Intelligent Design In Schools

W's for it, even though he probably doesn't understand it because it involves that evl' Science...

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON - President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and "intelligent design" Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life.

In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.

On other topics, Bush said he has no idea how Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts would vote in a case challenging the legality of abortion because he never asked him about it. He also defended Baltimore Orioles first baseman Rafael Palmeiro, who was suspended Monday for using performance-enhancing steroids.

Bush declined to state his personal views on "intelligent design," the belief that life forms are so complex that their creation can't be explained by Darwinian evolutionary theory alone, but rather points to intentional creation, presumably divine.

---

Real Cities

Meanwhile, the meany lefties are up in arms about what is being thought in these intelligent design courses...

Quote:

---

Group says Bible course riddled with bias, errors
Producers of the curriculum taught in Texas schools charge censorship
By JIM VERTUNO
Associated Press

AUSTIN - A religious watch-dog group went on the attack Monday against a Bible study course taught in hundreds of schools in Texas and across the country, complaining it pushes students toward conservative Protestant viewpoints and violates religious freedom.

The Texas Freedom Network, which includes clergy of several faiths, said the course offered by the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools is full of errors and dubious research that promote a fundamentalist Christian view.
(snip)

Kathy Miller, president of Texas Freedom Network, said her group looked at the course after the Odessa school board voted in April to offer a Bible class. It asked Southern Methodist University professor and biblical scholar Mark A. Chancey to review the class curriculum. Miller said Chancey was not paid for his work.

Chancey's review found the Bible is characterized as inspired by God, discussions of science are based on the claims of biblical creationists, Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible's historical accuracy. He said the course suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document.

(snip/...)

---

Chronicle

Biblical law over secular law as a "founding" document? Once someone believes the Bible (a religious book) is the basis for the principles, values and laws of a country - instead of a secular Constitution, aren't we talking about a theocracy?

That is the definition of theocracy isn't it? (government) founded in and based upon a (specific) religion?

yes it is

how about an inbredocracy

2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We should be a random pile of various elements and compounds at their simplest and most stable state, not the highly organized form of life that we are.

Only in Texas....

Yeah, divinity.

I had an imaginary friend once....

I don't agree with Dubya on this one...

Intelligent design is not science. It's position is that whatever evolution/science cannot explain must be due to God. Adjust as needed as science explains more things.

easy
adam and eve
inbreeding and more inbreeding
can yall imagine how smart adam and eve must have been?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

easy
adam and eve
inbreeding and more inbreeding
can yall imagine how smart adam and eve must have been?

---

You gotta remember, according to the old Testiment Adam and Eve lived for hundreds of years. Lots of time to breed and inbreed.

:hat

There happens to be a little diddy on this very topic at some dude's blog, which you can find here: http://redstripedshirt.blogspot.com

[Christian fundamentalists] are trying to get Creationism taught in schools as a science. Now, other than the obvious, only objection: IT'S NOT ONE ... other than that, I think that'd be a killer idea. 'Cause it would definately be the shortest class of the day.

Welcome to Creationist Science. God created the Heavens and Earth. On the seventh day He rested.

See you at the final.

We have a Bible out called ‘The New Living Bible,’ it’s the Bible in updated and modern English,” Hicks says during a film of a 1992 London performance. “I guess to make it more palatable for people to read. But it’s really weird, when you listen to it. ‘And Jesus walked on water. And Peter said, “Awesome!”’ Suddenly we got Jesus hanging ten across the Sea of Galilee. Christ’s Bogus Adventure, you know. Deuteronomy 90210, you know.”

--Bill Hicks

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ll_Hicks_1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We should be a random pile of various elements and compounds at their simplest and most stable state, not the highly organized form of life that we are.

---

Creationists neglect the external source of energy in the system, namely the big hot glowing ball in the sky.

I'm all for teaching intelligent design in schools -- maybe Art Bell can put together a curriculum about how aliens started life on earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Creationists neglect the external source of energy in the system, namely the big hot glowing ball in the sky.

---

Well, I'm certainly not a creationist (I find it amazing that in a world so dependent on the oil industry that people would actually think the world is only 10,000 years old), but if you can make the logical progression that the input of energy is solely responsible for the organization of complex life in the universe, the planet Mercury would be one highly organized & evolved MF'er. :lol

Really, the jump that long-chain polymers just happened to develop in such a way that they interacted with sunlight purely by chance is similar to that of people believing that something organized them that way. It's a pretty big stretch either way, and it's just your own personal belief.

