INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Teaching children the truth [Cal Thomas gets it]

Miami Herald ^ | 28 December 2005 | CAL THOMAS

[PatrickHenry]

US. District Judge John E. Jones III's decision to bar the teaching of ''intelligent design'' in the Dover, Pa., public school district on grounds that it is a thinly veiled effort to introduce a religious view of the world's origins is welcome for at least two reasons.

First, it exposes the sham attempt to take through the back door what proponents have no chance of getting through the front door. Jones rebuked advocates of ''intelligent design,'' saying they repeatedly lied about their true intentions. He noted that many of them had said publicly that their intent was to introduce into the schools a biblical account of creation. Jones properly wondered how people who claim to have such strong religious convictions could lie, thus violating prohibitions in the book that they proclaim as their source of truth and standard for living.

Culture has long passed by advocates of intelligent design, school prayer and numerous other beliefs and practices that were once tolerated, even promoted, in public education. People who think that they can reclaim the past have been watching too many repeats of Leave it to Beaver on cable television. Those days are not coming back anytime soon, if at all.

Culture, including the culture of education, now opposes what it once promoted or at least tolerated. The secular left, which resists censorship in all its forms when it comes to sex, library books and assigned materials that teach the ''evils'' of capitalism and ''evil America,'' is happy to censor any belief that can be tagged ``religious.''

Jones' ruling will be appealed and after it is eventually and predictably upheld by a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees (Jones was named to the federal bench by President Bush, who has advocated the teaching of creation), those who have tried to make the state do its job for them will have yet another opportunity to wise up.

This leads to the second reason for welcoming Jones' ruling. It should awaken religious conservatives to the futility of trying to make a secular state reflect their beliefs. Too many people have wasted too much time and money since the 1960s, when prayer and Bible reading were outlawed in public schools, trying to get these and a lot of other things restored. The modern secular state should not be expected to teach Genesis 1, or any other book of the Bible, or any other religious text.

That the state once did such things, or at least did not undermine what parents taught their children, is irrelevant. The culture in which we now live no longer reflects the beliefs of our grandparents' generation.

For better, or for worse (and a strong case can be made that things are much worse), people who cling to the beliefs of previous generations have been given another chance to do what they should have been doing all along.

Religious parents should exercise the opportunity that has always been theirs. They should remove their children from state schools with their ''instruction manuals'' for turning them into secular liberals and place them in private schools -- or home school them -- where they will be taught the truth, according to their parents' beliefs. Too many parents who would never send their children to a church on Sunday that taught doctrines they believed to be wrong have had no problem placing them in state schools five days a week where they are taught conflicting doctrines and ideas.

Private schools or home schooling costs extra money (another reason to favor school choice) and extra time, but what is a child worth? Surely, a child is more valuable than material possessions.

Our children are our letters to the future. It's up to parents to decide whether they want to send them ''first class'' or ``postage due.''

Rulings such as this should persuade parents who've been waffling to take their kids and join the growing exodus from state schools into educational environments more conducive to their beliefs.

[MamaB]

When I was in school back in the dark ages, we started every day with a devotion and prayer. Every 6 weeks, we all met in the auditorium for a songfest and a talk by a minister. We loved the religious activities. Usually, the minister was from the local Church of Christ. I have no idea how or why he was chosen but he was very good at his talks to teenagers. No one suffered from this religious exposure. Another thing, We had a very few families who were Catholic. The cafeteria served fish on Fridays for them. No one complained about that special treatment of some in school. We accepted it as a normal activity for some of our classmates. I was thinking about this the other day. I could only name one family who had school age children. I guess there were others but I did not know them. Why are so many people so uptight about anything to do with religion?

[Oztrich Boy]

or: Beringer's Autographed Stones

Which were not meant to be taken seriously. any more that a jackalope is.

Not the fault of evolution that Beringer was blinded by Biblical Literalism that he rejected science.

[MamaB]

Are they the melugeons? I remember reading something about them but I forgot what it was.

[bvw]

Yes, melugeon or something similar. Scots-Irish, iirc. Maybe its where the blue-painted Picts of Roman-era Scotland got the idea of blue from.

