or Jehovah? Or even God?

I don't consider it irrelevent, and I don't see him teaching it in the generic form. Babysteps.

You don't learn about Ghosts in Science class. You shouldn't learn about anything that could be loosely connected to religion/god either. Leave that for parent instruction time.

-M

[DeV]

So what exactly is he talking about as far as unseen forces... fucking ghosts, aliens!?

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by DeV
So what exactly is he talking about as far as unseen forces... fucking ghosts, aliens!?

OMG Dev, he wants to take kids to area 51. You've solved it. -The great mystery. It's not about religion at all.


-M

[Warriorbird]

The critical error made is thinking proof or disproof of the theory of evolution has anything to do with whether 'Intelligent design" should be taught alongside it. Thus, induction doesn't even apply, Latrin.

[Keller]

This makes me want to ask the President how "intelligent design" managed to both create and disapprove of homosexuality (this is of course relying on the scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic and at least one homosexual in the history of the world was brought up by a beer-drinking, football-watching dad and a subordinate, laundry-washing mom with 1.5 siblings and a dog and still turned out a little queer).

Did this guy even possibly think of the reprecussions of a Christian nation teaching this theory? I think it could lead to some interesting debate but it would also become highly unconstitutional when taught predominately from the judeo-christian perspective.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Further, you admit that this has to do with the religion when you advocated separating out the different religions and teaching about them based on their prominence.I was actually following a tangent you made that had nothing to do with the topic. That's why I said "Again, creationism is not what is suggested as being taught". Multi-tasking!
Finally, no one has proposed teaching aethism in public schools, so your argument is moot.No one has proposed teaching Christianity in public schools. :shrug:
I don't consider it irrelevent,Naturally. :)
and I don't see him teaching it in the generic form.You're quite right. I reckon if he was teaching it, he would be seen as promoting Christianity. However, President Bush is not a teacher, he's the President. Nor is he setting national policy, because he specifically said it should be left up to districts.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
The critical error made is thinking proof or disproof of the theory of evolution has anything to do with whether 'Intelligent design" should be taught alongside it. Thus, induction doesn't even apply, Latrin.The original comment made distinguished evolution from intelligent design by saying "one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint". If science is religious in nature, then this is a false distinction, rather like saying an object of 0 saturation (I think it's saturation) is not grey. And if science relies on induction, it is not composed of rational (in the purest sense) beliefs. I personally buy into evolution and have defended it at great length in the past, but that doesn't make it fact.

[Warriorbird]

"No one has proposed teaching Christianity in public schools"

Incorrect. Kansas has.

[Warriorbird]

Still haven't proved that faith based reasoning belongs in a science course, Latrin. You'd have to prove that it belongs amidst science, theoretical and non theoretical. It doesn't. It has a different basis. Saying it doesn't is silly.

Why do organisms still change? Why do mutations occur? Once you hit that point, you can see 'Intelligent Design' for what it really is. Just the notion of "proving" or "disproving" evolution doesn't make it scientific.

[Edited on 8-3-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Incorrect. Kansas has. No one named George W. Bush has proposed teaching Christianity in schools.
Still haven't proved that faith based reasoning belongs in a science courseIf by "faith" you mean "a belief not grounded in reason", then I'm pretty sure I have. If by "faith" you mean "Baptist", I reckon you'd have to prove that the theory of intelligent design is necessarily of a faith before I have to prove that it isn't.
Why do organisms still change? Why do mutations occur? Once you hit that point, you can see 'Intelligent Design' for what it really is.A supernatural being can't guide organisms into changing? Whyever not?

edit: Double negative. :oops:

[Edited on 8-3-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[Warriorbird]

Intelligent Design at core opposes the scientific method. You can prove that evolution doesn't exist and Intelligent Design still doesn't belong in a science class.

You could prove Lamarckian evolution occurs and it still wouldn't belong in a science class.

It goes against the core principles of science, whether you agree with them or not. You can't put the forest before the trees and fit into those notions.

(As an anecdote, that reminds me of a particularly creationism loving Liberty university student teacher grading a paper of my sister's down because, "trees aren't plants." )

[Edited on 8-4-2005 by Warriorbird]

[longshot]

Originally posted by Backlash
Without reading the entire thing (trying to get up to speed at work having missed yesterday) I don’t see the big deal. If I read correctly he said both sides should be explored, not just one.

As far as “intellligent design”, I can accept that as much as I can accept anything supernatural... its really just a fantasy as it can’t be proven. As for my own beliefs, I’ve often marvelled at our world and though there was some intelligent design behind it. Not saying there is a team of designers coming up with new frogs, but that the entire system of nature is an ingenious work.



The very problem with teaching two beliefs is that by doing so, you are pitting the evil, souless scientific version against the Jesus approved version.

Picture a classroom in Oklahoma... now imagine how that's going to go down.

By proponents of intelligent design are pushing to have this "dual" system because they recognize the power of a Christian "beliefs".

When you believe something, you don't have to think rationally about it. You can just believe.

There is a good book about this... "The Tower of Babel". It tracks the legislative and other initiatives of "intelligent design", and how they have been effective because they don't outright criticize evolution.

But, with two theories side by side, it makes it look like they are similar in stature... like "intelligent design" is a true theory like evolution. I'm guessing if you've been to a Nascar race, you're going to side with Jebus on this, and go with "'telligent design".

I think it's fucking rediculous.

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by longshot

But, with two theories side by side, it makes it look like they are similar in stature... like "intelligent design" is a true theory like evolution.

This is my main problem with it. Intelligent design doesn't belong in a science class, unless and until it gets some actual scientific study/evidence to back it up. Which I don't think is possible.

I'm very open to the idea that there's some supernatural guiding force. Even if not in the complete design, then in the spark that created original life that eventually evolved.

I'm fine with public schools teaching comparative religion classes, philosophy, cosmology, etc. Intelligent design could fit in any of those. But not in a science class.

RD

[Warriorbird]

DANIEL C. DENNETT is University Professor, Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. Among his books are Consciousness Explained; Darwin's Dangerous Idea; and Freedom Evolves.

[Editor's Note: First published as an Op-Ed Page article in The New York Times on Sunday, August 28th.]

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE

Blue Hill, Me.

PRESIDENT BUSH, announcing this month that he was in favor of teaching about "intelligent design" in the schools, said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." A couple of weeks later, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, made the same point. Teaching both intelligent design and evolution "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone," Mr. Frist said. "I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."

Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.

First, imagine how easy it would be for a determined band of naysayers to shake the world's confidence in quantum physics — how weird it is! — or Einsteinian relativity. In spite of a century of instruction and popularization by physicists, few people ever really get their heads around the concepts involved. Most people eventually cobble together a justification for accepting the assurances of the experts: "Well, they pretty much agree with one another, and they claim that it is their understanding of these strange topics that allows them to harness atomic energy, and to make transistors and lasers, which certainly do work..."

