Posted on 08/09/2005 7:15:51 AM PDT by Kokojmudd
By David Limbaugh Our secular popular culture is throwing a fit over President Bush's endorsement of teaching in public schools the controversies surrounding Darwinian theory. Note that the president did not recommend that the teaching of Darwinism be banned in public schools, merely that the theory of intelligent design (ID) ought to be taught as well. Mr. Bush said, "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." The main players in the ID movement are not even insisting on that much. Discovery Institute, for example, opposes the mandatory teaching of ID in public schools but favors requiring students to be exposed to criticisms of Darwin's theory. But whether you believe ID theory ought to get equal billing with Darwinian theory, some lesser treatment, or that students should at least be apprised of alleged chinks in the Darwinian armor, what's all the fuss about? Don't academics purport to champion free and open inquiry? What, then, are they so afraid of regarding the innocuous introduction into the classroom of legitimate questions concerning Darwinism? Their defensiveness toward challenges to their dogma is inexplicable unless you understand their attitude as springing from a worldview steeped in strong, secular predispositions that must be guarded with a blind religious fervor. Indeed, it appears many Darwinists are guilty of precisely that of which they accuse ID proponents: having a set of preconceived assumptions that taint their scientific objectivity. Don't take my word for it. Consider the words of Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard..........
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
But of course the appearance of design was the very thing that Darwin and Wallace set out to explain. ID is not exactly a new idea.
In the two hundred years since ID was first published in its modern form, the argument has contributed exactly nothing to Biology. Science is not so much about being right or wrong as it is about generation useful and productive hypotheses that suggest research.
Exactly. And if you read through my posts, you will see that I demand that people define their terms. There are a million interpretations of the term "evolution", and "science".
And is it any wonder? When you have respected and credentialed "scientists" like Dawkins, and his fellow-traveler gad-fly Scientism evangelist, Carl Sagan out there running around equating the religion of atheism with the hard sciences, and having people who aren't even credentialed "scientists" - but instead are promoters of websites like internetinfidels.org, and other secular humanist websites, speaking at their conventions and running their PR campaigns??? For instance, THIS is laughable:
These are serious "scientists"???? LOL:
[1] Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project". Circulates Online by James Still @ Infidels.org
The so-called "scientific" qualifications of James Still:
James Still B.A., Philosophy, University of Minnesota - "...helped to build and maintain the Secular Web. ... President of the Internet Infidels from 2000 until 2002. ..Compulsively and deterministically dwells on philosophical problems and issues, ..epistemology, religion......an avid yoga practitioner ... reads widely in Eastern mysticism" , etc., etc., @ Infidels.org
[2] "The Wedge at Work": How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream by Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. @ Infidels.org
The so-called "scientific" qualifications of Barbara Forrest:
Barbara Carroll Forrest - B.A., English, Southeastern Louisiana University, 1974 - M.A., Philosophy, Louisiana State University, 1978 - Ph.D., Philosophy, Tulane University, 1988
Teaching positions:
Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 2002 - Present
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 1994-2002
Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 1989-1994
Full-time Instructor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 1988-1989
Part-time Instructor in Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 1981-1988
Among her awards: "Friend of Darwin" Award, National Center for Science Education, March 1998
Conference Presentations [excerpts]:
"A Critical Philosophical Analysis of the Moral Distinction Between Active and Passive Euthanasia," Mid-South Sociological Association, Jackson, MS, November, 1978.
"Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection," and "The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution," Science and Society Conference. Russian Academy of Sciences; Institute of the History of Natural Sciences and Technology; Faculty of Philosophy, St. Petersburg State University. St Petersburg, Russia, June 19-25, 1999.
"Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection," at Science and God: A Naturalistic Examination of Cosmology, the Anthropic Principle, and Design Theories. Society of Humanist Philosophers, Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, September 25-26, 1999.
Lectures/Presentations [excerpts]:
"Creation and Evolution: A Philosophical View of the Concept of Balanced Treatment." Public forum: "Evolution and Creationism in Louisiana Public Schools," SLU, March 31, 1981.
"The Influence of Darwin on 19th- and 20th-Century Culture," Dept. of Biological Sciences, Southeastern Louisiana University, April 21, 1995. ...
Journal Articles [excerpt]: "An Analysis of the Causal Interpretation of Karl Marx's Theory of History," Lamar Journal of the Humanities, Spring 1989.
...Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection," Philo, Fall-Winter 2000.
"The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution," Zygon, December 2000.
I suggest that serious scientists distance themselves from all the people (such as those named above) who are promoted by web sites like infidels.org, AmericanHumanist.org.
Well we are dealing with a cult version of a religion that has tried to define curiosity as a sin.
"Who are we? Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? How were we created? Who or what created us. And who created the creator?"
Wait a cotton pickin minute. We are grown up germs, sitting on the cog of one wheel of a vast cosmic machine, that is destined ultimately to blow itself up. Our origin is, as a grown up germ.... we come from meaninglessness.... from nothingness,... and our ultimate destiny is annihilation.
I've come to believe teachers should just do that. They should take ID and contrast it with science point by point. I bet after a short time the ID proponents will demand this practice be stopped because it "disrespects their beliefs".
ID won't go anywhere since it is not a method suitable for philosophy. It might apply to the creation of the Constitution, though, since that is a deliberate act at least in part.
I agree. bttt
later read/pingout.
That is the kind of interpretation that arises in people having a philosophical or theological temperament.
That kind of thinking is really alien to science. Scientists are too busy solving solvable puzzles to spend much time worrying about philosophy.
This is a disingenuous comment for two reasons. The first is that "secular popular culture" isn't throwing a fit. I have yet to see anything on MTV that even acknowledges that this happened. "Secular popular culture" ignores the President entirely unless they want to make fun of him. It's faith-based and other scientists who are upset.
The second is that scientific controversies are already taught where evolution is included in the curriculum. It's religious objections that he's trying to include.
"We are grown up germs, sitting on the cog of one wheel of a vast cosmic machine, that is destined ultimately to blow itself up."
This interpretation is the essence of humanism.
But politics does. And scientists are not exempt. Scientism--exclusive insistence that only your scientific problems are real--is unacceptable in an enlightened era.
One of the verbal conundrums is the definition of evolution. Matchett-PI and rob777 have pointed this out. Thanks to them. In the various definitions of evolution and adherence to scientific thinking, we easliy find the mixture of philosophical scientism and scientific inquiry. This mixture allows contestants to castle their arguments whenever convenient. This morning NRO put up a piece by Peter Wood. There is evolution and there is Evolution. About your general approach: we can easily recognize that the domain of science is only theoratically isolated. The principles and procedures are a matter of choice. Science as a field of knowledge bumps up against the rest of reality, including religion, philosophy, and (not-to-forget) politics. So, go easy on the philosophers et. al. Science also has unsolvable problems.
"Humanism, whatever. Science doesn't waste time on unsolvable verbal conundrums."
I replied with sarcasm to a post about "life's meaning." Maybe you don't waste time with unsolvable verbal conundrums but few can deny humanism's influence in the scientific community over the last 100 years or so.
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.