Posted on 09/19/2005 3:32:34 PM PDT by dukeman
The Dover Area School district in Pennsylvania will soon defend its policy to require ninth grade students to hear a short statement about “intelligent design” before biology lessons on evolution.
Dover is believed to have been the first school system in the nation to require students to hear about the controversial concept. The school adopted the policy in October 2004, after which teachers were required to read a statement that says intelligent design is different than Darwin’s theory of evolution and refers students to a text book on intelligent design to get more information.
“All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the school district, according to the Associated Press.
The civil trial is set to take place on Sept. 26 and will only be the latest chapter in a long-running legal debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
The controversy over intelligent design in public schools has received national attention with statements by President Bush expressing approval for the theory to be taught in class, along with the recent approval by the Kansas Board of Education to give preliminary approval to science standards that allow criticism of evolution.
Intelligent design theory states that some parts of the natural world are so complex that the most reasonable explanation is that they were made as products of an intelligent cause, rather than random mutation and natural selection.
In contrast to "creationism," which states specifically that God is the creator, intelligent design is more general, simply saying that life did not come about by chance. The "designer" could be anything or anyone, though many place God in the position of the designer.
Experts on the case include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who is proponent of intelligent design. He holds that the concept of “irreducible complexity” shows that there is an intelligent creator. He cites the example of a bacterial flagellum, an appendage to a bacterium that allows it to move about.
"Whenever we see such complex, functional mechanical systems, we always infer that they were designed. ... It is a conclusion based on physical evidence," AP reported Behe as saying in testimony before the state legislative panel in June where he was asked to talk about intelligent design.
Critics of intelligent design have dismissed the theory as a backdoor to creationism, with some calling it pseudo science.
In a 1999 assessment of intelligent design, the National Academy of sciences said the theory was not science.
''Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science," the NAS stated.
The controversy over Intelligent Design has been so highly talked about that the debate was also featured last month as a cover story for Time Magazine. In the feature article, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) President Albert Mohler, Jr., tackled the controversy with three other scholars in a forum addressing the question “Can You Believe in God and Evolution?” Behe was also among those whose views were addressed in the article.
"Everything is science is up for grabs. If you can't see it or devise a test for it, it goes." ~ js1138
Some scientists say that ID is not science-based but is purely a matter of faith.
ID advocates argue that design inference is testable: It could be refuted if someone could empirically demonstrate that unguided natural processes could produce irreducible complexity.
"Behe contends that irreducibly complex features are better explained by design because our knowledge and reason tell us that such features can only be produced by intelligent causes -- putting the lie, by the way, to the claim that ID is just one competing theory. Thus, ID advocates argue that design inference is testable: It could be refuted if someone could empirically demonstrate that unguided natural processes could produce irreducible complexity."
Excerpted from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1469807/posts
This is a science discussion though.
***It is? I thought I was on Free Republic, a POLITICAL news discussion site? How did I land on a science discussion site? From Jim Robinson: As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. …. Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah! ….Most visitors to Free Republic are attracted to our very popular (and, warning: addictive) conservative news and discussion forum which can be found by clicking here or following any of the forum links in the sidebars.
Science should be judged on the merits of the theory.
***Ok, now we’re starting a discussion here because you used the word, “should”. Why should it? Why should we spend money on this useless 150 year old controversy that doesn’t contribute much to society? Who decides what gets taught to our kids and when? POLITICIANS. Some of them like to call themselves political scientists…
Laughably absurd analogy. If enough people think it's about a scientific theory, it says nothing if it is really a scientific theory. Most people don't know what a molecule is either.
***And it is those people who vote in guys who determine social policy. For purposes of social policy discussions, when people see that a “theory” still has unknowns to it, they know instinctively that it is a philosophical guess as good as any other guess, and that it is a philosophy. Since most people don’t know what a molecule is, AND they are voters, is it your position that they shouldn’t hold sway on what gets taught to our kids in school?
Science doesn't deal with the spiritual.
***Copout. Since what gets taught to our kids is of primary concern to parents, they should have a say in it. Posted earlier: it's a copout to claim that it's "only a scientific pursuit". Bull cookies. It's obvious to everyone that there are moral, social, sociological, religious, and inductive implications to the haps side, and it is good and right to limit any evil that results from those implications.
You see incorrectly.
***Even if that is true, for purposes of social policy discussions it is still a big blinking red light on the panel that needs to be dealt with, has not been dealt with in the past and now we have a president who thinks like I do. Deal with it.
That, of course, is the primary activity of science.
As for Behe, his examples are not irreducible. Since he proposed them, All of his examples have been found to have simpler, fully functional forms or components.
Besides, what's the harm in exposing both sides to the controversy? …For one thing, it wastes valuable class time.
***If we roll up all that wasted class time where haps-based teachers bloviate from their own “viewpoint” in non-science classes, we end up with a lot of saved valuable class time, with teachers dealing with students who want to listen to that particular subject, and some very good object lessons on the value of scientific method.