Fortunately for physicists, there is no powerful motivation for such a band of mischief-makers to form. They don't have to spend much time persuading people that quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity really have been established beyond all reasonable doubt.

With evolution, however, it is different. The fundamental scientific idea of evolution by natural selection is not just mind-boggling; natural selection, by executing God's traditional task of designing and creating all creatures great and small, also seems to deny one of the best reasons we have for believing in God. So there is plenty of motivation for resisting the assurances of the biologists. Nobody is immune to wishful thinking. It takes scientific discipline to protect ourselves from our own credulity, but we've also found ingenious ways to fool ourselves and others. Some of the methods used to exploit these urges are easy to analyze; others take a little more unpacking.

A creationist pamphlet sent to me some years ago had an amusing page in it, purporting to be part of a simple questionnaire:

Test Two

Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? [YES] [NO]

Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? [YES] [NO]

Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? [YES] [NO]

If you answered YES for any of the above, give details:

Take that, you Darwinians! The presumed embarrassment of the test-taker when faced with this task perfectly expresses the incredulity many people feel when they confront Darwin's great idea. It seems obvious, doesn't it, that there couldn't be any designs without designers, any such creations without a creator.

Well, yes — until you look at what contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: that natural selection — the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge — has the power to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs.

Take the development of the eye, which has been one of the favorite challenges of creationists. How on earth, they ask, could that engineering marvel be produced by a series of small, unplanned steps? Only an intelligent designer could have created such a brilliant arrangement of a shape-shifting lens, an aperture-adjusting iris, a light-sensitive image surface of exquisite sensitivity, all housed in a sphere that can shift its aim in a hundredth of a second and send megabytes of information to the visual cortex every second for years on end.

But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work — all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multicelled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago — we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.

We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have detailed computer models to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says.

All it takes is a rare accident that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate — this was Darwin's insight — eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.

Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process.

If you still find Test Two compelling, a sort of cognitive illusion that you can feel even as you discount it, you are like just about everybody else in the world; the idea that natural selection has the power to generate such sophisticated designs is deeply counterintuitive. Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, once jokingly credited his colleague Leslie Orgel with "Orgel's Second Rule": Evolution is cleverer than you are. Evolutionary biologists are often startled by the power of natural selection to "discover" an "ingenious" solution to a design problem posed in the lab.

This observation lets us address a slightly more sophisticated version of the cognitive illusion presented by Test Two. When evolutionists like Crick marvel at the cleverness of the process of natural selection they are not acknowledging intelligent design. The designs found in nature are nothing short of brilliant, but the process of design that generates them is utterly lacking in intelligence of its own.

Intelligent design advocates, however, exploit the ambiguity between process and product that is built into the word "design." For them, the presence of a finished product (a fully evolved eye, for instance) is evidence of an intelligent design process. But this tempting conclusion is just what evolutionary biology has shown to be mistaken.

Yes, eyes are for seeing, but these and all the other purposes in the natural world can be generated by processes that are themselves without purposes and without intelligence. This is hard to understand, but so is the idea that colored objects in the world are composed of atoms that are not themselves colored, and that heat is not made of tiny hot things.

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory — but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

William Dembski, one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design, notes that he provoked Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response that Dr. Dembski characterizes as "some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers." What looks to scientists — and is — a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to most everyone else as ridiculous hair-splitting.

In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.

To see this shortcoming in relief, consider an imaginary hypothesis of intelligent design that could explain the emergence of human beings on this planet:

About six million years ago, intelligent genetic engineers from another galaxy visited Earth and decided that it would be a more interesting planet if there was a language-using, religion-forming species on it, so they sequestered some primates and genetically re-engineered them to give them the language instinct, and enlarged frontal lobes for planning and reflection. It worked.

If some version of this hypothesis were true, it could explain how and why human beings differ from their nearest relatives, and it would disconfirm the competing evolutionary hypotheses that are being pursued.

We'd still have the problem of how these intelligent genetic engineers came to exist on their home planet, but we can safely ignore that complication for the time being, since there is not the slightest shred of evidence in favor of this hypothesis.

But here is something the intelligent design community is reluctant to discuss: no other intelligent-design hypothesis has anything more going for it. In fact, my farfetched hypothesis has the advantage of being testable in principle: we could compare the human and chimpanzee genomes, looking for unmistakable signs of tampering by these genetic engineers from another galaxy. Finding some sort of user's manual neatly embedded in the apparently functionless "junk DNA" that makes up most of the human genome would be a Nobel Prize-winning coup for the intelligent design gang, but if they are looking at all, they haven't come up with anything to report.

It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the classrooms. The scientific participants in these arguments vie for acceptance among the relevant expert communities in peer-reviewed journals, and the writers and editors of textbooks grapple with judgments about which findings have risen to the level of acceptance — not yet truth — to make them worth serious consideration by undergraduates and high school students.

SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts.

The Discovery Institute, the conservative organization that has helped to put intelligent design on the map, complains that its members face hostility from the established scientific journals. But establishment hostility is not the real hurdle to intelligent design. If intelligent design were a scientific idea whose time had come, young scientists would be dashing around their labs, vying to win the Nobel Prizes that surely are in store for anybody who can overturn any significant proposition of contemporary evolutionary biology.

Remember cold fusion? The establishment was incredibly hostile to that hypothesis, but scientists around the world rushed to their labs in the effort to explore the idea, in hopes of sharing in the glory if it turned out to be true.

Instead of spending more than $1 million a year on publishing books and articles for non-scientists and on other public relations efforts, the Discovery Institute should finance its own peer-reviewed electronic journal. This way, the organization could live up to its self-professed image: the doughty defenders of brave iconoclasts bucking the establishment.

For now, though, the theory they are promoting is exactly what George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said it is: "Intelligent design itself does not have any content."

Since there is no content, there is no "controversy" to teach about in biology class. But here is a good topic for a high school course on current events and politics: Is intelligent design a hoax? And if so, how was it perpetrated?

[ElanthianSiren]

Interesting article, WB. A friend of mine is in the military, and I helped him edit/write a similar piece after he was given what they called "The Aethist Test" tract. He is agnostic, but some christians don't seem to understand the difference between the two.

(similiar test/rant here: )

http://www.thedemiurge.org/rant1.html


As a biology major, it was very cool to learn how organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplast evolved to form higher systems from symbiotic subsystems that they can still observe in those two structures today, and yes, puts a large hole in the 3 day process.

