tecoyah

If there is anyone here with a deeper understanding on this issue, or some insight I may be missing, please help me answer a few questions. If by chance, ID becomes a standard subject in public schools, How can it possibly be taught without reverting to religious doctrine? And after the first few hours of explanation concerning this hypothesis.....what is left to discuss?

Evolution opponent is in line for schools post

By Cornelia Dean
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Saturday, May 19, 2007

The National Association of State Boards of Education will elect officers in July, and for one office, president-elect, there is only one candidate: a member of the Kansas school board who supported its efforts against the teaching of evolution.

Scientists who have been active in the nation's evolution debate say they want to thwart his candidacy, but it is not clear if they can.

The candidate is Kenneth Willard, a Kansas Republican who voted with the conservative majority in 2005 when the school board changed the state's science standards to allow inclusion of intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. Voters later replaced that majority, but Willard, an insurance executive from Hutchinson, retained his seat.

The group, based in Washington, is a nonprofit organization of state school boards whose Web site says it "works to strengthen state leadership in educational policymaking."

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...19edboard.html

Charlatan

And people believe that Fundamentalism in the US isn't dangerous...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Martian

Essentially, intelligent design is an attempt to disguise the issue. See, teaching a specific religion in a public school is unconstitutional, so the intelligent design proponents simply remove any specific mention of God from the actual discourse. In His place they use an anonymous 'creator' with no elaboration.

Which would all be well and good, except that creation science, well, isn't. Science relies on the idea of falsifiable theories. A theory needs to be able to be disproved in order for it to be valid scientifically and there's simply no way to prove or disprove intelligent design short of the Almighty Himself weighing in on the issue. Therefore, whether it's swaddled in religious trappings or not, intelligent design simply doesn't belong in a science classroom.

In terms of exactly what the syllabus would cover... well, you've got me. The anonymous creator who may or may not be God as He is described in Judeo-Christian dogma created everything and nothing new can be created without His permission. The end.

I swear, mostly you bunch seem alright, but every so often something like this comes along and makes me glad I'm not a US citizen.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Dilbert1234567

here is a paper i wrote last year on the subject
Intelligent design: Creationism, with ‘Sky-Yance’

There is a war going on, the war between two world views, what will be taught in our science classrooms. This war is over the origins, the origins of life, the world, and the universe. Many school districts battle over what should be taught in their science classes, on one side is evolution, on the other is “intelligent design,” so much so that the ACLU has been brought into to sue the state to have “intelligent design” removed from the classroom, because they claim, it is not a science, but religion masquerading as science.


So what is “Intelligent Design?” “Intelligent design” started in the early 1990’s with a resurgence of creationism, also known as neo-creationism. This resurgence believes that the universe and its contents are too complex to have arisen without an intelligent creator. The main driving force behind the “intelligent design” movement is the Discovery Institute, and one of their many facets is Center for Science and Culture. Their website defines “intelligent design” this way: “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Now, they don’t go out and say it, but this ‘intelligent designer’ is a god or a facsimile there of; but god can’t exist within science; it just does not work. Science must be verifiable, and many intelligent designers conveniently forget this, or flat out don’t know. Because there is no way to test the validity of a god, god is based off of faith, and faith cannot be tested by science. It is perfectly acceptable to believe in a god, or a creator, but they cannot exist in the realm of science; this is not to say that there is no god, just that science can not prove or disprove a god. Many real scientists believe in a god, but they realize that it is unverifiable and must be left out of scientific theories.


Dwain Gish senior vice president for the Institute for Creation Research said on Penn & Teller: Bullshit! (14:27):
He goes on to say:
Somehow, he must have thought we would not notice the words ‘theistic supernatural,’ theology and the supernatural is not science. ‘Theistic’ is the belief of god(s) and has no room in science because it has no way of being verified by science, further, supernatural is defined as: “not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws” and is clearly not science. These people are trying to push their religion into public schools. And they are succeeding, in 2002; Cobb County was pressured into placing warning stickers into their biology text books, stating:
[quoteThis textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origins of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.[/quote]
This stems from the lack of understanding that intelligent designers have for science lexicon.