For another thing, intelligent design proponents use a lot of misinformation to advance their argument.
***You have a great deal of leverage when you bring out charges of dishonesty, especially if it is factual dishonesty. I would suggest that you make it very easy for people like me to find where the creat/ID side has been dishonest, because they might lose their support lickety-split. For the time being, the way I view this debate is kinda like what happened when Barry Schecht was asking question after question on TV to the scientist in the OJ trial. The way he asked the questions (perfectly allowable in a legal debate) was masterful, and the answers became secondary. The science was unassailable, but it didn’t stop 12 jurors from letting a murderer go free. There was more going on there than just a murder case. There is more going on here than just science.
Filling young minds with slick yet invalid and misinformed arguments is seldom beneficial to their education.
***Ahh, some social policy comments. I disagree, and if anything it helps students to wrestle with what they need to when they get out into the world. The haps-not side thinks that the haps side is simply trying to indoctrinate young believers, which is “seldom beneficial to their education”.
If there is so little scientific basis for ID, it won't hold any water. … It doesn't; that's precisely the point.
***Then what is the fear? Use it as a punching bag. If I saw a movement of people who wanted to push astrology in my kid’s astronomy class, I would consider it a perfect example of the opportunity available to educate the public in scientific reasoning and at the same time, what a slam-dunk looks like. In a psychology class I had, the teacher brought in someone who was a handwriting analysis “expert” who analyzed all of our signatures. I asked if it was necessary to sign our own name (no it wasn’t), and signed it with “Ashur Du Smelbad”. The expert was all over the map on her reading of my signature, telling me I had a signature like a medical doctor and I had a tremendous amount of fun slamming her unscientific nonsense in front of the class. Up until my signature, the class was politely nodding and agreeing, but after me they were smiling and shaking their heads in disbelief.
I would pick a differen school or different major if I didn't like what was being taught.
***Disingenuous. I didn't have that much choice due to economic realities. And these teachers were teaching "required" courses. One of the reasons why I went into engineering was that there was less of that kinda nonsense (still some, but not nearly as much).
You sound a little despondent. Maybe something new will pop up.
Then again, maybe not...:-(
We generally prefer not to rip peoples religion. But we would have to in order to use ID as a punching bag. This punching should be done in philosophy classes after the students have a basic understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of science.
Bottom line untill someone comes up with a test that would prove ID false you can't call it science.
The equivilant test of evolution is finding a highly developed fossil in rock strata too old for it. Creationists attempted to disprove it with foot prints of men and dinosaurs in the same fossilized mud flat. Of course it turned out to be a big fat self-rightous creationist lie. Someone will be along shortly to claim it's all true.
Nice change of subject. I bring up a hypothetical machine and you reply about history.
***Ok, the machine IS history.
I have seen no archaeological evidence of any deity.
***You have seen archaeological and historical evidence of a CLAIM to deity. What you do with that claim is a matter of your own inner self and intellectual honesty, how you see the world, maybe even religion.
I've not studied the subject of non Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus, but I have seen references that some questionable mentions of Jesus existed. But that's it.
***You had enough to accept the historicity of Caesar, so you had enough to accept the historicity of that claim.
And it still does not speak to any real "scientific" evidence that any deity exists.
***It speaks to the scientific evidence that someone who has some pretty good credentials claimed to be God. That Claim is a part of history. The processing of that information on an intuitive, inductive, spiritual level is more of a religious or philosophical pursuit rather than a deductive one. This is something that I have seen in engineering as well as scientific circles, where it is demanded that a deductive argument be presented when it is obvious to all involved that it is an inductive pursuit. You don't bring a 2 headed pitchfork to fight a 3 headed dog.
The original point on this issue was a challenge if religious folks push the ID subject, then religion will begin to be challenged by science (some professors bring up the subject today, what I'm talking about is a sustained, affirmative falsification of all things religious).
***Okie dokie.
I think this will happen, and religion will not fare well.
***I think it is already happening, and I also think that the haps stuff IS a religion, so what we're looking at here is kinda like a religious turf war.
You seem to be mixing a lot of different concepts together.
Start from the beginning: take a look at the fossil record for the last 5 million years and tell me what you think. This is data and theory.
What's your take on this?
In a psychology class I had, the teacher brought in someone who was a handwriting analysis “expert” who analyzed all of our signatures. I asked if it was necessary to sign our own name (no it wasn’t), and signed it with “Ashur Du Smelbad”. The expert was all over the map on her reading of my signature, telling me I had a signature like a medical doctor and I had a tremendous amount of fun slamming her unscientific nonsense in front of the class. Up until my signature, the class was politely nodding and agreeing, but after me they were smiling and shaking their heads in disbelief.
WOW. I'm impressed. Is that what you think you can do to those teaching the TOE?
Don't get poisoned!
If this is the case, why should anyone who comes from the science side of the argument listen to a thing you have to say?
Bedtime story.