I'll never argue that I think someone/something put those mechanics in place; what I will argue is teaching anything like creationism to kids. It makes me want to vomit, especially knowing it will be the same old BS.

-God, yes! Big white man with a beard! :rolleyes:
(quoth The Eddie Izzard)


As for how the myth of creationism was propagated -- 1. people didn't know better. 2. people couldn't learn better. 3. tradition. 4. stigma (aka fear). 5. as the article points out -- the entire idea of creationism (intelligent design) is a chicken or egg argument. Hiding behind -- my religion says it -- is like people still arguing the structure of atomic components as perfect little cell-like circles, rather than several stretched spheres as evidence suggests.

-M
edit: damn the smiley and other stuff i forgot too!

[Edited on Tue, August th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Keller]

The question is:

When the hell will we finally catch up to the times that gravity is NOT a scientific truth and that in fact things fall intelligently? I mean to think that there are these "forces" without an intelligent being causing them is unconscionable. And to think that people used to believe that Newton character. :saint:

[Warriorbird]

I believe I can fly!

[Keller]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I believe I can fly!

Ahhhhh yes. Intelligent lift -- oh gracious judeo-christian god I think thee for allowing us to overcome your intelligent falling.

[Artha]

I forget his name, but there was a saint who could do that.

[Latrinsorm]

Padre Pio?

[Warriorbird]

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/shouts/050926sh_shouts

[Gan]

Quite funny.

My favorite line:
“Now, there’s movement,” agreed Allah. “It’s not just ‘Hi, I’m a planet—no splashing.’ ”

[Back]

Classic. Great find, great humor!

[xtc]

Without reading 3 pages of posts, I have no problem with Bush’s position. Teaching both concepts is perfectly valid. Evolution is still a theory. Hardcore atheist evolutionists have an agenda and so do hardcore born again Christians. A lot of academics consider evolution a sacred cow and it gets their little panties in a twist when someone treads on it.

Bush is correct, if kids learn both theories they can better understand the debate. They can make their own choices as to what they believe. When something is unknown it is wrong to teach kids just one theory. Until, if ever, evolution is a law, alternative theories should be taught.

[Valthissa]

These discussions inevitably remind me of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. I don't think I was ever so far out of my league than when I was forced to write an essay explaining Kant's definitions leading up to his proof on 'the impossibility of a theological proof of the existence of God'. Thinking about how poorly I understood the book still makes me feel kind of dumb.

C/Valth

[Back]

Thats what makes you cool, V.

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by xtcBush is correct, if kids learn both theories they can better understand the debate. They can make their own choices as to what they believe. When something is unknown it is wrong to teach kids just one theory. Until, if ever, evolution is a law, alternative theories should be taught.

You're missing the point that Intelligent Design isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis at most and wild speculation at least. In scientific terms, a theory needs to have research and data to back it up and it needs to be testable by other scientists. A theory is generally accepted by the scientific community to be true. ID doesn't qualify. Until it qualifies as a scientific theory it shouldn't be taught in science classes.

I was just reading a lot of interesting stuff about this on livescience.com (I think that was the site) a couple days ago. There's a four part series of articles.

RD

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I was actually following a tangent you made that had nothing to do with the topic. That's why I said "Again, creationism is not what is suggested as being taught". Multi-tasking!

If it walks like a duck ....

Intelligent design is just a watered down attempt at creationalism. You take creationalism, remove pointed references to god and the bible, load it down with psuedo educated babble and say "viola .... a theory".

It's no different than the groups that have attempted to dispute the occurrence of the haulocaust. First was flat out denial, as we progress through the years it has evolved from a denial platform to a reduction platform.

Hard lined Christians have followed in the same steps since every other attempt at introducing creationalism has been shut down.


No one has proposed teaching Christianity in public schools. :shrug:

That is exactly what "intelligent design" is. It's Christian attempt to introduce something that has only been repackaged. You can put horse crap in a wheaties box, but it's still horse crap.


You're quite right. I reckon if he was teaching it, he would be seen as promoting Christianity. However, President Bush is not a teacher, he's the President. Nor is he setting national policy, because he specifically said it should be left up to districts.

Now you're moving to an argument of symantics. He's promoting and pushing it. It's a pressure tactic. Give us another catastrophe at the hands of a foreign assailant and he'd attempt to cram it down the throat congress to get federal backing.

That he doesn't teach it is irrelevant. Even though the hypothesis is so laden with babble that Dubya falls asleep after the first sentence, he knows it's "christian" brand and a good number of his constituents want it. He'll push and peddle until some back woods school district says "why not" ... wait, that's already happened.


The original comment made distinguished evolution from intelligent design by saying "one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint". If science is religious in nature, then this is a false distinction, rather like saying an object of 0 saturation (I think it's saturation) is not grey. And if science relies on induction, it is not composed of rational (in the purest sense) beliefs. I personally buy into evolution and have defended it at great length in the past, but that doesn't make it fact.

Your entire argument hinges upon the "if" in the above statement. Science is not religiously based. Science is impartial.

While evolution is not fact, it has the findings to back the theory. We have a record and path to follow. If something is disproven or doesn't fit, it's re-examined to determine why and the process continues. With intelligent design we have nothing of substance to back it. It's not a theory in the scientific sense, no more than a hypothesis based upon a historically based work of fiction such as Tom Sawyer.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[Jazuela]

I'd like to see comparative religion taught in the schools. But I'd like to see it taught AS comparative religion, and not as some "scientific alternative" to evolution.

We had it in college, as an elective to fulfill our social sciences requirements. It was a summary version of all the mainstream religions - Christianity and an explanation of how that broke off into different sects (Catholic, Methodist, Protestant, Baptist, etc.), Judaism and its main sects (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc.), Islam and its sects (Shi'ite, Sunni, etc.), Hindu, Buddhism and the other Indian philosophies, Wicca and Druidism (from an historic perspective since it isn't a mainstream religion now) and at the end of the course, a summary explanation of cultism and a few cults for examples.

We weren't taught which one was "right," or which one was "wrong" but rather, that they exist, that some people follow them, and the primary differences and similarities between them.

It was fascinating, but I think it's too "deep" to be taught in grades lower than high school. But yeah I'd love to see it taught in high school. Teaching people about what other people believe in an educational way is a good thing. It opens young minds, not necessarily to embrace another belief, but to embrace other people who have those beliefs. Bringing people closer together by teaching them how they're different - and how they're not so different - can only be a good thing.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Science is not religiously based. Science is impartial. Humanity cannot be impartial, therefore humanity cannot create anything impartial.
It's no different than the groups that have attempted to dispute the occurrence of the haulocaust. Nice.
Originally posted by Jazuela
But yeah I'd love to see it taught in high school.Send kids to Jesuit high schools. You just described Freshman Theology to a T (except we didn't go into Christianity that far).