The biggest rift between real scientist and the supporters of “intelligent design” is the lexicon they use, or in the case of intelligent designers misuse. It is this fundamental misunderstanding of scientific terms, mainly the word “Theory,” that the supporters of “intelligent design” grasp at to contradict evolution. Since it is so misunderstood, here are the definitions of three very misunderstood scientific words: Hypothesis--a hypothesis is an educated guess based upon observation, used to explain an event that has not yet been explained, hypothesizes are later supported or discredited with further experimentation and observation. Theory--a theory is a way to explain a set of related observations or events based on proven hypothesizes and verified by multiple scientist multiple times, and never disproved but it also must be falsifiable, it must make claims that if found to be false at a later date can be used to disprove it self. Scientific Law--a scientific law is beyond a theory, it is a statement of fact, usually mathematical, where it has always been proven true and is simple enough to always hold true(“Theory” Wikipedia). A theory is a way of modeling how the world works, and the theory holds until it is disproved, and at that time it is taken back to hypothesis and verified, until theory status can be re-obtained. Theories are not rigid; they change as new information is learned. We can never know all there is to know, and as such we can never truly explain everything there is to explain, but we can try and that is what a theory is. It is an attempt to explain the universe. When new evidence is uncovered that disproves a theory, the theory is scrapped back to a new hypothesis, tested, and worked back to a theory. Intelligent designers have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word theory, in a scientific context; this is due to their lack of scientific knowledge, and they believe that a theory is just a guess, where it is so much more, some examples of this can be found in the previously mention episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! (4:20), “Evolution has not met the test and deserves only to be treated as theory” and “Darwin considered it a theory, it is still a theory, it has never been proven, and never will be.” Both dead wrong, the speakers, who were unnamed in the program, don’t grasp the word theory, a theory will never be proven as fact. Even the theory of gravity, is still, just a theory. Gravity has been shown to be consistent time and time again, it has never been falsified but it can be. Evolution has met the test; it is shown time and time again with asexual microorganisms and can be observed in fast breeding sexual organism. Now that the lexicon is taken care of we can start to explore why “intelligent design” is not a science.


Scientist as a group are not committed to a single hypothesis; they must change their minds as the evidence grows, and revise there theories. As newer and newer fossils are uncovered, the scientific views of the dinosaurs are altered and changed to fit the new evidence, but it always conforms to all the current evidence, and is the best guess as an explanation of the observations. Science is constantly changing in this way, some theories are changed slightly, when new evidence is discovered, others are completely overhauled, such as plate tectonics in the 1950’s. “intelligent design” is just the opposite; it is rigid and unchanging, it is based off of ideas, not facts, or observations, it is not tested, it is not changed when parts are found to be untrue; therefore, it is not a science.


Many people just don’t understand how science works, Chuck Colson makes this very clear in his book, Answers to Your Kids’ Questions, he states:
He misses the point entirely; he forgets that what is beyond the 5 senses is not science, in the realm of science, there is nothing beyond the 5 senses. If something cannot be tested and verified it can’t be science, and that is exactly why “intelligent design” is not science, because it cannot be empirically verified anything. Further, good science is not dependant on the scientist philosophy, it is dependant on that scientist ability to separate their philosophical views from the science and just base their research on empirical observation, wherein theology has no place; because the core beliefs of “intelligent design” can not be empirically verified it doest not belong in science Even the Vatican denounces intelligent design, Reverend George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, has said that teaching “intelligent design” along with Evolution in a science class is wrong, like mixing apples and oranges; he went as far as saying “intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be.”(Vatican MSNBC) So if even the Vatican thinks “intelligent design” isn’t a science, why is it so prevalent?


Lies, deceit, and faith. “intelligent design” and creationism exist at best in the fringes of science, along the fuzzy edge; they exist by there shear determination to be heard, even though they are not truly a science, by distorting the evidence they stay afloat, and in some cases flat out lie. An example of this can be found on the Institute For Creation Research’s web page, a large proponent of “intelligent design” in a publication called Acts and Facts; we can find gems like “creation is at least as scientific as evolution, and that evolution is at least as religious as creation,”(Dr. Henry Morris III) a blatant lie, creation may in their eye be a science, but evolution is by no means a religion, it is based solely in the realm of science, and even they must know that. Also in this article, they try to dispel a common problem with creationism, the age of the earth according to the decay of radioactive elements, a rate that is constant, and has never shown to be other than constant. We can judge the age of the earth to several billion years, due to this steady rate of decay, but in accordance with their faith, the earth can only be a few thousand years old, so instead of revising their theory to this evidence, they create a theory of why the evidence is wrong.