Facts: Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
scroll to "rice and salt"
also: enter: rice and salt drosophila
into google for a page full of refs to the real story.
And we are discussing science on this thread. I have yet to see you give any type of scientific argument against evolution. I hope you didn't impress yourself too much with this great *point*.
***You picked up on that very well, congratulations. I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument for the same reason that I stayed away for 7 years: It's too acrimonious, requires too much time/knowledge/digging/etc, and I see very little ROI for myself. If you folks are discussing science on this thread, please ask me to leave. But I see "shoulds" and social policy opinions expressed here, so we'll need to ask those people, in all fairness, to leave. And, yikes, isn't this a political discussion forum? If you guys want to discuss science, go have a science party at a science discssion website and then you can rip guys like me to shreds if we wander over there.
Because if you are going to attack a theory, it makes sense to actually talk about the theories specifics?
***I'm leaving that to others for the time being. They seem to be doing an admirable job. I trust that GWB consulted some pretty high falutin sources when he made up his mind on this social policy issue, and when it came down to brass tacks with those scientists & he asked them about what they really do know & don't know and whether this is a supposition/guess/philosophical position, they couldn't just give him the brushoff that I see has happened on these threads in the past.
Are you going to actually attempt to address evolution or are you content to blow smoke out your butt?
***I guess you're stuck with smoke, sorry about that. I would love to discuss social policy and politics in this here, ahem, POLITICAL forum, but if all you can come up with is basic ridicule that proves you're a true holy warrior for your chosen belief system, you lose all those sincere lurkers that have so much say in our social policies. So, keep 'em coming, eventually you'll realize that, they do your side more harm than you really intended in the beginning.
"And it is those people who vote in guys who determine social policy." Which is why we want to stop that trend and support science over creationism.
***Oh, cool, some social policy to discuss. Let me get this straight, you want to "stop that trend" which is that those people who don't ostensibly know a molecule have started? Is that not an open admission that you are trying to indoctrinate the next generation?
So because most people are ignorant we need to follow them?
***Wow, you folks really are slow on the uptake, aren't you? Don't you see a HUGE opportunity here? The opportunity to have a big scientific, open and honest discussion with the public about origins? To answer your question, the simple fact is, yes, you need to follow what the ignorant masses dictate because scientists depend on these folks for their tax-based funding and the ignorant happen to be in charge for the time being. But maybe these ignorant people aren't so ignorant after all, just maybe the fine structure constant isn't a constant and there is evidence for what they believe.
Do YOU want people who don't know what a molecule is deciding what the science curriculum is?
***Answering a question with a question, interesting. So, should I do the thing where I say, "I'll answer your question if you'll answer mine?" Or should I just try to move the discussion forward? hmmmmm... Ok, I'll answer your question, feel free for the sake of those honest and genuine lurkers, to IGNORE my question. The answer is, no, I don't WANT such people deciding what the science curriculum is, but I ACCEPT that such people are, I AGREE with them on a philosophical level, I SEE some of the same problems with this theory that they see, and I THINK that there could be some good science that results from all of this discussion and exercise. The social policy implications are fascinating. SHOULD we let Astrologers into Astronomy classes? At what point is a fun pursuit a pseudoscience? From all the evidence I've looked at on both sides, I do not think that ID rises to the same level of pseudoscience that Astrology does. So, what should be the critera for establishing that something is a pseudoscience? I happen to think that when one of my professors bloviated about haps-based evolution, she was crossing the same kind of line.
Science doesn't deal with the spiritual....
It's not a cop-out, its a fact.
***Baloney. There are OBVIOUS implications to the TOE/Abio stuff. Head in the sand doesn't work here. The science folks either pony up to the bar and admit what their theory has such implications and deal with it or the rest of those lurkers will continue to pass social policy positions that make no sense to you.
Name ONE scientific theory that uses supernatural, non-material causes. Just one.
***I don't know what you're saying here. Is it even necessary for purposes of social policy discussion? I doubt it.
And as I said, theories don't rise or fall on polls from people who don't know what a molecule is.
***Of course, the THEORIES don't rise or fall, but when it comes to giving professors money so that they can teach my kids a soulless philosophy, I and 2/3 of the public draw the line and say, "No More." We need to see more benefit to this society from this philosophical pursuit that you're engaged in. I'd rather have an ignorant child who has the ability to make excellent moral progress than a brilliant amoral scientist.
WOW. I'm impressed. Is that what you think you can do to those teaching the TOE?
***No. But it sounds like the TOE proponents think that they can do it to the haps-not side, so my position is, go for it. Knock yourselves out.
Verb unnecessary. Intelligible anyway. Simpler language. Adverbs, adjectives sufficient. Universal stasis.
Evolution is "social policy"? Wow. You're mixed up.
***No, teaching evolution is social policy. Wow, you're mixed up. Can we have a discussion now, or is there going to be continued ridicule? I can have fun either way.
Maybe those with only a single set of chromosomes?
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.