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Rainy Day

Originally posted by xtcBush is correct, if kids learn both theories they can better understand the debate. They can make their own choices as to what they believe. When something is unknown it is wrong to teach kids just one theory. Until, if ever, evolution is a law, alternative theories should be taught.

You're missing the point that Intelligent Design isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis at most and wild speculation at least. In scientific terms, a theory needs to have research and data to back it up and it needs to be testable by other scientists. A theory is generally accepted by the scientific community to be true. ID doesn't qualify. Until it qualifies as a scientific theory it shouldn't be taught in science classes.

I was just reading a lot of interesting stuff about this on livescience.com (I think that was the site) a couple days ago. There's a four part series of articles.

RD

I called a friend of mine who was a Professor of Biology at Bishops University in Quebec. Obviously he has a PhD in Biology. He acknowledges that evolution is a theory and believes it has great merit but acknowledges that the theory has flaws. He personally believes in evolution but believes a God was behind it (no he isn't a born again Christian).

He also told me that the "scientific community" doesn't have a consensus on many things, however most embrace evolution over ID, at least in Canada. He said that atheists in science are as fanatical and close minded as born again Christians and that their bias affects their science and he acknowledges that born agains in science are as blinded the other way. Personally he doesn't have a problem with alternative theories to evolution being taught, including ID.

I called him because he has always seem balanced to me. I have known him for 20 years. He is left wing but believes in God, not your traditional Bible God but a God.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by xtc]

[Warriorbird]

I see nothing wrong with teaching a course on cosmology. Intelligent design violates the scientific method so it has no place in a science class. It doesn't matter if the theory of evolution is flawed (and I believe it is).

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Humanity cannot be impartial, therefore humanity cannot create anything impartial.

Right. So how do you explain modern engineering, electronics, medicine, mathematics and a slew of other man made creations?

We are entirely capable of creating without bias to religion. In fact, religion is the one bias that held us back for centuries.

Your statement is bull and I think you know it. Faith is a wonderful thing until it gets in the way of rational thinking, when that happens you're the guy waiting for god to help you while ignoring the help that isn't god's hand.



It's no different than the groups that have attempted to dispute the occurrence of the haulocaust. Nice

Call me psychic, but I knew you would take that as a comparison between two philosophies and not two similar processes used to gain acceptance.

Go figure.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
I called a friend of mine who was a Professor of Biology at Bishops University in Quebec. Obviously he has a PhD in Biology. He acknowledges that evolution is a theory and believes it has great merit but acknowledges that the theory has flaws. He personally believes in evolution but believes a God was behind it (no he isn't a born again Christian).

He also told me that the "scientific community" doesn't have a consensus on many things, however most embrace evolution over ID, at least in Canada. He said that atheists in science are as fanatical and close minded as born again Christians and that their bias affects their science and he acknowledges that born agains in science are as blinded the other way. Personally he doesn't have a problem with alternative theories to evolution being taught, including ID.

I called him because he has always seem balanced to me. I have known him for 20 years. He is left wing but believes in God, not your traditional Bible God but a God.


Then again, you're quoting "hear say" from one person's outlook.

Great that you believe him, but his opinion isn't indicative of an entire community.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc
I called a friend of mine who was a Professor of Biology at Bishops University in Quebec. Obviously he has a PhD in Biology. He acknowledges that evolution is a theory and believes it has great merit but acknowledges that the theory has flaws. He personally believes in evolution but believes a God was behind it (no he isn't a born again Christian).

He also told me that the "scientific community" doesn't have a consensus on many things, however most embrace evolution over ID, at least in Canada. He said that atheists in science are as fanatical and close minded as born again Christians and that their bias affects their science and he acknowledges that born agains in science are as blinded the other way. Personally he doesn't have a problem with alternative theories to evolution being taught, including ID.

I called him because he has always seem balanced to me. I have known him for 20 years. He is left wing but believes in God, not your traditional Bible God but a God.


Then again, you're quoting "hear say" from one person's outlook.

Great that you believe him, but his opinion isn't indicative of an entire community.

No, his opinion is only his opinion and not indicative of the scientific community as a whole you are quite correct.

I have a limited understanding of science and have never pursued it beyond a high school level, so I called someone much more knowledgeable than myself.

I don't see what the big debate is about, teaching two separate theories on the origins of the universe.

He stated that atheists in science can be as blind and fanatical as evangelicals when discussing science. You stated that science is impartial, it maybe, but scientists are not. Many start with a premise then go out to try to prove it, rather than gathering information which leads them to a conclusion. I think it important to remember that both sides can lack objectivity.

[Warriorbird]

In essence, "intelligent design" violates the very nature of scientific inquiry that underpins science itself. That's the "big deal." and why people are so moved by it is faith is a strong presence in the world. I simply believe the two shouldn't mix.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Right. So how do you explain modern engineering, electronics, medicine, mathematics and a slew of other man made creations?All of the cited examples save math rely on a firm faith in induction. If I say induction is crap, all of science is hoo-hah. Impartial doesn't mean subjective. I'll concede that math is objective but question its authorship. Would a ram and a sheep not be two animals if humans weren't around to count them?
We are entirely capable of creating without bias to religion.I think there has been a miscommunication. I did not say that science is based on A RELIGION, I said that science is religious IN NATURE.
Call me psychic, but I knew you would take that as a comparison between two philosophies and not two similar processes used to gain acceptance.Someone needs a grammar lesson! Here's your statement:
It's no different than the groups... You can't say that a method is no different than a group (they're obviously different things) so you must be talking about a group, in this case supporters of ID. If you had said
They're no different than the groups' methodsthen you would have a leg to stand on. You'll notice how I didn't quote
First was flat out denial, as we progress through the years it has evolved from a denial platform to a reduction platform.mainly because we've already discussed how that is an incorrect statement but mostly because that actually is talking about methods. Even assuming you were correct about identical/similar tactics, you cannot go from there to saying the groups are the same (as in the originally quoted statement).

Pronoun trouble.

p.s: Because I happened to glance upon it again, "viola" is a musical instrument, "voilà" is the word you were looking for (the accent is no big deal though).

[Warriorbird]

I already pointed out why, totally ignoring induction, intelligent design doesn't belong in a science classroom. You were the one who chose to ignore it.

It's clear where you're coming from. Faith matters to you. That's great.

Lobby for a cosmology course.

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by Jazuela
I'd like to see comparative religion taught in the schools. But I'd like to see it taught AS comparative religion, and not as some "scientific alternative" to evolution.

