You are changing your own argument (from "bears no relation" in post #133 -- to set A not contained in set B now).
Posted on 08/18/2005 7:39:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
On August 1, 2005, a group of reporters from Texas met with President Bush in the Roosevelt room for a roundtable interview. The President’s remarks suggest that he believes that both intelligent design and evolution should be taught so that “people are exposed to different schools of thought.” There have been so many articles since his remarks that it’s useful to read the relevant portion of published interview:
“Q: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?The reporter got it right: there is an ongoing debate over intelligent design vs. evolution, at least in the media and in politics. There is not a debate in the greater scientific community about the validity of evolution. Further, the vast majority of scientists do not consider intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution.THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
Q: Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.
Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”
(Transcript released by the White House and published on August 2, 2005 at WashingtonPost.com)
Dr. John Marburger III, Presidential Science Advisor, tried to dispel the impact of the President’s comments. On Aug. 2, The New York Times quoted a telephone interview with Marburger in which he said, “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.” Certainly, no one doubts where Marburger stands. One might question whether the President takes Marbuger’s scientific advice seriously, or is simply more concerned about pleasing a portion of the electorate.
Marburger also spoke with Dr. Marvin Cohen, President of the American Physical Society, and recipient of the National Medal of Science from President Bush in 2002. In an Aug. 4 release, Cohen explains that the APS is “…happy that the President’s recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified. As Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world.” It would be better to hear this directly from the President. Likely, the intelligent design advocates will ignore Marburger’s explanation. Like the fabled little Dutch boy, Marburger, stuck his finger in the dike in hopes of saving the day.
Unlike the brave boy, Marburger did not prevent the flood of print and electronic coverage that ensued. From August 2 to the present, Google-News tracked more than 1,800 articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor on intelligent design. That’s about 120 per day since the President’s remarks.
In the days following the interview, major educational and scientific organizations issued statements that criticized the President for considering intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution, for confusing religion with science, and for advocating that intelligent design be taught in schools.
“President Bush, in advocating that the concept of ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America’s schoolchildren at risk,” says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. “Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21 st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses.” (AGU, Aug. 2, 2005) AGU is a scientific society comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists.
Likewise, the American Institute of Biological Sciences criticized the President: “Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and must not be taught in science classes,” said AIBS president Dr. Marvalee Wake. “If we want our students to be able to compete in the global economy, if we want to attract the next generation into the sciences, we must make sure that we are teaching them science. We simply cannot begin to introduce non-scientific concepts into the science curriculum.” (AIBS, Aug. 5, 2005) The American Institute of Biological Sciences was established as a national umbrella organization for the biological sciences in 1947 by 11 scientific societies as part of the National Academy of Sciences. An independent non-profit organization since 1954, it has grown to represent more than 80 professional societies and organizations with a combined membership exceeding 240,000 scientists and educators. (AIBS website)
Science educators are equally dismayed. “The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world’s largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design – effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms. We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom, said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.” (NSTA, Aug. 3, 2005) NSTA has 55,000 members who teach science in elementary, middle and high schools as well as college and universities.
The American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12 th grade teachers, was even harsher. “President Bush’s misinformed comments on ‘intelligent design’ signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the ‘alternative theory’ that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science.” (AFT, Aug. 4, 2005)
There is a problem here. Obviously, scientists and educators understand that intelligent design has no place in the classroom. Intelligent design is, simply, one of several varieties of creationism that offer religious explanations for the origin and current condition of the natural world. As such, it does not merit being taught alongside evolution as a “school of thought.” There’s significant legal precedent from US Supreme Court that creationism - in any clothing - does not belong in the American classrooms. Teaching creationism is in violation of the separation of church and state, and has been ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court in several cases. It’s unfortunate that the President apparently does not understand that science is not equivalent to a belief system but is description of how the natural world works. Creationism, including intelligent design, is a religious point of view, not science.
At a time when industrial, academic, and business leaders are calling for more American students to train in engineering, mathematics, science and technology, we need to teach science in science classrooms. Let’s teach the scientific ideas that are supported by overwhelming evidence such as gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution. Creationist ideas/beliefs, such as intelligent design, don’t belong in science classrooms. In our haste to leave no child behind, let’s not leave science behind either.