Enter Accelerated decay ‘theory.’ It is quoted because this is the laymen’s lexicon for theory not the scientific lexicon; this ‘theory’ does not deserve scientific recognition because it is so badly postulated and full of gaping holes, that even a high schools level of scientific knowledge can debunk. The theory states that the speed at which radioactive isotopes have been decaying has decreased over time, at the earliest, the rates being around a billion times faster than there current rates (Vardiman 333). They, then, come to the ‘logical’ conclusion that the radiological dating of rocks is wrong because the speed of decay has slowed down, making rocks appear much older than they really are, on the order of magnitude of thousands of years old rather than billions, unfortunately, this ‘theory’ originated without any form of real research, or fact finding of any kind, it was just made up. If decay sped up a billion times, the world would not be a happy place. Let us delve quickly into radioactive decay. We are all aware of Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2, and radioactive decay; as matter decays it releases energy, in the form of light and heat, mostly heat. The energy contained within matter is equal to the mass times the speed of light squared. Let’s take for example a small amount of nuclear material, 1 kg of uranium. Now, normally the half life of uranium is about 4.5 billion years during that time half of it, will transform into lead, the mass lost in this decay is converted to energy, this can be calculated by comparing the start and end weight of the material, uranium has an atomic weight of 238 amu , where lead has an atomic weight of 207 amu, since half is converted, effectively half of the uranium becomes lead, lead weighs approximately 14% less than uranium, since half is converted that is about is 7%, the mass being lost over the 4.5 billion years. Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, it is converted to energy, using Einstein’s equation properly, 1 kg of any material breaks down into 89,875,517,873,681,764 joules (E=MC2 Wikipedia). The 7% lost of that mass is 6,291,286,251,157,723 joules over 4.5 billion years. According to the theory, this would happen 1 billion times faster, so over the course of 4.5 years, that energy would be released, or 6,291,286,251,157,723 joules, converting from years to seconds, this boils down to 44,332,306 joules per second, crunching the numbers further, and to better understand the vast amount of energy being release so quickly it would be the equivalent of setting off a ton of TNT every five seconds, nearly all in the form of heat. In other words, the amount of energy being released all over the earth would literally boil the oceans, and melt the earth, and soon vaporize it. To finally put things in perspective, this one kg of uranium is a sphere 2.25 cm in radius, This little amount of uranium causes huge problems with this ‘theory’ so much so that it become a mute point, this explanation has a gaping hole; it cannot contend with the amount of energy being released by all the decaying elements.


There are many other examples of intelligent designers and creationist getting the science wrong due to the intelligent designers and creationists misunderstanding of science. This is due to the ‘cherry picking’ approach that some intelligent designers and creationist take to finding holes with evolution; they scan the scientific literature and find small points that in their eyes go against evolution, and, then they claim to have defeated evolution, never really understanding what they really read. One that is often cited as definitive proof that evolution does not work is the second law of thermal dynamics. The second law of thermal dynamics, is quite broad and complex, these creationists are only focusing on one small part of it, the part that says the total entropy of a closed system increases over time (Second law), i.e., a closed system gets more disorganized over time (Entropy), i.e. evolution is order, so evolution can’t take place due to this increasing disorder. In their minds, the earth is a closed system. And, thus, it cannot become more organized over time. This is wrong on two fronts; it is a complete misunderstanding of the second law of thermal dynamics, on multiple levels. First, the earth is not a closed system; there is this giant ball of burning gas in the sky called the sun; this sun gives energy into the earth, and as such, the earth is not a closed system. Furthermore, the second law of thermal dynamics states that the overall entropy of a closed system increases, but small subsections of this closed system can increase and decrease in entropy, as long as the total entropy increases in other words, if you have a large closed system, the total entropy of this system will increase overtime, but may decrease in some sections of this system.


What is the big deal then? Those that believe in creationism are trying to pass this creationism off as science, in public schools. This is in effect teaching religion in a public school, not just religion, but a specific religion. Since our schools are run by the state, they are subject to the rules of the state, which are not allowed to endorse a specific religion. Creationism was already removed from the schools for this reason; all “intelligent design” is, is just a repackaging of creation, with pseudo science. The most damning evidence has to be put forth by Barbara Forrest, a professor of Philosophy at South East Louisiana University, she testified in a court case involving the teaching of “intelligent design” in schools that the proposed science textbook, Of Pandas and People, was nothing more than a previous revision from 1987 that’s only real change was that all references to creation were replaced with intelligent design. (Martha). "Of Pandas and People” is a textbook pushed by the supporters of “intelligent design” as a science textbook that gives equal time to both sides, but this textbook is lacking. Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at brown university wrote “Of Pandas and People a Brief Critique” describing how Of Pandas and People misrepresents science, is badly outdated and ignores important parts of teaching natural history (Miller). The book completely ignores the age of the earth, neither mentioning the scientific view point or the creationist viewpoint, the age is simply omitted. Next, the book seriously misrepresents fossil records. Such as the transitional fossils between land mammals and whales, this gives credence to Barbara Forrest, the 3 transitional fossils omitted were discovered after 1986, to late to be enter into the original printing of Of Pandas and People in 1987 but should have been included in the recent printing, unless they really did just replace creation with intelligent design, with out actually updating anything. Miller writes:

Clearly, “intelligent design” is not a science, it is a strategy, to destroy science from the inside, by corrupting science in the classroom, and they can push their views onto impressionable kids. The creationists fight so hard to make “intelligent design” look like a science, but it isn’t. They use pseudo science, bad science and bold face lies to make it sound credible. “Intelligent design” is not based in science, it is rigid, they don’t keep reexamining the evidence and revising there theories as new evidence is available, they stick with their original theory and try to make the new evidence fit it, with bogus science like with the Accelerated decay ‘theory’ or just plain ignore it. They fight so hard, because they feel there way of life is in danger, they equate the moral decay in our country to the teaching of evolution and other non god centric views. In their eyes, with out a belief in a god, there is no source of morals. They ask “where is god’s place, if everything has a natural cause?” That is a difficult question, with an answer that can take many years of soul searching to find, but finding gods place is not with in the realm of science, that is religions roll, “intelligent design” is nothing more than a repackaging of creationism, theology is not science; it needs to stay out of the science classrooms.

