Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Addressing Religious Beliefs (Intelligent Design) In Class
American School Board Journal ^ | 4/12/06 | Benjamin Dowling-Sender

Posted on 04/12/2006 11:48:01 AM PDT by Paddlefish

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: js1138

I am not surprised.

On an HIV thread, there were several luddites who were spinning flat-out lies:(1) that HIV had not been isolated (not only has it been isolated, its DNA has been partially decoded); (2) AZT (AIDS drug) causes AIDS --- which does nothing to explain those who died of AIDS before its discovery or in Africa where it is seldom found . . . etc.

And, like some (again, some, not all) of the the YEC babble, it superficially sounds reasonable.

Of course, good lie sound reasonable.


21 posted on 04/12/2006 1:09:54 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Psssst: Aspirin causes socialism. Spread the word.
22 posted on 04/12/2006 1:14:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I thought it was flouride.


23 posted on 04/12/2006 1:18:09 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Fluoride is a commie plot to pollute our precious bodily fluids.
24 posted on 04/12/2006 1:25:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

LOLOL! But how would you know that I appreciate you, dear PatrickHenry? *smooch*


25 posted on 04/12/2006 1:26:19 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Ahhhhh. One of your deeply satisfying smooches! Thank you.
26 posted on 04/12/2006 1:36:36 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Actually there have been people on these threads ranting against medicine and surgery.

And diabetics taking a dangerous drug called "insulin".
27 posted on 04/12/2006 2:15:19 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Insulin is obviously an addictive narcotic peddled by greed crazed drug companies. Scientology could cure diabetes in three days.


28 posted on 04/12/2006 5:09:41 PM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Dimensio
"Insulin is obviously an addictive narcotic peddled by greed crazed drug companies. Scientology could cure diabetes in three days."

The same with chemo. It's only for making obscene amounts of money until the patient invariably dies. It never works.

The problem is most people don't understand the history of medicine like we do.
29 posted on 04/12/2006 5:25:27 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: All
This thread is in the backroom, and I guess the mods know what they're doing. Therefore, I abandon thread!
30 posted on 04/12/2006 5:36:49 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish
What's all the hubub, Bub? I think evolution and ID are equally valid.

Guillermo Gonzalez & JayW Richards, The Privileged Planet.

31 posted on 04/13/2006 7:32:43 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Alamo-Girl

I know I'm a day late, but Get a room!


32 posted on 04/13/2006 10:33:59 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish
Intelligent Design Links

The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth Out of Darwinists

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference

Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

Whether Intelligent Design is Science

Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington)

The Origin of Intelligent Design: A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design

Reflections on Human Origins

Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge

The Problem With Darwinian Solutions

In Defense of Intelligent Design

Design Inference

Uncommon Descent (William Dembski’s blog)

”Intelligent Design: The Future” blog

”Evolution News & Views: News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution” blog

Recommended Reading

Image hosting by Photobucket

Uncommon Dissent. If you’ve never heard the term "post-Darwinian," welcome to the world of thinkers who reject evolutionary theory and its reliance on the notion of chance (i.e. "random mutation"). In this provocative volume, biologists, mathematicians and physicists as well as theologians and other intellectuals argue, as editor Dembski writes, that "the preponderance of evidence goes against Darwinism." The contributors invoke mathematics and statistics to support their theory that an "intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life." In other words, the degree of diversity and complexity in life forms implies the need for an intelligent designer. The nature and identity of this designer is not discussed by all the writers; others call this intelligence God. Supporters of intelligent design differentiate themselves from creationists, but they, too, argue that their theory should be taught in high school biology courses. Anyone interested in these debates and their implications for education will find this collection to be important reading.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Woodward's account shows that the problem with the template of "religion versus Darwin" is that it simply doesn't fit the ID movement, although many detractors try to insist otherwise. The founder of the movement, Phillip Johnson, was, until his recent retirement, a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. While on sabbatical in the late 1980s, he studied the scientific case for and against Darwinism and concluded that the empirical case for Darwinism was surprisingly weak. He then presented his findings at a symposium held through his law school and was further encouraged to pursue his criticism of Darwinism. As Woodward documents, the proponents of ID argue that Darwinism lacks crucial evidence, begs important questions, and often caricatures alternatives unfairly. They make their case against Darwinian evolution by pointing out flaws in the arguments and gaps in the evidence, not by citing religious texts.