What I find interesting is that for all of recorded history (and some that is known only from archeology), mankind has always had some sort of belief in the supernatural/religion. There probably is a reason for that, and it depends on what your personal beliefs are as to what that reason is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

Well, I'm certainly not a creationist (I find it amazing that in a world so dependent on the oil industry that people would actually think the world is only 10,000 years old), but if you can make the logical progression that the input of energy is solely responsible for the organization of complex life in the universe, the planet Mercury would be one highly organized & evolved MF'er. :lol

---

It doesn't "solely explain" it, but it does make it scientifically possible.

Quote:

---

Really, the jump that long-chain polymers just happened to develop in such a way that they interacted with sunlight purely by chance is similar to that of people believing that something organized them that way. It's a pretty big stretch either way, and it's just your own personal belief.

---

Experimentation shows that those molecules are predisposed to self-replicate in a way that mimics life.

Now cosmology, and the remarkable fine-tuning of the properties of matter and of the forces in the universe necessary for matter even to exist, and the fine-tuning of the location, size, etc. of Earth and of its sun in order for life even to be possible, those do point to a creative force.

I don't have a problem with ID. It's not really science, but science isn't the only kind of truth. Maybe ID is more a philosophy about science.

Quote:

---

Biblical law over secular law as a "founding" document? Once someone believes the Bible (a religious book) is the basis for the principles, values and laws of a country - instead of a secular Constitution, aren't we talking about a theocracy?

---

Yes. Those people are the theocratic right. If it came down to it, I might invite you to stand beside me and shoot at them if they got in a position to end the Republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurster

Intelligent design is not science. It's position is that whatever evolution/science cannot explain must be due to God. Adjust as needed as science explains more things.

---

no it is not

what intelligent design means is that the design is intelligent

the complex life we see, the self-replicating single stranded RNA that formed in the sea of random crap

all of that was due to an intelligent plan

the nucleotide code, etc

its not about labeling god as the reason for unexplained stuff
cuz if you get into 'unexplained' then nothing in science is really explained if you probe deep enough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

That is the definition of theocracy isn't it? (government) founded in and based upon a (specific) religion?

---

kakistocracy
SYLLABICATION: kak·is·toc·ra·cy
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. kak·is·toc·ra·cies
Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jekka

kakistocracy
SYLLABICATION: kak·is·toc·ra·cy
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. kak·is·toc·ra·cies
Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

---

hey jekka, what are you Ms. Dictionary? :lol

Quote:

---

Experimentation shows that those molecules are predisposed to self-replicate in a way that mimics life.

---

those experiments also show low fidelity in replication

I thought kakistocracy meant everyone in the government had to wear Dockers.

Hiyo!

And God said "Let there be light"

{BIG BANG}

And there was light.


Just because someone believes the current cosmological and evolutionary theories explain the data the best does not mean that person does not believe in a God that started it all.

The supposed war between science and faith is a false one.

Quote:

---

The supposed war between science and faith is a false one.

---

Not in the eyes of a large contingent of extremist Christians. The "battle" may be exaggerated, but it isn't imaginary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Not in the eyes of a large contingent of extremist Christians. The "battle" may be exaggerated, but it isn't imaginary.

---

Indeed.

To that group of Christians, their theology is the only acceptable one for Christianity, and their way of understanding the Bible is the only allowable one.

They've set it up where mainstream science DOES disprove their particular beliefs, so that their only choices are apostasy or anti-intellectualism.

They had this big conference a few weeks ago, where they come out and admit that if they are wrong and mainstream science is right, then Christianity is a myth, there is no moral code governing our lives, and we all ought to become hedonists. Wow, what a powerful witness to the outside world: "if you believe that the advancements of modern society aren't all one huge big coincidence, then just assume our faith is false." When Richard Dawkins hears that, I think it makes him so happy he pees a little.

You might say, wait a minute, can't they just admit maybe their human understanding of the Bible was flawed, and adjust it? Yes, I suppose they could, but that would require the leaders to demonstrate 1)humility and 2)some forfeiture of some authority and power among their parishoners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Not in the eyes of a large contingent of extremist Christians. The "battle" may be exaggerated, but it isn't imaginary.

---

Also known as the "vast right wing conspiracy". :rolleyes

You people are looking for a reverse witch hunt. Get over it. Creationists with torches and pitchforks aren't going to storm your house.

The only battle is the one that you perpetuate.

Quote:

---

The supposed war between science and faith is a false one.

---

True. :tu

Try reading this book:

Inventing the Flat Earth

Jeffrey Burton Russell
Greenwood Publishing

I had to read it for a history of science class at A&M. A lot of the supposed "rift" between science and religion has been created in the past few hundred years by a very small number of people.