[forsnax5]

Note that I was using "blue" as an example of a natural selection force.

I was using it as a placemarker.

;)

[MamaB]

I received an email many years ago. It stated that some of my ancestors might be melugeons. I never did check it out. I have trouble just finding the people who are direct ancestors.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"My concern is that that it is extraodinarily imrpobable to have occurred by random chance. Nature's Selection Process, that is."

Natural selection is not random. It is anti-random.

" Also, what do you mean by "random", and what do you mean to distinguish from "random" by "stocahstic"?"

Stochastic means it is probabilistic. Natural selection doesn't automatically pick the best; there IS a chance element. What it says is that those organisms better adapted will have a better chance at reproductive success. Look at from a sports analogy. The '27 Yankees were a great team, one of the best ever. The '62 Mets stunk, horribly. If you had them compete head to head, the Yankee's would demolish the Mets. But not every game. There is still the probability that the Mets could beat the Yankees, and by a lot in some games. Just because an organism is better adapted to the environment, doesn't mean that a chance event like a falling tree or a rare disease could not kill the *better* adapted organism. Chances are though that it will leave more offspring than other, less fit organisms. What determines *fitter*? The totality of the environment.

"So far, the argument you make seems to be that no selection predicts any other selection, which is as best I understand a perfect description of a random process."

No, it isn't random at all; it is just undirected. Those organisms that survive to reproduce are not randomly selected. Organisms can't look ahead to see what the environment will be in the next generations; they can't direct the variation. There is no direction to the the variation. This is a good thing, as the environment is unpredictable. Natural selection is properly speaking a two step process; the production of genetic variation, and the probabilistic selection of those organisms with the best genetic variation at that time and that place.

[Coyoteman]

The mechanism whereby these changes occur is natural selection; some individuals have better adaptations to a specific location (or changing condition) than others and so reproduce better.

Natural selection may propagate the changes, but it does not induce or cause them, does it?

And are you saying that higher rate of reproduction is the purpose of the changes? Or that it is one example of a "natural selector"?

Natural selection does not cause the changes. Talk to the biology/DNA folks about the specific details.

The relatively higher rate of reproduction for some individuals is the result of the changes. Actually, severe change can wipe out entire groups; flooding, for example, is something humans cannot adapt to quickly.

If conditions change (your tribe is forced to migrate way up the Andes Mountains by another tribe with better weapons), some of your people may better be able to handle the elevation--for whatever reason. These are the ones (relatively higher rate of reproduction) who will more successfully pass on their genes. It would be likely that the overall rate of reproduction dropped dramatically, say at 12,000 feet, but those who could reproduce would pass on their genes and each succeeding generation would be better adapted.

"Natural selection" is a term for this process.

[picti]

Firstly let me explain that I am not religious, mainly because I do not believe that a divine being created the universe, created mankind or is still around taking an interest in our affairs. The reasons why I do not belive these things are too complex to discuss here but are based in scientific principles that satisfy me.

That said, my interest is not in denying Darwin's theories of evolutionary progress by natural selection and survival of the fittest -- although we might be more genetically biased in a modern interpretation of the theory. My interest is in maintaining scientific objectivism and the age of reason in the face of an onslaught from the age of emotion.

For example, life on this planet might (only might) have begun from an extraterrestrial (no not little green men, the scientific definition) seeding by accident or design. If it were by design in some form of terraforming activity, then life here would be the result of intelligent design -- that does not mean God or any other divine being (Zarquon perchance?) created it. It just means that our DNA here could have been introduced from elsewhere and might explain why DNA is both complex, redundant and universal. Do I believe this is likely -- not only no, but perhaps hell no. I do believe it's possible and if some day there comes forth an explanation of the origin of the universe that plausibly explains why a divine being had to have created it, I might be persuaded of that too. Until then, I remain atheistic.

[Dimensio]

What you call dishonest I would call a disagreement on the interpretation of facts.

