Thoughts re: NPR regarding Evolution/I.D./Creationism in Kansas schools

[LynzM]

I was listening to NPR this morning during my commute, and they did a piece about people in Kansas trying to have "Intelligent Design" added to science textbooks. Apparently, about 5 years ago, the people on the Board of Ed (state level?) added the theory of creationism alongside the theory of evolution in science textbooks. Then several years later, it was removed. Now people are lobbying to have the theory of intelligent design added to the textbooks. One woman was quoted as saying that she 'doesn't want her kids to learn about the theory of evolution, because she doesn't believe in it, and doesn't want to have to 'correct' their learning'.

I really don't understand why people care so much about this issue, specifically. They don't want the theory of evolution taught to their kids, because they don't want their kids exposed to that, because they 'don't believe in it'. Ok, but some people don't believe in intellgent design/ creationism, either, so why should their kids have to be exposed to that? Are they so afraid that their kids might not listen to them and believe what they believe? Not to mention the fact that evolution (small 'e', I know) has some basis in proven scientific research, where the theories of Creationism or Intelligent Design (or intelligent design, not sure if case makes a difference here?) are basically faith-based theories that cannot be tested scientifically. Are they so afraid that their children will be exposed to alternative viewpoints of the world, and they are worried about the work involved in actually teaching their children about why they believe what they believe, as opposed to just indoctrinating them? Does it have to do with laziness as opposed to thought? (I am NOT trying to start a flamewar. I am asking honest questions. I am fairly inquisitive by nature, and I don't understand, so please help me out with this one, since I cannot understand the motivation for acting like this.)

Why can't everyone just let this debate go, accept that we can't know for 100% sure, accept that we are HERE, and work on making the world a better place to be? Why put so much energy into this?

My husband (Briarius) postulated this in reply:
"Because lots of people need concrete answers. They can't accept that most of their life is really beyond their control. They desperately need to control everything so this illusion of control isn't threatened. I think they hate evolution so much because it is not concrete. It has gray areas, unknowns, and uncertainties.... not my original idea. It's something that comes from Buddhism, how trying to control everything leads to suffering"

I'm sure this has been debated before here, but I'm not looking to actually debate creationism vs. i.d. vs. evolution. I'm looking to discuss why people aren't willing to let their kids learn that there are alternative viewpoints and ideas in the world...

Your thoughts?

:) LYNZ

[olacan]

1. Teach

them both and let the students decide.

[LynzM]

4. I agree, BUT

Should we teach them both in a philosophy setting, or a science setting? 'evolution' has been shown to occur (albeit on a much smaller scale than the evolution of entire new species... that'd be a long experiment) so I do see value in teaching that in a science setting. There is not scientific basis for teaching i.d./creationism. However, perhaps this is a case where an exception should be made, and the text should state that it is not known for certain how the planet/species/etc. came to be, but the following theories are postulated with the following evidence, etc. But then how far does it go? How many god-centered theories need to be included? Christian? Hindu? Native American? Where does that end?

[StClone]

I disagree

I would spend all my alloted time teaching Evolution and mention religions views of Creation (Designing) then move on. Religion is not Science and is a waste of time to mention Design outside a religious school.

[papau]

8. Contrast the lack of science in ID with the apparent obvious fact of ID

It would help kids understand what is science.

Problem with current "teach ID" is that there is nothing to teach in terms of science.

As the lady quoted said "I believe"

But it is silly to pretend that one does not see ID all around you.

but it is also beyond silly - and into false - to try to claim ID is good science that competes with evolution.

ID SUGGESTS A CREATOR - and unless someone has seen the original plan - why could not the creator use evolution to create?


it seems unlikely the "evolution" contradicts any truth in the Bible.

But most important - ID is not science.

[progressivejazz]

31. I don't see ID all around me.

I guess I'm just silly.

But if it's so damn obvious, why didn't you point out a few instances of this ID that's all around us?

[papau]

39. Ah - in the world of infinite possible outcomes - you yourself are

extremely unlikely.

Me and you are even more unlikely.

But feel free to claim you know how either to

1. avoid that randomness

or

2. claim that the design we see is from randomness- multiple universe or multiple big bangs having infinite cycles - and that we could not see the design if we had not been so designed - so design proves nothing,

Of course the above is a bit unfair - just as there is no way to no way to disprove it, there is also no way to prove a Creator and intelligent design.

But I was not into the "science" of observation - I was just into the fact that I do not see random globs of "living" matter - or "local" laws of phsyics - there appears to be a design,

If thinking that the design is not intelligent floats your boat - great!

peace

:-)

[progressivejazz]

73. Peace, my friend.

Any hand of Bridge that is dealt is highly unlikely. And yet it exists. Therefore, it has been designed.

Makes sense to some, I guess. Not to me. To me it just looks like bad logic.

