Darwinian Conservatism: How Darwinian science refutes the Left’s most sacred beliefs.

The American Thinker ^ | 23 July 2006 | Jamie Glazov and Larry Arnhart

[andysandmikesmom]

Sure there was a ping...early this morning...but I have been gone all day, and just returned to find the mornings ping, and now I have to go through and read the whole thread...

Got my work cut out for me...

[freedumb2003]

I usually shoot to the end and back track the funny ones.

I was flying all day so I am cutting corners (as I do for fly-days).

[A0ri]

Wrong. Explain to me how evolutionists integrate Faith and science.

If you clearly cannot see the purpose of Intelligent influence in the role of Creation, then what is the purpose of said Designer?

It is easy to argue the atheist standpoint with TToE.

[Coyoteman]

Got my work cut out for me...

I recommend an adult beverage, maybe popcorn.

And a movie instead.

[freedumb2003]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, he may have a defensible position. But it is one of which science is correct, not one of teachers being given full freedom to decide what to teach. So any claim to be defending teachers "freedom to choose" is simply a red herring.

Politicians are stuck: Is Creatonism science? Should people in Astronomy be taught the Universe is 6,000 years old? Should Geology students be taught there was a worldwide flood? Should students in chemistry be taught alchemy as Zarostrians believe?

Creationism is NOT an alternate theory to TToE. The Universe is NOT 6,000 years old. There WAS no flood.

These things we know.

Religious precepts such as the Genesis Story can be taught in theology class (along with other Origin Stories). But they have no place in science.

[StJacques]

"What debate? It's a religious debate . . ."

You're right in so far as you address the debate among and between religious groups. But as soon as that debate becomes an attack on science itself, and that is clearly the way I view the Creationist/Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy, you have reached a point at which it can be treated on a basis other than pure religious study. High school students, who are some of the most impressionable beings on the planet, can benefit from the development of skills in critical thinking that will enable them to understand the distinct assumptions upon which each side to the debate is basing their arguments. If you do not arm these students with this knowledge, how many of them will walk away from the debate concluding that science is some evil conspiracy of godless atheists bent upon destroying the Christian religion, rather than a discipline rooted in the materialist study of the natural universe? Or conversely, how many students will come to see religious belief and practice as a retreat from intellectual honesty, leading them to condemn religiosity in all its forms? Informed students schooled in critical thinking can avoid either of these extremes.

"A more modest goal in my mind, and an achievable one, is to keep religious dogma out of science classes."

That is definitely part of what I am trying to achieve here ml1954. But I don't think it goes far enough. "Critical Thinking" comes down to a lot of things, but basically focuses upon developing the "tools of rational thought." And do understand, since I may not have made this perfectly clear to everyone, I only want this CreationistID/Evolution debate aired for a very small portion of the class. I might envision it as a one or two day exercise in comparing Metaphysics with Materialism, once students understand the distinction between the two. That's all I have in mind. The other 248 days of the school year I will want them studying quite a bit more; Informal Fallacies of Logical Argument, Logical Rules of Inference and their Application, How Ordinary Language is Expressed Symbolically, What is Philosophy?, What is Epistemology?, What are "Schools of Philosophical Thought"?, What were the major "revolutions" in human understanding? These form the real basis for a course in critical thinking.

[andysandmikesmom]

I do have my adult drink with me now...its blazing hot here, and I am not used to it, so I am drinking something quite cold, and something to make me forget about the heat...

Tempting as a good movie may sound, I usually am able to get a few laughs out of these threads, so I will plod on with my reading...

[freedumb2003]

If you clearly cannot see the purpose of Intelligent influence in the role of Creation, then what is the purpose of said Designer?

God started the whole thing and set it on its way. He may interfere in individual Human events but the design was His. He exists OUTSIDE of the Universe we know. It is not His intent for use to see him in mechanics, but in our hearts.

The God of the Creationists is one that is a human -- Gandalf the Wizard writ large. He needs to tweak things or he planted things. The idea He could design this incredible Universe is too big an idea for them -- it makes a much less personal God.

Creationists limit and diminish God. Scientists, especially those who understand TToE, revel and amaze at God's Work as they unveil more and more of this unbelievably wondrous, complex and vast Universe.

The real God is revealed in His splendid work: The Universe.

It is a sin to close your eyes to His wonder. I will not insult God as you do.

[A0ri]

Amazing. You have described an "intelligent" aspect to the world's design. That is what we call ID.

Apparently you aren't on the same page of TToE as others, and apparently you have no clue what you are arguing against.

[curiosity]

Fine, but don't claim this is a defense of academic freedom, which by definition applies to individuals.

Actually, that's not true. Academic freedom also encompasses the collective freedom of scholars to set the standards of their discipline.

[freedumb2003]

But I don't think it goes far enough. "Critical Thinking" comes down to a lot of things, but basically focuses upon developing the "tools of rational thought."

That is fine -- in "critical thinking" class. I have been the most strident proponent of high school students learning comparative theology. And some philosophy.

But for the core curriculum, they need to be taught hard science, hard math, hard chemistry, hard mathematics.

Do you really want to open the door on Creation when they are learning about the red shift? That the stars we see are billions of years old, but there is a contravening idea that says they are only 6,000 years old?