You are changing your own argument (from "bears no relation" in post #133 -- to set A not contained in set B now).
"That's no mere premise. That's the real world. That's science.
Using a sufficiently general definition of ID, Yes.
Mankind is an ID, but we don't absolutely know what created mankind. It's certainly possible, though.
I am authorized to inform you that getting such a post pulled has earned you special credit on your record at Darwin Central.
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry
The "bears no relation" from #133 was RWP's phrase, not mine.
If you will, please address the second portion of my #205.
"And an ID created man(kind). Right?"
That appears to be possible. We don't know, however.
So mankind is an ID and it is possible an ID created mankind. Either an ID did or did not create mankind. If an ID did not then the ID "theory" is wrong. If an ID did create mankind and mankind is an ID then.....should I go on?
Hey baby, come here often?!
Naw, I don't see it...and you certainly don't want to get into a debate that characterizes "evolved" intelligence based upon the ability to attract women (think "Joey" of Friends fame).
So you're a EYEC? (Extremely Young Earth Creationist)
 X-ray of the Coso artifact. |
 X-ray of a 1920s Champion spark plug. |
 Detail of The Coso X-Ray |
Apparently you haven't read any of my posts yet. Good.
What is the definition of "kind"?
Can entities of differing kinds interbreed? Can all entities of the same kind interbreed? What is the operational test for "kindness"?
Of course, now you cannot be knighted as sir fd claims to be.
"I'm in the eleventh day of asking ID supporters to define themselves in positive rather than negative terms."
First of all, why? Is not criticism of a theory not in and of itself valid? Do we _have_ to hold on to invalid theories until we have an agreed upon one to take its place?
The second part is that the term ID itself is a positive term. In case you missed it, it stands for "intelligent design". It says that one or more intelligent designers designed life as we know it.
Reductionists believe that everything is reducible to physics. IDists do not believe that this is the case. It appears that you are asking for a reductionist description of ID. That would be like asking for an interpretation of quantum physics using classical mechanics.
"That is a negative statement that does not suggest any researchable alternative."
Design patterns for one. Programmability of change is another. Dembski has actually done a fair amount of research in this, with his No Free Lunch equations.
"I want to know what they would teach as the content of science courses."
Basically the start being that there is more in life than physics. Agency (subheaded by creativity) qualifies as a distinct cause.
"Do ID advocates accept the scientific determination of the age of the earth?"
This is a silly question, on two points. First of all, there is no one scientific determination of anything. I can find well-published geologists that are six-day creationists. Science is not done by authority or by committee, so the idea of a single "scientific determination" of anything is simply a contradiction in terms.
Secondly, that's like asking, "do makers of thermometers accept the scientific determination of the age of the earth?" It's silly because it's irrelevant. ID is only about whether agency played a role in the design of living organisms. That's it. Obviously, the six-day creationists will be ID'ers, as well as the old-earth creationists, as well as those who think that an alien intelligence was involved, as well as those who are polytheists. I'm not quite certain if panspermiaists or pantheists would qualify.
"I want to know what they would teach as the content of science courses."
Right now, they would only add criticisms of Darwinism. In the future, as it becomes debated and more established, they would probably add the design detection concepts outlined by Dembski and others.
Actually, I'm one of those who think that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology. But regardless, I understand what people mean by it.
I define natural selection vs. sexual selection pretty much just as Darwin did. Sexual selection is the theory that mating competition drives certain traits.
I think social isolation is just as real as physical isolation. I think it is obvious that instincts are not bound by generational evolution, and that these instinct (or behaviors) could be a driver of speciation. I think it's highly possible that organisms have some intelligent (though perhaps not "choice making" as we know it) control over their reproductive genetics.
And I think all these things taken together could eventually recreate our understanding of evolution as something that is arguably a colectively driven process within a species.
No, ID is the correct theory for explaining all transgenic animals (e.g. laboratory pigs gene-spliced to produce human hormones), regardless of the origin of man.
Sometime around the 1920's; Noah's first ride was a Model-T.
Step in to the 18th century scientific world of baraminology...
Responding to a creationist, donating to a squeege man, helping an old lady across the street ...
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.