Works Cited
Center for Science and Culture. Top Questions. 19 Nov. 2005. <http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php>.
Colson, Chuck. Answers to Your Kids’ Questions. Wheaton Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc, 2000.
“Creationism.” Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Host Penn Jillette and Teller. Dir. Star Price. Show Time. 14 March 2003.
Dr. Henry Morris III. “Radio Log” Acts & Facts Oct 2005. 29 Nov. 2005 <http://www.icr.org/pdf/af/af0510.pdf>.
Entropy. 19 Nov. 2005. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy >.
E=mc². 29 Nov. 2005. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2>.
Miller, Kenneth R. “Of Pandas and People A Brief Critique.” Kansas Citizens for Science. 9 Dec. 2005 <http://www.kcfs.org/pandas.html>.
Raffaele, Martha. “Witness: 'Design' Replaced 'Creation'” Abcnews. 5 Oct. 2005 29 Nov 2005 <http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1187731>.
Second Law of Thermodynamics. 4 Dec. 2005. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics >.
Theory. 19 Nov. 2005. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory>.
Vardiman, Larry, ed., Andrew A. Snelling, ed., Eugene F. Chaffin, ed. Radioisotopes And The Age Of The Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon California: Institute for Creation Research. 2000.
“Vatican Astronomer Joins Evolution Debate.” MSNBC. 6:12 p.m. ET 18 Nov. 2005 MSNBC. 29 Nov 2005 < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101394/>.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

tecoyah

...............Beautiful..........*snif*.................Thank you

archetypal fool

Damn, now that's a mighty-fine write up on the subject.

It always bothers me that, of all people, teachers at these schools just sit back and allow this crap (sorry, but no word fits better) to be pushed onto impressionable children. It's brain washing, pure and simple, and if these people don't understand that, then they've lost all facets of thought and reasoning. They're changing their religion from something beautiful and spiritual into something ugly and manipulative.

This is so depressing.

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

Taltos

The problem is that the theory of evolution itself remains, as yet, unproven. In fact, there is some evidence that may disprove it, although the nature of that evidence is in itself relatively circumstantial at best (or at worst, fallacious).

I don't see anything unscientific about saying, "we don't know why" or even "we can't prove why". Science is about asking questions, not about disproving answers. If God did create the Universe and set it up a certain way, is there anything unscientific about analyzing that Universe to see how and why it works?

I don't see how "it just happens" is a valid scientific answer. Scientific discourse should open itself to many theories in an effort to prove any of them better than another. And in the absence of genuine evidence, we have only to keep asking the questions again of future generations and never stop looking for the answers. I don't think its fair to shut someone up just because you don't like the reprecussions of the questions they are asking, or because you have no means of answering them.

"Where did we begin?" and "Why do we exist?" are some of the key fundamental questions of science. You don't currently have any way of proving or disproving something, so the domain of science is the one area where proposing and analysing these issues is most relevant and appropriate. The only thing unscientific is the very assumption (hypothesis?) that it can't be proven or disproven at all.

__________________
Though we are not now
That strength that in old days
Moved Earth and Heaven;
That which we are, we are:
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Made weak by time and flesh
But strong in will
To seek, to strive, to find
And not to yield.
-Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Dilbert1234567

i will direct you to my paper, it explains the difference between a theory and a fact. a theory will never be proven true, that is the nature of a theory, it is the best way to describe the world as we experience it. gravity, earth revolving around the sun, all theories, but we trust in them until they are shown to be false, then the theories are adjusted to fit the new information. this is how science works, but disproving theories, and rewriting them to match the new evidence.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

archetypal fool

Ok, Taltos, I see what you're saying, but you can't necessarily "prove" a scientific theory. The only thing above a scientific theory is a scientific law, and these are usually presented mathematically. You can't prove the theory of evolution mathematically, because we aren't dealing with energy or motion or some otherwise measurable variable.

Take, for example, the Theory of Gravity and the Law of Gravity. The Law of Gravity is a mathematical proof, while the Theory of Gravity is an attempt explain what exactly gravity is and where it originates from. The fact that it's a theory doesn't hurt its existence because, here we are, held onto our planet, which revolves around the sun, which is one of billions of solar systems revolving around a super-massive black hole.