There are a growing number of books defending and criticizing ID, but Woodward's book is unique in that it assesses the history of this movement of the past decade from the perspective of the classical discipline of rhetoric. Given the book's rhetorical angle, the reader is treated to both the straight arguments for and against Darwinism, as well as an inside look at the personalities and persuasive strategies used on both sides of the debate. (For example, when noted Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould first met Phillip Johnson, he dispensed with pleasantries and said, "You're a creationist and I've got to stop you.") In Woodward's account, Johnson emerges as the rhetorical mastermind of ID, who, though an outsider to the scientific guild, nevertheless mastered the scientific case against Darwinism and helped develop a consistent strategy for the ID movement. His simple charge is that Darwinism is driven more by a commitment to a materialistic worldview than by the actual evidence of biology. This book details the rise of the intellectual, scientific, and philosophical challenge to Darwinism.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement. This book honors Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor whose 1991 publication Darwin on Trial and later books helped intelligent design emerge as a highly visible, and highly controversial, alternative to Darwinism. While it may be premature to hail Johnson as "Darwin's Nemesis," these essays reveal him as an influential strategist and mentor within the ID movement. Contributors to the 2004 symposium that spawned this collection include leading ID advocates Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells and Scott Minnich, as well as Darwin defender Michael Ruse, who has engaged Johnson in debate. Other contributors address cultural and political questions beyond evolution itself, such as Francis Beckwith's timely review of legal controversies over ID in the classroom, J. Budziszewski's discussion of naturalism and the Natural Law tradition and editor William Dembski's commentary on the professional—and often personal—"backlash" against ID advocates. Readers who are familiar with the basics of ID and curious about the movement's development and inner workings will find much of interest, although for an account of the most recent and current controversies over ID, they will need to consult other sources. Forward written by Sen. Rick Santorum.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Privileged Planet. Is Earth merely an insignificant speck in a vast and meaningless universe? On the contrary. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery shows that this cherished assumption of materialism is dead wrong. Earth is more significant than virtually anyone has realized. Contrary to the scientific orthodoxy, it is not an average planet around an ordinary star in an unremarkable part of the Milky Way.

In this original book, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards present an array of evidence that exposes the hollowness of this modern dogma. They demonstrate that our planet is exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also gives us the best view of the universe, as if Earth-and the universe itself-were designed both for life and for scientific discovery. Readers are taken on a scientific odyssey from a history of tectonic plates, the wonders of water, and solar eclipses, to our location in the Milky Way, the laws that govern the universe, and the beginning of cosmic time.

Review of The Privileged Planet (The Royal Astronomical Society)

Image hosting by Photobucket

What Darwin Didn’t Know. This book has to do with medical facts and how they conflict with the theory of evolution. Darwin may have made a sincere effort to explain the life around him in the nineteenth century, but he knew little, if anything, about the human cell, heredity (why a child resembles his parents), immunity, hormones, blood pressure and scores of feedback loops that tell the body when it's too hot or too cold, hungry or full, sick or well, and tired or refreshed. These examples and many more are discussed. They all speak clearly for Intelligent Design, a discussion that needs to re-enter mainstream American dialogue. "There is a tide of data mounting against the Darwinian concept that randomness can explain the wonder of life. In What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons converts the tide into a tidal wave of evidence." -- Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Intelligent Design. "Einstein once remarked that the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." This statement, quoted by William Dembski, is a way of summarizing intelligent design theory, which argues that it is possible to find evidence for design in the universe. The author of The Design Inference (a scholarly exploration of this topic published by Cambridge University Press) aims in this book to show the lay reader "how detecting design within the universe, and especially against the backdrop of biology and biochemistry, unseats naturalism"-- and above all Darwin's expulsion of design in his theory of evolution. Intelligent Design is organized into three parts: the first part gives an introduction to design and shows how modernity--science in the last two centuries--has undermined our intuition of this truth. The second and central part of the book examines "the philosophical and scientific basis for intelligent design." The final part shows how "science and theology relate coherently and how intelligent design establishes the crucial link between the two." This suggests that Dembski is not simply rejecting Darwin and naturalism on fundamentalist or biblical grounds. While grounded in faith, he wishes to show how "God's design is accessible to scientific inquiry."

Image hosting by Photobucket

The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician who has been an important theorist for the intelligent design movement, handles a wide range of questions and objections that should give both fans and detractors of ID plenty to chew on. While most of the core arguments of this book will be familiar to readers of the ID literature, they are presented here in (if one may say so) more highly evolved form: explanations are clearer, objections are borne more patiently, distinctions and concessions are artfully made. Without denying the theological and cultural implications of ID, Dembski is more concerned with ID's future as a scientific enterprise: a point where despite some successes the movement continues to struggle. The book's format makes for a clear read. Chapters can focus on a single issue and adopt an appropriate tone: basic questions get basic replies, pointed objections get forceful rejoinders, and technical questions allow Dembski to unleash a faculty for technical detail that can only be called impressive.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Joining the ranks of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, Cornelius G. Hunter gives us Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, the latest must-read installment of scholarship on human origins. Beginning with the provocative statement that "evolution is neither atheism in disguise nor is it merely science at work," Hunter denies evolution's claim to be pure science, beyond the "entanglements" of faith or belief. Ultimately, he shows how Darwin's theological concerns-particularly his inability to reconcile a loving, all-powerful God with the cruelty, waste, and quandaries of nature-led him to develop the theory of evolution.

