Posted on 10/11/2005 6:21:59 PM PDT by gobucks
The most frustrating thing about following the Dover school board trial is seeing both sides maneuver for a legal advantage with arguments that not only seem disingenuous, but miss the point.
Dover school board members may deny it, but religion did influence the vote to introduce intelligent design into science class. Lawyers for the plaintiffs jump on the legal requirement demanding a “secular purpose” for science curriculum by lining up witnesses who denounce intelligent design as religion. Slam-dunk case, right?
Not really, because the plaintiffs’ argument is built on faulty premises. Their witnesses insist that Darwinism is pure fact, that it is neutral in regard to religion. Then they roll out the old chestnut that science and religion are two entirely different realms of knowledge — separate but equal. We’ve heard that before.
Intellectual honesty
The truth is that anyone who’s being intellectually honest will admit that science can never be divorced from religion, that a person’s philosophical outlook will always affect how he or she interprets nature’s phenomena. Honest people will also admit that Darwinism supports a definite philosophy about nature, one that is hostile to theistic faith held by many Americans.
This is why I find the Dover plaintiffs’ arguments disingenuous. Their witnesses, like many adherents to Darwinism, insist modern science respects religion when in reality it marginalizes it and usurps its authority.
Consider how many leading scientists frame the issue. The late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould went further than many of his colleagues in allowing that religion has the right to pursue “questions of ultimate meaning and moral value.” But then he undercut the credibility of religion by stating that only science deals with actual facts.
In other words, science examines reality; religion deals in fantasies.
Hard to take
This implicit disdain for religion makes it hard to take the Dover plaintiffs’ argument at face value, such as when theology professor John Haught explained why he does not consider intelligent design science.
Science, Haught said, is supposed to address the question of “how;” while religion answers “why.” They are two different schools of thought, he said.
What Haught did not say was that this alleged restriction fails to prevent some scientists from encroaching upon subjects supposedly reserved for religion.
Physicists argue that miracles are impossible. Behaviorists equate human morality with the instinctive reactions of laboratory rats. Oxford professor and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins insists that an evolutionary view of life and the cosmos makes God “gratuitous.”
The late biologist Julian Huxley even went so far as to call for “an evolutionary and humanist religion” to replace faiths such as Christianity he considered either dead or outmoded.
Does this kind of agnostic evangelism sound like the product of a field of study that restricts itself to answering certain kinds of questions? It does not, and to suggest otherwise is absurd.
Second-class status
But even if Haught is right, what does that say about the priorities of public education? If religion answers the question “why” — why we are here, why evil exists, why any choice we make matters at all — wouldn’t you think religion would be considered indispensable to the curriculum?
But as far as public education is concerned, religion is quite dispensable. Religion courses, if they’re offered at all, certainly are not presented as students’ best chance to learn about divine truth. How much “ultimate meaning” can you expect to get out of an elective, anyway?Science courses, by contrast, are usually mandatory. And don’t forget about those standardized tests.In reality, the separate-but-equal standard works about as well for religion in public education as it did for minorities during Jim Crow.
Belief in nothing
What does this means for students? It means that explicitly and implicitly they’re taught that science trumps faith.
It means they learn that men in white lab coats — the ones who offer medicines, iPods and weapons of mass destruction — speak with greater authority than pastors, rabbis and priests. It means they’ll be told the reason they exist is no reason at all, just chance, mutation and blind law.
And chances are they’ll believe it, because after all, it’s based on science.
Dave Dentel is a copy editor for the York Daily Record/Sunday News. Reach him at ddentel@ydr.com or by calling 771-2043.
Look, the are lot of religions, each with their own legends of creation. If science had to skirt around every one of them for fear of offense, we'd still be performing bloodletting and trying to drive out evil spirits.
Since the bible says "the sun stopped" for a day, so we need to say that the conservation of angular momentum is only a theory?
See #56. The common enemy is science. They're trying to paint it as a stumbling trial and error show, that hardly ever gets anything right and supports falsehoods to fill in the gaps.
No, the theory can still be valid; it just reinforces the belief of an all-powerful God who, having spoke the universe into existence, would not have a bit of trouble manipulating any part of it.
