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."
>so where did you get your sample to make such a bold statement?
A number of surveys conducted over the years. That, and basic scientific principles. Anyone competant in science knows that when you can't explain something, the supernatural is a childish way to fill in the gaps. What's more likely is that you simply don't have sufficient data, or aren't smart enough. "God did it" is a cop-out.
> Are you accepting them as phenomena?
I accept that some people seem to believe that they exist. But the convincing, objective evidence is wholly lacking.
> You dismissed them as supernatural without any such exploration.
Well, except for the past several hundred years worth...
> Calling a phenomena supernatural is just a way of saying I don't want to look at it, but I want to shut down the discussion anyway.
You're describign the ID/Creationism camp. "God did it, end of discussion."
Once again for emphasis: the intelligent design hypothesis - like the theory of evolution - is not a theory of origins.
BTW, neither is the theory of relativity, Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, Shannon's mathematical theory of communications and a lot of other theories and hypotheses that are quite useful.
And yes, I do assert that man cannot dismiss God without having an explanation for all phenomenon.
> Are you accepting them as phenomena?
I accept that some people seem to believe that they exist. But the convincing, objective evidence is wholly lacking.<<<<
So you do not accept they are phenomena. Make a decision, don't waffle. You are arguing people's beliefs. If they are not a phenomena, science is an inappropriate tool.
> You dismissed them as supernatural without any such exploration.
Well, except for the past several hundred years worth...<<<<
Your words dismissed them as beliefs. If someone does actually try to examine them as phenomena, they are usually labelled crackpots. And some clearly are.
> Calling a phenomena supernatural is just a way of saying I don't want to look at it, but I want to shut down the discussion anyway.
You're describign the ID/Creationism camp. "God did it, end of discussion."<<<<
And yours says "God does not exist and has no impact in the world as a phenomenon."
You dismissed out of hand elves and fairies. But they generated billion dollars of activity with only the LOTR and HP. People have a strong need for these things.
But I don't believe they are phenomena.
Do you?
DK
coyoteman, your basis for equating creationism and intelligent design is "correlation". But correlation is not causation - ever.
The example I used earlier on this thread is that a correlation between the presence of storks and the arrival of babies does not mean there is a causal relationship.
I do appreciate reading all the creation myths of the various cultures. Mankind is unique in searching for spiritual answers to life, why am I here, what happens after death and so on. Other evidence of this uniqueness is man's tendency to honor (or dishonor) the dead: burial, ceremonies, memorials, etc.
betty boop: Unless you want to say that the pursuit of understanding of what constitutes the overall "system" in which discrete events in nature take place is somehow to be equated with religiosity. The "reductive" approach of materialist science looks only at the discrete events themselves, not at the overarching context in which they occur. ID is saying that the meaning of the events cannot be fully grasped without regard to the system in which they occur. It is in this respect that ID is "non-reductive" in its approach.<<
Do you think that is why philosophy is being ignored by second tier scientists?
I've been hearing crickets for an hour. This thread may be dead.
DK
First of all, yes of course the objective of the Intelligent Design movement has always been to rid science of "scientific materialism" - or if you'd rather, the presupposition of naturalism.
The objective is shared by others who are not in the ID community, such as Whitehead who himself coined the term "scientific materialism".
Beyond the material are the non-corporeals, the universals, the mathematical structures, geometries, information (success communication) and so much more.
I frequently assert that physics and mathematics are epistemologically zealous. They would never sweep such considerations off the table in the interest of materialism. Indeed, mathematics looks in the mirror and sees physics and vice versa. That is the "unreasonable effectiveness of math" (Wigner, Vafa)
God cannot be measured or observed. Ridding science of the presupposition of naturalism doesn't open the door to the supernatural, it opens the door to the universals. It would make biology epistemologically more like physics!
Secondly, the intelligent design hypothesis does not stipulate the "intelligent cause" at all - whether by type (phenomenon or agent) or by name (emergent, fractal, God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc...)
Our attention must turn to the hypothesis itself to see if it has merit as science - not the objectives or agenda of the Intelligent Design movement.
This is the same argument others here have asserted: that Einstein must still be respected for his physics even though he was a socialist.
I would however argue that Dawkins' atheism has become so entwined with his biology that he has not earned the same respect as Einstein. But I do not see any ideological/theological entwining whatsoever in the Intelligent Design hypothesis. Please see post 268
Third, I happen to agree quite strongly that objective truth cannot be known "in" space/time simply because everything in space/time is relative. It is the observer problem and it touches science, philosophy, politics, ethics, etc.
This is epistemology - how we know what we know and how sure we are that we know it. Freeper Investigation
Yes, this thread is in a crickets cycle - but it is apt to pick up tomorrow. Sadly, I'll be gone most all day so I won't be able to catch up until late.
And yes, there is a very strong tendency among many to disregard epistemology - as if such a thing were even possible.