And if the laws of Physics were "local" wouldn't you take that also as proof of design? Many would. I wouldn't.


What you're doing is accusing science of ignoring the obvious. And then not showing what it is that's so obvious. This is an invalid indictment of science.

And what I think is not important. What I know is! And I know, just as anyone reading this exchange knows: your examples are illogical, hence invalid.

[papau]

77. Ah - Illogical - Is it bad to say extremely unlikely needs explaining?

Any bridge hand is indeed unlikely.

Any given ordered outcome is unlikely.

That is just Stat.

I find the number of independent variables and the size of the unlikely to be making a logical statement.

You do not.

As I said in the previous post, proving - or disproving - anything in this discussion is impossible,

But you hurt my feelings with the "illogical, hence invalid"

:-(

LOL

Peace friend - it has been an interesting discussion and a good way to fill the day.

:thumbsup:

:toast:

:-)

[progressivejazz]

87. My apologies.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

But logic is not a matter of opinion.

[papau]

89. It is hard to get you agree that logic is a matter of opinion - I give

up!

I live in a world of math in a city where 1 approaches 2 for large values of one and small values of 2 - the city called "management"!

now that was a kneeslapper - but I doubt you would see the humor

:-)

Do not worry - you did not hurt my feelings -

Come we get drinks!

peace

:-)

[progressivejazz]

94. Drinks? Absolutely!

I buy first round, then we alternate, O.K.?

[papau]

95. :-)

:-)

[Johonny]

96. Actually

I'm an extremely likely outcome because I already exist. Calculating probabilities of events that already happen have very easy solutions.

[DrWeird]

9. disagree.

That's like teaching both the holocaust and holocaust denial in history class.

[GR]

11. That's Like Saying....Teach The Moon Is Made Of Green Cheese

and that it's made of mineral matter and let the students decide.

One is science, evolution, the other is pseudo-science designed to undermine science....

[Cats Against Frist]

74. lol -- exactly! n/t

[davidinalameda]

28. but which version of ID are you going to teach

if you simply say that there was some "force" that helped in the formation of the universe, you're going to get complaints that you're not going far enough

if you begin to get very specific then you've crossed the church/state line

its a no-win situation

ID doesn't belong in schools--it belongs in places of worship

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

86. Wait! The Force created it all?

George Lucas was right!

:)

[GiovanniC]

34. One of the First Things They Teach You In Science

Is proper theory and hypothesis forming.

You take any given event or phenomenon. For example, birds seem to be able to navigate south in the fall.

Then you ask a question. How do birds know which direction is south?

Then you make an educated guess based on what you know about the world. This is called a hypothesis. The only caveat is that it MUST be provable/disprovable based on scientific observation. Therefore:

- Birds use the stars for navigational purposes is an acceptable hypothesis.

- Birds receive magical psychic transmissions from aliens for navigational purposes is not an acceptable hypothesis.

Now, MAYBE birds are receiving magical psychic transmissions from aliens. But there's no way to prove it. But there IS a way to prove that birds do or do not navigate by the stars... observe birds under conditions whereby the stars are not visible to them. In this case, both guesses were incorrect, but only one was actually a hypothesis.

Now a theory is even more stringent. A theory has the same rules as a hypothesis (i.e., it must be provable/disprovable). But a theory is something which appears to explain the phenomenon reasonably well, and can be repeated multiple times, independently, and be expected to produce predictable results each time.

So saying that a bird navigates by magnetic fields means that a bird flying under normal conditions can be predicted to navigate correctly and can be observed multiple times, independently. But a bird flying under conditions in which magnetic fields are manipulated can be predicted to become disoriented. This theory shows that birds navigate by magnetic fields (or whatever). That's the best explanation to fit available evidence and it provides a predictable method of observing a natural phenomenon.

Saying that God created the world in six days and put all the animals here and et cetera is not observable. It cannot be independently verified. It provides no method of predicting or anticipating natural events.

In other words, evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, meaning it is a testable model of predicting natural phenomena. Creationism or Intelligent Design or whatever label you want to put on it... is nothing more than a story. A mythology. If you're going to accept that as science, then science no longer has any meaning whatsoever.

[me b zola]

72. Ridiculous.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, the 'theory' of creation is, uh, not.


Scientific method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The scientific method or process is fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Science manages new assertions about our world with theories — hypotheses and observations. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out correct, the theory survives, but if a prediction fails the theory fails. Any theory which is strong enough to make verifiable predictions can then be tested scientifically in this way. These are the underlying methods of scientific practice. With them scientists determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true. The scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our world.

Contents
1 History

2 The Scientific Method

3 Characterization

4 Hypothesis development

5 Prediction from the hypothesis

6 Experiment

7 Evaluation and Iteration

7.1 Testing and improvement
7.2 Verification


7.2.1 Reevaluation


8 Review

[Liberal Veteran]

84. How about we teach SCIENCE in SCIENCE CLASS and...

...teach philosophy in philosophy class.