EDIT: To any lazy engineering students out there, I highly recommend this class. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

Also known as the "vast right wing conspiracy". :rolleyes

You people are looking for a reverse witch hunt. Get over it. Creationists with torches and pitchforks aren't going to storm your house.

The only battle is the one that you perpetuate.

---

Are you claiming that creationists are not in fact trying to eliminate the teaching of mainstream science from public education, and are not in fact trying to suppress legitimate scientific research that conflicts with their narrow strain of theology? Are you kidding me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

Try reading this book:

Inventing the Flat Earth

Jeffrey Burton Russell
Greenwood Publishing

I had to read it for a history of science class at A&M. A lot of the supposed "rift" between science and religion has been created in the past few hundred years by a very small number of people.

EDIT: To any lazy engineering students out there, I highly recommend this class. :tu

---

"The past few hundred years." Or, in other words, the entire history of modern science???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Not in the eyes of a large contingent of extremist Christians. The "battle" may be exaggerated, but it isn't imaginary.

---

That's partially what I meant...

"Contrived"..."forced"...

It's a two way battle. Neither side, for the most part, seems willing to accept the duality of science and Christianity. They're both too busy attacking each other or going on the defensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Are you claiming that creationists are not in fact trying to eliminate the teaching of mainstream science from public education, and are not in fact trying to suppress legitimate scientific research that conflicts with their narrow strain of theology? Are you kidding me?

---

A majority of Christians are not creationists. I don't know if you think the two terms are interchangable or not. Those that think that the concept of intelligent design (what the thread is about) counteracts the principles of science are nuts.

Examination and comparison are the basis of scrutiny. The theory of evolution has been proven in multiple instances, and is relatively sound. Creationism is nuts from a scientific standpoint. It would not stand scrutiny very long in comparison, even in a Jr. High science class. But to stand up and say that there isn't some basis of intelligent design is an opinion of yours, because you have no basis to prove it, just as I have no definative proof to say it is. Are you saying that both ideas shouldn't be scrutinized?

I can forsee the lecture on Intelligent Design:

"The Universe might have an intelligent designer. Class dismissed."

Besides, I think it pretty obvious that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a Trojan Horse for the few fundamentalist Christians in this country that are trying to get creationism to be taught right beside evolution.

From my experience, most Christians believe that the story of Creation is figurative. I would guess that on the whole, athiests take the Bible more literally than Christians.

However, even a literal interpretation of the Creation leaves room for evolution and a trillion-years-old universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

"The past few hundred years." Or, in other words, the entire history of modern science???

---

Modern science isn't without its own biases. Darwin's own cousin Galton was a crackpot who biased his experiments to found eugenics, which "proved" that people with certain facial features were criminals and other ethnicities were stupid. His findings were taken as scientific fact for hundreds of years.

But basically the book is about how the myth of the "flat earth" was created several hundred years AFTER Columbus discovered the new world. It was created as anti-Catholic propaganda, trying to show the church as authoritarian and autocratic. Pretty much all educated people of the time knew the world was round (and every sailor, ever been to sea? You can see the curvature of the earth) when in fact, a majority of educated people of the time were clergy. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth like 2200 years ago. Who preserved a great deal of ancient knowledge in Europe? The Catholic church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swishy McJackass

I can forsee the lecture on Intelligent Design:

"The Universe might have an intelligent designer. Class dismissed."

Besides, I think it pretty obvious that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a Trojan Horse for the few fundamentalist Christians in this country that are trying to get creationism to be taught right beside evolution.

---

Hasn't "complete scientific secularism" been a trojan horse for atheists trying to advance their ideology in schools?

You've been around Fundy Dave too much.

EDIT: I would enjoy that class, especially the dismissed part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

Hasn't "complete scientific secularism" been a trojan horse for atheists trying to advance their ideology in schools?

You've been around Fundy Dave too much.

EDIT: I would enjoy that class, especially the dismissed part.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "complete scientific secularism?" Does that mean teaching science based on evidence, and leaving religion at church?

I never understood why he was called "Fundy" Dave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swishy McJackass

I'm not sure what you mean by "complete scientific secularism?" Does that mean teaching science based on evidence, and leaving religion at church?

I never understood why he was called "Fundy" Dave.

---

It means that some atheists would have you believe that you can't be a Christian and a scientist at the same time.

He was called Fundy Dave because he was a Christian fundamentalist. Didn't you see him jacking off to Tom Short when he came to campus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

A majority of Christians are not creationists. I don't know if you think the two terms are interchangable or not. Those that think that the concept of intelligent design (what the thread is about) counteracts the principles of science are nuts.

