Posted on 09/22/2005 8:25:42 PM PDT by Crackingham
A court case that begins Monday in Pennsylvania will be the first to determine whether it is legal to teach a controversial idea called intelligent design in public schools. Intelligent design, often referred to as ID, has been touted in recent years by a small group of proponents as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. ID proponents say evolution is flawed. ID asserts that a supernatural being intervened at some point in the creation of life on Earth.
Scientists counter that evolution is a well-supported theory and that ID is not a verifiable theory at all and therefore has no place in a science curriculum. The case is called Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Prominent scientists Thursday called a teleconference with reporters to say that intelligent design distorts science and would bring religion into science classrooms.
"The reason this trial is so important is the Dover disclaimer brings religion straight into science classrooms," said Alan Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and executive publisher of the journal Science. "It distorts scientific standards and teaching objectives established by not only state of Pennsylvania but also leading scientific organizations of the United States."
"This will be first legal challenge to intelligent design and we'll see if they've been able to mask the creationist underpinnings of intelligent design well enough so that the courts might allow this into public school," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which co-hosted the teleconference.
AAAS is the world's largest general science society and the NCSE is a nonprofit organization committed to helping ensure that evolution remains a part of public school curriculums.
The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of concerned parents after Dover school board officials voted 6-3 last October to require that 9th graders be read a short statement about intelligent design before biology lessons on evolution. Students were also referred to an intelligent design textbook to learn more information about the controversial idea. The Dover school district earlier this month attempted to prevent the lawsuit from going forward, but a federal judge ruled last week that the trial would proceed as scheduled. The lawsuit argues that intelligent design is an inherently religious argument and a violation of the First Amendment that forbids state-sponsored schools from funding religious activities.
"Although it may not require a literal reading of Genesis, [ID] is creationism because it requires that an intelligent designer started or created and intervened in a natural process," Leshner said. "ID is trying to drag science into the supernatural and redefine what science is and isn't."
In this case, Intelligent Design assumes the existence of an otherwise undetected intelligent being affected our genes at some time in the past. Whereas Evolution assumes that over billions of years, and who knows what number of stars and planets, eventually life got lucky.<<
NS assumes that using a different definitions for species that are in the fossil record, and changing the definition of species at every convenient place, portrays a strong theory.
WE are doing intelligent design at the present. You assume chance without a clearly stated mechanism.
Occam's Razor is only a way of choosing which theory is probably more useful. Does the sun revolve around the Earth or vice versa? The math is easier for one, but it does not form an argument for which is truer. IIRC and forgive me if I am not as up on the Einsteinian view, the observer on Earth is what the universe revolves around.
We know we can manipulate genes NOW. We demonstrate with ever increasing efficiency. This is ID.
Whenever a scientist is arguing life "got lucky" I just have to laugh. "Hey sailor, you want to get lucky", as a proof is hilarious.
DK
you: Freshman-level stoned philosophy major hogwash.
And on combination v Bayesian probability - and the various types of complexity, would you care to discuss the math?
Well not all religion, just Christianity and fundamentalist Koran worshipping Islam
Well not all Christianity, just Evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Koran worshipping Islam
Well not all Evangelical Christianity, just fundamentalist Bible worshipping Creationism and fundamentalist Koran worshipping Islam
You forgot the Moonies.
Get up off your knees! Science class is for science not for silly superstitions!
No. In this case it's religion that's on the attack against science by attempting to replace the realistic search for truth with faith in supernatural. The proponents of religion would be better served by fighting the battles coming into their own yard than to jump into someone else's yard with a fight they can't win in court.
That's the best argument yet against public education... education must be based on some fundamental conception of the world, which is by its very nature religious. So if the state cannot make an establishment of religion, it similarly is not permitted to make an establishment of education.
The same source for this article also has Part 2 of the article which was a thread yesterday. I highly recommend Part 2 - Intelligent Design - The Death of Science which in fact addresses many of the points some posters have raised in this present thread
OK: UK time zone (BST=Greenwich Mean Time - 1) reporting for duty, Sir!
Situation: currently outnumbered by irregular assortment of Prayer Warriors.
Or, as General Tony McAuliffe famously declared in December 1944, when his surrender was demanded by a German unit during the Battle of the Bulge:
"Aw, nuts!"
Gramsci, Lenin, and Marx are dead--and their failed ideologies are expiring.
But I think you are right to suggest the DNC are indeed smiling, and with good cause: a small band of religious fundamentalists are about to get clobbered in a court case (and most deservedly so), exposing ID as an attempt to use bogus science to smuggle religion into the classroom. This will allow our opponents to portray (and, sadly, with some modicum of truth) conservatives as assailers of our basic 1st amendment freedoms. This was a completely stupid thing to do.