Intelligent Design is not science in any way, shape, or form. It is pure unprovable speculation.

The problem is that too many people don't understand that "scientific theory" has higher standards than mere speculation.

We should teach scientific theories in science clase. ID is philosophical theory and really has no place in the science class.

[G_j]

2. I think it would

be great for kids to learn about science in science class and also about the myriad of "creation" stories from world cultures, perhaps in Comparative Religion classes.

[kiraboo]

7. Agreed: Religion belongs in the religion class. n/t

[spooked911]

3. The problem is that Intelligent Design is junk science--

it's basically creationism dressed in fancy scientific clothing.

I don't mind actually schools talking about other theories, as long as they present the whole story. Evolution is by far the best model we have for how life on earth arose. I.D. is worthless as a theory.

So teach the kids the different theories, but explain why evolution is the best.

[SaveElmer]

5. Evolution is not a theory any longer...

It is scientific fact...as close to absolute certainty as one can get. If you are going to introduce alternate theories we might as well start teaching the world is flat and is carried on the back of giant tortoises...

Intelligent design is another attempt at introducing religion into public schools. If these parents are sooo concerened that their children learn the truth they are free to send them elsewhere!

Don't foist your ignorant, myth loving views on the rest of us!

[WildClarySage]

92. They aren't tortises. They're turtles.

[kiraboo]

6. I think that's an interesting question.

I've thought of it in relation to people who don't want their kids to be exposed to homosexuality, or to learn about alternative lifestyles. Are they afraid that having knowledge about something somehow translates into becoming that something? Surely the concept of good parenting is in part about counteracting and/or moderating influences on a child which are somehow negative, disruptive or socially maladaptive. We are confident in our ability to toilet-train or teach our kids to say "please" and "thank you", but apparently we feel powerless when it comes to instilling our faith (or as the case may be, our bigotry) into them. I think there is an element of paranoia here... and sometimes a religious certainty which breeds intolerance.

[LynzM]

13. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at...

And I think those are good parallels and examples.

"Are they afraid that having knowledge about something somehow translates into becoming that something?"

I think that is a very good point, and certainly seems to be true.

If you are unsure of your ability as a parent to teach the things you apparently hold most dear to you to your children, and want to replace analysis and choice of ideas with ignorance... I don't understand that. Does it have as much to do with maybe not totally believing them yourself, or being afraid that you may be swayed, and afraid of the uncertainty that would ensue?

Would I be flabbergasted and confused if my daughter grows up to be a fundy, controlling, super-repub? Yes, because I hope to teach her that the ideas of compassion, acceptance, tolerance, analysis of ideas and beliefs and motivations, etc., are important within our family. But based on that belief, I will also allow her to choose that path, if it's what she decides, because she is a person, the same as I am, and entitled to her beliefs, however much I might disagree with them. I would debate her, but as long as she was not hurting anyone, why prohibit her from knowing those things, or discussing the possibility that there are other ways of viewing the world?

[kiraboo]

18. I too think about this in the context of how my children will develop.

Like you I have considered the notion that my children will feel that their upbringing has somehow fallen short, and they will fill the void with beliefs and attitudes I don't like. But at least I have informed them of all the possibilities. When I present my very liberal point of view, I present it in the context of opposing viewpoints. I do this with the hope and belief that a comparison is the best way to prove that my perspective is just and accurate.

[GR]

10. One Is Science, One Is Religion...They Are Not Equivalent...

You position is that of the religious folks who are trying, first, to undermine evolution and then, once that's done, sneak in their religious faith based beliefs.

Basically intelligent design says, if I can't explain it NOW then god did it...That is not a scientific attitude and has no place in science class.

I live in Kansas and this is a VERY important issue. One of the guys speaking at a public forum said that teaching evolution would make all of Kansas's children Nazis...That's the kind of mind set we have here...

[LynzM]

19. Hi GR

Thanks for your reply, from someone who is there. WOW on the Nazi comparison, geez. Please don't put words in my mouth, though, regarding my position. I'm not trying to undermine evolution, and I really know almost nothing about what ID is about. "I'm looking to discuss why people aren't willing to let their kids learn that there are alternative viewpoints and ideas in the world..." <-- when I wrote that, what I was getting at is why are the people who are fighting to have ID added so afraid of their kids learning the scientic basis behind evolution, and countering that with their own teachings on ID/Creationism?

[GR]

27. Point Taken....

:hi:

[LynzM]

30. Thanks :)

I'm glad I managed to say that without offending... it can be so hard to have a good discussion on here without making enemies! :)

[katsy]

38. And whose responsibility is it to teach alternatives?

Children are not prohibited from learning alternative points of view. They do learn alternative points of view within their family units and in their churches.

What business does government have presenting theological theories in taxpayer funded schools?