It was fascinating, but I think it's too "deep" to be taught in grades lower than high school. But yeah I'd love to see it taught in high school. Teaching people about what other people believe in an educational way is a good thing. It opens young minds, not necessarily to embrace another belief, but to embrace other people who have those beliefs. Bringing people closer together by teaching them how they're different - and how they're not so different - can only be a good thing.

I think classes like that are fine in lower levels too. A section of my social studies class in junior high covered the five major world religions and it was very interesting. I think even 5th and 6th graders could get a lot out of something like that.

There must have been something similar again in high school but I can't remember specifically what was being covered in class. I just remember going to different types of worship services with friends on weekends for extra credit. The Mormons are weird.


RD

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by xtc
I don't see what the big debate is about, teaching two separate theories on the origins of the universe.

We've already told you what the debate is about. It's about the fact that ID is not scientific theory. In order to teach an alternative scientific theory in a science class, it has to actually BE a theory.

Maybe this will help:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

RD

[xtc]

Originally posted by Rainy Day

Originally posted by xtc
I don't see what the big debate is about, teaching two separate theories on the origins of the universe.

We've already told you what the debate is about. It's about the fact that ID is not scientific theory. In order to teach an alternative scientific theory in a science class, it has to actually BE a theory.

Maybe this will help:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

RD

No offence but your link is to Jerry's Science page.

I looked up scientific method in wikopedia and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

To me it seems that ID is cogent enough to be a scientific theory but it can't be tested reproducibly enough to be a scientific theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

HOWEVER evolution can't be tested reproducibly enough to be a scientific theory. Thus neither method should be taught.

[Warriorbird]

The whole ID hypothesis is on non scientific grounds.


Thus neither method should be taught.

I'd support that.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
The whole ID hypothesis is on non scientific grounds.


Thus neither method should be taught.

I'd support that.

or both hypothesis could be taught?

[Warriorbird]

Definitely not. Like I said, intelligent design violates the scientific method. If you teach it, you might as well start teaching Scientologist notions alongside psychology/psychiatry.

Just because Darwin's theory doesn't work perfectly doesn't make ID scientifically valid.

[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Definitely not. Like I said, intelligent design violates the scientific method. If you teach it, you might as well start teaching Scientologist notions alongside psychology/psychiatry.

Just because Darwin's theory doesn't work perfectly doesn't make ID scientifically valid.

[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Warriorbird]

So you would rather teach neither? I think children are curious about the origins of the universe. You could easily teach both as hypothesis and tell them that most scientists believe in evolution although neither hypothesis can be reproduced so neither is a scientific theory. Personally I see it as great learning opportunity for kids, it isn't as if you are teaching Adam & Eve and even that I have no problem teaching as long as you teach it along side every other major religion.

[Warriorbird]

That's why I suggested a cosmology course. Intelligent Design is simply non scientific.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
That's why I suggested a cosmology course. Intelligent Design is simply non scientific.

What is the difference between religious cosmology and ID?

[Warriorbird]

One could be a varied and interesting school course that taught tolerance and some mind expansion.

The other, Intelligent Design, doesn't belong where it is trying to belong.

[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I already pointed out why, totally ignoring induction, intelligent design doesn't belong in a science classroom. You were the one who chose to ignore it.Yeah, nobody can possibly use a scientific process to discuss the existence of God. That Descartes guy is a figment of my imagination (which admittedly explains why he has a girl's name).
One could be a varied and interesting school course that taught tolerance and some mind expansion.Providing an alternative hypothesis necessarily expands one's mind, even if you or I feel it's utterly bogus. An atheist take on evolution is the scenario of intolerance, not the scenario where multiple viewpoints are presented, however unscientific YOU feel one of them is.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, nobody can possibly use a scientific process to discuss the existence of God. That Descartes guy is a figment of my imagination (which admittedly explains why he has a girl's name).

Curiously enough... Intelligent Design isn't attempting to do that or I'd have much less of an argument with it. In addition, Descartes efforts were philosophy... which hasn't fit into the scientific framework in a long while.


Providing an alternative hypothesis necessarily expands one's mind

Just because it "expands one's mind" doesn't mean it belongs in a science course. You could talk about Darwin's marital proclivities and struggle with impotence and it would expand your mind but it wouldn't belong in a science course. You could talk about Malinowski's diary and what it says about the hypocrisy of some of his theories about primitive peoples, but it wouldn't belong in a serious anthropological discussion of Malinowski's ethnography.


An atheist take on evolution is the scenario of intolerance

So... you expect scientists to be "tolerant" of things that aren't science. I find that hilarious considering the intolerance directed by backers of intelligent design. My sister could talk about the tactics that were used against her and the others opposing it and prayer in Virginia schools. The death threats and accusations of devil worship were real "Christian." Just because you talk about love (despite your own intolerances which have been revealed in volumnes) doesn't make your faith or side filled with it.

If something doesn't belong in a specific class it doesn't make it intolerance to exclude it. It isn't intolerant to keep math out of an English course, it is simple logic.


however unscientific

Tell me, in the process of attempting to be patronizing... have you ever actually thought about how Intelligent Design fits into the scientific method?

Didn't think so.

I thought a class on cosmology would be an interesting notion that would easily accomodate "multiple viewpoints" other than this Christian dominated ideal. But gosh gee, we wouldn't want to be tolerant towards other religions besides Christianity, would we? We're filled with love only for the people that worship the same way we do.

[Latrinsorm]

Your incessant libel of my character would be slightly more palatable if your spelling was up to snuff. The word is "volumes".

Your initial claim was that ID could not be tolerant or mind-expanding. My claim was not that "ID can be tolerant or mind-expanding, therefore it belongs in a science class". My claim was that "ID can be tolerant or mind-expanding, therefore it cannot not be tolerant or mind-expanding". There's a word/law/rule for it in logic that I can't remember at the moment, but anything that's true cannot be untrue.

You have been claiming for some time now that ID is not scientific because it is necessarily not based on a scientific method. Descartes' methods were the pinnacle of science and it confounds me how you can suggest otherwise. He discarded all previous assumptions, he gathered data, he created and tested his hypothesis. He ended up being incorrect, but that doesn't mean he was unscientific. I think it's setting the bar a bit high to exclude theories of the origin of life from science, so that leaves nothing keeping ID from being scientific.

[Warriorbird]

Your incessant libel of my character would be slightly more palatable if your spelling was up to snuff. The word is "volumes".

When you come off as a patronizing egomaniac, I'll libel you. When you cease, I'll cease. Maybe I'll misspellllllll less words in the process at that point.


Your initial claim was that ID could not be tolerant or mind-expanding

You then backed it up by bringing up the problem of induction... which I countered by pointing out that evolution's truth or falsehood isn't relavent to whether intelligent design needs to be taught. This was a while back, however. What I was pointing out here was that Intelligent Design violates the scientific method.


