“The difference being the creation scientists are merely trying to get their message heard in school, and I.D. which offers up a better explanation than evolution i.e. all we know happened “just because”.”
—Why would the ideas believed by a very tiny group of scientists, which doesn’t even meet the qualifications of a “scientific theory”, be taught in science class? The only reason to do so would be political correctness – because the ideas happen to be relatively popular among NON-scientists and not teaching it would offend their sensibilities.
ID has no answers for most of what we see in nature. Why does life organize naturally into a nested or branching hierarchy i.e. the taxonomic tree? Why does the fossil record match the taxonomic tree? Why is this same pattern seen elsewhere, like biogeography and embryology, etc? These are all things noticed by anti-evolutionists before Darwin was born, btw.
And, of course, evolution doesn’t say anything occurred “just because” – as with every other scientific theory, it proposes that things occur because of the laws of nature. Where did the laws of nature come from? Well, it’s not important for the theory (just as it doesn’t matter where the laws of nature came from for atomic theory, or germ theory, or the theory of gravitation) but a great many scientists believe that they came from intelligent design (most of whom, btw, oppose both Creationism and ID).
“The liberal message is heard because if it’s not crammed down throats and into mushy minds, liberals sue.”
—It’s not a “liberal message”, and if you think it is than I’m not the one that needs to be paying more attention.
“Your “creationist censors” paragraph is quite entertaining fiction. That’s a first for me, the censored censoring, what a hoot! This barrage of liberal projections has access to a limitless stockpile of ammo it appears!”
—Thanks, I thought it was entertaining fiction too. :-) It WAS meant as a joke, in case that wasn’t clear (from your reaction, I can’t tell if you noticed).
“I’ve never heard of this Stanley Miller but since the media is in the liberal’s back pocket, I know without a shadow of a doubt had his work been valid (and for that matter not so much) I’d have heard of him by now.”
—Stanley Miller? He’s – by far- the most famous researcher on abiogenesis. He’s the one that arguably “started it all” with the famous “Miller/Urey experiment” (hopefully the name now rings a bell?) in 1953 that created amino acids (thought my most then, even most scientists, to be an impossible feat – it’d be like a “tornado forming a 747 in a junkyard”). Pretty much every textbook that begins talking about abiogenesis begins with his name and experiment. He spent the last 50 years researching abiogenesis with a lot of interesting results up until his death a couple years ago.
“I’ll stick with Peltzer about life up and forming without intelligence and design is bunk, thanks. Unless you’d like to leave a link.”
—So you’ll stick with someone’s who’s spent most of their time working as an oceanographer. Ok, but I can use Peltzer’s logic to argue that snowflakes are intelligently designed. I’ve read about a half dozen articles on “breakthroughs” on snowflake formation over the years. Scientists have been working on the problem for decades and we still can’t produce them exactly. There are many types of snowflakes, some we can get pretty similar results and others we can’t really get close to at all. Put water in a freezer and you won’t get anything more interesting than an ice cube. It requires a lot of experimentation and “tweaking” and messing with “initial conditions (fine tuning)” to get anything resembling snowflakes. Is this evidence that there must be an intelligent creator sitting up in the clouds forming each snowflake?
Peltzer’s quote would fit perfectly with snowflakes; just replace “life” in the following quote with “snowflakes”:
“It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown.”
(an interesting article that came up with a quick search: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/13/HOGJTNGASU1.DTL )
“OK you’re on. Start a petition of scientists that don’t believe we landed on the moon (40 years ago this Monday incidentally) and come back with your list and we’ll compare it to dissentfromdarwin.org.
— heh, I won’t do that, but if you’ve watched any of the many documentaries on whether the moon landing is real or not over the years, you’ll know that they never have trouble finding actual scientists to argue that we didn’t go to the moon. It is the anniversary that made me think of that example – I had just got done reading several articles just released in honor of the anniversary on the skepticism of the moon landing
“And in your spare time you go and convince Dawkins and more evolutionary scientists to sign the dissentfromdarwin.org petition since it’s no big deal and then you might have a coherent argument.”
—He’s probably aware of how the list is being used and thus wouldn’t sign, but here’s a quote where he expresses the same thing:
“Darwin may be triumphant at the end of the twentieth century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.”
And Darwin mentioning that other mechanisms are important in evolution:
“As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: “I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.” This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.”
and me:
“I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” :-)
“You need to see the film, there’s much more to it than this and it sounds like you’re simply not exposed to it more than anything else. And of course it helps to do your research from reputable sites, and not liberal mouthpieces.”
—I will certainly see the film. In the meantime, have any examples of anyone being fired for doubting Darwinism?
“Are you IN Pittsburgh? I have a friend in Connellsville and according to him people there simply won’t tolerate this stuff, but this is the difference as with virtually ANY big U.S. city, like Atlanta, liberals congregate in the city, not so much outside city limits.”
