Posted on 12/26/2005 8:37:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Questioned about the national debate over ''intelligent design,'' [Florida] Gov. Jeb Bush last week said he's more interested in seeing some evolution of the science standards that Florida public school students must meet.
He wants those standards to become more rigorous -- and raising the standards should take priority over discussing whether intelligent design has a place in the public schools' curriculum, he said.
Nationally, the discussion over whether to teach intelligent design -- a concept that says life is too complex to have occurred without the involvement of a higher force -- in public school classes heated up after U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled that it smacked of creationism and was a violation of church and state separation. (President Bush appointed Jones to the federal bench in 2004.)
Jones, in his decision, wrote that the concept of intelligent design ''cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,'' according to a Knight Ridder News Service report published Wednesday in The Miami Herald. [PH here: For a more reliable source than the Herald, here's the judge's opinion (big pdf file).]
In Florida, education officials and science teachers will be reviewing the state's science curriculum in 2007 or 2008, after the governor has left office, and ''it is possible that people would make an effort to include [intelligent design] in the debate,'' Gov. Bush told The Watchdog Report on Wednesday. ''My personal belief is we ought to look at whether our standards are high first,'' he said.
SCIENCE FIRST
``The more important point is science itself and how important it is, and we right now have adequate standards that may need to be raised. But worse: Students are not given the course work necessary to do well with those standards.''
Bush, after meeting with Coral Gables Mayor Don Slesnick and city commissioners concerning the community's widespread power outages after hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, also noted that the federal ruling came in a case that involves Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District.
''It is one school district in Pennsylvania,'' he said.
POINT OF VIEW
The Watchdog Report asked a follow-up question: Does the governor believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?
Bush said: ``Yeah, but I don't think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.''
Yes.
And it follows:
Science cannot disprove God
Religion cannot disprove science
Ok. We can just have them study the modern stuff. The studies that have found common viral DNA contained in the primate and humand genomes that originated in our common ancestor millions of years ago.
Yeah. I hear that all the time when creationists refuse to accept evolution because of their pride in being human. They think they're special or something. "Superior" was your word.
That is not the point. Folks are making the claim that the bible should be used in public schools as a science book, and that the bible is the inerrant word of God. The book of Leviticus contains a section on what is a clean animal, what is an unclean animal, and what can be eaten and/or sacrificed. This section of the bible contains a lot of factual errors regarding the nature of certain animals.
It is not very difficult to point out these factual errors, and come to the conclusion that either God doesn't know the nature of the animals that he created, or He didn't dictate the book of Leviticus. From there, it isn't much of a stretch to infer that maybe, just maybe, other parts of the bible are in error as well.
It is also quite a bit of fun to bring up these obvious factual errors, laugh about it, and watch people squirm. ;-)
I think you are spot on.
Matthew 28: Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulcher. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled the stone back and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his rainment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.
Mark 16: Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they were saying to each one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. .
Luke 24: But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel; and as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” .
John 20: Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “they have taken the lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went towards the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. .
So were there one or two angels, did an angel sit on the rock, was there an earthquake, were there guards, were there two men, did the disciples run to the tomb? Etc.
The resurrection is the very linchpin of all Christianity! And yet the stories in each of the Gospels for this single most pivotal event in the entire Bible are a far cry from each other. If these verses have this kind of disparity, how is it possible to argue the fine nuances of the others?
A scientific theory can be modified by newly discovered data points when they no longer fit within the framework of that model. So I am certainly open to "junk" evolution should evidence (real, verifiable, peer reviewed) come along that is at odds with the evolutionary model.
Religion on the other hand (being cast in stone) has no checks and balances. Our notions of God are completely subjective as apposed to objective. So with that in mind, do you wonder that all of us (living in a solipsistic universe) have our own ideas of what God is? How then can you use "God" to define or help define the observed models we create to describe this physical universe?
So regarding the Bible, is it allowed to rewrite or junk the parts that are shown to be no longer true as we continue to increase our collective knowledge as a species? In a single word – no!