Evolution is a scientific theory backed by data. It belongs in schools. Creationism is a story based on the bible. Not everyone subscribes to the theological theories in the bible. We are a country of diverse belief systems. ID (creationism) does not belong in schools. PARENTS have the responsibility to offer alternative points of view... not taxpayers.

Schools need funding for music, art, phys ed, math, science, history, languages... let the churches fund ID and offer it in their Sunday school classes. I don't want my money going towards religious study. What the hell are churches for? Where the hell does parental responsibility fit in all this?

Substitute the term "Evolution" with the term "U.S. Measurement Systems". As a parent, I prefer that schools taught The Metric System. Well they don't so it's my responsibility to teach my children the Metric System if I so choose.

I also prefer all schools teach Mandarin instead of Spanish. Guess what? It's my responsibility to teach them Mandarin if I so choose.

If my daughter is taught that abstinence prevents unwanted pregnancies... that's all well and fine. I happen to believe that young adults also need to know about contraception choices. Whose responsibility is it... and who would know my child better than me? No one. It's MY responsibility to raise a responsible child.

[smoogatz]

12. The problem is Biblical Literalism

If you believe that the Bible is the literal and absolute received Truth, direct from God, then any information set that contradicts any part of the Bible is just plain wrong, and anyone who says otherwise is at best misguided and at worst an instrument of evil. The Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old, the universe was created in six days, all life on earth has always looked as it does now, the earth is at the center of the universe, and all kinds of other stuff that scientists--fallible men and women--have very clearly and thoroughly shown to be false. If your faith rests entirely on the literal truth of every word of the Bible, you have two choices: reconsider your faith, or try to make the information (and the fallible men and women) that contradicts it go away. In Kansas, they're trying to do the latter. This has been going on since the early 1600s, when Galileo figured out that the earth revolves around the sun. If new information contradicts what true believers believe, then the new information is false, and its purveyors are evil.

[G_j]

23. yes and once you open the door, where does it stop?

..science teachers required to teach that the first woman may have been created from the rib of a man?

[giant_robot]

40. You hit the nail on the head with the Galileo analogy

IMHO, evolution will eventually be as accepted as Galileo's model of a heliocentric solar system because of the weight of evidence behind it. Christianity will still exist after evolution is accepted, and its followers will still raise hell over the next thing that is proven to be at odds with the Bible.

Just my take on things.

[DrWeird]

42. Evolution IS as accepted as the heliocentric model of the solar system.

With the exception being a few nutjobs on American school boards.

[giant_robot]

53. True, but my point is that even the nuttiest of the nutjobs wouldn't

try to get a schoolboard to teach a geocentric universe as an alternative to the heliocentric model, and I think the evolution debate will eventually go the same way.

[LynzM]

56. I disagree with you on this

I think there are a LOT of people out there who don't accept it, and that's why this is such a big fight. I've met quite a few of them myself, people who I tend to think of as reasonable adults in other contexts, but doubtful of anything proven scientifically that goes against their 6000-year-old, creationist view of the world. It's odd, to me. Even when I did consider myself to be a Christian, I could not swallow that.

[smoogatz]

69. Unfortunately, you're wrong

At least about the acceptance of evolution in the US. Polling shows that around 70 million Americans don't accept it--and something close to 2/3 of adults believe in something close to ID (the NYT says around 1/3 of high school biology teachers believe in ID). That's why the ID movement has a fair amount of momentum right now.

[papau]

82. The confusion is nobody askes if you buy evolution AND ID

which is where most folks are that I meet.

ID does - or at least should not compete with evolution since evolution is science and ID is not science.

[KittyWampus]

57. In Your Analogy, Those Who Posit Intelligent Design Are Galileo & Those

who continue to grasp onto the flawed Darwinian model of Evolution are the Catholic Church.

It's sad really. Scientists who fashion themselves as being openminded need so desperately cling to outworn theories.

I don't know which is more pathetic:

The Religous Fundies trying to prove the existance of their childlike version of God

or

The Scientific Fundies trying to prove that Physical Matter is all there is.

[GiovanniC]

59. Most Unjustified Air of Superiority Award for February

And it's only the 8th!

[DrWeird]

60. also ridiculous.

Galileo was a scientist. He had scientific proof of the heliocentric model. The church (catholic) didn't like it because it contradicted with the literal interpretation of the Bible. They sought to keep it from being taught for years after his death.

Darwin was a scientist. He had scientific proof of the evolution of life. The church (southern baptist) didn't like it because it contradicted with the literal interpretation of the Bible. They sought to keep it from being taught for years after his death.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cats Against Frist]

75. Or even stupider:

those who claim they know there's something "other than matter," and they really don't have any fucking idea, except for their own delusions.

[Anais921]

65. My point exactly

"and anyone who says otherwise is at best misguided and at worst an instrument of evil"

There's no middle ground, or acceptance of various "beliefs" of how the world began.