—I live in the burbs, but spend most of my day near downtown as I work in the city. Actually, where I work is in the campus area and is probably the most liberal part of the city.
“Interesting, how about the parental take? Does this not interest you? I first learned about it the way I described, but perhaps you’ll find something on www.ThomasMore.org, if not google it, (Christmas, ban, calendar, ACLU, Georgia, school) but again, mind your sources…”
—I can imagine what the parents take is on this one, and if the story is true – I’m 100% on their side. It’s the take of the other side that baffles me – but crazy things happen. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t more to the story though.
“If your experience is just the opposite of what I’ve described to you and the “commentators” are eliciting a “false” “simplistic” “invention”, as you put it, then it’s obvious to me you’re out of place here!”
—I don’t feel all that out of place – at least not more so than other places. heh And actually, from what I’m seen, I seem to get along better here with the freepers than you do. ;-)
“Why do the minority insane/multiple God hang-up families dictate to the majority normal people and often force the moral people to go to home or private school AND pay for their kids AND the loonies kids failed public screwels too? (I included wintertime and metmom here because they understand what your dangerous advocations mean to our culture.) And frankly, yours is an incoherent position.”
—If that’s what you think of the families that have been fighting to keep Creationism/ID out of the classroom than, again, I’m not the one that needs to pay more attention. From what I’ve seen, most of the families fighting to keep Creationism/ID out of the classroom have themselves been Christian. Most of the scientists trying to do the same are Christian as well (Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Keith Miller, etc – Eugenie Scott is an exception. Francis Collins, for example, actually talks about intelligent design and his Christian beliefs in his class, and writes books on it. He’s also a major opponent of ID.) And there’s nothing “insane” about wanting your children to learn science (i.e. the method and theories), and I don’t see what’s incoherent about that.
“Yes, that’s the textbook theory, but in practice a very very different thing occurs in the real world. …this lunatic bullied and went off on anyone that dared question his godless scientific model/worldview, not just evolution but ANY question that threatend his worldview…”
—Yes, there are idiot teachers out there, but I don’t think that’d be fixed with stickers, and it doesn’t answer the question of why evolution is singled out. If he’s teaching that there’s no God in class, than they should get the ACLU on him and he’ll be out of there post-haste.
“Is this how you think science should be taught, at any and every level?”
—No, I described how science should be taught. The scientific method and the leading theories should be taught. I can’t imagine what else a “science” class would be for.
I hope you aren’t equating having standards as to what is taught in a classroom with bullying totalitarianism and censorship and indoctrination? Would it make sense to have a teacher talk about last night’s baseball game all class and call it “science class”? Without any standards as to what is presented, why have a class at all?
I could care less if students are being “converted” to evolution, I just want people to understand it. By having people – believers and nonbelievers alike - who are knowledgeable and understand evolution, and the other leading theories – we can have higher level debates on the subject – and that’s how science progresses. It won’t progress by kicking standards as to what’s presented out the door.
“If there’s soooo much to be known then why is it they’re so insecure they need to present it as fact in the first place?
—It doesn’t “need” to be presented as fact, it’s just a fact that most scientists think it’s a fact. Why is “germ theory” and “atomic theory” presented as a fact? Because they think it is. Do you think the germ theorists are insecure?
“Why do they sue people when all the sticker said was it’s not fact, but theory?”
—Because 1) it goes against what the vast majority of scientists believe and is therefore misleading and 2) Because it singles out evolution, which again is misleading because it makes it appear that evolution is somehow special.
“And if there’s literally no “reasonable doubt” as you put it, shouldn’t it be strong enough therefore to stand up beside ID/creationism or pretty much anything?”
—Are you seriously asking why not just present “anything” in science class? I guess you really wouldn’t have a problem with a science teacher that just talks about last night’s baseball game every science class.
One of the reason I loved the sciences courses I took at university is because the science professors were always (at least the ones I had) open to argument and debate. In fact, I think they all loved it. There was a physical anthropology professor who I’d particularly give a hard time.
“BTW, this merits further investigation on your part too obviously; and try getting some non-liberal, non-secular input for a change. It need not be a Christian source, but try for instance getting a conservative one (or more)!”
—If you have any sources to suggest, name it. I’ve read dozens of books from Creationist and ID authors (Morris, Gish, Behe, Wells, Denton, Dembski, Johnson, etc etc), more Creationist/ID website than I can count (certainly all the major ones – most of the articles GodGunsGuts posts I’ve already read before, except for when they are very recent. That’s actually how I found my way to FR. I was trying to look up an ID article I had read several years ago and was googling it when I saw it had just been posted on FR and there was an interesting chat thread to go with it.)