However, science works just that way. We junk or modify old theories and models as we discover new information that requires us to re-evaluate those models.
I'm not sure how a persons personal belief system in anyway imparts itself onto a scientific theory. If a Geologist believed a person should be killed for damaging a geological structure, should we then throw out the science of geology? Obviously this geologist is immoral, but the science of geology is still sound. On another note how do we determine the morality of a society based on the Bible? Should we toss the Bible out also since people were put to death using that same book?
As I read many of the post of the creationists, I see a tremendous amount of credence given to a single Biblical verse or an interpretation from a particular scholar. The rub is how does anyone know if that verse is really the correct one. Is it argued from an imprinted engram, or is it argued from a personal revelation? From many observations, I have come to the conclusion that the environment directly influences the worldview taken on by the individual that this individual grew up in. This also includes the fundamental belief systems imprinted into the brain over the years. So people end up taking a particular stance on a many thousand year old writing colored by personal experiences and or a long-term environment that was inhabited.
I constantly hear from the various churches, “baby steps”. Why is this? It is because we learn this way. We have to allow the brain to build those neural interconnects to over a period of time. It’s not unlike flying an aircraft. What was so terribly difficult at first becomes absurdly simple as our brains adapt to the new directives we are imprinting on it. This is the same with the different religions. Over time people imprint the “truth” that is then defended vehemently because it’s “known to be true”.
So here is the rub. How can we determine on a pure faith based belief system, which is the correct model or “truth”? When I ask this question I get answers like; the Bible told me, my pastor stated it, or I prayed and God himself told me. Well, if there were immutable truths, wouldn’t everyone get the same answer when they prayed or read the same book? Since there is an ongoing fierce argument between the different religions, obviously this is not the case.
Now we will throw another monkey wrench into the equation. There have been a number of councils that have determined what is “truth” in scripture and what is not: i.e. the Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the council of Nicea, etc. So here is another rub, if the word of God has been handed down, why the requirement for the councils?
There also seems to be contradictions in the Bible. For example, the resurrection stories from each of the different Gospels. They are different enough that just to say they were seen from different perspectives does not wash. I always have wondered which is the correct one or the “truth”. If there is that kind of discrepancy in the very thing that defines Christianity (the resurrection itself), how can we not suspect the other verses in this same book? I get answers like the Bible is divine because God stated it was. Well where did he state that but in the Bible. This is not unlike me writing a letter and then stating in that letter that it’s divine because God says so. Would you take that seriously? This is in effect what is happening with the Bible.
Now we will throw a final monkey wrench into the works. There is a body of knowledge that has been painstakingly complied over thousands of years we refer to today as science. Unlike a belief system, science is a series of models that describe the universe we inhabit from both observation and experimentation. Again unlike an immutable text such as the Bible, science will revise its models as new evidence comes to light. This also gives rise to the false belief that science is shiftless sand that has no firm foundations. This is far from the case. Over the millennia we have made discoveries that we continue to build on as we obtain further knowledge and understanding. Do old ideas get thrown out? Of course! However, not without coming up with a better model to fit the observed phenomena in question. Take gravity for instance. It is a theory and no matter how much evidence accumulates, it will always remain a theory. One of my problems is that we don’t revise (or at least re interpret) the Bible as new facts come to light.
Now if an atheist looks at this, he will see a group of individuals or a church blindly following a faith system that has been handed down over thousands of years that ignore the basic findings of science. For example, there is not one shred of Geologic evidence for a word wide flood approximately 4-6 thousand years ago. However, there are groups that vehemently will defend such to their dying breath just because the Bible told them so. No wonder he/she (the atheist) sees the religion as a foolish waste of time.
So the question is where is the line drawn? Parts of the Bible already have been modified or rejected from what once was considered scripture via the councils. So why not take into account the findings from the scientific community?
I don't know how you could say that after reading what I wrote in Post 18, but I'll tell you what. I'll write what I believe, and you write what you believe. Don't put words in my mouth that I never remotely said.