[gollygee]

78. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

I agree 100% by the way :)

[smoogatz]

85. Thanks.

Nice to be here. Y'all are a lot friendlier (and smarter) than the freepers. I keep getting banned over there, for some reason.

[Hugin]

14. "I think they hate evolution so much because it is not concrete."

In my experience... Them fossils are pretty hard and the rock
around them is even harder. ;)

If you think evolution has gray areas, etc. Check out how the
I.Ders try to explain fossils.

[AP]

15. Two things I thought:

(1) I was surprised during the interview with the Harvard Prof when the interviewer eagerly said, "aren't there big holes in the theory of evolution" implying that that meant people should view belief in evolution as a sort of faith, similar in quality to a faith in good. Whoa. That knocked me for a loop. It's weird to hear MSM reporters conflate science and religion to a degree that I normally find on the 700 club.

(2) Why do fundamentalists have so little faith that they need to have all of secular society cleared of anything that might challenge their belief system? Isn't part of being religious feeling that no matter what evidence you have that there is no god, that you still believe? Isn't the bible filled with parables about how you're supposed to believe no matter what the evidence says? The parables don't tell you to go hide all the evidence away so that you never have to question your faith. They say that despite constant, welcome challenges to your faith, you believe nonetheless.

I find the people who are afraid of evidence that there isn't a god, or that the bible isn't totally literal are the ones who are the least christian and who have the least faith.

[LynzM]

35. Yeah, the Harvard Prof sort of...

Made my brain go, "wait, what?!" I'm still not sure what he really thought about things, and he's teaching the history of science? At a prominent university? Glad I never had to sit through his class.

Your #2 is an exellent point. I'm not sure it exactly applies in this case (that is, they are trying to have their views added, not others taken away), but it certainly applies in general, as far as I can tell.

[AP]

81. Science is what we know from observation. Faith is what we believe.

I didn't have a problem with what the professor said. I thought he actually separated out those two issues rather well.

My problem with the interviewer was that she tried to equate science and faith by saying that so long as their are still questions about evolution, is should be on the same plane as faith (which is notable for all the scientific and historic questions it is unable to answer).

There are plenty of things that are taught in schools about which we don't know every last thing. Education is a process of learning what we know, applying it to things we don't know, and coming up with answers. But, just because, say, people are constantly coming up with new arguments about the symbolism in the taming of the shrew doesn't mean that literary theory is the equivalent of religion. Just because there are still unproven aspects of Einstein's theories doesn't mean that religion should get equal time in a physics a class.

Faith is very different from science, and I really think that that probably would please a (hypothetical) god. You want people's faith tested so that they're always saying that despite all evidence to the contrary, they have faith. That's what makes religous conviction its strongest.

I just think that the argument that was implied in the reporters eager retort, "but aren't there a lot of unanswered questions about evolution (too)" is sort of the opposite of faith. It's like you have to hope that science is wrong for there to be a god, and that treating faith and science as the same things somehow keeps religion viable.

That science seems so right tests your faith. When all the holes in scientific theory aren't filled, I think the religious person shouldn't say, "see it's wrong, and my religion therefore is entitled to the same credit that we give religion." I think a deeply religious person would say, I'm steppign out of the way here, and you can continue to try to fill those holes with more science, and the more you fill in those gaps, the more my faith is tested, and the deeper my convictions become when I chose to still believe.

Maybe this doesn't make any sense.

But I guess what it comes down to is that I just look at people who say, "but, but science has holes!" as people who are afraid their faith is being tested and that they're going to fail, rather than people who say, "I believe no matter what."

[LynzM]

90. That makes sense,

And I guess I really wasn't paying attention to it that closely, honestly, as I did not catch that tone of the reporter's question. I understand what you are saying about more evidence contrary to something faith-based as necessitating a deepening of that faith.

[GR]

16. This Kind Of Ignorance Cannot Be Perpetuated If We Are To Remain...

anything representing a democratic republic...

The stunning scientific ignorance of the American public is on shocking display in the numbers shown here:
Origin of Human Life

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Nov. 18-21, 2004. N=885 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).


"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin of human beings? (1) Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process. OR, (2) Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process. OR, (3) God created human beings in their present form."

ALL Republicans Democrats Independents
Evolved, % 13 9 16 14
w/o God

Guided % 27 23 28 28
By God
God

Created in % 55 66 51 51
Present Form


Unsure %

[kiraboo]

21. I believe it is possible we were created by God.

Through evolution. I guess that could be considered intelligent design. But I don't find the two concepts mutually exclusive and as has been noted, one is a topic for the Science class, and one is a topic for Religion class.

[GR]

24. The IDers Won't Accept That View....They Want To Trash Evolution...

not say it was the way god worked...

[papau]

41. And that is where they -the IDers- part company with most folks of faith

I hope the schools do not cave to their pressure.