Hunter provides the crucial key to engaging the intelligent design debate in the context of modern theology. He addresses the influences of Milton, rationalism, the enlightenment, and Deism, quoting extensively from Darwin's journals, letters, and scientific writings. Readers of history, science, philosophy, and theology will enjoy this honest telling of a complex and engrossing story.

Image hosting by Photobucket

Not By Chance. Physicist Dr. Lee M. Spetner's book has biologists and geneticists praising this book as one of the most serious challenges to the modern theory of evolution. "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read"--Professor E. Simon, Department of Biology, Purdue University.

33 posted on 04/13/2006 1:40:25 PM PDT by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

We learned on the Original Undead Thread (we blew out the back with 65K posts) that extra-long threads start to cause performance problems.

So we start new ones after 5K or so...


34 posted on 04/13/2006 1:43:22 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

After reading many of these threads, I think your tagline is most appropriate.

Used to live in Abilene TX. It's sort of west.


35 posted on 04/14/2006 3:16:41 PM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: M203M4
We are Christians and we homeschool. Our first year I ordered most of my curriculum for a well respected Christian homeschool source. When the science book began insisting that Dinosaurs were extinct by the flood, and to believe otherwise was sinful, I put it away. I did introduce this view to my kids, because they need to be aware of it, and respectful of those who believe it. But, I put together our science curriculum from other sources. We study it separately from the Bible. I think my kids need to develop and mature and use their own judgment as to how it all fits together.

I had a similar problem with the English curriculum. It began asserting that any book that contained a character that lied, cheated, said a bad word, so forth was a bad book and should not be read. I am careful that my kids read age appropriate books. I also don't allow books that glorify such behavior, but, people and bad behavior are a part of life. I'd much rather my kids learn about consequences of such things from a book rather than experience. Which, I know they will learn much from experience, but I'm not helping to minimize negative experiences, and consequences that follow, if I blind fold my children and send them out on their own. I know that there are many homeschooling, and private schooling families that don't agree with my philosophy regarding this.
36 posted on 04/14/2006 3:33:42 PM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport
OK?? I'm going to assume that you posted this for undecided lurkers and not for me, as it appears that the arguments of Mr. Behe and Mr. Dembski, although attractive to the layperson, pretty much get blasted out of the water by professional scientists. But, I do not pretend to, nor to I intend to become, as informed as professional scientists, I must rely on things I do know.

And, I do know law, especially as an attorney representing school districts. Thus, when an article is presented purporting to state the law, but which totally misrepresents the law and the facts, I take that into consideration when considering anything else from that source. Which leads us to the Discovery Institute's article, ACLU Demands and Dover Designs.

It is not entirely (but certainly mostly) wrong legally, but it is hugely misleading (and one must assume intentionally since it hasn't been pulled). And then it says that one of the authors is an attorney and a past legal advisor to it, ostensibly to give it some credence! Wow!

Well, if this is how the Discovery Institute misleads people on things I do know about, what reason to I have to believe them on the issues on which I'm not as educated. Simply put, the Discovery Institute and their purported scientific leaders, Mr. Dembski and Mr. Behe, have a ways to go to regain any credibility in my eyes.

37 posted on 04/14/2006 3:34:50 PM PDT by Paddlefish (Having the loudest instrument in the band doesn't make you the best player, or even a musician.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish
Paddlefish,

I noticed in your last post that you left Phillip Johnson out of your critique. What are your thoughts on his writings? I have read, extensively, the works of Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Comninellis, Ham, Denton, Wells, Morris, Lubenow, et al and found him to be of a different vein of writings. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

K4

38 posted on 04/15/2006 8:07:27 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (My Pug is On Her War Footing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: K4Harty
OK, a little disclosure and, I guess, a chagrined admission. In the late 90's, I bought into a version of Johnson's, et al, HIV arguments. And I continue to have many thoughts in that regard, but they are for another thread (Oh, and I'm not really very informed in the area, so leave me alone!).

Anyway, with regard to ID, my impression is that Johnson is rather intellectually dishonest. He has an idea which is a goal because the Bible says so, and there are no facts which would change his mind. However, he is apparently willing to change his underlying theories not on the basis of science, but on what would change the opinions of the uneducated layperson. Note that the DI, after each setback, doesn't say that they need to develop more science, experiments, groundwork, etc. Instead, they change how they will present it to the layman!In other words, no matter what the experts and informed people know, DI knows that it takes a lot of work to be informed and people are much more willing to accept simple principles if said often and loudly (see the successful Clinton/Carville election strategies).

Let's just go with his admitted purposes as set forth in "The Wedge". Note that the purposes as set forth in the Wedge were not to bring scientists in line with scientific principles, but to get laymen to force scientists to make science conform to religious ideas. IMHO.

39 posted on 04/15/2006 9:13:31 PM PDT by Paddlefish (Having the loudest instrument in the band doesn't make you the best player, or even a musician.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport

Good job as a Librarian marker.


40 posted on 04/15/2006 9:16:43 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson