Posted on 08/19/2005 1:02:07 PM PDT by SmithL
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools alongside evolution.
Frist, R-Tenn., spoke to a Rotary Club meeting Friday and told reporters afterward that students need to be exposed to different ideas, including intelligent design.
"I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith," Frist said.
Frist, a doctor who graduated from Harvard Medical School, said exposing children to both evolution and intelligent design "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone. I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation. Nearly all scientists dismiss it as a scientific theory, and critics say it's nothing more than religion masquerading as science.
Bush recently told a group of Texas reporters that intelligent design and evolution should both be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."
That comment sparked criticism from opponents, including Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who called Bush "anti-science."
Frist, who is considering a presidential campaign in 2008, recently angered some conservatives by bucking Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research, voicing his support for expanded research on the subject.
Frist said his decision to endorse stem cell research was "a matter of science," but he said there was no conflict between his position on stem cell research and his position on intelligent design.
"To me, I see no disconnect between that and stem cell research," Frist said. "I base my beliefs on stem cell research both on science and my faith.
I am not a proponent of ID, it is an ill thought out attempt to merge Creationism into a Scientific package that is acceptable to Science. I have a simpler explanation.
1:1* ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Nothing can explain why there is something rather than nothing, I choose to believe God.
Math is an art, not a science. Math comes into the realm of science only when it actually measures or discribe something.
I'm not talking about teaching a bible class - or Koran, or The Eightfold Path - in public school.
And yes, science, and philosophy, separated their spheres from religion in a difficult time.
They used to be fused. And religion was the ruler. If it's not known by religion, or if it contradicts what we think religion says, it's wrong.
Now what has occurred? Science is the ruler. If it can't be known by science it doesn't exist. If it can't be proven by science, it's wrong.
BOTH are errors, unskillful education.
There must be a way to avoid either error and teach the truth. It is at least as harmful to have science be the only arbiter of truth.
What we are teaching then is scientism. It is false, debunked centuries ago and it is very very harmful. Yet it is a popular cultural view.
We must find a way to avoid both errors.
But how else is one to make an inquiry into this matter, other than scientifically? It seems to me that the only alternative is to accept it as a Mystery, which many have been content to do before we were taught the virtues of Science.
How can it be a "theory" that God commanded the earth to bring forth grass, and the earth obeyed? Where does this leave "Intelligent Design" ?
You point out why I think that it is important to again teach logic and philosophy in the schools. This could easily be done without any conflicts about Church and State by reintroducing Aristotle and other classical philosophers.
If I project your thesis out a bit I come to the conclusion that eventually everything, including what is only mystery to us now, can be known by science. This we could call the "Science of the Gaps."
Science names, describes and models a subset of reality. It is the firmest knowledge we have, it's designed to be so. But the firmest set is not therefore the largest set.
There was a time called the Age of Reason when man fell in love with logic. It was thought by many then that soon all the deep questions of man throughout antiquity would soon fall to its power.
I love science, but we must always keep in mind precisely what it is we "know" when we say we "know."
Oh, I agree that the inquiry must be done by the scientific method. But it is not against the canons of science to declare that a particular phenomenon cannot be explained by natural means.
How many centuries ago, exactly? One decimal will suffice.
If you knew the history of western education you would know how facile this statement was. The university arouse at the height of the Age of Faith. The study of the natural sciences (although primitive by today's standards) were an integral part of the education. The "virtues of Science" were completely understood by those who also placed their faith in God.
Can you cite a precedent? I think not! I can't even imagine such a thing - as a scientist.
Off the top of my head, late 1700s. Within a very short period of its emergence. It falls on its on petard, performative error.
"Only that which is (can be) known by science is true."
Prove the above statement using science.
You know Itsa, I'll take my hat off to you for that post.
Seriously. No hidden "boot" waiting with that.
That was the VERY FIRST time an ID/Creationism supporter has been Truthful about what ID is, and what it isn't.
Thank You.
Look, I'm not opposed to people having their Religious Faith/Beliefs, whatever they may be. If someone wants to pray to a grill cheese sandwich because they see the face of their respective diety on it, more power to them. If it makes them happy, fulfilled, etc, even better.
My problem with it comes when they can't be honest about it when they try and interject those beliefs into areas, like Science, dressed up as something it isn't.
Again, thank you for your honesty.
I think that you misunderstood my point. I am not saying that it is proper for science to declare that something could never be explained by natural means, only that at the present time that it cannot be explained so. As for a precedent, at the present time science cannot explain the origin of life.
Yes and yes and yes.
The basics of philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology could so easily and valuably be part of basic education. How can we claim to be teaching knowledge without teaching about knowledge?
"What we are teaching then is scientism. It is false, debunked centuries ago and it is very very harmful. Yet it is a popular cultural view.
We must find a way to avoid both errors."
Science was debunked centuries ago?
Really?
D, maybe I'm just not understanding what your positing here, but would you care to be specific on how exactly you'd suggest bridging Religion and Science, without allowing one to step on, control, or rule over the other.
If it's your idea that Religious Philosophy should be taught alongside Science I would strongly disagree. As an Example, would you teach kids Home Economics in an Autoshop class? The two are distinctly different.
If you are saying both should be taught seperatly, I would agree. I think people should learn all about the various Religious doctrines, without applying an inequal amount of importance to any particular one.
And besides, you didn't answer my question, "Where does this leave Intelligent Design ?" It seems that this idea has no scriptural support whatsoever in the account of grass being brought forth by the earth at God's command. It seems to me that a scriptural mandate for Intelligent Design would require something to the effect of "God made the grasses," which we do not see. Instead we have the earth left to its own devices, as it were. Not too much of a stretch to see this as a scriptural mandate for Naturalism. What say you?
This might approach it from a tangent:
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
- A. Einstein
It is sad that every parent who is told shell out thousands of dollars to give a liberal education to their child is being lied to. Todays "liberal arts" colleges (with the exception of one or two) are anything but. They have been turned into technical institutes. The result is that we are turning out graduates who can build but cannot think.
Thanks for your reply.
I think I answered your questions (and it's "scientism" not science) in my recent posts to others. Rather than repeat them, if you could scan this page?
Then, please let me know if there's something still remaining in your questions.
thanks again...
I can readily accept that God might have use natural laws as a instrumental cause in creation. That being said, do not think that every Christian is a Biblical literalist. I can distinguish between poetic language and historical accounts.
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.