[spanone]

17. Creationism is a Religious opinion. Evolution is Science.

[wtbymark]

20. why dont they want opposing viewpoints?

a number of reasons: a)because the politics their parents support tote this line b) because they are insecure about their own convictions (their theory is based on merely faith) and they dont want their kids rebeling against the family's views and leaving the nest c) they want to shelter their kids from the evil world, in essence purifying their children (very nazi-ish). They dont want their children to go to hell, etc.. Most of the reasons are ignorance based, ignorance is as ignorance does. Its another reason that this part of the country supports ** and supports imperialism. They've never been outside the country, the world is an abstract concept to them so its nothing to have imperial thoughts of taking it all over. god is a more concrete concept than than Paris or Berlin, let alone Bagdad, so why not blow it up, especially if it makes gas cheaper - ignorance, plain and simple

Viva Vermont!

[KittyWampus]

22. Intelligent Design Need Not Postulate A "Creator". Therefore, I Would

say there's a difference tween Creationism (there IS a Being who is the Creator) and Intelligent Design which posits that the Universe has an inherent Intelligence built into it.

Not ALL people who espouse ID, such as myself, require or even desire any mention of a God.

I, for instance, don't WANT to talk about a "God" but the notion that Consciousness is the root of all physical matter.

And there ARE holes in how Evolutionary Theory describes how evolution takes place.

[DrWeird]

25. That's ridiculous.

Of course Intelligent Design postulates a creator. The whole point of the Intelligent Design movement is too support "scientific creationism", i.e. the literal interpretation of the Bible.

It's right there in the name "Intelligent Design," i.e. there's an intelligent designer.

There aren't any holes in the theory of evolution. There's some disagreement in regards to some obscure details of some mechanisms, but these problems are vastly and dishonestly exaggerated by the antievolution kooks.

[toymachines]

29. not true, ID does not presuppose a creator

thats what creationism is for. what if you believe in pantheism of sorts, where there is no god, where an underlying collective consciousness might manipulate the world. i dont know, it just doesnt seem like ID necessarily calls for a creator.
of course then we could argue what exactly would be considered creator/god, but lets not.

[DrWeird]

33. Of course it does.

Not only does it presuppose a creator, it presupposes the Biblical Jehovah.

[GiovanniC]

36. What a Ridiculous Comment

That's taking the allegory of the watchmaker to an illogical next step.

So you're walking through a forest and you find a watch on the ground. It's very complex with its many gears and moving pieces. You are certain, when you come upon this complicated watch, that it was designed and it did not simply form there spontaneously in the forest.

"This watch was intelligently designed!" you exclaim. "But I do not presuppose that it had a creator!"

[KittyWampus]

49. Not Only Is It NOT Ridiculous... It Has More Merit Than Supposing That

Random chance coupled with natural selection accounts for the diverity of Life as we find it.

And again, there IS NO WATCHMAKER.

You are obsessed, like the Religious Fundies, with the notion that there need be some Individual Being.

It's perfectly within Reason to suppose that the Universe has an innate Intelligence and that Intelligence or Consciousness is the root of all Physical and Psychic Matter.


If you can concieve of the Universe of being made of tiny bits of matter, you can also concieve that the Universe is also made of Consciousness.

The thing is, many people are simply afraid to perform that Thought Experiment.

[GiovanniC]

52. So The Universe Is Itself An Intelligent Entity

And it created itself, not randomly but intelligently?

Okay, and we should be teaching this to children? Fuck, you know what? I'm just going to go back to my Native American roots and teach my children that this entire world is just mud on the back of a gigantic fucking turtle.

How's that for intelligent design?

[DrWeird]

54. It's like say that the doctrine of "white supremacy"

does not presuppose the idea of the supremacy of the white race. Of course it does, as does "Intelligent Design" presuppose the idea of an Intelligent Designer, i.e. GOd.


"more merit than supposing that random chance coupled with natural selection accounts for the diverity of Life as we find it"

Well, now you're posting religious fundie nonsense.

"If you can concieve of the Universe of being made of tiny bits of matter, you can also concieve that the Universe is also made of Consciousness."

"The thing is, many people are simply afraid to perform that Thought Experiment"

I think many people don't perform that "thought experiment" because it's a non sequitor.

It's like saying: If you can concieve that the capital of Canada is Ottawa, you can also concieve that the Moon is made of green cheese.

[toymachines]

91. thanks cryingshame, well said

these side arguments are great, but the idea of ID being taught in a science class is freakin ridiculous. I mean, what is clearly and purely a belief, and not empiracly demonstrable really doesn't have merit in an institution of knowledge. obviously the fundies dont like education, whats new.

[G_j]

37. by definition it implies a designer

de·sign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-zn)
v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs
v. tr.

To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.

v. intr.
To make or execute plans.
To have a goal or purpose in mind.
To create designs.

n.