Examination and comparison are the basis of scrutiny. The theory of evolution has been proven in multiple instances, and is relatively sound. Creationism is nuts from a scientific standpoint. It would not stand scrutiny very long in comparison, even in a Jr. High science class. But to stand up and say that there isn't some basis of intelligent design is an opinion of yours, because you have no basis to prove it, just as I have no definative proof to say it is. Are you saying that both ideas shouldn't be scrutinized?

---

1) Intelligent design and creation science are not the same thing.

2) I realize not all Christians are creationists. But then again, not all Christians are trying to get evolutionary biology kicked out of the public schools, either.

It sounded like you wanted scott to pretend that what they are doing isn't actually happening.

3) I understand that intelligent design does not contradict any scientific understanding of the physical world. However, it is not science. That doesn't mean it's false, or misleading, or bad in any way. Pretty much any person who lends credence to mainstream science and believes in God accepts "intelligent design" in a general sense.

But in order to be scientific, one would have to be able to present hypotheses about it and conduct experiments to support or disprove those hypotheses. That's not what ID is about. It's about looking over the whole landscape of scientific knowledge and making inferences. It's a commentary. It's a philosophy. It's a perfectly nice field of study.

But it's not science. When people try to present it as science, they are pushing pseudoscience, which is false and misleading. Science is not the only legitimate way to study the world. Please try to understand the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

It means that some atheists would have you believe that you can't be a Christian and a scientist at the same time.

---

I've never met such an atheist, and I've been to quite a few of the atheist student group meetings in the past year. That's not to say that there aren't atheists of that mentality, but they are few and far between... much like Christians who stick to a literal view of Genesis.

Tom Short was fun. I never saw Fundy Dave at a Short-a-thon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

Modern science isn't without its own biases. Darwin's own cousin Galton was a crackpot who biased his experiments to found eugenics, which "proved" that people with certain facial features were criminals and other ethnicities were stupid. His findings were taken as scientific fact for hundreds of years.

But basically the book is about how the myth of the "flat earth" was created several hundred years AFTER Columbus discovered the new world. It was created as anti-Catholic propaganda, trying to show the church as authoritarian and autocratic. Pretty much all educated people of the time knew the world was round (and every sailor, ever been to sea? You can see the curvature of the earth) when in fact, a majority of educated people of the time were clergy. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth like 2200 years ago. Who preserved a great deal of ancient knowledge in Europe? The Catholic church.

---

If you think about it, this notion that the Church taught the "flat earth" in the Middle Ages conflicts with other generally disseminated history. Copernicus with his heliocentric theory opposed the Church, who taught the geocentric theory passed down from antiquity.

The geocentric theory assumes a spherical earth around which all the other heavenly bodies revolve. Duh. No flat earth there.

So, yes, this flat earth propaganda probably is taught to make the Church look bad. Then again, they did teach the geocentric theory, it was false, and they did punish people for opposing it.

From my understanding of history, the rift between Christianity and science didn't really emerge until the 1880's, it was originally an American phenomenon, and things like the Civil War and Reconstruction played a big role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swishy McJackass

I've never met such an atheist, and I've been to quite a few of the atheist student group meetings in the past year. That's not to say that there aren't atheists of that mentality, but they are few and far between... much like Christians who stick to a literal view of Genesis.

Tom Short was fun. I never saw Fundy Dave at a Short-a-thon.

---

Then you've never met Richard Dawkins. Fair enough. But he's quite prominent, and leads a significant group of people.

Quote:

---

That's not to say that there aren't atheists of that mentality, but they are few and far between...

---

I knew a guy like that on my old rugby team, he was a biology prof. at UTA. I think that "Bring 'em Back Not Alive But Preserved in a Jar" John M. ended up working with him while working on his graduate level herpetology work, BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Then you've never met Richard Dawkins. Fair enough. But he's quite prominent, and leads a significant group of people.

---

I've read his book The Blind Watchmaker. Quite an interesting read.

One big reason Christianity and evolution do not mix is the fact that Christianty views Humanity as the pinacle. We're supposed to be the top of the mountain. However, evolution is still ongoing. We are already markedly different from the first variations of human on this planet, and as long as we don't destroy ourselves we are going to evolve in ways no one has ever thought of.

What happens when we're no longer human?

Quote:

---

What happens when we're no longer human?

---

Maybe the world will end before that. Sort of like the Tower of Babel.

