Gov. Bush [Florida] oddly evasive on evolution

Miami Herald ^ | 09 October 2005 | MARC CAPUTO

[Drew68]

Curious the dems are against ID and the republicans are for it.

I don't know about that. There are plenty of Republicans who don't want their children taught magic and mythology (oops, I mean Intelligent Design) dressed up as science. School children are being dumbed-down enough without throwing the bedrock of biology out the window in favor of teaching fairy tales to please a small segment of the Christian Right.

[narby]

Of the candidates who want to succeed Bush in 2006, the two Democrats, Sen. Rod Smith of Alachua and U.S. Rep. Jim Davis of Tampa, said intelligent design belongs in religion -- not science -- class. But Republican state Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher doesn't oppose it in science class, a spokesman said.

ID may be the perfect "wedge" issue, but not the way the Discovery Institute intended. It may wedge between Reps and Dems in a way that Dems can claim that Republican's are knuckle dragging morons and Reps will in effect say "yeah, we are".

[narby]

Where did you learn to read?

two Democrats, Sen. Rod Smith of Alachua and U.S. Rep. Jim Davis of Tampa, said intelligent design belongs in religion -- not science -- class.

The Dems merely want ID where it belongs, in religion studies. They didn't come out "against" ID.

[jennyp]

Whether it's Santorum or Baxley, proponents say intelligent design fills in evolution's gaps and should be taught to broaden kids' perspectives -- a type of postmodern all-things-are-equal viewpoint that conservatives once decried.

It's good that he mentions postmodernism. Now these reporters need to make the connection between postmodernism and IDers' motivations for waging this fight in the first place.

The leaders of the ID movement have been able to raise millions of dollars to wage this fight in the last decade, because they and their followers are afraid that postmodernism is correct: There really is no objective truth in this world. But where "traditional" postmodernists accept this starting assumption and try to figure out how to live in harmony with it, IDers are stuck in stage 3 of the mourning process: Bargaining with God. They want to get everyone to believe in the same supernatural Authority Figure who simply declares a moral code for us to live by, to stand in for the objective truths that the IDers fear don't really exist.

This is more subtle than it being a simple case of believers vs. atheists. Creationists are afraid that anything that undermines their particular conception of God as arbitrary authority figure will be harmful to society.

The real way out of this fight is to get enough religious conservatives to understand that the real world is objective, and that it gives us perfectly objective criteria by which to judge actions or moral systems as right or wrong, good or bad.

Yes, it can take a generation or two for the full, long-term effects of a societal fad to reveal themselves. But eventually history does teach us its lessons. That's why we can learn from history - actions have objective consequences. If the IDers & postmodernists are correct, then nobody'd ever be able to learn from history.

In which case we'd all have much more to worry about than Charles Darwin!

[narby]

I suspect that all the officials are really looking for is a little support from the right. Once they get that they'll feel OK about bagging the whole thing.

Very good point. If the subject comes up around here I'll have to personally contact some folks.

[Aracelis]

Easy fix:

Creationism and all permutations, belong at home and in houses of worship, where “faith” is the driving force. Evolution, on the other hand, belongs in laboratories and schools, where evidence, data and facts are necessary for functionality, repeatability and testability.

[Aracelis]

The honest pursuit of an answer to the question of origins may lead ultimately to an Intelligent Designer.

This may very well be the case, but science needs to reach those conclusions based on research, not leaps of faith. I doubt that anyone with a stomach ache would have much confidence in a physician who immediately wished to perform surgery without evidentiary testing to confirm his or her hypothesis.

Sadly, religious impatience with the Scientific Method leads many to question whether the Faithful truly have "faith".

[narby]

The evidence for evolutionary transition of humans from apelike ancestors is not abundant enough to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it has occurred.

Yes it is. There's enough DNA evidence in the ERV virus insertions common between apes and humans to demonstrate common ancestry to a higher statistical probability than that the DNA at Ron and Nichole's murder scene belonged to OJ.

It was the extension of the evolutionary ideas of Darwin to an atheistic world view that accentuated the false antagonism between science and religion.

Evolution is a scientific theory of how species change, and does not speak to whether a deity exists. Yes, some athiests use evolution to push their worldview, but they are dishonestly doing so just like you are dishonestly claiming that evolution and faith are mutually exclusive.

You've been around these threads plenty long enough to know this stuff M-PI. So what's your real agenda?

[Ben Chad]

Agree- both parties blow.

[b_sharp]

"Somehow we need to make the country realize it's "that wing of the conservative movement", not "the conservative movement".

Good luck on that.

[PatrickHenry]

Yes, it can take a generation or two ...

At the rate we're going, we're not going to get there.

[PatrickHenry]

Easy fix ...

Fine with me. Sell it to the Discovery Institute.

[From many - one.]

My view is that they don't have faith.

[b_sharp]

Sorry to interrupt folks, just pegging a sign to the door so I can find my way back.

[PatrickHenry]

The solar system: it's just a theory!

[MineralMan]

"This is more subtle than it being a simple case of believers vs. atheists. Creationists are afraid that anything that undermines their particular conception of God as arbitrary authority figure will be harmful to society. "

---

You have something, there, I think. Perhaps the beginning of a new "Know Nothing" party here in the U.S. We've had that before, although it didn't amount to much.

What seems to be forgotten in all of this is that Science is not a popularity contest, nor is it a proposition to be voted on by the general public.

Science is science. It has a method. It has lots of folks who have studied it all their lives.

Religion is religion. It has doctrine. It has lots of folks who have studied it all their lives.

However, the two are quite different things. Science is the study of the natural world. Religion is the study of the supernatural.

Scientists from all cultures generally agree on the fundamental questions of science. They disagree on some details, but the TOE is not one of those details.

Religionists from different cultures, on the other hand, generally disagree with each others' beliefs. Even within a single religions, such as Christianity, wars have been fought over doctrinal differences, and hundreds of denominations have split off from the Roman Catholic church in just the past few hundred years, then split again, and again, and again. Never mind Hinduism or Buddhism, or Jainism, or any of the other religions of the world. All have faith that their religion is true, and all have faith that the others are false.

Science and Religion have nothing whatever to do with each other, either in principle or in their areas of study. Let's just keep them that way, thanks.

[Aracelis]

Fine with me. Sell it to the Discovery Institute.

Ah, PH...I'm an iNTp, and sadly have no patience with illogical lines of thought, much less individuals or groups that massage data to fit with their preconceived notions (I'm just as unforgiving with scientists who pull the same crap, so don't anyone get their panties in a binder).

[Aracelis]

My view is that they don't have faith.

My opinion as well. The more strident the opposition, the more likely the proponents haven't any confidence in their conclusions.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Jeb must have taken a waffling lesson from you know who.

The Belgians?

[nothingnew]

With all your Evo/ID posts, I wonder what you're so afraid of. Methinks you doth protest too much.

I have no problem with ID and evolution being equal partners in education. Actually, as a thinking human being, I don't think one can separate the two. So, what's your intense interest in the subject?

I'm asking an honest question to you and I'm not a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus.

FMCDH(BITS)