That being said, you can't "dis-prove" a theory either. If you can find contradictory information, then the theory is amended; the theory of evolution has been amended many times for just that reason, but always in the face of verifiable fact and observations.

The term "theory" doesn't hold the same meaning in science as it does colloquially. A scientific theory is as close to fact as you can get when describing complex (as in, not obvious or quick) natural phenomena. Evolution is a fact, and this can be seen in both microorganisms and complex organisms (for example, the Kaibab Squirrel). However, there is still scientific debate as to some of the mechanics of evolution; and then you have your gaps in the fossil record (however, you can't really hold these gaps as proof against evolution, for obvious reasons).

And scientists aren't content with saying "it just happens." I can see where this misconception arises in regards to the Big Bang Theory, but there are other theories (though thy're mostly mathematical), specifically involving String Theory and M Theory and so on, but no scientist will ever answer a question with "it just happens", and we're always looking to explain these things.

No one is shutting off intelligent design, but in scientific terms, it is not a theory on par with evolution, because it has no evidence for it. As soon as some shows up, then there will be some credence, but until then, it's a hypothesis and nothing more. Law > Theory > hypothesis > observation. That's the way things work., and they've been working fine so far, free from ideological obstruction, so we can't just start letting religious stories into the science books.

EDIT: I'm not sure how effective my post was in clearing up the misconceptions about "theory" so I'll add the following:

In common usage, the word theory has the same meaning as the scientific meaning of a hypothesis. For example, if a plane randomly explodes during flight, the television news reporters might say something to the effect of: "One theory is that the a spark set off inside the fuel compartment caused the explosion; another is that there was a bomb; another theory is that there was an explosive mechanical failure." This use of "theory" is analogous to the scientific meaning of hypothesis.

Once the actual cause of the explosion is found, then the news might say "it's verified that a mechanical failure caused the explosion because of so-and-so," or "it's proved that a mechanical failure caused the failure because of so-and-so," then this use of "verified" or "proved" is analogous to the scientific meaning of "theory".

I hope that helped.*

*This illustration was taken from "Physical Geology: Earth Revealed" by Carlson, Plummer and McGeary.

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

Martian

The debate isn't really about whether evolution has been proven or disproven, but more whether or not it can be proven or disproven. Again, the number one key factor in determining whether or not a theory is valid scientifically is it's falsifiability. A scientific theory should be able to be proven false; evolution as a theory is falsifiable. Indeed, every time you hear about a study of genetics and speciation, this is an attempt to disprove evolution. So far, all of the evidence fits the theory, along with observed supporting evidence in the natural world.

Contrast this with creation science. The hypothesis forwarded by intelligent design is that the observed natural world is too complex to have come about by chance and that therefore it must have been created by some intelligent higher power. What makes this invalid as a scientific theory is that it is not falsifiable. I can design an experiment to prove speciation and evolution; I can't design an experiment to prove whether or not God exists. The very nature of religion is that it is faith-based and that no evidence is required or provided. That's fine at Sunday mass and you're entitled to believe in whichever God you want. However, none of that has any place whatsoever in the science classroom. It's not science.

You've made an incorrect assumption here, so allow me to clear it up. Science is not about asking questions. Science is about finding answers. Asking why or when or how is a necessary component. We need to know which answer we're finding. However, you will never, ever, ever find a scientist of any description who is content to say 'we don't know why.' The closest you'll come to that is one who may say 'we don't know why yet, but we're working on it.'

Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Intelligent design is the assertion of a belief. You're welcome to believe whatever makes you happy, but please don't get your beliefs mixed up in my knowledge.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Charlatan

I like that... very nice.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pig

tec,

i can only imagine that the 2 week subsection of the bio class reserved for evolution would basically be slaughtered into a fiasco on par with a show and tell shell game. i think it would basically hamstring the effective teaching of the theory of evolution, which is of course the point. at this point, i can only guess that the best the religious people pushing this agenda can really hope for is a stalemate.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

tecoyah

Possible, but my real question comes down to just how you could build a lesson plan in the first place on ID. Seems to me that once you discuss the premis, you are done, as there really isn't anything solid to study unless you delve into religion. It has been a continuous struggle in this country to keep Religion out of the lives of those who dont require it, and I hate to think we are heading backwards as a society.

One has only to look at the Middle East to see what would likely result from a religion based society.