There are plenty of philosophical/theological debates to be had on Christianity vs. Evolution, but I think the main point is that *scientifically*, they are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

What happens when we're no longer human?

---

We'll all be damn dirty apes, that's what!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

What happens when we're no longer human?

---

I believe at that point we will have run out of things to eat, and will turn to the few humans left to satiate our hunger for Soylent Green.

Quote:

---

What happens when we're no longer human?

---

We'll be declared illegal combatants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

From my experience, most Christians believe that the story of Creation is figurative. I would guess that on the whole, athiests take the Bible more literally than Christians.

However, even a literal interpretation of the Creation leaves room for evolution and a trillion-years-old universe.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

One big reason Christianity and evolution do not mix is the fact that Christianty views Humanity as the pinacle.

---

I thought it viewed God as the pinnacle.

Quote:

---

We're supposed to be the top of the mountain.

---

Well, among the animals, we are. While it's clear we are a kind of primate, it's also clear we are fundamentally different from all other animals.

Quote:

---

However, evolution is still ongoing. We are already markedly different from the first variations of human on this planet, and as long as we don't destroy ourselves we are going to evolve in ways no one has ever thought of.

What happens when we're no longer human?

---

Seriously, if Jesus takes so long to come back that humans will have evolved into distinctly different species, we'd have to assume God gave him wrong directions coming back down from heaven, or that he's bringing along a woman who has to pee every 15 minutes.

Besides, the biblical definition of human relates more to the ways man is made in God's image, with intellect, conscience, capacity for good, etc, than it does with our opposable thumbs.

Why should the government have such a heavy hand in education? It never fails that we have some extremist group attempting to indoctrinate our children by leveraging our tax dollars. F em all.

Right right. Thats the biblical defenition NOW. Because, as we both know, evolution is not only present in life, but in the creations of life as well.

Well, Adam did have a belly button...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Right right. Thats the biblical defenition NOW. Because, as we both know, evolution is not only present in life, but in the creations of life as well.

---

That was the biblical definition 1900 years ago as well.

Yes, you should disregard the bible in its entirety because portions of it are interpreted differently NOW.

You should also disregard the Constitution of the United States in its entirety, since portions of it are interpreted differently NOW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

Yes, you should disregard the bible in its entirety because portions of it are interpreted differently NOW.

You should also disregard the Constitution of the United States in its entirety, since portions of it are interpreted differently NOW.

---

The entire Old Testament is a case study in progressive revelation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

Yes, you should disregard the bible in its entirety because portions of it are interpreted differently NOW.

You should also disregard the Constitution of the United States in its entirety, since portions of it are interpreted differently NOW.

---

I don't think the Constitution has ever been said to be the word of an omnipitant unfallible being. Jefferson was a diest, not a diety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I don't think the Constitution has ever been said to be the word of an omnipitant unfallible being.

---

Well, it gets treated that way depending on whether it is politically expedient to do so at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

Well, it gets treated that way depending on whether it is politically expedient to do so at the time.

---

Right. Let me know when the Vatican lets us add amendments to the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jekka

How about the deliberate exclusion of various scriptures including the book of Mary Magdalene and the Apocrypha?

---

Sounds like two have been nominated. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Right. Let me know when the Vatican lets us add amendments to the bible.

---

They do in a way. It's called the Catechism of the Catholic Faith.

I don't really understand what all the hullabaloo is all about. I have my belief and others have theirs. But what is sad is when parents rely on schools and the govenment to determine what should be taught to their children. What is even sadder is the parents that don't even care what is taught to their children. Whatever happened to parents asking little johnny what he learned in school today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Right. Let me know when the Vatican lets us add amendments to the bible.

---

So... I'm guessing you're not a practicing Catholic, then?

Quote:

---

The entire Old Testament is a case study in progressive revelation.

---

Ummm, so is the New Testament. From the Niocine Creed, to the Trinity to ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

So... I'm guessing you're not a practicing Catholic, then?

---

No. I don't think I've been in very many Catholic churches after my confirmation.

I am someone who believes very strongly in the teachings of Jesus Christ, the man. I do not believe he was the son of god. But I think his teachigns are a fabulous guide to the way a person should live their life.

Anyway, maybe the teaching of creationism is best left to the philosophy department of some College, University or private school rather than using scarce public education tax dollars which are probably better spent teaching proven sciences like math, biology et al.

HS students have enough problems with problem-solving and critical thinking as it is without introducing competing theories about the evolution of God, religion and evolution. On the surface, though, you have to be really concerned about the Fundies in Texas making such a blatant assault on the Separation between Church and State and so many elected State and Federal legislators, and the WH openly supporting the idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Anyway, maybe the teaching of creationism is best left to the philosophy department of some College, University or private school rather than using scarce public education tax dollars which are probably better spent teaching proven sciences like math, biology et al.