[KittyWampus]

51. No, You Are Simply Projecting Your Own Need To Have A Locus That

fits your predetermined concept.

Intention and Creativity may be channeled, exhibited and experienced by Individuals but do not originate in them.

[G_j]

58. wrong, the dictionary is "projecting"

I simply cut and pasted the definition given for "design".

www.dictionary.com

[G_j]

63. also

I might add that I personally 'believe' in some sort of intelligence that 'flows through' the universe and perhaps even 'comes from/out of' some sort of of intelligence. That is just my belief system, probably more in line with Buddhist philosophy.

But here I am quibbling about the term "Intelligent Design", my personal belief has nothing to do with it.

[EastofEdon]

55. correct, the dictionary definition of design

implies a "designer"

they need to change the wording but they won't, because that is exactly what they want the meaning to be.

[KittyWampus]

61. No, Your Preconcieved Notion Does. Creativity Is A Concept Existing

independently of one who exhibits creativity.

This is simple really, but telling so many have trouble making the distinction.

The wire is different than the electricity flowing through it.
And electricity is independent of the wire.

Consciousness (Intelligence) is the a priori state of Existance.

While Consiousness eventually evolves into Phyiscal Matter which may give it form and means of expression... it is not limited to any one bit of physical matter.

[G_j]

68. I pretty much share that view, however

I think there must be a better way to describe that than "Intelligent Design"

[EastofEdon]

70. how would you know what preconcieved notions

I entertain? I was discussing the dictionary definition of a word.

[Cats Against Frist]

76. Aliens, for absolute sure. n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

83. That's like saying manmade doesn't presuppose it was made by man.

Design is basically a synonym for "create".

The intelligence that "designed" the universe would be the de facto "creator".

Period.

[GR]

26. Intelligent Design Does Postulate A Creator....

There must be an "intelligent designer" somewhere to do intelligent design...I don't think you understand your own beliefs in this case...

[wtbymark]

32. alright- ive had this conversation with quantum physicists lately

if you are going to even go down the road of a fundimental concept- in which im all for- you are trying to find a fundimental, which is the simplest and smallest of all. i keep contesting with the scientists that they cannot account for mentality and that it has to be inhearent to the fundimental. Your word - consciousness - implies complex mentality, which cannot be counted as a fundimental. what you may be refering to is "the feeling of appetition", which is the basis of mentality itself. It does not have consciousness, or thought, but it is mental. Most people cannot concieve of feeling without thinking, you are still in way too complex of a mindset.

-metaphysician

[papau]

44. Wow - I love the words! I struggled with Plato, Kant - and still can't

handle a conversation this deep!

Good Grief - I have had an easy intellectual life.

now I am away to learn what "feeling of appetition" means!

peace

:-)

[KittyWampus]

62. You Are Wrong. Consciousness As Filtered Thru Humans Is Mentality

when it flows through a humans brain the same way gold as shaped by a mold is a bullion.

[papau]

43. Consciousness vs God , East vs West - I like it - but holes in evolution

can be seen as just more science to be done (granted that is a bit of faith - making religion and science both "faiths") - so if we have a science class I do not see how ID fits in

Discuss the many holes in evolution for sure - but if ID is mentioned it should be as an example of an explanation that can not be tested by science

- a bit like string theory!

:-)

[earthboundmisfit]

45. They have their private Christian schools-why are our PUBLIC

schools' textbooks so important to them? Their own Christian TV stations, with their own Christian "news" - so why are they so concerned with what the rest of us watch? (They even, I am told, had their own Super Bowl halftime show!)
If the evangelicals want to cultivate ignoramus children, it is certainly their right to do so - but it is NOT their right to FORCE MY KID TO BE IGNORANT, TOO!!!!
Why can't they just BUTT OUT of other peoples' business???

[Briarius]

46. Because they need to save your soul too

even if you don't know any better, you need saved. I don't know if you've ever seen it, but when I've talked to evangelicals if you mention you're not a christian they look at you with pity and start trying to convert you.

[sendero]

47. I don't think it is the uncertainty...

... so much as it is that if you believe in the evolutionary theory it pretty much makes the belief in a literal Bible impossible.

[Liberal Veteran]

48. This post explains why ID has no place being taught in science class.

ID is pure speculation and has no place in a science class. Now if you want to teach in a comparative religions class or philosophy class, that's a different story, but IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

Scientific Theory:

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and

5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.


What many people do not understand is that the standards for the nominclature of "theory" in science are a great deal higher than the informal use of the word "theory" in everyday life.

Or take a past "theory" if you will:

I have a scientific theory that a virus is cause of the immune dysfunction known as AIDS circa 1983.

It fits all five of those requirements listed above.

Many religious people speculated that HIV was God's punishment for homosexuality.

It's 1983: Which "theory" should the medical community follow up on to try to find a treatment and cure for AIDS?