Most of the science arguments against creationism and/or other biblical events seem to discount the idea of God actually being God.
Ah, the old "Science can be overruled at any time by a God with a Magic Wand" model. Yeah, let's teach that to kids in our science classes. That can lead to all sorts of fruitful lines of inquiry:
(rolls eyes in disgust)
Art Bell? I'm assuming that is supposed to be a slam or something. And if so, that would also be typical of the ype of argumentation to be expected in return.
Remember that supporters of creationism and Intelligent Design tend to be on the left side of the bell curve. Polls prove that support for creationism is strongest among poor black women, for what its worth.
The common enemy is not science. And we've made that clear over and again. If you come to me in a pinto trying to tell me it's a cadillac, Do I then have a problem with a cadillac because I detest your pinto - no. You claim Evolution is science, but in viewing the pinto, I dissemble. Science is fine. It's what you're presenting as science that has an aroma of dead fish and can't get past the nose.
The two questions I asked in 56 about the age of the earth
when answered back you into a corner for the age of the planet. Others that one could ask would just add to that dilema. In science, they would be proper restrictions for consideration in any discussion of proper aging methodology.
But in evolution, they are simply discarded, ignored and dismissed because they don't fit the kind of evidences you want - that being only things that tend to paint your philosophy in a good light. That ain't science. You may want to call it that; but, that's a problem with you wanting to redefine a term to fit your own needs - just like liberals tend to do - devolving language until anything goes. Cultists like doing that too. The looser you can make language, the more one can get by with saying - in theory. It's when those pesky accuracy people come along and hold folks to standards that the screaming begins. We best outta get rid of them... right..
Ah, the old "you just aren't smart enough to get it" argument.
Faulty logic hoping to pass as an argument. Where have we seen this before. Keep digging the hole. And btw, mr racist elitist, you might check the original title of Darwin's book
next to your statement. It's about as racist as one can get.
You backed no one into a corner. You make simple claims w/o showing your work. Both of those claims are like the others in your post. They are flat out wrong. 14C is not used to determine the age of the Earth. Your Earth/Moon claim is bogus. See this refutaiton and commentary on the history of that con. The creaitonists, simplistic calc gives ~1.5B yrs. That's way over the 6K yrs YEC claim. The rest is accounted for by noting the data and using realistic eqs. You don't know what the hell your talking about and you argue with people that do as if you did know.
Evolution isn't testable. That hasn't stopped you propounding it. You've never seen anything beyond "micro-evolution" which is no more than variation within a "species" - not the creation of new ones. It isn't testable. ID is testable - you just don't like the testing or the premise. And that is born out in your rant - You want to tell us that ID is repackaged evolution - with the caveat that it interposes a creator or intelligent mechanism. I thought we were supposed to be all "friends together" or something since you'd talked
all these Christians into watering down their beliefs for you.. Ope, forgot, we're not supposed to mention that. It takes off the sheepsuite.
The one thing in ID that riles you isn't it's testability, they've shown their methodology and it is scientific. They've gone out of their way to show their method and invited others to the table to check their work. But the work isn't the problem, it's the subject that upsets the current priesthood. And they will have none of someone doing anything that might actually prove a God might exist.
It isn't ID that you detest or find unliveable - it is God.
Your own argument portrays that. And that is your choice.
Nobody is telling you that you just Have to accept God as your master. Even Christians know that when it comes to one's eternal destination, they row their own boat by the decisions they make. God only honors the decisions made.
God gave us two choices, Heaven or Hell. There are rules to getting to Heaven.. for Hell, there are none - do whatever you want - choose not to obey God all you want. He cares; but, he also gave you free will. It's perplexing why that hould be such a mean God - one that let's you chose your own destination.. but, hey, some people look a gifthorse in the mouth and punch it between the eyes. Common sense ain't a given. Evolution theory has managed to prove that much.
All religions have rules. So, instead of teaching 'religions', I would teach .... golf.
It has rules ... and one other thing no other game can offer: love of a kind indescriable (as opposed to one that dares not speak ...).
So, my religion would of course be taught then ...without having to use the Bible.