Cynthetiq

my first comment here was to just be, the one question that gets posed from an Intelligent Design lecture, kid raises his hand and asks,"Who's designed it?"

as far as tec's last comment, that's a bit unfair and overgeneralizing, since if you look at Chinese History quite religious beliefs they had many scientific discoveries. Look at Islamic history and you'd find things as well from mathematics to engineering. Indonesia which has the highest Muslim population in the world, doesn't look anything like the Middle East societies.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

tecoyah

It is very true that science was forwarded quite extensively in countries that were primarily religious....but this was long ago, and the world is a very different place now. Much of the current science growth will inevitably continue to make a need for "Godly" explanations seem juvenile, and quite possible attach a new stigma to those who do not wish to accept what becomes obvious to society in general.
Indonesia is not a religious state, and in fact is based on the opposite of this. While every country certainly holds within its citizenry multiple faith based populations, the true theocracy instills dogma within the peoples, and makes state descision based partially, if not wholly on religious principle(see Iran). Thus people hate and die, due to disagreement over manmade words of God.
I say manmade, because logically I cannot make any other conclusion based on the multitude of books the entity has authored, and the likelyhood of it causing such confusion and death on purpose, or as an experiment on its trained monkeys. While indeed science must be considered manmade as well, it does not claim otherwise in any way, and so can be honest and critical of its own content, allowing for some measure of truth to be found as a result.

I simply cant see ID going anywhere in a science class....except out the window after a few hours of theological discussion.

Cynthetiq

so your statement corrected is "religion based government" and not society.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

tecoyah

Actually, yes....that would be a better fit. And as this thread is dealing with public schools, and local government control of what is tought in a science class it makes more sense to phrase it so. My apology for the confusion.

Willravel

Dilbert, that was absolutely amazing. You'd make an excellent writer or journalist (if you're not already).

Dilbert1234567

thanks, I've thought of it before... i think I'll think about it a bit more...

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

roachboy

personally, i would imagine that the folk who should be most offended by and opposed to this "creation science" or "intelligent design" nonsense would be christians who are not evangelical protestants/fundamentalist protestants--who do not subscribe to the ludicrous position that the bible must be "interpreted literally"--because that minority position gets fobbed off as representative of "christian" thinking in general--but the catholics dont have this problem, the methodists dont have it, the unitarians dont have it, on and on and on.

this nonsense is about protecting a space for ONE type of christianity.
it's internal structure is the exact mirror of the logic of that ONE type of christianty----a collective fear of change and/or fear of history can be read off the idea that the bible is literally true in its king james version---and with that, there are so many problems that it is hard to know where to even start.

so id/creation "science" is not even an accurate reflection of christianity as a whole--i mean this is the same tradition that enabled a work like whitehead's "process and reality"--which is entirely antithetical to such nonsense.

so this matter is entirely about the political domination of a particular type of christianity in particular parts of the country. nothing else. one index of domination is the ability to impose a particular frame of reference as if it were THE frame of reference. there is nothing substantive at issue in the arguments themselves--they are simply indexical.

maybe later i'll come back to this...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Most Christians I know believe in evolution. When I was a Christian, I believed in evolution. According to: http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=254
Humans and other living things have evolved over time:
All - 40%
White Evangelicals - 20%
White Mainline - 60%
White Catholic - 61%
Secular - 71%
...which is shocking for several reasons. I'm shocked that only 40% of those polled believe in Evolution. This speaks in volumes about the strength of misinformation and weakness of information, and makes clear that efforts to teach science are not successful. I suppose white Evangelicals were bound to be low, but I wasn't expecting less than 35%. I have to wonder why more Evangelical leaders can't consider that evolution was explained in Genesis. I'm kinda proud of Catholics, who have emerged as the liberal front of Christianity. Finally, I don't understand why 71% of SECULAR people don't believe in evolution. According to the source cited above, 14%, higher than any other group polled, marked 'don't know'. I wonder if they mean that they honestly don't know or they don't care.

I wonder how Spore will effect these levels when the current generation of kids becomes adults....

host

The TFP politics thread will certainly continue to whither and die, if threads with topics like this one and this one ("Does the government really have the right..") are started and maintainted in "Tilted Philosphy", instead of where the rules/guidelines clearly describe where they should be.... especially if everyone participates without objection.....so....

pig

will, 71% is likely higher than the number of people who know who the president is (well, maybe not the current administration, but on average), higher than the people who know the capital of their state, etc. that's just a guess...no references, just based on my recollection of such things.

i guess i'm just saying i'm not surprised by the figure. it's dissapointing to be sure, but not unexpected.

host: huh? is this something on the evangelical take on the bush administration, or just ringing the bell? i have to say that's a little non-sequitur, no?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

tecoyah

I placed this within the Philosophy section for very good reason Host, it is a discussion of human understanding concerning science. Had this been meant to debate a particular political stance, or indeed a discussion of government policy on this issue, perhaps you would have a point worth more than the 3 minutes it has taken me to post this reply.

As it is....I believe I am perfectly capable of designating what I place on the politics board, and what might be better off in a philisophical discussion.