"Most people would find Gish's meaning of "nearby" surprising: the Wadjak skulls were found 65 miles (104 km) of mountainous countryside away from Java Man. Similarly for "at approximately the same level": the Wadjak skulls were found in cave deposits in the mountains, while Java Man was found in river deposits in a flood plain (Fezer 1993)."

I've found that many creationists have an interesting way of "interpreting" facts.

[Dimensio]

Why are so many people so uptight about anything to do with religion?

I suppose then that you'd have no problem going back to that kind of religious exposure. And if on some days the talk was by an Islamic cleric, then no problem, right?

[Quark2005]

My interest is in maintaining scientific objectivism and the age of reason in the face of an onslaught from the age of emotion.

I definitely agree with you here.

I do believe it's possible and if some day there comes forth an explanation of the origin of the universe that plausibly explains why a divine being had to have created it, I might be persuaded of that too. Until then, I remain atheistic.

Interesting. I thought quite the opposite from your earlier posts. I am a self-described theist, though I believe the existence of a 'Designer' lies outside the province of modern science (at least in this day and age).

[Terriergal]

You have had the opportunity to see these things. I have seen you posting on these threads the last few months.

Um... really, no you haven't. Imagining things? I quit following evo threads LONG ago. I show up and post a couple times, like this. So here you are imagining things again. IN fact, I've been posting mostly to threads critical of mainstream evangelicalism.

[Havoc]

Neither parents nor hovind are looking to replace science. Science isn't the issue. It's opinion and fiction being pawned off as science that is the problem. Saying it's a science problem is just plain dishonest. Evolution is a religion - I'd suggest if you want to teach your religion, you teach *it* in private schools and leave everyone else alone. It doesn't belong in the schools, much less in intelligent conversation. It's junk/pseudo science hiding behind real science and attempting to use real science to pawn itself off as the same in absence of anything useful of it's own. It is fiction. It is spin.

[cinives]

Thanks for the excellent reply.

[cinives]

I never said it did. I only pointed out that there are a number of supporters of the theory of evolution who do not like their theory's shortcomings to be questioned to the point where they are willing to manufacture data, physical evidence, and the like just to cover any possible questioning of their pet theory.

Much better to let the evidence speak for itself and recruit others to the task of filling in the holes than to be so dogmatic as to lie about it.

That's my beef.

[cinives]

You would be dead wrong. You think bullying, going along to get along, putting condoms on cucumbers, cliques and the like are necessary to learn at age 10, say ? That a kid is crippled for life by learning at home, being part of a family and a community ? That kids in school 6 hours a day 9 months of the year learn how to get around their community and make true friends better than kids who live out in that same community those same 9 months ?

The socialization argument is such a cliche that it's laughable. Do some reading, go to some homeschool conventions or co-ops, and tell me the kids are deficient in any kind of social skill. What do you consider necessary social skills ? Talking about the latest pop star's boyfriends, latest rap hits, how many ho's you killed on Grand Theft Auto, how well you trash talk ? Or, do necessary social skills consist of politeness, the ability to listen and respond, make friends with those of common interest not just physical proximity, and more importantly, respect for others ? And which ones do you find in public schools among the majority of children ?

Believe me, these kids develop a better sense of self (note I'm not talking about self-esteem) and are better equipped to handle the same crap that comes at them in college and the workplace simply because they didn't have to suffer under it or participate in it at an early age.

Try this, for a start: http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html

then this: http://familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,58-17910,00.html

or my favorite essay, this one: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/zysk1.html

[Thatcherite]

I only pointed out that there are a number of supporters of the theory of evolution who do not like their theory's shortcomings to be questioned to the point where they are willing to manufacture data, physical evidence, and the like just to cover any possible questioning of their pet theory.

Doubtless you have more than 5 examples of this over the last 150 years... For example there is Piltdown Man, the Haeckel embryo diagrams, Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man, Haeckel, Archeoraptor, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and don't forget Piltdown Man. Any church and most scientific fields would give anything for the documented ability of evolutionary science to police itself and its almost total lack of significant hoaxes/frauds/errors.

[cinives]

lol I forgot about the jackalopes !

[Oztrich Boy]

Don't mention Piltdown man - I mentioned him once, but I think I got away with it.