Descartes' methods were the pinnacle of science and it confounds me how you can suggest otherwise

That's hilarious. I guess that's what I get for debating a philosophy obsessed Christian.

Descartes is curiously enough known as a philosopher and mathematician.

Descartes is also not who's methods we're seeking to bring into this. It's like OMG YOU CANNNOT ASSAULT RENE DESCARTESEZEZ!!@!!!!111 therefore we are right!

If you want to play the formal logic game, that's known as an improper appeal to authority.

Science is the issue here. No one is coming anywhere close to discarding their assumptions, because "Intelligent Design" is about faith...and trying to force your particular religious ideals on people.

A cosmology class wouldn't be biased towards a particular set of beliefs like the intelligent design hypothesis is. I'd back it even against seperation of church and state notions.

You still haven't proven that unscientific thinking belongs in a science class. As far as I can tell, not following the scientific method generally means that something isn't science.

Then again, your faith means you can't take this without bias. You aren't able to analyze or use logic on a practical level because faith comes first for you.

You're a lot like Intelligent Design. I'm glad YOU are not the one deciding for America... and I fear what will happen to us if we slide into a Dark Ages theocracy from an Enlightened pinnacle.

The Earth's 4,000 years old. Gravity doesn't exist. You know, the theories that your Intelligent Design friends try to prove on their days off.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Descartes is curiously enough known as a philosopher and mathematician.Oh I forgot that the caliber of one's science was determined by democracy. My bad. I guess Copernicus was wrong then, the Earth is the center of the universe.
You then backed it up by bringing up the problem of induction... which I countered by pointing out that evolution's truth or falsehood isn't relavent to whether intelligent design needs to be taught....

The problem isn't that evolution is false or true, the problem is that the only reason to believe it is true is nonscientific and faith-based.
You still haven't proven that unscientific thinking belongs in a science class.I've proved that scientific theories themselves are necessarily based solely on faith. You evidently disagree. I've proved that given your apparent definition of a scientific method, ID is scientific, because it involves nothing we can't talk about scientifically (hence my bringing up Descartes).

[Warriorbird]

:laughs: When did I say that was my definition of the scientific method?

I find it sad that you and others can't seem to grasp that intelligent design's place is in a comparitive environment and not a scientific one.

Then again, you question the validity of science in general...so we might as well have school children working on proving Bishop Usher.

You've pretty clearly overdosed on faith and philosophy. It's kind've like the anecdote about the fellow who decided nothing was real and promptly got hit by a bus.

[Warriorbird]

I guess Copernicus was wrong then, the Earth is the center of the universe.

You and the Flat Earthers would get along real well. You're both anti science.


Oh I forgot that the caliber of one's science was determined by democracy.

Curious. Since when did you have expert standing in declaring who represented the pinnacle of science?


The problem isn't that evolution is false or true, the problem is that the only reason to believe it is true is nonscientific and faith-based.

And you're still trying to base your entire argument on attacking evolution. Eliminate evolution and you have nothing. I'm sorry you can't cope with that.


I've proved that scientific theories themselves are necessarily based solely on faith.

That's funny. You did fail to note the part where they're theories. Popper gets constantly misused.


I've proved that given your apparent definition of a scientific method,

Except you're clearly building up straw men. I never gave a definition of the scientific method.

And the rest of your discussion just indicates more of the philosophy overdose. You ought to have a driving test before you get those courses. Not for the weak-minded.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
All of the cited examples save math rely on a firm faith in induction. If I say induction is crap, all of science is hoo-hah. Impartial doesn't mean subjective. I'll concede that math is objective but question its authorship. Would a ram and a sheep not be two animals if humans weren't around to count them?

No, you're taking a theist stance on induction. Mind you that this particular stance doesn't derive a principle based on fact or instance, rather derives a belief based upon the same belief.

You're just trying to associate theology with science and the two just don't mesh.


I think there has been a miscommunication. I did not say that science is based on A RELIGION, I said that science is religious IN NATURE.

Science is a process, not a religion. You're attempting to dumb down a process in order to put it in the same category as religion ... and it's not working very well.


Someone needs a grammar lesson! Here's your statement:
It's no different than the groups... You can't say that a method is no different than a group (they're obviously different things) so you must be talking about a group, in this case supporters of ID. If you had said
They're no different than the groups' methodsthen you would have a leg to stand on. You'll notice how I didn't quote
First was flat out denial, as we progress through the years it has evolved from a denial platform to a reduction platform.mainly because we've already discussed how that is an incorrect statement but mostly because that actually is talking about methods. Even assuming you were correct about identical/similar tactics, you cannot go from there to saying the groups are the same (as in the originally quoted statement).

Pronoun trouble.

There isn't any trouble with my statement, there is a problem in your decoding process.

No where did I insinuate that the two groups were similar in anything other than the methodology used to facilitate acceptance of their ideas.


p.s: Because I happened to glance upon it again, "viola" is a musical instrument, "voilà" is the word you were looking for (the accent is no big deal though).

I know the word, I transposed letters and you, with the feeble ego, decided to jump on two transposed letters.


Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Yeah, nobody can possibly use a scientific process to discuss the existence of God. That Descartes guy is a figment of my imagination (which admittedly explains why he has a girl's name).

Descartes, as in Rene?

Now you're trying to pass of philosophy as science.

Shall we go for attempt 4?

You are correct in a manner you probably didn't see. Intelligent Design should be taught ... as a philosophy.



[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Since when did you have expert standing in declaring who represented the pinnacle of science?Since about 44 minutes ago.
And you're still trying to base your entire argument on attacking evolution.If you say "X sucks because of Y, but Z is awesome", and I point out how Z is also Y, that's not me attacking Z.
You did fail to note the part where they're theories.:?: Scientific theories are more set in stone than scientific laws, unless you think Newton's take on gravity trumps Einstein's, in which case what are you smoking?
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
No, you're taking a theist stance on induction.1. There is no proof of induction that doesn't rely on induction.
2. There is no 2.

Wow look at all that theism.
Science is a process, not a religion.A process based on induction, and to believe induction will work requires faith.
I know the word, I transposed letters and you, with the feeble ego, decided to jump on two transposed letters.Ok.
You are correctTell me about it. :saint:
No where did I insinuate that the two groups were similar in anything other than the methodology used to facilitate acceptance of their ideas.I can accept that you may not have meant to, but I can only go by what you actually say. Once again:
It's no different than the groupsFor the "it" to be no different than the "groups", it must be a group.
Descartes, as in Rene?Yes.
Now you're trying to pass of philosophy as science.I'm trying to show Warriorbird how someone talking about God can use a scientific method.

