Posted on 10/28/2005 3:29:36 PM PDT by Crackingham
A bitter debate about how to teach evolution in U.S. high schools is prompting a crisis of confidence among scientists, and some senior academics warn that science itself is under assault. In the past month, the interim president of Cornell University and the dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine have both spoken on this theme, warning in dramatic terms of the long-term consequences.
"Among the most significant forces is the rising tide of anti-science sentiment that seems to have its nucleus in Washington but which extends throughout the nation," said Stanford's Philip Pizzo in a letter posted on the school Web site on October 3.
Cornell acting President Hunter Rawlings, in his "state of the university" address last week, spoke about the challenge to science represented by "intelligent design" which holds that the theory of evolution accepted by the vast majority of scientists is fatally flawed. Rawlings said the dispute was widening political, social, religious and philosophical rifts in U.S. society. "When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers," he said.
Adherents of intelligent design argue that certain forms in nature are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been created by a "designer," who could but does not have to be identified as God.
In the past five years, the scientific community has often seemed at odds with the Bush administration over issues as diverse as global warming, stem cell research and environmental protection. Prominent scientists have also charged the administration with politicizing science by seeking to shape data to its own needs while ignoring other research. Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have built a powerful position within the Republican Party and no Republican, including Bush, can afford to ignore their views. This was dramatically illustrated in the case of Terri Schiavo earlier this year, in which Republicans in Congress passed a law to keep a woman in a persistent vegetative state alive against her husband's wishes, and Bush himself spoke out in favor of "the culture of life."
The issue of whether intelligent design should be taught, or at least mentioned, in high school biology classes is being played out in a Pennsylvania court room and in numerous school districts across the country. The school board of Dover, Pennsylvania, is being sued by parents backed by the American Civil Liberties Union after it ordered schools to read students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it. The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternative theory and recommended students to read a book that explained the theory further.
Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller believes the rhetoric of the anti-evolution movement has had the effect of driving a wedge between a large proportion of the population who follow fundamentalist Christianity and science.
"It is alienating young people from science. It basically tells them that the scientific community is not to be trusted and you would have to abandon your principles of faith to become a scientist, which is not at all true," he said.
On the other side, conservative scholar Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute, believes the only way to heal the rift between science and religion is to allow the teaching of intelligent design.
"To have antagonism between science and religion is crazy," he said at a forum on the issue last week.
***I do, five days a week.***
And on the seventh day you rested.
***Science is neither atheistic nor theistic.***
It becomes atheistic when scientist feel the need to use it as a platform to address theological or moral issues - which they often do.
***And some competition anyway. Talking snakes, fertile virgins, ***
Well, you've got your talking apes!
And look what kind of immaculate conception "science" can deliver...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1511312/posts
who needs a knowledge of evolution
Medicine (evolutionary biology). Anthropology (particularly physical/medical/biological and human biology/human races). Geology/sedimentology. Paleontology. Historiography/world history. There are probably a few dozen other I have missed (it's late and I haven't shaved).
The bottom line is, if you are going to study science you can't have religious belief knocking out the parts they don't like. There wouldn't be much left.
Statistics????? Where did you dig that one up? Never once in all that stat I took did I hear anything about biology/evolution or anything remotely close. Some of the examples may have used biological data, but that's about it. Of course, I might have been napping when it occurred...
And on the sixth I watch college football.
It becomes atheistic when scientist feel the need to use it as a platform to address theological or moral issues - which they often do.
That's a mistake. Personally, I live and let live when it comes to religion. Problem is, they so rarely 'let live'.
And look what kind of immaculate conception "science" can deliver.
C'mon, turkey basters are hardly science.
ID is as much a theory as pyramid power and zero point energy machines, except it is even less subject to falsification. Basically, it's thus far an intellectually bankrupt, scientifically worthless, often outright mendacious collection of nonsense being used by the deceitful to gull the ignorant.
WOW! You sure have a way with words.
But tell us, what do you really think? (And is that too long for a tagline?)
Well said.
No. These aren't science. They're technological applications. Anyone who claims that's anti-science might as well say that being opposed to using nerve gas on innocent civilans is anti-science.
Good one. How many people did he kill?
N. N. Semjonow (Chemistry, 1956)
T. D. Lee, Ch. N. Yang (Physics, 1957)
I.M. Frank, I.E. Tamm, P. A. Cherenkov (Physics, 1958)
J. Heyrovsky (Chemistry, 1959)
L. D. Landau (Physics, 1962)
N. Basov, A. Prokhorov (Physics, 1964)
P. L. Kapitsa (Physics, 1978)
You, in turn, talk your way out of the fact the EPR experiment comes out the way it does.
There is certainly no science in the Popperian sense absent observers observing systems, so you are still left with explaining the nondeterminic behaviors observed in quantum mechanical measurement. Unless, of course, you have a non-Popperian view of science, in which case, I wonder on what basis you so hotly insist on science as a superior form of knowlege to religious experience.
Not at all.
There is certainly no science in the Popperian sense absent observers observing systems, so you are still left with explaining the nondeterminic behaviors observed in quantum mechanical measurement.
A consequence of assuming the observer is an eigenstate of the universe, which we most certainly are not, else we couldn't observe anything. I don't think Popper knew a whole lot of quantum, but surely he wouldn't have expected us to be a constant of the motion. :-)
"I misinterpreted your prior statement."
And I apologize that I let that bother me.
""Science" doesn't "prefer" to do anything. It's a descriptive word, not a person. Perhaps much of the alleged problem has to do with attempts to anthropomorphize an entire discipline into some sort of political interest group -- which in many cases it is."
You're right that should have read "scientists"
"If there's a "hostility" toward science, I suspect it's not really toward "science" per se, but rather a class of scientists who rub people the wrong way by relegating non-scientists to the lower echelons of humanity."
We need to get back to that state - there will always be that type of scientist and non-scientists probably should be wary of them.
But right now, I think we have a broader problem.
" Thanks for discussing this with me and helping me take baby steps in thinking through this idea."
That's why I love this place - smart people to talk to.
"I know but this in reality is a very small issue and the implication by academia is that intelligent design somehow stifles "science". Now I say if social science is taught as "science" then certainly we can teach intelligent design."
In fairness to scientists, historians and economists also don;t like it when they are told to teach things they think are not indicated by evidence.
Yes.
"Not my problem. Physical laws are stare decissis"
That means defined and decided.
Maybe they are defined and decided by God but man is still working on them. We don't have general agreement on how many dimensions it takes to define the universe much less a theory to explain them.
"Current physics says the continued operation of the earth is deterministic and runs according to laws we've already determined. If you want some exterior intervention, you need to say why certain of those laws were modified or ceased to operate."
1. It is not deterministic because that would not account for chaos effects.
2. My statement is simply that science cannot exclude the existence of of a higher power guiding things. You seem to think I said I can prove there is a higher power and that is not at all what I said
A larger point is that by making statements that are false that the universe is deterministic and that God is excluded then you are, rather ironically, making the same mistake of giving up that ID people are prone to make and also playing into their hands strategically - just like them you seek to cast this as science versus religion when there is no conflict for reasonable, logical 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.