HS students have enough problems with problem-solving and critical thinking as it is without introducing competing theories about the evolution of God, religion and evolution. On the surface, though, you have to be really concerned about the Fundies in Texas making such a blatant assault on the Separation between Church and State and so many elected State and Federal legislators, and the WH openly supporting the idea.

---

I'd tend to agree, for the most part. There's probably a way to broach the question about the origins of the universe without stepping on toes, but clearly ID is being used as a Trojan horse by people who want to use the public schools for religious indoctrination, which is just as bad as using it for anti-religious indoctrination.

Extremists on both sides concern me.

The only thing I've learned since my last post is the SWC Bonfire misinterpreted my post big time. Because I like Mr. Bonfire, I will assume the misinterpretation was a mistake in haste.

Quote:

---

I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of "intelligent design." No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine. But he is the father of the political strategy that lies behind the intelligent design movement - a strategy that has been used with great success by the economic right and has now been adopted by the religious right.

Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.

Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence. He would later concede, or perhaps boast, that he had a "cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit."

"Political effectiveness was the priority," he wrote in 1995, "not the accounting deficiencies of government."

---

Krugman, NY Times

Being Intelligent About Intelligent Design

Quote:

---

On Tuesday, just a few weeks after the 80th anniversary of the famous Scopes trial, President Bush expressed his support for teaching intelligent design in public schools, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught...so people can understand what the debate is about." In so doing, he "invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution." That's where the problem lies. While there is nothing wrong with intelligent design as an idea, it is not a scientific theory. Treating it as such for political purposes does a disservice to the nation's children.

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE: "American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints," the American Association for the Advancement of Science correctly notes. And while this diversity unquestionably enriches students' educational experiences, it is of critical importance that our educators distinguish between information acquired through rigorous scientific methods and those founded upon belief systems. As President Bush's science advisor, John H. Marburger III, acknowledges, "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Although its proponents often point to supposed empirically based "gaps" in the science of evolution, intelligent design theory also necessarily involves positing extra-natural (if not religious) phenomena. "Outside the precincts of the religious right, though, the scientific consensus about evolution is very close to unanimous." The National Academy of Sciences, "the nation's most prestigious scientific organization," declares evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have." A recent National Geographic ran a cover story asking, "Was Darwin Wrong?" and then provided the answer in the subhead: "No. The Evidence for Evolution Is Overwhelming." Evolution is, to again quote Bush science advisor John Marburger, "the cornerstone of modern biology."

SCIENCE CLASSES SHOULD TEACH SCIENCE: Commenting on President Bush's remarks, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said, "Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism." O'Reilly added: "There is no reason the students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it occurred, involved a higher power. ... Just state the facts, whether it be science or any other subject." This is a red herring. For one, despite the widespread confidence in evolution theory, virtually all involved in the debate believe that teachers must present a thorough, probing analysis of its scientific merits and demerits. Moreover, many believe that intelligent design could play an important role in public school curricula. Students should be and are taught about theories like intelligent design -- they learn of various belief systems in philosophy and humanities classes, and of the levels of religious belief in our society in sociology classes. (Indeed, consider the recent struggle over evolution in Dover, PA: the school board candidates who opposed the teaching of ID in science classes also strongly supported its inclusion in humanities curricula. "Paradoxically," the New York Times observed, "that may mean that if win, intelligent design would be examined more thoroughly, and critically, than under current policy," which was crafted by ID proponents.) But, contrary to O'Reilly's claim, intelligent design and similar theories should not be taught by scientists, and not in science classes.

BELIEF IN GOD AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE: As physics professor Lawrence Krauss observes, "One can choose to view chance selection as obvious evidence that there is no God, as Dr. Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and uncompromising atheist, might argue, or to conclude instead that God chooses to work through natural means." In the latter case, he notes, "the overwhelming evidence that natural selection has determined the evolution of life on earth would simply imply that God is 'the cause of causes,'" as Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, stated when he presided over the church's International Theological Commission. Indeed, "when a researcher from the University of Georgia surveyed scientists' attitudes toward religion several years ago, he found their positions virtually unchanged from an identical survey in the early years of the 20th century. About 40 percent of scientists said not just that they believed in God, but in a God who communicates with people and to whom one may pray 'in expectation of receiving an answer.'"