[Warriorbird]

What you don't seem to grasp is that I accept that as possible. Intelligent Design just isn't an example of it. It dishonors religion.

Input from a few friends...


I've found that those who are the most concerned with "proving" this point scientifically are the same people who think you cannot question your own beliefs. It seems to be a subconcious response to their own fears that the act of questioning somehow undermines the faith they profess to have.


My biggest problem with ID is that, if its true, the "intellegence" behind it all is a moron. I mean, look at human anatomy. Why give us an appendix? Or backs and knees? What kind of intellegence is going to design something like those?

And yes, my general conclusion remains that Intelligent Design is perfectly suited to a class on cosmology. You still haven't demonstrated why it belongs in a science classroom, only suggested that either/or A. Evolution is invalid or B. Science is invalid, neither of which actually suggest that Intelligent Design should be taught in a science class.

Your philosophy major babble (which you're clearly not mature enough to have) doesn't give any reasoning... it just attempts to bash other things.

[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by xtc
No offence but your link is to Jerry's Science page.

I looked up scientific method in wikopedia and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

To me it seems that ID is cogent enough to be a scientific theory but it can't be tested reproducibly enough to be a scientific theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

HOWEVER evolution can't be tested reproducibly enough to be a scientific theory. Thus neither method should be taught.

Yeah well, Jerry's page with definitions came up first in my Google search and since the definitions were correct, didn't think it mattered.

But since you like wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Quoted from the first section:

"Claims such as intelligent design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience"

Quoted from farther down the page:

"This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, evolution, etc."

The wiki doesn't agree with your conclusions.


Originally posted by xtc
or both hypothesis could be taught?

Okay, one more time. Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. ID barely qualifies as a hypothesis and is nowhere near a theory. You keep trying to lump them together as if they are the same thing, but they aren't.


Originally posted by Latrinsorm
An atheist take on evolution is the scenario of intolerance, not the scenario where multiple viewpoints are presented, however unscientific YOU feel one of them is.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you claiming that evolution is atheistic? As a Roman Catholic scientist testifying in the current trial has said, science can explain how something happens, but it isn't equipped to deal with why. Religion and evolution don't have to be at odds. I grew up in a Protestant church that easily reconciled the two.

If you mean that evolution is atheistic in how it is taught in schools, well then that's appropriate. The why part is left for individuals and churches to deal with. Science is mechanics. The spiritual stuff doesn't belong there.

All the debate in the news recently has really surprised me because of polls showing just how controversial evolution still is. I honestly had no idea. I understand why specifics might be because the theory isn't perfect and does have holes. But as a general concept there isn't much to dispute.

RD

[Warriorbird]

It's a harsh realization when it hits that out in the real world some people believe some very crazy things.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Rainy Day

Originally posted by xtc
No offence but your link is to Jerry's Science page.

I looked up scientific method in wikopedia and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

To me it seems that ID is cogent enough to be a scientific theory but it can't be tested reproducibly enough to be a scientific theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

HOWEVER evolution can't be tested reproducibly enough to be a scientific theory. Thus neither method should be taught.

Yeah well, Jerry's page with definitions came up first in my Google search and since the definitions were correct, didn't think it mattered.

But since you like wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Quoted from the first section:

"Claims such as intelligent design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience"

Quoted from farther down the page:

"This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, evolution, etc."

The wiki doesn't agree with your conclusions.


Originally posted by xtc
or both hypothesis could be taught?

Okay, one more time. Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. ID barely qualifies as a hypothesis and is nowhere near a theory. You keep trying to lump them together as if they are the same thing, but they aren't.

The above from wikopedia notwithstanding. In order for a hypothesis to be considered a theory, it needs to be able to be tested reproducibly. Please explain to me how evolution can be tested reproducibly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
You still haven't demonstrated why it belongs in a science classroom, only suggested that either/or A. Evolution is invalid or B. Science is invalidNot invalid. Rooted in faith.
Your philosophy major babble (which you're clearly not mature enough to have) doesn't give any reasoningIf you said (red) apples are evil because they are red, and then you said that fire trucks are not evil, I can prove that those two statements are contradictory if fire trucks are red. And because it is inarguable that apples are evil (some call them the Mongols of the fruit family), we can therefore conclude that you (logically) must feel that fire trucks are evil.
Originally posted by Rainy Day
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you claiming that evolution is atheistic?No. Hence the words "take on".

p.s: That thing about apples being called Mongols may or may not have been a total fabrication.

[Warriorbird]

Rooted in faith.

And here comes the main problem and the reason why your postmodern Christian interpretation is bullshit. The extension of your principles is nihilism and that can be contradicted by simple reality. Sadly, you'll never accept that.

Hopefully you can someday grasp why it's harmful to religion to try to inject it into things that aren't in its sphere, but I doubt it will come that far for you. Your sacreligious fundamentalism and that of thousands of others is a potent force.

And you wonder why you're depressed all the time?

Of course, you know, god designed speciation... and fossils are fake... and physics is fake...and atomic theory is fake, but you're sure willing to benefit off all of them. Genetic engineering is clearly fake too, yet that popcorn at the movie theater is mighty tasty. You're like environmentalists who still fly airplanes.

We also faked the Moon Landing.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
The extension of your principles is nihilism Only if you don't have faith. :)

Also, postmodern? The problem of induction has been around for centuries, and I'm positive I'm not the first one to apply it in this manner.
And you wonder why you're depressed all the time?Not really, no, and it has nothing to do with this topic of discussion.
Hopefully you can someday grasp why it's harmful to religion to try to inject it into things that aren't in its sphereAll things are in religion's "sphere", as God is in all things.
Your sacreligious fundamentalism I'm all about the :heart:. I don't know which religion you think I am, but there's nothing sacrilegious about a Christian being loving. I will agree that Christian love is a powerful force, though.

[Warriorbird]

Jack Chick's all about the love too!

:snickers:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Of course, you know, god designed speciation... and fossils are fake... and physics is fake...and atomic theory is fake, but you're sure willing to benefit off all of them. Genetic engineering is clearly fake too, yet that popcorn at the movie theater is mighty tasty. You're like environmentalists who still fly airplanes.You don't seem to be getting this. Rooted in faith, to me, does not mean "fake". That's why I'm paying (mostly) old guys in curious clothing an unGodly sum of money to harangue at me for hours on end about quarks and stuff. I believe in induction, but I cannot offer any scientific proof for it.

[Warriorbird]

Yet that's not true of all of those that are espousing this course of action. In addition, you're also attacking all of science in your course of demonstrating that your particular faith is valuable. In attempting to force your particular faith into something that it is incompatible with it you attack faith as a whole.