This is what betty boop often calls a "second reality" which as she has said is "hermetically sealed against any impressions or experiences that come from 'outside.'" Human Rights and Second Realities
But I shall leave it to her to speak more of this.
I recalled something from Stephen Hawkings about the emission of black holes. IIRC he posited that black holes could emit anything, cows, radiation, etc.
Cows.
Physicists were stunned.
They thought he was not being translated correctly.
He reiterated it.
Physicists took him seriously.
Cows coming out of black holes...scientists taking that seriously.
Cows coming out of black holes is okay as a phenomenon.
But ID is rediculous.
Science is hilarious.
DK
On a serious note (and then I must go to bed) - Hawking was quite disturbed about what happens to information in the black hole. It seemed to him that information cannot (or shouldn't be) lost even when the laws of physics break down.
IMHO, he had an "impoverished" view of what information "is".
More tomorrow (if you are interested in that sort of thing)...
On a serious note (and then I must go to bed) - Hawking was quite disturbed about what happens to information in the black hole. It seemed to him that information cannot (or shouldn't be) lost even when the laws of physics break down.<<
I believe Stephen Hawking was disturbed, because he was aware the the philosophical implications. Unlike second or third tier scientists.
I was reading a compilation book my friends gave me. One author suggested adding to the peer review journal ideas. The thought was some scientists are beyond peer review. Don't match Einstein to a PhD. If the scientist in question can find a patron Nobel Laureate that says publish, publish.
It would break a pardigm bottleneck and serve science well.
Good night Alamo-Girl.
I am so happy to bring humor to your life in these very pompass and devolving threads.
DEVO RULES!!!!
DK
I understand that you two are trying to defend ID on some sort of rarefied philosophical level. (At least I THINK I understand. :-)Beyond the material are the non-corporeals, the universals, the mathematical structures, geometries, information (success communication) and so much more.
I frequently assert that physics and mathematics are epistemologically zealous. They would never sweep such considerations off the table in the interest of materialism. Indeed, mathematics looks in the mirror and sees physics and vice versa. That is the "unreasonable effectiveness of math" (Wigner, Vafa)
God cannot be measured or observed. Ridding science of the presupposition of naturalism doesn't open the door to the supernatural, it opens the door to the universals. It would make biology epistemologically more like physics!
Secondly, the intelligent design hypothesis does not stipulate the "intelligent cause" at all - whether by type (phenomenon or agent) or by name (emergent, fractal, God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc...)
Our attention must turn to the hypothesis itself to see if it has merit as science - not the objectives or agenda of the Intelligent Design movement.
But especially this week - what with the latest creationism ID trial happening in a Harrisburg courtroom with loads of press covering it - the sad fact remains: Your side owns the Discovery Institute and their agenda. The DI is the animating force for ID as a movement. Their millions of dollars have been spent on supporting a cadre of tireless polemicists and spin doctors. They are a press-release machine of the first order. They are always available on the talk show circuit whenever something comes up in the news with a possible evolution angle. They are very professional and competent at what they do: Spin doctoring.
The Discovery Institute is the public face of ID, and they always will be. As far as public policy is concerned, they will forever be your spokespeople and will always control your movement's agenda.
Which, betty, is why I found your claim that you can't detect any religious or spiritual elements to intelligent design at all to be impossible to swallow. But it actually does make sense when I remember that you are, like I said, trying to defend ID on a rarefied philosophical plane that's completely divorced from the rough & tumble political world which birthed ID in the first place, and in which it's making all the noise.
The Discovery Institute has some pretty good lawyers on staff, and they have elected to steer clear of this court case, which promises to be a rout.
There are a few people in the ID movement who accept the fact of evolution and are mulling over what amounts a sophisticated version of the anthropic principle.
This is an extreme minority position within the movement trying to get ID in the classroom. It amounts to about two percent of of the people posting on crevo threads, maybe five posters altogether.
In the mean time, the typical FR crevo posters are at each other's throats over which literal reading of Genelis is literally literal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491250/posts?page=151#151
This is on the news forum.
I was a Boy Scout. My children were scouts. Brother-in-law was a troop leader for over a decade, and my sister was a Silver Beaver. It's a private club. Scouts can have any rules they want, but all the troops I know of have been sponsored by churches. I don't know how they can avoid the problems that happen when you use schools for meetings.
I don't believe in a literal reading of the Bible. I accept Christian morality, but really don't have any interest in dogma. It seems trivial and childish to me. Take a look at the thread with people arguing over how many people were directly created in Genesis, and where the children of Adam and Noah got their mates. This is pathetic. These stories were borrowied from other cultures.
js1138 is correct. Most scientists don't think about philosophy from one decade to the next. Philosophers spend a lot of time wondering how science can be explained, and undoubtedly it's an interesting question for them, but the impact on science and scientists has been truly minimal.
The name of the doctoral degree in science, 'Doctor of Philosophy', is a historical artifact. If you think it's a meaningful term, do you expect people with bachelor's degrees to be unmarried men?
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.