THE CONSTITUTIONAL END-RUN: In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that the teaching of creationism in public schools violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. "he doctrine seemed to be shut out of public schools once and for all," Michelle Goldberg writes for Salon.com. But now "intelligent design" -- "an updated version of creationism couched in modern biological terms" -- is giving advocates of creationism new hope that they can circumvent the high court's ruling. Proponents of "intelligent design" insist, of course, that the theory is distinct from creationism, and does not posit the existence of God. Yet the most fierce advocates of "intelligent design," led by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (which praised Bush's remarks), clearly have a religious agenda. The institute's main financial backer, savings and loan heir Howard Ahmanson, spent 20 years on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, "a theocratic outfit that advocates the replacement of American civil law with biblical law." A 1999 fundraising proposal that was leaked online stated, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built"; the institute's goal, it said, was "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."

ID PROPONENTS SHOULD ADVANCE THEIR THEORY THE RIGHT WAY: If proponents of "intelligent design" wish for their theory to hold the same stature in the scientific community as evolution, there is an appropriate course of action. Like any other researchers, they should subject their critiques and theories to repeated testing and submit their findings to be reviewed by their peers. Instead, as it stands now, "church groups and other interest groups are pursuing political channels" to crowbar their views into public classrooms. Neither, moreover, should we close our eyes to the scientific merits and teach "intelligent design" simply because some fear that theories like evolution, which say precious little about how humans ought to act, will open the door to "moral relativism." ("The ultimate extension of this position," Krauss writes, "may be Representative Tom DeLay's comment that the tragedy at Columbine happened 'because our school systems teach our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial mud.'") The politicization of evolution teaching is actually harming our students by making teachers nervous about delving into the topic at all. "In districts around the country, even when evolution is in the curriculum it may not be in the classroom, according to researchers who follow the issue. ... eachers themselves avoid the topic, fearing protests from fundamentalists in their communities."

---

American Progress in Action

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

No. I don't think I've been in very many Catholic churches after my confirmation.

I am someone who believes very strongly in the teachings of Jesus Christ, the man. I do not believe he was the son of god. But I think his teachigns are a fabulous guide to the way a person should live their life.

---

Well said.

contrary to O'Reilly's claim, intelligent design and similar theories should not be taught by scientists, and not in science classes.

Bingo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

No. I don't think I've been in very many Catholic churches after my confirmation.

I am someone who believes very strongly in the teachings of Jesus Christ, the man. I do not believe he was the son of god. But I think his teachigns are a fabulous guide to the way a person should live their life.

---

Well, he said he was the Son of God, so evidently you don't believe him.

I understand Christians, I understand atheists, I understand agnostics. This is the position everyone takes that I don't understand. You're calling him a fraud and then turning around and saying you "believe very strongly in his teachings". Which is it? If the guy's a nutcase lying about being the Son of God, why believe the rest of what he said? If the rest of his teaching was so powerful, how can you say he wasn't the Son of God? This seems to be a position held by people who don't understand what they believe.

O'Reilly rousing the rabble is wonderfully honest, as rabble-raising always is:

"Just state the facts, whether it be science or any other subject"

Exactly. How can anyone be against the facts? Even dumb-shit red-state hicks can take that on board. "I love O'Reilly. He's right about THE facts."

BUT, there ARE NO FACTS, there are NO SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE HYPOTHESES for creationism or ID, which are just an idea espoused by a single religious cult, or actually a simplistic, anti-intellectual, anti-scientfic fringe of Christianity.

How about we only teach theories that have a shred of evidence to back them up?

Once you prove God does exist...the faith based on his ideology ceases to exist. Then God is essentially dead.

"But I think his teachigns are a fabulous guide to the way a person should live their life."..........................................And that makes you a good person in my view

I'll be fighting to keep religion out of schools.

Intelligent Design <> religious Creationism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasAggie2005

Well, he said he was the Son of God, so evidently you don't believe him.

I understand Christians, I understand atheists, I understand agnostics. This is the position everyone takes that I don't understand. You're calling him a fraud and then turning around and saying you "believe very strongly in his teachings". Which is it? If the guy's a nutcase lying about being the Son of God, why believe the rest of what he said? If the rest of his teaching was so powerful, how can you say he wasn't the Son of God? This seems to be a position held by people who don't understand what they believe.

---

This is very simply explained. For some of us, its not an all or nothing situation.

For some you are with them, or against them.

"Intelligent Design <> religious Creationism"

They have the same goal: to present their beliefs as The Single, Universal Truth, to question, and to oppose the huge amount of evidence and the explanatory/predictive power of evolutionary theory.