I almost wish for their "revolution" to start openly
Whose revolution? What on earth are you talking about?
Well, thank you for your honesty here. ID has nothing to do with science, that is just another of the many falsehoods ID proponents have been peddling, it really is 'Creationism Lite.'
Why are you guys picking this absurd fight? Why do you want to throw away our science? Biblical literalism was the prevailing view in the West for over a 1,000 years--and a wretched millennium it was, too. If you don't like the findings of science, if you cannot reconcile science with your faith--you are free to ignore it. And your freedom to ignore it in favour of your faith is one of the bedrock guarantees of our Constitution (a product of rationalism, not of religious zeal). Do you not see how a wall of separation between church and state is in the best interests of both church and state? I do not want to believe you wish to pursue a Taliban-like assault on our form of government and against our freedoms--but that is certainly what it looks like.
What the heck is your beef?
Your point is very interesting to me, padre, though maybe doesn't quite fit in this thread. I suspect you have outlined (without necessarily advocating) a rather Deistic view of things, such as was prevelent amongst many of the framers of our Constitution.
Everything turns, though, on what we mean to indicate by terms like 'natural' and 'intelligence,' of course. There is an 'intelligence' in mathematics, but it appears to require no 'supernatural' designer -- it is entirely derivable from the natural world, which is entirely constrained by it. But the mathematical order clearly does not require an external designer -- unless we wish to suppose that such a designer 'created' this mathematics in favour of another. In which event we would have to suppose a cosmos is possible where 2+2=5? Well, that's one for philosophical/theological speculation--it is not science.
However, the immediate issue at hand, in my view, is a much more prosaic and political one: no one has persuaded me that ID is anything other than a dishonest attempt, by a religious minority, to smuggle religion into a wholly inappropriate arena.
With respect, this is word salad--I cannot fathom your point here.
Atoms are not directly observable, but close scientific observation of a range of phenomena allow us to infer, not only their existence, but their properties, and to make accurate predications of their behaviour.
What 'unobservable phenomena' do you mean to indicate?
Interesting point--but it's actually quite a massive leap from 'intelligence' to 'intelligent cause'--and its one for philosophy or theology, not science.
Basic epistemology (the 'how do we know what we know') is a great topic for Philosophy 101. And basic scientific methodology (which is epistemologically grounded) is an absolute staple of Science 101. So--what does ID actually bring to the table in the science classroom? Nothing of value, I'm afraid, other than an object lesson on what science does not resemble.
Very easily indeed--as even the lawyers advising the Discovery Institute know, which is why they are rapidly trying to distance themselves from this one, Dover has no chance.
With respect, I am sincerely baffled that so many posters on a conservative forum do not understand the basic structure of our Constitution, nor appreciate just how fundamental the 'wall of separation between church and state' is to our most basic freedoms. Virtually everything else in our Constitution (bicameralism, separation of legislature and judicary, federalism, democratic enfranchisment, &c. &c.) were features that had been developed historically in other political systems which the Founding Fathers borrowed and then amalgamated, on rational principles, into our system of government. The separation of church and state was their biggest single innovation, and a very beneficent and powerful one at that. It has spared the US religious strife and maximised individual freedom of choice, thought and conscience. You are free to set up a school teaching whatever religious doctrines you wish--but the state must not fund those activities, as that would be an act of 'establishment.' Thus, the church and state are allowed their appropriate spheres, without conflict.
So why does a religious minority repeatedly seek to erode this valuable 'wall' and insist upon state sanction for their own specific religious creeds? This is profoundly against the grain of our system, and ultimately destructive of all our freedoms.
Even if what you assert is true (I do not think it is, but in any event the matter cannot be decided unless we agree on what 'religious' means), you would still have the quarrel over which religion to use.
There are some rather awkward places that have adopted exactly this approach--look at the madrassas of Pakistan.
The only difference between your point here and the program adopted by the Taliban in Afghanistan is the particular choice of religion. Nothing anyone has said here suggests to me that using a different religion would have any different effect here than it did there--if anything, rather confirms it would be a similar disaster.
It is interesting, that in theocratic Iran, the educational system is also shot through with religion--though they have spared the science curriculum. No doubt because they recognise you can't do nuclear physics using religious dogma
Well, if the tone really has to be so martial, then 'our' weapons are reason and the US Constitution. Do you have any belief in either of those?
Consider these scientists doing you a favor. Do you really want religion precepts, including yours, to be examined with scientific objectivity? When they come up short, are you ready for folks to abandon your religion in droves as a "false" religion because it doesn't stack up to reality?
Religion is safer and more fulfilling as an article of faith. Attempting to "prove" a religion scientifically (which is all ID is doing) will only lead to heartache and pain.
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.