And personally, I dont see the death of TFPolitics coming anytime soon....its a hearty beast.

host

I guess I was misled by the article in the OP....it seemed to be about a candidate for an election....no gray area, since it had to do with a political agenda on an national educational board that attempts to influence public education policy....

ubertuber

Where an article is placed on the board sometimes has more to do with the type of responses the poster wants to see than with a dogmatic formula applied to the original post. That's why you sometimes see politically related material in GD. The thing is that an entirely different set of people respond there, and a different discussion ensues.

Part of giving the board the freedom to evolve is that we only step in and move things that seem way off base, or if we determine the move would be appropriate in communication with the poster. It's definitely an inexact procedure...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Halx

I'd like to know the intelligent designer who created my tail bone, appendix, tonsils and foreskin.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

ngdawg

...and made hair grow out of moles...
All those you mention have or have had a purpose. But intelligent design will never explain why we walk upright with spines not truly designed for that or why we lost the opposing thumbs on our feet, an evolutionary process that, personally, I think is a shame...

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

Taltos

[QUOTEPossible, but my real question comes down to just how you could build a lesson plan in the first place on ID. Seems to me that once you discuss the premis, you are done, as there really isn't anything solid to study unless you delve into religion. [/QUOTE]

This is what fascinates me about this topic. I disagree with the gross assumption that intelligent design cannot be proven or disproven. I believe that to be a terribly unscientific statement.

The top quoted section is really more on the topic I am interested in. How would you go about trying to apply the scientific method to intelligent design, if we start out with the premise that there are people who want to do this. If it truly cannot be proven, the science classrooms and thinktanks of the world seem the most apt places to reveal this, and I don't see why, as a hypothesis, it should not be submitted, evaluated, and analyzed under scientific scrutiny and skepticism. To "work on it", rather than outright dismissing it because you find it offensive to your beliefs.

I'm interested in what that curriculum would look like. What kind of tests would be done? What kind of questions would arrise? What form of evidence would be put forth, and what criteria for critically evaluating that evidence?

__________________
Though we are not now
That strength that in old days
Moved Earth and Heaven;
That which we are, we are:
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Made weak by time and flesh
But strong in will
To seek, to strive, to find
And not to yield.
-Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Willravel

I imagine it might look like this:

archetypal fool

But that's just the thing; what evidence is there for intelligent design? A book. A very old book, filled with fiction, and stories about people walking on water and seas parting and giants and global floods...Things which don't happen. I don't mean to pick on your religion, honestly, I don't, but we're talking about science here. If religious texts didn't include this one particular story, there would be no proponents for intelligent design, because it comes solely from one place: A religious text.

Hypotheses should be presented, but only when they hold true value and true scientific ground, which is not the case with intelligent design.

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

Willravel

They'll present the pseudoscience they've been giving all along:
-people are too complex to be an 'accident'
-the earth is too perfectly designed for people

the same uninformed garbage we've been getting all along.

tecoyah

OK.....lets just evaluate the hypothesis, right here and now:


Premis; Life was created by an intelligent force.

Investigation/test; Define the force, and prove it is indeed responsible.

Result; Inconclusive

Synopsis- As we could not define the force, it was unavailable for evaluation of its capabilities leading to a lack of pertinent Data on this hypothesis.

Intelligent Design remains a hypothesis.

Martian

This has nothing to do with my beliefs. The reason that ID gets dismissed out of hand by pretty much every respectable scientific institute is because it's not something that the scientific method can be applied to.

Evolution can be falsified. All it would take to discredit the evolutionary theory is a single fossil out of place; one modern creature in the cretaceous period and the whole thing is junk. Further, tests can be devised to test the specific aspects of evolution, such as mutation, speciation or gene flow. Empirical evidence suggests these underlying principles, but any one of them may be supported or discredited by quantitative testing.

For the record, I have absolutely no objection to your beliefs. I may not agree with them, but I don't take issue with the fact that you do. What I do object to is calling a faith based opinion science. Intelligent design is not falsifiable. This is not an assumption, it is a fact. There is no evidence supporting intelligent design that cannot be explained by an existing theory, which means that there's nothing to test. Furthermore, intelligent design violates the principle of parsimony. While this is more of a guideline and not actual law (hence it's called the principle of parsimony and not the law of parsimony), it's used frequently because it does contain a grain of truth.

I don't know what else to say. If you can refute me, if you can think of a way to test intelligent design in a scientific fashion, feel free to let me know.

EDIT -

Being generally of a friendlier disposition than willravel, I will take a moment to point out that both of these supporting claims are opinions and not facts. If they were facts than there'd be no room to disagree, which I do. I don't think that humans are too complex to have come about by accident at all; the very fact that I can argue that points makes it a hypothesis at best, and it's very poor scientific practice to attempt to support one hypothesis with another hypothesis. Further, I'd argue that the second point really supports evolution more than it does intelligent design. If the earth is too well tailored for us, then wouldn't it hold that it's more likely that we've adapted ourselves to be well tailored to the earth?