Once ID is accepted in schools, the door will be open for RC, paganism, witchcraft, Buffy Vampirism, zoroasterism, astrology, and any other half-baked shit that those groups "believe" must be presented in schools as The Truth.

beliefs <> science

Intelligent Design does not try to go against Evolution. It incorporates evolution.

That being said, there is no evidence for ID, and I don't see a reason it should be included in the courses based on that alone.

I believe in the Golden Rule.

n/m ... I read that wrong. :lol :lol

"Intelligent Design does not try to go against Evolution. It incorporates evolution."

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion."

that "scientific disagreement" does very much go against the theory of biological evolution.

Not really. It incorporates evolution. It says that evolution wasn't random chance, but that it was designed, but it doesn't go against it.

Its like saying if I drop the ball from here it will land here. That statment doesn't imply gravity doesn't exsist, but that the drop was planned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elpimpo4cc

intellligent design = "and God planned everything to happen this way, so there."

---

Exactly, but I don't know how that goes against evolution. If the current situation had been planned to play out the way it has, wouldn't evolution still have occured?

Intelligent Design is Philosophy. If your High School has a Philosophy elective and they teach ID, so be it. It doesn't belong in Science Class any more than a study of Early Roman History belongs in Algebra.

My Philosophy is that religion doesn't belong in schools but the study of religion is okay.

"comparative religion", religion from various academic angles, history of world religion(s), the role of religion in world history, etc, is fine, but mostly those are mostly college subjects.

'and God planned everything "

... is a belief in super-natural phenomenon, is usually a religious belief, and with attendant political stance by the believer that his God and his religion are the best, even th only, or at very least better than everybody else's.

... is not science, is not philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

This is very simply explained. For some of us, its not an all or nothing situation.

---

But if you get to pick and choose what you want to believe out of what he said, how useful can it be? You might as well make up your own "guide". Not to mention that everything Jesus taught was derived from the idea that he was the Son of God. All of his teachings were based off that underlying principle. Besides, if the writers of the Bible lied about Jesus, maybe they made the rest of it up too.

This just seems to be a position people take to try to appease Christians without actually having to agree with them. If I didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God, I definitely wouldn't live my life by what he said. Then he'd be just another man, and thus fallible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasAggie2005

But if you get to pick and choose what you want to believe out of what he said, how useful can it be? You might as well make up your own "guide". Not to mention that everything Jesus taught was derived from the idea that he was the Son of God. All of his teachings were based off that underlying principle. Besides, if the writers of the Bible lied about Jesus, maybe they made the rest of it up too.

This just seems to be a position people take to try to appease Christians without actually having to agree with them. If I didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God, I definitely wouldn't live my life by what he said. Then he'd be just another man, and thus fallible.

---

Does the bible have every word uttered by Jesus Christ?

If a crazy man on the street tells me that he is the son of god, but tells mis mantra which is one I believe in, does that mean I can't believe in his mantra?

Yeah, I just compared Jesus to a crazy man. :lol

If Christ were infallible, Judas never would have made the cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Does the bible have every word uttered by Jesus Christ?

If a crazy man on the street tells me that he is the son of god, but tells mis mantra which is one I believe in, does that mean I can't believe in his mantra?

Yeah, I just compared Jesus to a crazy man. :lol

---

What difference does it make if it has every word he spoke? I don't see how that relates to the discussion at hand.

If his mantra is based on being God, it's kind of strange to believe his teachings without believing him. And in your example the crazy man is articulating something you already believe in. Thus his "mantra" is simply an expression of something you already think. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would assume that you see the Bible as something that can teach you and help you understand new things. Two totally unrelated situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

If Christ were infallible, Judas never would have made the cut.

---

And he would never have gotten the crap kicked out of him. And he never would have died. Right? Wrong. Judas was there for a reason, Jesus knew he would be betrayed before Judas ever sold him out (the Last Supper). According to the Bible, it was all part of God's plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

If Christ were infallible, Judas never would have made the cut.

---

The way I see it is that Judas was part of the plan (not very fair to Judas, though).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

Intelligent Design is Philosophy. If your High School has a Philosophy elective and they teach ID, so be it. It doesn't belong in Science Class any more than a study of Early Roman History belongs in Algebra.

---

:tu Bingo.

gene sequencing isn't a philosophy nor are the nano pumps and valves and engines of the cell; and, they aren't explained by natural selection or evolution. There are some fairly level-headed scientists out there that are seeing things not available to, or explained by, Darwin and they're wondering how the heck it happened. Non-theistic Intelligent Design is a working theory...not a philosophy.