[KaliTracy]

50. Ohio Had a similar problem, though I don't think it was adopted

there was a lot of controversy here over it in getting it into the curriculum (brief audio report here April 2004 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1845900 ). In fact, just down the road a piece, there is Kentucky, Home of the Creation Museum. ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/ )

Often in Censorship cases in schools a parent wants to ban a book (or textbook) for the entire class/school, etc. -- and often rebels at the offer to give their child an alternate reading assignment.

But this goes deeper than typical censorship because it is stating that one religious viewpoint is more important than other religious viewpoints on this matter. Those who advocate Intelligent Design say that Evolution is just a "theory."

If I were a science teacher in a public school that made me teach other than what I know to be scientific information, I think I'd have a slight problem with that. But there are teachers who believe the opposite, that they should be able to talk about Intelligent Design (to them, I say find another (private) school system, or start a Home Schooling resource center).



A few links:


There was an interesting Talk of the Nation in November 2004 about this http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4178920

and I just found this transcript of Science Friday on How Evolution is Taught in the Classroom http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSCStories&id=1294

View on the Ohio controversy on the CreationDigest http://www.creationequation.com/archives/WhatWouldDarwinSay.htm

[Anais921]

64. I think part of the problem

is that those who argue that creationism and/or ID should be the only theory that is taught are the same people who are completely unwilling to compromise on all the other issues that separate "us" from "them". It's not about being fair to everyone, it's about what they believe is right.

If evolution were taught in science classes and creationism and/or ID were taught in a comparative religion class, that would represent all sides (well, all the ones in question right now) of the issue and that would be the end of it. But that's not good enough for them... As far as they're concerned, evolution is a heathen belief and we're all going to hell for thinking it anyway... I'm only talking about these specific people who can't just admit that other people think differently. Logic does not compute here - we could have all the proof in the world and it wouldn't matter.

I don't personally see how learning about different viewpoints is going to necessarily "corrupt" their children - the child is going to hear about it somewhere, and they're going to make up their own mind regardless. But part of it *is* probably laziness, and part of it is fear that evolution will be so easy to believe. Still, if they want their kids to have a faith-based curriculum, they should send them to a private, faith-based school. Public school is run by the government, and while the last four years (and the next four, unfortunately) have severely blurred the lines, the government is not a religious body.

Bah.

[Threedifferentones]

66. Yes, it has everything to do

with mental laziness and fear. Judging from my own experience, many people can simply not accept the implications of possibly being just carbon based life forms with unusually advanced brains. This thought invariably leads to years of soul searching which may never end, so many peope choose never to think about it all rather than face reality. Religion is what they use to keep themselves sane.

I would guess that evolution is so abhorrent to them because they like to think of themselves as special in the eyes of God. If evolution is true they are just like every other creature.

[papau]

79. Why ? and if true - why is "just like every other creature" bad?

Perhaps We project our own thoughts onto others.

I must hang with the wrong faith crowd because I have never heard anything like "not accept the implications of possibly being just carbon based life forms with unusually advanced brains" - indeed my crowd says - "So what"

and goes on to worship God.

peace

:-)

[Pithlet]

71. Not all ideas are the same, or belong in the same category.

I don't mind my children being exposed to different ideas. In fact, I welcome that. What I do not want is a specific idea being taught as science when it is NOT. I want science in the classroom. Not philosophy. Not religion. Not myth. Science. Representing Creationism or Intelligent design as science is wrong. Evolution IS science because it is a theory that can be successfully tested by the scientific method.

I'm sorry, but I will not tolerate those who want to destroy science by including ideas that are not scientific. That doesn't just go for creationism and I.D., although those two are definitely included as subjects that are not science.

[papau]

80. I agree :-)

:-)

[dandrhesse]

88. Only problem I have is teachers not able to back up their position

My daughter asked a valid question of her science teacher about evolution. She wanted to know something specific because she thought the line of reasoning was flawed. The teacher couldn't answer her question. My daughter is really bright and often gives teachers, especially science teachers some challenging questions and kids have a right to ask. I don't see why there can't be an open debate about the whole issue with all students who want to state a certain theory to be allowed to do so and defend their position. I mean if a kid wanted to claim that we are from another planet and were dropped here by the mother ship that would be cool as long as he could back up his theory.

It seems to me the only thing that demands that the schools teach specific set of beliefs is for the purposes of testing. I think both sides of the evolution/creation debate have some valid points, and each has some flaws.

[Pithlet]

93. It's really simple.

Nothing theological belongs in a science classroom. That doesn't mean it's not okay to question your science teacher. I'd have a problem with a teacher who wouldn't answer questions in ANY subject matter. You can't expect a teacher to know everything, even in the subject they teach. If they don't know the answer, then they should direct the student to find it. It still doesn't change the fact that ID and creationism have NO place in science.