There's a profound disconnect somewhere when even most evos recognize most scientists are Christian and therefore believe in an intelligent designer, and then turn around and say science is either too stupid or too disconnected from this reality to understand this or realize it. Again, it better explains origins and the complexity of life than evolution which is built upon the foundation that all just happened without design, for no good reason, by sheer happenstance. And if children already understand there to be an intelligent designer, then why wouldn't it be taught in science class? I would be satisfied with a statement or paragraph acknowledging the controversy and making ID books available in the library and going from there. There can only be one reason why this is simply too much to ask and it has ZERO to do with science!
I've said all along I'd be more than happy with simple recognition that intelligent design is a theory (I suspect that despite the godless efforts, many children already know this anyway.)
I would ask what's the harm in recognizing what most already know, but we know the answer to that: evolution, of course! And therein lies the rub.
The only reason to do so would be political correctness – because the ideas happen to be relatively popular among NON-scientists and not teaching it would offend their sensibilities.
Uh, noooooo the PC way is the libeal way which sues opponents into silence because their sensibilites are more important than children getting an education. Multiple hang-ups with God leading to squashing all debate simply isn't education and the results are more than proof of godless liberal failure.
And, of course, evolution doesn’t say anything occurred “just because” – as with every other scientific theory, it proposes that things occur because of the laws of nature. Where did the laws of nature come from? Well, it’s not important for the theory (just as it doesn’t matter where the laws of nature came from for atomic theory, or germ theory, or the theory of gravitation) but a great many scientists believe that they came from intelligent design (most of whom, btw, oppose both Creationism and ID).
That absolutely makes no sense whatsoever and sounds like so much cultish parroting. This reminds me of the commericals where even little kids know they're being BS'ed.And I suspect this is exactly how most kids would respond when being told evolution just is, and people are simply to ignore why it is and how it came about.
Engineers don't go building bridges willy nilly over stretches of water without taking soil samples, looking for evidence of seismic activity beneath the bedrock, and investigating the very reason the bridge is being built in the first place! etc. It is ESSENTIAL to understand origin when talking about origins of species, etc. Besides it appears you're another one that didn't get the memo...Bezerkly University makes origins of life evolutions business and relvenat to the discussion in evoluton 101 right at the beginning of the course! I suspect they're not alone.
And yes, it's a liberal message...liberals for the most part detest God's authority and that's what this is all about, not making liberals uncomfortable about their multiple hang-ups with God. Otherwise there's no explaining the lawsuits and all the other behavior, you see right here on FR, but this does actually require being honest and paying attention!
I have no idea what you're talking about with Peltzer, it would seem you're simply making my point for me....life, snowflakes, yes without God to create and design them, we wouldn't be talking about them.
He’s probably aware of how the list is being used and thus wouldn’t sign, but here’s a quote where he expresses the same thing:
Thanks, I think this illustrates the problems just fine.
In essence, it's just a pissing contest and not all about the science. Dawkins and his fellow liberals shut down debate, and the science isn't the issue, rather it's about control and funding and liberal sensibilities trumping children's education.
BUT in essence, no one put Dawkins or algore in charge of anything.
No, I described how science should be taught. The scientific method and the leading theories should be taught. I can’t imagine what else a “science” class would be for.
But this isn't what's occuring and this is the entire point! Ignoring it won't make it go away!
—I don’t feel all that out of place – at least not more so than other places. heh And actually, from what I’m seen, I seem to get along better here with the freepers than you do. ;-)
Well, I'm sure you get along fine with the closet liberal FReepers here just fine indeed! ;)
—I live in the burbs, but spend most of my day near downtown as I work in the city. Actually, where I work is in the campus area and is probably the most liberal part of the city.
Ahhhh this explains alot! RESIST RESIST...I think we need to investigate and look into scientific study of liberalism, perhaps it's a virus?? At any rate, it's painfully obvious brains are rotting!!! :)
—Because 1) it goes against what the vast majority of scientists believe and is therefore misleading and 2) Because it singles out evolution, which again is misleading because it makes it appear that evolution is somehow special.
Oh, I see. Most scientists belive evolution is fact, so why not change it to The Law of evolution then? Evolution IS special...it can not and will not tolerate dissent. And scientists and the NEA sensibilites and so forth trump the proper education of children!
—Are you seriously asking why not just present “anything” in science class? I guess you really wouldn’t have a problem with a science teacher that just talks about last night’s baseball game every science class.
The only reason someone responds this way is out of fear, fear of having your sensibilites and multiple hang-ups with God being exposed like a raw wound; because you know we're focused on ID and not baseball. Your liberalism is showing!
One of the reason I loved the sciences courses I took at university is because the science professors were always (at least the ones I had) open to argument and debate. In fact, I think they all loved it. There was a physical anthropology professor who I’d particularly give a hard time.
Sounds good to me and alot like my experiences as well, so the obvious question is, why wouldn't you want to keep it that way? Why is it if a student puts their hand up and asks about ID should they be threatened, attacked and ridiculed like the example I gave you just recently occuring to my nurse friend, just because some insecure liberal has multiple hang-ups with God???