Posted on 01/11/2005 1:14:41 PM PST by beavus
I have ZERO problem with the discussion of intelligent design...in world cultures class.
Yeah! If the kids are receiving the atheistic catechism in science class, they might, horror!, stop hooking up at the rates that are currently observed w/ satisfaction by these high priests of 'what's accepted'. The rule of cool marches on ....
Hear, hear.
This post will surely bring the fire-breathing religious Darwinists out of the woodwork. Unlike scientific analysts who will acknowledge that they will change their minds if sufficient proof is presented, published, and scrutinized, religious Darwinists outright reject any facts that counter their unscientific beliefs OR they get all Orwellian and pretend that new exculpatory facts somehow fit in to their beliefs as if the new facts had always been known to them.
DISCLAIMER: I will respond to rational discussions of this thread.
That is not the only avenue for the concept of "intelligent design". A more realistic one is that some intelligent force may be designing or influencing evolution, just as we humans are designing new types of plants and animals. Just because someone on another planet, thousands of years from can now, can prove that the grain they're eating is descended from a grain which was genetically engineered by some intelligent being(s), does not make said intelligent being(s) "divine", much less responsible for all creation in the known universe.
I have a question: why are the priests of evolution at this school allowed to discuss this till they are blue, but no one holds their feet to the fire about what STARTED evolution?
Even notice how an evo will turn tail and run when you hit the abiogensis button?
As one put it to me, we just discuss what's already working (b/c what works, well it just works!); how evo got started is like asking how the big bang got started - it's pointless to discuss it as far a scientist is concerned (but it is not really pointless, b/c to discuss it is to endanger the sexual behavior rule book that has been so jealously guarded since the 60's.)
So, they know how evo works AFTER it got started. So, by the lab-coat-cleaners-of-america, they swear little kids will know too, AND they'll ensure the discussion of what came before kick-off, well that is not science and can never be science....
These guys .... they are so .... trustworthy. And they have no agenda either except to protect 'our kids'. Riiiiiiight.
Amen to that brother!
The quote you posted is somewhat troubling, since critical thinking and universal skepticism should also be taught in science class (the limits of skepticism is a topic for epistemology). However, specific discussions about nonconcensus views probably are best suited for advanced high school or college level science.
However, Creationism, as it is currently professed, is utter nonsense and has no place at any level of science curriculum.
A divine intelligent being designed the first grain seed though.
I've never encountered any "religious Darwinists", but they sound like very unreasonable people--almost as thoughtless as those who deny that evolutionary science provides reasonable explanations for the known facts of life on earth.
I, too, agree that anti-Christian Darwinism should not be thaught in the schools.
In another time, another era, they would be at the stake.
That's because evolution and origin of life are different. Evolution is about origin of species. If you want to talk about origin of life, read up in "At home in the universe" by Stuart Kauffmann. He presents a convincing argument for first life based on supercritical chemical reaction network.
Uh, well might that be because the theory of evolution, as so far developed, doesn't pertain to the origin of life?
The sheep liver fluke is a parasite that is passed between multiple intermediate host organisms with the specific "intent" of ending up right where it belongs -- inside the bile ducts of grazing animals. Their eggs are ingested by snails from sheep crap . . . the eggs hatch and generate an adverse reaction in snails that causes them to salivate and spit them out . . . the snail saliva is ingested by ants . . . and the ants are ingested by sheep and other grazing animals directly from grass. The next generation of parasite is then spawned inside the disgestive tract of the grazing animal, and the process starts all over again.
The probability that this species developed as the result of random mutations in an evolutionary process is so tiny on its face that I would call it damn near impossible.
It is not that it is unimaginable that some intelligent extraterrestrial lifeform deposited life on earth, it is that (1) there is no evidence to support such a specific claim; (2) the actual evidence in the fossil and genetic record screams "evolution"; (3) it only diverts from the question of how life develops (i.e. how did the aliens come about?).
You know what I like about Creationism and the Creationists? That they are not afraid of the word science. I mean, the truth is I would never try to 'scientifically' and rationally argue in support of Creationism myself.
It's like trying to use secular fire to spread the soothing touch of holy water. Just doesn't make sense to me.
But, man oh man, these folks are scrappy. I love how American it is! You can be dead wrong and have a right to it. What I find utterly disturbing, however, is that just b/c a Creationist doesn't have his scientific act fully together, the traditional 'scientist' states to him: shut up until you get smart enough to be allowed to speak on this subject."
That, from my pov, is Orwellian. I defend the creationists right to sow doubt and confusion. If the 'smart' guys in the white coats have trouble competing w/ 'idiots and zealots', maybe that says a lot more about the evidence supporting what they're trying to sell, and says a lot less about the snake oil the creationists see as holy water. But, no, defending the right of someone to enjoy their holy water .... that is NOT COOL in today's world. What total bs - Vladimir would be impressed.
"Michael Weisberg, an assistant professor of philosophy, claimed that students should be taught only "well-confirmed theories that are accepted by the scientific community" in the science classroom."
-- WOW. A professor of PHILOSOPHY. Now the heavies to this debate have weighed in.
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.