For Golf is the game Christ invented. I'm pretty sure of this.
You are backed into a corner and you didn't pay attention in class. You are supposed to be smarter than all of us, no?
Where did I say that 14c is used to date the earth. I said 14c levels in the atmosphere reach equilibrium over a knowable time. Those levels have not reached equilibrium, they are still trending toward it. So, that gives us a workable limit.
As for the moon problem, The inverse square law application doesn't need to render the planet a wreck. It only needs to move close enough to cause sufficient damage to life here as to end it. That takes far less. And if that limits earth age to 1.5 billion years - it ain't 4.6 billion - the aim of which figures is to get people thinking for themselves instead of accepting numbers blindly. I know precisely what I'm talking about. It just isn't helpful to your side so you have to put on heirs of knowing better than everyone else. Care to tell everyone how long it takes 14C levels to reach equilibrium? I don't think the issue here is that you misunderstood, I think you saw where the numbers were going and wanted to dishonestly head it off at the pass. I could be wrong; but, that's what we're all used to. So far, you haven't proven my instincts other than right so that's what I'm left with. How long does it take 14c to reach equilibrium? ;)
The link I gave you shows why 1.5 is NG and that using appropriate eqs and data results in a good number. Your aim was to obfuscate with a bogus calc.
"So, that gives us a workable limit. "
A workable limit for what?
Obfuscate with bogus calc?! I didn't provide any calculations. I specifically required people to go find out for themselves which negates such nonsense. You're lying. It isn't as though you just misunderstood me - you made that up of whole cloth. I supplied no calculations or answers - only the direction. I also didn't quibble with your numbers - I had no need to. Your own numbers are 1/3 the length of time taught of 4.6 billion. Given that science is saying that 4.6 billion isn't enough time for many of the things to happen, it's obvious that 1.5 is 3 times less likely to fit the mold..
Whether they're my numbers or your own, the same ends are accomplished - the facts pee in your cornflakes.
As for the 14C issue, you've made the point for me that I needed from you. Thanks, we'll let the audience continue the research for themselves. They'll more than likely be more honest with themselves than you have been with me.
Just noting that someone's using 14C to date the Earth. Which isn't possible.
I'm not using radiocarbon dating to date the earth - your right, that isn't possible. I am noting that 14C generation in the atmosphere will reach equilibrium at some point - the gains and losses will balance. And that happens in a knowable time frame. It hasn't reached equilibrium. That isn't dating the earth - that is giving a knowable limit for it's age. An outer boundary as it were. And that is possible. What is not possible is to get you to be honest apparently. But then that is part of my earlier points.
What are you on crack? You provided the implied results, with your claims and questions. That nature, defies evolution and the age of the Earth From #56:
" And that's the problem with evolution - nature defies it instead of supporting it.
The extent of that defiance is readily visible.
Couple of questions for the audience. How long does it take for 14C to reach equilibrium in the atmosphere. Noting that it has not - and you can check that out for yourself.. How old, then can the earth be.
We're not done. The moon is moving away from Earth at roughly a rate of 3 inches per year. Rewind. How long can the moon move back toward the earth before the inverse square law renders earth a destroyed remnant?
...I'm not providing the answers is because you should find them out for yourself and then convince yourself how the earth can be any older than the least of these two problems solve to.
********************
"Your own numbers are 1/3 the length of time taught of 4.6 billion."
Read the reply again Sherlock.
"As for the 14C issue...
I said it's not used to date the Earth. You said you didn't ask that, but here it is in your own words:
"How long does it take for 14C to reach equilibrium in the atmosphere. Noting that it has not - and you can check that out for yourself.. "How old, then can the earth be."
"Where did I say that 14c is used to date the earth. "Indeed! Sober up before you start lecturing folks and calling them liars!
It never will, because the atmospheric carbon concentration varies. What's the [CO2], the neutron flux, the various sinks and sink rates? If you think I'm making the calc. your nuts, unless you come up with cash. I say up front though that the exercise generates no more than atmospheric concentrations vs t. No conclusions about the Earth's age can be drawn from the data.
14C dating is generally done by calibrations using measurements on items of known age. Here's a good site.
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.