Kids today are coming out of High School stupid enough with the way Liberals have ruined the curriculum with experimental ways to teach English, hating white males in history, and allowing "all ideas are OK" and "optional constructs" in English.

Do you want to apply "critical thinking" for little children to use very adult-level philosophy to try to apply silly psychobabble in looking at hard facts?

That results in the kind of thinking that we have on many of these posts -- that TToE is some sort of guesswork or, worse, a Commie plot conspiracy.

You request making kids basket-cases who would make great "Jay Walking: fodder.

[StJacques]

"I'd say the alternative is to find a subject which will be interesting to students, but with regard to which you don't have an appreciable percentage of teachers who will have an ax to grind or an ox to gore. That shouldn't be hard. There are plenty of controversies within the history of science that would be highly engaging (upon resurrecting the richness of their forgotten details) but which won't evoke particularistic passions."

The first thing I want to say is that I do not propose the development of a course on Critical Thinking as an antidote to the Creationist/ID/Evolution controversy. There is no such thing. My real goal is to, well, advance an understanding of Critical Thinking, which has now become an important part of college placement and entrance exams. If it is going to be required for entrance into college, then it must be taught. It is just that I view such a course as a perfect forum within which to introduce the controversy.

Stultis, obviously your distrust of the Creationist/Intelligent Design crowd is quite great. May I say that I share your distrust? Let's face it, if any change is made to a high school curriculum to permit any discussion of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design those guys and gals are going to go right to the school board and demand that the discussion be made on their terms. You and I, and I suspect ml1954 as well, all know it. And we'll be right back at war with them again. But I submit that the potential damage from such a war is far less than the war over getting it into a science class. Do you guys realize that there are university level Biology courses that deal with this controversy? Just Google all the appropriate keywords to view the syllabi of freshman biology courses and you'll see it. It is my opinion that we are losing the struggle to keep religion out of science class if it has to be dealt with at the college level. We need to reevaluate how to do that.

[A0ri]

What is it about "In the beginning God created[...]" that isn't "intelligent factor" to you?

Without intelligence, you assume a GODLESS state. See the problem it has with Christianity?

[andysandmikesmom]

Actually you are the one who is off target completely....

Many who accept evolution are indeed atheists...

Many who accept evolution also consider themselves to be Christians, to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ...take note, they dont ask you who is and who is not a Christian, because your opinion does not matter...if someone says, that they support evolution, and that they also have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I take them at their word...you may not chose to do so, as throughout the thread, I have noticed your take, that certain folks who consider themselves to be Christians, apparently dont fall into the 'approved' category, of who you do and dont believe to be a Christian...as I said, your opinion of who is and who is not a Christian does not matter one bit...its only your personal opinion, and really, nothing more....

Just because someone says that they support evolution, and that they are Christians, and that they believe that God started everything, and used evolution to create, does not put that person into the ID camp...the ID camp seems to grant that God may be completely dead, or that the intelligent designer could have been aliens from outer space...I have yet to find as Christian religion which believes that God is dead, or that creation was started by space aliens..and ID requires a designer, which science and evolution do not...

Many of the evolution supporters on these CREVO threads, are indeed Christians, consider themselves so, and are in no way an advocate of the ID notions...

[freedumb2003]

You have described an "intelligent" aspect to the world's design. That is what we call ID. No, that is a completely different arena. ID says that an Intelligent Designer reached in DURING EVOLUTION and jiggled the wires at various points. It says that speciation and marvels such as the human eye could not have come about via un-patrolled evolution.

Apparently you aren't on the same page of TToE as others, and apparently you have no clue what you are arguing against.

Oh, I am. You don't seem to be on the same page as CR/Id'ers (see everyone how I sill use the new PC term?). TToE is silent on a Creator, one way or the other. As is all true science. It uses the Scientific Method to identify physically measurable phenomenon to explain the Universe.

Thas is NOT ID.

[curiosity]

Amazing. You have described an "intelligent" aspect to the world's design. That is what we call ID.

That may be what YOU call ID, but what the ID movement leaders like Wells, Johnson, Behe and Dembski call ID is very different. They assert that there are some aspects of life that CANNOT have developed through purely natural processes, and therefore required the direct intervention of God.

As Ken Miller points out, correctly, the phrase "intelligent design" is really a misnomer, because it identifies a movement that asserts the universe WAS NOT designed intelligently enough for life to evolve without direct divine intervention.

So, for what it's worth, yes, I (and a lot of Christian scientists) believe that the universe and its physical laws were intelligently designed so that life, as well as the human body, would eventually come about through purely natural processes.

But that is not "intelligent design" as it is defined by the leaders of the movement that bears the name.

[OriginalIntent]

Archive.

[A0ri]

Amazing. Evolution without ID?

These are the folks claiming to understand what is called the contemporary environment of evolution? Holy cow folks.

[A0ri]

From dictionary.com,

Main Entry: intelligent design
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID

What is it about God created, that doesn't click with you folk?

[balrog666]

However, on my father's line, 2 lead nuclear engineers/physicists on the manhattan project (great and grand), and my father with NASA.

If they "think" as well as you do, they probably swept the floors. Good for them, but now we special associations for people like that.