If you can justify physics versus Biblical ideals... why can't you justify evolution as something that God set into motion?

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yet that's not true of all of those are espousing this course of action.Another weird thing you do is make a number of statements specifically directed at me. Then, when I point out how they're all obviously false, you say something like that.
In addition, you're also attacking all of science in your course of demonstrating that your particular faith is valuable.For the last time, I am not attacking science. Your displeasure with the facts I promote does not equate to malice on my part.
In attempting to force your particular faith into something that it is incompatible withThat's funny, I'm pretty sure ID has nothing to do with my particular faith.
you attack faith as a wholeI'd love to see the logic behind this statement.

edit:
If you can justify physics versus Biblical ideals... why can't you justify evolution as something that God set into motion?Uh, that's exactly what I do. I don't believe in ID (in the sense of the article), I believe in evolution. I think school would be pretty dumb if all they taught was what I believed though.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[Warriorbird]

Another weird thing you do is make a number of statements specifically directed at me. Then, when I point out how they're all obviously false,

Or merely claim that you have without much concrete proof. It's important to seperate yourself from the movement here at times. Just because you feel something does not make it that way for the "Intelligent Design"/Creationism movement as a whole.


For the last time, I am not attacking science.

That's funny. Given as you attempt to claim that evolution is invalid based on faith. Then you suggest that all science is based on faith. Way to neglect empirical research too.


That's funny, I'm pretty sure ID has nothing to do with my particular faith.

Strange how all of the "scientists" associated previously promoted Creationism which is demonstrably Christian.

By using the fact that something is faith based to attack it you act against faith as a whole.


I believe in evolution. I think school would be pretty dumb if all they taught was what I believed though.

Ahh. Herein we have the problem. Do you support teaching Scientology in science classes as well then?

Thanks for finally making me understand you (if not all the others.)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
That's funny. Given as you attempt to claim that evolution is invalid based on faith.It is unscientific in the sense that is based on faith, but unscientific and invalid are not synonyms.
Then you suggest that all science is based on faith.It is!
Way to neglect empirical research too.Empirical research is the very stuff I am "attacking".
Strange how all of the "scientists" associated previously promoted Creationism which is demonstrably Christian.That is strange.
By using the fact that something is faith based to attack it you act against faith as a whole.Please see my previous post.
Do you support teaching Scientology in science classes as well then?Can't say as I'm familiar with Scientology beyond clips of Tom Cruise's "PSYCHOLOGY R STUPID" rant. Hook me up with a few coherent blurbs?

[Warriorbird]

Hmm. Some paradox resolving might be needed.


It is unscientific in the sense that is based on faith,

And then you go on to say that all science is based on faith.


Empirical research is the very stuff I am "attacking".

Yet... without empirical research, I don't think science would've accomplished anywhere near the goals it has currently reached.


Can't say as I'm familiar with Scientology beyond clips of Tom Cruise's "PSYCHOLOGY R STUPID" rant. Hook me up with a few coherent blurbs?

In essence they feel that psychiatry and psychology are both completely fake and corrupting our world. They feel they can achieve more with a few simple conversational sessions than psychiatry/psychology can in years, including curing severe mental illness.

EDIT: It is difficult to find too many decent blurbs online as there's mainly examples of people trying to debunk Scientology.

But there's some of their ideas.

http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/heritage/pg011.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/01/sci_psy/index_np.html
http://www.scientology-kills.org/bipolar.htm

and perhaps the most valuable

http://www.cchr.org/

which is Scientology's organization towards combatting psychiatry and psychology.

I guess it comes down to the notion that just because someone believes something it doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be taught in a school setting. People believe some pretty far out things.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
And then you go on to say that all science is based on faith.Only if you think the statement "science is unscientific" is paradoxical.
Yet... without empirical research, I don't think science would've accomplished anywhere near the goals it has currently reached.Oh, not even close. It'd be awful.
It is difficult to find too many decent blurbs online as there's mainly examples of people trying to debunk Scientology.Yeah, I found that out.
In essence they feel that psychiatry and psychology are both completely fake and corrupting our world.I'm having a hard time finding CCHR's definition of psychiatry, because they seem to have a number of statements saying (paraphrased) "diagnosing people's mental problems and helping them is good, but psychiatry isn't the way of doing it". So once they figure out wtf they're talking about, I'll decide whether I think they should be in schools or not.

[Warriorbird]

They were mainly the first example that came to mind to illustrate why I think people may have faith in something and may believe in something but it shouldn't necessarily be taught in school. It's interesting stuff though. They're very successful.

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by xtc
The above from wikopedia notwithstanding. In order for a hypothesis to be considered a theory, it needs to be able to be tested reproducibly. Please explain to me how evolution can be tested reproducibly?

Does it really matter? If you do a bit more poking around you'll find your own answers. There are several conditions for a hypothesis to be considered moved into the category of a theory. Evolution has qualified.

If you want to disagree and believe that evolution is still only a hypothesis and not a theory, feel free. In the meantime, when it comes to science classes in public schools, I'd prefer that scientists decide, not some guy who makes up his own conclusions while reading wikipedia and posting on a message board.

RD

[ElanthianSiren]

Just an aside, but in evolutionary biology you often study bacteria cultures and virus strains to examine the effects of evolution on those organisms.

I suppose the creationist will simply say though "OMG, God engineered those next generations stronger through his divine will."

This is the problem with debating with fundamentalists. The logical evidence suggesting that stronger organisms will breed because others die is completely lost for something that cannot be replicated or reproven in a scientific manner. I am more inclined to believe what I see personally in the lab beyond something written by men who thought women came from rib bones.

-M

[xtc]

Originally posted by Rainy Day

Originally posted by xtc
The above from wikopedia notwithstanding. In order for a hypothesis to be considered a theory, it needs to be able to be tested reproducibly. Please explain to me how evolution can be tested reproducibly?

Does it really matter? If you do a bit more poking around you'll find your own answers. There are several conditions for a hypothesis to be considered moved into the category of a theory. Evolution has qualified.

If you want to disagree and believe that evolution is still only a hypothesis and not a theory, feel free. In the meantime, when it comes to science classes in public schools, I'd prefer that scientists decide, not some guy who makes up his own conclusions while reading wikipedia and posting on a message board.

RD

I simply asked how evolution can be tested reproducibly. I am sure with all the "science experts" on this board someone can answer this for me....so far no answer.

[Warriorbird]

Well, if you're not determined to be immediately dismissive... Galapagos island animals, fruit flies, land animals to whales, moths, and a series of other experiments and collected data attest to evolution in action.

Wild dogs to domestic dogs is another example. Examining primate DNA is another.