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

pig

yep...not do do a tfp pile on, but seriously - that's the problem. you can't put forth a hypothesis which inherently isn't testable. at the most you could hope for an inductive proof, but that proof would simply say what science always says: there is more going on that we know of. there will always be more going on than we know. its the leap from 'there is more going on than we currently know' to 'therefore, an intelligent designer must have created the universe.'

as is pointed out, that requires going back and proving the existence of an intelligent designer. that is squarely beyond the purview of scientific study, until someone manages to find 'heaven' on a little scopey thingy and quantify it. it is, by definition, beyond measurement, beyond quantification, and that's putting it nicely.

personally, i'm not a reductionist / only physical phenomena have merit kind of guy. but in a question of science, i am. because that's what science is. if you want to do philosophy, i think that's great. do it in a comparative philosophy class and then ask these types of questions.

evolution doesn't disprove religion or even the intelligent design concept, because it can't. ask a deist. all it does is lay out a probable scenario wherein more complicated structure may arise, in this case biological structures. asking science to disprove strictly theological constructs is like asking a deaf person to evaluate an opera, blindfolded and without any neato mosquito aids. just can't happen. therefore, to foist the intelligent design hypothesis on a science classroom is simply to muddy the water, achieve stalemate, retard scientific education, and thus attempt to hold together a world view which partially comes under attack when, as roach hath stated, you strictly interpret ancient scientific theory inside ancient holy texts as literal scientific work.

thus, will's lesson plan. i mean, afterall, who else could this masked intelligent designer be?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Willravel

That kid creeped me out. I think they were trying to make Ra feminine to seem alien, but it just came of like Queer Eye for the Straight Pyramid (not that there's anything wrong with being gay, it was just kinda distracting).

Dilbert1234567

i have yet to see any evidence that supports intelligent design, non nada zip zero zilch, if you have some to show us, please do so.

one more thing, the reason IT is dismissed out of hand by scientific institution is because it is not science, part of IT is a supernatural being.

supernatural + science = error.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Taltos

I was looking up this Willard guy, and there seems to be two things that I found interesting that I would like to include in the discussion:

According to CNN.COM in their 2005 article, Willard didn't introduce an Intelligent Design curriculum, nor was the support of Intelligent Design necessarily his goal. He suggested that recent evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution should be taught to students.

They cited their goal as "academic freedom."

The second half of the article is, of course, much more contentious and to the point of this thread. It talks about how the "scientific standards" have been changed so that matters outside of empirical provable evidence can be discussed.

It seems like the goal wasn't made to introduce a curriculum about intelligent design, but rather to allow a teacher to say, "Or maybe God did it; we just don't know." without losing his job.


The second point I wanted to introduce was a more personal one and may be outside the scope of this discussion (and, if so, just ignore it): Why is including religious ideas within high schools seeing as wrong to begin with? I mean, in U.S. secondary education institutions, taking courses in comparative religions and philosophy actually fill vital humanities and general education requirements. Why is it so terrible for the basis of these courses to be taught as part of the high-school curriculum, even if it just a three paragraph section at the end of chapter 4?

__________________
Though we are not now
That strength that in old days
Moved Earth and Heaven;
That which we are, we are:
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Made weak by time and flesh
But strong in will
To seek, to strive, to find
And not to yield.
-Alfred, Lord Tennyson

archetypal fool

Why isn't Taltos's reply on here?

Anyways, in response: We've already been over this. If this "evidence" were really contradictory to the theory of evolution, it would be incorporated into the theory IF the evidence is verified. The theory would be amended if this evidence was really contradictory. However, that isn't the case, and I haven't heard of a single piece of information which contradicts the theory of evolution, so once again, I ask, where or what is this evidence?

As for your second point, a [bold]comparative[/bold] religion class is fine in my book. It's akin to a history or philosophy class. Teaching IT, however, which 1) isn't a scientific theory and 2) is only part of fundamental Christianity, is completely backwards. Why should IT be taken seriously and not the beliefs of other religions? How would you feel if your child was being taught that we are all made from mud? In fact, lets take it a step forwards. What if school teachers were seriously trying to teach children that the earth is in fact riding on the back of a huge turtle? We can't cater to any religious belief, not when were' talking about science. THAT'S why you cant *teach* it to children. I don't want anything religious being taught to my children unless they specifically choose to take a comparative religious class.

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

tecoyah

Pretty much explains it perfectly. Some people would prefer not to lie to children, or allow others to do so. Much as I prefer to explain Santa Clause is a mythical persona based on a real man, I do the same with the Gods (A myth based on simply not knowing so many things). This allows my Kids to experience the world without blinders, but does not hiinder them from practicing religion should they decide to do so. By inappropriately teaching religious belief in a scientific studies environment we would create nothing but confusion, and make it that much harder to help our children learn.