Posted on 02/10/2005 6:39:50 PM PST by gobucks
PHILADELPHIA - Evangelical Christians, buoyed by the re-election of President Bush, are turning American schools into a battleground over whether evolution explains the origins of life or whether nature was designed by an all-powerful force.
In at least 18 states, campaigns have begun to make public schools teach “intelligent design” — a theory that nature is so complex it could only have been created by design — alongside Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“It’s pretty clear that there is a religious movement behind intelligent design,” said Steve Case, chairman of the Science Standards Committee, a group of educators that advises the Kansas Board of Education. The board will decide later this year whether to include intelligent design in biology classes.
Some scientists who espouse the theory say intelligent design does not question that evolution occurred, but how it occurred: They believe more was at play than random mutation and natural selection. The theory, they insist, does not support the religious concept of a creator.
Those who advocate giving it equal treatment in schools have a different interpretation.
*snip*
The poll found greater support for teaching creationism among Republican voters — 71 percent of Bush voters favored teaching creationism alongside evolution.
*snip*
John West, (located) at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which pioneered intelligent design research, said the theory was too complex to teach at high schools and was better-suited to a college setting.
“There is a concern that intelligent design has been hijacked by people who don’t really know what it says,” he said. “We don’t think it should be a political football.”
*snip*
“Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,” said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “There is no research to support it, and it is clearly religious in that it posits a higher being.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
The brick wall in science education is math. Teach math, and those who gain some ability in that discipline will get something out of science courses.
I respectfully submit that it is the myopic Darwinists who are making a hasty generalization. The origin of life is a question Darwinists run from, but ID has a hypothesis.
Not a tough question, but I'm going to pause and point out an irony first.
I respectfully submit that it is the myopic Darwinists who are making a hasty generalization.
"Myopic," i.e., "nearsighted." The answer to your question was quoted (from the article) in my post to which you are responding. I'll run it by you again.
In at least 18 states, campaigns have begun to make public schools teach “intelligent design” — a theory that nature is so complex it could only have been created by design — alongside Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.I bolded the relevant section this time because otherwise your creationist myopia might have kept it hidden for another round of posts. Now, trying to save a few steps, I'll assume up front that I must explain the fallacious nature of the bolded portion.
If we try to state "... nature is so complex it could only have been created by design" as a syllogism, it comes out looking like the following. [If you don't know what a syllogism is, Google.]
Premise 1: Nature is complex.We are missing a premise, something to so constrict or bind Premise 1 as to compell the conclusion. What is obviously missing is one of the following two:
Premise 2:
Ergo: Nature could only have been created by design.
Premise 2: Evolution cannot produce complexity at all.There is not the tiniest substantiation to either version. The first one is patently false, a strawman version of evolution. Evolutionary mechanisms producing complexity. If the second one has any truth, the disallowed level of complexity has not been reached or identified. The whole idea that only ID explains complexity is bogus. The article's contention that such is the (rotten) foundation of ID has gone uncontested so far on this thread.
Premise 2a: Evolution can produce some complexity, but not above some well-defined level.
There are no good arguments for creationism or ID, and no good arguers for same. The whole thing is a sham. It's willful, militant ignorance. Mistatements of fact are a mainstay. Deliberate fallacy abounds. It is a political and religious movement trolling for suckers.
It has no place in science class unless the specific topic is Abnormal Psychology.
I hope you are of the "God used evolution" mindset . Otherwise, this is the exact reason ID (aka creationism) should never be allowed to be taught in schools. The religious fundamentalists in this country was to completely destroy science education and replace it with a simple "God did it." Evolution, like quantum mechanics and relativity are unifying theories that are the bedrock of current scientific understanding. Science does not deal with issues of the supernatural or spiritual. If it did, then God could be put in a test tube and experimented upon. If this trend continues, the U.S. will have the technical sophisitcation of a thrid world nation. Already, half the science and education graduate students are foreign. If this is taught in schools, then it will become 90 to 100% because American high school graduates would fail miserably as they try to inject the supernatural into their experiments and would fail miserably if they desired to pursue an advanced degree.
Restating your opponent's argument in your terms is Plurium Interrogationum . Granted, journalism isn't what it used to be, and the base article also makes this error.
I believe the ignorance lies with the Argumentum ad Logicam of Huxley's monkey champions.
Like it or not, ID is science.
:-)
OK, I stand corrected, though I could argue it's math, not science :-)
What a great scam, though. You decide the old publish-or-perish rat-race is not for you, so having landed a job in a math department, you claim you can't get published because those darn scientists can't abide your pet theory, and instead write popular tracts.
Better yet, he probably lands thousands of bucks in speaking fees for lectures to uncritical creationist audiences, while the rest of us are paying out money to go to conferences to give talks to specialists in our own fields who'll be on our case immediately for even a minor slip-up.
Nice work, if you can get it.
Well? Which creation myth was it? Was it the Greek creation myth? Hoopi? Hindu? Whichever it was, why was it taught and not any other?
He has some stuff published in (post publication) reviewed but non-refereed tracts. The review are all negative.
IDer: "Irreducible complexity entails a designer. Here is an irreducibly complex object. Its existence means there must be a designer"
Evo: "But your object is not irreducibly complex. Here's a smaller piece of it that fulfils a function"
IDer: "Oh, well, that couldn't have been irreducibly complex then. Here's another object that's irreducibly complex. Its existence means there must be a designer"
Evo: "Nope; see, if you pull two-thirds of it out, it still acts as a transport protein"
IDer: "Well, OK, here's another object..."
I suppose doing an experiment to how much flim-flam the traffic will bear is a science of sorts.
Ted Kaczynski has 6 articles in refereed journals and Ahmad Chalabi has 3.
Your instructor was incompetent for teaching non-science in a science classroom.
You know nothing about the curriculum taught nor the credentials of the instructor, yet you make this statement. I have no use in engaging in further conversation with you.
How could anyone possibly come up with that 71% number??? No one interviewed me. No one interviewed husband.
I guess I should just trust them as they are the "establishment" media, and they have been vetted by the government.
If you believe my posting incited your response, report it to the moderator.
Insofar as I am able to discern I a) said creationism was taught in my school as was evolution (This is Truth) b) stated I do not believe in evolution (This is Truth and my RIGHT) c) stated you are not aware of the specifics of the curriculum (also Truth) and challenged your assessment of incompetance based on your lack of specifics of the individual and studies to make this claim. If the broad acknowledgement that creationism was taught is enough on your part to earmark incompetance, I tag you with existant bias against something that challenges your own "belief".
None of these positions is incitement for your conduct and bias. I choose not to reward your attitude with further reply. If this is cause to label me a "coward", so be it. If this is cause to claim I "incite" discord, than I am certain you have the courage to present factual data in a case before the moderator. Do so with my blessing.
100. Prime number placemarker.
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.