Posted on 11/03/2003 12:05:39 PM PST by Heartlander
A lot of societies have revered truth and love and beauty and virtue, but not all have been Christian. I agree that one should ask why, and I agree that the answer is written on the human heart, but I think the search should be open ended. A large part of the world is not Christian, and probably never will be. There needs to be an ethical code that transcends the details of religious belief.
A minor point of sensitivity. Why would you qualify God with "formed in man's image"? All it would do is get my, or somebody else's, back up and muddy the point you're making.
Blame Voltaire. "If God created us in His image, we have more than returned the compliment'.
It's up to those who advocate design to bring evidence to support it, rather than for those who dispute it to disprove it. That being said, nobody has really managed to describe what such evidence for design would even look like, let alone whether there actually is any.
Should the science curriculum contradict the history class?
Your particular wording is helpful here - "our culture is founded on a belief in a creator who endows us with inalienable rights" is a perfectly true statement. It's also different than saying "there is a creator who endows us with inalienable rights". The first one is true, as I said, but it properly belongs in a study of culture and society, not of science. The second one may or may not also be true, but it is contentious enough that it will never be a part of any government-sponsored classroom, because most people don't want it to be part of such a classroom.
I think you have something interesting here, but for the benefit of us early-stage-Piaget types, do you think you could make it a bit more concrete?
There's a hopeful wish on the part of IDers that the assumption of a designer will switch the framework of science in the direction so that all evidence will point to a designer. Conversely, naturalism will only beget naturalism. If all depended on the assumptions then science wouldn't matter a bit, it would all be a senseless exercise.
No, not a litmus test. You really need to go back and read what I actually posted, especially the part where I said "And when the children in science class ask you, betty, who you think the designer is..."
Whether I ask or not is neither here nor there - it is inevitable that the students will ask. And what will you say?
I am a Christian, but as a teacher and asked, “Who you think the designer is?” (because a student believed design is present) I would say if that is a good question for you to discuss with your parents.
Perhaps we ought to make teachers swear an oath similar to witnesses in a courtroom, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You answer by ducking the question, which at least has the virtue of not being an outright falsehood, but it's not exactly the whole truth, is it? I wonder what they will infer from the fact that you are obviously hiding something. I wonder how many people will give in to the temptation to stop hiding their light under a bushel.
Now what would you say and what do you believe?
If I had to teach intelligent design, and I were asked who I thought the designer was? I choose honesty, in that case - "Thus far, there is no scientific evidence to support the theory of intelligent design - I'm only teaching this because they make me." Not that I would take such a job in the first place, mind you.
Man made gods are an old, old tradition and it's one of the most specific things condemned in the Bible.
So you believe it would be acceptible to teach that the universe has no design?
because most people don't want it to be part of such a classroom.
I don't believe that to be true. The only way to test it would be to put it to a vote with the understanding that the vote would be meaningful.
If it were true that most Americans would not accept that our rights are endowed by a creator, that's pretty much the end for us.
Why would anyone object to teaching this as a universal axiom applicable to the entire curriculum? It wouldn't have any affect on any science class since I think we all agree that science is incapable of addressing the question of God's existance.
False. Standard biology makes predictions about what will and won't be found in the field and in the lab. If these predictions turn out false, the theory is wrong and has to be modified or discarded.
Unless ID can put some sort of limitations on the hypothesized designer, it cannot make predictions, and, in particular, it is not a theory, merely a hypothesis that cannot be tested.
I think we should teach what we know in science classes, based on the best available scientific evidence. Right now, that's the neo-Darwinian synthesis. If and when there is compelling scientific evidence to indicate design, whatever that might consist of, then we should teach that, but unless and until that happens, there's nothing there to teach yet, and so science curricula should be silent on the issue for the time being. Because of that, and because there's no agreement on what sort of creationism to teach, there's really just not a large-scale grass-roots effort to teach creationism in science class. That movement simply doesn't exist - people would rather deal with it in other ways besides sticking it into the public schools. Instead, what you have is a relatively small group of dedicated activists trying to slip it in through the back door.
Besides, why would you want the public schools teaching ID or creationism? They'll just butcher it, you know - I assure you, they are complete failures at really teaching evolution well, and I see no reason to expect they'll do a better job with something else. Hell, they can barely teach kids to read in a lot of places - why on earth would you think that ID theory will get a good treatment?
If it were true that most Americans would not accept that our rights are endowed by a creator, that's pretty much the end for us.
It's not a matter of not accepting that to be true - the vast majority of Americans do accept that to be true. What there is much less agreement on is how God figures into the development of life. And because there's a good deal of disagreement, the only thing you'll get people to agree on putting into a science class will be something so bland and watered-down that it might as well not be there at all. It's the same problem you have when ordering three pizzas for twenty random people - the only way you're likely to get agreement on what kind of pizzas to get is if they're pretty plain.
Why would anyone object to teaching this as a universal axiom applicable to the entire curriculum?
Because most people are satisfied with the status quo, and see no incentive to change, particularly when the change requires a large-scale rewrite of constitutional law.
One way is by noticing that any common ancestor of, say, cows and whales is also an ancestor of hippos, but not necessarily an ancestor of people or rhinos. It then predicts that pseudogenes, transposons, etc, found in both cows and whales will also be found in hippos, but not necessarily in people or rhinos.
Another large set of predictions made by using ToE concerns what is going to be found in new paeontological digs. For example, if a stratum is precambrian, there will never be a mammal found in it. Or trilobites and plesiosaurs will never be found together.
Predictable implies order or method or design - attributes that are not part of evolution.
Or a well understood process, like natural selection. For example, if you confine any animal species to a cave, eventually (this is the random part, it can't be predicted) a mutation will occur which makes it blind. Since there is no selective advantage to sight in the cave, this gene may spread. Given enough time, at least one such gene will.
But it makes some folks feel better. And feelings are what count you know.
But surely saving those poor souls justifies the subterfuge.
The fallacy of the excluded middle i.e. "I am not permitted to talk about that right here and now."
If I thought that answer were going to be consistently and uniformly applied across the board, I'd probably be less concerned that I am. But I don't believe that will actually be the case, not for a moment - as I said before, I can't help but wonder how many will choose not to hide their light under a bushel. Unless you can guarantee that the answer will be "zero", we've got a problem.
It would really be a special treat to watch someone try to tell a CHILD that a design can exist without a designer.
;^)
You have simplified the question by grossly misrepresenting what I said. Your entire response is based on your distortion of the meaning of the word design. You claim at one point design means “conscious creation for a desired purpose" – you are flat-out WRONG. There is NO conscious component to the word design thus completely deflating you answer. Try again. Later you make the laughable claim that DNA is merely a “"functional structure" – talk about gross oversimplification - you are not even close.
This is common among Orthodox Darwinists – approach difficult philosophical questions by attempting to force the world into their personal misdefinitions of words and concepts – basically twisting and distorting to force things to fit comfortably into their belief system. I guess that helps them sleep better at night.
I ask you to back up your statement with supporting evidence and you reply with this crap. To quote the Talking Heads "Same as it ever was..."
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.