I am sure you aware that apologists, by a heroic abandonment of all the normal assumptions of narrative, manage to claim that there is no contradiction in those passages (or anywhere else). Just as long as you haven't been boiling any kids in their mother's milk recently.
Not true. We test isotope ratios every day just to name one.
Indeed. Sad isn't it.
Incorrect. You can use your theory to make predictions about natural world phenomena that you haven't checked yet. If those predictions come true, and the more the better, the theory is vindicated. If the predictions turn out to be false then back to the drawing board. If you cannot think of any predictions to make then you don't yet have a scientific theory. Evolution has made so many in-advance predictions that it is long past the point where even die-hards like Behe, Denton, and Dembski can deny its truth. That is why Michael Behe said under oath on the stand in the Dover trial that he believes that evolution is true.
Ah, but because you satanic Darwinists claim that all creationists lie, then you can't believe Behe when he said that under oath. He really knows that evolution is false! As do we all.
</creationism mode>
I guess then we'll have to throw out anything relating to plate tectonics, star formation, and more. Can't test them in a laboratory you know.
Of course in the laboratory we COULD test how ERV virus DNA gets into genomes. And we COULD test to find such DNA sequences that exist in primates and humans. And we COULD conclude that these got there from common ancestors millions of years ago. But you, being the arbiter of what is, and is not "science", restricts us from concluding anything from those observations.
Sad.
This is why ID theory really means the end of science in the modern world. Because entire sections of the natural world are locked away by political/religious ideologues with agendas.
It's just good that genuine scientists ignore people with such agendas.
You mean this thread?
The author distorts the criteria of "falsifiability". The bottom line is, a theory must be testable. Evolution is a testable theory - it has a myriad of concrete consequences that can be searched for, observed, and otherwise verified. ID has shown none. That is why intelligent design and creationism proponents can't get their work published in any scientific journal.
The author also compares ID to SETI. Not a totally apt comparison, but there is one good analogy there. Neither has found what they are looking for. But, how many SETI proponents try to get schools to teach that space aliens exist before they've found evidence for them?
The best line from that "article":
Scientists who deviate in their public writings or teachings from the prevailing naturalistic orthodoxy are now ostracized, ridiculed, and sometimes even denied tenure or research funding. Those dissenters are modern day Galileos who are standing up to the Neo-Darwinian dogma and the misleading attacks by its believers, who fear the truth just as the church did centuries ago.
Michael Behe, you're no Galileo.
Am I mistaken, or have geneticists ruled out that humanity can be traced back to three couples?--
Genesis 9:19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
This is a very important point that the vast majority of creationists, ID'ers, etc fail to understand. The many different Christian sects have very different ideas on who Jesus was, what He said, what He did, etc. Wars have been fought over it. There are also many different religions around the world which have beliefs that are totally incompatible with one another. Wars have been fought over that, too. There are many different creation stories out there that are also incompatible with each other (although I can't think of any wars fought over it).
How can anybody who has a particular religious belief support the government taking over the role of religious instruction? I am not a particularly religious person, but I can see the danger in allowing the government to teach it's version of religion in public schools. For example, some Christian sects believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. If the people who believe this have a majority on the school board, is this what is going to be taught? I do not understand how anybody could be ok with that.
The first amendment protection of freedom of religion is extremely important. Civilizations have risen and fallen because of governmental assault on religion, and on religious assault on government. The two have to be kept separate.
I had never heard that; even if true, though, it only proves what it says - that humanity can be traced back to 3 couples.
A localized flood is definitely possible. One must remember that in Biblical times most people did not ever wander more than 50 miles from where they were born - easy to see where someone might believe the whole world had been flooded. A global flood, though, would have left a plethora of indelible geological & biological signatures that simply aren't there.
Yet another problem with teaching intelligent design in a science classroom. Well trained biology teachers are good at teaching biology; does anyone really want science teachers teaching their kids theology, though?
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.